Are there viable chemical and non-chemical alternatives to the use of conventional insecticides for the protection of young ...
Andy Moffat, Jack Forster, Roger Moore
Lead Author: Ian Willoughby
We use some essential cookies to make this website work.
We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use forestresearch.gov.uk, remember your settings and improve our services.
We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.
Preparing to search
Andy Moffat, Jack Forster, Roger Moore
Lead Author: Ian Willoughby
In UK forestry, the synthetic pyrethroid insecticides alpha-cypermethrin and cypermethrin have been used for many years to provide protection for young trees planted on restock sites from damage by the large pine weevil, Hylobius abietis L. However, concerns over the toxicity of these insecticides to aquatic life if misused has led to a search for alternative forms of protection. This paper describes a detailed programme of efficacy experiments undertaken between 2009 and 2014 to find replacements for these products. Over 50 combinations of chemical and non-chemical approaches were tested on 16 different sites.
Of the alternative synthetic insecticides tested, applications of 0.037 g a.i. stem-1 acetamiprid provided high levels of protection from Hylobius browsing damage on young Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière) trees, without causing any phytotoxic symptoms, and gave comparable levels of protection to those achievable using alpha-cypermethrin or cypermethrin. Acetamiprid is less toxic to aquatic life than alpha-cypermethrin or cypermethrin, and has not been linked to bee decline. Applications of 0.0129 g a.i. stem-1 chlorantraniliprole also showed promise, and this relatively low toxicity non-neonicotinoid insecticide merits further study. Although imidacloprid and thiacloprid also provided good levels of protection, their use in forests is not now permitted due to concerns over their potential impacts on bees and drinking water respectively.
Whilst the natural product insecticide spinosad, and the entomopathogenic fungal control agent Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschn.) Sorokin, gave only limited protection in our work, they may have some future potential if methods of deployment can be improved. Other chemical and non-chemical approaches tested, but found to be largely ineffective in UK conditions, included the natural product insecticides azadirachtin, maltodextrin and pyrethrins, the synthetic insecticides lambda-cyhalothrin and spirotetramat, and a wide range of repellents, flexible stem coatings and physical barrier products. However, we conclude that physical barrier sleeves such as MultiPro® and BioSleeve® may have a limited role as a partial substitute for the use of insecticides in the UK in some circumstances, but only if on-site populations of Hylobius are predicted to be low.
Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.
We use cookies to store information about how you use the dwi.gov.uk website, such as the pages you visit.
Find out more about cookies on forestresearch.gov.uk
We use 3 types of cookie. You can choose which cookies you're happy for us to use.
These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form. They always need to be on.
We use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so we can improve it based on user needs. Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about: how you got to the site the pages you visit on forestresearch.gov.uk and how long you spend on each page what you click on while you're visiting the site
Some forestresearch.gov.uk pages may contain content from other sites, like YouTube or Flickr, which may set their own cookies. These sites are sometimes called ‘third party’ services. This tells us how many people are seeing the content and whether it’s useful.