Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Insecticide Residues on <I>Orius insidiosus</I> (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and <I>Geocoris punctipes</I> (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae)

Abstract

Laboratory-reared predators, the insidious flower bug, Orius insidiosus (Say), and big-eyed bug Geocoris punctipes (Say), were exposed to 10 insecticides, including three newer insecticides with novel modes of action, using a residual insecticide bioassay. These species are important predators of several economic pests of cotton. Insecticides tested were: azinphos-methyl, imidacloprid, spinosad, tebufenozide, fipronil, endosulfan, chlorfenapyr, cyfluthrin, profenofos, and malathion. There was considerable variation in response between both species tested to the insecticides. Tebufenozide and cyfluthrin were significantly less toxic to male O. insidiosus than malathion. Tebufenozide was also significantly less toxic to female O. insidiosus than malathion. Imidacloprid, tebufenozide, and spinosad were significantly less toxic to male G. punctipes than chlorfenapyr, endosulfan, and fipronil. Spinosad, tebufenozide, and azinphos-methyl were significantly less toxic to female G. punctipes than fipronil and endosulfan. Fecundity of O. insidiosus was significantly greater in the spinosad treatment compared with other treatments including the control. Consumption of bollworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), eggs by O. insidiosus was significantly lower in the fipronil, profenofos, and cyfluthrin treatments compared with other treatments including the control. Consumption of H. zea eggs by G. punctipes was significantly lower in the malathion, profenofos, endosulfan, fipronil, azinphos-methyl, and imidacloprid treatments compared with the control. Egg consumption by G. punctipes was not significantly different in the tebufenozide treatment compared with the control. The lower toxicity of spinosad to G. punctipes is consistent with other reports. Based on these results, the following insecticides are not compatible with integrated pest management of cotton pests: malathion, endosulfan, profenofos, fipronil, and cyfluthrin; while imidacloprid, tebufenozide, azinphos-methyl, and spinosad should provide pest control while sparing beneficial species.

Impact of Reduced-Risk Insecticides on Soybean Aphid and Associated Natural Enemies

“…Unfortunately, to date pymetrozine and imidicloprid are not available to soybean growers in a form that can be applied to soybean foliage. One product that includes imidicloprid (Leverage, Bayer CropScience) is available to farmers; however, this product also contains cyßuthrin, a broad-spectrum insecticide that would probably remove existing natural enemies (Elzen 2001). Thus, the beneÞts from the use of reduced-risk insecticides, as it relates to pest management, may be at risk if these products are sold in combination with a broad-spectrum insecticide.…”

The Side-Effect of Organic Insecticide Spinosad on Biochemical and Microbiological Properties of Clay Soil

“…These compounds were isolated from the soil actinomycetes Saccharopolyspora spinosa [Kowalska and Drozdzyński, 2009]. Spinosad possesses both contact and stomach poison activity against insects belonging to Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, Isoptera, Lepidoptera, Siphonoptera and Thysanoptera but has little or no activity against sucking insects, predatory insects and mites [Elzen, 2001;Galvan et a1., 2006;Elliot et al, 2007]. It is a neurotoxin with a novel mode of action involving the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and apparently the GABA receptors as well [Cisneros et al, 2002].…”

Laboratory and field evaluation of the effects of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid on the oviposition response of Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti Linnaeus (Diptera: Culicidae)

“…It is widely used against crop pests (Nauen et al 1998, Elzen 2001, Capowiez & Berard 2006, but Paul et al (2006) recently found that it was also effective against both the larvae and adult stages of Ae. aegypti.…”