No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Susceptibilities of three insect pests of cotton to insecticides and mixtures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2011
Abstract
Five insecticides and three mixtures were tested on the cotton flea beetle (CFB), Podagricapuncticotis (Weise), the spiny bollworm (SBW), Earias insulana (Boisd.), and the cotton aphids (CA), Aphis gossypii (Glov.). The relative potency (in terms of LD50 and or LC50) for CFB followed this order: endosulfan + dimethoate > endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > dimethoate > fenvalerate > endosulfan > endosulfan + amitraz > amitraz. The LCS0 values ranged from 12. 0–1150 ppm. For SBW, the following order was obtained: fenvalerate > endosulfan + dimethoate, endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > endosulfan > dimethoate > chlorpyrifos > endosulfan + amitraz > amitraz. LC50 ranged between 0.35 and 3388 ppm. With regard to CA endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > endosulfan + dimethoate > endosulfan + amitraz > chlorpyrifos > endosulfan > fenvalerate > dimethoate > amitraz.
In general, C A was relatively tolerant to most tested insecticides when compared with the other two pests. The SBW was the most susceptible.
Résumé
Cinq insecticides et trois melanges ont été testés sur la puce terrestre de coton (CFB), Podagrica puncticolis (Weise), le ver épineux de capsule (SBW), Earias insulana (Boisd.) et le puceron du coton (CA), Aphis gossypii (Glov.). L'efficacité relative (exprimée en DL50 et/ou CL50) pour le CFB suit cet ordre: endosulfan + dimethoate > endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > dimethoate > fenvalerate > endosulfan > endosulfan + amitraz. Les valeurs des CL50 se situent dans I'ordre de 12,0–1150 ppm. En ce qui concerne le SBW, l'ordre suivant a été obtenu: fenvalerate > endosulfan + dimethoate, endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > endosulfan > dimethoate > chlorpyrifos > endosulfan + amitraz. Les CL50 sont entre 0,35 et 3388 ppm. Quant au CA endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > endosulfan + dimethoate > endosulfan + amitraz > chlorpyifos endosulfan > fenvalerate > dimethoate > amitraz.
En general, le CA a été relativement tolerant à la plupart des insecticides testés lorsqu'il a etc compare avec les deux autres ravageurs. Le SBW à été le plus sensible.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © ICIPE 1993
References
REFERENCES
Abbott, W. S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. econ. Entomol. 18, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (1979a) Recommended methods for detection and measurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides. Methods for adult aphids. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 27, 29–32.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1979b) Farm Chemicals Handbook. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.Google Scholar
Azer, R. E. (1984) Laboratory studies on the susceptibility of Earias insulana (Boisd.) to different insecticides. M.Sc. Thesis, Khartoum University, Sudan.Google Scholar
Brown, A. W. A. and Pal, P. (1971) Insecticide resistance in arthropods. World Health Organization Monograph Series Number 23, second edition, Geneva.Google Scholar
Busvine, J. R. (1971) Toxicological statistics. In A Critical Review of the Techniquesfor Testing Insecticides, Common wealth Agricultural Bureaux, London, pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
Cauquil, T. (1981) Recent developments in the control of Blue disease of cotton in Central Africa. Cot. Fibr. Trop. 36, 297–304.Google Scholar
Childers, C. C. and Nigg, H. N. (1982) Contact toxicity of insecticides to adult coffee bean weevil (Coleoptera: Anthribdae). J. econ. Entomol. 75, 556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsa, E. B. (1989) Screening of some insecticides and their mixtures against the cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii (Glov.). M.Sc. Thesis, University of Gezira, Sudan.Google Scholar
El-Tayeb, Y. M. (1978) Some aspects of the biology and control of the spiny bollworm (Earias insulana Boisd.) in the Sudan. In Crop Pest Management in the Sudan. Proc. of a symposium held in Khartoum Feb. 1978 (Edited by El-Bashir, S., El-Tigani, K.B., El-Tayeb, Y. M. and Khalifa, H.), pp. 375–388, published by Khartoum University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, D. P., Kerry, J. C. and Rothwell, D. R. (1981) The Effect of Amitraz on Insect. Boots Co. Ltd. Lenton Research Station, Nottingham, NG 7240, UK.Google Scholar
Hoskins, W. M. (1960) Use of the dosage-mortality curve in quantitative estimation of insecticide resistance. M.Sc. Publ. Ent. Soc. Am. 2, 85–91.Google Scholar
Schmutterer, H. (1969) Pests of Crops in Northeast and Central Africa. (1st edn.), Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 296.Google Scholar
Shaaban, M. M., El-Rady, E. A. and Laithy, K. H. (1975) Toxicological studies on A. gossypii (Glov.) infesting citrus trees in Egypt (Rhynchota: Aphidae). Bull. Entomol. Soc. Egypt Econ. Series No. 9, pp. 307–312.Google Scholar
Sharaf Eldin, N. (1978) Cotton aphid in the Sudan. In Crop Pest Management in the Sudan. Proc. of a Symposium held in Khartoum Feb. 1978 (Edited by El-Bashir, S., El-Tigani, K. B., El-Tayeb, Y. M. and Khalifa, H.), pp. 369–374. Khartoum University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, R. F. (1973) Pesticides. Their use and limitation in pest management. In Concepts of Pest Management (Edited by Plabb, R. L. and Guthrie, F. E.), pp. 103–113. California State University, Raleigh.Google Scholar