Laboratory Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Tarnished Plant Bug in Mississippi, II, 1995

Abstract

Insecticides were evaluated at Mississippi State University in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Insecticides were applied on 31 May in a spray chamber equipped with a single Spraying Systems TX3 hollow cone nozzle and calibrated for 5 gpa at a pressure of 28 psi and a speed of 3 mph. Carrier of the insecticides was water, with an initial pH of 8.0. Plant bugs were collected the morning of application by sweeping wild flowers with a 15 inch diameter sweep net. Leaves were collected in the field and transported to the lab where leaf disks 48 mm in diameter were cut and placed in 50 x 11 mm Petri dishes with two filter papers moistened with four drops of water to keep the leaf turgid. The leaf disks were then sprayed and allowed to dry before being infested. Four leaf disks with five plant bugs each were used per treatment and replicate. The bioassay was maintained in darkness at 80° F for 24 h prior to evaluation.

Longitudinal Measurements of Tarnished Plant Bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) Susceptibility to Insecticides in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi: Associations with Insecticide Use and Insect Control Recommendations

“…This paper continues a history of the reporting of assay responses of tarnished plant bug to the major classes of insecticide used in the Delta. There is a wealth of previous information on tarnished plant bug response to insecticides in this area, including early work [ 43 , 44 ], numerous papers from the Snodgrass laboratory [ 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 45 ], studies in Arkansas [ 29 , 33 ], studies in Louisiana [ 46 , 47 ], a summary of small-plot field experiments in Mississippi [ 2 ], and a number of efforts to understand tarnished plant bug resistance mechanisms [ 1 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Understanding the changes in susceptibility over time are important, but understanding how these changes evolve and how management practices can be refined with this information is particularly relevant to managing tarnished plant bugs in the future.…”

“…Recommended application rates of acephate were increased from 0.23–0.33 lb ai/acre to 0.5–1.0 lb ai/acre during this time period ( Table 10 ), indicating a growing concern for the level of field control being achieved. Reed et al [ 2 ] summarized results of replicated field experiments conducted to measure tarnished plant bug control in cotton with organophosphate insecticides, and reported that the average control measured from 1982 to 1997 was 57%. If this level of field control compares to the previous assay data of Snodgrass et al [ 21 ], and field control is even loosely related to changes in assay response, acephate applications alone do not adequately control tarnished plant bugs in the field.…”

“…Increased use of insecticide sprays for the targeted control of tarnished plant bug ( Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois)) in the Midsouth has been widely discussed and highlighted by numerous authors over the last two decades [ 1 , 2 ]. The current number of sprays made for tarnished plant bug is increasing and is somewhat reminiscent of scheduled “calendar day” approaches to pest management from the 1950s and 1960s that led to adverse effects of over-reliance on chemical control, resulting environmental problems, outbreaks of secondary pests, and a pesticide treadmill that evolved around cycles of new insecticide chemistry [ 3 ].…”

“…Research at both the University of Arkansas [ 29 ] and Mississippi State University [ 1 ] has also addressed similar research topics. Notable published research on the field control of tarnished plant bugs with foliar applied insecticides include Scott et al [ 30 ] and Reed, Jackson, and Harris [ 2 ].…”