Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 169–182 | Cite as

Aerial Spraying of Neemazal®-T/S Against the Forest Cockchafer (Melolontha hippocastani, Col.: Scarabaeidae) in South-West Germany: The Effects of Two Field Trials Performed in 2007 and 2008 on Local Populations

  • Eiko Wagenhoff
  • Rainer Blum
  • Lars Henke
  • Horst Delb


The forest cockchafer Melolontha hippocastani is a serious forest pest whose infestation levels have been increasing in South-West Germany since the mid-1980 s. During the past 25 years several control measures have been taken to manage its populations. In 2007 and 2008, 122 and 73 hectares of forest stands comprising of deciduous trees were sprayed with NeemAzal®-T/S (1% azadirachtin A) by helicopter, respectively. Here we summarize the results of the accompanying research with the aim to evaluate the efficacy of NeemAzal®-T/S in the control of M. hippocastani populations under field conditions. As expected from azadirachtin’s mode of action, no immediate mortality occurred but maturation feeding and oogenesis was interrupted. It appeared that precise timing of the application is a crucial issue regarding the level of its effect on the population density. In 2007, the first application was performed in good synchrony with the climax of female emergence from the soil, resulting in a remarkable decline of the population density in the next generation of beetles in 2011. In 2008, our data suggest that maturation feeding and oogenesis had already been completed when the agent was sprayed. Hence, no significant decline of the population density could be registered in 2012. Practicability of the use of NeemAzal®-T/S against M. hippocastani in forests is discussed.

Key words

azadirachtin forest pest maturation feeding plant protective agent population dynamics oogenesis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BVL, Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Hrsg.), 2014. Zugelassene Pflanzenschutzmittel: Auswahl für den ökologischen Landbau nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 834/2007, 93 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Butterworth JH & Morgan ED, 1968. Isolation of a substance that suppresses feeding in locusts. J Chem Soc, Chemical Communications, 23–24.Google Scholar
  3. Delb H, 2004. Monitoring der Waldmaikäfer (Melolontha hippocastani F.) — Populationen und der Schäden durch Engerlinge in der nördlichen Oberrheinebene, Baden-Württemberg und Rheinland-Pfalz. Nachrichtenbl Dt Pflanzenschutzd 56, 108–116.Google Scholar
  4. Delb H & Mattes J, 2001. Monitoring of Melolontha hippocastani F. at the Upper Rhine Valley, Germany. J For Sci 47, 70–72.Google Scholar
  5. (EC), No 889/2008. Commision regulation of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. 84 pp.Google Scholar
  6. (EU), No 354/2014. Commission implementing regulation of 8 April 2014 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. 8 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Escherich K, 1916. Die Maikäferbekämpfung im Bienwald (Rheinpfalz) — ein Musterbeispiel technischer Schädlingsbekämpfung. J Appl Entomol 3, 134–156. (In German).Google Scholar
  8. Fröschle M, 2001. Über einen Versuch zur Bekämpfung des Feldmaikäfers am und im Wald mit NeemAzal-T/S. Berichte aus der BBA, Braunschweig 7, 43–49. (In German).Google Scholar
  9. FVA, Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Wuerttemberg (Hrsg.), 2010. Evaluierung der Regulierungsmaßnahmen der Waldmaikäferpopulationen in der nördlichen Oberrheinebene. Abschlussbericht des Projekts 1014 aus der Forstlichen Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden-Wuerttemberg, Freiburg i. Br., 315 pp. [] (In German).Google Scholar
  10. Garcia ES & Rembold H, 1984. Effects of azadirachtin on ecdysis of Rhodnius prolixus. J Insect Physiol 30, 939–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henderson CF & Tilton EW, 1955. Tests with acaricides against the brow wheat mite. J Econ Entomol 48, 157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hüsgen K, 2009. Bekämpfung des Feldmaikäfers am Kaiserstuhl. Landinfo 8/2009.Google Scholar
  13. Hummel E & Kleeberg H, 2004. Erfahrungen mit der Anwendung von NeemAzal-T/S gegen Maikäfer — eine Übersicht. Nachrichtenbl Dt Pflanzenschutzd 56, 117–119. (In German).Google Scholar
  14. Isman MB, 2006. Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu Rev Entomol 51, 45–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson S, Dureja P & Dhingra S, 2003. Photostabilizers for Azadirachtin-A (a neem-based pesticide). J Environ Sci Health, Part B, 38, 451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson SN & Rasmann S, 2015. Root-feeding insects and their interactions with organisms in the rhizosphere. Annu Rev Entomol 60, 517–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. JKI, Julius Kühn-Institut (Hrsg.), 2014. JKI-Richtlinie 4-1.1 für die Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln mit Luftfahrzeugen. 9 pp. (In German).Google Scholar
  18. Kaethner M, 1991. Untersuchungen über die Eignung von Niemsamenprodukten zur Bekämpfung des Waldmaikäfers Melolontha hippocastani F. und des Feldmaikäfers M. melolontha (Col., Scarabaeidae). J Appl Entomol 112, 345–352. (In German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keller S, 1982. Engerlingsschäden in Obstanlagen. Schweiz Ztschr f Obst und Weinbau 118, 74–77. (In German).Google Scholar
  20. Kleeberg H, 2001. NeemAzal-T/S a botanical product for efficient control of insect pests. In: Soares R & Kleeberg H (Eds.): Practice oriented results on use and production of plant extracts and pheromones in integrated and biological pest control. Proceeding of the 2nd workshop “neem and pheromones”, 28–35.Google Scholar
  21. Koul O & Wahab S, 2004. Neem: Today and in the new millennium. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malinowski H, 2007. Current problems of forest protection connected with the control of cockchafers (Melolontha spp.). Prog Plant Prot/Post Ochr Roslin 47, 314–322.Google Scholar
  23. Malinowski H, Woreta D & Stocki J, 2000. Experiments with Azadirachtin to reduce the common cockchafer (Melolontha melolontha L.) and some leaf-eating insects from the order Lepidoptera. In: Kleeberg H & Zebitz CPW (Eds.): Practice oriented results on use and production of neem ingredients and pheromones, VIII, 6–11.Google Scholar
  24. Meinert G, Glas M, Fröschle M, Albert R, Harmuth P & Schmidt K, 2001. Integrierte Pflanzenschutzmaßnahmen gegen den Feldmaikäfer (Melolontha melolontha L.) im Bereich des nördlichen Kaiserstuhls 1997. Gesunde Pflanz 53, 148–157. (In German).Google Scholar
  25. Michalski B, 2001. Auswirkungen von niem- bzw. pyrethrin-haltigen Pflanzenschutzpräparaten auf den Naturhaushalt. Berichte aus der BBA, Braunschweig 7, 55–62. (In German).Google Scholar
  26. Mordue (Luntz) AJ, Cottee PK & Evans KA, 1985. Azadirachtin: its effects on gut motility, growth and moulting in Locusta. Physiol Entomol 10, 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mordue (Luntz) AJ & Nisbet AJ, 2000. Azadirachtin from the neem tree Azadirachta indica: its action against insects.An Soc Entomol Bras 29, 615–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mordue (Luntz) AJ & Blackwell A, 1993. Azadirachtin: an update. J Insect Physiol 39, 903–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muška F, 2006. Occurrence and control of the field cockchafer (Melolontha melolontha L.) in the Czech Republic —a historical overview. Nachrichtenbl Dt Pflanzenschutzd 58, 228–234.Google Scholar
  30. Naumann K & Isman MB, 1996. Toxicity of a neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) insecticide to larval honey bees and estimation of dangers from field applications. Am Bee J 136, 518–520.Google Scholar
  31. Niklas OF, 1974. Familienreihe Lamellicornia, Blatthornkäfer. In: Schwenke W (Ed.): Die Forstschädlinge Europas. Zweiter Band: Käfer. Paul Parey, Hamburg, Berlin. 85–129.Google Scholar
  32. Otto D, 1997. Inhibition of vitellogenin and sex pheromone production in females of the Colorado potato beetle, sterilized by neem ingredients (Azadirachtins). In: Kleeberg H & Zebitz CPW (Eds.): Practice oriented results on use and production of neem-ingredients and pheromones, V, 263–267.Google Scholar
  33. Raguraman S & Kannan M, 2014. Non-target effects of botanicals on beneficial arthropods with special reference to Azadirachta indica. In: Singh H (Ed.) 2014: Advances in plant biopesticides. Springer, India. 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rhode M, 1997. Effects of “NeemAzal” on vitality and fertility of Melolontha hippocastani. In: Kleeberg H & Zebitz CPW (Eds.): Practice oriented results on use and production of neem-ingredients and pheromones, V, 75–80.Google Scholar
  35. Richter G, 1962. Schwärmfluge des Maikäfers. Arch Forstwes 11, 345–368. (In German).Google Scholar
  36. Ruch B, Kliche-Spory C, Schlicht A, Schäfer I, Kleeberg J, Troß R & Kleeberg H, 1997. Summary of some environmental aspects of the neem ingredient NeemAzal and NeemAzaI-T/S. In: Kleeberg H & Zebitz CPW (Eds.): Practice oriented results on use and production of neem-ingredients and pheromones, V, 15–20.Google Scholar
  37. Sachs L, 1992. Angewandte Statistik — Anwendung statistischer Methoden. 7. Auflage. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. (In German).Google Scholar
  38. Salehzadeh A, Jabbar A, Jennens L, Ley SV, Annadurai RS, Adams R & Strang RH, 2002. The effects of phytochemical pesticides on the growth of cultured invertebrate and vertebrate cells. Pest Manag Sci 58, 268–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sayah F, Fayet C, Idaomar M & Karlinsky A, 1996. Effect of Azadirachtin on vitellogenesis of Labidura riparia (Insect Dermaptera). Tissue Cell 28, 741–749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt M & Hurling R, 2014. A spatially-explicit count data regression for modeling the density of forest cockchafer (Melolontha hippocastani) larvae in the Hessian Ried (Germany). For Ecosyst 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmutterer H, 1990. Properties and potential of natural pesticides from the neem tree, Azadirachta indica. Annu Rev Entomol 35, 271–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmutterer H, 1995. The neem tree, source of unique natural products for integrated pest management, medicine, industry and other purposes. VCH Publishers, Weinheim, Germany.Google Scholar
  43. Schmutterer H, 1997. Side-effects of neem (Azadirachta indica) products on insect pathogens and natural enemies of spider mites and insects. J Appl Entomol 121, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmutterer H, 2005. Niempräparate (Neem, Nim). In: Schmutterer H & Huber J (Eds.) 2005: Natürliche Schädlingsbekämpfungsmittel. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart. 172–196. (In German).Google Scholar
  45. Schmutterer H & Holst H, 1987. Untersuchungen über die Wirkung des angereicherten und formulierten Niem-samenextrakts AZT-VR-K auf die Honigbiene Apis mellifera L. J Appl Entomol 103, 208–213. (In German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmutterer H & Nicol CMY, 1995. Gleichzeitige Bekämpfung des Waldmaikäfers Melolontha hippocastani F. und des Schwammspinners Lymantria dispar (L.) mit NeemAzal-T + Telmion im Frühjahr 1994. Mitt Dt Ges Allg Angew Entomol 10, 135–138. (In German).Google Scholar
  47. Schnetter W, Mittermüller R & Fröschle M, 1996. Control of the cockchafer Melolontha melolontha in the Kraichgau with NeemAzal-T/S [azadirachtin]. IOBC/WPRS: Working group “Integrated control of soil pests”, subgroup “Melolontha”, Freiburg, 23–25 Oct 1995. 95–99.Google Scholar
  48. Schuch K, 1938. Laboratoriumsuntersuchungen über den Lebensverlauf des Maikäfers (Melolontha melolontha L.). Arb Physiol Angew Ent 5, 166–177. (In German).Google Scholar
  49. Schwerdtfeger F, 1928. Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung des weiblichen Geschlechtsorgans von Melolontha melolontha L. während der Schwärmzeit. J Appl Entomol 13, 267–300. (In German).Google Scholar
  50. Schwerdtfeger F, 1981. Die Waldkrankheiten. Ein Lehrbuch der Forstpathologie und des Forstschutzes. 4. Auflage. Parey, Hamburg, Berlin. (In German).Google Scholar
  51. Sundaram KMS & Curry J, 1996. Effect of some UV light absorbers on the photostabilization of azadirachtin, a neem-based biopesticide. Chemosphere 32, 649–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Švestka M, 2007. Ecological conditions influencing the localization of egg-laying by females of the cockchafer (Melolontha hippocastani F.). J For Sci 53 (Special issue), 16–24.Google Scholar
  53. Varga S & Molnár M, 2013. The maybeetle and forest cockchafer in Hungary, and possibilities for protection against the species (In Hungarian). Erd Tud Közl 3, 215–227.Google Scholar
  54. Vogel W, 1950. Eibildung und Embryonalentwicklung von Melolontha vulgaris F. und ihre Auswertung für die chemische Maikäferbekämpfung. J Appl Entomol 31, 537–582. (In German).Google Scholar
  55. Vogel W, 1955. Der Einfluß der Witterung auf den Ausflug und die Ovarialentwicklung des Maikäfers (Melolontha vulgaris = M. melolontha). Separater Abdruck, Landwirtsch Jahrb Schweiz 69, 971–999. (In German).Google Scholar
  56. Wagenhoff E, Blum R & Delb H, 2014. Spring phenology of cockchafers, Melolontha spp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), in forests of south-western Germany: results of a 3-year survey on adult emergence, swarming flights, and oogenesis from 2009 to 2011. J For Sci 60, 154–165.Google Scholar
  57. Zimmermann G, 2010. Maikäfer in Deutschland: Geliebt und gehasst — Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte und Geschichte der Bekämpfung. J Cult Plant 62, 157–172. (In German).Google Scholar
  58. Zimmermann G & Jung K, 2004. Auftreten und Bekämpfung von Feld- und Waldmaikäfer in Deutschland: Aktuelle Situation. Laimburg J 1, 165–170. (In German).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phythomedizinische Gesellschaft 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eiko Wagenhoff
    • 1
  • Rainer Blum
    • 1
  • Lars Henke
    • 1
  • Horst Delb
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest ProtectionForest Research Institute of Baden-WuerttembergFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations