Title: Third research progress report on chemical control of the citrus blackfly, Aleurocanthus woglumi
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076433/00001
 Material Information
Title: Third research progress report on chemical control of the citrus blackfly, Aleurocanthus woglumi
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Reinert, James Arnold,
Publisher: Agricultural Research Center, IFAS, University of Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076433
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 144451468

Full Text




University of Florida IFAS
Ft. Lauderdale ARC Research Report FL-77-5


Third Research Progress Report on
CHEMICAL CONTROL OF THE CITRUS BLACKFLY, ALEUROCANTHUS WOGLUMI

James A. Reinert, George E. Fitzpatrick, an 4I4j el
University of Florida, ARC, IFAS i b L
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
March 10, 1977 AUG 14 198


This report is an update of research completed or -p r'ni fida

last ARC Research Report FL-77-1 January 17, 1977 was completed. The

following summarizes the experiments completed or in progress for control

of the citrus blackfly, Aleurocanthus woglumi Ashby, by chemical insecticides.

Experiments

1. Aldicarb was re-evaluated for control of CBF on potted citrus trees.

The plants were reinfested throughout the test to insure a continual presence

of viable insects. Table 1 lists the percentage of live CBF on treated vs.

untreated trees up to 10 weeks post treatment. This test was reported in

the last report and this represents a continuation until the aldicarb

treatments failed to provide control.


TABLE 1. An evaluation of aldicarb at 10 lb AI/Acre for control of citrus
blackflyy on container grown citrus trees (4 reps.).
% CBF Alive
Weeks
Post 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Treatment
Treatment

Larvae 12.4 3.2 1.3 17.8 22.1 54.6 49.5 77.4

Pupae 7.0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0

Check

Larvae 84.5 85.0 71.4 83.4 77.3 88.2 93.0 96.3

Pupae 88.6 93.7 98.8 95.2 93.4 78.7 98.3 78.1







Research Report FL-77-5
Page 2


2. A second experiment was conducted to evaluate systemic activity

of several insecticides when applied only to the upper surface of the

infested leaves. A similar test was conducted earlier and results appear

in.the last progress report. Spray tank solutions of the insecticides

(Table 2) were painted on 50 leaves per tree. An average of 2.65 micro

liters of solution (at the respective rates) was applied to each cm2 of

treated leaf area.

Samples of treated leaves taken from the test trees were covered with

hatched egg spirals, but only a small percentage of the resulting larvae

were present. Of the larvae present, most were alive. Possibly many of the

larvae had been killed by the treatments, but a large number still remained

on each leaf and were healthy. None of the treatments resulted in more than

12% control of the remaining population when evaluations were made at 4 weeks

post treatment.


TABLE 2. Insecticides used in upper surface leaf treatment test.
Rate Rate
Insecticide lb AI/100 gal Insecticide lb AI/100 gal
Acephate 1 Oxydemetonmethyl 0.5
Acephate 0.5 Malathion 1.25
Acephate 0.25 Azinphos-methyl 0.5
Dimethoate 0.5 Untreated Check 0
Dimethoate 0.25



3. A pilot study was jointly established between IFAS and DPI to

determine the feasibility of an eradication program for the CBF. Three

chemical treatments were evaluated: (1) acephate applied at 0.5 Ib AI/100

gal by hydraulic sprayer; (2) acephate applied at 2.0 Ib AI/100 gal by

back-pack mist blower; and (3) malathion applied at 1.25 lb AI/100 gal by








Research Report FL-77-5
Page 3


hydraulic sprayer. Each of these 3 treatments was applied to 4 city blocks

and 4 additional city blocks were used as untreated checks. All citrus,

mango, Surinam cherry, and any other plant which can act as a host for CBF

were treated. The treatments were applied 3 times at 21-day intervals and

performance of the treatments on citrus was evaluated 5 times during the

course of the study.

Results of this study are given in Table 3, and indicate a substantial

difference between .the acephate mist blower treatment and acephate applied

with hydraulic sprayer treatments. The differences between the 2 application

techniques persisted through time, and were greatest at the conclusion of

the study, 4 weeks after the third treatment.

No significant differences were noted between the performance of mala-

thion and acephate when applied by hydraulic sprayer. Levels of control

with each compound were greater than 95% after the second treatment and

greater than 99% after the third treatment. Control levels of at least 99%

continued for 4 weeks after the third treatment.


TABLE 3. A comparison of treatments of acephate by mist blower and foliar
spray with malathion by foliar spray.


2 wk post
1st 2nd weeks post 3rd treatment
Insecticide Treatment Treatment 1 wk 2 wk 4 wk
Treatment* L** P** L P L P L P L P
Acephate MB 85.7**45.2 77.7 76.2 86.9 82.4 91.4 85.8 70.0 62.1
Acephate S 92.3 92.1 99.9 97.8 99.8 99.7 100 .100 100 99.9
Malathion S 97.4 72.1 99.6 95.5 99.8 99.8 100 99.0 99.9 99.9

*MB = mist blower; S = hydraulic foliar spray
** = % dead CBF, L = larvae, P = pupae.


4. A bioassay study was initiated and is underway at present to assess

the impact of CBF control toxicants on Amitis hererridium, a parasite of CBF

currently being evaluated as a biological control agent. Ten concentrations







Research Report FL-77-5
Page 4


of acephate, malathion, and diazinon have been screened against this

beneficial arthropod. Preliminary results indicate that field rate

(0.5 Ib AI/100 gal acephate; 1.25 Ib AI/100 gal malathion; and 0.5 Ib

AI/100 gal diazinon) of these 3 compounds are highly toxic to A. hesperidium.

An approximate 24 hour LC50 for acephate was determined to be 0.005 Ib

AI/100 gal when insects were placed into contact with treated citrus leaves.

Work is continuing in this study to determine comparative toxicity of the

various chemical treatments to A. hesperidium and other beneficial arthropods.

Future Research

1. In response to the lack of information about the phytotoxicity of

acephate and malathion on orchids, bromeliads and ferns, several species of

each will be evaluated at high and low rates of these insecticides.

2. Additional insecticides, combinations of insecticides, and formu-

lations will be evaluated for this pest.

3. Penetrants and other insecticide additives will be evaluated in an

effort to get better coverage and penetration of insecticides (primarily

acephate) which show promise for the eradication program.

4. Systemic insecticides will be tested for control by soil injection

in an effort to develop alternate methods of treatment for citrus blackfly.

5. Tests to determine insecticide decay curves of foliar applications

are also planned.

6. Additional evaluations of interactions of the parasite-predator

complex with insecticide treatments will be conducted.

7. A residue extraction lab is being set up to complement Dr. Nigg's

work at Lake Alfred.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs