Forests | 2021

Comparative Efficacy Trials with Two Different Bacillus thuringiensis Serovar kurstaki Strains against Gypsy Moth in Mediterranean Cork Oak Forests

 
 
 
 
 

Abstract


The efficacy of two formulations (Foray® 76B AVIO and Rapax® AS AIR) containing different Bacillus thuringiensis\xa0kurstaki (Btk) strains (ABTS-351 and EG-2348, respectively) was evaluated against Lymantria dispar larval populations in cork oak forests in Sardinia (Italy), in 2018 and 2019. The experimental design involved the following treatments: (I) untreated control; (II) Foray® 76B at the dose of 2.0 L/ha; (III) Foray® 76B at the dose of 2.5 L/ha; (IV) Rapax® AS AIR at the dose of 2.0 L/ha. Aerial applications were carried out using a helicopter equipped with four electronic rotary atomizers adjusted to sprinkle 160 micron-sized drops. Btk efficacy was evaluated by assessing the larval density reduction 7, 14, and 21 days after the application in each experimental plot in comparison with an untreated check. In addition to field surveys, the mortality of second and third instar larval samples, randomly collected from each plot after treatment and fed with foliage from the same plot, was determined in the laboratory. All Btk treatments were similarly effective, and no differences in larval density reduction among Btk strains and doses were found in either year. Twenty-one days after application, the average larval density reduction in the field was approximately 70% in all treated plots in 2018, whereas in 2019 it reached 80% only in areas treated with Foray 76B at 2.5 L/ha. Laboratory observations showed that all Btk-based products were effective against gypsy moth larvae, with significant differences in mortality between untreated control and the different Btk treatments. Our results shed light on the possibility of alternating different Btk strains for resistance management purposes and of applying lower doses than labeled, in order to achieve cost savings for product shipment and distribution and to reduce the environmental impact.

Volume 12
Pages 602
DOI 10.3390/F12050602
Language English
Journal Forests

Full Text