4.6 Article

Development, oviposition, and mortality of Neoseiulus fallacis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in response to reduced-risk insecticides

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 98, Issue 6, Pages 2114-2120

Publisher

ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-98.6.2114

Keywords

Neoseiulus fallacis; acari; nicotinoid; reduced-risk insecticides

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eight reduced-risk insecticides (acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, methoxyfenozide, pyriproxyfen, indoxacarb, and spinosad) and three conventional insecticides (azinphosmethyl, fenpropathrin, and esfenvalerate) were tested against Neoseitilus fallacis (Garman) (Acari: Phytoseiidae), the most abundant predacious mite in North Carolina apple (Malus spp.) orchards. To assess the effect of insecticides on development and mortality of N. fallacis immatures, 12-h-old eggs were individually placed on bean leaf disks previously dipped in insecticide solutions. Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) females were added as a food source. None of the reduced-risk insecticides significantly affected immature N. fallacis compared with the control; however, the pyrethroids esfenvalerate and fenpropathrin were highly toxic to immatures. To evaluate the effect of insecticides on mortality and oviposition of adult N. fallacis, 7- to 8-d-old females were confined on insecticide-treated bean leaves with Malephora crocea (Aizoaceae) pollen added as a food source. Spinosad resulted in the highest mortality, whereas azinphosmethyl, acetamiprid, fenpropathrin, and imidacloprid were moderately toxic, and mortality from esfenvalerate, indoxacarb, thiacloprid, methoxyfenozide, pyriproxyfen, and thiamethoxam did not differ significantly from the control. Oviposition was affected in a similar manner, with the exception of acetamiprid that did not affect oviposition, and thiamethoxam that reduced oviposition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available