Evaluation of Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Control Provided by Emamectin Benzoate and Two Neonicotinoid Insecticides, One and Two Seasons After Treatment

被引:62
作者
McCullough, Deborah G. [1 ,2 ]
Poland, Therese M. [3 ]
Anulewicz, Andrea C. [1 ]
Lewis, Phillip [4 ]
Cappaert, David [1 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Dept Entomol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Forestry, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[3] US Forest Serv, USDA, No Res Stn, E Lansing, MI 48823 USA
[4] USDA APHIS PPQ Otis Pest Survey, Detect & Exclus Lab, Otis Angb, MA 02542 USA
关键词
emerald ash borer; dinotefuran; imidacloprid; ash tree protection; invasive pest; EMERALD ASH BORER; PINE WILT DISEASE; SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES; LOBLOLLY-PINE; OUTLIER SITES; NORTH-AMERICA; TREES; POPULATIONS; EFFICACY; CERAMBYCIDAE;
D O I
10.1603/EC11101
中图分类号
Q96 [昆虫学];
学科分类号
摘要
Effective methods are needed to protect ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), an invasive buprestid that has killed millions of North American ash (Fraxinus spp.) trees. We randomly assigned 175 ash trees (11.5-48.1 cm in diameter) in 25 blocks located in three study sites in Michigan to one of seven insecticide treatments in May 2007. Treatments included 1) trunk-injected emamectin benzoate; 2) trunk-injected imidacloprid; 3) basal trunk spray of dinotefuran with or 4) without Pentra-Bark, an agricultural surfactant; 5) basal trunk spray of imidacloprid with or 6) without Pentra-Bark; or (7) control. Foliar insecticide residues (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and toxicity of leaves to adult A. planipennis (4-d bioassays) were quantified at 3-4-wk intervals posttreatment. Seven blocks of trees were felled and sampled in fall 2007 to quantify A. planipennis larval density. Half of the remaining blocks were retreated in spring 2008. Bioassays and residue analyses were repeated in summer 2008, and then all trees were sampled to assess larval density in winter. Foliage from emamectin benzoate-treated trees was highly toxic to adult A. planipennis, and larval density was <1% of that in comparable control trees, even two seasons posttreatment. Larval densities in trees treated with trunk-injected imidacloprid in 2007 + 2008 were similar to control trees. Dinotefuran and imidacloprid were effectively translocated within trees treated with the noninvasive basal trunk sprays; the surfactant did not appreciably enhance A. planipennis control. In 2008, larval densities were 57-68% lower in trees treated with dinotefuran or imidacloprid trunk sprays in 2007 + 2008 than on controls, but densities in trees treated only in 2007 were similar to controls. Highly effective control provided by emamectin benzoate for >= 2 yr may reduce costs or logistical issues associated with treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:1599 / 1612
页数:14
相关论文
共 42 条
[11]  
Herms D.A., 2009, URBANA, V51, P61801
[12]  
KRUSKAL WILLIAM H., 1952, JOUR AMER STATIST ASSOC, V47, P583, DOI 10.2307/2280779
[13]   EFFICACY OF EMAMECTIN BENZOATE AND BACILLUS-THURINGIENSIS AT CONTROLLING DIAMONDBACK MOTH (LEPIDOPTERA, PLUTELLIDAE) POPULATIONS ON CABBAGE IN FLORIDA [J].
LEIBEE, GL ;
JANSSON, RK ;
NUESSLY, G ;
TAYLOR, JL .
FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, 1995, 78 (01) :82-96
[14]   Characteristics and distribution of potential ash tree hosts for emerald ash borer [J].
MacFarlane, DW ;
Meyer, SP .
FOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2005, 213 (1-3) :15-24
[15]  
McCullough D., 2004, P EM ASH BOR RES TEC, P38
[16]  
McCullough D. G., 2007, P EM ASH BOR AS LONG, P52
[17]  
McCullough DG, 2007, J ECON ENTOMOL, V100, P1577, DOI 10.1603/0022-0493(2007)100[1577:EPEABC]2.0.CO
[18]  
2
[19]   Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Attraction to Stressed or Baited Ash Trees [J].
McCullough, Deborah G. ;
Poland, Therese M. ;
Anulewicz, Andrea C. ;
Cappaert, David .
ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, 2009, 38 (06) :1668-1679
[20]   Attraction of the emerald ash borer to ash trees stressed by girdling, herbicide treatment, or wounding [J].
McCullough, Deborah G. ;
Poland, Therese M. ;
Cappaert, David .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2009, 39 (07) :1331-1345