Title: | "Field trials of spinosad as a replacement for naled, DDVP, and malathion in methyl eugenol and cue-lure bucket traps to attract and kill male oriental fruit flies and melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawaii" |
Author(s): | Vargas RI; Miller NW; Stark JD; |
Address: | "Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 4459, Hilo, HI 96720, USA" |
DOI: | 10.1603/0022-0493-96.6.1780 |
ISSN/ISBN: | 0022-0493 (Print) 0022-0493 (Linking) |
Abstract: | "Spinosad was evaluated in Hawaii as a replacement for organophosphate insecticides (naled, dichlorvos [DDVP], and malathion) in methyl eugenol and cue-lure bucket traps to attract and kill oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel, and melon fly, B. cucurbitae Coquillett, respectively. In the first and second methyl eugenol trials with B. dorsalis, naled was in the highest rated group for all evaluation periods (at 5, 10, 15, and 20 wk). Spinosad was equal to naled at 5 and 10 wk during both trials 1 and 2, and compared favorably with malathion during trial 2. During the first cue-lure trial with B. cucurbitae, naled and malathion were in the top rated group at 5, 10, 15, and 20 wk. Spinosad was equal to naled at 5 wk. During the second cue-lure trial, spinosad and naled were both in the top rated group at 10, 15, and 20 wk. Use of male lure traps with methyl eugenol or cue-lure had no effect on attraction of females into test areas. Our results suggest that spinosad, although not as persistent as naled or malathion, is safer to handle and a more environmentally friendly substitute for organophosphate insecticides in methyl eugenol and cue-lure traps for use in B. dorsalis and B. cucurbitae areawide integrated pest management programs in Hawaii" |
Keywords: | Animals Butanones Dichlorvos *Drug Combinations Eugenol Insect Control/*methods *Insecticides *Macrolides Malathion Male Methylation Naled *Pheromones *Tephritidae; |
Notes: | "MedlineVargas, Roger I Miller, Neil W Stark, John D eng Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England 2004/02/24 J Econ Entomol. 2003 Dec; 96(6):1780-5. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-96.6.1780" |