different pheromone traps and its applications

1. ‫سيمينار‬
‫النباتات‬ ‫وقاية‬ ‫بحوث‬ ‫محطة‬
‫اإلسكندريه‬
26
‫فبراير‬
2019

3. Abstract
Up to date insecticides are the backbone of agricultural industry
( agricultural mass production ) and for public health protection
purposes. Annually, trillions of US $ are lost as a result of insect
infestations and damages in different agric. Crops around the world.
Under the heavy use of insecticidal applications many insect field
strains have developed its resistance against these compounds. For
the purposes of assaying insecticides efficiency and resistance in
insect field strains, it's required to use huge amounts of insecticides
in many sequential treatments, investigate huge amounts of agric.
crop fields, collect huge amounts of crop samples ( vegetation and /
or fruit parts ) , rather than environmental pollution, human health
hazards, using application equipments which require a lot amounts
of effort, time and money.
It's recommended here to use pheromone traps technique for the
assessment of insecticides efficiency, monitoring insecticides
resistance in insect field strains instead of the insecticides
conventional applications to overcome all the above mentioned

4. Introduction
Formulated pesticides are used in a large scale
through the world as a major mean for pest
management and control. Although pesticides provide
numerous benefits in terms of increased agricultural
production and improve its quality, but their efficacy
may be not often good because of the development of
insecticide resistance in many pest species.

5. ‫كتبنا‬ ‫منصة‬ ‫على‬ ‫كتبى‬

6. ‫صورة‬
cover
‫أمريك‬ ‫فى‬ ‫قدمته‬ ‫سيمينار‬ ‫أول‬
‫ا‬
‫مصر‬ ‫فى‬ ‫الفرمونات‬ ‫عن‬

7. ‫الليثى‬ ‫أسامه‬ ‫مع‬ ‫صوره‬
(
‫الزرا‬ ‫وزارة‬ ‫وكيل‬
‫عه‬
‫اآلن‬ ‫االمريكيه‬
)
‫ال‬ ‫مبنى‬ ‫أمام‬
Aphis Lab.
‫أريزونا‬ ‫فينكس‬
-
1993
.

8. ‫د‬ ‫مع‬ ‫صوره‬
.
‫هنبرى‬
(
‫بحوث‬ ‫معمل‬ ‫مدير‬
‫القطن‬
)
‫ود‬
.
‫فلنت‬
(
‫عن‬ ‫نشروا‬ ‫من‬ ‫أول‬
‫امريكا‬ ‫فى‬ ‫الفرمونات‬
)
‫بحوث‬ ‫معمل‬ ‫داخل‬
‫فينكس‬ ‫القطن‬
-
‫اريزونا‬
-
1993

9. ‫د‬ ‫مع‬
.
‫م‬ ‫و‬ ‫زيتون‬ ‫مصطفى‬
.
‫معمل‬ ‫أمام‬ ‫زيتون‬
‫أريزونا‬ ‫فينكس‬ ‫القطن‬ ‫بحوث‬
-
1993

10. ‫د‬ ‫المرحوم‬ ‫مع‬ ‫صوره‬
.
‫فى‬ ‫السباعى‬ ‫عبدالخالق‬
‫د‬ ‫فيال‬ ‫حديقة‬
.
‫هيوستن‬ ‫صالح‬ ‫محمود‬
-
‫تكساس‬
‫مايو‬
1993
.

11. ‫د‬ ‫المرحوم‬ ‫مع‬ ‫صوره‬
.
‫د‬ ‫و‬ ‫السباعى‬ ‫عبدالخالق‬
.
‫صالح‬ ‫محمود‬
,
‫ود‬
.
‫الدكش‬ ‫حمدى‬
,
‫ود‬
.
‫حسين‬ ‫حمدى‬
-Texas A&M Univ.
‫مايو‬ ‫تكساس‬
1993
.

12. Resistance to one or more pesticides has been
documented in many thousands of insect and mite
species. Pesticide resistance is an increasingly urgent
worldwide problems. Resistance in vectors of human
disease, particularly malaria-transmitting mosquitoes,
is a serious threat to public health in many nations (
especially in the Nile Basin Countries ). Agricultural
productivity is jeopardized because widespread
resistance in crop and livestock pests. Serious
resistance problem are also evident in pests of the
urban environment, most notably cockroaches.

13. ‫موقع‬ ‫على‬ ‫المبيدات‬ ‫عن‬ ‫كتابى‬
Pedia Press

14. Resistance to insecticides is one of the most serious
problems facing agriculture today. Many previous
studies revealed the high resistance of pink bollworm
to insecticides in the cotton fields. In Egypt, several
pyrethroids and organophosphorus have been widely
used against cotton pests. However, although
pyrethroid and organophosphorus insecticides were
the most efficient and widely used against bollworms
but the onset of resistance development to these
compounds in bollworms have been recently
documented.

15. ‫موقع‬ ‫على‬ ‫البشريه‬ ‫الفرمونات‬ ‫عن‬ ‫كتابى‬
Pedia Press

16. The major economic losses due to the pesticide
resistance in the USA were: $1.5 billion (Pimentel, 2005).
The cost of insecticide resistance in lost yields and higher
insect control costs is staggering - in some years more than
1 billion $ in cotton for the budworm/bollworm complex
alone.
In IPM, pheromones are considered to be an essential
component because they are used for detecting the
economic threshold levels of pest populations and for
mating disruption as a direct pest suppression measure.
Pheromones of major pests have been found to be effective,
economic and eco-friendly in agro-ecosystems in which
cotton is cultivated (Tamhankar et al. 2000).

17. For resistance management tactics to be effective,
resistance must be detected in its early stage (Rouch & Miller
1986) and early detection necessitates using one or more
techniques that being accurate, easy, rapid and inexpensive,
which would aid production, consultants and extension
personal in making informed decisions on adequate control
measures (Mink & Boethel 1992). Firstly, the traditional
approach uses complete dose-response tests with 4-5 doses
that produce 10-90% mortality. Resistance is expressed in
terms of the ratio of LD50 or LC50 of the resistant strain to that
of the susceptible strain. Alternatively, an approach called the
discriminating or diagnostic dose test was used where one
dose is often investigated and the mortality of the susceptible
test strains is compared (Pasquier and Charmillot, 2003).

18. Another approach is the attracticide method which was
developed in summer of 1985 as a rapid test to determined
resistance in pink bollworm adult in cotton fields. The
attracticide method was full implementation in 1986 and 1987
as an effective method to monitor insecticide resistance to pink
bollworm to a wide range of insecticides (Miller, 1986 and
Haynes et al ,1986 c and 1987).
Detection of changes in response is needed, especially in
the early stages of resistance development. Monitoring
insecticide resistance in field population moth is in great
importance in resistance management programs (Tabashnik
and Cushing, 1987). In Egypt, very few dose mortality studies
using attrcticides resistance monitoring technique were carried
out (Al-Beltagy et al., 1993, Al-Beltagy et al., 1996, Al-
Beltagy et al., 2001 and Al-Beltagy et al., 2010).

19. Therefore it is important to study efficacy of
insecticides against insect field strains in Nile Basin
countries to establish a program for controlling and
reducing the resistance level of these pest to
insecticides. Such a program could be efficiently used
to reduce number of insecticide sprays; cost of
insecticide applications, and increases the crop
production per unit.
This review is concentrated on the use of
attracticide resistance monitoring technique against
different insect field strains and its modified
procedure.

20. •Pheromone traps uses :-
Our team of work used to use pheromone traps in these studies (
almost 66published papers in pheromone technology tactics ) :-
1- For assaying and monitoring insect pests population density and
dynamics all the year round ( Al-Beltagy et al. 1991).
2- For assaying insect pests geographical distribution throughout its
regional and seasonal abundance ( Brania and Albeltagy 1996 ).
3- For insect pests mass trapping technique as a pest control tool ( Hamid
and Albeltagy1995 ).
4- For assaying insecticides resistance development in insect pests field
strains (Albeltagy et al. 1996 , Albeltagy et al. 2000, and Albeltagy et al.
2010).
5- For measuring the successful of a pheromone disruption technique
applied against any insect pest ( Albeltagy et al. 2001a and 2001b ).
6- For triggering biological and / or chemical control action ( Albeltagy
1999 ).
7- For assaying the efficiency of different insecticides before any
insecticide treatment ( Albeltagy et al. 2011 ).

21. In our studies, we examined insecticidal
efficacy of selected formulated insecticides
(OP‫ۥ‬s and Pyrethroids) by :-
1- Attracticide Resistance Monitoring Technique
(ARMT) against PBW, in different field strains.
2- Biochemical assay technique for the
confirmatin and documentation of our results.
Objects:-

22. Insecticide
formulations used
Pheromone used
Chemical used Insects used
Equipments
Materials
MATERIAL AND METHODS

23. Formulated Organophosphorous
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos methyl
Profenofos
N
Cl
Cl Cl
OP(OCH3)2
S
O
P
O OCH2CH3
SCH2CH2CH3
Br
Cl
Formulated Insecticides used

24. Formulated Synthetic Pyrethroids
Cypermethrin
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Deltamethrin
O
C CH
CH3CH3
Cl
C
O
O
Cl
CN
C C
CH3 CH3
Br H
C
H H
O
O
Br
CN
O
C
H

25. Common name : Gossyplure
Chemical name : (Z,Z. ZE -7,11- Hexadecadienyl
acetate)
Pheromone used
Structure formula :
Formulation used :Pink rubber septum
containing 1 mg,
provided by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Egypt.

26. Laboratory strain :
The reference (susceptible) colony of Pink bollworm (PBW)
Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera : Gelechiidae)
supplied by Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture,
Saba basha, Egypt, where it had been reared for several years
in conditioned laboratory without exposure to insecticides.
The rearing procedure used for pink bollworm was similar to that
described by Abdel-Hafez et al.(1982).
Field strains : PBW which is the most economically
important insect pests of cotton.
Insects used

27. damage

28. Delta traps
Insert cards
Containers to hold
several insert cards
Pheromone
Equipments

29. 1-Assaying insecticidal efficacy of selected formulated Insecticides
against pink bollworm male moths laboratory strain by ARMT .
Diluted concentrations
were used from each
formulated insecticide
sticky material
Card
2
gm
Mortality% wereanalyzedby probit
analysiscomputerprogram
(Finney1971)at 6 and12 h to
determineslope,LC50andLC95
values

30. Six diluted concentrations
from each formulated insecticide
were used
sticky material
Card
2
gm
2- Assaying insecticidal efficacy of selected formulated
Insecticides against pink bollworm male moths field
strains by ARMT.

31. Table (1) Formulated insecticide rates used for
attracticide resistance monitoring technique against
field strains of pink bollworm.
Dosages used (ppm) / card/feddan
Formulated
insecticides 2 F
1.5 F
1 F
0.5 F
0.25 F
0.125 F
I. OP‫ۥ‬s :
2400
1800
1200
600
300
150
Chlorpyrifos
2500
1875
1250
625
312.5
156.25
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
2700
2025
1350
675
337.5
168.75
Profenofos
II. Pyth‫ۥ‬s
300
225
150
75
37.5
18.75
Cypermethrin
93.75
70.31
46.88
23.44
11.72
5.859
Deltamethrin
100
75
50
25
12.5
6.25
Lambda-
cyhalothrin

32. 1 g of
sample
Extraction
buffer
Tris-HCl buffer
Glycerol
Ascorbic acid
Cycteine
hydrochloride
3- Biochemical assays (Protein electrophoresis )
Centrifugation SDS
2-mercaptoethanol
sample water bath
at 100 C
20 micro
of sam
Electrode buffer
Bromophenol blue
Electrophoresis was
performed at 30 milliamper
at 10º C for 3 hours.

34. A- Insecticidal efficacy
of
the selected insecticides
under laboratory
and
field conditions

35. 1- Laboratory evaluation:
against
pink bollworm
(susceptible strain).

36. Insecticides
concentrations
% Mortality Insecticides
concentrations
% Mortality
Ch(1) Ch-m(2) Pro(3) Cyp(4) Del(5) Lam(6)
240 100 100 100 40 100 100 100
160 95 90 92.5 20 87.5 90 90
80 72.5 82.5 80 10 75 82.5 80
40 57.5 62.5 65 5 62.5 72.5 72.5
20 50 52.5 55 1 40 60 42.5
10 45 47.5 45 0.5 30 42.5 32.5
5 27.5 22.5 25 0.1 17.5 20 20
1 7.5 10 5 0.05 7.5 10 10
Table (3): Mortality percent of pink bollworm (male
moths, susceptible strain) after 6 hrs of treatment using
attracticide resistance monitoring technique (ARMT).
(1)Ch= Chlorpyrifos ; (2)Ch-m= Chlorpyrifos-methyl ; (3)Pro= Profenofos;
(4)Cyp= Cypermethrin ; (5)Del= Deltamethrin; ; (6)Lam= Lambda-cyhalothrin

37. Table (5): Toxicity of the selected insecticides against pink bollworm
(male moths, susceptible strain) after 6 hrs of treatment using
attracticide resistance monitoring technique (ARMT).
Insecticide
formulations
Regression
Equation
Y= a + b x
LC50 (ppm)
[Confidence
Limits]
LC95
R. T.(a)
fold
T. I.(b)
%
I: OP‫ۥ‬s
Chlorpyrifos Y= -1.56+1.28
X
16.48
(19.9 -13.65)
314.8 1.00 4.85
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
Y = -1.51+1.29
X
14.90
(17.9 - 12.3)
281.9 1.10 5.36
Profenofos Y = -1.67 +1.4 X
15.47
(18.5 - 12.9)
230.7 1.06 5.17
II: SPʼs
Cypermethri
n
Y = -0.17+0.99X
1.50
(1.9 - 1.2)
67.2 10.98 53.33
Deltamethrin Y=9.5E-
02+0.9X
0.80
(1.0 - 0.6)
37.1 20.60 100
Lambda- Y=-4.4E- 1.11
46.0 14.84 72.07

38. 4.85 5.36 5.17
53.33
100
72.07
1 1.1 1.06
10.98
20.6
14.84
16.48
14.9 15.47
1.5
0.8 1.11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
Profenofos Cypermethrin Deltamethrin Lambda-
cyhalothtin
ppm
Folds
or
%
T. I. R.T LC50
Fig (5): LC50 , Toxicity Index (T.I.) and Relative Toxicity (R.T) values of selected insecticides against PBW male moths
susceptible strain after 6 hrs of treatment.
Fig (5): LC50 , Toxicity Index (T.I.) and Relative Toxicity (R.T) values of the selected
insecticides against PBW (male moths, susceptible strain) after 6 hrs of treatment.

39. Deltamethrin
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Cypermehrin
Profenofos
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
Chlorpyrifos
Fig (6): LC50 values of the selected insecticides against PBW
(male moths, susceptible strain) after 6 hrs of treatment.

40. Insecticide
concentrations
% Mortality Insecticide
concentrations
% Mortality
Ch(1) Ch-m(2) Pro(3) Cyp(4) Del(5) Lam(6)
240 100 100 100 40 100 100 100
160 100 100 100 20 97.5 100 100
80 85 90 87.5 A10 92.5 97.5 92.5
40 72.5 80 77.5 5 82.5 90 85
20 62.5 72.5 67.5 1 57.5 75 60
10 55 60 60 0.5 40 62.5 45
5 42.5 47.5 45 0.1 30 42.5 35
1 25 35 32.5 0.05 17.5 30 22.5
Table (4): Mortality percent of pink bollworm
(male moths, susceptible strain) after 12 hrs of
treatment using (ARMT).
(1)Ch= Chlorpyrifos ; (2)Ch-m= Chlorpyrifos-methyl ; (3)Pro= Profenofos;
(4)Cyp= Cypermethrin ; (5)Del= Deltamethrin; ; (6)Lam= Lambda-cyhalothrin

41. Insecticide
formulations
Regression
Equation
Y= a + b x
LC50 (ppm)
[Confidence
Limits]
LC95
R. T.(a)
fold
T. I.(b)
%
I: OP‫ۥ‬s
Chlorpyrifos Y= -0.93+1.11X
6.91
(8.8 - 5.4)
209.3 1.00 2.74
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
Y = -0.66+1.05X
4.26
(5.6 - 3.2)
153.3 1.62 4.46
Profenofos Y = -0.73+1.05X
4.98
(6.5 - 3.8)
182.8 1.38 3.81
II: SPʼs
Cypermethrin
Y = 0.32+1.05X
0.50
(0.635 - 0.386
18.4 13.82 38.00
Deltamethrin
Y = 0.76+1.03X
0.19
(0.243 - 0.136)
7.3 36.36 100
Lambda-
cyhalothrin
Y = 0.4 +1.02X
0.38
(0.482 - 0.285)
15.5 18.18 50.00
Table (6): Toxicity of the selected insecticides against pink
bollworm (male moths susceptible strain) after 12 hrs of
treatment using (ARMT).

42. 2.74 4.46 3.81
38
100
50
1 1.62 1.38
13.82
36.36
18.18
6.91
4.26
4.98
0.5 0.19 0.38
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos-
Methyl
Profenofos Cypermethrin Deltamethrin Lambda-
cyhalothrin
ppm
Folds
or
%
T. I. R.T LC50
Fig (7): LC50 , Toxicity Index (T.I.) and Relative Toxicity (R.T) values of the selected
insecticides against PBW (male moths, susceptible strain) after 12 hrs of treatment.

43. Deltamethrin
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Cypermethrin
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
Profenofos
Chlorpyrifos
Fig (8): LC50 values of the selected insecticides against PBW
(male moths, susceptible strain) after 12 hrs of treatment.

44. 2- Field evaluation:

46. Insecticide
formulations
Regression
Equation
Y= a + b x
LC50 (ppm)
[Confidence
Limits
LC95
(ppm)
R. T.(a)
fold
T. I (b)
%
R.R.(c)
fold
I :OP‫ۥ‬s
Chlorpyrifos
Y = -2.9+ 1.2X
355.38
(459.5 - 274.4)
9342.40 1.15 0.50 51.42
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl Y = -2.6 + 1.0X
410.08
(545.6 - 307.7)
17877.1 1.00 0.43 96.26
Profenofos
Y = -2.99 + 1.2X
316.18
(418.7 - 238.3)
7536.21 1.29 0.56 63.48
II: SPʼs
Cypermethrin
Y = -1.4 + 1.2X
13.88
(21.4 - 8.8)
297.21 29.54 12.82 27.76
Deltamethrin
Y = -0.3 + 0.99X
1.78
(3.9 - 0.8)
81.04 230.38 100 9.36
Lambda-
cyhalothrin Y = -1.6 + 1.6X
10.10
(12.5 - 8.0)
102.72 40.60 17.62 26.57
Table (14): Toxicity of the selected insecticides against PBW (male
moths, field strain) during late season of 2006 after 12 hrs of
treatment using ARMT in Kafr- El-Dawar district cotton fields.

47. 51.42
96.26
63.48
27.76
9.36
26.57
355.38
410.08
316.18
13.88
1.78
10.1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
Profenofos Cypermrthrin Deltamethrin Lambda-
cyhalothrin
ppm
Folds
R.R. LC50
Fig (15): LC50 and resistance ratio (R.R) values of the selected insecticides
against PBW (male moths) during 2006 (late season) after 12 hrs of treatment
in Kafr- El-Dawar district cotton fields.

48. Deltamethrin
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Cypermethrin
Profenofos
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
Chlorpyrifos
Fig (16): LC50 values of the selected insecticides against PBW
strain after 12 hrs of treatment during 2006 (late season) in
Kafr- El-Dawar district cotton fields.

51. Insecticide
formulations
Regression
Equation
Y= a + b x
LC50 (ppm)
[Confidence
Limits
LC95
(ppm)
R. T.(a)
Fold
T. I.(b)
%
R.R.(c)
Fold
I :OP‫ۥ‬s
Chlorpyrifos
Y = -4.9 + 1.4 X
3196.62
(4467.6 - 2291.4)
49433.2 1.00 1.01 193.97
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl Y = -4.3 + 1.3 X
1749.20
(2214.7 - 1382.9)
31436.5 1.82 1.85 117.39
Profenofos
Y = -4.5 + 1.5 X
1338.63
(1611.9 - 1112.1)
18245.1 2.38 2.42 86.53
II: SPʼs
Cypermethrin
Y = -3.5 + 1.6 X
165.51
(197.4 - 138.9)
1807.33 19.31 19.57 110.34
Deltamethrin
Y = -2.4 + 1.6 X
32.40
(38.0 - 27.6)
364.13 98.66 100 40.5
Lambda-
cyhalothrin Y = -2.8 + 1.7 X
45.80
(53.5 - 39.2)
425.83 69.79 70.74 41.26
Table (20): Toxicity of the selected insecticides against PBW (male
moths, field strain) during late season of 2007 after 6 hrs of
treatment using ARMT in Kafr- El-Dawar district cotton fields.

54. Insecticide
formulations
Regression
Equation
Y= a + b x
LC50 (ppm)
[Confidence
Limits
LC95
(ppm)
R.T. (a)
fold
T. I.(b)
%
R.R.(c)
fold
I:OP ‫ۥ‬s
Chlorpyrifos
Y = -4.7 + 1.7X
494.10
(576.8 - 423.2)
4317.59 4.74 2.83 29.98
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
Y = -4.5 + 1.5X
908.15
(1070.5 - 770.5)
10932.5 2.58 1.54 60.94
Profenofos
Y = -5.3 + 1.6X
2344.69
(2940.5 - 1871.1)
26723.3 1.00 0.59 151.56
II: SPʼs
Cypermethrin
Y = -2.9 + 1.6X
66.48
(78.5 - 56.3)
745.92 35.26 21.04 44.32
Deltamethrin
Y = -1.7 + 1.5X
13.99
(17.1 - 11.4)
188.04 167.59 100 17.48
Lambda-
cyhalothrin
Y = -3.5 + 2.2X
36.19
(40.8 - 32.1)
197.38 64.78 38.65 32.60
Table (36): Toxicity of the selected insecticides against PBW
(male moths, field strain) during late season of 2007 after 6
hrs of treatment using ARMT in Faculty of Agriculture Farm.

55. Development of
resistance

56. LC50 and R.R. values of field strains
LC50
Susceptable
Strain
Insecticide
formulations R.R. (a)
LC50
Late Season
2006
R.R. (a)
LC50
Early
Season
2006
I- OP ‫ۥ‬
s
183.58
3025.44
171.89
2832.80
16.48
Chlorpyrifos
107.46
1601.18
64.10
955.10
14.90
Chlorpyrifos-
methyl
62.71
970.16
58.76
909.10
15.47
Profenofos
II: SPʼs
94.54
141.82
79.80
119.70
1.50
Cypermethrin
33.85
27.08
28.71
22.97
0.80
Deltamethrin
31.31
34.76
30.26
33.59
1.11
Lambda-
cyhlothrin
LC50’s and resistance ratio (R.R.) values of the selected insecticides
against PBW (male moths) susceptible and field strains at 6 hrs of
treatment using ARMT.

57. Biochemical
studies
Protein
electrophoresis

58. Polyacrylamide gel electrophoretic banding
pattern of standard Protein , susceptible &
field strains of PBW
Behera Field
moths
Alex Field
moths
Susce
moths
Behera Field
Larvae
Alex Field
Larvae
Susce
larvae
Protien
marker

59. Polyacrylamide
gel
electrophoresis
of PBW
male moths
protein

60. Behera male moths
Susceptible male moths
Alex male moths
Spectrophotometric scanning of total protein patterns in a mass
homogenate of pink bollworm male moths collected from susceptible
aboratory and field strains.
Behera male moths

61. Conclusion

62. Recommendations
Many advantages have been indicated for the use of the
attracticide resistance monitoring technique ( ARMT ), as a tool for
testing the efficacy of different insecticides are :-
1- It is easy, whereas no need to complicated equipments or high
technology tools, but only use some delta pheromone traps.
2- It is speed, whereas it is applied by sunset and get data by
next morning sunrise, just after about 12 hours of applications.
3- It is effective, whereas it is applied in a very short period ( as
mentioned above ), so there is no interference of any changeable
environmental conditions .
4- It is applied directly against the field insect strains, whereas
no need for the mass rearing techniques and facilities.
5- It is very accurate compared to the conventional insecticide
bioassay techniques.
6- it is applied against adults which is the main target of any
chemical control program.