4.7 Article

Translocation and translaminar bioavailability of two neonicotinoid insecticides after foliar application to cabbage and cotton

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 10-16

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.401

关键词

neonicotinoids; chloronicotinyls; Myzus persicae; Aphis gossypii; penetration; translocation; cotton; cabbage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A laboratory study was undertaken to investigate the leaf systemic properties and the translaminar aphicidal activity of two commercialised neonicotinoid (chloronicotinyl) insecticides. For that purpose [C-14]imidacloprid was subjected to uptake and translocation studies in cabbage and cotton after foliar application. Foliar penetration and short-term translocation patterns of imidacloprid were similar in both plant species. Nevertheless imidacloprid penetrated twice as much into cabbage leaves as it did into cotton leaves. It showed a comparable translaminar behaviour and was entirely translocated acropetally, indicating its well-known xylem mobility. The translaminar and acropetal movement of imidacloprid and acetamiprid were quantified by simple laboratory bioassays using the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer), and the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii (Glover), as typical homopteran pests for cabbage and cotton, respectively. A single dose (7.5 mug AI per leaf) applied to the upper leaf surface of cabbage and cotton was tested against aphids feeding on the lower leaf surface both close to and distant from the site of application 1, 5 and 12 days after treatment. The translaminar residual activity of imidacloprid on cabbage leaves was superior to that of acetamiprid, whereas its translaminar efficacy against A gossypii on cotton was inferior to that of acetamiprid. However, oral ingestion bioassays using an artificial double membrane feeding system revealed no significant differences in intrinsic activity between the two neonicotinoids tested. (C) 2001 Society of Chemical Industry.

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

4.7
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