The Experts below are selected from a list of 36 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Casari, Sônia A. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Estudo filogenético da subtribo Dicrepidiina (Elateridae, Elaterinae, Ampedini)
Sociedade Brasileira De Entomologia, 2008Co-Authors: Casari, Sônia A.Abstract:It is presented a cladistic analysis of the Dicrepidiina aiming to test the monophyletism of the subtribe and to establish the relationships among the genera. The subtribe is composed by 36 genera and all of them, except Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis and Spilomorphus were included in the analysis. Fifty two species, especially the type-species of each genus were studied: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 and Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), and species of the other subtribes of Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) and Anchastus digittatus and Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina) were used as outgroups. The results of the phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that Dicrepidiina, as formerly defined, does not form a monophyletic group. One genus, represented by Ovipalpus pubescens, was removed from the subtribe. The subtribe is characterized by presence of lamella under 2nd and 3rd tarsomeres of all legs. Also, it was revealed that the genera Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus and Propsephus are not monophyletic. Due to the scarcity of information, all the studied species are redescribed and illustrated.Neste trabalho é apresentada uma análise cladística de Dicrepidiina visando testar o monofiletismo da subtribo e estabelecer as relações entre os gêneros. A subtribo está formada por 36 gêneros e todos, exceto Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis e Spilomorphus foram incluídos na análise. Foram estudadas 52 espécies, principalmente as espécies-tipo de cada gênero: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 e Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Como grupos externos foram usados Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), e algumas espécies de outras subtribos de Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) e Anchastus digittatus e Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina). Os resultados da análise filogenética demonstraram que Dicrepidiina, como definida anteriormente, não forma um grupo monofilético. Um gênero, representado por Ovipalpus pubescens, foi removido da subtribo. A subtribo está caracterizada pela presença de lamela no 2º e 3º tarsômeros de todas as pernas. Também está evidente que os gêneros Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus e Propsephus não são monofiléticos. Devido à falta de informações sobre o grupo, todas as espécies estudadas são redescritas e ilustradas
-
A phylogenetic study of the subtribe Dicrepidiina (Elateridae, Elaterinae, Ampedini)
Sociedade Brasileira De Entomologia, 2008Co-Authors: Casari, Sônia A.Abstract:It is presented a cladistic analysis of the Dicrepidiina aiming to test the monophyletism of the subtribe and to establish the relationships among the genera. The subtribe is composed by 36 genera and all of them, except Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis and Spilomorphus were included in the analysis. Fifty two species, especially the type-species of each genus were studied: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 and Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), and species of the other subtribes of Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) and Anchastus digittatus and Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina) were used as outgroups. The results of the phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that Dicrepidiina, as formerly defined, does not form a monophyletic group. One genus, represented by Ovipalpus pubescens, was removed from the subtribe. The subtribe is characterized by presence of lamella under 2nd and 3rd tarsomeres of all legs. Also, it was revealed that the genera Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus and Propsephus are not monophyletic. Due to the scarcity of information, all the studied species are redescribed and illustrated
Sonia A Casari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a phylogenetic study of the subtribe dicrepidiina elateridae elaterinae ampedini
Revista Brasileira De Entomologia, 2008Co-Authors: Sonia A CasariAbstract:It is presented a cladistic analysis of the Dicrepidiina aiming to test the monophyletism of the subtribe and to establish the relationships among the genera. The subtribe is composed by 36 genera and all of them, except Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis and Spilomorphus were included in the analysis. Fifty two species, especially the type-species of each genus were studied: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candeze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candeze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candeze, 1859, A. conicus Candeze, 1900, A. haematopus Candeze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candeze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candeze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candeze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candeze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candeze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candeze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candeze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candeze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candeze, 1859, H. ventralis Guerin-Meneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candeze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candeze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candeze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candeze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candeze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candeze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candeze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candeze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candeze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candeze, 1859, S. brunneus Candeze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candeze, 1859, S. nitidus Candeze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 and Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), and species of the other subtribes of Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) and Anchastus digittatus and Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina) were used as outgroups. The results of the phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that Dicrepidiina, as formerly defined, does not form a monophyletic group. One genus, represented by Ovipalpus pubescens, was removed from the subtribe. The subtribe is characterized by presence of lamella under 2nd and 3rd tarsomeres of all legs. Also, it was revealed that the genera Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus and Propsephus are not monophyletic. Due to the scarcity of information, all the studied species are redescribed and illustrated.
-
A phylogenetic study of the subtribe Dicrepidiina (Elateridae, Elaterinae, Ampedini) Estudo filogenético da subtribo Dicrepidiina (Elateridae, Elaterinae, Ampedini)
Elsevier, 2008Co-Authors: Sonia A CasariAbstract:It is presented a cladistic analysis of the Dicrepidiina aiming to test the monophyletism of the subtribe and to establish the relationships among the genera. The subtribe is composed by 36 genera and all of them, except Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis and Spilomorphus were included in the analysis. Fifty two species, especially the type-species of each genus were studied: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 and Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), and species of the other subtribes of Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) and Anchastus digittatus and Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina) were used as outgroups. The results of the phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that Dicrepidiina, as formerly defined, does not form a monophyletic group. One genus, represented by Ovipalpus pubescens, was removed from the subtribe. The subtribe is characterized by presence of lamella under 2nd and 3rd tarsomeres of all legs. Also, it was revealed that the genera Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus and Propsephus are not monophyletic. Due to the scarcity of information, all the studied species are redescribed and illustrated.Neste trabalho é apresentada uma análise cladística de Dicrepidiina visando testar o monofiletismo da subtribo e estabelecer as relações entre os gêneros. A subtribo está formada por 36 gêneros e todos, exceto Asebis, Lamononia, Neopsephus, Semiotopsis e Spilomorphus foram incluídos na análise. Foram estudadas 52 espécies, principalmente as espécies-tipo de cada gênero: Achrestus flavocinctus (Candèze, 1859), A. venustus Champion, 1895, Adiaphorus gracilis Schwarz, 1901, A. ponticerianus Candèze, 1859, Anoplischiopsis bivittatus Champion, 1895, Anoplischius bicarinatus Candèze, 1859, A. conicus Candèze, 1900, A. haematopus Candèze, 1859, A. pyronotus Candèze, 1859, Atractosomus flavescens (Germar, 1839), Blauta cribraria (Germar, 1844), Calopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Catalamprus angustus (Fleutiaux, 1902), Crepidius flabellifer (Erichson, 1847), C. resectus Candèze, 1859, Cyathodera auripilosus Costa, 1968, C. lanugicollis (Candèze, 1859), C. longicornis Blanchard, 1843, Dayakus angularis Candèze, 1893, Dicrepidius ramicornis (Palisot de Beauvois, 1805), Dipropus brasilianus (Germar, 1824), D. factuellus Candèze, 1859, D. laticollis (Eschscholtz, 1829), D. pinguis (Candèze, 1859), D. schwarzi (Becker, 1961), Elius birmanicus Candèze, 1893, E. dilatatus Candèze, 1878, Heterocrepidius gilvellus Candèze, 1859, H. ventralis Guérin-Méneville, 1838, Lampropsephus cyaneus (Candèze, 1878), Loboederus appendiculatus (Perty, 1830), Olophoeus gibbus Candèze, 1859, Ovipalpus pubescens Solier, 1851, Pantolamprus ligneus Candèze, 1896, P. mirabilis Candèze, 1896, P. perpulcher Westwood, 1842, Paraloboderus glaber Golbach, 1990, Proloboderus crassipes Fleutiaux, 1912, Propsephus beniensis (Candèze, 1859), P. cavifrons (Erichson, 1843), Pseudolophoeus guineensis (Candèze, 1881), Rhinopsephus apicalis (Schwarz, 1903), Sephilus formosanus Schwarz, 1912, S. frontalis Candèze, 1878, Singhalenus gibbus Candèze, 1892, S. taprobanicus Candèze, 1859, Sphenomerus antennalis Candèze, 1859, S. brunneus Candèze, 1865, Spilus atractomorphus Candèze, 1859, S. nitidus Candèze, 1859, Stenocrepidius simonii Fleutiaux, 1891 e Trielasmus varians Blanchard, 1846. Como grupos externos foram usados Chalcolepidius zonatus (Hemirhipini, Agrypninae), Ctenicera silvatica (Prosternini, Prosterninae), e algumas espécies de outras subtribos de Ampedini (Elaterinae): Ampedus sanguineus (Ampedina), Melanotus spernendus (Melanotina) e Anchastus digittatus e Physorhinus xanthocephalus (Physorhinina). Os resultados da análise filogenética demonstraram que Dicrepidiina, como definida anteriormente, não forma um grupo monofilético. Um gênero, representado por Ovipalpus pubescens, foi removido da subtribo. A subtribo está caracterizada pela presença de lamela no 2º e 3º tarsômeros de todas as pernas. Também está evidente que os gêneros Achrestus, Anoplischius, Dipropus e Propsephus não são monofiléticos. Devido à falta de informações sobre o grupo, todas as espécies estudadas são redescritas e ilustradas
Robert S Vernon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transitional sublethal and lethal effects of insecticides after dermal exposures to five economic species of wireworms coleoptera elateridae
Journal of Economic Entomology, 2008Co-Authors: Robert S Vernon, W G Van Herk, Markus Clodius, J H Tolman, Ortiz H Saavedra, Blair K GageAbstract:During an insecticide toxicity study involving field-collected dusky wireworm, Agriotes obscurus (L.) (Coleoptera: Elateridae), wireworms exposed dermally to six classes of insecticides exhibited characteristic transitional symptoms of toxicity. These symptoms, collectively termed “morbidity,” were categorized as “writhing,” “leg and mouthpart movements,” or “mouthpart-only body movements.” These symptoms could persist for long periods, depending on insecticide and dose, with morbid wireworms ultimately recovering or dying. Additional LC50 and LD50 toxicity studies showed that these stages of morbidity also occurred in four other wireworm species, notably Agriotes sputator (L.), Limonius canus LeConte, Ctenicera pruinina (Horn), and Ctenicera destructor (Brown). In addition, all species exposed dermally to clothianidin moved in significant numbers to the surface of soil in posttreatment holding cups. This movement was not observed when these species were exposed to chlorpyrifos or the control solvent. These findings suggest that toxicity trials involving wireworms should include observations on morbidity, and the duration of trials should continue until symptoms of morbidity cease. The long-term morbidity and potential recovery or death of wireworms exposed to certain insecticides has implications for how laboratory and field studies can be better designed and interpreted in the future.
-
soil bioassay for studying behavioral responses of wireworms coleoptera elateridae to insecticide treated wheat seed
Environmental Entomology, 2007Co-Authors: Willem G Van Herk, Robert S VernonAbstract:A bioassay for observing wireworm behavior in soil is described. The bioassay permits analysis of orientation, feeding, repellency, and postcontact toxicity behaviors of wireworms in response to insecticide-treated wheat seeds. Wireworm positions were recorded every 5 min for 3 h, and the time required to orient to and contact seeds, and the duration of individual feeding events, was calculated. Both avoidance (before contact with seeds) and repellency (after contact) were quantified. A high proportion of Agriotes obscurus (0.95), Limonius canus (1.00), Ctenicera pruinina (0.80), Melanotus communis/dietrichi (0.80), and Hypolithus sp. (0.70) larvae contacted untreated wheat seeds and began feeding within 120 min when seeds were preincubated for 60 min in soil with 20% moisture. A smaller proportion of A. obscurus contacted seeds if seeds were not incubated in the bioassay before wireworm introduction (0.80) or in soil with 10% moisture (0.65). L. canus larvae required a significantly shorter time (25.3 min) to contact seeds if seeds were incubated for 60 min than if seeds were not incubated before wireworm introduction (43.1 min). Wireworms exposed to untreated seeds and seeds treated with the fungicide Dividend XLRTA fed normally (i.e., sustained feeding for at least 60 min), but a significant proportion of wireworms exposed to seeds treated with Tefluthrin 20 CS (containing the synthetic pyrethroid tefluthrin) fed for 15 min or less and were subsequently repelled. Wireworms exposed to Vitavax Dual (containing the organochlorine lindane) were not repelled after feeding and showed symptoms of illness for up to 28 d before making a full recovery (89%) or dying (11%).
-
mortality of five wireworm species coleoptera elateridae following topical application of clothianidin and chlorpyrifos
Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 2007Co-Authors: W G Van Herk, Robert S Vernon, Markus Clodius, Chantelle Harding, J H TolmanAbstract:Five Wireworrn species ( Agriotes obscurus , A. sputator , Limonius canus , Ctenicera destructor , and C. pruinina ) were exposed to clothianidin and chlorpyrifos at various concentrations using a Potter Spray Tower to compare larval susceptibilities to these compounds. Wireworms were stored in containers with soil at 15 °C after insecticide exposure, and their post-application health was evaluated weekly for up to 140 days. Where possible, LC50, LC90, LT50, and LT90 values were calculated and the LC90 and LT90 values of chemical concentrations compared between species. Considerable differences in susceptibility to both chlorpyrifos and clothianidin were observed among species, with the LC90 of L. canus exposed to clothianidin being significantly higher than A. obscurus or A. sputator . Similarly, while the LC50 of A. sputator exposed to chlorpyrifos was similar to that of C. pruinina and A. obscurus assayed in previous studies (0.05, 0.10, 0.10%, respectively), there was low (12.5%) mortality of L. canus at the highest concentration tested (0.15%). There were considerable differences in the survival of various wireworm species after exposure to clothianidin at 0.15%, with the LT90 of L. canus (66.5 days) similar to those of C. pruinina and C. destructor (52.5, 59.5 days, respectively), but much shorter than those for A. obscurus or A. sputator (122.5, 115.5 days, respectively). Considerable differences in the induction of and recovery from morbidity induced by the chemicals were observed among species. Most larvae of A. sputator and A. obscurus exposed to chlorpyrifos were moribund before C. prumina larvae (4, 7, 42 days after exposure, respectively). Most (proportion = 0.86) larvae of L. canus recovered from morbidity induced by chlorpyrifos, but a high proportion (>08) of moribund A. sputator , A. obscurus , and C. pruinina died. Larvae of C. destructor and C. pruinina which were moribund after exposure to clothianidin at 0.15% died or recovered sooner than larvae of L. canus and A. obscurus . Together these results suggest that the efficacy of both clothianidin and chlorpyrifos for wireworm control in the field are affected by the wireworm species present.
J H Tolman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transitional sublethal and lethal effects of insecticides after dermal exposures to five economic species of wireworms coleoptera elateridae
Journal of Economic Entomology, 2008Co-Authors: Robert S Vernon, W G Van Herk, Markus Clodius, J H Tolman, Ortiz H Saavedra, Blair K GageAbstract:During an insecticide toxicity study involving field-collected dusky wireworm, Agriotes obscurus (L.) (Coleoptera: Elateridae), wireworms exposed dermally to six classes of insecticides exhibited characteristic transitional symptoms of toxicity. These symptoms, collectively termed “morbidity,” were categorized as “writhing,” “leg and mouthpart movements,” or “mouthpart-only body movements.” These symptoms could persist for long periods, depending on insecticide and dose, with morbid wireworms ultimately recovering or dying. Additional LC50 and LD50 toxicity studies showed that these stages of morbidity also occurred in four other wireworm species, notably Agriotes sputator (L.), Limonius canus LeConte, Ctenicera pruinina (Horn), and Ctenicera destructor (Brown). In addition, all species exposed dermally to clothianidin moved in significant numbers to the surface of soil in posttreatment holding cups. This movement was not observed when these species were exposed to chlorpyrifos or the control solvent. These findings suggest that toxicity trials involving wireworms should include observations on morbidity, and the duration of trials should continue until symptoms of morbidity cease. The long-term morbidity and potential recovery or death of wireworms exposed to certain insecticides has implications for how laboratory and field studies can be better designed and interpreted in the future.
-
mortality of five wireworm species coleoptera elateridae following topical application of clothianidin and chlorpyrifos
Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 2007Co-Authors: W G Van Herk, Robert S Vernon, Markus Clodius, Chantelle Harding, J H TolmanAbstract:Five Wireworrn species ( Agriotes obscurus , A. sputator , Limonius canus , Ctenicera destructor , and C. pruinina ) were exposed to clothianidin and chlorpyrifos at various concentrations using a Potter Spray Tower to compare larval susceptibilities to these compounds. Wireworms were stored in containers with soil at 15 °C after insecticide exposure, and their post-application health was evaluated weekly for up to 140 days. Where possible, LC50, LC90, LT50, and LT90 values were calculated and the LC90 and LT90 values of chemical concentrations compared between species. Considerable differences in susceptibility to both chlorpyrifos and clothianidin were observed among species, with the LC90 of L. canus exposed to clothianidin being significantly higher than A. obscurus or A. sputator . Similarly, while the LC50 of A. sputator exposed to chlorpyrifos was similar to that of C. pruinina and A. obscurus assayed in previous studies (0.05, 0.10, 0.10%, respectively), there was low (12.5%) mortality of L. canus at the highest concentration tested (0.15%). There were considerable differences in the survival of various wireworm species after exposure to clothianidin at 0.15%, with the LT90 of L. canus (66.5 days) similar to those of C. pruinina and C. destructor (52.5, 59.5 days, respectively), but much shorter than those for A. obscurus or A. sputator (122.5, 115.5 days, respectively). Considerable differences in the induction of and recovery from morbidity induced by the chemicals were observed among species. Most larvae of A. sputator and A. obscurus exposed to chlorpyrifos were moribund before C. prumina larvae (4, 7, 42 days after exposure, respectively). Most (proportion = 0.86) larvae of L. canus recovered from morbidity induced by chlorpyrifos, but a high proportion (>08) of moribund A. sputator , A. obscurus , and C. pruinina died. Larvae of C. destructor and C. pruinina which were moribund after exposure to clothianidin at 0.15% died or recovered sooner than larvae of L. canus and A. obscurus . Together these results suggest that the efficacy of both clothianidin and chlorpyrifos for wireworm control in the field are affected by the wireworm species present.
J D Campbell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
wireworm coleoptera elateridae survey in wheat growing areas of northcentral and northeastern oregon
Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 1992Co-Authors: H H Toba, J D CampbellAbstract:A wireworm survey was conducted at 34 sites in wheat-growing areas of northcentral and northeastern Oregon using a baiting technique. The highest mean number of wireworms found at any site was 4.4 per bait of corn-wheat mixture. When wireworm numbers at each site were used to estimate the population density, some sites had densities high enough to cause yield reduction in spring wheat but not winter wheat. The species were predominantly Ctenicera pruinina (Horn), Limonius californicus (Mannerheim), and Melanotus longulus oregonensis (LeConte), with lesser numbers of Limonius infuscatus Motschulsky, Ctenicera glauca (Germar), Aeolus mellillus (Say), and Dalopius sp. False wireworms (Tenebrionidae) were also found at 10 sites, but their influence is uncertain.