scholarly journals Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-145
Author(s):  
E.. McEnhill ◽  
E. Grafius ◽  
J. Sirota ◽  
C. Brunt ◽  
J. Ferrigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Bare Ground ◽  
Light Rain ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Foliar Treatment

Abstract Fifteen insecticide treatments were tested at the MSU Montcalm Research Farm, in Entrican, MI, for their control of Colorado potato beetles (CPB). ‘Snowden’ potatoes were planted 12 inches apart with a 34 inch row spacing on 10 May. Treatments were replicated four times and assigned to plots in a RCB design. The plots measured 40 feet long and were three rows wide. There were at least two rows of bare ground between plots and five feet of untreated potatoes between plots in the same rows. The Admire and Mocap treatments were applied in furrow at planting. The first foliar treatment was applied, at 25% CPB hatch, on 18 June using a tractor-mounted sprayer (30 gal/acre, 40 psi). Subsequent first generation sprays were applied on 29 June and 7 July. Light rain occurred on 7 July before the insecticides had a chance to dry. Insecticide effectiveness was determined by counting the various stages of CPB on two randomly chosen plants from the middle row of each plot. Counts were done on 12 and 23 Jun and 3 and 12 July. Second generation methods were the same as for the first generation with sprays occuring on 19 July, 26 July and 2 Aug and counts on 18, 24 and 31 Jul. All plots other than the two Trigard treatments were sprayed with a maintenance spray of Imidan and PBO. Each plot was assessed for percent defoliation on 3 July and 9 August. The middle row of potatoes from each plot was harvested on 22 August, separated by size and weighed.

scholarly journals Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1994

1995 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
K. Kearns ◽  
E. Grafius ◽  
M. Bommarito ◽  
C. Brunt ◽  
J. Ferrigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Piperonyl Butoxide ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Potato Seed ◽  
Bare Ground ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Randomized Complete Block Design ◽  
Foliar Treatment

Abstract ‘Snowdon’ variety potatoes were used to test nineteen insecticides for control of Colorado potato beetle (CPB) at the MSU Montcalm Research Farm in Entrican, MI. Potatoes were planted 12 inches apart with a 34 inch row spacing on 4 May. Plots were 40 feet long by three rows wide and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots were separated by at least 5 feet of bare ground. Fosthiazate in-furrow treatments were incorporated into the soil through rototill on 3 May. An Admire treatment was applied in furrow on the potato seed with a CO2 backpack sprayer (8005 flat fan single nozzle, 30 psi) on 4 May. Foliar treatment applications were applied on 16, 23 Jun, 1 and 7 Jul using a tractor-mounted sprayer (30 gal/acre, 40 psi). Preplant Fosthiazate treated plots also received foliar treatments of Asana and piperonyl butoxide (PBO). Rain occurred on 24 Jun and 7 Jul within hours after spraying. Insecticide effectiveness was determined through postspray counts for all stages of CPB (small larvae = 1 st and 2nd instar, large larvae = 3rd and 4th instar) by searching two randomly selected plants from the middle row of each plot on 21, 28 Jun, 5 and 12 Jul. Plots were assessed for percent defoliation on 28 Jun, 5, 8 and 12 Jul. Plots were sprayed 13 Jul with Imidan and PBO (except for two of the Agrimek plots) to control summer adults emerging from poor treatments and migrating toward other research plots. All plots were sprayed for the same reason with Agrimek on 23 Jul and 11 Aug. Potatoes in the middle row of each plot were harvested on 2 Sept. Potatoes were separated by size.

scholarly journals Field Efficacy of Steinernema sp. (Rhabditida: Steinernematidae) on the Colorado Potato Beetle Overwintering Generation

Plants ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1464
Author(s):  
Maja Čačija ◽  
Renata Bažok ◽  
Majda Kolenc ◽  
Tena Bujas ◽  
Zrinka Drmić ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Recommended Dose ◽  
Steinernema Feltiae ◽  
First Year ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Field Efficacy ◽  
Second Year ◽  
Economic Pest

Colorado potato beetle (CPB) is an economic pest of potato that has developed resistance to all classes of chemical insecticides, thus requiring alternative control measures. As a potential solution, entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) have proven effective in suppressing this pest, but their efficacy against overwintering generations of CPB in Croatia has not been sufficiently researched. The aim of this two-year (2018–2019) field study was to determine the efficacy of Steinernema feltiae and Steinernema carpocapsae applied to overwintering CPB adults. EPNs were applied at three doses (7.5 mil./10 m2, 5.0 mil./10 m2 (the recommended dose) and 2.5 mil./10 m2) by watering the soil where the adults were overwintering. The first-year results were satisfactory for both EPNs: the efficacy of S. feltiae ranged from 79.03% to 100.00%, while the efficacy of S. carpocapsae ranged from 77.32% to 96.22%. In the second year, the highest efficacy (69.57%) was obtained using the recommended dose of S. feltiae. Although the results are not consistent across the two years of our study and suggest further research, they indicate that EPNs have great potential in controlling overwintering CPB generations to reduce first generation abundance and damage, and also to prevent the spread of new generations to surrounding potato growing areas.

INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF THE COLORADO POTATO BEETLE (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE)

1975 ◽  
Vol 107 (6) ◽  
pp. 561-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. McClanahan
Keyword(s):  
Pest Control ◽  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Good Control ◽  
Planting Time ◽  
Spray Tower ◽  
Systemic Insecticides ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Azinphos Methyl ◽  
Potato Pests

AbstractSince 1970 the increasing level of Colorado potato beetle infestation in southwestern Ontario has necessitated foliage sprays or planting treatments with systemic insecticides. Spray tower tests of many insecticides against eggs, larvae, and adults indicated that the best overall materials would be carbofuran, azinphos-methyl, and chlorfenvinphos.At planting time furrow treatments with granular carbofuran, disulfoton, or phorate demonstrated good control of all potato pests until the end of June. After that time only the carbofuran and phorate treatments gave protection against a heavy second generation of potato beetles. Yields were related to the degree of pest control.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Torac, Warrior, and Coragen for First-Generation Colorado Potato Beetle Management in Wisconsin, 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Z Bradford ◽  
Scott A Chapman ◽  
Russell L Groves
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Potato Beetle

scholarly journals Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1993

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-110
Author(s):  
Casey W. Hoy ◽  
Michael J. Dunlap
Keyword(s):  
Seed Piece ◽  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Plant Spacing ◽  
Single Application ◽  
Hollow Cone ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Randomized Complete Block Design ◽  
Vine Killer

Abstract ‘Gemchip’ potatoes were planted 26 May at the Fry Farm, OARDC, Wooster, OH. Plant spacing was 36 inches between rows and 9 inches between plants. Three Admire 2F seed piece treatments were applied at planting using a CO2 compression sprayer at 40 psi with an 8004 flat fan nozzle delivering the insecticide into the seed furrow. The field was treated on 16 Jun with 0.75 lb/ acre of Sencor DF. Fungicide, Dithane at 2.0 lb/acre, was applied 9 Aug. Paraquat, 1 pt/acre, was applied 7 Sep as a vine killer. Plots were two rows wide and 40 ft in length, with 10 ft alleys separating plots and 6 ft alleys separating blocks. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Foliar treatments were initiated when the first generation larvae were increasing in the plots in early Jul. Foliar applications were made 3 and 12 Jul and 3 and 12 Aug. The Trigard single application treatment was applied only on 3 Jul and 3 Aug. Foliar treatments were applied with a tractor mounted drop nozzle boom sprayer delivering 50 gal/acre at 50 psi with three D-4 hollow cone nozzles/row. Bond spreader sticker was added at 4 oz/ 100 gal solution to all rates of the following insecticides: Prokill Cryolite 96, AC303,630, M-Trak, and Novodor. Number of eggs, small larvae (instar 1-2), large larvae (instar 3-4), and adults were counted, and percent defoliation was visually estimated, in five 1-m lengths of row per plot approximately five days after each application.

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE COLORADO POTATO BEETLE LEPTINOTARSA DECEMLINEATA (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE) IN QUEBEC BY AUGMENTATIVE RELEASES OF THE TWO-SPOTTED STINKBUG PERILLUS BIOCULATUS (HEMIPTERA: PENTATOMIDAE)

1995 ◽  
Vol 127 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conrad Cloutier ◽  
France Bauduin
Keyword(s):  
Biological Control ◽  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Release Time ◽  
Egg Mass ◽  
Predator Density ◽  
Predator Prey ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Perillus Bioculatus ◽  
Augmentative Releases

AbstractField plot tests during two seasons show that augmentative releases of Perillus bioculatus can control first-generation eggs and larvae of the Colorado potato beetle (CPB) under Quebec short-season conditions. Stinkbugs mass-reared on CPB were introduced manually as 2nd- and 3rd-stage nymphs during spring oviposition of the beetle at densities of one nymph per 50–225 CPB eggs recruited per plant, in 0.025-ha plots. Sampling at intervals of 1–3 days measured predator establishment, CPB egg and larval mortality, and foliage protection level. Direct observations were used to document predator-prey relationships and to determine weather conditions favourable to P. bioculatus.In the 1 st-year test, with predators released over all plants within plots, CPB control was compared among: (1) stinkbugs alone, (2) the bioinsecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) as Trident™, (3) a combination of both control alternatives, and (4) no protection against the CPB. BT and stinkbugs, both alone and in combination, produced significant control as measured by percentage reductions in prepupal drop to the ground, new adult emergence, and foliage protection. Only treatments involving P. bioculatus reduced CPB egg eclosion which was the key control factor; it is strongly correlated with overall control level.In the 2nd-year test, predators were released in a central area comprising only 25% of all plants within plots. Predator and CPB egg mass densities were manipulated to produce predator: prey ratios of 0:1, 0:2, 1.5:2, 1.5:1, 3:2, and 3:1, representing average ratios of 0, 1.5,or 3 P. bioculatus per plant, and 1 or 2 CPB egg masses per plant at release time. As expected, central release produced complex interactions between control, and predator and prey densities. High beetle density slowed predator emigration from the centre, more so at low predator density than at high predator density. Predators moved more quickly within the same row than across rows. CPB eggs were destroyed in large numbers in both years but in 1993, final control correlated with larval rather than egg predation. A maximum 80% reduction in prepupal drop to the ground was obtained at the 3:1 predator:prey ratio (1 P. bioculatus:95 CPB eggs recruited per plant).The results prove the efficacy of P. bioculatus for biological control of first-generation L. decemlineata populations, at densities resulting in approximately 300 eggs laid per plant during spring oviposition in the study area. Despite low natural populations of P. bioculatus and unclear prospects for commercial availability at reasonable cost, it is evident that stinkbug releases have potential as a non-chemical control measure within an IPM program in Quebec potato production.

Effects of Straw and Leaf Mulches and Trickle Irrigation on the Abundance of Colorado Potato Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on Potato in Connecticut

1993 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Stoner
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Leptinotarsa Decemlineata ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Trickle Irrigation ◽  
Straw Mulch ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Leptinotarsa Decemlineata Say ◽  
Leaf Mulch ◽  
Leaf Mulches ◽  
Eggs And Larvae

Straw mulch reduced the number of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), larvae on potato during the first generation, and reduced the proportion of stems that were more than 50% defoliated compared to unmulched and unirrigated control plots. Leaf mulch and trickle irrigation did not affect number of larvae or the proportion of heavily defoliated plants compared to the control. None of the treatments significantly affected the number of adults per stem until the end of the first generation and none affected the number of egg masses, so the straw mulch must affect mortality or development of eggs and larvae. Both types of mulch and trickle irrigation increased yield relative to the control, perhaps due to lower soil temperature in a hot, dry year.

scholarly journals Potato, Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Spinosad, 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-155
Author(s):  
Brian D. Olson ◽  
Gary D. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Factorial Experiment ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Egg Hatch ◽  
Buffer Area ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Flat Fan Nozzle

Abstract “Kanona” potatoes were planted 12 May, on 0.9 m row spacing. Each plot consisted of 4 rows of potatoes 9.1 m long surrounded by a 3.7 m wide fallow buffer area. The treatments were replicated 4 times and the plots were arranged in a RCBD. Treatments were applied with a bicycle CO2 sprayer operated at 275 kpa with spray nozzles spaced 50.8 cm apart. The treatments were applied on 23 Jun (45% egg hatch) and the plants were 45 cm high and 45 cm wide. The trial was designed as a 4 by 3 factorial experiment where spinosad, the first product in the naturalyte class, was applied at 5, 20, 40 and 80 g (AI)/ha in spray volumes of 56, 187 and 748 liters/ha and compared to the untreated. The 56 liters/ha spray was applied using a 800067 flat fan nozzle at 4.8 km/h. The 187 and 748 liters/ ha sprays were applied using a 8002 flat fan nozzle at 4.8 and 1.2 km/h, respectively. On 30 Jun, 7 days after application the total number of CPB larvae was counted on five plants per plot. On 6 Jul, the percent visual defoliation of each plot was rated.

Influence of Mulches on the Colonization by Adults and Survival of Larvae of the Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Eggplant

1997 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Stoner
Keyword(s):  
Leptinotarsa Decemlineata ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Bare Ground ◽  
Plastic Mulch ◽  
Straw Mulch ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Leptinotarsa Decemlineata Say ◽  
Aluminum Paint ◽  
Black Plastic

Six treatments (no mulch, black plastic mulch, black plastic painted with reflective aluminum paint, straw mulch, black plastic plus straw, and a living mulch of rye growing between the rows) were used to grow eggplant and to observe the effects on movement of adult Colorado potato beetles, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say); oviposition; and density and survival of larvae. Straw mulch and rye treatments reduced movement of overwintered beetles into the plots and also reduced the growth of the plants compared to black plastic mulch. Survival from the egg to small larva (first and second instar) was lower in the plots with straw mulch and black plastic plus straw than in plots with rye, bare ground or aluminum-painted mulch. None of the treatments had an effect on movement of the first generation adults, which was primarily determined by the proximity of the plots to the source field of potatoes. It may be possible to combine the positive effects of black plastic on early season growth and straw mulch on reducing the survival of potato beetle larvae by transplanting the eggplants into black plastic mulch, then adding straw as the egg masses of the potato beetle begin to hatch.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document