scholarly journals Flight Activity and Mating Behavior of IrradiatedSpodoptera litura(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Males and Their F1Progeny for Use of Inherited Sterility in Pest Management Approaches

2016 ◽  
Vol 99 (sp1) ◽  
pp. 119-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakesh K. Seth ◽  
Zubeda Khan ◽  
Dev K. Rao ◽  
Mahtab Zarin
Keyword(s):  
Pest Management ◽  
Mating Behavior ◽  
Flight Activity ◽  
Management Approaches ◽  
Lepidoptera Noctuidae ◽  
Inherited Sterility

scholarly journals Inhibitory Copulation Effect of Vibrational Rival Female Signals of Three Stink Bug Species as a Tool for Mating Disruption

Insects ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 177
Author(s):  
Aline Moreira Dias ◽  
Miguel Borges ◽  
Maria Carolina Blassioli Moraes ◽  
Matheus Lorran Figueira Coelho ◽  
Andrej Čokl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pest Management ◽  
Mating Behavior ◽  
Mating Disruption ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Stink Bug ◽  
Stink Bugs ◽  
Vibratory Communication ◽  
Communication Signals ◽  
Long Duration ◽  
Bean Plants

Stink bugs are major pests in diverse crops around the world. Pest management strategies based on insect behavioral manipulation could help to develop biorational management strategies of stink bugs. Insect mating disruption using vibratory signals is an approach with high potential for pest management. The objective of this work was to investigate the effect of conspecific female rival signals on the mating behavior and copulation of three stink bug species to establish their potential for mating disruption. Previously recorded female rival signals were played back to bean plants where pairs of the Neotropical brown stink bug, Euschistus heros, and two green stink bugs, Chinavia ubica and Chinavia impicticornis were placed. Vibratory communication and mating behavior were recorded for each pair throughout the experimental time (20 min). Female rival signals show a disrupting effect on the reproductive behavior of three conspecific investigated stink bug species. This effect was more clearly expressed in E. heros and C. ubica than in C. impicticornis. The likelihood of copulating in pairs placed on control plants, without rival signals, increased 29.41 times in E. heros, 4.6 times in C. ubica and 1.71 times in C. impicticornis. However, in the last case, the effect of female rivalry signals in copulation was not significant. The effect of mating disruption of female rival signals of the three stink bug species may originate from the observed reduction in specific vibratory communication signals emitted, which influences the duet formation and further development of different phases of mating behavior. Our results suggest that female rival signals have potential for application in manipulation and disruption of mating behavior of stink bugs. Further work needs to focus on the effects of female rival signals used in long duration experiments and also their interactions with chemical communication of stink bugs.

scholarly journals Demonstrating an integrated pest management strategy in forage- and seed-brassica crops using a collaborative approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 112-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abie Horrocks ◽  
Paul A. Horne ◽  
Melanie M. Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Biological Control ◽  
Integrated Pest Management ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Collaborative Approach ◽  
Biological Control Agents ◽  
Brassica Crops ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Management Approaches

An integrated pest management (IPM) strategy was compared with farmers’ conventional pest management practices on twelve spring- and autumn-sown seed and forage brassica crops. Demonstration trials were conducted in Canterbury from spring 2015 to autumn 2017 by splitting farmers’ paddocks in half and applying the two management approaches side by side. A farmer participatory approach was used, with management decisions based on monitoring pests and biological-control agents. Farmer and adviser training with a focus on monitoring and identification was carried out. Biological-control agents capable of contributing to pest control were identified in all brassica crops. There was a 35% reduction in the number of insecticides applied under IPM compared with conventional management, negligible crop yield differences, and the type of insecticides applied was different. IPM adoption at these farms was high by the end of the 3-year project with 11 of the 12 farmers implementing IPM across 90—100% of their brassica crops. This project was a starting point for an industry-wide change of practice to IPM, which has become more widespread since its completion.

scholarly journals Impact of integrated pest management on the population of leafminers, fruit borers, and natural enemies in tomato

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moacyr Mascarenhas Motta Miranda ◽  
Marcelo Coutinho Picanço ◽  
José Cola Zanuncio ◽  
Leandro Bacci ◽  
Ézio Marques da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Pest Management ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
Natural Enemies ◽  
Spodoptera Eridania ◽  
Efficient System ◽  
Action Threshold ◽  
Fruit Borer ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Lepidoptera Noctuidae

The objective of this work was to evaluate the impact of integrated pest management (IPM) in the productivity of the tomato and in the populations of leafminers, fruit borers, and natural enemies in tomato crops. The treatments were calendar (spraying twice weekly with insecticides and fungicides), IPM (spraying when action thresholds were achieved), and control (no pesticide was applied). IPM was the most efficient system of pest control due to presenting similar productivity and 65.6% less pesticide applications than in the calendar. The attack of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and Liriomyza spp. (Diptera: Agromyzidae) to the leaves only achieved the action threshold in the final phase of the cultivation. The main fruit borer was Neoleucinoides elegantalis (Guen.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), followed by T. absoluta and Spodoptera eridania (Cr.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). The natural enemy populations were severely reduced by excessive pesticide applications. Predators were more abundant than parasitoids. The most abundant predators were Araneidae, Anthicus sp. (Coleoptera: Anthicidae), Cycloneda sanguinea larva (L.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Staphylinidae adults (Coleoptera), Orius sp. and Xylocoris sp. (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), Formicidae (Hymenoptera), and Phlaeothripidae (Thysanoptera). The most abundant parasitoids were Hymenoptera of the families Eulophidae, Braconidae (Bracon sp. and Chelonus sp.), Trichogrammatidae [Trichogramma pretiosum (Riley)] and Bethylidae (Goniozus nigrifemur Ashmead), besides Tachinidae (Diptera).

scholarly journals Development of integrated pest management approaches against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in tomato

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
AKM Z Rahman ◽  
MA Haque ◽  
SN Alam ◽  
K Begum ◽  
D Sarker
Keyword(s):  
Pest Management ◽  
Pheromone Trap ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Seed Kernel ◽  
Neem Seed ◽  
Marginal Benefit ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Bracon Hebetor ◽  
Management Approaches ◽  
Benefit Cost

Five IPM packages viz. T1=Pheromone trap @ 70 traps ha-1 + Neem seed kernel extract @ 50 g L-1 of water; T2=Pheromone trap + HaNPV @ 0.4 ml L-1 of water and Bt @ 2.0 g L-1 of water; T3=Pheromone trap + Neem seed kernel extract + HaNPV and Bt; T4=Pheromone trap + Trichogramma chillnis @ 50,000 ha-1 and Bracon hebetor @ 1200 ha-1; T5=Pheromone trap + Neem seed kernel extract + T. chilonis and B. hebetor were evaluated against H. armigera in tomato. The lowest fruit infestation by number (12.55%) was attained from T5 followed by T2 (15.49%). Significantly the lowest fruit infestation by weight was found in treatment T2 (10.60%) followed by T5 (11.73%). The highest yield was obtained from T5 (29.74 t ha-1) followed by T2 (26.77 t ha-1). The highest marginal benefit cost ratio was achieved from T2 (3.41) followed by T5 (3.35). Hence, considering benefit cost ratio, T2 and T5 packages may be the effective tools for managing H. armigera in tomato.Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 41(2): 287-296, June 2016

scholarly journals Myths, models and mitigation of resistance to pesticides

1998 ◽  
Vol 353 (1376) ◽  
pp. 1787-1795 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Hoy
Keyword(s):  
Pest Management ◽  
Natural Enemies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Complex Model ◽  
Effective Components ◽  
Evolutionary Response ◽  
Economic Injury ◽  
Management Approaches

Resistance to pesticides in arthropod pests is a significant economic, ecological and public health problem. Although extensive research has been conducted on diverse aspects of pesticide resistance and we have learned a great deal during the past 50 years, to some degree the discussion about ‘resistance management’ has been based on ‘myths’. One myth involves the belief that we can manage resistance. I will maintain that we can only attempt to mitigate resistance because resistance is a natural evolutionary response to environmental stresses. As such, resistance will remain an ongoing dilemma in pest management and we can only delay the onset of resistance to pesticides. ‘Resistance management’ models and tactics have been much discussed but have been tested and deployed in practical pest management programmes with only limited success. Yet the myth persists that better models will provide a ‘solution’ to the problem. The reality is that success in using mitigation models is limited because these models are applied to inappropriate situations in which the critical genetic, ecological, biological or logistic assumptions cannot be met. It is difficult to predict in advance which model is appropriate to a particular situation; if the model assumptions cannot be met, applying the model sometimes can increase the rate of resistance development rather than slow it down. Are there any solutions? I believe we already have one. Unfortunately, it is not a simple or easy one to deploy. It involves employing effective agronomic practices to develop and maintain a healthy crop, monitoring pest densities, evaluating economic injury levels so that pesticides are applied only when necessary, deploying and conserving biological control agents, using host–plant resistance, cultural controls of the pest, biorational pest controls, and genetic control methods. As a part of a truly multi–tactic strategy, it is crucial to evaluate the effect of pesticides on natural enemies in order to preserve them in the cropping system. Sometimes, pesticide–resistant natural enemies are effective components of this resistance mitigation programme. Another name for this resistance mitigation model is integrated pest management (IPM). This complex model was outlined in some detail nearly 40 years ago by V. M. Stern and colleagues. To deploy the IPM resistance mitigation model, we must admit that pest management and resistance mitigation programmes are not sustainable if based on a single–tactic strategy. Delaying resistance, whether to traditional pesticides or to transgenic plants containing toxin genes from Bacillus thuringiensis , will require that we develop multi–tactic pest management programmes that incorporate all appropriate pest management approaches. Because pesticides are limited resources, and their loss can result in significant social and economic costs, they should be reserved for situations where they are truly needed: as tools to subdue an unexpected pest population outbreak. Effective multi–tactic IPM programmes delay resistance (= mitigation) because the number and rates of pesticide applications will be reduced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document