مقایسه کارائی متوکسی‌فنوزاید با چند حشره‌کش در کنترل کرم خوشه‌خوار انگور در شرایط مزرعه‌ای

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 موسسه تحقیقات گیاه‌پزشکی کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی تهران، ایران

2 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان خراسان رضوی، مشهد

3 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان آذربایجان غربی، ارومیه

4 مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان قزوین، قزوین

چکیده

کرم خوشه­خوار انگور (Lobesia botrana Denis & Schiffermuller) یکی از آفات مهم انگور در ایران و جهان می‌باشد که خسـارت قابـل­توجهی را به محصـول وارد می­کند. در راستای ثبت آفت­کش‌های جدید و تنوع بخشی به سبد آفت‌کش­ها در کشور، تحقیق حاضر به منظور بررسی کارائی حشره­کش متوکسی­فنوزاید (SC24%) در مقایسه با اسپینوزاد (SC24%)، حشره­کش میکروبی Bt و حشره­کش ترکیبی "لوفنورون+فنوکسی‌کارب" (لوفوکس®) (EC10.5%) انجام شد. متوکسی­فنوزاید از حشره­کش­های شبه هورمون پوست­اندازی است و در گروه ترکیبات مختل­کننده رشد حشرات قرار می­گیرد که باعث پوست­اندازی ناقص در لارو پروانه­ها و در نهایت مرگ حشره می­شود. پروژه در قالب طرح بلوک کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار روی نسل دوم آفت در سه منطقه دیزج دول (ارومیه)، دهنوک تاکستان (قزوین) و خلیل­آباد (خراسان رضوی) در سال 1399 اجرا شد. کارآئی تیمارها بر اساس میزان آلودگی خوشه­ها انجام شد. بدین منظور 3، 7، 14 و 21 روز پس از سمپاشی، ابتدا تعداد کل خوشه­های هر تیمار شمارش و سپس نسبت خوشه‌های آلوده به کل خوشه­ها تعیین شد. نتایج نشان داد که متوکسی­فنوزاید در بیشتر موارد در 14 و 21 روز پس از سمپاشی کارائی قابل توجهی دارد. البته در بازه زمانی اشاره شده، کارائی متوکسی فنوزاید با اسپینوزاد و لوفوکس اختلاف معنی­داری از لحاظ آماری وجود نداشت. به عنوان مثال در ارومیه کارائی متوکسی­فنوزاید (75/0 در­هزار) در 14 روز پس از سمپاشی 72/78 درصد محاسبه شد که با کارائی اسپینوزاد (63/80 درصد) و لوفوکس (04/81 درصد) از لحاظ آماری تفاوت معنی­داری نداشت، بنابراین تا یک هفته پس از سمپاشی، انتظار قابل­توجهی از متوکسی‌فنوزاید نباید داشت. در مجموع نتایج نشان داد که کارائی متوکسی­فنوزاید با هر دو غلظت برای کنترل کرم خوشه­خوار انگور از سطح قابل قبولی برای ثبت در کشور برخوردار می­باشد، اما با توجه به سیاست کلان ورود کمتر آفت­کش­ها به محیط زیست، بنابراین توصیه می­شود این حشره­کش با غلظت (5/0 در­هزار)، علیه این آفت مصرف شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Efficacy Comparison of Methoxyfenozide with Some Insecticides against Grape Berry Moth, Lobesia botrana L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Under Field Conditions

نویسندگان [English]

  • H. Mosallanejad 1
  • H. Kamali 2
  • E. Alizadeh 3
  • B. Gharali 4
1 Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran
2 Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Mashad, Iran
3 West Azarbaija Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Urmia, Iran
4 Qazvin Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Qazvin, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
 Grape, Vitis vinifera L. is one the most important economic and major global crop. Grape production is aimed at various markets, namely, table grapes for fresh consumption and processed grapes that are dried into raisins or pressed for grape juice. The European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana Denis and Schiffermuller, (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) is one of the major pest of grape in Iran and worldwide. Larvae of the first generation feed on bud clusters and flowers, whereas larvae of the subsequent generations feed exclusively on ripening and ripe berries and causes considerable yield losses. One L. botrana larva is capable of damaging between 2 and 10 berries, depending on the cultivar and the grape phenology. L. botrana is a multivoltine species with three to four generations per year. The focus of the control methods against this pest in our country is the use of insecticides. In Iran, three insecticides azinphos-methyl, diazinon and phosalone (all registered in 1968) were previously registered to control this pest. However, azinphos-methyl and diazinon have been now phased out from the list of authorized pesticides. Therefore, registration of the new active ingredient of insecticides with novel mode of action is very important. Methoxyfenozide is one of the most effective of the non-steroidal ecdysteroid agonist insecticides that has been commercialized and used against Lepidoptera species globally. Its mode of action is based on their capacity to induce a premature and incomplete moulting and susceptible insects die from desiccation and starvation. In addition, methoxyfenozide have a high safety profile against natural enemies of pests. Accordingly, methoxyfenozide is compatible in integrated pest management (IPM) programs. In directions to register new pesticides and diversify the pesticide basket in our country, the current research was done to evaluate the field efficacy of methoxyfenozide (SC24%), in comparison with spinosad (SC24%), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and Lufox® (Lufenuron+Fenoxycarb, EC10.5%).
Materials and Methods
 The project was performed against the second and third generations, based on a completely randomized design with three replicates in Dizaj Dol (Urmia West Azarbaijan), Khalil Abad (Kashmar, Khorasan Razavi) and Dehnok (Takestan, Qazvin). The efficacy of the treatments was done based on the damaged bunches. To do this, at 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment, the total bunches of each treatments firstly were counted and then the rate of damaged bunches were evaluated. The experimental treatments were: 1) methoxyfenozide (0.5 ml/L); 2) methoxyfenozide (0.75 ml/L); 3) spinosad 4) Lufox; 5) Bt and 6) control. The control treatment was sprayed by water only. Applications were made according to pheromone trap captures of males. In each treatment, 50-90 randomly selected bunches (from five treated plant) were collected and carefully examined for damage caused by L. botrana. Statistical analysis was performed using the SAS software (ver. 9.1). One row was considered as the distance between the experimental units.
Results and Discussion
 The combine analysis of variance showed that interaction of treatment×location was significant, meaning that the experimental treatments had different responds in different locations. Accordingly, the data were statistically analyzed based on this. Moreover, the results of the factorial statistical analysis indicated that the effect of generation and the interaction between generation and location were not significant. Thus, in this article only the results of the second generation are provided. The results showed that in all cases, methoxyfenozide has acceptable efficacy at 14 and 21 days of post treatment. Therefore, no notable expectation of methoxyfenozide, in term of efficacy, should be expected until one week after spraying. The observed delayed toxicity of methoxyfenozide is consistence with previous reports and it is due to unique mode of action being moulting hormone agonist which induce premature moulting leading to death. It is necessary to note that there was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of methoxyfenozide with Spinozad and Lufox during the mentioned period. For example, in Urmia methoxyfenozide (0.75 ml/L) exhibited 78.72% efficacy (at 14 days of post treatment, which was not statistically significant with spinosad (80.63%) and Lufox (81.04%). In conclusion, our results showed that methoxyfenozide exhibited acceptable efficacy against Lobesia botrana, required for registration in Iran. However, since the both methoxyfenozide concentrations (0.75 and 0.5 ml/L) had the same efficiency and considering the low-input of pesticides to the environment, it is recommended to use the application rate of 0.5 ml/L against this pest.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Efficacy
  • Grape Berry Moth
  • Lobesia botrana
  • methoxyfenozide insecticide
  1. Ahmadi, K., Ebadzadeh, H., & Hatami, F. (2020). Iran agricultural statistics of the year 2019. Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad. 163 pp.
  2. Arthur, F.H. (2019). Efficacy of combinations of methoprene and deltamethrin as long-term commodity protectants. Insects 10:
  3. Arthur, F.H., & Hartzer, K.L. (2018). Susceptibility of selected stored product insects to a combination treatment of pyriproxyfen and novaluron. Journal of Pest Science 91: 699–705.
  4. Baker N.T. (2017). Estimated annual agricultural pesticide use by crop group for states of the conterminous United States; 1992–2015. US Geological Survey, Reston. 507 pp.
  5. Bakli, D., Kirane-Amrani, L., Soltani-Mazouni, N., & Soltani, N. (2016). Methoxyfenozide, an ecdysteroid agonist insecticide, alters oocyte growth during metamorphosis of Ephestia kuehniella African Entomology 24: 453–459.
  6. Balanza, V., Mendoza, J.E., & Bielza, P. (2019). Variation in susceptibility and selection for resistance to imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in Mediterranean populations of Orius laevigatus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 167: 626–635.
  7. Childs, L.M., Cai, F.Y., Kakani, E.G., Mitchell, S.N., Paton, D., Gabrieli, P., Buckee, C.O., & Catteruccia, F. (2016). Disrupting mosquito reproduction and parasite development for malaria control. Plos Pathogens 12: e1006060.
  8. Civolani, S., Boselli, M., Butturini, A., Chicca, M., Fano, E.A., & Cassanelli, S. (2014). Assessment of insecticide resistance of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Emilia-Romagna region. Journal of Economic Entomology 107: 1245–1249.
  9. Daane, K.M., Vincent, C., Isaacs, R., & Ioriatti, C. (2018). Entomological opportunities and challenges for sustainable viticulture in a global market. Annual Review of Entomology 63: 193–214.
  10. Daglish, G.J., Head, M.B., & Hughes, P.B. (2008). Field evaluation of spinosad as a grain protectant for stored wheat in Australia: efficacy against Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) and fate of residues in whole wheat and milling fractions. Australian Journal of Entomology 47: 70–74.
  11. Daglish, G.J., & Nayak, M.K. (2006). Long-term persistence and efficacy of spinosad against Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) in wheat. Pest Management Scince 62: 148–152.
  12. del Mar Fernández, M., Amor, F., Bengochea, P., Velázquez, E., Medina, P., Fereres, A., & Viñuela, E. (2012). Effects of the insecticides methoxyfenozide and abamectin to adults of the whitefly natural enemies Eretmocerus mundus (Mercet)(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Orius laevigatus (Fieber)(Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Nesidiocoris tenuis Reuter (Hemiptera: Mirida(. International Organization for Biological and integrated Control-West Palaearctic Regional Section 82: 1–7.
  13. Dhadialla, T.S., Carlson, G.R., & Le, D.P. (1998). New insecticides with ecdysteroidal and juvenile hormone activity. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 545–569.
  14. Dhadialla, T.S., Retnakaran, A., & Smagghe, G. (2005). Insect growth- and development-disrupting insecticides. Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science. Eds L.I. Gilbert, K. Iatrou, S.S. Gill, Elsevier Press, Oxford., pp. 55–116.
  15. Ffrench-Constant, R.H., Daborn, P.J., & Le Goff, G. (2004). The genetics and genomics of insecticide resistance. Trends in Genetics 20: 163–170.
  16. Gao, Y.F., Gong, Y.J., Cao, L.J., Chen, J.C.,Gao, Y.L., Mirab-balou, M., Chen, M., Hoffmann, A.A., & Wei, S.J. (2021). Geographical and interspecific variation in susceptibility of three common thrips species to the insecticide, spinetoram. Journal of Pest Science 94: 93–99.
  17. Hamaidia, K., & Soltani, N. (2021). Methoxyfenozide, a Molting Hormone Agonist, Affects Autogeny Capacity, Oviposition, Fecundity, and Fertility in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 58: 1004–1011.
  18. Henrich, V.C. (2005). The ecdysteroid receptor. Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, Eds L.I. Gilbert, K. Iatrou, S.S. Gill, Elsevier Press, Oxford. pp. 243–285.
  19. Ioriatti, C., Anfora, G., Tasin, M., De Cristofaro, A., Witzgall, P., & Lucchi, A. (2011). Chemical ecology and management of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 104: 1125–1137.
  20. Ioriatti, C., Lucchi, A., & Varela, L.G. (2012). Grape berry moths in Western European vineyards and their recent movement into the New World. Arthropod Management in Vineyards, Eds N. Bostanian, C. Vincent, R. Isaacs, Springer. pp. 339–359.
  21. King-Jones, K., & Thummel, C.S. (2005). Nuclear receptors - A perspective from Drosophila. Nature Reviews Genetics 6: 311–323.
  22. Langa, T.P., Dantas, K.C.T., Pereira, D.L., de Oliveira, M., Ribeiro, L.M.S., & Siqueira, H.A.A. (2021). Basis and monitoring of methoxyfenozide resistance in the South American tomato pinworm Tuta absoluta. Journal of Pest Science 1–14.
  23. McDonald, P.T., Kish, M.K., King, P.A., Dunagan, F.J., & Weiland, R.T. (1998). Field persistence of several insecticides on cotton foliage as determined by beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua) bioassay. In: Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. San Diego, CA., P 208.
  24. McKenzie, J.A. (1996). Ecological and Evolutionary Aspects of Insecticide Resistance. Academic Press, London. 375 pp.
  25. Mommaerts, V., Sterk, G., & Smagghe, G. (2006). Bumblebees can be used in combination with juvenile hormone analogues and ecdysone agonists. Ecotoxicology 15: 513–521.
  26. Morou, E., Lirakis, M., Pavlidi, N., Zotti, M., Nakagawa, Y., Smagghe, G., Vontas, J., & Swevers, L. (2013). A new dibenzoylhydrazine with insecticidal activity against Anopheles mosquito larvae. Pest Management Scince 69: 827–833.
  27. Mosallanejad, H. (2021). Guidelines for the rotation use of insecticides and acaricides (Classification based on mode of action, IRAC system). Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection. (In Persian)
  28. Mosallanejad, H., & Smagghe, G. (2009). Biochemical mechanisms of methoxyfenozide-resistance in the cotton leafworm Spodoptera littoralis. Pest Management Science 65: 732-736.
  29. Noorbakhsh, S. (2021). List of important pests, diseases and weeds of major agricultural crops, pesticides and recommended methods to control them. Iranian Plant Protection Organization publication. 224 pp. (In Persian)
  30. Pavan, F., Cargnus, E., Bigot, G., & Zandigiacomo, P. (2014). Residual activity of insecticides applied against Lobesia botrana and its influence on resistance management strategies. Bulletin of Insectology 67: 273–280.
  31. Pavviya, A., & Muthukrishnan, N. (2017). Field evaluation of methoxyfenozide 24 SC against leaf miner, Aproaerema modicella (Deventer) and its effect on predatory coccinellids of groundnut. Legume Research 40.
  32. Pener, M.P., & Dhadialla, T.S. 2012. An overview of insect growth disruptors; applied aspects. Advances in Insect Physiology 43: 1–162.
  33. Pertot, I., Caffi, T., Rossi, V., Mugnai, L., Hoffmann, C., Grando, M.S., Gary, C., Lafond, D., Duso, C., & Thiery, D. (2017). A critical review of plant protection tools for reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in viticulture. Crop Protection 97: 70–84.
  34. Prabhaker, N., Castle, S., Byrne F., Henneberry T.J., and Toscano N.C. (2006). Establishment of baseline susceptibility data to various insecticides for Homalodisca coagulata (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) by comparative bioassay techniques. Journal of Economic Entomology 99: 141–154.
  35. Retnakaran, A., Krell, P., Feng, Q.L., & Arif, B. (2003). Ecdysone agonists: Mechanism and importance in controlling insect pests of agriculture and forestry. Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology 54: 187–199.
  36. Rodriguez-Saona, C., Wanumen, A.C., Salamanca, J., Holdcraft, R., & Kyryczenko-Roth, V. (2016). Toxicity of insecticides on various life stages of two tortricid pests of cranberries and on a non-target predator. Insects 7: 15.
  37. Roush, R.T., & Daly, J.C. (1990). The role of population genetics in resistance research and management. Pesticide Resistance in Arthropods, Ed R. Roush and B.E. Tabashnik, Chapman and Hal, pp. 97–152.
  38. Sabry, H.M., Mead, H.M.I., & Khater, K.S. (2017). Inhibitory Effects of Methoxyfenozide on Reproductive Organs of Cotton Leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.). Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology 8: 219–227.
  39. Sántis, E.L., Hernández, L.A., Martínez, A.M., Campos, J., Figueroa, J.I., Lobit, P., Chavarrieta, J.M., Viñuela, E., Smagghe, G., & Pineda, S. (2012). Long‐term foliar persistence and efficacy of spinosad against beet armyworm under greenhouse conditions. Pest Management Science 68: 914–921.
  40. Saunders, D.G., & Bret, B.L. (1997). Fate of spinosad in the environment. Down to Earth 52: 14–20.
  41. Smagghe, G., Gomez, L.E., & Dhadialla, T.S. (2012). Bisacylhydrazine insecticides for selective pest control. Advances in Insect Physiology 43: 163–249.
  42. Soin, T., Swevers, L., Kotzia, G., Iatrou, K., Janssen, C.R., Rougé, P., Harada, T., Nakagawa, Y., & Smagghe, G. (2010). Comparison of the activity of non‐steroidal ecdysone agonists between dipteran and lepidopteran insects, using cell-based EcR reporter assays. Pest Management Science 66: 1215–1229.
  43. Song, Y., Villeneuve, D.L., Toyota, K., Iguchi, T., & Tollefsen, K.E. (2017). Ecdysone receptor agonism leading to lethal molting disruption in arthropods: review and adverse outcome pathway development. Environmental Science and Technology 51: 4142–4157.
  44. Steinitz, H., Sadeh, A., Kliot, A., & Harari, A. (2015). Effects of radiation on inherited sterility in the European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana). Pest Management Science 71: 24–31.
  45. Sutton, A.E., Arthur, F.H., Zhu, K.Y., Campbell, J.F., & Murray, L.W. (2011). Residual efficacy of synergized pyrethrin+ methoprene aerosol against larvae of Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Journal of Stored Products Research 47: 399–406.
  46. Teixeira, L.A.F., Mason, K., & Isaacs, R. (2009). Control of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in relation to oviposition phenology. Journal of Economic Entomology 102: 692–698.
  47. Thiéry, D., Louâpre, P., Muneret, L., Rusch, A., Sentenac, G., Vogelweith, F., Iltis, C., & Moreau, J. (2018). Biological protection against grape berry moths, A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38: 1–18.
  48. Van Timmeren, S., Mota-Sanchez, D., Wise, J.C., and Isaacs, R. (2018). Baseline susceptibility of spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) to four key insecticide classes. Pest Management Science 74: 78–87.
  49. Vassiliou, V.A. (2011). Effectiveness of insecticides in controlling the first and second generations of the Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in table grapes. Journal of Economic Entomology 104: 580–585.
  50. Wing, K.D., Slawecki, R.A., & Carlson, G.R. (1988). RH-5849, a nonsteroidal ecdysone agonist: effects on larval Lepidoptera. Science 241: 470–472.
CAPTCHA Image