Effectiveness of a naturally derived insecticide, spinosad, against the pine processionary moth Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) under laboratory conditions

Pest Management Science

Volumn 62, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 452-455

  Semiz, Gurkan ^a   Cetin, Huseyin ^a   Isik, Kani ^a   Yanikoglu, Atila ^a  

^a AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Biological control; Pine processionary moth; Spinosad; Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni

Indexed keywords

INSECTICIDE; MACROLIDE; SPINOSAD;

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; IN SITU TEST; INSECTICIDE; LARVA; MORTALITY; MOTH;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DRUG COMBINATION; LARVA; LD 50; MOTH; PARASITOLOGY; PINE;

ANIMALS; DRUG COMBINATIONS; INSECTICIDES; LARVA; LETHAL DOSE 50; MACROLIDES; MOTHS; PINUS;

EURASIA; TURKEY;

LEPIDOPTERA; THAUMETOPOEA PITYOCAMPA; THAUMETOPOEA WILKINSONI; THAUMETOPOEINAE;

EID: 33646354393     PISSN: 1526498X     EISSN: 15264998     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ps.1181     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Isik K and Kara N, Altitudinal variation in Pinus brutia Ten. and its implication in genetic conservation and seed transfers in Southern Turkey. Silvae Genet 44:116-128 (1997).
2. Kara N, Korol L, Isik K and Schiller G, Genetic diversity in Pinus brutia Ten.: altitudinal variation. Silvae Genet 46:155-161 (1997).
3. Panetsos K, Monograph of Pinus halepensis Mill, and Pinus brutia Ten. Ann Forest 9:39-77 (1981).
4. Arbez M, Distribution, ecology and variation of Pinus brutia in Turkey. Forest Gen Res Info FAO, Rome 3:21-23 (1974).
5. Critchfield WB and Little EL, Geographic distribution of the pines of the world. USDA Forest Service Miscell Publ 991 (1966).
6. Selik M, Botanical investigation on Pinus brutia especially in comparison with Pinus halepensis. J Istanbul Univ Fac Forest 8:161-198 (1958).
7. Nahal I, Le pin brutia (Pinus brutia Ten. subsp. brutia). Première partie. Forest Médit 5:165-171 (1983).
8. Nahal I, Le pin brutia (Pinus brutia Ten. subsp. brutia). Deuxième partie, Forest Médit 6:5-15 (1984).
9. Halperin J, The origin and distribution of Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams. La-Yaraan 28:44-45 (1978).
10. Tams WHT, A new processionary moth injurious to pine trees in Cyprus. Bull Entomol Res 15:293-294 (1925).
11. Wilkinson DS, The Cyprus processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams). Bull Entomol Res 17:163-182 (1926).
12. Agenjo R, Monographia de la familia Thaumetopoeidae. Eos Madrid 17:69-130 (1941).
13. Avtzis N, Development of Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) in relation to food consumption. Forest Ecol Manag 15:65-68 (1986).
14. Halperin J, Life history of Thaumetopoea spp. (Lep. Thaumetopoeidae) in Israel. J Appl Entomol 100:1-6 (1990).
15. Kanat M and Alma MH, Insecticidal effects of essential oils from various plants against larvae of pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff) (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae). Pest Manag Sci 60:173-177 (2004).
16. Mirchev P, Schmidt GH, Tsankov G and Avci M, Egg parasitoids of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep. Thaumetopoeidae) and their impact in SW Turkey. J Appl Entomol 128:533-542 (2004).
17. Avci M, Investigations on structure of egg-batches, parasitism and egg laying habits of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep.: Thaumetopoeidae) in various regions of Turkey. J Entomol Res Soc 24:167-178 (2000).
18. Ozkazanc O, Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis against Thaumetopoea pityocampa Den. & Schiff. and determination of effective doses. Institute of Forest Research Tech Rep 14, Ankara (1986).
19. Acatay A, Researches on Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. (= Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams.) and management in lands. J Istanbul Univ Fac Forest 3:29-47 (1953). (in Turkish).
20. Acatay A, Thaumetopoea Hbst. (Lep., Thaumetopoeidae) species in Turkey. XIII Int Congr on Entomology, Moscow, pp. 8-9 (1972).
21. Demolin G, La processionnaire du cedre, Thaumetopoea bonjeani Powel. FAO Rep Project DP-FO-ALG/83/013 (1988).
22. Demolin G and Frerot B, Sex pheromone of the processionary moth and biosystematic consideration within the genus Thaumetopoea (Thaumetopoeidae, Thaumetopoeinae). Boll Zool Agric Bach 25:33-40 (1993).
23. Salvato P, Battisti A, Concato S, Masutti L, Patarnello T and Zane L, Genetic differentiation in the winter pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa-wilkinsoni complex), inferred by AFLP and mitochondrial DNA markers. Mol Ecol 11:2435-2444 (2002).
24. Gafni R, Goaz A, Nestel D and Mendel Z, Examination of the origin of insect pests of pine in Israel using RAPD-PCR, in BCPC Symposium Series No 65, ed. by Marshall G, British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, Surrey, UK, pp. 253-298 (1996).
25. Mendel Z, On the origin of the pine processionary caterpillar, Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams (Lep., Thaumetopoeaidae), in Israel. J Appl Entomol 109:311-314 (1990).
26. Devkota B and Schmidt GH, Larval development of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep., Thaumetopoeidae) from Greece as influenced by different host plants under laboratory conditions. J Appl Entomol 109:321-330 (1990).
27. Breuer M and Devkota B, Control of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) by extracts of Melia azedarach L. (Meliaceae). J Appl Entomol 110:128-135 (1990).
28. Demolin G and Martin JC, Winter trials in forests with deltamethrin (Decis and K-Othrine EC 15) against Thaumetopoea pityocampa. Bull OEPP 16:417-421 (1986).
29. Denneulin JC and Lamy M, Sterols of the pine processionary caterpillar; effects of diflubenzuron (Dimilin). Experientia 38:800-801 (1982).
30. Halperin J, Control of the pine processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni Tams) with diflubenzuron. Phytoparasitica 8:83-91 (1980).
31. Georgevits RP, Comparison of results in the control of Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff. with Dimilin, Decis, Bactospeine and Thuricide HP. Anakoinoseis Idrumaton Dasikon Ereunon 7:7-34 (1979).
32. Rausell C, Martinez-Ramirez AC, Garcia-Robles I and Real MD, The toxicity and physiological effects of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and formulations on Thaumetopoea pityocampa, the pine processionary caterpillar. Pestic Biochem Physiol 65:44-54 (1999).
33. Georgevits RP, New perspectives for the control of the pine processionary (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff.) with Dimilin. Anakoinoseis Idrumaton Dasikon Ereunon 8:7-25 (1980).
34. Denneulin JC and Lamy M, Effects of a chitin inhibitor, dimilin, 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea, on the oenocytes and moulting in the processionary caterpillar (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff.) (Lepidoptera). Ann Endocrinol 38:405-406 (1977).
35. Kashian DR and Dodson SI, Effects of common-use pesticides on developmental and reproductive processes in Daphnia. Toxicol Ind Health 18:225-235 (2002).
36. Waldron C, Matsushima P, Rosteck PR, Broughton MC, Turner J, Madduri K, et al, Cloning and analysis of the spinosad biosynthetic gene cluster of Saccharopolyspora spinosa. Chem Biol 8:487-499 (2001).
37. DeAmicis CV, Dripps JE, Hatton CJ and Karr LL, Physical and biological properties of the spinosyns: novel macrolide pest-control agents from fermentation, in Phytochemicals for Pest Control, ACS Symposium Series No 658, ed. by Hedin PA, Hollingworth RM, Masler EP, Miyamoto J and Thompson DG, American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp. 144-154 (1997).
38. Kirst HA, Michel KH, Mynderse JS, Chio EH, Yao RC, Nakatsukasa WM, et al, Discovery, isolation, and structure elucidation of a family of structurally unique fermentation-derived tetracyclic macrolides, in Synthesis and Chemistry of Agrochemicals III, ed. by Baker DR, Fenyes JD and Steffans JJ. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 214-225 (1992).
39. Jones T, Scott-Dupree C, Harris R, Shipp L and Harris B, The efficacy of spinosad against the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, and its impact on associated biological control agents on greenhouse cucumbers in southern Ontario. Pest Manag Sci 61:179-185 (2005).
40. Cook DR, Leonard BR and Gore J, Field and laboratory performance of novel insecticides against armyworms (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fla Entomol 87:433-439 (2004).
41. Stark JD, Vargas R and Miller N, Toxicity of spinosad in protein bait to three economically important tephritid fruit fly species (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J Ecol Entomol 97:911-915 (2004).
42. Cetin H, Yanikoglu A and Cilek JE, Evaluation of the naturally-derived insecticide spinosad against Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae) larvae in septic tank water in Antalya, Turkey. J Vec Ecol 30:151-154 (2005).
43. US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Pesticide Fact Sheet: Spinosad. US EPA, Washington, DC (1997).
44. Williams T, Valle J and Viñuela E, Is the naturally derived insecticide Spinosad® compatible with insect natural enemies? Biocontrol Sci Tecnol 13:459-475 (2003).
45. Copping LG and Menn JJ, Biopesticides: a review of their action, applications and efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 56:651-676 (2001).
46. Rendon PA, Jeronimo F, Ibarra J and Alvarez VC, Effectiveness of Success 0.02 CBTM for the Control of Fruit Flies and Its Effect on Bees, Apis mellifera L. USDA/APHIS/PPQ Methods Development Station, Guatemala City, Guatemala (2000).
47. Medina P, Budia F, Del-Estal P and Vinuela E, Effects of three modern insecticides, pyriproxyfen, spinosad and tebufenozide, on survival and reproduction of Chrysoperla carnea adults. Ann Appl Biol 142:55-61 (2003).
48. Toews MD and Subramanyam B, Contribution of contact toxicity and wheat condition to mortality of stored-product insects exposed to spinosad. Pest Manag Sci 59:538-544 (2003).
49. Salgado VL, Watson GB and Sheets JJ, Studies of the mode of action of spinosad, the active ingredient in Tracer® insect control, in Proceedings of 1997 Beltwide Cotton Conference, New Orleans LA, ed. by Dugger P and Richter D. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, pp. 1082-1086 (1997).
50. Breuer M and Devkota B, Studies on the importance of nest temperature of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lep., Thaumetopoeidae). J Appl Entomol 109:331-335 (1990).
51. Montoya R, Descripción de un nuevo modelo de trampa para la captura de machos de la procesionaria del pino. Bol Estac Central Ecol 13:99-103 (1984).
52. Battisti A, Longo S, Tiberi R and Triggiani O, Results and perspectives in the use of Bacillus thuringiensis Berl. var. kurstaki and other pathogens against Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. et Schiff.) in Italy (Lep., Thaumetopoeidae). Anzeiger für Schadlingskunde Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz 71:72-76 (1998).
53. Robredo F and Obama E, Efficacy trials with cypermethrin and deltamethrin against Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.). Informe para el Registro Oficial de Productos Material Fitosanitario, Archivos de la Subdirección General de Sanidad Vegetal, Madrid (1991).
54. Scott JG, Toxicity of spinosad to susceptible and resistant strains of house flies, Musca domestica. Pestic Sci 54:131-133 (1998).
55. Sokal RR and Rohlf F, Biometry. WH Freeman, New York, NY, pp. 115-123 (1995).
56. SPSS, Base 10.0 Application Guide. SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA (1999).
57. Finney DJ, Probit Analysis (3rd edn). Cambridge University Press, London, p. 333 (1971).
58. Breslin WJ, Marty MS, Vedula U, Liberacki AB and Yano BL, Developmental toxicity of spinosad administered by gavage to CD rats and New Zealand white rabbits. Food Chem Toxicol 38:1103-1112 (2000).
59. Bret BL, Larson LL, Schoonover JR, Sparks TC and Thompson GD, Biological properties of spinosad. Down to Earth 52:6-13 (1997).
60. Saunders DG and Bret BL, Fate of spinosad in the environment. Down to Earth 52:14-20 (1997).