DOCSLIB.ORG

Uc Plant Protection Quarterly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uc Plant Protection Quarterly UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION UC PLANT PROTECTION UARTERLY Q April 2004 Volume 14, Number 2 Available online: IN THIS ISSUE www.uckac.edu/ppq EVALUATION OF POSTHARVEST TREATMENTS TO BULK CITRUS FOR ERADICATION OF THE GLASSY- This newsletter is published by the WINGED SHARPSHOOTER ........................................................ 1 University of California Kearney Plant ANTS IN YOUR VINEYARD? ...................................................... 6 Protection Group and the Statewide IPM ABSTRACTS.................................................................................. 11 Program. It is intended to provide timely information on pest management research and educational activities by UC DANR EVALUATION OF POSTHARVEST TREATMENTS TO personnel. Further information on material BULK CITRUS FOR ERADICATION OF THE GLASSY- presented herein can be obtained by WINGED SHARPSHOOTER contacting the individual author(s). Farm D.R. Haviland, UCCE Kern County; N.J. Sakovich, UCCE Ventura Advisors and Specialists may reproduce any County portion of this publication for their newsletters, giving proper credit to Abstract individual authors. State regulations require that bulk citrus, leaving a geographic area infested with glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS) or transiting an Editors area under an active government GWSS control program, be 100% James J. Stapleton free from this pest. Currently, there are no economically feasible Charles G. Summers postharvest treatment programs capable of cleaning up bulk citrus Beth L. Teviotdale after harvest. We conducted five experiments to test Evergreen® Peter B. Goodell (pyrethrins + piperonyl butoxide) and chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) Anil Shrestha as postharvest treatments for GWSS in bulk citrus. In drench experiments, Evergreen® provided some, but not complete control of GWSS. Chlorine had little or no effect on mortality even when sprayed directly on the insects. Two hours after treatment, fogging experiments with Evergreen® in a citrus degreening room resulted in 100% mortality of GWSS in cages outside of bins, but only 71 to 93% of GWSS inside bins. Cooperative Extension Introduction Agricultural Experiment Station Statewide IPM Program Management of glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS), Homalodisca coagulata Say, in California plays a critical role in California’s battle This material is based upon work supported by against Pierce’s disease of grapes. Federal, State, and County the Extension Service, U.S. Department of organizations have worked jointly to reduce pest densities in Agriculture, under special project section 3(d), locations where it has become established, and to prevent its spread Integrated Pest Management to new locations throughout the state. University of California and the United States Department of Agriculture cooperating KAC Plant Protection Quarterly Volume 14, Number 2 2 In an effort to stop the spread of GWSS, restrictions on Evaluation of postharvest drenches with Evergreen® the movement of bulk citrus have been developed by the Evergreen® EC 60-6 (pyrethrins + piperonyl butoxide) California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). (McLaughlin Gormley King Company, Golden Valley, Bulk citrus cannot be shipped out of a current infested MN) was evaluated as a drench over the top of citrus zone or transit an area under an active government bins. Eight standard 1000# bins of lemons were each control program without being certified free of this pest. seeded with two bags of GWSS, one bag 1/3 down from To be in compliance, fruit must be from a field that has the top and the other 1/3 up from the bottom. Four of been monitored and deemed free from GWSS, or it must the bins were treated with Evergreen® at the maximum undergo some form of mitigation. label rate of 1.5 pt per bin in a solution containing 12 fl oz of Evergreen® per 100 gal water. Applications were Acceptable postharvest mitigation strategies for GWSS made using a wand sprayer at 40 psi. The pesticide include field packing, mechanical removal of GWSS solution was observed dripping out of the bottom of the (e.g., run fruit over brushes to remove debris and bins. GWSS), or other means approved by the origin County Agricultural Commissioner. Field packing and brushing After treatments, all bins were loaded onto a commercial are impractical from an economic standpoint, and other flatbed trailer and transported from Ventura to Kern means approved by the Agricultural Commissioner must County. Nine hours after treatment, bags of GWSS were be documented as efficacious. recovered from the bins and evaluated. The purpose of this research was to test several strategies Evergreen® treatments did not provide sufficient control for postharvest control of GWSS that individual growers of GWSS adults to warrant their use as a postharvest claimed were efficacious. This research was done at the treatment of citrus (Table 1). Treated bins, compared to request of various citrus growers, County Agricultural untreated bins, showed no differences in the number of Commissioners, and personnel at CDFA. The goal was live or dead GWSS, or in the overall percentage to identify and validate a postharvest treatment for mortality. A significant difference was seen in the GWSS that could provide consistent, complete control of number of twitching GWSS, suggesting that Evergreen® this pest in bulk citrus. did have some effect on these insects. Materials, Methods and Results Data from treated bins (Table 2) showed that Evergreen® killed significantly more GWSS in the top Methods overview third of the bin than in the bottom, but that even in the Five experiments were conducted between December top there were still some live insects. While data do 2002 and October 2003 in Santa Paula, Ventura County show that Evergreen® has some effectiveness, lack of and Bakersfield, Kern County, CA. On each date, complete control renders this treatment inadequate as a GWSS were collected in the morning from citrus in the postharvest mitigation for potentially infested fruit. Santa Paula or Riverside areas by members of the CDFA Pierce’s Disease program. Live GWSS were Evaluation of postharvest drenches and direct sprays refrigerated and transported to research sites in Santa with chlorine Paula to be used in the experiments. Drench experiment: Chlorine was evaluated as a drench over the top of standard lemon bins. Eight bins were In each experiment, live GWSS were randomly selected each seeded with three mesh bags containing GWSS. and placed into 12 by 12 inch mesh bags, or in 2.5 by 9 Five gallons of a 20 ppm solution of Pac-Chlor® (10% inch cricket cages (Long Wire Cricket Tube, Challenge sodium hypochlorite) (Pace International, LLC, Seattle, Plastic Products, Inc., Edinburgh, IN). Bags or cages WA) were applied to the top surface of each of four were chosen at random and strategically placed inside or lemon bins using a wan sprayer (fan-jet nozzle 8003) at outside of 1000 pound bins of lemons. Bins were then 40 psi. The other four bins were left unsprayed. All subjected to a wide range of treatments. bins were loaded onto a truck trailer and left in the orchard overnight. Each experiment was conducted on a different day throughout the year. All trials consisted of at least one In the morning, the truck transported the bins to treatment and a control, with each being replicated a Bakersfield where the GWSS were removed and minimum of 4 times. evaluated (~22 hours after treatment). Data showed that there was 95.3 ± 3.1 percent mortality of GWSS in bins KAC Plant Protection Quarterly Volume 14, Number 2 3 treated with Pac-Chlor®, and 93.9 ± 3.1 percent built-in fans in the degreening room (which were broken mortality in the control. These differences were not in the first experiment) were utilized during the significant (P=0.76), and mortality in neither the treatment to maximize circulation within the room. treatment nor the control bins was complete. For both experiments, the treatment degreening room Direct contact experiment: A second experiment was was fogged with Evergreen® 60-6. One part Evergreen® conducted to evaluate the effects of chlorine as a contact 60-6 was diluted with 11 parts water and applied through insecticide. To do so, a minimum of 10 GWSS were a Dyna-Fog® Cyclone ULVTM (Curtis Dyna-Fog Ltd.) at placed into each of 8 mesh bags. Four bags were a rate of 1 fl oz per 1,000 cu ft. The application took sprayed to dripping with the 20 ppm solution of Pac- approximately 45 min, and the doors were left sealed for Chlor®, and four were left unsprayed as controls. A live a total of 2 hr. impatiens plant was inserted into two of the control and two of the treated bags as a food supply. GWSS After the 2 hr period, GWSS in the cages were recovered mortality in all bags was evaluated at 6 and at 19 hr after and evaluated for mortality. Evaluations were conducted the application. 2 hr and 9 hr after treatment for the first experiment, and 2 hr and 5 hr after treatment for the second experiment. Table 3 shows the mortality of GWSS that were sprayed directly with the Pac-Chlor® solution and were then The effects of Evergreen® fogging on GWSS in lemon provided or not provided a food source. In all cases, bins on 8 May are shown in Table 4. The average average mortality of GWSS in bags with a food source number of live GWSS in treated bins was less than the was lower than in bags without food. At 6 hr after control, but live GWSS were still present in each of the 4 treatment, GWSS mortality in treated bins was less than stacks of bins. Moribund and dead GWSS in each stack 50% regardless of whether or not a food source was were higher in the treated bins than in the controls, and provided. By 19 hr after treatment, all treated GWSS resulted in higher percentage mortality in all stacks of that were not provided food were dead, whereas those bins compared to the control.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pesticides Registration List 2018
    Pesticides Registration List 2018 Name of Chemicals Type Common Name Registration Types Registrant Syngenta AGROIN, 39,Broad Street, Charlestown, Georgetown, Guyana. 592 -689-4624 and 611-3890 Importer/Distributor Actara 25WG Insecticide Thiamethoxam General Use Actellic 50Ec Insecticide Pirimiphos methyl General Use Cruiser 350FS Insecticide Thiamethoxam General Use Demand 2.5CS Insecticide Thiamethoxam & Lambda Cyhalothrin General Use Demon MaX Insecticide Cypermethrin General Use Engeo Insecticide Thiamethoxam & Lambda Cyhalothrin General Use Match 50EC Insecticide Lufenuron General Use Ninja 5EC Insecticide Lambda Cyhalothrin General Use Pegasus 500Sc Insecticide Diafenthiuron General Use Trigard 75WP Insecticide Cyromazine General Use Vertimec 1.8EC Insecticide Abamectin General Use Dual Gold 960EC Herbicide S-Metolachlor General Use Fusilade Herbicide Fluazifop-p-butyl General Use Gramoxone Super Herbicide Paraquat Dichloride Restricted Use Igran 500SC Herbicide Terbutryn General Use Krismat Herbicide Ametryn General Use Reglone Herbicide Diquat Dibromide General Use Touchdown IQ Herbicide Glyphosate General Use Amistar 50WG Fungicide Azoxystrobin General Use Bankit 25 SC Fungicide Azoxystrobin General Use Daconil 720Sc Fungicide Chlorothalonil General Use Tilt 250 EC Fungicide Propiconazole General Use Klerat Wax Blocks Rodenticide Brodifacoum General Use Registrant Rotam Agrochemical Co., Ltd AGROIN, 39,Broad Street, Charlestown, Georgetown, Guyana. 592 -689-4624 and 611-3890 Importer/Distributor Saddler 35 FS Insecticide Thiodicarb
    [Show full text]
  • Quantification of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Six Cultivable Fish Species from the River Owena in Nigeria and a Template For
    water Article Quantification of Neonicotinoid Pesticides in Six Cultivable Fish Species from the River Owena in Nigeria and a Template for Food Safety Assessment Ayodeji O. Adegun 1, Thompson A. Akinnifesi 1, Isaac A. Ololade 1 , Rosa Busquets 2 , Peter S. Hooda 3 , Philip C.W. Cheung 4, Adeniyi K. Aseperi 2 and James Barker 2,* 1 Department of Chemical Sciences, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko P.M.B. 001, Ondo State, Nigeria; [email protected] (A.O.A.); [email protected] (T.A.A.); [email protected] (I.A.O.) 2 School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (A.K.A.) 3 School of Engineering and the Environment, Kingston University, Kingston-on-Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] 4 Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 17 June 2020; Accepted: 24 August 2020; Published: 28 August 2020 Abstract: The Owena River Basin in Nigeria is an area of agricultural importance for the production of cocoa. To optimise crop yield, the cocoa trees require spraying with neonicotinoid insecticides (Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid Acetamiprid and Thiamethoxam). It is proposed that rainwater runoff from the treated area may pollute the Owena River and that these pesticides may thereby enter the human food chain via six species of fish (Clarias gariepinus, Clarias anguillaris, Sarotherodon galilaeus, Parachanna obscura, Oreochromis niloticus and Gymnarchus niloticus) which are cultured in the river mostly for local consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicity, Sublethal and Low Dose Effects of Imidacloprid and Deltamethrin on the Aphidophagous Predator Ceratomegilla Undecimnotata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)
    insects Article Toxicity, Sublethal and Low Dose Effects of Imidacloprid and Deltamethrin on the Aphidophagous Predator Ceratomegilla undecimnotata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) Panagiotis J. Skouras 1,* , Anastasios I. Darras 2 , Marina Mprokaki 1, Vasilios Demopoulos 3, John T. Margaritopoulos 4 , Costas Delis 2 and George J. Stathas 1 1 Laboratory of Agricultural Entomology and Zoology, Department of Agriculture, Kalamata Campus, University of the Peloponnese, 24100 Antikalamos, Greece; [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (G.J.S.) 2 Department of Agriculture, Kalamata Campus, University of the Peloponnese, 24100 Antikalamos, Greece; [email protected] (A.I.D.); [email protected] (C.D.) 3 Laboratory of Plant Protection, Department of Agriculture, Kalamata Campus, University of the Peloponnese, 24100 Antikalamos, Greece; [email protected] 4 Department of Plant Protection, Institute of Industrial and Fodder Crops, Hellenic Agricultural Organization “DEMETER”—NAGREF, 38446 Volos, Greece; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +30-27210-45277 Simple Summary: Chemical insecticides are used to control agricultural pests all over the world. However, extensive use of chemical insecticides can be harmful to human health and negatively Citation: Skouras, P.J.; Darras, A.I.; impact the environment and biological control agents. We studied the toxicity and sublethal effects Mprokaki, M.; Demopoulos, V.; of imidacloprid and deltamethrin on the aphidophagous coccinellid predator Ceratomegilla
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0
    Version 1.1.0 Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List Fair Trade USA® Agricultural Production Standard Version 1.1.0 Introduction Through the implementation of our standards, Fair Trade USA aims to promote sustainable livelihoods and safe working conditions, protection of the environment, and strong, transparent supply chains.. Our standards work to limit negative impacts on communities and the environment. All pesticides can be potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, both on the farm and in the community. They can negatively affect the long-term sustainability of agricultural livelihoods. The Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS) seeks to minimize these risks from pesticides by restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides and enhancing the implementation of risk mitigation practices for lower risk pesticides. This approach allows greater flexibility for producers, while balancing controls on impacts to human and environmental health. This document lists the pesticides that are prohibited or restricted in the production of Fair Trade CertifiedTM products, as required in Objective 4.4.2 of the APS. It also includes additional rules for the use of restricted pesticides. Purpose The purpose of this document is to outline the rules which prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous pesticides in the production of Fair Trade Certified agricultural products. Scope • The Prohibited and Restricted Pesticides List (PRPL) applies to all crops certified against the Fair Trade USA Agricultural Production Standard (APS). • Restrictions outlined in this list apply to active ingredients in any pesticide used by parties included in the scope of the Certificate while handling Fair Trade Certified products.
    [Show full text]
  • ALTERNATIVES for NEONICOTINOIDS in a RANGE of AGRICULTURAL CROPS (Collected from National Extension Services in Italy, UK and NL)
    ALTERNATIVES FOR NEONICOTINOIDS IN A RANGE OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS (collected from national extension services in Italy, UK and NL) Neonic Crop Pests Type of use Chemical alternatives More sustainable solutions Clothianidin, Maize Click beetles Seed coating Methiocarb, Very regional problem; pest does not cause Thiamethoxam (wireworm) Tefluthrin, much economic damage (only in 1% Zeta-cypermethrin, exceedance of economic threshold) Cypermethrin Imidacloprid Maize Noctuid moths, Seed coating Tefluthrin, Root worm is a crop rotation problem. European Dianem, European corn borer prevented by accurate corn borer Alfa- Cypermethrin, tillage of maize harvest residues and/or use (ostrinea), Root Deltamethrin, of Trichogramma Applications of Bacillus thuringiensis; for worm Lambda-cyalothrin Diabrotica Entomopatogenic nematodes are available (Driabotica) Imidacloprid Peas/beans Aphids, thrips, Spraying Deltamethrin Alternatives for moths (use economic Thiamethoxam Noctuid moths, Pirimicarb thresholds, B.thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki and aizawaii) Acetamiprid European corn Lambda-cyhalothrin, Aphids can be controlled by azadirachtin borer Spinosad, application (neem extract) Spyrotetramat, Thiacloprid Oil seed Pollen beetle Seed coating Indoxacarb Beetle resistant to pyrethroid insecticides, Acetamiprid rape Pymetrozine Monitoring for thresholds necessary, use of Cypermethrin entomopathogenic fungi, natural enemies Clothianidin, Oil seed Cabbage stem Seed coating Fluvalinate, Natural predators, sparying only after Thiamethoxam rape flee beetle, Deltamethrin,
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Thiamethoxam in Tropical Agroecosystems
    G.J.B.A.H.S.,Vol.5(3):75-81 (July-September, 2016) ISSN: 2319 – 5584 Thiamethoxam in Tropical Agroecosystems Juan Valente Megchún-García1, María del Refugio Castañeda-Chávez2*, Daniel Arturo Rodríguez- Lagunes1, Joaquín Murguía-González1, Fabiola Lango-Reynoso2, Otto Raúl Leyva- Ovalle1 1Universidad Veracruzana campus Córdoba; Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Región Orizaba Córdoba. Camino Peñuela-Amatlán s/n Peñuela, Municipio de Amatlán de los Reyes, Veracruz. México. C. P. 94945. Phone and Fax: +52 271 716 6410; +52 271 716 6129 ext. 3751. Email: [email protected] 2Instituto Tecnológico de Boca del Río. Km 12 carretera Veracruz-Córdoba, Boca del Río, Veracruz. México. C.P. 94290. Phone and Fax (01 229) 98 60189, 9862818. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding Author Abstract Because of its effectiveness in combating pests in agricultural crops, the group of neonicotinoids has regained importance, within this group the insectice thiamethoxan is highlighted. It was registered in México in 2004, from then until now its use has not been restricted. In order to establish the current situation of the use of thiamethoxam in México and other countries, a documentary study has been made, so this allows us to know both the damages and benefits caused to the ecosystem. It has now been found that the massive use of this insecticide causes harm to public health and also represents a danger to animals and plants coexisting in agrocultural ecosystems. One of the thiamethoxam’s characteristics, which allowed its use, is their efficiency in the fight against sucking insects such as, the whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), aphids and mites.
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Christmas Tree Pest Management Guide 2017
    Michigan Christmas Tree Pest Management Guide 2017 The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan Christmas tree growers in selecting pesticides for use on trees grown in Michigan and is for educational purposes only. The efficacies of products listed may not been evaluated in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide. Although efforts have been made to check the accuracy of information presented (February 2017), it is the responsibility of the person using this information to verify that it is correct by reading the corresponding pesticide label in its entirety before using the product. Labels can and do change–greenbook.net, cdms.com, and agrian.com are free online databases for looking up label and MSDS information. TABLE OF CONTENTS SEASONAL PEST CALENDAR ............................................................ 3 INSECT PESTS ................................................................................... 5 REGISTERED INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES .................................. 10 DISEASES ....................................................................................... 16 REGISTERED FUNGICIDES .............................................................. 22 The information presented here is intended as a guide for Michigan Christmas tree growers in selecting pesticides for use on trees grown in Michigan and is for educational purposes only. The efficacies of products listed may not been evaluated in Michigan. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by Michigan State University Extension or bias against those not mentioned. Information presented here does not supersede the label directions. To protect yourself, others, and the environment, always read the label before applying any pesticide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968)
    The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968) An Act to regulate the import, manufactures, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. [2 nd September 1968] Be it enacted by Parliament in the Nineteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title, extent and commencement. * a. This Act may be called the Insecticides Act, 1968. b. It extends to the whole of India. c. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different States and for different provisions of Act. 2. Application of other laws not barred * The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 3. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- a. "animals" means animals useful to human beings and includes fish and fowl, and such kinds of wild life as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, being kinds which in its opinion, it is desirable to protect or preserve; b. "Board" means the Central Insecticides Board constituted under Sec.4; c. "Central Insecticides Laboratory" means the Central Insecticides Laboratory established, or as the case may be, the institution specified under Sec.16; d. "Import" means bringing into any place within the territories to which this Act extends from a place outside those territories; e. "Insecticide" means- i.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Baits to Control Argentine Ants in Vineyards
    COMMODITY TREATMENT AND QUARANTINE ENTOMOLOGY Testing Baits to Control Argentine Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Vineyards KENT M. DAANE,1,2 MONICA L. COOPER,1 KAREN R. SIME,1 ERIK H. NELSON,1 3 4 MARK C. BATTANY, AND MICHAEL K. RUST J. Econ. Entomol. 101(3): 699Ð709 (2008) ABSTRACT Liquid baits were evaluated for control of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), and associated mealybug and soft scale pests in California vineyards. In 2003, liquid baits with small doses of imidacloprid, boric acid, or thiamethoxam dissolved in 25% sucrose water resulted in lower ant and mealybug densities and fruit damage, compared with an untreated control. Similar treatments in a soft scale-infested vineyard showed only a reduction of ant density and fruit infestation in only the boric acid and thiamethoxam treatments. In 2004, commercial and noncommercial formulations of liquid baits reduced ant densities in three separate trials, but they had inconsistent effects on mealybug densities and fruit infestation; granular protein bait had no effect. Using large plots and commercial application methodologies, liquid bait deployed in June resulted in lower ant density and fruit infestation, but it had no effect on mealybug density. Across all trials, liquid bait treatments resulted in lower ant density (12 of 14 trials) and fruit damage (11 of 14 sites), presenting the Þrst report of liquid baits applied using commercial methodologies that resulted in a reduction of ants and their associated hemipteran crop damage. For commercialization of liquid baits, we showed that any of the tested insecticides can suppress Argentine ants when properly delivered in the crop system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Insecticide Classes and Characteristics
    Denver, CO | February 5 - 7, 2020 A Review of Insecticide Classes and Characteristics Whitney Cranshaw Colorado State University Common Types of Pesticides (Organisms Controlled) • Herbicides • Insecticides – Higher Plants – Insects • Algacides • Acaricides/ – Algae Miticides& Ticks • Fungicides • Molluscicides – Fungi – Slugs & Snails • Bactericides – Bacteria Classification of Insecticides Mode of Entry Classification of Insecticides Systemic or Not Systemic? Are they capable of moving within the plant? Distribution of C14 labeled Thiamethoxam™ 25WG after a foliar application to cucumber leaves 1 hour after application 8 hour after application 24 hour after application Slide Credit: N. Rechcigl Systemic insecticides applied to leaves Some systemic insecticide can move into plants when sprayed onto leaves. Some systemic insecticides can move into plant when applied to the roots. Most systemic insecticides will appear in highest concentration in the new growth Systemic insecticides applied to soil Systemic Insecticides • Capable of some translocation in plant • Range exists in ability to move in plant – Some limited to translaminar movement – Some broadly distribute in plant (usually to newer growth) • Systemic activity is limited to a small number of insecticides – Most neonicotinoids – Diamides (limited) – Abamectin (translaminar only) Systemic Insecticides • Capable of some translocation in plant • Range exists in ability to move in plant – Some limited to translaminar movement – Some broadly distribute in plant (usually to newer growth) • Systemic activity is limited to a small number of insecticides –Some organophophates –All neonicotinoids –Diamides (limited) –Avermectins (translaminar only) Translaminar movement – Insecticide can move through a leaf (but not necessarily to another leaf) Example: Foliar applications of abamectin (Avid) Essentially all systemic insecticide move primarily in the xylem of the plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Side-Effects of Thiamethoxam on the Brain and Midgut of the Africanized Honeybee Apis Mellifera (Hymenopptera: Apidae)
    Side-Effects of Thiamethoxam on the Brain and Midgut of the Africanized Honeybee Apis mellifera (Hymenopptera: Apidae) Regiane Alves Oliveira, Thaisa Cristina Roat, Stephan Malfitano Carvalho, Osmar Malaspina Centro de Estudos de Insetos Sociais, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biocieˆ ncias de Rio Claro, UNESP-Univ. Estadual Paulista, Av. 24A, 1515, Bela Vista, 13.500-900 Rio Claro Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil Received 12 September 2012; revised 20 December 2012; accepted 25 December 2012 ABSTRACT: The development of agricultural activities coincides with the increased use of pesticides to control pests, which can also be harmful to nontarget insects such as bees. Thus, the goal of this work was assess the toxic effects of thiamethoxam on newly emerged worker bees of Apis mellifera (africanized honeybee—AHB). Initially, we determined that the lethal concentration 50 (LC50) of thiamethoxam was 4.28 ng a.i./lL of diet. To determine the lethal time 50 (LT50), a survival assay was conducted using diets containing sublethal doses of thiamethoxam equal to 1/10 and 1/100 of the LC50. The group of bees exposed to 1/10 of the LC50 had a 41.2% reduction of lifespan. When AHB samples were analyzed by morphological technique we found the presence of condensed cells in the mushroom bodies and optical lobes in exposed honeybees. Through Xylidine Ponceau technique, we found cells which stained more intensely in groups exposed to thiamethoxam. The digestive and regenerative cells of the midgut from exposed bees also showed morphological and histochemical alterations, like cytoplasm vacuolization, increased apocrine secretion and increased cell elimination.
    [Show full text]