Application of Ultra-Low-Volume Malathion by Air-Assisted Ground Sprayer for Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Control

Mulrooney, J. E.; Howard, K. D.; Hanks, James E.; Jones, Rachel

doi:10.1093/jee/90.2.639

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, those adults initially accessing bolls and flower buds in the lower part of the plants, as observed here, and those settling between bracts have low probability of contacting residues of conventional sprayings. For this reason, to reach weevils located around fruiting structures, low‐volume and high‐pressure insecticide applications are recommended to ensure that insecticides will penetrate deep inside the plant canopy 37,38 . In addition, insecticides that have lasting residues on cotton foliage, such as some spinosyns and fipronil, 24,39 are recommended in the management of the pest to increase the possibility of exposure of walking weevils over treated surfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, to reach weevils located around fruiting structures, low-volume and high-pressure insecticide applications are recommended to ensure that insecticides will penetrate deep inside the plant canopy. 37,38 In addition, insecticides that have lasting residues on cotton foliage, such as some spinosyns and fipronil, 24,39 are recommended in the management of the pest to increase the possibility of exposure of walking weevils over treated surfaces. Although spinosad is not registered for boll weevil control in Brazil, when used at the same rate recommended to control lepidopterans in cotton, published data indicate that spinosad provided mortality >80% of adult weevils up to 8 days when caged on field-collected upper expanded leaves from treated plants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dispersal of boll weevil toward and within the cotton plant and implications for insecticide exposure

Arruda

Torres

Rolim³

et al. 2020

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Immature stages of boll weevil complete development endophytically leaving only the adult stage accessible for chemical control. We tested the hypothesis that boll weevil colonization of the cotton plants significantly affects their exposure to sprayed insecticides. We determined the adult dispersal toward and within cotton plants, lethal time (LT), and residual control by recommended insecticides (malathion, carbosulfan, thiamethoxam, fipronil, beta‐cyfluthrin, lambda‐cyhalothrin, and thiamethoxam + lambda‐cyhalothrin) through dried residue exposure and residual control regarding the leaf position in the upper and the lower thirds of the treated plant canopy. RESULTS Newly emerged adults from fallen buds reached the cotton plants by walking (80%) and most of the time settling on cotton bolls in the lower part of the plants (78%). Irrespective of sex and mating status, adults released on the upper part of the plant remained longer on the same release site than the lower part, with some individuals remaining up to 50 h on the same flower bud. The shortest LT90 was found with thiamethoxam (106 h). Fipronil and malathion, respectively, provided the longest (>144 h) and shortest (24 h) residual control times and caused boll weevil mortality above 80%. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that weevils accessing the cotton plants exhibited within‐plant distribution that minimizes their contact with insecticide residue on plant foliage. Furthermore, short residual control with malathion, the most used insecticide against boll weevil, and the low susceptibility exhibited by the tested population to pyrethroids highlight the current challenges faced for boll weevil control in Brazilian cotton fields. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispersal of boll weevil toward and within the cotton plant and implications for insecticide exposure

Arruda

Torres

Rolim³

et al. 2020

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most direct measure involves sampling the insects killed in a treated plot. This is the parameter monitored in cage trials,32–35 but there are few reports of sampling insect cadavers in open field plots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of the organic‐certified insecticide Diatect II against the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) in cotton

Sappington

2002

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of the organic insecticide Diatect II against boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis Boheman) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas were assessed in small-plot field trials and greenhouse cage tests using azinphos-methyl treatments as a standard for comparison. Plastic sheets were placed in the furrows of the treated plots to retrieve boll weevils which dropped from the plants after being killed by the insecticides. Samples of live weevils taken by a tractor-mounted vacuum sampler revealed a modest, but significant, reduction in boll weevil populations in Diatect II plots. However, samples of dead weevils indicated that this reduction was due to movement of weevils out of the plots rather than to mortality. This interpretation is supported by greenhouse cage studies, where mortality in Diatect II treated cages was no greater than that in untreated control cages. The effects of insecticide treatments in small plots can be confounded easily and quickly by interplot movement of target insects. Although the relative effects of various compounds can usually be assessed by sampling the populations in plots soon after treatment, the best measure of efficacy is obtained by directly sampling insects that have died in the plot. This parameter is insulated from the effects of interplot movement, unless the toxicant is slow to immobilize the target insect. Taken together, our results indicate little efficacy by Diatect II against boll weevil under our test conditions.

show abstract

“…The ULV spray treatments resulted in a 70% mortality rate of A. grandis grandis throughout the 48 h test period, whereas the conventional spray mortality steadily decreased from 71% at 4 h after treatment to 12% at 48 h after treatment. 26 Wills et al studied the control effect of different spraying doses on pitted morningglory, velvetleaf, and barnyard grass after adding adjuvants to an imazethapyr preparation. The control of all species was similar at spray volumes of 9.4 and 94 L/ha.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparation of a Chlorantraniliprole–Thiamethoxam Ultralow-Volume Spray and Application in the Control of Spodoptera frugiperda

Wei

Liu

et al. 2020

ACS Omega

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional pesticide spraying methods such as knapsack sprayers are inefficient. Ground application equipment is restricted by the terrain and damages the crops. Pesticides cannot be sprayed over a large area in a short time; thus, when there are concentrated outbreaks of pests with strong migration capacity, such as Spodoptera frugiperda , pests could not be controlled in a small area. Therefore, it is difficult to achieve a satisfactory control effect. Plant protection unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have high efficiency and spray pesticides at low altitude and can suitably prevent and control the outbreak of pests. However, pesticide formulations suitable for UAVs are rare. In this study, we developed ultralow-volume (ULV) sprays suitable for plant protection UAVs. We studied their properties and found that the ULV sprays have good wettability and can be fully spread. The minimum contact angle on corn leaves is up to 19°, and the maximum retention is 2.7 times that of the reference product. They also have superior resistance to rain washout and can effectively extend the duration and utilization of pesticides. When sprayed by plant protection UAVs, the decrease rate of the ULV spray at 3 L/ha to S. frugiperda larvae is 81.31% and the control effect is 83.01%, both higher than those of the reference product 40% chlorantraniliprole–thiamethoxam water-dispersible granules (decrease rate 67.39%, control effect 70.35%), sprayed with a knapsack sprayer.

show abstract

Application of Ultra-Low-Volume Malathion by Air-Assisted Ground Sprayer for Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Control

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Dispersal of boll weevil toward and within the cotton plant and implications for insecticide exposure

Dispersal of boll weevil toward and within the cotton plant and implications for insecticide exposure

Efficacy of the organic‐certified insecticide Diatect II against the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) in cotton

Preparation of a Chlorantraniliprole–Thiamethoxam Ultralow-Volume Spray and Application in the Control of Spodoptera frugiperda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About