Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T07:56:36.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECT OF PHYSICAL NATURE OF ACARICIDE DEPOSITS ON THEIR ACTION1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

S. J. Yu  and
F. O. Morrison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five particle types of tetradiphon, three of chloropropylate, and two of Pentac (bis(pentachloro-2,4-cyclopentadien-1,yl) were prepared in similar formulations and tested as sprays against different stages of Tetranychus urticae Koch on bean leaves. The residual, combined topical and residual, and the systemic effects of the formulations were recorded. The target sizes presented by T. urticae stages and by the ranges over which they moved and fed were determined and the numbers of particles per unit area deposited on bean leaves by the formulations used, counted. Positive correlations were shown in all instances between smallness of particle size, number of particles per unit area, and effectiveness, but the relationships between these factors were complex. It is concluded that effectiveness is influenced by a number of factors of which particle size and shape are two which are important but that their effects are often greatly modified by some of the other factors.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 101 , Issue 8 , August 1969 , pp. 846 - 855
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Part of a thesis submitted to McGill University by the first-named author in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.

References

Abbott, W. S. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. econ. Ent. 18: 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, W., and Pence, R. J.. 1953. Pesticides formulation: influence of formulation on effectiveness. Agric. Food Chem. 1: 386–397.10.1021/jf60005a006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1948. An improved cage for work with small insects. J. econ. Ent. 41: 648–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. 1947. Relation between particle size and shape of insecticidal suspensions and their contact toxicity. II. DDT suspensions against Tribolium castaneum Hb. Ann. appl. Biol. 34: 586–610.10.1111/j.1744-7348.1947.tb06391.x18901085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. 1949. Relation between particle size and shape of insecticidal suspensions and their contact toxicity. II. DDT and rotenone suspensions against Oryzaephilus surinamensis L., with some time-mortality studies. Ann. appl. Biol. 36: 535–550.10.1111/j.1744-7348.1949.tb06949.x15409585Google Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. 1955. Particle size of insecticidal suspensions and their contact toxicity of compounds in the DDT group. Ann. appl. Biol. 43: 161–181.10.1111/j.1744-7348.1955.tb02466.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, A. H. 1957. Particle size of insecticidal suspensions and their contact toxicity. VI. Effect of temperature on relative toxicity. Ann. appl. Biol. 45: 189–205.10.1111/j.1744-7348.1957.tb00453.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar