Variation in the laboratory susceptibility of turf‐infesting white grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) to biological,biorational and chemical control products

BACKGROUND: White grubs are the most widespread and damaging pests in turfgrass habitats of the northeast USA, and their management is highly dependent on chemical pesticides. Because this complex includes at least eight species, opportunities for pest management would be enhanced by understanding how susceptibility to control products varies across taxa. The objective of this laboratory study was to measure variation in the susceptibility of four species to 18 biological, biorational and chemical insecticides used as curative controls. RESULTS: Across species, the most efficacious biological and chemical insecticide alternatives were Steinernema scarabaei and chlorpyrifos respectively. For biorational and chemical insecticides, the European chafer [Amphimallon majale (Razoumowsky)] was the least susceptible species. For biologicals, the Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman) was the least susceptible. Considering all control products, the oriental beetle [Anomala orientalis (Waterhouse)] was the most susceptible. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of variation in susceptibility supports the idea that a single product will not reliably suppress populations of all taxa, and highlights the need for pest management practitioners to identify white grub species before intervention. This differential susceptibility could have broader consequences for grub management if a numerically dominant target species is more completely suppressed than a co‐occurring species. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry     

Imidacloprid as a contact arrestant for larvae of the European chafer,Amphimallon majale

BACKGROUND: Manipulative studies of the behavioral response of soil‐dwelling insects to insecticides and other antagonists are stymied by the difficulties of observing and interpreting interactions played out below ground. Six experiments were carried out using X‐ray radiography to quantify the movement of the European chafer, Amphimallon majale (Razoumowsky), larvae in response to imidacloprid and how this was affected by host plant cues and cold temperature. RESULTS: The movement of third instars was arrested in imidacloprid‐treated soil at ≥ 0.6 ppm concentration. At ≥ 0.8 ppm, the arrestant effect of imidacloprid was stronger than the attraction cue posed by germinating grass seed. There was a less disruptive effect on dispersal distance in vertical versus lateral panels. In vertical panels, there was a less disruptive effect on downward movement under a cold temperature treatment that simulated overwintering conditions. CONCLUSION: Larvae of A. majale do not remotely detect imidacloprid in the soil; they neither evade contact, nor are repelled after contact. Imidacloprid thereby acts as a contact arrestant to disrupt grub movement. This finding might help to explain the synergistic effect of imidacloprid in combination with other biological agents for white grub control, and its effects on grub overwintering behavior. © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry