Biological effectiveness of insecticides in pear psylla control

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

Psylla pyri L. is the pear dominant pest, which damage can reach 70…90 %. 5–7 generations of the insect can develop during one growing season in the south of Russia. Phytophage is difficult to control due to development of insecticide resistance and presence of different growth stages at the same time in summer. Therefore, the research aim was to identify the most effective insecticides with various modes of action that restrain the number and development of pear psylla nymphs. The research tasks were to clarify biological features of pear psylla development and to determine effectiveness of insecticides with various modes of action in controlling P. pyri L. population. Pear psylla development in Prikubansky zone of the Krasnodar region was studied and the results were presented. During the research years, the sum of effective temperatures necessary for: start of egg laying was 40 °C (at a threshold of 6 °C); beginning of larvae hatching was 121…122 °C; period from egg to imago — 300 °C. Pest development monitoring showed that the insect has 6 full generations in the growing season. Field experiments were conducted with ‘Leven’ pear variety in Prikubansky zone, central gardening subzone of the Krasnodar Territory on the basis of genetic collection of North Caucasian Federal Scientific Center of Horticulture, Viticulture, Winemaking in 2021–2022 to determine biological effectiveness of insecticides. The results revealed that chemicals based on juvenoids and chitin synthesis inhibitors were not inferior in effectiveness to chemical insecticides. The two-year studies showed that the highest effectiveness after a single application of the chemicals Akarb, WDG (250 g/kg fenoxycarb) and Dimilin, WDG (800 g/kg diflubenzuron) was on the 10th day and amounted to 83.3…91.7 %, which was higher than the effectiveness of the standard.

Full Text

 

Fig. 1. Dynamics of development of pear psylla in 2021–2022 growing season.
Source: created by authors

 

Table 1. Characteristics of the studied chemicals

Chemical

Akarb, WDG

Dimilin, WDG

Movento Energy,  SC (standard)

Active ingredient

Fenoxycarb, 250 g/kg

Diflubenzuron, 800 g/kg

Imidacloprid 120 g/L + +spirotetramat 120 g/L

Formulation

Water-dispersible granules

Water-dispersible granules

Suspension concentrates

Chemical class

Juvenoid

Chitin synthesis inhibitor

Neonicotinoid

Mode of action

Contact- intestinal insecticide

Contact- intestinal insecticide

Contact- intestinal, systemic insecticide

Object of application

Egg, nymph

Egg, nymph

Nymph, imago

Hazard class for bees

3

3

1

Hazard class for humans

3

3

3

 

Table 2. Biological efficacy of chemicals in controlling pear psylla, 2021–2022

Variant

Application rate, L, kg/ha

Average number of larvae per shoot

Decrease compared to the number before application, adjusted for control after processing by days, %

Before application

Days after application

After processing by day of accounting

3

7

10

14

3

7

10

14

2021

Akarb, WDG

0.6

17.2

7.6

5.2

2.5

3.0

53.9

67.5

82.3

75.2

Dimilin, WDG

1.0

17.3

7.9

4.2

2.4

2.7

52.1

73.8

83.0

77.7

Movento Energy, SC (standard)

0.6

16.9

8.4

4.2

3.8

4.0

49.1

73.8

73.0

66.9

Control

17.1

16.5

16.0

14.1

12.1

LSD05

 

0.7

3.3

3.8

3.8

3.7

 

 

 

 

2022

Akarb, WDG

0.6

2.5

1.5

1.0

0.4

0.8

40.0

73.0

88.9

75.8

Dimilin, WDG

1.0

2.4

1.4

0.8

0.3

0.8

44.0

78.4

91.7

75.8

Movento Energy, SC (standard)

0.6

2.4

1.6

0.8

0.6

1.0

36.0

78.4

83.3

66.7

Control

2.6

2.5

3.7

3.6

3.0

LSD05

 

0.5

1.1

1.9

2.0

1.6

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 2. Biological effectiveness of the studied chemicals on the 14th day, 2021–2022
Source: created by authors

 

×

About the authors

Marina E. Podgornaya

North Caucasian Federal Scientific Center of Horticulture, Viticulture, Winemaking

Email: podgornayame@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2268-1279
SPIN-code: 6686-9037

Candidate of Biological Sciences, head of Laboratory of Protection and Toxicological Monitoring of Perennial Agrocenoses

39 im. 40-letiya Pobedy st. Krasnodar, 350901, Russian Federation

Nadezhda A. Didenko

North Caucasian Federal Scientific Center of Horticulture, Viticulture, Winemaking

Author for correspondence.
Email: didenko-n.a@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4012-4457
SPIN-code: 2418-6797

Junior Researcher, Laboratory of Protection and Toxicological Monitoring of Perennial Agrocenoses

39 im. 40-letiya Pobedy st. Krasnodar, 350901, Russian Federation

Svetlana V. Prah

North Caucasian Federal Scientific Center of Horticulture, Viticulture, Winemaking

Email: sp41219778@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6416-3798
SPIN-code: 3652-3020

Candidate of Biological Sciences, Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Protection and Toxicological Monitoring of Perennial Agrocenoses

39 im. 40-letiya Pobedy st. Krasnodar, 350901, Russian Federation

Anfisa V. Vasilchenko

North Caucasian Federal Scientific Center of Horticulture, Viticulture, Winemaking

Email: anfisavv@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7680-7511
SPIN-code: 6853-1941

Junior Researcher, Laboratory of Protection and Toxicological Monitoring of Perennial Agrocenoses

39 im. 40-letiya Pobedy st. Krasnodar, 350901, Russian Federation

References

  1. Bozkurt V, Ugur A. Effects of kaolin on some biological properties of pear sucker [Cacopsylla pyri (L.) (Hemiptera: Psyllidae)]. Acta Hortic. 2020;1269:191–198. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1269.26
  2. Balykina EB, Korzh DA, Yagodinskaya LP. Psylla pyri seasonal population changes in the Crimea. Plant protection news. 2015;(3):34–38. (In Russ.).
  3. František K, Stará J. Management and control of insecticide-­resistant pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyri). Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research. 2006;14(3):167–174.
  4. Civolani S. The past and present of pear protection against the pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyri L. In: Perveen F (ed.) Insecticides: Pest Engineering. 2012. p.385–408.
  5. Gajski D, Pekar S. Assessment of the biocontrol potential of natural enemies against psyllid populations in a pear tree orchard during spring. Pest Management Science. 2021;155:104390. doi: 10.1002/ps.6262
  6. DuPont ST, Strohm C, Nottingham L, Rendon D. Evaluation of an integrated pest management program for central Washington pear orchards. Biological Control. 2021;152:104390. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104390
  7. Ahmad MJ, Mohiudin S, Pathania SS, Mukhtar M. Feeding potential of anthocorid bug, Blaptostethus pallescens (Poppius) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) against eggs of pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyricola (Foerster) (Homoptera: Psyllidae) on pear in Kashmir. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2020;8(5):685–689.
  8. Petrakova L, Michalko R, Loverre P, Sentenská L, Korenko S, et al. Intraguild predation among spiders and their effect on the pear psylla during winter. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2016;233:67–74. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.08.008
  9. Erler F, Tosun HS. Plant oils as oviposition deterrents against winterform females of pear psylla, Cacopsylla pyri (L.) (Hemiptera: Psyllidae). Phytoparasitica. 2017;45:509–515. doi: 10.1007/s12600‑017‑0609‑7
  10. Li J, Tian B. Peppermint essential oil toxicity to the pear psylla (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) and potential applications in the field. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2020;113(3):1307–1314. doi: 10.1093/jee/toaa009
  11. Didenko NA, Podgornaya ME. Biological approaches to the development of integrated protection of pear plants from pear psylla. Fruit growing and viticulture of South Russia. 2021;(70):254–268. (In Russ.). doi: 10.30679/2219‑5335‑2021‑4‑70‑254‑268
  12. Koltun NE, Grebneva YN. Control of pear psylla number and its harmfulness in the orchards of Belarus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Agrarian series. 2014;(4):66–74. (In Russ.).
  13. Skrylev AA, Kashirskaya NY. The use of modern insecticides of different mechanisms of action against pear psylla according to the growing season. Fruit growing and viticulture of South Russia. 2016;(40):137–145. (In Russ.).
  14. Balykina EB, Korzh DA, Gorina VM, Yagodinskaya LP. Comparative effectiveness of various protection systems of the pear from Psilla pyri L. in the Crimea. Acta Horticulturae. 2020;1298:469–475. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1298.64
  15. Civolani S, Soroker V, Cooper WR, Horton DR. Diversity, biology, and management of the pear psyllids: a global look. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2023;116(6):331–357. doi: 10.1093/aesa/saad025

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Fig. 1. Dynamics of development of pear psylla in 2021–2022 growing season.

Download (75KB)
2. Fig. 2. Biological effectiveness of the studied chemicals on the 14th day, 2021–2022

Download (84KB)

Copyright (c) 2024 Podgornaya M.E., Didenko N.A., Prah S.V., Vasilchenko A.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies