Plant Protect. Sci., 2011, 47(3):109-114 | DOI: 10.17221/71/2010-PPS

Ovicidal effects of thiacloprid, acetamiprid, lambda-cyhalothrin and alpha-cypermethrin on Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) eggs

Marek Seidenglanz1, Jiří Rotrekl2,3, Jana Poslušná1, Pavel Kolařík2,3
1 Department of Plant Protection, AGRITEC, Research, Breeding &
Services Ltd., Šumperk, Czech Republic
2 Research Institute for Fodder Crops, Ltd., Troubsko, Czech Republic
3 Agricultural Research, Ltd., Troubsko, Czech Republic

The effects of two pyrethroid (lambda-cyhalothrin, alpha-cypermethrin) and two neonicotinoid (acetamiprid, thiacloprid) insecticides on B. pisorum L. eggs were compared under field conditions in the Czech Republic in 2005-2007. The main objective of the study was to find out what real effects can be expected from the available insecticides registered in Europe when applied at the time of the first egg occurrence on lower pods. In general, the rates of Bruchus pisorum egg (+ first instar larvae) survival were significantly lower with all the insecticides compared in the study, in each of the three years (2005, 2006, 2007). The tested insecticides showed some ovicidal effects and also some larvicidal effects. The tested pyrethroids (lambda-cyhalothrin, alpha-cypermethrin) showed somewhat higher effectiveness in comparison with the neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, thiacloprid). Alpha-cypermethrin was the most effective in all three years. In 2006 and in 2007 this insecticide significantly reduced the rates of egg survival in comparison with acetamiprid. In contrast, acetamiprid was the least effective insecticide in each of the three years.

Keywords: Bruchus pisorum; pea weevil; pyrethroids; neonicotinoids; ovicidal effects

Published: September 30, 2011  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Seidenglanz M, Rotrekl J, Poslušná J, Kolařík P. Ovicidal effects of thiacloprid, acetamiprid, lambda-cyhalothrin and alpha-cypermethrin on Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) eggs. Plant Protect. Sci. 2011;47(3):109-114. doi: 10.17221/71/2010-PPS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Abbott W.S. (1925): A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology, 18: 265-267. Go to original source...
    2. Annis B.A. (1983): Mechanisms of host plant resistance to the pea weevil in peas. [PhD Dissertation.] University of Idaho, Moscow.
    3. Burov D. (1980): Studies on monophagy in the pea weevil, Bruchus pisi L. Nauchni Trudove, Entomologiya, Mikrobiologiya, Fitopatologiya, 25: 77-81.
    4. Clement S.L. (1992): On the function of pea flower feeding by Bruchus pisorum. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 63: 115-121. Go to original source...
    5. Gatehouse J.A. (2008): Biotechnological prospects for engineering insect-resistant plants. Plant Physiology, 146: 881-887. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    6. Horne J., Bailey P. (1991): Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera, Bruchidae) control by a knockdown pyrethroid in field peas. Crop Protection, 10: 53-56. Go to original source...
    7. Howe R.W. (1967): Temperature effects on embryonic development in insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 12: 15-42. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. Schroeder H.E., Gollasch S., Moore A., Tabe L.M., Graig S., Hardie D.C., Chrispeels M.J., Spencer D., Higgins T.J.V. (1995): Bean α-amylase inhibitor confers resistance to the pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) in transgenic peas (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Physiology, 107: 1233-1239. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Seidenglanz M., Rotrekl J., Cejtchaml J. (2006): Complicated aspects of pea (Pisum sativum) protection to Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera; Chrysomelidae). In: Proceedings 17 th Czech and Slovak Plant Protection Conference, September 11-14, 2006, ČZU Praha: 522-527.
    10. Seidenglanz M., Rotrekl J., Cejtchaml J., Poslušná J. (2007): Možnosti ochrany hrachu proti zrnokazovi hrachovému (Bruchus pisorum L.; Chrysomelidae; Coleoptera). In: Proceedings Conference Aktuální poznatky v pěstování, šlechtění, ochraně rostlin a zpracování produktů, November 8-9, 2007, VÚP Troubsko u Brna, Brno: 129-136.
    11. Smith A.M. (1992): Modeling the development and survival of eggs of pea weevil (Coleoptera : Bruchidae). Environmental Entomology, 21: 314-321. Go to original source...
    12. Smith A.M., Hepworth G. (1992): Sampling statistics and a Sampling plan for eggs of pea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 85: 1791-1796. Go to original source...
    13. Smith A.M., Ward S.A. (1995): Temperature effects on larval and pupal development, adult emergence, and survival of the pea weevil (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae). Environmental Entomology, 24: 623-634. Go to original source...
    14. Sousa-Majer M.J.D., Turner N.C., Hardie D.C., Morton R.L., Lamont B., Higgins T.J.V. (2004): Response to water deficit and high temperature of transgenic peas (Pisum sativum L.) containing a seed specific alpha-amylase inhibitor and the subsequent effects on pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L.) survival. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55: 497-505. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content