Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:09:24.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laboratory assessment of the toxicity of field-weathered deposits of insecticides to larvae of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M. Gratwick
M. Gratwick
Affiliation:
East Mailing Research Station, Maidstone, Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The toxicity of naturally weathered deposits of 21 chemicals to larvae of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), was assessed by spraying apple trees in the orchard and testing samples of the fruit picked at various intervals after treatment. Each apple was placed in a separate glass container with one first-instar larva from a laboratory culture, and larval mortality and damage to the fruit (defined as removal of a portion of the skin) were recorded after three days in a constant environment.

The site of entry of the larvae was shown to vary with fruit size, calyx entries decreasing and side entries increasing with increase in the surface area of the fruit.

The relationship between larvicidal activity and age of the spray deposit for periods up to ten weeks after spraying is illustrated graphically; data are presented for fruit damage caused by larvae applied one and three weeks after spraying.

On the basis of larval mortality and fruit damage recorded in tests on deposits up to three weeks after application, a spray containing 0·1 per cent, carbaryl was the most effective, followed by 0·05 per cent, fenthion, while Bayer 5024, Zectran, DDT, DDD (all at 0·l per cent.) and 0·04 per cent, azinphos (as the methyl or ethyl homologue) were only slightly less effective. Deposits from 0·1 per cent. Kepone, 0·02 per cent, diazinon, 0·11 per cent, malathion, 0·01 per cent, parathion and 0·05 per cent, carbophenothion, dimethoate and ethion also caused 90–100 per cent, mortality when fresh, but were less persistent. Fresh deposits from 0·1 per cent, endosulfan, 0·04 per cent, dioxathion, 0·05 per cent, phenkapton, 0·02 per cent, phosphamidon, 0·2 per cent, lead arsenate and 0·6 per cent, ryania only killed 50–88 per cent, of the larvae, and their residual toxicity was proportionately low.

Heavy rain soon after spraying caused a large reduction in deposits from wettable powders but the accompanying reduction in larvicidal activity was shown to be greater in the case of carbaryl than for DDT or DDD.

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , May 1964 , pp. 35 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, W. S. (1925). A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide.—J. econ. Ent. 18 pp. 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M. M. (1958). Technique for testing insecticide deposits with newly hatched codling moth larvae.—J. econ. Ent. 51 pp. 547–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
chiswell, J. R. (1962). Field comparisons of insecticides for control of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), with observations on effects of treatments on mite populations.—J. hort. Sci. 37 pp. 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, R. C. (1950). Factors governing the induction of diapause in the oriental fruit moth.—Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 42 pp. 511–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, R. C., Barnes, M. M. & Turzan, C. L. (1952). Continuous rearing of the codling moth.—J. econ. Ent. 45 pp. 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, D. W., Summerland, S. A. & Fahey, J. E. (1954). Codling moth control experiments, 1950–1953.—J. econ. Ent. 47 pp. 768–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heriot, A. D. (1943). How does lead arsenate prevent the young codling moth larva from injuring the fruit?—Proc. ent. Soc. B.C. 40 pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Hough, W. S. (1929). Studies of the relative resistance to arsenical poisoning of different strains of codling moth larvae.—J. agric. Res. 38 pp. 245–256.Google Scholar
Hough, W. S. (1934). Colorado and Virginia strains of codling moth in relation to their ability to enter sprayed and unsprayed apples.—J. agric. Res. 48 pp. 533–553.Google Scholar
Lathrop, F. H. & Sazama, R. F. (1932). A laboratory-field method for the study of the efficiencv of codling moth sprays.—J. econ. Ent. 25 pp. 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, W. L. (1949). Laboratory technique for testing codling moth insecticides.—Canad. Ent. 81 pp. 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, E. H. & Munger, F. (1933). A field and laboratory technique for toxicological studies of the codling moth.—J. econ. Ent. 26 pp. 438–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theron, P. P. A. (1943). Experiments on terminating the diapause in larvae of codling moth.—J. ent. Soc. S. Afr. 6 pp. 114–123.Google Scholar
Turrell, F. M. (1946). Tables of surfaces and volumes of spheres and of prolate and oblate spheroids, and spheroidal coefficients.—153 pp., Berkeley, &c., Univ. Calif. Pr.Google Scholar