Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Faculty of Agriculture
Plant protection
Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy
Supervision's Committee
1-Prof. Dr. Tsamoh Khatab Abd El-Raof
Emeritus Prof. of Pesticides, Faculty of Agric. Tanta University.
(2008)
Tanta University
Faculty of Agriculture
Plant protection
Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy
Supervision's Committee
1-Prof. Dr. Tsamoh Khatab Abd El-Raof
Emeritus Prof. of Pesticides, Faculty of Agric. Tanta University.
Date:30/7/2008
Date 30 / 7 /2008
Name:Sabry AbdEl-Monem Abd-El-Aal Abd-Allah
Title: BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CONTROL FOR SOME PESTS OF
AGRICULTURAL CROPS AND ITS SIDE EFFECTS.
Degree:Doctor of Philosophy in Agriculture Sciences (pesticides) Plant
production Departments, Faculty of Agricultural, Tanta University.
Abstract
Series of field and laboratory experiments had been carried out in Faculty of
Agriculture, Tanta University, for determination the efficiency of some substitute
implement as a part of integrated pest management for European Corn Borer Ostrinia
nubilalis (Hb.). The results obtained can be summarized as follows:
The toxicity of the Biofly to the aphid species and red spider mite using leaf disk dipping
technique could be arranged descendingly as follows: Tetranychus cinnabarinus >
Rhopalosiphum maidis > Aphis craccivora > Aphis gossypii. While, the toxicity of the
different oils against spider mite T. cinnabarinus using leaf-disc dipping technique could
be arranged descendingly as follows: corn oil> cotton oil >caster oil > mineral oil>canola
oil> paraffin oil.
Most tested mixtures of corn and cotton oils with Beauveria bassiana (Biofly) were less
toxic than the Biofly formulation. while, the mixtures which consists of 3 parts of Biofly
and 1 part caster oil or canola or mineral and paraffin oils more toxic than Biofly
formulation against T. cinnabarinus. All tested photostablizers and pigments mixtures
with Biofly had increased the mixtures' toxicity to T. cinnabarinus mites. But when
increasing the concentration ratio to 1% the toxicity decrease. Mixtures of Biofly + 0.1%
acetophenon or 4-nitro acetophenon or 7-nitophenol or benzophenon, Biofly + 0.1% or
0.2% or 0.5%congo red and Biofly + 0.1% or 0.2% or 0.5% titan yellow mixtures had
increased the toxicity of the Biofly formulation against adult T. cinnabarinus.
The most persistence mixtures were 3Biofly:1paraffin oil, 3Biofly:1 castor oil, and
Biofly+0.1% benzophenon, or +0.5% congo red or +0.1% 7-nitrophenol.
Cultivars S.C.13 and T.W.C. 351 were the most tolerant cultivars against ECB infestation
while, T.W.C.323 and 324 cultivars were the most susceptible cultivers. There are a
positive relationship between %grain protein and the %damaged grain.
The most potent insecticides against ECB infestation were diazinon and fenpropathrin but
methomyl was the least toxic one. Diazinon followed by chlorpyrifos insecticides had the
highest values in 100grain weight and grain yield/10plants.
Spraying with diazinon, mixture No.4 [150ml Biofly + 50ml paraffin oil+ 0.1%
benzophenon(0.2gm)+ 500ml diazinon] and mixture No.3 [(375gm Agrine + 125ml
paraffin oil+ 0.1% benzophenon(0.5gm) + 500ml diazinon] had been reduced holes
No./100internodes and cavities No./10plants. Diazinon, mixture No.4 and mixture No.3
had increase both 100 grain weight and grain yield/10plants
Agerin (a Bacillus thuringiensis formulation), Agerin mixtures with oil or/with
benzophenon and paraffin oil had no toxicity against adults of predator, Paederus alfierii.
The toxicity of the rest biochemicals could be arranged descendingly as follows: mixture
No.4 > mixture No.3 > diazinon. While mixture No.2 [150ml Biofly + 50ml paraffin oil+
0.1% benzophenon(0.2gm)] were more toxic than Biofly.
CO NTE NTS
CONTENTS ...................................................................................................1
List of Tables....................................................................................................5
List of figures...............................................................................................153
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.................................................................................1
I - INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................2
II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................................................3
II.1 Pesticides efficiency against the European corn borer (ECB) Ostrinia
nubilalis (Hubner). ..................................................................................3
II.2 Role of plant tolerance in corn borer control:.....................................11
II.3 The biological control of European Corn Borer.................................15
II.3.1 Role of entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana in the biological
control of corn borers.............................................................................15
II.3.1.a Efficiency of Beauveria bassiana against Ostrinia nubilalis
(Hb.).........................................................................................15
II.3.1.b Compatibility of Beauveria bassiana with oils..................21
II.3.1.c Compatibility of Beauveria bassiana with pesticides. .........28
II.3.1.d Effect of ultraviolet radiations (UV) on the Beauveria bassiana
efficiency. ...............................................................................32
II.3.2 Efficiency of Beauveria bassiana against Aphis sp and two-spotted spider
mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus.............................................................35
II.3.3 Role of Bacillus thuringiensis on the biological control of European Corn
Borers Ostrinia nubilalis (Hb.)..............................................................36
II.4 Oils efficiency against spider mites Tetranychus spp.........................43
II.5 The side effect of bioinsecticides on some beneficial insects. ...........44
II.6 The side effect of diazinon on some beneficial insects........................47
III - MATERIALS AND METHODS.........................................................49
III.1 Rearing technique of aphids:.............................................................49
III.2 Rearing technique of the two spotted Spider mite, Tetranychus
cinnabarinus (Boisduval). ....................................................................49
III.3 Rearing technique of the predator, Paederus alfierii (Kock)..............50
III.4 Determination of the Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) potency . ........51
III.4.1 Slide dipping technique........................................................................51
III.4.2 Leaf-disc dipping technique:................................................................52
III.4.3 Determination the effect of ultra violet radiation on B. bassiana potency. 52
III.4.3.a Mixing Beauveria bassiana formulation (Biofly) with different
oils...........................................................................................53
III.4.3.b Mixing Beauveria bassiana formulation (Biofly) with
Photostablizers and pigments..................................................54
III.4.3.c Effect of Ultra Violet radiation (UV) on Beauveria bassiana .56
III.5 The side effect of bioinsecticides against the predator, Paederus alfierii
(Kock). ..................................................................................................57
III.6 L.D.P lines and statistical analysis.....................................................57
III.7 Evaluation of some chemical insecticides efficiency against ECB on
certain maize cultivatrs under natural infestation conditions................58
III.7.1 Chemical insecticides used :................................................................58
III.7.2 Soil analysis.........................................................................................60
III.7.3 Climatological elements.......................................................................61
III.8 Evaluation of some microbial insecticides efficiency against ECB on
certain maize cultivars compared with chemical insecticide under natural
infestation conditions.............................................................................62
III.9 Chemical analysis of Corn cultivars..................................................65
III.9.1 Total nitrogen content determination..................................................65
III.9.2 Phosphorus Determination. ................................................................66
III.9.3 Determination of cellulose contents.....................................................67
III.9.4 Determination of ash............................................................................67
III.10 Statistical analysis............................................................................68
IV - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...........................................................71
IV.1 Determination of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) potency. ..............71
IV.2 Effect of ultra violet radiation on B. bassiana potency.......................75
IV.2.1 Effect of mixing Beauveria bassiana formulation (Biofly) with different
oils.........................................................................................................75
IV.2.1.a Effect of different oils against two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus
cinnabarinus...........................................................................................76
IV.2.1.b Effect of Beauveria bassiana mixtures with oils against two-spotted
spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus....................................................79
IV.2.2 Effect of Mixing Beauveria bassiana formulation (Biofly) with
photostaplizers.......................................................................................86
IV.2.3 Effect of Ultra Violet radiation (UV) on Beauveria bassiana mixtures.96
IV.3 Evaluation of some chemical insecticides efficiency against ECB on
certain maize cultivatars under natural infestation conditions..............98
IV.3.1 Susceptibility of corn cultivars at the late season to infestation with ECB
under natural infestation conditions......................................................99
IV.3.2 Insecticides efficiency against European Corn Borer Ostrinia nubilalis
(Hb.) infestation...................................................................................103
IV.3.2.a Holes No./100 internodes..................................................103
IV.3.2.b Cavities No./10 plant.........................................................104
IV.3.2.c Larvae No. /10plants.........................................................106
IV.3.2.d Holes No./10 ear stalks......................................................107
IV.3.2.e Damaged grains percentage..............................................109
IV.3.2.f Grains protein percentage..................................................110
IV.3.2.g Grains phosphorus percentage...........................................112
IV.3.2.h 100 grain weight (g.). ......................................................113
IV.3.2.i Grains yield/10 plants(Kg).................................................115
IV.4 Chemical analysis of Corn cultivars.................................................127
IV.5 Evaluation of some microbial insecticides efficiency against ECB on
certain maize cultivators compared with chemical insecticides under natural
infestation conditions...........................................................................130
IV.5.1 Holes No./100 internodes...................................................................130
IV.5.2 Cavities No./10plants.........................................................................132
IV.5.3 Larvae No./10plants...........................................................................134
IV.5.4 100 grain weight.................................................................................136
IV.5.5 Grains yield/10plants.........................................................................138
IV.6 The side effect of biochemicals against the predator, Paederus alfierii
(Kock). ................................................................................................147
V - SUMMARY..........................................................................................147
VI - REFERENCES...................................................................................151
List of T ables
List of f igur es
ACKNO WLE DG MENT
ALLAH
I strongly owe my thanks to for lighting me the way and
directing me across every success.
The author wishes to express his deep thanks to Prof. Dr. Tsamoh
Khatab Abd El-Raof Professor of Pesticides, Plant Protection Department,
Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, for suggesting the problem and her
supervision during the course of these studies and during revision of the
manuscript.
Sincere thanks, appreciation and deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. Helmy
Aly Ibrahim Anber Prof. of pesticides, and Dean of the Faculty of
Agriculture, Tanta University, for his supervising in my committee and for his
continuous support through the period of study.
Deepest and sincere gratitude to Dr. Abd-ElRhim. S. Metwally Head
of Field Crop Pests Department, Plant Protection Research Institute, Agric.
Research Center, Cairo, Egypt for supervising the work, efforts in revising
the manuscript and discussing data, providing technical help and valuable
scientific assistance.
The author wishes also to thank Dr. EL-Sayed A. Kishk Lecturer of
Pesticides. Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, for his valuable
supervision, scientific suggestions, guidance, and kind help during the period
of the work .
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ibrahim I. Mesbah
Chairman of the plant protection Department and Vice Dean of Faculty of
Agriculture, Tanta University, for his kind help and advice through this study.
Deep thank are also to all members in pesticides Department Faculty
of Agriculture, Tanta University, for their continuous encouragement and
offering all facilities through out this work.
INT RODUCTI ON -I
Corn (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important grains crops in Egypt.
The amount of corn needs is far greater than that produced locally. To
overcome this problem and increase production under limited arable lands in
Egypt, it may be through cultivate corn in the early season (in the beginning
of March) and in the late season (in the beginning of July) as well. But,
European corn borer (ECB) Ostrinia nubilials (Lepidoptera: Pyraustidae)
infestation increases in the late season and become a limiting factor to
increase the corn production, it causes a stalk damage that results in great
grains yield reductions reached to 45 % (Lutfalla and Sherif 1992).
Over use of insecticides led to increase problems of pest resistance,
destruction of beneficial insects or non-target organisms, insecticides residues
and human hazards.
The increased public awareness and concern for environmental safety
has directed research to the development of alternative control strategies such
as the use of microbial control agents for controlling ECB by using Beauveria
bassina and Bacillus thuringiensis formulations.
One of the major challenges to use the microbial biopesticides is their
lack of persistence in the field due to environmental factors such as sunlight,
high temperature, and water stress. Sunlight particularly UVB (280-320 nm
portion) is likely the most destructive of these environmental factors by the
direct structural effects on DNA or indirect damage caused by the formation
of reactive oxygen molecules (Ignoffo and Garcia, 1978, 1994; Ignoffo,
1992). The half- life of most entomopathogenic fungal conidia ranges from 1
to 4 hr in stimulated sunlight and 4 to 400 hours in natural sunlight on foliage.
Many researchers have screened many additives materials to protect
bioinsecticides from degradation by sunlight. A number of laboratory and
field studies indicates that oil formulations and photo-protective agents
improve the efficacy of entomopathogenic formulations (Inglis et al. 2002;
Moore et al 1993 and Alves et al 1998).
So, the goal of this study is to achieve an integrated biocontrol for the
European Corn Borer(ECB) especially in late season through the following:
1- Enhanced the persistence of bioinsecticides formulations against
UV radiations by mixing them with some botanical oils, mineral oils, some
photostablizer compounds and some pigments.
2- Selection of the most tolerant commercial corn cultivars to use as a
major key of integrated pest management of ECB infestation.
3- Choose the most potent insecticides of the common insecticides
used to control ECB in the late season.
4- Finally, use the mixtures of enhanced bioagents with the most
effective insecticides (in a minimum concentration) and the most tolerant
commercial corn cultivators to obtain the most effective biochemical control
of ECB infestation under the field conditions.
I I - REV IE W OF LITE RATUR E.
which was about the most effective material, but not so critical with Dyfonate,
fensulfothion or carbofuran, which also gave good results.
McClanahan and Founk (1972), reported that in laboratory tests
parathion was the most effective ovicide against Ostrinia nubilalis (Hb.).
The larvae were more susceptible than the eggs. In 1970 and 1971, heavy
populations of the multivoltine strain of O. nubilalis were controlled on sweet
maize and peppers [Capsicum] by twice-weekly sprays of carbaryl, methomyl
(Lannate) and Phosvel. Carbofuran (Furadan) applied weekly provided good
control, and several experimental compounds were effective.
Gerginov (1973), investigated the effectiveness of some chemical
preparations for the control of the maize stem borer Ostrinia (Pyrausta)
nubilalis (Hb.). He found that, the best results were achieved with 5%
endosulfan (Thiodan), 5% diazinon and 5% bromophos (Nexion) applied in
granules manually at 1 g/plant, which gave 92.25, 81.79 and 77.91% mortality
of first generation larvae and increased the yield by 833, 617 and 653 kg/ha,
respectively. Also with two applications of 5% endosulfan at 0.5 g/plant,
larval mortality was 96.8%. While it was 92.7% with one application of
endosulfan in granules followed by a wettable powder spray of the same
toxicant.
Melia Masia and Almajano Contreras (1973), applied granular
formulations containing 3% phosmet (Imidan), 2.5% diazinon or 5%
monocrotophos at rates of 25, 25 and 20 kg/ha, respectively, to the upper part
of the maize plants on 12th, 14th July, 2- 4 days after the adults flight peak.
They showed that there were no significant differences between the
treatments, on average yield, the populations of Ostrinia had been reduced
5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
application of insecticide for the control of the ECB. They assessed the level
of infestation by means of pheromone traps for the adults and visual counts of
egg masses, entrance holes and (at the harvest) mature larvae of the 2nd
generation. They assumed that yield losses were found to be significantly
correlated with the numbers of entrance holes and not with the numbers of
mature larvae; maize plants with 2-4 holes yielded 2.96% less and those with
5 or more holes yielded 14.8% less than uninfested plants. In control tests,
applied a preparation containing Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki, by
deltaplane at 2.4×1010 International Unite/hectare (IU/ha) against the 2nd
generation only, and chlorpyrifos at 470 g/ha either once against the 2nd
generation alone or twice against the 1st and 2nd generations reduced the
infestation significantly.
Voinescu and Barbulescu (1986) tested the effectiveness of granules
of eight insecticides, each applied at 2 kg a.i./ha, on maize plants artificially
infested with Ostrinia nubilalis at higher rates than those likely to occur in
nature. They declared that, the best results (in terms of stalk cavity length,
number of larvae per plant, percentage of plants with cob damage, and grains
yield) were afforded by diazinon, chlormephos, chlorpyrifos, carbofuran and
profenofos.
Aguilar et al. (1987), determined the optimum timing for insecticides
applications to control the pyralid Ostrinia nubilalis and the noctuid Sesamia
nonagrioides in maize. They applied Ethyl chlorpyrifos to maize at 3 sites
as 17 applications throughout the crop growth period, 7 applications during
the 1st generations of the pests, 10 applications during the 2nd generations of
the pests and an untreated control. They found that, crops which applied with
10 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
found a correlation between the degree of foliar resistance and the optical
density of the leaf extracts.
Khrolinskii and Kazymova (1976), achieved a rapid method to
determine the maize resistance for the stalk borer Ostrinia nubilalis (Hb.)
infestation. It involved analysis of one particular leaf (the third leaf from the
top on plants in the 9-10 leaf stage, cut it in the early morning when the
temperature does not exceed 19ºC) by various analytical methods. They
indicated that, the optical density of extracts appeared to be the most
important characteristic. Optical densities of 0.5 or more indicated resistance,
and those of 0.4 or less indicated partial but insufficient resistance.
Rojanaridpiched (1983), studied the European corn borer (Ostrinia
nubilalis (Hubner)) resistance in maize. He found that the second generation
of O. nubilalis resistance correlated with silica content of the leaf sheath
collar (r = -0.84). Also, the resistance of the first generation O. nubilalis was
highly correlated with DIMBOA in the "whorl" tissue.
Rojanaridpiched et al. (1984), indicated that resistance to the second
generation of Ostrinia nubilalis was significantly correlated with silica
content in the sheath and collar tissues. A relatively high DIMBOA content
was found in the leaf sheath and collar tissues of some lines. DIMBOA had a
secondary role in resistance in some lines.
Bergvinson et al. (1994), studied the putative role of photodimerized
phenolic acids in maize resistance to Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae). They grew a five genotypes of maize under three light regimes in
the field. They reported that, artificial infestation with Ostrinia nubilalis, egg
masses resulted in greater leaf feeding damage for plants grown under an
13 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Ultra Violet (UV) absorbing plastic (UV-) than for the same genotypes grown
under UV transmitting (UV+) plastic or in the open. Leaf bioassays
performed on tissue from the three different light regimes showed similar
trends. Foliar nitrogen content was reduced as much as 15% for UV-plants.
2,4-Dihydroxy-7-methoxy-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one levels were consistently
higher in UV-plants as were the levels of cell-wall-bound hydroxycinnamic
acids (HCA). Light-activated dimers of HCA called truxillic and truxinic
acids were lower in UV-plants. They indicated that cell-wall-bound truxillic
and truxinic acids are an additional resistance mechanism that provides an
explanation for increased susceptibility of greenhouse grown plants to
folivores.
Abel et al. (1995), evaluated 1601 accessions of Peruvian maize
maintained in the U.S. National Plant Germplasm System for leaf-feeding
resistance to O. nubilalis. They identified eleven resistant accessions, all of
which originated from Peru's north coast. Then analyzed the 11 resistant
accessions for MBOA, the degradation product of DIMBOA and an indicator
of DIMBOA levels in the plant. They found that, all 11 resistant accessions
contained low MBOA concentration, equivalent to that found in susceptible
inbred WF9, this indicating that DIMBOA is not the basis of this resistance.
Warnock et al. (1997), developed a laboratory bioassay incorporating
ear tissues from field resistant and susceptible sweet corn genotypes into a
nutritionally complete O. nubilalis larval diet as an initial step to facilitate the
isolation and identification of potential chemical resistance factors in sweet
corn. They found that, silk tissue from several sweet corn genotypes
significantly reduced larval weight and increased total larval development
14 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
time compared with kernel tissue. Silk tissues incorporated on a weight basis
had volumes about 3X than that of an equal weight of kernel tissues.
However, tissues incorporated into a specific diet volume on a weight or
volume basis usually did not alter larval weight or time to pupation within a
genotype. Incorporation on a weight basis was most time efficient.
Binder et al. (1999), indicate that water-soluble factors from resistant
Peruvian accessions inhibit the growth, development time, and survival of
ECB. These resistance factors could be useful in the development of maize
germplasm with insect-resistant traits.
Raspudic et al. (2003), evaluated the resistance of some hybrids to
the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis in field trials. They found that, If
infestation intensity was lower than 40%, the greatest length of damage on
maize stalk was, on average, 1.58 cm per plant. If the intensity of attack was
more than 50%, the average length of damage on maize stalk was 5.78 cm per
plant. Significant positive correlation was observed between the intensity of
attack and length of damage.
Martin et al. (2004), evaluated twelve cycles of bidirectional
selection, which has resulted in increased and decreased stalk strength in the
high and low directions of selection, respectively, for grain yield, stalk
lodging, rind penetrometer resistance, first and second-generation ECB
damage, leaf penetrometer resistance at the whorl stage and anthesis, and stalk
traits including crude fiber, cellulose, lignin, and silica. They explicit that,
there are a decrease in grain yield in both directions of selection. Selection for
high rind penetrometer resistance was effective at providing resistance to
second-generation ECB damage as well as resistance to stalk lodging. Leaf
15 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
II .3 T he bi ol og ic al co nt r ol of Eur ope an
Co r n B or er.
test. They showed that Metarhizium anisopliae could not attack the eggs of
Ostrinia nubilalis (Hb.) if the relative air humidity was less than 90%, even
for a few hours. At low relative humidity (30-33%), Beauveria bassiana was
able to penetrate larvae of O. nubilalis, but the LT50 was much increased over
that at high humidity (90-100%) and the fungus did not sporulate on the
surface of host cadavers. In addition, the viability of conidia of B. bassiana
and M. anisopliae was reduced by relative humidity between 5 and 70%.
After 25 days at 30% RH, only up to 20% of conidia of B. bassiana were able
to germinate, while M. anisopliae exposed for 1 day to 30% RH at 25 °C
could not attack eggs of O. nubilalis.
Carruthers et al. (1985), studied the temperature-dependent
development of Beauveria bassiana mycosis of the European corn borer,
Ostrinia nubilalis. They found that, in vivo incubation period of Beauveria
bassiana mycosis of Ostrinia nubilalis was varied in response to incubation
temperature, the level of initial exposure (dose) and the larvae age. Incubation
Temperature was found to be the dominant factor affecting disease
development within each of the host instars examined, while a dose produced
significant effects only in the early instars.
Guerin (1986), evaluated a granular formulation of Beauveria
bassiana in 3 trials in France against the maize pyralid Ostrinia nubilalis.
With infestation ranging from 1.3 to 1.9 larvae/stem, He found that, efficacy
approached 70-90%.
Bing and Lewis (1991), applied the entomopathogenic fungus
Beauveria bassiana to whorl-stage maize plants by foliar application of a
granular formulation of conidia and by injection of a conidial suspension.
18 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
They found that, in season 1989, 98.3% of the foliar treated plants, 95.0% of
the injected plants and 33.3% of the untreated plants were colonized by B.
bassiana at harvest. In 1988, there were no significant differences between
treatment effects on O. nubilalis tunneling in plants. In 1989, when
environmental conditions were more conducive to fungal growth, tunneling
was significantly greater in the control plants, followed by the injected and
foliar treated plants. When applied to foliage, B. bassiana provided the
greatest amount of O. nubilalis suppression. The entomopathogenic fungus
colonized maize at the whorl stage, moved within the plant, and persisted to
provide season-long suppression of O. nubilalis.
Lewis and Bing (1991), placed a laboratory-reared O. nubilalis eggs
or larvae on the plant during either the whorl stage (V6) or the pollen-
shedding stage (R1) to simulate 1st and 2nd generation O. nubilalis oviposition
periods, respectively. They establish that, in the 1st year, first generation, and
second generation (2nd year) Bacillus thuringiensis and Beauveria bassiana
alone and in combination caused significant reductions in tunneling compared
with that in control populations. There were no significant differences in
tunneling between any treatments in the 2nd generation study of first year.
Bacillus thuringiensis and Beauveria bassiana were independent of each other
in their suppression of insects. They recorded tunneling by the naturally
occurring second-generation larvae (year 2) to determine if Bacillus
thuringiensis and Beauveria bassiana applied in the V6 stage persisted in the
plant, excised with samples from nodal plates 7-10 of the maize stalk to
determine the incidence of B. bassiana. They concluded that, there was a
significant correlation between occurrence of B. bassiana in the maize plant
19 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
bassiana, both in water and in water mixed with oil at 3%, increased the
weevil mortality and reduced the LT50 in accordance with the increased
concentration. The LC50 in water was 1.2×106 conidia/ml while the
corresponding value in oil was 2.2×104 conidia/ml, these indicating that the
efficacy of the fungus increased upon adding oil to the suspension.
Consolo, et al. (2003), studied pathogenicity, formulation and storage
of insect pathogenic hyphomycetous fungi tested against Diabrotica speciosa.
They found that, using different temperatures (4, 17 and 26°C) and vegetable
oils (corn, sunflower and canola) for storage, did not significantly affect
viability of conidia. A pathogenicity trial against D. speciosa larvae performed
with the corn oil formulation (1×108 conidia/ml of oil) caused 65% of
mortality.
Hazzard, et al. (2003), evaluated vegetable and mineral oil,
Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) and Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki
Berliner singly or in combinations for control of Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner),
Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) and Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) in sweet
corn (Zea mays L.). Mineral oil alone provided equal (1993) or better (1994)
control compared with corn oil. In both years, mineral or corn oil plus B.
thuringiensis resulted in 93-98% marketable ears, compared with 48-52%
marketable ears in untreated plots. In other hand, in three factorial
experiments with B. bassiana, B. thuringiensis and corn oil, B. bassiana at 5 ×
107 conidia per ear provided little or no control while B. thuringiensis and
corn oil provided significant though not always consistent control of all three
species. They concluded that, the combination of B. thuringiensis and corn oil
provided the largest and most consistent reduction in numbers of larvae and
26 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
insect cuticle.
Wekesa, et al. (2005), studied the pathogenicity of Beauveria
bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae to the tobacco spider mite Tetranychus
evansi. They found that, conidia formulated in oil outperformed the ones
formulated in water.
degrees.
Ivezic et al. (1998), treated maize (in a field experiment) with 3
liters/ha of Biobit XL (Bacillus thuringiensis-based) for controlling Ostrinia
nubilalis at the beginning and/or at the end of July, They found that,
infestation levels had of 53, 35 and 37%, respectively, compared with 83% in
the untreated control.
Raspudic et al. (1999), carried out a biological control of ECB on
silage maize with biological preparation Biobit XL (based on Bacillus
thuringiensis) at a dose of 3 liters/ha. They reported that, intensity of attack
was lower for 41%. The number of cavities and larvae/plant also decreased.
On treated plots 0.64 cavities and 0.67 larvae/plant were found, whereas on
the control plots there were 1.61 cavities and 1.79 larvae/plant. Both cavities
and larvae were above the ear, because these were the larvae of the second
generation. Length of damage of maize stems in the control plots was 4.11
cm, and on treated plots 1.28 cm/plant.
Ridgway and Farrar (1999), compared five commercial granular
formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner marketed for controlling the
European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner). They stated that, three
formulations, Dipel 10G(R), Full-Bac ECBG(R), and Strike BT(R), were
similar in terms of both mortality and speed of kill. A formulation containing
a strain of B. thuringiensis developed by plasmid fusion, Condor G(R), caused
mortality similar to the other three formulations, but the speed of kill was
slower. A fifth formulation containing a B. thuringiensis toxin produced by
Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula, M-Peril(R), caused substantially less
mortality than any of the other formulations. An experimental water
42 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
females. He found that KZ oil was toxic to the egg stage compared to adult
female. In contrast, the vegetable oil Natur'l has a close toxic effect for both
stages of T. urticae. Bio-dux oil was proved to be toxic to adult female and
relatively in toxic to egg stage.
Lancaster, et al. (2002) evaluated the summer sprays of soyabean oil
for their efficacy against two spotted spider mites (Tetranychus urticae)
(TSSM) on burning bush (Euonymus alatus). They reported that, single
sprays of 1, 2, or 3% soyabean oil or 1% SunSpray reduced TSSM
populations by 97-99% compared to water-sprayed controls. In a second
experiment, a single spray of 0.75, 1.0, or 1.5% soyabean oil reduced the
TSSM population by >95%, compared to the water control. A second spraying
of 0.25-1.5% soyabean oil resulted in <more or ≥ 93% control of TSSM
compared to the water control. A third spray provided little additional TSSM
control.
Lee, et al. (2005) evaluated Bionatrol, specified emulsion nano-
particle soyabean oil, for it's insecticidal efficacy on two spotted spider mites
(Tetranychus urticae), aphids (Aphis gossypii), and white flies (Trialeurodes
vaporariorum) on greenhouse grown english cucumber (Cucumis subsp.
Kasa). They found that, Bionatrol had a relatively high mortality rate against
insects. Bionatrol reduced populations of the insects examined by 88-95%.
(strain SK99) coccinellid larvae were killed by the fungus. More than 50% of
dead adults of Coccinella septempunctata L. and Propylea
quattuordecimpunctata (L.) was found 72-120 hours after application of
fungus.
Sharma and Kashyap (2002), conducted a field experiment to
investigate the impact of pesticides on pests of tea and their natural enemies.
They found that, Neemark [Azadirachta indica] at 0.3%, Achook at 0.3% and
Bacillus thuringiensis formulation (Dipel 8L at 0.3%) were quite safe to
Syrphis sp. and Coccinella septempunctata.
Bozsik (2006) examined five insecticides (pyriproxifen, imidacloprid,
deltamethrin+heptenophos, lambda-cyhalothrin and Bacillus thuringiensis
Berliner subsp. tenebrionis) for their acute detrimental side-effects at field
rates on adult Coccinella septempunctata L. They found that, pyriproxifen,
imidacloprid and B. thuringiensis subsp. tenebrionis seem to be safe for C.
septempunctata adults.
III.4.3.a.aChemical used :
CH2 (CH2)n CH2
1-Mineral oil (KZ oil)H2C CH2
Structural formula CH2 (CH2)n CH2
Mixture of CH3CnH2nCH3 were n=13-39 atoms and cyclic paraffins
were n=3-17 atoms
Molecular Formula : CnH2n+2 for alkanes and CnH2n for cyclic paraffins were
n = 15:40 atoms.
Called Volk oil, a refined grade colorless oil distillate
on 350°F composed mainly of alkanes (15:40 carbons)
and cyclic paraffins (15:40 carbons)
Formulations: :E.C. 95 %.
Introduced by :Kafr El - Zayat Company.
*
Recommended rate of application : 750 cm3 / feddan.
2- Paraffin oil
Structural formula : the same structure of the mineral oil.
Molecular Formula : the same molecular formula of the mineral oil.
Introduced by :Elcabten company for oil extracting.
3- Botanical oils:
Corn and cotton oils
Introduced by : Tanta Company for oils and soap.
Castor oil
Introduced by :Elkabten company for oil extracting.
Canola oil
Introduced from : National research center, Horticultural department.
III.4.3.b.aChemicals used:
Photostablizers :
O
A- C
Benzophenon
O
B- C CH 3
Acetophenon
C- H O N O 2
4, nitro phenol
55 MATERIALS AND METHODS
O
D- O N C CH3
2
4-nitro acetophenon
Pigments:
OH
O S O
N CH2
A- N N N
CH2 N
O S O
OH
NH2 NH2
N N N N
B-
O S O O S O
OH OH
1
k =
t x .ln( ba )
x
Where:
T50 = Half life time (the time needed to reduce the pesticide residue concentration
to half )
k = Rate of decomposition . tx = Time in days .
a = Initial residue of pesticide. bx = Concentration residue at x time.
57 MATERIALS AND METHODS
N OP(OCH2CH3)2
N
(CH3)2CH
Chemical name :O,O-diethyl O- 2- isopropyl- 6- methylpyrimidin- 4- yl
phosphorothioate.
Molecular Formula :C12H21N2O3PS
Formulation :60% E C.
Introduced by : Kafr El - Zayat Company.
*
Recommended rate of application : 1L / feddan.
2- Methymoyl (Lannate)
Structural formula :
SCH3
CH3NHCO2N C
CH3
Cl N OP(OCH2CH3)2
Cl
Cl
Chemical name :O,O-diethyl O-3, 5, 6- trichloro- 2- pyridyl
phosphorothioate.
Molecular Formula :C9H11Cl3NO3PS.
Formulation: :48% E C.
Introduced by : El-Help for importing and exporting Co.
*
Recommended rate of application : 1L / feddan .
Procedures:
Two field experiments were conducted at El-Gharbia governorate
(Tanta Agriculture Faculty Farm) and El-Behira governorate (OmEl-Momnen
village) during 2003 corn growing season, to evaluate the efficiency of
certain chemical pesticides against ECB infesting different corn cultivars.
Eight white corn cultivars: open pollinated variety (Giza 2), single cross 10
(S.C.10), S.C.13, S.C.123, three way cross 310 (T.W.C.310), T.W.C.321,
T.W.C.323, T.W.C.324 and two yellow corn cultivars T.W.C.351 and
T.W.C.352 were planted at 10th of July(2003) in El-Gharbia region and at
13th of July (2003) in El-Behira region. Seeds of corn cultivars were supplied
from Agricultural Research Center (A.R.C.), Egypt. The experiment was
designed as strip plot with three replicates. Vertical plots assigned to the four
insecticide treatments plus an untreated one (control). All treatments were
randomized distributed in each replication. Each vertical strip plot were
Procedures:
To evaluate the effect of the two bioinsecticides, the mixtures of
bioinsecticide with some oils and photostaplizers and the bioinsecticide
mixtures with oils and photostaplizers and half dose of the most efficient
insecticide diazinon (which investigated from previous experiment) on the
most tolerant corn cultivar and two susceptible cultivars, two field
* According to the Ministry of Agricultural technical recommendation for controlling
agriculture pests (2001)
63 MATERIALS AND METHODS
experiments were carried out at the Experimental Farm of Faculty of Agric.,
Tanta Univ. El-Gharbia Governorate during 2004 and 2005 successive
seasons.
The design of the experiments was a strip plot design with three
replications as follows:
Horizontal plots were allocated to three corn cultivars namely:
1. S.C. 10, single cross hybrid (white).
2. Susceptible corn cultivar T.W.C.310, three way cross hybrid (white).
3. Tolerant corn cultivar T.W.C.351, three way cross hybrid (yellow).
Vertical plots were assigned to nine treatments (control and eight
different treatments). Table III.3 shown the different mixtures used and their
application rates. Seeds of corn cultivars were supplied from Agricultural
Research Center (A.R.C.), Cairo.
Seeds cultivars were sown on 10th of July in the two successive
seasons (2004, 2005), all cultural practices were applied as recommended by
the Egyptian Agricultural Ministry . The mixtures were sprayed after 45 and
60 days of planting as the first experiment. Holes No./100 internodes,
cavities No. /10plants, larvae No./10 plants, 100 grain weight and grains
yield/10plants were calculated for each plot.
Climatological elements values, monthly temperature (°C) and
relative humidity (RH%) at El-Gharbia Governorate during the two
successive seasons (2004 and 2005) were obtained from Kotour
meteorological stations and presented in Table III.4.
64 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Table III.3 : The mixtures used in the field experiments and their
application rates
hydrochloric acid (HCl), dilute to 1 L with distilled water) was added and
mixed immediately then made the final volume to 25 ml and shacked, after
10 minutes the intensity of raised blue color was estimated (at λ = 640 nm) by
using a spectrophotometer (Pharmacia LKB. Novaspec II).
67 MATERIALS AND METHODS
A standard curve of phosphorus (potassium di-hydrogen
orthophosphate) was used to calculate phosphorus percentage in the samples.
Procedure:
1-15 ml acetic acid 80% and 1.5 ml nitric acid were added to one gram of
dried sample, heated to boiling and leaved to cool.
2- 20 ml ethyl alcohol were added to the mixture sample, leaved a while and
the contents were filtered on gosh pot.
3- The sediment was washed on gosh pot twice with ethyl alcohol and then
with diethyl ether.
4-The sediment was dried in dried oven at 100 º C until dryness and cooled in
glass discator and weighted many time until the weight become
stable.
5-The sediment sample burned in electrical oven at 550°C for 3 hours ,
cooled and weighted
The cellulose percentages were calculated from the following equation:
% cellulose = [( sediment weight after dryness – ash weight after
burned) / sample weight ] × 100
Table IV.1: Toxicity of Beauveria bassiana against some aphid species and two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus
cinnabarinus by using slide dipping and leaf-disc dipping technique respectively.
Concentrations (condia/ml)
Confidence limits
Calculated Calculated
3 3
10 2
10 3
2×10 5×10 104
105
106
LC50 LC84 Slop
Organism (condia/ml) (condia/ml) Lower Upper values.
Mortality %
Fig IV.1: Probit regression lines for the toxicity of Biofly to some Aphis spp and two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus
cinnabarinus.
75 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.2: Toxicity of some botanical oils and mineral oil against two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus
by using leaf disk dipping technique.
Concentrations (ppm)
Calculated Confidence limits
CalculatedLC84
Oils 50 102 2×102 5×102 103 2×103 5×103 104 2×104 5×104 LC50 Slop
(ppm) (ppm)
Lower Upper values.
Mortality %
Corn oil 29.17 29.17 83.00 99.00 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.79 208.05 86.2 115.24 3.13
Cotton oil 0 8.33 39.58 41.67 60.42 - 99.00 100 100 100 472.19 1467.95 365.35 610.27 2.03
Castor oil 0 8.33 10.42 33.33 45.83 - 99.00 100 100 100 666.67 1869.02 501.06 887.00 2.23
Mineral oil 0 0 27.08 29.17 37.50 41.67 93.75 100 100 100 1085.69 5917.66 778.86 1513.4 1.36
Canola oil 0 0 0 0 31.25 47.92 99.00 100 100 100 1559.19 2699.21 1339.3 1815.17 4.2
Paraffin oil 0 0 13.99 15.87 33.33 56.25 64.58 70.83 85.42 91.67 2558.57 356159.55 1505.51 4348.23 1.10
78 CONTENTS
100 8
1-Corn oil
2-Cotton oil
3-Castor oil
(1)
4-Mineral oil 7
5-Canola oil
6-Paraffin oil (2)
(4) (6) 6
(3)
(5)
% Mortality.
Probit.
50 5
4
3
0 2
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
ppm
Fig IV.2: Probit regression lines for the toxicity of some botanical oils and mineral oil to two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus.
79 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
formulated in water. These findings may be due to that oil had synergistic effect
to Beauveria bassiana (Batista-Filho, et al., 1995). That synergistic effect may be
due to enhanced the conidia germination ( Ramle et al., 2004 and Gurvinder et
al., 1999). Also, oil formulations had many advantages compared with water
formulations. Oil could protect the fungal conidia from the UV of sunlight (Moore
et al., 1993) and can give some protection to the conidia from heat (Scherer et al.,
1992). Oil formulations spread rapidly over the hydrophobic surface of leaves
(Burges, 1998) and oil drift evaporates more slowly than water, thus giving the
conidia more time to germinate and infect. Oil formulations also enhances
adhesion of the conidia to the insect cuticle, spreading of oil on the cuticle may
carry conidia into niches on the host cuticle (e.g., inter-segmental folds) that
provide moisture for germination and gave more protection from solar radiation
(Ibrahim et al., 1999). The other advantages of oil over water formulation include
the ready suspension of the lipophilic conidia of B. bassiana in oil (Prior et al.,
1988). But in case of corn oil the results disagree with the findings of Yasuda et
al., 2000, who found that, formulations of Beauveria bassiana conidia in a 10%
corn oil mixture showed more superior infectivity in both sexes of Cylas
formicarius than the formulation of conidia only in laboratory assays. Also,
(Grimm, 2001; Batista-Filho et al., 1995a, b; Smart and Wright, 1992)
reported that cottonseed, soybean, and mineral oils do not adversely affect the
viability of B. bassiana. The antagonism between B. bassiana, corn and cotton oil
may be due to their contents of fatty acids myristic, palmitic, stearic, oleic,
linoleic and arachidic which inhibited both growth and lipase production
(Hegedus and Khachatourians, 1988).
81 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.3: The toxicity of Biofly mixtures with different oils by the ratio (1:3 v/v) on two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Biofly conc. (condia/ml) : oil conc. (ppm).
150000/13950
375000/34875
37500/3487.5
7500000/69750
3750/348.75
15000/1395
75000/6975
7500/697.5
Slop values.
Mixtures of
Calculated LC50
1Biofly : 3Oil v/v
Lower Upper
Mortality %
Biofly : Corn oil 0 0 33.33 39.58 43.75 81.25 89.58 100 4.90×104 2.80×105 3.03×104 7.94×104 1.32
Biofly : Cotton oil 10.42 20.83 - 47.92 75 99 100 100 2.16×104 6.81×104 1.66×104 2.00×104 2.00
Biofly : Castor oil 16.67 25 35.42 59.97 75 91.67 97.92 99 2.18×104 1.70×105 1.37×104 3.47×104 1.12
Biofly : Mineral oil 0 0 14 27.08 39.58 64.58 95.83 100 7.45×104 2.48×105 5.67×104 9.78×104 1.91
Biofly : Canola oil 0 0 47.92 70.83 95.83 95.83 99 100 1.52×104 5.61×104 1.06×104 2.18×104 1.76
Biofly : Paraffin oil 0 16.67 27.08 41.67 52.08 - 72.92 100 7.55×104 9.16×105 4.63×104 1.23×105 0.92
82 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.4: The toxicity of Biofly mixtures with different oils by the ratio (1:2 v/v) on two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
(condia/ml)
Biofly conc. (condia/ml ): oil conc. (ppm).
Confidence limits
133000/82379
330000/20394
33000/2039
66000/4078
13300/821
3300/203
6600/407
Slop values.
Mixtures of
Calculated LC50
Calculated LC84
1 Biofly : 2Oil v/v
Lower Upper
Mortality %
Biofly : Corn oil 35.42 43.75 43.75 75 87.5 99 100 9.35×103 3.85×104 7.09×103 1.24×104 1.63
Biofly : Cotton oil 0 0 25 56.25 75 - 83.33 3.16×104 2.42×106 2.12×104 1.13×104 1.13
Biofly : Castor oil 16.67 27.08 33 60.42 81.25 99 100 1.57×104 5.21×104 1.24×104 1.99×104 1.92
Biofly : Mineral oil 0 6.25 27.08 66.67 70.83 70.83 93.75 3.74×104 1.57×105 2.83×104 4.96×104 1.61
Biofly : Canola oil 0 - 52.08 60.42 72.92 72.92 89.58 1.40×104 2.44×105 8.02×103 2.45×104 0.81
Biofly : Paraffin oil 0 - 25.0 56.25 75.0 - 75.0 3.32×104 4.03×105 2.03×104 5.41×104 0.92
83 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.5: The toxicity of Biofly mixtures with different oils by the ratio (1:1 v/v) on two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Biofly conc. (condia/ml) : oil conc. (ppm).
250000/7750
50000/1550
10000/3100
10000/310
25000/775
5000/155
2500/77
500/15
Slop values.
Mixtures of
Calculated LC50
1 Biofly : 1Oil v/v
Lower Upper
Mortality %
Biofly : Corn oil 0 0 10.42 31.25 52.08 - 56.25 99 2.59×104 9.49×104 1.93×104 3.48×104 1.77
Biofly : Cotton oil 0 0 27.08 56.25 70.83 83.33 93.75 99 1.09×104 4.44×104 8.25×103 1.64×104 1.64
Biofly : Castor oil 10.42 25 - 45.83 75 97.92 99 100 5.49×103 2.29×104 3.97×103 7.59×103 1.61
Biofly : Mineral oil 0 14.58 25 50 75 87.5 97.92 100 1.05×104 3.67×104 8.26×103 1.35×104 1.85
Biofly : Canola oil 0 0 0 35.42 77.08 83.33 85.42 87.5 1.00×104 9.92×104 6.41×103 1.57×104 1.01
Biofly : Paraffin oil 0 0 27.08 56.25 70.83 83.33 93.75 99.00 1.09×104 4.44×104 8.25×103 1.43×104 1.64
84 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.6: The toxicity of Biofly mixtures with different oils by the ratio (2:1 v/v) on two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Biofly conc. (condia/ml) : oil conc. (ppm).
166000/2556
66000/1016
16600/255
33000/508
6600/101
1600/24
3300/50
Slop values.
Mixtures of
Calculated LC50
2 Biofly : 1Oil v/v
Lower Upper
Mortality %
Biofly : Corn oil 0 6.25 45.88 64.58 75 98 100 1.12×104 2.72×104 9.14×103 1.37×104 2.59
Biofly : Cotton oil 0 0 45.83 64.58 87.5 97.92 98.6 8.44×103 2.84×104 6.03×103 1.90×104 1.90
Biofly : Castor oil 0 31.25 64.58 93.75 98 100 100 4.95×103 1.11×104 3.96×103 6.19×103 2.85
Biofly : Mineral oil 18.75 37.5 52.08 41.67 93.75 98٫6 100 6.33×103 2.18×104 4.96×103 8.06×103 1.86
Biofly : Canola oil 22.92 - 39 56.25 83.33 99 100 7.06×103 2.54×104 5.49×103 9.07×103 1.80
Biofly : Paraffin oil 0 0 45.83 64.58 87.50 97.92 99.00 8434.968 28412.07 6.65×103 1.1×104 1.896
Table IV.7: The toxicity of Biofly mixtures with different oils by the ratio (3:1 v/v) on two-spotted spider mite
85 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(condia/ml)
Confidence limits
25000/257
50000/515
1250/12.8
2500/25
5000/51
250/2.5
Slop values.
Mixtures of
Calculated LC50
1Biofly : 3Oil v/v
Lower Upper
Mortality %
Biofly : Corn oil 0 0 29.17 33.33 85.42 93.75 99 100 5.35×103 1.42×104 4.09×103 7.01×103 2.36
Biofly : Cotton oil 0 0 0 29.17 37.5 87.5 91.67 99 1.09×104 3.11×104 8.14×103 2.19×104 2.19
Biofly : Castor oil 0 0 45.83 68.75 95.83 99 100 100 1.70×103 1.18×104 9.89×102 2.90×103 1.19
Biofly : Mineral oil 6.25 8.33 18.75 56.25 99 100 100 100 2.93×103 8.44×103 2.19×103 3.93×103 2.18
Biofly : Canola oil 0 0 33.33 75 85.42 99 100 100 3.47×103 8.58×103 2.70×103 4.46×103 2.54
Biofly : Paraffin oil 0 29.17 37.50 87.50 91.67 99.00 100 100 2.44×103 6.76×103 1.99×103 2.98×103 2.77
86 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.8: Toxicity of the Biofly mixtures with the acetophenone (photostabilizer) against two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Conc. (condia/ml)
(condia/ml)Calculated LC84
Confidence limits
2×104
5×104
2×105
5×105
102
103
104
105
106
Slop values.
Biofly mixtures
Calculated LC50
Lower Upper
Mortality %
1-Mixture No. 1
6.25 64.58 - 91.67 93.75 95.83 99.00 100 100 6.45×103 2.62×104 4.37×103 9.51×103 1.64
(Biofly+0.1% acetophenone)
2-Mixture No. 2
0 - 47.92 56.25 87.50 89.58 91.67 95.83 100 9.39×103 8.27×104 5.74×103 1.54×104 1.06
(Biofly+0.2% acetophenone
3-Mixture No. 3
0 0 0 23.00 33.00 41.00 50.00 61.00 70.00 1.94×105 4.19×106 5.83×104 6.46×105 0.75
(Biofly+0.5% acetophenone )
4-Mixture No. 4
0 0 0 8.33 18.75 25.00 47.92 - 100 2.68×105 1.59×106 1.63×105 4.39×105 1.29
(Biofly+1% acetophenone
89 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.9: Toxicity of the Biofly mixtures with the 4-nitro acetophenon (photostabilizer) against two-spotted spider
mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Conc. (condia/ml)
(condia/ml)Calculated LC84
Confidence limits
2×104
5×104
2×105
5×105
103
104
105
106
Slop values.
Biofly mixtures
Calculated LC50
Lower Upper
Mortality %
1-Mixture No. 1
56.25 93.75 95.83 99 100 100 100 100 2.48×102 5.09×102 76 8.11×102 0.76
(Biofly+0.1% 4-nitro acetophenon)
2-Mixture No. 2
47.92 56.25 87.5 89.58 91.67 100 100 100 1.73×103 3.17×104 8.98×102 3.34×103 0.79
(Biofly+0.2% 4-nitro acetophenon)
3-Mixture No. 3
8.33 18.75 77.17 79.17 85.42 99 100 100 4.25×103 1.25×105 3.52×104 5.14×104 2.13
(Biofly+0.5% 4-nitro acetophenon)
4-Mixture No. 4
0 - 27.08 37.5 43.75 70.83 75 100 9.68×104 9.61×105 6.48×104 1.45×105 1.00
(Biofly+1% 4-nitro acetophenon)
90 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.10: Toxicity of the Biofly mixtures with the 7-nitophenol (photostabilizer) against two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
2×104
5×104
2×105
5×105
103
104
105
106
Slop values.
Biofly mixtures
Calculated LC50
Lower Upper
Mortality %
1-Mixture No. 1
(Biofly+0.1% 7-nitophenol )
35.42 39.58 68.75 79.17 93.7 99 100 100 5.57×103 4.01×104 3.78×103 8.19×103 1.17
2-Mixture No. 2
(Biofly+0.2% 7-nitophenol )
- 45.83 64.58 70.83 93.75 99 100 100 1.43×104 5.05×104 1.07×104 1.90×104 1.82
3-Mixture No. 3
(Biofly+0.5% 7-nitophenol )
0 0 14.58 39.58 41.67 47.92 66.67 - 1.84×105 2.02×106 1.21×105 2.80×106 0.96
4-Mixture No. 4
(Biofly+ 1% 7-nitophenol )
0 0 0 0 0 12.5 20.83 20.83 3.56×107 3.23×109 1.29×107 9.88×107 0.51
91 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
92 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.11: Toxicity of the Biofly mixtures with the benzophenon (photostabilizer) against two-spotted spider mite
Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
2×104
5×104
2×105
5×105
103
104
105
Slop values.
Biofly mixtures
Calculated LC50
Lower Upper
Mortality %
1-Mixture No. 1
(Biofly+0.1% benzophenon)
27.08 39.58 43.75 56.25 66.67 99 100 1.21×104 1.17×105 8.39×103 1.73×104 1.01
2-Mixture No. 2
(Biofly+0.2% benzophenon)
8.33 62.5 60 64.58 70.83 - 100 1.56×104 1.74×105 9.74×103 2.50×104 0.96
3-Mixture No. 3
(Biofly+0.5% benzophenon)
31.25 41.67 47.92 58.33 64.58 72.92 100 1.85×104 2.29×106 8.56×103 4.00×104 0.48
4-Mixture No. 4
(Biofly+1% benzophenon)
0 10.03 18.75 52.08 99 100 100 3.07×104 5.94×104 2.56×104 3.69×104 3.48
93 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.12: Toxicity of the Biofly mixtures with the titan yellow pigment against two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus
cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Concentrations (condia/ml)
(condia/ml)Calculated LC84
Confidence limits
3 4 4 4 5 5 5
10 10 2×10 5×10 10 2×10 5×10
Slop values.
Biofly mixtures
Calculated LC50
Lower Upper
Mortality %
1-Mixture No. 1
68.75 93.75 99 100 100 100 100 4.89×102 2.74×103 2.49×102 9.61×102 1.34
(Biofly+0.1% titan yellow pigment)
2-Mixture No. 2
22.92 47.92 99 100 100 100 100 3.27×103 1.05×104 2.37×103 4.52×103 1.98
(Biofly+0.2% titan yellow pigment)
3-Mixture No. 3
39.58 47.92 81.25 95.83 99 100 100 1.01×103 1.86×104 2.21×103 4.86×103 1.33
(Biofly+0.5% titan yellow pigment)
4-Mixture No. 4
0 31.25 47.92 70.83 85.42 89.52 99 2.02×104 1.64×105 1.26×104 3.24×104 1.1
(Biofly+1% titan yellow pigment)
94 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.13: Toxicity of the Biofly mixtures with the congo red pigment against two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus
cinnabarinus by using leaf disk dipping technique.
(condia/ml)
Slop values.
Biofly mixtures
Calculated LC50
Lower Upper
Mortality %
1-Mixture No. 1
43.75 70.83 79.17 99 100 100 3.55×103 8.23×104 1.75×103 7.23×103 0.73
(Biofly+0.1% congo red pigment)
2-Mixture No. 2
41.67 81.25 91.67 99 100 100 4.04×103 4.52×104 2.34×103 6.98×103 0.95
(Biofly+0.2% congo red pigment)
3-Mixture No. 3
14.58 39.58 60.42 72.92 99 100 9.07×103 4.21×104 5.92×103 1.39×104 1.50
(Biofly+0.5% congo red pigment)
4- Mixture No. 4
0 10.42 18.75 83.3 87.5 89.58 9.90×104 4.35×105 6.57×104 1.49×105 1.56
(Biofly+1% congo red pigment)
95 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
96 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
64, 54 and 34 mortality percentage and T50 were 5.71, 4.981 and 3.141 hours
respectively) while acetophenon had the lowest values in this respect which had
lost there efficiency against the spider mites after exposure to UV radiation for
two hours of. These findings in somewhat agree with those of Nong, et al. (2005)
and Inglis, et al. (1995).
Table IV.15: The effect of exposure to UV radiation interval on the efficiency
of Beauveria bassiana mixtures with some photostabilizers against
two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus cinnabarinus by using leaf disk
dipping technique.
Additive conc.
Biofly - 84 16 - - - - 0.32
Biofly + Acetophenon 0.1% 84 42 2 - - - 0.32
0.1% 88 84 78 58 46 32 1.66
Biofly + 4-nitro acetophenon
0.2% 86 82 82 78 56 44 2.30
Biofly + 7-nitophenol 0.1% 82 78 74 70 52 34 3.14
0.1% 84 44 10 - - - 0.35
Biofly + Titan yellow 0.2% 86 46 16 - - - 0.57
0.5% 84 52 36 - - - 0.58
Biofly + Benzophenon 0.1% 84 84 82 80 72 64 5.71
0.1% 84 82 74 62 52 46 2.39
Biofly + Congo Red 0.2% 88 80 88 66 58 52 3.03
0.5% 88 82 80 86 64 54 4.99
98 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia site
Holes No./100 Cavities Larvae Holes No./ 10 Damaged Grains Grains
Cultivars
internods No./10plants No./10plants ear stalks grains% protein % phosphorus%
Giza 2 22.4d* 26.3 b 17.7 c 8.67 cd 4.46 cd 3.96 b 0.48 a
S.C.10 23.2cd 30.0 b 22.7 b 13.00 a 7.51 a 3.33 de 0.49 a
S.C.13 8.4g 9.0 e 7.0 de 5.00 f 2.26 g 3.27 ef 0.43 b
S.C.123 13.7ef 16.0 cd 11.3 d 6.33 d-f 4.39 de 4.50 a 0.50 a
T.W.C. 310 17.3e 19.0 c 17.0 c 8.00 c-e 9.01 a 3.83 bc 0.35 d
T.W.C. 321 26.6bc 30.0 b 27.0 ab 8.33 cd 7.58 b 3.08 ef 0.48 a
T.W.C. 323 32.9a 37.0 a 29.7 a 10.00 bc 3.48 ef 3.04 f 0.37 cd
T.W.C. 324 30.2ab 35.7 a 30.0 a 11.33 ab 9.17 a 3.58 cd 0.40 bc
T.W.C. 351 11.4fg 10.3 e 6.0 e 5.00 f 3.16 fg 4.02 b 0.50 a
T.W.C. 352 14.3ef 13.3 de 9.0 de 5.67 ef 5.33 c 3.76 bc 0.51 a
L.S.D (0.05) 3.796 3.796 4.828 2.414 0.1935 0.2625 0.0515
El-Behira site
Giza 2 10.7 e 13.3 e 11.3 d 7.67 de 4.37 d 4.17 a 0.49 a
S.C.10 18.2 cd 24.0 cd 24.7 b 15.67 a 6.71 b 3.28 c 0.50 a
S.C.13 6.7 f 8.7 e 6.0 e 7.00 e 2.29 f 3.22 c 0.42 bc
S.C.123 9.1 ef 13.0 e 10.3 de 5.67 e 4.40 d 4.31 a 0.49 a
T.W.C. 310 18.3 cd 26.7 c 24.7 b 10.33 cd 8.95 a 3.71 b 0.35 de
T.W.C. 321 15.3 d 20.0 d 18.0 c 10.67 c 7.33 b 3.24 c 0.47 ab
T.W.C. 323 25.4 ab 32.7 b 28.0 b 12.33 bc 3.47 e 3.05 c 0.40 cd
T.W.C. 324 26.5 a 38.7 a 34.3 a 13.67 ab 8.61 a 3.57 b 0.34 e
T.W.C. 351 10.4 ef 10.3 e 8.3 de 4.67 e 2.89 ef 3.81 b 0.52 a
T.W.C. 352 22.1 bc 24.3 cd 18.0 c 7.67 de 5.54 c 3.61 b 0.50 a
L.S.D (0.05) 3.880 5.496 4.546 2.819 0.8840 0.2675 0.05147
**Averaged data
Giza 2 16.6 d 19.8 c 14.5 c 8.17 de 4.42 d 4.06 b 0.49 bc
S.C.10 20.7 bc 27.0 b 23.7 b 14.33 a 7.11 b 3.31 e 0.50 ab
S.C.13 7.5 f 8.8 e 6.5 e 6.00 f 2.27 f 3.25 ef 0.42 d
S.C.123 11.4 e 14.5 d 10.8 d 6.00 f 4.40 d 4.41 a 0.50 ab
T.W.C. 310 17.8 cd 22.8 bc 20.8 b 9.17 d 8.98 a 3.77 cd 0.35 f
T.W.C. 321 21.0 b 25.0 b 22.5 b 9.50 cd 7.46 b 3.16 ef 0.48 c
T.W.C. 323 29.1 a 34.8 a 28.8 a 11.17 bc 3.47 e 3.04 f 0.38 e
T.W.C. 324 28.4 a 37.2 a 32.2 a 12.50 ab 8.89 a 3.57 d 0.37 e
T.W.C. 351 10.9 e 10.3 de 7.2 e 4.83 f 3.02 e 3.92 bc 0.51 a
T.W.C. 352 18.2 b-d 18.8 c 13.5 cd 6.67 ef 5.43 c 3.68 d 0.51 a
L.S.D (0.05) 3.177 4.213 3.566 1.926 0.6886 0.2122 0.01628
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.
102 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.17: 100 grain weight, grains yield and grains yield reduction as a
result of natural infestation with ECB on ten corn cultivars at El-
Gharbia and El-Behira governorates.
El-Gharbia site
Grains yield /10plants (kg)
Cultivars 100grains weight(g)
Mean Reduction%***
Giza 2 29.0 ab* 1.26 a 28.57
S.C.10 31.4 a 1.51 a 33.77
S.C.13 23.0 c 1.05 bc 22.86
S.C.123 26.0 bc 1.46 a 30.82
T.W.C. 310 29.6 ab 1.16 a-c 25.86
T.W.C. 321 29.5 ab 1.38 ab 28.26
T.W.C. 323 25.7 bc 0.97 c 27.84
T.W.C. 324 28.7 ab 1.47 a 36.05
T.W.C. 351 27.0 b 1.37 ab 22.63
T.W.C. 352 27.7 ab 1.30 a-c 36.15
L.S.D (0.05) 3.894 0.366
El-Behira site
Giza 2 35.3 ab 1.37 d 23.36
S.C.10 36.7 a 1.42 bc 26.76
S.C.13 31.0 ef 1.18 e 33.90
S.C.123 32.8 de 1.22 de 20.49
T.W.C. 310 33.2 cd 1.24 c 33.87
T.W.C. 321 33.6 b-d 1.44 bc 19.44
T.W.C. 323 32.0 d-f 1.05 a 21.90
T.W.C. 324 35.0 a-c 1.47 a 27.89
T.W.C. 351 30.8 f 1.30 b 16.92
T.W.C. 352 31.0 ef 1.35 de 20.74
L.S.D (0.05) 1.914 0.283
**Averaged data
Giza 2 32.15 a 1.31 ab 26.72
S.C.10 34.05 a 1.47 a 29.93
S.C.13 27 d 1.11 cd 29.73
S.C.123 29.4 bc 1.34 a-c 26.12
T.W.C. 310 31.4 b 1.20 b-d 30.00
T.W.C. 321 31.55 b 1.41 ab 23.40
T.W.C. 323 30.4 b 1.01 d 24.75
T.W.C. 324 31.8 ab 1.47 a 31.97
T.W.C. 351 28.9 bc 1.34 a-c 19.40
T.W.C. 352 29.95 b 1.33 a-c 27.82
L.S.D (0.05) 2.032 0.252
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.
*** Reduction%=(Grain yield in diazinon treatments-Grain yield in control treatment)/ Grain yield in control×100
103 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
T.W.C. 352< T.W.C. 321< T.W.C. 324< S.C.10< T.W.C. 310. While diazinon
treated cultivers were in ascending order as follows: S.C.123< T.W.C.351<
S.C.13< S.C.10< T.W.C. 310< T.W.C.321 < T.W.C. 323< Giza 2< T.W.C.
352<T.W.C.324. Methomyl treated cultivers could be arranged ascendingly as
follows:T.W.C. 323 < Giza 2< T.W.C.351< S.C.13< S.C.10< T.W.C.324< T.W.C.
310< S.C.123< T.W.C. 321< T.W.C. 352. Fenpropathrin treated cultivers were in
ascending order as follows:T.W.C. 323< Giza 2< T.W.C. 351< S.C.13< S.C.10<
T.W.C. 324< T.W.C. 310< S.C.123< T.W.C. 321< T.W.C.352.
Diazinon and fenpropathrin were the most potent insecticides treatments
against ECB infestation (R%= 85.84 and 76.50 respectively).
Generally, from averaged data: Diazinon and fenpropathrin were the
most potent insecticides against ECB(R%= 88.43 and 77.93 respectively).
treated cultivar T.W.C.351 and diazinon treated cultivar T.W.C.351 had the highest
values in this respect.
Grain phosphorous percentage values of chlorpyrifos treated cultivers
were in ascending order as follows:T.W.C.310< T.W.C.324< T.W.C.323< S.C.13<
T.W.C.321< S.C.10< Giza2< T.W.C.352< S.C.123< T.W.C.351. While diazinon
treated cultivers were in ascending order as follows:T.W.C.324< T.W.C.310<
T.W.C.323< S.C.13< T.W.C.321< S.C.123< S.C.10< T.W.C.351< T.W.C.352<
Giza2. Methomyl treated cultivers could be arranged ascendingly as follows:
T.W.C.324< T.W.C.310< T.W.C.323< S.C.13< T.W.C.321< T.W.C.352<
T.W.C.351< Giza2< S.C.123< S.C.10. Fenpropathrin treated cultivers were in
ascending order as follows:T.W.C.324< T.W.C.310< T.W.C.323< S.C.13<
T.W.C.321< T.W.C.352< T.W.C.351< Giza2< S.C.123< S.C.10.
In all locations and from averaged data it could be concluded that: diazinon
treated cultivar S.C.10 and T.W.C.324, and chlorpyrifos treated cultivar T.W.C.324
treatments had the highest values in grain yield/10plants while untreated
T.W.C.323 and S.C.13 and methomyl treated cultivars T.W.C.323 had the
lowest values in this respect. Diazinon followed by chlorpyrifos treatments had
the highest value in grains yield/10plants, while the control and methomyl
treatments had the lowest values in this regard.
From the previous data we can conclude that:
The most potent insecticides against ECB infestation were diazinon
followed by fenpropathrin. Which reduced the holes No./100 internodes,
cavities No./10plants, holes No./10 ear stalks and larvae No./10plants in
all locations, while methomyl was the least toxic one.
In case of yield and yield component :Diazinon insecticide had the highest
values in 100grain weight and grains yield/10plants followed by
chlorpyrifos in both locations.
These findings are in accordance with those obtained by Barbulescu 1971 ;
Hills et al., 1972; Martel and Hudon, 1978; Melia Masia and Almajano
Contreras, 1973; Mustea, 1977; Thompson and White, 1977 and Voinescu and
Barbulescu, 1986 who is found that diazinon was the most potent insecticides
against ECB infestation.
This results may be due to that diazinon had high vapor pressure (1.2×10-2
Pa at 25° ), stomach and respiratory actions, long half life (Sattar, 1991; Gonzalez
and Aravena-C, 1990 and Smith et al., 1998). On the other hand, Rinkleff et al.,
1995 found that methomyl had a low residual toxicity to Ostrina nubilalis
neonates. That maybe due to that methomyl had shortest half life (T50 =0.91days)
(Wilwam and Sundararajan, 1986) and low stability at room temperature in
117 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia
Treatments
Cultivars Control Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Methomyl Fenpropathrin
Mean Mean R%*** Mean R% Mean R% Mean R%
Giza 2 8.67 cd* 5.00 abc 42.31 3.33 ab 61.54 7.67 b 11.54 3.67 b 57.69
S.C.10 13.00 a 6.67 a 48.72 5.00 a 61.54 12.00 a 7.69 6.67 a 48.72
S.C.13 5.00 f 2.67 cd 46.67 1.67 b 66.67 4.67 de 6.67 3.33 b 33.33
S.C.123 6.33 d-f 3.00 b-d 52.63 2.67 ab 57.89 5.67 de 10.53 2.67 b 57.89
T.W.C. 310 8.00 c-e 5.33 ab 33.33 3.33 ab 58.33 6.67 cd 16.67 4.33 b 45.83
T.W.C. 321 8.33 cd 4.00 b-d 52.00 5.00 a 40.00 8.33 bc 0.00 3.33 ab 60.00
T.W.C. 323 10.00 bc 3.67 b-d 63.33 2.67 ab 73.33 8.33 bc 16.67 4.67 a 53.33
T.W.C. 324 11.33 ab 4.67 a-c 58.82 3.33 ab 70.59 8.67 bc 23.53 5.00 b 55.88
T.W.C. 351 5.00 f 2.00 d 60.00 2.67 ab 46.67 4.00 e 20.00 2.33 b 53.33
T.W.C. 352 5.67 ef 3.00 b-d 47.06 2.00 b 64.71 4.33 de 23.53 3.00 ab 47.06
Mean 8.13 A 4.00 C 50.82 3.17 D 61.07 7.03 B 13.52 3.90 CD 52.05
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.564 for interactions =2.414
El-Behira
Giza 2 7.67 d 6.67 b-d 13.04 4.33 a-c 43.48 7.00 cd 8.70 7.00 c 8.70
S.C.10 15.67 bc 10.00 a 36.17 6.33 ab 59.57 13.00 a 17.02 13.33 a 14.89
S.C.13 7.00 e 6.33 cd 9.52 5.00 a-c 28.57 4.67 b-d 33.33 6.33 c 9.52
S.C.123 5.67 de 5.67 d 0.00 3.00 c 47.06 4.67 e 17.65 4.00 c 29.41
T.W.C. 310 10.33 bc 8.33 a-d 19.35 4.00 a-c 61.29 6.33 ab 38.71 10.33 b 0.00
T.W.C. 321 10.67 c 6.00 cd 43.75 6.67 a 37.50 10.00 bc 6.25 7.33 c 31.25
T.W.C. 323 12.33 a 7.33 a-d 40.54 4.00 a-c 67.57 10.00 bc 18.92 7.00 c 43.24
T.W.C. 324 13.67 a 9.33 ab 31.71 6.67 a 51.22 13.33 a 2.44 8.00 bc 41.46
T.W.C. 351 4.67 de 4.33 cd 7.14 3.67 bc 21.43 4.67 cd 0.00 3.33 c 28.57
T.W.C. 352 7.67 b 6.33 a-c 17.39 5.67 a-c 26.09 6.67 de 13.04 7.00 c 8.70
Mean 9.53 A 7.03 B 26.22 4.93 C 48.25 8.03 A 15.73 7.37 B 22.73
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =1.206 for interactions =2.819
**Average data
Giza 2 8.17 de 5.83 b-d 28.57 3.83 b-d 53.06 7.33 c 10.20 5.33 cd 34.69
S.C.10 14.33 a 8.33 a 41.86 5.67 ab 60.47 12.50 a 12.79 10.00 a 30.23
S.C.13 6.00 f 4.50 d 25.00 3.33 cd 44.44 4.67 d 22.22 4.83 cd 19.44
S.C.123 6.00 f 4.33 d 27.78 2.83 d 52.78 5.17 d 13.89 3.33 d 44.44
T.W.C. 310 9.17 d 6.83 a-c 25.45 3.67 cd 60.00 6.50 c 29.09 7.33 b 20.00
T.W.C. 321 9.50 cd 5.00 cd 47.37 5.83 a 38.60 9.17 bc 3.51 5.33 cd 43.86
T.W.C. 323 11.17 bc 5.50 b-d 50.75 3.33 cd 70.15 9.17 bc 17.91 5.83 b-d 47.76
T.W.C. 324 12.50 ab 7.00 ab 44.00 5.00 a-c 60.00 11.00 b 12.00 6.50 bc 48.00
T.W.C. 351 4.83 f 3.17 d 34.48 3.17 cd 34.48 4.33 d 10.34 2.83 d 41.38
T.W.C. 352 6.67 ef 4.67 b-d 30.00 3.83 b-d 42.50 5.50 d 17.50 5.00 cd 25.00
Mean 8.83 A 5.52 C 37.55 4.05 D 54.15 7.53 B 14.72 5.63 C 36.23
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.565 for interactions =1.926
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.***R%= ( control-treatment)/ control×100
122 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia
Treatments
Cultivars Control Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Methomyl Fenpropathrin
Mean Mean R%*** Mean R% Mean R% Mean R%
Giza 2 4.46 cd 2.35 cd 47.26 1.76 c 60.49 3.29 cd 26.28 1.98 de 55.49
S.C.10 7.51 b 3.94 b 47.48 2.58 bc 65.71 5.41 b 27.98 4.17 b 44.45
S.C.13 2.26 g 1.49 d 33.90 0.74 d 67.47 1.79 e 20.88 1.21 e 46.66
S.C.123 4.39 de 2.31 cd 47.45 1.75 c 60.08 3.15 d 28.21 2.56 cd 41.58
T.W.C. 310 9.01 a 5.89 a 34.59 4.20 a 53.35 7.22 a 19.87 5.30 a 41.17
T.W.C. 321 7.58 b 3.62 b 52.19 3.06 b 59.65 5.28 b 30.37 4.15 b 45.28
T.W.C. 323 3.48 ef 2.36 cd 31.99 1.72 c 50.64 2.61 de 25.07 1.78 de 48.73
T.W.C. 324 9.17 a 5.74 a 37.42 4.17 a 54.50 7.32 a 20.12 5.47 a 40.28
T.W.C. 351 3.16 fg 2.34 cd 25.81 1.50 a 52.62 2.60 de 17.50 1.86 de 41.04
T.W.C. 352 5.33 c 3.20 bc 39.98 2.30 bc 56.79 4.11 c 22.95 3.33 bc 37.56
Mean 5.63 A 3.33 C 40.97 2.38 D 57.80 4.28 B 24.08 3.18 C 43.52
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.3053 for interactions=0.9135
El-Behira
Giza 2 4.37 d 2.53 d 42.13 1.71 de 60.86 3.41 d 21.96 2.17 cd 50.26
S.C.10 6.71 b 4.05 bc 39.66 2.94 bc 56.15 5.01 bc 25.33 4.45 b 33.62
S.C.13 2.29 f 1.64 e 28.35 0.84 e 63.12 1.96 e 14.33 1.51 d 34.17
S.C.123 4.40 d 2.49 de 43.37 1.60 de 63.69 3.37 d 23.41 2.91 c 33.96
T.W.C. 310 8.95 a 5.28 a 40.97 4.52 a 49.55 7.88 a 11.93 5.92 a 33.92
T.W.C. 321 7.33 b 4.34 b 40.83 3.33 b 54.51 5.75 b 21.61 4.31 b 41.24
T.W.C. 323 3.47 e 2.32 de 33.17 2.31 cd 33.54 2.69 de 22.41 2.07 cd 40.35
T.W.C. 324 8.61 a 6.00 a 30.28 4.35 a 49.49 7.04 a 18.17 4.73 b 45.09
T.W.C. 351 2.89 ef 2.10 de 27.42 1.68 de 41.78 2.25 e 22.21 1.84 d 36.23
T.W.C. 352 5.54 c 3.45 c 37.71 2.68 bc 51.66 4.73 c 14.60 3.89 b 29.70
Mean 5.46 A 3.42 C 37.32 2.60 D 52.42 4.41 B 19.18 3.38 C 38.05
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.1796 for interactions=0.8840
**Average data
Giza 2 4.41 d 2.44 c 44.72 1.74 e 60.67 3.35 d 24.14 2.08 de 52.90
S.C.10 7.11 b 4.00 b 43.79 2.76 bc 61.20 5.21 b 26.73 4.31 b 39.34
S.C.13 2.27 f 1.57 d 31.11 0.79 f 65.28 1.87 g 17.58 1.36 f 40.38
S.C.123 4.40 d 2.40 c 45.40 1.68 e 61.89 3.26 de 25.81 2.74 d 37.77
T.W.C. 310 8.98 a 5.59 a 37.77 4.36 a 51.46 7.55 a 15.91 5.61 a 37.56
T.W.C. 321 7.46 b 3.98 b 46.61 3.20 b 57.12 5.51 b 26.06 4.23 bc 43.29
T.W.C. 323 3.47 e 2.34 c 32.58 2.01 de 42.10 2.65 ef 23.74 1.93 ef 44.54
T.W.C. 324 8.89 a 5.87 a 33.97 4.26 a 52.07 7.18 a 19.17 5.10 a 42.61
T.W.C. 351 3.02 e 2.22 cd 26.58 1.59 e 47.44 2.42 fg 19.75 1.85 ef 38.74
T.W.C. 352 5.43 c 3.32 b 38.83 2.49 cd 54.18 4.42 c 18.70 3.61 c 33.55
Mean 5.54 A 3.37 C 39.18 2.49 D 55.16 4.34 B 21.67 3.28 C 40.83
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.2054 for interactions=0.6886
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars. ***R%= ( control-treatment)/ control×100
123 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia
Treatments
Cultivars
Control Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Methomyl Fenpropathrin
Giza 2 3.96 b 4.02 b 4.10 bc 3.96 b 4.02 b
S.C.10 3.33 de 3.36 d 3.49 ef 3.30 e 3.45 de
S.C.13 3.27 ef 3.39 d 3.41 f 3.32 de 3.40 e
S.C.123 4.50 a 4.59 a 4.55 a 4.49 a 4.59 a
T.W.C. 310 3.83 bc 3.95 b 3.87 cd 3.71 bc 4.05 b
T.W.C. 321 3.08 ef 3.25 d 3.30 f 3.08 e 3.30 e
T.W.C. 323 3.04 f 3.21 d 3.37 f 3.10 e 3.28 e
T.W.C. 324 3.58 cd 3.66 c 3.70 de 3.57 cd 3.68 cd
T.W.C. 351 4.02 b 3.97 b 4.14 b 3.90 b 4.11 b
T.W.C. 352 3.76 bc 3.81 bc 3.84 cd 3.79 bc 3.90 bc
Mean 3.64 BC 3.72 AB 3.78 A 3.62 C 3.78 A
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.09784 for interactions=0.2625
El-Behira
Giza 2 4.17 a 4.15 a 4.23 ab 3.67 bc 4.26 a
S.C.10 3.28 c 3.46 cd 3.45 d 3.24 e 3.30 d
S.C.13 3.22 c 3.42 cde 3.41 d 3.28 de 3.39 cd
S.C.123 4.31 a 4.35 a 4.46 a 4.35 a 4.43 a
T.W.C. 310 3.71 b 3.87 b 3.99 bc 3.67 bc 3.94 b
T.W.C. 321 3.24 c 3.25 de 3.35 d 3.08 e 3.22 d
T.W.C. 323 3.05 c 3.17 e 3.32 d 3.15 e 3.37 cd
T.W.C. 324 3.57 b 3.58 bc 3.88 c 3.52 cd 3.61 c
T.W.C. 351 3.81 b 3.80 b 3.99 bc 3.84 b 3.91 b
T.W.C. 352 3.61 b 3.69 bc 3.73 c 3.61 bc 3.62 c
Mean 3.60 A 3.67 A 3.78 A 3.54 A 3.71 A
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.2831 for interactions=0.2675
Average data**
Giza 2 4.06 b 4.09 b 4.16 b 3.81 b 4.14 b
S.C.10 3.31 e 3.41 ef 3.47 e 3.27 de 3.38 d
S.C.13 3.25 ef 3.40 fg 3.41 e 3.30 d 3.39 d
S.C.123 4.41 a 4.47 a 4.50 a 4.42 a 4.51 a
T.W.C. 310 3.77 cd 3.91 bc 3.93 cd 3.69 bc 4.00 b
T.W.C. 321 3.16 ef 3.25 fg 3.33 e 3.08 e 3.26 d
T.W.C. 323 3.04 f 3.19 g 3.35 e 3.12 de 3.32 d
T.W.C. 324 3.57 d 3.62 de 3.79 d 3.54 c 3.65 c
T.W.C. 351 3.92 bc 3.89 bc 4.07 bc 3.87 b 4.01 b
T.W.C. 352 3.68 d 3.75 cd 3.79 d 3.70 bc 3.76 c
Mean 3.62 BC 3.70 AB 3.78 A 3.58 C 3.74 A
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.09414 for interactions=0.2122
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.
124 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia
Treatments
Cultivars
Control Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Methomyl Fenpropathrin
Giza 2 0.48 ab 0.52 a 0.48 ab 0.46 ab 0.53 a
S.C.10 0.49 a 0.52 a 0.52 a 0.50 a 0.49 ab
S.C.13 0.43 bc 0.42 b 0.44 b 0.42 bc 0.43 cd
S.C.123 0.50 a 0.50 a 0.50 a 0.51 a 0.50 ab
T.W.C. 310 0.35 d 0.34 c 0.32 c 0.35 de 0.38 de
T.W.C. 321 0.48 ab 0.48 a 0.48 ab 0.48 a 0.47 bc
T.W.C. 323 0.37 d 0.41 b 0.37 c 0.39 cd 0.37 e
T.W.C. 324 0.40 cd 0.34 c 0.35 c 0.33 e 0.34 e
T.W.C. 351 0.50 a 0.49 a 0.51 a 0.49 a 0.52 ab
T.W.C. 352 0.51 a 0.51 a 0.53 a 0.50 a 0.50 ab
Mean 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.44 A 0.45 A
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.0010 for interactions=0.05147
El-Behira
Giza 2 0.49 a 0.50 ab 0.52 a 0.52 a 0.50 a
S.C.10 0.50 a 0.49 ab 0.51 a 0.51 a 0.51 a
S.C.13 0.42 bc 0.42 cd 0.45 bc 0.42 c 0.43 bc
S.C.123 0.49 a 0.51 a 0.49 ab 0.49 ab 0.50 a
T.W.C. 310 0.35 de 0.34 e 0.35 de 0.35 d 0.38 c
T.W.C. 321 0.47 ab 0.45 bc 0.48 ab 0.44 bc 0.47 ab
T.W.C. 323 0.40 cd 0.38 de 0.40 cd 0.41 c 0.39 c
T.W.C. 324 0.34 e 0.34 e 0.33 e 0.34 d 0.32 d
T.W.C. 351 0.52 a 0.54 a 0.51 a 0.53 a 0.49 a
T.W.C. 352 0.50 a 0.50 ab 0.51 a 0.50 a 0.47 ab
Mean 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.0059 for interactions=0.05147
Avareg data**
Giza 2 0.49 bc 0.51 a 0.50 bc 0.49 b 0.52 a
S.C.10 0.50 ab 0.51 a 0.52 a 0.51 a 0.50 b
S.C.13 0.42 d 0.42 c 0.44 e 0.42 d 0.43 d
S.C.123 0.50 ab 0.51 a 0.49 cd 0.50 ab 0.50 b
T.W.C. 310 0.35 f 0.34 e 0.34 g 0.35 f 0.38 e
T.W.C. 321 0.48 c 0.46 b 0.48 d 0.46 c 0.47 c
T.W.C. 323 0.38 e 0.40 d 0.39 f 0.40 e 0.38 e
T.W.C. 324 0.37 e 0.34 e 0.34 g 0.33 g 0.33 f
T.W.C. 351 0.51 a 0.51 a 0.51 ab 0.51 a 0.50 b
T.W.C. 352 0.51 a 0.50 a 0.52 a 0.50 ab 0.48 c
Mean 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.45 A
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.0059 for interactions=0.01628
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.
125 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia
Treatments
Cultivars
Control Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Methomyl Fenpropathrin
Giza 2 28.99 *ab 29.81 a 29.70 a-c 27.63 ab 29.63 b
S.C.10 31.44 a 31.36 a 32.79 a 30.08 a 30.81 a
S.C.13 23.00 c 28.18 ab 28.09 bc 25.76 bc 27.79 b
S.C.123 26.00 bc 27.64 ab 27.63 bc 27.68 ab 27.00 b
T.W.C. 310 29.48 ab 29.25 ab 29.25 a-c 27.47 ab 28.70 b
T.W.C. 321 29.55 ab 25.58 b 31.29 ab 29.53 ab 29.17 ab
T.W.C. 323 25.69 bc 25.65 b 26.16 c 23.12 c 25.21 a
T.W.C. 324 28.74 ab 31.18 a 30.86 ab 28.53 ab 28.62 b
T.W.C. 351 27.93 b 28.42 ab 29.81 a-c 26.53 a-c 27.44 b
T.W.C. 352 27.73 ab 28.58 ab 27.54 bc 25.88 bc 28.08 ab
Mean 27.86 AB 28.57 AB 29.31 A 27.22 B 28.24 CD
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =1.659 for interactions=3.894
El-Behira
Giza 2 31.04 d 32.29 ef 33.42 d 30.33 e 31.41 gh
S.C.10 35.34 bc 37.11 a 38.99 a 37.03 a 37.93 ab
S.C.13 35.04 e 36.23 ab 36.24 bc 31.54 de 38.30 a
S.C.123 32.77 de 34.57 b-d 34.65 cd 32.68 cd 32.55 e-g
T.W.C. 310 33.60 bc 35.72 a-c 33.82 d 34.27 bc 34.44 c-e
T.W.C. 321 30.97 c 34.01 c-e 33.94 d 31.24 de 32.06 f-h
T.W.C. 323 31.96 a 33.76 de 33.90 d 32.45 cd 33.66 d-f
T.W.C. 324 33.20 a 35.80 a-c 37.39 ab 34.13 bc 34.47 cd
T.W.C. 351 30.82 de 31.02 f 30.94 e 30.36 e 30.34 h
T.W.C. 352 36.68 b 36.31 ab 37.33 ab 36.02 ab 36.15 bc
Mean 33.14 A 34.68 AB 35.06 A 33.01 C 34.13 B
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =1.085 for interactions=1.914
Avarage data**
Giza 2 30.02 c-e 31.05 bc 31.56 c-e 28.98 c-e 30.52 c-e
S.C.10 33.39 a 34.24 a 35.89 a 33.56 a 34.37 a
S.C.13 29.02 de 32.21 ab 32.16 b-d 28.65 de 33.04 ab
S.C.123 29.39 de 31.11 bc 31.14 c-e 30.18 b-d 29.78 de
T.W.C. 310 31.54 a-c 32.48 ab 31.53 c-e 30.87 bc 31.57 b-d
T.W.C. 321 30.26 b-e 29.80 c 32.61 bc 30.38 b-d 30.62 c-e
T.W.C. 323 28.83 e 29.71 c 30.03 e 27.79 e 29.43 e
T.W.C. 324 30.97 b-d 33.49 a 34.12 ab 31.33 b 31.55 b-d
T.W.C. 351 29.37 e 29.72 c 30.38 de 28.44 de 28.89 e
T.W.C. 352 32.21 ab 32.44 ab 32.44 bc 30.95 bc 32.11 bc
Mean 30.50 BC 31.62 A 32.19 A 30.11 C 31.19 AB
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.9383 for interactions=2.032
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.
126 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
El-Gharbia
Treatments
Cultivars
Control Chlorpyrifos Diazinon Methomyl Fenpropathrin
Giza 2 1.26 a* 1.44 b-d 1.62 b-d 1.43 ab 1.59 b
S.C.10 1.51 a 1.87 a 2.02 a 1.52 a 1.66 a
S.C.13 1.05 bc 1.40 cd 1.29 de 1.22 a 1.38 b
S.C.123 1.46 a 1.77 ab 1.91 ab 1.47 a 1.60 b
T.W.C. 310 1.16 a-c 1.46 d 1.46 c-e 1.32 a 1.40 ab
T.W.C. 321 1.38 ab 1.63 a-c 1.77 a-c 1.45 a 1.51 b
T.W.C. 323 0.97 c 1.20 d 1.24 e 0.98 b 1.08 a
T.W.C. 324 1.47 a 1.92 a 2.00 a 1.48 a 1.64 b
T.W.C. 351 1.37 ab 1.59 a-c 1.68 a-c 1.35 a 1.52 b
T.W.C. 352 1.30 a-c 1.48 b-d 1.77 a-c 1.54 a 1.58 ab
Mean 1.29 C 1.58 B 1.68 A 1.38 C 1.50 CD
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.1427 for interactions=0.3687
El-Behira
Giza 2 1.37 d 1.66 a 1.69 a-c 1.38 a-c 1.54 ab
S.C.10 1.42 bc 1.65 a 1.80 ab 1.47 a 1.66 a
S.C.13 1.18 e 1.35 b 1.58 bc 1.19 d 1.51 a-c
S.C.123 1.22 de 1.59 ab 1.47 cd 1.31 a-d 1.36 bc
T.W.C. 310 1.24 c 1.61 ab 1.66 a-c 1.25 b-d 1.41 a-c
T.W.C. 321 1.44 bc 1.66 a 1.72 a-c 1.45 ab 1.59 a-c
T.W.C. 323 1.05 a 1.50 ab 1.28 d 1.11 cd 1.23 c
T.W.C. 324 1.47 a 1.69 a 1.88 a 1.50 a 1.62 ab
T.W.C. 351 1.30 b 1.42 ab 1.52 cd 1.33 b-d 1.47 a-c
T.W.C. 352 1.35 de 1.42 ab 1.63 cd 1.30 a-d 1.42 bc
Mean 1.30 A 1.55 A 1.62 A 1.33 C 1.48 B
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.09641 for interactions=0.2828
Average data**
Giza 2 1.31 ab 1.55 b-e 1.66 bc 1.41 a 1.57 a
S.C.10 1.47 a 1.76 ab 1.91 a 1.50 a 1.66 a
S.C.13 1.11 cd 1.37 e 1.44 cd 1.21 ab 1.44 a
S.C.123 1.34 a-c 1.68 a-c 1.69 a-c 1.39 a 1.48 a
T.W.C. 310 1.20 b-d 1.54 de 1.56 bc 1.28 ab 1.41 ab
T.W.C. 321 1.41 ab 1.64 a-d 1.74 ab 1.45 a 1.55 a
T.W.C. 323 1.01 d 1.35 e 1.26 d 1.05 b 1.15 b
T.W.C. 324 1.47 a 1.81 a 1.94 a 1.49 a 1.63 a
T.W.C. 351 1.34 a-c 1.51 c-e 1.60 bc 1.34 ab 1.50 a
T.W.C. 352 1.33 a-c 1.45 c-e 1.70 bc 1.42 a 1.50 a
Mean 1.30 D 1.57 B 1.65 A 1.35 D 1.49 C
L.S.D (0.05) for pesticides treatments =0.08857 for interactions=0.1289
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of location factor the table reflect tolerance of different cultivars.
127 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Cultivars S.C.10, T.W.C. 352 and T.W.C. 351 had the highest values in
%Celluloses (34.73, 31.63 and 31.57 respectively). On the other hand Giza 2 and
T.W.C. 323 cultivars had the lowest value in this regard ( 22.93 and 24.20
respectively).
Cultivars T.W.C. 351 and S.C.13 had the lowest values in TSS ( 3.63 and
3.73 respectively) while, T.W.C. 321,T.W.C. 324, T.W.C. 352 and T.W.C. 323 had
the highest value in this respect ( 5.47,5.27, 5.20 and 5.20 respectively).
Cultivars S.C.13, T.W.C. 352 and S.C.123 had the lowest values in stem
rigidity which had 2.93, 3.00 and 3.00 Newton, while S.C.10 and T.W.C. 323 had
the highest values in this respect which had 5.38 and 4.83 Newton respectively.
128 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.27: Some chemical and physical parameters of ten corn cultivars.
129 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
T.W.C.310 cultivars had the same tolerant potency toward ECB infestation .
From the averaged data it could be concluded that: a significant
differences were detected between the insecticides treatments and corn cultivars.
Untreated S.C. 10 cultivar recored the highest value in holes/ 100
internodes, while T.W.C. 351 treated with mixture No.4 and S.C. 10 treated with
diazinon recorded the lowest values in this regard.
Holes No./100 internodes values of S.C.10 cultiver treated with biocides
were in ascending order as follows:diazinon< mixture No.4< mixture No.3<
mixture No.2< Biofly mixture No.1< Agerin< paraffin oil < control. While
T.W.C.310 cultivers treatments were in ascending order as follows:diazinon<
mixture No.3< mixture No.4< Biofly< mixture No.2< mixture No.1< Agerin<
paraffin oil< control . T.W.C351 treatments were in ascending order as follows:
mixture No.4< diazinon< mixture No.3< mixture No.2< mixture No.1< Biofly<
Agerin< paraffin oil < control.
Mixture No.4, diazinon and mixture No.3 were the most effective
treatments against ECB infestation evaluated by holes No./100 internodes
(R%=81.03, 79.65 and 75.20 respectively).
The most susceptible cultiver was S.C10 while T.W.C.351 cultivars had
the most tolerant potency against ECB infestation determined by holes/100
internodes.
At season 2004: T.W.C.351 treated with mixture No.4 had the lowest
value in this respect. Cavities No./10plants values of S.C.10 cultiver treated with
biocides were in ascending order as follows: diazinon< mixture No.4< mixture No.
3< mixture No.2< mixture No.1< Biofly< Agerin<control < paraffin oil.
While T.W.C.310 cultivers treatments were in ascending order as follows:
mixture No.4< mixture No. 3< diazinon< mixture No.2< Biofly< mixture No.1<
Agerin< control <paraffin oil. T.W.C351 treatments were in ascending order as
follows: mixture No.4< diazinon< mixture No.3< mixture No.2< mixture No.1<
Biofly< Agerin< paraffin oil< control.
Mixture No.4 and diazinon were the most effective treatments against
ECB infestation evaluated by cavities No./10plants (R%= 87.00 and 83.01
respectively).
The most susceptible cultivars were S.C10 and T.W.C.310, while the
T.W.C.351 had the most tolerant cultivar against ECB infestation determined by
cavity /10plants.
At season 2005: T.W.C.310 treated with diazinon , T.W.C. 351 treated
with mixture No.4 and T.W.C. 351 treated with mixture No.3 had the lowest
values in this respect. Cavities No./10plants values of S.C.10 cultiver treated with
biocides were in ascending order as follows: diazinon< Biofly< mixture No.4<
mixture No.3< mixture No.2< mixture No.1< Agerin< paraffin oil <
control. While T.W.C.310 cultivers treatments were in ascending order as
follows: diazinon< mixture No.3< mixture No.4< Biofly< mixture No.2<
mixture No.1< Agerin < control <paraffin oil. T.W.C351 treatments were in
ascending order as follows: mixture No.3< mixture No.4< diazinon< mixture
No.2< mixture No.1< Biofly< Agerin< paraffin oil< control.
134 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Diazinon and mixture No.4 were the most effective treatments against ECB
infestation evaluated by cavity No./10plants (R%=78.93 and 78.25 respectively).
The most susceptible cultivar was S.C10 ,while T.W.C.351 and
T.W.C.310 cultivars had the same tolerant trend against ECB infestation
determined by cavities No./10plants.
From the averaged data it could be concluded that: a significant
difference were observed between the insecticides treatments and corn cultivars .
T.W.C.351 treated with mixture No.4 and T.W.C.310 treated with diazinon
treatments had the lowest values in this respect . Cavity No./10 plants values of
S.C.10 cultiver treated with biocides were in ascending order as follows:diazinon<
mixture No.4< mixture No.3< mixture No.2< Biofly< mixture No.1<
Agerin< paraffin oil< control. While T.W.C.310 cultivers treatments were in
ascending order as follows:diazinon< mixture No.3< mixture No.4<
Biofly< mixture No.2< mixture No.1< Agerin<control < paraffin oil.
T.W.C351 treatments were in ascending order as follows: mixture No.4< mixture
No. 3< diazinon< mixture No.2< mixture No.1< Biofly< Agerin< paraffin oil <
control.
Mixture No.4, diazinon and mixture No.3 were the most effective
treatments against ECB infestation evaluated by cavities No./10plants (R%=83.29,
81.28and 76.31 respectively).
The most susceptible cultivar was S.C10, while the T.W.C.351 had the
most tolerant cultiver against ECB infestation determined by cavities
No./10plants.
No.4. 100 grain weight values of S.C.10 cultiver treated with biocides were in
ascending order as follows: control<Agerin< paraffin oil< mixture No.2<
Biofly< mixture No.1< mixture No.3< mixture No.4< diazinon. While
T.W.C.310 cultivers treatments were in ascending order as follows: paraffin
oil<control <Biofly< Agerin< mixture No.2< mixture No.3< mixture No.1<
mixture No.4< Diazinon. T.W.C351 treatments were in ascending order as
follows: mixture No.1< mixture No.2< paraffin oil< Biofly< Agerin< mixture
No.4< mixture No. 3< control< diazinon.
100grains weight had the highest value in case of diazinon and mixture
No.4 treatments .
The highest value of 100grains weight was recorded by S.C.10 cultivar
which superior the other cultivars.
At season 2005: cultivar S.C.10 treated with diazinon or treated with
mixture No.4 recorded the highest value in 100grains weight. 100 grain weight
values of S.C.10 cultiver treated with biocides were in ascending order as follows:
control < paraffin oil< Agerin< Biofly< mixture No.1< mixture No.2<
mixture No.3< mixture No.4< diazinon. While T.W.C.310 cultivers
treatments were in ascending order as follows: mixture No.3< Agerin< Biofly<
paraffin oil< mixture No.1 < control< mixture No.2< diazinon< mixture
No.4. T.W.C351 treatments were in ascending order as follows:paraffin oil<
Agerin< Biofly< mixture No.1 < control< mixture No.2< mixture No. 3< mixture
No.4< diazinon.The highest values of 100 grain weight was recorded by S.C.10
cultivar.
From the averaged data it could be concluded that: a significant
differences among corn cultivars and biochemicals treatments were detected.
138 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
No.1< mixture No.2< mixture No.3< mixture No.4. While T.W.C.310 cultivers
treatments were in ascending order as follows:control< paraffin oil< Agerin<
Biofly< mixture No.1< mixture No.2< mixture No.3< diazinon. T.W.C351
treatments were in ascending order as follows:control< paraffin oil< Agerin<
mixture No.2< Biofly< mixture No.1< mixture No.3< mixture No.4.
S.C10 cultivar had surpassed the other cultivars T.W.C.310 and T.W.C.351
in grains yield /10plants .
From the previous data it could be concluded that:
In case of infestation parameter (holes No./100internodes and cavities
No./10plants, ) it could be concluded that: In all cultivars (S.C.10,
T.W.C.310 and T.W.C351) control, paraffin oil and Agerin treatments had
the highest values in this parameters, while diazinon, mixture No.4 and
mixture No.3 had the lowest values in this regard but the ranke between
them differ from cultivar to anther. The cultivars rank in this parameters
had S.C10, T.W.C310 and T.W.C351.
In case of productivity parameters (100 grains weight and grains
yield/10plants), the trend differ from parameters to another. But, it could be
concluded that:
In case of 100 grain weight: control, paraffin oil and Agerin treatments had
the lowest values in this respect, while diazinon, mixture No.4 and
mixture No.3 had the highest values, either But, the cultivars rank of in
these parameters were S.C10, T.W.C310, and T.W.C351.
In case of grains yield/10plants: control, paraffin oil and Agerin treatments
had the lowest values in this respect, while diazinon, mixture No.3,
mixture No.2 and mixture No.4 had the highest values٫ But, the cultivars
141 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Season 2004
Cultivars
Means
Treatments S.C. 10 T.W.C. 310 T.W.C 351
Mean % R.*** Mean % R. Mean % R. Mean % R.
Control 27.00 a* 21.67 a 18.00 a 22.22 a
Paraffin oil 27.70 a -2.61 23.33 a -7.69 18.33 a -1.85 23.12 a -4.06
Agerin 17.33 b 35.80 16.67 b 23.08 14.00 b 22.22 16.00 b 28.00
Biofly 14.07 b 47.87 9.00 c 58.46 8.33 c 53.70 10.47 c 52.89
Mixture No. 1 9.67 c 64.20 10.67 c 50.77 7.93 c 55.97 9.42 cd 57.61
Mixture No. 2 6.30 cd 76.68 8.67 c 60.00 6.67 cd 62.96 7.21 de 67.56
Mixture No. 3 4.59 d 82.99 4.48 d 79.32 5.00 cde 72.22 4.69 ef 78.89
Mixture No. 4 2.67 d 90.12 3.67 d 83.08 2.33 e 87.04 2.89 f 87.00
Diazinon 2.66 d 90.16 4.67 d 78.46 4.00 de 77.78 3.77 f 83.01
Means 12.44 A 11.42 A 9.40 B 11.09
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.912 for biocides treatments=2.737 for interactions=3.900
Season 2005
Control 22.67 a 13.04 ab 13.33 a 16.35 a
Paraffin oil 18.67 b 17.65 15.33 a -17.61 10.33 ab 22.50 13.44 b 17.75
Agerin 14.33 c 36.76 11.33 b 13.07 9.00 bc 32.50 12.89 b 21.15
Biofly 5.00 e 77.94 5.33 de 59.09 7.26 bcd 45.56 5.86 de 64.12
Mixture No. 1 14.00 c 38.24 10.67 bc 18.18 6.26 cd 53.06 10.31 c 36.93
Mixture No. 2 9.67 d 57.35 7.67 cd 41.19 4.67 de 65.00 7.33 d 55.14
Mixture No. 3 9.00 d 60.29 2.33 e 82.10 2.00 e 85.00 4.44 ef 72.81
Mixture No. 4 5.33 e 76.47 3.33 e 74.43 2.00 e 85.00 3.56 ef 78.25
Diazinon 4.67 e 79.41 1.33 f 89.77 4.33 de 67.50 3.44 f 78.93
Means 11.48 A 7.82 B 6.58 B 8.63
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.352 for biocides treatments=2.386 for interactions=3.567
**Averaged data
Control 24.83 a 17.35 b 15.67 a 19.28 a
Paraffin oil 23.19 a 6.64 19.33 a 0.11 14.33 a 8.51 18.28 a 5.19
Agerin 15.83 b 36.24 14.00 c 7.79 11.50 b 26.60 14.44 b 25.10
Biofly 9.54 cd 61.60 7.17 d 58.70 7.80 c 50.24 8.17 cd 57.65
Mixture No. 1 11.83 c 52.35 10.67 c 38.53 7.09 c 54.73 9.86 c 48.85
Mixture No. 2 7.98 de 67.86 8.17 d 52.93 5.67 cd 63.83 7.27 d 62.29
Mixture No. 3 6.80 e 72.63 3.41 f 80.36 3.50 de 77.66 4.57 e 76.31
Mixture No. 4 4.00 f 83.89 3.50 f 79.83 2.17 e 86.17 3.22 e 83.29
Diazinon 3.66 f 85.25 3.00 f 82.71 4.17 de 73.40 3.61 e 81.28
Means 11.96 A 9.62 B 7.99 C 9.86
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.171 for biocides treatments=2.212 for interactions=2.577
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of seasons factor the table reflect efficacy of different biocides.
***R%= (control -treatment-)/ control×100
144 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Season 2004
Cultivars
Means
Treatments S.C. 10 T.W.C. 310 T.W.C 351
Mean % R.*** Mean % R. Mean % R. Mean % R.
Control 15.33 a* 10.33 a 13.67 a 13.11 a
Paraffin oil 15.19 a 0.97 10.00 ab 3.23 13.00 a 4.88 12.73 a 2.92
Agerin 11.33 b 26.09 7.33 bc 29.03 9.33 b 31.71 9.33 b 28.81
Biofly 7.85 c 48.79 5.67 cd 45.16 5.00 cd 63.41 6.17 c 52.92
Mixture No. 1 5.00 cd 67.39 7.00 c 32.26 5.85 c 57.18 5.95 c 54.61
Mixture No. 2 4.07 de 73.43 5.67 cd 45.16 5.33 cd 60.98 5.02 cd 61.68
Mixture No. 3 2.85 de 81.40 3.11 de 69.89 4.00 cde 70.73 3.32 de 74.67
Mixture No. 4 2.00 e 86.96 2.67 e 74.19 1.67 e 87.80 2.11 e 83.90
Diazinon 2.61 de 82.97 3.67 de 64.52 2.67 de 80.49 2.98 e 77.26
Means 7.36 A 6.16 A 6.72 A 6.75
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.330 for biocides treatments=1.843 for interactions=2.881
Season 2005
Control 11.00 a 7.26 a 8.67 a 8.98 a
Paraffin oil 9.67 ab 12.12 6.33 a 12.76 8.33 a 3.85 8.00 ab 10.87
Agerin 8.67 ab 21.21 6.00 ab 17.35 4.67 bc 46.15 6.56 bc 26.96
Biofly 4.00 de 63.64 3.00 cd 58.67 3.07 bcde 64.53 3.36 ef 62.59
Mixture No. 1 8.00 bc 27.27 5.67 ab 21.94 4.19 bcd 51.71 5.95 cd 33.70
Mixture No. 2 5.67 cd 48.48 3.67 bc 49.49 5.00 b 42.31 4.78 de 46.77
Mixture No. 3 4.00 de 63.64 1.33 cd 81.63 1.67 e 80.77 2.33 f 74.00
Mixture No. 4 2.00 e 81.82 2.33 cd 67.86 2.00 de 76.92 2.11 f 76.48
Diazinon 2.67 e 75.76 1.00 d 86.22 2.33 cde 73.08 2.00 f 77.72
Means 6.19 A 4.07 B 4.44 B 4.90
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.287 for biocides treatments=1.482 for interactions=2.352
**Averaged data
Control 13.17 a 8.80 a 11.17 a 11.04 a
Paraffin oil 12.43 a 5.63 8.15 ab 9.05 10.67 a 4.48 10.36 a 6.15
Agerin 10.00 b 24.05 6.67 b 22.32 7.00 b 37.31 7.94 b 28.06
Biofly 5.93 c 54.99 4.33 de 50.74 4.04 cd 63.85 4.77 c 56.85
Mixture No. 1 6.50 c 50.63 6.33 bc 28.00 5.02 c 55.06 5.95 c 46.12
Mixture No. 2 4.87 cd 63.01 4.67 d 46.95 5.17 bc 53.73 4.90 c 55.62
Mixture No. 3 3.43 de 73.98 2.22 f 74.74 2.83 de 74.63 2.83 d 74.40
Mixture No. 4 2.00 e 84.81 2.50 ef 71.58 1.83 e 83.58 2.11 d 80.88
Diazinon 2.64 e 79.96 2.33 f 73.47 2.50 de 77.61 2.49 d 77.45
Means 6.77 A 5.11 B 5.58 B 5.82
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=0.8611 for biocides treatments=1.341 for interactions=1.896
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of seasons factor the table reflect efficacy of different biocides.
***R%= (control -treatment-)/ control×100
145 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.31: Effect of biocides treatments and corn cultivars on 100 grain
weight(g.), during 2004 and 2005 seasons.
Season 2004
Cultivars
Treatments S.C. 10 T.W.C. 310 T.W.C 351 Means
Mean Mean Mean
Control 29.69 d* 28.56 a 28.30 a 28.85 c
Paraffin oil 30.38 cd 28.23 a 27.63 a 28.75 c
Agerin 30.36 cd 28.96 a 27.80 a 29.04 bc
Biofly 31.71 bcd 28.92 a 27.70 a 29.44 bc
Mixture No. 1 31.81 bcd 29.61 a 27.45 a 29.62 bc
Mixture No. 2 31.52 bcd 29.09 a 27.60 a 29.41 bc
Mixture No. 3 32.12 bc 29.32 a 28.28 a 29.91 bc
Mixture No. 4 32.84 ab 30.07 a 28.11 a 30.34 ab
Diazinon 34.84 a 30.31 a 29.24 a 31.46 a
Means 31.70 a 29.23 b 28.01 b 29.65
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.565 for biocides treatments=1.392 for interactions=2.390
Season 2005
Control 29.52 c 28.27 ab 27.82 ab 28.54 c
Paraffin oil 30.67 bc 28.92 ab 26.86 b 28.82 c
Agerin 30.68 bc 28.43 ab 27.07 b 28.73 c
Biofly 30.72 bc 28.89 ab 27.60 ab 29.07 bc
Mixture No. 1 31.25 abc 29.16 ab 27.79 ab 29.40 bc
Mixture No. 2 31.67 abc 29.30 ab 28.19 ab 29.72 abc
Mixture No. 3 32.05 ab 27.65 b 28.21 ab 29.30 bc
Mixture No. 4 32.66 ab 30.62 a 28.68 ab 30.66 ab
Diazinon 33.54 a 30.05 ab 29.70 a 31.10 a
Means 31.42 a 29.03 b 27.99 b 29.48
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.873 for biocides treatments=1.591 for interactions=2.514
Averaged data**
Control 29.60 d 28.41 c 28.06 ab 28.69 c
Paraffin oil 30.53 cd 28.57 bc 27.24 b 28.78 c
Agerin 30.52 cd 28.69 bc 27.44 b 28.88 c
Biofly 31.21 bcd 28.90 abc 27.65 b 29.26 c
Mixture No. 1 31.53 bc 29.38 abc 27.62 b 29.51 bc
Mixture No. 2 31.59 bc 29.20 abc 27.89 ab 29.56 bc
Mixture No. 3 32.09 bc 28.48 c 28.25 ab 29.60 bc
Mixture No. 4 32.75 ab 30.34 a 28.40 ab 30.50 ab
Diazinon 34.19 a 30.18 ab 29.47 a 31.28 a
Means 31.56 a 29.13 b 28.00 b 29.56
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=1.594 for biocides treatments=1.132 for interactions=1.648
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of seasons factor the table reflect efficacy of different biocides.
146 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Season 2004
Cultivars
Means
Treatments S.C. 10 T.W.C. 310 T.W.C 352
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Control 1.29 c* 1.19 e 1.15 c 1.21 d
Paraffin oil 1.33 c 1.23 de 1.30 bc 1.29 cd
Agerin 1.39 bc 1.39 c-e 1.24 c 1.34 cd
Biofly 1.60 a-c 1.41 c-e 1.47 a-c 1.50 bc
Mixture No. 1 1.62 a-c 1.54 b-d 1.42 a-c 1.53 bc
Mixture No. 2 1.72 ab 1.53 b-e 1.33 bc 1.53 bc
Mixture No. 3 1.74 a 1.71 a-c 1.62 ab 1.69 ab
Mixture No. 4 1.87 a 1.89 a 1.71 a 1.82 a
Diazinon 1.87 a 1.87 ab 1.70 a 1.81 a
Means 1.60 A 1.53 A 1.44 A 1.52
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=260.7 for biocidestreatments=233.8 for interactions=340.4
Season 2005
Control 1.31 d 1.27 b 1.21 bc 1.26 d
Paraffin oil 1.37 d 1.24 b 1.20 c 1.27 d
Agerin 1.45 cd 1.35 ab 1.26 a-c 1.35 cd
Biofly 1.52 b-d 1.46 ab 1.34 a-c 1.44 b-d
Mixture No. 1 1.52 b-d 1.44 ab 1.48 a-c 1.48 b-d
Mixture No. 2 1.67 a-d 1.56 ab 1.48 a-c 1.57 a-c
Mixture No. 3 1.77 a-c 1.55 ab 1.57 a-c 1.63 a-c
Mixture No. 4 1.87 ab 1.71 a 1.59 ab 1.72 ab
Diazinon 1.96 a 1.71 a 1.63 a 1.77 a
Means 1.60 A 1.48 AB 1.42 B 1.50
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=161.1 for biocidestreatments=286.7 for interactions=386.6
Averaged data**
Control 1.30 d 1.23 e 1.18 d 1.24 e
Paraffin oil 1.35 cd 1.24 e 1.25 cd 1.28 e
Agerin 1.42 cd 1.37 de 1.25 cd 1.35 de
Biofly 1.56 bc 1.44 c-e 1.41 b-d 1.47 cd
Mixture No. 1 1.57 bc 1.49 cd 1.45 a-c 1.50 b-d
Mixture No. 2 1.70 ab 1.54 b-d 1.40 b-d 1.55 bc
Mixture No. 3 1.75 ab 1.63 a-c 1.59 ab 1.66 ab
Mixture No. 4 1.87 a 1.80 a 1.65 ab 1.77 a
Diazinon 1.91 a 1.79 ab 1.67 a 1.79 a
Means 1.60 A 1.50 AB 1.43 B 1.51
L.S.D (0.05) for cultivars treatments=146.9 for biocidestreatments=177.9 for interactions=249.3
*Means followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly difference (P= 0.95 level)
** In spite of seasons factor the table reflect efficacy of different biocides.
147 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the obtained data, Beauveria bassiana formulation Biofly had relative
toxicity to the predator and that toxicity had been enhanced by adding oil and
photostaplizer. Diazinon had more toxicity against adults predator, P. alfierii than
Biofly but this toxicity had been enhanced by mixing the diazinon with Biofly or
Agerin, oil and photostaplizer.
Many investigators had been reported that Bacillus thuringiensis had no to
low toxicity to many predators species (Bozsik, 2006; Sharma and Kashyap,
2002; Badawy and El-Arnaouty, 1999; Jayanthi and Padmavathamma, 1996;
Langenbruch, 1992; Salama and Zaki, 1984 and El-Husseini 1980). In
contrast, many researchers had been reported that Beauveria bassiana had some
toxicity aginest several predetors (Cagan and Uhlik, 1999; El-Hamady, 1998;
Haseeb and Murad, 1997 and Haseeb and Humayun, 1997).
Also, many investigators mentioned that, diazinon had a low relative
148 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
toxicity against some predators species compared with the other synthetic
pesticides (Omar et al., 2002; Salim and Heinrichs, 1985; Mishra and
Satpathy, 1984). The low toxicity of diazinon to predators may be due to that
diazinon had low inhibition capacity to predators AchEs (Bozsik, et al., 2002)
149 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table IV.33: Toxicity of biochemicals against adults of the predator, P. alfierii exposed to surface deposit technique.
Slop values.s
Biochemicals 5 10 20 30 40 60 80 120 160 240 104 5×104 105 5×105 106
Lower Upper
% Mortality
Agerin* - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 >106
He, K.; D. Zhou; Z. Wang; L. Wen and S. Bai (2002). On the damage and
control tactics of Asian corn borer Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenee) in
sweet corn field. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica. 29(3): 199-204.
Lewis Leslie, C.; J. Bruck Denny and D. Gunnarson Robert (2002). On-
farm evaluation of Beauveria bassiana for control of Ostrinia
nubilalis in Iowa, USA. BioControl Dordrecht. 47(2): 167-176.
Melia Masia, A. and A. Almajano Contreras (1973). Control test against the
maize borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hubn.) in Huesca. Year 1972. Boletin
167 الملخص العربي
Informativo de Plagas.(103): 53-60.
Page, A. L. (1982). Methods of soil analysis: Part 2. 2nd Ed. Soil Sci. Soc. of
American Ine. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Prior, C.; P. Jollands and G. Le Patourel (1988). Infectivity of oil and water
formulations of Beauveria bassiana (Deuteromycotina:
Hyphomycetes) to the cocoa weevil pest Pantorhytes plutus
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 52: 66-72.
Straub, R. W. (1977). European corn borer control in early sweet corn: role
of pre- silk applications and leaf feeding resistance. Journal of
174 الملخص العربي
Economic Entomology. 70(4): 524-526.
Worthing, C. (1995). The Pesticide Manual. 10th ed. The British Crop
Protection Council (BCPC) and The Royal Society of chemistry
(RSC).London. 1341.
Yashugina, L. M. (1970). Boverin for the control of the maize stem borer.
Zashchita Rastenii. 15(12): 27.
ديازينون)[ أو خليط رقم 375( ] 3جرام أجرين 125 +مل زيت برافين +
%0.1بنزوفينون ½ +معدل التركيييز الحقلي ميين الديازينون ( 500مييل
.بين ما كان الخليط رقم 150 ] 2مل بيوفلى 50+مل برافين +
يتحضر
ين مسي
يمية مي %0.1بنزفينون( 0.2جرام) [ اكثي
ير سي
البيوفلى .
اسم الطالب:صبرى عبد المنعم عبد العال عبدال
عنوان الرسالة:المكافحة البيولوجية و الكيميائية لبعض آفات المحاصيل الزراعية و تأثيراتها الجانبية
الدرجة:الدكتوراه في العلوم الزراعية (مبيدات) قسم وقاية النبات-كلية الزراعة – جامعة طنطا.
المستخلص
أجريت سلسلة من التجارب الحقل ية و المعمل ية في كل ية الزرا عة جام عة طن طا و ذلك لتقد ير كفاءة ب عض
الوسائل البديلة كجزء من برنامج المكافحة المتكاملة لحد آفات الذرة الشامية و هي ثاقبة الذرة الوربية
)Ostrinia nubilalis (Hbويمكن تلخيص النتائج المتحصل عليها كما يلي:
• سمية البيوفلى على أنواع المن المختلفة و العنكبوت الحمر يمكن ترتيبها تنازليا كالتي :العنكبوت
الح مر > من الذرة > من الفول > من الق طن .بين ما كان ترت يب سمية الزيوت المختل فة على إناث
العنكبوت الح مر Teteranychus cinnabarinusتنازليا كال تي :ز يت الذرة>ز يت الق طن>
زيت الخروع> الزيت المعدني >زيت الكانول> زيت البرافين .
•مع ظم المخال يط المخ تبرة لز يت الذرة و ز يت الق طن مع م ستحضر البيوفلى كا نت أ قل سمية من
المسمتحضر الصملي .و بينمما المخاليمط المكونمة ممن 3أجزاء ممن البيوفلى 1 :جزء ممن زيمت
الخروع أو الكانول أو الزيمت المعدنمي أو زيمت البرافيمن كانمت أكثمر سممية ممن مسمتحضر البيوفلى
ال صلي وذلك ضد العنكبوت الح مر .كل المركبات المخ تبرة من المثبتات الضوئ ية و ال صباغ قد
زادت من سمية المخاليط على العنكبوت الحمر و لكن عند زيادة نسبة المركبات إلى %1فان السمية
تقل .مخاليط البيوفلى %0.1+اسيتوفينون أو-4نيترواسيتوفينون أو -7نيتروفينول أو بنزوفينون و
مخاليمط البيوفلى %0.1+أو %0.2أو %0.5أحممر الكونغمو و البيوفلى %0.1+أو %0.2أو
%0.5تيتان الصفر زادت من سمية مستحضر البيوفلى ضد العنكبوت الحمر.
•أك ثر المخال يط ثباتا ت حت تأث ير الش عة فوق البنف سجية كا نت مخال يط 3بيوفلى 1:ز يت براف ين 3 ,
بيوفلى 1:زيت خروع و بيوفلى %0.1+بنزفينون ,بيوفلى %0.5+احمر الكونغو ,بيوفلى +
-7 %0.1نيتروفينول .
•أ صناف فردى 13و ثلثي 351كانت أك ثر ال صناف تحملً بين ما كانت الصناف ثلثي 323و 324
أكثر الصناف حساسية عند تقييم الصابة بثاقبة الذرة الوربية بواسطة عدد الثقوب100 /عقلة ,عدد
النفاق 10/نباتات و عدد اليرقات 10/نباتات .كانمت هناك علقمة إيجابيمة بيمن نسمبة البروتيمن فمي
الحبوب و نسبة الصابة بها .أعطى هجين فردى 10أعلى القيم في وزن الم 100حبة و النتاج لم
10نباتات.
•أكثمر الممبيدات فاعليمة ضمد الصمابة بثاقبمة الذرة الوربيمة همو الديازينون ثمم الفينمبروباثرين و
الكلوربيرفوس بينمما كان الميثوميمل اقمل الممبيدات سممية .كذلك أعطمى كمل ممن الديازينون يليمه
الكلوربيرفوس ثم الفينبروباثرين أعلى القيم في وزن الم100حبة و كذلك إنتاج الحبوب10/نباتات.
•الرش بمبيد الديازينون أو خليط رقم 150[ 4مل بيوفلى 50+مل زيت بارفين %0.1+بنزوفينون (
0.2جم بنزوفينون) ½ +معدل التركيز الحقلي من الديازينون ( 500مل ديازينون) ] أو خليط رقم 3
[ ( 375جرام أجريمن 125 +ممل زيمت برافيمن %0.1+بنزوفينون (0.5جمم بنزوفينون) ½ +
معدل التركيمز الحقلي ممن الديازينون ( 500ممل ديازينون) ] قمد أدى إلى خفمض عدد الثقوب/
100عقدة و عدد النفاق 10/نباتات) .بينمما أدى الرش بمبيمد الديازينون أو خليمط رقمم 4أو خليمط
رقم 3إلى زيادة كل من وزن الم 100حبة و إنتاج الحبوب لم 10نباتات.
•لم يكن هناك أي سمية للمبيد الحيوى الجرين (تجهيزه ) Bacillus thuringiensisأو خليط الجرين مع
ز يت البراف ين أو مع ز يت البراف ين و المث بت الضوئي على مفترس الروا غة .بين ما يم كن ترت يب سمية با قي
المبيدات الحيوية تنازليا كالتي :خليط رقم > 4خليط رقم > 3ديازينون .بينما كان الخليط رقم 150[ 2مل
بيوفلى 50+مل زيت برافين %0.1+بنزفينون (0.2جم بنزوفينون)] اكثر سمية من مستحضر البيوفلى.
جامعة طنطا
كلية الزراعة
قسم وقاية النبات
العلوم الزراعية
( المبيدات )
2008م
جامعة طنطا
كلية الزراعة
قسم وقاية النبات
و تأثيراتها الجانبية
رسالة مقدمة من
صبرى عبد المنعم عبد العال عبدال
بكالوريوس العلوم الزراعية ( مبيدات )كلية الزراعة ي كفر الشيخ جامعة طنطا 1991م
ماجستير العلوم الزراعية (مبيدات) كلية الزراعة ي كفر الشيخ جامعة طنطا 1998م
كجزء من متطلبات الحصول على درجة الدكتوراة فى العلوم الزراعية (المبيدات)
لجن ة ال شراف
الستاذ الدكتور /حلمى على إبراهيم عنبر الستاذ الدكتور /تسامح خطاب عبد الروؤف
أستاذ المبيدات و عميد كلية الزراعة -جامعة طنطا أستاذ المبيدات المتفرغ كلية الزراعة -جامعة طنطا
دكتور /السيد عبد العزيز كشك الستاذ الدكتور /عبد الرحيم سلطان متولى عبد الرحيم
مدرس المبيدات كلية الزراعة -جامعة طنطا أستاذ الحشرات القتصادية و رئيس قسم حشرات
المحاصيل الحقلية مركز بحوث وقاية النبات
2008م
لبعض أفات المكافحة البيولوجية و الكي ميائية