The efficacy of Insecticide Indoxacarb (Avaunt) against larval stage of House fly Musca domestica L.

 

Nisreen Sabti Mohammed Ali

Institute of Technology-Middle Technical University/Baghdad/IRAQ

*Corresponding Author E-mail: nesreensabti@gmail.com

 

ABSTRACT:

Indoxacarb is a recently presented oxadiazine insecticide with activity against an extensive range of pests, including house flies. The efficacy of Avaunt (Indoxacarb 15% EC) on newly ecdysed 2nd and 3rd instar Musca domestica L. larvae was evaluated. Chemical concentrations tested fluctuated from 20 to 100 ppm of indoxacarb, that indoxacarb Observations revealed caused quick mortality at doses >50 ppm. At concentrations below 50 ppm, it acquired longer for indoxacarb to cause 100% mortality. In the food treated 100% mortality for the 2nd and 3rd instar larvae caused within 48 to 144 hrs. and 72 to 144 hrs. respectively, as well as in spray treated caused within 48 to 144 hrs. and 96 to 144 hrs. respectively. Indicated that ingesting indoxacarb was highly toxic to the second and third instars of M. domestica. The LC590 values of indoxacarb exceeded the highest concentrations tested 100 ppm. LC50 for 2nd and 3rd larvae exposed to food treated were 19.18, 10.78 and 10.08 and 14.281, 12.40 and 9.876 ppm at 24, 48 and 72 hrs respectively. LC50 for 2nd and 3rd larvae exposed to spray treated were 23.54, 14.73 and 9.52 and 23.564, 9.330 and 7.912 at 24, 48 and 72 hrs. Results of the conducted bioassay showed that 2nd instars were more vulnerable than the 3rd instars as the LC50 and LC90 values.

 

KEYWORDS: Musca domestica, Indoxacarb, Avaunt, Insecticide, Larva, LC50, LC90, sodium channel.

 

 


1.    INTRODUCTION:

Filth flies, for instance house flies Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), are a source of substantial economic loss in animal-rearing processes [1][2]. The flies may banquet pathogens [3][4] and are a stress-inducing annoyance to livestock and humans. Most dairy and horsy amenities use insecticides for pest control[5][6]. However, filth flies can quickly develop confrontation [7][8]. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs seek to integrate biological control and chemical control, along with other measures, to keep pest populations in check. The house-fly, Musca domestica, not only is an annoyance pest but can also transportation important disease-causing organisms. Although this fly species does not bite, its populations can aggravate people and animals by hovering around and landing on them or on their nutrition and leave vomiting and fecal spots on the superficial [9][10].

 

 

They can instinctively transmit bacteria, protozoa, worms, fungi and viruses between humans and animals. The use of insecticides to reduce housefly populations [11] worked well in some cases, but only for limited periods and has resulted in resistance development. House fly confrontation to organochlorine, organophosphate, carbamate and pyrethroid insecticides have been stated in several areas of Peninsular Malaysia. Due to the high resistance of house flies to numerous insecticides, the range of the effective ones has wasted and as a consequence, it is of greatest importance to look for new strategies to manage M. domestica. The house fly has repeatedly developed resistance to insecticides in a diversity of classes [8][12][13][14][15]. This resistance development is due to several issues, including the fly’s widespread distribution, high population densities on livestock facilities, rapid developmental time, cross-resistance between insecticide classes, and community health and nuisance difficulties that encourage livestock manufacturers to apply insecticides for fly control. In poultry farms, the environmental conditions for development and outbreaks of M. domestica are tremendously favourable: high temperature, high humidity and excessive quantities of compost. However, high fly density is very demanding for fowl, affecting egg and meat manufacture. Fly infestations may also be very uncomfortable for workers and people living in the farm neighborhood. [16]. House fly controller is usually based on pesticides submission [17] but lately several gears of fly resistance to many active ingredients have been reported in the literature. [18][19] Today the pesticide resistance of M. domestica must be considered a worldwide measure problem [20]. However, the extensive and continuous use of traditional insecticides create environmental contamination and could lead to the growth of insect resistance. Reduced pesticides risks are considered to be safer for human healthiness and the environment and therefore are in constant demand as new control agents. Antiarrhythmic and anticonvulsant medications chunk the sodium channel by blocking its pore, no compounds acting by that machinery showed insecticidal possessions, until the detection of pyrazolines (also known as dihydropyrazoles) [21][22]. These insecticides, along with the more newly derivative indoxacarb and metaflumizone, are together called sodium channel blocker insecticides (SCBIs [23]. Avaunt, is an innovative oxadiazine pesticide and its main mode of action is blockage of the nerve sodium channels [24]. Moreover, mammals alter indoxacarb into non-toxic metabolites, which donates to its discriminatory toxicity to insect pests [25]. Indoxacarb exhibits insecticidal action against a wide range of the pest insects with no or low adverse effects on numerous non-target insects [26][27][28][29][30], and contact and digestive activity against a varied range of insect pests, as well as Diptera and Lepidoptera [31][32]. Indoxacarb is activated by decarbomethoxylation to DCJW, which binds to sodium channels at a different site to pyrethroids and disrupts ion flow [33]. Therefore, this compound could institute as reduced- risk insecticide valuable in IPM programs. Finally, several studies confirmed the positive use of indoxacarb in controlling insects resistant to carbamates, OPs and pyrethroids [34]. The objective of the present work is to evaluate the efficacy of Avaunt (Indoxacarb 15% EC) as a chemical control agent against larvae and pupae of the M. domestica.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

1-Insects:

Adult houseflies’ samples of both sexes were collected by sweep net in October/2017 from six garbage dumps in Baghdad/Iraq. The flies were colonized at the insectary in Research Laboratory/Animal House/ Department of Biology/College of Sciences/ University of Mustansiriyah. Flies were reared at 27±1°C and 65+ 5% relative humidity with a 12-h photoperiod, by following the methodology of [35]. For three generations lacking exposure with insecticides previously insecticidal bioassays. The flies were located in screened mesh cages made from plywood (30x30x30 cm), the cages were sheltered with a mesh screen with front side had a hole (10 cm in diameter) with long sleeve shirt 20 cm long for the purpose of cleaning and feeding, supplied as food Sugar and powdered milk with ratio (1:1) by weight, two pieces of cotton wick (10 cm length) moistened with distilled water, to avoid drying effects, cotton wicks were hydrated at 24 and 48 h. The container of 500 mL was filled with this larval media containing 200 g fish diet, 10 g yeast and 60 ml of distilled water, and located inside the cage with flies. the container for oviposition, afterward the oviposition places were observed every day for the existence of eggs, they were transported to rearing larvae container, the cover and windows which locked by muslin cloth for aeriation, observation, as well as prohibited the larvae to escape also the extra insects to pass through in container. Two days afterward egg hatching, a 5 cm dense layer of sand was supplementary to the bottommost of the container to form a cooler and drier place for larvae to pupate [36]. The container included pupae still tightly sealed until the adult's emergence, these the newly emerged flies.

 

2-Insecticide:

Common name: Indoxacarb 15% EC.

Brand name: Avaunt (DuPont).

Chemical name: S-methyl-7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl) [ 4-(trifluoromethoxy) phenyl] amino] carbonyl] indeno [1,2-e] [1,3,4] oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate.

 

 

Avaunt® Indoxacarb 15 EC belongs to oxadiazines was formed by DuPont Crop Protection Middle East & Africa. Indoxacarb affects insects from straight exposure to spray droplets and through digestion of treated food (with stomach and contact action). Once absorbed, it kills by compulsory to a location on the sodium channel and blocking the current of sodium ions. The result is reduced nerve function, feeding termination, become disorientated with uncoordinated movements, paralysis, and death. Once indoxacarb is absorbed or ingested, feeding cessation occurs almost immediately even though and die within 24-60 hours after applying the treatment [37].

 

3-Laboratory Toxicity Bioassays:

To assess the activity of Indoxacarb 15% EC a series of concentrations were prepared in refined water which was (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100 ppm) based on preliminary bioassays were used to achieve high and low larvae mortalities for probit analyses of LC50 and LC90 values. The poisonousness of insecticide was assessed by spray droplets (2 ml) and feeding bioassay method [35] [38]. Briefly,10 newly ecdysed 2nd and 3rd instar larvae were used in the poisonousness bioassays were introduced in petri dish 9 cm and spray with 2 ml for each concentration of pesticide and for each instar so, then the larvae were transferred to 250 ml plastic container contains larva medium, the control was sprayed with distilled water only. 10 newly ecdysed 2nd and 3rd instar larvae were used in the toxicity bioassays were introduced in 250 ml plastic container contains larva medium after air-drying for1h from spray with 2 ml different concentrations of insecticide, each considered concentration comprised 10 larvae and was replicated three times (i.e. 30 larvae/treatment). A similar number of larvae were considered as a control was consisted of larva medium sprayed with distilled water. 10 pupae at 24 and 72 hrs. ages were used in the noxiousness bioassays were introduced in petri dish 9 cm and spray with 2 ml for each concentration of insecticide and for each age. Bioassays were conducted at 27±1 °C, 60±5 % RH, and 12:12 light/dark photoperiod. Indoxacarb was assessed after (24 to 144 hrs.) of post-exposure to insecticide, due to the slower acting nature of this insecticide [39]. Larvae were calculated as dead if when encouraged with a fine paintbrush, there was either no movement or if the movement was ungainly and they were unable to move a distance equal to double their body length.

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

Normal distribution of the data was assessed with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data were analyzed with SPSS statistical analysis software (version 25) using Probit analysis method. The mortality rates were calculated. The LC90 and LC50 values (with 95% confidence limits) were calculated. All graph was designed with their regression equation (Y=mortality; X=concentration) using Microsoft word 2010. The LC50 and LC90 were derived from the best-fit line obtained. Independent t-test used to find the differences [40].

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Young (second instars) and elder larvae (third instars) were used in the toxicity bioassays. Very scarce studies show the insecticide toxicity bioassay through feeding. This kind of bioassay can help to develop an effective baiting system. Treatment 2nd instar exposed to food treated with diverse concentrations of indoxacarb (Table 1) showed an increase in mortality with increasing insecticide indoxacarb concentrations. At higher concentrations of 100 to 60 ppm of indoxacarb, 100% mortality was achieved within 48-96 hrs., but at lower concentrations of 50 to 20 ppm significant mortality occur within 96 - 144 hrs. However, cumulative percent mortality was higher than control mortality for all concentrations of indoxacarb. Treatment 2nd instar exposed to spraying treated with diverse concentrations of indoxacarb (Table 2) indicate an increase in mortality with increasing insecticide indoxacarb concentrations. At higher concentrations of 100 to 60 ppm of indoxacarb, 100% mortality was achieved within 48-96 hrs. but at lower concentrations of 50 to 20 ppm significant mortality occur within 120-144 hrs. However, cumulative percent mortality was higher than control mortality for all concentrations of indoxacarb. When comparing food treatment with spray treatment, there is a difference in the duration of getting 100% mortality. Toxicity of insecticides and death of larvae elevated with the rise in dealing time interval and concentration of insecticides. Indoxacarb the most toxic biorational insecticide is at all-time intervals and concentrations against larvae of Musca domestica. Treated insects displayed indicators of toxicity starting with inactive slow movement, termination of feeding followed by vomiting, tremor of the larval thoracic limbs and mouthparts after that insect paralysis then death, the toxic signs were dose-dependent, as they were fairly quick through the higher concentrations and slower with the lower concentrations [41]. Insecticide indoxacarb application to Spodoptera litura 2nd larval instar After 3 hours 8% mortality were recorded at 656.25 ppm and 22.3% mortality after 24hours at 10500 ppm concentration, at its maximum concentration of 15360 ppm., whereas, indoxacarb caused 22.2%, 20%, 17.2%, 14.4% and 10.4% mortality against different time intervals of 3, 6, 12, 24 and 48 hours respectively, [42]. Insecticide indoxacarb targeted the fat body cells of treated larvae by creating vacuolization due to lipophilic nature of insecticide and damage should especially occur at the level of the membrane systems owing to the lipophilic nature of insecticide [43] as well as stated that exposure cell to poison caused an increase in cell membrane permeability, which is the cause of cell damage [44]. [45] tested indoxacarb against tobacco maggot, Spodoptera litura in the laboratory and concluded gives 73.3% mortality at 72 hrs.

 

Table 1: Percentage mortality of 2nd larval instar of Musca domestica exposed to treated food with different concentrations of Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC).

Mortality %

 

Conc.

Ppm

144 hrs

120

hrs

96 hrs

72 hrs

48 hrs

24 hrs

n.

 

 

 

100

96

93

30

100

 

 

 

100

90

83

30

90

 

 

 

 

100

83

30

80

 

 

100

93

93

87

30

70

 

 

100

97

87

80

30

60

100

97

90

87

87

67

30

50

 

 

100

93

87

77

30

40

100

97

84

77

70

60

30

30

 

100

93

80

73

53

30

20

 

 

 

 

 

0

30

Control

 

Table 2: Percentage mortality of 2nd larval instar of Musca domestica exposed to spraying treated with different concentrations of Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC).

Mortality %

 

Conc.

ppm

144 hrs

120hrs

96 hrs

72hrs

48hrs

24 hrs

n.

 

 

 

100

97

80

30

100

 

 

 

 

100

83

30

90

 

 

100

97

87

73

30

80

 

 

100

97

83

70

30

70

 

 

100

97

87

70

30

60

 

100

93

80

77

57

30

50

 

100

93

90

73

63

30

40

 

100

93

90

70

50

30

30

100

93

83

73

67

53

30

20

 

 

 

 

 

0

30

Control

 

The summary results of probit analyses on the 2nd larval instar of the Housefly food and spraying treatments are shown in (Table 3). indicating that indoxacarb had tremendously high digestion activity to larvae. These results showed that indoxacarb produced death through ingestion. The LC50 and LC90 values of indoxacarb to second instars larvae were significantly different because the 95% FL did not overlap Fig (1). LC50 were 19.18, 10.78 and 10.08 ppm while LC90 were 111.06, 58.77 ppm and 41.024 for 14, 48 and 72 hrs. respectively, for food treatment. For spraying treatment (Table 3), LC50 were 23.54, 14.73 ppm and 9.52 whereas LC90 were 249.73, 77.80 and 42.37 ppm for 14, 48 and 72 hrs. respectively. The LC 90 values of indoxacarb for 2nd larval instar of 24 hrs. LC90 exceeded the highest concentrations tested at 100 ppm for food and spraying treatments Fig (2). It is noted (Table 3) that the LC50 of food and spray treatments decreases as the exposure period increases, but LC90 in food and spray treatments higher than 100 ppm, but decreases in intervals 48 and 72 hrs. In general, the concentrations of LC50 and LC90 in the food treatment is lower than in the spray treatment. [46] reported LC 50 values higher than 100 ppm for bollworm, tobacco budworm, and beet armyworm larvae uncovered to glass sides treated with indoxacarb representative that contact exposure to remainders is not a primary way of intoxication for indoxacarb. The initial poisonousness screening of the three organophosphorus insecticides (Diazinon, Propetamphos and Pirimiphos-methyl) against M. domestica 2nd larval instar at diverse concentrations fluctuated among 0.5-0.001 ppm, counter to field strain underneath laboratory conditions by dipping technique, for the tested insecticides, the LC 25, 35,45 values were of 0.012, 0.0258 and 0.0515 in instance Diazinon, while for Propetamphos, the LC25,35,45 values were 0.0207, 0.0403 and 0.0732, whereas of Pirimiphos-methyl were 0.0306, 0.0544 and 0.0912, respectively. Synergistic effect of insecticides on the larvae of a housefly, Musca domestica L. [47]. Indoxacarb with an LC50 value of 16.04 gives moderate mortality against S. litura [42].

 


 

Table 3: Lethal concentration (50% and 90%) values with 95% confidence intervals of 2nd larval instar of Musca domestica exposed to Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC) after 24, 48 and 72 hrs.

Fit of probit line

Lethal concentration

 

Time hrs.

P

df

X2

95%CI

SE.

Slope

FL%

LC90

FL%

LC50

n

Food treatment

0.835

7

3.505

0.9-2.4

0.38

1.68

80.4-232.1

111.06

8.4-27.2

19.18

30

24

0.583

7

5.636

0.8-2.6

0.44

1.74

45.2-91.02

58.77

2.4-8.2

10.78

30

48

0.408

6

6.140

1.09-3.1

0.55

2.10

27.4-65.8

41.024

0.7-18.3

10.08

30

72

Spraying treatment

0.887

7

2.984

0.5-1.9

0.36

1.25

134.5-292.5

249.73

7.7-34.1

23.54

30

24

0.498

7

6.363

0.9-2.5

0.41

1.77

57.9-155.5

77.80

3.8-23.2

14.73

30

48

0.219

6

8.273

0.9-3.04

0.54

1.97

24.0-90.3

42.37

0.03-19.2

9.52

30

72

*FL%: Fiducial limit

*LC50: Lethal concentration 50%, LC90: Lethal concentration 90%.

*CI: Confidence interval 95%

df: degree of freedom

SE: Standard error

 


 (A)

 (B)


 (C)

Fig.1: Probit line of 2nd larval instar of Musca domestica exposed to Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC) (food treated) after A) 24hrs. B) 48 hrs. C) 72 hrs.

 

 (A)

 (B)

 (C)

Fig.2: Probit line of 2nd larval instar of Musca domestica exposed to Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC) (Spraying treated) after A) 24hrs. B) 48 hrs. C) 72 hrs.

 


Treatment 3rd instar uncovered to food treated with diverse concentrations of indoxacarb (Table 4) showed an increase in mortality with increasing insecticide indoxacarb concentrations. At higher concentrations of 100 to 60 ppm of indoxacarb, 100% mortality was achieved within 72-96 hrs., but at lower concentrations of 50 to 20 ppm significant mortality occur within 96 - 144 hrs. However, cumulative percent mortality was higher than control mortality for all concentrations of indoxacarb. Control there was no mortality.


 

(Table. 4) Scored data regarding the percentage mortality of M. domestica larvae were subjected to statistical software and mentioned results were observed.

Mortality %

 

Conc. ppm

144 hrs

120hrs

96 hrs

72hrs

48hrs

24 hrs

n.

 

 

 

100.00

96.67

93.33

30

100

 

 

 

100.00

93.33

83.33

30

90

 

 

 

100.00

96.67

86.67

30

80

 

 

100.00

96.67

90.00

83.33

30

70

 

 

100.00

86.67

76.67

76.67

30

60

 

 

100.00

86.67

83.33

70.00

30

50

 

100.00

93.33

90.00

73.33

66.67

30

40

 

100.00

96.67

86.67

73.33

63.33

30

30

100.00

96.67

86.67

76.67

66.67

66.67

30

20

 

 

 

 

 

0

30

Control

 

Table 5: Percentage mortality of 3rd larval instar of Musca domestica exposed to spraying treated with different concentrations of Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC).

Mortality %

 

Conc. ppm

144 hrs

120hrs

96 hrs

72hrs

48hrs

24 hrs

n.

 

 

100.00

93.33

86.67

76.67

30

100

 

 

100.00

90.00

76.67

70.00

30

90

 

 

100.00

90.00

83.33

73.33

30

80

 

 

100.00

83.33

73.33

70.00

30

70

 

100.00

96.67

76.67

70.00

63.33

30

60

 

100.00

93.33

83.33

70.00

60.00

30

50

100.00

96.67

90.00

73.33

66.67

53.33

30

40

100.00

96.67

90.00

73.33

70.00

56.67

30

30

 

100.00

83.33

73.33

63.33

50.00

30

20

 

 

 

 

 

0

30

Control


Treatment 3rd larval instar exposed to spraying treated with different concentrations of indoxacarb (Table 5) indicate an increase in mortality with increasing insecticide indoxacarb concentrations. At higher concentrations of 100 to 60 ppm of indoxacarb, 100% mortality was achieved within 96- 120 hrs. but at lower concentrations of 50 to 20 ppm significant mortality occur within 120 - 144 hrs. However, cumulative percent mortality was higher than control mortality for all concentrations of indoxacarb. Results from laboratory bioassays indicate that indoxacarb has excellent activity against both young and older instars of M. domestica. Observed in the laboratory bioassays that the knockdown activities of indoxacarb to M. domestica larvae were slowly, with high mortality within 72-96 hrs. after exposure. Similarly, representative that elder larvae are extra tolerant of indoxacarb than newer ones. To accomplish control, indoxacarb should be applied with appropriate timing when greatest larvae are moderately young. [48] reported that Indoxacarb at sublethal concentration produced feeding deterrent activity. Toxicity tests against Subterranean termite Heterotermes indicola in the laboratory showed an increase in mortality with increasing insecticide indoxacarb concentrations, at higher concentrations of 50 to 100 ppm of indoxacarb, 100% mortality was achieved within 2 - 3 d, but at lower concentrations of 1 to 20 ppm significant mortality did not occur even after 19 d [49]. Moderate toxic insecticides which caused less mortality indoxacarb [42]. Indoxacarb is not systemic affects insects from through acquaintance to spray droplets and concluded ingestion of treated food, when absorbed, it kills by compulsory to a location on the sodium channel and hindering the movement of sodium ions, the result is reduced nerve function, feeding termination, paralysis, and death [50]. In cooperation treated instar larvae there was a important rise in the activity of beta and alpha esterase and a reduction in AchE, this thought could propose that it happened as a result of the beginning of paralysis and blocking of the achievement possible of the nervous system produced by the toxic outcome of Indoxacarb larvae, furthermore, glutathione S-transferase enzyme action was augmented in treated larvae, this enzyme plays a part in detoxification machinery in insects, so may be an overproduction of this enzyme happened as a result of treatment [41]. Indoxacarb is one of the newer insecticide classes and it is been considered of the reduced risk pesticide that enters the insect through the cuticle or digestive system and performances by obstructive sodium channels [51]. Indoxacarb produce identical severe neurotoxic indications in insects, characterized by a distinguishing pseudoparalysis, so called because infected insects seem to be paralyzed, but can transfer, sometimes aggressively, when disturbed, pseudoparalysis is associated with a complete absenteeism of unprompted activity in the nervous system of insects poisoned by indoxacarb or N-decarbomethoxyllated compound DCJW, the complete absence of neural action in infected insects designates that sodium channel blocker insecticides (SCBIs) block not only stimulant sensual receptors but also innovator activity in the central nervous system. Both of these effects include achievement probable generation in sections of neurons that are able to produce action potentials repeatedly in response to continuous stimuli, the capability of phasic receptors to respond extended afterward paralysis at a high quantity proposes that phasic receptors are not as delicate as the stimulant ones [21][23][31][52]. Indoxacarb was described to be more active subsequent ingestion than afterward topical treatment this was associated with its act as a sodium channel blocker pesticide [53]. Indoxacarb showed potential use as slow acting toxicant bait because at certain doses it caused delayed mortality [49]. Indoxacarb, this insecticide triggered a decrease in AchE, it is known that this insecticide blocks the sodium channels and in turn, this may destructively affect neurotransmission, in the agreement, reported that the poisonous outcome of indoxacarb causing the beginning of paralysis and blockage of the achievement potential resulted in a decrease in AchE [41]. Indoxacarb can play a useful role in resistance management programs because it has a mode of action not shared by other insecticides [50]. Indoxacarb provides a much safer alternative to currently registered pyrethroids, organophosphates, carbamates, and other high-risk conventional insecticides [54]. Although it has been claimed that indoxacarb will not have cross-resistance with standard insect control compounds, such as organophosphates, pyrethroids, and carbamates [54][55][25] reported that indoxacarb is inactive and is metabolically activated into toxic metabolites. These metabolites are tremendously vigorous and block sodium canals in the insect nervous structure. [56] exhibited that the quick damage of cellular integrity mid-gut cells in C. pipiens having swallowed toxic. [43] who stated that insecticides may be substitute in the hyperpolarization of the obese body cell membranes preventing fat, simple carbohydrate and/ or protein acceptance manufacture with that this cytoplasmic inclusion became miners. In case of lethal treatments, LC90 and LC50 values were calculated along with larval mortality percentage, slope + standard error and fiducial limits (Upper and lower) against 3rd larval instar, poisonousness of insecticides and death of larvae elevated with the increase in dealing period interval and concentration of insecticides. (Table 6) These outcomes specified that indoxacarb produced death through digestion. The LC90 and LC50 values of indoxacarb to third instars larvae were significantly different. LC50 were 14.281, 12.40 and 9.876 and LC90 were 133.315, 72.850 and 41.239 ppm at 24, 48 and 72 hrs. respectively, (fig 3). Biological effects of the calculated LC50 and LC90 levels of Indoxacarb on third larval instar M. domestica are revealed in Table 6. Following spraying treatment with LC50 were 23.564, 9.330 and 7.912 and LC90 were 443.917, 320.578 and 107.962 ppm at 24, 48 and 72 hrs. respectively, LC90 exceeded the highest concentrations tested at 100 ppm for food and spraying treatments (fig 4).

 

(Table 6) indicates that the LC50 of food and spray treatments were lower and decreases as the exposure period increases, But the LC90 was higher than the 100-ppm concentration and remains high in the spray treatment for all treatment periods but in the treatment of food decreases a lesser amount of 100 ppm at the 48 and 72 hrs. In general, the concentrations of LC50 and LC90 in the food treatment is lower than in the spray treatment. In this way, achieve that the LC90 and LC50 of second larval instar were lower than those of third larval instar.

 

The directed bioassay to determine the noxiousness of Indoxacarb on second and fourth instar S. littoralis larvae presented that 2nd instar was further vulnerable than the older 4th instars. LC90 and LC50 values were 3.1 and 0.63 ppm for 2nd instar and 18.75 and 2.0 ppm, used for 4th instar larvae, respectively, second instar S. littoralis larvae were found to be more susceptible than 4th instar to Indoxacarb as obvious by the calculated LC90 and LC50 values [41]. Insecticide indoxacarb solutions tests were undertaken on third larval instar for three strains of Anopheles gambiae, LC50 (95% CI) were 0.054, 0.064 and 0.103 (mg/liter), and LC95 (95% CI) were 0.165, 0.359 and 0.459 (mg/liter) respectively [57].


 

Table 6: Lethal concentration (50% and 90%) values with 95% confidence intervals of 3rd larval instar exposed to Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC) after 24, 48 and 72 hrs.

Fit of probit line

Lethal concentration

 

Time hrs.

P

df

X2

95%CI

SE.

Slope

FL%

LC90

FL%

LC50

n

Food treatment

0.794

7

3.871

0.5-2.0

0.385

1.321

86.4-534.7

133.315

2.5-23.7

14.281

30

24

0.589

7

5.581

0.9-2.6

0.422

1.791

56.4-120.3

72.850

4.7-21.4

12.40

30

48

0.326

7

8.081

1.0-3.0

0.525

2.065

30.7-55.2

41.239

2.2-16.6

9.876

30

72

Spraying treatment

0.992

7

1.160

0.3-1.7

0.357

1.005

176.9-619.7

443.917

3.4-36.3

23.564

30

24

0.909

7

2.470

0.1-1.5

0.371

0.834

128.3-680.1

320.578

0.0-22.0

9.330

30

48

0.869

7

3.170

0.3-1.9

0.403

1.129

69.7-757.1

107.962

0.1-17.6

7.912

30

72

*FL%: Fiducial Limits

*LC50: Lethal concentration 50%, LC90: Lethal concentration 90%.

*CI: Confidence interval 95%

df: degree of freedom

SE: Standard error

 


 

(A)

 

(B)

 

(C)

Fig.3: Probit line of 3rd larval instar exposed to Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC) (food treated) after A) 24hrs. B) 48 hrs. C) 72 hrs.

 

 

(A)

 

 

(B)

 

 

(C)

Fig.4: Probit line of 3rd larval instar exposed to Indoxacarb (Avaunt 15 EC) (spraying treated) after A) 24 hrs. B) 48 hrs. C) 72 hrs.

 

CONCLUSION:

This study revealed that the 2nd instar larvae were more sensitive than third instar larvae, particularly in the treatment of food treated for toxicity of indoxacarb. Results from this study indicate that indoxacarb is highly toxic to M. domestica larvae with low LC50 values. But the LC90 was particularly high within 24 hours to 2nd instar larvae for both treatments’ food and spraying, and then decreases in the 48 and 72 hrs. periods. LC90 for third instar larvae was very high in 24 hrs. but decrease in both 48 and 72 hrs. for food treatment, but in spraying treatment it remains high during all periods which is higher than 100 ppm. This study will also assist to select the most prospective insecticides for successful fly control. Indoxacarb has novel mode of action, quick cessation of feeding and knockdown, can be fully incorporated in integrated pest management programs.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Malik, A; Singh, N. and Satya, S. (2007). House fly (Musca domestica): a review of control strategies for a challenging pest. J Environ Sci Heal B 42:453–469.

2.     Taylor, D.B; Moon, R.D. and Mark, D.R. (2012). Economic impact of stable flies (Diptera: Muscidae) on dairy and beef cattle production. J Med Entomol 49:198-209.

3.     Alam, M.J. and Zurek, L (2004). Association of Escherichia coli O157:H7 with houseflies on a cattle farm. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:7578-7580.

4.     Talley, J.L; Wayadande, A.C; Wasala, L.P; Gerry, A.C, Fletcher, J; DeSilva, U. and Gilliland, S.E. (2009). Association of Escherichia coli O157:H7 with filth flies (Muscidae and Calliphoridae) captured in leafy greens fields and experimental transmission of E. coli O157:H7 to spinach leaves by house flies (Diptera: Muscidae). J Food Protect 72:1547-1552.

5.     Machtinger, E.T; Leppla, N.C. and Sanders, C.S. (2012). Pest management perceptions and practices for equine farms in north and central Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. IFAS Publication ENY-2028 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in983.

6.     Ferguson, H; Neal, S.O; Walsh, D; Galvin, K; Vásquez, V. and Yost, M. (2014). Fly control news to moo about: survey of pest management practices on Washington dairy farms April 2014. Washington State University Extension, Prosser, WA. http://wastatedairy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WSU-Extension-dairy-survey-results-Apr2014forprint.pdf.

7.     Kristensen, M. and Jespersen, J.B. (2004). Susceptibility of spinosad in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae) field populations. J Econ Entomol 97:1042–1048.

8.     Kaufman, P.E; Nunez, S.C; Mann, R.S; Geden, C.J. and Scharf, M.E. (2010). Nicotinoid and pyrethroid insecticide resistance in houseflies (Diptera: Muscidae) collected from Florida dairies. Pest Manage Sci 66: 290–294.

9.     Hinkle, N. C. (2002). Poultry pest management (arthropods). In: D. Pimentel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Pp. 657-660. Steenberg, T and Jespersen, J. B. (2002). Control of houseflies and ‘filth’ flies, In: D. Pimentel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Pp. 144-147.

10.   Winpisinger, K. A., Frenetic, A. K., Berry, R. L. and Moeschberger, M. L. (2005). Spread of Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), from two caged layer facilities to neighboring residence in rural Ohio. Journal Medical Entomology 42: 732-738.

11.   Lee, C. Y., Zairi. J., Yap, H. H., and Chong, N. L. (2003). Urban pest control: A Malaysian perspective. Vector Control Research Unit, University Science Malaysia, Malaysia. Pp. 87-98.

12.   Pap, L., and R. Farkas. 1994. Monitoring of resistance of insecticides in house fly (Musca domestica) populations in Hungary. Pestic. Sci. 40: 245-258.

13.   Scott, J. G., Alefantis, T. G., Kaufman, P. E., and Rutz, D. A. (2000). Insecticide resistance in house flies from caged layer poultry facilities. Pest Manage. Sci. 56: 147-153.

14.   Deacutis, J. M., Leichter, C. A., Gerry, A. C. Rutz, D. A., Watson, W. D., Geden, C. J., and Scott, J. G. (2006). Susceptibility of field collected house flies to spinosad before and after a season of use. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 23: 105-110.

15.   Butler, S. M., Gerry, A. C. and Mullens, B. A. (2007). House fly (Diptera: Muscidae) activity near baits containing (Z)-9-tricosene and efficacy of commercial toxic fly baits on a southern California dairy. J. Econ. Entomol. 100: 1489-1495.

16.   Moon, R.; Hinton, J.; O’Rourke, D.; and Schmidt, D. (1994). Nutritional value of fresh and composted poultry manure for house fly (Diptera: Muscidae) larvae. J. Econ. Entomol. 1308–1317.

17.   Scott, J.G. (1998). Toxicity of Spinosad to Susceptible and Resistance Strains of House Flies, Musca domestica. Pestic. Sci. 54, 131–133.

18.   Keiding, J. (1975). Problems of housefly (Musca domestica) control due to multi-resistance to insecticides. J. Hyg. Epid. Microbiol. Immunol. 19, 340–355.

19.   Farnham, A.W. (1977). Genetics of resistance of houseflies (Musca domestica) to pyrethroids I knockdown resistance. Pestic. Sci. 8, 631.

20.   Sawicki, R.M.; Farnham, A.W.; Denholm, I.; and O’Dell, K. (1981). Housefly resistance to pyrethroids in the vicinity of Harpenden. Proc. Brit. Crop Protect. Conf. 609–613.

21.   Salgado VL. (1990). Mode of action of insecticidal dihydropyrazoles: selective block of impulse generation in sensory nerves. Pestic Sci.; 28:389–411.

22.   Salgado VL. (1992). Slow voltage-dependent block of sodium channels in crayfish nerve by dihydropyrazole insecticides. Mol Pharmacol.; 41:120–126.

23.   Wing, K.D.; Andaloro, J.T.; McCann, S.F.; and Salgado, V.L. (2005). Indoxacarb and the sodium channel blocker insecticides: chemistry, physiology, and biology in insects. In: Gilbert, LI.; Iatrou, K.; Gill, SS., editors. Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science. Vol. 6. Elsevier; New York: p. 30-53.

24.   Lahm, G. P., McCann, S. F., Harrison, C. R., Stevenson, T. M., and Shapiro, R., (2001). Evolution of the sodium channel blocking insecticides: the discovery of indoxacarb, pp. 20- 34. In: Agrochemical discovery insect, weed, and fungal control (BAKER D. R., UMETSU N. K., Eds), Symposium Series 774. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA.

25.   Wing, K. D., Sacher, M., Kagaya, Y., Tsurubuchi, Y., Mulderig, l., Connair, M., and Schnee, M., (2000). Bioactivation and mode of action of the oxadiazine indoxacarb in insects. - Crop Protection, 19: 537-545.

26.   Dinter A., and Wiles J. A., (2000). Safety of the new DuPont insecticide indoxacarb to beneficial arthropods: an overview. - Bulletin OILB/SROP, 23: 149-156.

27.   N’Guessan, R., Corbel, V., Bonnet, J., Yates, A., Asidi, A., Boko, P., Odjo, A., Akogbéto, M., and Rowland, M., (2007). Evaluation of indoxacarb, an oxadiazine insecticide for the control of pyrethroid-resistant Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). - Journal of Medical Entomology, 44: 270-276.

28.   Habachi, W., Bensafi, H., Adjami, Y., Ouakid, M. L., Farine J. P., and Everaertz C., (2009). Spinosad affects chemical communication in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L). - Journal of Chemical Ecology, 35: 1423-1426.

29.   Gondhalekar, A. D, Song, C., and Scharf, M. E., (2011). Development of strategies for monitoring indoxacarb and gel bait susceptibility in the German cockroach (Blattodea: Blattellidae). - Pest Management Science, 67: 262-270.

30.   Mahmoudvand, M., Abbasipour, H., Garjan, A. S., and Bandani, A. R., (2011). Sublethal effects of indoxacarb on the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). - Applied Entomology and Zoology, 46: 75-80.

31.   Wing, K. D., M. E. Schnee, M. Sacher, and M. Connair. (1998). A novel oxadiazine insecticide is bio-activated in lepidopteran larvae. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 37: 91- 103.

32.   Sugiyama, S., Y. Tsurubuchi, A. Karasawa, K. Nagata, Y. Kono, and T. Shono. (2001). Insecticidal activity and cuticular penetration of indoxacarb and its N decarbomethoxyllated metabolite in organophosphorus insecticide- resistant and susceptible strains of the housefly, Musca domestica (L.). J. Pestic. Sci. 26: 117-120.

33.   Lapied, B., Grolleau, D. B. and Sattelle, B. (2001). Indoxacarb, an oxadiazine insecticide blocks insect neuronal sodium channels. Br. J. Pharmacol. 132: 587-595.

34.   Chair, Y., and Lee, C. Y., (2010). Insecticide resistance profiles and synergism in field populations of German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) from Singapore. - Journal of Economic Entomology, 103: 460-471.

35.   Khan, H.A.A., Akram, W, and Shad, S.A. (2013). Resistance to conventional insecticides in Pakistani populations of Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae): a potential ectoparasite of dairy animals. Ecotoxicol. 22(3):522-7.

36.   Sumitomo Chem. Co. (1997). Dep. of Pesticide Res. Lab. Rearing methods of Insect Pests. Tokyo, pp.7.

37.   McKinley, N. Kijima, S; Cook, G. and Sherrod, D. (2002). avaunt (indoxacarb): a new mode of action insecticide for control of several key orchard pests Proceedings of the 76th Annual Western Orchard Pest & Disease Management Conference 9-11 January 2002, Hilton Hotel, Portland, OR Publ. By Washington State Univ., Pullman, Washington Chemical Control/New Products.

38.   Kaufman, P.E, Gerry, A.C, Rutz. D.A, and Scott, J.G. (2006) Monitoring susceptibility of house flies (Musca domestica L.) in the United States to imidacloprid. J Agric Urban Entomol 23:195–200.

39.   Scott, J.G. (1998). Toxicity of Spinosad to Susceptible and Resistance Strains of House Flies, Musca domestica. Pestic. Sci., 54, 131–133.

40.   Finney, D.J (1971). Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–1971.

41.   Gamil, W.E. Mariy, F.M. Youssef, L.A. and Abdel Halim, S.M. (2011). Effect of Indoxacarb on some biological and biochemical aspects of Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) larvae. Annals of Agricultural Science 56(2), 121–126.

42.   Sabri, M. A., Aslam, M. S., Hussain, D. and Saleem, M. (2016). Evaluation of lethal response of biorational insecticides against Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies; 4(4): 270-274.

43.   Alves, S.N.; Serra'o, J.E.; Mocelin, G., and De Melo, A.L. (2004). Effect of ivermectin on the life cycle and larval fat body of Culex quinquefasciatus. Brazilian archives of biology and technology. 47(3):439-443.

44.   Halperm, M.; Gasith, A.; Bresler, V.M. And Broza, M. (2002). The protective nature of Chironomus luridus larval tubes against copper sulphate. J. of Insect Science, 2:8.

45.   Saini, R.K, Kumar, S, Sharma, S.S. (2005). Evaluation of insecticides against Spodoptera litura (Fab.) attacking cotton. J Cotton Res. Dev.; 19(2):273-276.

46.   Andaloro, J. T., Wing, K. D. J. H. and Green, E. Lang, B. (2000). Steward™ dispersion and cotton leaf interactions: impact on cotton insect pests and safety to beneficial arthropods, pp. 939-940 In Proc. 2000 Beltwide Cotton Conf., National Cotton Council, Memphis, TN.

47.   Asid, A.N., Al-Ghamdi, K. M., Mangoud A.A.H, Al Asiry, K. Alkenani, N.A. and Anwar, Y. (2017). Synergistic effect of insecticides on the larvae and adults of housefly, Musca domestica L. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies; 5(4): 899-905.

48.   Vishal, M., Rahman, S.M.A., Kuldeep, S., Nayak, S.K., (2005). Antifeedant effects of sub-lethal concentrations of some novel insecticides against tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.). J. Plant Protect. Environ. 2 (2), 118–122.

49.   Misbah-ul-haq1, M., Khan, I. A., Farid, A., Ullah, M., Gouge, D. H. Paul B. Baker, P. B. (2016). Efficacy of indoxacarb and chlorfenapyr against Subterranean termite Heterotermes indicola (Wasmann) (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) in the laboratory Türk. Entomol. derg.40 (3): 227-241.

50.   Ahmed, S., Rasool, M. R., Anullah, I. and Rauf, I. (2004). Comparative Efficacy of Some Insecticides Against Helicoverpa armigera Hub. and Spodoptera spp. on Tobacco International Journal of Agriculture &Biology 6 (1) 150-158.

51.   EPA. (2000). Pesticide Fact Sheet: Name of Chemical: Indoxacarb. Issued October 30, 2000. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

52.   Salgado, V.L. Hayashi, J.H. (2007). Metaflumizone is a novel sodium channel blocker insecticide, Vet. Parasitol. 150:182–189.

53.   Song, W., Silver, K.S., Du, Y., Liu, Z., Dong, K., (2011). Analysis of the action of lidocaine on insect sodium channels. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 41 (1), 36–41.

54.   Anonymous. (1998). Avaunt, insect control agent, pp. 107. Technical Bulletin H-79164. DuPont, Wilmington, DE.

55.   Harder, H. H., Riley, S. L. McCann, S. F. and Irving, S. N. (1996). DPX-M, p. 062: A novel broad-spectrum, environmentally soft, insect control compound. In Proceedings, 1996 Brighton Conference, Brighton, UK.

56.   Davidson, EW. (1979). Ultra-structure of mid-gut events in the pathologenesis of Bacillus Sphaericus Strains SSII-I Infections of Cu pipiens quinquefasciatus larvae. Can. J. Microbiol. 25(2): 178-184.

57.   Guessan, R. N., Corbel, V., Bonnet, J., Yates, A., Asidi, A., Boko, P., Odjo, A., Akogbe´ to, M. and Rowland, M. (2007). Evaluation of Indoxacarb, an Oxadiazine Insecticide for the Control of Pyrethroid Resistant Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 44(2): 270-276.

 

 

 

 

Received on 29.01.2019          Modified on 20.02.2019

Accepted on 10.03.2019        © RJPT All right reserved

Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2019; 12(5):2363-2371.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00396.2