Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 9;113(6):2808-2819.
doi: 10.1093/jee/toaa228.

Evaluation of Systemic Imidacloprid and Herbicide Treatments on Flatheaded Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Management in Field Nursery Production

Karla M Addesso  1 , Jason B Oliver  1 , Nadeer N Youssef  1 , Donna C Fare  2
Affiliations

Evaluation of Systemic Imidacloprid and Herbicide Treatments on Flatheaded Borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) Management in Field Nursery Production

Karla M Addesso et al. J Econ Entomol. .

Abstract

The flatheaded appletree borer, Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), and related species are deciduous tree pests. Female beetles prefer to oviposit at tree bases, and larvae tunnel beneath the bark, which weakens or kills young or newly transplanted trees. In the first objective of this study, Discus N/G (2.94% imidacloprid + 0.7% cyfluthrin) applied at six lower-than-labeled rates (0.0, 0.98, 1.97, 3.94, 5.91, and 7.87 ml/cm of average trunk dia.) was evaluated for protection of field-grown maples. A second objective evaluated imidacloprid with and without herbicides to assess the impact of weed competition at the tree base on insecticide effectiveness. A third objective determined relative imidacloprid concentrations in leaf tissue samples with ELISA and related to insecticide rates, herbicide treatments, and the level of flatheaded borer protection. In two trials, higher rates of insecticide were more effective at protecting trees, with rates ≥3.94 ml product/cm trunk diameter performing equivalently. Weed-free trees had more borer attacks and grew faster than trees in weedy plots. Imidacloprid content in leaf tissues had a trend for higher concentrations in smaller, weedy trees in the first season, but that pattern disappeared in subsequent years. Based on fewer attacks in weedy versus weed-free trees (60-90% reduction), it was concluded that weed presence can reduce borer attack success in nurseries independent of insecticide treatment, but tree growth was reduced by weed presence. In addition, Discus applied at rates >3.94 ml/cm did not confer added borer damage protection in weedy plots.

Keywords: Acer; competition; insect suppression; maple; neonicotinoid.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Images of weedy (no herbicide) and nonweedy (herbicide-treated) maple field plots, including (A) broad view of nursery block during late August, (B) and (C) closer views of herbicide and non-herbicide plots in late August with grass and marestail weeds visible in background, (D) close-up view of weedy plot predominated by grass with some marestail during late August, (E) close-up view of a herbicide clean plot during late August, and (F) mid-November view after weed dormancy.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Total number of flatheaded appletree borer attacks on trees with the root zone kept bare using herbicide (white bar) or weedy (black bar) at increasing rates of Discus N/G in the (A) 2010 trial and (B) 2013 trial. Herbicide treated trees had more damage than weedy trees in both the 2010 (χ2(1) = 16.71, P < 0.0001) and 2013 (χ2(1) = 50.45, P < 0.0001) trials. Imidacloprid treatment levels with different letters (uppercase = herbicide treated, lowercase = weedy) are statistically different by Tukey’s pair-wise comparison (α = 0.05).
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Semi-quantitative ELISA analysis of imidacloprid parts per million (ppm) in maple leaf tissue in September (A) 2013, (B) 2014, and (C) 2015. Imidacloprid treatment levels with different letters are statistically different by Tukey’s pair-wise comparison (α = 0.05).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Addesso K. 2019. National Plant Diagnostic update on buprestid detections, pp. 53− 55. InOliver J and Addesso K [eds.]. Proceedings of the Flatheaded Borer Workshop. Tennessee State University, Otis L. Floyd Nursery Research Center, McMinnville, TN: https://bugwoodcloud.org/CMS/mura/sipmc/assets/File/UPDATED%20Proceeding... (last accessed 25 Sept. 2020).
    1. Adkins C, Armel G, Chappell M, Chong J C, Frank S, Fulcher A, Hale F, Ivors K, Klingeman W III, LeBude A, . et al. 2010. Pest management strategic plan for container and field-produced nursery crops in GA, KY, NC, SC, TN, pp. 50− 53. InFulcher A. (ed.), Southern Integrated Pest Management Center, Raleigh, NC.
    1. Altland J E, Gilliam C H, and Wehtje G. 2003. Weed control in field nurseries. HortTech. 13: 9− 14.
    1. [ANSI] American National Standard Institute 2014. American standard for nursery stock (Z60.1-2014). AmericanHort, Columbus, OH.
    1. Bonmatin J M, Giorio C, Girolami V, Goulson D, Kreutzweiser D P, Krupke C, Liess M, Long E, Marzaro M, Mitchell E A, . et al. 2015. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22: 35–67. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types