Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:13:31.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FIELD STUDIES ON THE CHEMICAL CONTROL OF THE DARK-SIDED CUTWORM (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) ON TOBACCO IN ONTARIO, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO DURSBAN®1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

H. H. Cheng
H. H. Cheng
Affiliation:
Research Station, Canada Department of Agriculture, Delhi, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

DDT, carbaryl, Dursban® (0,0-diethyl 0-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl phosphorothioate), and AC-47031 (cyclic ethylene (diethoxyphosphinyl) dithioimidocarbonate) were applied at different rates on rye and/or soil for control of the dark-sided cutworm, Euxoa messoria (Harris), attacking flue-cured tobacco in Ontario. All insecticides tested caused significant reductions in cutworm damage in comparison with the untreated check. Dursban at 1/2 lb/ac on rye, or 1 lb/ac incorporated in the soil tended to give better control than DDT at 4 lb/ac on soil and showed a significant difference from split applications of DDT at 11/4 lb/ac on rye and 4 lb/ac on soil in the large scale test. Carbaryl and AC-47031 showed less effect than DDT. There was no advantage in the split application of DDT or Dursban on rye and on soil since each treatment singly could provide effective control of this pest. Rye treatment is more economic than soil treatment and could apparently provide adequate control. Dursban showed promise as a substitute for DDT for control of the dark-sided cutworm in tobacco fields.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 103 , Issue 5 , May 1971 , pp. 649 - 653
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1971

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.)

References

Cheng, H. H. 1971. Assessment of tobacco losses caused by the dark-sided cutworm, Euxoa messoria (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Delhi, Ontario. Can. Ent. 103: 534–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, F. E. and Bowery, T. G.. 1967. Pesticide residues on tobacco. Residue Rev. 19: 31–56.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, C. R. and Svec, H. J.. 1968. Toxicological studies on cutworms. I: Laboratory studies on the toxicity of insecticides to the dark-sided cutworm. J. econ. Ent. 61: 788–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. R., Svec, H. J., and Sans, W. W.. 1968. Toxicological studies on cutworms. II: Field studies on the control of the dark-sided cutworm with soil insecticides. J. econ. Ent. 61: 961–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, L. A. and McDonald, S.. 1966. Chemical control of the pale western cutworm infesting wheat in Alberta, Canada. J. econ. Ent. 59: 965–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ontario Dep. Agric. and Food. 1967. Controls for tobacco insects and diseases. Toronto, Ontario. Publ. 298.Google Scholar
Ontario Dep. Agric. and Food. 1969. Tobacco recommendations for 1969. Toronto, Ontario. AGDEX 181.Google Scholar
Sheets, T. J., smith, J. W., and Jackson, M. D.. 1968. Insecticide residues in cigarettes. Tob. Sci. 12: 66–69.Google Scholar