Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:54:38.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the chemical control of the mirid bug, Helopeltis antonii Sign, in the cashew

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

K. Jeevaratnam  and
Rohan H. S. Rajapakse
K. Jeevaratnam
Affiliation:
Research Division, Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation, Chilawathurai, Sri Lanka
Rohan H. S. Rajapakse
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Ruhuna University, Matara, Sri Lanka
Get access

Abstract

Laboratory and field studies were made to investigate the toxicity, mode of action, and persistence of technical DDT and y BHC when applied to the cashew in Sri Lanka to control the mirid bug, Helopehis antonii Sign. The insecticides were tested at concentrations previously used in field trials.

Mirid nymphs were placed on the nuts and the rate of knockdown and mortality after exposure for a test period was recorded. These tests showed that BHC had a higher toxicity and acted more quickly than DDT. BHC had a powerful and transient fumigant action over DDT, which had no fumigant effect at all. Persistence was studied by treating cashew leaves and nuts growing under natural conditions and then testing the residual deposit at intervals.

It was concluded that BHC would be more effective than DDT when treating mature cashews because, in addition to its higher toxicity and quicker action, its fumigant action would compensate for incomplete coverage by low-volume spraying.

Keywords

DDTBHCmode of actionchemical controlcashewSri LankaHelopehis antonii
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 399 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1981

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

REFERENCES

Anon (1956) West African Cocoa Research Institute, Quarterly Report No. 41, Jan-March 1956. Ghana.Google Scholar
Anon (1957) Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture (Ghana) for the Year 1955–56. Ghana.Google Scholar
Anon (1966) Annual Progress Report of the Central Cashew Research Station, 1964–65. Ullal, India.Google Scholar
Anon (1969) Annual Progress Report of the Central Cashew Research Station, 1968–69. Ullal, India.Google Scholar
Damodaran, V. K. and Balakrishnam Nair, M. P. (1969) Studies on the insecticidal control of Helopeltis antonii Signoret on cashew. Agric. Res. J., Kerala, 9, 28–30.Google Scholar
Nambiar, K. K. N., Sarma, Y. R. and Pillai, G. B. (1973) Inflorescence blight of cashew (Anacardium occidental L). J. Plant Crops 1, 44–46.Google Scholar
Pillai, G. B. and Abraham, V. A. (1975) In CPCRI Annual Report for 1974, pp. 132–133. Kasaragod, India.Google Scholar
Pillai, G. B., Dubey, O. P. and Vijay Singh, V. (1976) Pests of cashew and their control in India, a review of current status. J. Plant Crops 4 (2), 37–50.Google Scholar
Vijay Singh, V. and Pillai, G. B. (1979) Field evaluation of the efficacy of four insecticides in the control of tea mos- quito infestation in cashew. Abstracts, International Cashew Symposium, March 1979. Cochin, India.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. J. (1957) Efficiency of fog application of BHC. Report of the West African Cocoa Research Institute, 1955–56, pp. 50–51.Google Scholar