a research progress report

zhong FCCMC Meeting Oct 24, 2006 1

Efficacy Against Adult Mosquitoes and Impact on Miami Blue Butterfly Lavae

of Aerial ULV Application of Naled

A Research Progress Report


Participate Organizations Florida A&M University Florida Keys Mosquito Control District University of Florida Florida Park Service, FDEP US Fish and Wildlife Service Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Collier County Mosquito Control District Indian River Mosquito Control District

Sponsored by Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS)


Materials and Methods

Study Location: North Key Logo, Florida Team work: 4 groups with 2-3 people per group 12 treatment Sites with 9 site at spray zone and 3 at

the drift zone Control stations (3) at over 25 miles away from the

spray zone Florida Keys MCD’s Aircraft (BN2T) equipped with

WingmanTM GX and AIMMS-20 (Adapco) was used for naled Aerial ULV application

Residue sample collections: yarn and filter paper Naled Analysis -GC with TSD (NPD) and ECD detector


Materials and Methods

Bioassay: caged mosquitoes (about 50 field captured female mosquitoes / cage) (Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus) and mortality was assessed 8 hrs after the aerial application

Bioassay: Miami Blue Butterfly (Hemiargus thomasi bethunebakeri) Larvae (4th instars) placed on top leaves of one gallon nickerbean plants. After being exposed mosquito spray, the larvae were continue feed on the “contaminated” leave for 48 hrs. Each larvae was continued monitored through pupa to adult butterfly for long-term impact assessment. The larvae escaped during the assay were also recorded.


Trial 1 --8/23/2006

Site Naled (ug/m2) % MBB escaped % MBB Survived No. of MBB % Mosquito Mortality

FK-1F 1,163.99 33% 100% 6 100%

FK-2F 695.95 20% 100% 5 100%

FK-3F 87.07 17% 100% 6 94%

FK-4F 1,627.32 0% 100% 4 100%

FK-5F 835.88 33% 75% 6 100%

FK-6F 53.91 0% 100% 6 34%

FK-7F ND 33% 100% 6 5%

FK-8F 28.58 0% 100% 6 68%

FK-9F 328.78 0% 100% 6 100%

FK-10F 53.65 33% 100% 6 19%

FK-11F 30.57 50% 100% 6 11%

FK-12F ND 17% 100% 6 5%

FK-13F ND 33% 100% 6 3%

FK-14F ND 17% 100% 6 7%

FK-15F ND N/A N/A N/A 4%


Trial 2 --9/20/2006


FK-1F 1,160.21 17% 80% 6 90%

FK-2F 71.56 33% 100% 6 14%

FK-3F 830.84 67% 50% 6 92%

FK-4F 769.43 0% 100% 6 87%

FK-5F 606.90 17% 100% 6 93%

FK-6F 331.96 0% 100% 6 93%

FK-7F 1,373.08 0% 83% 6 90%

FK-8F 1,050.53 43% 100% 7 100%

FK-9F 653.98 0% 83% 6 92%

FK-10F 961.01 0% 83% 6 38%

FK-11F ND 33% 100% 6 27%

FK-12F 139.59 50% 67% 6 17%

FK-13F ND 0% 100% 6 9%

FK-14F ND 17% 100% 6 7%

FK-15F ND 33% 100% 6 0%



FK-1F 1,339.52 0% 50% 6 64.10%

FK-2F 968.44 17% 40% 6 42.86%

FK-3F 1,069.63 33% 100% 6 86.96%

FK-4F 3,188.00 17% 100% 6 77.14%

FK-5F 3,062.33 83% 0% 6 89.29%

FK-6F 762.07 0% 100% 6 93.33%

FK-7F 174.47 0% 100% 6 41.67%

FK-8F 494.56 17% 80% 6 10.81%

FK-9F 353.65 0% 100% 6 85.00%

FK-10F ND 50% 67% 6 7.50%

FK-11F ND 0% 50% 6 21.43%

FK-12F ND 17% 80% 6 30.00%

FK-13F ND 0% 100% 6 17.07%

FK-14F ND 0% 100% 6 15.79%

FK-15F ND 67% 100% 6 33.33%

Trial 3 --9/21/2006


Summery of Preliminary Results

Trial 1. --Mosquito control efficacy was excellent. The highest ground deposition was on site 4 (1,627 µg/m2 ) which did not result the larvae death. One died MBB larvae was found in site 5 (836 µg/m2)

Trial 2. -- Mosquito control efficacy was good. The highest ground deposition was on site 7 (1,373 µg/m2). One died MBB larvae was found in each of the six sites (site 1, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 12). Among them, site 12 had the least naled residue deposition (140 µg/m2 ). However, site 8 (1,051 µg/m2) had 100% MBB larvae survived to adult

Trial 3. --Mosquito control efficacy was fair. The highest ground deposition (site 4, with 3,144 µg/m2 ) was found and 13 died larvae in this trial. Mystery: there were 5 larvae died in station 10, 11 and 12 with no detectable insecticide residue.

An average of 20% MBB larvae escaped in each of the 3 trials.


Discussion –Naled Residue The naled residue detection

Naled were detected in most of the field samples

The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) The spike samples on filter paper have reasonable recovery The spike recoveries on from yarn samples were low to none

The deposition threshold of naled residue < under 1000 µg/m2 a desirable threshold. >1000 - < 1,500 µg/m2 a marginal acceptable level.

The deposition range of naled spray In general it is fall under 1,000 or 1,500 µg/m2 However, higher deposition was found on site 4 (3,188 µg/m2 and 5

(3,062 µg/m2 ) in trial 3 (9/21/2006).


Discussion –MBB Assay

Missing MBB larvae in trial. It is unknown the larvae “mission in action” --host plant searching behavior or

hide for pupation?

Acute toxicity --No dead larvae were found during sample collection. It is appears that there were no acute toxic effect of naled on MBB larvae

following the spray event

48 hrs mortality observation It appears that those larvae died in 48hr were not correlated with naled

concentration on ground. Need more trials and statistical analysis to prove this hypothesis.

Long term impact from naled spray All alive MBB larvae following exposure to the spray successfully emerged to

adults. It appears there are no long term impact


Discussion –Adult Mosquito Assay

The naled spray is very effective at current dosage rate against Oc. taeniorhynchus.

The efficacy can vary depend on topography such as the droplets may be blocked by trees.

The residue on yarn may correlate mosquito mortality. However, the fast degradation of naled in early morning could be great challenge to residue detection and recovery


Limitation of this study Availability of the MBB larvae

stand by to wait for MBB larvae to go through their life cycle is definitely time consuming and will affect the project progress

Only a single spray mission is evaluated the impact from multiple spray in consecutive date remains to be

investigated. Only MBB larvae bioassay is conducted

the impact to adult MBB remains to be evaluated Only current FKMCD application parameter is evaluated,

the change of the spray parameter will decrease (e.g. Lower insecticide dose) or increase the impact (e.g. lower the spray attitude).


Acknowledgements The following personnel contributed to this project:

Florida A&M University -- C. Brock, T. Quimet, T. Lian, R. Aarons, N. Sickerman

Florida Keys Mosquito Control District -- Larry Hribar, Melanie Howey, Dawn Miller, David DeMay, Gary Bynum, Colleen Fitzsimmons, Eldred Wirsching, Seann Brown, and Abby Duckwall

University of Florida -- Akers Pence, Jaret Daniels

Florida Park Service, FDEP -- Jim Dusquesnel US Fish and Wildlife Service -- Tim Barger Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission -- Sharyn Hood Collier County Mosquito Control District -- Jeff Stivers Indian River Mosquito Control District -- Michael Hudon

a research progress report

Documents

mosquito mortality fk

f nd33

f nd17

f ndnanana4

ecd detectorfccmc meeting

exposed mosquito spray

sitenaled ugm2

adult butterfly