ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Biological Control
Volume 22, Issue 2, October 2001, Pages 185-190
Result list |  previous  < 87 of 166 >  next 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (177 K)

Article Toolbox
 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
doi:10.1006/bcon.2001.0965    
How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)

Copyright © 2001 Academic Press. All rights reserved.

Regular Article

Effects of Neem-Fed Prey on the Predacious Insects Harmonia conformis (Boisduval) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Mallada signatus (Schneider) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)
Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Baoying Qi, Gordh Gordon1 and Walter Gimme2

Institute of Zoology, College of Biological Science, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710062, People's Republic of China


Received 6 December 2000; 
accepted 6 May 2001. ;
Available online 12 March 2002.

Abstract

The effects of the exposure of predators indirectly to neem seed extracts was tested by the feeding of Harmonia conformis (Boisduval) adults and Mallada signatus (Schneider) larvae with prey (second-instar Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) larvae) that had eaten neem oil solution. Results from three treatments (50 and 200 ppm azadirachtin and 50 ppm endosulfan, a pesticide compound) were compared to those of a control, distilled water. We found that 50- and 200-ppm azadirachtin treatments were not toxic to H. conformis adults and M. signatus larvae, but there are some effects on metamorphosis of M. signatus. The effect on the number of second-instar H. armisera consumed was an increase in consumption in the 200-ppm azadirachtin treatment by M. signatus larvae, caused by the 200-ppm azadirachtin treatment delaying pupation. Both azadirachtin treatments had negative effects on M. signatus pupal survival, with the 200-ppm treatment killing all individuals, and about 50% being affected by the 50-ppm treatment. The results suggest that, although the biopesticide azadirachtin has been thought useful in biological control, assuming that the indirect effects of this compound is not enhanced by any direct exposure of the natural enemies to the chemical in the field, application of this material still should be careful, especially in high concentrations, because of its obvious insect growth regulatory (IGR) effects on M. signatus, which is one of the important predators in cotton fields. If persistent natural enemy populations are required, the rate of azadirachtin application will need to be adjusted because consumption of the compound by M. signatus larvae resulted in pupal death. Whether H. conformis or M. signatus can be used against H. armigera in the field will need to be tested further.

Author Keywords: azadirachtin; biopesticide; Harmonia conformis; Mallada signatus; Helicoverpa armigera; biocontrol

1 Present address: Kika de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, 2301 South International Boulevard, Weslaco, TX 78596.

2 Present address: Department of Zoology & Entomology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.


Biological Control
Volume 22, Issue 2, October 2001, Pages 185-190
Result list | previous < 87 of 166 > next 
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.