Advertisement

BioControl

, Volume 54, Issue 5, pp 625–635 | Cite as

Effects of pesticides commonly used in peach orchards in Brazil on predatory lacewing Chrysoperla carnea under laboratory conditions

  • Fabrizio P. Giolo
  • Pilar Medina
  • Anderson D. Grützmacher
  • Elisa Viñuela
Article

Abstract

Effects of the maximum field recommended concentration of five pesticides currently used on peaches in Brazil; abamectin, deltamethrin, methoxyfenozide, phosmet and trichlorfon were tested on the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae). Dimethoate was used as positive standard. Three analytical laboratory tests, based on IOBC—working group pesticides and beneficial organisms guidelines were used: (1) exposure to fresh pesticide residue on glass plates of (a) larvae (susceptible life stage) and (b) adults (less susceptible life stage); (2) direct spraying of eggs and pupae; (3) exposure of larvae and adults to pesticide residues on plant leaves at different intervals after application (persistence). In tests 1, abamectin was slightly harmful to C. carnea larvae and phosmet and trichlorfon were slightly harmful and moderately harmful to C. carnea adults, respectively. After direct spraying of eggs and pupae, all the pesticides were harmless. In the persistence tests, abamectin and trichlorfon were classified as short lived and therefore they could be considered for use in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs under special conditions (i.e. reduced direct contact). Phosmet, however, caused between 56.3 and 75.0% mortality up to 30 days after treatment and it was rated as persistent. No sublethal effects were detected in the reproductive behaviour of adults (fecundity and fertility) compared with the control in any treatment. In conclusion, the insecticides with little or no toxicity to C. carnea such as abamectin, deltamethrin and methoxyfenozide could be considered as IPM-compatible, subject to further field studies.

Keywords

Abamectin Chrysoperla carnea Chrysopidae Deltamethrin IOBC Dimethoate Methoxyfenozide Neuroptera Phosmet Trichlorfon 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture (project AGL2004-07516-C02-01/AGR) to Dr. E. Viñuela. F. Giolo thanks the “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)”, Brazil, for the doctoral fellowship. We are indebted to Homi Dara Shroff (UK) for reviewing the style and to two anonymous reviewers who have helped us to improve a lot on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

  1. Bacci L, Crespo ALB, Galvan TL, Pereira EJG, Picanço MC, Silva GA, Chediak M (2007) Toxicity of insecticides to the sweetpotato whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) and its natural enemies. Pest Manag Sci 63:699–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett BR (1964) Toxicity of some pesticides to eggs, larvae and adults of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea. J Econ Entomol 57:366–369Google Scholar
  3. Bigler F, Waldburger M (1988) A semi-field method for testing the initial toxicity of pesticides on larvae of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Steph. (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae). IOBC/WPRS Bull 11:127–134Google Scholar
  4. Bigler F, Waldburger M (1994) Effects of pesticides on Chrysoperla carnea Steph. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in the laboratory and semi-field. IOBC/WPRS Bull 17:55–69Google Scholar
  5. Canard M, Séméria Y, New TR (eds) (1984) Biology of Chrysopidae. Junk, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  6. Candolfi MP, Blumel S, Forster R, Bakker FM, Grimm C, Hassan SA, Heimbach U, Mead-Briggs MA, Reber B, Schmuck R, Vogt H (eds) (2000) Guidelines to evaluate side-effects of plant protection products to non-target arthropods. IOBC/WPRS Publication, Reinheim, 158 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Candolfi MP, Barret KL, Campbell PJ, Forster R, Grandy N, Huet M-C, Lewis G, Oomen PA, Schmuck R, Vogt H (2001) Guidance document on regulatory testing and risk assessment procedures for plant protection products with non-target arthropods. ESCORT 2 Workshop (European standard characteristics of non-target arthropod regulatory testing). Wageningen, The Netherlands, 21–23 March, 2000Google Scholar
  8. Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35:124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croft BA (1990) Arthropod biological control agents and pesticides. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52:81–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fachinello JC, Tibola CS, Vicenzi M, Panisotto E, Picolotto L, Mattos MLT (2003) Integrated production of peaches: three years of experience in the area of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Rev Bras Frutic 25:256–258 (in Portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAOSTAT (2006) FAO Statistics Division. (accessed September, 2006 at http://faostat.fao.org)
  13. Ferreira AJ, Carvalho GA, Botton M, Lasmar O (2006) Selectivity of insecticides used in apple orchards to two populations of Chrysoperla externa (Hagen, 1861) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Ciência Rural 36:378–384 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  14. Grafton-Cardwell EE, Hoy MA (1985) Intraspecific variability in response to pesticides in the common green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens). Hilgardia 53:1–31Google Scholar
  15. Hassan SA (1994) Activities of the IOBC/WPRS working group pesticides and beneficial organisms. IOBC/WPRS Bull 17:1–5Google Scholar
  16. Hassan SA, Albert R, Bigler F, Blaisinger P, Bogenschütz H, Boller E, Brun J, Chiverton P, Edwards PJ, Englert WD, Huang P, Inglesfield C, Naton E, Oomen PA, Overmeer WPJ, Rieckmann W, Samsoe-Petersen L, Stäubli A, Tuset JJ, Viggiani G, Vanwetswinkel G (1987) Results of the third joint pesticide testing programme by the IOBC/WPRS—Working Group “pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 103:92–107Google Scholar
  17. Hassan SA, Bigler F, Bogenschütz H, Boller E, Brun J, Calis JNM, Chiverton P, Coremans-Pelseneer J, Duso C, Lewis GB, Mansour F, Moreth L, Oomen PA, Overmeer WPJ, Polgar L, Rieckmann W, Samsoe-Petersen L, Stäubli A, Sterk G, Tavares K, Tuset JJ, Viggiani G (1991) Results of the fifth joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS—Working Group “pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Entomophaga 36:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassan SA, Bigler F, Bogenschütz H, Boller E, Brun J, Calis JNM, Coremans-Pelseneer J, Duso C, Grove A, Heimbach UJ, Helyer N, Hokkanen H, Lewis GB, Mansour F, Moreth L, Polgar L, Samsoe-Petersen L, Sauphanor B, Stäubli A, Sterk G, Vainio A, Van De Veire M, Viggiani G, Vogt H (1994) Results of the sixth joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS—Working Group “pesticides and beneficial organisms”. Entomophaga 39:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hassan SA, Hafes B, Degrande P, Herai K (1998) The side-effects of pesticides on the egg parasitoid Trichogramma cacoeciae Marchal (Hym., Trichogrammatidae), acute dose-response and persistence tests. J Appl Entomol 122:569–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ibrahim YB, Yee TS (2000) Influence of sublethal exposure to abamectin on the biological performance of Neoseiulus longispinosus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J Econ Entomol 93:1085–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishaaya I, Casida JE (1981) Pyrethroid esterase(s) may contribute to natural pyrethroid tolerance of larvae of the common green lacewing. Environ Entomol 10:681–684Google Scholar
  22. Jacas J, Viñuela E (1994) Analysis of a lab method to test the effects of pesticides on adult females of Opius concolor, a parasitoid of the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae. Biocontrol Sci Technol 4:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khan I, Morse JG (2006) Impact of citrus thrips chemical treatments on the predatory mite Euseius tularensis. J Appl Entomol 130:386–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim S, Brooks DJ, Riedl H (2006) Lethal and sublethal effects of abamectin, spinosad, methoxyfenozide and acetamiprid on the predaceous plant bug Deraeocoris brevis in the laboratory. BioControl 51:465–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li X, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR (2007) Molecular mechanisms of metabolic resistance to synthetic and natural xenobiotics. Annu Rev Entomol 52:231–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Longley M, Jepson PC, Izquierdo J, Sotherton N (1997) Temporal and spatial changes in aphid and parasitoid populations following applications of deltamethrin in winter wheat. Entomol Exp Appl 83:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McEwen P, New TR, Whittington AE (eds) (2001) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 546 ppGoogle Scholar
  28. Medina P, Budia F, Tirry L, Smagghe G, Viñuela E (2001) Compatibility of spinosad, tebufenozide and azadirachtin with eggs and pupae of the predator Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) under laboratory conditions. Biocontrol Sci Technol 11:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Medina P, Budia F, del Estal P, Adán A, Viñuela E (2004) Toxicity of fipronil to the predatory lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Biocontrol Sci Technol 14:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michaud JP (2002) Relative toxicity of six insecticides to Cycloneda sanguinea and Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Entomol Sci 37:82–93Google Scholar
  31. Overmeer WPJ, Van Zoon AQ (1982) A standardized method for testing side effect of pesticides on the predacious mite Amblyseius potentiella (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomophaga 27:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rajakulendran SV, Plapp FW Jr (1982) Comparative toxicities of five synthetic pyrethroids to the tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an ichneumonid parasite Compoletis sonorensis and a predator, Chrysopa carnea. J Econ Entomol 75:769–772Google Scholar
  33. Rezaei M, Talebi K, Naveh VH, Kavousi A (2006) Impacts of the pesticides imidacloprid, propargite and pymetrozine on Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae): IOBC and life table assays. BioControl 52:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers MA, Krischik VA, Martin LA (2007) Effect of soil application of imidacloprid on survival of adult green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), used for biological control in greenhouse. Biol Control 42:172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salles LAB (1998) Insect-pests and your control. In: Medeiros CAB, Raseira MC (eds) The peach orchards. Embrapa-CPACT, Brasília, pp 206–242 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  36. SAS Institute Inc (1999) SAS® procedures guide, version 8. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterk G, Hassan SA, Baillod M, Bakker F, Bigler F, Blümel S, Bogenschütz H, Boller E, Bromand B, Brun J, Calis JNM, Coremans-Pelseneer J, Duso C, Garrido A, Grove A, Heimbach U, Hokkanen H, Jacas J, Lewis G, Moreth L, Polgar L, Roversti L, Samsoe-Petersen L, Sauphanor B, Schaub L, Stäubli A, Tuset JJ, Vainio A, Van de Veire M, Viggiani G, Viñuela E, Vogt H (1999) Results of the seventh joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group pesticides and beneficial organisms. BioControl 44:99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Toda S, Kashio T (1997) Toxic effects of pesticides on the larvae of Chrysoperla carnea. Proc Assoc Pl Prot Kyushu 43:101–105Google Scholar
  39. Van De Veire M, Cornelis W, Tirry L (2001) Developmental of a laboratory test method to determine the duration of pesticide-effects on predatory mites. IOBC/WPRS Bull 24:61–66Google Scholar
  40. Vogt H (1994) Effects of pesticides on Chrysoperla carnea Steph. (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae) in the field and comparison with laboratory and semi-field results. IOBC/WPRS Bull 17:71–82Google Scholar
  41. Vogt H, Viñuela E (2001) Effects of pesticides. In: McEwen P, New TR, Whittington AE (eds) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–366Google Scholar
  42. Vogt H, Degrande P, Just J, Klepka S, Kühner C, Nickless A, Ufer A, Waldburger M, Waltersdorfer A, Bigler F (1998) Side-effects of pesticides on larvae of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae): actual state of the laboratory method. In: Haskell PT, McEwen P (eds) Ecotoxicology: pesticides and beneficial organisms. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 123–136Google Scholar
  43. Vogt H, Bigler F, Brown K, Candolfi MP, Kemmeter F, Kühner C, Moll M, Travis A, Ufer A, Viñuela E, Waldburger M, Waltersdorfer A (2000) Laboratory method to test effects of plant protection products on larvae of Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). In: Candolfi MP, Blümel S, Forster R, Bakker FM, Grimm C, Hassan SA, Heimbach U, Mead-Briggs MA, Reber B, Schmuck R, Vogt H (eds) Guidelines to evaluate side-effects of plant protection products to non-target arthropods. IOBC/WPRS Publication, Reinheim, pp 107–119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio P. Giolo
    • 1
  • Pilar Medina
    • 2
  • Anderson D. Grützmacher
    • 1
  • Elisa Viñuela
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Fitossanity, College of Agriculture “Eliseu Maciel”Federal University of PelotasPelotasBrazil
  2. 2.Unidad de Protección de Cultivos, E. T. S. I. AgrónomosUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations