**4. Side effects on lacewings (***Chrysoperla* **spp.)**

The common green lacewing, *Chrysoperla carnea* (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) is one of the most common arthropod predators (Tauber et al. 2000; McEwen et al. 2001) with a wide prey range including aphids, eggs and neonates of lepidopteran insects, scales, whiteflies, mites, and other soft bodied insects (New 1975; McEwen et al. 2001). It has long been considered as a promising candidate for pest management programs worldwide (Tauber et al. 2000; McEwen et al. 2001) due to its wide prey range and geographical distribution, resistance/ tolerance to pesticides, voracious larval feeding capacity as well as commercial availability (Medina et al. 2003a). Inundative releases of *C. carnea* were effective in controlling populations of pest complexes in various crops (Ridgway & Murphy 1984).

Insecticides, earlier considered as the backbone in crop protection, have become subordinate to other control methods, such as biocontrol which has gained more credibility in the last decades (Zaki et al. 1999b; Sarode & Sonalkar 1999b; Senior & McEwen 2001). But, the effectiveness of bioagents has been jeopardized by these insecticides. The sensitivity of *C. carnea* to insecticides differs from compound to compound. Medina et al. (2001) demonstrated that spinosad had little effect on *C. carnea* adult longevity and fecundity with no impact on eggs and pupae. Also, pyriproxyfen and tebufenozide were harmless at recommended field 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 released to control aphid populations on pepper and cabbage (Mandour 2009).

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

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,

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

The common green lacewing, *Chrysoperla carnea* (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) is one of the most common arthropod predators (Tauber et al. 2000; McEwen et al. 2001) with a wide prey range including aphids, eggs and neonates of lepidopteran insects, scales, whiteflies, mites, and other soft bodied insects (New 1975; McEwen et al. 2001). It has long been considered as a promising candidate for pest management programs worldwide (Tauber et al. 2000; McEwen et al. 2001) due to its wide prey range and geographical distribution, resistance/ tolerance to pesticides, voracious larval feeding capacity as well as commercial availability (Medina et al. 2003a). Inundative releases of *C. carnea* were effective in controlling populations

Insecticides, earlier considered as the backbone in crop protection, have become subordinate to other control methods, such as biocontrol which has gained more credibility in the last decades (Zaki et al. 1999b; Sarode & Sonalkar 1999b; Senior & McEwen 2001). But, the effectiveness of bioagents has been jeopardized by these insecticides. The sensitivity of *C. carnea* to insecticides differs from compound to compound. Medina et al. (2001) demonstrated that spinosad had little effect on *C. carnea* adult longevity and fecundity with no impact on eggs and pupae. Also, pyriproxyfen and tebufenozide were harmless at recommended field

recorded as 68% for *neem* oil (5%).

management strategy.

but adults were more resistant in many cases.

16 Insecticides - Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies

**4. Side effects on lacewings (***Chrysoperla* **spp.)**

of pest complexes in various crops (Ridgway & Murphy 1984).

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

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 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 ingestion of spinosad in artificial diet resulted in rapid death in *C. carnea* adults. After 7 days of ingestion, all tested adults in the three highest concentrations were dead compared to 100% of adult survival in control (Fig. 3). He mentioned also that spinosad ingestion had a profound effect on fecundity of *C. carnea*. In the three highest concentrations, almost all eggs were laid on the first two days after spinosad ingestion, and then surviving adults stopped laying eggs until death (Fig. 4).

**5. Side effects on predatory spiders and mites**

2005; Volkmar et al. 1992, 1996 a, b, 2003, 2004).

or insect visitors always had more spiders.

There is an increasing interest in the ecology of polyphagous predators (e.g. Araneae) in agriculture. Spiders are important natural enemies of many insect pests, as they are generalist predators and comprise a large part of the beneficial arthropod community in agricultural fields (Nyffeler 1982; Riechert & Lockley 1984; Sunderland et al. 1986; Young & Lockley 1985; Everts 1990), and a number of case studies in different crops (e.g. Mansour et al. 1981; Nyffeler & Benz 1987, 1988) show that spiders can indeed be effective pest control agents in many situations. However spiders are also easily affected by pesticides (Boller et al. 1989; Everts et al. 1989; Aukema et al. 1990; Volkmar 1995, 1996; Volkmar & Wetzel 1993; Volkmar & Schier

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

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

19

Agricultural entomologists recorded the importance of spiders as a major factor in regulating pest and they have been considered as important predators of insect pests and serve as a buffer to limits the initial exponential growth of prey population (Volkmar 1996; Snyder & Wise 1999; Nyffeler 2000; Sigsgaard 2000; Maloney et al. 2003; Venturino et al. 2008; Chatterjee et al. 2009; Jayakumar & Sankari 2010). However researchers have exposed those spiders in rice field can play an important role as predators in reducing plant hoppers and leafhoppers (Visarto et al. 2001; Lu Zhong- Xian 2006, 2007). Several workers reported the predatory potency of spiders in rice ecosystem (Samiyyan 1996; Sahu et al. 1996; Pathak & Saha 1999; Sigsgaard 2000; Vanitha 2000; Mathirajan 2001; Sunil Jose et al. 2002; Satpathi 2004; Sudhikumar et al. 2005; Sebastian et al. 2005; Motobayashi et al. 2006). According to Peter (1988), the crop having more insects

Many studies have demonstrated that spiders can significantly reduce prey densities. Lang et al. (1999) found that spiders in a maize crop depressed populations of leafhoppers (Cicadelli‐ dae), thrips (Thysanoptera), and aphids (Aphididae). The three most abundant spiders in win‐ ter wheat, *Pardosa agrestis* (Westring) and two species of Linyphiidae, reduced aphid populations by 34% to 58% in laboratory studies (Volkmar et al. 1992, 1996 a, b; Feber et al. 1998; Yardim & Edwards 1998; Marc et al. 1999; Nyffeler 1999; Holland et al. 2000). Both web-weav‐ ing and hunting spiders limited populations of phytophagous Homoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera in an old field in Tennessee (Riechert & Lawrence 1997). Spiders have also proven to be effective predators of herbivorous insects in apple orchards, including the beetle *Anthonomus pomorum* Linnaeus, and Lepidoptera larvae in the family Tortricidae (Marc & Canard 1997; Buchholz & Kreuels 2009). In no-till corn, wolf spiders (Lycosidae) reduce larval densities of ar‐ myworm (Laub & Luna 1992). Wolf spiders also reduced densities of sucking herbivores (Del‐ phacidae & Cicadellidae) in tropical rice paddies (Fagan et al. 1998). Spiders are capable of reducing populations of herbivores that may not be limited by competition and food availabili‐

ty in some agroecosystems (Buchsbaum 1996; Sunderland 1999; Lemke 1999).

Among the identified species, *Lycosa pseudoannulata* (Boes & Stand) was the most prevalent fol‐ lowed by *Atypena formosana* (Oi), *Argiope catenulate* (Doleschalland) *Clubiona japonicola* (Boesen‐ berg and Strand) (Sahu et al. 1996). The population of these four species also varied at different growth stages of rice (Heong et al. 1992). In the first 35 DAT of rice, *Pardosa pseudoannulata* and *Atypena formosana* are considered as the important predators of Green leafhopper (Sahu et al.

**Figure 3.** Rate of *C. carnea* adult survival after feeding on spinosad treated artificial diet from the onset of oviposition, FR = field rate (*n*=8) (after Mandour 2009).

**Figure 4.** Influence of spinosad concentration on fecundity of *C. carnea* adults when fed with treated artificial diet from the onset of oviposition FR = field rate (*n*=8) (after Mandour 2009).
