Literature DB >> 22807174

Quantitative impact assessment of spray coverage and pest behavior on contact pesticide performance.

Xavier Martini1, Natalie Kincy, Christian Nansen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Standard procedures for evaluation of pesticide performance do not take into account pest behavioral response or incomplete spray coverage. In this study, a series of laboratory experiments was conducted with two non-systemic miticides (propargite and hexythiazox) applied to cotyledon cotton plants, which were subsequently infested with spider mites. The results of these laboratory experiments are discussed through a comprehensive pest population dynamics model.
RESULTS: When cotton leaves were submerged in miticide solutions, both miticides provided effective control of spider mites. In a two-choice test it was demonstrated that propargite was repellent to spider mites, but not hexythiazox. Finally, the spray coverage on cotton plants was varied, and, for both miticides, significantly positive relationships between spray coverage and spider mite mortality were shown. However, propargite required higher spray coverage (20%) than hexythiazox (10%) to control spider mites. A theoretical model showed that, without repellency, the pesticide performance is positively correlated with target pest mobility. If the pesticide is repellent, the probability of exposure decreases, especially for a less mobile pest.
CONCLUSION: With an experimental and theoretical modeling approach, it was demonstrated how the combination of behavioral avoidance and low spray coverage can markedly reduce pesticide performance.
Copyright © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22807174     DOI: 10.1002/ps.3330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pest Manag Sci        ISSN: 1526-498X            Impact factor:   4.845


  7 in total

1.  Acaricidal and sublethal effects of a Chenopodium-based biopesticide on the two-spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae).

Authors:  Asma Musa; Irena Međo; Ivana Marić; Dejan Marčić
Journal:  Exp Appl Acarol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 2.132

2.  Physiological resistance alters behavioral response of Tetranychus urticae to acaricides.

Authors:  Adekunle W Adesanya; Michael J Beauchamp; Mark D Lavine; Laura C Lavine; Fang Zhu; Doug B Walsh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 3.  Bugs scaring bugs: enemy-risk effects in biological control systems.

Authors:  Michael Culshaw-Maurer; Andrew Sih; Jay A Rosenheim
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 9.492

4.  Pollinator biological traits and ecological interactions mediate the impacts of mosquito-targeting malathion application.

Authors:  Dongmin Kim; Nathan D Burkett-Cadena; Lawrence E Reeves
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-11       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Weevil x Insecticide: Does 'Personality' Matter?

Authors:  Juliana A Morales; Danúbia G Cardoso; Terezinha Maria C Della Lucia; Raul Narciso C Guedes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Reducing insecticide use in broad-acre grains production: an Australian study.

Authors:  Sarina Macfadyen; Darryl C Hardie; Laura Fagan; Katia Stefanova; Kym D Perry; Helen E DeGraaf; Joanne Holloway; Helen Spafford; Paul A Umina
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Behavioral Avoidance - Will Physiological Insecticide Resistance Level of Insect Strains Affect Their Oviposition and Movement Responses?

Authors:  Christian Nansen; Olivier Baissac; Maria Nansen; Kevin Powis; Greg Baker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.