4.6 Article

Synergism of entomopathogenic nematodes and imidacloprid against white grubs:: Greenhouse and field evaluation

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 245-251

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/bcon.2000.0863

关键词

Cyclocephala; Popillia japonica; Exomala orientalis; Heterorhabditis; Steinernema scarab; insect-parasitic nematodes; integrated pest management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In previous greenhouse studies, the insecticide imidacloprid and the entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis bacteriophora Poinar interacted synergistically against third instars of the masked chafers Cyclocephala hirta LeConte and C, pasadenae Casey (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), We tested this interaction for two additional nematode species and three additional scarab species under held conditions. In greenhouse tests, H. bacteriophora and Steinernema glaseri (Steiner) interacted synergistically against third instars of the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman, the oriental beetle, Exomala orientalis Waterhouse, and the masked chafers Cyclocephala borealis Arrow, C. pasadenae, and C. hirta The degree of interaction varied with nematode species. The strongest synergism occurred between imidacloprid and S. glaseri. Synergism between imidacloprid and H. bacteriophora was weaker and the interaction was not always significant. Combinations of imidacloprid and S, kushidai Mamiya only resulted in additive mortality, The synergistic interaction was also observed in field trials but the results were more variable than those under greenhouse conditions. The combination of nematodes and imidacloprid could be used for curative treatments of white grub infestations, especially against scarab species that are less susceptible to nematodes and/or imidacloprid, This combination has a low environmental impact and high compatibility with natural biological control of turfgrass insects. The possible roles of these combinations in augmentative control approaches are discussed. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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