Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:25:36.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigations of the chemical control of insect pests of cotton in central Africa. II.—Tests of insecticides with larvae and adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

G. A. Matthews
Affiliation:
Cotton Pest Research Scheme, Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa, Salisbury, Rhodesia

Extract

Further tests of insecticides, mainly carbaryl, endosulfan, endrin and DDT, for possible use against pests of cotton in Central Africa are described. In laboratory tests in Rhodesia, carbaryl was the most effective against first-instar larvae of Diparopsis castanea Hmps. exposed on leaves, stems and bracts of effective against second-instar larvae of Heliothis armigera (Hb.), to which the insecticides were applied directly, and carbaryl the least.

When adults of Dysdercus intermedius Dist. and D. fasciatus Sign. were caged with treated bolls, carbaryl was the most effective, endrin the next and (against the former sp. only) endosulfan the least. Deposits on leaves from 0.5 per cent. sprays of carbaryl, DDT and endosulfan remained effective in dry conditions for two weeks, but application of 0.05–1.0 in of simulated rain reduced their effectiveness immediately, especially that of carbaryl. The effectiveness of deposits was also reduced by plant growth and was affected by plant habit; on a hairy variety the deposits persisted longer than on a glabrous one, partly because the hairs retained them and partly because they made movement of the larvae more difficult.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Brazzel, J. R., Chambers, H. & Hamman, P. J. (1961). A laboratory rearing method and dosage-mortality data on the bollworm, Heliothis zea.—J. econ. Ent. 54 pp. 949952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gast, R. T. (1959). The relationship of weight of Lepidopterous larvae to effectiveness of topically applied insecticides.—J. econ. Ent. 52 pp. 11151117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, D. R. & Matthews, G. A. (1965). Comparative assessment of dosage distributions in cotton resulting from helicopter and ground spray treatments.—Ann. appl. Biol. 55 pp. 431438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, C. & Coaker, T. H. (1957). The use of polythene for growing cotton plants under greenhouse conditions.—Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 34 pp. 189190.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. (1966). Investigations of the chemical control of insect pests of cotton in Central Africa. I.—Bull. ent. Res. 57 pp. 6976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradhan, S., Jotwani, M. G. & Sarup, P. (1960). Bioassay of the comparative toxicity of some insecticides to the adults of Dysdercus koenigii Fabricus (Pyrrhocoridae: Hemiptera), a pest of cotton.—Indian Cott. Grow. Rev. 14 pt. 1 pp. 1415.Google Scholar
Simon, F. J. E. (1960). Busqueda de nuevos insecticidas contra Dysdercus peruvianus.—Boln Estac. exp. agric. La Molina no. 72 pp. 3552.Google Scholar
Tunstall, J. P. (1958). The biology of the Sudan bollworm, Diparopsis watersi (Roths.), in the Gash Delta, Sudan.—Bull. ent. Res. 49 pp. 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunstall, J. P. (1962). The biology of the cotton bollworms.—Proc. First fed. Sci. Congr.Google Scholar
Tunstall, J. P., Matthews, G. A. & Rhodes, A. A. K. (1961). A modified knapsack sprayer for the application of insecticides to cotton.—Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 38 pp. 2226.Google Scholar
Tunstall, J. P., Matthews, G. A. & Rhodes, A. A. K. (1965). The development of cotton spraying equipment in Central Africa.—Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 42 pp. 131145.Google Scholar
Tunstall, J. P., Sweeney, R. C. H. & Matthews, G. A. (1959). Cotton insect pest investigations in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Part I.—Cotton bollworm investigations.—Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 36 pp. 268275.Google Scholar