Investigations into the Toxic and Repellent Effects of Propiconazole on the Wool-Digesting Carpet Beetle Larvae Anthrenocerus australis (Coleoptera: Dermestidae)
- 131 Downloads
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.
KeywordsMothproof 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.
- 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
- Barton J (2000) It’s a bugs life – or is it? Intl Dyer 185(9):14–16Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Mill W (2007) Beating moths the clean way. Wool Rec 166(3758):30Google Scholar
- 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
- Tomlin CDS (1997) A world compendium: the pesticide manual, 11th edn. Farnham, British Crop Protection Council, p. 944Google Scholar
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for propiconazole. http://epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/propiconazole_red.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2014
- Wools of New Zealand Test Method 25 (1996) Biological assay of insect resistanceGoogle Scholar