Suitability of two laboratory testing methods to evaluate the side effects of pesticides on Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae).

BACKGROUND Laboratory results of the French ANPP/CEB guideline No. 167 and IOBC/WPRS Ring Testing Group methods for testing the side effects of pesticides on the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten were compared with respect to their suitability to evaluate the toxicity of three pesticides. RESULTS Results obtained with the ANPP/CEB guideline allow the demonstration of significant differences between two slightly toxic products, a dichlofluanid 500 g kg(-1) kWP (Euparen) 50WP) and a quinoxyfen 250 g L(-1) SCC (Legend), and a highly toxic cymoxanil 60/mancozeb 200/folpet 275 g kg(-1) WP [Remiltine F Pepite) (RFP)], on the basis of bioassays conducted in the laboratory. In contrast, results obtained with the IOBC/WPRS method classified all three as harmful. CONCLUSION The evaluation of the toxicity of RFP revealed that the concentration, the quantity of the wet deposit and the food source used in the IOBC/WPRS method maximise the toxicity, in comparison with those used in the ANPP/CEB protocol. Valid criteria in controls were all respected in the ANPP/CEB tests but not in the IOBC/WPRS samples. This result revealed difficulties related to the use of the IOBC/WPRS method in laboratories.

[1]  L. Polgár,et al.  Results of the fifth joint pesticide testing programme carried out by the IOBC/WPRS-Working Group “Pesticides and beneficial organisms” , 1991, Entomophaga.

[2]  W. Overmeer,et al.  A standardized method for testing the side effects of pesticides on the predacious mite,Amblyseius potentillae [Acarina: Phytoseiidae] , 1982, Entomophaga.

[3]  F. Louis,et al.  Methodical improvements of standard laboratory tests for determining the sideeffects of agrochemicals on predatory mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) , 1995, Anzeiger für Schädlingskunde, Pflanzenschutz, Umweltschutz.

[4]  C. Ioriatti,et al.  Effects of the fungicides mancozed and dithianon on mortality and reproduction of the predatory miteAmblyseius andersoni , 1992, Experimental & Applied Acarology.

[5]  H. Mattioda,et al.  Side effects of mancozeb on Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards: results of multi-year field trials and a laboratory study , 2004, Experimental & Applied Acarology.

[6]  F. Bakker,et al.  Comparative trials on the effects of two fungicides on a predatory mite in the laboratory and in the field , 2000 .

[7]  Udo Heimbach,et al.  Laboratory residual contact test with the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae) for regulatory testing of plant protection products. , 2000 .

[8]  E. Pilling,et al.  Sensitivity of non-target arthropods to plant protection products: Could Typhlodromus pyri and Aphidius spp. be used as indicator species? , 1999 .

[9]  N. Bostanian,et al.  EFFECTS OF FIVE FUNGICIDES USED IN QUEBEC APPLE ORCHARDS ON AMBLYSEIUS FALLACIS (GARMAN) (PHYTOSEIIDAE: ACARI) , 1998 .

[10]  B. Croft,et al.  Issues associated with pesticide toxicology and arthropod natural enemies in the pre- and post-registration stages of chemical development , 1998 .

[11]  B. Croft,et al.  Life-styles of Phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. , 1997, Annual review of entomology.

[12]  C. Duso.  Comparison between field and laboratory testing methods to evaluate the pesticide side-effects on the predatory mites Amblyseius andersoni and Typhlodromus pyri , 1994 .

[13]  W. S. Abbott,et al.  A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. 1925. , 1925, Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association.

[14]  C. Potter.  AN IMPROVED LABORATORY APPARATUS FOR APPLYING DIRECT SPRAYS AND SURFACE FILMS, WITH DATA ON THE ELECTROSTATIC CHARGE ON ATOMIZED SPRAY FLUIDS , 1952 .