**3. Side effects of insecticides on coccinellids**

Many research studies show that integration of chemical, cultural and biological control meas‐ ures are getting popular as integrated pest management (IPM), components, throughout the world. In this regard, biological control occupies a central position in Integrated Pest Manage‐ ment (IPM) Programmes. Because biological control agents for pests and weeds have enor‐ mous and unique advantages, it is safe, permanent, and economical (Kilgore & Doutt, 1967). Augmentative releases of several coccinellid species are well documented and effective; how‐ ever, ineffective species continue to be used because of ease of collect ion (Obrycki & Kring 1998). About 90% of approximately 4,200 coccinellid species are considered beneficial because of their predatory activity, mainly against homopterous insects and mites.

*sexta* (Feng & Wang 1984; Mani & Krishnamoorthy 1984; Peter & David 1988; Beckage et al. 1988). They also reported that the parasitoid growth was arrested, while the host lar‐ vae survived for two weeks or longer, following injection of azadirachtin but their para‐

Stark et al. (1992) studied the survival, longevity and reproduction of the three braconid parasitoids namely *Psystallia incisi* and *Diachasmimorpha longicaudata* from *Bactrocera dorsalis* and *Diachasmimorpha tryoni* from *Ceratitis capitata*. They also studied the effect of azadirachtin concentration on these three parasitoids. Results of the first test were in conformity with Stark et al. (1990). All larvae that were exposed to sand treated with azadirachtin, pupated. Adult eclosion was concentration-dependent in both fly species, with little or no fly eclosion at 10 ppm. However, *P. incisi* and *D. longicaudata* successfully eclosed from pupae treated with < 10ppm azadirachtin. In all the cases after the exposure of azadirachtin, the adult eclosion was

Facknath (1999) and Reddy & Guerrero (2000) evaluated biorational and regular insecti‐ cide applications for management of the diamondback moth *P. xylostella* in cabbage and side effects on aphid parasitoids and other beneficial insects; they reported that the these biocontrol agents were not affected by neem treatments, whereas Pirimor R treatments re‐ duced beneficial insect numbers. Although Pirimor R would be the preferred choice for immediate aphid control through contact action in commercial crop production, neem still has a place in the control of aphids in situations such as organic crop production, or in crops where resistance to other chemicals by aphids or their natural enemies has re‐

Perera et al. (2000) studied the effect of three feeding deterrents: denatonium benzoate, azadirachtin and Pestistat on 4th instar larvae of *Chrysodeixis eriosoma* and *P. xylostella* and on the parasitoid, *Cotesia plutellae*. Their results suggested that the three antifeedants were effective in managing cabbage pests, *C. eriosoma* and *P. xylostella* and could be used in integrated pest management programmes. Denatonium benzoate was comparatively

Bruhnke et al. (2003) evaluated effects of pesticides on the wasp *Aphidius rhopalosiphi*. They emphasize that whole-plant test designs seemed to be more attractive to the wasps than single leaves and there were no harmful side effects. Similar results were mentioned by Mead-Briggs

Many research studies show that integration of chemical, cultural and biological control meas‐ ures are getting popular as integrated pest management (IPM), components, throughout the world. In this regard, biological control occupies a central position in Integrated Pest Manage‐ ment (IPM) Programmes. Because biological control agents for pests and weeds have enor‐ mous and unique advantages, it is safe, permanent, and economical (Kilgore & Doutt, 1967).

sulted (Stark & Wennergren 1995; Holmes et al. 1999; Hoelmer et al 1999).

sitoids never recovered and died encased within exuvial cuticle.

12 Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies

inhibited.

safer to the parasitoids *C. plutellae*.

(2008) and Dantinne & Jansen (2008).

**3. Side effects of insecticides on coccinellids**

Pesticides are highly effective, rapid in action, convenient to apply, usually economical and most powerful tools in pest management. However, indiscriminate, inadequate and improper use of pesticides has led to severe problems such as development of pest re‐ sistance, resurgence of target species, outbreak of secondary pests, destruction of benefi‐ cial insects, as well as health hazards and environmental pollution. It is therefore, a high time to evaluate the suitable products to be used in plant protection strategy. In an inte‐ grated control programme, it was necessary to utilize some insecticides with minimal toxicity to natural enemies of pests. Such practice might help to alleviate the problems of pest resurgence, which is frequently associated with insecticide up use in plant protec‐ tion (Yadav, 1989; Meena et al. 2002).

*Coccinella undecimpunctata* L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) is a euryphagous predator that feeds especially on aphids (Hodek & Honěk 1996). Given its voracity toward these pests, *C. undecimpunctata* offers interesting potential as a control agent in the context of Integrat‐ ed Pest Management (IPM) (ElHag 1992; Zaki et al. 1999a; Moura et al. 2006; Cabral et al. 2006, 2008, 2009). The success of IPM programs depends, in part, on the optimal use of selective insecticides that are less harmful to natural enemies (Tillman & Mulrooney 2000; Stark et al. 2007), which requires knowledge of their side-effects on the biological and be‐ havioural traits of these organisms (Tillman & Mulrooney 2000; Sechser et al. 2003; Youn et al. 2003; Bozski 2006; Stark et al. 2007). Some studies have been done to assess the sus‐ ceptibility of *C. undecimpunctata* to different insecticides but all, in some way, adversely affected this species (Salman & Abd-el-Raof 1979; Lowery & Isman 1995; Omar et al. 2002). Recent studies showed that, in general, pirimicarb and pymetrozine had no ad‐ verse effects on the biological traits (i.e. developmental time, fecundity, fertility, percent‐ age of egg hatch) of immature or adult stages of *C. undecimpunctata* when sprayed on the insects, which makes these chemicals potentially suitable to use in combination with *C. undecimpunctata* for integrated control of sucking pests (Cabral et al. 2008, 2011).

The coccinellids predatory activity usually starts at medium high level of pest density, so the natural control is not quick, but is often effective. Untreated areas (such as edge rows) close to the orchards serve as refugia and play a strategic role in increasing biolog‐ ical control by coccinellids. The side effects (short term/ microscale) of several organo‐ phosphate and carbamate derived insecticides (commonly used to control tortricids, leafminers or scale pests in differnt orchards) against aphid-feeding coccinellid species were evaluated in fields tests in apple, pear and peach orchards according to the method described by Stäubli et al. (1985). The main species of aphid feeding coccinellids found were *Adalia bipunctata*, *C. septempunctata* & *Oenopia conglobata*, in order of population den‐ sity observed (Pasqualini 1980; Brown 1989).

The influence of 7 pesticides (6 insecticides & 1 acaricide) on different stages (adults, larvae, eggs) of *C. septempunctata* and adults of *A. bipunctata* was evaluated under laboratory condi‐ tions by Olszak et al. (2004). It was found that food (aphids) contaminated with such chemicals as pirimicarb, novaluron, pyriproxyfen and fenpyroximate did not decrease neither the longevity nor the fecundity of females of both tested species.

ed plant surfaces; by ingestion of insecticide contaminated prey, nectar or honeydew (i.e. uptake of insecticide-contaminated food sources) (Longley & Stark 1996; Obrycki & Kring 1998; Lewis et al. 1998; Youn et al. 2003). Since it is known that the susceptibility of natural enemies to insecticides varies with the route of pesticide exposure (Longley & Stark 1996; Banken & Stark 1998; Naranjo 2001; Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003), it is im‐ portant to perform both topical and residual tests as they can provide valuable informa‐ tion about the expected and observed impacts of insecticides on natural enemies in the field (Tillman & Mulrooney 2000). On the other hand, in the field predator/ prey interac‐ tions generally occur in structurally complex patches (i.e. plant architecture and surface features), which thereby influences the predator's foraging efficacy (Dixon 2000). Thus, studies regarding insecticide effects on predator's voracity should also reflect such sce‐ narios (i.e. the tri-trophic system predator/prey/plant), particularly when testing systemic insecticides where the presence of the plant allows prey contamination not only by con‐

Side Effects of Insecticides on Natural Enemies and Possibility of Their Integration in Plant Protection Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54199

15

Some studies have addressed the susceptibility of immature and adult coccinellids to pir‐ imicarb and pymetrozine, when directly sprayed on prey and/or predators (e.g. James 2003) but nothing is known about the side effects of these chemicals on prey/predator in‐ teractions within tri-trophic systems. Thus, Cabral et al. (2011) evaluated effects of piri‐ micarb and pymetrozine on the voracity of 4th instar larvae and adults of *C. undecimpunctata*, under distinct scenarios of exposure to chemicals within a prey/plant system. Voracity of *C. undecimpunctata* was not significantly affected by pirimicarb or py‐ metrozine when treatments were directly sprayed on the predator; however, when insec‐ ticides were sprayed on the prey/plant system, the predator's voracity was significantly increased. Results suggest that *C. undecimpunctata* does not detect the insecticide on the aphids and indicate that the increase in voracity may be due to a decrease in the mobili‐ ty of insecticide-treated aphids, since their capture should be easier than highly mobile non-treated prey as reported by Cabral et al. (2011). The consequences of such increase in the voracity for IPM programs are vital and required in aphid control programs.

Other studies suggested that the predatory efficiency of both adult and fourth instar lar‐ vae of *C. septempunctata* was significantly reduced, due to the sub-lethal effects of dime‐ thoate residues and treated prey. Prey-choice experiments revealed that adult coccinellids consumed significantly fewer treated than untreated aphids over the 5-h experimental period. Fourth instar larvae preferentially consumed untreated aphids when given the choice of full rate dimethoate treated aphids or untreated aphids. The implications for post-treatment coccinellid survival and integrated pest management are considerable

The cultural practice that has the greatest effect on local populations of coccinellids is the application of insecticides. Accordingly, the greatest gains may be attained through reduction of toxic pesticides in coccinellid habitats. Insecticides and fungicides can reduce coccinellid populations. They may have direct or indirect toxic effect s (DeBach & Rosen 1991). Surviving coccinellids may also be directly affected, *e. g*. reductions in fecundity or longevity, or indirectly affected by decimation of their food source(s). Adults may disperse from treated areas in

tact, but also through the food source.

(Swaran 1999; Singh et al. 2004; Solangi et al. 2007)

Olszak et al. (1994) investigated influencing of some insect growth regulators (IRGs) on different developmental stages of *Adalia bipunctata* and *C. septempunctata* (on eggs, larvae and adults); who stated generally that the tested IGRs affected all developmental stages of both coccinellid species but the results varied according to stage. Some of the insecti‐ cides elicited a drastical reduction of the fecundity, especially in ladybirds (e.g. with te‐ flubenzuron, fenoxycarb and flufenoxuron). Moreover, chlorfluazuron was the most dangerous one for almost all larval stages. From the other hand IGRs exerted a relatively low influence on adult coccinellids, the same trend of results obtained by Olszak (1999) and Olszak & Sekrecka (2008).

Pasqualini & Civolani (2003) examined six insecticides on adults of the aphidophagous cocci‐ nellids *Adalia bipunctata* (L.), *C. septempunctata* (L.) and *Oenopia conglobata* (L.) in apple, pear and peach orchards. The insecticides evaluated were the organophosphates (OP) chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, azinphos-methyl and malathion, the carbamate derived Methomyl and the Nereistoxin analogues Cartap. Azinphos-methyl was consistently toxic to coccinellids with between 76% and 90.5% mortality occurring in four studies. Chlorpyrifos EC resulted in mor‐ tality ranging from 40.2% (apples, 1999) to 63% (peach, 2001) over five studies. Chlorpyrifos WDG mortality ranged from 50.8% to 70% over three studies. Chlorpyrifos-methyl resulted in 31% mortality in apples in 1999 and 86.1% mortality in pears in 1998. Methomyl and cartap were evaluated in a single study in apples and resulted in 66.7 and 10% mortality respectively. Malathion was evaluated in a separate study and caused 43.5% mortality.

To further develop IPM against aphids, it is important to evaluate the effects that these insecti‐ cides might have on *C. undecimpunctata* predatory capacity, since it is considered relevant to evaluate the predator's potential as a biological control agent (ElHag & Zaitonn 1996; Omkar 2004; Tsaganou et al. 2004). Previous studies indicated that sublethal effects of insecticides may result in an immediate disruption of predatory behaviour and a potential reduction in the efficiency of coccinellids to locate and capture their prey, since chemicals may interfere with the feeding behaviour by repellent, antifeedant or reduced olfactory capacity effects (Singh et al. 2001, 2004; Stark et al. 2004, 2007). The behavioural responses may also alter the predator's search pattern (Thornham et al. 2007, 2008) by avoidance of treated surfaces or ingestion of treated prey, to minimize their contact with insecticides (Wiles & Jepson 1994; Singh et al. 2001, 2004). On the other hand, insecticides can indirectly induce modifications on the dynamic pred‐ ator/prey, through changes in the state and behaviour of the aphid colony that will influence relative prey value and consequently the predator's active choice. In addition, reductions (or absence) in the mobility and of defensive responses by the aphids can influence the predator's choice, as shown by several authors (Eubanks & Denno 2000; Provost et al. 2005, 2006; Cabral et al. 2011).

In the field, beneficial arthropods can be exposed to insecticides in several ways: by di‐ rect contact with spray droplets; by uptake of residues when contacting with contaminat‐ ed plant surfaces; by ingestion of insecticide contaminated prey, nectar or honeydew (i.e. uptake of insecticide-contaminated food sources) (Longley & Stark 1996; Obrycki & Kring 1998; Lewis et al. 1998; Youn et al. 2003). Since it is known that the susceptibility of natural enemies to insecticides varies with the route of pesticide exposure (Longley & Stark 1996; Banken & Stark 1998; Naranjo 2001; Grafton-Cardwell & Gu 2003), it is im‐ portant to perform both topical and residual tests as they can provide valuable informa‐ tion about the expected and observed impacts of insecticides on natural enemies in the field (Tillman & Mulrooney 2000). On the other hand, in the field predator/ prey interac‐ tions generally occur in structurally complex patches (i.e. plant architecture and surface features), which thereby influences the predator's foraging efficacy (Dixon 2000). Thus, studies regarding insecticide effects on predator's voracity should also reflect such sce‐ narios (i.e. the tri-trophic system predator/prey/plant), particularly when testing systemic insecticides where the presence of the plant allows prey contamination not only by con‐ tact, but also through the food source.

tions by Olszak et al. (2004). It was found that food (aphids) contaminated with such chemicals as pirimicarb, novaluron, pyriproxyfen and fenpyroximate did not decrease neither the

Olszak et al. (1994) investigated influencing of some insect growth regulators (IRGs) on different developmental stages of *Adalia bipunctata* and *C. septempunctata* (on eggs, larvae and adults); who stated generally that the tested IGRs affected all developmental stages of both coccinellid species but the results varied according to stage. Some of the insecti‐ cides elicited a drastical reduction of the fecundity, especially in ladybirds (e.g. with te‐ flubenzuron, fenoxycarb and flufenoxuron). Moreover, chlorfluazuron was the most dangerous one for almost all larval stages. From the other hand IGRs exerted a relatively low influence on adult coccinellids, the same trend of results obtained by Olszak (1999)

Pasqualini & Civolani (2003) examined six insecticides on adults of the aphidophagous cocci‐ nellids *Adalia bipunctata* (L.), *C. septempunctata* (L.) and *Oenopia conglobata* (L.) in apple, pear and peach orchards. The insecticides evaluated were the organophosphates (OP) chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, azinphos-methyl and malathion, the carbamate derived Methomyl and the Nereistoxin analogues Cartap. Azinphos-methyl was consistently toxic to coccinellids with between 76% and 90.5% mortality occurring in four studies. Chlorpyrifos EC resulted in mor‐ tality ranging from 40.2% (apples, 1999) to 63% (peach, 2001) over five studies. Chlorpyrifos WDG mortality ranged from 50.8% to 70% over three studies. Chlorpyrifos-methyl resulted in 31% mortality in apples in 1999 and 86.1% mortality in pears in 1998. Methomyl and cartap were evaluated in a single study in apples and resulted in 66.7 and 10% mortality respectively.

To further develop IPM against aphids, it is important to evaluate the effects that these insecti‐ cides might have on *C. undecimpunctata* predatory capacity, since it is considered relevant to evaluate the predator's potential as a biological control agent (ElHag & Zaitonn 1996; Omkar 2004; Tsaganou et al. 2004). Previous studies indicated that sublethal effects of insecticides may result in an immediate disruption of predatory behaviour and a potential reduction in the efficiency of coccinellids to locate and capture their prey, since chemicals may interfere with the feeding behaviour by repellent, antifeedant or reduced olfactory capacity effects (Singh et al. 2001, 2004; Stark et al. 2004, 2007). The behavioural responses may also alter the predator's search pattern (Thornham et al. 2007, 2008) by avoidance of treated surfaces or ingestion of treated prey, to minimize their contact with insecticides (Wiles & Jepson 1994; Singh et al. 2001, 2004). On the other hand, insecticides can indirectly induce modifications on the dynamic pred‐ ator/prey, through changes in the state and behaviour of the aphid colony that will influence relative prey value and consequently the predator's active choice. In addition, reductions (or absence) in the mobility and of defensive responses by the aphids can influence the predator's choice, as shown by several authors (Eubanks & Denno 2000; Provost et al. 2005, 2006; Cabral et

In the field, beneficial arthropods can be exposed to insecticides in several ways: by di‐ rect contact with spray droplets; by uptake of residues when contacting with contaminat‐

Malathion was evaluated in a separate study and caused 43.5% mortality.

longevity nor the fecundity of females of both tested species.

14 Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies

and Olszak & Sekrecka (2008).

al. 2011).

Some studies have addressed the susceptibility of immature and adult coccinellids to pir‐ imicarb and pymetrozine, when directly sprayed on prey and/or predators (e.g. James 2003) but nothing is known about the side effects of these chemicals on prey/predator in‐ teractions within tri-trophic systems. Thus, Cabral et al. (2011) evaluated effects of piri‐ micarb and pymetrozine on the voracity of 4th instar larvae and adults of *C. undecimpunctata*, under distinct scenarios of exposure to chemicals within a prey/plant system. Voracity of *C. undecimpunctata* was not significantly affected by pirimicarb or py‐ metrozine when treatments were directly sprayed on the predator; however, when insec‐ ticides were sprayed on the prey/plant system, the predator's voracity was significantly increased. Results suggest that *C. undecimpunctata* does not detect the insecticide on the aphids and indicate that the increase in voracity may be due to a decrease in the mobili‐ ty of insecticide-treated aphids, since their capture should be easier than highly mobile non-treated prey as reported by Cabral et al. (2011). The consequences of such increase in the voracity for IPM programs are vital and required in aphid control programs.

Other studies suggested that the predatory efficiency of both adult and fourth instar lar‐ vae of *C. septempunctata* was significantly reduced, due to the sub-lethal effects of dime‐ thoate residues and treated prey. Prey-choice experiments revealed that adult coccinellids consumed significantly fewer treated than untreated aphids over the 5-h experimental period. Fourth instar larvae preferentially consumed untreated aphids when given the choice of full rate dimethoate treated aphids or untreated aphids. The implications for post-treatment coccinellid survival and integrated pest management are considerable (Swaran 1999; Singh et al. 2004; Solangi et al. 2007)

The cultural practice that has the greatest effect on local populations of coccinellids is the application of insecticides. Accordingly, the greatest gains may be attained through reduction of toxic pesticides in coccinellid habitats. Insecticides and fungicides can reduce coccinellid populations. They may have direct or indirect toxic effect s (DeBach & Rosen 1991). Surviving coccinellids may also be directly affected, *e. g*. reductions in fecundity or longevity, or indirectly affected by decimation of their food source(s). Adults may disperse from treated areas in response to severe prey reductions or because of insecticide repellence (Newsom 1974). Pesticides vary widely in their effect on coccinellids, and similarly, coccinellids vary greatly in their susceptibility to pesticides (Polonsky et al., 1989; Lewis et al. 1998; Decourtye & Pham-Delegue 2002). Botanic insecticides are safer on natural enemies as well insect pathogens as confirmed by many studies (i.e. Ofuya 1997; Schmutterer 1997; Simmonds et al. 2000; Smitha et al 2006). Swaminathan et al. (2010) evaluated side effects of botanicals *viz.*, neem (*Azadirachta indica* A. Juss) leaves (NL), neem seed kernel extract (NSKE), eucalyptus oil (EO) and neem oil (NO) against aphidophagous coccinellids, *Adonia variegata* (Goeze). The side effects of neem seed kernal botanicals on the coccinellid recorded the highest mortality (73.33%) due to NSKE (10%) followed by (65.0% mortality) for neem oil (5.0%); and the post treatment effect (one day after) evinced maximum reduction in feeding (72.0 %) for NSKE (10%) followed by that recorded as 68% for *neem* oil (5%).

rates, whereas azadirachtin and diflubenzeuron were toxic to *C. carnea* third instar larvae (Medina et al. 2003 a, b; Güven & Göven 2003). In greenhouses, where organic farming system was applied, spinosad was used to control *Spodoptera littoralis* (Boisd.) on pepper and *Plutella xylostella* (L.) on cabbage, whereas *Chrysoperla carnea* and *Coccinella undecimpunctata* (L.) were

Side Effects of Insecticides on Natural Enemies and Possibility of Their Integration in Plant Protection Strategies

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54199

17

Saleem & Matter (1991) observed that the neem oil acted as temporary repellent against the predatory staphylinid beetle, *Paederus alfierii*, the coccinellid, *C. undecimpunctata* and the lacewing, *Chrysoperla carnea* in cotton but otherwise neem oil had no adverse effect on these predators of *Spodoptera littoralis*. That neem oil had no adverse effect on predators is also obvious from the studies of Kaethner (1991), as it was found harmless to the eggs, larvae or

Joshi et al. (1982) noted that 2 percent neem seed kernel suspension, when sprayed on tobacco plants, conserved the *Chrysopa scelestes*, an egg and larval predator of *S. litura*. The adults of the lacewing, *C. scelestes* were repelled from egg laying on cotton plants after they were sprayed with various commercial neem products of Indian origin and aqueous NSKE (Yadav & Patel 1992). First instar larvae of the predator emerged normally from treated eggs. Polyphagous predator, *C. carnea* treated in laboratory and semi-field trials with AZT-VR-K (1000 ppm) and with a mixture of this product with NO (25030000 ppm) induced no toxicity on eggs or adults; the fecundity of the latter was also not significantly affected (Kaethner 1991). The number of eggs (fecundity) laid by adult females developed from treated larvae was normal. The mortali‐ ty of larvae fed with neem-treated aphids did not differ from that of controls. In laboratory ex‐ periments of Hermann et al. (1998) high mortality of larvae and pupae of *C. carnea* occurred if larvae were kept on NeemAzal-T/S (0.3% and 0.6%) contaminated glass plates, but practically no mortality was found in semi-field trials. Vogt et al. (1997) also studied the effectiveness of NeemAzal-T/S at 0.3 percent against *Dysaphis plantaginea* on apple and on its side-effects on *C. carnea*. A single application of NeemAzal-T/S in April gave very good control of *D. plantaginea* for about 5-6 weeks. After this period *D. plantaginea* builtup new colonies and *Aphis pomi*, too, increased in abundance. The side-effect test revealed that in the field NeemAzal-T/S was harm‐ less to larvae of *C. carnea*. Neem seed extract was also found safe to *C. carnea* in comparison to nine insecticidal products (Sarode & Sonalka 1999a) where chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin and cy‐ permethrin were found highly toxic to *Chrysoperla*. There was no mortality of *C. carnea* due to neem-based pesticides like NSE 5 per cent, Neemark, Achook, and Nimbecidine each at 0.003

released to control aphid populations on pepper and cabbage (Mandour 2009).

adults of *C. carnea* and also *C. septempunctata* (Lowery & Isman 1996)

per cent and neem oil at 1 per cent (Deole et al. 2000; Viñuela et al. 2000).

Spinosad is registered in many countries including Egypt for controlling lepidopteran and dipteran pests in fruit trees, ornamental plants, field- and vegetable crops. Medina et al. (2001, 2003b) studied the effect of spinosad on *C. carnea* eggs, pupae and adults using direct contact and ingestion treatments. As most of *C. carnea* immature stages do not die when exposed to sublethal doses, sublethal effects may exist that reduce the effectiveness of *C. carnea* progeny in controlling aphid control (Desneux et al. 2007). Mandour (2009) studied toxicity of spinosad to immature stages of *C. carnea* and its effect on the reproduction and survival of adult stages after direct spray and ingestion treatments. Spinosad was harmless to *C. carnea* eggs and pupae irrespective of concentrations or method of treatments. Mandour (2009) stated that oral

Vostrel (1998) stated that most of times tested acaricides, insecticides (carbamates & synthetic pyrethroids), exerted negative effects to varying degrees on all stages of *C. septempunctata*. Average mortality was lowest for acaricides, while fungicides were slightly more toxic. Insecticides nearly always caused comparatively higher mortality of all development stages, but adults were more resistant in many cases.

Based on many years of research, it is stated that bacterial and fungal biological preparations at rates recommended for use in agriculture show low toxicity to the predators *C. septempunc‐ tata* and *Chrysoperla carnea*, and to the parasitoids *Encarsia formosa* and *Trichogramma pintoi* (Mikul'skaya, 2000). There is a great importance of biological control in integrated pest management strategy.
