Advertisement

Residual Toxicity of Various Insecticidal Formulations to the Coffee Berry Borer, Hypothenemus Hampei Ferrari (Scolytidae: Coleoptera)

  • Ajai Mansingh
  • Llewellyn F. Rhodes
Research Article

Abstract

The persistence of 34 formulations in the green (G) and red (R) berries of C. arabica var. typica, infested with female adult H. hampei were assayed by a dip-technique. The 3-day LC50 values in G and R (figures in parentheses) berries for thiodan EC 35 were 0.00284 (0.00327), and the relative ratio of values for other formulations were: perfekthion 1.2 (2.1) > carbicron 1.6 (2.3) > basudin 3.5 (3.2) > actellic 4.0 (3.6) > decis 4.1 (3.7) > thiodan EC 3 4.2 (4.2) > bidrin 5.8 (5.0) > malathion 5.8 (5.1) > lindane 5.8 (5.6) > ciodrin 5.9 (5.6) > folimat 6.0 (6.0) > belmark 6.2 (6.3) > aldicarb 8.0 (9.7) > nexion 11.0 (12.0)>kelthane 13.5 (15.4) > tiovel 14.6 (16.3)>dursban 15.6 (22.0) > chlordane 17.8 (23.8) > methomyl 21.5 (24.3) > aldrin 25.1 (24.9) > supona 27.2 (26.5) > dimilin 29.0 (27.5) > methoxychlor 31.7 (92.2) > chlorfenvinphos 35.8 (92.5) > dieldrin 41.2 (93.8) > phosdrin 65.0 (94.7)>sevin 104.2 (118.0)> nexagan 106.4 (121.9) >bimarit 196.4 (301.7) > azodrin 271.2 (410.4) > fenitrothion 448.3 (417.0) > chlorpyrifos 448.8 (614.3) > gardona 514.6 (703.1), -fold more than the thiodan EC 35 values.

The 7-day LC50 values for 29 formulations were ca 10–82% less than those of the 3-day values; the decrease in the values for leading formulations being thiodan EC 35 13.4 (8.3), perfekthion 6.5 (39.9), carbicron 12.4 (10.6), thiodan EC 324.3 (16.4), malathion 35.2 (25.7), lindane 82.1 (76.9) and tiovel 59.6 (67). The values for the 17 least toxic formulations (except dimilin and bimarit) showed ca 27–88% decrease during the last 4 days of observations.

Key Words

Coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei insecticides formulations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almeida P. R. and Cavalcante R. D. (1964) Ensaio de campo com novas insecticidas organicos no combate a broca de cafe, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr. 1867). Archos Inst, biol., S Paulo 31, 85–90.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida P. R., Pigatti A. and Arruda H. V. (1980) Alguns no va productos aplicados em ensaio de campo contrôle a broca, Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr, 1867), do cafe. Resume, I.B.C. Congress, Brazil, Vol. 8, pp. 67–69.Google Scholar
  3. Amarai S. F., Arruda H. V. and Orlando A. (1973) Some insecticides and coffee liquor. Archos Inst, biol., S Paulo 40, 173–180.Google Scholar
  4. Amarai S. F. and Oliviera D. A. (1974) The behaviour of some chlorinated insecticides for the control of coffee berry borer H. hampei (Ferr. 1867). Secao de Pragas des Plantas Alimenticias Basices e Olericolas, instituto Biologio, Sao Paulo, Brazil Vol. 40, pp. 106–110.Google Scholar
  5. Bardner R. (1978) Pest control in coffee. Pestic, Sci. 9, 458–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busvine J. R. (1971) Techniques for Testing Insecticides. Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London.Google Scholar
  7. Evans D. E. (1965) The coffee berry borer control in Kenya. Kenya Coff 134, 15–21.Google Scholar
  8. Hernandez-Paz P. and Penagos D. H. (1974) Evaluation of a system of low volume application, in the control of the borer of coffee fruit. An. Cafe 134, 15–21.Google Scholar
  9. Ingram W. R. (1968) Observations on the control of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei (Ferr) with endosulfan in Uganda. Bull. ent. Res. 57, 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lepage H. S. and Giannotti O. (1950) The action of some modern insecticides on the coffee berry borer. Archos Inst. biol., S Paulo 19, 299–308.Google Scholar
  11. Le Pelley R. H. (1969) Pests of Coffee, pp. 116–138. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  12. Liceras Z. L. and Farge G. G. (1975) Chemical control of the coffee berry borer with early and late applications in Tingo Maria. Revta perù. Ent. 17, 78–80.Google Scholar
  13. Maier-Bode H. (1968) Properties, effect residues and analytics of the insecticide endosulfan. Resid. Rev. 22, 1–37.Google Scholar
  14. Mansingh A. and Rhodes L. F. (1983) Bioassay of various formulations of insecticides on the egg and larval stages of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei Ferrari (Scolytidae: Coleoptera). Insect Sci. Applic. 4, 223–226.Google Scholar
  15. Penados-Robles R. and Ochoa M. H. (1978) Evaluation of insecticides in the control of the borer of coffee fruit in the republic of Guatamala. In Symposium on Coffee Cultivation, pp. 25–37. Curoa Reuniones, IICA 184, Guatamala City.Google Scholar
  16. Rhodes L. F. and Mansingh A. (1981) Susceptibility of the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei to various in-secticidal formulations. Insect Sci. Applic. 2, 227–231.Google Scholar
  17. Thomson W. T. (1980) Agricultural Chemicals, Book I, Insecticides. Thomson Fresno, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICIPE 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajai Mansingh
    • 1
  • Llewellyn F. Rhodes
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of the West IndiesKingston 7Jamaica

Personalised recommendations