Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 57–68 | Cite as

Investigations into the Toxic and Repellent Effects of Propiconazole on the Wool-Digesting Carpet Beetle Larvae Anthrenocerus australis (Coleoptera: Dermestidae)

  • Matthew Richard Sunderland
  • Robert Hamish Cruickshank


Previous work had shown propiconazole applied to wool gave a protective effect against the keratinophagous insect larvae of the Australian carpet beetle Anthrenocerus australis. To elucidate the mode of action of propiconazole on Anthrenocerus australis, repellency trials were carried out using untreated control and propiconazole-treated wool. A reversible choice experiment using Petri dishes, and an irreversible olfactometer choice experiment were carried out. Treated surface repellency trials were also carried out. No repellency effect was detected with any of these experiments. Direct contact experiments were carried out by application of propiconazole solutions directly to Anthrenocerus australis larvae and by feeding larvae propiconazole-treated wool. No short or long-term toxic effects were detected, and subsequent feeding on untreated wool was not reduced. These results suggest an anti-feeding and/or gut-specific mode of action of propiconazole on Anthrenocerus australis that is likely to be different to that of the commonly used wool insecticides. This provides an opportunity to research a new approach to the control of this wool pest.


Mothproof keratinophagous propiconazole insect repellency non-insecticidal Anthrenocerus australis 



The authors are thankful to Dr Chikako van Koten for her help with statistical analyses. This work was supported by the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand Inc., and the New Zealand Wool Industry Charitable Trust.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Allanach D, Shaw T (1989) Mothproofing and the environment. In: Proceedings of TIFCON’89 – Carpets what’s afoot? Conference of the Textile Institute’s Floorcoverings Group, Paper 4, Blackpool, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton J (2000) It’s a bugs life – or is it? Intl Dyer 185(9):14–16Google Scholar
  3. Campo ML, Miles CI (2003) Chemosensory tuning to a host recognition cue in the facultative specialist larvae of the moth Manduca sexta. J Exp Biol 206:3979–3990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Christeller JT, Markwick NP, Burgess EPJ (1994) Midgut proteinase activities of three keratinolytic larvae, Hofmannophila pseudospretella, Tineola bisselliella, and Anthrenocerus australis and the effect of proteinase inhibitors on proteolysis. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 25(2):159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diaz-Montano J, Trumble JT (2013) Behavioral responses of the potato psyllid (Hemiptera: Triozidae) to volatiles from dimethyl disulphide and plant essential oils. J Insect Behav 26(3):336–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ingham PE, McNeil SJ, Sunderland MR (2012) Functional finishes for wool – Eco considerations. Adv Mater Res 441:33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lamb KP (1952) Note on the survival without food of Australian carpet beetle larvae (Anthrenocerus australis (Hope)) (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). N Z J Sci Technol A 34(1):67–68Google Scholar
  8. McDonald LL, Guy RH, Speirs RO (1970) Preliminary evaluation of new candidate materials as toxicants, repellents and attractants against stored product insects. Marketing Research Report Number 882. Washington Agricultural Research Service, US Dep Agric p. 8Google Scholar
  9. Mill W (2007) Beating moths the clean way. Wool Rec 166(3758):30Google Scholar
  10. Nenaah GE (2014) Chemical composition, insecticidal and repellence activities of essential oils of three Achillea species against the Khapra beetle (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J Pest Sci 87:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Osipitan AA, Owoseni JA, Odeyemi IS, Somade AA (2010) Assessment of extracts from some tropical plants in the management of termite (Termitidae: Isoptera) in Ogun state, Nigeria. Arch Phytopathol PFL 43(10):962–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Raffa KF, Havill NP, Nordheim EV (2002) How many choices can your test animal compare effectively? Evaluating critical assumption of behavioral preference tests. Oecologia 133(3):422–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schoonhoven LM, van Loon JJA (2002) An inventory of taste in caterpillars: each species its own key. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 48(Suppl 1):215–263Google Scholar
  14. Stratton GW, Corke CT (1981) Interaction of permethrin with Daphnia magna in the presence and absence of particulate material. Environ Pollut 24(2):135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sunderland MR, Cruickshank RH, Leighs SJ (2014) The efficacy of antifungal azole and antiprotozoal compounds in protection of wool from keratin-digesting insect larvae. Tex Res J 84(9):924–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Svoboda JA (1994) Steroid metabolism as a target for insect control. Biochem Soc Trans 22(3):635–641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tomlin CDS (1997) A world compendium: the pesticide manual, 11th edn. Farnham, British Crop Protection Council, p. 944Google Scholar
  18. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for propiconazole. Accessed 18 June 2014
  19. Wools of New Zealand Test Method 25 (1996) Biological assay of insect resistanceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Richard Sunderland
    • 1
  • Robert Hamish Cruickshank
    • 2
  1. 1.Food & Bio-based Products Section, AgResearch LimitedChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Faculty of Agriculture and Life SciencesLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations