Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “INSECT CONTROL”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Wasp parasitoid disruption of host development: implications for new biologically based strategies for insect control.

Wasp parasitoids use a variety of methods to commandeer their insect hosts in order to create an environment that will support and promote their own development, usually to the detriment of the host insect. Parasitized insects typically undergo developmental arrest and die sometime after the parasitoid has become independent of its host. Parasitoids can deactivate their host's immune system and effect changes in host hormone titers and behavior. Often, host tissues or organs become refractory to stimulation by tropic hormones. Here we present an overview of the manipulative capabilities of wasp-injected calyx fluid containing polydnaviruses and venom, as well as the parasitoid larva and the teratocytes that originate from the serosal membrane that surrounds the developing embryo of the parasitoid. Possibilities for using regulatory molecules produced by the parasitoid or its products that would be potentially useful in developing new, environmentally safe insect control agents are discussed.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

The effects of spinosad, a naturally derived insect control agent, to the honeybee (Apis melifera).

Spinosad is a novel insect control agent derived by fermentation of the Actinomycete bacterium, Saccharopolyspora spinosa. Spinosad controls many caterpillar pests in vines, pome fruit and vegetables (including tomatoes and peppers), thrips in tomatoes, peppers and ornamental cultivation and dipterous leafminers in vegetables and ornamentals. Application rates vary between 25 to 100 g of active substance per hectare (g as/ha) and 4.8 to 36 g of active substance per hectolitre (g as/hL) depending on the crop and target pest. It is important that plant protection products are authorized for use only in ways that do not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to honeybees. For this purpose testing was performed to enable the safety of spinosad to be evaluated. The effects of spinosad to honeybees have been extensively researched. Testing has been performed under a variety of conditions in a range of countries globally. Studies to determine the acute toxicity of spinosad under laboratory conditions were conducted to generate LD50 or LC50 values for oral and contact routes of administration. These demonstrated that spinosad was highly toxic to worker honeybees under worst case laboratory conditions and that the oral route of exposure provided the greater risk. Residue tests conducted under laboratory, semi-field and field conditions on worker honeybees foraging on treated foliage indicated that dry product residues were harmless. Therefore the effects seen in the laboratory acute toxicity tests did not translate to a more realistic exposure scenario indicating that safe use patterns for the product can be developed. Semi-field cage studies have also demonstrated that spinosad was safe to bees when applied to flowering crops during periods of bee activity. The majority of studies conducted have indicated that spinosad does not adversely affect honeybee behaviour, brood or queen. It can be concluded that spinosad when used according to the approved product label recommendations, would be safe to foraging worker bees, queen and brood. Additional levels of safety could be achieved by avoiding situations where bees would forage primarily on aphid honey dew.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

Mechanics and aerodynamics of insect flight control.

Insects have evolved sophisticated fight control mechanisms permitting a remarkable range of manoeuvres. Here, I present a qualitative analysis of insect flight control from the perspective of flight mechanics, drawing upon both the neurophysiology and biomechanics literatures. The current literature does not permit a formal, quantitative analysis of flight control, because the aerodynamic force systems that biologists have measured have rarely been complete and the position of the centre of gravity has only been recorded in a few studies. Treating the two best-known insect orders (Diptera and Orthoptera) separately from other insects, I discuss the control mechanisms of different insects in detail. Recent experimental studies suggest that the helicopter model of flight control proposed for Drosophila spp. may be better thought of as a facultative strategy for flight control, rather than the fixed (albeit selected) constraint that it is usually interpreted to be. On the other hand, the so-called 'constant-lift reaction' of locusts appears not to be a reflex for maintaining constant lift at varying angles of attack, as is usually assumed, but rather a mechanism to restore the insect to pitch equilibrium following a disturbance. Differences in the kinematic control mechanisms used by the various insect orders are related to differences in the arrangement of the wings, the construction of the flight motor and the unsteady mechanisms of lift production that are used. Since the evolution of insect flight control is likely to have paralleled the evolutionary refinement of these unsteady aerodynamic mechanisms, taxonomic differences in the kinematics of control could provide an assay of the relative importance of different unsteady mechanisms. Although the control kinematics vary widely between orders, the number of degrees of freedom that different insects can control will always be limited by the number of independent control inputs that they use. Control of the moments about all three axes (as used by most conventional aircraft) has only been proven for larger flies and dragonflies, but is likely to be widespread in insects given the number of independent control inputs available to them. Unlike in conventional aircraft, however, insects' control inputs are likely to be highly non-orthogonal, and this will tend to complicate the neural processing required to separate the various motions.

Animals↗
PubMed1976

Approaches to insect control based on chemical ecology--case studies.

In this article two attempted approaches to control a stored product insect, azuki bean weevil, are discussed based on host selection study and oviposition ecology. The latter study indicated the presence of an oviposition marker, a new kind of pheromone, which was derived from the weevil and was lipid in nature, and suggested its possible use as an oviposition inhibitor.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Compatibility of an organically based insect control program with honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollination in cantaloupes.

The application of azadirachtin to foliage of cantaloupes did not significantly reduce successful pollination by commercially managed honey bees, Apis mellifera L., as measured by numbers of foraging honey bees and yield. Similar results were obtained when the synthetic insecticide imidacloprid (used as a standard by cantaloupe growers) was applied to the soil. Fruit yield and quality, as a function of bee pollination, were statistically equal between the two treatments, and equal to that of the untreated control. The standard treatment of imidacloprid gave significantly better control than azadirachtin of one pest (cucumber beetle) early in the season. Fruit maturity was delayed in untreated plots, consistent with light insect pressure observed. These results indicate that an organically based insect control approach will not alter bloom acceptance and bee forager activity in cantaloupes.

Agriculture↗
PubMed2000

A cluster of genes for the biosynthesis of spinosyns, novel macrolide insect control agents produced by Saccharopolyspora spinosa.

Spinosyns A and D are the active ingredients in a family of insect control agents produced by fermentation of Saccharopolyspora spinosa. Spinosyns are 21-carbon tetracyclic lactones to which are attached two deoxysugars. Most of the genes involved in spinosyn biosynthesis are clustered in an 74 kb region of the S. spinosa genome. This region has been characterized by DNA sequence analysis and by targeted gene disruptions. The spinosyn biosynthetic gene cluster contains five large genes encoding a type I polyketide synthase, and 14 genes involved in modification of the macrolactone, or in the synthesis, modification and attachment of the deoxysugars. Four genes required for rhamnose biosynthesis (two of which are also required for forosamine biosynthesis) are not present in the cluster. A pathway for the biosynthesis of spinosyns is proposed.

Animals↗