Advertisement

Susceptibilities of Three Insect Pests of Cotton to Insecticides and Mixtures

  • H. A. Mohamed
  • N. H. H. Bashir
  • Y. M. El-Tayeb
Article

Abstract

Five insecticides and three mixtures were tested on the cotton flea beetle (CFB), Podagrica puncticolis (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 LC50 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, CA was relatively tolerant to most tested insecticides when compared with the other two pests. The SBW was the most susceptible.

Key Words

Podagrica puncticolis Earias insulana Aphis gossypii control susceptibilities LD50 LC50 insecticides mixtures 

Résumé

Cinq insecticides et trois mélanges 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 + diméthoate > endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > diméthoate > fenvalérate > endosulfan > endosulfan + amitraz. Les valeurs des CL50 se situent dans l’ordre de 12,0–1150 ppm. En ce qui concerne le SBW, l’ordre suivant a été obtenu: fenvalérate > endosulfan + diméthoate, endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > endosulfan > diméthoate > chlorpyrifos > endosulfan + amitraz. Les CL50 sont entre 0,35 et 3388 ppm. Quant au CA endosulfan + chlorpyrifos > endosulfan + diméthoate > endosulfan + amitraz > chlorpyifos > endosulfan > fenvalérate > diméthoate > amitraz.

En général, le CA a été relativement tolérant à la plupart des insecticides testés lorsqu’il a été comparé avec les deux autres ravageurs. Le SBW à été le plus sensible.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott W. S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. econ. Entomol. 18, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Anonymous (1979b) Farm Chemicals Handbook. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.Google Scholar
  4. Azer R. E. (1984) Laboratory studies on the susceptibility of Earias insulana (Boisd.) to different insecticides. M.Sc. Thesis, Khartoum University, Sudan.Google Scholar
  5. Brown A. W. A. and Pal P. (1971) Insecticide resistance in arthropods. World Health Organization Monograph Series Number 23, second edition, Geneva.Google Scholar
  6. Busvine J. R. (1971) Toxicological statistics. In A Critical Review of the Techniques for Testing Insecticides, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, London, pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
  7. Cauquil T. (1981) Recent developments in the control of Blue disease of cotton in Central Africa. Cot. Fibr. Trop. 36, 297–304.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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 KhartoumFeb. 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
  11. Giles D. P., Kerry J. C. and Rothwell D. R. (1981) The Effect of Amitraz on Insects. Boots Co. Ltd. Lenton Research Station, Nottingham, NG 7240, UK.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Schmutterer H. (1969) Pests of Crops in Northeast and Central Africa. (1st edn.), Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 296.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Sharaf Eidin 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
  16. 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

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. Mohamed
    • 1
  • N. H. H. Bashir
    • 1
  • Y. M. El-Tayeb
    • 1
  1. 1.Crop Protection Department, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of GeziraWad MedaniSudan

Personalised recommendations