Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

An Evaluation of the Residual Activity of Traditional, Safe, and Biological Insecticides Against the Gypsy Moth

Ralph E. Webb, Randy Peiffer, Roger W. Fuester, Kevin W. Thorpe, Louis Calabrese and Joseph M. McLaughlin
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 1998, 24 (5) 286-293; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1998.035
Ralph E. Webb
1Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Bldg. 306, Rm. 322, BARC-East, Beltsville, MD 20705
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Randy Peiffer
2Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Roger W. Fuester
3USDA, ARS, Beneficial Insects Introduction Research, Newark, DE 19713
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin W. Thorpe
1Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Bldg. 306, Rm. 322, BARC-East, Beltsville, MD 20705
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Louis Calabrese
2Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph M. McLaughlin
2Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Mortality of (A) second instar and (B) fourth instar gypsy moths confined for 1, 2, and 3 weeks on foliage bearing 1-hour residues of the indicated treatments: (1) NPV low dose, (2) NPV high dose, (3) NPV low dose + 0.1% Blankophor BBH, (4) NPV low dose + 0.5% Blankophor BBH, (5) Bt, (6) azadirachtin, (7) tebufenozide, (8) diflubenzuron, (9) cyfluthrin, (10) untreated controls.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Treatments evaluated in this study.
    Treatment and productDose per 378 LAdjuvants added
    1.GypchekNPV (low)1011 PIB2% (vol/vol) Bond sticker
    2.GypchekNPV (standard)1012 PIB2% (vol/vol) Bond sticker
    3.Gypchek (enhanced)NPV (low) + 0.1% BBH1011 PIB2% (vol/vol) Bond sticker
    4.Gypchek (enhanced)NPV (low) + 0.5% BBH1011 PIB2% (vol/vol) Bond sticker
    5.Foray 48BBacillus thuringiensisNo sticker at manufacturer’s suggestion
    36 Billion International Units (BIU) = 2.84 L formulated product
    6.Azatin 4.5 WPazadirachtin267 g0.125% (vol/vol) Dragon spreader-sticker
    7.RH-5992 2Ftebufenozide474 mL0.25% (vol/vol) Bond sticker
    8.Dimilin 4Ldiflubenzuron59 mLNo sticker at manufacturer’s suggestion
    9.Tempo 2cyfluthrin30 mL0.25% (vol/vol) Bond sticker
    10.Untreated controls
    • Blankophor BBH (BBH) is a stilbene disulfonic acid derivative used as by industry as an optical brightener but was here used as a potentiator of the gypsy moth nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). NPV virions (individual virus particles) are contained in protective protein polygons (containing a variable number of virions) called polyhedral inclusion bodies (PIB).

    • View popup
    Table 2. Mortality of gypsy moth larvae of the indicated instars confined for 3 weeks on foliage bearing 1-hour residues of the indicated treatments.
    Treatment and productDose per 378 LGypsy moth instar
    1234
    1.GypchekNPV (low)10” PIB91††81†61†56†
    2.GypchekNPV (standard)1012 PIB85†81†78†61†
    3.Gypchek (enhanced)NPV (low) + 0.1% BBH1011 PIB97††95††80†61†
    4.Gypchek (enhanced)NPV (low) + 0.5% BBH1011 PIB98††97††91††69†
    5.Foray 48BBt (36 BIU)2.84 L98††97††86††78†
    6.Azatin 4.5 WPazadirachtin267 g97††93††81†69†
    7.RH-5992 2Ftebufenozide474 mL100††100††100††100††
    8.Dimilin 4Ldiflubenzuron59 mL100††100††100††99††
    9.Tempo 2cyfluthrin30 mL100††100††100††100†
    10.Untreated controls41324024
    • ↵Values followed by at least 1 cross (†) differ significantly from that of the experimental controls at the 0.05 probability level (LSD). Values followed by a double cross (††) are not significantly different from the standard traditional insecticide (Tempo 2) at the 0.05 probability level (LSD).

    • View popup
    Table 3. Mortality of gypsy moth larvae confined on foliage bearing residues of the indicated ages for the indicated treatments.
    TreatmentDose per 378 LAge of residue at time of confinement
    12714212835
    NPV1011 PIB4554433377†3329
    NPV1012 PIB68†515639545648
    NPV1011 PIB
    + BBH0.1%78††74†87††434773†69†
    NPV1011 PIB
    + BBH0.5%94††87††79††67†68†83††80††
    Bt (36 BIU)2.84 L94††93††79††42385748
    Azadirachtin267 g84††83††100††81††95††6144
    Tebufenozide474 mL100††100††100††100††100††100††100††
    Diflubenzuron59 mL100††100††100††69†100††100††100††
    Cyfluthrin30 mL100††100††100††99††100††100††100††
    Untreated controls41324024304746
    • ↵Values followed by at least 1 cross (†) differ significantly from that of the experimental controls at the 0.05 probability level (LSD). Values followed by a double cross (††) are not significantly different from the standard traditional insecticide (Tempo 2) at the 0.05 probability level (LSD).

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 24, Issue 5
September 1998
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An Evaluation of the Residual Activity of Traditional, Safe, and Biological Insecticides Against the Gypsy Moth
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
An Evaluation of the Residual Activity of Traditional, Safe, and Biological Insecticides Against the Gypsy Moth
Ralph E. Webb, Randy Peiffer, Roger W. Fuester, Kevin W. Thorpe, Louis Calabrese, Joseph M. McLaughlin
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1998, 24 (5) 286-293; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1998.035

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
An Evaluation of the Residual Activity of Traditional, Safe, and Biological Insecticides Against the Gypsy Moth
Ralph E. Webb, Randy Peiffer, Roger W. Fuester, Kevin W. Thorpe, Louis Calabrese, Joseph M. McLaughlin
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1998, 24 (5) 286-293; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1998.035
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Urban Trees and Cooling: A Review of the Recent Literature (2018 to 2024)
  • Aerial Imagery as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Tree Retention: Applications, Strengths and Challenges for Backyard Tree Planting Programs
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire