Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 43(6): November 2017 are among the most promising alternatives to neonicotinoids and pyrethroids for that pur- pose. This relatively new class of synthetic insec- ticides targets the ryanodine receptors (RyRs), which regulate the flow of calcium to control muscle contraction. Anthranilic diamides bind to RyRs, causing them to remain open, deplet- ing calcium ions and leading to rapid cessation of feeding (Hannig et al. 2009), muscle paralysis, and death. The primary route of exposure is through ingestion (Lahm et al. 2007; Yu 2015). Chlorantraniliprole (Acelepryn®; Syngenta, Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.) is the first anthranilic diamide registered for use on turf- grass and landscape ornamentals. Designated a reduced-risk pesticide by the United States Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (US-EPA 2008), it has a favorable toxicological and environ- mental profile and requires no signal word on its label. Chlorantraniliprole selectively targets the RyRs in muscle fibers of caterpillars (Lepi- doptera) and some species in the orders Cole- optera, Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Hemiptera (Cordova et al. 2006; Lahm et al. 2007). Differ- ential RyR sensitivity is why chlorantraniliprole is more active against some types of insects than others (Isaacs et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2012; Qi and Casida 2013), and is the reason for its low toxicity to bees (Dinter et al. 2008a; Gradish et al. 2010; Larson et al. 2013; Qi and Casida 2013; Zhu et al. 2015) and to most families of preda- tory and parasitic insects that contribute to bio- logical control (Brugger et al. 2009; Gradish et al. 2011; Larson et al. 2012; Larson et al. 2014; Whalen et al. 2016). Chlorantraniliprole is essen- tially non-toxic to mammals, birds, and fish because vertebrate RyRs are 400 to 3000 times less sensitive to it than are RyRs of susceptible insects (Cordova et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2012). Chlorantraniliprole has been widely evalu- ated for management of turfgrass pests, especially scarab grubs and caterpillars, and since its com- mercial launch in 2008 it has become an industry mainstay for that purpose (Held and Potter 2012). In comparison, there is little published information concerning its performance against pests of woody ornamentals in landscape set- tings, which may account for why it seems to be relatively undiscovered by tree care professionals. 243 This paper presents results from a series of tri- als that evaluated the performance of chlorantra- niliprole against selected pests of ornamental trees and shrubs in real-world scenarios. Researchers also summarize current knowledge concern- ing its efficacy against additional landscape pests, and identify pests and usage scenarios for which additional information is needed. METHODS AND MATERIALS Trials were conducted between 2010 and 2016, targeting nine pests of ornamental plants span- ning five insect orders, including adult Japanese beetles (Popillia japonica Newman [Coleoptera]), evergreen bagworm (Thyridopteryx ephemerae- formis Haworth), eastern tent caterpillar (Mala- cosoma americanum (F.) [Lepidoptera]), bristly roseslug sawfly (Cladius difformis Panzer [Dip- tera]), hawthorn lace bug (Corythuca cydoniae Fitch), oleander aphid (Aphis nerii Boyer de Fon- scolombe), boxwood psyllid (Cacopsylla busi L.), oak lecanium scale crawlers (Parthenolecanium quercifex (Fitch) [Hemiptera]), and boxwood leafminer (Monarthropalpusi flavus (Schank) [Diptera]). All trials were done with field- collected insects on detached shoots or leaves that had been treated in the field or else targeted naturally occurring pest populations in land- scape settings. Chlorantraniliprole (Acelepryn 1.67 SC; 18.4% AI) was used in all trials, along with other insecticides as standards (Table 1). Foliar sprays were applied with separate, hand- held one-liter spray bottles to thoroughly wet abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces. Systemic insec- ticides were applied via basal soil drench. Drench volumes and other methodological details are given in the descriptions of individual trials. Most data sets were analyzed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for a randomized complete block design (type I error rate of 0.05), with mean separation by Fisher’s Least Significant Differ- ence (LSD) test when the overall treatment effect was significant. Log- or square-root transforma- tions were applied in a few cases where the data failed to meet ANOVA requirements for nor- mality and homogeneity of variance. All analy- ses were performed with Statistix 9 (Analytical Soſtware 2008). Data are reported as original (non-transformed) means ± standard error (SE). ©2017 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2017
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
