4.5 Article

Laboratory and field efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi for the management of the sweetpotato weevil, Cylas formicarius (Coleoptera: Brentidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 10-15

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2014.07.009

关键词

Cylas formicarius; Beauveria bassiana; Metarhizium brunneum; Additive effect; Spinosyn; Neem

类别

资金

  1. FY Pacific Islands Area Conservation Innovation Grants (PIA-CIG) Program [69-9251-11-902]
  2. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)-USDA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sweetpotato weevil, Cylas formicarius (F.) (Coleoptera: Brentidae), is one of the most important pests of sweet potatoes in the world. With free trade between the United States and the U.S.-controlled Mariana Islands, C formicarius has spread along with this commodity. Because of the cryptic nature of the larvae and nocturnal activity of the adults, and the cancellation of long-residual pesticides, this pest has become increasingly difficult to control. Therefore, the present study sought to explore and to compare the effectiveness of Metarhizium brunneum F52 (90 ml a.i./ha), Beauveria bassiana GHA (40 ml a.i./ha), spinosad (90 g a.i./ha), azadirachtin (1484 ml a.i./ha), B. bassiana + M. brunneum (20 ml a.i./ha + 45 ml a.i./ha), B. bassiana + azadirachtin (20 ml a.i./ha + 742 ml a.i./ha), B. bassiana + spinosad (20 ml a.i./ ha + 45 ml a.i./ha), M. brunneum + azadirachtin (45 ml a.i./ha + 742 ml a.i./ha) and M. brunneum + spinosad (45 ml a.i./ha + 45 grams a.i./ha) in controlling this pest in both the laboratory and the field. The treatment with B. bassiana + M. brunneum was the most effective in reducing tuber damage by C formicarius, producing the highest yields. The most adult cadavers were found in plots treated With the combination of two fungi. This combined fungal formulation appears to be appropriate for the practical control of C formicarius on sweet potatoes. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据