Seed Treatments for Wireworm Control with Particular Reference to the Use of Lindane1

Lange, W.; Carlson, E; Leach, L. D.

doi:10.1093/jee/42.6.942

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wheat stand in the Vitavax Dual seed treatments (containing lindane) was poor in 2003 and 2005. This was probably due to phytotoxicity, because phytotoxic symptoms (poor germination and slow growth) are commonly observed during germination tests in the laboratory (R.S.V., unpublished data) and also have been reported in the literature (e.g., Lange et al 1949). Also, typical wireworm damage was rare in the Vitavax Dual treatments relative to untreated check plots, suggesting that the Vitavax Dual treatment was likely protecting emerged seedlings from potential wireworm damage.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Historically, most attention has focused on developing methods to mitigate crop damage by wireworms, although a smaller subset of published studies also have examined the fate of wireworms exposed to various management strategies in the Þeld. It is important to note that many of these combined crop protection/wireworm fate studies involved earlier classes of insecticides such as the organochlorines (OCs) (e.g., Lange et al 1949), organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates (e.g., Edwards and Thompson 1971), but a paucity of such studies exist for the newer classes of insecticides such as the pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, and phenyl pyrazoles. Because many of the earlier studies showed that damage protection was in fact linked to mortality of wireworm populations by several OCs and OPs (Lange et al 1949, Lane 1954, Edwards and Thompson 1971, it is tempting to equate good crop stand and yield protection by the newer classes of insecticides with wireworm mortality, albeit unconÞrmed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note that many of these combined crop protection/wireworm fate studies involved earlier classes of insecticides such as the organochlorines (OCs) (e.g., Lange et al 1949), organophosphates (OPs) and carbamates (e.g., Edwards and Thompson 1971), but a paucity of such studies exist for the newer classes of insecticides such as the pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, and phenyl pyrazoles. Because many of the earlier studies showed that damage protection was in fact linked to mortality of wireworm populations by several OCs and OPs (Lange et al 1949, Lane 1954, Edwards and Thompson 1971, it is tempting to equate good crop stand and yield protection by the newer classes of insecticides with wireworm mortality, albeit unconÞrmed. Recent laboratory studies, however, have shown that the short and long-term toxic effects of pyrethroid, neonicotinoid, and phenyl pyrazole insecticides on wireworms differ considerably from each other and from the OCs and OPs (van Herk et al 2007(van Herk et al , 2008aVernon et al 2008), and the toxicities of individual insecticides also may differ among species (van Herk et al 2007(van Herk et al , 2008a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wireworm Management I: Stand Protection Versus Wireworm Mortality With Wheat Seed Treatments

Vernon

Herk

Clodius

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of various insecticidal seed treatments in protecting wheat, Triticum aestivum L., from wireworm damage as well as reducing wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) populations was studied over 3 yr. Protection from wireworm damage was measured by postplanting stand counts, and effects on wireworm populations were measured by within-row core samples and by bait traps placed in plots the following spring. The effects of treatments on populations of larger wireworms already present at planting were distinguished from their effects on neonate wireworms produced that growing season. Neonicotinoid seed treatments (imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam) provided excellent wheat stand protection, likely through prolonged wireworm intoxication, but populations of larger and neonate wireworms were not significantly reduced in bait traps the following spring. The pyrethroid tefluthrin, applied to seed with and without a neonicotinoid insecticide (thiamethoxam), provided excellent crop protection, but populations of wireworms also were not significantly reduced. This and additional laboratory data suggest that wheat stand establishment provided by tefluthrin is due to a combination of repulsion and short term morbidity events. The phenyl pyrazole fipronil provided excellent crop protection, and populations of both larger and neonate wireworms could not be detected in plots the following spring. The previously registered organochlorine lindane, although reducing wireworm feeding, was phytotoxic in 2 of 3 yr. Next to fipronil, lindane was the most consistent seed treatment in reducing populations of larger and neonate wireworms. These studies indicate that stand and yield protection provided by contemporary wheat seed treatments cannot automatically be equated with wireworm population mortality. This is an important consideration when choosing a suitable seed treatment to replace lindane, which historically provided both stand protection and wireworm reduction, and did not have to be applied every year.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wireworm Management I: Stand Protection Versus Wireworm Mortality With Wheat Seed Treatments

Vernon

Herk

Clodius

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…fipronil) are as toxic as the parent compound (Scharf et al 2000). The importance of continuing wireworm health observations long after exposure to insecticides was recognised long ago: Lehman (1933b) continued health checks on L. californicus (Mannerheim) larvae exposed to carbon disulfide for 60 days, during which some wireworms that initially appeared dead made a complete recovery; Lange et al (1949) and Long and Lilly (1958) conducted regular observations on wireworms after laboratory studies for 16 and 20 weeks, respectively. We have stressed the importance of continuing health checks for up to a year, depending on the chemical class under evaluation, in previous work.…”

Section: Importance Of Direct Observations Of Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors also contribute to the difficulty of obtaining consistent results between field efficacy studies for wireworm management conducted by different research programmes. Other factors complicating such studies are the polyphagous nature of many pest species, which causes organic material in the soil to distract them from contacting insecticides applied on seed or in furrow (Vernon and van Herk 2012), among species variability in insecticide susceptibility (Lange et al 1949;van Herk et al 2007), and the behavioural responses elicited by the insecticides applied. Regarding the latter, our laboratory studies have shown insecticides which when applied to wheat seed can elicit repellency (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact behaviour and mortality of wireworms exposed to six classes of insecticide applied to wheat seed

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insecticide-treated seed is commonly used to manage wireworms, with insecticide toxicity generally being deduced from crop stand protection rather than from directly observed wireworm responses. We observed the behaviour of larvae of two economic elaterids exposed to wheat seeds treated with 11 insecticides at various rates or combinations in a soil environment. Wireworms were exposed for 3 or 24 h, and the post-contact health and mobility of 1030 larvae that contacted seeds were assessed (bi)weekly for 12-42 weeks. Considerable repellency was observed when wireworms were exposed to bifenthrin, tefluthrin, k-cyhalothrin, and some repellency was also observed at high rates of various other insecticides. A high proportion of wireworms were moribund after 24 h when exposed to treatments containing thiamethoxam, fipronil, or high rates of ethiprole, cyazypyr, chlorpyrifos, and spinosad, but not after exposure to bifenthrin, tefluthrin, chlorantraniliprole, spirotetramat, or low rates of ethiprole, cyazypyr, and chlorpyrifos. High mortality was observed in all treatments containing fipronil, but none after exposure to bifenthrin, tefluthrin, k-cyhalothrin, chlorantraniliprole, spirotetramat, spinosad, or low rates of cyazypyr. Combining thiamethoxam with fipronil or a high rate of chlorpyrifos decreased the toxicity of the second compound. These findings largely explain why we observe stand protection without wireworm population reduction in efficacy studies with wheat seed treated with various pyrethroid and neonicotinoid insecticides, and suggest a similar result for other insecticides that only induce temporary morbidity. This bioassay allows for rapid screening of insecticides proposed for wireworm management before these are evaluated in labour-intensive and costly field trials.

show abstract

10.1007/BF00302239

2011

CrossRef Listing of Deleted DOIs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seed Treatments for Wireworm Control with Particular Reference to the Use of Lindane1

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Wireworm Management I: Stand Protection Versus Wireworm Mortality With Wheat Seed Treatments

Wireworm Management I: Stand Protection Versus Wireworm Mortality With Wheat Seed Treatments

Contact behaviour and mortality of wireworms exposed to six classes of insecticide applied to wheat seed

10.1007/BF00302239

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About