• The Korean Journal of Pesticide Science
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.46-54
• /
• 2001

These studies were carried out to investigate the toxicities of 33 registered insecticide to the American serpentine leafminer, Liriomyza trifolii. Insecticidal activities were evaluated by testing systemic action and residual effect in the laboratory, and control efficacy and phytotoxicity in the greenhouse. All insecticides used in this study did not effect on the egg of L. trifolii, although spinosad showed 70% of egg-hatch suppression. For L. trifolii larvae ($2{\sim}3$ instar), the insecticides with over 95% of insecticidal activity were abamectin, cartap, cyromazine, emamectin benzoate, diflubenzuron + chlorpyrifos. The Insecticide what showed over 90% of insecticidal activity or neonate larvae were abamectin, cartap, emamectin benzoate, diflubenzuron + chlorpyrifos and milbemectin. Only cartap + buprofezin showed over 95% insecticidal activity against L. trifolii pupae. Almost insecticides used in this study little or not effected on the adult of L. trifolii. Emamectin benzoate and milbemectin showed moderate foliar systemic effects on eggs of L. trifolii (53.3, 47.9%, respectively). However, other insecticides showed little systemic effect. For larvae and adults, all insecticides showed low systemic effects. Insecticides with over 90% residual effect for 10 days were abamectin, emamectin benzoate and milbemectin (91.4, 90.4, 91.9%, respectively). In the control efficacy test on L. trifolii 90% of control values were obtained at 14th day after treatment of the insecticides including abamectin, cyromazine, emamectin benzoate and milbemectin. Cartap and cartap + buprofezin showed slight phytotoxicity on kidney bean leaf, however, other insecticides showed no phytotoxic effects. These results indicate that abamectin, emamectin benzoate and milbemectin can be used for tile control of L. trifolii in field.

• Korean journal of applied entomology
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.327-335
• /
• 2001

In order to establish a whitefly control system using conventional groups of insecticide(carbamate, organophosphorus and pyrethroid insecticides), three alternative application methods were designed on the medium growth stage of cucumber. To discriminate the effectiveness of these sequences observed were the residual activity of insecticides, frequency of insecticide applications, residue of insecticides in cucumber leaves, development of insecticide resistance in whitefly, and yield of fruits. Spraying furathiocarb, a carbamate insecticide, was very effective in reducing the frequency of application for the control of white flies. The effectiveness of furathiocarb was enhanced by the potentiation process to carbofuran, the long residual activity, and the lower development rate of insecticide resistance. Methion, an organophosphorus insecticide, did not show resistance development after successive use but resulted in short residual activity. However, other organophosphates, profenofos and phenthoate, lost their activity by the resistance development. Decreasing activity was common to pyrethroids, deltamethrin and zetacypermethrin due to resistance. From these results it could be drawn a conclusion that furathiocarb, a carbamate insecticide, was the most desirable among conventional insecticide groups for the management of greenhouse whitefly population on the cucumber. To prevent an outbreak of the insect pest by various cause, it was recommended to choose acetamiprid, a nicotinoid, which showed very good control efficacy to the resistance insects to conventional insecticides.

• Research in Plant Disease
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.173-178
• /
• 2019

From our field investigation from 2017 to 2018, five diseases and four insect pests have been identified as the primary biotic stressors of fruit-producing mulberry, which include popcorn disease and mulberry sucker, respectively. In this study, we examined the relative control effects of selected agro-chemicals against the popcorn disease and mulberry sucker. Our systemic treatment methods to simultaneously control the popcorn disease and the mulberry sucker indicated that an integrated control method showed a superior result with the control efficacy of 89.3%, while a conventional control method resulted in 66.7%. As a result, we concluded that it is much efficient to control both disease and insect pest in mid-April while sequentially applying chemicals only for the popcorn disease from February. By considering the ecological aspects of the popcorn disease and mulberry sucker, this systemic treatment will be able to reduce the labor of growers required for the control.

• Plant Disease and Agriculture
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.29-30
• /
• 1995

• Korean journal of applied entomology
• /
• v.19 no.1 s.42
• /
• pp.5-9
• /
• 1980

Some insecticides were evaluated on the effect of single ULV foliar spray in the control of the pine gall midges (Thecediplosis japonensis Uchida et Inouye) when the formulated (undiluted) and/or diluted insecticides were applied by ULV Sprayer (Battery-type of 12 voltage, devised by Union Carbide) With the formulated insecticide spray (30ml per plot; ten pine trees of 1.5 to 2m in height), the order of control effectiveness was Salithion (Ec 25), $Sumithion^{(R)}$ (ULV 80), Dimethoate (Ec 50), $Sevin\;oil^{(R)}$ (ULV 50), $Zolone^{(R)}$ (Ec 25) and $Folimat^{(R)}$ (Ec 50). However, except Zolone, other insecticides tested caused relatively severe phytotoxicity on the pine needles in all treatments. The dilluted insecticides (200ml Per Plot) of Salithion and Dimethoate with 10,20 and 40 times of water solution showed better control effect than with the formulated insecticides, and no phytotoxicity was observed. Salithion was more effective than Dimethoate. In conclusion, the desirable results in the pine gall midge control in this experiment were obtained by single ULV foliar spray of Salithion with 10 to 20 times of water solution, and the feasible timing of insecticide application would be from late in May to early in June.

• The Bimonthly Magazine for Agrochemicals and Plant Protection
• /
• v.7 no.5
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 1986

• Life and Agrochemicals
• /
• s.277
• /
• pp.34-35
• /
• 2012

• Life and Agrochemicals
• /
• s.278
• /
• pp.52-53
• /
• 2012

• Agrochemical news magazine
• /
• v.18 no.6 s.141
• /
• pp.18-21
• /
• 1997

• Agrochemical news magazine
• /
• v.17 no.1 s.130
• /
• pp.49-55
• /
• 1996