首页> 外文期刊>Indian Journal of Plant Protection >Field Evaluation of Insecticides for the Management of Rice Planthoppers, Sogatella furcifera and Nilaparvata lugens
【24h】

Field Evaluation of Insecticides for the Management of Rice Planthoppers, Sogatella furcifera and Nilaparvata lugens

机译:稻飞虱,茄子和褐飞虱管理用杀虫剂的现场评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Rice planthoppers, especially the whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) and the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.) are the major delphacid hoppers attacking rice in tropical Asia. Hopper-burn caused by these planthoppers threatens global rice crops, particularly in Asia (Backus et al, 2005). The brown planthopper alone causes 10-30 per cent loss in rice yield (Li et al., 1996). In India, both the planthoppers are economically important, the brown planthopper (BPH) being more widespread in comparison to the whitebacked planthopper (WBPH). In Punjab, the WBPH is of major economic importance (Shukla and Gupta, ,1991); yield losses as high as 79.8 per cent have been reported (Kushwaha and Singh, 1986). The BPH was not a serious problem in the state until mid-2000 but, during kharif 2007 season, it appeared in serious proportions causing hopper-burn in some districts of the Punjab. Since then, its incidence has started increasing on rice, particularly late in the season. Farmers rely solely on insecticides for management of these planthoppers on rice and basmati crops. Several insecticides in different formulations have been reported effective against these hoppers (Singh et al., 1989; Panda et al, 1995, Varma et al, 2003; Krishnaiah et al, 2004; Kendappa et al, 2005; Wang et al, 2008; and Catindig et al, 2009). Imidacloprid, quinalphos, monocrotophos and chlorpyriphos have been recommended for the control of planthoppers in the State (Anonymous, 2010). The indiscriminate use of insecticides over the years has led to the development of insecticide resistance in planthoppers (Heinrichs, 1994; Liu et al, 2003; Krishnaiah et al, 2006). Keeping in view the economic importance of rice crop and damage potential of these insect pests, the present study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of buprofezin (an insect growth regulator), thiomethoxam and imidacloprid (neonicotinoids) at different dosages with the already recommended insecticide, chlorpyriphos.
机译:稻飞虱,特别是白背稻飞虱Sogatella furcifera(荷尔沃特)和褐飞虱Nilaparvata lugens(Stal。),是在亚洲热带地区袭击稻米的主要褐飞虱。这些飞虱引起的漏斗状燃烧威胁全球稻谷作物,特别是在亚洲(Backus等,2005)。仅褐飞虱会造成稻米减产10-30%(Li等,1996)。在印度,两种飞虱在经济上都很重要,与白背飞虱(WBPH)相比,棕色飞虱(BPH)分布更广。在旁遮普邦,WBPH具有重要的经济意义(Shukla和Gupta,1991)。据报产量损失高达79.8%(Kushwaha和Singh,1986)。 BPH在该州直到2000年年中才成为一个严重的问题,但是在2007年卡里夫(kharif)季节,它以严重的比例出现,在旁遮普邦的某些地区造成漏斗状燃烧。从那以后,它在水稻上的发病率开始增加,特别是在季节后期。农民仅依靠杀虫剂来管理这些稻米和印度大米作物上的飞虱。已经报道了几种不同剂型的杀虫剂对这些漏斗有效(Singh等,1989; Panda等,1995; Varma等,2003; Krishnaiah等,2004; Kendappa等,2005; Wang等,2008;和Wang等,2008)。和Catindig等,2009)。在该州,推荐使用吡虫啉,喹诺磷,久效磷和毒死pho来控制飞虱(Anonymous,2010)。多年来滥用杀虫剂已导致飞虱对杀虫剂产生抗性(Heinrichs,1994; Liu等,2003; Krishnaiah等,2006)。考虑到稻米作物的经济重要性和这些害虫的潜在危害,本研究旨在比较不同剂量的丁丙非嗪(一种昆虫生长调节剂),噻虫嗪和吡虫啉(新烟碱类)与已经推荐的杀虫剂的功效,毒死pho。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号