4.6 Article

Residual Acute Toxicity of Some Modern Insecticides Toward Two Mirid Predators of Tomato Pests

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 1079-1085

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/tow059

关键词

Nesidiocoris tenuis; Macrolophus basicornis; insecticide residual toxicity; lethal effect; IOBC sequential test

资金

  1. Instituto Colombiano para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la Tecnologia (COLCIENCIAS)
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [AGL2010-22196-C02-02, AGL2013- 47603-C2-1-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The successful integration of chemical and biological control strategies for crop pests depends on a thorough evaluation of the effects of pesticides on the natural enemies of pests. A case-by-case review is difficult to achieve because of the many combinations of pests, natural enemies, and crops that need to be tested. Within this framework, we tested and compared seven insecticides representative of four different modes of action (MoAs) groups on closely related predators (Miridae): flubendiamide, spirotetramat, metaflumizone, and sulfox-aflor on Nesidiocoris tenuis Reuter and flubendiamide, spiromesifen, indoxacarb, and imidacloprid on Macrolophus basicornis (Stal). We follow the standardized methodology of the International Organization for Biological Control, a sequential testing exposure scheme. The lethal effect of each insecticide was evaluated in adults after three days of contact with treated surfaces in the laboratory, extended laboratory, and semifield tests (inert substrate, tomato leaves, and tomato plant as the treated surface, respectively). Flubendiamide, spiromesifen, and spirotetramat were classified as harmless (class 1), metaflumizone was slightly harmful (class 2) but persistent, indoxacarb was harmless (class 1), and sulfoxaflor and imidacloprid were toxic (class 4) and exhibited a long residual activity. Our results suggest similarities in the acute toxicities of insecticides from the same MoA group on related species of natural enemies.

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