Efficacy of Different Insecticides Under Laboratory Conditions Against
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Antagonistic Interactions Between the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla
Article Antagonistic Interactions between the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda and the Parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci Potentially Limits Suppression of the Invasive Mealybug Rastrococcus iceryoides Chrysantus M. Tanga 1,2, Sunday Ekesi 1,*, Prem Govender 2,3, Peterson W. Nderitu 1 and Samira A. Mohamed 1 Received: 7 August 2015; Accepted: 7 December 2015; Published: 23 December 2015 Academic Editors: Michael J. Stout, Jeff Davis, Rodrigo Diaz and Julien M. Beuzelin 1 International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi 00100, Kenya; [email protected] (C.M.T.); [email protected] (P.W.N.); [email protected] (S.A.M.) 2 Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa; [email protected] 3 Faculty of Health Sciences, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (SMU), P.O. Box 163, Ga-Rankuwa 0221, South Africa * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +254-20-863-2150; Fax: +254-20-863-2001 or +254-20-863-2002 Abstract: The ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille forms a trophobiotic relationship with the invasive mealybug Rastrococus iceryoides Green and promotes the latter’s infestations to unacceptable levels in the presence of their natural enemies. In this regard, the antagonistic interactions between the ant and the parasitoid Anagyrus pseudococci Girault were assessed under laboratory conditions. The percentage of parasitism of R. iceryoides by A. pseudococci was significantly higher on “ant-excluded” treatments (86.6% ˘ 1.27%) compared to “ant-tended” treatments (51.4% ˘ 4.13%). The low female-biased sex-ratio observed in the “ant-tended” treatment can be attributed to ants’ interference during the oviposition phase, which disrupted parasitoids’ ability to fertilize eggs. -
INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401 -
Bacterial Associates of Orthezia Urticae, Matsucoccus Pini, And
Protoplasma https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-019-01377-z ORIGINAL ARTICLE Bacterial associates of Orthezia urticae, Matsucoccus pini, and Steingelia gorodetskia - scale insects of archaeoccoid families Ortheziidae, Matsucoccidae, and Steingeliidae (Hemiptera, Coccomorpha) Katarzyna Michalik1 & Teresa Szklarzewicz1 & Małgorzata Kalandyk-Kołodziejczyk2 & Anna Michalik1 Received: 1 February 2019 /Accepted: 2 April 2019 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract The biological nature, ultrastructure, distribution, and mode of transmission between generations of the microorganisms associ- ated with three species (Orthezia urticae, Matsucoccus pini, Steingelia gorodetskia) of primitive families (archaeococcoids = Orthezioidea) of scale insects were investigated by means of microscopic and molecular methods. In all the specimens of Orthezia urticae and Matsucoccus pini examined, bacteria Wolbachia were identified. In some examined specimens of O. urticae,apartfromWolbachia,bacteriaSodalis were detected. In Steingelia gorodetskia, the bacteria of the genus Sphingomonas were found. In contrast to most plant sap-sucking hemipterans, the bacterial associates of O. urticae, M. pini, and S. gorodetskia are not harbored in specialized bacteriocytes, but are dispersed in the cells of different organs. Ultrastructural observations have shown that bacteria Wolbachia in O. urticae and M. pini, Sodalis in O. urticae, and Sphingomonas in S. gorodetskia are transovarially transmitted from mother to progeny. Keywords Symbiotic microorganisms . Sphingomonas . Sodalis-like -
A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Landscape
A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Landscape, Ornamental and Turf Management 2019 Edition By Maria van Dyke, Emma Mullen, Dan Wixted, and Scott McArt Pollinator Network at Cornell, 2018 Cornell University, Department Of Entomology Download this guide for free from: https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu/resources/grower-resources/ Contents Choosing lower-risk pesticides for pollinators in landscape, ornamental & turf management ____ 1 How to use this guide 3 Understanding the terms in this guide 4 EPA Pesticide toxicity standards 4 Synergistic Interactions 4 Systemic Pesticides 4 Adjuvants and/or inert ingredients 5 Tying it all together: adopting an Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM) approach 5 IPPM: Putting the “pollinator” in IPM: 6 Table 1: Product formulations and their active ingredients 7 Table 2: Pesticide synergies and acute, chronic, and sublethal toxicities for honey bees and other pollinators 10 Literature cited 25 Appendix A: Pollination contract ______________________________________________________ 29 Acknowledgments This research and development of this guide was supported by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund and New York Farm Viability Institute grant FOC 17-001. The expert advice and consultation provided by Dan Wixted of the Cornell Pesticide Management Education Program was supported by the Crop Protection and Pest Management Extension Implementation Program [grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000] from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 1 Choosing lower-risk pesticides for pollinators in landscape, ornamental & turf management Managing pests on ornamentals, in landscapes, and in nurseries while protecting pollinators can be a balancing act. Pollinators (mostly bees) are busy pollinating blossoms in nurseries and landscapes at the same time growers and landscapers need to be managing specific pests and diseases. -
UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
UNITED NATIONS SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Distr.: General 14 August 2012 English only Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Eighth meeting Geneva, 15–19 October 2012 Item 5 (e) and (f) of the provisional agenda* Technical work: assessment of alternatives to endosulfan; assessment of alternatives to DDT Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Note by the Secretariat As referred to in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/8 and UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/9, the report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT is set out in the annex to the present note; it has not been formally edited. * UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/1. K1282318 040912 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Annex Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Draft prepared by the ad hoc working group on assessment of alternatives to endosulfan and DDT under the POPs Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention July 2012 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Table of Content 1. Disclaimer 2. Background and proposed results 3. Prioritization of Chemical Alternatives for Endosulfan with respect to the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Characteristics (Annex D) 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Endpoint and data selection for prioritisation 3.3. Experimental information 3.4. QSAR information 3.5. Description of the data sources 3.6. Uncertainties 3.7. Data analysis 3.8. Results 3.9. Comments on selected alternative substances 4. Methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics and identification of other hazard indicators for the assessment of chemical alternatives to Endosulfan and DDT 4.1. -
Pesticide Reference Values Comparison Study
Is Protecting Aquatic Life from Pesticides Sufficient to Ensure Human Health Protection in Sources of Drinking Water? Kelly D. Moran, Ph.D., TDC Environmental, LLC Bonny Starr, P.E., Starr Consulting October 1, 2018 Abstract California water and pesticides regulators have long operated under the informal assumption that programs to protect aquatic life from currently used pesticides will also ensure the safety of surface water drinKing water sources. This paper examines the scientific validity of this assumption for the agricultural pesticides in California’s Central Valley by comparing water quality regulatory values and benchmarks (“reference values”) for human health with those for aquatic life. Because numeric water quality criteria and other numeric regulatory values established for water quality protection exist for only a handful of currently used pesticides, the comparison relies heavily on US EPA pesticides human health and aquatic life benchmarks. For acute endpoints, both human health and aquatic life reference values typically use a one-day exposure time frame, but chronic endpoint exposure periods differ, with aquatic life exposure periods (4 to 60 days) usually shorter than human health exposure periods (annual). The evaluation looKed in detail at 301 agricultural pesticides with human health reference values. Of these 301 pesticides, only 46% had aquatic life reference values that were equal to or lower than the human health reference value. For 54% of these pesticides, either no aquatic life reference value existed or the aquatic life reference value was higher than the human health reference value. In these cases, aquatic life protection actions would not suffice to protect human health. -
Pesticide Resistance in Bed Bugs Everywhere!!!!!
2/24/2018 Pesticide Resistance in Bed bugs were virtually eradicated from the U.S. in Bed Bugs the post WWII era due to DDT and other powerful Shujuan (Lucy) Li insecticides. University of Arizona Alvaro Romero New Mexico State University 2 By the 1960s, bed bugs had developed resistance Public housing Apartments to DDT, methoxychlor and analogues, BHC, Schools dieldrin and analogues , and pyrethrins ( Busvine 1958, Hospitals Nursing homes Cwilich & Mer 1957, Mallis and Miller 1964 ) . Homes Transportation Child care Medical facilities Hotels & motels Health care facilities Airports Movie theaters Department stores Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for Everywhere!!!!! illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be endorsements. 3 4 University of Arizona; Arizona Pest Management Center 1 2/24/2018 Possible reasons for treatment failure? Missed some Clutter Reintroduction Have you seen these after treatments? 5 6 Dose - response assays for field - collected strains Bed bugs survived direct insecticide sprays 99 deltamethrin 90 Ft. Dix F1 50 ) e l a c 10 s t CIN1 i b o 1.0 r p ( y t i l a t r 99 - cyhalothrin o m e 90 g a t n Resistance ratio (RR) at least 6,000 !!! e c Ft. Dix r 50 e P 10 CIN1 Suspend® ( Deltamethrin ) 1.0 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Treatment (mg active ingredient/cm 2 ) Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for illustrative purposes only and are not meant Romero et al. -
Management Options for Mealybug in Persimmon
Scoping study: management options for mealybug in persimmon Dr Lara Senior The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, QLD Project Number: PR11000 PR11000 This report is published by Horticulture Australia Ltd to pass on information concerning horticultural research and development undertaken for the persimmon industry. The research contained in this report was funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd with the financial support of the persimmon industry. All expressions of opinion are not to be regarded as expressing the opinion of Horticulture Australia Ltd or any authority of the Australian Government. The Company and the Australian Government accept no responsibility for any of the opinions or the accuracy of the information contained in this report and readers should rely upon their own enquiries in making decisions concerning their own interests. ISBN 0 7341 3021 X Published and distributed by: Horticulture Australia Ltd Level 7 179 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 8295 2300 Fax: (02) 8295 2399 © Copyright 2012 Scoping study: management options for mealybug in persimmon (FINAL REPORT) Project Number: PR11000 (1st December 2012) Dr Lara Senior Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Scoping study: management options for mealybug in persimmon HAL Project Number: PR11000 1st December 2012 Project leader: Dr Lara Senior Entomologist Agri-Science Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Gatton Research Station Locked Bag 7, Mail Service 437 Gatton, QLD 4343 Tel: 07 5466 2222 Fax: 07 5462 3223 Email: [email protected] Key personnel: Grant Bignell1, Bob Nissen2, Greg Baker3 1. 1 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Nambour Qld 2. -
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. -
Pesticide Residues : Maximum Residue Limits
THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives ICS 67.040 ISBN UNOFFICAL TRANSLATION THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 50 Phaholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Telephone (662) 561 2277 Fascimile: (662) 561 3357 www.acfs.go.th Published in the Royal Gazette, Announcement and General Publication Volume 131, Special Section 32ง (Ngo), Dated 13 February B.E. 2557 (2014) (2) Technical Committee on the Elaboration of the Thai Agricultural Standard on Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticide 1. Mrs. Manthana Milne Chairperson Department of Agriculture 2. Mrs. Thanida Harintharanon Member Department of Livestock Development 3. Mrs. Kanokporn Atisook Member Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health 4. Mrs. Chuensuke Methakulawat Member Office of the Consumer Protection Board, The Prime Minister’s Office 5. Ms. Warunee Sensupa Member Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health 6. Mr. Thammanoon Kaewkhongkha Member Office of Agricultural Regulation, Department of Agriculture 7. Mr. Pisan Pongsapitch Member National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards 8. Ms. Wipa Thangnipon Member Office of Agricultural Production Science Research and Development, Department of Agriculture 9. Ms. Pojjanee Paniangvait Member Board of Trade of Thailand 10. Mr. Charoen Kaowsuksai Member Food Processing Industry Club, Federation of Thai Industries 11. Ms. Natchaya Chumsawat Member Thai Agro Business Association 12. Mr. Sinchai Swasdichai Member Thai Crop Protection Association 13. Mrs. Nuansri Tayaputch Member Expert on Method of Analysis 14. -
How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides
PNW 591 December 2006 How to ReduceReduce BeeBee PoisoningPoisoning from pesticides H. Riedl E. Johansen L. Brewer J. Barbour A Pacific Northwest Extension publication Oregon State University • University of Idaho • Washington State University Contents Pollinators are essential to Pacific Northwest agriculture .......................................................................1 Rules to protect bees ..............................................................................................................................1 Causes of bee poisoning in the Pacific Northwest .................................................................................2 Investigating a suspected bee poisoning ................................................................................................2 Signs and symptoms of bee poisoning ...................................................................................................2 Honey bees .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Managed solitary bees ................................................................................................................................... 3 Ways to reduce bee poisoning ...............................................................................................................3 Beekeeper–grower cooperation ..................................................................................................................... 3 What pesticide -
Integrated Pest Management of Mango Mealybug (Drosicha Mangiferae) in Mango Orchards
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE & BIOLOGY ISSN Print: 1560–8530; ISSN Online: 1814–9596 08–167/VBQ/2009/11–1–81–84 http://www.fspublishers.org Full Length Article Integrated Pest Management of Mango Mealybug (Drosicha mangiferae) in Mango Orchards HAIDER KARAR, M. JALAL ARIF1†, HUSSNAIN ALI SAYYED‡, SHAFQAT SAEED¶, GHULAM ABBAS¶¶ AND M. ARSHAD† Entomological Research Sub-station, Multan, Pakistan †Department of Agri. Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan ‡Department of Biochemistry, University of Sussex, UK ¶Department of Agri. Entomology, University College of Agriculture, B. Z. University, Multan, Pakistan ¶¶Pest warning and Quality Control of Pesticides, Punjab, Lahore-Pakistan 1Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted to destroy the eggs and management of nymphs through different IPM components. The mango orchards were visited and it was found that maximum number of females were exposed from the roots of host plants in the field (1.9 m2) and minimum numbers of females were recorded from the cracks of trees, sides of kacha roads, soil under tree canopy (0.16 m-2). The data revealed that the treatment with three measures (cultural, mechanical & chemical) were combined had maximum effect in reducing the population i.e., 98.46%. It was also concluded from the results that the measures in integrated form gave better results than the single treatment. Key Words: Mango; Drosicha mangiferae; Hibernation places; IPM INTRODUCTION solution. In general, the insecticides are considered to be the quick method for the control of insect pests but dependence Mango (Mangifera indica L.) a member of family on the pesticides has its own complications as WTO pointed Anacardiaceae is known as king of fruits for its sweetness, out, Phytosanitory standards, admissible limits of residues excellent flavor, delicious taste and high nutritive value by World Health Organization and many management (Singh, 1968; Litz, 1997).