4.6 Article

Initial and residual efficacy of insecticides on different surfaces against rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.)

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEST SCIENCE
卷 86, 期 2, 页码 211-216

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10340-012-0469-3

关键词

Sitophilus oryzae; Malathion; Pirimiphos-methyl; Lambda-cyhalotrhrin Different surfaces; Initial and residual efficacy

资金

  1. Serbian Ministry of Science and Technological Development [III-46008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the study was to investigate how various types of storage facilities with, e.g., concrete, metal, and plywood surfaces interfere with the activity of different insecticide formulations used for rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.) control: malathion (EC), pirimiphos-methyl (EC), and lambda-cyhalothrin (CS and WP). Initial and residual efficacy were determined in the laboratory. Knockdown data for the initial effects were processed by probit analysis and presented as knockdown time (KDT) parameters with kdt-p lines. Delayed effects were shown as knockdown efficacy (%) determined after 24 h of weevils' contact with 7-, 14-, 30-, 60-, 90-, 120-, 150-, and 180-day-old deposits on each surface. Malathion (EC) and pirimiphos-methyl (EC) showed the highest initial knockdown efficacy on metal, while it was 3.6 (3.4)- and 4.4 (3.3)-fold lower on concrete and plywood, respectively. Lambda-cyhalothrin (CS and WP) showed the highest initial efficacy on concrete, and slightly lower (1.3 and 2.4) fold on metal and plywood, respectively. Both formulations of lambda-cyhalothrin and malathion on metal, as well as pirimiphos-methyl on plywood were 100 % efficient against S. oryzae 180 days after the treatment. Delayed efficacy of both formulations of lambda-cyhalothrin decreased on plywood after 120 days, and after 180 days the efficacy was 55 %. All insecticides, except lambda-cyhalothrin (CS), expressed low knockdown efficacy on concrete, while the deposit of lambda-cyhalothrin (CS) on concrete was 100 % efficient during 90 days, and after 120, 150, and 180 days the efficacy was 83, 65, and 17 %, respectively.

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

4.6
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