Lead Arsenate Combinations and Nicotine Combinations as Control Measures for the Codling Moth, 1938*

1939 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 828-832
Author(s):  
Paul G. Lamerson ◽  
Ralph L. Parker
Author(s):  
Sean D. Moore

Thaumatotibia leucotreta, known as the false codling moth, is a pest of citrus and other crops in sub-Saharan Africa. As it is endemic to this region and as South Africa exports most of its citrus around the world, T. leucotreta has phytosanitary status for most markets. This means that there is zero tolerance for any infestation with live larvae in the market. Consequently, control measures prior to exporting must be exemplary. Certain markets require a standalone postharvest disinfestation treatment for T. leucotreta. However, the European Union accepts a systems approach, consisting of three measures and numerous components within these measures. Although effective preharvest control measures are important under all circumstances, they are most critical where a standalone postharvest disinfestation treatment is not applied, such as within a systems approach. Conventional wisdom may lead a belief that effective chemical control tools are imperative to achieve this end. However, we demonstrate that it is possible to effectively control T. leucotreta to a level acceptable for a phytosanitary market, using only biological control tools. This includes parasitoids, predators, microbial control, semiochemicals, and sterile insects. Simultaneously, on-farm and environmental safety is improved and compliance with the increasing stringency of chemical residue requirements imposed by markets is achieved.


1982 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Proverbs ◽  
J. R. Newton ◽  
C. J. Campbell

AbstractCodling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), control by sterile insect release (SIR) was assessed in 320–526 ha of apples and pears in the Similkameen Valley, B.C., from 1976 to 1978. In preparation for SIR, the moth population was first reduced to low numbers by removal of neglected trees in 1972 and by chemical sprays in 1975. Sterile (35 krad) male and female moths were released in each orchard 2 or 3 times weekly from 1 May until early September. A total of 23,600 sterile moths/ha was released in 1976, 36,500 in 1977, and 31,800 in 1978. Populations of sterile (marked) and wild moths were monitored by sex pheromone traps, and damage was assessed by fruit examination at harvest. Control was very good except for a few orchards in which overwintered populations were too high to achieve adequate overflooding with sterile moths. Damage exceeded the economic threshold (0.5%) in only 1 of 86 treated orchards in 1976, in 6 of 193 orchards in 1977, and in 0 of 157 orchards in 1978. Results in 32 orchards showed that when wild populations are brought close to extinction all codling moth control measures can be omitted for 2 or more years depending on degree of orchard isolation. Omission of codling moth sprays from 1976 to 1978 did not result in any important change in population levels of other apple pests. Cost of control by SIR was ca. $225/ha per year vs. ca. $95 for chemical control.


1972 ◽  
Vol 104 (9) ◽  
pp. 1397-1404 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. MacLellan

AbstractCodling moth populations on natural apple fruit trees scattered throughout Nova Scotia are compared with those in commercial orchards. In natural fruit, failure of crop, crop size, degree of isolation, amount of crowding by native trees, and natural enemies determine the level of codling moth numbers. Young commercial orchards require artificial control measures within a few years of first bearing fruit to prevent severe crop losses. In older commercial orchards natural controls require an occasional assist by chemical treatment to contain the codling moth below economically tolerable levels. Such treatment is applied to interfere as little as possible with known natural controls.


1964 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gratwick

The toxicity of naturally weathered deposits of 21 chemicals to larvae of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), was assessed by spraying apple trees in the orchard and testing samples of the fruit picked at various intervals after treatment. Each apple was placed in a separate glass container with one first-instar larva from a laboratory culture, and larval mortality and damage to the fruit (defined as removal of a portion of the skin) were recorded after three days in a constant environment.The site of entry of the larvae was shown to vary with fruit size, calyx entries decreasing and side entries increasing with increase in the surface area of the fruit.The relationship between larvicidal activity and age of the spray deposit for periods up to ten weeks after spraying is illustrated graphically; data are presented for fruit damage caused by larvae applied one and three weeks after spraying.On the basis of larval mortality and fruit damage recorded in tests on deposits up to three weeks after application, a spray containing 0·1 per cent, carbaryl was the most effective, followed by 0·05 per cent, fenthion, while Bayer 5024, Zectran, DDT, DDD (all at 0·l per cent.) and 0·04 per cent, azinphos (as the methyl or ethyl homologue) were only slightly less effective. Deposits from 0·1 per cent. Kepone, 0·02 per cent, diazinon, 0·11 per cent, malathion, 0·01 per cent, parathion and 0·05 per cent, carbophenothion, dimethoate and ethion also caused 90–100 per cent, mortality when fresh, but were less persistent. Fresh deposits from 0·1 per cent, endosulfan, 0·04 per cent, dioxathion, 0·05 per cent, phenkapton, 0·02 per cent, phosphamidon, 0·2 per cent, lead arsenate and 0·6 per cent, ryania only killed 50–88 per cent, of the larvae, and their residual toxicity was proportionately low.Heavy rain soon after spraying caused a large reduction in deposits from wettable powders but the accompanying reduction in larvicidal activity was shown to be greater in the case of carbaryl than for DDT or DDD.


1937 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-86
Author(s):  
S. W. Harman ◽  
T. W. Reed
Keyword(s):  

1941 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-263
Author(s):  
Harlan N. Worthley ◽  
Harold M. Steiner
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document