Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T02:19:06.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF TWO INSECT GROWTH DISRUPTORS, PH 6038 AND PH 6040, ON THE WINTER MOTH, OPEROPHTERA BRUMATA (LEPIDOPTERA: GEOMETRIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. J. Pree
D. J. Pree
Affiliation:
Research Station, Agriculture Canada, Kentville, Nova Scotia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The activity of two insect growth disruptors PH 6038 and PH 6040 was assessed against larvae of the winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.) in the laboratory and field. Larvae fed on foliage treated with PH 6038 and PH 6040 until death occurred at ecdysis owing to disruption in cuticle formation. Field tests with PH 6040 indicated that concentrations of 165 ppm were effective for control. As measured by bioassay, using winter moth larvae, PH 6040 was persistent for at least 28 days in the field.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 49 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cuming, F. G. 1961. The distribution, life history, and economic importance of the winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in Nova Scotia. Can. Ent. 93: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakob, W. L. 1973. Developmental inhibition of mosquitoes and the housefly by urea analogues. J. med. Ent. 10: 452–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, R. W. 1974. TH 6040 as a feed additive for control of the face fly and house fly. J. econ. Ent. 67: 697.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulder, R. and Gijswijt, N. J.. 1973. The laboratory evaluation of two promising new insecticides which interfere with cuticle deposition. Pestic. Sci. 4: 737–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, J. W. 1974. Alfalfa weevil control with the unique growth disruptor TH 6040 in small plot tests. J. econ. Ent. 67: 300–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, L. C. and Vincent, W. R.. 1973. A new insecticide inhibits chitin synthesis. Naturwissenschaften 9: 431–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, K. H. and Herbert, H. J.. 1966. The influence of spray programs on the fauna of apple orchards in Nova Scotia. XV. Chemical controls for winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.), and their effects on phytophagous mite and predator populations. Can. Ent. 98: 991–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamaki, G. and Turner, J. E.. 1974. The Zebra caterpillar on sugarbeets; control with two phenylurea compounds. J. econ. Ent. 67: 697–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnipseed, S. G., Heinricks, E. A., daSilva, R. F. P., and Todd, J. W.. 1974. Response of soybean insects to foliar applications of a chitin synthesis inhibitor TH 6040. J. econ. Ent. 67: 760–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Daalen, J. J., Meltzer, J., Mulder, R., and Wellinga, K.. 1972. A selective insecticide with a novel mode of action. Naturwissenschaften 7: 312–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellinga, K., Mulder, R., and van Daalen, J. J.. 1973. Synthesis and laboratory evaluation of 1-(2,6-disubstituted benzoyl)-3-phenylureas, a new class of insecticides. II. Influence of the acyl moiety on insecticidal activity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 21: 993–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed