Efficacy of insecticides against the lucerne flea, <i>Sminthurus viridis</i> (L.) (Collembola: Sminthuridae), and other arthropods in lucerne

Bishop, A. L.; McKenzie, Harry J; Barchia, I. M.; Spohr, Lorraine J

doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.1998.00019.x

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Australia, lucerne is an important hay crop but is regularly damaged by insect pests (Holtcamp & Goodyer, 1982) and insecticides remain widely used (Bishop et at., 1991(Bishop et at., , 1998 despite the associated potential problems of resistance, residues, environmental impact, cost and pest resurgence from natural enemy mortality (Vorley & Keeney, 1998). Franzmann (1994) has stressed the scope for greater exploitation of natural enemies in Australian lucerne, and conservation biological control methods involving revised harvesting patterns have been tested overseas (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Effects of Harvest on Survival and Dispersal of Insect Predators in Hay Lucerne

Hossain

Gurr

Wratten

2000

Biological Agriculture & Horticulture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The short-term effects of harvesting on survival and dispersal of insect predators in hay lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) were investigated in a commercial crop in Australia. Adults of two coleopterans, transverse ladybird beetle (Coccinella transversalis Fabricius Coccinellidae) and pollen beetle (Dicranolaius bellulus (Guerin-Meneville) Melyridae), and one heteropteran, spined predatory shield bug (Oechalia schellembergii (Gm5rin-Meneville) Pentatomidae), were marked and released into lucerne strips immediately before they were cut for hay. Vacuum sampling of the stubble immediately after harvest showed that proportional mortalities were 0.16, 0.00 and 0.07 respectively. Proportions of the released individuals that were recovered alive were 0.66 for C. transversalis, 0.45 for 0. schellembergii and 0.02 for D. bellulus. The proportion of predators that were not recaptured from release areas was greatest for D. bellulus (0.80). To assess dispersal after harvest, 12 strips of lucerne were left uncut within the field in which the marked insects had been released. Intensive sweep-net sampling of these strips caught marked survivors of all three predators. The numbers of insects caught in strips declined with increasing distance from the release point. Many insect predators, therefore, survived harvesting and, if uncut refuge strips are provided, the within-field community of biological control agents is largely preserved.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Effects of Harvest on Survival and Dispersal of Insect Predators in Hay Lucerne

Hossain

Gurr

Wratten

2000

Biological Agriculture & Horticulture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority are currently reviewing the use of methidathion. Bishop et al (1998) have used field experiments to also make comparisons of the efficacy of several chemicals against S. viridis and found omethoate and chlorpyrifos among the most effective pesticides. Methidathion was not tested in their study, so it is unclear whether the greater susceptibility of S. viridis to this chemical will be expressed in the field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At present, several different pesticides are registered for the control of S. viridis in certain crops and pastures. Unfortunately, there are few recent studies that have given a comparative assessment of these pesticides (Bishop et al 1998), and it is thought that S. viridis is becoming more difficult to control (unpublished data). Although control failures are often attributed to problems with pesticide application, the efficacy of the pesticides being used might be a contributing factor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, potential differences in susceptibility to these pesticides could result in control failures when concurrent pest control is required (Umina & Hoffmann 1999;Umina et al 2004). Surprisingly, studies directly comparing the relative pesticide susceptibilities of S. viridis and H. destructor are limited (Bishop et al 1998;Jones & Ferris 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The tolerance of the lucerne flea, Sminthurus viridis (Collembola: Sminthuridae), to currently registered pesticides in Australia

Roberts

Umina

Hoffmann

et al. 2009

Australian Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sminthurus viridis (lucerne flea) is a major crop and pasture pest throughout southern regions of Australia that experience a Mediterranean type climate. It is particularly problematic at the establishment phase, and chemicals are currently the main option available to farmers for their control. Few studies have assessed the currently registered pesticides for the control of S. viridis, and rates of application are generally similar to the frequently co-occurring red-legged earth mite, Halotydeus destructor, despite few comparisons between species for their susceptibility being made. Here, we examine the response of S. viridis to six pesticides (a-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, omethoate, methidathion, chlorpyrifos and phosmet) and then directly compare them with H. destructor. S. viridis displayed similar dose-response curves for bifenthrin, omethoate, chlorpyrifos and phosmet. It had greater sensitivity to methidathion and greater tolerance to a-cypermethrin. S. viridis was found to be significantly more tolerant than H. destructor to all pesticides tested, with the exception of chlorpyrifos. This indicates that rates of application for control of S. viridis should be greater than H. destructor and that the organophosphates are likely to provide the most effective control of this pest.

show abstract

“…Despite such non-chemical approaches, insecticides have played an important role in pest management in lucerne in Australia and elsewhere (Hooper, 1958;Bourke, 1963;Turner and Franzmann, 1981;Bishop et al, 1998). Dependence on insecticides, however, and the associated problems of residues, environmental impact, pollution, high cost, insecticide resistance, outbreaks of secondary pests, and disruption of natural enemy populations (Vorley and Keeney, 1998) render this approach undesirable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat manipulation in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.): Strip harvesting to enhance biological control of insect pests

Hossain

Gurr

Wratten

2001

International Journal of Pest Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat manipulation in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.): strip harvesting to enhance biological control of insect pests(Abstract. Habitat manipulation by strip harvesting as a means of enhancing biological control of insect pests was tested in a commercial field of lucerne. Vacuum sampling was used on five dates to measure the population densities of the predators Dicranolaius bellulus, Coccinella transversalis and spiders, as well as the lepidopteran pests Helicoverpa spp. and Merophyas divulsana. Predator population densities were consistently and significantly greater in strips with tall regrowth than in more recently harvested strips on all dates for C. transversalis and for all but one date in the case of D. bellulus and spiders. Densities of pest larvae did not differ between these treatments during periods of low pest abundance. In late January to mid-February, however, larvae were more numerous in unharvested strips. For both Helicoverpa spp. and M. divulsana, the high larval densities 11 days after a harvest were not reflected in samples taken 7 days later, in which densities had declined significantly. Catches of M. divulsana pupae on the latter date were also low in both treatments, suggesting that the fate of lepidopteran larvae, so numerous in the unharvested treatment on the previous sample date, was attributable to predation rather than to pupation. This conclusion is supported by the observation that the rate of predation of Helicoverpa spp. egg`baits' was significantly greater in unharvested strips with dense predator populations than in harvested strips where predators were less dense. Similarly Helicoverpaspp. egg parasitism by Trichogramma spp. was significantly higher in unharvested strips than in harvested strips. Predator populations were higher in the strip harvest experiment than in a contiguous area of the same crop in which conventional harvesting was used. In the`conventional' area, densities of Helicoverpaspp. larvae were higher but no such effect was apparent for M. divulsana. The present study supports previous findings, showing that natural enemies exploit unharvested strips as refuges, and that enhancing the within-field community of natural enemies by strip harvesting contributes towards pest management.

show abstract

Efficacy of insecticides against the lucerne flea, Sminthurus viridis (L.) (Collembola: Sminthuridae), and other arthropods in lucerne

Cited by 12 publications

References 14 publications

Effects of Harvest on Survival and Dispersal of Insect Predators in Hay Lucerne

Effects of Harvest on Survival and Dispersal of Insect Predators in Hay Lucerne

The tolerance of the lucerne flea, Sminthurus viridis (Collembola: Sminthuridae), to currently registered pesticides in Australia

Habitat manipulation in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.): Strip harvesting to enhance biological control of insect pests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About