pakistan entomologist performance of certain insect …

PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN INSECT GROWTH REGULATORS ON COTTON LEAF WORM, SUCKING PESTS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON COMMON PREDATORS IN EGYPTIAN COTTON FIELDS

Keywords: IGRs, Spodoptera littoralis, Sucking pests, Predators, Cotton fields.

Cite this article as:

77101

INTRODUCTION

Cotton, Gossypium barbadense (L.) is the most distinguished natural textile fiber in the world (Shim et al., 2018). It provides fiber, oil and fuel, thus is considered one of the major sources of national income in Egypt. Insect pests are one of the most important factors causing yield losses in cotton (Haque, 1991). The major insect pests of cotton can be divided into two groups; sucking pests (i.e. whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius); jassids, Empoasca sp. and two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Meghana et al., 2018) and chewing biting pest [i.e. cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.)], Desuky et al. (2012). Plant damage resulting from sucking of the cell sap, reducing leaves area, fruit quality and quantity of the production (Butler and Henneberry, 1990). Additionally, they play an important role in the transmission of plant viruses with the risk of injection of their toxins in plants (Verma et al., 1979). The larval stage of cotton leafworm causing a reduction in yield up to 50% (Russell et al., 1993).

Chitin is a polymer of N-acetyl glucosamine that forms the protective exoskeleton of all arthropods and is replaced periodically during growth and development. Chitin synthesis has been used as a target for development rational insecticides such as insect growth regulators (Insect Development Inhibitors, IDIs). Newer pesticides targeting not only chitinase and chitin synthesis but also other novel sites are being developed (Doucet and Retnakaran 2012). Insect growth regulators (IGRs) offer a good alternative for selective insect pest control, which also has minimal impact on predators (Al-Shannaf et al., 2012). IGRs can be divided into two main groups according to their mode of action: chitin synthesis inhibitors (CSIs) (i.e. cuticular formation interfering with the deposition of chitin and substances interfering with the action of insect hormones: juvenile hormones (JHs) and ecdysteroids (Tunaz and Uygun, 2004). The last group mimics the molting hormones action and induces a precocious and incomplete molt in several orders of insects (Mead and Khedr, 2018).

ABSTRACTARTICLE INFORMATION

Received: February 27, 2019

Received in revised form: September 30, 2019

Accepted: October 29, 2019

Field experiments were carried out to study the effect of four insect growth regulators belonging to two major groups: chitin synthesis inhibitors (CSIs); lufenuron and teflubenzuron and non-steroidal ecdysteroid agonists (NEAs); methoxyfenozide and chromafenozide compared to two traditional insecticides; chlorfenapyr and profenofos against and the cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) and sucking pests: Bemisia tabaci (Genn.), Empoasca spp. and Tetranychus urticae Koch. Furthermore, their impact on common predators which exists in Egyptian cotton fields during 2017 and 2018 seasons. Results revealed that lufenuron proved to be highly effective against all tested pests with special regard to S. littoralis that showed highly significant initial and residual reduction compared to other pesticides (98.18±0.69 and 97.75±0.87%) and (98.83±0.56 and 98.25±0.54) in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Generally, all the tested IGRs showed moderate to low reduction percentages for B. tabaci, Emposca spp. and T. urticae in both initial and residual effects, respectively. On the other hand, profenofos was found most toxic and significantly reduced the predator's population recorded 62.83±0.81 & 38.15±0.73% in 2017 and 60.56±1.03 & 34.88±0.53% in 2018 in the initial and residual reduction, respectively, followed descendingly by chlorfenapyr and finally the tested IGRs. Both Orius spp. and spiders were more susceptible than other predators towards all pesticides used.

*Corresponding Author:

Hany El-Kawas

E-mail: [email protected]

Journal homepage: www.pakentomol.com

Pakistan Entomologist

Hany El-Kawas* and Mohamad Khedr

*Plant Protection Research Institute, A.R.C., Giza, Egypt.

El-Kawas, H. and M. Khedr, 2019. Performance of certain insect growth regulators on cotton leaf worm, sucking pests and their impacts on common predators in Egyptian cotton fields. Pak. Entomol., 41(2):101-110.

102

In order to overcome the losses caused by the pest attack and increase the yield, intelligent control strategies need to be pursued, whereas no single pest control system is sufficient for remarkable production, with useful cotton control. The main objective of this study is therefore to compare the performance of certain IGRs belonging to chitin synthesis inhibitors (CSIs) and non-steroidal ecdysteroid agonist (NEAs) as ecdyson agonist with the traditional insecticides against the following inspected pests sucking (white fly, jassids and two-spotted spider mite) and chewing (cotton leafworm) pests of cotton plants to sort out the most effective one against these pests and their side effects on some common predators in Egyptian cotton fields.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tested insecticidesTested insecticides and related data summarized in Table 1.

Application methodIn this study, four tested IGRs namely, lufenuron, teflubenzuron, methoxyfenozide and chromafenozide were used, while chlorfenapyr and profenofos used as a reference against sucking pests and cotton leafworm, in cotton fields.During two consecutive seasons 2017 and 2018 in the third week of June during both seasons, the experiment was carried out in a complete randomized block layout at Zagazig district, Sharqia Governorate, Egypt. The experimental area was 14700 m. That was divided into 7 subplots each one was divided to four replicates cultivated with cotton variety Giza 94 sown in mid of March during the two seasons. The insecticidal spray solutions were prepared using water in accordance with recommended doses and sprayed using 20 L Solo motor sprayer volume of water size. The populations of both sucking pests; jassid and whitefly (adults) were visually counted on twenty-five plants randomly selected per replicate on each plant representing different levels of the plant were observed from the lower side to note the direct visual count of pests (Naranjo and Flint, 1994). Data regarding the immature stages of two-spotted spider mite (larvae and nymphs), 25 leaves collected from three levels of cotton plants selected randomly in each replicate and taken to the laboratory in paper bags to determine the alive number of immature stages with aid of a binocular microscope (El-Kawas et al., 2009).In the case of cotton leafworm larvae, S. littoralis inspections were carried out in the morning on randomly selected 25 hills per each replicate. The inspection of the tested pests performed immediately perior to application and 3, 7 and 10 days after the application for all treatments except for profenofos that recorded at 1, 3, 7 and 10 days post-treatment (Anonymous 2013). At the same inspection times, the reduction percentages of the tested compounds and control against specific common predators: the aphid lion, Chrysoperlla carnea Steph.; ladybird beetles, Coccinella spp. and Scymnus spp.; staphylinid beetle, Peaderus alfierii Koch, the anthocorid bugs, Orius spp. and spiders were counted. The efficiency of different compounds was measured as the reduction percentages in the population density of tested pests using the equation of Henderson and Tilton (1955). The initial

effect calculated on day three post-treatment, whereas the residual effect was measured 7 and 10 days post-treatment, as the mean reduction percentages. As mentioned above, the initial effect of profenofos after one day of treatment and average (7 and 10 days) was considered as a general mean (Anonymous 2013).

Statistical analysis The significance of the main effects was determined by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The significance of various treatments was evaluated by Duncan's multiple range test (p < 0.05) (Snedecor and Cochran 1980).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Performance of insecticides application against different cotton pests Whitefly, B. tabaciAll insecticides evaluated demonstrated moderate to low performance against B. tabaci, Table (2). Lufenuron proved to be a highly significant effect in the initial effect at two successive seasons 2017 and 2018 with 39.27±1.32 and 38.24±0.94 reduction percentages in populations of B. tabaci, respectively. Reversely, chlorfenapyr and chromafenozide ranked the least effective, resulting in a reduction of 26.69±1.10 and 26.32±1.04% in 2017 and 2018 seasons, respectively. In the general mean of residual effect against B. tabaci, the performance of teflubenzuron and methoxyfenozide in two successive seasons (2017and 2018) was unsatisfactory, resulting in the highest significant reduction of 14.68±0.83 and 20.86±0.88% for teflubenzuron and methoxyfenozide, respectively (Table 2).

Jassids, Empoasca spp. Control of jassids obtained in treated plots with lufenuron was relatively greater than that noticed in the initial effect in the of rest treated insecticides in Table (3). Lufenuron resulted in 40.56±1.41 and 38.00±0.76% reduction in 2017 and 2018, respectively as the most significant treatments; chromafenozide caused the lowest significant reduction percentage in both seasons (27.13±0.84 and 26.58±1.40), respectively. The tested insecticides afford moderate residual control of jassids compared to its initial effect. The highest significant effect of chlorfenapyr was 26.11±1.53% in the first season and 29.40±1.25% in the second season. Methoxyfenozide was the least one in both studied seasons, Table (3).

Two-spotted spider mite, T. urticae During season 2017, the initial and residual effects ranged between minimum reduction percentages of (21.97±0.94 and 14.75±1.40) for methoxyfenozide to a maximum reduction percentages of (83.48±1.70 and 77.62±2.63%) for chlorfenapyr, respectively. Followed by chromafenozide (42.28±1.63 and 27.29±1.32%) and (38.82±2.44 and 24.85±1.37%) for lufenuron and (23.27±1.58 and 16.58±1.30%) for teflubenzuron in the initial and residual effects, respectively Table (4).As for 2018, chlorfenapyr caused the highest significant initial and residual reduction in the population of T. urticae

El-Kawas and Khedr / Pakistan Entomologist 2019, 41(2):101-110

that gave (80.52±1.19 and 83.28±1.35%) while methoxyfenozide and chromafenozide recorded the least significant initial and residual reduction (20.00±1.30 and 12.64±0.67%, respectively), Table (4).

Cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralisObviously, all the tested IGRs and profenofos (traditional insecticide) have been most effective in suppressing the infestation of S. littoralis (Table, 5). During 2017, profenofos and lufenuron proved to be highly significant reduction percentage with more than 97% in the first season that recorded (98.51±0.61 and 90.57±0.61%) for profenofos and (98.18±0.69 and 97.75±0.87%) for lufenuron in the initial and residual effect, respectively. Teflubenzuron gave (87.33±1.53 and 79.41±1.05%), chromafenozide (82.18±0.96 and 75.91±1.36%) and methoxyfenozide (81.84±1.11 and 85.42±0.93%), respectively.As for season 2018, lufenuron was the most effective as the initial effect (98.83±0.56%) followed descendingly by p r o f e n o f o s ( 9 4 . 3 6 ± 0 . 9 0 % ) , m e t h o x y f e n o z i d e (82.07±0.73%), chromafenozide (80.74±1.12%) and lastly (80.42±1.47%) for teflubenzuron, Table (5).On the other hand, the performance of profenofos in the residual effect that recorded the least significant reduction compared to the tested IGRs (80.26±1.05%) was not satisfactory. Table (5) recorded the residual effect (98.25±0.54%), (85.63±2.03%), (80.98±0.96%), (80.43±0.86%) and (80.26±1.05%) for lufenuron, methoxyfenozide, chromafenozide, teflubenzuron and finally profenofos, respectively.All the insecticides tested caused a reduction than control in the populations of different pests tested. Generally, all the used IGRs shown excellent performance against S. littoralis compared to other tested pests with a population reduction of more than 80 and 75%, respectively in the initial and residual effects. While gave moderate to low control percentages for B. tabaci, Empoasca spp. and T. urticae in both initial and residual effects, respectively. The majority of CSIs are used mainly as larvicides. Treated larvae develop until molting, but fail to ecdyse due to inhibition of the synthesis of the new cuticle (Tunaz and Uygun, 2004). Miyamoto et al., (1993) found precursors of chitin in the larvae of S. littoralis, Pieris sp. and Manduca sp. were not incorporated into chitin in the presence of chitin synthesis inhibitors. Any disturbance in the normal hormone balance may result in a crucial disorder that leads to mortality in insect growth and development. Dhadialla et al., (2005) reported that tebufenozide has a similar hormonal activity with the natural hormones in the insects particularly in Lepidoptera, the principal effect of which is to cause incomplete and lethal molts.Additionally, in field studies, El-Kawas et al. (2009) showed a reduction in the populations of T. urticae than control when using chlorfenapyr and three CSIs (chlorfluazuron, hexaflumuron and diflubenzuron). Mahmoud (2017) also found that pyriproxyfen (IGR) achieved the highest initial and residual reduction percentage of B. tabaci immature stages giving (78.7 and 81.20%, respectively) compared to other tested insecticides.Lufenuron (CSI) has been shown to be a highly effective one among tested IGRs particularly against cotton leafworm. The

same connection was obtained by (Doucet and Retnakaran 2012) who reported that lufenuron has been successfully used against many lepidopteran pests because of its classic larvicidal action along with ovicidal effects. Whiting et al., (2000) added that the insects soon developed cross-resistance to organophosphate, (e.g profenofos) which has been since then successfully replaced by lufenuron. Moreover, Zidan et al., (2013) found that lufenuron, chlorfluazuron and emamectin benzoate exhibited distinguished high preventing the effect on reducing fecundity ovicidal effectiveness of S. littoralis.

Impact of pesticides application against common predators Data concerning the initial and residual effects of the tested pesticides against some common predators in cotton fields; C. carnea, Coccinella spp., P. alfierii, Scymnus spp., Orius spp. and true spiders were tabulated (Tables 6, 7 & 8). During season 2017, profenofos recorded the highest significant initial and residual effects that caused (62.83±0.81 and 38.15±0.73%), followed descendingly by chlorfenapyr (56.96±1.19 and 30.24±1.15%), respectively. The tested IGRs gave moderate efficacy (37.93±1.27 and 24.56±0.81%) for lufenuron, (32.33±1.08 and 22.40±0.86%) for teflubenzuron and lastly methoxyfenozide (31.44±0.90 and 14.67±0.91%), respectively, Table (6).The same symmetry was observed in the initial effects during 2018 except for teflubezuron and chromafenozide that changed their places and recorded (25.93±1.11 and 23.15±0.90%), respectively. The values of residual effects were (34.88±0.53, 30.10±0.99, 13.65±1.03, 11.89±1.20, 11.09±1.02 and finally 9.87±0.06%) for profenofos, chlorfenapyr, lufenuron, teflubenzuron, methoxyfenozide and chromafenozide, respectively, Table (6).Teflubenzuron ranged between a minimum value of (27.06±0.80 and 12.04±0.81%) for Scymnus spp. to a maximum value of (42.22±0.85 and 32.93±1.06%) for Orius spp. in the initial and residual reduction in 2017, respectively, Table 7.Chromafenozide caused the highest initial effects against spiders than other predators that recorded (48.05±0.83%) in 2017, and (34.23±1.21%) in 2018 (Tables 7 & 8), while methoxyfenozide gave the highest initial reduction against Orius spp. (45.26±0.92%) in the first season and (30.67±0.55%) in the last season. However, lufenuron caused the highest initial reduction (56.94±1.17%) for true spiders and (35.83±1.05%) for Orius spp. in 2017 and 2018, respectively.Regarding the residual effects, all the tested treatments caused lower reduction percentages than the initial effects with the exception of teflubenzuron against true spiders in the second season, 2018. The highest significant initial and residual effect decreased in the populations of Coccinella spp., Scymnus spp. and true spiders were obtained using profenofos in both seasons (Tables 7 & 8).Chlorfenapyr caused only the highest initial against Orius spp. (62.35±0.75%), whereas gave the highest significant residual on C. carnea (34.88±2.64%) in the first season and P. alfierii (38.96±1.16% and 34.35±0.83) in both seasons, respectively, (Tables 7 & 8). Populations of the predatory insects found in all treated areas

103


were significantly reduced in comparison with numbers of predator registered in untreated areas during the two tested seasons. Organophosphorus compound (profenofos) and chlorfenapyr have had a most toxicant influence on predators than tested IGRs, that is maybe due to their selective stomach insecticides that are effective against the immature stages of some insect. Other authors have given the same symmetry. Among a number of insecticides, belonging to different chemical classes tested against predaceous insects (Duffie et al., 1998 and Mead 2006) found that organophosphates and carbamate compounds were found to be the most toxic while IGRs and biocides were found to be the least one. Additionally, Khedr (2011) reported that IGRs caused lower effects against tested predators than chlorpyrifos, possibly due to the supposed selectivity of such IGRs that are effective only against immature stages of insect species.Generally, the initial effects of all the tested treatments are higher than their residual effects. In testing IGRs against predaceous insects, Abo El-Ghar et al., (1994) reached the same conclusion Sallam et al., (2010) recorded the presence of eighteen spider species belonging to nine families in cotton and maize fields in Sharqia Governorate, Egypt.Both Orius spp. and spiders were more susceptible towards all the tested treatments than other predators. Such results are in harmony with those of El-Kawas et al., (2009) who consider Orius spp. was susceptible to tested IGRs and chlorfenapyr. Cutler and Scott-Dupree (2007) reported in the United States that IGRs had formulated for controlling pests of cotton, potatoes, brassicas, ornamentals and apples. It was also designated as a reduced risk alternative to organophosphate insecticides. It exhibits low acute mammalian toxicity, non-significant sub chronic effects on mammals and poses a low risk to the environment and non-target organisms. It is well

suited for IPM and integrated resistant management.

CONCLUSION

Egyptian cotton has historically represented the gold standard for the world's finest linens and clothing. Egypt's extra-long staple cotton, Gossypium barbadense, often called the “White Gold”. Unfortunately, several pests attack plants and subsequently cause considerable losses that demands the urgent interfere with different control methods especially chemical agents. As a general trend in our study, insect growth regulators spayed in cotton fields against sucking pests and cotton leafworm have a low impact on predators compared to conventional insecticides and subsequently reduced environmental risk, exhibited pronounced effects against tested pests with especial consideration to S. littoralis under field conditions. Therefore, based on the previous discussion, IGRs especially lufenuron (CSI) had an excellent alternative for conventional insecticides that is in harmony with existing IPM programs in cotton fields.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors express their appreciation for the valuable assistance in field experiments and manuscript review to Prof. Dr. Hala M. I. Mead and Prof. Dr. Wahid M. Desuky, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt.

Authors' contributionsHE and MK designed the study, analyzed the data, gave their suggestions for improvement in the manuscript, wrote the manuscript with input from all authors and approved the final manuscript

Table 1 The common name, trade name, chemical structure and rate of application of the tested insecticides.

Group Name

Chemical Structure Rate Basic

Production Common Trade

Inse

ctg

row

thre

gula

tors

Chitin synthesis inhibitors

(CSIs)

Lufenuron Match® 5% EC

N-[[[2,5-dichloro-4-(1,1,2,3,3,3-hexafluoropropoxy]-(phenyl]amino] carbonyl] – 2,6 – difluoro – benzamide

400ml./ feddan*

Syngenta Co.

Teflubenzuron Nomolt® 15% SC

N-[[(3,5-dichloro-2,4-difluorophenyl) amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide)

50 cm3 / 100 L

BASF Co.

Non-steroidal

ecdysteroid agonist (NEAs)

Methoxyfenozide

Runner® 24% SC

3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide.

150 cm3 / feddan

Dow AgroScience

s Co.

Chromafenozide Virtu®

80% WP 3,4-dihydro-5-methyl-2H-1-benzopyran-6-carboxylic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide.

25g/ feddan

Nippon Kayaku Co.

Acaricide Chlorfenapyr Challenger®

24% SC 4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-5-

(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile. 60cm3 / 100 L

BASF Co.

Organophosphorus Profenofos Curacron® 72% EC

O-(4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl) O-ethyl S-propyl phosphorothioate.

750 cm3 / feddan

Ciba-Geigy Agricultural

Div.

104


Table 2 Reduction percentages of tested pesticides against B. tabaci in cotton fields during two successive seasons, 2017 and 2018.

Pesticides

No. of individuals

before spray

No. of individuals and reduction percentages General mean of

residual effect±SE Initial effect ±SE (3 days)

Residual effect after: 7 days 10 days

No. *Red.% No. Red.% No. Red.% *Red.%

2017

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 13 10 39.27±1.32a 18 16.92 23 8.49 12.39±0.76ab

Teflubenzuron 14 12 32.33±1.13b 19 18.57 24 11.33 14.68±0.83a

NEAs Chromafenozide 15 13 31.58±0.86b 21 16.00 27 6.90 11.11±0.76bc Methoxyfenozide 16 14 30.92±0.79b 23 13.75 27 12.72 13.19±1.12ab

Traditional Chlorfenapyr 14 13 26.69±1.10c 21 10.00 25 7.64 8.73±0.23c

Control 15 19 - 25 - 29 - -

LSD0.05 3.1894 2.3993

P 0.0000*** 0.0000***

2018

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 24 18 38.24±0.94a 24 22.22 29 15.42 18.64±0.97a

Teflubenzuron 30 25 31.37±0.74b 29 24.81 36 16.00 20.18±1.084a

NEAs Chromafenozide 19 17 26.32±1.04c 20 18.13 24 11.58 14.68±0.70b Methoxyfenozide 27 21 35.95±0.88a 25 27.98 33 14.44 20.86±0.88a

Traditional Chlorfenapyr 23 20 28.39±0.80c 25 15.46 29 11.74 13.50±0.80b

Control 28 34 - 36 - 40 - -

LSD0.05 2.6705 2.7009

P 0.0000*** 0.0000***

*Data expressed as Mean ± S. E. ; ***= p≤ 0.01 Mean under each variety having different letters in the same column denote a significant different (p≤ 0.05). All the tested compounds used at the recommended rate.

Table 3 Reduction percentages of tested pesticides against Empoasca spp. in cotton fields during two successive seasons, 2017 and 2018.

Pesticides

No. of individuals

before spray

No. of individuals and reduction percentages General mean of residual

effect±SE Initial effect ± SE

(3 days) Residual effect after:

7 days 10 days

No. *Red.% No. Red.% No. Red.%

*Red.% 2017

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 22 17 40.56±1.41a 24 22.08 27 18.18 20.26±0.935b Teflubenzuron 18 15 35.40±0.77b 20 20.63 24 11.11 15.71±0.73c

NEAs Chromafenozide 19 18 27.13±0.84c 23 13.53 26 8.77 11.07±0.47d Methoxyfenozide 20 16 38.46±1.39ab 24 14.29 28 6.67 10.34±0.50d

Traditional Chlorfenapyr 21 17 37.7±30.66ab 19 35.37 26 17.46 26.11±1.53a Control 20 26 - 28 - 30 - - LSD0.05 3.1384 2.7804 P 0.0000*** 0.0000***

2018

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 25 19 38.00±0.76a 24 27.41 29 16.37 21.76±0.70b Teflubenzuron 26 21 34.10±1.21b 27 21.48 31 14.04 17.68±1.00c

NEAs Chromafenozide 30 27 26.58±1.40d 32 19.35 36 13.49 16.35±0.79c Methoxyfenozide 28 24 30.08±1.51cd 31 16.29 33 15.03 15.65±0.74c

Traditional Chlorfenapyr 23 19 32.61±0.84bc 21 30.97 23 27.91 29.40±1.25a Control 31 38 - 41 - 43 - - LSD0.05 3.5649 2.774 P 0.0000*** 0.0000***

All the tested compounds used at the recommended rate. *Data expressed as Mean ± S. E.;***= p≤ 0.01 Mean under each variety having different letters in the same column denote a significant different (p≤ 0.05).

105


Table 4 Reduction percentages of tested pesticides against T. urticae in cotton fields during two successive seasons, 2017 and 2018.

Pesticides

No. of immatures

before spray

No. of immature stages and reduction percentages at: General mean of

residual effect±SE Initial effect±SE (3 days)

Residual effect:

7 days 10 days

No. *Red.% No. Red.% No. Red.% *Red.%

2017

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 36 25 38.82±2.43b 30 31.48 38 18.63 24.85±1.37b

Teflubenzuron 31 27 23.27±1.58c 30 20.43 35 12.97 16.58±1.32c

NEAs Chromafenozide 29 19 42.28±1.62b 23 34.79 30 20.26 27.29±1.32b Methoxyfenozide 35 31 21.97±0.94c 35 17.78 40 11.90 14.75±1.40c

Traditional Chlorfenapyr 32 6 83.48±1.697a 8 79.44 10 75.91 77.62±2.63a

Control 37 42 - 45 - 48 - -

LSD0.05 5.1904 5.0911

P 0.0000*** 0.0000***

2018

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 24 22 34.52±1.03c 33 27.63 48 18.37 22.41±1.07b

Teflubenzuron 23 25 22.36±1.44d 36 17.91 49 13.04 15.04±1.26c

NEAs Chromafenozide 20 17 39.29±1.74b 31 18.42 45 8.16 12.64±0.67c Methoxyfenozide 25 28 20.00±1.30d 39 17.89 55 10.20 13.56±.082c

Traditional Chlorfenapyr 22 6 80.52±1.19a 6 85.65 10 81.45 83.28±1.35a

Control 20 28 - 38 - 49 - -

LSD0.05 4.1114 3.2130

P 0.0000*** 0.0000***

All the tested compounds used at the recommended rate. *Data expressed as Mean ± S. E.; ***= p≤ 0.01 Mean under each variety having different letters in the same column denote a significant different (p≤0.05)

Table 5 Reduction percentages of tested pesticides against S. littoralis larvae in cotton fields during 2017 and 2018.

Pesticides

No. of larvae before spray

No. of larvae and reduction percentages after:

*General mean of

residual effect ± SE

1 day Initial effect ± SE (3 days)

7 days 10 days

No. Red. % No. Red. % No. Red. % No. Red. %

2017

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 550 480 22.67 14 98.18 14 97.96 20 97.54 97.75±0.87a Teflubenzuron 622 570 18.81 110 87.33 130 85.41 245 73.40 79.41±1.05d

NEAs Chromafenozide 490 425 23.15 108 82.18 135 80.76 210 71.05 75.91±1.36e Methoxyfenozide 505 478 16.13 128 81.84 90 87.55 125 83.28 85.42±0.93c

OP-insecticide Profenofos 535 9 98.51 9 98.79 34 95.65 115 85.48 90.57±0.61a Control 412 465 - 575 - 590 - 610 - - LSD0.05 3.0794 P 0.0000***

2018

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 500 300 53.57 9 98.83 615 98.40 21 98.09 98.25±0.54a Teflubenzuron 415 250 53.38 125 80.42 135 82.67 200 78.19 80.43±0.86c

NEAs Chromafenozide 540 360 56.67 160 80.74 180 82.24 242 79.71 80.98±0.96c Methoxyfenozide 580 405 45.97 160 82.07 160 85.30 180 85.95 85.63±2.03b

OP-insecticide Profenofos 480 35 94.36 55 92.55 220 75.58 290 72.65 80.26±1.05c Control 325 420 - 500 - 610 - 718 - - LSD0.05 3.6001 P 0.0000***

All the tested compounds used at the recommended rate. In case of profenofos, the initial effect recorded after one day.*Data expressed as Mean ± S. E.; ***= p≤ 0.01 Mean under each variety having different letters in the same column denote a significant different (p≤0.05).

106


Pesticides

No. of predators

before spray

No. of predators and reduction percentages after:

*General mean of residual

effect±SE

1 day Initial effect ±SE (3 days)

7 days 10 days

No. Red. % No. Red.

% No. Red. % No. Red. %

2017

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 159 144 11.42 107 37.93 125 36.39 191 12.72 24.56±0.81c

Teflubenzuron 154 143 9.18 113 32.33 132 30.65 182 14.14 22.40±0.86c

NEAs Chromafenozide 153 138 11.79 105 36.71 125 33.90 183 13.10 23.50±0.83c Methoxyfenozide 152 142 8.63 113 31.44 150 20.16 190 9.18 14.67±0.91d

Traditional Profenofos 157 60 62.83 77 54.77 125 35.58 164 24.11 38.15±0.73a

Chlorfenapyr 150 114 25.67 70 56.96 115 37.97 160 22.50 30.24±1.15b

Control 178 182 - 193 - 220 - 245 - -

LSD0.05 2.6539

P 0.0000***

2018

IGRs CSIs

Lufenuron 85 80 9.50 66 28.10 78 19.79 100 7.51 13.65±1.03c

Teflubenzuron 90 84 10.26 72 25.93 87 15.50 115 8.28 11.89±1.20cd

NEAs Chromafenozide 100 93 10.58 83 23.15 101 11.71 117 8.02 9.87±.06d Methoxyfenozide 120 108 13.46 101 22.07 120 12.59 138 9.59 11.09±1.02cd

Traditional Profenofos 108 46 60.56 70 39.99 80 35.25 97 29.39 34.88±0.53a

Chlorfenapyr 117 90 26.04 63 50.14 90 32.76 108 27.43 30.10±0.99b Control 125 130 - 135 - 143 - 159 - - LSD0.05 2.7601 P 0.0000***

Table 6 The mean numbers and reduction percentages of total predator numbers in cotton fields after spraying with tested pesticides during 2017 and 2018. All the tested compounds used at the recommended rate. In case of profenofos, the initial effect recorded after one day.

*Data expressed as Mean ± S. E.; ***= p≤ 0.01 Mean under each variety having different letters in the same column denote a significant different (p≤0.05).

Table 7 The mean numbers and reduction percentages of some common predators in cotton fields after spraying with the tested pesticides during 2017 season

Predators

Pesticides

Mean No. of predators

before spraying

Mean number and reduction percentages after: *General mean

of residual effect ±SE

1day Initial effect ±SE (3 days)

7 days 10 days

No.

Red. %

No.

Red.

%

No.

Red.

%

No.

Red.

%

Coc

cine

llasp

p.

Lufenuron

33

30

11.48

24

32.73

27

32.73

40

6.57

19.65±0.74c

Teflubenzuron

27

25

9.84

20

31.48

21

36.05

31

11.5

23.78±1.13b

Chromafenozide

25

21

18.21

19

29.70

20

34.22

27

16.75

25.49±1.00b

Methoxyfenozide

24

21

14.80

20

22.92

22

24.63

30

3.65

14.14±0.88d

Chlorfenapyr

28

23

20.02

13

57.05

24

29.52

30

17.41

23.47±0.95b

Profenofos

34

10

71.36

14

61.91

26

37.12

30

31.99

43.67±1.38a

Control

37

38

-

40

-

45

-

48

-

-

LSD 0.05

3.0742

P

0.0000***

Chr

ysop

erla

carn

ea

Lufenuron

16

15

6.25

13

22.62

14

27.08

18

16.67

21.88±1.15b

Teflubenzuron

20

19

5.00

15

28.57

17

29.17

22

18.52

23.85±1.03b

Chromafenozide

18

17

5.56

11

41.80

14

35.19

21

13.58

24.39±0.88b

Methoxyfenozide

17

16

5.88

11

38.38

13

36.27

20

12.85

24.56±1.07b

Chlorfenapyr

15

11

26.67

7

55.56

11

38.89

14

30.86

34.88±2.64a

Profenofos

19

8

57.89

11

44.86

17

25.44

27

6.43

25.58±1.06b

Control

20

20

-

21

-

24

-

30

-

-

LSD 0.05

4.2728

P

0.0000***

Pea

deru

sal

fieri

i

Lufenuron

51

47

7.84

32

38.49

38

31.01

53

13.40

22.21±0.97bc

Teflubenzuron

39

36

7.69

25

37.15

32

24.03

40

14.53

19.28±1.00cd

Chromafenozide

52

48

7.69

35

34.01

40

28.77

49

21.47

25.12±1.26b

Methoxyfenozide

52

48

7.69

37

30.24

42

25.21

57

8.65

16.93±1.11d

Chlorfenapyr

43

34

20.93

20

54.40

27

41.86

33

36.05

38.96±1.16a

Profenofos

42

15

64.29

22

48.65

30

33.86

38

24.60

35.76±1.13a

Control

50

50

-

51

-

54

-

60

-

-

LSD 0.05

3.2975

P

0.0000***

107


Scy

mnu

ssp

p.

Lufenuron 23 22 7.34 18 28.64 20 32.61 30 3.73 18.17±0.88d Teflubenzuron 30 28 9.58 24 27.06 30 22.50 40 1.59 12.04±0.81e

Chromafenozide 24 23 7.16 18 31.62 21 32.19 29 10.81 21.05±0.90c Methoxyfenozide 25 25 3.13 21 23.41 29 10.10 32 5.52 7.81±0.60f

Chlorfenapyr 29 25 16.49 13 59.13 21 43.88 32 18.56 31.22±0.93b Profenofos 27 11 60.53 14 52.72 20 42.59 26 28.92 41.41±0.77a

Control 31 32 - 34 - 40 - 42 - LSD 0.05 2.444 P 0.0000***

Ori

us

spp

.

Lufenuron 17 16 14.44 11 48.24 13 52.21 29 16.79 34.50±0.10b Teflubenzuron 18 16 19.19 13 42.22 16 44.44 29 21.41 32.93±1.06b

Chromafenozide 20 17 22.73 14 44.00 18 43.75 39 4.88 24.32±0.93c Methoxyfenozide 19 18 13.88 13 45.26 26 14.47 36 7.57 11.02±1.13d

Chlorfenapyr 17 10 46.52 8 62.35 15 44.85 32 8.18 26.52±0.84c Profenofos 18 9 54.55 7 68.89 20 30.56 25 32.29 43.91±1.05a

Control 20 22 - 25 - 32 - 41 - - LSD 0.05 2.9858 P 0.0000***

Sp

ider

s

Lufenuron 19 14 26.32 9 56.94 13 45.26 21 18.13 31.70±0.98b Teflubenzuron 20 19 5.00 16 27.27 16 36.00 20 25.93 30.97±1.12b

Chromafenozide 14 12 14.29 8 48.05 12 31.43 18 4.76 18.10±0.72d Methoxyfenozide 15 14 6.67 11 33.33 18 4.00 17 16.05 10.03±1.04e

Chlorfenapyr 18 11 38.89 9 54.55 17 24.44 19 21.81 23.13±0.91c Profenofos 17 7 58.82 9 51.87 12 43.53 21 8.50 34.63±0.97a

Control 20 20 - 22 - 25 - 27 - - LSD 0.05 2.8693 P 0.0000***


Table 8 The mean numbers and reduction percentages of some common predators in cotton fields after spraying with the tested pesticides during 2018 season.

Predators Pesticides

Mean No. of predators

before spraying

Mean number and reduction percentages after:

*General mean of residual effect

1day Initial Effect ±SE (3 days)

7 days 10 days

No.

Red. %

No.

Red. % No.

Red. %

No.

Red. %

Coc

cine

lla

spp

.

Lufenuron 19 18 9.77 15 28.23 17 25.44 23 10.33 17.89±0.77c Teflubenzuron 21 20 9.30 17 26.41 20 20.63 28 1.23 10.93±0.65d

Chromafenozide 20 20 4.76 18 18.18 21 12.50 24 11.11 11.81±0.74d Methoxyfenozide 24 22 12.70 21 20.45 26 9.72 30 7.41 8.57±0.43e


Control 20 21 - 22 - 24 - 27 - - LSD 0.05 2.2307 P 0.0000***

Ch

ryso

per

laca

rnea

Lufenuron 19 9 0.00 7 25.92 8 22.71 10 7.41 15.06±0.62b Teflubenzuron 10 10 0.00 8 23.81 9 21.74 12 0.00 10.87±0.40c

Chromafenozide 15 14 6.67 13 17.46 15 13.04 16 11.11 12.08±0.52c Methoxyfenozide 14 12 14.29 11 25.17 15 6.83 16 4.76 5.80±0.26d

Chlorfenapyr 16 12 25.00 9 46.43 12 34.78 18 6.25 20.52±0.73a Profenofos 17 7 58.82 12 32.77 15 23.27 20 1.96 19.33±0.48a

Control 20 20 - 21 - 23 - 24 - - LSD 0.05 1.5592 P 0.0000***

Pea

der

us

alfi

erii

Lufenuron 21 20 10.20 17 23.67 20 15.06 25 1.79 8.43±0.51cd Teflubenzuron 23 21 13.91 18 26.21 22 14.69 27 0.032 7.36±0.28d

Chromafenozide 25 23 13.26 20 24.57 26 7.24 27 10.90 9.07±0.17cd Methoxyfenozide 34 32 11.26 30 16.81 34 10.82 38 7.79 9.31±0.20c

Chlorfenapyr 26 21 23.85 14 49.23 17 41.68 23 27.02 34.35±0.83a Profenofos 24 12 52.86 18 29.29 20 25.68 32 20.93 25.30±1.22b

Control 33 35 - 35 - 37 - 40 - - LSD 0.05 1.9480 P 0.0000***

108


Scy

mn

us

spp

.

Lufenuron 15 14 11.58 11 34.00 14 23.64 18 13.60 18.62±0.54c Teflubenzuron 16 15 11.18 13 26.88 16 18.18 22 1.00 9.59±0.23f

Chromafenozide 15 14 11.58 13 22.00 15 18.18 20 4.00 11.09±0.24e Methoxyfenozide 20 18 14.74 17 23.50 19 22.27 25 10.00 16.14±0.51d


Control 18 19 - 20 - 22 - 25 - - LSD 0.05 1.4968 P 0.0000***

Ori

us

spp

.

Lufenuron 11 10 9.09 8 35.83 10 24.24 14 4.54 14.39±0.30d Teflubenzuron 10 10 0.00 9 20.59 10 16.67 13 2.50 9.59±0.21e

Chromafenozide 12 11 8.33 10 26.47 12 16.67 15 6.25 11.46±0.20e Methoxyfenozide 14 12 14.29 11 30.67 13 22.61 16 14.29 18.45±0.47c


Control 15 15 - 17 - 18 - 20 - - LSD 0.05 1.9724 P 0.0000***

Sp

ider

s

Lufenuron 10 9 14.50 8 24.00 9 18.57 10 17.39 17.98±0.74d Teflubenzuron 10 8 24.00 7 33.50 10 9.52 12 0.01 4.77±0.21f

Chromafenozide 13 11 19.62 9 34.23 12 16.48 15 0.05 8.27±0.27e Methoxyfenozide 14 12 18.57 11 25.36 13 15.99 13 23.29 19.64±0.46c


Control 19 20 - 20 - 21 - 23 - - LSD 0.05 1.6076 P 0.0000***


REFERENCES

Abo El-Ghar G.E., A.M. El-Sayed, A.E. El-Sheikh and H.S. Radwan, 1994. Field tests with insecticides and insect growth regulators to control insect pests of cowpea and its effects on certain beneficial insects. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot., 28 (6): 531-543.

Al-Shannaf, H.M., H.M. Mead and A.K. Hassan-Sabry, 2012. Toxic and biochemical effects of some biochemical and igrs on American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in cotton fields. J. Biofertil. Biopestic., 3(2):118.

Anonymous, 2013. Protocols of Agricultural Pesticides Effectiveness Assessment. Agricultural Pesticide Committee, Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt, 186 pp.

Butler, G.D. and T.J. Jr. Henneberry, 1990. Effects on cotton and vegetable pests and phytoxicity. Southwestern Entomol., 15(3): 257-264.

Cutler, G.C. and C.D. Scott-Dupree, 2007. Novaluron: prospects and limitations in insect pest management. Pest Technol., 1, 38–46.

Desuky, W.M., E.F. El-Khayat, M.M. Azab and M.M. Khedr, 2012. The influence of some insect growth regulators and bio-insecticides against cotton leafworm and some associated predators under field conditions. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 90 (1): 31-54.

Dhadialla, T.S., A.Retnakaran and G. Smagghe, 2005. Insect growth and development disrupting insecticides. In: Gilbert, L.I., K. Iatrou and S.S. Gill (Eds.), Comprehensive Insect Molecular Science, vol. 6. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp.55–100.

Doucet, D. and A. Retnakaran, 2012. Insect chitin: metabolism, genomics and pest management. Advan.

Insect Physiol., 43: 437-496. Duffie, W.D., M.J. Sullivan and S.G. Turnipseed, 1998.

Predator mortality in cotton from different insecticide classes. In: Dugger C.P. and D.A. Richter D.A. (eds.) Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod Conf, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, pp 1111-1112

El-Kawas, H.M.G., H.M.I. Mead and W.M.H. Desuky, 2009. Field and biochemical studies of certain chitin synthesis inhibitors against Tetranychus urticae Koch and their side effects on some common predators. Bull. Ent. Soc., Egypt, Econ. Ser., 35:171-188.

Haque, H., 1991. Imported generic pesticides need to be checked before marking. Pak. Agric. Pestic. Assoc. Bull., 16-17.

Henderson, C.F. and E.W. Tilton, 1955. Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. J. Econ. Entomol., 48 (2): 157-161.

Khedr, M.M.A., 2011. Efficiency of some alternative compounds in controlling cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.). Ph D. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Banha Univ. 214 p.

Mahmoud, M.A.A., 2017. Field performance of insecticides treatments against the immature and adult stages of whitefly on tomato plant. Alex. Sci. Exc. J. 38(3): 613-619.

Mead, H.M. and M.M. Khedr, 2018. Role of teflubenzuron as a chitin synthesis inhibitor against Spodoptera littoralis larvae. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci., 10(1): 49-58.

Mead, H.M.I., 2006. Studies on biochemical and biological activities of some larvicidal agents on cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. Sci., Suez Canal Univ., 220 p.

109


Meghana, H., S.B. Jagginavar and N.D. Sunitha, 2018. Population dynamics of sucking insect pest complex on intra-specific and inter-specific Bt cotton under rainfed situation J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 6(3): 466-471.

Miyamoto, J.M., M. Hirano, Y. Takimoto and M. Hatakoshi, 1993. Insect growth regulators for pest control, with emphasis on juvenile hormone analoges: Present status and future prospects. ACS. Symp. Ser., Amer. Chem. Soc., Washington DC, 524: 144-168.

Naranjo, S.E. and H.M. Flint, 1994. Spatial distribution of preimaginal Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodiddae) in cotton and development of fixed-precision, sequential sampling plans. Envir. Entomol., 23(2): 254-266.

Russell, D.A., S.M. Radwan, N.S. Irving, K.A. Jones and M.C. Downham, 1993. Experimental assessment of the impact of defoliation by Spodoptera littoralis on the growth and yield of Giza 75 cotton. Crop Prot., 12(4): 303-309.

Sallam, G.M.E., N.A.I. Abdel-Azeim and H.M.G. El-Kawas, 2010. Biodiversity of spiders associated with cotton and maize in Sharkia Governorate with a special reference to the spider, Kochiura auliae (Koch). Acarines, 4: 67-71.

Shim, J., P.K. Mangat and R.B. Angeles-Shim, 2018 Natural variation in wild Gossypium species as a tool to broaden the genetic base of cultivated cotton. J. Plant Sci. Curr. Res., 2: 005

Snedecor, G.W. and G.W. Cochran, 1980. Statistical methods (2nd Ed.), Iowa State Univ. Press Iowa, USA.

Tunaz, H. and N. Uygun, 2004. Insect growth regulators for insect pest control. Turk. J. Agric. Forest., (28): 377-387

Verma, G.D., D.N. Mahta and M.N. Haque, 1979. The loss grain yield due to aphids and other pests on certain varieties of barley grown in North Bihar. Sci. Cult., 45 (9): 370-371.

Whiting, D.C., L.E. Jamieson and P.G. Connolly 2000. Pre-and post-harvest effects of lufenuron on Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol., 93(3): 673–679.

Zidan, L.T.M., M.H. Rashwan and M.A.A. Abd El-Razik, 2013. Comparative curative and preventive ovicidal effectiveness of certain selected IGRs and insecticides against the cotton leafworm and sweet potato white fly. New York Sci. J., 6(2): 83-91

110


pakistan entomologist performance of certain insect …

Documents