Pymetrozine Compound Insecticides: Control Effect on Rice Planthopper and Safety for Spiders

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2021-0164

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to screen out compound insecticides that can effectively control the population of rice planthopper and delay the pymetrozine-resistance occurrence, four pymetrozine compound insecticides were selected in this experiment. They were 57% thiamethoxam·pymetrozine WDG, 30% pymetrozine·clothianidin SC, 35% thiamethoxam·pymetrozine WDG, and 70% pymetrozine·dinotefuran WDG. 25% pymetrozine SC was used as control agent, and water treatment was the blank. The insecticides were applied at the peak of the young nymphs of rice planthopper. The population number of rice planthopper and spider were investigated 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after application. The results showed that the 4 pymetrozine compound insecticides had good control effect on rice planthopper. The control effect of the 4 insecticides on rice planthopper was over 89% on the 3rd day after treatment, and they were still more than 98% on the 14th day after treatment. On the 21st day after treatment, the control effect of 35% thiamethoxam·pymetrozine WDG was 86.26%, and the control effect of the other three insecticides was still above 90%. The four pymetrozine compounds had no significant influence on spider population and rice growth. Therefore, the four pymetrozine compounds can effectively control the population of rice planthopper and are safe to the natural enemy (spiders), which can be widely applied in rice production.

Key words: pymetrozine compound insecticide, rice planthopper, control effect, spider, safety

ZHANG Xinfeng, ZHANG Guo, YU Julong, FANG Jichao, LUO Guanghua, ZHU Feng, SHU Zhaolin. Pymetrozine Compound Insecticides: Control Effect on Rice Planthopper and Safety for Spiders[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2022, 12(6): 33-38.

Figures/Tables 6

References 32

[1]	张国, 于居龙, 束兆林, 等. 10%三氟苯嘧啶SC拌种水稻对稻飞虱的防效及安全性评价[J]. 南方农业学报, 2019, 50(12):2695-2702.
[2]	刘万才, 刘振东, 黄冲, 等. 近10年农物主要病虫害发生危害情况的统计和分析[J]. 植物保护, 2016, 42(5):1-9.
[3]	娄永根, 程家安. 稻飞虱灾变机理及可持续治理的基础研究[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2011, 48(2):231-238.
[4]	SU J, WANG Z, ZHANG K, et al. Field evolution of insecticide resistance in the brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens, Stal) in China[J]. Crop protection, 2014, 58:61-66. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.12.026 URL
[5]	MATSUMURA M, SANADA-MORIMURA S, OTUKA A, et al. Insecticide susceptibilities in populations of two rice planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens, and Sogatella furcifera, immigrating into Japan in the period 2005-2012[J]. Pest management science, 2014, 70(4):615-622. doi: 10.1002/ps.3590 URL
[6]	ZHANG X, LIU X, ZHU F, et al. Field evolution of insecticide resistance in the brown planthopper (Nilaparvata, Stal) in China[J]. Crop protection, 2014, 58:61-66. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2013.12.026 URL
[7]	邢玉平, 姚琴, 朱兆香, 等. 稻飞虱对4种新烟碱类杀虫剂的抗性及其治理策略[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2017, 34(3):37-40.
[8]	唐振华, 陶黎明, 李忠. 害虫对新烟碱类杀虫剂的抗药性及其治理策略[J]. 农药学学报, 2006, 8(3):195-202.
[9]	张帅, 李建洪, 张绍明, 等. 杀虫剂对长江中下游地区水稻害虫田间防效[J]. 农药, 2016(7):530-535.
[10]	李建群, 包云峰, 陈永全. 浅析褐飞虱对吡蚜酮的抗药性及其对策[J]. 中国稻米, 2014, 20(3):99-100.
[11]	沈燕, 卢飞, 余向阳, 等. 水稻上吡蚜酮残留的空间差异及对灰飞虱防治效果的影响[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2021, 40(3):501-507.
[12]	肖汉祥, 李燕芳, 凌善锋, 等. 广东褐飞虱种群对4种杀虫剂的抗药性[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2018(2):1-5.
[13]	李文红, 李凤良, 金剑雪, 等. 近两年贵州省白背飞虱的抗药性现状[J]. 植物保护, 2015(6):199-204.
[14]	束兆林, 汪智渊, 赵来成, 等. 锐劲特对水稻白背飞虱的防效及对稻田主要蜘蛛的安全性研究[J]. 农药, 200, 39(10):22-24
[15]	杨航, 杨洪, 金道超, 等. 噻虫嗪对白背飞虱试验种群繁殖力的亚致死效应[J]. 植物保护学报, 2017, 44(3):509-514.
[16]	BAO H B, LIU S H, GU J H, et al. Sublethal effects of four insecticides on the reproduction and wing formation of brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens[J]. Pesticide science, 2009, 65(2):170-174.
[17]	居梦婷, 软赞誉. 几种常用药剂对水稻褐飞虱不同虫龄的田间防效[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2020, 26(12):80-81
[18]	耀发, 党志红, 潘文亮, 等. 新烟碱类杀虫剂噻虫胺拌种防治麦蚜的田间药效及安全性评价[J]. 农药, 2013, 52(9):689-691
[19]	于居龙, 张国, 缪康, 等. 噻虫胺与吡蚜酮复配对稻飞虱的控制效应和稻田天敌安全性分析[J]. 农学学报, 2019, 9(2):11-17.
[20]	金剑雪, 金道超, 李文红, 等. 防治白背飞虱的农药复配增效配方筛选[J]. 植物保护, 2017, 43(1):199-204
[21]	祝增荣, 程家安. 中国水稻害虫治理对策的演变及其展望[J]. 植物保护, 2013, 39(5):25-32.
[22]	翟保平. 稻飞虱:国际视野下的中国问题[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2011, 48(5):1184-1193.
[23]	王鹏, 甯佐苹, 张帅, 等. 中国主要稻区褐飞虱对常用杀虫剂的抗性监测[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2013, 27(2):191-197.
[24]	刘其全, 邱良妙, 林仁魁, 等. 10种杀虫剂对水稻稻飞虱的田间药效与评价[J]. 现代农药, 2016, 15(2):50-53.
[25]	颜兵, 胡锡国. 25%吡蚜酮WP等农药防治水稻褐飞虱效果试验[J]. 大麦与谷类科学, 2011(1):39-40.
[26]	张玮强, 姜斌, 云皓. 50%吡蚜酮·呋虫胺WDG防治稻飞虱效果简报[J]. 上海农业科技, 2020(4): 120,122.
[27]	司传权, 左仁勇, 张建峰. 25%噻虫·吡蚜酮对稻飞虱的防效研究[J]. 现代农业科技, 2019(23):98-99.
[28]	程家安, 朱金良, 祝增荣, 稻田飞虱灾变与环境调控[J]. 环境昆虫学报, 2008, 30(2):176-182.
[29]	马晓慧, 桑海旭, 刘郁. 辽宁盘锦稻区杂草地与稻田中蜘蛛动态[J]. 植物保护, 2015, 41(3):165-168.
[30]	张夕林, 张建明. 中晚粳稻区褐飞虱防治策略的研究[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 1999(3):129-132.
[31]	束兆林, 于居龙, 缪康, 等. 氟啶虫酰胺对水稻白背飞虱的防治效果及天敌安全性评价[J]. 农药, 2016(11):851-853.
[32]	徐德进, 顾中言, 徐广春, 等. 吡蚜酮防治褐飞虱的使用技术及对天敌的安全性研究[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2010, 18(5):1054-1059.

药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	药后防治效果/%
药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	3 d	7 d	14 d	21 d
57%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	69.9	300.00	93.28 a	90.97 a	100.00 a	90.31 a
30%吡蚜·噻虫胺SC	375	140.00	91.01 a	91.20 a	96.28 a	87.55 a
35%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	90	406.67	88.85 a	93.34 a	97.44 a	91.42 a
70%吡蚜·呋虫胺WDG	120	396.67	98.10 a	98.14 a	98.03 a	91.21 a
25%吡蚜酮SC	360	276.67	87.26 a	92.88 a	97.17 a	93.70 a
对照（虫口减退率）	-	226.67	-32.35	-35.29	-27.94	42.65

药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	药后防治效果/%
药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	3 d	7 d	14 d	21 d
57%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	69.9	300.00	93.28 a	90.97 a	100.00 a	90.31 a
30%吡蚜·噻虫胺SC	375	140.00	91.01 a	91.20 a	96.28 a	87.55 a
35%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	90	406.67	88.85 a	93.34 a	97.44 a	91.42 a
70%吡蚜·呋虫胺WDG	120	396.67	98.10 a	98.14 a	98.03 a	91.21 a
25%吡蚜酮SC	360	276.67	87.26 a	92.88 a	97.17 a	93.70 a
对照（虫口减退率）	-	226.67	-32.35	-35.29	-27.94	42.65

药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	药后防治效果/%
药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	3 d	7 d	14 d	21 d
57%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	69.9	2003.33	96.59 a	99.49 a	100.00 a	94.20 a
30%吡蚜·噻虫胺SC	375	1943.33	97.54 a	100.00 a	100.00 a	99.25 a
35%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	90	1200.00	92.03 a	100.00a	100.00 a	90.33 a
70%吡蚜·呋虫胺WDG	120	1616.67	97.04 a	99.37 a	100.00 a	96.41 a
25%吡蚜酮SC	360	1323.33	81.93 b	97.89 a	100.00 a	97.81 a
对照（虫口减退率）	-	986.67	2.36	-31.08	67.91	77.03

药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	药后防治效果/%
药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	3 d	7 d	14 d	21 d
57%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	69.9	2003.33	96.59 a	99.49 a	100.00 a	94.20 a
30%吡蚜·噻虫胺SC	375	1943.33	97.54 a	100.00 a	100.00 a	99.25 a
35%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	90	1200.00	92.03 a	100.00a	100.00 a	90.33 a
70%吡蚜·呋虫胺WDG	120	1616.67	97.04 a	99.37 a	100.00 a	96.41 a
25%吡蚜酮SC	360	1323.33	81.93 b	97.89 a	100.00 a	97.81 a
对照（虫口减退率）	-	986.67	2.36	-31.08	67.91	77.03

药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	药后防治效果/%
药剂	用量/(g/hm²)	药前虫量/（头/百穴）	3 d	7 d	14 d	21 d
57%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	69.9	2303.33	95.87 a	98.40 a	100.00 a	92.37 a
30%吡蚜·噻虫胺SC	375	2083.33	97.02 a	99.45 a	99.42 a	97.72 a
35%噻虫·吡蚜酮WDG	90	1606.67	89.20 a	98.25 a	98.42 a	86.26 a
70%吡蚜·呋虫胺WDG	120	2013.33	97.23 a	99.20 a	99.07 a	94.09 a
25%吡蚜酮SC	360	1600.00	83.71 b	96.73 a	98.93 a	96.13 a
对照（虫口减退率）	-	1213.33	-1.88	-45.02	46.30	71.74