Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Economic Entomology logoLink to Journal of Economic Entomology
. 2023 Aug 31;116(5):1767–1775. doi: 10.1093/jee/toad166

Assessing the effectiveness of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam via root irrigation against Megalurothrips usitatus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and its residual effects on cowpea

Xiao-Rui Yu 1, Talha Tariq 2, Ling-Hang Guo 3, Sheng-Yong Wu 4, Liang-De Tang 5,6,✉, Lian-Sheng Zang 7
Editor: Cheryle O’Donnell
PMCID: PMC10564265  PMID: 37652051

Abstract

Systemic neonicotinoid insecticides (NEOs) applied by seed-treatment or root application have emerged as a prevalent strategy for early-season insect pest management. This research investigated the effectiveness of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, administered through root irrigation, in managing thrips in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp.], and the residual properties of both insecticides in cowpea and soil. The results show that thrips density depends on the application rate of insecticides. At the maximum application rate (1,500 µg/ml, active ingredient), imidacloprid and thiamethoxam controlled thrips densities below the economic injury level (EIL, the EIL of thrips on cowpea was 7/flower) for 20 days and 25 days with the density of 6.90 and 6.93/flower at the end of the periods, respectively. Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam residues decreased gradually over time and decreased sharply after 15 days after treatment (DAT), the 2 insecticides were not detected (<0.001 mg/kg) at 45 DAT. According to our findings, the application of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam via root irrigation proved residual control lasting up to 20–25 days for controlling thrips damage at experimental rates, with a strong association to their residual presence in cowpea (0.6223 < R2 < 0.9545). Considering the persistence of the imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, the maximum tested application rate (1,500 µg/ml) was recommended. As the residues of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were undetectable in cowpea pods at all tested rates, it may be suggested that the use of each insecticide is safe for consumers and effective against thrips, and could be considered for integrated thrips management in the cowpea ecosystem.

Keywords: neonicotinoid, UPLC–MS/MS, Megalurothrips usitatus, Vignia unguiculata, root irrigation application

Introduction

Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (Linn.) Walp.] is an important vegetable crop rich in plant protein (Omo-Ikerodah et al. 2008), its grains and leaves for the human and livestock consumption (Agbahoungba et al. 2021), which provide a sizeable portion of human dietary protein (Jayathilake et al. 2018). It is widely grown in tropical and subtropical regions of the world (Timko et al. 2007). In Africa, cowpea is also an important major staple food crop (Agbahoungba et al. 2021, Abebe and Alemayehu 2022). Diseases and pests, particularly thrips [Megalurothrips sjostedti (Trybom)] (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), are the limiting factors in cowpea production, causing 20–80% losses in cowpea yield (Nabirye et al. 2003, Ngakou et al. 2008), even almost 100% yield losses were reported (Singh and Allen 1980, Agbahoungba et al. 2021). While, in other parts of the world outside Africa, the thrips species, Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagnall), can cause severe damage to cowpea (Tang et al. 2023) and other leguminous crops (Tang et al. 2015a), although there is currently no specific estimate of yield loss due to this species of thrips. M. usitatus causes damage during the entire growth period of cowpea, as it causes leaf curling at the seedling stage, growth point necrosis at the flower bud differentiation stage, flower falling at the flowering stage, and pericarp scabbing at the fruiting stage (Tang et al. 2023). Therefore, it is necessary to control this pest during the entire growth period of cowpea. In addition, M. usitatus can also transmit a variety of plant viruses (Prasada Rao et al. 2003, Sonali Shukla et al. 2005). Current control measures for thrips in cowpea management include cultivation of resistant varieties (Alabi et al. 2003, Abudulai et al. 2006, Omo-Ikerodah et al. 2008, Togola et al. 2019), interplanting with graminaceous crops, such as corn and sorghum (Kyamanywa and Tukahirwa 1988, Gethi and Mueke 1995, Adati et al. 2007), and physical and chemical trapping technologies (Abtew et al. 2015, Diabate et al. 2019a, 2019b, Liu et al. 2020). Biocontrol methods, such as the use of predatory insects and mites (Gitonga et al. 2002, Liu et al. 2018), pathogenic microorganisms (Wu et al. 2021), and botanical pesticides (Oparaeke et al. 2006, 2007, Oparaeke 2007), have also been implemented to control thrips during cowpea cultivation. However, chemical control is still the most efficient measure for thrips control in cowpea production due to the high activity of synthetic pesticides (Oparaeke et al. 2007).

Neonicotinoid insecticides (NEOs), with their high agonist effects on insect neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) (Houchat et al. 2020), are currently the most widely used insecticides in the world. In China and elsewhere, they are commonly used against piercing–sucking feeding insects, such as thrips (Meena et al. 2020). Imidacloprid is a first-generation NEO developed by Bayer AG (Germany), whereas thiamethoxam is a second-generation NEO developed by Syngenta Crop Protection (Switzerland). In China, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam have been registered as a single or combined formulation for the control of thrips in cowpea plants (China Pesticide Information Network. 2022). However, they have not met the production needs of cowpea cultivars because of their low field efficacy when applied via foliar spraying (Tang et al. 2022). Nevertheless, because these insecticides act systemically, traveling through plant tissues and protecting all parts of the crop, and then acting as neurotoxins against pests, they have been widely applied on seeds and roots of various crops for pest control (Goulson 2013). A recent study has reported the efficacy of foliar applications of thiamethoxam mixed with adjuvants on M. usitatus and its degradation dynamics and residues on cowpea. Adding adjuvants can significantly improve efficacy but does not affect the residual dynamics (0.121–0.223 mg/kg after 5 days treatment) (Wang et al. 2022). However, the efficacy of root irrigation application of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam on M. usitatus and their dissipation dynamics in the environment and plant tissue are still unknown. We hypothesized that root irrigation treatment will have a more lasting retention in cowpea plants and have a more lasting control efficacy on thrips. Thus, in this study, we investigated the uptake and translocation of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in cowpea and their residues in the soil environment to define the relationship between detectable insecticide levels and the density of M. usitatus in plants. Our results broadened our understanding of the efficacy of the root irrigation application method of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in the control of thrips in cowpea.

Materials and Methods

Tested Insecticides and Reagents

We used commercial formulations of imidacloprid (Admire 70% Water Dispersible Granules (WDG), Bayer Crop Science (China) Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China) and thiamethoxam (Actara 25% WDG, Syngenta Crop Protection (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China) for our experiments. The analytical standards of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were purchased from Sigma (St Louis, Missouri, USA). Methanol and acetonitrile (MS grade) were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, USA). Sodium acetate, acetic acid (MS grade), sodium acetate, and N-propyl ethyl diamine was obtained from Sigma–Aldrich (St Louis, Missouri, USA). Ultrapure water was prepared using a Milli-Q water purification system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA).

Field Experiments and Sample Collection

Cowpea (variety Haoyunlai888 [Jiangxi Yuefeng Seed Industry Co., Ltd, Nanchang, China]) seeds were sown in a bed measuring approximately 600 m2 (30 × 20 m) at the experimental base of Hainan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chengmai County, Hainan Province, China, on 16 March 2020. Two lines of seeds were planted in each row. The spaces between and within the lines were 60 × 15 cm, and the distance between the adjacent rows was 50 cm. Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were diluted to make 1500, 750, and 250 µg/ml solutions for root irrigation application. Fifty milliliters (0.075, 0.0375, and 0.0125 g a.i. for corresponding concentration, respectively) of insecticide liquid was applied per plant (hole) at the 5-leaf stage (10 days after sowing) in a randomized complete block experimental design with 3 rows (blocks) with treatments randomized within rows. All cowpea plants in a row (block) received each treatment. Each row was a treatment, and all above treatments were replicated 3 times. Cowpea plants treated with equal parts of water served as controls. The efficacy of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, applied via root irrigation, against M. usitatus was evaluated at 0 (pretreatment), 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 45 days after treatment (DAT) by sampling 10 leaves from the top, middle, and bottom of cowpea plants (a total of 30 leaves) from each experimental block. During the flowering stage, flowers (including flower buds), instead of leaves, were sampled because M. usitatus prefers flowers. The numbers of M. usitatus adults and nymphs on the leaves and flowers (buds) of randomly sampled cowpea plants in each replicate within each treatment at different growth stages were counted and statistically analyzed. In order to ensure the accuracy of counting, the leaves or flowers with thrips were removed and packed into a sealed bag and brought back to the laboratory for calculation.

Plant and soil samples were randomly collected from each of the blocks, with 3 cowpea plants collected for each treatment. Five leaves (including stems) from the top of individual cowpea plants were collected, except for the last sampling period (pods). Two hundred grams of soil were sampled from a radius of 15 cm around the root and to a depth of 15 cm (Wu et al. 2019). Plant and soil samples were collected at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 45 DAT and then analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC–MS/MS). The collected samples were stored at −20 °C prior to analysis.

Analytical Procedures

Instrumentation.

An AcQuity UPLC system (WATERS, Massachusetts, USA) coupled with a Q Exactive and an Xcalibur workstation from Thermo (USA) was used for pesticide analysis. Target compounds were separated chromatographically at 40 °C on an AcQuity Waters HSS T3 column (2.1 mm ID × 50 mm, 1.8 μm particle size, Waters, Wexford, Ireland). Gradient elution was performed with 0.1% (v/v) acetic acid-water water (A) and acetic acid-acetonitrile (B) at a flow rate of 0.3 ml/min. The injection volume for all the experiments was 2 μl. The gradient program was as follows: 0 min, 90% solvent B; 2 min, 90% solvent B; 6 min, 40% solvent B; 9 min, 40% solvent B; 9.1 min, 90% solvent B; 12 min, 90% solvent B. The total run time for each injection was 12 min. The samples were separated using a gradient that started at 10% eluent A for 2 min, increasing to 60% eluent A for 4 min, holding for 3 min, decreasing eluent A to 10% at 9.1 min, and then equilibrating for 3 min. Data were recorded on a Q Exactive hybrid Q–Orbitrap mass spectrometer equipped with a heated ESI (Electron Spray Ionization) source (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) utilizing the single ion monitoring mode on positive ion mode of MS. The ESI source parameters were optimized and performed as follows: the capillary voltage was 3.0 kV, sheath gas pressure was 40 arb, aux gas pressure was 10 arb, sweep gas pressure was 0 arb, the capillary temperature was 320 °C, and aux gas heater temperature was 350 °C.

Sample preparation.

About 250 g of soil sample and 100 g of cowpea plant (leaves and stems) sample were chopped and homogenized by high throughput tissue crusher (Tissuelyser-24L, Shanghai, China) under − 20 °C. Then, a 10 g soil and 1.50 g plant sample were mixed with 15 ml acetonitrile and vortexed for 3 min. Thereafter, 5 g magnesium sulfate was added to the solution and vortexed for 10 min. The mixture was centrifuged at 10,000×g for 10 min, and 2 ml of supernatant and 50 mg of primary−secondary amine (PSA, final concentration; 25 mg/ml) was mixed together using a vortex mixer for 3 min. After centrifugation at 10,000×g for 10 min, 1.5 ml of the supernatant was filtered through a 0.22 μm filter membrane, and 2 μl of desorption solution was injected into the UPLC–MS/MS system for analysis.

Standard curve.

A series of stock solutions containing imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in methanol were prepared. A calibration curve was plotted using 8 different concentrations (from 1 µg/ml to 100 µg/ml) of standards. All solutions were preserved in the freezer at −20 °C until use. The method was verified by determining the limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantitation (LOQ), linearity, and the matrix effect (ME). ME (%) was calculated based on the following equation (1) (Besil et al. 2017):

ME   (%)=100×Smatrix−SsolventSsolvent, (1)

where Smatrix and Ssolvent are the slopes of the calibration curves in the matrix and pure solvent, respectively. An |ME| value of ≤20% is considered as a weak or no matrix effect; a value of 20% < |ME| ≤50% is considered as a moderate matrix effect; and an |ME| value of >50% is considered as a strong matrix effect. The relative standard deviation (RSD) of the 0–12 h stability test reflects the precision of the test method at 1 test concentration. The RSD of the repeated test reflects the precision of the method at each test concentration. The developed method was validated based on its linearity, ME, the LOQ, and the LOD.

Statistical Analysis

The efficacy of insecticide treatment was evaluated 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 45 DAT by analyzing the population densities of thrips using 2-way ANOVA (analysis of variance). Thrips densities in response to the same rates of application of both insecticides among different DAT and thrips densities among different insecticide treatments on the same DAT were analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Means were evaluated by Tukey’s HSD test at P < 0.05. The differences in the thrips density between each treatment of the different rates of both insecticides and that of the control were compared by t-tests using Dunnett’s procedure. Field data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) (Chen et al. 2022). Linear regression was performed on the residual concentration–thrips density of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in cowpea plants, and the fitting degree was determined by squares of correlation coefficients (R2). The log conversion of the residual concentration was conducted prior to analysis (Sharma and Singh 2014).

Results

Test of Correlation

The chromatographic peak area and concentrations of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were linearly correlated in the range of 1–100 μg/ml. The correlation coefficients of the regression equations (imidacloprid: y = 6.762 × 104x + 104497; thiamethoxam: y = 6.684 × 104x + 106930) were high (imidacloprid: 0.9943; thiamethoxam: 0.9957), indicating that this method can be used for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the 2 insecticides in cowpea and soil. The mean recoveries were 83.30–104.12% with RSDs of 0.97–8.29%. The LOD and LOQ for both insecticides ranged from 0.0004 to 0.0005 mg/kg and 0.010 to 0.013 mg/kg, respectively, in cowpea and soil (Table 1). The data in Table 1 indicate that the 2 insecticides differ slightly in their responses to different tissue sites, with MEs, and all less than 20%. The RSD results for 0–12 h for thiamethoxam and imidacloprid were 3.72 and 5.60%, respectively, and for the repeated test, the results were 3.97 and 5.80%, respectively. The total ion flow diagram of the mixed standard solution of the 2 insecticides and the ion flow diagram of each insecticide are shown in Fig. 1. The retention times of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were 3.97 and 3.58 min, respectively.

Table 1.

Calibration equations, correlation coefficients, and matrix effects of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam on cowpea (fruits, leaves) and soil

Compound Matrices Concentration (μg/ml) Linear equation Correlation LOQs (mg/kg) LODs (mg/kg) ME (%)
Thiamethoxam Acetonitrile 1−100 y = 6.762 × 104x + 104497 R 2 = 0.9957
Fruits y = 7.683 × 104x + 17453 R 2 = 0.9971 0.010 0.0004 13.62
Leaf y = 7.647 × 104x + 14561 R 2 = 0.9996 0.010 0.0004 13.09
Soil y = 7.109 × 104x + 19263 R 2 = 0.9995 0.010 0.0004 5.13
Imidacloprid Acetonitrile 1−100 y = 6.684 × 104x + 106930 R 2 = 0.9943
Fruits y = 6.097 × 104x + 12721 R 2 = 0.9951 0.013 0.0005 −8.78
Leaf y = 6.681 × 104x + 2317 R 2 = 0.9986 0.013 0.0005 −0.04
Soil y = 6.514 × 104x + 5211 R 2 = 0.9998 0.013 0.0005 −2.54
Open in a new tab

LOQ: limit of quantification; LOD: limit of detection; ME: matrix effect.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Chromatograms of (A) the standard mixture of thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, (B) thiamethoxam alone, and (C) imidacloprid alone.

Efficacy of Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam Against M. usitatus Applied by Root Irrigation

The results of statistical analysis show that insecticides, DAT, and their interactions significantly affect the density of thrips (insecticides: F = 164.056; df = 6, 146; P < 0.001, DAT: F = 2,093.351; df = 6, 146; P < 0.001, interaction: F = 19.947; df = 36, 146; P < 0.001). The results showed that both imidacloprid and thiamethoxam significantly inhibited the population growth of thrips in the field, as indicated by the differences between the treatments and the untreated control (t-test, P < 0.05). The thrips densities under each treatment of both insecticides at the different DATs were significantly different (5 DAT: F = 23.783, df = 6, 20, P < 0.001; 10 DAT: F = 12.334, df = 6, 20, P < 0.001; 15 DAT: F = 25.130, df = 6, 20, P < 0.001; 20 DAT: F = 44.697, df = 6, 20, P < 0.001; 25 DAT: F = 35.196, df = 6, 20, P < 0.001; 30 DAT: F = 46.197, df = 6, 20, P < 0.001). Furthermore, Density of thrips increased for each increasing DAT (Table 2, Fig. 2). The results also showed that the thrips densities in each treatment of both insecticides differed significantly, with the lowest densities found in thiamethoxam 1,500 µg/ml at all DAT (P < 0.05) (Table 2). However, the thrips densities in each thiamethoxam treatment, as well as that in the maximum application rate (1,500 µg/ml) of imidacloprid did not differ significantly 5, 10, and 15 DAT (Table 2). Thrips abundance increased by 23.0-fold after 30 days in the control treatment, and by 10.9- to 22.4-fold in the insecticide treatments compared with the first sample. The thrips populations were significantly inhibited by both thiamethoxam and imidacloprid up to 25 and 20 DAT at the highest application rate, respectively, as indicated by thrips densities below the economic injury level of thrips damage for cowpea (7 thrips/flower [Nabirye et al. 2003]). In other words, the efficacies of both insecticides increased at increasing application rates during the whole sampling period. The lowest densities of thrips were found with thiamethoxam at the maximum rate of 1,500 µg/ml, followed by imidacloprid at the same application rate in all samples.

Table 2.

Densities of thrips in the field during the study period expressed as mean number of thrips/leaf/flower

Date Control Thiamethoxam (µg/ml) Imidacloprid (µg/ml)
1,500 750 250 1,500 750 250
31 Mar 2021 (pretreatment) 1.23 ± 0.93aF 1.27 ± 0.91aE 1.13 ± 1.00aE 1.17 ± 0.83aE 1.33 ± 0.84aE 1.25 ± 0.87aE 1.23 ± 0.97aF
5 Apr 2021 3.13 ± 1.17aE 1.33 ± 0.96bDE 1.67 ± 0.96bE 1.53 ± 1.33bE 1.47 ± 1.38bE 2.93 ± 1.68aDE 3.06 ± 1.11aE
10 Apr 2021 4.37 ± 1.40aE 1.93 ± 1.41cDE 2.13 ± 1.22cDE 2.53 ± 1.50cDE 2.33 ± 1.39cDE 3.30 ± 1.49bDE 3.76 ± 1.92abE
15 Apr 2021 7.57 ± 1.74aD 2.40 ± 1.30eD 2.87 ± 1.59deD 3.83 ± 2.35cdD 2.97 ± 1.47cdeD 3.93 ± 2.00cD 5.27 ± 2.01b D
20 Apr 2021 12.33 ± 3.19aC 4.17 ± 2.13eC 7.30 ± 1.68dC 9.13 ± 2.93cC 6.90 ± 2.54dC 8.93 ± 2.84cC 10.63 ± 2.58bC
25 Apr 2021 19.80 ± 3.56aB 6.93 ± 1.95fB 13.70 ± 2.78dB 16.33 ± 3.56bcB 10.50 ± 2.94eB 15.33 ± 2.87cB 17.53 ± 4.19bB
30 Apr 2021 28.37 ± 4.62aA 13.93 ± 3.85eA 20.83 ± 4.22cA 23.33 ± 3.92bA 18.67 ± 2.92dA 22.07 ± 3.64bcA 27.60 ± 3.44aA
Open in a new tab

Means (±SE) followed by the same lowercase letter in the same row indicate values that are not significantly different among the different insecticide treatments. Means (±SE) followed by the same uppercase letter in the same column indicate values that are not significantly different among the different days after treatments for the same tested insecticide treatment (by HSD test at P < 0.05).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Densities of thrips in the field during the study period (mean number of thrips/leaf/flower). Values represent the means (±SE) of 3 replications.

Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam Residues in Cowpea and Soil

The residue levels of the target insecticides in cowpea plants (A) and soil (B) samples treated by root irrigation are shown in Fig. 3. The results show the detection of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in cowpea plants until the penultimate sampling (30 DAT), with residue levels gradually decreasing over time. Five DAT, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam were rapidly absorbed and translocated by cowpea plants, and the uptake and translocation rates increased as the insecticide concentrations increased. The maximum detection levels of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were 9,442.05 and 6,722.83 mg/kg, respectively, which were found 5 DAT, at the insecticide application rate of 1,500 µg/ml (the maximum applied rate). Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were rapidly decomposed in plants 15 DAT, and then their levels gradually stabilized. Thirty DAT, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam applied at 1,500 µg/ml were detected at 51.64 and 177.18 mg/kg, and 0.00 and 30.17 mg/kg at 250 µg/ml, respectively (Fig. 3A). However, the residues of both insecticides were undetectable (<0.001 mg/kg) at 45 DAT.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Residues of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam applied via root irrigation in (A) plants and (B) soil. Values represent the means (±SE) of 3 replications.

Pesticide degradation trends in soil samples differed from those in plants, and they also differed between the 2 insecticides. The residue levels of imidacloprid fluctuated, with the maximum amount of pesticide detected 10 DAT, and then gradually decreased over time (Fig. 3B). Similar digestion dynamics were observed for thiamethoxam in soil, although residue levels fluctuated more during the first 15 DAT (Fig. 3B). The levels of insecticide residues from the high application rate were significantly higher than those at the low application rates. Thirty days after the root irrigation application of 1,500 µg/ml of both imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, 397.49 and 31.74 mg/kg were still detected, respectively. These results show that residues of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam remain in the soil for more than 30 days. Similar to residual dynamics in plants, no insecticide residues (<0.001 mg/kg) were detected in the last sample (45 DAT).

Correlation of Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam Residues in Cowpea Plants With the Density of Thrips

The density of thrips followed a linear relationship with the log (residue concentration) of the 2 insecticides (Fig. 4). The correlation coefficients (R2) between thiamethoxam residues applied at concentrations of 1,500, 750, and 250 µg/ml and thrips density were 0.8132, 0.6223, and 0.8354, respectively, indicating a dose–response relationship; while the R2 values between the imidacloprid residues and thrips densities were 0.7724, 0.9545, and 0.8694, respectively.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Open in a new tab

Linear relationship between log (concentration of insecticides) and density of thrips.

Discussion

The systemic mechanism of NEOs provides theoretical evidence for their root application for the control of piercing–sucking insect pests. For example, root application of imidacloprid in Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) was more effective, as compared with seed or foliar applications (Abdel-razik 2019). In this study, we demonstrated that, except for the lowest application rate of imidacloprid, the various root irrigation application rates of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were effective in controlling M. usitatus on cowpea for more than 25 days (Fig. 2). This prolonged activity may be due to the high pesticide residues remaining in cowpea after 30 days treatment (Fig. 3). Pesticide persistence is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the persistent effect (≥30 days) of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam results in thrips control, whereas on the other hand, pesticide residue levels exceed the maximum residual level (MRL) for cowpea. However, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam residues in pods and soil at the first cowpea harvest (45 DAT) were less than 0.001 mg/kg, which is significantly lower than the MRLs for cowpea in China (2 mg/kg for imidacloprid and 0.3 mg/kg for thiamethoxam), as well as that for the European Union (0.3 mg/kg for thiamethoxam) (Chen et al. 2021). Thus, these insecticides are safe for consumers.

Results of fluorescent-labeling show that imidacloprid is conducted downwards through the phloem sieve tubes and upwards mainly through vessels by transpiration (Zhu et al. 2021, 2022). The uptake and transport of insecticides in plants may also occur through seed or root pathways, which subsequently enable insecticides to reach other tissues within the plant (Tang et al. 2020). The transport rate is regulated by the physical and chemical properties of plants (Wang et al. 2021), which are, in turn, affected by abiotic factors such as water stress (Stamm et al. 2016). Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam are both absorbed and transported efficiently in plants, resulting in significantly higher accumulations of these insecticides in plant leaves as opposed to the roots (Ge et al. 2017). Insecticides that are swiftly absorbed and translocated to different plant parts subsequently interact with piercing–sucking pests (Elbert et al. 1991, Jeschke et al. 2011). These properties of NEOs indicate that root irrigation is an effective method for the control of crop diseases and insect pests (Stamm et al. 2016, Antu et al. 2017, Dhaliwal et al. 2017). Our study revealed that root application of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam resulted in rapid absorption and translocation to cowpea leaves, leading to a significant reduction in the thrips population within the first 2 wk after application (Fig. 3A), these findings are consistent with the absorption and transport characteristics of the 2 insecticides that have been observed on other crops (Stamm et al. 2016, Ge et al. 2017, Tang et al. 2020, Zhu et al. 2021). However, 30 days after root treatment of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, they were still detected in cowpea leaves at levels of 7.64–66.59 and 25.29–187.46 mg/kg, respectively, which shows significantly longer persistence than that of foliar applications of NEOs (Liu et al. 2014, Chen et al. 2021, Reddy and Paul 2021, Wang et al. 2022) and in other crop systems (Abd-Ella 2014, Abdella et al. 2015, Nassar et al. 2015). Our results reveal different dissipation trends of the insecticides in soil and in plants. Furthermore, the insecticides tended to persist longer in the soil (Fig. 3B) at levels significantly greater than that of foliar applied insecticides (Liu et al. 2014).

Our field results demonstrate that cowpea plants treated with insecticides through root irrigation at the maximum application rate exhibited considerably lower thrips population densities over a prolonged period (≥25 days). These findings align with the levels of insecticide residues found in cowpea plants, which exceeded 200 mg/kg 25 DAT for insecticides applied at the maximum recommended rate. Moreover, these insecticides applied via root treatment are systematically distributed and remain active throughout the plant. The linear relationship between the insecticide residues in cowpea and the density of thrips strongly supports dose–response internal relation (Fig. 4). Furthermore, our findings indicate a considerable dose-effect relationship, i.e., a lower application rate resulted in a lower detection level and efficacy against thrips. A similar dose-effect relationship was found when NEOs were applied via root irrigation against tomato whitefly (Abdel-razik 2019). In general, the field efficacy of insecticides is closely related to the status of insecticide resistance. Our previous resistance monitoring results show that M. usitatus was sensitive to imidacloprid and thiamethoxam (Tang et al. 2015b), suggesting that these insecticides, applied via root irrigation, can exert control over 30 days for a long period of time by their residual toxicity.

In conclusion, this study shows the residual dynamics of 2 neonicotinoid insecticides (imidacloprid and thiamethoxam) in cowpea and soil, as well as their effects on 2 species of thrips in cowpea plants. The results reveal that the residues of root-applied imidacloprid and thiamethoxam persist in cowpea for more than 30 days (encompassing the entire pre-flowering period) during which they maintained the thrips population below the EIL (<7 thrips/plant). Thiamethoxam exhibited greater efficacy than imidacloprid. Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam residues were not detected in cowpea pods; thus, these 2 insecticides may be considered suitable for M. usitatus management while being safe for humans. We recommend using these insecticides as a part of an integrated approach toward thrips management of cowpea. Whenever feasible, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam should be applied via root irrigation at a dose not exceeding 1,500 µg/ml.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund for Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (NO. 1630042017025). The authors are thankful to acknowledge the comments of the anonymous reviewers.

Contributor Information

Xiao-Rui Yu, National Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide, Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals of Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, PR China.

Talha Tariq, National Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide, Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals of Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, PR China.

Ling-Hang Guo, Key Laboratory of Integrated Pest Management on Tropical Crops, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Environment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Haikou 571101, PR China.

Sheng-Yong Wu, State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, PR China.

Liang-De Tang, National Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide, Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals of Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, PR China; Key Laboratory of Integrated Pest Management on Tropical Crops, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Environment and Plant Protection Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences, Haikou 571101, PR China.

Lian-Sheng Zang, National Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide, Key Laboratory of Green Pesticide and Agricultural Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, Center for R&D of Fine Chemicals of Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, PR China.

Author Contributions

Xiaorui Yu (Software [Equal], Visualization [Equal], Writing – original draft [Equal]), Liang-De Tang (Conceptualization [Equal], Data curation [Equal], Formal analysis [Equal], Methodology [Equal], Project administration [Equal], Writing – review & editing [Equal]), Talha Tariq (Software [Equal], Writing – original draft [Equal]), Ling-Hang Guo (Investigation [Equal], Resources [Equal]), Shengyong Wu (Supervision [Equal], Validation [Equal]), and Lian-Sheng Zang (Funding acquisition [Equal], Project administration [Equal], Supervision [Equal])

References

  1. Abdella HM, Halawa SM, El-hefny DE.. Dissipation of penconazole and imidacloprid residues in squash fruits under Egyptian field conditions. Alexandria Sci Exch J. 2015:36:293–396. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abd-Ella AA. Toxicity and persistence of selected neonicotinoid insecticides on cowpea aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch (Homoptera: Aphididae). Arch Phytopathol. 2014:47(3):366–376. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abdel-razik MAA. Residues of imidacloprid insecticide and its efficacy on whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (gennadius) in tomato plants. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2019:16(8):3989–4000. 10.1007/s13762-018-2045-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Abebe BK, Alemayehu MT.. A review of the nutritional use of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) for human and animal diets. J Agric Food Res. 2022:10:100383. 10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100383 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Abtew A, Subramanian S, Cheseto X, Kreiter S, Garzia GT, Martin T.. Repellency of plant extracts against the legume flower thrips Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Insects. 2015:6(3):608–625. 10.3390/insects6030608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Abudulai M, Salifu A, Haruna M.. Screening of cowpeas for resistance to the flower bud thrips, Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Appl Sci. 2006:6(7):1621–1624. [Google Scholar]
  7. Adati T, Tamò M, Yusuf SR, Downham MCA, Singh BB, Hammond WNO.. Integrated pest management for cowpea-cereal cropping systems in the West African savannah. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2007:27:123–137. [Google Scholar]
  8. Agbahoungba S, Datinon B, Billah M, Tossou HT, Agoyi EE, Kpoviessi AD, Assogbadjo AE, Sinsin B.. Flower bud thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom) population diversity and sources of resistance among Benin cowpea germplasm. Ann Appl Biol. 2021:179(3):395–404. 10.1111/aab.12713 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Alabi ON, Odebiyi J, Jackai L.. Field evaluation of cowpea cultivars (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) for resistance to flower bud thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Int J Pest Manag. 2003:49(4):287–291. [Google Scholar]
  10. Antu M, Korat DM, Sreelakshmi P.. Management of leaf hopper infesting cowpea by seed treatment and foliar spray with neonicotinoid insecticides. Int J Farm Sci. 2017:6(4):95–103. [Google Scholar]
  11. Besil N, Cesio V, Heinzen H, Fernandez-Alba AR.. Matrix effects and interferences of different citrus fruit coextractives in pesticide residue analysis using ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2017:65(23):4819–4829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen L, Li FG, Jia CH, Yu PZ, Zhao ER, He M, Jing JJ.. Determination of thiamethoxam and its metabolite clothianidin residue and dissipation in cowpea by QuEChERS combining with ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021:28(7):8844–8852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen W, Wang M, Li Y, Mao J, Zhang L. Providing aged parasitoids can enhance the mass-rearing efficiency of Telenomus remus, a dominant egg parasitoid of Spodoptera frugiperda, on Spodoptera litura eggs. J Pest Sci. 2022. 10.1007/s10340-022-01579-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. China Pesticide Information Network. Pesticide registration date, date centre. China Pesticide Information Network; 2022. http://www.chinapesticide.org.cn/ [Google Scholar]
  15. Dhaliwal AK, Brar DS, Jindal J.. Evaluation of different IPM components for the management of maize stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in Kharif maize. J Entomol Res. 2017:41(3):287. 10.5958/0974-4576.2017.00045.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Diabate S, Deletre E, Murungi LK, Fiaboe KKM, Subramanian S, Wesonga J, Martin T.. Behavioural responses of bean flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti) to vegetative and floral volatiles from different cowpea cultivars. Chemoecology. 2019a:29(2):73–88. 10.1007/s00049-019-00278-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Diabate S, Martin T, Murungi LK, Fiaboe KKM, Subramanian S, Wesonga J, Deletre E.. Repellent activity of Cymbopogon citratus and Tagetes minuta and their specific volatiles against Megalurothrips sjostedti. J Appl Entomol. 2019b:143(8):855–866. 10.1111/jen.12651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Elbert A, Becker BD, Hartwig JDI, Erdelen C.. Imidacloprid - a new systemic insecticide. Pflschutz-Nachr Bayer. 1991:44:113–136. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ge J, Cui K, Yan HQ, Li Y, Chai YY, Liu XJ, Cheng JF, Yu XY.. Uptake and translocation of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and difenoconazole in rice plants. Environ Pollut. 2017:226:479–485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gethi M, Mueke JM.. Incidence of flowerbud thrips, Megalurothrips Sjostedti Trybom (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on resistant and susceptible cowpea cultivars intercropped with maize. East Afr Agric For J. 1995:61(2):147–154. 10.1080/00128325.1995.11663263 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gitonga LM, Overholt WA, Löhr B, Magambo JK, Mueke JM.. Functional response of Orius albidipennis (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) to Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Biol Control. 2002:24(1):1–6. 10.1016/s1049-9644(02)00001-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goulson D. REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. J Appl Ecol. 2013:50(4):977–987. 10.1111/1365-2664.12111 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Houchat JN, Cartereau A, Le Mauff A, Taillebois E, Thany SH.. An overview on the effect of neonicotinoid insecticides on mammalian cholinergic functions through the activation of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020:17(9):3222. 10.3390/ijerph17093222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jayathilake C, Visvanathan R, Deen A, Bangamuwage R, Jayawardana BC, Nammi S, Liyanage R.. Cowpea: an overview on its nutritional facts and health benefits. J Sci Food Agric. 2018:98(13):4793–4806. 10.1002/jsfa.9074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jeschke P, Nauen R, Schindler M, Elbert A.. Overview of the status and global strategy for neonicotinoids. J Agric Food Chem. 2011:59(7):2897–2908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kyamanywa S, Tukahirwa EM.. Effect of mixed cropping beans, cowpeas and maize on population densities of bean flower thrips, Megalurothrips sjostedti (Trybom) (Thripidae). Int J Trop Insect Sci. 1988:9(02):255–259. 10.1017/s1742758400006081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Liu JK, Wu CY, Deng X, Li QF.. Degradation dynamics of imidacloprid in Hainan cowpea and the soil. Chin J Trop Crops. 2014:35(6):1198–1202. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu P, Qin Z, Feng M, Zhang L, Huang X, Shi W.. The male-produced aggregation pheromone of the bean flower thrips Megalurothrips usitatus in China: identification and attraction of conspecifics in the laboratory and field. Pest Manag Sci. 2020:76(9):2986–2993. 10.1002/ps.5844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Liu PP, Jia WT, Zheng X, Zhang L, Sangbaramou R, Tan SQ, Liu YQ, Shi WP.. Predation functional response and life table parameters of Orius sauteri (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) feeding on Megalurothrips usitatus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Fla Entomol. 2018:101(2):254–259. [Google Scholar]
  30. Meena RK, Meena RK, Anokhe A, Singh U, Meena ML, Meena BL, Meena MK.. Effect of bio-pesticides against thrips, Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagnall) in green gram. Plant Prot Sci. 2020:28(1):63–66. 10.5958/0974-0163.2020.00015.4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nabirye J, Nampala P, Kyamanywa S, Ogenga‐Latigo MW, Wilson HR, Adipala E.. Determination of damage-yield loss relationships and economic injury levels of flower thrips on cowpea in eastern Uganda. Crop Prot. 2003:22(7):911–915. [Google Scholar]
  32. Nassar AMK, Abbassy MA, Salem YM.. Mammalian detrimental effects of imidacloprid residues in tomato fruits. Res J Environ Toxicol. 2015:9(3):149–159. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ngakou A, Tamò M, Parh IA, Nwaga D, Ntonifor NN, Korie S, Nebane CLN.. Management of cowpea flower thrips, Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thysanoptera, Thripidae), in Cameroon. Crop Prot. 2008:27(3-5):481–488. 10.1016/j.cropro.2007.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Omo-Ikerodah EE, Fatokun C, Fawole I.. Genetic analysis of resistance to flower bud thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti) in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.). Euphytica. 2008:165(1):145–154. [Google Scholar]
  35. Oparaeke AM. Effect of crude extracts of mixtures of different plant species in the control of Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom. and pod setting of cowpea plants. Arch Phytopathol. 2007:40(3):201–206. [Google Scholar]
  36. Oparaeke AM, Dike MC, Amatobi CI.. Botanical pesticide mixtures for insect pest management on cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp plants–the legume flower bud thrips, Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom. J Sustain Agric. 2006:29(1):13–15. [Google Scholar]
  37. Oparaeke AM, Dike MC, Amatobi CI.. The potential for controlling Megalurothrips sjostedti (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp flowers using extracts of cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) products. Arch Phytopathol. 2007:40(4):252–256. [Google Scholar]
  38. Prasada Rao RDVJ, Reddy AS, Reddy SV, Thirumala-Devi K, Rao SC, Manoj Kumar V, Subramaniam K, Yellamanda Reddy T, Nigam SN, Reddy DVR.. The host range of tobacco streak virus in India and transmission by thrips. Ann Appl Biol. 2003:142(3):365–368. [Google Scholar]
  39. Reddy BKK, Paul A.. Residues of thiamethoxam 12.6%+ lambda cyhalothrin 9.5%ZC in vegetable cowpea. Indian J Entomol. 2021:83(4):676–679. 10.5958/0974-8172.2020.00223.0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sharma S, Singh B.. Persistence behaviour of imidacloprid and its metabolites in soil under sugarcane. Environ Monit Assess. 2014:186(4):2281–2288. 10.1007/s10661-013-3536-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Singh SR, Allen DJ.. Pest, diseases, resistance and protection of Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. In: Summerffield RJ, Bunting HH, editors. Advances in legume science. London (UK): Royal Botanical Gardens and Ministry of Agriculture, Fish and Food; 1980. p. 419–434. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sonali Shukla S, Kalyani G, Kulkarni N, Waliyar F, Nigam SN.. Mechanism of transmission of tobacco streak virus by Scirtothrips dorsalis, Frankliniella schultzei and Megalurothrips usittus in groundnut, Arachis hypogaea L. J. Oilseeds Res. 2005:22(1):215–217. [Google Scholar]
  43. Stamm MD, Heng-Moss TM, Baxendale FP, Siegfried BD, Blankenship EE, Nauen R.. Uptake and translocation of imidacloprid, clothianidin and flupyradifurone in seed-treated soybeans. Pest Manag Sci. 2016:72(6):1099–1109. 10.1002/ps.4152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tang LD, Fu BL, Qiu HY, Han Y, Li P, Liu K.. Studied on the toxicity of different insecticides to against Megalurothrips usitatus by using a modified TIBS method. Chin J Trop Crops. 2015b:36(3):570–574. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tang LD, Guo LH, Ali A, Desneux N, Zang LS.. Synergism of adjuvants mixed with spinetoram for the management of bean flower thrips, Megalurothrips usitatus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in cowpeas. J Econ Entomol. 2022:115(6):2013–2019. 10.1093/jee/toac149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tang LD, Guo LH, Wu JH, Zang LS.. Thrips in genus Megalurothrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae): biodiversity, bioecology, and IPM. J Integr Pest Manag. 2023:14(1):1–11. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tang LD, Yan KL, Fu BL, Wu JH, Liu K, Lu YY.. The life table parameters of Megalurothrips usitatus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on four leguminous crops. Fla Entomol. 2015a:98(2):620–625. 10.1653/024.098.0235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tang XJ, Hao FJ, Yuan HZ, Yan XJ, Yang DB, Taylor AG.. Uptake and translocation of imidacloprid via seed pathway and root pathway during early seedling growth of corn. Pest Manag Sci. 2020:76(11):3792–3799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Timko MP, Ehlers JD, Roberts PA.. Cowpea. In: Kole C, editor. Genome mapping and molecular breeding in plants. Vol. 3. Berlin (Germany): Springer; 2007. p. 49–68. [Google Scholar]
  50. Togola A, Boukar O, Chamarthi S, Belko N, Tamo M, Oigiangbe N, Ojo J, Ibikunle M, Fatokun C.. Evaluation of cowpea mini core accessions for resistance to flower bud thrips Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). J Appl Entomol. 2019:143(6):683–692. 10.1111/jen.12637 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang FY, Li X, Yu SM, He SH, Cao DT, Yao SJ, Fang H, Yu YL.. Chemical factors affecting uptake and translocation of six pesticides in soil by maize (Zea mays L.). J Hazard Mater. 2021:405:1242–1269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang XN, Wang SW, Chang H, Gu YP, Liu YP.. Synergistic effect of two spray adjuvants on thiamethoxam in the control of Megalurothrips usitatus in cowpea. Chin. J Pestic Sci. 2022:24(2):368–375. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wu CC, Dong FS, Mei XD, Ning J, She DM.. Distribution, dissipation, and metabolism of neonicotinoid insecticides in the cotton ecosystem under foliar spray and root irrigation. J Agric Food Chem. 2019:67:12374–12381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wu JH, Yang B, Zhang XC, Cuthbertson AGS, Ali S.. Synergistic interaction between the entomopathogenic fungus Akanthomyces attenuatus (Zare & Gams) and the botanical insecticide matrine against Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagrall). J Fungi. 2021:7(7):536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhu MQ, Ou X, Tang J, Shi TZ, Ma X, Wang Y, Wu XW, Li QX, Hua RM.. Uptake, distribution and translocation of imidacloprid-loaded fluorescence double hollow shell mesoporous silica nanoparticles and metabolism of imidacloprid in Pakchoi. Sci Total Environ. 2021:787:1475–1478. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhu MQ, Tang J, Shi TZ, Ma X, Wang Y, Wu XW, Li H, Hua RM.. Uptake, translocation and metabolism of imidacloprid loaded within fluorescent mesoporous silica nanoparticles in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Ecotox Environ Safe. 2022:232:113243–113243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Economic Entomology are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES