Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Foliar Sprays, 1995

Robert L. Stoltz; Nancy A. Matteson

doi:10.1093/amt/21.1.168

Green Peach Aphid Control With Foliar Sprays, 1995

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/21.1.171 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 171-171

Author(s):

Robert L. Stoltz ◽

Nancy A. Matteson

Keyword(s):

Green Peach Aphid ◽

Sweet Pepper ◽

Individual Treatment ◽

Row Spacing ◽

Silt Loam ◽

Hollow Cone ◽

Aphid Control ◽

Untreated Check ◽

Extension Center ◽

Pepper Plants

Abstract Experimental plots were established on the UI Research and Extension Center, Kimberly, Idaho. Potatoes were planted on 25 Apr and irrigated by solid set sprinkler. The soil type was Portneuf silt loam. Four treatments and one untreated check plot were replicated four times in a RCB design. Individual treatment plots were 4 rows (36 inch row spacing) wide by 25 ft long with 5 ft alleyways separating the plots. Green peach aphids were mass reared on greenhouse sweet pepper plants (California Wonder) for release into individual plots. Aphid releases were made into test plots the last wk in Jun and again in the first wk of Jul. A total of four heavily infested pepper plants was released per plot. Treatment sprays were broadcast applied using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer (30 psi) and delivering 20 gal finished spray per acre (four, 10X hollow cone nozzles). Aphid counts were made from non-destructively examining 10 randomly selected leaves in the center two rows of each plot. Leaves were sampled from the top, middle, and bottom sections of the plants. The data collected and presented are the total number of aphids per 20 leaves. On 19 Jul a pre-count was taken and on 21 Jul all treatment applications were made. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple means comparison.

Download Full-text

Colorado Potato Beetle and Green Peach Aphid Control with Soil Applied Insecticides and Foliar Sprays, 1996

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/22.1.162 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 162-163

Author(s):

Robert L. Stoltz ◽

Nancy A. Matteson

Keyword(s):

Seed Piece ◽

Foliar Application ◽

Green Peach Aphid ◽

Sweet Pepper ◽

Row Spacing ◽

Potato Beetle ◽

Whole Plant ◽

Aphid Control ◽

Untreated Check ◽

Extension Center

Abstract Experimental plots were established on the UI Research and Extension Center, Kimberly, Idaho. Potatoes were planted on 25 Apr and irrigated by solid set sprinkler. The soil type was Portneuf silt loam. Eight treatments and one untreated check plot were replicated four times in a RCB design. Individual plots were 4 rows (36 inch row spacing) wide by 25 ft long with 5 ft alleyways separating the plots. Green peach aphids were mass reared on greenhouse sweet pepper plants (‘California Wonder’) for release into individual plots. Aphid releases were made into test plots on 27 Jun and again on 8 Jul. A total of four heavily infested plants were released per plot. On a weekly basis, adults, large larvae (3-4 instar), small larvae (1 -2 instar), and egg masses of CPB were counted and percent defoliation assessed from whole plant inspections of the center 5 hills of the middle 2 plot rows. GPA counts were made on 20 leaves chosen at random from the top, middle and bottom sections of plants in the center two rows of each plot. Admire treatments were applied at plant in-furrow over the seed piece on 25 Apr. Temik and Thimet were applied in-furrow with the seed piece also at planting. Furadan was applied in a six-inch banded S over the plants at 4-inch rosette stage of plant growth on 4 Jun using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer. All foliar treatments were broadcast on 29 Jun using the backpack CO2 sprayer at a rate of 20 gpa (30 psi, with 4, 10X hollow cone nozzles). On 11 Jul, a second foliar application of Metasystox-R + Asana, Monitor and Alert was made. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple means comparison.

Download Full-text

Green Peach Aphid Control with Foliar Sprays, 1997

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/23.1.134 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 23 (1) ◽

pp. 134-134 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robert L. Stoltz ◽

Nancy A. Matteson

Keyword(s):

Green Peach Aphid ◽

Block Design ◽

Individual Treatment ◽

Row Spacing ◽

Significance Level ◽

Aphid Control ◽

Randomized Complete Block Design ◽

Untreated Check ◽

Pre Treatment ◽

Extension Center

Abstract Experimental plots were established on the UI Research and Extension Center, Kimberly, Idaho. Potatoes were planted on 28 Apr and irrigated by solid set sprinkler. The soil type was Portneuf silt loam. Seven treatments and one untreated check plot were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Individual treatment plots were 4 rows (36-inch row spacing) wide by 25 ft long with 5-ft alleyways separating the plots. Green peach aphids were mass reared on greenhouse mustard plants (Brassica juncea L. ‘Florida Broadleaf’) for release into individual plots. Aphid releases were made into test plots on 14 Jun. A total of four heavily infested leaves were used to inoculate each plot. Treatment sprays were broadcast applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer (30 psi) and delivering 20 gal finished S per acre (four, 10X hollow-cone nozzles). Aphid counts were made by non-destructively sampling leaves at random from the top, middle, and bottom sections of plants in the center two rows of each plot. The data collected and presented is the total no. of aphids per 20 leaves. On 25 Jun a pre-treatment count was made and all treatments were applied later that d. Data was analyzed using ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple means comparison (Significance Level P = 0.05).

Download Full-text

Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1995

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/21.1.144 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Colorado Potato Beetle and European Corn Borer Control with Insecticides, Pasquotank Co., Nc, 1993

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/19.1.131 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 131-131

Author(s):

K. A. Sorensen ◽

C. Wade Holloway

Keyword(s):

European Corn Borer ◽

Block Design ◽

Fourth Instar ◽

Row Spacing ◽

Hollow Cone ◽

Corn Borer ◽

Potato Beetle ◽

Randomized Complete Block Design ◽

Hill Plots ◽

Low Rate

Abstract ‘Atlantic’ potatoes were planted in early Mar for Tests 1 and 2 near Elizabeth City, N.C. on 42 inch centers. Plots in Test 1 were 14 ft long and in Test 2 20 ft long, with single row spacing replicated 4 times in a randomized complete block design. Alleys of 5 ft were used between replicates within rows. Treatments in Test 1 and Test 2 were applied with a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer with a single hollow cone nozzle (18X) operated at 60 psi to deliver 54.5 gal/acre. In Test 1 all treatments were applied on 5, 11 and 18 May. All treatments were applied to Test 2 on 5 May, with the exception of the 1/6 lb rate of Trigard 75WP in combination with Trigard 75WP at 1/3 lb rate which received the combination low rate (1/6 lb) 6 days later. On 11 May applications were applied to all treatments except for Trigard 75WP at the 1/3 lb, 2/3 lb (egg only) and Trigard 75WP 1/3 lb (egg only) plus Trigard 75WP at the 1/6 lb rate. At this time the low rate of the combination Trigard 75WP 1/6 lb rate was applied. Imidan 50WP at 2 lbs and Imidan 50WP at 2 lbs plus Butacide 8EC at 0.5 lbs was applied on 5, 11 and 18 May. Test 1 and Test 2 counts of CPB on 3/hill plots were made 11 and 18 May. Small larvae were assumed to be first and second instar, and large larvae, third and fourth instar. Visual CPB damage ratings were made 18 May and 15 Jun. Visual ECB ratings were made and potatoes harvested and yields recorded 15 Jun.

Download Full-text

Comparison of three management schemes for Colorado potato beetle on early-season potatoes in Prince Edward Island

Phytoprotection ◽

10.7202/705993ar ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 71 (3) ◽

pp. 121-127 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

J.G. Stewart ◽

A.P. Dornan

Keyword(s):

Bacillus Thuringiensis ◽

Colorado Potato Beetle ◽

Leptinotarsa Decemlineata ◽

Prince Edward Island ◽

Tuber Yield ◽

Fourth Instar ◽

Early Season ◽

Potato Beetle ◽

Untreated Check ◽

Management Schemes

The economics of managing the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on potatoes (Solarium tuberosum) with different strategies was tested at four sites on Prince-Edward-Island in 1989. Three treatments were tested at each site: 1) an untreated check, 2) an application of Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis or rotenone after a threshold of 0.5 Colorado Potato Beetle Equivalents (CPBE) per stalk was reached ( 1 CPBE = 1 spring adult, 8 first- or second- instar larvae, 3 third- or fourth- instar larvae, or 1.6 summer adults), and 3) applications of insecticide according to the grower's normal spray schedule. At one site, tuber yield of plots managed with the 0.5 CPBE-per-stalk threshold was similar to that of plots where the grower maintained his normal spray schedule, but three fewer applications of insecticides were needed in the former. At the remaining sites, where the density of Colorado potato beetles did not exceed the threshold, tuber yield was similar to that of the grower's plots. This suggests that there were needless applications of insecticides by the growers.

Download Full-text

COLORADO POTATO BEETLE CONTROL WITH CYROMAZINE

HortScience ◽

10.21273/hortsci.27.6.628e ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 27 (6) ◽

pp. 628e-628 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

J.D. Abbott ◽

L. T. Thetford

Keyword(s):

Colorado Potato Beetle ◽

Leptinotarsa Decemlineata ◽

Total Yield ◽

Insect Growth Regulator ◽

Insect Feeding ◽

Potato Leaf ◽

Egg Hatch ◽

Potato Beetle ◽

Untreated Check ◽

Small Plot

Cyromazine is a triazine molecule with insect growth regulator properties being developed for control of Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) (CPB) in vegetables. Research presented focuses primarily on results with potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), however, crop safety has been observed in other crops within the Solanaceae. Several trials were conducted in PA and NY during 1991 to examine the rates and timing necessary to control CPB in potatoes. Data from replicated small plot trials and non-replicated large block trials are included. Rates examined ranged 70 to 560 g ai na-1 applied alone or in combination with a pyrethroid or Bt. Comparisons were made with insecticides presently registered for CPB control in potatoes and cyromazine compared quite favorably. Two applications per CPB generation were made, the first at the beginning of CPB egg hatch and a second 7-16 days later for each generation. This application schedule provided excellent (90%) control of CPB larvae. The reduction in larvae also resulted in a reduction in adult CPB and potato leaf area damaged through insect feeding. In the test conducted in PA, an increase in size and number of tubers was observed when plants were treated with cyromazine. -These increases resulted in a 23-28% increase in total yield compared to that obtained from the untreated check plots.

Download Full-text

Crop Rotation Reduces the Cost of Colorado Potato Beetle Control in Potatoes

HortTechnology ◽

10.21273/horttech.8.2.229 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 229-234 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

John Speese ◽

S.B. Sterrett

Keyword(s):

Crop Rotation ◽

Colorado Potato Beetle ◽

Management Program ◽

Economic Returns ◽

Naturally Occurring ◽

Potato Beetle ◽

Insecticide Efficacy ◽

Treatment Thresholds ◽

Untreated Check ◽

The Cost

The effect of crop rotation was investigated on the efficacy and the economics of various insecticide strategies for Colorado potato beetle (CPB) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in 1995-96. These included broad-spectrum insecticides and biorational (environmentally friendly, naturally occurring) combinations that targeted specific CPB life stages. CPB pressure was greater in the nonrotated than the rotated plots. Although all materials gave better CPB control than the check, significantly more spray applications were required to reduce CPB numbers below treatment thresholds in the nonrotated plots than the rotated plots in both years. Overall yields and economic returns were significantly greater in the rotated plots in 1995. Efficacy of insecticide strategies varied, with little defoliation and few CPB larvae found in the imidacloprid treatment in 1995 and 1996. All insecticide strategies except endosulfan resulted in significantly higher estimated returns to management than the untreated check; the greatest returns occurred with permethrin and cryolite. No yields or returns could be obtained in 1996 due to excessive rainfall before harvest. These results indicate that yield and the cost of the insecticide strategy should be considered as well as insecticide efficacy in developing an effective integrated pest management program.

Download Full-text

Foliar Sprays to Control Insects in Fall Peppers, 1995

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/21.1.136a ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 136-137

Author(s):

John Speese

Keyword(s):

Agricultural Research ◽

Evaluation Criteria ◽

Row Spacing ◽

Plant Spacing ◽

Eastern Shore ◽

Hollow Cone ◽

Foliar Sprays ◽

Marketable Fruit ◽

Extension Center

Abstract Peppers were transplanted on 31 Jul at the Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA. Each plot consisted of two 25ft long rows with 3ft between row spacing and 1ft between plant spacing. Each plot was bordered on each side by an untreated guard row and replicated 4 times in a RCB design. Treatments were applied on the dates indicated in the table with a backpack sprayer using 3 hollow cone nozzles/row and delivering 60 gal water/acre at 40 psi. Evaluation criteria consisted of hand-harvest of marketable fruit on 10 healthy, uniform-sized plants/row (.00062 acre) and GPA counts on 5 randomly picked leaves/plot on 06 Oct. Harvesting was done in this manner due to uneven stands in some plots due to the drought.

Download Full-text

Colorado Potato Beetle Control, 1993

Arthropod Management Tests ◽

10.1093/amt/19.1.110 ◽

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.

Download Full-text