Caterpillar control

Handson, P.D. (1984) Lead and Arsenic levels in wines produced from vineyards where lead arsenate sprays are used for caterpillar control./. Sci. FoodAgric., 35, 215-218. 

Rohm and Haas has devised diacylhydrazine agonists of ecdysone (11.44) for caterpillar control that induce a premature lethal molt in a few hours.176 It does not harm beneficial insects, such as bees, ladybugs, and wasps. However, it could be toxic to other butterflies and moths, at least some of which are natural pollinators. 

Tebufenozide A Novel Caterpillar Control Agent with Unusually High Target Selectivity... 

Invention and Commercialization of a New Chemical Family of Insecticides Exemplified by CONFIRMT Selective Caterpillar Control Agent and the Related Selective Insect Control Agents MACH 2 and INTREPID ... 

Many plant metabolites marketed as natural pesticides are in fact more toxic than their synthesized competitors for example, rotenone (extracted from the roots of certain members of the bean plant family) has been used as a crop insecticide since the mid-19th century to control leafeating caterpillars, but is six times more toxic to mammals on a strictly comparable basis than carbaryl, a synthetic chemical also effective for caterpillar control. Nicotine sulfate is extracted from tobacco by steam distillation or solvent extraction and has been used as a pesticide since the early 20th century it is six times more toxic than diazinon, a widely available synthetic insecticide sold for control of many of the same pests. The best known work in this area (Ames 1990, 1990a, 1997) used the Ames test (Ames 1973, 1973a) to compare potencies of natural and synthetic pesticide compounds with respect to mutagenicity in special bacterial strains. While some of the conclusions of this work are controversial (Tomatis 2001), it does at least emphasize the importance of development of analytical methods for natural as well as synthetic compounds in foodstuffs. In this section an example of each is considered. 

Rohm and Haas Company Invention and commercialization of a new chemical family of insecticides exemplified by CONFIRM selective caterpillar control agent and the related selective insect control agents MACH 2 and INTREPID, a proposal submitted to the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards Program, 1998. 

Not all caterpillars achieve this comfortable lifestyle. Enjoying the ants hospitality depends on being taken home by the right kind of ants. The caterpillars have no control over this crucial matter, because the first Myrmica ant to notice a caterpillar takes it off to its own nest. Although each Myrmica species can distinguish its own larvae from those of related species, all local Myrmica ants accept the caterpillars as their own. How this comes about is unclear. Like other insect larvae living openly in ant nests, the caterpillars presumably carry the odor of ant larvae. Perhaps they smell enough... 

What to do Where this pest is a regular problem, grow leeks under fine mesh netting to keep the moths out Once plants are infested, there is no control other than hand-picking of caterpillars and cocoons from the leaves, or removing the whole plant Clear up all plant debris at harvest Dig over the leek beds. Encourage predators... 

Spinosad (Fig. 9) is a mixture of spinosyn A and spinosyn D, originally isolated from the soil Actinomycete, Saccharopolyspora spinosa. Spinosad is recommended for the control of a very wide range of caterpillars, leaf miners, thrips and foliage-feeding beetles. Spinosad is sold as an aqueous based suspension concentrate formulation under several trade names. 

Leaf discs (10 per treatment) were punched out with a 18-mm-dlameter cork borer Insecticide-treated discs were in a 0.008% (w/v) solution of carbaryl in acetone, and control discs were dipped in acetone alone and allowed to dry. One caterpillar was placed on each disc and held for 24 hr in a 1-oz creamer cup placed in a controlled-environment chamber (25 C, 16/8 hr llgbt/dark)... 

By June 11 all of the field load Insects had died or left the trees. Leaf damage to the test trees when measured on June 3 was relatively light. Leaves exhibiting noticeable damage averaged 27.6 i 2.1% (S.E.) for the control trees and 49.0 i 4.7% for test trees (p < 0.01, one-tailed paired t test). Estimated leaf area loss averaged 2.5 + 0.2% for controls and 11.3 i 2.1% for test trees (p < 0.005, one-tailed paired t test). Damage to control trees was due to unidentified insects other than tent caterpillars. 

---