Impact of the insect growth regulator diflubenzuron on invertebrates in a residential-recreational lake
- 57 Downloads
The effects of the insect growth regulator (IGR) diflubenzuron [1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)-urea] on planktonic, nektonic, and benthic invertebrates in a residential-recreational lake were studied during the period of April to October 1977. A 25% WP formulation of the IGR was applied at 156 g AI/ha (0.012 ppm) to the entire lake surface, once on April 26, and again on August 24.
The April treatment severely affected populations of the cladoceransDaphnia laevis Birge,Ceriodaphnia sp.,Bosmina longirostris (O. F. Muller), and the copepodsCyclops spp. andDiaptomus sp., completely eliminating them within one week posttreatment.Daphnia andCeriodaphnia did not recover even after 6 months of treatment butB. longirostris reappeared 11 weeks posttreatment.Diaptomus was depleted for four months, whileCyclops recovered within six to seven weeks after treatment. The amphipodHyalella azteca (Saussure) was completely eliminated within four weeks remaining absent for more than six months after the treatment. The prolonged absence of these nontarget organisms following treatment is probably due to the seasonal cycle of the species involved and the inability of some of the taxa to rapidly recolonize the treated habitat.
Nymphs of the mayfly,Caenis sp., were reduced 99%, recovering in six weeks posttreatment. The IGR had no adverse effects on oligochaetes (Naididae and Tubificidae), Hydrachnellid mites, the gastropodPhysa sp., and the ostracodCypridopsis sp.
The second application in August caused complete elimination ofCyclops andB. longirostris within one to two weeks, the former recovering in four weeks and the latter in eight to nine weeks after the treatment.Caenis, also was adversely affected, recoveringin four to five weeks posttreatment. No significant reduction in Cypridopsid, Hydrachnellid, Physid, or oligochaete populations was noted.
KeywordsAdverse Effect Urea Growth Regulator Seasonal Cycle Treated Habitat
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ali, A.: Invertebrate drift in a Westmorland stream. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Salford, England (1969).Google Scholar
- Ali, A.: A study of the stream bed invertebrate fauna of the lower reaches of a tributary of the River Lune in relation to the blackfly larval and pupal populations. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Salford, England (1972).Google Scholar
- Ali, A., and M. S. Mulla: Chemical control of nuisance midges in the Santa Ana River Basin, southern California. J. Econ. Entomol.70, 191 (1977a).Google Scholar
- —: The IGR diflubenzuron and organophosphorus insecticides against nuisance midges in man-made residential-recreational lakes. J. Econ. Entomol.70, 571 (1977b).Google Scholar
- —: Effects of chironomid larvicides and diflubenzuron on nontarget invertebrates in residential-recreational lakes. Environ. Entomol.7, 21 (1978).Google Scholar
- Ali, A., M. S. Mulla, B. A. Federici, and F. W. Pelsue: Seasonal changes in chironomid fauna and rainfall reducing chironomids in urban flood control channels. Environ. Entomol.6, 619 (1977).Google Scholar
- Edmondson, W. T.: Freshwater Biology. 2 ed., p. 1248, New York: John Wiley and Sons (1963).Google Scholar
- Lacey, L. A., and M. S. Mulla: Larvicidal and ovicidal activity of Dimilin® againstSimulium vittatum. J. Econ. Entomol.70, 369 (1977).Google Scholar
- Miura, T., and R. M. Takahashi: Insect development inhibitors: Effects of candidate mosquito control agents on nontarget aquatic organisms. Environ. Entomol.3, 631 (1974).Google Scholar
- —: Effects of the IGR TH-6040 on nontarget organisms when utilized as a mosquito control agent. Mosq. News35, 154 (1975).Google Scholar
- Miura, T., W. D. Murray, and R. M. Takahashi: Effects of Dimilin® on nontarget organisms in early-springCulex tarsalis larval habitats. Proc. and Papers Calif. Mosq. Contr. Assoc.43, 79 (1975).Google Scholar
- Mulla, M. S., and H. A. Darwazeh: The IGR Dimilin ® and its formulations against mosquitoes. J. Econ. Entomol.69, 309 (1976).Google Scholar
- Mulla, M. S., W. L. Kramer, and D. R. Barnard: Insect growth regulators for control of chironomid midges in residential-recreational lakes. J. Econ. Entomol.69, 285 (1976).Google Scholar
- Mulla, M. S., G. Majori, and H. A. Darwazeh: Effects of the insect growth regulator Dimilin® or TH 6040 on mosquitoes and some nontarget organisms. Mosq. News35, 211 (1975).Google Scholar
- Mulla, M. S., R. L. Norland, D. M. Fanara, H. A. Darwazeh, and D. W. McKean: Control of chironomid midges in recreational lakes. J. Econ. Entomol.64, 300 (1971).Google Scholar
- Schaefer, C. H., and E. F. Durpras, Jr.: Residues of diflubenzuron [1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)-urea] in pasture soil, vegetation, and water following aerial applications. J. Agric. Food Chem.55, 1026 (1977).Google Scholar
- Schaefer, C. H., W. H. Wilder, and F. S. Mulligan III: A practical evaluation of TH-6040 as a mosquito control agent in California. J. Econ. Entomol.68, 183 (1975).Google Scholar
- Steelman, C. D., J. E. Farlow, T. P. Breaud, and P. E. Schilling: Effects of growth regulators onPsorophora columbiae (Dyar and Knab) and nontarget aquatic insect species in rice fields. Mosq. News35, 67 (1975).Google Scholar
- Takahashi, R. M., and T. Miura: Insect development inhibitors: Multiple application of Dimilin® and Altosid® toGambusia affinis (Baird and Girard). Proc. and Papers Calif. Mosq. Cont. Assoc.43, 85 (1975).Google Scholar
- Usinger, R. L.: Aquatic insects of California, p. 508. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press (1956).Google Scholar