scholarly journals COLORADO POTATO BEETLE AND GREEN PEACH APHID CONTROL WITH SOIL APPLIED INSECTICIDES AND FOLIAR SPRAYS, 1998

1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Stoltz ◽  
Nancy A. Matteson
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Green Peach Aphid ◽  
Foliar Sprays ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Aphid Control

scholarly journals COLORADO POTATO BEETLE AND GREEN PEACH APHID CONTROL WITH SEED-PIECE TREATMENTS, 2000

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. M. Denke ◽  
S. L. Blodgett ◽  
K. Kephart ◽  
J. Mickelson
Keyword(s):  
Seed Piece ◽  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Green Peach Aphid ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Aphid Control

Potato Insect Control, Ft. Collins, Co 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-138
Author(s):  
Whitney Cranshaw ◽  
D. Casey Sclar ◽  
Aaron Spriggs ◽  
Jason Bishop
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Green Peach Aphid ◽  
Flea Beetle ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Egg Laying ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Plant Emergence ◽  
Potato Insect ◽  
The Hill

Abstract Plots were established at the Department of Horticulture Field Research Center; north of Ft. Collins, CO. Planting was done 12 May, establishing a series of 2-row plots, 30-ft in length. Plot design was a RCB with 4 replications. Admire applications were made to the soil along the sides of the hills and incorporated to a depth of 1-2 inches with a hand cultivator on 5 June, shortly after plant emergence. Soil applications of Granusol Magnesium were applied and incorporated into the hill on 24 June and 24 July. All foliar treatments were applied 27 June and 14 July (immediately after plot evaluations) using a CO2 compressed air sprayer with a single flat fan nozzle delivering 20 gal gal/acre at 45 psi in a series of passes that covered the top and both sides of each row. At the time of original treatment Colorado potato beetle mating and egg laying was common, with some recently hatched larvae present. Evaluations of Colorado potato beetle (CPB) larvae were made 30 June and 13 July by counting all larvae on the center 20-ft of each row. Populations dropped sharply after this point, preventing subsequent sampling. Potato flea beetle samples were taken on 4 dates, making 6 sweeps row (12 sweeps/plot) on the first two samples and 8 sweeps/plot on the subsequent samples. Green peach aphid and potato/tomato psyllid were enumerated by counting insects on 35 leaves per plot.

scholarly journals RESISTANCE TO THE COLORADO POTATO BEETLE AND GREEN PEACH APHID IN INTERSPECIFIC SOLANUM HYBRIDS.

HortScience ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 400I-400
Author(s):  
Jim Mooney ◽  
Shelley H. Jansky
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Interspecific Hybrids ◽  
Green Peach Aphid ◽  
Wild Potato ◽  
Norgold Russet ◽  
Feeding Period ◽  
Wild Potato Species ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Feeding Trials ◽  
Diploid Level

Resistance to the Colorado potato beetle (CPB) and green peach aphid (GPA) would be valuable if it could be effectively transferred from wild potato species to the cultivated potato. Eighteen diploid interspecific hybrids have been developed using Solanum tuberosum Gp. Tuberosum haploids (2n = 2x = 24) and the diploid wild species S. berthaultii (ber), S. chacoense (CHC), S. jamesii (jam), and S. tarijense (tar). Twenty-five genotypes per family were screened for resistance to CPB and GPA. Feeding trials were carried out on intact leaves. The degree of resistance to CPB was determined by the stage of instar development and weight of larvae after a four day feeding period; resistance to GPA was evaluated by aphid reproduction and survival after a fifteen day feeding period. Highly CPB or GPA resistant clones, compared to `Norgold Russet',, have been identified thus far. Some clones express high levels of resistance to both CPB and GPA. Crosses between resistant clones and S. tuberosum will be carried out at the diploid level in an attempt to combine resistance with good tuberization qualities.

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

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.

scholarly journals Green Peach Aphid Control with Foliar Sprays, 1996

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-164
Author(s):  
Robert L. Stoltz ◽  
Nancy A. Matteson
Keyword(s):  
Green Peach Aphid ◽  
Foliar Sprays ◽  
Aphid Control

scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Common Active Ingredients in Organic Insecticides Against Difficult to Control Insect Pests

Insects ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 614
Author(s):  
Galen P. Dively ◽  
Terrence Patton ◽  
Lindsay Barranco ◽  
Kelly Kulhanek
Keyword(s):  
Colorado Potato Beetle ◽  
Insect Pests ◽  
Green Peach Aphid ◽  
Potato Leafhopper ◽  
Control Efficacy ◽  
Flea Beetles ◽  
Potato Beetle ◽  
Bean Beetle ◽  
Organic Insecticides ◽  
Control Insect

There exists a lack of control efficacy information to enable decision-making about which organic insecticide product works best for a given insect pest. Here, we summarize results of 153 field trials on the control efficacy of common active ingredients in organic insecticides against 12 groups of the most difficult to control insect pests. These trials evaluated primarily the organic products Entrust (spinosad), Azera (pyrethrin and azadirachtin), PyGanic (pyrethrin) and Neemix (azadirachtin), which reduced pest infestations by an overall 73.9%, 61.7%, 48.6% and 46.1% respectively, averaged across all trials. Entrust was the most effective control option for many insect pests, particularly providing >75% control of flea beetles, Colorado potato beetle, cabbageworms and alfalfa weevil, but was relatively ineffective against true bugs and aphids. Azera provided >75% control of green peach aphid, flea beetles, Japanese beetle, Mexican bean beetle, potato leafhopper and cabbageworms. PyGanic was less effective than Entrust and Azera but still provided >75% control of green peach aphid, flea beetles and potato leafhopper. The growth inhibition effects of azadirachtin in Neemix were particularly effective against larvae of Mexican bean beetle and Colorado potato beetle but was generally less effective in trials with insect infestations consisting mainly of adult stages. Those insect pests that were particularly difficult to control included thrips, stinkbugs, cucumber beetles and fruitworms. Several caveats pertaining to the application of the results are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document