排序方式: 共有81条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
爱比菌素对朱砂叶螨的室内毒力及生物学影响 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
爱比菌素是一种新的生物杀螨剂,是由除虫链霉菌发酵产生的大环内酯化合物。它对久效磷抗性敏感的两组朱砂叶螨种群有很高的毒性,LC50值各为0.0038mg/L和0.0153mg/L,LC95值分别为0.0263mg/L和0.0279mg/L。用0.0288mg/L(近似LC95)的浓度处理带螨的棉叶,幼若螨在72h死亡率达90%,对卵无效;该浓度处理棉苗7天后对成螨和幼若螨无残效。用近似LC50浓度( 相似文献
2.
3.
室内测定了阿维菌素和橡胶籽油对朱砂叶螨的毒力及其复配剂的联合作用。结果表明,阿维菌素和橡胶籽油对朱砂叶螨雌成螨的LC50分别为0.01μg/ml和1311.81μg/ml;阿维菌素与橡胶籽油复配对朱砂叶螨成螨增效作用显著,共毒系数最高为293.90;阿维菌素及其与橡胶籽油最优复配剂对经药剂处理螨卵孵化的若螨具有显著的杀灭活性,且相同浓度下复配剂显著优于阿维菌素单剂,但两药剂对螨卵的直接毒杀活性均很低。阿维菌素与橡胶籽油复配剂这一高效、安全生物农药在害螨防治中极具应用前景。 相似文献
4.
2种不同剂型阿维菌素在土壤和田水中的消解动态 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
研究了施用乳油和微乳剂2种不同剂型的阿维菌素在土壤和田水中的消解动态。结果表明:(1)阿维菌素残留检测方法在添加浓度为0.001~1.000 mg·kg-1时,平均回收率为86.1%~105.2%,变异系数为4.3%~8.2%,符合残留检测标准;(2)推荐剂量下施药,微乳剂在试验三地的半衰期分别为土壤2.6~2.7 d,田水2.7~4.5 d;乳油在试验三地的半衰期分别为土壤11.2~13.1 d,田水3.6~7.4 d。同一施药条件下,乳油的半衰期均大于微乳剂的半衰期。 相似文献
5.
氨基甲酸酯类杀虫剂及其与阿维菌素的混配制剂对美洲斑潜蝇(Diptera:Agromyzidae)的防治效果 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
测定了扑蚜威、速灭威、灭蚜威、间乙威等9个氨基甲酸酯类化合物及其 与阿维菌素混剂对美洲斑潜蝇的田间药效,结果发现,当施用有效量0.75 kg/hm2时,氨 基甲酸酯类单剂对美洲斑潜蝇的防效在75%~92%之间,而扑蚜威、速灭威、灭蚜威与阿维菌 素混剂对该蝇的防效可达85%~92%。表明,氨基甲酸酯类化合物与阿维菌素混配对美洲斑潜 蝇田间防效、速效性均较好,且成本显著降低。 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
采用FAO(1980)推荐的浸玻片法,室内对Abamectin、三氯杀螨醇、氧化乐果、水胺硫磷及Abamectin与三种杀虫杀螨剂分别按1∶50、1∶100、1∶200的比例制成的混剂对抗性棉叶螨(抗久效磷品系,抗性系数为13.16)进行毒力测定.结果表明,Abamectin、三氯杀螨醇、氧化乐果、水胺硫磷的LC50值分别为3.3920×10-2 μg/ml、2.3175 μg/ml、138.83 μg/ml和20 395 μg/ml;Abamectin与三氯杀螨醇1∶50,1∶100均表现出拮抗作用,CTC值分别为65.10和72.27,Abamectin与氧化乐果和水胺硫磷的三个不同配比均表现不同程度的增效作用,1∶200的比例CTC值分别为445.96和376.88. 相似文献
9.
[目的]明确0.5%阿维菌素颗粒剂对胡椒南方根结线虫的防治效果和使用剂量,为其防治提供参考.[方法]采用田间药效试验研究0.5%阿维菌素颗粒剂对胡椒南方根结线虫的防治效果.[结果]0.5%阿维菌素颗粒剂使用量为60~ 75 kg/hm2,每株叶冠垂直地面根际挖15 ~30 cm深环形沟撒施,对胡椒南方根结线虫具有较好的防治效果,施药后40d的防治效果为74.84% ~ 83.83%,持效期较短,且在试验剂量范围内对作物安全.[结论]该制剂可在胡椒上推广应用. 相似文献
10.
Abstract CASE HISTORY: A 5-year-old entire female Huntaway from a sheep and beef farm was one of four dogs that developed clinical signs including hypersalivation, depression, blindness and ataxia after the death of another dog. A 4-year-old female Huntaway farm dog from a second farm was observed to be sitting down more often than usual on the day after being fed part of a calf carcass that had been treated with an abamectin pour-on. CLINICAL FINDINGS: The first dog was ataxic and depressed but did respond to sound. The second dog presented with an acute onset of blindness, mydriasis, absence of a menace response, hypersalivation, gait abnormalities (e.g. high stepping gait and ataxia), and depression. Other presenting signs included muscle tremors, dehydration and difficulty eating. No abnormalities were detected from routine haematology and biochemistry. Analysis of samples of plasma from both dogs revealed concentrations of abamectin of 0.149 mg/L and 0.260 mg/L for the first and second dogs, respectively. Buccal swabs taken from the first dog for DNA testing for the ABCB1 gene mutation, gave a negative result. DIAGNOSIS: In addition to the presenting signs which suggested a toxicosis, both dogs had measurable concentrations of abamectin in plasma confirming exposure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Farm dogs exposed to concentrated pour-on products containing abamectin have been poisoned and recover or die. The product labels do not carry any warnings as to the risk of poisoning to dogs. This paper discusses two incidents affecting six farm dogs, but the authors are aware of more toxicoses in farm dogs exposed to abamectin. 相似文献