Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:01:36.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survival of Leafy Spurge Hawk Moths (Hyles euphorbiae) When Larvae Are Exposed to 2,4-D or Picloram

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Norman E. Rees  and
Peter K. Fay
Norman E. Rees
Affiliation:
Biolog. Control Weeds Res. Unit, Rangeland Insect Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Bozeman, MT 59717-0001
Peter K. Fay
Affiliation:
Agric. Exp. Stn., Bozeman, MT 59717-0002
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Larvae of the leafy spurge hawk moth were sprayed with and/or were fed leafy spurge plants sprayed with 2,4-D or picloram. Larval survival was not affected from contact with the chemicals, from feeding on contaminated foliage, or from a combination of both. Viable second-generation adult moths were produced in all treatments. Thus, leafy spurge infested with the leafy spurge hawk moth can be sprayed with 2,4-D or picloram without injury to larvae that have reached the fourth or fifth instar stages.

Keywords

Picloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidleafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. #3 EPHESleafy spurge hawk moth, Hyles euphorbiae L. (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae)Biological controlEuphorbiae cyparissias L.E. esula L.EPHCYEPHES
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 429 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Harris, P., Dunn, P. H., Schroeder, D., and Vonmoos, R. 1985. Biological control of leafy spurge in North America. p. 79–92 in Watson, A. K., ed. Leafy spurge. Monogr. 3. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
2. Lacy, C. A. 1987. Montana State Weed Plan. p. 8–17. Proc. Mont. Weed Control Assoc., Jan. 13–15, 1987, Great Falls, MT.Google Scholar
3. Lee, R. D., and Evans, J. O. 1980. The influence of selected herbicides on the development of Rhinocyllus conicus, an insect in biocontrol of musk thistle. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 33:104–110.Google Scholar
4. Lym, R. G., and Messersmith, C. G. 1983. Control of leafy spurge with herbicides. N. D. Farm Res. 40(5): 16–19.Google Scholar
5. Messersmith, C. G., and Lym, R. G. 1983. Distribution and economic impacts of leafy spurge in North Dakota. N.D. Farm Res. 40(5):8–13.Google Scholar
6. Miller, T. J. 1978. The effects of mowing and/or spraying musk thistle on the biological control agent Rhinocyllus conicus. M.S. thesis. Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Mont. State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717–0002.Google Scholar
7. Poritz, N. H. 1988. Laboratory fecundity and development, field population dynamics, pupal predation and the history of releases of the spurge hawkmoth, Hyles euphorbiae (L.), a biological control agent of leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L., in Montana. M.S. thesis. Dep. Agron., Mont. State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717-0002.Google Scholar
8. Story, J. M., Boggs, K. W., and Good, W. R. 1988. Optimal timing of 2,4-D applications for control with Urophora affinis and U. quadrifasciata (Diptera Tephriticlae), for control of spotted knapweed. Environ. Entomol. 17:911–914.Google Scholar
9. Trumble, J. T., and Kok, L. T. 1980. Integration of a thistle-head weevil and herbicide of Carduus thistle control. Prot. Ecol. 2:57–64.Google Scholar