Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Insecticides Allowed For Organic Production, 2017 and 2018

Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Insecticides Allowed For Organic Production, 2017 and 2018 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz081/5613529 by DeepDyve user on 25 March 2020 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, XX(X), 2019, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz081 Section E: Vegetable Crops POTATO: Solanum tuberosum L., ‘Genesee’ and ‘Nordanna’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Insecticides Allowed HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB For Organic Production, 2017 and 2018 HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC 1 2,3 Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Brian A. Nault and Abby Seaman History=Text=History=Text_First Department of Entomology, Cornell University, 15 Castle Creek Dr., Geneva, NY 14456, Phone: 315-787-2354, Fax: 315-787-2326 EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 2 ([email protected]), New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, 607 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456, Phone: 315-787-2422, Fax: 315-787-2360 ([email protected]), and  Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Subject Editor: John Palumbo EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Potato | Solanum tuberosum ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Colorado potato beetle | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC These trials were conducted to evaluate insecticides allowed for or- first-generation larvae. In 2017 treatments were applied on 15, 19, ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA ganic production. The trials were conducted at the ACDS Research and 24 Jun with the exception of the 6 qt rate of Trident, which was Inc. farm near North Rose, NY. In 2017, ‘B’ grade tubers of a sprayed on 19 and 26 Jun. In 2018 treatments were applied 15, 20, late-season maturing, white-skinned potato cultivar, ‘Genesee’, and 26 Jun. All applications were co-applied with NuFilm at 8 fl oz were planted on 4 May. In 2018, ‘B’ grade tubers of a mid-season per acre. After first-generation adults started emerging in early July maturing, red-skinned potato cultivar, ‘Nordanna’, were planted on and when potatoes were in late bloom/early post bloom stages, in 11 May. Tubers were planted mechanically at a density of approx- 2017 Coragen SC was applied at 5 fl oz/acre on 8 and 14 Jul and in imately 1 per foot. Plots included two 25-ft long rows flanked by 2018 a co-application of Coragen SC at 5 fl oz/acre + Radiant SC a single unplanted row. Rows were 36 inches apart and plots were at 8 fl oz/acre + Induce at 0.125% v:v was applied on 14 Jul to all separated by a 5-ft alley of bare ground within rows. Weeds and treatments to prevent first-generation adults from causing further diseases were managed following typical practices for this region. damage (untreated plots were also treated). Other insect pests such as potato leafhopper, potato aphid, green Efficacy of treatments was evaluated by recording the number of peach aphid, and European corn borer were either absent or only CPB life stages per plant during the first CPB generation. Numbers observed at very low densities that did not damage the crop. of egg masses (EM), adults (AD), small larvae (SL) (=1st and 2nd Eight treatments including an untreated check were included in instars) and large larvae (LL) (=3rd and 4th instars) were recorded 2017, and seven were included in 2018 (Table 1). Treatments and per plant from 10 randomly selected plants per plot. In 2017, for the an untreated check were arranged in a randomized complete block 6 qt rate of Trident, data were taken on 26 Jun and 4 Jul, but are in- design with five replications. cluded in Table 2 under 23 and 29 Jun. For all other treatments and Foliar insecticide applications were made using a CO -pressurized the untreated check, sampling dates included 19, 23, and 29 Jun. In backpack sprayer and a boom equipped with four hollow-cone 2018, sampling dates included 20 and 26 Jun and 4 Jul. nozzles (Conejet TXVS-12) in which two nozzles each were directed Visual estimates of defoliation were made on 26 Jun and 3 Jul in over the canopy of single row (i.e., two rows were sprayed simulta- 2017 and on 26 Jun and 4 Jul in 2018. Defoliation estimates for each neously with one pass of the spray rig). The sprayer was calibrated plot were based on the following 14-point scale (0%, 0–3%, 3–9%, to deliver 31 gal of spray per acre at 40 psi. Insecticides were ap- 9–17%, 17–27%, 27–38%, 38–50%, 50–62%, 62–73%, 73–82%, plied during the vegetative and early bloom stages to manage 82–93%, 93–97%, 97–100%, and 100%). The midpoint of each Table 1. Treatment Active ingredient 2017 Rate/A 2018 Rate/A Untreated check – – – Azera pyrethrin+azadirachtin 40 fl oz 40 fl oz Entrust SC spinosad 10 fl oz 3.5 and 7 fl oz Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lbs 3 lbs V-10433 Sabadilla alkaloids 11 fl oz 11 fl oz BeetleGONE! B.t. galleriae Strain SDS 502 4 lbs Not tested Trident B.t. tenebrionis 3 and 6 qts 3 qts © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz081/5613529 by DeepDyve user on 25 March 2020 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. XX, No. XX Table 2. Mean numbers per plant Jun 19 Jun 23 Jun 29 Product Rate A EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check 0.9 0.3 b 58 a 3.1 0.1 b 0.06 62 a 33 a 0 0 13 ab 46 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 49 a 1.2 0.3 b 0.2 65 a 10 c 0 0 37 a 56 a Entrust SC 10 fl oz 1.9 1.8 a 3 b 0.1 0.9 a 0.3 1 c 0 d 0 0.1 1 c 1 b Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.3 1.1 ab 52 a 2.0 0.1 b 0.2 47 ab 29 abc 0 0 7 bc 39 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 52 a 2.4 0.1 b 0 64 a 27 ab 0 0 23 a 59 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 0.7 ab 67 a 2.5 0.1 b 0.1 71 a 31 ab 0 0 7 bc 31 a Trident (3 apps.) 3 qt 1.3 0.8 ab 57 a 3.5 0.2 b 0.1 51 ab 12 bc 0 0.1 15 ab 27 a Trident (2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 0.0 b 0.2 33 b 18 abc 0 0 11 ab 46 a P value NS 0.0301 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 NS <0.0001 0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). Table 3. Product Rate/A Season mean total numbers per plant Mean % defoliation EM AD SL LL 26 Jun 3 Jul Untreated check 1.0 b 0.4 b 133 a 82 a 69 a 100 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.4 ab 0.9 ab 151 a 67 a 16 c 31 b Entrust SC 10 fl oz 2.8 a 2.2 a 5 b 1 b 0 d 1 c Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.4 ab 1.2 ab 107 a 69 a 71 a 98 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.2 ab 0.7 ab 139 a 88 a 38 b 98 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 b 0.8 ab 145 a 65 a 81 a 100 a Trident (low rate x 3 apps.) 3 qt 1.5 ab 1.0 ab 123 a 43 a 11 c 16 b Trident (high rate x 2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 8 c 36 b P value 0.0243 0.0094 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). Table 4. Product Rate/A Mean numbers per plant Jun 20 Jun 26 Jul 4 EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 12 ab 36 a 0.1 0 8 48 0 0 0 37 a Azera 40 oz 0.6 0.1 17 a 21 a 0.1 0 8 44 a 0 0 0 48 a Entrust SC (low) 3.5 oz 0.8 0.2 13 ab 1 c 0.4 0.2 2 1 c 0.1 0.1 0 7 b Entrust SC (high) 7 oz 0.8 0.2 5 b 1 c 0.2 0.1 0 0 c 0.1 0 0 3 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 0.9 0.1 17 ab 30 a 0.1 0 5 59 a 0 0 0 32 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.6 0.1 15 a 24 a 0.1 0 7 50 a 0 0 0 40 a Trident 3 qt 0.5 0.3 16 a 7 b 0 0.1 7 19 b 0 0 0 42 a P value NS NS 0.0125 <0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 NS NS NS <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). estimate was used in the statistical analyses. On 24 Aug (both years), data were transformed with a square root (x + 0.001) function to the left-hand row in each plot was harvested and the numbers of stabilize variance. Grade ‘A’ (>1.5 inches in diam.) and Grade ‘B’ (<1.5 in diam.) tubers In 2017, CPB pressure was high. Conditions were moderate and were weighed. wet from early May through late June. A  moderate rainfall event All data were analyzed using a mixed linear model procedure of occurred less than 30 min after the first application, whereas other SAS (PROC MIXED) in which treatment was considered fixed and rainfall events generally occurred within a day or so after the other replication as random in the model. All pairwise comparisons be- applications. tween means were made using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test On 15 Jun, before treatments were applied, densities of EM, at P < 0.05. Insect count data and tuber yield data were transformed AD, SL, and LL per plant were 2.0, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.02, respectively. with a log (x + 1) function to stabilize variance. Defoliation rating The action threshold recommended in NY for biologically based 10 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz081/5613529 by DeepDyve user on 25 March 2020 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. XX, No. XX 3 Table 5. Product Rate/A Mean total numbers per plant Mean % Defoliation EM AD SL LL Jun 26 Jul 4 Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 20 a 121 a 21 a 78 a Azera 40 oz 0.7 0.2 25 a 113 a 3 b 21 b Entrust SC 3.5 oz 1.3 0.4 15 a 9 b 0 b 1 c Entrust SC 7 oz 1.1 0.4 5 b 3 c 0 b 0 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 1.0 0.1 22 a 121 a 21 a 80 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.7 0.1 22 a 114 a 14 a 79 a Trident 3 qt 0.6 0.4 23 a 68 a 1 b 15 b P Value NS NS 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). products is 1.5 SL per plant, 0.6 LL per plant and evidence that 25% densities of EM, AD, SL, and LL per plant were 2.3, 1.3, 5.3, and of EM are hatching. While larval densities were below threshold, 0.1, respectively. Action thresholds were mentioned previously; the over 25% of the EM were hatching, so a decision was made to in- threshold was exceeded for small larvae, so the trial was initiated. itiate applications. On 19 Jun (4 d after the first application for all On 20 Jun (5 d after the first application), densities of LL in both treatments except Trident at 6 qt/A), there were more AD and EM Entrust treatments and Trident were significantly lower than those in in plots treated with Entrust than in the untreated check; densities the untreated check (Table 4). Densities of LL were similar between of AD and EM in the other treatments were intermediate between the Entrust treatments and both were significantly lower than those the untreated check and Entrust treatment (Table 2). More AD and in Trident. Densities of SL and LL in Azera, Grandevo, and V-10433 EM in the Entrust treatment compared with the untreated check was were similar to those in the untreated check (Table 4). There likely an anomaly rather than a consequence of Entrust on the pop- were fewer SL in the high rate of Entrust compared with all other ulation. An alternative explanation was that plants in the Entrust treatments and the untreated check, but not all of these differences treatment were more attractive to colonizing AD than the other were statistically significant. Densities of ADs and EMs were low treatments because they had fewer CPB and slightly less feeding in- and similar among all treated and untreated plots (Table 4). jury (injury was less than 5% among all treatments). Entrust was the On 26 Jun (6 d after the second application), results were sim- only product that significantly reduced the numbers of SL compared ilar to those on 20 Jun (Table 4). Densities of LL in both Entrust with those in the untreated check (Table 2). These results indicated treatments and Trident were significantly lower than those in the that despite the moderate rainfall event that occurred soon after the untreated check and the other treatments. Densities of SL and LL plots were treated, Entrust worked extremely well. There were too in both Entrust treatments were significantly lower than those in few LL at this point in the season to observe an impact of the var- Trident. Densities of ADs and EMs were similar among all treated ious insecticide treatments. On 23 Jun, there continued to be more and untreated plots (Table 4). On 4 Jul (8 d after the third applica- AD and EM in the Entrust treatment compared with the untreated tion), only Entrust significantly reduced the numbers of LL compared check and other insecticide treatments (Table 2). However, Entrust with those in the untreated check and the other treatments (Table was significantly better in controlling the larval population (both SL 4). Densities of LL in the high rate of Entrust were significantly and LL) compared with all other insecticide treatments (Table 2). lower than those in the low rate of Entrust. Densities of ADs, EMs, The high rate of Trident also significantly reduced densities of SL and SL were very low and similar among all treated and untreated compared with the untreated check, whereas the low rate of Trident plots (Table 4). Overall, the high rate of Entrust had the fewest and Azera significantly reduced densities of LL compared with the numbers of SL and LL compared with all other treatments (Table untreated check (Table 2). On 29 Jun, only Entrust significantly 5). The low rate of Entrust, which had the second lowest numbers of reduced the larval population compared with the other treatments LL, also performed well (Table 5). Although LL densities in Trident (Table 2). Overall, season mean total numbers of ADs and EMs in did not differ significantly from the untreated check, densities were the Entrust treatment were greater than those in the untreated check, reduced by almost 50% compared with those in the untreated but SL and LL densities were significantly lower than in the untreated check. None of the other treatments affected larval populations. control and all other insecticide treatments (Table 3). CPB defolia- CPB defoliation levels tended to positively correlate with the CPB tion levels provided a better indication of insecticide performance densities. On 26 Jun, Entrust, Trident, and Azera had either no de- than CPB densities. On 26 Jun, all treatments except Grandevo and foliation or very low levels of defoliation compared with those in BeetleGONE significantly reduced defoliation levels compared with the untreated check and the other treatments (Table 5). On 4 Jul, those in the untreated check (Table 3). The lowest level of defolia- which was near the end of the first generation, the lowest level of tion was observed in the Entrust treatment, followed by both Trident defoliation was observed in both Entrust treatments, followed by treatments, Azera and V-10433. On 3 Jul, all treatments except Trident and Azera. Grandevo, BeetleGONE, and V-10433 significantly reduced defolia- This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and by tion levels compared with those in the untreated check (Table 3). The the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project lowest level of defoliation was observed in the Entrust treatment, 1011209. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations followed by both Trident treatments and Azera. expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not In 2018, weather conditions were hot and dry in June and July necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and and hot with moderate rainfall in August. CPB pressure was very Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture high. On 15 Jun, immediately before treatments were applied, (USDA). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Insecticides Allowed For Organic Production, 2017 and 2018

Nault, Brian, A; Seaman,, Abby
Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 44 (1) – Jan 1, 2019
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/colorado-potato-beetle-control-with-insecticides-allowed-for-organic-0eztU0tbCT

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsz081
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz081/5613529 by DeepDyve user on 25 March 2020 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, XX(X), 2019, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz081 Section E: Vegetable Crops POTATO: Solanum tuberosum L., ‘Genesee’ and ‘Nordanna’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Colorado Potato Beetle Control With Insecticides Allowed HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB For Organic Production, 2017 and 2018 HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC 1 2,3 Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Brian A. Nault and Abby Seaman History=Text=History=Text_First Department of Entomology, Cornell University, 15 Castle Creek Dr., Geneva, NY 14456, Phone: 315-787-2354, Fax: 315-787-2326 EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 2 ([email protected]), New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, 607 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456, Phone: 315-787-2422, Fax: 315-787-2360 ([email protected]), and  Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Subject Editor: John Palumbo EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Potato | Solanum tuberosum ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Colorado potato beetle | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC These trials were conducted to evaluate insecticides allowed for or- first-generation larvae. In 2017 treatments were applied on 15, 19, ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA ganic production. The trials were conducted at the ACDS Research and 24 Jun with the exception of the 6 qt rate of Trident, which was Inc. farm near North Rose, NY. In 2017, ‘B’ grade tubers of a sprayed on 19 and 26 Jun. In 2018 treatments were applied 15, 20, late-season maturing, white-skinned potato cultivar, ‘Genesee’, and 26 Jun. All applications were co-applied with NuFilm at 8 fl oz were planted on 4 May. In 2018, ‘B’ grade tubers of a mid-season per acre. After first-generation adults started emerging in early July maturing, red-skinned potato cultivar, ‘Nordanna’, were planted on and when potatoes were in late bloom/early post bloom stages, in 11 May. Tubers were planted mechanically at a density of approx- 2017 Coragen SC was applied at 5 fl oz/acre on 8 and 14 Jul and in imately 1 per foot. Plots included two 25-ft long rows flanked by 2018 a co-application of Coragen SC at 5 fl oz/acre + Radiant SC a single unplanted row. Rows were 36 inches apart and plots were at 8 fl oz/acre + Induce at 0.125% v:v was applied on 14 Jul to all separated by a 5-ft alley of bare ground within rows. Weeds and treatments to prevent first-generation adults from causing further diseases were managed following typical practices for this region. damage (untreated plots were also treated). Other insect pests such as potato leafhopper, potato aphid, green Efficacy of treatments was evaluated by recording the number of peach aphid, and European corn borer were either absent or only CPB life stages per plant during the first CPB generation. Numbers observed at very low densities that did not damage the crop. of egg masses (EM), adults (AD), small larvae (SL) (=1st and 2nd Eight treatments including an untreated check were included in instars) and large larvae (LL) (=3rd and 4th instars) were recorded 2017, and seven were included in 2018 (Table 1). Treatments and per plant from 10 randomly selected plants per plot. In 2017, for the an untreated check were arranged in a randomized complete block 6 qt rate of Trident, data were taken on 26 Jun and 4 Jul, but are in- design with five replications. cluded in Table 2 under 23 and 29 Jun. For all other treatments and Foliar insecticide applications were made using a CO -pressurized the untreated check, sampling dates included 19, 23, and 29 Jun. In backpack sprayer and a boom equipped with four hollow-cone 2018, sampling dates included 20 and 26 Jun and 4 Jul. nozzles (Conejet TXVS-12) in which two nozzles each were directed Visual estimates of defoliation were made on 26 Jun and 3 Jul in over the canopy of single row (i.e., two rows were sprayed simulta- 2017 and on 26 Jun and 4 Jul in 2018. Defoliation estimates for each neously with one pass of the spray rig). The sprayer was calibrated plot were based on the following 14-point scale (0%, 0–3%, 3–9%, to deliver 31 gal of spray per acre at 40 psi. Insecticides were ap- 9–17%, 17–27%, 27–38%, 38–50%, 50–62%, 62–73%, 73–82%, plied during the vegetative and early bloom stages to manage 82–93%, 93–97%, 97–100%, and 100%). The midpoint of each Table 1. Treatment Active ingredient 2017 Rate/A 2018 Rate/A Untreated check – – – Azera pyrethrin+azadirachtin 40 fl oz 40 fl oz Entrust SC spinosad 10 fl oz 3.5 and 7 fl oz Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lbs 3 lbs V-10433 Sabadilla alkaloids 11 fl oz 11 fl oz BeetleGONE! B.t. galleriae Strain SDS 502 4 lbs Not tested Trident B.t. tenebrionis 3 and 6 qts 3 qts © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz081/5613529 by DeepDyve user on 25 March 2020 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. XX, No. XX Table 2. Mean numbers per plant Jun 19 Jun 23 Jun 29 Product Rate A EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check 0.9 0.3 b 58 a 3.1 0.1 b 0.06 62 a 33 a 0 0 13 ab 46 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 49 a 1.2 0.3 b 0.2 65 a 10 c 0 0 37 a 56 a Entrust SC 10 fl oz 1.9 1.8 a 3 b 0.1 0.9 a 0.3 1 c 0 d 0 0.1 1 c 1 b Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.3 1.1 ab 52 a 2.0 0.1 b 0.2 47 ab 29 abc 0 0 7 bc 39 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 52 a 2.4 0.1 b 0 64 a 27 ab 0 0 23 a 59 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 0.7 ab 67 a 2.5 0.1 b 0.1 71 a 31 ab 0 0 7 bc 31 a Trident (3 apps.) 3 qt 1.3 0.8 ab 57 a 3.5 0.2 b 0.1 51 ab 12 bc 0 0.1 15 ab 27 a Trident (2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 0.0 b 0.2 33 b 18 abc 0 0 11 ab 46 a P value NS 0.0301 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 NS <0.0001 0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). Table 3. Product Rate/A Season mean total numbers per plant Mean % defoliation EM AD SL LL 26 Jun 3 Jul Untreated check 1.0 b 0.4 b 133 a 82 a 69 a 100 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.4 ab 0.9 ab 151 a 67 a 16 c 31 b Entrust SC 10 fl oz 2.8 a 2.2 a 5 b 1 b 0 d 1 c Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.4 ab 1.2 ab 107 a 69 a 71 a 98 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.2 ab 0.7 ab 139 a 88 a 38 b 98 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 b 0.8 ab 145 a 65 a 81 a 100 a Trident (low rate x 3 apps.) 3 qt 1.5 ab 1.0 ab 123 a 43 a 11 c 16 b Trident (high rate x 2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 8 c 36 b P value 0.0243 0.0094 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). Table 4. Product Rate/A Mean numbers per plant Jun 20 Jun 26 Jul 4 EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 12 ab 36 a 0.1 0 8 48 0 0 0 37 a Azera 40 oz 0.6 0.1 17 a 21 a 0.1 0 8 44 a 0 0 0 48 a Entrust SC (low) 3.5 oz 0.8 0.2 13 ab 1 c 0.4 0.2 2 1 c 0.1 0.1 0 7 b Entrust SC (high) 7 oz 0.8 0.2 5 b 1 c 0.2 0.1 0 0 c 0.1 0 0 3 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 0.9 0.1 17 ab 30 a 0.1 0 5 59 a 0 0 0 32 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.6 0.1 15 a 24 a 0.1 0 7 50 a 0 0 0 40 a Trident 3 qt 0.5 0.3 16 a 7 b 0 0.1 7 19 b 0 0 0 42 a P value NS NS 0.0125 <0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 NS NS NS <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). estimate was used in the statistical analyses. On 24 Aug (both years), data were transformed with a square root (x + 0.001) function to the left-hand row in each plot was harvested and the numbers of stabilize variance. Grade ‘A’ (>1.5 inches in diam.) and Grade ‘B’ (<1.5 in diam.) tubers In 2017, CPB pressure was high. Conditions were moderate and were weighed. wet from early May through late June. A  moderate rainfall event All data were analyzed using a mixed linear model procedure of occurred less than 30 min after the first application, whereas other SAS (PROC MIXED) in which treatment was considered fixed and rainfall events generally occurred within a day or so after the other replication as random in the model. All pairwise comparisons be- applications. tween means were made using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test On 15 Jun, before treatments were applied, densities of EM, at P < 0.05. Insect count data and tuber yield data were transformed AD, SL, and LL per plant were 2.0, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.02, respectively. with a log (x + 1) function to stabilize variance. Defoliation rating The action threshold recommended in NY for biologically based 10 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz081/5613529 by DeepDyve user on 25 March 2020 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. XX, No. XX 3 Table 5. Product Rate/A Mean total numbers per plant Mean % Defoliation EM AD SL LL Jun 26 Jul 4 Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 20 a 121 a 21 a 78 a Azera 40 oz 0.7 0.2 25 a 113 a 3 b 21 b Entrust SC 3.5 oz 1.3 0.4 15 a 9 b 0 b 1 c Entrust SC 7 oz 1.1 0.4 5 b 3 c 0 b 0 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 1.0 0.1 22 a 121 a 21 a 80 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.7 0.1 22 a 114 a 14 a 79 a Trident 3 qt 0.6 0.4 23 a 68 a 1 b 15 b P Value NS NS 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). products is 1.5 SL per plant, 0.6 LL per plant and evidence that 25% densities of EM, AD, SL, and LL per plant were 2.3, 1.3, 5.3, and of EM are hatching. While larval densities were below threshold, 0.1, respectively. Action thresholds were mentioned previously; the over 25% of the EM were hatching, so a decision was made to in- threshold was exceeded for small larvae, so the trial was initiated. itiate applications. On 19 Jun (4 d after the first application for all On 20 Jun (5 d after the first application), densities of LL in both treatments except Trident at 6 qt/A), there were more AD and EM Entrust treatments and Trident were significantly lower than those in in plots treated with Entrust than in the untreated check; densities the untreated check (Table 4). Densities of LL were similar between of AD and EM in the other treatments were intermediate between the Entrust treatments and both were significantly lower than those the untreated check and Entrust treatment (Table 2). More AD and in Trident. Densities of SL and LL in Azera, Grandevo, and V-10433 EM in the Entrust treatment compared with the untreated check was were similar to those in the untreated check (Table 4). There likely an anomaly rather than a consequence of Entrust on the pop- were fewer SL in the high rate of Entrust compared with all other ulation. An alternative explanation was that plants in the Entrust treatments and the untreated check, but not all of these differences treatment were more attractive to colonizing AD than the other were statistically significant. Densities of ADs and EMs were low treatments because they had fewer CPB and slightly less feeding in- and similar among all treated and untreated plots (Table 4). jury (injury was less than 5% among all treatments). Entrust was the On 26 Jun (6 d after the second application), results were sim- only product that significantly reduced the numbers of SL compared ilar to those on 20 Jun (Table 4). Densities of LL in both Entrust with those in the untreated check (Table 2). These results indicated treatments and Trident were significantly lower than those in the that despite the moderate rainfall event that occurred soon after the untreated check and the other treatments. Densities of SL and LL plots were treated, Entrust worked extremely well. There were too in both Entrust treatments were significantly lower than those in few LL at this point in the season to observe an impact of the var- Trident. Densities of ADs and EMs were similar among all treated ious insecticide treatments. On 23 Jun, there continued to be more and untreated plots (Table 4). On 4 Jul (8 d after the third applica- AD and EM in the Entrust treatment compared with the untreated tion), only Entrust significantly reduced the numbers of LL compared check and other insecticide treatments (Table 2). However, Entrust with those in the untreated check and the other treatments (Table was significantly better in controlling the larval population (both SL 4). Densities of LL in the high rate of Entrust were significantly and LL) compared with all other insecticide treatments (Table 2). lower than those in the low rate of Entrust. Densities of ADs, EMs, The high rate of Trident also significantly reduced densities of SL and SL were very low and similar among all treated and untreated compared with the untreated check, whereas the low rate of Trident plots (Table 4). Overall, the high rate of Entrust had the fewest and Azera significantly reduced densities of LL compared with the numbers of SL and LL compared with all other treatments (Table untreated check (Table 2). On 29 Jun, only Entrust significantly 5). The low rate of Entrust, which had the second lowest numbers of reduced the larval population compared with the other treatments LL, also performed well (Table 5). Although LL densities in Trident (Table 2). Overall, season mean total numbers of ADs and EMs in did not differ significantly from the untreated check, densities were the Entrust treatment were greater than those in the untreated check, reduced by almost 50% compared with those in the untreated but SL and LL densities were significantly lower than in the untreated check. None of the other treatments affected larval populations. control and all other insecticide treatments (Table 3). CPB defolia- CPB defoliation levels tended to positively correlate with the CPB tion levels provided a better indication of insecticide performance densities. On 26 Jun, Entrust, Trident, and Azera had either no de- than CPB densities. On 26 Jun, all treatments except Grandevo and foliation or very low levels of defoliation compared with those in BeetleGONE significantly reduced defoliation levels compared with the untreated check and the other treatments (Table 5). On 4 Jul, those in the untreated check (Table 3). The lowest level of defolia- which was near the end of the first generation, the lowest level of tion was observed in the Entrust treatment, followed by both Trident defoliation was observed in both Entrust treatments, followed by treatments, Azera and V-10433. On 3 Jul, all treatments except Trident and Azera. Grandevo, BeetleGONE, and V-10433 significantly reduced defolia- This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and by tion levels compared with those in the untreated check (Table 3). The the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project lowest level of defoliation was observed in the Entrust treatment, 1011209. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations followed by both Trident treatments and Azera. expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not In 2018, weather conditions were hot and dry in June and July necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and and hot with moderate rainfall in August. CPB pressure was very Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture high. On 15 Jun, immediately before treatments were applied, (USDA).

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2019

There are no references for this article.