Evaluation of neonicotinoids as pyrethroid alternatives for rice water weevil management in water-seeded rice
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-1-2014
Abstract
The rice water weevil (RWW), Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus (Kuschel) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is the most destructive insect pest of rice in the United States. Water-seeded rice, which is flooded at an earlier stage of crop development than drill-seeded rice, is at heightened risk of loss from root-feeding RWW larvae. Pyrethroids, the most widely used group of foliar insecticides for RWW control, have inherent limitations such as limited residual activity, narrow window of activity and extreme toxicity to non-target aquatic organisms. An array of field, lab and greenhouse experiments was conducted to compare the activity of two neonicotinoids with that of λ-cyhalothrin, a widely used pyrethroid, against the RWW. Small-plot efficacy trials were conducted during 2009, 2010 and 2011. Foliar clothianidin (Belay 2.13 SC) and a granular formulation (3%) of dinotefuran applied to plots were as effective as, and showed greater residual activity than, foliar applications of λ-cyhalothrin. Topical bioassays on adult weevils revealed that clothianidin possessed lower contact toxicity than λ-cyhalothrin. Residual assays using weevils placed on foliage of sprayed plots revealed that the toxic and sublethal behavioral effects of clothianidian on adult weevils were more persistent for clothianidin than for λ-cyhalothrin. Granular dinotefuran applied to greenhouse-grown plants previously infested with weevil larvae showed excellent larvicidal activity. Overall, these studies showed that neonicotinoids have potential as pyrethroid replacements against the RWW in water-seeded rice culture. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.
Publication Source (Journal or Book title)
Crop Protection
First Page
37
Last Page
43
Recommended Citation
Lanka, S., Stout, M., & Ottea, J. (2014). Evaluation of neonicotinoids as pyrethroid alternatives for rice water weevil management in water-seeded rice. Crop Protection, 56, 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.09.007