Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning and Pedotransfer Functions Under Varying Data Availability in Two Greek Regions
Previous Article in Journal
DNA Polymerase Theta Regulates the Growth and Development of Fusarium acuminatum and Its Virulence on Alfalfa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture15111133
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Insecticidal and Residual Effects of Spinosad, Alpha-Cypermethrin, and Pirimiphos-Methyl on Surfaces Against Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Lasioderma serricorne

by
Paraskevi Agrafioti
1,2,*,
Marina Gourgouta
1,
Dimitrios Kateris
2 and
Christos G. Athanassiou
1,2
1
Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Department of Agriculture, Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Phytokou Str. Nea Ionia, 38446 Volos, Greece
2
Institute for Bio-Economy and Agri-Technology (IBO), Centre for Research and Technology—Hellas (CERTH), Dimarchou Georgiadou 118, 38333 Volos, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(11), 1133; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111133
Submission received: 8 April 2025 / Revised: 24 April 2025 / Accepted: 20 May 2025 / Published: 24 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Protection, Diseases, Pests and Weeds)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Contact insecticides are classified into two categories: as grain protectants, which are applied directly on grains, and as surface treatments, which are applied on cracks and crevices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term residual efficacy of these insecticides across different surfaces and target species. Thus, we investigated the efficacy of three insecticidal formulations, spinosad, alpha-cypermethrin, and pirimiphos-methyl against stored product beetles on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic). Adults of Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Lasioderma serricorne were used in the experiments. Bioassays were carried out during a six-month period, with mortality measured after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days after exposure. Among the different insecticides tested, spinosad was the least effective against T. castaneum, especially on concrete, where mortality had decreased to zero by Month 2, whereas in most of the cases, close to 100% was recorded. Regarding S. granarius, pirimiphos-methyl and spinosad remained effective on ceramic and metallic surfaces for a six-month period, whereas alpha-cypermethrin had the lowest mortality rate. For L. serricorne, spinosad caused high mortality levels, whereas pirimiphos-methyl was the least effective after Month 4. Based on our finding, among the tested insecticides, spinosad had the long-term residual effect on stored product protection.

1. Introduction

The use of contact insecticides for stored product protection is of fundamental importance to protect durable agricultural commodities for long periods, which is not always feasible in the case of the application of fumigants [1,2,3,4,5]. The way that contact insecticides are applied falls into two broad categories. The first category is that of the so-called “grain protectants”, which refers to the insecticides that are applied directly on the product itself, particularly in grains [6,7,8,9], and are expected to provide post-harvest protection against insects as long as the active ingredient remains lethal to a sufficient degree [9,10,11,12,13]. Nevertheless, the fact that these insecticides come in direct contact with the product itself constitutes a limitation, due to the possible occurrence of residues in the final commodity. As such, there are currently only a handful of grain protectants on the market, with the registration of new ones to be extremely difficult, given that these are evaluated as “plant protection products” (PPPs) [12,14,15,16].
The second category includes those active ingredients that are not applied directly on the product, but on different surfaces or “crack and crevice” treatments [17,18,19,20,21]. Most grain protectants, despite the fact that they are considered as PPPs, also fall into this category, and can be applied for “fabric” applications [22,23,24,25]. However, this group includes many more active ingredients that are not registered as grain protectants and cover an extremely wide range of modes of action, from organophosphorous compounds (OPs) to pyrroles. The selection of specific contact insecticides towards this direction is a very demanding procedure, as their efficacy is directly related to several biotic and abiotic factors, such as the temperature level, the type of surface, the droplet size, relative humidity, etc. [5,26,27,28]. Currently, the number of contact insecticides that are registered for this purpose is much higher than that of grain protectants, as their registration is adapted to the procedures that are followed in the biocidal regulation, which is less demanding than that of PPPs.
Apart from the above factors, the target species is of utmost importance for the selection of a given contact insecticide when a surface-based control strategy is planned. Taking into account that the newer insecticides are more specialized to specific key application scenarios, the range of species that is to be controlled should be continuously updated. For instance, adults of the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum Jancquelin du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), have been found tolerant to the OP pirimiphos-methyl, while those of the lesser grain borer, Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae), were susceptible [27]. Similarly, the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (L.), as well as the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), were found to be moderately susceptible to the bacterial-based insecticide spinosad [12,29,30]. In addition, the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae), has been found tolerant/resistant to many of the currently used contact insecticides and fumigants [31,32,33,34,35].
One of the advantages of surface insecticides in stored product protection is their residual activity, which usually lasts for several weeks or even months after their application [36,37,38,39,40]. For instance, Vassilakos and Athanassiou [41] found that the bacterial insecticide spinetoram was very effective on surfaces for several months against S. oryzae, the confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), and the saw-toothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae), with the exposure to light to be detrimental for this active ingredient. Similarly, Sparangis et al. [37] found that the pyrrole chlorfenapyr was effective for the control of S. oryzae for a period of three months after the application, with the efficacy to be higher on steel surfaces as compared with concrete surfaces.
Taking into account that most of the studies available were mostly focused on the evaluation of different contact insecticides or the evaluation of a single contact insecticide for the control of several stored product insect species, in this work, we attempted to combine both in one standalone dataset—the evaluation of different insecticides on different stored products for the control of beetle species. Hence, we selected three active ingredients that notably vary in their mode of action, and three species that have different food preferences. In addition, we evaluated these insecticides for a long period of time in order to quantify their residual effect per target species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tested Insects

All insect species used in the bioassays were reared at the Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology (University of Thessaly) at 25 °C, 55% relative humidity (r.h.), and continuous darkness. From the species tested, T. castaneum was reared on wheat flour, S. granarius was reared on soft wheat, and L. serricorne on corn flour. The tests used adult beetles <1 month-old for all species.

2.2. Insecticide Formulation

In total, three insecticidal formulations were evaluated. The first formulation was spinosad [48% w/v active ingredient (a.i.), Laser 480SC, Elanco Hellas S.A., Chalandri, Athens, Greece], which is a naturally occurring insecticide with contact and stomach action against insects of the classes Lepidoptera, Diptera, Siphonoptera, Thysanopetra, and some Coleoptera. The active compound Spinosad targets the central nervous system of insects by binding to acetylocholine receptors, which causes sustained activation that leads to paralysis from neuromuscular fatigue [42].
The second formulation was alpha-cypermethrin [1.58% w/w active ingredient (a.i), Fendona®TOP 6SC, BASF Hellas, Marousi, Athens, Greece], which is a pyrethroid insecticide used for the control of walking and flying insects. The insecticidal actions of pyrethroids depend on the ability to blind and disrupt voltage-gated sodium channels of insect nerves [43].
The third formulation used was pirimiphos-methyl [49% w/w (a.i.), Actellic 50EC, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel, Switzerland), which is an organophosphate insecticide, causing inhibition of acetylcholinesterase in target organisms [44]. It is a broad-spectrum insecticide with both contact and respiratory actions, which is formulated for the control of stored product species. In all cases, the label dose was applied for application on surfaces. All insecticides were applied as water-based solutions.

2.3. Insecticidal Application

Plastic Petri dishes (90 mm diameter, 59.4 cm2 bottom surface) were used in all bioassays. In all cases, the label dose was tested, whereas the insecticide spraying solutions were prepared by diluting the appropriate amount of the formulation in distilled water. Insecticide solutions were applied on the treated surfaces with an airbrush (code: 22.BD-183 K, Manufacturer: GraphoTech, Japan, Kyoto), using 1 mL of spraying solution per dish.

2.4. Surface Type

To assess the effectiveness of the selected insecticides, four different surfaces were tested in this bioassay. Plastic Petri dishes, each with a 90 mm diameter and a bottom surface area of 59.4 cm2, were used. The surfaces evaluated were concrete bottom dishes (grey cement 42.5, Isomat S.A., Thessaloniki, Greece), which were mixed with tap water at a 4:1 ratio; metal bottom dishes; ceramic bottom dishes, which were cut and fixed to the dish bottom with a hot melt adhesive; and plastic petri dishes, without coating with any other material. Afterwards, all dishes were left for 24 h to dry at room temperature. The internal dish walls were covered with polytetrafluoroethylene preparation (Fluon, 60 wt% dispersion in water, Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Steinheim, Germany), to keep insects from escaping.

2.5. Residual Efficacy

Dishes were sprayed with the insecticide solution as described above. An extra series of dishes sprayed with distilled water served as control. After spraying, dishes were left to dry for 24 h. Afterwards, twenty adults were placed in each dish, surface, and insecticide. For T. castaneum, S. granarius, and L. serricorne, a small amount of wheat flour (1.0 ± 0.1 g/dish), soft wheat (0.5 ± 0.1 g/dish), and corn flour (1.0 ± 0.1 g/dish) were added in the center of the dish, respectively. Subsequently, the dishes were transferred to a chamber with stable conditions (25% and 55% relative humidity) with a 12:12 L:D photoperiod. Mortality of exposed insects was assessed at 3, 7, 14, and 21 days. This procedure was repeated separately for each month. The duration of the experiment was 6 months. Month 0 was considered the month in which spraying took place, and Month 5 was the last month of measurements. In total, six bioassays were conducted. The first bioassay started 24 h after spraying the surfaces, while the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth bioassays were conducted 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks after spraying, respectively.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Prior to analysis, all data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Shapiro–Wilk’s and Levene’s test, respectively. Since the required assumptions for parametric tests were not met, non-parametric analysis was performed. For each species (T. castaneum, S. granarius, and L. serricorne), storage interval (Months 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and exposure interval (Day 3, 7, 14, and 21), the mortality data were compared with a Kruskal–Wallis H-test (p < 0.05) to determine the differences among the different insecticides (control, alpha-cypermethrin, pirimiphos-methyl, and spinosad).

3. Results

3.1. Tribolium castaneum

In all cases, significant differences were achieved among the different active ingredients tested (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). The most effective insecticidal formulation for the plastic surface was spinosad throughout the storage time, resulting in 100% mortality for the majority of months of storage on the 3rd day of exposure (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). At Month 0, all insecticidal formulations achieved 100% mortality on all tested surfaces except on concrete, where the highest observed mortality was 43.3% for spinosad on the 21st day of exposure. A similar pattern emerged the following month, with the maximum mortality documented for spinosad after 21 days of exposure, although efficacy on all other surfaces remained high (Table 2). In Month 2, regardless of surface type, zero mortality was highlighted after 3 and 7 days of exposure, whereas on concrete, low mortality was recorded even after 21 days of exposure (Table 3). However, 100% mortality was achieved after 3 days on plastic and ceramic surfaces (Table 3). In most of the cases, there was a steady reduction in mortality rates after 3 months of storage intervals (Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6). Specifically, low mortality rates were noted during the exposure intervals, apart from spinosad, in which high mortality levels were documented (Table 4). In Months 4 and 5, none of the active ingredients had an effect on T. castaneum mortality, with the exception of spinosad, triggering mortality of more than 90% on all surfaces tested, apart from concrete (Table 5 and Table 6).

3.2. Sitophilus granarius

In all cases, significant differences were recorded among the different active ingredients tested (Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12). Specifically, in Month 0, high efficacy of all tested type of formulations on all surfaces was noted for S. granarius, after 3 days of exposure (Table 7). Similarly, in Month 1, mortality was extremely high after 3 days of exposure on metallic, plastic, and ceramic surfaces (Table 8). In Month 2, for pirimiphos-methyl and spinosad, mortality occurred on the 3rd day of exposure, while after 21 days of exposure, 100% mortality was achieved (Table 9). In Month 3, significant differences were recorded in mortality levels at the 3 d, 7 d, and 14 d of exposure but there were no significant differences among the tested active ingredients at the 21 d of exposure (Table 10). In Month 4, the efficacy of all active ingredients up to the 14th day of exposure on concrete was low (Table 11). Finally, in Month 5, the lowest mortality rates were recorded for alpha-cypermethrin on concrete, metallic, and plastic surfaces after 3 days of exposure (Table 12).

3.3. Lasioderma serricorne

Regarding L. serricorne, high mortality was recorded after 3 days of exposure to spinosad on all surfaces at Month 0 (Table 13). The same pattern was followed at Month 1, showing that, especially on metallic surfaces, 100% mortality was achieved in all tested formulations (Table 14). However, its efficacy decreased on concrete in Month 2, in which it was not significantly different among the tested formulations (Table 15). In the case of spinosad and pirimiphos-methyl, the mortality rates were high after 3 days of exposure on plastic and ceramic surfaces (Table 16). Nevertheless, the efficacy of pirimiphos-methyl decreased to 53.3% at 3 d of exposure, while spinosad continued to be sufficient to control L. serricorne, in which 100% mortality was demonstrated at the same exposure interval (Table 17). Finally, after 5 months of storage, only spinosad had the highest mortality levels, and significant differences were illustrated among the different formulations tested (Table 18).

4. Discussion

Our study indicates that all three insecticides that were tested here were effective for all target species, but their efficacy is highly influenced by a wide range of factors, such as the species per se, the type of the surface, the exposure interval, and the day (month) after the initial treatment. Overall, the residual effect of the insecticides tested here can be considered satisfactory, considering that most studies available are focused on shorter residual intervals [36,40,45]. At the same time, the results that are presented here can be further utilized in selecting a contact insecticide for “fabric” or “crack and crevice” treatments, based on the target species, which consists of the key element in surface applications.
From the species tested here, it is apparent that T. castaneum was the least susceptible one, to all combinations tested, regardless of the type of the surface. It is well established that populations of T. castaneum from different parts of the globe have been characterized as resistant to many of the currently used contact insecticides [46,47,48]. However, the increase of the exposure interval of the adults with the treated substrate caused an analogous increase in adult mortality, in all insecticides and surfaces. In general, short exposures of stored product insects to contact insecticides may cause increased survival, with surviving individuals being able to produce progeny before death [29,49,50]. On the other hand, S. granarius and L. serricorne can be considered as relatively susceptible to the three insecticides, as their mortality was high throughout the entire experimental period. Especially for L. serrirorne adults, the increased mortality that was noted in longer exposure intervals could be attributed to the fact that the adults of this species are short-lived [35], so a noticeable proportion of the mortality noted was not only due to the insecticides tested.
One of the most important findings of the present work is the extreme differences among the surfaces tested. For all species and combinations, with a few exceptions, we found that adult mortality was higher in metallic and ceramic surfaces. The causes for these dissimilarities have been illustrated in previous studies, especially in the case of concrete [51]. Similar results have been reported in other studies as well, where concrete was detrimental for the efficacy of several contact insecticides [27,29]. Interestingly, the performance of all insecticides on plastic was better than that on concrete, indicating that the porous structure of a given surface may be the main limitation here. All four surfaces tested in the current study constitute common surfaces in storage and processing facilities, where contact insecticides are usually applied.
Despite the fact that the differences among the three active ingredients tested were not always following the same trend, we can identify some key differences for the species tested. Considering the data from the last month of our experimental period, but also those of the previous months, we can conclude that spinosad was the most effective insecticide for the control of T. castaneum, but only on some of the surfaces. For instance, the results from Month 2 and beyond consistently demonstrated higher mortality rates on these surfaces compared to porous surfaces like concrete, where its efficacy diminished, likely due to adsorption and reduced residue availability. This trend is consistent with other studies showing that spinosad’s effectiveness can be surface-dependent, especially when considering its relatively low persistence on porous materials. In fact, this is manifested even from Month 2, and thus, the persistence of alpha-cypermethrin and pirimiphos-methyl for this species is rather limited. A large amount of results from the efficacy trials of spinosad against this species are summarized by Hertlein et al. [12], but these data are mostly focused on the use of spinosad as a grain protectant. In this context, spinosad is one of the few post-harvest insecticides that are registered as grain protectants, but not for surface treatments. Our study, along with multiple previous works, shows that there are sufficient data to support the label expansion of these active ingredients towards surface applications.
For S. granarius and L. serricorne, considering the data from the last Month, we can see that all insecticides provided similar results, especially at longer exposure intervals. In fact, L. serricorne required longer intervals for 100 % mortality in all combinations than the respective figures of S. granarius, a trend that is particularly evident on concrete. In a series of recent works, Rumbos et al. [22] and Athanassiou et al. [24] reported that this species was very susceptible to nets that were coated with alpha-cypermethrin, provided that the exposure was long enough. Currently, alpha-cypermethrin is registered in many parts of the world to be used in nets, for the protection of stored tobacco, for which L. serrirorne is the main pest. For S. granarius adults, Rumbos et al. [27] found that pirimiphos-methyl was very effective on surfaces, at concentrations that were even lower than the label rate of this insecticide. Moreover, Andric et al. [52] recorded the increased efficacy of cypermethrin against this species on concrete surfaces.

5. Conclusions

We report here a thorough dataset for the efficacy of different insecticides on surfaces in stored product protection. The overall data presented here underline the ineffectiveness of certain insecticides to provide control of T. castaneum for long periods, but also the effectiveness of the insecticides for the other two species tested. Also, we demonstrate the critical role of the type of surface, which interacts with the insecticide and may drastically decrease its efficacy. We tested here an application scenario where the insects were forced to move within a confined treated area for three weeks, and we assume that the results might have been different if shorter exposures had been selected. Spinosad can be considered the most effective option for long-term control of T. castaneum, especially when applied to non-porous surfaces such as metallic or plastic surfaces, where it shows prolonged efficacy over time. For porous surfaces, such as concrete, spinosad’s effectiveness is reduced, and alternative insecticides like alpha-cypermethrin or pirimiphos-methyl may be more suitable, although their efficacy is more limited on these surfaces and their persistence decreases quickly. We also recommend that pirimiphos-methyl might be considered for areas where short-term control is needed, with more frequent applications. These recommendations highlight the importance of tailoring insecticide use based on surface type and exposure duration and can help in designing more efficient pest management strategies, particularly in grain storage or warehouse environments where surface characteristics vary significantly.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.G.A. and P.A.; methodology, P.A. and M.G.; formal analysis, P.A.; investigation, P.A. and M.G.; data curation, P.A. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A. and C.G.A.; writing—review and editing, P.A., M.G., D.K., and C.G.A.; visualization, C.G.A. and D.K.; supervision, C.G.A.; project administration, C.G.A. and D.K.; funding acquisition, C.G.A. and D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was carried out as part of the project “PrecisionFEEDProtect: Precision protection of stored feed from entomological infestations using innovative technologies” (project code: ΚΜΡ6-0077613) under the framework of the Action “Investment Plans of Innovation” of the Operational Program “Central Macedonia 2021–2027”, which is co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Greece.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arthur, F.H. Efficacy of combinations of methoprene and deltamethrin as long-term commodity protectants. Insects 2019, 10, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arthur, F.H. Aerosols and contact insecticides as alternatives to methyl bromide in flour mills, food production facilities, and food warehouses. J. Pest Sci. 2012, 85, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hamel, D.; Rozman, V.; Liška, A. Storage of Cereals in Warehouses with or without Pesticides. Insects 2020, 11, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Scully, E.D.; Gerken, A.R.; Fifield, A.; Nguyen, V.; Van Pelt, N.; Arthur, F.H. Impacts of storicide II on internal feeders of brown rice. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 90, 101758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baliota, G.V.; Lampiri, E.; Batzogianni, E.N.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal effect of four insecticides for the control of different populations of three stored-product beetle species. Insects 2022, 13, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Arthur, F.H. Grain protectants: Current status and prospects for the future. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1996, 32, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Golob, P. Current status and future perspectives for inert dusts for control of stored product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1997, 33, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Arthur, F.H.; Subramanyam, B. Chemical Control in Stored Products; Publications on Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012; pp. 156–159. [Google Scholar]
  9. Daglish, G.J.; Nayak, M.K. Long-term persistence and efficacy of spinosad against Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) in wheat. Pest Manag. Sci. 2005, 62, 148–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. White, N.D.G.; Leesch, J.G. Chemical control. In Integrated Management of Insects in Stored Products; Subramanyam, B., Hagstrum, D.W., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 287–330. [Google Scholar]
  11. Phillips, T.W.; Throne, J.E. Biorational approaches to managing stored-product insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010, 55, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority); Álvarez, F.; Arena, M.; Auteri, D.; Batista Leite, S.; Binaglia, M.; Castoldi, A.F.; Chiusolo, A.; Colagiorgi, A.; Colas, M.; et al. Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance spinosad. EFSA J. 2025, 23, e9193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gerken, A.G.; Scott, R.L.; Khosla, S.; Markley, A.; Mueller, C.; Scheff, D.S. Impacts of food, temperature, and humidity on recovery in Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) after exposure to a contact pyrethroid insecticide. J. Insect Sci. 2025, 25, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chloridis, A.; Downard, P.; Dripps, J.E.; Kaneshi, K.; Lee, L.C.; Min, Y.K.; Pavan, L.A. Spinetoram (XDE-175): A new spinosyn. In Proceedings of the XVI International Plant Protection Congress Proceedings, Glasgow, Scotland, 15–18 October 2007; British Crop Production Council, Alton United Kingdom: Hampshire, UK, 2007; Volume 1, pp. 68–73. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dripps, J.E.; Boucher, R.E.; Chloridis, A.; Cleverand, C.B.; DeAmicis, C.V.; Gomez, L.E.; Paroonagian, D.L.; Pavan, L.A.; Sparks, T.C.; Watson, G.B. The spinosyn insecticides. In Green Trends in Insect Control; Lopez, O., Fernadez-Bolanos, J.G., Eds.; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 163–212. [Google Scholar]
  16. Abd El-Azi, S.E. Control strategies of stored product pests. J. Entomol. 2011, 8, 101–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Collins, P.J. A new resistance to pyrethroids in Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Pestic. Sci. 1990, 28, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kljajic, P.; Peric, I. Susceptibility to contact insecticides of granary weevil Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) originating from different locations in the former Yugoslavia. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2006, 42, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kljajic, P.; Peric, I. Altered susceptibility of granary weevil Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) populations to insecticides after selection with pirimiphos-methyl and deltamethrin. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2007, 43, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Veloso, R.V.S.; Pereira, E.J.G.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Oliveira, M.G.A. Does cypermethrin affect enzyme activity, respiration rate and walking behavior of the maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais)? Insect Sci. 2013, 20, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bomzan, D.P.; Bhavya, M.L.; Chandu, A.G.S.; Manivannan, S.; Lavanya, G.; Ramasamy, K.; Pasha, A. Potential of pyrethroid-synergised pyrethrum on stored product insects and implications for use as prophylactic sprays. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 2270–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Rumbos, C.I.; Sakka, M.; Schaffert, S.; Sterz, T.; Austin, J.W.; Bozoglou, C.; Klitsinaris, P.; Athanassiou, C.G. Evaluation of Carifend®, an alpha-cypermethrin-coated polyester net, for the control of Lasioderma serricorne and Ephestia elutella in stored tobacco. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ranabhat, S.; Abshire, J.; James, A.; Scheff, D.S.; Bingham, G.V.; Zhu, K.Y.; Morrison, W.R. Direct lethality and time-delayed sublethal effects of multiple types of insecticide netting against stored product insects. J. Econ. Entomol. 2025, toaf059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Athanassiou, C.G.; Sakka, M.K.; Rumbos, C.I.; Schaffert, S.; Sterz, T.; Bozoglou, C.; Klitsinaris, P.; Austin, J.W. Efficacy of Nets Coated with Different Concentrations of Alpha-Cypermethrin against Two Major Pests of Stored Tobacco. Agronomy 2023, 13, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gerken, A.R.; Scully, E.D.; Campbell, J.F.; Morrison, W.R., III. Effectiveness of long-lasting insecticide netting on Tribolium castaneum is modulated by multiple exposures, biotic, and abiotic factors. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 1235–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Hatzikonstantinou, A.N.; Kavallieratou, H.N. Abiotic and Biotic Factors Affect Efficacy of Chlorfenapyr for Control of Stored-Product Insect Pests. J. Food Prot. 2011, 74, 1288–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rumbos, C.I.; Dutton, A.C.; Athanassiou, C.G. Efficacy of two formulations of pirimiphos-methyl as surface treatment against Sitophilus granarius, Rhyzopertha dominica, and Tribolium confusum. J. Pest Sci. 2014, 87, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Arthur, F.H.; Domingue, M.J.; Scheff, D.S.; Myers, S.W. Bioassays and Methodologies for insecticide tests with larvae of Trogoderma granarium (Everts), the khapra beetle. Insects 2019, 10, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lampiri, E.; Agrafioti, P.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal effect of three insecticides applied on different surfaces for the control of three stored-product beetle species. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 101, 102087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Toews, M.D.; Subramanyam, B.; Rowan, J.M. Knockdown and Mortality of Adults of Eight Species of Stored-Product Beetles Exposed to Four Surfaces Treated with Spinosad. J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96, 1967–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sağlam, Ö.; Edde, P.E.; Phillips, T.W. Resistance of Lasioderma serricorne (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) to Fumigation with Phosphine. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 2489–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kim, B.S.; Shin, E.-M.; Park, Y.J.; Yang, J.O. Susceptibility of the Cigarette Beetle Lasioderma serricorne (Fabricius) to Phosphine, Ethyl Formate and Their Combination, and the Sorption and Desorption of Fumigants on Cured Tobacco Leaves. Insects 2020, 11, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hagstrum, D.W.; Subramanyam, B. Sanitation and Exclusion. In Fundamentals of Stored-Product Entomology American Associate of Cereal Chemists International; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Benezet, H.J.; Helms, C.W. Methoprene resistance in the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) from tobacco storages in the southeastern United States. Resist. Pest Manage. 1994, 6, 12–14. [Google Scholar]
  35. Edde, P.A. Biology, Ecology, and Control of Lasioderma serricorne (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae): A Review. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 1011–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boukouvala, M.C.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P. Etofenprox guarding concrete for six weeks: Immediate and delayed mortality of three major stored-product coleopterans. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 101, 102064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sparangis, P.; Rumbos, C.I.; Tsiropoulos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal and residual effect of chlorfenapyr on different surfaces for the control of Sitophilus oryzae. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 103, 102153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Arthur, F.H. Dosage rate, temperature, and food source provisioning affect susceptibility of Tribolium castaneum and Tribolium confusum to chlorfenapyr. J. Pest Sci. 2013, 86, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nayak, M.K.; Collins, P.J.; Kopittke, R.A. Residual toxicities and persistence of organophosphorus insecticides mixed with carbaryl as structural treatments against three liposcelidid psocid species (Psocoptera: Liposcelididae) infesting stored grain. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2003, 39, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ghimire, M.N.; Myers, S.W.; Arthur, F.H.; Phillips, T.W. Susceptibility of Trogoderma granarium Everts and Trogoderma inclusum LeConte (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) to residual contact insecticides. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 72, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vassilakos, T.M.; Athanassiou, C.G. Long-term residual efficacy of spinetoram on concrete and steel surfaces for the management of three stored product beetle species. J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 2090–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kirst, H.A. The spinosyn family of insecticides: Realizing the potential of natural products research. J. Antibiot. 2010, 63, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Soderlund, D.M. Molecular mechanisms of pyrethroid insecticide neurotoxicity: Recent advances. Arch. Toxicol. 2012, 86, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Casida, J.E.; Durkin, K.A. Neuroactive insecticides: Targets, selectivity, resistance, and secondary effects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P.; Skourti, A.; Virvidaki, A.J. Deltamethrin residual mission against Alphitobius diaperinus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on concrete for six weeks. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 99, 102036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zettler, L.J. Pesticide Resistance in Tribolium castaneum and T. confusum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from Flour Mills in the United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84, 763–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Khizar, M.; Hameed, A.; Mohammed, A.A.; Shad, S.A.; Hussain, M.; Abbas, Q.; Shad, T.A.; Attia, A.A. Base-line susceptibility of Tribolium castaneum to various synthetic insecticides. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 7097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Sehgal, B.; Subramanyam, B.; Arthur, F.H.; Gill, B.S. Variation in susceptibility of laboratory and field strains of three stored-grain insect species to β-cyfluthrin and chlorpyrifos-methyl plus deltamethrin applied to concrete surfaces. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 576–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Panagiotakis, A.; Baliota, G.V.; Rumbos, C.I.; Athanassiou, C.G. Efficacy of Contact Insecticides for the Control of the Larger Grain Borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn), on Stored Maize. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rumbos, C.I.; Dutton, A.C.; Tsiropoulos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G. Persistence and residual toxicity of two pirimiphos-methyl formulations on wheat against three stored-product pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 76, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karanika, C.; Rumbos, C.I.; Agrafioti, P.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal efficacy of a binary combination of cyphenothrin and prallethrin, applied as surface treatment against four major stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 80, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Andric, G.; Kljajić, P.; Pražić-Golić, M. Residual efficacy of cypermethrin and pirimiphos-methyl against Sitophilus granarius (L.) and Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) on concrete surface. Pestic. Phytomed. 2014, 29, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 0 (total degrees of freedom for Month 0 = 3), total n = 24.
Table 1. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 0 (total degrees of freedom for Month 0 = 3), total n = 24.
Days Treatment Concrete Metallic Plastic Ceramic
Day 3control 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 c 0.0 ± 0.0 b 4.1 ± 2.7 bc
alpha-cypermethrin 4.1 ± 1.5 a 5.8 ± 2.0 bc 4.1 ± 2.3 b 7.5 ± 1.7 b
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 b 18.3 ± 6.0 b 3.3 ± 1.6 b 0.0 ± 0.0 c
spinosad 0.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic13.7119.87 17.03 18.88
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 7control 0.0 ± 0.0 b 7.5 ± 2.1 c 0.0 ± 0.0 c 9.1 ± 3.7 c
alpha-cypermethrin 11.6 ± 3.8 a 68.3 ± 4.7 a 4.1 ± 2.3 c 28.3 ± 4.4 c
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 b 71.6 ± 6.1 a 15.0 ± 4.2 b 78.3 ± 7.8 b
spinosad 20.0 ± 8.2 a 100.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 15.11 19.87 18.83 20.64
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 14control 0.0 ± 0.0 a 7.5 ± 2.1 b 0.0 ± 0.0 c 11.6 ± 4.0 c
alpha-cypermethrin 23.3 ± 7.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 24.1 ± 8.5 c 68.3 ± 12.5 b
pyrimiphos-methyl 5.0 ± 5.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 60.0 ± 11.9 b 99.1 ± 0.8 a
spinosad 34.1 ± 8.8 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 16.35 22.42 21.33 19.76
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 21control 0.0 ± 0.0 c 7.5 ± 2.1 b 2.5 ± 1.1 d 30.0 ± 9.3 b
alpha-cypermethrin 34.1 ± 9.9 ab 100.0 ± 0.0 a 35.0 ± 6.9 c 100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 11.6 ± 4.7 bc 100.0 ± 0.0 a 71.6 ± 9.4 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 43.3 ± 5.8 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 16.77 22.42 20.92 22.41
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 2. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 1 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 2. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 1 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control 3.3 ± 1.6 0.8 ± 0.8 a 3.3 ± 1.0 a 2.5 ± 1.7 c
alpha-cypermethrin 6.6 ± 2.4 13.3 ± 4.0 a 0.8 ± 0.8 a 22.5 ± 4.2 bc
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 3.3 ± 2.1 a 0.0 ± 0.0 a 50.8 ± 17.2 b
spinosad 5.0 ± 1.8 100.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 6.87 18.83 18.70 19.23
p 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 7control 3.3 ± 1.6 0.8 ± 0.8 a 5.0 ± 2.2 b 5.8 ± 2.0 d
alpha-cypermethrin 6.6 ± 2.4 14.1 ± 3.7 a 0.8 ± 0.8 b 39.1 ± 3.0 c
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 25.8 ± 5.8 ab 1.6 ± 1.6 b 61.6 ± 9.4 bc
spinosad 10.8 ± 3.9 100.0 ± 0.0 c 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 ab
Test-statistic 7.74 19.17 16.93 20.29
p 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 14control 3.3 ± 1.6 3.3 ± 1.0 c 9.1 ± 2.3 a 45.0 ± 8.9 b
alpha-cypermethrin 13.3 ± 4.4 24.1 ± 5.0 c 0.8 ± 0.8 a 85.8 ± 7.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 15.8 ± 4.1 50.8 ± 9.5 b 19.1 ± 6.1 b 81.6 ± 5.5 a
spinosad 25.8 ± 10.9 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 c 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 6.79 20.84 18.13 15.31
p 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 21control 13.3 ± 2.4 b 4.1 ± 1.5 b 15.0 ± 1.8 bc 69.16 ± 7.4 b
alpha-cypermethrin 15.8 ± 4.1 b 25.8 ± 4.3 b 2.5 ± 1.7 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 15.8 ± 4.1 b 65.0 ± 7.6 a 27.5 ± 4.2 c 96.6 ± 3.3 a
spinosad 45.8 ± 15.2 a 86.6 ± 13.3 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 3.88 18.53 20.60 19.39
p 0.27 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 3. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 2 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 3. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 2 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
spinosad 0.0 ± 0.0 66.6 ± 5.7 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic - 22.41 23.00 23.00
p - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 7control 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 c 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 0.8 ± 0.8 bc 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 24.1 ± 6.3 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 63.3 ± 7.7 a
spinosad 0.0 ± 0.0 97.5 ± 2.5 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic - 20.05 23.00 22.07
p - <0.01 <0.001 <0.01
Day 14control 0.0 ± 0.0 6.7 ± 3.5 c 1.6 ± 1.0 bc 2.5 ± 1.7 c
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 6.7 ± 3.5 c 0.0 ± 0.0 c 95.0 ± 3.1 ab
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 75.8 ± 7.2 ab 5.8 ± 2.3 b 75.8 ± 9.0 ab
spinosad 0.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic - 20.11 17.97 17.87
p - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 21control 0.0 ± 0.0 b 6.7 ± 3.5 c 5.0 ± 3.1 b 2.5 ± 1.7 c
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 b 6.7 ± 3.5 c 0.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 3.1 ab
pyrimiphos-methyl 75.8 ± 7.2 a 75.8 ± 7.2 b 5.8 ± 2.3 b 75.8 ± 9.0 ab
spinosad 0.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 22.48 20.11 17.29 19.85
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 4. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 3 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 4. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 3 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
spinosad0.0 ± 0.027.5 ± 2.1 a100.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic-22.4223.00-
P-<0.01<0.01-
Day 7control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad0.0 ± 0.042.5 ± 2.8100.0 ± 0.0 a80.8 ± 12.6 a
Test-statistic-22.4223.0021.64
p-<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 14control1.6 ± 1.61.6 ± 1.6 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin5.8 ± 3.018.3 ± 9.0 b5.0 ± 1.8 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl9.2 ± 6.118.3 ± 3.0 b3.3 ± 2.4 b100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad0.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 b96.6 ± 3.3 a
Test-statistic4.1518.0117.4822.23
p0.245<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 21control1.6 ± 1.65.8 ± 2.3 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin5.8 ± 3.018.3 ± 9.0 b5.0 ± 1.8 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl9.2 ± 6.118.3 ± 3.0 b3.3 ± 2.4 b100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad0.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic4.1516.1217.4823.00
p0.245<0.01<0.01<0.01
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 5. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 4 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 5. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 4 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
spinosad0.0 ± 0.020.0 ± 6.1 a100.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic-17.8423.00-
p-<0.01<0.01-
Day 7control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
spinosad0.0 ± 0.080.0 ± 9.9 a100.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic-22.4123.00-
p-<0.01<0.01-
Day 14control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
spinosad0.0 ± 0.082.5 ± 8.2 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic-22.4123.0023.00
p-<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 21control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
spinosad0.0 ± 0.090.0 ± 5.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic-22.4223.0023.00
p-<0.01<0.01<0.01
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 6. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 5 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 6. Mean number of Tribolium castaneum mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 5 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
spinosad0.0 ± 0.014.1 ± 5.8 a100.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic 17.8623.00-
p <0.01<0.01-
Day 7control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
spinosad0.0 ± 0.014.1 ± 5.8 a100.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic 17.8623.00-
p <0.01<0.01-
Day 14control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
spinosad0.0 ± 0.014.1 ± 5.8 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 17.8623.0023.00
p <0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 21control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
spinosad0.0 ± 0.014.1 ± 5.8 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 17.8623.0023.00
p <0.01<0.01<0.01
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 7. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 0 (total degrees of freedom for Month 0 = 3), total n = 24.
Table 7. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 0 (total degrees of freedom for Month 0 = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.0 c0.8 ± 0.8 b0.0 ± 0.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 c
alpha-cypermethrin20.8 ± 7.4 b95.0 ± 3.1 a54.1 ± 13.9 b56.6 ± 17.7 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.0 c100.0 ± 0.0 a96.6 ± 3.3 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad98.3 ± 1.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic20.8719.6721.2020.40
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control12.5 ± 7.2 b12.5 ± 2.8 b25.8 ± 9.7 b12.5 ± 8.6 b
alpha-cypermethrin88.3 ± 5.8 a100.0 ± 0.0 a96.6 ± 2.1 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl22.5 ± 9.8 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic19.2222.4619.4321.39
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 14control93.3 ± 3.3100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl95.8 ± 2.7100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic6.44---
p0.09---
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic----
p----
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 8. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 1 (degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 8. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 1 (degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control 0.8 ± 0.8 0.0 ± 0.0 c 0.8 ± 0.8 c 0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 53.3 ± 6.2 b 20.8 ± 7.3 b 69.1 ± 13.4 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 98.3 ± 1.6 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 90.0 ± 6.3 a
spinosad 1.6 ± 1.6 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 2.09 21.94 21.25 17.75
p 0.553 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 7control 0.8 ± 0.8 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 5.0 ± 3.1 c 25.0 ± 6.5 b
alpha-cypermethrin 29.1 ± 6.7 a 90.0 ± 5.1 a 73.3 ± 5.8 b 96.6 ± 1.6 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 18.3 ± 9.7 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 90.0 ± 6.3 a
spinosad 25.0 ± 4.8 a 100.0 ± 0.0a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 13.47 19.66 22.26 16.67
p 0.004 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 14control 73.3 ± 6.5 b 92.5 ± 0.0 b 72.5 ± 9.8 b 93.3 ± 5.7 b
alpha-cypermethrin 95.8 ± 2.0 b 100.0 ± 5.1 a 98.3 ± 1.6 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 88.3 ± 3.3 ab 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 15.69 13.71 19.37 6.26
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.100
Day 21control 93.3 ± 2.4 b 100.0 ± 0.0 92.5 ± 4.7 b 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 98.3 ± 1.6 ab 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic 10.26 - 9.80 -
p 0.016 - 0.02 -
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 9. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 2 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 9. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 2 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.8 ± 0.8 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 0.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic - 23.00 22.23 23.00
p - <0.01 <0.01 <0.001
Day 7control 0.0 ± 0.0 b 32.5 ± 3.8 b 14.1 ± 4.9 67.5 ± 6.5 b
alpha-cypermethrin 0.0 ± 0.0 b 35.0 ± 3.8 b 58.3 ± 4.5 100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 0.0 ± 0.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 63.3 ± 3.3 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 22.48 19.90 22.23 22.41
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 14control 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic - - -
p - - -
Day 21control 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic - - - -
p - - - -
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 10. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 3 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 10. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 3 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad15.8 ± 2.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic22.4823.0023.0023.00
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control0.0 ± 0.0 b20.8 ± 7.0 b16.6 ±6.7 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.0 b20.8 ± 7.0 b23.3 ± 6.7 b100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad76.6 ± 6.7 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic22.4119.9520.0123.00
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 14control40.8 ± 4.7 b44.1 ± 3.5 b54.1 ± 15.7 b100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin35.8 ± 4.7 b46.6 ± 3.0 b50.0 ± 14.3 b100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad79.1 ± 6.6 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic18.9020.0919.84-
p<0.01<0.01<0.01-
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic----
p----
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 11. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 4 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 11. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 4 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.00.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b1.6 ± 1.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.02.5 ± 2.5 b3.3 ± 2.4 b4.1 ± 2.7 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a66.6 ± 5.1 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad0.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic-22.2321.5920.63
p-<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control8.3 ± 4.216.6 ± 8.1 b19.1 ± 8.0 b83.3 ± 16.6 ab
alpha-cypermethrin18.3 ± 6.054.1 ± 5.5 b20.0 ± 5.0 b68.3 ± 12.9 c
pyrimiphos-methyl7.5 ± 3.8100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad18.3 ± 5.7100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0a
Test-statistic4.2121.6019.8412.80
p0.239<0.01<0.010.131
Day 14control22.5 ± 3.8 b13.3 ± 7.4 b27.5 ± 7.8 b100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin21.6 ± 7.2 b71.6 ± 3.3 b20.8 ± 4.3 b100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad35.8 ± 4.9 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic15.0922.2319.85-
p0.002<0.01<0.01-
Day 21control35.8 ± 5.6 b100.0 ± 0.045.0 ± 7.0 b100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic22.41-22.39-
p<0.01-<0.01-
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 12. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 5 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 12. Mean number of Sitophilus granarius mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 5 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control5.8 ± 3.3 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.83 ± 0.83 c5.0 ± 1.8 c
alpha-cypermethrin20.8 ± 5.97 a0.0 ± 0.0 b0.83 ± 0.83 c49.1 ± 12.5 b
pyrimiphos-methyl13.3 ± 2.1 ab80.8 ± 8.7 a25.8 ± 3.7 b100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad4.2 ± 2.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a92.5 ± 3.59 a
Test-statistic9.9021.6421.4019.05
p0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control75.0 ± 6.3 b55.0 ±16.6 c23.3 ±5.8 c100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin42.5 ± 6.1 a46.6 ±7.1 c34.1 ±9.5 c100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl42.5 ±8.4 a80.8 ± 8.7 ab67.5 ±8.8 b100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad26.6 ± 7.78 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic13.3812.6117.86-
p0.04<0.01<0.01-
Day 14control98.3 ± 1.7 a100.0 ± 0.0 a97.5 ± 1.7 a100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin42.5 ± 6.2 b46.6 ± 7.1 b34.1 ± 9.5 b100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad26.7 ± 7.9 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic19.7422.4119.43-
p<0.01<0.01<0.01-
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad26.6 ± 7.9 b100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic22.42---
p<0.01---
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 13. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 0 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 13. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 0 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control 2.5 ± 1.1 c 0.0 ± 0.0 b 0.8 ± 0.8 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin 44.1 ± 21.0 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b 11.6 ± 5.2 b 72.5 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 30.8 ± 11.2 c 98.4 ± 1.6 a 97.5 ± 1.7 a 99.1 ± 0.8 a
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 a 67.5 ± 17.0 a 100.0 ± 0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 14.30 19.93 20.20 18.97
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 7control 5.0 ± 0.0 b 21.6 ± 4.7 b 10.8 ± 5.5 b 0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin 76.6 ± 7.1 a 99.1 ± 0.8 a 95.8 ± 3.2 a 99.1 ± 0.8 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 72.5 ± 10.5 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 18.47 20.39 19.47 20.85
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 14control 28.3 ± 3.5 89.1 ± 2.7 47.5 ± 8.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic 22.41 17.90 22.39 -
p 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 -
Day 21control 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic - - - -
p - - - -
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 14. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 1 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 14. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 1 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control 4.1 ± 2.0 c 6.6 ± 3.3 b 2.5 ± 1.7 c 6.6 ± 2.4 c
alpha-cypermethrin 65.8 ± 4.5 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 73.3 ± 5.2 b 77.5 ± 8.2 b
pyrimiphos-methyl 60.0 ± 5.0 b 100.0 ± 0.0 a 92.5 ± 7.5 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 88.3 ± 5.1 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 18.11 22.48 19.67 19.76
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 7control 38.3 ± 6.1 b 50. 0 ± 2.2 b 44.1 ± 5.3 b 56.6 ± 14.1 b
alpha-cypermethrin 87.5 ± 5.1 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 86.6 ± 5.7 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
pyrimiphos-methyl 80.0 ± 6.9 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad 98.3 ± 1.6 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic 16.25 22.48 19.77 13.65
p <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Day 14control 97.5 ± 2.5 98.3 ± 1.1 90.8 ± 3.2 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 95.8 ± 2.3 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 95.8 ± 2.0 100.0 ± 0.0 95.8 ± 2.0 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 a 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic 6.30 6.27 6.53 -
p 0.2 0.08 0.08 -
Day 21control 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic - - - -
p - - - -
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 15. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure of three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 2 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 15. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure of three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 2 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control6.6 ± 2.7 a50.0 ± 9.7 b18.3 ± 4.7 b20.8 ±6.3 b
alpha-cypermethrin31.6 ± 4.2 b16.6 ± 4.7 c35.0 ± 6.2 b56.5 ± 10.4 a
pyrimiphos-methyl32.5 ± 3.1 b86.6 ± 7.6 a35.8 ± 6.5 b85.8 ± 7.2 a
spinosad37.5 ± 8.3 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic12.5119.8415.8717.95
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control63.3 ± 4.477.5 ± 3.0 b62.5 ± 4.6 b88.3 ± 4.0
alpha-cypermethrin58.3 ± 4.980.0 ± 4.4 b67.5 ± 4.6 b95.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl62.5 ± 6.2100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad74.1 ± 5.5100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic4.9120.1619.869.36
p0.17<0.01<0.010.02
Day 14control99.1 ± 0.8100.0 ± 0.095.0 ± 2.2 b100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl95.0 ± 3.1100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic7.05-13.71-
p0.07-<0.01-
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic----
p----
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 16. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 3 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 16. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 3 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control23.3 ± 6.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 c8.3 ± 1.1 b0.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.0 b6.6 ± 1.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad0.0 ± 0.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic17.8622.7222.729.64
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control66.6 ± 3.3 b64.1 ± 7.2 c32.5 ± 3.5 b100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin59.1 ± 5.0 b76.6 ± 4.2 bc50.8 ± 5.2 b85.0 ± 4.8 a
pyrimiphos-methyl73.3 ± 4.4 ab93.3 ± 6.6 ab100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad85.8 ± 5.5 b100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic10.2115.4921.399.64
p0.010.01<0.01<0.01
Day 14control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.092.5 ± 3.8 b100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic--13.67
p--0.01
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic- -
p- -
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 17. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 4 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 17. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad) applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 4 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 c
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.0 b0.8 ± 0.8 c0.0 ± 0.0 c38.3 ± 7.1 b
pyrimiphos-methyl12.5 ± 2.5 a63.3 ± 9.1 b53.3 ± 8.7 b82.5 ± 7.9 a
spinosad0.0 ± 0.0 b100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-stastistic22.4821.9322.5921.27
p<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Day 7control53.3 ± 7.0331.6 ± 5.4 c34.1 ± 5.2 c86.6 ± 6.0 a
alpha-cypermethrin49.1 ± 9.755.0 ± 5.0 b63.3 ± 2.4 b100.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl56.6 ± 9.9100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
spinosad27.5 ±3.8100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-stastistic6.7621.5022.149.81
p0.08<0.01<0.010.02
Day 14control90.8 ± 3.594.1 ± 2.088.3 ± 2.4100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin94.1 ± 4.1100.0 ± 0.090.8 ± 2.4100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl91.6 ± 4.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad88.3 ± 1.6100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-stastistic2.1313.7117.80-
p0.7<0.01<0.01-
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-stastistic----
p----
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Table 18. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 5 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
Table 18. Mean number of Lasioderma serricorne mortality (% ± SE) after exposure to three insecticides (alpha-cypermethrin, pyrimiphos-methyl, spinosad), applied on different surfaces (concrete, metallic, plastic, and ceramic) for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days at Month 5 (total degrees of freedom = 3), total n = 24.
ConcreteMetallicPlasticCeramic
Day 3control0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
alpha-cypermethrin0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
pyrimiphos-methyl0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 b
spinosad4.16 ± 2.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a92.5 ± 3.5 a
Test-statistic9.8123.0023.0022.46
p0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 7control0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 c
alpha-cypermethrin46.6 ± 6.6 b43.3 ± 10.6 b12.5 ± 2.8 b53.33 ±7.26 b
pyrimiphos-methyl37.5 ±6.6 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0a
spinosad26.6 ±7.9 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a100.0 ± 0.0 a
Test-statistic13.8319.3622.1022.59
p<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Day 14control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic----
p----
Day 21control100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0 100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
alpha-cypermethrin100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
pyrimiphos-methyl100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
spinosad100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0100.0 ± 0.0
Test-statistic----
p----
Within each exposure interval, and surface type, means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly, according to Kruskal–Wallis H-Test, at p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Agrafioti, P.; Gourgouta, M.; Kateris, D.; Athanassiou, C.G. Insecticidal and Residual Effects of Spinosad, Alpha-Cypermethrin, and Pirimiphos-Methyl on Surfaces Against Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Lasioderma serricorne. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111133

AMA Style

Agrafioti P, Gourgouta M, Kateris D, Athanassiou CG. Insecticidal and Residual Effects of Spinosad, Alpha-Cypermethrin, and Pirimiphos-Methyl on Surfaces Against Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Lasioderma serricorne. Agriculture. 2025; 15(11):1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111133

Chicago/Turabian Style

Agrafioti, Paraskevi, Marina Gourgouta, Dimitrios Kateris, and Christos G. Athanassiou. 2025. "Insecticidal and Residual Effects of Spinosad, Alpha-Cypermethrin, and Pirimiphos-Methyl on Surfaces Against Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Lasioderma serricorne" Agriculture 15, no. 11: 1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111133

APA Style

Agrafioti, P., Gourgouta, M., Kateris, D., & Athanassiou, C. G. (2025). Insecticidal and Residual Effects of Spinosad, Alpha-Cypermethrin, and Pirimiphos-Methyl on Surfaces Against Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Lasioderma serricorne. Agriculture, 15(11), 1133. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111133

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop