Conservation of Arthropod Natural

CONSERVATION OF ARTHROPOD NATURAL ENEMIES IN POTATO
PRODUCTION THROUGH USE OF PEST-SPECIFIC INSECT MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
By
Scott Alan Chapman
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Philosophy
Entomology
At the
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
2003
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Num ber: 3101263
UMI
UMI Microform 3101263
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Committee’s Page. This page is not to be hand-written except for the
A dissertation entitled

PRODUCTION THROUGH USE OF PEST-SPECIFIC INSECT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Wisconsin-Madison
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
by
SCOTT ALAN CHAPMAN
Date of Final Oral Examination:

MAY 2 3 , 2003
Month & Year Degree to be awarded: December May 20Q3 August

Committee’s Page. This page is not to be hand-written except for the signatures
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Approval Signatures of Dissertation Committee
Signature, Dean of Graduate School
c ^ z fL '
i
ABSTRACT

PRODUCTION THROUGH USE OF PEST-SPECIFIC INSECT MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
Scott Alan Chapman
Under the Supervision of Professor Jeffrey Alan Wyman
Wisconsin potato producers annually contend with three “key” insect pests;
the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae); the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Heteroptera:
Aphididae); and the potato leafhopper, Empoasca fabae (Harris) (Heteroptera:
Cicadellidae). “Key” pest means those species that are normally present and
require control actions during the growing season.
The Colorado potato beetle is the most serious defoliation pest of potatoes in
North America and potato insect management programs often focus on its
control. Colorado potato beetles have developed resistance to a wide range of
insecticides because of their high fecundity and the intense selection pressure
resulting from frequent insecticide use. With insecticide resistance there have
been growing concerns about the fate and the environmental impacts of
insecticides used for beetle control.
The green peach aphid typically does not reach damaging levels until late
season and is considered a “key” pest because of the viruses it transmits (e.g.
Potato virus Y and Potato leafroll virus). Control options for aphids are currently
limited to insecticides, but unlike other key insect pests of potatoes, a broad
complex of beneficial arthropods (both predators and parasitoids) are known to
be present on potatoes and if managed correctly, this complex could regulate
aphid populations late in the growing season.
The potato leafhopper migrates into Wisconsin yearly from the southern U.S.
and adult and nymphal stages cause damage. Control options for this pest are
limited to insecticides since both cultural and biological controls are ineffective.
Conventional pest management programs for potatoes are based on broad-
spectrum insecticides, which are short-term solutions that can lead to rapid
development of insecticide resistance and harmful effects on the environment
and human health. There are urgent needs for integrated management
programs that are long-term, cost effective, and reduce negative impacts on the
environment and human health. Such biointensive pest management programs
must be based on a broad knowledge of the agroecosystems and will seek to
use multiple tools to manage rather than eliminate insect pests. Biointensive
programs that use practices such as biological control organisms together with
insect-specific chemical pesticides, pest resistant plants, and cultural controls
that conserve natural pest suppression processes will eventually replace current
strategies.
iii
Laboratory and field studies were conducted to investigate compatibilities
among insecticides and beneficial arthropods. Insecticide residue bioassays
were conducted on adult Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer) (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae) and adult Orius insidiosus (Say) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) to
evaluate toxic effects of widely used insecticides on two common insect
predators. 0. insidiosus had higher mortality than C. maculata and two
pyrethroids, cyfluthrin and esfenvalerate caused greater mortality to both species
than many of the other insecticides tested. Pest-specific insecticides, which are
insecticides with a narrow activity spectrum and typically target a limited number
of pest insects, did not cause significantly higher mortality when compared to
untreated individuals.
Three field trials in 1997 evaluated broad-spectrum and selective foliar
insecticides for compatibility with beneficial arthropods. Effects varied among
insecticide classes and beneficial arthropod families, however, broad-spectrum
pyrethroids and organophosphates typically had the most negative impact on
overall beneficial arthropod complexes while pest-specific insecticides evaluated
did not adversely affect them. Predator populations were more adversely
impacted by broad-spectrum insecticides than parasitoid populations.
In 1998 and 1999, large scale field trials were conducted in an agricultural
research station environment to integrate the most effective registered and
experimental pest-specific insecticides into season-long pest management
programs. The focus of these studies was to emphasize biologically based
integrated pest management through the use of selective insecticides. Our
hypothesis was that natural enemies that had been conserved through judicious
insecticide use could potentially control secondary and sporadic insect pests. All
the management programs evaluated provided good Colorado potato beetle
control but management programs employing pest-specific insecticides required
additional foliar insecticide inputs to control aphids and leafhoppers. Beneficial
arthropod complexes were negatively impacted by repeated broad-spectrum
insecticide applications while the pest-specific insecticides had little affect on
them.
In 1997, 1999, and 2000 research was conducted in commercial potato
production fields to evaluate reduced risk insect management approaches.
Evaluation parameters included pest control efficacy, impacts on beneficial
arthropods, crop yield and quality, economics of production and toxicity of control
approaches. All the management programs evaluated provided good Colorado
potato beetle control although the selective programs (transgenic potatoes,
spinosad, and abamectin) required additional insecticide inputs to control aphids
and leafhoppers. Beneficial arthropods were negatively impacted by broad-
spectrum programs although timing of insecticide application greatly influenced
toxicity to beneficial arthropods. Aphid bioregulation by braconids was observed
during 1999 in the transgenic resistance management program while possible
potato leafhopper bioregulation may have occurred in a reduced risk systemic
management program.
V
Insecticide cost and toxicity unit accumulations varied considerably but the
conventional management program were typically the least expensive to employ
and had the most negative impacts on beneficial insects.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
There are numerous people that I would like to thank for their support and
assistance while attaining this degree. Dr. Jeffrey Wyman has provided me with
the opportunity to pursue graduate work in the field of vegetable entomology and
valuable insight into vegetable entomology research that will be useful in my
professional career. Jerry Longridge taught me the mechanics of initiating,
maintaining, and completing a field study while still getting useful data from it.
Carlos Alejandro Granadino Urbina who is the only graduate student of Jeff’s that
has been in his program longer than me. Other members of the lab past and
present, their inputs have been useful and interesting. I would like to thank the
members of my Doctoral committee, Dr. John Wedberg, Dr. Larry Binning, Dr.
Dave Hogg, Dr. Tom German, and Dr. Dan Mahr, for granting me a Doctoral
degree and for their editorial assistance in producing this document. I would also
like to thank the many chemical industry professionals who have given me advice
and direction in my professional career. I would also like to thank Steve, Andy,
and Mike Diercks for allowing me to conduct research at Coloma Farms, Coloma
Wl. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank my patient, understanding,
and tolerant wife Rita. Without her support I would have never made it this far.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1
I. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. HISTORY
1. Potatoes.................................................................... 7
2. Colorado potato beetle............................................. 7
3. Potato leafhopper..................................................... 8
4. Green peach aphid................................................... 9
5. Insecticide resistance among key potato insect pests
a) Colorado potato beetle..................................... 9
b) Potato leafhopper............................................. 13
c) Green peach aphid........................................... 14
B. BIOLOGY
1. Colorado potato beetle............................................. 15
2. Potato leafhopper..................................................... 18
3. Green peach aphid................................................... 20
C. MANAGEMENT
1. Cultural control......................................................... 21
viii
b) Potato leafhopper............................................. 24
c) Green peach aphid........................................... 24
2. Chemical control
a) Synthetic organic insecticides.......................... 25
b) Selective insecticides....................................... 27
3. Biological control...................................................... 31
b) Green peach aphid........................................... 39
c) Potato leafhopper............................................. 41
D. INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT................... 42
E. LITERATURE CITED........................................................... 47
II. IMPACTS OF BROAD SPECTRUM AND SELECTIVE

INSECTICIDES ON APHID, LEAFHOPPER, AND BENEFICIAL
INSECT POPULATIONS ON POTATO.
A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 62
B. EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDES NORMALLY TARGETED AT

COLORADO POTATO BEETLE AND POTATO
LEAFHOPPER ON BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS ON
POTATO. HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
STATION, HANCOCK Wl, 1997.
1. Methods and Materials............................................. 66
2. Results and Discussion............................................ 69
3. Conclusions............................................................. 75
ix
C. EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDES TARGETED AT APHIDS ON
BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS ON POTATOES. HANCOCK
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, HANCOCK, Wl,
1997.
3. Conclusions............................................................. 100
D. EFFECTS OF MANAGING APHIDS AT HIGH AND LOW

THRESHOLD LEVELS ON BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS.
HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION,
HANCOCK, Wl, 1997.
3. Conclusions............................................................. 127
E. DISCUSSION AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS................. 138
F. LITERATURE CITED........................................................... 141
III. INTEGRATING PEST SPECIFIC INSECTICIDES INTO PEST

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ON POTATOES TO CONSERVE
BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS.
A. INTRODUCTION................................................................... 145
B. INTEGRATING PEST SPECIFIC FOLIAR INSECTICIDES

INTO INSECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ON
POTATOES. HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
STATION, HANCOCK, Wl, 1998.
a) Pest insect management................................. 149
X
b) Impacts on beneficial arthropods.................... 153
3. Conclusions............................................................. 155
C. INTEGRATING PEST SPECIFIC FOLIAR AND

SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES INTO INSECT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ON POTATOES.
HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION,
HANCOCK, Wl, 1999.
a) Pest insect management.................................. 181
b) Impacts on beneficial arthropods.................... 184
3. Conclusions............................................................. 188
D. DISCUSSION AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS................. 209
E. LITERATURE CITED........................................................... 215
IV. INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS DEVELOPED TO

REDUCE RELIANCE ON HIGH RISK PESTICIDES ON
COMMERCIALLY GROWN POTATOES IN WISCONSIN.
A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 218
B. COMPARISONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS

AND SELECTIVE AND BROAD-SPECTRUM SYSTEMIC
AND FOLIAR INSECTICIDES ON POTATOES. COLOMA
FARMS, COLOMA, Wl, 1997.
3. Conclusions............................................................. 234
xi
C. COMPARISONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS,
SELECTIVE AND BROAD SPECTRUM, SYSTEMIC AND
FOLIAR INSECTICIDES ON POTATOES. COLOMA
FARMS, COLOMA, Wl 1999.
3. Conclusions............................................................. 269
D. COMPARISONS OF SELECTIVE AND BROAD

SPECTRUM, SYSTEMIC AND FOLIAR INSECTICIDES ON
POTATOES. COLOMA FARMS, COLOMA, Wl 2000.
3. Conclusions............................................................. 308
E. DISCUSSION AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS.................. 332
F. LITERATURE CITED............................................................ 341
V. FOLIAR INSECTICIDE RESIDUE BIOASSAYS CONDUCTED ON

COLEOMEGILLA MACULATA (DEGEER) (COLEOPTERA:
COCCINELLIDAE) AND ORIUS INSIDIOSUS (SAY) (HEMIPTERA:
ANTHOCORIDAE) ADULTS.
A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 345
3. Conclusions............................................................. 350
B. LITERATURE CITED............................................................ 352
1
I. INTRODUCTION
Potato production in Wisconsin is a $200 million dollar industry that is
threatened annually by a complex of insect pests. The key pests in this complex
are the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, (Say) (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) the potato leafhopper, Empoasca fabae (Harris) (Heteroptera:
Cicadellidae), and the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Heteroptera:
Aphididae). To manage these pests, growers have traditionally relied on broad-
spectrum insecticides and this approach was successful until the 1980’s.
However, a majority of Wisconsin potatoes are produced in the Central Sands
region of the state, which is characterized predominantly by sandy soils and
shallow ground water levels. Agriculture in the region is dominated by irrigated,
high yield vegetable and field crop production, and the heavy dependence on
pesticides has resulted in a high risk of significant environmental consequences
from which major new management challenges have emerged.
The first of these occurred in the early 1980’s when high levels of aldicarb
were detected in the region’s groundwater, resulting in increased regulatory
activity and industry survival was threatened. In response, Wisconsin potato
production is changing and several factors will limit how potatoes are managed in
the twenty-first century. Growers must learn to deal with expanding
environmental concerns worldwide, a public desire for safe food, and a need to
feed a growing world population. These circumstances have convinced
vegetable growers and industry leaders to develop and adopt biointensive
2
integrated pest management practices that would reduce reliance on broad-
spectrum pesticides and avoid adverse environmental impacts.
Integrated pest management became popular in the early 1970’s because of
increased concerns over pesticide fate in the environment and 30 years later it is
recognized as one of the most robust agricultural paradigms to arise in recent
history. Current integrated pest management systems can be placed on a
continuum based on their pesticide dependence. At one end of the continuum,
programs rely on chemical-intensive, preventative treatment orientated, control
measures while at the other end of the continuum, systems are prediction-based
programs encouraging biological practices that use pesticide intervention only
when needed to restore balance to the system. Wisconsin potato grower
surveys conducted in 1998 revealed that 2% of the surveyed acreage was in the
biointensive (high IPM) zone of management while 55% of the farms surveyed
were in the medium IPM zone and 11% were still managing pests with a heavy
reliance on pesticides. These statistics indicate there is a critical need to
improve IPM in potato production systems. However, it is also evident that
pesticides will continue to play a pivotal role in insect management for the
foreseeable future.
Several factors currently influencing the breadth and effectiveness of
insecticide use on potatoes include economics, pesticide safety, and insecticide
resistance.
3
Economics are reducing the supply of new active ingredients from industry
and this trend will likely continue. In today’s economy, it is too expensive for
industry to develop new products on limited acreage crops such as potatoes.
New product development will instead be focused on crops that are grown on
large acreages nationally and globally. Thus, the influx of new insecticide
chemistries is expected to decline in the foreseeable future. At the same time,
federal regulatory actions such as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) are
steadily eliminating existing, high toxicity insecticides from use. FQPA is
currently focused on the organophosphates and carbamates. Although many
existing uses will be retained in this process, many will also be lost, further
reducing the supply of tools available to growers.
Finally, insecticide resistance is continuously evolving among key potato
insect pests and overused products are quickly lost as management tools. In
Wisconsin over the past decade, Colorado potato beetle insecticide resistance
has been documented for organophosphates, carbamates, organochlorines, and
pyrethroids. Similar resistance trends have been documented for the green
peach aphid. FQPA regulation and the lack of new insecticide chemistries
entering the system have resulted in heightened insecticide resistance
management among growers to retain existing products.
Currently, Wisconsin potato growers still have a good range of insecticidal
products available to manage insect pests. Several cost effective systemic and
foliar insecticides that fit well into integrated pest management programs are
4
currently available. Recent developments in reduced-risk insecticide technology
have further strengthened potato insecticide arsenals and when combined with
existing traditional insecticides, they represent the future of potato insect
management. Future pest management programs will be centered on a broad
knowledge of agroecosystems and will seek to mange rather than eliminate
insect pests. These programs will utilize multiple tools to control insect pests
rather than relying on a limited number of broad-spectrum insecticides.
Biointensive programs utilizing tools such as biological control organisms
together with pest-specific insecticides, pest resistant plants, and cultural controls
that conserve natural pest suppression processes will eventually replace current
strategies.
An integral aspect of conserving beneficial insects in integrated pest
management systems is an understanding of insecticide and natural enemy
compatibilities. It has been demonstrated that in situations where
pesticide/natural enemy compatibility issues are understood, pesticide use can
be reduced by 50% to 80% and pesticide resistance can also be delayed when
conserved natural enemies serve as an alternative mortality factor on pest
populations.
The focus of this research was to evaluate pesticide and natural enemy
interactions using both broad-spectrum insecticides and pest-specific
approaches to insect management to determine the potential for increasing the
role of biological regulation of pests in the potato production system.
5
Our hypothesis was that natural enemies that had been conserved through
judicious insecticide use could potentially regulate secondary and sporadic insect
pests and hold them below damaging levels.
In the first phase of our research, three trials were established in 1997 at the
Hancock Agricultural Research Station to recreate the typical kinds of pesticide
interventions that would occur in commercial fields and to measure the impacts
of these specific interventions on both pest and beneficial arthropod populations.
In the first trial, single pesticide interventions were tested on established pest and
beneficial arthropod complexes using a broad range of foliar insecticides that
would typically be used to target Colorado potato beetle and potato leafhopper.
In the second trial, two pesticide interventions were evaluated using a broad
range of insecticides that would typically be used in aphid control. In the third
trial, season-long pesticide programs targeting aphids were evaluated using
different thresholds.
In the second phase, we integrated the most effective registered and
experimental pest-specific insecticides into season-long pest management
programs and again evaluated them in an agricultural research station
environment. The focus of these studies was to demonstrate the feasibility of
biologically based integrated pest management through the use of selective
insecticides. The management programs were designed to reduce the potential
for insecticide resistance while conserving beneficial arthropods and effectively
controlling pest insects on potatoes. Selective foliar and systemic insecticides
6
were integrated into insect management programs on potatoes and compared to
broad-spectrum standards in field trials at the Hancock Agricultural Research
Station during 1998 and 1999.
In the third phase of our research, we evaluated pest-specific, reduced-risk
insect management programs in replicated experiments in commercial
production potato fields. Our management programs were designed in
collaboration with the growers and included comparisons of reduced-risk, foliar
and systemic insecticide based programs, transgenic pest resistance and
conventional industry programs. Studies were conducted at Coloma Farms in
Waushara County, Wisconsin in 1997, 1999, and 2000. Evaluation parameters
included pest control efficacy, impacts on beneficial arthropods, crop yield and
quality, economics of production and toxicity of control approaches.
A final component of our research investigated individual species/insecticide
interactions in the laboratory. Two predatory insect species commonly found in
potato fields were bioassayed against residues on leaf surfaces from a broad
range of broad-spectrum and pest-specific insecticide chemistries as an added
component to our field studies.
7
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review was written to cover aspects of the key insect pests
found on potatoes in Wisconsin (Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa
decemlineata (Say) (Coleptera: Chrysomelidae), green peach aphid, Myzus
persicae (Sulzer) (Heteroptera: Aphididae); and the potato leafhopper,
Empoasca fabae (Harris) (Heteroptera: Cicadellidae), which are pertinent to
these studies. Sections on insecticide resistance management, cultural,
chemical, and biological control are included since these are also pertinent to
overall potato integrated pest management.
A. HISTORY
1. Potato Solatium tuberosum L. (Solanales: Solanacae)
Potatoes as cultivars were introduced into the United States in Virginia in
1621 (Harris 1978) and potato cultivation slowly spread westward during the
next 100 years, becoming widespread as far west as Nebraska by the early
1800’s (Casagrande 1985).
2. Colorado potato beetle
The Colorado potato beetle is a native insect of Mexico and fed originally on
wild potato species, Solanum augustifolium Mill (Solanales: Solanacae) and
buffalo burr Solanum rostratrum Dunal (Solanales: Solanacae). Colorado
potato beetles adapted to cultivated potato varieties from native hosts in
8
southwestern North America approximately 150 years ago (Weber and Ferro
1994). Colorado potato beetles were first reported in the United States in 1811
near the lowa-Nebraska border (Casagrande 1985) and were first documented
as a potato pest in Nebraska during 1859 (Walsh 1865). Within three years
they had spread eastward to the Iowa border (Riley 1868) and by 1866, the
beetle had invaded the southwest corner of Wisconsin and occupied many of
the cultivated potato fields (Riley 1868). Colorado potato beetles arrived at the
Atlantic coast area of the United States in 1874 (Riley 1875) and were
inadvertently introduced into Western Europe during World War I (Hare 1990).
By 1991, the Colorado potato beetle’s geographical range in Europe included
six million square kilometers (Weber and Ferro 1994) and currently the beetle
has spread throughout Europe including the potato production regions of
Russia.
3. Potato leafhopper
Potato leafhoppers were first described as an economic pest of beans in
New England in 1841 and were originally described and named Tettigonia
fabae (Harris 1852). Osborne first noted potato leafhoppers as pests of
potatoes in 1896. He stated that E. mali was the same species described by Le
Baron in 1853 and later by Forbes as Empoa albopicta (Osborne 1896).
DeLong revised Empoasca in 1932 and the potato leafhopper was scientifically
named Empoasca fabae (DeLong 1932).
9
Potato leafhoppers are found from the Atlantic Ocean to the 100th meridian
and from the Gulf of Mexico to southern Canada (Poos 1932). Potato
leafhoppers feed on more than 100 cultivated and wild plants, including bean,
potato, alfalfa, soybean, and peanut.
4. Green peach aphid
Green peach aphids have a broad host range worldwide and they not only
cause direct damage but transmit over 100 virus diseases. Over thirty plant
families can serve as hosts, including many major crops such as beans, sugar
beet, sugar cane, brassicas, potatoes, tobacco, and citrus (Van Emden et al.
1969).
5. Insecticide resistance among key potato insect pests.
a. Colorado potato beetle
The Colorado potato beetle still remains the most devastating defoliator of
potatoes worldwide (Gauthier et al. 1981, Ferro 1985). Uncontrolled
populations of beetles can defoliate potato plants during critical stages of plant
development and directly influence tuber production (Shields et al. 1984,
Zehnder 1989). Most insect management programs for Colorado potato
beetles target early and mid-season populations (Wright et al. 1987, Hare 1988)
and more specifically small (2nd and 3rd instars) larval stages.
10
Due to heavy pesticide reliance for Colorado potato beetle control, many
populations have developed resistance to nearly all currently registered
insecticides (Forgash 1981, Gauther et al. 1981, Heim et al. 1990, Bishop and
Grafius 1996, Stewart et al. 1997). The development of resistance to each new
insecticide has occurred progressively faster (Gauthier et al. 1981, Forgash
1985) with significant resistance to the synthetic pyrethroids occurring within 2-4
years after their introduction and widespread use (Forgash 1985). The
Colorado potato beetle can be expected to develop resistance to all new
insecticides deployed against it but with proper management strategies,
resistance can be delayed.
The first widespread use of insecticides on an agricultural crop pest was on
Colorado potato beetles (Casagrande 1987) and this insect may have been an
important influence on the development of modern sprayers and the pesticide
industry itself (Gauthier et al. 1981). Pesticide use for Colorado potato beetle
control started in the 1860’s with the application of Paris green and other
arsenicals (Gauthier et al. 1981).
During the early 1900’s, growers switched from Paris green to lead arsenate
(Gauthier et al. 1981) then to calcium arsenate because of its reduced
phytotoxicity. These compounds were effective against the Colorado potato
beetle, but gave erratic control because of inadequate spray equipment and
short residual life on foliage (Gauthier et al. 1981).
11
Shortly after World War II, DDT was widely adopted and used for control of
the Colorado potato beetle. DDT was very effective in controlling Colorado
potato beetle populations and the beetle virtually disappeared as a pest in many
potato-growing regions (Gauthier et al. 1981). However, DDT resistance
appeared rapidly (Casagrande 1987) with the first instance occurring on Long
Island, New York in 1952 (Quinton 1955) and by 1962 DDT was no longer
recommended in Alberta, Canada (McDonald 1976). With the introduction of
other chlorinated hydrocarbons such as endrin, aldrin, and heptachlor, growers
were again able to control the Colorado potato beetle but resistance soon
followed within a few years of their introduction (Gauthier et al. 1981).
Organophosphate and carbamate insecticides were first used on the Colorado
potato beetle in the late 1950’s and 60’s (Gauthier et al. 1981). These
compounds initially gave excellent control but like DDT resistance, control
problems soon followed. Resistance to azinphos-methyl occurred on Long
Island in 1970, just 11 years after its introduction (Gauthier et al. 1981) and
resistance to other organophosphates, such as phosmet, became widespread
in the Northeast United States by the 1980’s (Gauthier et al. 1981, Forgash
1985). Carbamate resistance developed during the same period as resistance
to organophosphates. Carbaryl lost effectiveness on Colorado potato beetle on
Long Island in 1963, and in Virginia around 1970 (Gauthier et al. 1981).
Pyrethroids were first used in the eastern United States in the mid-to-late
1970’s under an emergency registration from the U.S. Environment Protection
12
Agency because other insecticides were ineffective against Colorado potato
beetle (Gauthier et al. 1981). Pyrethroid resistance occurred rapidly and by
1979 some slight resistance appeared in New Jersey (Forgash 1981).
Pyrethroid resistance evolved quickly in areas where Colorado potato beetle
was already resistant to most other registered insecticides, including many
parts of the northeastern U.S. (Forgash 1985, Roush et al. 1990, Roush 1991).
In the early 1980’s, severe resistance problems were confined to the
Northeast United States (Forgash 1985) but there were indications of possible
problems in other areas. By 1987, resistant Colorado potato beetle populations
were found for each of the major chemical groups and by 1990 resistance to all
available insecticides were widespread in major potato growing regions in
Michigan (Grafius et al. 1991). Since imidacloprids registration on potatoes in
1995, it has been extensively used in most of the potato production areas of
North America. Imidacloprids novel mode of action (a chloronicotinyl)
(neonicotinoid) is very effective in potato production areas where Colorado
potato beetles have developed multiple resistances to other insecticide classes
(Olson et al. 2000, Zhao et al. 2000). Imidacloprid is also an attractive insect
management tool because of its long-term systemic action. However
continuous exposure of this insecticide to all stages of Colorado potato beetles
throughout the growing season promotes rapid resistance development (Olson
et al. 2000) and resistance has already occurred in Long Island, NY (Zhao et al.
2000) and Michigan (Bishop et al. 1996). So the litany of control failures
13
continues into the 21st century with the development of new insecticide
chemistries waning.
b. Potato leafhopper
Management tools for the potato leafhopper are limited to insecticides due
to its mobility, lack of effective natural enemies, and unavailability of resistant
potato varieties (Chapman et al. 2003). Potato leafhoppers were initially treated
with kerosene emulsion applications in Iowa in the late 1800s and later with
petroleum oils, 5% pyrethrum extracts, Bordeaux mixtures, and DDT in the
1930s (Granovsky 1944). Systemic insecticide developments on potatoes in
the 1950s and 1960s (Knoke 1962) resulted in effective control of first
generation nymphs while second generation populations often required
supplemental foliar insecticide applications (Radcliffe and Cancelado 1979).
Potato leafhopper adults are not difficult to control and many foliar insecticides
are effective when applied at thresholds (Walgenbach and Wyman 1984).
However, when choosing foliar insecticides for leafhopper control, resistance in
other insect populations must be taken into consideration. Colorado potato
beetles and green peach aphids in many regions of North America have
demonstrated insecticide resistance to some or all of the insecticides currently
used for leafhopper control on potatoes (Forgash 1981, Gauther et al. 1981,
Heim et al. 1990, Bishop and Grafius 1996, Stewart et al. 1997). Insecticide
resistance issues in Wisconsin are not as dramatic as other areas of the U.S.
14
and prudent selection of potato leafhopper insecticides will help delay
resistance issues among Colorado potato beetles and green peach aphids
(Wyman 2003).
c. Green peach aphid
The chemical control histories of aphids and Colorado potato beetles are
very similar, as are insecticide resistance issues. Before World War II, chemical
control of aphids was restricted to the use of foliar contact insecticides such as
nicotine and some arsenical products (Schepers 1989). After WWII, rapid
progress was made in the development of insecticides with aphicidal activity.
DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, such as lindane, had good residual
activity, but had no systemic properties. The broad-spectrum, long-term
residual activity of these compounds led to bioaccumulation in the environment
and subsequently led to loss of registration. Systemic organophosphates were
later discovered and added a new perspective in aphid control. The systemic
insecticides provided longer residual control while targeting phloem-feeding
insects (Schepers 1989). Later, carbamate insecticides added other
alternatives, as did the development of synthetic pyrethroids. Imidacloprid
became widely used as an aphicide following its introduction in 1995 and when
used systemically it provides effective control of aphids for periods of 70 to 90
days after application (Chapman et al. 2003). Recently, advances have been
made in biorational insecticides targeted for aphids. Compounds such as
15
pymetrozine, a pyridine azomethine compound, are very pests (aphid) specific
and have attractive environmental profiles (Sweeden and McLeod 1997, Torres
et al. 2002).
B. BIOLOGY
1. Colorado potato beetle
The host range of the Colorado potato beetle is relatively narrow and largely
confined to 20 plant species in the Solanaceae family (Hsiao 1988). The most
suitable host for most Colorado potato beetle populations is now the cultivated
potato, Solanum tuberosum L. (Solanales: Solanaceae). Other suitable hosts
include a European potato species, Solanum dulcamara L. (Solanales:
Solanaceae), the cultivated eggplant, Solanum melongena (Solanales:
Solanaceae), the cultivated tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. (Solanales:
Solanaceae), and other wild hosts such as Solanum carolinense Cav.
(Solanales: Solanaceae), Solanum sarrachoides Sendt. (Solanales:
Solanaceae), Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. (Solanales: Solanaceae), and
Hyoscyamus niger L. (Solanales: Solanaceae), which are utilized occasionally,
or by well adapted insect populations (Hsiao 1978, 1985, and 1988, Hare et al.
1986, Horton etal. 1988).
Colorado potato beetles produce one to three generations per year
depending on latitude, climate, and host availability. However, In Wisconsin,
there are typically two generations per year (Mahr et al. 1995). Colorado potato
16
beetles are adaptive insects and have evolved mechanisms to avoid extreme
environmental conditions such as by hibernating in the winter or aestivating
during the summer (deKort 1990). Colorado potato beetles in Wisconsin do not
aestivate but they do hibernate. Adults hibernate in the soil at depths up to 20
cm (Lashomb et al. 1984b), in undisturbed areas adjacent to the crop.
Burrowing into the soil provides protection against extreme winter conditions,
however significant adult mortality occurs when soil temperatures fall to -3° C
and lower (Kung et al. 1992) and high adult mortality also occurs when adults
enter diapause late or at low body weights (Nalbandyan 1987). Photoperiod is
the primary factor triggering hibernal diapause but food quality and temperature
are also important factors in inducing hibernation (Hare 1983). Hibernal
diapause results from exposure to short day lengths, 12-16 hours (deWilde and
Hsiao 1981, Hsiao 1981), and migration is preceded by a period of feeding
without reproduction (de Kort 1990). There is great age variability among
diapausing populations of Colorado potato beetles (Hsiao 1981). It has been
demonstrated that beetles may remain in diapause over two or more winters
(Biever and Chauvin 1990) and they may diapause more than once (Peferoen
et. al 1981).
Adults emerge from diapause in spring when soil temperatures reach 10-15°
C (Lashomb et al. 1984b). After emerging, adults migrate to hosts by walking
and or by flight (Voss et al. 1989a, and 1989b). In northern climates, with low
spring temperatures, beetles typically walk to the host plants (Wyman et al.
17
1994) thus significantly increasing dispersal time. If the beetles emerge near
their host, they begin feeding and after 5-10 days females begin ovipositing
masses of 20-60 eggs on the lower surfaces of host-plant foliage (Weber and
Ferro 1994). If the beetles emerge and do not find a host, they will initially walk
in search of host plants (Weber and Ferro 1994) but under favorable
environmental conditions (high temperature and solar radiation) and if they
have adequate energy reserves, the beetles will undertake long-range flight in
search of hosts (Caprio and Grafius 1990). Long-distance flights may continue
for several weeks and result in the adults traveling several kilometers (Ferro et
al. 1991a, Follett et al. 1996). When the beetles have successfully located a
host crop, initial infestation typically occurs along the field edges (Feldman
1990). Females may mate either before or after diapause (Tauber et al. 1988a,
and 1988b) and lab studies have shown oviposition to be quite variable
(Peferoen et al. 1981). Females can produce 500-1000 eggs during their
reproductive lifetime and female longevity under laboratory conditions (constant
25° C) was from 55 to 120 days (Peferoen et al. 1981). Eggs within a mass
hatch simultaneously, and the larvae begin feeding immediately. Colorado
potato beetle larvae mature through four larval instars in 10-20 days, depending
on ambient temperatures. During larval development, the insects feed almost
constantly, stopping only to molt (Gauthier et al. 1981). After adequate foliage
consumption for complete growth, larvae fall to the soil, burrow in, and pupate
(Gauthier et al. 1981). About 10 days later, the newly formed adults emerge
18
from the soil, walk to the nearest host, and begin to feed (Gauthier et al. 1981).
Summer generation beetles must feed after pupation to fly (Weber and Ferro
1994). Summer adults feed and reproduce on the host, and depending on
temperature, photoperiod, and host-plant condition, adults may begin
ovipositing, undertake long-range flight or cease feeding and enter diapause
(Tauber et al. 1988a, 1988b, Voss et al. 1989a, and 1989b, Weber and Ferro
1994). If adults experience short day lengths, there is a period of reproduction
on the host followed by feeding with no oviposition (Weber and Ferro 1994).
Adult diapause flight in late summer is direct flight from the host to
overwintering sites bordering the host (Weber and Ferro 1994). Diapause flight
is low altitude (5 m) and is in a direct line to tall vegetation bordering the field.
Upon contact with tall vegetation, the beetles immediately drop to the ground
and begin burrowing into the soil (Weber and Ferro 1994). This behavior
results in a clumped distribution of overwintering adults around the field
borders. Adults emerging in very late summer do not reproduce or undertake
diapause flight, they diapause in the host habitat or walk to overwintering sites
(Weber and Ferro 1994).
2. Potato leafhopper
Potato leafhoppers are not adapted to survive in extreme cold temperatures
(below -24° C) (Decker and Cunningham 1968) and do not overwinter in
Wisconsin; as a result only migrating populations are found on potatoes in
19
Wisconsin. U.S. potato leafhopper populations overwinter in permanent
breeding areas in the Mississippi Delta region and along the Gulf coast to
Northern Florida (Decker and Cunningham 1968). Overwintering adult numbers
begin building during the first warming trends in February until intrinsic factors
force a northward migration (Walgenbach 1984). Leafhoppers “leapfrog”
northward along the Mississippi river following spring warming trends. Spring
migrant potato leafhoppers often arrive in the upper Midwest before potatoes
emerge and primarily colonize and reproduce on hosts other than potato
(Radcliffe and Johnson 1994). Significant numbers of potato leafhoppers are
first observed on potatoes in Wisconsin after the first cuttings of alfalfa in June
(Walgenbach and Wyman 1984). Once leafhoppers infest the crop, there is a
preoviposition period of between 3 to 22 days (Poos 1932). Many of the
migrating female potato leafhoppers are fertile (>50%, Medler et al. 1966)
resulting from a single or multiple copulations (DeLong 1938, Kieckhefer 1962).
Potato leafhoppers oviposite into stems and terminal leaf veins on potato,
generally avoiding young tissue (Miller and Hibbs 1963). A single potato
leafhopper female can lay between 50 and 200 eggs in a lifetime, at rates of 2.5
to 10 eggs per day (DeLong 1938, Carlson and Hibbs 1970, Decker et al.
1971). Leafhoppers are able to survive for long periods; Poos reported in 1932
that under optimum conditions male leafhoppers live for a maximum of 111
days while females survived for a maximum of 123 days. Optimum temperature
for leafhopper oviposition is between 21°-27° C (Kieckhefer 1962) and the
20
developmental threshold for eggs and nymphs is 7°-8° C, respectively (Simonet
and Pienkowski 1981). Egg hatch occurs after 136 centigrade degree-days
(CCD) and development to adult requires 165 CCD. Both adults and nymphs
feed by inserting mouthparts into the vascular tissue of plants to extract plant
sap and damage is caused indirectly by the blockage of vascular tissue (Ball
1918).
3. Green peach aphid
Aphids are distributed worldwide but predominate in temperate regions
(Dixon 1998). The life cycle of the green peach aphid is unusual and complex
in comparison to many other insects. Green peach aphids overwinter in the
egg stage, utilizing Prunus (Rosaceae) as the primary host (Miyazaki 1989).
Female aphids hatch in the spring (fundatrix) reproducing parthenogenically
(non fertilized eggs) to produce live young (viviparity). Two types (morphs) of
parthenogenetic individuals are produced, apterous (wingless), and alate
(winged) females. Parthenogenetic generations are divided into two phases
based on host association, one on the primary host and the other on the
secondary host. Several generations of apterous individuals inhabit the primary
host until emigrants or spring migrants, alate fundatrigeniae, are produced that
fly to secondary hosts (Miyazaki 1989). Aphid species such as the green-peach
aphid exploit short-lived herbaceous plants and complete their development as
quickly as possible (Blackman 1978). Therefore, nymphal development is rapid
21
and parthenogenesis provides rapid turnover of generations.
Parthenogenetically reproducing generations are replaced in the fall with aphid
sexuals (males and sexual females) that return to the primary host in autumn
prompted by shortening day length, decreasing temperature, and declining
plant nutrition or overcrowding (Kawada 1989). The males and egg-producing
females (gynoparae) reproduce sexually and fly back to the primary host where
the gynoparae deposit sexual female eggs to overwinter (Miyazaki 1989).
C. MANAGEMENT
1. Cultural control
a. Colorado potato beetle
A large portion of the Colorado potato beetle life cycle occurs in non-crop
habitats (Wyman et al. 1994). In northern growing regions, Colorado potato
beetles spend approximately five months of the season on the potato crop and
the rest of the year in the ecosystem surrounding the potato field. Beetles are
forced to migrate from potatoes when the crop is vine killed for harvest in late
summer and fall. Once the beetles leave the crop, they must find adequate
overwintering areas, enter diapause, survive extreme winter conditions, emerge
from diapause, and locate suitable hosts (Wyman et al. 1994). This ecology
provides multiple opportunities for cultural control outside the potato crop.
Trap crops are plant stands grown to attract pest insects and protect crops
from pest attack (Hokkanen 1991). Trap crops provide protection from pest
22
insects by either preventing the pests from reaching the crop or by
concentrating them into areas that can be effectively treated or destroyed.
Spring and fall potato trap crops manipulate plantings in time and space to
provide migrating beetles more attractive alternative hosts than the main crop
(Hokkanen 1991, Wyman et al. 1994). Once the beetles are on the trap crop
they can be controlled chemically or physically (Hokkanen 1991, Milner et al.
1992). Commercially available physical controls include vacuum suction
(Boiteau et al. 1992) and propane flaming (Moyer 1992). Practical applications
of trap cropping in modern agriculture have been limited to eleven successfully
controlled pest species on four crop ecosystems (cotton, soybean, potato, and
cauliflower) (Hokkenan 1991). However, potential applications for trap cropping
exist on a wide variety of crops for many important pests suggesting that trap
cropping could be used much more extensively than it currently is.
Natural mortality of overwintering Colorado potato beetles is high but can be
quite variable (Wyman et al. 1994). Several factors contribute to winter
mortality (soil type, moisture, and temperature) but all are related to
temperatures that adults are exposed to during diapause. A major factor
contributing to winter mortality is the ability of beetles to cold harden (Lee
1991). Winter cultural control strategies employ cold shock techniques to
increase mortality. However, many overwintering areas are permanent field
edges or wooded windbreaks that are difficult to manipulate. Mulches have
been used in combination with trap crop areas to reduce adult overwintering
23
depths and subsequent removal of mulches expose the adults to extreme cold
temperatures that increase mortality rates (Milner et al. 1992, Wyman et al.
1994). Straw mulches have also been used on potato fields during the growing
season to reduce Colorado potato beetle populations (Zehnder and Hough-
Goldstein 1990b, Stoner 1993). Research indicates that mulches used during
the growing season are attractive to beneficial arthropods (Brust 1994), but
natural enemy numbers are often insufficient to provide an effective level of
control. However Brust (1996) showed a significant interaction between straw-
mulch and Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis (MTrak®) treated potatoes.
This combination provided control and yields similar to esfenvalerate treated
potatoes.
Spring cultural control strategies on potatoes include crop rotation, cover
crops, trap crops, deterrents, and physical control and barriers (Wyman et al.
1994). Crop rotation is commonly practiced in potato production areas for
disease control, and the greatest effect on Colorado potato beetles is delaying
crop infestation by the overwintering adults (Wright 1984). Sexson (2000)
found that rotation distances of one quarter mile significantly inhibit spring
Colorado potato beetle infestation. Natural barriers along with physical
landscape features such as streams and woods can also delay spring dispersal
(Wyman et al. 1994), and it has been demonstrated that barriers of wheat,
grass, and weeds greatly inhibit migration (Ng et al. 1983, Lashomb 1984a,
Zehnder et al 1990a, Weisz et al. 1994b). Immigrating adults initially infest field
24
edges and concentrations of adults provide excellent opportunities to destroy
large numbers of adults with minimal effort on the grower’s part. Spring trap
crops or treating field edges are effective in reducing adult numbers. In areas
of high insecticide resistance, physical traps such as plastic lined trenches
(Hunt and Vernon 2001) and flaming (Moyer et al. 1991 and Moyer 1992)
effectively trap and destroy adults as they enter the fields.
b. Potato leafhopper
Currently, insecticides provide the only effective means of control for
leafhoppers on potato (Radcliffe and Johnson 1994). Due to the leafhoppers
migratory nature and lack of natural enemies, the only management tool
available to growers is often insecticides.
c. Green peach aphid
Green peach aphids overwinter in the egg stage, using Prunus (Rosaceae)
as the primary host (Miyazaki 1989). One cultural control practice in the Pacific
Northwest potato growing regions is the removal of Prunus species from crop
borders and adjacent areas (Bishop 1967, Flint et al. 1986). Home gardens are
another source of green peach aphids (Bishop and Guthrie 1964). Green
peach aphids are initially brought into gardens on transplants and when
populations become large the aphids migrate to nearby potato fields (Mowry
1994).
25
2. Chemical control
Insect control before the mid 1800s consisted mainly of picking or washing
pests off the plants. A few chemical insecticides were available but they were
general poisons, used in large amounts, and were only marginally effective
(Casida and Quistad 1998). Inorganic compounds were succeeded by
botanical insecticides, which are more selective and potent. Drawbacks of
botanical compounds include their limited availability, photolability, and expense
to produce. Current botanical products include pyrethrum, rotenone, and
azadiractin (neem), which in recent years have been the focus of developing
neem seed extracts.
Research and development of synthetic organic insecticides began in the
1930s. Initially there were many compounds with unknown biological activity
and industry lacked the technology to determine which ones were of
importance. However, the systems for insecticide synthesis and screening
rapidly advanced, which led to the range of insecticides currently available.
a. Synthetic organic insecticides
DDT is a good example of industry having compounds with unknown
biological activity. In 1874, Zeidler described the synthesis of DDT in his Ph.D.
thesis but it was not discovered to be an effective insecticide until 1939 by
Mueller, who was later awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 (Casida and Quistad
1998). DDT was so effective that other chlorinated compounds were examined
26
for potential use as insecticides. Chlorinated hydrocarbon chemistries were so
effective that they were widely used until toxicological and environmental
contamination became major issues in the early 1970s.
Organophosphorus (OP) and methylcarbamate (MC) compounds were
discovered in the late 1930s and 1940s and their popularity grew during the
1960s because of growing toxicological and environmental concerns over the
chlorinated hydrocarbons. OPs and MCs are less persistent and more
biodegradable than the chlorinated hydrocarbons and some possess systemic
characteristics that are attractive to growers. Unfortunately, some of the more
volatile compounds are extremely toxic to humans and several have been used
as chemical warfare agents (Casida and Quistad 1998). OPs and MCs are still
widely used on crops; half of the top twenty insecticides sold in 1998 were OPs
while one fifth sold were MCs (Casida and Quistad 1998). Over 50% of the
insecticidal active ingredients currently registered on potatoes are
organophosphates and carbamates (Wyman 2003).
Pyrethroids were initially used as household products and major
developments in agricultural uses did not occur until the early 1970s.
Pyrethroids are remarkably effective contact insecticides that have several
advantages over the OPs and MCs (Casida and Quistad 1998). Synthetic
pyrethroids are photo stable yet biodegradable; they have selective target-site
toxicity; they are effective fumigant and soil insecticides; and they result in less
environmental contamination. Synthetic pyrethroid chemistries have evolved
27
during the three decades of use. New compounds are active at lower
concentrations and are more stable in the environment.
During the past decade, environmental problems associated with older
compounds have prompted development of new less toxic synthetic organic
insecticides. Nicotinoid compounds have had the greatest impact on crop
protection in the 1990s. These compounds target the same sites as nicotine
but much more safely and effectively (Casida and Quistad 1998). The synthetic
nicotinoids possess excellent systemic properties and are effective
replacements for OP and MC systemic materials for many insect pests (Casida
and Quistad 1998). Insecticidal control on potatoes in the Midwestern United
States has become heavily dependent on the nicotinoid group chemistry since
the registration of imidacloprid in 1995 (Wyman 2003).
b. Selective insecticides
According to Horn (1988), biorational insecticides are narrow-spectrum
insecticides that are non-toxic to vertebrates and plants. Biorational
insecticides are divided into three categories: insect growth regulators,
microbial insecticides, and microbial byproduct insecticides.
Insect growth regulators mimic the action of natural hormones in insects and
disrupt normal insect growth and development. Several examples include chitin
synthesis inhibitors, which inhibit cuticle formation (diflubenzuron), juvenile
hormone analogues that disrupt metamorphosis and reproduction (methoprene,
28
hydroprene, kinoprene, and fenoxycarb), and ecdysone agonists that disrupt
the action of ecdysone (tebufenozide, halofenazide, and methoxyfenozide)
(Dhadialla et al. 1998). Only two growth regulators have been used on
potatoes; cyromazine, a chitin inhibitor and novaluron was used briefly under an
emergency registration in the 1990s, a juvenile hormone analogue is currently
being developed for Colorado potato beetle control (Wyman, personal
communication).
Microbial insecticides consist of bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacillus
popillae, etc.), insect viruses (nuclear polyhedrosis and granulosis viruses),
fungi (Beauveria, Erynia, Hirsutella, etc.), and protozoa (Nosema) (Horn 1988).
Among the microbial insecticides Bacillus thuringiensis products have been
used most widely on a variety of insects.
Bacillus thuringiensis was first isolated 90 years ago by the Japanese
bacteriologist S. Ishiwata from a diseased Bombyx mori (L.) larva (Beegle et al.
1992). A decade later, Ernst Berliner isolated a similar organism from diseased
Anagasta kuehniella (Zeller) larvae from Thuringia, Germany (Beegle et al.
1992). Berliner named the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and since Ishiwata
did not formally describe the organism, Berliner is credited with naming it. From
the very beginning, it was realized that toxins were involved since Bacillus
caused death in the host before the bacteria could multiply (Beegle et al. 1992).
Before 1970, Bacillus products were based on the subspecies thuringiensis,
which had low activity, and often contained heat tolerant exotoxins (P-exotoxin)
29
(Beegle et al. 1992). With these attributes, B. thuringiensis products did not
compete well with the synthetic organic insecticides in efficacy or cost. In 1970,
after the subspecies kurstaki was isolated, B. thuringiensis based products
became competitive with the synthetic insecticides based on efficacy and cost
against such insects as Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on
cruciferous crops (Beegle et al. 1992). However, the market for kurstaki-based
products in agriculture has fallen to about 20% of its peak in the mid 1970s,
mostly because of development and competition from the synthetic pyrethroids
(Beegle et al. 1992).
The latest B. thuringiensis subspecies to be discovered is tenebrionis, which
was discovered by Krieg and coworkers in the mid-80s in diseased Tenebrio
molitor L. Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis is active against some
coleopterous larvae (Beegle et al. 1992), but mostly against chrysomelid larvae.
Tenebrionis produces a unique protein containing flat and square crystals
(delta-endotoxins). The endotoxin acts initially by causing gut paralysis and the
cessation of feeding, with death occurring a few days later. The endotoxin is
more effective against small instar larvae than larger larvae and adults (Ferro et
al. 1991b, Zehnder etal. 1989).
In recent years there have been renewed efforts in developing insect
specific insecticides that effectively control target pests while having low risk to
non-target organisms. Microbial byproduct insecticides are derived from the
byproducts of bacteria and fungi that are toxic to certain families of insects.
30
Some examples of these are abamectin that are produced by the fungus
Streptomyces avermitilis Kim and Goodfellow (Actinomycetales:
Streptomycetaceae) (Lasota and Dybas 1991) and spinosad, which is produced
by the bacterium Saccharopolyspora spinosa Mertz and Yao (Actinomycetales:
Pseudonocardiacea) (Bret et al. 1997).
Developments in avermectin chemistries include emamectin benzoate and
abamectin. Emamectin benzoate is a semi-synthetic insecticide derived from
the fermentation product avermectins B1 (abamectin) that is effective against a
broad range of lepidopteran larvae (Lasota and Dybas 1991). Abamectin is a
miticide/insecticide with activity on mites, leafminers, pear psylla, tomato
pinworm, and Colorado potato beetle.
Spinosyns are a new class of fermentation-derived tetracyclic macrolides
that act through the insect nervous system and are especially effective against
Lepidoptera larvae (Bradley 2000). Spinosad, a mixture of spinosyns A and D,
is from a newly discovered species of Actinomycetes, S. spinosa, which is
characterized as a bacterium (Bret et al. 1997). Spinosad acts both as a
contact and a stomach poison in a unique manner of altering the nicotinic
receptor function and GABA-gated chloride channel function as well (Bradley
2000). While spinosad is very effective on targeted pests it has very low non
target toxicity, is considered very safe for the environment (Bret et al. 1997),
and will fit well into IPM programs.
31
Indoxacarb is a new insecticide that represents the oxadiazine class of
insecticidal chemistries. Indoxacarb’s mode of action interferes with a group of
ion channels by inhibiting the flow of sodium into nerve cells, causing paralysis
and death. Indoxacarb has an excellent environmental profile and is very
selective for lepidopteran pests (Bradley 2000). These attributes will make
indoxacarb an attractive insect management tool for IPM programs.
Future biointensive IPM programs will increasingly incorporate selective and
biorational insecticides due to their attractive environmental profiles and unique
modes of action that will contribute to insecticide resistance management.
Pymetrozine represents a novel new chemistry with a unique mode of action
that selectively interferes with feeding activities of sucking insects, especially
aphids (Bradley 2000). Because of pymetrozine’s selective toxicity, it will fit well
into biointensive IPM programs.
3. Biological control
Biological control can be described as the limitation of the abundance of
living organisms and their products by other living organisms (Carver 1989).
More specifically, biological control of arthropod pests is a method of pest
management the employs insect natural enemies to reduce pest populations
(Hoy 2000). Aspects of biological control include classical biological control
(importation), conservation, and augmentation. Biological control in essence is
the encouragement of parasites, parasitoids, predators, and pathogens in order
32
to reduce pest densities below economic injury levels and to maintain them
there (ideally) (Horn 1988, Hoy 2000).
Classical biological control programs involve a multistep process of
evaluation, exploration, quarantine, and release of natural enemies that leads to
environmentally sound, relatively permanent, and usually economical solutions
to pest problems (Horn 1988, Hoy 2000). Classical biological control successes
in the 1880s with releases of the Australian ladybird beetle [Rodolia cardinalis
(Mulsant)] (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) to control the cottony cushion scale
(Icerya purchasi Maskell) (Hemiptera: Margarodidae) on California citrus
initiated widespread interest in the U.S. Since then, over 4000 introductions of
insect biological control agents have been made against pests with a success
rate in the range of 16%-34% (Hoy 2000). Problems associated with classical
biological control include locating suitable predatory and parasitic natural
enemies and their establishment after release.
Augmentation of natural enemies involves promoting their numbers either
through supplemental insect releases or by environmental manipulation to
improve natural enemy habitats (Hoy 2000). Currently, augmentive releases of
natural enemies are conducted on high value crops and in enclosed
environmental situations such as greenhouse crops and nurseries. However,
commercial beneficial insectaries have created an environment of high cost and
low quality insects that consumers are reluctant to use (Hoy 2000). Examples
of shipments of parasitized beneficial insects (O’Neil et al. 1998), incorrect
33
species and incorrect shipping amounts, and poor quality insects shipped
contribute to credibility issues with the consumers (Hoy 2000).
Conservation of natural enemies in agroecosystems is largely dependent on
the compatibility of pesticides and natural enemies. The most limiting factor to
natural enemy conservation through pesticide use is inadequate information
(Hoy 2000). In situations where compatibility issues are known pesticide use
can be reduced by 50%-80% with no detrimental affects on yield and crop
quality (Hull and Beers 1985). Pesticide use can also be reduced with
improved knowledge of economic injury levels, especially in situations where
thresholds for control could be higher than commonly used (Hoy 2000).
Pesticides will not be eliminated in potato production even under optimum
conditions for biological control because the natural enemy complexes
associated with the Colorado potato beetle and potato leafhopper do not
contribute significantly to their control (Harcourt 1971, Tamaki 1983a, Boiteau
1988, Hare 1990). However, improved knowledge of pesticide/natural enemy
compatibility issues will enhance bioregulation of other insect pests found on
potatoes, such as aphids (Hoy et al. 1998, Granadino 2003).
During their use in the 1990s, transgenic potatoes provided effective
Colorado potato beetle control and aphid natural enemies were conserved
through additional selective insecticide use. However, transgenic potatoes are
not currently a management tool available to Wisconsin potato growers. Public
34
concern over health issues associated with genetically modified plants led to
the discontinuation of transgenic potato production in 1999.
Since the turn of the century, excessive applications of broad-spectrum
insecticides on potatoes have contributed to low densities of naturally occurring
populations of arthropod predators, parasites, and parasitoids (Casagrande
1987). Current insecticide resistance issues, growing environmental concerns
regarding insecticide residues, and new developments in selective insecticide
technology will contribute to conservation of beneficial arthropods in
agroecosystems, which will allow them to play a more important role in the
integrated control of insect pests on potatoes in the future.
Beneficial arthropods are often overlooked as an insect management option.
When most people think of biological control, they envision mass releases of
beneficial insects that descend upon the pest insects and immediately eliminate
the problem. This concept has been used on other crops with success but it is
expensive and is limited to short-term control (Hoy 2000). Another aspect to
biological control, which our research focused on, is managing insect
complexes through prudent insecticide use to preserve beneficial insects. By
using selective insecticides or insecticides applied in a manner to avoid or
reduce beneficial insect exposure, parasitoids and predators are preserved to
aid in control of other insect pests on potatoes. As mentioned earlier Colorado
potato beetles have few natural enemies. Further, the ecology of potato
leafhoppers on potato in Wisconsin limits management options to chemical
35
control (Chapman et al. 2003). However, aphids have a broad complex of
natural enemies (Van Emden et al. 1969) and by preserving them; they can
provide significant population regulation.
a. Colorado potato beetle.
C.V. Riley recognized the importance of biological control on the Colorado
potato beetle in the 1860s (Casagrande 1987). Predatory and parasitic
arthropods such as pentatomids, coccinellids, and tachinids were thought to be
the most important bioregulators of Colorado potato beetle populations along
with general predators such as carabids, staphylinids, birds, and others (Riley
1872). High fecundity and short generation time of the Colorado potato beetle,
in comparison to its arthropod natural enemies, often hinder successful
biological control of the beetle (Hare 1990).
The parasitic mite Chrysomelobia labidomerae Eickwort (Acari:
Podapolipidae) is widespread in Mexico (Drummond et al. 1984, and Logan et
al. 1987). These mites live under the elytra of some Leptinotarsa species,
including the Colorado potato beetle. These mites also occur in the U.S. on the
milkweed beetle (Eickwort et al. 1986). The mite does not kill the beetle or
decrease oviposition, but does reduce beetle dispersal and longevity under
certain conditions (Drummond 1986, and Drummond et al. 1988). The parasitic
straw itch mite Pyemotes tritici (Lagreze-Fossot and Montane) (Acari:
Pyemotidae) is an ectoparasite of Colorado potato beetle larvae (2-4 instars)
36
and causes irreversible paralysis within 2-4 hours after attack, and death within
2-7 days (Drummond et al. 1989). A drawback of this mite for biological control
is it has a broad host range, including humans, and it parasitizes beneficial
arthropods as well (Cross et al. 1975).
The harvestman Phalangium opilio (L.) (Opiliones) preys on the eggs and
small larvae of the Colorado potato beetle and can cause significant mortality in
field cages, but harvestman populations are usually asynchronous with
Colorado potato beetle eggs and larvae making them inadequate for control
(Drummond et al. 1990). Other spiders have been studied, and although
abundant they were not considered to be important Colorado potato beetle
predators (Cappaert et al. 1991).
Chrysopid larvae (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) typically have a broad prey
range, including many small soft-bodied arthropods (Principi et al. 1984).
Chrysopid larvae prey on Colorado potato beetle eggs, young larvae, and
aphids (Flint et al. 1986).
In the U.S. and Europe two species of stink bug, Perillus bioculatus (F.)
(Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and Podisus maculiventris (Say) (Hemiptera:
Pentatomidae) have received a lot of attention for biological control of Colorado
potato beetle. The two-spotted stinkbug, P. bioculatus, feeds almost
exclusively on soft-bodied beetle larvae (Altieri et al. 1979, and 1980). Tamaki
et al. (1978) stated that the effectiveness of P. bioculatus as a predator was
limited in part because ‘it never wastes food, feeding upon the prey until it is
37
sucked dry’. P. maculiventris, the spined soldier bug, has been observed
feeding on many more prey species than P. bioculatus (Evans 1982). In
studies comparing the effectiveness of the pentatomids as biological control
agents, both were similar in reducing Colorado potato beetle larval numbers
(Biever et al. 1992a), but P. bioculatus provided better foliage protection. In
other field trials Biever et al. (1992b) found higher numbers of P. bioculatus,
although both pentatomids reduced defoliation by the same amount.
Damsel bugs (Hemiptera: Nabidae) also prey on Colorado potato beetles
and Harcourt (1971) implied egg predation by nabids as an important mortality
factor.
There are five tachinid species (Diptera: Tachinidae) that use Colorado
potato beetle as a host (Arnaud 1978). Myiopharus doryphorae (Riley)
(Diptera: Tachinidae) is native to the U.S. but has not provided effective control
(Tamaki et al. 1981). M. doryphorae larviposits into Colorado potato beetle
second, third or fourth instars, and completes development after the final instar
of the beetle enters the soil to pupate (Tamaki et al. 1983 b). Myiopharus
aberrans (Townsend) (Diptera: Tachinidae) parasitizes only fourth instar larvae
and its development is closely associated with that of its host (Gollands et al.
1991). Myiopharus australis Reinhard (Diptera: Tachinidae), Hyalomyodes
triangulifera (Loew) (Diptera: Tachinidae) (Logan et al. 1987), and Myiopharus
americanus Riley (Diptera: Tachinidae) (Cappaert et al. 1991) are other
tachinids reported to parasitize Colorado potato beetle found in Mexico.
38
Many Coleoptera have been reported preying on Colorado potato beetles
including carabids, coccinellids, and staphylinids. Lebia grandis Hentz
(Coleoptera: Carabidae) is native in North America from the Mississippi River
Valley to Virginia and from the Great Lakes east to Maine (Hough-Goldstein et
al. 1993). Adults consume all immature stages and have been shown to eat up
to 47 eggs per day (Groden 1989), while larvae develop ectoparasitically on
pupae or prepupae of the beetle. Groden (1989) stated that this carabid ‘may
be the most significant predator’ of Colorado potato beetle in some areas of the
U.S. The coccinellid Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer) (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae) preys on Colorado potato beetle eggs and young larvae
(Heimpel et al. 1992) and can significantly reduce Colorado potato beetle
populations in the field (Van Driesche et al. 1989, Groden et al. 1990, and
Hazzard et al. 1991). C. maculata feeds on a number of food sources other
than Colorado potato beetle (Conrad 1959) which enhances the usefulness of
this species as a biological control agent.
The egg parasitoid Edovum puttleri Grissell (Hymenoptera: has been found
parasitizing the eggs of L. decemlineata in Mexico (Logan et al. 1987). E.
puttleri is not well adapted to cool temperatures and does not overwinter in
temperate regions (Schroder et al. 1985, and Sears et al. 1989). E. puttleri kills
Colorado potato beetle eggs both by parasitism and by egg probing (Lashomb
et al. 1987). There are two species of hunting wasps, Polistes (Hymenoptera:
39
Vespidae) that have been observed taking Colorado potato beetle larvae to
their nests (Riley 1873, Rabb et al. 1957).
b. Green peach aphid.
Biological control of aphids was advocated as long ago as 1734 by de
Reaumur, who recommended the collection of eggs of an aphidivorous fly for
their control in greenhouses (Carver 1989). In 1873, C.V. Riley was the first to
apply classical biological control to aphids when he imported the predaceous
mite, Tyroglyphus phyHoxerae Riley (Acari: Tyroglyphidae) into France to
control grape phylloxera, Daktulosphaira vitifolii (Fitch) (Hemiptera:
Phylloxeridae). The mite became established but was not effective (DeBach
1964). Later biological control attempts for aphids mostly involved insect
predators, especially coccinellids (Carver 1989). Of the many attempts to
introduce natural enemies of aphids only a small number of agents have
become established. The first acknowledged case of successful biological
control of an aphid species was that of the wooly apple aphid, Eriosoma
lanigerum (Hausmann) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) (Carver 1989). Aphelinus mali
Haldeman (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) was imported from the U.S.A. into 51
countries during the 1920’s and became established in 42 of them, with
excellent to good control results in some, and poor control in others (Carver
1989).
40
One of the most effective aphid biological control successes was against the
spotted alfalfa aphid, Therioaphis trifolii (Monell) f maculata (Hemiptera:
Aphididae). The spotted alfalfa aphid invaded the southwestern U.S. in 1953
and the aphidiid parasites, Trioxys complanatus Quilis (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae) and Praon exsoletum (Nees) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), and
Aphelinus asychis Walker (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) were imported from the
Middle East and quickly became established and effectively controlled the aphid
(Van den Bosch et al. 1964). There have been many aphid classical biological
control success stories by parasitoids but the list of successful predators is not
as long (Carver 1989). Many species, mostly coccinellids and chamaemyiids,
have been introduced into North America since 1933 (Carver 1989). Of these
only limited success has occurred. Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus
(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) was introduced into the U.S. from 1957 through
1975 and did not become established until 1973 (Carver 1989). After becoming
established it spread across most of the eastern two thirds of North America
(Carver 1989). Another example is the North American coccinellid H.
convergens, which has been introduced into many areas of the world but has
become established in only Peru, Chile, Venezuela, and Hawaii (Carver 1989)
and translocations within the U.S. have failed.
The green peach aphid has many predators and most of them are
arthropods (Dixon 1973). Among the predatory Coleoptera, Mack et al. (1979)
found that coccinellid adults and larvae were the most abundant aphid
41
predators present on potatoes. Other predatory beetles include the adults and
larvae of carabids and staphylinids. Heteropteran aphid predators include the
families Nabidae, Anthocoridae, Lygaeidae, and Reduviidae. Larvae of the
Neuroptera families Chrysopidae and Hemerobiidae are predaceous on aphids
but are found in smaller populations than coccinellids (Mack et al. 1979).
Aphidophagous dipteran families include Syrphidae and Cecidomyiidae
(Hoffman et al. 1993). Many families of spiders are also predators of aphids but
research in this area is limited and the role of spiders as predators of aphids is
unclear. Many families of parasitoids also attack aphids, but the most
frequently found on potatoes are Braconidae (Diaeretiella rapae (M’lntosh), and
Lysiphlebus testaceipes (Cresson)), and Pteromalidae, and Aphelinidae (Dunn
1949, and Shands et al. 1965).
c. Potato leafhopper.
Published information on potato leafhopper generalist predators is limited;
however examples of predators feeding on eggs, nymphs, and adults can be
found in the literature. Martinez and Pienkowski (1982) reported that Orius
insidiosis (Say) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Reduviolus americoferus
(Carayon) (Hemiptera: Nabidae) were able to locate and feed on potato
leafhopper eggs. Smith and Franklin (1961) observed nabids (R. americoferus)
feeding on leafhopper adults and Ackerman (1919) reported anthocorids (Orius
sp.) as being the most common predator of leafhoppers found on apple nursery
42
stock. Spiders have also been shown to prey on leafhopper adults and nymphs
(Howell and Pienkowski 1971, Beyer 1922). Specific coccinellid species have
also been observed feeding on leafhopper nymphs (Coccinella novemnotata
Herbst) while other species avoided them (Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer),
Hippodamia convergens Guerin-Meneville, and H. parenthesis Say) (Yadava
and Shaw 1968).
4. INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE MANAGEMENT
Insecticide resistance is an urgent worldwide problem. Over 500 species of
insects and mites are documented to have resistance to one or more
insecticides (Georghiou 1990) and this number increases annually. Many of
these arthropod pests can tolerate virtually all insecticides in at least some of
their distributions. In a few cases, insecticide resistance is so intense that it has
forced the use of alternative crops or nonchemical controls, but more generally
it results in increased control costs, hazards to human and animal health, and
environmental disruption (Roush 1991). The first response to the loss of
insecticide efficacy usually is to increase the rate or application frequency. The
next step is to change to a new insecticide, which is usually more expensive or
more toxic to nontarget organisms (Georghiou 1986).
The role of insecticide resistance management programs is to delay or avoid
resistance by using a carefully developed blend of management tactics (Roush
1991). Resistance management can be divided into two broad categories,
43
preserving susceptible homozygotes with management by moderation, and
destroying resistant genotypes either with management by saturation or
multiple attack (Roush 1991, Weisz et al. 1994a).
Preserving susceptible homozygotes through management by moderation
seeks to maintain sufficient populations of susceptible individuals, with tactics
such as reduced pesticide applications, non-persistent compounds or
formulations, and providing untreated refuges. Prophylactic applications of
broad-spectrum, slow degrading insecticides should be avoided and replaced
with non-persistent compounds applied at action thresholds (Roush 1991).
Such slow degrading insecticides and formulations have been favored by
insecticide users in the past because they are relatively inexpensive and have
provided good control for extended periods, but a major disadvantage of these
insecticides is that they continue to select for resistance long after economic
control has been achieved (Roush 1991). The use of insecticides with lower
biological persistence should delay resistance, as long as they are applied only
when needed. In Wisconsin, Colorado potato beetle resistance was delayed by
several years by careful timing of insecticide applications that reduced selection
pressure (Feldman 1990).
Providing untreated refuges is often controversial and many argue that this
tactic is inconsistent with good pest management, where the common objective
is to reduce source populations for future reinfestation. Other tactics
emphasize the importance of reducing insecticide use through the
44
implementation of improved cultural, mechanical, or biological control methods
(Weisz etal. 1994b).
Effective nonchemical (cultural and mechanical) strategies for the Colorado
potato beetle include crop rotation, trap crops, early-season trenching, and
propane flaming. Crop rotation is very effective when large distances separate
the current year’s crop from previous growing season locations (Weisz et al.
1994b). Distances of 0.3 km generally reduce insecticide inputs in a Colorado
potato beetle program by 50% (Weisz et al. 1994b) and distances of 400
meters were found to significantly reduce infestation levels in Wisconsin
(Sexson 2000). Plastic lined trenches (Moyer 1993) and winter wheat or hay
buffer crops (Lashomb et al. 1984a, and Weisz et al. 1994b) are proven tactics
to delay early season Colorado potato beetle adult colonization.
The second broad category of resistance management is destroying
resistant genotypes either through saturation or multiple attack (Roush 1991).
An example of management through saturation is the use of transgenic plants
expressing high levels of a single toxic chemical to saturate insect populations
during the entire season. Transgenic host plant resistance, where a single
gene is transferred into commercially acceptable cultivars, has several
advantages over transferring multiple genes (Van Emden 1999). Single genes
that are transferred directly into cultivars do not have the unknown genetic
baggage associated with traditional plant breeding and the absence of cross
barriers means that the genes from unrelated organisms can be transferred to
45
provide production of protection chemicals (Van Emden 1999). The most
obvious advantage to transgenic technology is that the novel chemicals
introduced into plants render them virtually immune to the targeted pest. Van
Emden (1999) also pointed out several disadvantages to single gene transgenic
plants that include: yield drag, tolerant pest strains, damage to biological
control, and insecticide resistance issues. It is speculated that this type of
management strategy would fail to prevent rapid resistance development if
used alone (Gould 1988, and Ferro et al. 1993). Davis and Onstad (2000)
propose that seed mixtures of transgenic and non-transgenic plants be used in
resistance management strategies. Widespread use of seed mixtures would
guarantee the establishment of refuges and would encourage random mating of
resistant and susceptible individuals. However potential problems with seed
mixtures include movement of larvae from susceptible to transgenic plants.
Larval movement between susceptible and transgenic plants dilutes the high
dose transgenic tactic and reduces the actual size of the refuge. Movement of
susceptible larvae to transgenic plants reduces the proportion of susceptible
versus resistant larvae in the field (effectively selecting for resistance) (Davis
and Onstad 2000, Sexson 2000).
There are numerous other tactics to kill, or at least minimize the fitness of,
resistant genotypes. Selective pesticides, synergists, treating the most
sensitive life stage, using mixtures of compounds that show no cross resistance
and alternation of compounds across time or space (mosaics) are some of the
46
tactics used to manage resistant insects (Roush 1991). The use of mixtures to
retard resistance is based on the concept that if resistance is independent for
each insecticide and initially rare, then cases of resistance to both compounds
will be extremely rare (Tabashnik 1989). Rotating compounds across time and
space also utilizes mixtures, but in sequence. Rotating insecticides works
under the assumption that the frequency of individuals resistant to one of the
insecticides will decline during the application of the other insecticide
(Tabashnik 1989). Additionally, selective insecticides that conserve beneficial
insects contribute the potential of the beneficial insects to cause additional
mortality of resistant insects and thus reduce the need for additional
insecticides (Gould 1988).
47
E. LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman, A.J. 1919. Two leafhoppers injurious to apple nursery stock. U.S.
Dep. Agric. Bull. 805. 35 pp.
Altieri, M.A., and W.H. Whitcomb. 1979. Predaceous arthropods associated with
Mexican tea in North Florida. Fla. Entomol. 62: 175-182.
Altieri, M.A., and W.H. Whitcomb. 1980. Predaceous and herbivorous

arthropods associated with camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris Lamb.) in
north Florida. J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 15: 290-299.
Arnaud, P.A. 1978. Host-Parasite Catalog of North American Tachinidae. U.S.

Dep. Agric. Misc. Pub. no. 1319, USDA, Washington DC, 860 pp.
Ball, E.D. 1918. The potato leafhopper and the hopperburn that it causes. Wis.
Dept. Agr. Bull. 20: 76-102.
Beegle, C.C., and T. Yamamoto. 1992. Invitation paper (C.P. Alexander fund):
History of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner research and development. Can.
Entomol. 124: 587-616.
Beyer, A.H. 1922. Experiments on the biology and tipbum disease of the bean
leafhopper with methods of control (Empoasca mali Le Baron). J. Econ.
Entomol. 15:298-302.
Biever, K.D., and R.L. Chauvin. 1990. Prolonged dormancy in a Pacific

Northwest population of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata
(Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Can. Entomol. 122: 175-177.
Biever, K.D., and R.L. Chauvin. 1992 a. Suppression of the Colorado potato
beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with augmentive releases of predaceous
stinkbugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 85: 720-726.
Biever, K.D., and R.L. Chauvin. 1992 b. Timing of infestation by the Colorado
potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on the suppressive effect of field
released stinkbugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in Washington. Environ.
Entomol. 21: 1212-1219.
Bishop, B.A., and J.W. Guthrie. 1964. Home gardens as a source of the green
peach aphid and virus diseases in Idaho. Am. Potato J. 41: 28-34.
Bishop, B.A. 1967. A leaf roll virus control program in Idaho’s seed potato
areas. Am. Potato J. 44: 305-308.
48
Bishop, B.A., and E. Grafius. 1996. Insecticide resistance in the Colorado

potato beetle, pp. 355-377 in Chrysomelidae Biology, Jolivet and Hsaia (eds.),
Amsterdam, SBP Academic Publishing, the Netherlands.
Blackman, R.L. 1978. Early development of the parthenogentic egg in three

species of aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae). Internal Journal of Insect
Morphology and Embryology, 7:33-44.
Boiteau, G. 1988. Control of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa

decemlineata (Say): Learning from the Soviet experience. Entomol. Soc. Can.
Bull. 20:9-14.
Boiteau, G., C. Misener, R.P. Singh, and G. Bernard. 1992. Evaluation of a

vacuum collector for insect pest control in potato. Am. Pot. J. 69:157-166.
Bradley, J.R. 2000. Integrating New Insecticide Technologies in IPM. Pp. 384-
399 in Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management, eds. G.C.
Kennedy and T.B. Sutton, APS Press, St. Paul Minn.
Bret, B.L, L.L. Larson, J.R. Schoonover, T.C. Sparks, and G.D. Thompson.
1997. Biological properties of Spinosad. DowElanco Down to Earth Tech.
Bull. 52:6-11.
Brust, G.E. 1994. Natural enemies in straw-mulch reduce Colorado potato

beetle populations and damage in potato. Biol. Control 4: 163-169.
Brust, G.E. 1996. Interaction of Mulch and Bacillus thuringiensis subsp.

tenebrionis on Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)
Populations and Damage in Potato. J. Econ. Entomol. 89(2): 467-474.
Cappaert, D.L., F.A. Drummond, and P.A. Logan. 1991. Incidence of natural
enemies of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on a native host in Mexico. Entomophaga 36:
369-78.
Caprio, M.A., and E.J. Grafius. 1990. Effects of light, temperature, and feeding
status on flight initiation in post diapause Colorado potato beetles (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 19: 281-285.
Carlson, O.V. and E.T. Hibbs. 1970. Oviposition by Empoasca fabae

(Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Ibid. 63(2): 516-519.
Carver, M. 1989. Biological control of Aphids. Pp. 141-161 in Aphids: their

biology, natural enemies, and control, A.K. Minks and P. Harrewijn eds.,
Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier, 1987-1989.
49
Casagrande, R.A. 1985. The “Iowa” potato beetle, its discovery and spread to
potatoes. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 31: 27-29.
Casagrande, R.A. 1987. The Colorado potato beetle: 125 years of

mismanagement. Bull. Entomol. Soc. 33: 142-50.
Casida, J.E., and G.B. Quistad. 1998. Golden Age of Insecticide Research:
Past, Present, or Future? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:1-16.
Chapman, S.A., J.A. Wyman, and C.A. Granadino. 2003. Managing the major
insects of potato with insecticides. Proc. of Wis. Ann. Pot. Meeting. 16:217-
231.
Conrad, M.S. 1959. The spotted lady beetle, Coleomegilla maculata (DeGeer),
as a predator of European corn borer eggs. J. Econ. Entomol. 52: 843-47.
Cross, W.H., W.L. McGovern, and E.A. Cross. 1975. Insect hosts of the
parasitic mite called Pyemotes venthcosus (Newport). J. Ga. Entomol. Soc.
10 : 1- 8 .
Davis, P.M., and D.W. Onstad. 2000. Seed mixtures as a resistance

management strategy for European Corn Borers (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)
infesting transgenic corn expressing Cry 1Ab protein. J. Econ. Entomol.
93(3): 937-948.
DeBach, Paul. 1964. Biological control of insect pests in weeds, DeBach and
Schlinger (eds.). London, Chapman & Hall, xxiv: 844.
Decker, G.C. and H.B. Cunningham. 1968. Winter survival and overwintering
area of the potato leafhopper. J. Econ. Entomol. 61: 154-161.
Decker, G.C., C.A. Kouskoledas, and R.J. Dysart. 1971. Some observations on
fecundity and sex ratios of the potato leafhopper. Ibid. 64(5): 1127-1129.
de Kort, C.A.D. 1990. Thirty-five years of diapause research with the Colorado
potato beetle. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 50: 1-13.
DeLong, D.M. 1932. A revision of the American species of Empoasca known to

occur north o Mexico. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bull. 231. 59 pp.
DeLong, D.M. 1938. Biological studies on the leafhopper Empoasca fabae as a

bean pest. Ibid. 618. 60 pp.
50
de Wilde, J., and T.H. Hsiao. 1981. Geographic diversity of the Colorado potato
beetle and its infestation in Eurasia, pp. 47-68 in Advances in Potato Pest
Management, ed. J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande. Hutchinson Ross Publ.
Co., Stroudsburg, Penna.
Dhadialla, T.S., G.R. Carlson, and D.P. Le. 1998. New Insecticides with
Ecdysteroidal and Juvenile Hormone Activity. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43: 545-
569.
Dixon, A.F.G. 1973. Biology of Aphids. Edward Arnold Ed. London.
Dixon, A.F.G. 1998. Aphid Ecology. Chapman and Hall Ed. London.
Drummond, F.A., R.A. Casagrande, R. Chauvin, T.H. Hsiao, J.H. Lashomb, P.A.
Logan, and T.H. Atkinson. 1984. Distribution and new host records of a race
of Chrysomelobia labidomerae Eickwort (Acari: Podapolipidae) attacking the
Colorado potato beetle in Mexico. Int. J. Acarol. 10:179-180.
Drummond, F.A. 1986. The Biology of Chrysomelobia labidomerae Eickwort,

and its potential to control the Colorado potato beetle. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA.
Drummond, F.A., R.A. Casagrande, and P.A. Logan. 1988. Behavior of

Chrysomelobia labidomerae Eickwort parasitizing the Colorado potato beetle.
Int. J. Acarol. 14:193-198.
Drummond, F.A., and R.A. Casagrande. 1989. Effect of the straw itch mite on
larvae and adults of the Colorado potato beetle. Am. Potato J. 66: 161-163.
Drummond, F., Y. Shuhaya, and E. Groden. 1990. Predation on the Colorado

potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) by Phalangium opilio (Opiliones:
Phalagiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 83: 772-778.
Dunn, J.A. 1949. The parasites and predators of potato aphids. Bull. Entomol.
Res. 40:97-122.
Eickwort, R.C., and G.C. Eickwort. 1986. Effects of parasitism by the mite
Chrysomelobia labidomerae (Acari: Podapolipidae) on the longevity and
fecundity of its host beetle, Labidomera clivicollis (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). Int. J. Acarol. 11:169-172.
Evans, E.W. 1982. Timing of reproduction by predatory stinkbugs (Hemiptera:

Pentatomidae): patterns and consequences for a generalists and specialist.
Ecology. 63: 147-158.
51
Feldman, J. 1990. Management of the Colorado potato beetle through thermal

unit prediction of larval instars, and manipulation of adultbehavior withfeeding
deterrents. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, 135 p.
Ferro, D.N. 1985. Pest status and control strategies of the Colorado potato
beetle. Mass. Ag. Exp. Sta. Research Bull. 704: 1-8.
Ferro, D.N., A.F. Tuttle, and D.C. Weber. 1991 a.Ovipositional and flight
behavior of Overwintered Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 20: 1309-1314.
Ferro, D.N., and S.M. Lyon. 1991 b. Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) larval mortality: Operative effects of Bacillus thuringiensis
subsp. San Diego. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 806-9.
Ferro, D.N., Q. Yuan, A. Slocombe, and A.F. Tuttle. 1993. Residual activity of
insecticides under field conditions for controlling the Colorado potato beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 86:511-516.
Flint, M.L., L.L. Strand, P.A. Rude, and J.K. Clark. 1986. Integrated Pest
Management for Potatoes in the Western United States. Univ. Calif., Div.
Agric. and Nat. Res. Pub. 3316, Western Reg. Pub. 011, 146 pp.
Follett, P.A., W.W. Cantelo, and G.K. Roderick. 1996. Local Dispersal of
Overwintered Colorado Potato Beetle (Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera)
Determined by Mark and Recapture. Environ. Entomol. 25:1304-1311.
Forgash, A.J. 1981. Insecticide resistance of the Colorado potato beetle,

Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Pp. 34-36 in Advances in potato pest
management, J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande eds., Shroudsburg, PA:
Hutchison Ross Pub. Co.
Forgash, A.J. 1985. Insecticide resistance in the Colorado potato beetle: In

Proc. symp. on the Colorado potato beetle, 18th Int. Congr. Entomol. (D.N.
Ferro and R.H. Voss eds.). Amherst: Mass. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 704:
79-106.
Gauthier, N.L., R.N. Hofmaster, and M. Semel. 1981. History of Colorado potato
beetle control. Pp. 13-33 in Advances in potato pest management, J.H.
Lashomb and R. Casagrande eds., Shroudsburg, PA: Hutchison Ross Pub.
Co.
Georghiou, G.P. 1986. The magnitude of the resistance problem. In Pesticide

Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management, National Academy of
Sciences, Eds., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 14.
52
Georghiou, G.P. 1990. Overview of insecticide resistance. In Managing

resistance to agrochemicals, M.B. Green, H.M. LeBaron & W.K. Moberg eds.,
American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Gollands, B., M.J. Tauber, and C.A. Tauber. 1991. Seasonal cycles of
Myiopharus aberrans and M. doryphorae (Diptera: Tachinidae) parasitizing
Colorado potato beetles in upstate New York. Biol. Control. 1:153-163.
Gould, F. 1988. Evolutionary biology and genetically engineered crops.

Bioscience. 38: 26-33.
Grafius, E., P. loannidis, B. Bishop, K. Brix, and M. Whalon. 1991. Colorado

potato beetle management 1990. Michigan Potato Research Report 22: 80-
88. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. E. Lansing, Mich.
Granadino, C.A. 2003. Impacts of transgenic potatoes and broad spectrum and
pest specific pest control regimes on target and non-target arthropod
populations and potato leafroll virus spread. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin. 175 pp.
Granovsky, A.A. 1944. The value of DDTfor the control of potato insects. J.
Econ. Ent. 21(4): 89-91.
Groden, E. 1989. Natural mortality of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa

decemlineata (Say). Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing,
Michigan, USA.
Groden, E., F.A. Drummond, R.A. Casagrande, and D.L. Hayes. 1990.
Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): its predation upon the
Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and its incidence in
potatoes and surrounding crops. J. Econ. Entomol. 83: 1306-15.
Harcourt, D.G. 1971. Population dynamics of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)

in eastern Ontario III. Major population processes. Can. Entomol. 103:1049-
1061.
Hare, D.J. 1983. Seasonal variation in plant-insect associations: utilization of

Solanum dulcamara by Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Evolution 40: 1031-1043.
Hare, D.J., and G.G. Kennedy. 1986. Genetic variation in plant-insect

associations: Survival of Leptinotarsa decemlineata populations on Solanum
carolinense. Evolution 40: 1031-1043.
53
Hare, D.J., and R.E.B. Moore. 1988. Impact and management of late-season
populations of the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on
potato in Connecticut. J. Econ. Entomol. 81: 914-921.
Hare, D.J. 1990. Ecology and management of the Colorado potato beetle. Ann.
Rev. Entomol. 35: 81-100.
Harris, T.W. 1852. A treatise on some of the insects of New England which are
injurious to vegetation. Second edition. White and Potter, Cambridge, Mass.
513 pp.
Harris, P.M. 1978. The potato crop. The scientific basis for improvement.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Hazzard, R.V., D.N. Ferro, R.G. Van Driesche, and A.F. Tuttle. 1991. Mortality
of eggs of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) from predation
by Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Environ. Entomol. 20:
841-848.
Heim, D.C., G.G. Kennedy, and J.W. Van Duyn. 1990. Survey of insecticide
resistance among North Carolina Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 83: 1229-1235.
Heimpel, G.E., and J.A. Hough-Goldstein. 1992. A survey of arthropod

predators of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) in Delaware potato fields. J.
Agric. Entomol. 9: 137-42.
Hokkanen, H.M.T. 1991. Trap cropping in pest management. Annu. Rev.

Entomol. 36:119-138.
Horn, D.J. 1988. Ecological approach to pest management. The Guilford press,
New York and London.
Horton, D.R., and J.L. Capinera. 1988. Effects of host availability on diapause
and voltinism in a non-agricultural population of Colorado potato beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Kan. Entomol. Soc. 61: 62-67.
Hough-Goldstein, J.A., G.E. Heimpel, H.E. Bechmann, and C.E. Mason. 1993.
Arthropod natural enemies of the Colorado potato beetle. Pp. 324-334 in Crop
Protection v.12.
Howell, J.O., and R.L. Pienkowski. 1971. Spider populations in alfalfa, with
notes on spider prey and effect of harvest. J. Econ. Entomol. 64: 163-168.
54
Hoy, C.A, J. Feldman, F. Gould, G.C. Kennedy, G. Reed, and J.A. Wyman.
1998. Naturally occurring biological controls in genetically engineered crops.
In Conservation Biological Control, P. Barbosa ed., Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.
Hoy, M.A. 2000. Current Status of Biological Control of Insects. Pp. 210-225 in
Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management, ed. G.C. Kennedy
and T.B. Sutton. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
Hsiao, T.H. 1978. Host plant adaptations among geographic populations of the
Colorado potato beetle. Ent. exp. and appl. 24: 237-247.
Hsiao, T.H. 1981. Ecophysiological adaptations among geographic populations

of the Colorado potato beetle in North America. Pp. 69-85 in Advances in
Potato Pest Management, ed. J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande. Hutchinson
Ross Publ. Co., Stroudsburg, Penna.
Hsiao, T.H. 1985. Ecophysical and genetic aspects of geographic variations of

the Colorado potato beetle. Mass. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 704: 63-78.
Hsiao, T.H. 1988. Host specificity, seasonality and bionomics of Leptinotarsa

beetles. Pp. 581-599 in Biology of Chrysomelidae, P. Jolivet, E. Petitpierre,
and T.H. Hsiao eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hull, L.A., and E.H. Beers. 1985. Ecological selectivity: modifying chemical
control practices to preserve natural enemies. Pp. 103-122 in Biological
Control in Agricultural IPM systems, ed. M.A. Hoy and D.C. Herzog.
Academic Press, Orlando.
Hunt, D.W.A. and R.S. Vernon. 2001. Portable Trench Barrier for Protecting
Edges of Tomato Fields from Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94(1): 204-207.
Kawada, K. 1989. Polymorphism and morph determination. Pp 255-268 in

Aphids: their biology, natural enemies, and control, A.K. Minks and P.
Harrewijn eds., Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier, 1987-1989.
Kieckhefer, R.W. 1962. Some factors affecting populations of the potato

leafhopper Empoasca fabae (Harris). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wisconsin.
99 Pp.
Knoke, J.K. 1962. Systemic insecticides for control of insects attacking

potatoes. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Wis. 196 pp.
55
Kung, K.-J.S., M. Milner, J.A. Wyman, J. Feldman, and E. Nordheim. 1992.

Survival of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) after exposure
to subzero thermal shocks during diapause. J. Econ. Entomol. 85; 1685-1700.
Lashomb, J.H. and Y.S. Ng. 1984a. Colonization by Colorado potato beetles,
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in rotated and
non rotated potato fields. Envir. Entomol. 13:1352-1356.
Lashomb, J.H., Y.S. Ng, G. Ghidiu, and E. Green. 1984b. Description of spring
emergence by the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in New Jersey. Env. Entomol. 12:907-910.
Lashomb,-J.; Krainacker,-D.; Jansson,-R.K.; Ng,-Y.S.; Chianese,-R. 1987.

Parasitism of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) eggs by Edovum puttleri
Grissell (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae): effects of host age, parasitoid age, and
temperature. Can-Entomol. 119(1): 75-82.
Lasota, J.A., and R.A. Dybas. 1991. Avermectins, a novel class of compounds:
Implications for use in arthropod pest control. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36: 91-
117.
Lee, R.E. 1991. Principles of insect low temperature tolerance, pp. 170-243 in
Insects at Low Temperatures, R.E. Lee and D.L. Denlinger eds. Chapman
and Hall, London.
Logan, P.A., R.A. Casagrande, T.H. Hsiao, and F.A. Drummond. 1987.
Collections of natural enemies of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). Entomophaga 37: 311-315.
Martinez, D.G., and R.L. Pienkowski. 1982. Laboratory studies on insect

predators of potato leafhopper eggs, nymphs, and adults. Env. Entomol. 11:
361-362.
Mack, T.P., and Z. Smilowitz. 1979. Diel activity of green peach aphid predators
as indexed by sticky traps. Environ. Entomol. 8: 799-801.
Mahr, S., J. Wyman, E. Radcliffe, C. Hoy, and D. Ragsdale. 1995. Potatoes,

pp. 63-84 In Vegetable Insect Management with emphasis on the Midwest. R.
Foster and B. Flood eds. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.
McDonald, S. 1976. Evaluation of several new insecticides for the control of the
Colorado potato beetle and status of DDT resistance in southern Alberta. J.
Econ. Entomol. 69: 659-664.
56
Medler, J.T., R.L. Pienkowski and R.W. Kieckhefer. 1996. Biological notes on
Empoasca fabae in Wisconsin. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 59: 178-180.
Miller, R.L. and E.T. Hibbs. 1963. Distribution of eggs of the potato leafhopper,
Empoasca fabae, on Solanum plants. Ibid. 56(6): 737-740.
Milner, M. K-J. S. Kung, J.A. Wyman, J. Feldman, and E. Nordheim. 1992.

Enhancing overwintering mortality of Colorado potato beetle by manipulating
the temperature of its diapause habitat. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:1701-1708.
Miyazaki, M. 1989. Forms and morphs of aphids. Pp. 27-48 in Aphids: their
biology, natural enemies, and control, A.K. Minks and P. Harrewijn eds.,
Amsterdam; New York: Elsevier, 1987-1989.
Moyer, D.D. 1995. Trapping the Colorado potato beetles with plastic-lined
trenches. In Proceedings, 1994 New York State Vegetable Project Reports
Relating to IPM. New York State IPM Publication 118. Cornell University
Cooperative Extension, Geneva, NY. pp. 119-124.
Moyer, D.D. 1992. Fabrication and operation of a propane flamer for Colorado
potato beetle control. Cornell Coop. Extension Bulletin, 7 pp.
Moyer, D.D., R.C. Derksen, and M.J. McLeod. 1991. Development of a propane
flamer for Colorado potato beetle control. Cornell University Cooperative
Extension, New York Agricultural Experimental Station, Cornell University, -
Ithaca.
Nalbandyan, A.V. 1987. Prediction of survival of the Colorado beetle. Zaxhchita

Rastenii 1987. 9: 45.
Ng, Y.S. and J. Lashomb. 1983. Orientation by the Colorado potato beetle
(Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say). Animal Behavior 31: 617-619.
Olson, E.R., G.P. Dively, and J.O. Olson. 2000. Baseline susceptiblilty to
imidacloprid and cross resistance patterns in Colorado potato beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2): 447-458.
O’Neil, R.F., Giles, K.L., Obrycki, J.J., Mahr, D.L., Legaspi, J.C., and Katovich, K.
1998. Evaluation of the quality of four commercially available natural enemies.
Biological Control 11: 1-8.
Osborne, H. 1896. Notes on injurious insects. Iowa Agr. Exp. Stat. Bull. 33:
594-605.
57
Peferoen, M., R. Huybrects, and A. de Loof. 1981. Longevity and fecundity in

the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Entomol. Exp. Appl.
29: 321-329.
Poos, F.W. 1932. Biology of the potato leafhopper Empoasca fabae (Harris)
and some closely related species of Empoasca. J. Econ. Entomol. 25 (3):
639-643.
Principi, M.M., and M. Canard. 1984. Feeding habits. In Biology of

Chrysopidae, M. Canard, Y. Semeria, and T.R. New, eds., Dr. W. Junk, The
Hague.
Quinton, R.J. 1955. A study of DDT resistance in the Colorado potato beetle,
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Pp. 76-92 in Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell
University, Ithica, New York.
Rabb, R.L., and F.R. Lawson. 1957. Some factors influencing the predation of
Polistes wasps on the tobacco homworm. J. Econ. Entomol. 50: 778-784.
Radcliffe, E.B. and R.E. Cancelado. 1979. Potato pest control with soil applied
systemic insecticides. Insecticide and Acaricide Tests. 4:96.
Radcliffe, E.B. and K.B. Johnson. 1994. Biology and Management of

Leafhoppers on Potato. Pp. 71-82. Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Pest
Management, eds. G.W. Zehnder, M.L. Powelson, R.K. Jansson, and K.V.
Raman. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
Riley, C.V. 1868. First annual report on the noxious, beneficial, and other
insects of the state of Missouri. Jefferson City, MO.: Horace Wilcox.
Riley, C.V. 1872. Fourth annual report on the noxious, beneficial, and other
insects of the state of Missouri. Jefferson City, MO.: Regan and Edwards.
Riley, C.V. 1873. Fifth annual report on the noxious, beneficial, and other
insects of the state of Missouri. Jefferson City, MO.: Regan and Carter.
Riley, C.V. 1875. Seventh annual report on the noxious, beneficial, and other
insects of the state of Missouri. Jefferson City, MO.: Regan and Carter.
Roush, R.T., C.W. Hoy, D.N. Ferro, and W.M. Tingey. 1990. Insecticide
resistance in the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae):
Influence of crop rotation and insecticide use. J. Econ. Entomol. 83: 315-319.
58
Roush, R.T. 1991. Management of pesticide resistance. Pp. 721-737 in CRC

Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture, D. Pimentel ed., Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Schepers, A. 1989. Chemical control. Pp. 89-121 in Aphids: their biology,

natural enemies, and control, A.K. Minks and P. Harrewijn eds., Amsterdam;
New York: Elsevier, 1987-1989.
Schroder, R.F.W., M.M. Athanas, and B. Puttier. 1985. Propagation of the

Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) egg parasite Edovum
puttleri (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Entomophaga. 30: 69-72.
Sears, M.K., and G. Boiteau. 1989. Parasitism of Colorado potato beetle

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) eggs by Edovum puttleri (Hymenoptera:
Eulophidae) on potato in Eastern Canada. J. Econ. Entomol. 82: 803-810.
Sexson, D.L. 2000. Colorado potato beetle movement in Wisconsin potato

cropping systems : development of an area-wide management program.
Ph.D. Thesis. 170 pp.
Shands, W.A., G.W. Simpson, C. Mussebeck, and H. Wave. 1965. Parasites of

potato infesting aphids in northeastern Maine. Maine Agr. Exp. Stn. Tech.
Bull: 19.
Shields, E.J., and J.A. Wyman. 1984. Effect of defoliation at specific growth
stages on potato yields. J. Econ. Entomol. 77: 1194-1199.
Simonet, D.E. and R.L. Pienkowski. 1981. Temperature effect on development

and morphometries of the potato leafhopper. Envir. Entomol. 9(6): 798-800.
Smith, R.C., and W.W. Franklin. 1961. Research notes on certain species of
alfalfa insects in Manhattan (1904-1956) and at Fort Hayes, Kansas (1948-
1953). Kans. Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep. Prog. 54. 122 pp.
Stewart, J.G., G.G. Kennedy, and A.V. Sturz. 1997. Incidence of insecticide
resistance in populations of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata
(Say) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), on Prince Edward Island. Can. Entomol.
129: 21-26.
Stoner, K.A. 1993. Effects of straw and leaf mulch and trickle irrigation on the
abundance of Colorado potato beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on potato
in Connecticut. J. Entomol. Soc. 28: 393-403.
59
Sweeden, M.B. and P.J. McLeod. 1997. Systemic toxicity and field efficacy of
imidacloprid, pymetrozine, and triazamate against Myzus persicae
(Homoptera: Aphididae) on spinach. J. Agric. Entomol. 14(4): 421-433.
Tabashnik, B.E. 1989. Managing resistance with multiple pesticide tactics:

theory, evidence, and recommendations. J. Econ. Entomol. 82: 1263-1269.
Tamaki, G. and B.A. Butt. 1978. Impact of Perillus bioculatus on the Colorado
potato beetle and plant damage. USDA Tech. Bull. 1581, USDA, Washington
DC, 11 pp.
Tamaki, G. 1981. Biological control of potato pests. In Advances in Potato Pest

Management, ed. J.H. Lashomb and R. Casagrande. Hutchinson Ross Publ.
Co., Stroudsburg, Penna. pp. 47-68.
Tamaki, G., R.L. Chauvin, and A.K. Burditt Jr. 1983a. Field evaluation of
Doryphorophaga doryphorae (Diptera: Tachinidae), a parasite, and its host the
Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Envir. Entomol. 12: 386-
89.
Tamaki, G., R.L. Chauvin, and A.K. Burditt Jr. 1983b. Laboratory evaluation of
Doryphorophaga doryphorae (Diptera: Tachinidae), a parasite of the Colorado
potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Envir. Entomol. 12: 390-92.
Tauber, M.J., C.A. Tauber, J.J. Obrycki, B. Gollands, and R.J. Wright. 1988a.
Voltinism and induction of aestival diapause in the Colorado potato beetle,
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc.
Am. 81:748-754.
Tauber, M.J., C.A. Tauber, J.J. Obrycki, B. Gollands, and R.J. Wright. 1988b.
Geographical variation in response to photoperiod and temperature by
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc.
Am. 81:764-773.
Torres, J.B., C.S.A. Silva-Torres, M.R. Silva, and J.F. Ferreira, 2002.
Compatibility of insecticides and acaricides to the predatory stinkbug Podisus
nigrispinus (Dallas) (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) on cotton. Neotrop-entomol.
31(2): 311-317.
Van Den Bosch, R. and A.D. Telford. 1964. Environmental modification and
biological control. Pp. 459-88 in Biological control of insect pests and weeds,
P. DeBach ed., London: Chapman and Hall.
60
Van Driesche, R.G., and D.N. Ferro. 1989. Using biological control in
Massachusetts: Colorado potato beetle. Coop. Ext., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Van Emden, H.F., V.F. Eastop, R.D. Hughes, and M.J. Way. 1969. The ecology
of Myzus persicae. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 14:197-270.
Van Emden, H.F. 1999. Transgenic host plant resistance to insects - Some
reservations. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 92(6): 788-797.
Voss, R.H., and D.N. Ferro. 1989a. Phenology of flight and walking by Colorado
potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) adults in Western Massachusetts.
Environ. Entomol. 19: 112-117.
Voss, R.H., and D.N. Ferro. 1989b. Ecology of migrating Colorado potato
beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Western Massachusetts. Environ.
Entomol. 18.
Walgenbach, J.F. 1984. Insect Pest Management on Potatoes in Wisconsin.

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. 153 pp.
Walgenback, J.F., and J.A. Wyman. 1984. Dynamic Action Threshold Levels for
the Potato Leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) on Potatoes in Wisconsin.
J. Econ. Entomol. 77 (5): 1335-1340.
Walsh, B.D. 1865. The new potato bug and its natural history. Practical
Entomol. 1:1-4.
Weber, D.C., and D.N. Ferro. 1994. Colorado potato beetle: Diverse life history
poses challenge to management. Pp. 54-70. Advances in Potato Pest
Biology and Pest Management, eds. G.W. Zehnder, M.L. Powelson, R.K.
Jansson, and K.V. Raman. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
Weisz, R., M. Saunders, Z. Smilowitz, H. Huang, and B. Christ. 1994a.

Knowledge-based reasoning in integrated resistance management: The
Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
87(6): 1384-99.
Weisz, R., Z. Smilowitz, and B. Christ. 1994b. Distance, Rotation, and Border
Crops Affect Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)
Colonization and Population Density and Early Blight (Alternaria solani)
Severity in Rotated Potato Fields. J. Econ. Entomol. 87(3): 723-729.
61
Wright, R.J. 1984. Evaluation of Crop Rotation for Control of Colorado Potato
Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Commercial Potato Fields on Long
Island. J. Econ. Entomol. 77: 1254-1259.
Wright, R.J., D.P Kain, and D.D. Moyer. 1987. Development and
implementation of an extension IPM program for Long Island. Bull. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 33: 239-45.
Wyman, J.A. 2003. Managing insecticide resistance-the future of insect control.

Proc. Wis. Ann. Pot. Meeting. 16: 207-215.
Wyman, J.A., J. Feldman, and S.K. Kung. 1994. Cultural control of Colorado
potato beetle: off-crop management. Pp. 376-385 in Advances in potato pest
biology and management, G.W. Zehnder et al., eds., St. Paul, American
Phytopath. Soc. Press.
Yadava, C.P., and F.R. Shaw. 1968. The preference of certain coccinellids for
pea aphids, leafhoppers, and alfalfa weevil larvae. J. Econ. Entomol. 61:
1104-1105.
Zehnder, G.W. 1986. Timing of insecticides for control of Colorado potato beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in eastern Virginia based on different
susceptibility of life stages. J. Econ. Entomol. 79:851-856.
Zehnder, G.W. and G.K. Evanylo. 1989. Influence of the extent and timing of
Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) defoliation on potato
tuber production in eastern Virginia. J. Econ. Entomol. 82: 948-953.
Zehnder, G.W. and J. Hough-Goldstein. 1990a. Influence of conservation tillage

practices on populations of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) in rotated and non-rotated tomato fields. Environ. Entomol.
16: 135-139.
Zehnder, G.W., and J. Hough-Goldstein. 1990b. Colorado potato beetle

(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) population development and effects on yield of
potatoes with and without straw mulch. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:1982-1987.
Zhao, J.Z., B.A. Bishop, and E.J. Grafius. 2000. Inheritance and synergism of
resistance to imidacloprid in the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(5): 1508-1514.
62
III. IMPACTS OF BROAD SPECTRUM AND SELECTIVE INSECTICIDES ON

APHID, LEAFHOPPER, AND BENEFICIAL INSECT POPULATIONS ON
POTATO.
A. Introduction
Integrated pest management programs for Wisconsin potato production focus
on controlling the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)
(Coleptera: Chrysomelidae) and to a lesser degree the potato leafhopper
Empoasca fabae (Harris) (Heteroptera: Cicadellidae). There are several other
species of insect pests but they are only sporadic pests of potatoes in
Wisconsin. Early and mid season Colorado potato beetle larval populations are
targeted with insecticides to reduce late season adult pressure that can be
difficult to control (Hare and Moore 1988, Wright et al. 1987). Second
generation adult Colorado potato beetle's emerge from pupation in July and can
cause significant defoliation at a time when potatoes are the most sensitive (full
bloom), resulting in serious yield loss (Shields and Wyman 1984).
Potato leafhoppers do not overwinter in Wisconsin and typically infest
potatoes during June, at a time when infestation can cause serious yield loss
(Walgenbach and Wyman 1984). Insecticides provide the only effective means
of control for leafhoppers on potato (Radcliffe and Johnson 1994). Aphids are
sporadic pests on fresh market potatoes but vector several plant viruses that
pose serious threats to the processing and seed industries. Biological
63
regulation of aphids has potential but is normally disrupted by insecticidal control
of other key potato pests.
Currently, Wisconsin potato production is dependent upon insecticides to
manage Colorado potato beetles, potato leafhoppers, and aphids, and there is a
wide range of registered insecticide chemistries. Insecticide chemistries range
from broad-spectrum insecticides with long residual periods to selective
insecticides that rapidly break down. Many of the registered insecticides that
are broad spectrum in nature have been shown to devastate natural enemy
complexes and encourage pest resurgence or secondary pest outbreaks
(DeBach and Bartlett 1951, Lingren and Ridgeway 1967, McClure 1977, Clarke
et al. 1990). As a result, more frequent control actions are often required.
However, broad-spectrum insecticides have been attractive to growers and are
widely perceived to reduce insecticide use in the short term by controlling
multiple pests with a single application. In the long term however, broad-
spectrum materials have frequently selected for Colorado potato beetle
resistance following overuse by growers and have consequently been used
more often. Managing different potato insect pests with selective insecticides
reduces repeated applications of similar insecticides and may have the added
benefit of conserving beneficial arthropods that can potentially regulate
secondary or sporadic insect pests (Hoy 2000). It has been demonstrated that
in situations where pesticide compatibility issues are understood, pesticide use
64
can be reduced by 50% to 80% (Hull and Beers 1985). Pesticide resistance can
also be delayed when conserved natural enemies serve as an alternative
mortality factor on pest populations (Hoy 2000).
An integral aspect of conserving beneficial insects in Integrated Pest
Management systems is an understanding of insecticide and natural enemy
compatibilities (Hoy 2000). A litany of articles has been published on the effects
of various broad-spectrum insecticides on beneficial insects, however
information pertaining to selective insecticide effects on beneficial arthropods is
limited. Information concerning selective insecticide effects on beneficial insects
on potato production systems is even more limited.
The focus of the following studies was to determine the compatibility of foliar
insecticides used for Colorado potato beetle, potato leafhopper, and aphid
control with beneficial insects on potatoes. Field trials were conducted at the
Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wl in 1997. Three trials were
established and designed to recreate the typical kinds of pesticide interventions
that would occur in commercial fields and to measure the impacts of these
interventions on both pest and beneficial arthropod populations. In the first trial,
single pesticide interventions were tested on established pest and beneficial
arthropod complexes using a broad range of foliar insecticides that would
typically be used to target Colorado potato beetle and potato leafhopper. In the
second trial, two pesticide interventions were evaluated using a broad range of
65
insecticides that would typically be used in aphid control. In the third trial,
season long pesticide programs, targeting aphids, were evaluated using different
thresholds. In all cases the impacts of Colorado potato beetle feeding,
subsequent damage, and control applications were removed from our
experimental system by utilizing New Leaf® potatoes (Hybritech Seed
International, Boise Idaho) that were resistant to Colorado potato beetle. The
studies were thus focused primarily on the impacts of pesticide interventions on
aphids and the natural enemies associated with them.
66
B. EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDES NORMALLY TARGETED AT COLORADO

POTATO BEETLE AND POTATO LEAFHOPPER ON BENEFICIAL
ARTHROPODS ON POTATO. HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH STATION, HANCOCK Wl 1997.
1. Methods and Materials
Thirteen foliar insecticides, three selective, seven broad-spectrum, and three
intermediate, that are normally used to control Colorado potato beetle or potato
leafhopper were evaluated in this study for impacts on aphids, potato
leafhopper, and beneficial arthropods on potatoes in the absence of Colorado
potato beetle.
The study was arranged in a stacked, randomized complete block
experimental design consisting of fourteen treatments. Seven broad-spectrum
insecticides from three different classes were evaluated: two pyrethroids
(esfenvalerate [Asana® XL 0.66EC] at the rate of 0.03 pounds active ingredient
per acre (lb. a.i./A) and permethrin [Ambush® 2E] at the rate of 0.20 lb. a.i./A);
one organochlorine (endosulfan [Thiodan® 3EC] at the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i./A); and
four organophosphates (azinphos-methyl [Guthion® 2L] at the rate of 0.37 lb.
a.i./A, dimethoate [Cygon® 4EC] at the rate of 0.5 lb. a.i./A, and methyl parathion
[Penn cap-M® 2L] at the rate of 0.45 lb. a.i./A, and phosmet [Imidan® 2.5EC] at
the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i./A). Three intermediate insecticides (insecticides that are
not broad-spectrum in activity but also not pest-specific) from three different
insecticide classes included: a pyrrole (chlorfenapyr [Alert® 2SC] at the rate of
67
0.08 lb. a.i./A); a nicotinoid (imidacloprid [Provado® 2F] at the rate of 0.05 lb.
a.i./A); and a pyrazole (fipronil [Agenda® 80WG] at the rate of 0.05 lb a.i./A).
Three selective insecticides, from three different insecticide classes, included:
two antibiotic insecticides (abamectin [Agri-Mek® 0.15EC] at the rate of 0.02 lb.
a.i./A, and spinosad [Spintor® 2SC] at the rate of 0.08 lb. a.i./A), and an insect
growth regulator (cyromazine [Trigard® 75WP] at the rate of 0.25 lb. a.i./A). All
insecticides were compared to an untreated control. Each treatment consisted
of four replications of four 50-foot rows on 3-foot centers separated by ten-foot
planted alleys between reps and treatments.
Foliar applications of esfenvalerate, permethrin, endosulfan, azinphos-
methyl, phosmet, methyl-parathion, dimethoate, and imidacloprid represent
registered and widely used insecticides for Colorado potato beetle or potato
leafhopper control on potatoes in Wisconsin. Abamectin and spinosad are
registered selective insecticides that are not widely used but effectively control
Colorado potato beetle. Cyromazine, fipronil, and chlorfenapyr are experimental
Colorado potato beetle insecticides.
NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes (Hybritech Seed International, Boise
Idaho) were planted in a solid block on May 6 with a two-row cup planter.
NewLeaf® potatoes expressing the delta-endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis var.
tenebrionis are resistant to Colorado potato beetles (Perlak et al. 1993) and
were planted to remove Colorado potato beetles as a pest from the system
68
together with the subsequent application of “maintenance” insecticides that
would have adversely affected aphid and beneficial insect populations in the
study. Plot maintenance (weed and disease control, irrigation and soil fertility)
was conducted by Hancock Research Station personnel following commercial
practices. Plots were not harvested for yield and grade.
Foliar insecticides were applied once with a C 02 backpack sprayer operating
at 30 p.s.i. while delivering 20 gpa through 4 hollow cone nozzles (TXVS 10),
spaced at 18 inches. Insecticides were applied on August 13 when aphid
populations were rapidly increasing in the plots.
Prior to the application of test materials, arbitrary leaf sampling was used to
monitor aphids weekly until aphid numbers began increasing. During
pretreatment and subsequent post treatment sampling, vacuum suction was
used to monitor aphids and beneficial insects. A single vacuum sample was
collected from each replicate. Vacuum samples consisted of sucking insects
from the potato crop canopy (from mid plant areas-vertically) with a modified leaf
blower (Homelite HB180V) while walking in the center two rows of each
treatment for a period of 50 seconds. Samples were placed into sample cups
containing 70% alcohol and examined later under magnification.
Potato leafhopper populations were monitored weekly by sweep net and leaf
count sample techniques and treated as needed to prevent crop destruction.
Malathion (Malathion® 57) was applied to the entire plot at the rate of 0.625 lb.
69
a.i./A on July 3 to reduce potato leafhopper numbers. Malathion was selected
because of its short residual persistence to minimize impacts on beneficial
arthropods.
Aphid and beneficial insects were sampled during a precount and at one and
five days after insecticide applications. The single application of insecticides
that occurred on August 13 reflects applications that target Colorado potato
beetles or potato leafhoppers on commercial potatoes.
Data were analyzed using Agricultural Research Manager Version 6.0
(Gylling Data Management, Inc., 405 Martin Blvd., Brookings, South Dakota,
57006-4605). Data were subjected to a two way analysis of variance and mean
separation was determined using Least Significance Difference Test, P=0.05.
2. Results and discussion
Aphid and leafhopper control data are included to display predator-prey and
parasitoid-host relationships. Many of the insecticides used in this study were
not expected to be effective on aphids or leafhoppers, however we were
interested in the effects of these compounds on beneficial arthropods both
directly through toxicity and indirectly through prey removal.
Potato aphid numbers where high prior to treatment (212-632 aphids per 50
seconds, Table 1) while green peach aphid numbers were lower and more
variable (Table 2).
70
Esfenvalerate, permethrin, endosulfan, and imidacloprid significantly reduced
potato and green peach aphid numbers immediately (1 day) and 5 days after
application (Tables 1 and 2). As expected, many of the Colorado potato beetle
and potato leafhopper insecticides did not affect aphids. Aphid populations in
the untreated plots increased as sampling progressed and they peaked at 513.5
potato aphids per sample (Table 1) and 178.0 green peach aphids per sample
(Table 2) on August 18 in the untreated control.
All of the insecticides evaluated, except for several of the selective
insecticides (spinosad, cyromazine, fipronil, and abamectin), significantly
reduced potato leafhopper adult numbers by five days after application (Table
3). Potato leafhopper adults were present in large numbers in the untreated
plots during sampling and numbers peaked at 181.5 adults per sample on
August 18. The selective insecticides (spinosad, cyromazine, fipronil, and
abamectin) also failed to provide adequate potato leafhopper nymph control
while most of the other insecticides evaluated significantly reduced nymphal
numbers by 5 days after application (Table 4). Potato leafhopper nymphs were
present in large numbers in the untreated plots during sampling and numbers
peaked at 72.8 nymphs per sample on August 18.
Since Colorado potato beetles were selectively removed from this system by
Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis in plant expression from the NewLeaf®
variety and since most of the insecticides evaluated would normally target
71
Colorado potato beetles, high populations of potato leafhoppers and aphids
were present in most plots. This plentiful food resource resulted in the buildup
of a substantial complex of beneficial arthropods that were then confronted with
a single application of insecticide. Natural enemy counts are presented as totals
for the season and thus include the naturally developing pretreatment complex
and the populations measured post intervention (Tables 5-11). Separate post
treatment counts are also provided for total predators and parasitoids (Table 5)
and are available for individual predator (Tables 7 and 8) and parasitoid (Tables
10 and 11) families to evaluate specific impacts.
Beneficial arthropods were abundant in the study (Table 5) with predators
and parasitoids totaling 71.3 beneficials per sample during the study in the
untreated plots of which 46.5 per sample were collected post treatment.
Predators (60%) were more numerous than parasitoids (40%). Broad-spectrum
pyrethroids and organophosphates had the most negative impact on the overall
beneficial arthropod complex (Table 5) with esfenvalerate (43% reduction),
permethrin (35%), methyl parathion (36%), and phosmet (24%) causing
significant reductions in the overall complex. These reductions were primarily
the result of predator disruption. Only methyl parathion (27% reduction)
negatively impacted overall parasitoid populations while esfenvalerate (67%),
permethrin (61%), phosmet (50%), and methyl parathion (40%) significantly
reduced the overall predator complex. The organophosphate dimethoate
72
reduced the predator complex by 28% but its overall impact was not significantly
different from the control. Endosulfan and azinphos-methyl did not significantly
disrupt the overall (pre and post) beneficial complex in this study, although some
post treatment disruption in predators did occur. The pest specific insecticides
included in the trial (fipronil, chlorfenapyr, imidacloprid, abamectin, spinosad,
and cyromazine) did not adversely affect the beneficial arthropod complex
(Table 5).
These impacts were even more evident when only the post treatment impacts
were analyzed. Post application total beneficial insect numbers ranged from
13.3 per sample in the esfenvalerate treatments to 46.5 per sample in the
untreated plots. Total beneficial numbers were lowest among the esfenvalerate,
permethrin, dimethoate, and methyl parathion treatments (all were significantly
lower than the untreated plots).
Again impacts on predators were more severe than on parasitoids.
Esfenvalerate and permethrin were the most deleterious with 88% and 92%
reductions respectively, in predator numbers post treatment (Table 5).
Endosulfan, all four organophosphates, and abamectin also caused significant
post treatment reductions in predator populations.
Five predatory families of arthropods and spiders were collected from the
trial (anthocorids, nabids, syrphids, chrysopids, and coccinellids) (Table 6).
Coccinellids, spiders, and chrysopids were most numerous with 28.5, 5.2 and
73
4.2 season total individuals collected from the untreated plots (Table 6).
Pretreatment numbers of coccinellids were variable among the plots and ranged
from 3.3 to 11.0 per sample on August 13 (Table 7). Coccinellid numbers
declined in all the treated plots one day post insecticide applications (August 14)
and numbers in eight of the treated plots were significantly lower (58-97%
reductions) than coccinellid numbers in the untreated plots (esfenvalerate,
permethrin, azinphos-methyl, phosmet, dimethoate, methyl-parathion,
imidacloprid, and abamectin treatments). At five days after the insecticide
applications (August 18) coccinellid numbers continued to decline in many of the
broad-spectrum insecticide treated plots with significant reductions of over 80%
resulting from single applications of the pyrethroids (esfenvalerate, permethrin)
and the organophosphates (phosmet, azinphos methyl, dimethoate, and methyl
parathion). Negative impacts from endosulfan, abamectin, and imidacloprid
were significant when post treatment counts were considered. Coccinellid
numbers from the more specific insecticide treatments did not differ significantly
from the untreated plots (Table 7).
Chrysopids were collected from all the treatments during sampling (Table 8).
The two pyrethroid treatments, esfenvalerate and permethrin, had the lowest
total number of chrysopids, however numbers were not significantly different
from the numbers in the untreated plots. Chrysopid numbers in the remaining
treatments were higher than those found in the untreated plots but again they
74
were not significantly different. Chrysopid numbers declined in all the plots one-
day post insecticide application while they increased in many of the plots five
days after the insecticide applications.
Nabid populations were low in this trial but pesticide impacts were significant
(Table 6) with the pyrethroids (esfenvalerate and permethrin), methyl parathion,
fipronil, chlorfenapyr, imidacloprid, abamectin, and cyromazine; causing
reductions compared to the control.
Five families of parasitoids were collected from the trial (braconids,
pteromalids, eulophids, encyrtids, and mymarids) with braconid and mymarid
adults being the most frequently collected (Table 9). Parasitoids were collected
in similar numbers from many of the plots, however numbers collected from the
methyl-parathion treatments were significantly lower than several of the other
treatments (endosulfan, azinphos-methyl, imidacloprid, and cyromazine).
Precount braconid adult numbers ranged from 4.5-14.0 adults per sample
(Table 10). Braconid numbers declined in all the plots one day after the
insecticide applications, however negative effects were not as severe in the
selective treatments. Braconid numbers were significantly lower than the control
in six of the nine broad-spectrum treatments (esfenvalerate, permethrin,
endosulfan, phosmet, dimethoate, and methyl-parathion). Five days after the
insecticide applications, braconid numbers had increased throughout the study
75
but numbers were significantly lower in the methyl-parathion treatments than in
the untreated plots.
Mymarid adults were distributed uniformly among the plots before treatment
on August 13 (Table 11). Mymarid numbers declined in all the plots one day
after insecticide applications and no adults were found in five of the nine broad-
spectrum insecticide treatments (esfenvalerate, permethrin, phosmet,
dimethoate, and methyl-parathion) and the untreated plots. Mymarid numbers
increased five days after the insecticide applications and were highest in the
azinphos-methyl treatments. Since mymarids do not parasitize aphids, the
mymarids in these trials were primarily targeting leafhopper eggs and their
uniform distribution was related to the numerous leafhoppers among all the plots
prior to treatment.
3. Conclusions
This study evaluated compatibilities among broad-spectrum and selective
aphicides with beneficial arthropods in a field situation on potatoes. Insecticide
effects varied among insecticide classes and beneficial arthropod families.
However, the broad-spectrum pyrethroids and organophosphates had the most
negative impact on the overall beneficial arthropod complex with esfenvalerate,
permethrin, methyl parathion, and phosmet causing significant reductions in the
overall complex. Only methyl parathion negatively impacted overall parasitoid
76
populations while esfenvalerate, permethrin, phosmet, and methyl parathion
significantly reduced the overall predator complex. The organophosphate
dimethoate reduced the predator complex but its overall impact was not
significantly different from the control. Endosulfan and azinphos-methyl did not
significantly disrupt the overall (pre and post) beneficial complex in this study,
although some post treatment disruption in predators did occur. The pest
specific insecticides included in the trial (fipronil, chlorfenapyr, imidacloprid,
abamectin, spinosad, and cyromazine) did not adversely affect the beneficial
arthropod complex.
77
Table 1. Potato aphids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes

treated with foliar insecticides. Hancock Experimental Station,
Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Rate Mean aphids per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) 5 days post
Pre treatment ] da^ pos*
treatment treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 212.0 d 134.3 e 36.0 e
Permethrin 0.20 324.5 bed 191.3 de 31.8 e
Endosulfan 1.00 262.5 cd 406.5 bed 71.5 de
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 578.3 ab 829.0 a 1,226.3 a
Phosmet 1.00 302.5 bed 290.5 b-e 497.5 be
Dimethoate 0.50 413.3 a-d 285.0 b-e 371.0 bed
Methyl-parathion 0.45 398.5 a-d 376.5 bed 549.0 be
Fipronil 0.05 632.5 a 326.8 b-e 1,448.8 a
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 452.5 a-d 319.3 b-e 290.3 cde
Imidacloprid 0.05 474.0 a-d 471.5 ab 123.8 de
Abamectin 0.02 284.8 bed 188.5 cde 284.0 cde
Spinosad 0.08 506.0 abc 521 .Oab 768.3 ab
Cyromazine 0.25 530.0 abc 366.3 b-e 208.5 cde
Untreated —
444.5 a-d 446.5 abc 513.5 be
LSD 7.32 7.66 10.43
F 1.497 2.779 7.054
Prob. (F) 0.1623 0.0068 0.0001

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different
(Least Significant Difference Test, P=0.05).
Treatments were applied 8/13 after sampling. Df = 13, 51.
78
Table 2. Green peach aphids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank

potatoes treated with foliar insecticides. Hancock Experimental
Station, Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Rate Mean aphids per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) 5 days post
Pre treatment ] da^ *30Stt
treatment treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 14.0 c 3.0 c 13.8 cd
Permethrin 0.20 40.8 abc 12.0 c 12.5 d
Endosulfan 1.00 228.5 ab 324.8 a 30.3 bed
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 132.8 a 195.0 ab 504.0 a
Phosmet 1.00 18.8 be 12.8 c 64.3 bed
Dimethoate 0.50 67.8 abc 21.0c 90.5 bed
Methyl-parathion 0.45 36.0 abc 12.3 c 143.0 be
Fipronil 0.05 114.5 abc 63.0 be 444.3 a
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 31.3 abc 25.5 c 44.8 bed
Imidacloprid 0.05 35.0 abc 45.8 be 27.3 bed
Abamectin 0.02 16.0 c 13.5 c 40.5 bed
Spinosad 0.08 22.3 abc 26.5 be 114.5 bed
Cyromazine 0.25 28.5 abc 29.5 be 28.8 bed
Untreated —
51.5 abc 51.3 be 178.0 b
LSD 6.40 6.89 7.34
F 1.172 1.845 4.668
Prob. (F) 0.3347 0.0700 0.0001

79
Table 3. Potato leafhopper adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank

potatoes treated with different foliar insecticides. Hancock
Experimental Station, Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Rate Mean adults per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) 1 day post 5 days post
Pre treatment
treatment treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 150.0 b 4.3 g 2.8 ef
Permethrin 0.20 164.8 b 10 g 2.8 f
Endosulfan 1.00 159.0 b 14.5 g 25.0 cd
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 175.3 ab 84.8 cde 72.3 b
Phosmet 1.00 166.0 b 47.8 ef 80.5 b
Dimethoate 0.50 154.5 b 43.5 f 8.5 def
Methyl-parathion 0.45 170.0 ab 3.0 g 30.5 cde
Fipronil 0.05 172.8 ab 106.0 be 179.5 a
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 182.0 ab 108.5 be 77.3 b
Imidacloprid 0.05 231.3 a 62.3 def 46.5 be
Abamectin 0.02 183.8 ab 105.5 cd 239.0 a
Spinosad 0.08 196.0 ab 149.3 ab 205.8 a
Cyromazine 0.25 210.0 ab 173.8 a 228.3 a
Untreated —
171.5 ab 175.0 a 181.5a
LSD 2.31 2.43 3.05
F 1.084 23.180 20.894
Prob. (F) 0.4001 0.0001 0.0001

(least significant difference test, P=0.05).
Df = 13, 51.
80
Table 4. Potato leafhopper nymphs sampled from NewLeaf® Russet

Burbank potatoes treated with different foliar insecticides.
Hancock Experimental Station, Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Rate Mean nymphs per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) 5 days post
Pre treatment ] |30^
treatment treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 75.0 ab 117.5 be 0.5 e
Permethrin 0.20 55.0 b 80.0 c 0.3 e
Endosulfan 1.00 93.0 ab 68.8 c 0.8 e
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 94.0 a 124.5 be 2.5 e
Phosmet 1.00 125.3 a 177.5 ab 3.0 e
Dimethoate 0.50 86.3 ab 73.8 c 0.0 e
Methyl-parathion 0.45 116.0a 239.0 a 11.3 e
Fipronil 0.05 107.0 a 78.0 c 34.3 d
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 82.5 ab 94.5 c 51.3 cd
Imidacloprid 0.05 92.0 ab 104.3 be 2.0 e
Abamectin 0.02 82.5 ab 105.5 be 147.3 a
Spinosad 0.08 103.0 a 125.5 be 106.8 ab
Cyromazine 0.25 87.8 ab 82.3 c 88.8 ab
Untreated —
71.8 ab 70.0 c 72.8 be
LSD 2.61 3.54 2.84
F 1.241 2.652 15.689
Prob. (F) 0.2894 0.0093 0.0001

(least significant difference test, P=0.05).
Table 5. Total beneficial arthropods sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
insecticides. Hancock Experimental Station. Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Season total beneficials per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment Pre application Post application
(lb. a.i./A)
Predators Parasitoids Total Predators Parasitoids Total
Esfenvalerate 0.03 14.2 d 26.2 ab 40.4 c 4.0 e 9.3 be 13.3 d
Permethrin 0.20 16.8 d 29.5 ab 46.3 c 2.5 e 13.3 ab 15.8 d
Endosulfan 1.00 36.2 abc 33.8 a 70.0 ab 18.3 bed 13.0 ab 31.3 abc
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 31.2 abc 38.8 a 69.0 ab 16.5 bed 20.8 a 37.3 ab
Phosmet 1.00 21.5 cd 33.0 ab 54.5 be 12.0 d 19.0 a 31.0 abc
Dimethoate 0.50 31.0 abc 29.2 ab 60.3 abc 13.5 d 13 ab 26.5 be
Methyl-parathion 0.45 25.5 bed 20.5 b 46.0 c 15.8 cd 5.8 c 21.5 cd
Fipronil 0.05 45.0 a 32.5 ab 77.5 a 26.5 ab 17.3 a 43.8 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Least Significant Difference Test, P=0.05).
00
Table 5. (Continued). Total beneficial arthropods sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with
foliar insecticides. Hancock Experimental Station. Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Season total beneficials per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment Pre and post application Post application only
(lb. a.i./A)
Predators Parasitoids Total Predators Parasitoids Total
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 45.0 a 25.8 ab 70.8 ab 27.0 ab 11.8 ab 38.8 ab
Imidacloprid 0.05 39.5 ab 38.0 a 77.5 a 23.8 abc 13.8 ab 37.5 ab
Abamectin 0.02 32.5 abc 27.8 ab 60.3 abc 17.3 bed 14.5 ab 31.8 abc
Spinosad 0.08 43.0 a 30.0 ab 73.0 ab 27.8 ab 16.3 ab 44.0 a
Cyromazine 0.25 44.0 a 38.0 a 82.0 a 23.8 abc 17.8 a 41.5 a
Untreated —
43.0 a 28.2 ab 71.3 ab 32.5 a 14.0 ab 46.5 a
LSD 1.36 1.26 1.40 1.13 1.07 1.22
F 4.248 1.119 3.044 8.502 2.160 5.469
Prob. (F) 0.0002 0.3732 0.0036 0.0001 0.0319 0.0001

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Least Significant Difference Test,
P=0.05).
Table 6. Total predators sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar insecticides. Hancock
Experimental Station. Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Season total predators per vacuum sample

(lb. a.i./A)
Nabids Anthocorids Spiders Syrphids Chrysopids Coccinellids Total
Esfenvalerate 0.03 0.0 c 1.5c 5.5 abc 0.0 a 3.0 be 4.2 c 14.2 d
Permethrin 0.20 0.2 c 2.5 abc 2.2 c 0.0 a 2.2 c 9.5 c 16.8 d
Endosulfan 1.00 1.0 abc 3.2 abc 6.0 ab 0.5 a 6.2 ab 19.2 ab 36.2 abc
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 1.8 ab 4.0 abc 6.2 ab 0.0 a 8.0 a 11.2 be 31.2 abc
Phosmet 1.00 1.8 ab 4.2 abc 4.2 abc 0.0 a 6.0 abc 5.2 c 21.5 cd
Dimethoate 0.50 1.0 abc 4.5 ab 7.5 ab 0.2 a 6.5 abc 11.2 be 31.0 abc
Methyl-parathion 0.45 0.5 c 3.2 abc 3.5 be 0.2 a 6.8 abc 11.2 be 25.5 bed
Fipronil 0.05 0.5 c 6.0 a 5.5 abc 0.0 a 7.8 a 25.2 a 45.0 a
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Least Significant Difference Test, P=0.05)
Table 6. (Continued). Total predators sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
Season total predators per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment
(lb. a.i./A)
Nabids Anthocorids Spiders Syrphids Chrysopids Coccinellids Total
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 0.8 be 3.2 abc 6.8 ab 0.0 a 5.0 abc 29.2 a 45.0 a
Imidacloprid 0.05 0.2 c 2.0 be 8.0 a 0.5 a 7.5 a 21.2 ab 39.5 ab
Abamectin 0.02 0.5 c 4.0 abc 3.5 be 0.5 a 4.5 abc 19.5 ab 32.5 abc
Spinosad 0.08 1.0 abc 3.0 abc 5.2 abc 0.0 a 6.8 abc 27.0 a 43.0 a
Cyromazine 0.25 0.5 c 5.0 ab 4.0 abc 0.0 a 7.2 ab 27.2 a 44.0 a
Untreated —
2.0 a 2.5 abc 5.2 abc 0.5 a 4.2 abc 28.5 a 43.0 a
LSD 0.40 0.86 0.76 0.25 0.87 1.33 1.36
F 2.554 1.093 1.400 1.140 1.384 5.729 4.248
Prob. (F) 0.0119 0.3930 0.2031 0.3578 0.2109 0.0001 0.0002

00
85
Table 7. Coccinellidae sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated

with foliar insecticides. Hancock Experimental Station, Hancock, Wl,
1997.
Mean coccinellids per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment 1 day 5 days
(lb. a.i./A) Pre Season Total
post post
treatment total post trt.
treatment treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 3.8 c 0.3 g 0.3 d 4.2 c 0.5 f
Permethrin 0.20 8.3 abc 1.3 fg 0.0 d 9.5 c 1.3 ef
Endosulfan 1.00 7.8 abc 5.8 a-e 5.8 be 19.2 ab 11.5 bed
Azinphos-
0.37 5.8 abc 4.0 b-f 1.5 cd 11.2 be 5.5 de
methyl
Phosmet 1.00 3.3 c 1.3 efg 0.8 d 5.2 c 2.0 ef
Dimethoate 0.50 6.0 abc 3.8 c-g 1.5 cd 11.2 be 5.3 de

Methyl-
0.45 5.5 abc 3.0 d-g 2.8 cd 11.2 be 5.8 de
parathion
Fipronil 0.05 10.8 a 5.5 a-e 9.0 ab 25.2 a 14.5 abc
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 10.0 a 8.0 abc 11.3 ab 29.2 a 19.3 ab
Imidacloprid 0.05 8.3 abc 4.0 b-f 9.0 ab 21.2 ab 13.0 be
Abamectin 0.02 9.5 ab 4.5 b-f 5.5 be 19.5 ab 10.0 cd
Spinosad 0.08 7.0 abc 9.0 ab 11.0 ab 27.0 a 20.0 ab
Cyromazine 0.25 11.0a 6.5 a-d 9.8 ab 27.2 a 16.3 abc
Untreated —
4.8 be 10.8 a 13.0 a 28.5 a 23.8 a
LSD 0.99 0.97 1.09 1.33 1.12
F 1.782 3.544 6.065 5.729 9.230

Prob. (F) 0.0816 0.0011 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Least
Significant Difference Test, P=0.05).
86
Table 8. Chrysopidae sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated

with foliar insecticides. Hancock Experimental Station, Hancock, Wl,
1997.
Mean chrysopids per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment 5 days
(lb. a.i./A) Pre 1 day post Season Total
treatment treatment post
treatment total post trt.
Esfenvalerate 0.03 1.8 abc 0.3 b 1.0 abc 3.0 be 1.3 de
Permethrin 0.20 1.5 be 0.3 b 0.5 c 2.2 c 0.8 e
Endosulfan 1.00 4.0 a 0.5 b 1.8 abc 6.2 ab 2.3 b-e

Azinphos-
0.37 3.5 ab 1.0 ab 3.5 a 8.0 a 4.5 abc
methyl
Phosmet 1.00 2.5 abc 0.5 b 3.0 abc 6.0 abc 3.5 a-e
Dimethoate 0.50 3.0 abc 1.5 ab 2.0 abc 6.5 abc 3.5 a-e
Methyl-
0.45 1.5c 1.5 ab 3.8 ab 6.8 abc 5.3 ab
parathion
Fipronil 0.05 2.3 abc 1.8 ab 3.8 a 7.8 a 5.5 a
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 1.8 abc 1.0 ab 2.3 abc 5.0 abc 3.3 a-e
Imidacloprid 0.05 3.0 abc 1.0 ab 3.5 a 7.5 a 4.5 a-d
Abamectin 0.02 1.5 be 1.3 ab 1.8 abc 4.5 abc 3.0 a-e
Spinosad 0.08 3.5 abc 2.0 a 1.3 abc 6.8 abc 3.3 a-e
Cyromazine 0.25 4.0 a 1.3 ab 2.0 abc 7.2 ab 3.3 a-e
Untreated —
2.8 abc 0.8 ab 0.8 be 4.2 abc 1.5 cde
LSD 0.62 0.49 0.77 0.87 0.82

F 1.297 1.100 1.369 1.384 1.575
Prob. (/=) 0.2560 0.3879 0.2179 0.2109 0.1351
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Least
Significant Difference Test, P=0.05).
Treatments were applied 8/13 after sampling. Df = 13, 51..
Table 9. Total parasitoids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar insecticides.
Hancock Experimental Station. Hancock, Wl, 1997.
Season total parasitoids per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment
(lb. a.i./A)
Braconids Pteromalids Eulophids Encyrtids Mymarids Total
Esfenvalerate 0.03 14.0 be 1.2 b 1.0a 1.2 a 8.8 ab 26.2 ab
Permethrin 0.20 18.0 ab 1.5b 0.0 a 0.0 b 10.0 ab 29.5 ab
Endosulfan 1.00 19.0 ab 0.8 b 0.5 a 0.8 ab 12.8 ab 33.8 a
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 24.0 ab 1.8b 0.0 a 0.5 ab 11.5 ab 38.8 a
Phosmet 1.00 22.2 ab 1.0b 0.2 a 0.8 ab 8.8 ab 33.0 ab
Dimethoate 0.50 15.8 abc 1.8b 0.5 a 0.0 b 11.2 ab 29.2 ab
Methyl-parathion 0.45 9.0 c 1.0b 0.2 a 0.2 ab 10.0 ab 20.5 b
Fipronil 0.05 19.5 ab 5.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 ab 7.8 ab 32.5 ab
00
-vl
Table 9. (Continued). Total parasitoids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
Season total parasitoids per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment
(lb. a.i./A)
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 14.5 abc 1.2b 0.0 a 0.2 ab 9.8 ab 25.8 ab
Imidacloprid 0.05 22.8 a 2.5 b 0.8 a 0.8 ab 11.2 ab 38.0 a
Abamectin 0.02 15.2 abc 1.2 b 0.2 a 0.2 ab 10.8 ab 27.8 ab
Spinosad 0.08 16.8 ab 2.2 b 1.0 a 0.8 ab 9.2 ab 30.0 ab
Cyromazine 0.25 20.5 ab 2.5 b 0.5 a 0.2 ab 14.2 a 38.0 a
Untreated —
19.0 ab 2.2 b 0.2 a 0.0 b 6.8 b 28.2 ab
LSD 1.01 0.56 0.39 0.38 1.13 1.26
F 1.817 2.031 0.885 0.987 0.657 1.119
Prob. (F) 0.0750 0.0440 0.5749 0.4809 0.7908 0.3732

89
Table 10. Braconidae adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank

Mean adults per vacuum sample

Rate
Treatment 1 day 5 days
(lb. a.i./A) Pre Season
post post
treatment total
treatment treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 7.8 abc 0.3 de 6.0 bed 14.0 be
Permethrin 0.20 8.3 abc 0.5 de 9.3 a-d 18.0 ab
Endosulfan 1.00 10.0 ab 0.3 de 8.8 a-d 19.0 ab
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 10.3 abc 1.3 cde 12.5 ab 24.0 ab
Phosmet 1.00 7.5 be 0.5 de 14.3 a 22.2 ab
Dimethoate 0.50 8.0 abc 1.0 de 6.8 bed 15.8 abc
Methyl-parathion 0.45 4.5 c 0.0 e 4.5 d 9.0 c
Fipronil 0.05 7.8 abc 1.5 bed 10.3 abc 19.5 ab
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 5.8 be 1.5 bed 7.3 bed 14.5 abc
Imidacloprid 0.05 14.0 a 3.3 a 5.5 cd 22.8 a
Abamectin 0.02 7.3 be 1.8 a-d 6.3 bed 15.2 abc
Spinosad 0.08 7.3 be 3.0 ab 6.5 bed 16.8 ab
Cyromazine 0.25 9.3 abc 3.3 ab 8.0 a-d 20.5 ab
Untreated —
7.0 be 2.8 abc 9.3 abc 19.0 ab
LSD 1.01 0.51 1.00 1.01

F 1.134 4.115 1.628 1.817
Prob. (F) 0.3621 0.0003 0.1188 0.0750

90
Table 11. Mymaridae adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank


Rate
Treatment 5 days
(lb. a l l A) Pre 1 day post Season
post
treatment treatment total
treatment
Esfenvalerate 0.03 6.8 a 0.0 b 2.0 bed 8.8 ab
Permethrin 0.20 6.5 a 0.0 b 3.5 a-d 10.0 ab
Endosulfan 1.00 9.0 a 0.8 a 3.0 a-d 12.8 ab
Azinphos-methyl 0.37 5.3 a 0.8 a 5.5 a 11.5 ab
Phosmet 1.00 5.5 a 0.0 b 3.3 a-d 8.8 ab
Dimethoate 0.50 7.0 a 0.0 b 4.3 abc 11.2 ab
Methyl-parathion 0.45 8.8 a 0.0 b 1.3 cd 10.0 ab
Fipronil 0.05 5.0 a 0.3 ab 2.5 a-d 7.8 ab
Chlorfenapyr 0.08 7.0 a 0.5 ab 2.3 a-d 9.8 ab
Imidacloprid 0.05 7.8 a 0.5 ab 3.0 a-d 11.2 ab
Abamectin 0.02 5.3 a 0.3 ab 5.3 ab 10.8 ab
Spinosad 0.08 5.5 a 0.8 a 3.0 a-d 9.2 ab
Cyromazine 0.25 9.3 a 0.3 ab 4.8 ab 14.2 a
Untreated —
5.8 a 0.0 b 1.0 d 6.8 b
LSD 1.12 0.28 0.84 1.13
F 0.605 1.576 1.284 0.657
Prob. (F) 0.8349 0.1346 0.2636 0.7908
91
C. EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDES TARGETED AT APHIDS ON

BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS ON POTATOES. HANCOCK
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, HANCOCK, Wl, 1997.
A range of registered and experimental insecticides with known aphicidal
activity was evaluated for effects on aphids and beneficial insects on potatoes.
Seventeen treatments were arranged in a stacked, randomized complete block
experimental design and plots consisted of six 60-foot rows (36 inch row
spacings), in four replications that were separated by 10’ planted alleys. The
following treatments were evaluated: pirimicarb (Pirimor® 50 DF) at rates of
0.33, 0.25, and 0.188 lb. a.i./A; pymetrozine (Fulfill® 50 WP) at rates of 0.134,
0.088, and 0.067 lb. a.i./A; pymetrozine in combination with an organosilicant
(Silwet®0.25% v/v) at rates of 0.25 and 0.188 lb. a.i./A; imidacloprid (Provado®
2F) at the rate of 0.05 lb. a.i./A; methamidophos (Monitor® 4E) at the rate of 1.0
lb. a.i./A; esfenvalerate (Asana® 0.66EC) at the rate of 0.05 lb. ai/A; endosulfan
(Thiodan® 3 EC) at the rate of 1.0 lb. ai/A; dimethoate 4E at the rate of 0.5 lb.
a.i./A; triazamate (Aphistar® 50WP) at 0.25 and 0.125 lb. ai/A in combination
with paraffinic oil (Penetrator plus®) at the rate of 1 qt. cp./A; lambdacyhalothrin
(Warrior® 1 EC) at the rate of 0.01 lb. a.i./A in combination with pirimicarb at the
rate of 0.188 lb. a.i./A; and an untreated control.
Russet Burbank NewLeaf® B sized potatoes were planted in a solid block at
the Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wisconsin on May 12 with
92
a Gallenberg 2 row planter. NewLeaf® potatoes were planted to prevent potato
defoliation from Colorado potato beetles and the subsequent application of
insecticides that would have adversely affected aphid and beneficial insect
populations in the study. Foliar aphicides were applied with a C 02 backpack
sprayer with a six-foot boom equipped with four hollow cone nozzles (TXVS10)
delivering 20 gallons per acre while operating at 30 psi. Plot maintenance
(weed and disease control, irrigation and soil fertility) was conducted by
Hancock Agricultural Research Station staff following commercial practices for
the area. Yield and grade were not taken from this study.
Aphid populations were monitored every 2-5 days from August 6 through
August 25. Twenty-five leaves were collected from the central two rows of each
treatment (centrally on the plant) and the total numbers of potato and green
peach aphids were recorded. Vacuum sampling monitored beneficial insects.
Vacuum samples consist of sucking insects from the potato crop canopy (from
mid plant areas-vertically) with a modified leaf blower (Homelite HB180V) while
walking in the center two rows of each treatment for a period of 50 seconds.
Samples were placed into sample cups containing 70% alcohol and examined
later under magnification. Potato leafhopper populations were monitored weekly
by sweep net and leaf count sample techniques and treatment was applied to
prevent crop destruction. Malathion (Malathion® 57EC) was applied at 0.625 lb.
a.i./A on July 3 to reduce potato leafhopper adult numbers.
93
Aphids and beneficial arthropods were left undisturbed by insecticide
applications (except malathion application on July 3) and allowed to increase to
high levels throughout the study. Aphicide treatments were applied (August 7),
following an insect precount on August 6. Subsequent vacuum and leaf count
samples were taken 1, 3, and 7 days post application. A second insecticide
application occurred on August 18, 10 days following the initial insecticide
application (August 6) and insect surveys were conducted at 1, 3, and 7-days
post application.
Data were analyzed using Agricultural Research Manager version 6.0
2. Results and Discussion
Potato aphids infested the plots in July and numbers during the August 8
precount ranged from 2.8 to 30.5 aphids per sample (Table 12). Potato aphid
numbers increased steadily in the untreated plots after the precount, peaking on
August 25 at 89.5 aphids per sample.
Pirimicarb applied at 0.33 and 0.25 lb. a.i./A reduced potato aphid numbers
to levels significantly lower than the untreated plots and provided greater
94
residual activity than pirimicarb applied at 0.188 lb. a.i./A. Lambdacyhalothrin
did not significantly enhance the efficacy of the 0.188 lb. a.i./A rate of pirimicarb.
Pymetrozine, which acts as a feeding deterrent, did not reduce potato aphid
numbers immediately and populations did not decline until one week after
application (Table 12) and then remained significantly lower than the untreated
plots on the remaining sample dates. Potato aphid control was enhanced when
an organosilicant was added to pymetrozine at 0.067 and 0.088 lb. a.i./A
compared to those rates without the organosilicant.
Initially, imidacloprid provided effective aphid control, but by four and seven
days after application aphid numbers were similar to those in the untreated plots
(Table 12). The second application of imidacloprid reduced aphid numbers to
levels significantly lower than the untreated plots and kept aphid numbers low
during the remainder of the season.
Methamidophos, triazimate at both rates, and lambdacyhalothrin combined
with pirimicarb immediately reduced aphid numbers and kept them significantly
lower than the untreated plots for the duration of the study (Table 12).
Dimethoate significantly reduced aphid numbers within one day of
application and numbers were effectively reduced for a week after each
application (Table 12).
Esfenvalerate and endosulfan reduced aphid numbers after application but
numbers quickly recovered in the plots and were similar to numbers in the
95
untreated plots (Table 12). Similar trends were seen after the second
application on August 18.
Variable green peach aphid numbers during the precount on August 8
ranged from 6.8 to 29.8 aphids per sample (Table 13). Green peach aphid
numbers rapidly increased in the untreated plots during mid to late August and
peaked at 132.0 aphids per sample on August 21. Aphid numbers declined in
the untreated plots on August 25 but were still high at 119.5 aphids per sample.
Methamidophos reduced green peach aphid numbers immediately after
application and numbers remained below one aphid per 25 leaves on the
remaining sample dates.
Pymetrozine also effectively controlled green peach aphids but at a slower
rate than most aphicides used. The addition of an organosilicant did not
significantly increase efficacy at the lower rates but the numbers were slightly
lower in those treatments (Table 13).
Imidacloprid, dimethoate, and pirimicarb at all rates, effectively reduced
green peach aphid numbers and kept them below threshold (1/leaf) and
untreated aphid levels during the remaining sample dates (Table 13).
Lambdacyhalothrin did not enhance pirimicarb efficacy.
Esfenvalerate and endosulfan reduced green peach aphid populations
significantly but were not as effective as other insecticides and populations
quickly recovered after initial reduction.
96
Triazimate at both rates reduced aphid numbers after application, however
the low rate of triazimate persisted for only one week after the second
application (Table 13).
Beneficial insects were numerous in the plots and total numbers from seven
sampling dates (1 pre and 6 post treatment) are presented (Table 14) to parallel
a typical commercial situation where pest and beneficial populations build and
are then disrupted differentially by insecticidal interventions. Total numbers of
both parasitoids and predators were highest in the untreated plots, indicating
that all the insecticides evaluated had some negative impact, either directly from
insecticide toxicity or as a result of reduced prey availability (Table 14). Both
predators and parasitoids were abundant in the plots but parasitoids
outnumbered predators two to one. Total parasitoid numbers were significantly
lower than the control in plots treated with lambdacyhalothrin/pirimicarb,
pymetrozine, triazamate (low rate) and methamidophos, which had the most
negative impact. Since negative impacts on beneficial insects can result directly
from toxicity and indirectly through prey removal, it is not possible to distinguish
which impacts are most important in regulating beneficial populations. However,
methamidophos did not provide significantly superior aphid control to several of
the specific aphicides in the trial (e.g. pirimicarb, pymetrozine, and triazamate)
and yet reduced parasite numbers significantly and thus direct toxicity is
assumed to play a key role with the compound. Likewise the
97
lambdacyhalothrin/pirimicarb treatment significantly reduced beneficial numbers
(parasitoids and predators) in comparison to pirimicarb used alone without
impacting aphid control and thus lambda cyhalothrins impact was largely direct
toxicity. Other treatments did not vary greatly in parasitoid impacts with 60-90
adults per sample compared to 99 adults per sample in the control indicating
that prey removal was also an important factor in impacting parasitoid
populations. It was encouraging to note that several of the broad-spectrum
insecticides included in the trial (e.g. esfenvalerate, endosulfan, and dimethoate)
which would be predicted to negatively impact beneficials, did not do so with
parasitoids. These materials provided poor aphid control however and prey
availability may have been sufficient to offset short-term toxicity.
Predator populations that normally increase in response to high aphid
populations where impacted more severely than parasitoids (Table 14). The
lambdacyhalothrin/pirimicarb, dimethoate, endosulfan, esfenvalerate,
methamidophos, and imidacloprid treatments all reduced predator populations
by over 50%. These reductions would be related primarily to toxicity since two of
the largest reductions occurred following application of methamidophos (74%),
which had the lower prey availability, and esfenvalerate (84%) where aphid prey
availability was high. Treatments of pirimicarb, pymetrozine, and triazamate,
which are primarily aphicides, resulted in reduced predator populations that
were assumed to be primarily due to reduced prey availability.
98
Five parasitoid families were collected during sampling: braconids,
pteromalids, eulophids, encyrtids, and mymarids (Table 15). Total parasitoid
numbers were high in all the treatments except methamidophos, which had 64%
fewer adults than the untreated plots. Total parasitoid numbers ranged from
35.5 adults in the methamidophos treatments to 98.8 adults in the untreated
plots.
Braconid adults were the most commonly collected parasitoid and total adult
numbers ranged from 16.8 to 50.0 adults (Table 15). Methamidophos had the
most negative affect on braconid numbers while pirimicarb (0.33 and 0.25 lb.
a.i./A) and triazamate at both rates had a smaller impact presumably as a result
of reduced prey availability. Braconid numbers in the remaining treatments were
not significantly lower than the untreated plots. Braconid numbers declined in all
treatments after the first insecticide application on August 7 and in eleven of the
seventeen treatments after the second insecticide applications on August 18
(Table 16). High total braconid numbers in the broad-spectrum esfenvalerate,
endosulfan, and dimethoate treatments resulted from poor late season aphid
control that increased prey numbers.
Mymarid adults, which were primarily targeting leafhopper eggs, were also
collected in large numbers that ranged from 14.5-40.5 total adults per sample
(Table 15). Methamidophos had the most negative affect on mymarids although
pymetrozine (0.067 and 0.134 lb. a.i./A) alone and combined with an
99
organosilicant (0.067 lb. a.i./A), esfenvalerate, endosulfan, and
lambdacyhalothrin combined with pirimicarb also negatively affected mymarid
numbers. Eleven treatments significantly reduced mymarid numbers after the
first insecticide application and six treatments significantly reduced mymarid
numbers after the second insecticide applications (Table 17). With the
exception of pymetrozine (0.134 lb. a.i./A) and pirimicarb (0.188 lb. a.i./A), the
reduction in mymarid populations paralleled the efficacy of leafhopper control
(Appendix 1, Table 14).
Five predator families and spiders were collected from the plots: nabids,
anthocorids, chrysopid, coccinellids, and syrphids (Table 18). Predators were
collected in lower numbers than parasitoids and were most severely impacted by
the broad-spectrum treatments with methamidophos, esfenvalerate and
lambdacyhalothrin /pirimicarb treatments reducing predators by over 70% (Table
18). This reduction was assumed to result primarily from direct toxicity since the
lambdacyhalothrin combination with pirimicarb had 72% less predators than
pirimicarb alone and yet provided similar levels of aphid control. The
methamidophos treatment had low prey availability with good aphid control but
this did not differ significantly from the high rates of pirimicarb where predator
populations did not differ from the control. The reduction in total predators by
broad-spectrum materials was also evident in individual families with nabids,
100
anthocorids, spiders, chrysopids, and coccinellids negatively impacted by
lambdacyhalothrin, esfenvalerate and methamidophos (Table 18).
Coccinellidae (ladybird beetles) were commonly collected from the study and
numbers ranged from 1.2 to 23.2 total coccinellids (Table 18). Coccinellid
numbers were significantly reduced in most treatments with impacts in plots
treated with esfenvalerate, dimethoate, methamidophos, imidacloprid, and
lambdacyhalothrin combined with pirimicarb being most severe. Pirimicarb, at
0.188 and 0.25 lb. a.i./A, alone did not reduce coccinellid numbers significantly
demonstrating that direct toxicity was the primary factor in lambdacyhalothrin
disruption. Coccinellid numbers declined in all the treatments after the first
insecticide application on August 7 (Table 19) and numbers never recovered in
the methamidophos, esfenvalerate, dimethoate, and lambdacyhalothrin
combined with pirimicarb treatments during the rest of the study. These
negative impacts on coccinellids occurred in plots where aphid control was both
good (methamidophos) and poor (esfenvalerate) and are thus likely to be related
to direct toxicity.
Spiders were also frequently collected from the study and total numbers
ranged from 3.0-14.8 spiders/sample (Table 18). Esfenvalerate, endosulfan,
methamidophos, and lambdacyhalothrin combined with pirimicarb had the
greatest impact on spiders. Spider numbers declined throughout the study after
the first insecticide application but were significantly lower in the esfenvalerate,
101
endosulfan, and lambdacyhalothrin combined with pirimicarb treatments than the
untreated plots (Table 20). Applications of pymetrozine (0.067 lb. a.i./A),
imidacloprid, methamidophos, esfenvalerate, dimethoate, and lambdacyhalothrin
combined with pirimicarb significantly reduced spider numbers after the second
insecticide applications.
3. Conclusions
This study evaluated efficacy of aphid insecticides and compatibilities of
broad-spectrum and selective aphicides with beneficial arthropods in a field
situation on potatoes.
Effective potato aphid control was achieved by all aphicides tested and
thresholds (3/10 leaves) were not surpassed. Green peach aphid control was
less effective although all treatments held populations below threshold (1/10
leaves) after two applications.
Adverse pesticide impacts on beneficial arthropod populations resulted from
both direct toxicity and from reductions in prey populations and thus all
treatments resulted in some reduction. Predator populations were more
adversely impacted than parasitoids. Broad-spectrum insecticides
methamidophos and lambdacyhalothrin (combined with pirimicarb) had the
greatest adverse impact on both parasitoids and predators. This impact resulted
largely from direct toxicity since methamidophos did not provide significantly
better prey (aphid) control than specific aphicides such as pirimicarb and yet
102
significantly reduced beneficial populations. Lambdacyhalothrin was also
directly toxic since beneficial impacts were higher with a
lambdacyhalothrin/pirimicarb combination than with the pirimicarb alone
although aphid control was similar. Other broad-spectrum materials,
esfenvalerate, endosulfan, and dimethoate had less impact on beneficials
(particularly parasitoids). The materials provided poor aphid control, which may
have served to offset toxic effects. Specific insecticides such as pirimicarb,
pymetrozine, and triazamate generally had little impact on beneficial arthropod
populations.
Table 12. Potato aphids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Agricultural Research Station, Hancock W l 1997.
Rate Mean aphids per 25 leaves

Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Pirimicarb 0.33 15.0 a-d 0.8 cd 0.5 d 2.5 b-e 0.0 d 0.0 e 4.8 be
Pirimicarb 0.25 12.5 a-d 0.5 cd 1.5 d 3.0 b-e 1.0 d 1.5 de 3.3 be
Pirimicarb 0.188 19.8 abc 7.0 abc 3.0 cd 4 .0b-e 3.0 cd 1.8 de 5.3 be
Pymetrozine 0.134 21.0 abc 9.3 ab 8.5 abc 6.5 bed 16.5 b 5.5 b-e 4.5 be
Pymetrozine 0.088 2.8 d 13.5 a 13.8 a 9.5 ab 8.0 bed 14.5 be 6.3 be
1Pymetrozine 0.088 7.8 bed 2.5 bed 9.3 ab 4.3 b-e 8.8 be 0.8 e 4.0 be
Pymetrozine 0.067 10.0 a-d 5.0 a-d 9.8 ab 9.5 ab 9.5 be 11.3 bed 14.0 be
1Pymetrozine 0.067 21.8 abc 10.5 ab 13.0 ab 5.0 b-e 5.0 cd 2.0 de 1.0c
Imidacloprid 0.05 13.3 a-d 8.5 ab 11.8a 20.0 a 9.5 be 7.3 b-e 8.8 be
Methamidophos 1.0 7.5 bed 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 e 0.0 d 0.0 e 0.0 c
Means followed by same letter in a column do not significantly differ (Least Significant Difference Test, P = 0.05).
*First sample date after an insecticide application.
10rganosilicant added at the rate of 0.25% v/v.
2Paraffinic oil added at the rate of 1 qt. cp./A.
(Df = 16, 67)
Table 12. (Continued). Potato aphids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
aphicides. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wl 1997.

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) 8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Esfenvalerate 0.66 16.8 abc 4.3 bed 1.0 d 1.3 cde 15.3 be 10.3 b-e 24.8 be
Endosulfan 1.0 6.5 cd 5.3 abc 2.5 cd 15.0 abc 2.5 cd 30.0 b 17.3 be
Dimethoate 0.625 11.5 a-d 1.0 cd 1.8 d 2.0 b-e 1.8 cd 4.0 cde 4.0 be
2Triazamate 0.25 30.5 a 1.0 cd 0.0 d 0.3 de 0.3 d 1.8 e 1.8c
2Triazamate 0.125 18.8 abc 0.5 cd 4.0 bed 10.5 b-e 0.3 d 3.0 de 31.5 b
Lambdacyhalothrin
0.01 +0.188 16.3 a-d 1.0 cd 4.5 bed 6.5 b-e 0.5 d 1.8 de 6.5 be
+ Pirimicarb
Untreated —
27.5 ab 9.5 ab 20.3 a 20.5 a 53.0 a 74.3 a 89.5 a
LSD (P=0.05) 2.15 1.32 1.35 1.68 1.64 1.92 2.89
F 1.382 3.383 5.147 2.938 7.316 7.562 3.000
Prob. (F) 0.1909 0.0005 0.0001 0.0020 0.0001 0.0001 0.0017

Means in the same column followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05, Least Significant Difference test).
* First sample date after an insecticide application.
(Df =16, 67)
Table 13. Green peach aphids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides.
Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wl 1997.
Mean aphids per 25 leaves

Rate
Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Pirimicarb 0.33 10.0 ab 1.3 bed 1.8 def 2.0 b 3.8 c 1.3 c 0.8 cd
Pirimicarb 0.25 6.8 b 0.5 d 3.3 c-f 1.3b 3.5 c 2.0 c 4.0 cd
Pirimicarb 0.188 7.8 b 5.8 bed 3.3 c-f 3.3 b 1.3c 3.8 c 2.5 cd
Pymetrozine 0.134 19.3 ab 8.3 ab 17.8 ab 7.8 b 2.8 c 3.0 c 1.5 cd
Pymetrozine 0.088 9.0 ab 17.8 a 8.8 be 4.8 b 5.8 c 2.0 c 0.3 d
1Pymetrozine 0.088 8.3 ab 7.8 ab 8.5 bed 3.0 b 1.8c 2.8 c 0.3 d
Pymetrozine 0.067 12.8 ab 3.8 bed 14.8 b 15.0 b 8.8 be 4.8 c 1.8 cd
1Pymetrozine 0.067 15.5 ab 6.3 abc 7.3 b-e 3.5 b 3.3 c 1.0 c 0.0 d
Imidacloprid 0.05 12.5 ab 3.0 bed 10.0 be 3.8 b 5.8 c 6.3 c 2.8 cd
Methamidophos 1.0 10.8 ab 0.0 d 0.8 f 0.3 b 0.0 c 0.3 c 0.0 d

* First sample date after an insecticide application
(Df =16, 67)
o
cn
Table 13. (Continued). Green peach aphids sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with
foliar aphicides. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wl 1997.

Rate
Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Esfenvalerate 0.66 14.0 ab 4.5 bed 4.8 c-f 11.5b 10.5 be 39.5 b 61.5 b
Endosulfan 1.0 7.8 b 4.0 bed 11.0 be 10.8 b 43.5 b 12.0 c 35.5 bed
Dimethoate 0.625 8.5 b 1.3 cd 8.5 bed 7.3 b 11.0 be 5.0 c 23.0 be
2Triazamate 0.25 16.3 ab 2.0 bed 5.8 c-f 9.8 b 0.8 c 0.8 c 2.5 cd
2Triazamate 0.125 13.8 ab 1.0 cd 1.3 ef 9.8 b 0.0 c 13.3 be 34.0 bed
Lambdacyhalothrin
0.01 +0.188 17.5 ab 1.3 bed 6.0 c-f 1.8b 4.3 c 5.5 c 28.0 be
+ Pirimicarb
Untreated —
29.8 a 7.5 ab 31.5a 47.3 a 117.3a 132.0 a 119.5a
LSD (P=0.05) 2.17 1.43 1.44 2.50 2.64 2.43 3.38
F 0.738 2.427 4.663 1.627 5.518 7.410 4.954
Prob. (F) 0.7418 0.0092 0.0001 0.0978 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Means in the same column followed by same letter do not significantly differ
(Df =16, 67)..
107
Table 14. Total beneficials sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank

potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock Agricultural
Research Station, Hancock W l 1997.
Rate Season total beneficials

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) Predators Parasitoids Total
Pirimicarb 0.33 39.5 be 76.0 abc 115.5 be
Pirimicarb 0.25 39.5 b 76.8 abc 116.3 be
Pirimicarb 0.188 44.2 ab 89.8 ab 133.9 ab
Pymetrozine 0.134 33.5 b-f 72.8 be 106.3 bed
Pymetrozine 0.088 35.3 b-e 73.0 be 108.3 bed
1Pymetrozine 0.088 29.6 c-f 75.5 abc 105.1 bed
Pymetrozine 0.067 35.3 b-e 65.5 be 100.8 cd
1Pymetrozine 0.067 35.3 b-e 60.3 c 95.5 cde
Imidacloprid 0.05 24.6 f 76.8 abc 101.4 cd
Methamidophos 1.0 13.5 gh 35.5 d 49.0 f
Esfenvalerate 0.66 8.3 h 73.3 abc 81.5 de
Endosulfan 1.0 26.2 ef 74.5 abc 100.7 cd
Dimethoate 0.625 15.5 g 77.3 abc 92.8 cde
2Triazamate 0.25 28.5 def 75.8 abc 104.3 bed
2Triazamate 0.125 37.3 bed 71.0 be 108.3 bed
Lambdacyhalothrin 0.01 +
10.4 gh 66.5 c 76.8 e
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
51.3 a 98.8 a 150.0 a
LSD 0.84 1.42 1.41
F 16.513 2.659 5.361
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.0046 0.0001
Means in the same column followed by same letter do not significantly differ
(Df =16, 67)the rate of 0.25% v/v. 2Paraffinic oil added at the rate of 1 qt.
cp./A.
Table 15. Total parasite adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides.
Season total parasitoids

Rate
Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
Pirimicarb 0.33 29.8 bed 5.2 a-d 1.8a 4.2 ab 35.0 ab 76.0 abc
Pirimicarb 0.25 27.2 cde 5.2 a-d 1.8a 2.0 be 40.5 a 76.8 abc
Pirimicarb 0.188 40.2 abc 5.5 a-d 1.8a 2.5 abc 39.5 a 89.5 ab
Pymetrozine 0.134 35.0 a-d 6.8 abc 1.2 ab 3.8 abc 26.0 a-e 72.8 be
Pymetrozine 0.088 34.0 a-d 4.2 c-f 1.2 ab 3.0 abc 30.5 a-d 73.0 be
1Pymetrozine 0.088 36.8 a-d 3.2 def 0.8 ab 3.8 abc 31.0 a-d 75.5 abc
Pymetrozine 0.067 34.8 a-d 2.0 f 1.5 ab 3.8 abc 23.5 b-e 65.5 be
1Pymetrozine 0.067 31.0 bed 4.0 b-f 0.8 ab 2.5 abc 22.0 b-e 60.2 c
Imidacloprid 0.05 33.5 bed 6.8 abc 1.8a 4.8 a 30.0 a-d 76.8 abc
Methamidophos 1.0 16.8 e 2.0 f 0.2 b 2.0 be 14.5 e 35.5 d
1Organosilicant added at the rate of 0.25% v/v.
(Df =16, 67)
o
00
Table 15. (Continued). Total parasitoid adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with
foliar aphicides. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wl 1997.
Season total parasitoids

Rate
Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
Esfenvalerate 0.66 44.2 ab 4.5 b-e 1.0 ab 3.5 abc 20.0 de 73.2 abc
Endosulfan 1.0 38.5 a-d 8.5 a 1.2 ab 5.0 a 21.2 cde 74.5 abc
Dimethoate 0.625 35.5 a-d 4.5 b-f 0.8 ab 2.0 be 34.5 abc 77.2 abc
2Triazamate 0.25 27.8 cde 8.2 a 1.2 ab 3.5 abc 35.0 abc 75.8 abc
2Triazamate 0.125 26.8 de 7.2 ab 1.5 ab 1.8c 33.8 abc 71.0 be
35.5 bed 4.0 b-f 1.5 ab 2.5 abc 23.0 cde 66.5 c
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
50.0 a 6.0 a-d 2.0 a 3.2 abc 37.5 a 98.8 a
LSD (P=0.05) 1.25 0.66 0.48 0.65 1.26 1.42
F 2.288 3.076 0.913 1.240 2.645 2.659
Prob. (F) 0.0139 0.0013 0.5599 0.2747 0.0048 0.0046

(Df = 16, 67).
o
CO
Table 16. Braconidae adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Agricultural Research Station, Hancock Wl 1997.

Rate
Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Pirimicarb 0.33 2.0 b 0.3 b 5.3 a-e 3.5 a 4.0 bed 5.3 bed 9.5 bed
Pirimicarb 0.25 4.0 ab 1.5 ab 2.8 de 5.8 a 4.0 bed 3.5 cd 5.8 de
Pirimicarb 0.188 4.8 ab 1.3 ab 5.8 a-d 6.8 a 6.3 abc 6.3 abc 9.3 bed
Pymetrozine 0.134 4.8 ab 0.5 b 5.8 a-e 6.8 a 3.8 cd 5.0 bed 8.5 cd
Pymetrozine 0.088 3.8 ab 0.5 b 6.3 abc 4.0 a 8.0 ab 4.8 bed 6.8 cde
1Pymetrozine 0.088 3.5 ab 1.0 ab 6.0 a-d 4.8 a 5.8 abc 5.3 bed 10.5 bed
Pymetrozine 0.067 5.5 a 0.8 b 6.0 abc 4.0 a 5.0 abc 6.3 abc 7.3 cde
1Pymetrozine 0.067 4.5 ab 1.3 ab 2.8 cde 5.5 a 2.5 cd 6.3 abc 8.3 cd
Imidacloprid 0.05 3.3 ab 0.8 b 4.8 a-e 5.3 a 3.5 bed 4.3 bed 11.8 abc
Methamidophos 1.0 3.5 ab 0.5 b 2.3 e 3.0 a 2.5 cd 2.0 d 3.0 e
(Df =16, 67)
o
Table 16. (Continued). Braconidae adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
aphicides. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock W l 1997.

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) 8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Esfenvalerate 0.66 4.3 ab 1.0 ab 7.0 a 6.3 a 3.3 cd 7.0 abc 15.5ab
Endosulfan 1.0 4.3 ab 0.0 b 7.5 a 5.0 a 3.3 bed 6.3 abc 12.3 abc
Dimethoate 0.625 3.5 ab 0.8 b 2.8 b-e 3.3 a 0.5 d 6.3 abc 18.5 a
2Triazamate 0.25 4.0 ab 1.0b 4.3 a-e 4.0 a 2.0 cd 3.8 bed 8.8 bed
2Triazamate 0.125 3.5 ab 0.5 b 4.3 a-e 2.5 a 5.5 abc 3.8 bed 6.8 cde
4.0 ab 0.0 b 4.3 a-e 5.0 a 3.3 cd 7.8 ab 11.3 a-d
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
5.5 a 2.8 a 6.8 ab 6.3 a 10.0 a 10.8 a 8.0 cd
LSD (P=0.05) 0.79 0.52 0.85 0.98 0.95 0.86 0.98
F 0.465 1.219 1.570 0.594 2.248 1.642 2.728
Prob. (F) 0.9521 0.2887 0.1147 0.8724 0.0157 0.0937 0.0037

(Df= 16, 57)
Table 17. Mymaridae adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides.

Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Pirimicarb 0.33 7.0 be 2.3 a-d 4.0 abc 3.5 a-e 4.8 a 5.8 ab 7.8 a
Pirimicarb 0.25 9.0 be 4.5 a 4.0 abc 8.3 a 4.5 a 5.0 abc 5.3 a
Pirimicarb 0.188 12.0 ab 3.8 a 4.5 abc 6.0 ab 3.8 ab 5.3 abc 4.3 a
Pymetrozine 0.134 8.5 be 0.8 cde 2.3 b-e 4.0 a-d 0.8 cd 3.3 b-e 6.5 a
Pymetrozine 0.088 8.0 be 1.0 cde 2.3 cde 6.0 abc 2.8 a-d 4.5 a-d 6.0 a
1Pymetrozine 0.088 11.3 ab 0.5 de 3.3 a-d 5.5 abc 2.3 a-d 4.3 a-d 4.0 a
Pymetrozine 0.067 6.3 c 1.3 b-e 5.5 ab 2.3 b-e 1.3 bed 2.8 b-e 4.3 a
1Pymetrozine 0.067 6.0 c 0.3 e 1.5 cde 3.3 a-e 1.8 a-d 3.8 a-e 5.5 a
Imidacloprid 0.05 9.3 be 3.0 abc 3.0 a-e 3.5 a-e 2.5 a-d 2.8 b-e 6.0 a
Methamidophos 1.0 6.8 be 0.3 e 1.0 de 2.0 cde 0.3 d 1.3 de 3.0 a
1Organosi Meant added at the rate of 0.25% v/v.
(Df= 16, 67)
K>
Table 17. (Continued). Mymaridae adults sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) 8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Esfenvalerate 0.66 11.8 abc 1.0 cde 0.5 e 0.8 de 1.0 bed 0.8 e 4.3 a
Endosulfan 1.0 11.8 abc 0.3 e 0.8 de 0.8 e 0.3 d 2.0 cde 5.5 a
Dimethoate 0.625 16.3 a 0.8 de 1.0 de 2.0 cde 1.8 a-d 5.0 abc 7.8 a
2Triazamate 0.25 11.0 abc 0.8 de 4.8 abc 3.5 a-e 2.8 a-d 7.3 ab 5.0 a
2Triazamate 0.125 10.3 abc 2.3 a-d 4.3 abc 5.5 bed 2.8 a-d 5.0 abc 3.8 a
10.0 be 0.0 e 0.5 e 2.3 b-e 0.8 cd 2.5 b-e 7.0 a
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
10.5 abc 3.3 ab 5.8 a 3.3 b-e 3.3 abc 7.5 a 4.0 a
LSD (P=0.05) 0.92 0.59 0.74 0.91 0.80 0.86 1.16
F 1.465 3.668 3.112 1.891 1.753 2.143 0.471
Prob. (F) 0.1531 0.0002 0.0012 0.0455 0.0682 0.0215 0.9493

*First sample date after an insecticide application
(Df = 16, 57).
CO
Table 18. Total predators sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Rate Mean total predators

Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
Nabids Anthocorids Spiders Chrysopids Coccinellids Syrphids Total
Pirimicarb 0.33 3.2 a 6.8 ab 13.5 a 11.5 a-d 14.8 be 0.0 b 49.8 abc
Pirimicarb 0.25 2.0 abc 7.8 ab 12.8 a 9.8 cde 15.2 abc 0.0 b 47.5 be
Pirimicarb 0.188 1.5 a-e 9.5 a 14.8 a 10.8 a-e 17.5 ab 0.5 ab 54.5 ab
Pymetrozine 0.134 1.8 a-d 6.5 ab 13.5 a 13.0 abc 13.5 bed 0.8 ab 49.0 abc
Pymetrozine 0.088 1.0 b-f 9.0 a 12.0 a 9.8 cde 13.8 be 0.0 b 45.5 be
1Pymetrozine 0.088 0.8 b-f 7.8 ab 10.5 ab 12.0 abc 8.8 cde 0.3 b 40.0 cd
Pymetrozine 0.067 1.2 b-f 8.5 ab 11.8a 16.5 ab 12.2 bed 0.0 b 50.2 abc
1Pymetrozine 0.067 0.5 def 9.5 a 10.0 abc 14.0 abc 13.8 bed 0.0 b 47.8 be
Imidacloprid 0.05 1.0 b-f 6.0 abc 10.2 abc 9.0 c-f 5.2 efg 1.2a 32.8 de
Methamidophos 1.0 0.2 ef 4.2 be 5.8 cd 1.8 g 2.5 fg 0.0 b 14.5 f

Means in the same column followed by same letter do not significantly.
(Df = 16, 67)
■t*
Table 18. (Continued). Total predators sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
Rate Mean total predators

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) Nabids Anthocorids Spiders Chrysopids Coccinellids Syrphids Total
Esfenvalerate 0.66 0.0 f 2.8 c 3.0 d 6.5 def 2.0 g 0.0 b 14.2 f
Endosulfan 1.0 0.2 ef 6.8 ab 6.5 be 8.5 c-f 11.0 bed 0.5 ab 33.5 de
Dimethoate 0.625 0.0 f 5.2 abc 9.2 abc 11.0 b-e 1.2 g 0.0 b 26.8 e
2Triazamate 0.25 0.8 b-f 9.5 a 10.0 abc 6.0 ef 6.8 def 0.0 b 33.0 de
2Triazamate 0.125 1.8 a-d 7.0 ab 13.5 a 9.8 cde 13.5 bed 0.2 b 45.8 be
0.0 f 2.8 c 5.8 cd 4.8 fg 2.0 g 0.2 b 15.5 f
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
2.2 ab 7.8 ab 11.8a 16.8 a 23.2 a 0.0 b 61.8 a
LSD (P=0.05) 0.47 0.78 0.77 0.80 1.06 0.30 0.84
F 3.373 2.279 4.053 5.044 10.022 1.330 16.513
Prob. (F) 0.0006 0.0143 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.2186 0.0001

(Df = 16, 57)
cn
Table 19. Coccinellidae sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Rate Mean coccinellids per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Pirimicarb 0.33 1.0 abc 0.8 a 3.0 ab 1.0 c-f 2.8 abc 2.3 cd 4.3 b
Pirimicarb 0.25 1.5 ab 0.5 ab 1.8 abc 2.8 abc 2.8 abc 2.8 be 4.4 b
Pirimicarb 0.188 1.8 ab 0.0 b 2.0 abc 3.3 ab 3.5 ab 2.8 be 4.4 b
Pymetrozine 0.134 1.5 ab 0.3 ab 1.5 abc 2.0 b-e 1.0 c-f 1.8 cd 2.5 b-e
Pymetrozine 0.088 1.5 ab 0.5 ab 2.0 abc 2.5 a-d 1.5 c-f 1.8 cd 2.5 b-e
1Pymetrozine 0.088 1.0 abc 0.0 b 0.8 be 1.5 b-f 2.0 b-e 2.5 be 1.8 b-f
Pymetrozine 0.067 0.8 abc 0.0 b 1.5 abc 1.3 c-f 1.3 c-f 4.5 b 3.5 be
1Pymetrozine 0.067 2.3 a 0.3 ab 4.8 a 1.5 b-f 1.8 b-f 3.0 be 0.8 efg
Imidacloprid 0.05 1.0 abc 0.0 b 1.0 abc 0.8 def 0.8 def 1.3 cd 1.3 d-g
Methamidophos 1.0 2.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.3 ef 0.0 f 0.0 d 0.0 g

(Df = 16, 67)
o>
Table 19. (Continued). Coccinellidae sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar
Rate Mean coccinellids per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) 8-6 8-8* 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
8-11
Esfenvalerate 0.66 1.0 abc 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.3 ef 0.3 f 0.0 d 0.0 g
Endosulfan 1.0 1.0 abc 0.8 ab 3.3 ab 0.8 def 2.5 bed 1.8 cd 1.5 c-g
Dimethoate 0.625 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 f 0.0 f 0.0 d 0.0 g
2Triazamate 0.25 0.5 abc 0.3 ab 1.0 abc 1.3 b-f 0.8 def 0.8 cd 2.8 bed
2Triazamate 0.125 2.0 a 1.0a 2.3 abc 1.8 b-e 0.5 ef 2.5 be 4.0 b
0.3 be 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 f 0.0 f 0.0 d 0.5 fg
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
0.5 abc 0.3 ab 2.8 ab 4.8 a 4.8 a 8.3 a 7.3 a
LSD (P=0.05) 0.56 0.26 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.63 0.58
F 1.145 1.796 1.707 3.369 4.084 5.607 6.671
Prob. (F) 0.3440 0.0601 0.0778 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

(Df = 16, 57)
Table 20. Spiders sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with different foliar aphicides.
Rate Mean spiders per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. ai/A)
8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Pirimicarb 0.33 2.0 ab 1.5 ab 1.3 abc 1.0 abc 2.8 abc 2.3 abc 2.8 a
Pirimicarb 0.25 3.3 ab 1.8a 2.8 a 0.8 abc 2.3 abc 1.0 cde 1.0 cde
Pirimicarb 0.188 3.0 ab 2.0 a 1.3 abc 1.5 abc 3.0 a 1.5 b-e 2.5 abc
Pymetrozine 0.134 3.0 ab 1.5 ab 0.8 abc 2.3 ab 1.5 a-d 2.3 abc 2.3 abc
Pymetrozine 0.088 2.5 ab 0.8 abc 0.5 be 1.8 ab 0.8 bed 4.0 a 1.8 a-e
1Pymetrozine 0.088 2.5 ab 1.3 abc 1.0 abc 1.0 abc 1.3 a-d 1.8 bed 1.8 a-e
Pymetrozine 0.067 3.3 ab 0.3 be 1.3 abc 1.8 ab 0.3 d 2.3 abc 2.8 ab
1Pymetrozine 0.067 2.0 b 0.8 abc 1.8 abc 1.3 abc 1.0 a-d 1.8 bed 1.5 a-e
Imidacloprid 0.05 2.5 ab 1.0 abc 1.5 abc 1.3 abc 0.5 cd 1.5 b-e 2.0 a-d
Methamidophos 1.0 2.8 ab 0.5 abc 1.0 abc 0.5 be 0.0 d 0.3 e 0.8 cde
(Df= 16, 67)
00
Table 20. (Continued). Spiders sampled from NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potatoes treated with different foliar
Rate Mean spiders per vacuum sample

Treatment
(lb. ai/A) 8-6 8-8* 8-11 8-14 8-19* 8-21 8-25
Esfenvalerate 0.66 2.0 ab 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.3 d 0.5 de 0.3 e
Endosulfan 1.0 2.3 ab 0.0 c 0.0 c 1.0 abc 0.8 bed 1.5 b-e 1.0 b-e
Dimethoate 0.625 3.3 ab 0.3 be 1.3 abc 1.0 abc 0.5 cd 1.8 bed 1.3 a-e
2Triazamate 0.25 2.5 ab 0.8 abc 1.0 abc 2.3 a 1.5 a-d 0.5 de 1.5 a-e
2Triazamate 0.125 1.8b 0.8 abc 1.5 abc 2.3 a 1.5 a-d 3.0 ab 2.8 ab
3.5 ab 0.0 c 0.0 c 1.3 abc 0.3 d 0.3 e 0.5 de
+ Pirimicarb 0.188
Untreated —
4.0 a 1.5 ab 2.3 ab 0.0 c 2.3 ab 1.0 cde 0.8 cde
LSD (P=0.05) 0.51 0.46 0.60 0.55 0.58 0.50 0.53
F 0.778 1.740 1.330 1.393 1.844 2.917 1.870
Prob. (F) 0.7011 0.0707 0.2188 0.1854 0.0522 0.0021 0.0485

(Df =16, 67)
co
120
D. EFFECTS OF MANAGING APHIDS AT HIGH AND LOW THRESHOLD

LEVELS ON BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS. HANCOCK
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION. HANCOCK, Wl, 1997.
Four foliar insecticides, two selective and two broad-spectrum, were
evaluated, at two aphid threshold levels (potato seed production and fresh
market), for season-long effects on aphid and beneficial arthropods on potatoes.
Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental design
consisting of nine treatments including two experimental, specific aphicides and
two registered broad-spectrum insecticides with demonstrated aphicidal activity.
Aphids were managed at high and low aphid threshold levels simulating fresh
market and seed potato production practices in Wisconsin. Selective treatments
were: pirimicarb (Pirimor® 50DF) at the rate of 0.33 lb. a.i. /A and pymetrozine
with an organosilicant spreader sticker (Fulfill® 50WG and Silwet) at the rate of
0.088 lb. a.i. /A and 0.25% v/v. Broad-spectrum treatments were:
methamidophos (Monitor® 4EC) at the rate of 0.75 lb. a.i. /A and imidacloprid
(Provado® 2F) at the rate of 0.05 lb. a.i. /A. An untreated control was included.
Each treatment consisted of four 80-foot rows (on 3’ centers) replicated four
times and separated by 10’ alleys.
Russet Burbank NewLeaf® B sized potato seed was planted in a solid block
at the Hancock Agricultural Research Station on May 6 with a Gallenberg 2 row
planter. NewLeaf® variety potatoes were planted to avoid unwanted Colorado
121
potato beetle pressure and the subsequent insecticide applications that would
have adversely affected aphid and beneficial insect populations in the study.
Foliar aphicides were applied with a C 02 backpack sprayer with a six-foot boom
equipped with four hollow cone nozzles (TXVS10) delivering 20 gpa while
operating at 30 psi. Hancock Agricultural Research Station personnel
conducted plot maintenance (irrigation, application of fungicides) using
commercial practices.
Aphid populations were monitored every 6-10 days from June 23 through
August 21. Twenty-five leaves were collected from the central two rows of each
treatment (centrally located on the plant) and the total numbers of potato and
green peach aphids were recorded. Vacuum sampling monitored beneficial
insects. Vacuum samples consist of sucking insects from the potato crop
canopy (from mid plant areas-vertically) with a modified leaf blower (Homelite
HB180V) while walking in the center two rows of each treatment for a period of
50 seconds. Samples were placed into sample cups containing 70% alcohol
and examined later under magnification. Potato leafhopper populations were
monitored weekly by sweep net and leaf count sample techniques and treated as
needed to prevent crop destruction. Malathion (Malathion® 57EC) was applied
at 0.625 lb. a.i. I A on July 3 to reduce potato leafhopper adult numbers.
Aphid thresholds were initially established at 2.5 total aphids per 25 leaves in
low threshold treatments to mimic seed production thresholds and 25 total
aphids per 25 leaves in the high threshold treatments to mimic fresh market
122
production thresholds. As the season progressed, after August 1, these
thresholds were modified to be solely based on green peach aphid populations
since this species is typically the predominant aphid in mid to late season in
Wisconsin and is the primary vector of several viral diseases in potatoes.
Insecticide application decisions were based on leaf count data; if any aphid
samples were over threshold levels in any one treatment all treatments under
that production threshold were treated. This treatment decision procedure was
conservative but paralleled the decision process in commercial production.
Aphicides were applied in the seed production (low threshold) treatments on
June 27, July 19 and 28, and August 11. Aphicides were applied in the fresh
market production (high threshold) treatments on July 19 and August 18.
Data were analyzed using Agricultural Research Manager version 6.0
123
Total aphid numbers during the initial four weeks were low (late June and
early July) and there were few significant differences among treatments until July
23 (Tables 21 and 22). Aphid numbers in the untreated plots increased steadily
during the season until potato aphids peaked at 38.5 aphids per sample and
green peach aphids peaked at 186.8 aphids per sample on August 21.
Four insecticide applications were required to keep aphid numbers below
seed production threshold levels (June 27, July 19, 28 and August 11) while two
insecticide applications kept aphid numbers below fresh market threshold levels
(July 16 and August 13) (Tables 21 and 22).
Methamidophos provided the best aphid control of the insecticides evaluated;
both initial and residual (Tables 21 and 22). Pirimicarb and imidacloprid also
provided good control, effectively reducing aphid numbers after application and
providing 7-10 days of residual control. Pymetrozine effectively reduced aphid
numbers but at a slower rate than the other aphicides evaluated (7-10 days to
kill the aphids).
Beneficial arthropods were numerous in the study area and numbers
(predators and parasitoids) ranged from 32.8 to 86.5 total beneficial insects per
treatment (Table 23). Beneficial arthropod numbers in the treated plots were
significantly lower than those in the untreated plots (except pirimicarb at the
fresh market threshold) this was the result of both reduced prey/host availability
and direct toxicity in the treated plots. Predators and parasitoids were collected
124
in equivalent numbers and these were generally lower among the seed
production threshold treatments where four insecticide applications occurred
compared to two in the fresh market treatments.
Methamidophos had the greatest negative impact on total beneficial
arthropods with 54% and 62% reductions in numbers from the fresh and seed
threshold programs respectively (Table 23). The largest impact from
methamidophos was seen with predators where 55% and 76% reductions in
numbers resulted in fresh and seed programs compared to 53% and 48%
reduction in numbers in these same programs for parasitoids (Table 23).
Pirimicarb was the least disruptive insecticide with 14% and 24% reduction in
total beneficial numbers resulting from fresh and seed threshold programs.
These impacts were similar between predators and parasitoids. Imidacloprid
and pymetrozine-based programs where intermediate with approximately 30%
and 40% reductions in total beneficial numbers respectively from both fresh and
seed thresholds.
Since aphid control and thus prey availability were similar among treatments
within a threshold program, differences in beneficial insect populations resulted
from differential toxicity with methamidophos being the most toxic. More prey
(aphids) were permitted in the fresh market threshold programs and these had
fewer insecticide applications (2 vs. 4) and higher natural enemy populations.
125
Five predatory arthropod families and spiders were collected during
sampling: chrysopids, coccinellids, anthocorids, nabids, and syrphids (Table 24).
Of the six families, spiders and chrysopids were the most numerous.
Spider populations where negatively impacted only by methamidophos with
significant reductions of 38% and 72% in the fresh market and seed programs.
These reductions differed significantly between the programs. Other chemistries
and programs did not differ significantly form the untreated control (Table 25).
Spiders were collected in limited numbers until the third week of July when
numbers peaked at 4.5 spiders per sample on July 29 (Table 25). Spider
numbers declined in early August and they did not recover.
Chrysopids were the next most numerous predatory arthropods collected
during sampling with a season total of 10 chrysopids in the control (Table 26).
Chrysopids were reduced 35% to 70% by methamidophos in the fresh market
and seed threshold programs and these reductions were significantly different
between threshold programs. Pirimicarb, imidacloprid, and pymetrozine-based
programs did not negatively impact chrysopids. Chrysopids were rarely
collected during June but numbers gradually increased in the untreated plots
during July and August and finally peaked at 3.3 chrysopids per sample on
August 21 (Table 26).
Five families of parasitoids were collected during sampling: braconids,
mymarids, pteromalids, eulophids, and encyrtids (Table 27). Parasitoid numbers
did not differ as obviously as predators with 44.2 total adults collected in the
126
untreated control and reductions ranging from 48% to 53% in the
methamidophos programs which were again the most toxic (Table 27). The
seed and fresh market programs had similar impacts on total parasitoids
regardless of insecticide. Braconids and mymarids were the most commonly
collected parasitoids and their numbers accounted for 73% of the total number of
parasitoids collected. Braconid numbers were similar among treatments at both
threshold levels and were significantly lower than in the untreated controls.
Pirimicarb had the least effect on parasitoid adults among the treatments,
however these numbers were significantly lower than untreated adult numbers.
Since aphid control and thus prey availability was similar between insecticides, it
is assumed that the imidacloprid and pymetrozine programs disrupted braconid
populations.
Braconid adults were most frequently collected during August and total adult
numbers ranged from 7.0 to 22.2 adults (Table 28). Braconid adults were rarely
collected during June and early July but numbers steadily increased as aphids
began infesting the plots during late July (Table 28). Insecticide applications
had little effect when aphid and braconid adult numbers were low in June and
July but as parasitoid and host numbers increased insecticide applications
generally had a more dramatic effect in the treated plots especially after
applications of methamidophos.
Mymarid adults were collected most frequently during August and numbers
ranged from 5.8 to 15.0 total adults (Table 29). Mymarid adults were collected
127
infrequently during late June and early July but numbers increased during late
July and early August (Table 29). Potato leafhopper numbers were high during
this study and since mymarids are leafhopper egg parasitoids it is not surprising
that their numbers were high. Few differences were observed among mymarid
populations indicating that the insecticides evaluated had little effect on them.
128
3. Conclusions
All of the aphicides evaluated effectively controlled potato and green peach
aphids. Methamidophos, imidacloprid, and pirimicarb quickly reduced aphid
numbers and provided protection of a week or more after application although
pirimicarb failed to limit green peach aphids after an application on August 11.
Pymetrozine also effectively controlled aphids but it was slower acting than the
other aphicides evaluated.
A broad complex of predators (5 families) and parasitoids (5 families) were
found in the study. Spiders and chrysopids were the most prevalent predators
while braconids and mymarids were the most common parasitoids. The
insecticidal regimes used for aphid control generally impacted predator
populations more severely than parasitoids and seed programs requiring four
applications were more disruptive that fresh programs (two applications).
Pirimicarb was the least disruptive insecticide while methamidophos was the
most disruptive. Imidacloprid and pymetrozine-based programs were
intermediate. Since aphid control was similar among all treatments within
threshold programs it is assumed that prey availability did not impact beneficial
populations significantly. Differences in beneficial insect populations were thus
attributed to differential toxicity among insecticides with methamidophos being
the most disruptive.
Table 21. Potato aphids sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) 6/23* 7/2 7/10 7/16* 7/23* 7/29 8/6* 8/13* 8/21
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.3 a* 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a* 0.3 be* 0.0 b 1.0 c* 4.0 ab 6.3 bed
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.0 a* 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.3 a* 0.5 be* 1.0b 0.8 c* 6.3 ab 10.0 be
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.5 a* 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 a* 0.5 be* 1.5b 3.0 abc* 2.3 b 3.5 bed
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.0 a* 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a* 0.0 c* 0.0 b 1.3 be* 0.0 b 0.0 d
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.8 a* 1.5 abc 0.3 b 3.5 abc 4.8 ab* 1.3 cd
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 a* 2.5 ab 2.5 b 4.5 abc 3.0 b* 9.8 be
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.8 a* 0.5 be 3.0 b 6.3 a 12.8 a* 17.8 ab
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 2.5 a* 0.0 c 0.0 b 1.5 be 1.5 b* 0.0 d
Untreated —
0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.8 a 4.3 a 12.5 a 5.3 ab 4.3 ab 38.5 a
LSD 0.31 0.19 0.24 0.60 0.67 1.00 0.99 1.43 2.00
F 0.661 0.714 1.000 0.889 2.687 4.798 1.910 1.597 4.926
Prob. (F) 0.7195 0.6769 0.4613 0.5402 0.0290 0.0013 0.1053 0.1781 0.0011
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05, Least Significant Difference test),
t Aphids managed at seed production thresholds (2.5 aphids/25 leaves). Applications on 6/27, 7/19, 7/28 and 8/11.
t Aphids managed at fresh market production thresholds (25 aphids/25 leaves). Applications on 7/19 and 8/18.
‘ Insecticide application.
(Df = 8,35).
Table 22. Green peach aphids sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
p ate Mean aphids per 25 leaves

Treatment ... .fA, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(lb. a.i./A) 6/23* 7/2 7/10 7/16* 7/23* 7/29 8/6* 8/13* 8/21
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.8 ab* 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.5 a* 0.5 a* 0.3 b 4.5 b* 2.3 b 11.0 be
tPymetrozine 0.088 1.3 ab* 0.3 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a* 0.5 a* 0.0 b 0.5 c* 1.8b 1.5 cd
tlmidacloprid 0.05 1.5 ab* 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.8 a* 0.0 a* 0.0 b 0.8 c* 0.3 b 5.8 bed
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.0 b* 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a* 0.0 a* 0.0 b 0.8 c* 0.0 b 2.3 bed
tPirimicarb 0.33 2.8 ab 0.0 b 0.3 a 3.3 a* 0.5 a 0.0 b 2.5 be 2.3 b* 12.3 b
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.5 ab 0.3 ab 0.5 a 2.3 a* 0.0 a 0.3 b 1.5 be 1.8 b* 2.0 bed
tlmidacloprid 0.05 1.5 ab 0.8 ab 0.3 a 0.3 a* 0.3 a 0.0 b 1.5 be 0.0 b* 1.3 cd
tMethamidophos 0.75 5.3 a 0.3 ab 0.3 a 6.3 a* 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.5 be 2.3 b* 0.0 d
Untreated —
3.0 ab 1.5 a 0.0 a 4.0 a 0.0 a 2.3 a 11.5a 24.8 a 186.8 a
LSD 1.07 0.38 0.27 1.37 0.24 0.21 0.80 1.29 1.67
F 0.931 1.547 0.530 0.714 1.388 12.198 7.016 6.573 47.210
Prob. (F) 0.5095 0.1937 0.8221 0.6770 0.2517 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
insecticide application.
(Df = 8,35).
CO
o
Table 23. Beneficial insects sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Rate Season total beneficials

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) Predators Parasitoids Total
tPirimicarb 0.33 32.0 be 33.5 abc 65.5 be
tPymetrozine 0.088 26.9 c 20.2 c 47.1 de
tlmidacloprid 0.05 25.2 c 26.5 c 51.8 cde
tMethamidophos 0.75 10.0 e 22.8 c 32.8 f
tPirimicarb 0.33 31.6 be 42.5 ab 74.1 ab
tPymetrozine 0.088 35.1 ab 27.8 be 62.9 bed
tlmidacloprid 0.05 31.1 be 29.8 abc 60.8 bed
tMethamidophos 0.75 18.9 d 20.8 c 39.6 ef
Untreated —
42.2 a 44.2 a 86.5 a
LSD 0.65 1.26 1.05
F 18.298 3.192 9.792
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.0130 0.0001
(Df = 8,35).
CO
Table 24. Predators sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Season total predators

(lb ai/A) Spiders Chrysopids Coccinellids Anthocorids Nabids Syrphids Total
tPirimicarb 0.33 14.2 a 8.2 ab 2.0 be 4.5 a 0.8 abc 0.2 a 32.0 be
tPymetrozine 0.088 13.5 a 9.0 ab 1.8 be 1.5 b 0.5 be 0.0 a 26.9 c
tlmidacloprid 0.05 11.8 ab 7.2 b 0.8 be 4.0 ab 0.5 be 0.0 a 25.2 c
tMethamidophos 0.75 4.0 c 3.0 c 0.2 c 2.2 ab 0.0 c 0.0 a 10.0 e
tPirimicarb 0.33 13.0 a 8.2 ab 2.0 be 4.5 a 1.5 ab 0.0 a 31.6 be
tPymetrozine 0.088 13.0 a 11.2 a 3.2 b 4.3 ab 0.8 abc 0.2 a 35.1 ab
tlmidacloprid 0.05 13.0 a 10.5 ab 1.8 be 3.0 ab 1.3 ab 0.2 a 31.1 be
tMethamidophos 0.75 8.8 b 6.5 b 1.0 be 1.8 ab 0.0 c 0.0 a 18.9 d
Untreated —
14.2 a 10.0 ab 8.8 a 4.5 a 1.8a 0.2 a 42.2 a
LSD 0.50 0.68 0.79 0.73 0.35 0.21 0.65
F 9.947 3.617 4.650 1.571 3.436 0.600 18.298
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.0068 0.0016 0.1861 0.0089 0.7685 0.0001
(Df = 8,35).
Table 25. Spiders sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with different foliar aphicides. Hancock
Mean spiders per vacuum sample

(lb ai/A) 6/23* 7/2 7/10 7/16* 7/23* 7/29 8/6* 8/13* 8/21
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.5 a* 0.3 a 0.8 a 0.5 a* 4.0 a 4.3 a 0.5 be* 1.8 a 1.8 ab
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.3 a* 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.3 a* 2.8 abc 4.5 a 1.3 abc* 2.0 a 1.3 be
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.5 a* 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.8 a* 1.5 be 2.3 ab 1.8 ab* 1.8a 2.3 ab
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.0 a* 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.0 a* 0.8 c 0.8 b 0.0 c* 1.0 a 0.3 c
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.8 a* 3.3 ab 2.5 ab 2.5 a 2.0 a* 1.3 be
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 1.3 a* 3.0 abc 1.5 b 1.3 abc 1.5 a* 3.8 a
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.8 a* 2.5 abc 2.8 ab 2.3 a 1.8 a* 2.0 ab
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 1.8 a* 1.3 be 1.3 b 1.8 abc 1.3 a* 0.3 c
Untreated —
0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.8 a* 4.3 a 4.5 a 1.5 abc 1.8a 1.0 be
LSD 0.32 0.21 0.33 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.49
F 0.498 1.075 0.780 0.448 2.459 3.187 1.649 0.241 3.487
Prob. (F) 0.8457 0.4123 0.6243 0.8795 0.0421 0.0131 0.1634 0.9784 0.0083
(Df = 8,35).
Table 26. Chrysopidae sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock
Rate Mean chrysopids per vacuum sample

(lb. a.i./A) 6/23* 7/2 7/10 7/16* 7/23* 7/29 8/6* 8/13* 8/21
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.5 a* 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.5 b* 0.5 b* 0.5 ab 0.5 a* 1.0 a 4.3 a
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.0 b* 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.3 ab* 1.3 ab* 1.0 ab 0.3 a* 0.8 a 4.3 ab
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.0 b* 0.3 a 0.3 a 1.3 ab* 0.8 ab* 0.8 ab 1.0 a* 1.3a 1.8 ab
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.0 b* 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.3 ab* 0.0 b* 0.3 ab 0.3 a* 0.3 a 0.8 b
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.3 a 1.5 ab* 1.0 ab 1.0 ab 0.3 a 1.3a 2.8 ab
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.3 a* 2.5 a 1.3 ab 0.8 a 1.0 a* 3.5 ab
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.5 a 1.5 ab* 0.8 ab 0.8 ab 1.3a 2.0 a* 3.3 ab
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.5 a 1.0 ab* 0.3 b 0.0 b 0.8 a 1.5 a* 2.3 ab
Untreated —
0.0 b 0.5 a 0.3 a 1.0 ab 1.0 ab 1.8 a 0.5 a 1.8a 3.3 ab
LSD 0.12 0.27 0.24 0.49 0.53 0.51 0.41 0.60 0.83
F 3.000 0.628 0.686 0.879 1.423 0.943 0.930 0.717 1.075
Prob. (F) 0.0176 0.7464 0.6995 0.5478 0.2377 0.5006 0.5103 0.6746 0.4127
(Df = 8,35).
w
- tv
Table 27. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides.
Rate Season total parasitoids

Treatment
(lb. a.i./A) Braconidae Mymaridae Pteromalidae Eulophidae Encyrtidae Total
tPirimicarb 0.33 14.0 be 13.2 a 1.2 be 2.2 abc 2.8 a 33.5 abc
tPymetrozine 0.088 7.0 d 7.5 ab 3.8 a 1.8 be 0.2 b 20.2 c
tlmidacloprid 0.05 8.2 cd 12.8 ab 2.0 abc 1.5c 2.0 ab 26.5 c
tMethamidophos 0.75 8.2 cd 8.2 ab 1.5 abc 3.2 abc 1.5 ab 22.8 c
tPirimicarb 0.33 14.2 b 15.0 a 4.0 a 6.2 ab 3.0 a 42.5 ab
tPymetrozine 0.088 11.8 bed 7.0 ab 3.0 ab 3.0 abc 3.0 a 27.8 be
tlmidacloprid 0.05 11.8 bed 9.5 ab 4.0 a 2.2 abc 2.2 ab 29.8 abc
tMethamidophos 0.75 9.0 bed 5.8 b 0.8 c 3.5 abc 1.8 ab 20.8 c
Untreated —
22.2 a 10.2 ab 3.0 ab 6.5 a 2.2 a 44.2 a
LSD 0.88 1.19 0.67 0.87 0.64 1.26
F 4.195 1.227 2.265 1.388 1.484 3.192
Prob. (F) 0.0029 0.3259 0.0580 0.2516 0.2149 0.0130
(Df = 8,35).
03
Ol
Table 28. Braconidae adults sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock

(lb. a.i./A) 6/23* 7/2 7/10 7/16* 7/23* 7/29 8/6* 8/13* 8/21
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.3 a* 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3 a* 0.8 a* 1.0 ab 1.8 abc* 0.0 b 9.0 ab
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.0 a* 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a* 1.3 a* 0.8 b 1.3 c* 0.3 ab 2.8 be
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.0 a* 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a* 0.8 a* 0.3 b 3.8 a* 0.3 ab 2.5 c
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.3 a* 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.8 a* 1.0 a* 0.8 b 2.3 abc* 0.0 b 3.0 be
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.3 a* 0.8 a 0.5 b 3.8 ab 1.0 ab* 6.8 abc
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.5 a* 0.8 a 1.5 ab 2.5 abc 0.3 ab* 5.0 be
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3 a* 0.5 a 0.8 ab 2.5 abc 0.8 ab* 6.0 be
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 2.0 a* 1.0a 0.3 b 1.3 be 1.3 a* 2.8 be
Untreated — 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 2.0 a 1.3a 2.3 a 1.8 abc 1.0 ab 13.5a
LSD 0.17 0.20 0.13 0.68 0.58 0.48 0.64 0.39 1.06
F 0.771 0.600 1.000 0.385 0.155 1.670 1.249 1.677 3.333
Prob. (F) 0.6311 0.7685 0.4613 0.9180 0.9949 0.1576 0.3149 0.1558 0.0105
(Df = 8,35).
co
CD
Table 29. Mymaridae adults sampled from NewLeaf Russet Burbank potatoes treated with foliar aphicides. Hancock

(lb. a.i./A) 6/23* 7/2 7/10 7/16* 7/23* 7/29 8/6* 8/13* 8/21
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.8 a* 0.3 a 0.8 a 1.0 a* 0.8 a* 1.5a 3.8 ab* 0.5 a 4.0 a
fPymetrozine 0.088 0.3 ab* 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.0 a* 1.0 a* 1.3a 2.3 ab* 0.0 a 1.5a
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.0 b* 0.8 a 0.8 a 2.0 a* 0.5 a* 0.8 a 2.3 ab* 0.3 a 5.5 a
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.3 ab* 0.3 a 0.8 a 1.3 a* 0.0 a* 1.5 a 3.0 ab* 0.3 a 1.0a
tPirimicarb 0.33 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.3 a* 1.0 a 2.5 a 4.5 a 0.3 a* 5.8 a
tPymetrozine 0.088 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 a* 0.8 a 2.5 a 1.0b 0.3 a* 1.5 a
tlmidacloprid 0.05 0.5 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.5 a* 0.8 a 1.5 a 3.3 ab 0.3 a* 1.5a
tMethamidophos 0.75 0.0 b 0.8 a 0.5 a 1.3 a* 0.0 a 1.3 a 1.5 ab 0.0 a* 0.5 a
Untreated —
0.3 ab 0.8 a 0.8 a 1.0a 0.5 a 2.3 a 2.3 ab 0.0 a 2.5 a
LSD 0.24 0.38 0.35 0.62 0.43 0.68 0.82 0.25 1.28
F 1.765 0.434 1.320 0.625 0.919 0.701 1.073 0.632 0.818
Prob. (F) 0.1345 0.8886 0.2809 0.7489 0.5184 0.6872 0.4141 0.7434 0.5945
(Df = 8,35).
CO
138
E. DISCUSSION AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The focus of these insecticide studies was to determine the compatibilities of
registered and experimental foliar insecticides with beneficial arthropods on
potatoes. Beneficial arthropods in general were most negatively affected by
applications of pyrethroid and organophosphate insecticides.
Organophosphate and carbamate insecticides are considered to be the most
hazardous insecticides to beneficial insects (Theiling and Croft 1989) but these
studies indicate that the pyrethroids are also highly toxic. Applications of
esfenvalerate, permethrin, and lambdacyhalothrin consistently reduced
beneficial arthropod numbers after application. These trends are consistent with
a variety of laboratory and field studies conducted on beneficial arthropods on
seasonal and semipermanent agroecosystems (Yokoyama et al. 1984, Mansour
and Nentwig 1988, Scott et al. 1988, Baker et al. 1995, Kok et al. 1996, Rumpf et
al. 1997, Boyd and Boethel 1998a and 1998b, Epstein et al. 2000, Suh et al.
2000, Nowak et al. 2001). From these data it is apparent that pyrethroids should
be used judiciously in integrated pest management programs for potatoes.
Aphid resurgence was also associated with pyrethroid use, which is consistent
with similar findings by Lingren and Ridgway 1967, and McClure 1977. The
organophosphate methyl parathion also caused significant beneficial arthropod
mortality in the studies. Similar trends were observed by Rumpf et al. on
Neuroptera in 1997, Boyd and Boethel on selected Heteropteran predators in
1998 and by Yokoyama et al. on geocorids in 1984. Methamidophos was also
139
highly toxic to beneficial arthropods and a finding previously reported by
Yokoyama et al. (1984) reflects this trend.
Dimethoate, endosulfan, phosmet, and azinphos-methyl were mildly to
moderately toxic to beneficial arthropods. Shean and Cranshaw (1991), Elzen et
al. (1999) and Grundy et al. (2000) observed similar trends with encyrtids,
braconids, pteromalids, and reduviids but Mansour and Nentwig (1988) found
that endosulfan was highly toxic to spiders. Bajwa and Aliniazee (2001) found
phosmet to be generally harmless to spiders in apple while azinphos-methyl was
slightly too moderately harmful.
These results indicate that several of these compounds can be selectively
incorporated into integrated management programs to conserve beneficial
arthropods. These insecticides should be incorporated early in the season when
toxic impacts on beneficial arthropods would be minimized and populations have
time to recover.
Beneficial arthropods in the study were generally not affected by applications
of the more pest specific insecticides abamectin, spinosad, chlorfenapyr, fipronil,
imidacloprid, cyromazine, pirimicarb, and pymetrozine. Studies conducted on
encyrtids, braconids, nabids, and pentatomids by Boyd and Boethel (1998a) and
Shean and Cranshaw (1991) also indicate that abamectin was not toxic.
However, Brunner et al. (2001) found abamectin to be highly toxic to eulophids
and trichogrammatids when applied topically and Ibrahim and Yee (2000)
observed high predatory mite mortality in abamectin bioassays. Spinosad
140
typically did not negatively affect beneficial arthropods in the field, confirming
previous predator research (Boyd and Boethel 1998b, Tillman and Mulrooney
2000, Elzen 2001) but several studies from the literature indicate that spinosad
is mildly to moderately toxicity to parasitoids (Elzen et al. 1999, Suh et al. 2000,
Elzen et al. 2000, Hill and Foster 2000, Nowak et al. 2001). Elzen et al. (1999
and 2000) and Al-Deeb et al. (2001) also demonstrated that fipronil has low to
moderate toxicity to parasitoids. Boyd and Boethel (1998a and 1998b) observed
that chlorfenapyr was moderate to highly toxic to predators, which was not seen
in our trials where predators were commonly collected from plots treated with
chlorfenapyr. Beneficial arthropods were also commonly collected from plots
treated with imidacloprid but Brunner et al. (2001) and De Cock et al. (1996)
observed that imidacloprid was highly toxic to beneficials that were directly
exposed to the chemical. However, toxicity decreased when beneficials came
into contact with residues.
These studies demonstrate that several experimental and registered
insecticides available to control insect pests on potatoes are compatible with
beneficial arthropods. Further studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to
evaluate incorporating promising insecticides into integrated management
programs for potatoes, which would control pest species while preserving
naturally occurring beneficial arthropod populations.
141
F. LITERATURE CITED
Al-Deeb, M.A., G.E. Wilde, and K.Y. Zhu. 2001. Effect of Insecticides Used in
Corn, Sorghum, and Alfalfa on the Predator Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera:
Anthocoridae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94(6): 1353-1360.
Bajwa, W.l. and M.T. Aliniazee. 2001. Spider Fauna in Apple Ecosystem of
Western Oregon and its Field Susceptibility to Chemical and Microbial
Insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(1): 68-75.
Baker, J.E., D.K. Weaver, J.E. Throne, and J.L. Zettler. 1995. Resistance to
Protectant Insecticides in Two Field Strains of the Stored-Product Insect
Parasitoid Bracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
88(3): 512-519.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 a. Residual Toxicity of Selected Insecticides
to Heteropteran Predaceous Species (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae, Nabidae,
Pentatomidae) on Soybean. Envir. Entomol. 27(1): 154-160.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 b. Susceptibility of Predaceous Hemipteran

Species to Selected Insecticides on Soybean in Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol.
91(2): 401-409.
Brunner, J.F., J.E. Dunley, M.D. Doerr, and E.H. Beers. 2001. Effect of
Pesticides on Colpoclypeus florus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) and
Trichogramma platneri (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), Parasitoids of
Leafrollers in Washington. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1075-1084.
DeBach, P., and B. Bartlett. 1951. Effects of Insecticides on Biological Control

of Insect Pest of Citrus. J. Econ. Entomol. 41: 118-1191.
De Cock, A., P. De Clercq, L. Tirry, and D. Degheele. 1996. Toxicity of

Deafenthiuron and Imidacloprid to the Predatory Bug Podisus maculiventris
(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Envir. Entomol. 25(2): 476-480.
Elzen, G.W., M.G. Rojas, P.J. Elzen, E.G. King, and N.M. Barcenas. 1999.
Toxicological Responses of the Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Ectoparasitoid Catolaccus grandis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to Selected
Elzen, G.W., S.N. Maldonado, and M.G. Rojas. 2000. Lethal and Sublethal
Effects of Selected Insecticides and an Insect Growth Regulator on the Boll
Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Ectoparasitoid Catolaccus grandis
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2): 300-303.
142
Elzen, G.W. 2001. Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Insecticide Residues on

Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Geocons punctipes
(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94(1): 55-59.
Epstein, D.L., R.S. Zach, J.F. Brunner, L. Cut, and J.J. Brown. 2000. Effects of
Broad-spectrum Insecticides on Epigeal Arthropod Biodiversity in Pacific
Northwest Apple Orchards. Env. Entomol. 29(2): 340-348.
Grundy, P.R., D. Maelzer, P.J. Collins, and E. Hassan. 2000. Potential for
Integrating Eleven Agricultural Insecticides with the Predatory Bug
Pristhesancus plagipennis (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
93(3): 584-589.
Hare, D.J., and R.E.B. Moore. 1988. Impact and management of late-season
populations of the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on
potato in Connecticut. J. Econ. Entomol. 81: 914-921.
Hill, T.A. and R.F. Foster. 2000. Effect of Insecticides on the Diamondback
Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and its Parasitoid Diadegma insulare
(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(3): 763-768.
Hoy, M.A. 2000. Current Status of Biological Control of Insects. Pp. 210-225 in
Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management, ed. G.C. Kennedy
and T.B. Sutton. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
Hull, L.A., and E.H. Beers. 1985. Ecological selectivity: modifying chemical
control practices to preserve natural enemies. Pp. 103-122 in Biological
Control in Agricultural IPM systems, ed. M.A. Hoy and D.C. Herzog.
Academic Press, Orlando.
Ibrahim, Y.B. and T.S. Yee. 2000. Influence of sublethal exposure to abamectin
on the biological performance of Neoseiulus longispinosus (Acari:
Phytoseiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(4): 1085-1089.
Kok, L.T., J.A. Lasota, T.J. McAvoy, and R.A. Davis. 1996. Residual Foliar
Toxicity of 4’-Epi-Methylamino-4”-Deoxyavermectin B1 Hydrochloride (MK-
243) and Selected Commercial Insecticides to Adult Hymenopterous
Parasites, Pteromalus puparum (Hymenptera: Pteromalidae) and Cotesia
orobenae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae).
Lingren, P.D., and R.L. Ridgway. 1967. Toxicity of five insecticides to several
insect predators. J. Econ. Entomol. 60:1639-1641.
143
Mansour, F. and W. Nentwig. 1988. Effects of Agrochemical Residues on Four

Spider Taxa: Laboratory Methods for Pesticide Tests with Web-building
Spiders. Phytoparasitica. 16(4): 317-326.
McClure, M.S. 1977. Resurgence of the scale, Fiorinia externa (Homoptera:

Diaspididae), on hemlock following insecticide application. Environ. Entomol.
6: 480-484.
Nowak, J.T., K.W. McCravy, C.J. Fettig, and C.W. Berisford. 2001.
Susceptibility of adult Hymenopteran parasitoids of the Nantucket Pine Tip
Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to broad-spectrum and biorational
insecticides in a laboratory study. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1122-1129.
Perlak, F.J., T.B. Stone, Y.M. Muskupf, L.J. Peterson, G.B. Parker, S.A.
Mcpherson, J.A. Wyman, S. Love, G. Reed, D. Biever, and D.A. Fischoff.
1993. Genetically improved potatoes: protection from damage by Colorado
potato beetles. Plant Molecular Biology. 22:313-321.
Radcliffe, E.B. and K.B. Johnson. 1994. Biology and Management of

Leafhoppers on Potato. Pp. 71-82. Advances in Potato Pest Biology and
Pest Management, eds. G.W. Zehnder, M.L. Powelson, R.K. Jansson, and
K.V. Raman. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
Rumpf, S., C. Frampton, and B. Chapman. 1997. Acute Toxicity of Insecticides

to Micromus tasmaniae (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) and Chrysoperla carnea
(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) LC50 and LC100 Estimates for Various Test
Durations.
Shean, B. and W.S. Cranshaw. 1991. Differential Susceptibilities of Green

Peach Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) and two Endoparasitoids
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae and Braconidae) to Pesticides. J. Econ. Entomol.
84(3): 844-850.
Shields, E.J., and J.A. Wyman. 1984. Effects of defoliation at specific growth
stages on potato yields. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:1194-1199.
Suh, C.P.C., D.B. Orr, and J.W. Van Duyn. 2000. Effect of insecticides on
Trichogramma exiguum (Trichogrammatidae: Hymenoptera) preimaginal
development and adult survival. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(3): 577-583.
Theiling, D.M., and B.A. Croft. 1988. Pesticide side-effects on arthropod natural
enemies: A database summary. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 21:191-218.
144
Tillman, P.G. and J.E. Mulrooney. 2000. Effect of Selected Insecticides on the
Natural Enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens
(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), and
Bracon mellitor, Cardichiles nigticeps, and Cotesia marginiventris
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(6): 1638-1643.
Walgenback, J.F., and J.A. Wyman. 1984. Dynamic Action Threshold Levels
for the Potato Leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) on Potatoes in
Wisconsin. J. Econ. Entomol. 77 (5): 1335-1340.
Wright, R.J., D.P Kain, and D.D. Moyer. 1987. Development and
implementation of an extension IPM program for Long Island. Bull. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 33: 239-45.
Yokoyama, V.Y., J. Pritchard, and R.V. Dowell. 1984. Laboratory Toxicity of

Pesticides to Geocoris pallens (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), a Predator in
California Cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:10-15.
145
IV. INTEGRATING PEST SPECIFIC INSECTICIDES INTO PEST

BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS.
A. INTRODUCTION
Since World War II, American agriculture has become reliant on chemical
pesticides. In 1995, U.S. pesticide sales totaled 1.25 billion pounds of active
ingredient at a value of $10.4 billion dollars (Benbrook et al. 1996). Agriculture
accounted for about three fourths of the total pesticide use. Since the early
1970s pesticide use has grown 2 to 5 times and average use per acre has
generally increased. Disturbingly, as pesticide use has increased, crop losses
from pests has not always decreased and more than 500 insect pests, 270 weed
species, and 150 plant diseases are now resistant to one or more pesticides
(Benbrook et al. 1996).
It has been repeatedly assumed that the most cost effective way to promote a
more sustainable agriculture and reduce pesticide use is to adopt integrated pest
management methods (Benbrook et al. 1996). IPM systems are diverse and are
driven by many factors including soils, climate, pest complexes, technology, pest
management skills, and the grower’s commitment to biological approaches. IPM
is a dynamic system that changes with the season and must evolve to meet the
challenges of adaptive pests.
In Section III we presented research in which a wide range of pest specific
insecticides were shown to effectively control pest insects while conserving a
broad range of beneficial arthropods which could contribute to the biological
146
regulation of pest populations. In this research we integrated effective registered
and experimental pest specific insecticides into season long pest management
programs and evaluated them in an agricultural research station environment.
The focus of these studies was to emphasize biologically based integrated pest
management through the use of selective insecticides. Our hypothesis was that
natural enemies that had been conserved through judicious insecticide use could
potentially control secondary and sporadic insect pests. The insecticide
management programs evaluated were designed to reduce the potential for
insecticide resistance while conserving beneficial arthropods and effectively
controlling pest insects on potatoes. Selective foliar and systemic insecticides
were integrated into insect management programs on potatoes and compared to
broad-spectrum standards in field trials at the Hancock Agricultural Research
Station during 1998 and 1999.
147
B. INTEGRATING PEST SPECIFIC INSECTICIDES INTO PEST

BENEFICIAL ARTHROPODS. HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH STATION, HANCOCK, Wl, 1998.
In this trial, a conventional, broad-spectrum, foliar insecticide program was
compared with six experimental pest-specific programs designed to provide
season-long control of key insect pests. The conventional broad-spectrum
program (program 7) utilized: esfenvalerate (Asana® 0.66EC) applied twice at
0.04 lb. a.i. /A in combination with the synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO) at 6 oz.
a.i. /A and a single application of endosulfan (Thiodan® 3EC) at 1.0 lb. a.i. /A for
Colorado potato beetle control. Methamidophos (Monitor® 4E) was applied at
0.75 lb. a.i. /A for aphid control.
The pest specific programs (programs 1-6) used three experimental
insecticides to control Colorado potato beetle, which were applied in varying
rotational sequences to provide resistance management. Two of the
experimentals, spinosad (Spintor® 2SC) and abamectin (Agrimek® 0.15EC) are
classified as reduced-risk by the EPA and have subsequently been registered on
potatoes. The third, chlorfenapyr (Alert® 2SC) was considered reduced-risk but
did not achieve registration on potatoes. The rotational sequences involving
three applications (programs 1, 2, 4, and 5) were compared to three application
programs of spinosad (program 6) and chlorfenapyr (program 3). Malathion was
applied at the rate of 0.938 lb. a.i./A to all programs for potato leafhopper control.
148
All pesticide application rates, application dates, and target insects are
summarized in Table 1.
The seven pesticide programs were arranged in a randomized complete block
experimental design with 4 replications. Untreated controls (4 replications) were
not included in the experimental design to avoid potential infestation from
untreated plots but were arranged on the eastern edge of the experimental area.
Insect evaluations were taken in the untreated plots for comparisons only and
were not included in the statistical analysis.
Certified Russet Burbank potato seed (cut A’s) was planted as a solid block
into a loamy sand textured soil on May 5, 1998 at the Hancock Agricultural
Research Station, Hancock, Wl. The block was divided into four replications that
were further divided into seven treatment blocks (18 rows x 50’, 0.055 acres),
except for the untreated plots, which were planted along the east edge of the
study area separated by twenty feet of buffer. Rows were on 3’ centers and
plants were spaced at 12 inches. The center 6 rows of each treatment were not
disturbed during the growing season (to simulate field conditions for yield) and
arthropod samples were taken from the outside 12 rows.
Colorado potato beetle adult numbers were low in the plots in June and
additional adults were collected from neighboring commercial potato fields and
were released evenly into the study area to augment adult numbers for first-
generation egg laying (400 adults per treatment). The study was treated with
alachlor (Lasso) at the rate of 2.0 quarts product per acre, metribuzin (Lexone
149
DF) at the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i./A, and linuron (Lorox DF) at the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i./A
preplant incorporated for grass and broadleaf control and plots were hand
weeded as needed. Initial insecticide applications were made improperly on
June 15 using Hancock Agricultural Research Stations spray coupe and plots
were retreated to correct the misapplication. Pesticides and water are mixed
during spray coupe operation and calculations are made by computer software
on the sprayer as it is traveling. A calibration error resulted in higher than
targeted chlorfenapyr rates (1.3 x target rate) in three quarters of the plots (3
chlorfenapyr treatments x 4 replications). The situation was easily corrected
however, since entire blocks were treated with a single pass of the spray coupe.
When the error was detected, spraying was halted and another sprayer was
calibrated and used to apply the remaining chlorfenapyr (at the correct rate),
spinosad, and esfenvalerate treatments. The initially untreated chlorfenapyr
blocks and all subsequent insecticide applications were made using a 12’ tractor
mounted boom sprayer delivering 15 GPA. Hancock Agricultural Research
Station personnel conducted maintenance as per commercial potato production
recommendations (application of herbicides, fungicides, irrigation, soil, and plant
fertility). Yield and grade were determined from four hundred feet of row (4-
25’rows per plot) from the central area of each treatment.
Pest populations were monitored every 4-11 days from June 8 through
August 10. Colorado potato beetle populations were surveyed by plant-counts
(10 plants per sample) while leaf defoliation ratings were determined visually
150
from each plot. Adults, egg masses, and small (1st and 2nd instar) and large (3rd
and 4th instar) larvae were counted. Twenty-five potato leaves were collected
from two rows of each treatment (centrally on the plant) to monitor aphids and
leafhopper nymphs. Sweep net samples, consisting of 25 sweeps per plot,
monitored potato leafhopper adult. Vacuum sampling monitored aphids, potato
leafhoppers, and beneficial arthropods. Vacuum samples consisted of sucking
insects from the potato crop canopy (from mid plant areas-vertically) with a
modified leaf blower (Homelite HB180V) while walking between two outer rows of
each treatment for a period of 50 seconds. Samples were placed into sample
cups containing 70% alcohol and examined later under magnification.
Colorado potato beetle foliar insecticide treatments for first generation were
applied according to thresholds based upon percent hatch of CPB egg masses
within the treatment (30%) and the presence of second instar larvae. Other pest
thresholds were based on fresh market potato production. Aphid thresholds
were set at one aphid per leaf, potato leafhopper nymph thresholds were set at
0.5 nymphs per leaf, and potato leafhopper adult thresholds were set at one adult
per sweep.
Foliar insecticide applications targeting Colorado potato beetles occurred on
June 15, June 26, and July 24. Potato leafhoppers were treated with malathion
in all the management programs on June 12 and in management programs 5 and
6 on August 4. Aphids were treated with methamidophos in management
program 7 on August 4.
151
Data were analyzed using a two way analysis of variance using Pesticide
Research Manager 5.0 (Gylling Data Management, Inc., 405 Martin Blvd.,
Brookings, South Dakota 57006-4605) and insect count data were transformed
[square root (X+1)] before mean separation was determined using the Least
Significant Difference Test (P=0.05).
a) Pest Insect Management
First-generation Colorado potato beetle adults entered the plots in low
numbers during May and adults collected from neighboring commercial potato
fields were used to augment numbers in the plots. Augmentation resulted in first
generation adult numbers of 2-5 per sample and egg mass numbers of 16-19 per
sample in the plots on June 8 (Tables 2 and 3). Peak egg hatch occurred
between June 8 and June 19 and first generation small larval numbers peaked at
16.6 larvae per plant in the untreated plots on June 19 (Table 4). Large larval
numbers peaked a week later at 29.9 larvae per plant in the untreated plots on
June 25 (Table 5). Peak second-generation adult emergence occurred between
July 13 and July 20, however adults continued to infest the plots through August
10 (Table 2). Many of the adults fed for a two-week period from July 13 through
July 27 before leaving the plots having laid limited numbers of egg masses.
Peak second generation egg laying occurred on July 20 but peak egg mass
numbers were considerably lower than first generation numbers had been (Table
152
3). Second generation small larval numbers peaked at 2.8 larvae per plant on
July 20 but small larvae continued to infest the plots through August 3 (Table 4).
Numbers of large larval increased among the treated plots on July 20 and finally
peaked at 3.7 larvae per plant on August 10 (Table 5).
Chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and esfenvalerate reduced numbers of small and
large larval following the June 15 application with chlorfenapyr being the most
effective (Tables 4 and 5). Spinosad, abamectin, chlorfenapyr, and endosulfan
further reduced numbers of small and large larval after the June 26 application
and effectively controlled Colorado potato beetles through July 20. Second
generation Colorado potato beetle larvae were also effectively controlled by
applications of chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and esfenvalerate on July 24. numbers of
small and large larvae increased again between August 3 and August 8 but due
to natural foliage senescence, insecticides were not applied.
Leaf defoliation ratings reflect the efficacy of Colorado potato beetle
treatments and defoliation was held at very low levels among the treated plots
throughout the sampling period, indicating that all the management programs
provided effective Colorado potato beetle control (Table 6). There were no
significant differences among defoliation ratings in the management programs
from June 8 until August 3. However, leaf defoliation increased dramatically in all
management programs on August 10 following a large influx of 2nd generation
adults from outside the experimental area and sampling was terminated.
153
Programs 7 and 3 had the lowest defoliation on 8/10 but all programs provided
excellent protection through 8/13 when controls were dead.
Potato leafhopper adults entered the plots in early June and were above
threshold through July (Table 7) with a peak of 4.6 per sweep on July 13 in the
untreated area. Potato leafhopper nymphs first appeared in the plots on June 19
and were present through August 10 (Table 8).
Malathion, a short-residual, broad-spectrum insecticide, was used to reduce
leafhopper numbers in the plots early in the season in all programs (June 12).
Since it was applied early and has limited persistence, we assumed that
malathion would provide leafhopper control with minimal disruption of natural
enemies. Malathion effectively reduced potato leafhopper adult numbers after
early application but was less effective later in the season. Applications of
esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide and endosulfan in management program 7
effectively reduced potato leafhopper adult and nymphal numbers which did not
exceed thresholds. Chlorfenapyr held both adult and nymphal populations below
threshold throughout the trial when used alone in program 3. Spintor and
Agrimek did not provide effective leafhopper control when alone (program 6) or in
combination (program 5) although programs 1, 2 and 4 which used Spintor and
Agrimek in combination with Alert were more effective (Tables 7, 8).
Green peach and potato aphids were managed as a complex during the study
since both are vectors of potato viruses but in commercial production emphasis
is typically placed on green peach aphids since they are the most efficient
154
vectors of potato leafroll virus and potato virus Y. Green-peach and potato
aphids were first detected on June 19 but numbers remained below threshold
levels in all the management programs except number 7 (Tables 9 and 10). The
late season bloom of populations of green peach aphids in program 7 is typically
seen following repeated applications of pyrethroid insecticides and has been
attributed to natural enemy disruption and physiological impacts on plants.
Methamidophos effectively reduced increasing green peach aphid numbers in
management program 7 after August 4. No aphid control was required in the
programs based on chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and abamectin although none of
these materials had been reported to have aphicidal properties.
Total yields among the management programs ranged from 310.5 cwt/A in
management program 5 to 271.9 cwt/A in management program 6 (Table 11).
Yields from the untreated plots were considerably lower and averaged 142.2
cwt/A. There were no significant yield or grade differences among the
management programs and all were considerably higher than the untreated
plots. Yields and grades of tubers among the management programs confirmed
the hypothesis that insect management programs incorporating selective
insecticides can provide effective pest insect control while allowing yields similar
to conventionally managed potatoes to be attained.
155
b) Impacts on beneficial arthropods
Beneficial arthropods were collected from all the plots during sampling and
total beneficial arthropod numbers ranged from 44.4 to 65.5 per sample (Table
12). In general, predators and parasitoids were collected in equivalent numbers
from the study. Parasitoid numbers did not differ significantly among the
management programs while predator numbers varied significantly.
Six predator families and spiders were collected during sampling and total
numbers ranged from 20.5 to 35.8 predators/sample (Table 13). Spiders and
anthocorids were the most frequently collected predators from the study but
greater variation among management programs was observed in chrysopid,
coccinellid, and nabid numbers. Beneficial predator numbers were generally
lower in the management programs with repeated applications of chlorfenapyr
(programs 3, 1, and 2). More predators were collected from the management
programs in which spinosad was applied, with the highest numbers of beneficial
predators being collected from the management program in which spinosad and
abamectin were used in combination.
Coccinellids were first detected in the plots on June 29 but remained at low
levels until late July when aphid numbers began increasing in the plots (Table
14). Generally, coccinellids were unaffected by selective insecticide applications
on July 24 (chlorfenapyr and spinosad) but numbers declined in management
program 7 after esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide was applied.
156
Chrysopids were collected more frequently from the plots than coccinellids
but in lower numbers (Table 15). Chrysopids were collected from June 25
through August 10 but no distinct population peaks occurred in the plots. Since
chrysopid numbers were at such low levels during the study impacts from
insecticides are difficult to ascertain. However, season total numbers in
management program 7 were significantly lower than numbers in several of the
other management programs.
Four parasitoid families were collected during sampling: braconids,
pteromalids, encyrtids, and mymarids (Table 16). Mymarid and pteromalid
numbers did not vary significantly among the management programs even
though they were among the most numerous parasitoids collected. Encyrtid
numbers and, to a lesser extent, braconid numbers varied significantly among
the management programs.
Braconids collected during sampling were mainly aphid parasitoids. Low
braconid numbers during the growing season reflected the low numbers of
aphids present in many of the management programs (Table 17). Braconid
numbers did not vary significantly among management programs until July 6
when they were significantly higher numbers in management program 4 in
comparison to numbers in management programs 2 and 5. Thereafter braconid
numbers during late July and early August were significantly higher in
management programs 3 and 4 than in management program 2. This
experiment was terminated after the August 8 count and thus the bloom of
157
aphids detected in early August in program 7 was not reflected in an increase in
aphid parasitoids.
3. Conclusions
All seven management programs provided good Colorado potato beetle
control but chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and abamectin are specific insecticides and
have no activity on the other key insect pests (aphids and leafhoppers).
Additional applications of malathion were required to control leafhoppers in these
programs. Aphid populations did not exceed thresholds except late in the
season in the broad-spectrum program where pyrethroid applications caused
resurgence and methamidophos was applied. Yields from the study were not
significantly different among programs, indicating that the specific insecticides
spinosad, abamectin, and chlorfenapyr can provide pest control that is
comparable to conventional programs.
Parasitoid populations were not consistently different among management
programs. There was however, a rapid aphid population increase in the broad-
spectrum management program late in the season.
Predator populations were low during the study but this could be attributed to
the low host densities (aphids) found in the management programs although
predator numbers were lower in the broad-spectrum management program,
indicating that broad-spectrum insecticides may have reduced their populations.
Table 1. Foliar insecticide management programs used to control key arthropod pests on Russet Burbank potatoes.
Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock, Wl, 1998.
Insecticide applied/Date
Management
program
6-121 6-152 6-262 7-242 8-4
Malathion® Alert® Spintor® Alert® Nnnp

1 1lUI Iv
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.151b. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.151b. a.i./A)
Malathion® Alert® AgriMek® Alert®
2 N nn p
I l v l Iw
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.151b. a.i./A) (0.009 lb. a.i.A) (0.151b. a.i./A)
Malathion® Alert® Alert® Alert®
3 INUI It?
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.15 lb. a.i./A) (0.151b. a.i./A) (0.15 1b. a.i./A))
Malathion® Spintor® Alert® Spintor®
4 Mnnp
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.15 lb. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A)
Malathion® Spintor® AgriMek® Spintor® Malathion®1
5
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.009 lb. a.i.A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.938 lb. a.i./A)
Malathion® Spintor® Spintor® Spintor® Malathion®1
6
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.07 lb. a.i./A) (0.938 lb. a.i./A)
Malathion® Asana®,PBO® Thiodan® Asana®/PBO® Monitor®3
7
(0.938 lb. a.i./A) (0.04 lb. a.i./6 oz/A) (1.0 lb. a.i./A) (0.04 lb. a.i./6 oz/A) (0.75 lb. a.i./A)
Untreated None None None None None
insecticide applications made for potato leafhopper control,
insecticide applications made for Colorado potato beetle control,
insecticide applications made for aphid control.
CD
00
Table 2. Colorado potato beetle adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
management programs. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock, Wl, 1998.
Management ________________________________Mean adults per 10 plants

program 6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 4.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 c 2.8 a 0.5 a 0.8 a 5.5 a
2 3.5 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.3 c 3.5 a 0.5 a 1.0 a 9.0 a
3 4.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 c 2.8 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 8.0 a
4 2.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 16.0 ab 4.3 a 0.5 a 1.0 a 7.0 a
5 3.5 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.8 be 5.8 a 0.5 a 1.8a 4.5 a
6 4.8 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 2.3 be 8.0 a 1.5a 3.3 a 7.5 a
7 1.8 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 1.0a 20.8 a 5.8 a 1.3a 3.5 a 6.5 a
Untreated 2.5 1.5 2.0 1.8 0.0 168.0 246.5 34.0 12.5 *0.0
LSD 0.90 0.290 0.250 0.110 0.270 2.050 1.320 0.611 0.840 2.248
F 0.582 0.778 0.652 1.000 2.062 3.631 0.671 0.668 1.122 0.151
Prob. (F) 0.7405 0.5977 0.6882 0.4552 0.1095 0.0154 0.6742 0.6764 0.3886 0.9865
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
(Df = 6, 27) *Test plot vegetation dead.
cn
CO
Table 3. Colorado potato beetle egg masses sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar
insect management programs. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock, Wl, 1998.
Management Mean e99 masses Per 10 P|ants

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 15.5 a 1.3a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.3 a
2 17.3 a 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
3 17.0 a 1.3a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
4 17.8 a 1.0 ab 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.0 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
5 18.8 a 0.8 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 ab 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a
6 16.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 2.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
7 16.3 a 0.0 b 1.3a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.3 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
Untreated 14.0 3.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 *0.0 *0.0
LSD 0.810 0.460 0.450 0.110 0.000 0.190 0.470 0.274 0.115 0.115
F 0.275 1.731 0.830 1.000 0.000 0.692 1.386 0.643 1.000 1.000
Prob. (F) 0.9413 0.1711 0.5622 0.4552 1.0000 0.6588 0.2731 0.6950 0.4552 0.4552
(Df = 6, 27), *Test plot vegetation dead.
CD
o
Table 4. Colorado potato beetle small larvae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar
Mean larvae per 10 plants

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 0.0 a 0.0 c 1.3 ab 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 28.8 a 2.5 a 2.3 a 0.0 a
2 0.0 a 0.0 c 11.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 6.3 a 7.3 a 1.5a 0.0 a
3 0.0 a 4.5 be 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.8 a 0.0 a 2.3 a 0.0 a
4 0.0 a 22.5 ab 17.8 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 13.8 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 a
5 0.0 a 7.8 be 2.3 ab 0.3 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 3.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
6 0.0 a 0.0 c 6.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 7.8 a 0.0 a 1.5a 0.0 a
7 0.0 a 41.3a 26.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 18.3 a 0.8 a 0.5 a 0.0 a
Untreated 0.0 166.0 58.5 17.0 7.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 *0.0 *0.0
LSD 0.000 2.650 3.110 0.140 0.350 0.000 4.130 1.448 1.083 0.000
F 0.000 4.815 1.248 1.000 0.802 0.000 0.370 0.807 0.373 0.000
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.0043 0.3289 0.4552 0.5814 1.0000 0.8884 0.5778 0.8864 1.0000
CT>
Table 5. Colorado potato beetle large larvae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar
Management________________________________ Mean larvae per 10 plants

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.3b 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 7.5 a 1.5 a 9.8 a 37.0 a
2 0.0 a 0.3 ab 7.3 b 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.5 ab 0.8 ab 0.0 a 12.3 a 19.0 ab
3 0.0 a 0.3 ab 1.3b 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.3 a 1.5a 27.5 a
4 0.0 a 0.0 b 28.8 b 1.0a 0.5 b 0.3 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 21.5 ab
5 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.3b 1.3a 0.5 b 0.0 b 2.5 ab 0.3 a 0.3 a 11.8 ab
6 0.0 a 0.0 b 26.8 b 1.0a 0.0 b 3.0 a 2.5 ab 0.0 a 1.5a 26.0 a
7 0.0 a 4.3 a 100.0 a 2.0 a 3.3 a 0.8 ab 1.8 ab 0.3 a 0.3 a 5.0 b
Untreated 0.0 30.0 298.8 277.0 122.8 4.3 1.8 3.8 *0.0 *0.0
LSD 0.000 0.830 4.390 0.740 0.670 0.650 1.390 0.520 2.306 2.551
F 0.000 1.481 3.308 0.647 1.890 1.541 1.210 0.694 0.807 1.898
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.2402 0.0225 0.6920 0.1380 0.2214 0.3460 0.6578 0.5779 0.1364
(Df = 6, 27), T e s t plot vegetation dead.
Table 6. Defoliation ratings of Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect management programs.
Mean percent defoliation

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 70.0 ab
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 62.5 ab
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 52.5 ab
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 62.5 ab
5 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 72.5 a
6 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3a 0.0 a 0.0 a 7.5 a 7.5 a 7.5 a 75.0 a
7 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 45.0 b
Untreated 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 25.0 27.5 30.0 Dead Dead
LSD 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.810 0.000 0.000 8.420 8.420 8.420 27.220
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.426
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4552 1.0000 1.0000 0.4552 0.4552 0.4552 0.590
Table 7. Potato leafhopper adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
Management Mean adults per 25 sweeps

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27
1 3.5 b 6.5 ab 9.5 be 12.3 a 33.3 ab 18.5 a 16.0 a 17.0c
2 6.5 ab 5.5 ab 6.0 c 12.0 a 24.3 abc 10.5 ab 16.3 a 19.8 be
3 8.5 a 11.8a 10.0 be 3.3 cd 12.0 cd 12.5 ab 9.3 a 12.3 cd
4 10.0 a 11.3a 26.0 a 4.5 be 16.0 bed 6.5 b 7.5 a 18.3 be
5 8.3 a 14.3 a 13.5 b 13.0 a 32.0 abc 8.8 ab 16.5 a 62.3 a
6 7.5 a 17.0 a 16.3 ab 10.3 ab 40.0 a 12.8 ab 20.5 a 43.3 ab
7 6.3 ab 1.0 b 23.3 a 0.3 d 9.3 d 11.3 ab 13.8 a 1.3d
Untreated 8.5 17.3 12.8 15.0 29.5 115.0 40.0 44.0
LSD 0.730 1.770 0.990 1.030 1.910 1.480 1.930 2.208
F 2.674 2.428 7.909 7.847 3.294 1.163 0.631 7.168
Prob. (F) 0.0492 0.0675 0.0003 0.0003 0.0229 0.3684 0.7039 0.0005
Table 8. Potato leafhopper nymphs sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
Management Mean nymphs per 25 leaves

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.0 a 2.0 b 11.5a 3.5 a 1.8 abc 0.5 b 6.8 abc 7.3 ab
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3a 2.3 b 8.3 a 2.8 ab 2.5 ab 0.8 b 5.0 abc 3.5 b
3 0.0 a 0.3 a 2.0 a 0.8 b 1.5a 0.0 b 0.3 c 1.3b 2.8 be 1.0b
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 5.3 a 1.0b 9.0 a 1.0 ab 1.3 be 1.3b 9.0 ab 22.8 a
5 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.5 a 10.8 a 14.0 a 1.0 ab 3.8 a 1.5 ab 11.5 ab 21.3a
6 0.0 a 0.0 a 4.8 a 3.5 b 13.5 a 3.3 a 2.3 abc 4.0 a 14.3 a 15.0 ab
7 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 c 0.0 b 1.0 c 0.0 b
Untreated 0.0 0.0 4.8 12.8 8.8 5.0 16.5 0.0 *0.0 *0.0
LSD 0.000 0.110 1.390 1.080 2.710 0.890 0.620 0.644 1.587 2.492
F 0.000 1.000 0.770 4.166 1.071 1.886 3.178 3.016 2.361 2.981
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.4552 0.6036 0.0085 0.4154 0.1386 0.0263 0.0321 0.0736 0.0335
Table 9. Potato aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect management
programs. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock, Wl, 1998.
Management _______________________________ Mean aphids per 25 leaves

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.8 a 2.0 a 0.5 a 4.0 a 4.0 be 2.0 a 6.8 a
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 1.3a 2.5 a 1.8 a 3.0 be 2.0 a 5.5 a
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 2.0 a 1.0a 1.5a 12.3 a 3.3 a 1.8a
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.3a 0.5 a 8.0 a 7.5 ab 0.8 a 0.5 a
5 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 1.8a 1.0a 1.3a 3.3 be 1.0a 11.5a
6 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.0 a 1.5a 2.0 a 0.3 a 1.5a 2.8 be 3.3 a 11.0 a
7 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 5.0 a 2.8 a 0.0 c 3.3 a 0.0 a
Untreated 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 4.5 2.0 2.8 3.3 *0.0 *0.0
LSD 0.000 0.280 0.690 0.540 0.780 1.070 1.280 1.267 0.877 2.162
F 0.000 1.000 0.451 0.793 0.698 0.969 1.080 3.476 0.778 1.223
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.4552 0.8349 0.5871 0.6544 0.4733 0.4108 0.0185 0.5980 0.3402
Table 10. Green peach aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
Management _______________________________ Mean aphids per 25 leaves

program
6-8 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-27 8-3 8-10
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.5 a 0.0 b 1.3a 1.5a 1.5b 27.8 a
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 1.8a 0.3 ab 1.0a 0.8 a 0.5 b 18.3 ab
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.5 ab 2.0 a 7.0 a 1.8 b 1.8 b
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 b 1.3 a 0.3 ab 1.5a 8.8 a 2.0 b 15.0 ab
5 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.8 a 0.0 b 1.0a 0.3 ab 0.5 a 0.3 a 2.3 b 8.0 ab
6 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.3 ab 1.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 a 3.8 b 10.8ab
7 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 1.0a 1.3 a 1.8a 3.0 a 0.0 a 50.0 a 5.5 ab
Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 *0.0 *0.0
LSD 0.00 0.21 0.39 0.27 0.81 0.50 0.82 1.77 2.47 2.72
F 0.000 1.000 1.195 1.995 0.259 1.045 0.758 1.159 4.082 1.396
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.4552 0.3528 0.1197 0.9492 0.4297 0.6118 0.3702 0.0093 0.2694
05
-v l
168
Table 11. Yield and grade of Russet Burbank potatoes managed with
various foliar insect management programs. Hancock Agricultural
Research Station, Hancock, Wl, 1998.
Percent Grade
Management Total yield
program Cwt./A
A’s B’s Culls
1 298.0 a 58.2 a 33.5 a 8.2 a
2 283.1 a 60.3 a 32.4 a 7.3 a
3 299.7 a 61.2 a 32.4 a 6.4 a
4 283.1 a 59.4 a 32.8 a 7.8 a
5 310.5 a 60.8 a 33.4 a 5.9 a
6 271.9 a 55.8 a 38.6 a 5.7 a
7 301.2 a 60.9 a 31.8 a 7.3 a
Untreated 142.2 31.0 62.2 6.6
LSD 43.560 6.337 6.794 3.279
F 0.837 0.843 1.008 0.786
Prob. (F) 0.5570 0.5534 0.4508 0.5925
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ

(P=0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
(Df = 6, 27)
Table 12. Beneficial arthropods vacuum sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
Total mean beneficials

Management program ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total mean beneficials
Predators Parasitoids
1 20.5 c 23.8 a 44.2 b
2 34.5 a 22.8 a 57.2 ab
3 23.2 be 33.2 a 56.5 ab
4 28.5 abc 33.0 a 61.5 ab
5 35.8 a 26.8 a 62.5 ab
6 30.2 ab 35.2 a 65.5 a
7 30.5 ab 31.0 a 61.5 ab
Untreated 30.2 26.6 56.8
LSD 0.904 1.445 1.248
F 2.890 0.847 1.291
Prob. (F) 0.0375 0.5508 0.3104

Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different (P=0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
(Df = 6, 27)
O)
to
Table 13. Beneficial predators sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
Management Total mean predators

program
Nabids Anthocorids Spiders Opiliones Syrphids Chrysopids Coccinellids Total mean
1 0.0 b 6.8 a 6.5 b 1.0a 0.0 a 3.2 c 3.0 b 20.5 c
2 0.5 b 8.8 a 11.8a 0.5 a 0.2 a 3.8 be 9.0 a 34.5 a
3 2.5 a 5.5 a 6.3 b 0.3 a 0.2 a 6.5 a 2.0 b 23.2 be
4 0.5 b 8.8 a 9.8 ab 0.8 a 0.2 a 6.0 ab 2.5 b 28.5 abc
5 1.3 ab 8.5 a 9.5 ab 0.3 a 0.5 a 7.0 a 8.8 a 35.8 a
6 0.5 b 12.8 a 8.8 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a 4.2 abc 3.8 b 30.2 ab
7 2.5 a 9.8 a 10.0 ab 0.3 a 0.2 a 5.5 abc 2.2 b 30.5 ab
Untreated 2.5 7.6 7.4 0.2 0.4 5.8 2.3 26.2
LSD 0.522 1.169 0.785 0.396 0.282 0.536 0.879 0.904
F 3.369 0.738 1.417 0.703 0.556 2.588 4.026 2.890
Prob. (F) 0.0209 0.6262 0.2619 0.6508 0.7596 0.0549 0.0099 0.0375
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different (P=0.05, Least Significant Difference Test)
(Df = 6, 27)
o
Table 14. Coccinellids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect management
Mean coccinellids per vacuum sample

program Total
6-5 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-29 8-10
mean
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.8 ab 1.8 abc 2.5 b
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.8 b 1.0 ab 1.5 abc 3.8 b
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.0b 4.8 a 2.8 a 9.0 a
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 2.5 a 3.5 a 2.3 ab 8.8 a
5 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.3 b 1.0 ab 0.3 c 2.2 b
6 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 ab 1.5 abc 2.0 b
7 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 1.3 ab 0.3 b 1.0 be 3.0 b
Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.0 *0.0 2.3
LSD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.205 0.263 0.196 0.500 0.927 0.536 0.879
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.085 0.692 3.301 1.701 2.174 4.026
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4552 0.4079 0.6589 0.0227 0.1781 0.0942 0.0099
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different (p=0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
(Df = 6, 27). T e s t plot vegetation dead.
Table 15. Chrysopids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect management

program Total
6-5 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-29 8-10
mean
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.0a 0.8 abc 0.3 b 0.0 b 1.8a 2.3 a 0.0 b 6.0 ab
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.0 ab 1.5 a 0.0 b 0.8 a 0.3 b 0.5 ab 4.2 abc
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 c 0.3 b 1.0 a 1.5a 0.8 ab 0.0 b 3.8 be
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 be 0.5 ab 0.8 ab 3.0 a 1.8 ab 0.5 ab 7.0 a
5 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.8a 1.3 ab 0.5 ab 1.3a 0.3 b 0.3 ab 5.5 abc
6 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.8 abc 0.5 ab 1.0 a 1.5a 1.3 ab 1.0a 6.5 a
7 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 c 0.3 b 0.5 ab 1.3a 0.5 ab 0.5 ab 3.2 c
Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.5 *0.0 5.8
LSD 0.000 0.000 0.392 0.374 0.366 0.380 0.778 0.563 0.346 0.536
F 0.000 0.000 0.510 3.028 2.403 1.596 0.536 1.709 1.256 2.588
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 0.7929 0.0316 0.0698 0.2055 0.7737 0.1763 0.3254 0.0549
(Df = 6, 27). *Test plot vegetation dead.
K>
Table 16. Beneficial parasitoid adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect
Management Total mean beneficial parasitoids

program
Braconids Pteromalids Encyrtids Mymarids Total mean
1 6.8 ab 4.2 a 5.5 a 7.2 a 23.8 a
2 4.0 b 7.0 a 3.0 ab 8.8 a 22.8 a
3 9.5 a 4.8 a 1.8b 17.2 a 33.2 a
4 10.2 a 5.2 a 2.2 b 15.2 a 33.0 a
5 5.5 ab 8.8 a 3.5 ab 9.0 a 26.8 a
6 7.8 ab 5.8 a 3.5 ab 18.2 a 35.2 a
7 7.2 ab 7.5 a 1.5b 14.8 a 31.0 a
Untreated 6.4 2.1 1.2 16.9 26.6
LSD 0.977 0.985 0.718 1.821 1.445
F 1.282 0.632 2.034 0.809 0.847
Prob. (F) 0.3144 0.7034 0.1136 0.5764 0.5508

(Df = 6, 27).
C
aJ
Table 17. Braconidae adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect management

Management
program Total
6-5* 6-19* 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20* 7-29* 8-10
mean
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.8 ab 2.0 a 0.8 a 0.3 b 1.8a 6.8 ab
2 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.8 b 1.3a 0.0 a 1.3a 0.0 b 4.0 b
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.8 a 3.3 ab 2.3 a 0.3 a 0.8 ab 2.0 a 9.5 a
4 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 1.0a 4.3 a 1.5a 1.3a 1.5a 0.3 b 10.2 a
5 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 1.0b 2.0 a 0.5 a 0.5 ab 0.3 b 5.5 ab
6 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 3.0 ab 2.5 a 1.0a 0.8 ab 0.0 b 7.8 ab
7 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.8 a 2.5 ab 1.3a 0.5 a 0.8 ab 0.5 b 7.2 ab
Untreated 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.0 2.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 *0.0 6.4
LSD 0.274 0.000 0.350 0.456 0.688 0.696 0.521 0.384 0.426 0.977
F 0.643 0.000 0.399 0.621 2.292 0.376 0.671 1.434 3.874 1.282
Prob. (F) 0.6950 1.0000 0.8698 0.7115 0.0807 0.8848 0.6746 0.2560 0.0117 0.3144
t lnsecticide application made after sample date.
(Df = 6, 27). T e s t plot vegetation dead.
Table 18. Encyrtid adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various foliar insect management

Management
program Total
6-5 6-19 6-25 6-29 7-6 7-13 7-20 7-29 8-10
mean
1 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.5 a 1.0a 0.0 a 0.3 a 2.2 b
2 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 1.0a 1.0a 1.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.5 ab
3 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.0 a 1.5 a 1.3a 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.0 ab
4 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 1.0a 1.3a 0.3 a 0.0 a 3.5 ab
5 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.5b
6 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.8 b
7 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.0a 0.3 a 1.0a 2.3 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 5.5 a
Untreated 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 *0.0 1.2
LSD 0.252 0.115 0.214 0.298 0.412 0.582 0.628 0.167 0.167 0.718
F 1.186 1.000 1.258 1.742 0.753 0.874 0.740 0.789 0.789 2.034
Prob. (F) 0.3572 0.4552 0.3245 0.1685 0.6155 0.5330 0.6244 0.5897 0.5897 0.1136
(Df = 6, 27).
Ui
177
C. INTEGRATING PEST SPECIFIC FOLIAR AND SYSTEMIC

INSECTICIDES INTO INSECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ON
POTATOES. HANCOCK AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION,
HANCOCK, Wl, 1999
In 1999, our research was focused on integrating chlorfenapyr (Alert® 2SC),
spinosad (Spintor® 2SC), fipronil (Agenda® 1.67SC), pymetrozine (Fulfill® 50SP),
and a seed treatment systemic, imidacloprid (Gaucho® 1.25DS) into
management programs for potatoes that would provide pest control while
conserving natural populations of beneficial arthropods. These chemistries have
demonstrated a high level of efficacy against the Colorado potato beetle and/or
aphids, while conserving beneficial arthropod populations on potatoes.
Integrated pest management programs that include combinations of selective
insecticides will not only promote beneficial arthropod conservation and help
regulate pest populations but will also help to moderate insect resistance
development among Colorado potato beetles and green peach aphids on
commercially produced potatoes in Wisconsin.
Insect management programs designed to manage arthropod pest complexes
on potatoes with emphasis on targeting Colorado potato beetle’s with
chlorfenapyr, spinosad, fipronil, imidacloprid, or the pyrethroids
esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide (Asana® 0.66EC/PBO®) and cyfluthrin/piperonyl
butoxide (Baythroid® 2.8 EC/PBO®), while utilizing existing registered materials
as needed for other pests were evaluated in a field situation at the Hancock
178
Agricultural Research Station in 1999. Research was conducted on large (36’x
60’), replicated, contiguous plots to parallel whole field applications and to
reduce the potential for pest reinfestation.
Replicated plots consisting of twelve 60’ rows of Russet Burbank potatoes
were planted on 3’ centers on April 28 in a randomized complete block
experimental design. Potato plots were segregated into inner undisturbed areas
and outer sampling areas. Six rows were left undisturbed in the center of each
plot (to simulate field conditions for yield) and six outside rows per treatment
where used for insect surveys. Grass and broadleaf weeds were treated with
1.0 lb. a.i. /A linuron (Lorox® DF) preplant incorporated and plots were also hand
weeded as needed throughout the season (avoiding the undisturbed areas).
Five insect management programs including three selective foliar
management programs and a systemic (seed treatment) management program
were evaluated and compared with a conventional foliar management program.
Since untreated areas are not present in potato fields, no untreated controls
were included and statistical comparisons were among management programs.
Selective foliar management programs consisted of Russet Burbank potatoes
treated with chlorfenapyr (Alert® 2SC) at the rate of 0.15 lb. a.i./A, spinosad
(Spintor® 2SC) at the rate of 0.063 lb. a.i./A, or fipronil (Agenda® 1.67SC) at the
rate of 0.038 lb. a.i./A to manage first-generation Colorado potato beetle larvae.
Imidacloprid (Gaucho® 1.5DS) at the rate of 10 ounces product per cwt of seed
was applied as a seed treatment for early and mid season control. These
179
selective programs were compared with a conventional foliar program that
utilized esfenvalerate/PBO (Asana® 0.66EC/PBO®) at the rates of 0.04 lb. a.i./A
and 6 oz. c.p./A and endosulfan (Thiodan® 3EC) at the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i./A to
manage first generation Colorado potato beetle larvae.
Second generation Colorado potato beetle larvae were managed with
chlorfenapyr (0.15 lb. a.i./A) (chlorfenapyr management program) or imidacloprid
(Provado® 1.6F, 0.047 lb. a.i./A -spinosad and fipronil management programs) or
esfenvalerate/PBO (0.04 lb. a.i. /A and 6 oz./A) and cyfluthrin/PBO (Baythroid
2EC/Pipironyl butoxide 0.063 lb. a.i./A and 4 oz./A) in the conventional foliar
management program. Second generation Colorado potato beetle were
managed with Asana®/PBO® (0.04 lb. a.i./A and 6 oz./A) in the seed treatment
program.
Potato leafhoppers were treated with permethrin (Pounce 3.2EC, 0.1 lb.
a.i./A) in the selective foliar and seed treatment programs while dimethoate
(Dimethoate 4, 0.5 lb. a.i./A) was applied in the conventional foliar management
program.
Aphids were treated in the conventional foliar management program with a
single application of methamidophos (Monitor 4, 0.5 lb. a.i./A), while pymetrozine
(Fulfill 50WG, 0.086 lb. a.i./A) was used in the selective foliar management
programs. No aphid control was needed in the seed treatment program. Table
19 summarizes the insecticide programs and application dates for each program.
180
The projected cost of registered programs is included based on the industry
average cost in 2002.
Insect pest thresholds simulated commercial fresh market potato production
practices. Colorado potato beetles are an annual pest of potatoes in Wisconsin
and they typically infest most commercial potato plantings early in the season.
Management programs in Wisconsin target small larvae (1st and 2nd instar) that
are typically more susceptible to insecticides and consequently, thresholds are
based upon egg hatch (30%) and the presence of small larvae rather than a
numerical threshold. Aphid thresholds for fresh market potatoes were set at 1
aphid per leaf from leaf samples of 25 leaves from each plot. Potato leafhopper
adult thresholds were 1 adult per sweep from samples of 25 sweeps per plot,
while leafhopper nymph thresholds of 0.5 nymphs per leaf from samples of
twenty-five leaves from each plot were used.
Certified Russet Burbank potato seed (cut A’s) was planted on April 28 using
a commercial two-row potato planter at the Hancock Agricultural Research
Station, Hancock, Wl. Seed treatments (Gaucho) at 10 ounces product per acre
were applied to precut suberized potato seed pieces. Gaucho® and the seed
pieces (predetermined weights) were placed into plastic bags and thoroughly
mixed before planting. Treated seed was placed at 12” seed spacing into open
furrows and immediately hilled after planting on April 28. Foliar insecticides
were applied with a tractor mounted, 18‘ boom sprayer operating at 70 PSI
(pressure at the tank), delivering 20 GPA. Hancock Agricultural Research
181
Station personnel conducted plot maintenance (application of herbicides and
irrigation), while fungicides were applied with the same tractor mounted sprayer
used to apply foliar insecticides. Azoxystrobin (Quadris® 2F, 0.097 lb. a.i./A)
and chlorthalonil (Bravo® 720, 0.563 lb. a.i./A) were applied according to a
resistance management rotation. Fungicide applications began on June 29 and
were continued weekly until vine kill on August 31. Four, undisturbed, 25-foot
rows were harvested from the center of each treatment on October 12 and
samples were graded at the Hancock Agricultural Research Station on October
20 .
Beneficial and pest insects were surveyed weekly from June 7 through
August 10. Colorado potato beetles were surveyed using plant-counts (10
plants per plot) for all stages of Colorado potato beetle while leaf defoliation
ratings were visually determined for each management program. Potato
leafhopper nymphs and aphids were monitored using leaf counts that consisted
of counting the total number of nymphs and aphids from 25 leaves per plot.
Potato leafhopper adults were monitored using sweep net samples consisting of
25 sweeps per plot. Beneficial arthropods and several pest insects were
monitored using vacuum sampling. Vacuum samples consist of sucking insects
from the potato crop canopy (from mid plant areas-vertically) with a modified leaf
blower (Homelite HB180V) while walking in the sample rows of each treatment
for a period of 50 seconds. Samples were placed into plastic sample cups
containing 70% alcohol and were examined later under magnification.
182
Foliar insecticide applications targeting Colorado potato beetles occurred on
June 8, June 17, and July 23 with a forth application on August 5 in the
conventional foliar management program. Potato leafhoppers were treated in
the chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and fipronil management programs on June 8 and in
all the management programs on June 24, July 10, and July 23. Aphids were
treated with methamidophos in conventional management program on July 23
and with pymetrozine in the selective foliar management programs (chlorfenapyr,
spinosad, and fipronil) on July 10. There were no aphicides applied in the seed
treatment program and foliar sprays (June 24, July 10, and July 23) were
required for potato leafhopper and second generation Colorado potato beetle
control.
Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance using Pesticide
Research Manager 5.0 (Gylling Data Management, Inc., 405 Martin Blvd.,
Brookings, South Dakota 57006-4605) and insect count data were transformed
[square root (X+1)] before mean separation was determined using the Least
Significant Difference Test (P=0.05).
a) Pest insect management
Random plant samples conducted after potato emergence revealed that
Colorado potato beetle adults entered the plots during late May and began
laying egg masses that led to peak small larval numbers on June 7. At this time
an unusually early and large migration of potato leafhopper adults had occurred
and thus initial insecticide applications were made on June 8. All the
management programs provided effective foliage protection from Colorado
potato beetle feeding and are evident from the low levels of defoliation observed
in the plots (Table 6). The systemic (seed treatment) management program
provided the best, early-season Colorado potato beetle control and few were
detected in the plots during June and early July (Tables 20, 21, 22 and 23).
However, 70 days after planting (application), imidacloprid efficacy had
diminished and esfenvalerate/PBO was applied to reduce second-generation
Colorado potato beetle larval numbers in the foliar programs. In the foliar
programs, chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and fipronil provided good first generation
larval control and all these programs required two applications (Tables 20-23).
Second generation control required single applications of chlorfenapyr or
imidacloprid in the selective programs to limit plant defoliation. Colorado potato
beetle populations in the selective foliar management programs were also
reduced by permethrin applications targeted at potato leafhoppers. The
pyrethroids, esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin, in combination with endosulfan
effectively controlled Colorado potato beetle larvae in the conventional foliar
management program but high larval pressure during the season required four
insecticide applications to keep larval numbers below damaging levels. The
decline in pyrethroid efficacy against Colorado potato beetles at the Hancock
184
location in 1999 was the first incidence of pyrethroid resistance in the
population.
Large numbers of potato leafhopper adults were detected early in the season
and required treatment in all foliar programs on June 7 (Tables 25). The seed
treatment did not require treatment at this time. Adult leafhoppers continued to
reinfest the plots and numbers remained high during June and much of July.
Leafhopper adult numbers declined in late July and no further insecticide
applications were required in August. Imidacloprid applied as a seed treatment
effectively limited adult leafhopper infestation early in the growing season but
pyrethroids were applied on June 22, July 9, and July 23 to reduce excessive
adult leafhopper numbers. Two applications of dimethoate were required in the
conventional foliar management program while four applications of permethrin
were required in the selective management programs to reduce leafhopper adult
numbers. Insecticide applications targeting Colorado potato beetle and aphids
in the conventional management program also reduced leafhopper adult
populations (Asana® and Monitor®).
Potato leafhopper nymph numbers were at low levels during the growing
season even though large numbers of adults were present during much of the
season (Table 26). Foliar insecticide applications did not intentionally target
potato leafhopper nymphs but numbers were certainly reduced by applications of
pyrethroids and dimethoate that were directed at adult populations.
185
Aphids were detected infrequently during June but numbers increased during
early July (Tables 27 and 28). Aphid numbers gradually declined after
pymetrozine was applied in all the selective foliar management programs on July
10 and numbers remained below threshold levels through August.
Methamidophos effectively reduced green peach aphid populations in the
conventional program, which were increasing rapidly on 7/23 as a result of
repeated pyrethroid applications for Colorado potato beetle control.
Plots were harvested for yield on October 12 and grade was determined
using the Hancock Agricultural Research Stations’ Gallanberg size grader.
Yields and grade among the management programs were similar and there were
no significant differences among the five management programs (Table 29).
Total yields among the management programs ranged from 299.0 cwt/A to 287.0
cwt/A while percent grade A's ranged from 72.5 percent to 68.9 percent. Yield
trends confirm that selective insecticides provided pest insect protection that
was equivalent to broad-spectrum insecticides and in this trial the selective
programs required 8 applications compared to 7 for the conventional program.
The seed treatment program required only 4 applications. Estimated program
costs for registered programs (Table 19) of $45.44, $74.02, and $82.44 for the
conventional, spinosad-selective, and imidacloprid seed treatment programs,
respectively, showed that the conventional foliar program was most economical.
With the decline of pyrethroid efficacy seen in 1999, however, alternative
selective or systemic programs may become necessary.
186
b) Impacts on beneficial arthropods
Beneficial arthropods were numerous in this trial and total numbers ranged
from 54.0 to 108.0 total beneficials per sample (Table 30). Total beneficial
arthropod numbers were significantly higher in the selective chlorfenapyr and
spinosad programs than in the conventional foliar and seed treatment programs
(Table 30). Beneficial arthropod numbers were intermediate in the fipronil
program with less total beneficials than the spinosad program but more than the
conventional foliar program. Impacts were greatest among the parasitoids
where the conventional program had 57% and 54% less parasitoids than the
spinosad and chlorfenapyr programs, respectively. Predator impacts were less
evident although the spinosad program had significantly more predators than
both the conventional and seed treatment programs. These data were contrary
to previous observations (Section III) where predators were more adversely
impacted than parasitoids.
These differences indicated that the insecticides used in the conventional
foliar and seed treatment programs negatively affected beneficial arthropods. It
is unclear whether this resulted from direct toxicity or differences in prey
availability. Esfenvalerate, permethrin, methamidophos, cyfluthrin, and
imidacloprid (applied foliarly) negatively affected beneficial arthropods, typically
reducing numbers after application (Tables 32, 33, 35, 36) while the selective
foliar insecticides chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and fipronil generally conserved
beneficial arthropods.
187
Five predatory families of beneficial arthropods and spiders were collected
during sampling: anthocorids, chrysopids, coccinellids, nabids, and syrphids
(Table 31). Total mean predator numbers ranged from 19.5 to 35.0 and
numbers were significantly higher in management programs where spinosad and
chlorfenapyr was applied compared to conventional and seed treatment
programs. Anthocorids and spiders were more commonly collected than other
predators but few significant differences were detected among insecticide
programs.
Anthocorids were collected during sampling from June through August (Table
32) and numbers peaked during late June and early July, which corresponded
with pest population peaks. The pyrethroids esfenvalerate, permethrin, and
cyfluthrin negatively affected anthocorids and dimethoate also reduced
anthocorid numbers after application. Imidacloprid was applied foliarly with
permethrin so its impact on anthocorids was not clear in this study. The
organochlorine endosulfan and the selective foliar insecticides spinosad,
chlorfenapyr, and fipronil did not reduce anthocorid numbers after application, in
fact, numbers increased after they were applied.
Total chrysopid numbers were lower than anthocorid numbers but chrysopids
were collected on most sample dates during July and August (Table 33);
however, numbers were low with no clear population peaks. Chrysopids were
collected in larger numbers from management programs where spinosad and
chlorfenapyr were applied but differences were not significant.
188
Five parasitoid families were collected during sampling: braconids, mymarids,
pteromalids, encyrtids, and eulophids (Table 34). Total mean parasitoid
numbers ranged from 30.5 to 73.3 total parasitoids. Generally, parasitoid
numbers were higher in the management programs where selective insecticides
had been applied and were lowest in the conventional management program.
Mymarids and braconids were collected in larger numbers than pteromalids,
encyrtids, and eulophids but significant differences among parasitoid adults
were only detected amongst braconid and pteromalid numbers. Parasitoid
trends were similar to predator trends and indicate that broad-spectrum
insecticides are directly toxic to parasitoids or they reduce host availability.
Braconid, mymarid, and pteromalid numbers, which make up the majority of
beneficial parasitoids collected in the programs, were lowest in the conventional
foliar program. Selective foliar programs had more parasitoids than the seed
treatment programs, which was unexpected since the fewest insecticide
interventions occurred in the seed treatment program.
Braconids were present from June through August (Table 35) and
populations were low early in the season but increased in early July in response
to increasing aphid populations. Braconid numbers peaked during mid to late
July and declined during August. Significantly higher numbers of braconids
were detected in management programs where chlorfenapyr, spinosad, and
fipronil were applied while significantly lower numbers were collected in the
conventional management program. Esfenvalerate, permethrin, and cyfluthrin
189
reduced braconid populations after application and populations treated with
dimethoate also declined. Braconids exposed to spinosad and chlorfenapyr
were not negatively affected while populations declined after applications of
fipronil.
Pteromalid adults were collected from June through August but not as
regularly as the braconids and mymarids (Table 36). Pteromalids were collected
in low numbers during June but numbers increased in early July and peaked on
July 9. Pteromalid numbers declined after applications of permethrin and
aphicides on July 10 and numbers stayed at low levels during July and August.
Significantly higher numbers of pteromalid adults were collected from the
selective foliar-spinosad management program than from the seed treatment
program. The pyrethroids esfenvalerate, permethrin, and cyfluthrin, and the
organophosphates dimethoate and methamidophos negatively influenced adult
numbers, while applications of spinosad, chlorfenapyr, and fipronil did not
reduce pteromalid numbers.
3. Conclusions
All the management programs provided good Colorado potato beetle control
but due to the selective activity of spinosad, chlorfenapyr and fipronil these
management programs required additional applications of permethrin for potato
leafhopper control and pymetrozine for aphid control.
190
Yields from the study were not significantly different among programs,
indicating that proper application timing of the new insecticide chemistries can
provide pest control that is comparable to conventional programs.
Beneficial arthropods were common in the study and repeated applications of
the pyrethroids esfenvalerate, permethrin, and cyfluthrin, negatively impacted
beneficial populations. Imidacloprid (applied foliarly) also had negative impacts
on most beneficial arthropods, while dimethoate and imidacloprid applied at
planting, and the low-risk foliar insecticides spinosad, chlorfenapyr, and fipronil
usually had little affect on beneficial arthropods.
Predator numbers were typically higher in the pest-specific foliar programs
than in the conventional foliar and seed treatment programs. This reflected the
low host densities found in the seed treatment program and the repeated
application of broad-spectrum foliar insecticides in the conventional foliar
management program.
Parasitoid population trends were similar with higher populations in the pest-
specific foliar management programs. Parasitoid populations were negatively
impacted by pyrethroid and organophosphate applications. Esfenvalerate,
permethrin, cyfluthrin, dimethoate, and methamidophos typically reduced
parasitoid numbers after application, while populations treated with the low-risk
foliar insecticides spinosad, chlorfenapyr and fipronil typically increased.
Table 19. Foliar insecticide management regimes used to control key arthropod pests on Russet Burbank potatoes.
Insecticide applied
Management
program Number of Estimated
4-26 6-8 6-17 6-24 7-10 7-23 8-5 materials material
applied cost ($/A)
Chlorfenapyr- Alert®, Pounce®, Alert®,

—
Alert® Pounce® —
8 NA
foliar Pounce® Fulfill® Pounce®
Spinosad- Spintor®, Pounce® Provado®,

—
Spintor® Pounce® —
8 74.02
foliar Pounce® Fulfill® Pounce®
Agenda®, Pounce® Provado®,

Fipronil-foliar —
Agenda® Pounce® —
8 NA
Pounce® Fulfill® Pounce®
Conventional- Asana XL® 9 Dimethoate®, Baythroid®

—
Thiodan® Dimethoate® 7 45.44
foliar / PBO® Monitor® /PBO®
Seed Asana XL®/

Gaucho® — —
Pounce® Pounce® —
4 82.44
treatment PBO®
NA-Experimental materials with no cost estimate available.

Table 20. Colorado potato beetle adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide
Mean adults per 10 plants

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
3.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 b 0.8 a 2.0 b 0.3 b 2.8 ab 3.3 ab 2.0 a
foliar
Spinosad-
3.0 a 0.5 a 1.5 ab 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.3 ab 6.5 ab 2.8 ab 2.8 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 3.3 a 0.5 a 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.5 ab 5.8 ab 4.0 ab 1.3 a
Conventional-
3.0 a 1.8a 2.5 a 1.8a 0.3 a 2.3 a 1.0a 4.5 a 2.5 a 1.8b 1.0 b 1.8 a
foliar
Seed
0.3 b 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.8 a 0.3 a 0.5 b 0.3 a 0.8 b 1.8 ab 7.8 a 5.3 a 1.5 a
treatment
LSD 0.68 0.65 0.68 0.75 0.26 0.51 0.60 0.66 0.67 1.21 0.84 0.73
F 2.995 0.766 1.829 0.774 0.429 3.194 0.531 5.922 1.755 1.848 2.094 0.775
Prob. (F) 0.0628 0.5673 0.1882 0.5626 0.7854 0.0528 0.7158 0.0072 0.2028 0.1845 0.1446 0.5622
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P = 0.05, Least Significant Difference Test),
(df = 4, 19).
Table 21. Colorado potato beetle egg masses sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different
insecticide management programs. Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock, Wl, 1999.
Mean egg masses per 10 plants

Management _______________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
15.3 a 6.0 ab 0.8 ab 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.3a 0.0 a
foliar
Spinosad-
3.0 cd 10.8 a 1.0a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 ab 2.3 a 0.0 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 4.8 be 7.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 2.3 a 0.0 a
Conventional-
11.5 ab 4.3 ab 0.8 ab 0.3 a 1.3a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 1.0a 0.0 a
foliar
Seed
0.0 d 0.5 b 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 b 0b 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.8a 2.3 a 1.3 a
treatment
LSD 1.23 1.52 0.34 0.21 0.40 0.20 0.21 0.25 0.00 0.47 0.71 0.50
F 8.362 2.520 2.217 0.692 1.992 2.000 0.692 1.000 0.000 2.534 0.678 1.000
Prob. (F) 0.0018 0.0964 0.1284 0.6114 0.1599 0.1586 0.6114 0.4449 1.0000 0.0951 0.6202 0.4449
(df = 4, 19).
CO
CO
Table 22. Colorado potato beetle small larvae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different
Management Mean larvae Per 10 P|ants

piuyiaiii
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
43.0 a 4.0 ab 31.3 a 3.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.3 a 1.3a 0.0 a 4.3 b 0.8 a 15.3 ab
foliar
Spinosad-
19.0 ab 3.0 b 26.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 2.8 ab 0.0 a 8.5 a 0.0 a 2.8 b 14.5 a 41.5 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 22.3 ab 2.0 b 3.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 1.5 a 1.8a 7.8 ab 16.3 a 29.0 a
Conventional-
20.5 ab 14.8 a 15.8 a 2.0 a 3.3 a 30.0 a 0.0 a 1.0 a 0.5 a 18.3 a 0.5 a 0.5 b
foliar
Seed
0.0 b 0.0 b 2.8 a 1.3a 0.0 b 6.5 ab 1.5 a 3.5 a 0.0 a 2.3 b 9.3 a 30.5 a
treatment
LSD 3.57 1.85 3.43 0.98 0.76 3.13 0.60 1.51 0.70 2.01 3.11 3.17
F 2.214 2.737 1.996 1.256 2.279 2.150 0.850 1.505 0.783 2.201 1.224 3.595
Prob. (F) 0.1287 0.0790 0.1593 0.3399 0.1209 0.1369 0.5205 0.2621 0.5576 0.1303 0.3514 0.0378
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P = 0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
(df = 4, 19).
CD
-tv
Table 23. Colorado potato beetle large larvae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
0.0 a 0.0 a 3.8 a 1.0 b 0.0 b 0.5 b 0.3 a 9.5 a 0.0 b 7.3 ab 3.0 a 0.8 ab
foliar
Spinosad-
0.0 a 0.0 a 1.0 ab 0.0 b 0.3 b 0.8 b 3.8 a 3.5 a 0.0 b 3.3 ab 3.5 a 1.0 ab
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.5 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 1.5a 7.8 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 5.0 a 8.3 ab
Conventional-
0.0 a 0.0 a 1.5 ab 4.8 a 3.0 a 53.5 a 0.5 a 4.0 a 0.0 b 13.3 a 1.0a 0.0 b
foliar
Seed
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 b 0.0 b 3.3 b 2.5 a 15.3 a 1.5 a 5.3 ab 4.8 a 11.5a
treatment
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.58 0.54 3.20 1.27 2.00 0.30 1.72 1.61 2.12
F 0.000 0.000 1.899 8.249 4.852 4.778 0.595 1.442 6.176 2.720 0.568 1.718
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 0.1753 0.0019 0.0146 0.0154 0.6728 0.2796 0.0062 0.0802 0.6908 0.2105
(df = 4, 19).
CD
Ol
Table 24. Percent defoliation ratings from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management
Mean percent defoliation ratings per plot

Management____________________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
-foliar
Spinosad-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
-foliar
Seed
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3a
treatment
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4449 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4449
(df = 4, 19).
CD
05
Table 25. Potato leafhopper adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide
Mean adults per 25 sweeps

Management______________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr
64.5 a 0.3 ab 3.0 b 32.0 a 12.5 a 31.8 a 2.0 a 36.5 ab 1.3a 3.3 ab 1.8 a 5.0 a
-foliar
Spinosad-
67.5 a 0.8 ab 2.8 b 22.0 ab 13.3 a 19.0 a 0.3 a 41.0 a 1.0a 5.5 a 3.0 a 3.5 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 71 a 0.5 ab 5.0 ab 22.3 ab 6.5 a 28.5 a 1.8a 33.8 abc 1.0a 5.3 ab 2.5 a 2.8 ab
Conventional
72.8 a 0.0 b 2.3 b 13.8 b 12.3 a 30.8 a 2.0 a 21.3 be 1.5a 1.5 b 0.0 a 0.3 b
-foliar
Seed
4.0 b 1.8 a 9.3 a 17.8 b 5.3 a 30.5 a 1.3a 19.0 c 0.5 a 3.3 ab 2.5 a 1.8 ab
treatment
LSD 1.36 0.52 0.76 1.32 1.25 1.63 0.75 1.51 0.57 0.88 1.49 0.88
F 38.296 1.923 5.379 2.477 1.552 0.939 0.971 3.088 0.365 1.833 0.411 2.788
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.1712 0.0102 0.1003 0.2494 0.4742 0.4588 0.0579 0.8289 0.1873 0.7971 0.0754
(df = 4, 19).
to
Table 26. Potato leafhopper nymphs sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide
Mean nymphs per 25 leaves

Management
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a
foliar
Spinosad-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.0 a 0.5 a 1.0a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.8 ab 0.0 a 1.3a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a
Conventional-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Seed
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a
treatment
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.26 0.46 0.30 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.629 1.000 2.005 0.734 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0871 0.4449 0.1578 0.5860 0.4449 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5073
(df = 4, 19).
Table 27. Potato aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
0.3 a 0.3 b 0.0 b 3a 0.0 a 7.0 ab 0.0 c 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a
foliar
Spinosad-
0.0 a 1.3a 0.3 ab 0.3 be 1.0 a 13.8 a 3.0 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.5 a 1.8 ab 0.5 a 15.0 a 4.3 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.0 a
Conventional-
0.0 a 0.0 b 0b 0.0 c 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.8 be 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Seed
0.0 a 0.0 b 0b 0.0 c 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 be 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
treatment
LSD 0.14 0.34 0.20 0.60 0.40 1.47 0.78 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.43
F 1.000 2.954 2.000 4.313 1.588 8.099 4.475 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.734 1.000
Prob. (F) 0.4449 0.0651 0.1586 0.0216 0.2406 0.0021 0.0192 0.4449 1.0000 1.0000 0.5860 0.4449
(df = 4, 19).
CD
CD
Table 28. Green peach aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 1.8a 0.0 a 1.8a 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 4.3 a 3.3 a
foliar
Spinosad-
0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 4.0 a 4.5 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.3 a 7.8 a 5.8 a 0.5 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 2.8 a
Conventional-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 5.0 a 28.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 7.5 a
foliar
Seed
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.0b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.8 a
treatment
LSD 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.62 0.14 1.57 1.60 1.49 0.14 0.00 0.90 1.56
F 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.053 1.000 1.687 1.468 13.257 1.000 0.000 2.336 1.112
Prob. (F) 0.4449 0.4449 0.4449 0.4208 0.4449 0.2172 0.2724 0.0002 0.4449 1.0000 0.1145 0.3957
(df = 4, 19).
N3
O
O
Table 29. Yields and percent grade of Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management
Percent grade
Management Total yield
program (cwt./A)
A’s B's Culls
Chlorfenapyr-foliar 68.9 a 12.4 a 18.8 ab 297.3 a
Spinosad-foliar 69.7 a 12.1 a 18.1 ab 287.8 a
Fipronil-foliar 70.0 a 10.2 a 19.8 a 288.1 a
Conventional-foliar 70.7 a 11.5a 17.8 ab 294.8 a
Seed treatment 72.5 a 11.6a 16.0 b 299.3 a
LSD 6.06 5.10 3.50 108.12
F 0.468 0.270 1.539 0.023
Prob. (F) 0.7582 0.8918 0.2529 0.9988
High percentage of culls due to plot preparation before harvest.
(df = 4, 19).
Table 30. Beneficial arthropods sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes under different insecticide management
programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl 2001.
Total beneficials
Management
program
Predators Parasitoids Total
Chlorfenapyr-
29.5 ab 68.0 ab 98.0 ab
foliar
Spinosad-foliar 35.0 a 73.0 a 108.0 a
Fipronil-foliar 25.5 abc 53.0 be 78.0 be
Conventional-
23.3 be 31.0 d 54.0 d
foliar
Seed treatment 19.5 c 43.0 cd 63.0 cd
LSD 0.98 1.08 0.69
F 3.077 12.055 2.600
Prob. (F) 0.0584 0.0004 0.0894
(df = 3, 15).
Table 31. Predatory arthropods sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide
Total predators
Management ________________________________________________
program
Anthocorids Spiders Chrysopids Coccinellids Nabids Syrphids Total
Chlorfenapyr-
16.0 ab 8.3 a 3.5 a 0.8 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 29.5 ab
foliar
Spinosad-
22.0 a 8.8 a 3.0 ab 0.8 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 35.0 a
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 14.3 ab 9.3 a 1.3b 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 25.5 abc
Conventional-
11.0b 9.3 a 2.8 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 23.3 be
foliar
Seed
8.5 b 8.5 a 2.0 ab 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 19.5 c
treatment
LSD 1.20 0.55 0.62 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.98
F 2.680 0.257 1.441 1.195 0.750 0.732 3.077
Prob. (F) 0.0832 0.8996 0.2800 0.3626 0.5767 0.5873 0.0584
(df = 4, 19).
Table 32. Anthocoridae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management
Mean anthocorids per vacuum sample

Management
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
1.8a 0.3 b 0.0 a 2.0 b 1.5a 3.5 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 1.0a 3.0 a 2.3 a
foliar
Spinosad-foliar 2.3 a 0.5 b 0.3 a 5.3 a 1.5a 5.3 a 0.0 a 1.5a 0.3 a 0.5 a 2.3 ab 2.5 a
Fipronil-foliar 2.5 a 1.0 ab 0.3 a 2.8 ab 1.8a 2.5 a 0.0 a 1.0a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.8 ab 1.0a
Conventional-
0.3 b 1.8a 0.8 a 1.8b 0.5 a 1.5a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 2.5 ab 0.5 a
foliar
Seed
2.5 a 0.3 b 0.0 a 1.8b 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 2.0 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.3 b 0.3 a
treatment
LSD 0.47 0.33 0.42 0.69 0.58 1.18 0.00 0.61 0.20 0.56 0.72 0.71
F 3.809 4.454 0.568 2.621 1.358 1.306 0.000 0.527 0.692 0.156 2.265 1.507
Prob. (F) 0.0319 0.0195 0.6911 0.0878 0.3052 0.3223 1.0000 0.7184 0.6113 0.9566 0.1226 0.2614
(df = 4, 19).
to
o
Table 33. Chrysopidae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management

Management
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18 Total
Chlorfenapyr-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 1.3a 3.5 a
foliar
Spinosad-foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.0 a 1.0a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.3 a 3.0 ab
Fipronil-foliar 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3b
Conventional-
0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 2.8 ab
foliar
Seed treatment 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 ab 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.0 ab
LSD 0.17 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.23 0.33 0.14 0.53 0.26 0.20 0.14 0.43 0.62
F 1.000 0.000 3.000 1.231 1.500 1.809 1.000 0.087 1.000 2.000 1.000 1.648 1.441
Prob. (F) 0.4449 1.0000 0.0625 0.3488 0.2634 0.1920 0.4449 0.9847 0.4449 0.1586 0.4449 0.2262 0.2800
(df = 4, 19).
KJ
o
cn
Table 34. Beneficial parasitoid adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide

Management
program
Braconids Mymarids Pteromalids Encyrtids Eulophids Total
Chlorfenapyr-
33.5 a 19.3 a 7.8 b 7.3 a 0.0 a 67.8 ab
foliar
Spinosad-foliar 28.0 a 24.8 a 12.8 a 7.5 a 0.3 a 73.3 a
Fipronil-foliar 24.8 a 15.3 a 7.5 be 4.8 a 0.3 a 52.5 be
Conventional-
4.8 c 17.3 a 7.5 ab 4.8 a 0.3 a 30.5 d
foliar
Seed treatment 14.8 b 14.3 a 3.5 c 6.3 a 0.3 a 43.0 cd
LSD 0.85 1.42 0.80 0.71 0.29 1.08
F 26.792 0.948 4.793 1.134 0.231 12.167
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.4697 0.0153 0.3865 0.9158 0.0003
(df = 4, 19).
NO
O
O)
Table 35. Braconidae adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management

Management
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr
0.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.8 a 2.0 be 6.5 a 5.0 a 5.8 ab 3.0 ab 2.8 a 3.3 a 3.0 a
-foliar
Spinosad-
0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 1.8 a 4.5 ab 5.8 a 2.3 ab 8.0 a 3.0 ab 1.0a 0.3 b 1.0 ab
foliar
Fipronil-foliar 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.0 b 4.8 a 3.3 ab 5.3 a 3.3 b 3.8 a 1.0a 0.8 b 1.5 ab
Conventional
0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 1.0 cd 0.3 b 0.0 c 0.3 c 0.8 b 2.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b
-foliar
Seed
0.5 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 1.3 ab 0.3 d 2.0 ab 1.0 be 5.0 b 1.8 ab 1.5a 0.3 b 0.8 b
treatment
LSD 0.35 0.31 0.25 0.55 0.56 1.14 0.71 0.61 0.71 0.75 0.52 0.60
F 0.565 0.200 1.000 2.339 8.721 2.575 7.205 13.102 2.086 0.728 4.567 2.784
Prob. (F) 0.6925 0.9335 0.4449 0.1142 0.0015 0.0916 0.0034 0.0002 0.1457 0.5900 0.0179 0.0757
(df = 4, 19).
ro
o
-v j
Table 36. Pteromalidae adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide

Management
program
6-7 6-10 6-17 6-22 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-23 7-28 8-5 8-11 8-18
Chlorfenapyr-
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.8 a 1.0a 2.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 ab 0.8 a 1.0a 0.0 b 1.5a
foliar
Spinosad-foliar 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 1.0a 1.3a 4.3 a 0.3 a 1.5a 1.0a 0.3 a 1.8a 0.5 ab
Fipronil-foliar 0.5 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 3.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 b 0.5 a 0.0 a 1.0 ab 0.5 ab
Conventional-
0.0 a 0.5 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 3.3 a 0.0 a 1.8a 0.8 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.3 b
foliar
Seed
0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 1.8 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.8 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b
treatment
LSD 0.35 0.32 0.23 0.38 0.47 0.68 0.20 0.41 0.49 0.37 0.50 0.39
F 0.672 0.816 0.529 1.381 0.872 1.159 0.692 4.212 0.271 1.605 2.150 2.143
Prob. (F) 0.6240 0.5389 0.7166 0.2980 0.5086 0.3763 0.6113 0.0233 0.8911 0.2364 0.1370 0.1379
(df = 4, 19).
209
D. DISCUSSION AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Two studies evaluated the effects of incorporating selective insecticides into
season-long insect management programs for potatoes. Colorado potato beetle,
potato leafhopper, and aphid insecticides were evaluated for compatibility with
beneficial insects and efficacy on targeted potato pests in simulated commercial
field situations.
Management programs based on specific insecticides implemented in 1998
and 1999 provided effective pest insect control with 4 and 8 insecticide
applications compared to 5 and 7 applications for conventional broad-spectrum
programs in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Three and four Colorado potato beetle
insecticide applications were required in the conventional foliar management
programs in 1998 and 1999 while only three applications were required in the
selective foliar management programs in both years and only two applications
were required in the seed treatment management program in 1999.
Aphids did not reach threshold levels in any of the selective management
programs in 1998, but an application of methamidophos was required in the
conventional management program to control rapidly increasing green peach
aphid numbers during early August. This indicates that either beneficial
arthropods were conserved in sufficient numbers to suppress aphids in the
selective programs or that repeated applications of broad-spectrum insecticides
in the conventional management regime limited beneficial insect numbers or
promoted aphid increase. These trends support similar findings of aphid
210
resurgence associated with broad-spectrum insecticide use by DeBach and
Bartlett (1951), Lingren and Ridgway (1967), and McClure (1977). Aphid
numbers were higher in the 1999 study but they were effectively controlled by
applications of pymetrozine and methamidophos.
There were no significant yield differences among programs during either
year, indicating that through proper application timing, insect management
programs incorporating selective insecticides can result in yields comparable to
conventional programs. These results were obtained in years of intense insect
pest pressure with Colorado potato beetles predominant in 1998 and potato
leafhopper and Colorado potato beetle both at damaging levels for much of 1999.
In 1998, insecticide effects on beneficial arthropods varied among insecticide
classes and arthropod families. Generally, predatory arthropod populations were
more variable and impacted more severely by insecticide interventions than were
parasitoid populations. These trends may be due to several factors including
insecticide susceptibility, insect mobility and searching behavior, and prey or host
density. Parasitoid adults tend to reinfest treated plots more quickly than
predators thus parasitoids are more evenly distributed among the programs.
Predators may also be more susceptible to foliar insecticides than parasitoids but
there is considerable information from the literature stating that parasitoids are
sensitive to foliar insecticides (Suh et al. 2000, Elzen et al. 1999, Elzen et al.
2000, Nowak et al. 2001, Hill and Foster 2000). Our results from 1999 indicated
that the braconid and pteromalid populations, which were the dominant aphid
211
parasitoids, were extremely susceptible to the pyrethroid insecticides employed
in the conventional management programs.
Beneficial arthropod numbers during both years were generally highest in the
management programs in which selective insecticides were used. Spinosad
typically did not negatively impact beneficial arthropods in the field reflecting
previous predator research conducted by Boyd and Boethel (1998 b), Tillman
and Mulrooney (2000), Elzen (2001). However, several studies from the
literature indicate that spinosad is mildly to moderately toxic to parasitoids (Elzen
et al. 1999, Elzen et al. 2000, Suh et al. 2000, Hill and Foster 2000, Nowak et al.
2001). This was not observed in these field trials. Elzen et al. (1999 and 2000)
and Al-Deeb et al. (2001) also demonstrated that fipronil has low to moderate
toxicity to parasitoids but in our studies fipronil did not have greater negative
impacts than the other selective insecticides evaluated (spinosad and
pymetrozine). This is consistent with research conducted by Al-Deeb et al.
(2001) who found that fipronil was less toxic to anthocorids than was ethyl
parathion, bifenthrin, and lambda cyhalothrin.
Chlorfenapyr caused varied mortality among beneficial arthropods. In 1998,
chlorfenapyr affected beneficial arthropods more negatively than did spinosad
and abamectin. These trends are consistent with literature findings that
chlorfenapyr is typically more toxic to beneficial arthropods than spinosad and
abamectin (Shean and Cranshaw 1991, Boyd and Boethel 1998a and b, Tillman
and Mulrooney 2000, Elzen 2001). However, chlorfenapyr did not have any
212
negative impacts to beneficial arthropods in 1999 and numbers were similar to
those found among the other selective insecticide management programs.
Abamectin had little negative impact on beneficial arthropods in our field
studies and these trends reflect findings from research conducted by Shean and
Cranshaw (1991) and Boyd and Boethel (1998a) with abamectin on encyrtids,
braconids, nabids, and pentatomids. However, Brunner et al. (2001) found
abamectin to be highly toxic to eulophids and trichogrammatids while Ibrahim
and Yee (2000) observed high spider mortality in abamectin bioassays. These
negative impacts were not seen in our trials.
Imidacloprid was applied systemically and foliarly in 1999. Beneficial
arthropod numbers (predators) were significantly lower in the seed treatment
management program than in the selective foliar management programs.
Reduced beneficial numbers could be the result of several factors. Imidacloprid
applied systemically provided the most effective, season long aphid and
leafhopper control thus limiting the available prey for predators. Hassell (1978)
suggests that predators spend longer periods of time foraging in patches where
the rate of encounter with prey is highest. Since aphid numbers were so low in
the seed treatment management program, predators would be less likely to
forage in these plots thus contributing to the low incidence of predators. Another
factor contributing to reduced predators numbers in the seed treatment
management program may have been insecticide toxicity. Imidacloprid applied
systemically may be less harmful to nontarget insects than the foliar spray
213
because it is less likely to come in direct contact with the nontarget insect (Mizell
and Sconyers 1992) but nontarget arthropods may come into contact with the
insecticide in various ways. Many predators feed on plant material to
supplement their diet. If the insecticide is translocated to flowers, beneficial
insects feeding on nectar or pollen may ingest the insecticide. It has also been
demonstrated that systemic pesticides can in some cases be translocated to the
surface of the plant or enter a vapor stage and come in direct contact with insects
on the plant surface (Croft 1990). Smith and Krischik (1999) found that
imidacloprid applied systemically reduced the general mobility of coccinellids on
sunflower, chrysanthemum, and dandelion but increased mortality was found
only on sunflower.
Imidacloprid applied foliarly significantly reduced both predator and parasitoid
numbers in the plots and these findings are consistent with research found in the
literature. Mizell and Sconyers (1992) found that in a laboratory setting,
imidacloprid residues caused significant coccinellid mortality. Boyd and Boethel
(1998a) found that imidacloprid residues were as toxic to adult geocorids as were
residues from methyl parathion and permethrin one day after application. De
Cock et al. (1996) found that imidacloprid toxicity to beneficial insects decreased
in magnitude from topical exposure to ingestion to residual contact on the
pentatomid P. maculeventris. Sclar et al. (1998) showed that anthocorid
mortality increased when they were confined with imidacloprid treated foliage as
opposed to untreated foliage. Brunner et al. (2001) also demonstrated that
214
imidacloprid was highly toxic to eulophids and trichogrammatids when applied
topically.
Repeated applications of broad-spectrum insecticides to control CPB and
leafhoppers typically had the most negative effect on beneficial arthropods.
Esfenvalerate, permethrin, cyfluthrin, dimethoate, and methamidophos regularly
reduced beneficial insect numbers. These trends are consistent with a variety of
laboratory and field studies conducted on a wide range of beneficial arthropods in
several agroecosystems (Yokoyama et al. 1984, Mansour and Nentwig 1988,
Scott et al. 1988, Baker et al. 1995, Kok et al. 1996, Rumpf et al. 1997, Boyd and
Boethel 1998a and 1998b, Epstein et al. 2000, Suh et al. 2000, Nowak et al.
2001). These results clearly demonstrate that pyrethroids and
organophosphates should be used judiciously in Integrated Pest Management
programs for potatoes to avoid negative impacts on beneficial arthropod
populations.
215
E. LITERATURE CITED
Al-Deeb, M.A., G.E. Wilde, and K.Y. Zhu. 2001. Effect of insecticides used in
corn, sorghum, and alfalfa on the predator Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera:
protectant insecticides in two field strains of the stored-product insect
parasitoid Bracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
88(3): 512-519.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 a. Residual toxicity of selected insecticides
to Heteropteran predaceous species (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae, Nabidae,
Pentatomidae) on soybean. Envir. Entomol. 27(1): 154-160.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 b. Susceptibility of predaceous Hemipteran

species to selected insecticides on soybean in Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol.
91(2): 401-409.
pesticides on Colpoclypeus florus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) and
Trichogramma platneri (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), parasitoids of
leafrollers in Washington. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1075-1084.
Croft, B.A. 1990. Arthropod Biological Control Agents and Pesticides. Wiley,
New York. 723 p.
Debach, P., and B. Barlett. 1951. Effects of insecticides on biological control of

insect pests of citrus. J. Econ. Entomol. 41:118-1191.
De Cock, A., P. De Clercq, L. Tirry, and D. Degheele. 1996. Toxicity of

deafenthiuron and imidacloprid to the predatory bug Podisus maculiventris
(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Envir. Entomol. 25(2): 476-480.
Toxicological responses of the Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Ectoparasitoid Catolaccus grandis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to selected
insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 92(2): 309-313.
Elzen, G.W., S.N. Maldonado, and M.G. Rojas. 2000. Lethal and sublethal
effects of selected insecticides and an insect growth regulator on the Boll
216
Elzen, G.W. 2001. Lethal and sublethal effects of insecticide residues on Orius
insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera:
Lygaeidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94(1): 55-59.
broad-spectrum insecticides on epigeal arthropod biodiversity in Pacific
Northwest apple orchards. Env. Entomol. 29(2): 340-348.
Hassell, M.P. 1978. The dynamics of arthropod predator-prey systems.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 237 p.
Hill, T.A. and R.F. Foster. 2000. Effect of insecticides on the Diamondback Moth
(Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and its parasitoid Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera:
Ichneumonidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(3): 763-768.
Kok, L.T., J.A. Lasota, T.J. McAvoy, and R.A. Davis. 1996. Residual foliar
toxicity of 4’-Epi-Methylamino-4”-Deoxyavermectin B1 Hydrochloride (MK-
243) and selected commercial insecticides to adult Hymenopterous Parasites,
Pteromalus puparum (Hymenptera: Pteromalidae) and Cotesia orobenae
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae).
Mansour, F. and W. Nentwig. 1988. Effects of agrochemical residues on four

spider taxa: Laboratory methods for pesticide tests with web-building spiders.
Phytoparasitica. 16(4): 317-326.
McClure, M.S. 1977. Resurgence of the scale, Fiohnia externa (Homoptera:

Diaspididae), on hemlock following insecticide application. Environ. Entomol.
6: 480-484.
Mizell, R.F., and M.C. Sconyers. 1992. Toxicity of imidacloprid to selected

arthropod predators in the laboratory. Fla. Entomol. 75: 277-280.
Susceptibility of adult Hymenopteran Parasitoids of the Nantucket Pine Tip
Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to broad-spectrum and biorational insecticides
in a laboratory study. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1122-1129.
217
Rumpf, S., C. Frampton, and B. Chapman. 1997. Acute toxicity of insecticides

(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) LC50 and LC100 estimates for various test
durations.
Sclar, D.C., D. Gerace, and W.S. Cranshaw. 1998. Observations of population

increases and injury by spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) on ornamental
plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 91: 250-255.
Scott, J.G. and D.A. Rutz. 1988. Comparitive toxicities of seven insecticides to
house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and Urolepis rufipes (Ashmead)
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Econ. Entom. 81(3): 804-807.
Shean, B. and W.S. Cranshaw. 1991. Differential susceptibilities of green peach

aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) and two endoparasitoids (Hymenoptera:
Encyrtidae and Braconidae) to pesticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 84(3): 844-850.
Smith, S.F. and V.A. Krischik. 1999. Effects of systemic imidacloprid on

Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Envir. Entomol. 28(6):
1189-1195.
Tillman, P.G. and J.E. Mulrooney. 2000. Effect of selected insecticides on the
natural enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens
Bracon mellitor, Cardiochiles nigriceps, and Cotesia marginiventris
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 1638-1643.
Yokoyama, V.Y., J. Pritchard, and R.V. Dowell. 1984. Laboratory toxicity of

pesticides to Geocoris pallens (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), a predator in
California cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:10-15.
218
V. INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS DEVELOPED TO REDUCE

RELIANCE ON HIGH-RISK PESTICIDES ON COMMERCIALLY GROWN
POTATOES IN WISCONSIN.
A. Introduction
A majority of Wisconsin potatoes are produced in the Central Sands region of
the state, which is characterized predominantly by sandy soils and shallow
ground water levels. Agriculture in the region is dominated by irrigated, high
yield vegetable and field crop production, which are heavily dependent on
pesticides, resulting in a high risk of significant environmental consequences
from which major management challenges result.
In the early 1980’s high levels of aldicarb were detected in the regions
groundwater, resulting in increased regulatory activity threatening industry
survival (Wyman et al. 1985). Circumstances convinced vegetable growers and
industry leaders to take action and develop and adopt biointensive integrated
pest management (IPM) practices that would reduce reliance on high risk
pesticides.
Integrated pest management (IPM) became popular in the early 1970’s
because of increased concerns over pesticide fate in the environment and 30
years later it is recognized as one of the most robust agricultural paradigms to
arise in recent history. Current IPM systems can be placed on a continuum
based on their pesticide dependence. At one end of the continuum, programs
rely on chemical-intensive, treatment orientated control measures while at the
other end of the continuum systems are prediction-based programs encouraging
219
biological practices that use pesticide intervention only when needed to restore
balance to the system.
Benbrook et al. (1996) categorized IPM systems into four zones based on
pesticide dependency. The lowest zone includes systems that are pesticide
dependent and include few if any preventive IPM practices. Low-level IPM
systems include scouting and pesticide application in accord with economic
thresholds, proper timing and operation of spray equipment, and may include
some preventative practices but these systems are still pesticide reliant to a
significant degree. Medium level IPM systems incorporate multifactor
preventative measures, coupled with efforts to enhance beneficial arthropods
through reduced use of broad-spectrum and persistent pesticides. Biointensive
IPM (or high level IPM) systems rely primarily on preventative practices that limit
pest pressure while promoting beneficial organisms, with pesticides used as a
last resort and persistent broad-spectrum products avoided at all times.
In 1996, University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers, the Wisconsin Potato
and Vegetable Growers Association (WPVGA), and the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) worked with potato growers and pest management consultants to
conduct on-farm pest management and cropping system research that would
encourage behavioral shifts toward adoption of more mid-level and biointensive
IPM. The WPVGA-WWF partnership set goals for reducing use of 11 of the
most toxic, high-risk pesticides and promoting grower progression along the IPM
continuum towards biointensive IPM. An important related goal was to develop
220
appropriate measurement methods for monitoring and documentation of grower
adoption of biointensive IPM practices, and for exploring the linkages between
IPM adoption and reduced high-risk pesticide reliance.
To address these goals, the collaboration designed a measurement system
based on “toxicity units” to evaluate impacts of IPM systems (Benbrook et al.
2002). The system was designed to be dynamic and pliable yet be a structured
framework addressing human health, environmental, ecological, and cost related
impacts associated with the adoption of biointensive IPM.
“Toxicity units” are designed to reflect the potential toxic impact of pesticides
in the production system. Several properties and parameters contribute to
calculating toxicity factor values and a pesticide’s compatibility with biointensive
IPM: acute mammalian toxicity, chronic mammalian toxicity, ecological impacts,
and impacts on beneficial organisms and IPM systems (Benbrook et al. 2002).
Ecological, beneficial organism, and IPM system impacts in turn are based upon
multiple indices. Ecological impacts are based on avian, aquatic, and small
invertebrate ecological risks. Beneficial organism and IPM system impacts are
combined into a BiolPM index quantifying pesticide impacts on the ability of
growers to progress along the IPM continuum towards biointensive IPM. BiolPM
index components include resistance management, beneficial and non-target
organism impacts, and impacts on honey bees.
Wisconsin potato grower surveys conducted in 1998 revealed that 2% of the
surveyed acreage was in the biointensive (high) zone of management. Fifty-five
221
percent of the farms surveyed were in the medium IPM zone and 11 percent
were still managing pests with a heavy reliance on pesticides (Benbrook et al.
2002). These statistics indicate that there is considerable margin for IPM
improvement among potato growers in Wisconsin.
Historically, incentives for biointensive IPM adoption for potato growers in
Wisconsin have been limited to managing insecticide resistance and thereby
benefiting from the economic rewards associated with continued effectiveness of
older and less expensive chemistries. Lower levels or delayed insecticide
resistance can be measured in terms of lower production costs. In potato
production regions where Colorado potato beetle resistance was common in the
early 1990’s, input costs rose dramatically. The combined costs of using
multiple insecticide applications and employing expensive physical controls (e.g.
propane flaming, vacuum suction) increased Colorado potato beetle
management costs to $300-400 per acre in the eastern United States where
resistance was widespread compared to $20-30 per acre control costs in
Wisconsin where growers delayed Colorado potato beetle resistance by
adopting biointensive IPM (Wyman et al. 1995). Thus resistance avoidance can
be a strong incentive economically to adopt biointensive IPM. However, such
rewards can only be realized after resistance has reached economic
proportions.
Wisconsin growers entered into the unique collaboration with WWF in 1996
based on the principle that this approach to reducing pesticide reliance and
222
toxicity was “the right thing to do” (Hoppin 1997, Lynch et al 2000). Significant
reductions in pesticide toxicity and increases in IPM adoption were achieved
through the collaboration (Benbrook et al. 2002). However, production costs
typically increase in biointensive IPM systems and with no concomitant gain in
crop market value, the incentive for adoption of biointensive IPM by growers is
greatly reduced when environmental or economic failures are not imminent. For
this reason the potato grower/WWF collaboration has the goal of achieving
marketplace rewards to offset the potential added cost of biointensive IPM
adoption (Hoppin 1997). This goal was realized in part in 2001 with the
marketing of the first eco-labeled potato “Healthy Grown”, from Wisconsin by
growers who were able to meet strict IPM adoption and pesticide toxicity
reduction standards (McCallum and Brown 2001, Anon 2001).
In Section IV of this dissertation we were able to show in an experiment
station setting that season long insect control could be achieved using reduced
risk insecticides. In this section we report results of research conducted from
1997-2000 in which we evaluated reduced risk insect management approaches
in replicated experiments on commercial production potatoes. These studies
were conducted to evaluate strategies for insect management that would enable
growers to participate in the ongoing Wisconsin eco-label project. Evaluation
parameters included pest control efficacy, impacts on beneficial arthropods, crop
yield and quality, economics of production and toxicity of control approaches.
223
B. COMPARISONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS AND

SELECTIVE AND BROAD-SPECTRUM SYSTEMIC AND FOLIAR
INSECTICIDES ON POTATOES. COLOMA FARMS, COLOMA, Wl,
1997.
Five insect management programs were evaluated in a commercial center-
pivot irrigated field of Russet Burbank potatoes at the Coloma Farms in
Waushara County. A conventional foliar program was used as the industry
standard and compared with a selective foliar program. The conventional foliar
program was based on broad-spectrum insecticides and used esfenvalerate
(Asana XL®/PBO® at 0.04 lb. a.i./A and 4 oz. c.p./A) for Colorado potato beetle
control, dimethoate (Dimethoate® 4E at 0.75 lb. a.i./A) for potato leafhopper
control and methamidophos (Monitor® 4E at 0.5 and 0.75 lb. a.i./A) for aphid
control. The selective foliar program used pest specific abamectin (Agrimek®
0.15EC at 0.012 lb. a.i./A) for Colorado potato beetle control, dimethoate
(Dimethoate® 4E at 0.75 lb. a.i./A) and malathion (Malathion® 5EC at 0.5 and
0.625 lb. a.i./A) for potato leafhopper control and methamidophos (Monitor® 4E
at 0.5 lb. a.i./A) for aphid control. While the leafhopper and aphid materials
were broad-spectrum, they were used because specific alternatives were not
registered in 1997. Dimethoate was used only in early season and malathion
was used in mid season because of its short persistence. Methamidophos was
used in late season.
224
Two systemic programs were also evaluated with imidacloprid (Admire® 2F at
0.25 lb. a.i./A) applied at planting impregnated on the starter fertilizer, or
sprayed in the furrow, for Colorado potato beetle control. These programs
required no supplemental applications for potato leafhopper or aphid control.
These four insecticide-based programs were compared with a genetically
modified Russet Burbank potato (NewLeaf®, Hybritech Seed International, Boise
Idaho) expressing the delta-endotoxin of Bacillus thuhngiensis var. tenebrionis,
which provided complete Colorado potato beetle control. Dimethoate
(Dimethoate® 4E at 0.75 lb. a.i./A) and malathion (Malathion® 5EC at 0.5 and
0.625 lb. a.i./A) were used for potato leafhopper control on the transgenic plots
and methamidophos (Monitor® 4E at 0.5 lb. a.i./A) was used for aphid control.
The insect management programs with dates of application are outlined in Table
1.
Certified Russet Burbank potato seed (cut A’s), conventional and genetically
modified seed stock, were planted on April 25 into 80 acres of loamy sand
textured soil in a center pivot irrigated field at Coloma Farms, Coloma,
Wisconsin. The field was divided into four replications arranged in a
randomized complete block experimental design. Replications were each
divided into five treatment blocks consisting of 48 rows (30 inch row spacing)
1200 feet long (3.3 acres). Treatment blocks were further divided into 4 subunit-
sampling points from which insect surveys were taken and averaged to generate
a plot number for analysis. Systemic in-furrow treatments were applied with a
225
planter-mounted sprayer delivering 10 gpa through a single flat fan nozzle in
each furrow. Nozzles were located directly in front of the planter shoes,
spraying the seed piece immediately before the planter shoes closed the hill
over the seed piece. Systemic-fertiIizer treatments were impregnated on the
starter fertilizer (5-20-20-6S-.5Zn-4Mg) which was applied at the rate of 650
pounds per acre. Fertilizer treatments (5-20-20-6S-.5Zn-4Mg) were banded on
both sides of the seed piece during planting at the rate of 650 pounds per acre.
Foliar insecticides were applied with a 120‘ boom operating at 70 psi, delivering
20 or 25 gpa depending upon the insecticide treatment. Coloma Farms
personnel conducted plot maintenance (application of pesticides as dictated by
scouting, irrigation, soil, and plant fertility) as per commercial potato production
recommendations. Plots were vine killed on September 5 and harvested on
September 22 and 23. Yields were weighed and logged into Harvest Master, a
computer software program designed to constantly monitor yields while the
machine is harvesting. Eight 80-pound tuber samples (two per replicate) were
collected from each management program while the plot was being harvested to
conduct size grading. Samples were stored at Coloma Farms potato storage
facilities until they were graded at the Hancock Agricultural Research Station on
October 7 and 8.
Beneficial and pest insects were surveyed weekly from June 10 through
August 19. Colorado potato beetles were surveyed using plant counts (10
plants per subunit) for all stages of Colorado potato beetle while leaf defoliation
226
ratings were visually determined for each management program. Potato
leafhopper nymphs and aphids were monitored using leaf counts that consisted
of counting the total number of nymphs and aphids from 25 leaflets per treatment
subunit. Potato leafhopper adults were monitored using sweep net samples
consisting of 25 sweeps per treatment subunit. Beneficial arthropods and
several pest insects were monitored using vacuum sampling. Vacuum samples
consist of sucking insects from the potato crop canopy (from mid plant areas-
vertically) with a modified leaf blower (Homelite HB180V) while walking in the
center two rows of each treatment for a period of 50 seconds. Samples were
placed into plastic sample cups containing 70% alcohol and were examined later
under magnification.
First generation Colorado potato beetles were treated in the foliar
management programs on June 27 using esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide in the
conventional foliar management program and abamectin in the selective foliar
management program. Second generation sprays were not required in these
plots. Imidacloprid applied at planting and the genetically modified potatoes
provided season long protection against Colorado potato beetles.
Potato leafhopper adults were treated with dimethoate in the transgenic
resistance and selective foliar management programs on June 27 with the
conventional foliar plots retreated with dimethoate at the rate of 0.4 lb. a.i./A on
July 11. The transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs
227
were retreated with malathion on July 11 (0.5 lb. a.i./A) and July 30 (0.625 lb.
a.i./A).
Aphids were treated with methamidophos in the conventional foliar
management program on August 7 (0.75 lb. a.i./A) and retreated on August 28
(1.0 lb. a.i./A). Aphids were treated in the transgenic resistance and selective
foliar management programs with methamidophos on August 21 (0.75 lb. a.i./A).
No aphid treatments were needed in the systemic imidacloprid plots.
Data were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance and analyzed using
Agricultural Research Manager version 6.0 (Gylling Data Management, Inc., 405
Martin Blvd., Brookings, South Dakota, 57006-4605). Mean separation was
determined using Least Significance Difference Test, P=0.05.
First generation Colorado potato beetle adults were recorded in the plots on
June 17 and immediately began laying egg masses (Tables 2 and 3). Small and
large Colorado potato beetle larvae were detected in the plots one week later on
June 24 and (small and large larval numbers) peaked in the selective foliar
management program at 1.4 small and 7.0 large larvae per ten plants on July 14
(Tables 4 and 5). Virtually no first generation small or large larvae were
detected in the conventional foliar, systemic, or transgenic plots. Second-
generation Colorado potato beetle numbers peaked during mid August and
pressure was higher in all the management programs except for the transgenic
228
resistance program. The highest populations of second-generation larvae were
again found in the selective foliar program but numbers were not high enough in
any plots to justify additional insecticide applications and no leaf defoliation was
recorded.
Potato aphids were not detected in the plots until July 9 and numbers
gradually increased to a peak of 1.3 aphids per leaf in the transgenic plots on
August 5 (Table 6). Potato aphid numbers were highest in the transgenic
resistance and selective foliar management programs throughout the season.
Potato aphid numbers did not exceed threshold levels during the season but
combined green peach and potato aphid numbers along with green peach aphid
"hot spots" found in the conventional foliar, selective foliar, and transgenic
resistance management programs prompted treatment on August 7
(conventional foliar) and August 21 (all three programs). Imidacloprid applied
systemically provided effective season-long potato aphid control.
Green peach aphids were first detected in the plots on July 1 (Table 7) and
numbers increased after August 5 and peaked at 1.0 aphid per leaf in the
transgenic resistance program on August 19. Methamidophos and imidacloprid
applied systemically effectively controlled green peach aphid populations.
Potato leafhopper adults were present in the plots from June 10 through
August 19 (Table 8). Leafhopper numbers first reached the adult threshold of
one per sweep on June 24 in the transgenic resistance and foliar management
programs. Applications of esfenvalerate (conventional foliar) and dimethoate
229
(selective and transgenic resistance) on June 27 provided effective control.
Leafhoppers in the transgenic resistance and selective foliar management
programs were retreated with malathion on July 11 and July 30 due to a
combination of increasing adult and nymph numbers but these applications of
malathion were less effective. Adult numbers declined in August and no further
insecticide applications were required. Dimethoate and malathion effectively
reduced potato leafhopper adult numbers but malathion was less effective than
dimethoate. Adult populations averaged 0.1 per sweep for the season in both
systemic imidacloprid treatments (which did not differ significantly) and required
no supplemental treatments for potato leafhopper.
Potato leafhopper nymphs were first detected in the plots on July 1 and
numbers were consistently highest in the transgenic and selective foliar
programs where malathion was used (Table 9). Dimethoate and malathion
reduced nymph numbers after applications on July 11 but numbers gradually
increased after treatment in the selective foliar and transgenic resistance
management programs. Methamidophos applications for aphid control on
August 7 in the transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs
eliminated nymphal populations and no retreatment was needed. Imidacloprid
applied systemically and foliar applications of dimethoate effectively controlled
nymphs but applications of malathion in the transgenic resistance and selective
foliar management programs were not effective.
230
Total yields among the management programs were not significantly
different, indicating that effective insect pest control was achieved by all the
management programs (Table 10). Plot yields were high and total weights
ranged from 412.3 to 425.5 cwt./A among the management programs. Although
total yields did not differ statistically among treatments, differences were
detected in yields of marketable tubers. The transgenic tubers had significantly
lower yields of grade A marketable tubers and significantly higher percentages
of both B sized (undersized) and cull (unmarketable) tubers (Table 10) than all
other treatment programs. These differences translated to significant economic
loss to the grower with 24 to 36 cwt./A fewer grade A potatoes than other
treatment programs ($120 to $180/A at $5.00/cwt.). Since the efficacy of insect
management programs did not differ significantly between programs, this quality
reduction was attributed to differences in yield potential of the transgenic
potatoes.
A similar quality differential was noted between the imidacloprid treatments in
the distribution of size grades (Table 10). Again, while the total yield, percent
A’s, percent B’s, or percent culls did not differ statistically between the
imidacloprid treatments, the fertilizer imidacloprid plots yielded significantly more
small size tubers (2-4 oz and 6-10 oz) and less (4.2% vs. 6.3%) large tubers (IQ-
16 oz) than the imidacloprid-in furrow plots. The difference in larger tubers,
although not statistically significant, would represent a significant impact to the
grower when premiums are received for the larger size tubers in both processing
231
and fresh markets. The conventional foliar program was similar to the
imidacloprid fertilizer treatment and had significantly more small size tubers and
less large tubers (10-16 oz.) than the selective foliar program.
Insecticide cost and toxicity unit accumulations varied considerably among
the management programs (Table 1). The conventional foliar management
program was the least expensive program to implement ($51.57/A) and the low
cost is the reason why these chemicals are so attractive to growers. Conversely,
toxicity unit accumulation was considerably higher in the conventional
management program as a result of the organophosphate applications for
leafhopper and aphid control. Insecticide costs were highest in the selective
foliar management program ($75.74/A) and reflected the additional insecticide
cost for selective Colorado potato beetle control with abamectin. Toxicity units
were also high in this program because of the aphid and leafhopper
applications. Systemic management programs were slightly less expensive to
implement than the selective foliar management program ($69.75/A vs.
$75.74/A) but toxicity unit accumulations were considerably less (40 vs. 670).
These data clearly demonstrate the effects that applications of toxic insecticides
(e.g. dimethoate and methamidophos) can have on toxicity unit accumulation.
To achieve certification for the “Healthy Grown” label, growers would need to
remain below a cap of 1400 toxicity units for Russet Burbank for all pesticide
use. Clearly, the organophosphates dimethoate and methamidophos would not
be a feasible strategy but in 1997 no alternatives were available.
232
Beneficial arthropods were collected from June through August and total
numbers ranged from 20.6 to 42.6 beneficials (Tables 11 and 12). Foliar
insecticide applications early in the season did not reduce beneficial arthropod
numbers while they declined after similar applications late in the season.
Significantly higher numbers of beneficial arthropods were collected from the
transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs than from the
other management programs. Beneficial arthropod numbers were lowest in the
conventional foliar program and the two systemic management programs. Low
beneficial numbers in the systemic management programs can be explained by
the lack of prey or hosts (aphids) available for the beneficials. The same
argument could be made for the conventional foliar management program but
this program also received three applications of broad-spectrum insecticides
during the season. Beneficial arthropod numbers increased after applications of
esfenvalerate/PBO, dimethoate, malathion, and abamectin on June 27 and July
11. However, beneficial arthropod numbers declined after applications of
malathion on July 30. Beneficial numbers in the conventional foliar management
program also declined after the application of methamidophos on August 7.
Five predatory families of arthropods and spiders were collected during
sampling: chrysopids, coccinellids, anthocorids, nabids, and syrphids (Table 14).
Total predator numbers ranged from 11.8 to 20.6 predators and total numbers
were significantly higher in the transgenic resistance and selective foliar
management programs than in the systemic in-furrow and conventional foliar
233
management programs. Spiders and chrysopids were more commonly collected
from the study than coccinellids, anthocorids, nabids, and syrphids.
Predator numbers declined after most of the foliar insecticide applications
(Table 14). However, the effect of abamectin on predators is unclear since it
was applied on the same date as dimethoate in the selective management
program (June 27). Effects of dimethoate on predator numbers varied after
application. Predator numbers increased after dimethoate applications in the
conventional foliar plots on July 11 while numbers decreased after its application
in the transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs on June
27. Malathion also had varied effects on predators; predator numbers in the
transgenic resistance management program increased while they remained
constant in the selective foliar management program after malathion was applied
on July 11. Predator numbers declined after malathion applications in the
transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs on August 5.
Predator numbers declined after applications of esfenvalerate/PBO and
methamidophos on June 27 and August 7.
The abundance of predator families in the treatment plots suggests that
several families rely more heavily on aphids for prey while others may have a
broader host range. Chrysopid, coccinellid, and anthocorid numbers were
lowest in the systemic treatments where aphid numbers were the lowest,
indicating that a lack of prey limited their numbers in those management
programs since these treatment programs received no foliar sprays.
234
Six parasitoid families were collected during sampling: braconids, mymarids,
pteromalids, encyrtids, eulophids, and aphelinids (Table 15). Total parasitoid
numbers ranged from 8.8 to 22.1 adults and total numbers were significantly
higher in the transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs
(Tables 15 and 16). Braconids and mymarids were more commonly collected
during sampling than were pteromalids, encyrtids, eulophids, and aphelinids.
Applications of esfenvalerate/PBO, abamectin, and dimethoate did not
negatively impact adult numbers early in the season. However, parasitoid
numbers declined after later malathion and methamidophos applications.
3. Conclusions
All the management programs provided good Colorado potato beetle control.
The high level of selectivity of several of the Colorado potato beetle insecticides
(transgenic potatoes and abamectin) required additional insecticide inputs to
control aphids and leafhoppers. However, high beneficial arthropod numbers in
the selective foliar and transgenic resistance management programs helped
regulate aphid numbers, eliminating additional aphicide applications.
Total yields among the management programs were not significantly
different, indicating that all the management programs achieved effective insect
pest control. However, yields of marketable tubers were lower in the transgenic
resistance management program and although the differences were not
235
significant, profit differences of between $120 to $180/A ($5.00/cwt.) were
detected.
Insecticide cost and toxicity unit accumulations varied considerably among
the management programs but the conventional management program was the
least expensive to employ. However, toxicity units were higher in the
conventional foliar management program due to repeated applications of
organophosphates.
Beneficial arthropods were commonly found in the study and several
interesting trends were observed. Timing of insecticide application greatly
influenced beneficial arthropod numbers. Foliar insecticides applied early in the
growing season (June and early July) typically had less of an impact on
beneficials than the same insecticides applied later. This trend may be the
result of beneficial arthropod population dynamics, increasing versus declining
numbers during different periods of the season. Other factors such as host
density and food source availability also may have influenced beneficial
arthropod numbers.
Table 1. Insecticide management programs used to control insect pests on Russet Burbank potatoes. Coloma
Farms, Coloma, Wl, 1997.
Spray date - Insecticide applied

Management
Program
Toxicity Approx.
4-25 6-27 7-11 7-30 8-7 8-21 8-28
Units cost/A
Conventional Asana®
—
Dimethoate® — Monitor® —
Monitor® 880 $51.57
foliar XL/PBO
In plant
Transgenic
expression Dimethoate® Malathion® Malathion® Monitor® —
690 $65.74
resistance
Btt
Systemic in
Admire® — — — —
40 $69.75
furrow
Selective Agri-Mek®
—
Malathion® Malathion® Monitor® —
690 $75.74
foliar Dimethoate®
Systemic in $69.75
Admire® — — — —
40
fertilizer
K3
w
03
Table 2. Colorado potato beetle adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various
insecticide management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.

Management
program
6-10 6-17 6-24 7-1* 7-9 7-14 7-22 7-29 8-5 8-13 8-19
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.4 a *0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 b *0.1 b 0.2 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a *0.0a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b *0.0 b 0.1 b 0.0 b
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.2 b 0.1 b
furrow
Selective foliar 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.2 a *0.1 a 0.1 a *0.0 a 0.1 a 0.6 a *1.0 a 1.3a 1.0 a
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.1 b
fertilizer
LSD 0.05 0.11 0.21 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.25 0.39 0.45 0.32
F 1.999 0.484 1.641 0.692 0.999 0.999 0.529 0.600 0.731 0.613 0.306
Prob. (F) 0.1588 0.7477 0.2278 0.6117 0.4452 0.4452 0.7170 0.6700 0.5879 0.6613 0.8683
‘ First sample date after an insecticide application.
(df = 4, 19).
K)
CO
~v|
Table 3. Colorado potato beetle egg masses sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various field
management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.

Management program
6-10 6-17 6-24 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-22 7-29 8-5 8-13 8-19
Conventional foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a
Transgenic resistance 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
Systemic in furrow 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
Selective foliar 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.2 a *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
Systemic in fertilizer 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00
F 1.499 0.999 0.833 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.999 0.000
Prob. (F) 0.2636 0.4452 0.5298 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4452 1.0000
(df = 4, 19).
Table 4. Colorado potato beetle small larvae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various
insect management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.

Management
program
6-10 6-17 6-24 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-22 7-29 8-5 8-13 8-19
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 a *0.1 a 0.0 b *0.0 b 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.3 ab 0.1 a
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 b *0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.7 a 0.1 a
furrow
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 a *0.0 a 0.2 a *1.4 a 0.1 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a
foliar
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.4 a
fertilizer
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.04 0.08 0.51 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.25
F 0.000 0.000 1.688 0.999 0.750 0.568 0.587 0.000 0.999 0.857 1.397
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 0.2170 0.4452 0.5769 0.6908 0.6780 1.0000 0.4452 0.5166 0.2932
(df = 4, 19).
Table 5. Colorado potato beetle large larvae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various

Management
program
6-10 6-17 6-24 7-1 7-9 7-14 7-22 7-29 8-5 8-13 8-19
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a *0.0 a 0.0 b *0.0 b 0.0 b 0.2 ab 0.2 a *1.7 a 2.0 a
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 b *0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b *0.6 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.1 ab 0.1 a 1.9a 0.4 a
furrow
Selective foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.5 a *0.0 a 0.4 a *7.0 a 1.1 a 0.9 a *0.5 a 2.2 a 0.1 a
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 1.3a 0.8 a 1.3a
fertilizer
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.20 1.52 0.42 0.42 0.68 0.98 0.86
F 0.000 0.000 1.669 0.000 0.695 0.362 0.555 0.361 0.077 0.100 1.539
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 0.2213 1.0000 0.6099 0.8311 0.6995 0.8320 0.9878 0.9806 0.2529
(df = 4, 19).
N>
O
Table 6. Potato aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insect management
programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.

Management
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.4 a 0.1 b 0.9 b 0.1 a *1.0 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.4 ab 0.2 b 31.8 a *0.0 a 0.3 ab
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 b 0.4 b 0.0 a 0.1 b
furrow
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.1 a *0.0 a 0.3 ab 1.1 a 12.5 a *0.9 a 1.2a
foliar
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.7 b 0.0 a 0.1 b
fertilizer
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.17 0.19 1.52 0.26 0.27
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 2.309 4.420 9.000 0.912 2.559
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4451 1.0000 0.1176 0.0200 0.0013 0.4881 0.0929
(df = 4, 19).
K)
Table 7. Green peach aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insect

Management
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 ab *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.1 a 0.9 a 2.8 a *0.3 a 0.3 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 a *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a *1.0 ab 3.5 a 24.2 a
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.2 b
furrow
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 ab *0.0 a 0.0 a *0.0 a 0.0 a 0.4 a *0.6 ab 1.1 a 16.1 a
foliar
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 a 0.4 b
fertilizer
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.40 0.70 1.14 1.87
F 0.000 0.000 2.610 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.733 1.355 2.987 1.553 9.839
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 0.0887 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.5868 0.3063 0.0632 0.2494 0.0009
(df = 4, 19).
242
Table 8. Potato leafhopper adult populations sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various

Management
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19
Conventional
0.1 a 6.2 a 20.4 a *0.3 b 2.8 b *2.3 c 4.8 b 9.4 be 12.8 a *0.2 b 0.3 c
foliar
Transgenic
0.1 a 7.3 a 28.7 a *3.0 a 6.4 a *5.5 a 10.8 a 15.3 a *11.9 a 2.0 ab 0.9 be
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 2.1 b 3.3 b 3.0 a 5.4 a 2.9 be 4.3 b 7.4 c 5.9 b 1.7 ab 1.6 ab
furrow
Selective foliar 0.1 a 7.1 a 27.1 a *2.1 a 5.1 a *5.6 a 8.6 a 13.0 ab *10.1 ab 0.8 b 2.1 a
Systemic in
0.0 a 2.6 b 2.5 b 3.2 a 5.8 a 4.2 ab 4.6 b 7.3 c 7.3 ab 2.8 a 2.8 a
fertilizer
LSD 0.08 0.61 0.74 0.47 0.45 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.68 0.53 0.32
F 0.548 8.340 52.299 5.306 4.409 6.895 9.469 9.278 3.288 3.103 7.726
Prob. (F) 0.7042 0.0019 0.0001 0.0107 0.0201 0.0040 0.0011 0.0012 0.0488 0.0571 0.0025
(df = 4, 19).
243
Table 9. Potato leafhopper nymph populations sampled by leaf count techniques from Russet Burbank potatoes
managed with various insect management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.

Management
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19
Conventional
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.1 a 0.0 c *0.0 a 0.2 ab 0.0 b 1.3 ab *0.0 a 0.1 a
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.5 a 3.0 a *0.0 a 0.8 a 1.9a *2.1 ab 1.2 a 0.8 a
resistance
Systemic in
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 c 0.0 a 0.1 b 0.2 b 0.9 b 0.0 a 0.1 a
furrow
Selective foliar 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a *0.7 a 1.9b *0.0 a 0.7 a 1.3a *2.9 a 1.1 a 0.1 a
Systemic in
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 c 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 1.1 b 0.1 a 0.0 a
fertilizer
LSD 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.35 0.22 0.04 0.25 0.43 0.48 0.62 0.42
F 0.000 0.999 0.000 1.200 18.846 0.999 3.597 5.111 2.341 1.105 1.140
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.4452 1.0000 0.3605 0.0001 0.4452 0.0378 0.0122 0.1140 0.3982 0.3841
"First sample date after an insecticide application.
(df = 4, 19).
244
Table 10. Yield and grades of Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insect management programs.
Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.
Percent size category Mean percent grade „ ,

Management______________________________ Total
Program (Cwt./A)
2-4 Oz. 4-6 Oz. 6-10 Oz. 10-13 Oz. 13-16 Oz. < 16 Oz. A’s B’s Culls
Conventional
29.0 a 31.7 a 27.0 b 3.4 c 0.1 c 0.2 ab 91.4 a 4.6 be 3.9 be 422.3 a
foliar
Transgenic
16.2 b 28.4 a 35.4 a 5.3 a 0.7 abc 0.0 b 86.0 c 8.8 a 5.2 a 412.3 a
resistance
Systemic in
19.0 b 30.7 a 35.1 a 5.0 ab 1.0 ab 0.3 ab 91.1 ab 5.1 be 3.8 be 419.8 a
furrow
Selective
17.5 b 30.4 a 37.3 a 5.3 a 1.4 a 0.7 a 92.6 a 4.4 c 3.1 c 422.0 a
foliar
Systemic in
25.6 a 31.6 a 27.6 b 3.7 be 0.4 be 0.1 b 89.0 b 6.3 b 4.8 ab 425.5 a
fertilizer
LSD 5.36 1.62 4.85 1.32 0.85 0.53 2.41 1.75 1.20
F 4.697 6.447 9.283 4.580 3.216 2.625 10.958 9.941 10.206
Prob. (/=) 0.0008 0.0052 0.0012 0.0178 0.0519 0.0875 0.0006 0.0009 0.0163
(df = 4, 19).
cn
Table 11. Beneficial arthropods sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insecticide
management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl, 1997.
Total beneficials
Management
Program
Conventional foliar 11.8 d 8.8 b 20.6 c
Transgenic resistance 20.6 a 22.1 a 42.6 a
Systemic in furrow 12.8 cd 8.8 b 21.6 c
Selective foliar 18.2 ab 15.9 a 34.1 b
Systemic in fertilizer 15.9 be 9.3 b 25.2 c
LSD 0.46 0.68 0.58
F 9.455 11.378 18.977
Prob. (F) 0.0011 0.0005 0.0001
(df = 4, 19).
Table 12. Beneficial arthropods (predators and parasitoids) sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed
with various insect management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.
Mean beneficials per vacuum sample

Management
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19 Total
Conventional
2.4 a 0.9 ab 1.0a *1.6 a 1.4 a *1.7 be 2.0 b 2.5 c 3.1 ab *1.9 b 2.1 c 20.6 c
foliar
Transgenic
1.2 b 0.6 be 1.4a *1.8 a 2.8 a *2.9 a 4.6 a 6.5 a *5.1 a 8.4 a 7.4 a 42.6 a
resistance
Systemic in
1.4 b 0.4 be 0.3 b 2.0 a 2.1 a 1.9 abc 3.3 ab 2.9 be 2.8 b 2.2 b 2.4 c 21.6 c
furrow
Selective foliar 1.9 ab 1.3a 1.3a *2.3 a 1.7a *1.6 c 4.3 a 4.2 b *3.0 b 7.3 a 5.4 ab 34.1 b
Systemic in
1.0 b 0.2 c 0.3 b 2.4 a 2.1 a 2.7 ab 4.3 a 3.2 be 2.5 b 2.5 b 3.8 be 24.9 c
fertilizer
LSD 0.33 0.25 0.21 0.44 0.46 0.34 0.40 0.35 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.57
F 3.006 3.643 6.591 0.314 0.943 2.698 3.608 8.694 2.752 21.173 8.368 19.688
Prob. (F) 0.0621 0.0364 0.0048 0.8634 0.4723 0.0818 0.0374 0.0016 0.0779 0.0001 0.0018 0.0001
‘ First sample date after an insecticide application.
(df = 4, 19).
Table 13. Predatory arthropods sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insect
Total predators per vacuum sample

Management
Program
Spiders Chrysopidae Coccinellidae Anthocoridae Nabidae Syrphidae Total
Conventional
6.9 b 1.9c 1.4 be 1.2 ab 0.2 b 0.2 a 11.8 d
foliar
Transgenic
11.8a 4.1 ab 1.7 ab 1.8a 0.9 a 0.3 a 20.6 a
resistance
Systemic in
8.5 b 2.8 be 0.4 d 0.6 b 0.3 b 0.3 a 12.8 cd
furrow
Selective foliar 9.2 ab 4.7 a 2.5 a 0.9 ab 0.6 ab 0.3 a 18.2 ab
Systemic in
11.6a 2.7 be 0.7 cd 0.5 b 0.4 b 0.1 a 15.9 be
fertilizer
LSD 0.42 0.44 0.28 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.46
F 6.202 4.037 8.964 2.905 4.634 0.403 9.455
Prob. (/=) 0.0061 0.0267 0.0014 0.0679 0.0171 0.8027 0.0011
(df = 4, 19).
Table 14. Predators sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insect management
Mean predators per vacuum sample

Management_________________________________ _____________________ __
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19 Total
Conventional
2.4 a 0.5 ab 0.9 a *0.5 a 0.6 a *0.9 b 1.6b 1.6c 1.4a *0.8 c 0.5 c 11.8 d
foliar
Transgenic
1.1 b 0.5 ab 1.1 a *0.6 a 1.4 a *2.1 a 3.3 a 4.3 a *1.7 a 1.9 ab 2.4 a 20.6 a
resistance
Systemic in
1.3 ab 0.3 b 0.3 b 1.2a 1.3a 1.1 b 2.4 ab 1.6c 1.2 a 1.3 be 1.0 be 12.8 cd
furrow
Selective
1.9 ab 0.8 a 1.1 a *0.8 a 1.1 a *1.1 b 3.4 a 2.8 b *0.9 a 2.3 a 2.1 a 18.2 ab
foliar
Systemic in
1.0b 0.2 b 0.2 b 1.4 a 1.1 a 1.8a 3.7 a 2.1 be 0.9 a 1.5 be 1.9 ab 15.9 be
fertilizer
LSD 0.34 0.20 0.21 0.40 0.31 0.22 0.41 0.31 0.30 0.24 0.33 0.46
F 2.902 2.117 5.269 0.791 1.152 5.850 2.462 8.119 1.244 5.619 5.914 9.455
Prob. (/=) 0.0681 0.1414 0.0110 0.5530 0.3793 0.0075 0.1017 0.0021 0.3442 0.0087 0.0072 0.0011
(df = 4, 19).
M
CD
Table 15. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insect

Management
program
6/10 6/17 6/24 7/1 7/9 7/14 7/22 7/29 8/5 8/13 8/19 Total
Conventional
0.1 a 0.4 ab 0.1 a *1.1 a 0.8 a *0.8 a 0.4 a 1.3b 1.8 ab *1.4 c 0.8 b 8.8 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.1 a 0.1 be 0.3 a *1.2 a 1.4 a *0.8 a 1.3a 2.9 a *2.5 a 6.5 a 5.1 a 22.1 a
resistance
Systemic in
0.1 a 0.2 abc 0.1 a 0.8 a 0.8 a 0.9 a 0.9 a 1.0b 1.3b 1.9 be 1.0b 8.8 b
furrow
Selective
0.0 a 0.5 a 0.2 a *1.5 a 0.6 a *0.4 a 0.9 a 1.8 ab *2.0 ab 3.6 b 4.4 a 15.9 a
foliar
Systemic in
0.1 a 0.0 c 0.1 a 0.8 a 1.1 a 0.8 a 0.6 a 1.3b 1.3 ab 1.6c 1.7 b 9.3 b
fertilizer
LSD 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.32 0.41 0.30 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.58 0.68
F 0.555 3.535 1.085 0.797 0.413 0.322 1.341 3.323 1.799 13.242 7.082 11.378
Prob. (F) 0.6995 0.0397 0.4070 0.5498 0.7964 0.8580 0.3108 0.0474 0.1939 0.0002 0.0036 0.0005
(df = 4, 19).
K)
Ol
O
Table 16. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with various insecticide programs.
Coloma Farms, Coloma Wl, 1997.
Mean total adults

Management
Program
Braconidae Mymaridae Pteromalidae Encyrtidae Eulophidae Aphelinidae Total
Conventional
3.3 c 2.8 b 1.2 ab 0.6 b 0.8 a 0.3 a 8.8 b
foliar
Transgenic
9.7 a 7.3 a 2.1 a 1.6 a 1.3a 0.3 a 22.1 a
resistance
Systemic in
1.4 d 4.3 ab 0.8 b 1.1 ab 1.1 a 0.1 a 8.8 b
furrow
Selective foliar 6.0 b 6.0 a 1.6 ab 1.0 ab 1.1 a 0.2 a 15.9 a
Systemic in
1.1 d 4.3 ab 0.9 b 1.4 ab 1.3a 0.3 a 9.3 b
fertilizer
LSD 0.45 0.59 0.31 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.68
F 24.639 3.373 2.473 1.382 0.773 0.097 11.378
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.0454 0.1007 0.2979 0.5636 0.9815 0.0005
(df = 4, 19).
ho
Ol
252
C. COMPARISONS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED PLANTS AND

SELECTIVE AND BROAD-SPECTRUM SYSTEMIC AND FOLIAR
INSECTICIDES ON POTATOES. COLOMA FARMS, COLOMA, Wl,
1999.
Five Insect management programs integrating genetically modified plants
and systemic, and foliar insecticides were evaluated for insect pest control and
effects on beneficial arthropods on commercially grown Russet Burbank
potatoes during 1999 at Coloma Farms, Coloma Wisconsin. The study also
examined cost efficiency of integrating selective and/or less toxic insecticides
into insecticide management programs. Management programs were based on
Colorado potato beetle control the with conventional and reduced risk foliar
and systemic programs compared with transgenic resistance. In the
conventional foliar management program Colorado potato beetles were
managed with esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide (Asana XL® 0.66EC/PBO®) at
0.04 lb. a.i./A and 4 oz. c.p./A and cyfluthrin/piperonyl butoxide (Baythroid® 2.8
EC/PBO®) at 0.088 lb. a.i./A and 4 oz. c.p./A. Two applications of spinosad
(Spintor® 2SC) at 0.063 lb. a.i./A and a single foliar application of imidacloprid
(Provado® 1.6F) at 0.047 lb. a.i./A were required to control Colorado potato
beetles in the selective foliar management program. In the systemic
management programs imidacloprid (Admire® 2F) was applied at planting at the
rates of 0.2 and 0.15 lb. a.i./A in the fertilizer (conventional and reduced-risk
systemic management programs). Supplemental foliar applications of
253
cyfluthrin/piperonyl butoxide (Baythroid® 2.8EC/PBO) at 0.088 lb. a.i./A and 4
oz. c.p./A and esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide (Asana XL®/PBO®) at 0.04 lb.
a.i./A and 4 oz. c.p./A were used to manage second generation Colorado
potato beetles in the conventional systemic management program. Spinosad
(Spintor® 2SC) at 0.063 lb. a.i./A was applied in the reduced-risk systemic
management program for second-generation Colorado potato beetle control.
Transgenic resistance technology was employed in the form of NewLeaf Plus®
Russet Burbank potatoes expressing both the delta endotoxin of Bacillus
thuringiensis var. tenebrionis for Colorado potato beetle resistance and the coat
protein gene for potato leafroll virus resistance (Hybritech Seed International,
Boise Idaho). These plots required no additional Colorado potato beetle
control.
Potato leafhoppers in the selective foliar and transgenic resistance
management programs were treated with dimethoate (Dimethoate® 4E) at 0.5
lb. a.i./A early in the season while permethrin (Pounce® 3.2EC) was applied at
0.1 lb. a.i./A during July. Dimethoate (Dimethoate® 4E) was also applied at 0.5
lb. a.i./A in the conventional systemic and conventional foliar management
programs.
Aphids did not require control during the season but registered aphicides,
which were planned during the study, were methamidophos (Monitor® 4E) in
the conventional programs and the newly registered pymetrozine (Fulfill®
50WG) in the reduced risk and transgenic resistance plots. Table 17
254
summarizes the insecticide treatments and dates for each management
program.
Conventional and genetically modified certified Russet Burbank potato seed
(cut A’s), were planted on April 21 into an 80 acre center pivot irrigated field of
loamy sand textured soil. The field was divided into four replications arranged
in a randomized complete block experimental design. Replications were
divided into five treatment blocks consisting of 48 rows (30 inch row spacing)
1200 feet long (3.3 acres). Treatment blocks were divided into 4 subunit-
sampling points from which insect surveys were taken and averaged to arrive
at a single sample number for analysis. Systemic fertilizer treatments were
incorporated onto the starter fertilizer (8-32-8), which was banded on both
sides of the seed piece during planting at the rate of 550 pounds per acre.
Foliar insecticides were applied with a 120' boom operating at 70 psi,
delivering 20 or 25 gpa depending upon the insecticide treatment. Coloma
Farms personnel conducted plot maintenance (application of pesticides,
irrigation, soil, and plant fertility) as per commercial potato production
recommendations. The plot was vine killed on September 7 and harvested on
September 22 and 23. The computer software Harvest Master recorded yields.
The program monitors the total yield of the field as it is being harvested. Eight
80-pound tuber samples were collected from each management program (two
per replication) while the plot was being harvested to conduct size grading.
255
Samples were stored at Coloma Farms potato storage facilities until they were
graded at the Hancock Agricultural Research Station on October 20.
Beneficial and pest insect populations were surveyed weekly from June 8
through August 24. Surveys included plant counts (10 plants per subunit) for
all stages of Colorado potato beetles while leaf defoliation ratings were
determined visually from each subunit in a management program. Potato leaf
counts, consisting of 10 leaves per subunit, were used to monitor potato
leafhopper nymphs, green peach aphid, and potato aphid populations. Sweep
net samples, consisting of 15 sweeps per subunit, were taken to monitor potato
leafhopper adult. Vacuum samples were also taken weekly from each subunit
to monitor pest and beneficial arthropods. Vacuum samples consisted of
collecting insects from the plots by sucking them from the potato canopy into a
collection net mounted on a leaf blower air intake (Homelite HB 180V), while
walking along a potato row for a period of fifty seconds. Samples were placed
into 70% alcohol and examined later under magnification.
First generation Colorado potato beetles were treated on June 17 with
esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide in the conventional foliar management
program while spinosad was applied in the selective foliar management
program. Second generation Colorado potato beetles were treated with
cyfluthrin (July 28) and esfenvalerate (August 13) in the conventional foliar and
conventional systemic management programs. Spinosad was applied on
August 13 in the reduced risk systemic program and foliar imidacloprid (July
256
28) and spinosad (August 13) was used in the selective foliar management
program. Potato leafhopper adults were treated with dimethoate in the
conventional foliar, selective foliar and transgenic resistance management
programs on June 9. Permethrin was applied in the transgenic resistance and
selective foliar management programs on July 1 while an additional application
of permethrin was made in the transgenic resistance management program on
July 23. Potato leafhoppers in the conventional systemic and conventional
foliar management programs were treated with dimethoate on July 16. Aphid
populations in the study did not require control during the season.
Agricultural Research Manager Version 6.0 (Gylling Data Management, Inc.,
405 Martin Blvd., Brookings, South Dakota, 57006-4605). Mean separation
was determined using Least Significance Difference Test, P=0.05.
When selective foliar insecticides are used to control Colorado potato
beetles on potatoes, timing is critical and when environmental factors favor
prolonged adult emergence and egg laying, periods of extended larval
pressure occur. In 1999, conditions were favorable for extended adult
emergence and egg laying. Colorado potato beetles adults were first detected
in the plots on June 16 and adults were observed in the selective foliar
management program through the end of August (Table 18). Peak egg mass
numbers occurred on June 16 but complete egg mass hatch did not occur until
257
June 30 (Table 19). The presence of Colorado potato beetle larvae in the plots
on June 16 created grower concerns and the foliar management programs
were treated on June 17. However, the applications proved to be premature
and as a result, some late hatching first generation larvae escaped control.
Since the low levels of larvae were not causing any significant defoliation
further foliar insecticide treatments were not applied. This did not create an
immediate problem but resulted in higher numbers of second-generation
adults.
First generation small larval numbers peaked at 3.9 per sample in the
selective foliar management program on June 30 while large larval numbers
peaked at 5.8 per sample in the selective foliar management program on July
14 (Table 20). Second generation adults began emerging the first week of July
and numbers peaked at 4.6 adults per sample in the conventional foliar
management program on August 4 (Table 18). Second generation larvae were
first observed on July 23 and numbers peaked at 13.3 small larvae and 10.9
large larvae per sample in the conventional foliar management program on
August 11 (Tables 20 and 21). Even with the extended larval presence from
July through August no defoliation from Colorado potato beetle feeding was
observed in any of the management programs.
Colorado potato beetles were effectively controlled in all the management
programs. Transgenic resistance provided excellent Colorado potato beetle
larval control for the entire season. Systemic management programs provided
258
good first generation Colorado potato beetle larval control and residual activity
of imidacloprid at 0.15 and 0.2 lb. a.i./A persisted for 90 days after application.
The foliar insecticides cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, imidacloprid, and spinosad all
effectively reduced Colorado potato beetle larvae but due to prolonged larval
hatching two insecticide applications were required to manage second
generation Colorado potato beetle populations.
Aphids are managed in fresh market potato programs as a complex and
even though aphid species were monitored separately, management decisions
were based on total aphid numbers. Aphids were monitored using several
techniques including leaf samples, vacuum samples, and sweep samples.
Management decisions were based on leaf samples but vacuum sampling also
revealed aphid and beneficial insect trends that were pertinent to our research.
Aphid numbers from the leaf counts in the study were low throughout the
season and did not exceed threshold levels during sampling and no aphicides
were applied in the plots (Tables 23 and 24). However, aphids were also
detected during vacuum sampling from June 16 through August 24 with peak
numbers observed during early July (Tables 25 and 26) when potato aphids
were predominant. Aphid numbers declined during August and then increased
sharply on the last sampling date when a significant resurgence was seen in
the conventional foliar program. The rapid increase in potato aphid numbers in
the transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs between
June 30 and July 14 (Tables 25 and 26) prompted grower concern but further
259
in field investigation revealed high numbers of aphid mummies due to
parasitism in these programs and the grower postponed aphicide applications.
By July 27, biological control had significantly reduced aphid numbers in the
transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs. These
population trends are outlined in Figure 1 together with parasitoid trends, which
are discussed later in this section. These data support our hypothesis that
conserving natural enemies through the use of selective and/or reduced toxicity
insecticides can aid in aphid regulation in potato production.
Potato leafhopper adults entered the plots early and were over threshold (1
adult per sweep) in the non systemic management programs when sampling
was initiated on June 8 (Table 27). Dimethoate provided excellent control of
the early infestation. In the transgenic resistance management program potato
leafhopper adults surpassed threshold twice (June 30 and July 23) and
permethrin provided good control. The conventional foliar program exceeded
thresholds on July 14 and plots were treated effectively with dimethoate.
Pyrethroids used for second generation Colorado potato beetle control kept
potato leafhopper under threshold in late July. In the selective foliar program
permethrin was used on June 30 and foliar imidacloprid applied for Colorado
potato beetles on July 28 provided late season control.
Systemic imidacloprid provided good potato leafhopper adult control but
grower concern prompted a dimethoate application on July 16 as adults
approached the 1 adult per sweep threshold on July 14. This application was
260
not applied to the reduced risk systemic plots where the grower was willing to
risk delaying the application and populations remained under threshold for the
remainder of the season. Mymaridae populations, which are leafhopper egg
parasitoids, were significantly lower in the conventional systemic management
program than in the reduced risk systemic management program in August
(Table 35). This was presumably due to the dimethoate and pyrethroid
applications in the conventional systemic management program and it is
possible that the absence of theses applications in the reduced risk program
aided biological regulation of leafhoppers.
Potato leafhopper nymphs did not exceed threshold levels (0.5/leaf) during
sampling (Table 28). Nymphs were first detected on June 16 but numbers did
not peak until July 14 with 0.19 nymphs per leaf in the reduced-risk systemic
management program on July 14, which was well below threshold levels of 0.5
nymphs per leaf. Imidacloprid effectively limited potato leafhopper nymph
numbers during the season and there were no foliar insecticides applied for
their control in these programs. Although leafhopper nymphs were not targeted
with foliar insecticides, numbers declined after applications of permethrin on
July 1 and July 23 and after dimethoate applications in the conventional
systemic and conventional foliar management programs on July 16.
Total yields among the management programs did not significantly vary
indicating effective pest insect control by all the management programs (Table
29). Plots yielded very well and total yields ranged from 528.0 to 548.0 cwt./A
261
among the management programs. However, as first reported in our 1998
study with NewLeaf® Russet Burbank potato significantly lower percentages of
grade A tubers were again detected in the transgenic resistance management
program in 1999 when NewLeaf Plus® with the added gene for potato leafroll
virus was evaluated. The result was a 3500-pound per acre difference in
marketable potatoes between the transgenic resistance management program
and the conventional foliar management program (505 cwt/A A’s in the
conventional foliar and conventional systemic management programs versus
470 cwt/A A’s in the transgenic resistance management program). At prices of
$5.00/cwt., this yield loss would translate to a $150 per acre difference in
returns to the grower.
This reduction in grade A tubers in the total yield in the transgenic
resistance program was further explained by the size grade data (Table 29).
Significantly more small tubers (2-4 oz. and 4-6 oz.) and significantly less large
tubers (13-16 oz.) were recovered from the transgenic resistance plots using
NewLeaf Plus® than from either the conventional systemic or foliar
management programs. Since the grower receives a higher premium for larger
tubers in the processing contract and fresh market carton market, this quality
reduction would represent a serious disincentive to adopt transgenic resistance
as an insect management tool. Pest control efficacy was not significantly
different between the transgenic management programs and conventional
management programs with the exception of aphids, which are not normally a
262
yield threat, and thus the yield difference was attributed to the yield potential of
the transgenic potato line used in these studies.
Insecticide costs and toxicity unit accumulations were similar for the
selective foliar and transgenic resistance management programs but varied
considerably between the other programs (Table 17). The conventional foliar
management program was the least expensive program to implement
($46.24/A). However, toxicity unit accumulation was considerably higher with
473 vs. 238 in the selective foliar management program. Insecticide costs
were highest in the conventional systemic management program ($89.10/A),
which was atypical and resulted from Colorado potato beetle larval pressure
late in the season, prompting additional insecticide applications that increased
costs. These were not required in the reduced risk systemic management
program, which cost less ($61.10/A) and had the lowest toxicity of all the
programs (34 toxicity units).
Beneficial arthropods were collected from June through August but peak
numbers were detected during July and early August (Table 30). Season total
beneficial numbers ranged from 58.1 beneficials in the conventional systemic
management program to 180.5 beneficials in the transgenic resistance
management program. Significantly higher numbers of beneficials were
collected from the reduced-risk systemic, selective foliar, and transgenic
resistance management programs than were collected from the conventional
systemic and conventional foliar management programs. Beneficial arthropod
263
numbers declined after applications of esfenvalerate and cyfluthrin. Permethrin
had less toxic effects on beneficials and numbers declined only slightly in the
transgenic resistance management programs after the July 1 application while
numbers increased after permethrin was applied in the selective foliar
management program on July 7. Surprisingly, dimethoate had no negative
effects on beneficial arthropod numbers in this study. Applications of
dimethoate on June 9 in the conventional foliar, selective foliar, and transgenic
resistance management programs had no effect on beneficial numbers while
numbers increased after dimethoate was applied in the conventional systemic
and conventional foliar management programs on July 16. Effects on
beneficial arthropods varied after applications of spinosad and imidacloprid. .
Numbers of beneficials increased in the selective foliar management program
after spinosad was applied on June 17 but numbers declined after applications
of spinosad in the reduced-risk systemic and selective foliar management
programs on August 18. Numbers of beneficials also declined after
imidacloprid was applied in the selective foliar management program on July
28.
Adult parasitoids were collected in larger numbers than were predators from
the management programs (Table 31). Total parasitoid numbers ranged from
33.4 parasitoids in the conventional systemic management program to 139.0
parasitoids in the transgenic resistance management program. Significantly
higher numbers of parasitoids were collected from the transgenic resistance
264
and selective foliar management programs than were collected from the
conventional foliar and conventional systemic management programs.
Parasitoid adult numbers peaked on July 23 at 38.4 adults per sample in the
transgenic resistance management program (Table 32). Significant numbers of
parasitoid adults remained in the plots during August, parasitizing aphids and
alleviating the need to apply aphicides. Insecticide impacts on the parasitoid
adults varied among treatments. Applications of dimethoate in the
conventional systemic, conventional foliar, reduced-risk systemic, and
transgenic resistance management programs did not negatively affect adult
numbers on June 27 or July 16. Parasitoid adult numbers increased after
applications of permethrin in the selective foliar and transgenic resistance
management programs on June 17 but numbers declined after permethrin was
applied in the transgenic management program on July 23. Esfenvalerate
limited increasing parasitoid numbers in the conventional foliar management
program on June 22 and numbers declined in the conventional systemic and
conventional foliar management programs after esfenvalerate applications on
August 13. Parasitoid adult numbers declined after applications of imidacloprid
in the selective foliar management program on July 28 and spinosad in the
reduced-risk systemic and selective foliar management programs on August
13.
Five parasitoid families were collected during sampling and were most
numerous in the management programs with the highest aphid numbers
265
(transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs) (Table 33).
Braconids and mymarids were collected in larger numbers than were
pteromalids, eulophids, and encyrtids. Significantly higher numbers of
braconids and mymarids were observed in the selective foliar and transgenic
resistance management programs than were observed in the conventional
systemic and conventional foliar management programs.
Braconid adults were collected throughout sampling but peak numbers
occurred during late July and August (Table 34). Braconid adults were
collected from all the management programs but numbers were highest in the
transgenic resistance and selective foliar management programs. Total
braconid numbers ranged from 8.8 adults in the conventional systemic
management program to 60.3 adults in the transgenic resistance management
program. Braconid and aphid populations were closely linked in the
management programs with high aphid numbers attracting large numbers of
braconids, which then regulated the aphid populations. The type of insecticide
used generally had less of an affect on braconids than did aphid numbers.
Braconid adult numbers increased after applications of dimethoate,
esfenvalerate, permethrin, and spinosad during June and early July when
aphid numbers were increasing in the plots. However, adult numbers declined
after the same insecticides were applied later in the season when aphid
numbers were declining in the plots.
266
The close association between braconid and total aphid (potato and green
peach aphid) populations in these studies was illustrated by the comparison of
population trends in the broad-spectrum foliar program and the transgenic
resistance program (Figure 1) where a classic density-dependant interaction
was observed. The conventional foliar management program required three
broad-spectrum insecticides from early to mid season and both aphid and
braconid populations were low. In late season (August 14) aphid populations
resurged in this program which received two additional pyrethroid applications
for second generation Colorado potato beetle control and low braconid
populations were unable to respond to the late season aphid build up. In
contrast, aphid populations increased in mid season in the transgenic
resistance management program and braconid populations increased in
response. Neither aphid nor braconid populations were affected negatively by
the permethrin applications used for potato leafhopper control in mid season.
Also since parasitism was observed in the field (presence of mummies), no
aphicide was applied and the aphid population was biologically regulated in
late July and August.
Mymarid adults were common during sampling but peak numbers occurred
during July (Table 35). Total mymarid adult numbers ranged from 14.3 adults
in the conventional foliar management program to 45.3 adults in the transgenic
resistance management program. Mymarid adult numbers were at low levels
during June and peaked at 20.4 adults per sample in the transgenic resistance
267
management program on July 23. Mymarids are parasitoids of leafhopper eggs
and population trends closely reflected leafhopper adult and nymph
populations, making it difficult to differentiate insecticide effects from host
density effects. Insecticide applications after mid July had greater negative
effects on adult numbers than did insecticide applications before mid July.
Mymarid adults were susceptible to all the insecticides evaluated and numbers
declined after applications of cyfluthrin, imidacloprid, esfenvalerate, spinosad,
and permethrin.
As stated earlier, broad-spectrum insecticide use in the conventional
systemic management program in contrast with the reduced risk systemic
program significantly reduced mymarid populations. In consequence, potato
leafhoppers may have been biologically regulated by the mymarids in the
reduced risk systemic program.
Predators were collected throughout sampling but numbers were highest
during July and August (Table 36). Total predator numbers ranged from 24.3
predators in the conventional systemic and conventional foliar management
programs to 59.0 predators in the reduced-risk systemic management program
(Table 37). Significantly higher numbers of predators were observed in the
reduced-risk systemic management program, which had the least number of
insecticide applications, while the least number of predators were collected
from the conventional systemic and conventional foliar management programs,
which had two late season applications of pyrethroids (esfenvalerate and
268
cyfluthrin) (Table 17). Applications of esfenvalerate limited increasing predator
numbers or caused them to decline. Cyfluthrin was very toxic to predators and
affected numbers up to two weeks after application. Permethrin applications
reduced predator numbers in the selective foliar and transgenic resistance
management programs on July 7 and numbers declined in the transgenic
management program on July 27. Predator numbers increased after
dimethoate was applied in the conventional systemic management program on
July 16 but numbers declined in the conventional foliar management program
on the same day. Spinosad and imidacloprid had negative effects on predator
numbers but were not as severe as the pyrethroids.
Five predator families and spiders were collected during sampling:
anthocorids, coccinellids, chrysopids, nabids, and syrphids (Table 37).
Anthocorids and spiders were collected in higher numbers than were nabids,
chrysopids, coccinellids, and syrphids.
Spiders were collected throughout sampling but peak numbers occurred
during July and August (Table 38). Applications of cyfluthrin reduced spider
numbers in the conventional systemic and conventional foliar management
programs on July 28 and the subsequent esfenvalerate application on August
13 further reduced numbers. Spiders were also negatively affected by
permethrin applications in the selective foliar and transgenic resistance
management programs on July 1 and July 23. Dimethoate applications had
little negative effect on spider numbers in the conventional systemic and
269
conventional foliar management programs on July 16, however population
increases were limited in comparison with the other management programs.
Applications of spinosad and imidacloprid also had little effect on spider
numbers.
Anthocorids were also collected throughout sampling and peak numbers
were observed during late July and early August (Table 39). Total anthocorid
numbers were highest in the transgenic resistance management program and
were significantly lower in the conventional foliar and systemic programs (Table
39). Anthocorid numbers increased after an application of dimethoate in the
conventional systemic management program on June 16 while numbers
decreased after it was applied in the conventional foliar management program
on June 16. Anthocorid numbers declined after pyrethroid applications and
they commonly had long-term negative effects on anthocorids. Applications of
spinosad and imidacloprid also negatively affected anthocorids. Anthocorid
numbers declined after imidacloprid was applied in the selective foliar
management program on July 28 and after spinosad applications in the
reduced-risk systemic and selective management programs on August 13.
3. Conclusions
All the management programs provided good Colorado potato beetle
control. However, the high level of selectivity of the transgenic resistant
potatoes and spinosad required additional insecticide inputs to control
leafhoppers.
270
Total yields from the study were not significantly different among programs
indicating that potatoes managed with the new insecticide technologies can
result in yields comparable to conventional programs. However, transgenic
potatoes, NewLeaf Plus®, yielded significantly lower percentages of A’s and
higher percentages of B’s.
Insecticide costs and toxicity unit accumulations were similar between the
selective foliar and transgenic resistance management programs but varied
considerably among the other management programs. The conventional foliar
management program accumulated the highest number of toxicity units but was
the lowest cost. The reduced risk systemic management program was the
lowest in toxicity.
Beneficial arthropods were commonly found in the study. Repeated
applications of esfenvalerate, permethrin, and cyfluthrin, to control Colorado
potato beetles and leafhoppers, typically reduced beneficial numbers after
application. Imidacloprid (applied foliarly) also had negative impacts on most
beneficial arthropods, while dimethoate, imidacloprid applied at planting, and
spinosad usually had little affect on beneficial arthropods. Aphid bioregulation
by braconids was observed during August in the transgenic resistance
management program while possible potato leafhopper bioregulation by
mymarid egg parasitoids may have occurred in the reduced risk systemic
management program.
Table 17. Insecticide management programs used to control insect pests on Russet Burbank potatoes. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl,
1999.

Management
Program Toxicity
4-21 6-9 6-17 7-1 7-16 7-23 7-28 8-13 Cost/A
Units
Conventional Baythroid®/
Admire® — — Dimethoate® Asana®/PBO 291 $89.10
systemic PBO
Reduced-risk ...
Admire® --- — — Spintor® 34 $61.10
systemic
Conventional Baythroid®/
— Dimethoate® Asana®/PBO Dimethoate® Asana®/PBO 473 $46.24
foliar PBO
Selective foliar — Dimethoate® Spintor® Pounce® Provado® Spintor® 238 $55.78
Transgenic ... ...

Btt Dimethoate® Pounce® Pounce® 255 $51.69
resistance
K)
'• J

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 1.9 ab 1.2 be 1.0b 0.0 b 0.3 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.5 ab 0.3 c 1.0b 0.2 b 0.9 ab
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.4 b 0.6 b 2.1 a 4.6 a 3.4 a 1.2a 1.9 a
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.2 a 0.1 a 0.3 a 2.4 a 1.9a 1.6 ab 2.3 b 4.2 a 0.9 ab 1.1 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.4 b
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.46 0.37 0.64 0.48 0.37 0.32 0.40
F 0.000 0.999 1.000 0.692 0.584 3.839 4.492 1.801 10.992 17.622 3.176 1.859
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.4455 0.4450 0.6114 0.6802 0.0311 0.0189 0.1935 0.0006 0.0001 0.0537 0.1826
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P =0.05, Least Significant Difference Test),
(df = 4, 19).
to
-v i
NO
insecticide management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl, 1999.

Management_______________________________________________________
Program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.4 ab 0.1 ab 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.4 ab 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 1.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 b 1.6a 0.4 a 0.2 a 0.3 a 0.4 a
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 1.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 1.1 a 0.3 ab 0.2 ab 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.3 a
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.47 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.35 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.20
F 0.000 1.411 0.744 0.000 0.000 0.999 8.625 2.321 1.770 0.810 1.372 0.612
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.2890 0.5805 1.0000 1.0000 0.4455 0.0016 0.1161 0.1997 0.5426 0.3011 0.6620
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P =0.05, Least Significant Difference Test).
(df = 4, 19).
273

Management_____________________________________________________
Program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 4.1 ab 0.1 b 1.7b 0.0 a 0.5 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 1.8 b 3.7 b 0.0 a 0.7 b
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.1 ab 2.3 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 6.6 a 5.7 a 13.3 a 0.3 a 3.6 a
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 3.9 a 1.6 a 0.1 a 1.9a 7.1 a 1.8 b 9.7 a 0.1 a 0.3 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.9 ab
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.46 0.04 0.38 1.02 0.54 0.82 0.10 0.54
F 0.000 0.999 0.999 3.665 1.689 0.999 1.707 4.348 7.631 15.827 1.709 2.760
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.4455 0.4455 0.0357 0.2169 0.4455 0.2130 0.0211 0.0027 0.0001 0.2124 0.0773
(df = 4, 19).
274
insecticide management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, W l, 1999.

Management_____________________________________________________
Program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.1 b 0.0 b 3.0 b 0.4 ab 0.9 b 0.4 b 0.9 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.3 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.2 b 2.9 b 0.0 b 0.0 b
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 1.6a 0.0 a 1.6 ab 1.3b 0.1 b 0.0 b 6.9 ab 1.3 a 10.9 a 2.7 a 4.3 a
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 1.8a 0.1 a 2.9 a 3.3 a 5.8 a 1.0a 12.7 a 0.3 b 0.4 b 0.1 b 0.0 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.3 b
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.44 0.33 0.77 0.17 1.19 0.29 0.79 0.42 0.35
F 0.000 4.852 0.999 6.402 10.154 3.412 6.463 5.784 2.681 12.786 6.153 16.162
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.0146 0.4455 0.0054 0.0008 0.0440 0.0052 0.0079 0.0831 0.0003 0.0062 0.0001
(df = 4, 19).
Table 22. Defoliation ratings of Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management programs.
Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl, 1999.
Mean percent defoliation per plot

Management_______________________________________________________
program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
(df = 4, 19).
276
Table 23. Potato aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes sampled managed with different insecticide

Management_____________________________________________________
program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.1 ab 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 ab
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.2 ab 0.6 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 ab 5.4 a 0.3 ab 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.4 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.4 a 0.3 b 0.7 a 0.5 a 0.3 ab 1.0a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.3 a
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.95 0.21 0.30 0.13 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09
F 0.000 2.997 2.413 2.717 1.551 0.534 3.183 2.063 0.000 0.000 0.429 2.714
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.0627 0.1065 0.0804 0.2499 0.7133 0.0533 0.1491 1.0000 1.0000 0.7852 0.0806
(df = 4, 19).
277
Table 24. Green peach aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs.

Management_____________________________________________________
program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.6 a
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.4a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.0 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.0 ab 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.4 a 0.1 ab
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.19
F 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.030 0.000 0.999 0.632 3.000 0.000 0.998 1.473 2.372
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.0609 1.0000 0.4455 0.6489 0.0625 1.0000 0.4457 0.2709 0.1107
(df = 4, 19).
278
Table 25. Potato aphids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs.
Mean aphids per vacuum sample

Management _______________________________________________________
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.1 b 0.4 b 0.8 ab 0.8 b 1.1 b 1.4b 0.4 c 0.1 b 0.5 b 0.2 b 1.9 be
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.1 b 0.1 b 0.1 b 1.2 b 2.1 b 0.9 b 2.4 be 0.2 b 0.6 b 0.6 b 1.2c
systemic
Conventional
0.1 b 0.5 b 4.0 ab 3.4 ab 13.6 ab 0.6 b 1.3c 1.0b 4.3 a 5.4 a 27.5 a
foliar
Selective foliar 1.0 ab 5.5 a 14.3 ab 24.4 ab 50.6 a 57.3 a 8.9 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.8 b 1.8 be
Transgenic
2.5 a 7.8 a 17.6 a 40.7 a 71.7 a 41.8a 6.0 ab 8.8 a 4.6 a 5.8 a 7.4 b
resistance
LSD 0.57 1.04 2.27 3.11 4.10 3.35 0.98 0.67 0.58 0.57 1.21
F 2.619 4.963 2.369 2.828 3.403 5.797 5.702 8.611 8.734 13.362 14.070
Prob. (F) 0.0879 0.0135 0.1110 0.0728 0.0443 0.0078 0.0083 0.0016 0.0015 0.0002 0.0002
(df = 4, 19).
279

Management_______________________________________________________
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.1 a 0.0 b 0.1 a 0.3 a 0.9 a 0.1 c 0.6 a 0.1 b 0.7 ab 0.3 b 2.1 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.1 b 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.6 a 0.3 ab 0.6 a 0.5 b 0.3 b 1.0 ab 2.4 b
systemic
Conventional
0.1 a 0.2 ab 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.8 a 0.1 be 0.4 a 0.6 b 0.3 b 1.6 a 4.3 ab
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.7 a 0.4 a 0.2 a 0.6 b 0.4 b 1.1 ab 3.4 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.1 ab 0.1 a 0.1 a 1.0 a 0.3 abc 0.6 a 2.1 a 1.6a 1.3 a 5.0 a
resistance
LSD 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.25 0.08 0.28 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.45
F 0.692 2.405 0.200 0.784 0.742 4.735 0.515 3.840 2.286 3.024 3.502
Prob. (F) 0.6117 0.1073 0.9338 0.5568 0.5814 0.0159 0.7261 0.0311 0.1202 0.0612 0.0408
(df = 4, 19).
280

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
4.8 b 1.6 a 5.8 ab 6.1 c 4.5 a 13.9 ab 2.3 c 6.0 b 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 c
systemic
Reduced-risk
5.9 b 1.4 a 5.5 ab 7.4 c 4a 9.2 be 3.7 be 8.4 ab 4.6 a 7.9 a 6.9 a 4.3 a
systemic
Conventional
23.9 a 0.7 a 2.6 b 4.6 c 6.4 a 15.0 a 2.8 c 8.9 ab 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.1 c 0.0 c
foliar
Selective
27.3 a 0.6 a 7.2 a 28.1 a 0.3 b 3.9 d 12.1 ab 11.8a 2.1 b 3.8 b 2.2 b 1.6b
foliar
Transgenic
18.5 a 1.3a 6.5 a 15b 0.2 b 7.3 cd 19.6 a 0.3 c 0.8 be 2.6 b 1.8b 0.8 b
resistance
LSD 1.14 0.45 0.74 0.82 0.67 0.68 1.51 0.53 0.51 0.72 0.25 0.26
F 13.502 1.061 2.031 21.792 10.228 10.280 4.375 29.844 10.922 11.674 74.592 35.706
Prob. (F) 0.0002 0.4172 0.1538 0.0001 0.0008 0.0008 0.0207 0.0001 0.0006 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001
(df = 4, 19).
N>
00

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-8 6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.8 be 0.7 be 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 a 1.9 a 0.4 a 0.2 ab 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.6 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 a 1.5 ab 0.1 ab 0.6 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.2 cd 0.1 cd 0.1 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 be
resistance
LSD 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.12
F 0.000 2.997 1.399 3.000 1.000 8.604 8.604 3.698 1.000 0.000 0.999 6.864
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.0627 0.2925 0.0625 0.4450 0.0016 0.0016 0.0348 0.4448 1.0000 0.4455 0.0041
(df = 4, 19).
Table 29. Yield and percent grade of Russet Burbank potatoes harvested from different insecticide management
programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl, 1999.
Percent size grade Mean percent grade

Management Total
Program (Cwt./A)
Conventional
2.4 b 11.1 b 42.7 a 19.3 ab 11.2a 5.9 a 92.5 a 2.6 c 4.8 a 546.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
2.3 b 12.2 b 41.9a 20.7 a 9.8 ab 4.4 a 91.3a 3.8 b 4.8 a 531.0 a
systemic
Conventional
2.3 b 11.2b 41.9 a 19.4 ab 10.6 a 6.8 a 92.3 a 3.2 be 4.4 a 548.0 a
foliar
Selective foliar 2.9 b 13.8 ab 42.4 a 19.9 ab 8.5 ab 4.1 a 91.5 a 4.3 b 4.1 a 528.0 a
Transgenic
4.1 a 15.8 a 41.0 a 15.2 b 7.2 b 3.7 a 86.9 b 7.9 a 5.1 a 541.0 a
resistance
LSD 0.83 2.87 4.44 4.82 2.98 3.50 2.02 1.06 2.14
F 7.978 4.465 0.203 1.827 2.833 1.360 11.953 36.166 0.268
Prob. (F) 0.022 0.0193 0.9319 0.1886 0.0724 0.3046 0.004 0.001 0.8927
(df = 4, 19).
283
Table 30. Beneficial arthropods (parasitoids and predators) sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with
different insecticide management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl, 1999.

Management
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24 Total
Conventional
0.9 a 3.8 a 3.2 be 3.4 a 9.1 b 17.6 ab 9.9 b 1.8c 5.3 d 0.8 e 2.3 c 58.1 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.6 a 5.1 a 3.1 be 5.1 a 12.5 ab 22.9 ab 11.9b 16.5 a 28.6 a 13.8 b 9.4 b 127.8 a
systemic
Conventional
1.0a 1.8b 1.9c 4.2 a 10.8 ab 12.6 b 13.9 b 2.5 c 8.8 cd 4.7 d 7.4 be 69.4 b
foliar
Selective
0.4 a 4.2 a 4.4 ab 5.5 a 12.1 ab 38.5 a 27.9 a 8.9 b 16.1 be 8.9 c 10.3 b 137.4 a
foliar
Transgenic
0.4 a 5.1 a 6.8 a 6.6 a 24.7 a 46.3 a 15.8 b 10.8 b 22.3 ab 18.6 a 23.1 a 180.5 a
resistance
LSD 0.26 0.40 0.60 0.89 1.65 2.14 1.35 0.52 0.96 0.53 1.26 2.41
F 1.205 6.520 4.391 0.420 1.258 2.828 3.465 40.185 15.242 49.113 6.785 8.767
Prob. (F) 0.3588 0.0050 0.0204 0.7911 0.3392 0.0728 0.0421 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0043 0.0015
(df = 4, 19).
284
Table 31. Beneficial arthropods sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide
Mean beneficials
Management
program
Conventional
24.6 c 33.4 d 58.0 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
58.7 a 70.8 be 129.4 a
systemic
Conventional
24.4 c 45.1 cd 69.4 b
foliar
Selective foliar 41.7 b 95.6 ab 137.3 a
Transgenic
41.5 b 139.0 a 180.5 a
resistance
LSD 0.73 2.48 2.41
F 23.106 7.633 8.767
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.0027 0.0015
(df = 4, 19).
Table 32. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insect
Mean adults per sample1

Management
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24 Total
Conventional
0.1 a 0.8 b 0.9 b 1.6a 4.9 b 12.4 ab 5.7 b 1.1 c 3.6 c 0.6 c 1.9b 34.3 d
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.2 a 1.1 b 1.2 b 2.6 a 7.1 b 14.9 ab 7.5 b 9.9 a 17.5 a 4.9 b 3.8 b 70.5 be
systemic
Conventional
0.3 a 0.9 b 0.8 b 1.5 a 5.1 b 8.9 b 8.6 b 2.1 c 6.1 be 4.3 b 6.5 b 44.4 cd
foliar
Selective
0.2 a 2.4 a 1.9 ab 4.7 a 9.3 ab 30.5 a 21.3a 4.6 b 9.8 b 4.8 b 6.2 ab 95.9 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0.3 a 2.5 a 3.8 a 6.2 a 21.2 a 38.4 a 14.6 ab 8.4 a 16.1 a 12.2 a 15.3 a 138.7 a
resistance
LSD 0.12 0.32 0.57 0.88 1.49 2.10 1.33 0.54 0.90 0.37 1.18 2.48
F 0.870 5.194 2.917 1.971 2.750 2.800 3.760 20.533 10.898 48.650 4.201 7.633
Prob. (F) 0.5095 0.0116 0.0672 0.1633 0.0780 0.0746 0.0331 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0235 0.0027
(df = 4, 19).
Table 33. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs.
Mean parasitoids per vacuum sample

Management
program
Braconidae Pteromalidae Eulophidae Encyrtidae Mymaridae Total
Conventional
8.8 b 5.6 c 0.4 ab 4.3 a 15.2 b 34.3 d
systemic
Reduced-risk
18.2 b 11.5 be 0.9 a 4.5 a 35.4 a 70.5 be
systemic
Conventional
19.6 b 5.1 c 0.2 b 5.2 a 14.3 b 44.4 cd
foliar
Selective
40.5 a 14.5 b 0.5 ab 4.5 a 35.9 a 95.9 ab
foliar
Transgenic
60.3 a 28.6 a 0.3 ab 4.2 a 45.3 a 138.7 a
resistance
LSD 1.61 1.19 0.22 0.59 1.75 2.48
F 11.576 8.249 1.548 0.322 4.772 7.633
Prob. (F) 0.0004 0.0019 0.2507 0.8580 0.0155 0.0027
(df = 4, 19).
NJ
ay
Table 34. Braconidae adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs.

Management________________________________________________________
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.0 a 0.1 b 0.2 a 0.2 c 0.9 b 3.3 be 0.8 b 0.4 c 1.6c 0.2 c 1.1 ab
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.1 b 0.1 a 0.4 c 1.1 b 1.9c 3.7 ab 2.9 ab 5.1 ab 1.9b 1.0b
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.1 b 0.3 a 0.5 be 1.1 ab 2.4 c 2.3 ab 0.9 c 4.9 abc 4.3 a 2.8 a
foliar
Selective
0.1 a 1.3a 0.9 a 3.9 ab 3.8 ab 10.8 ab 10.2 a 2.0 be 3.6 be 1.9 b 2.0 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0,2 a 0.8 a 1.4a 5.4 a 7.3 a 13.5 a 13.1 a 4.3 a 8.3 a 4.1 a 2.7 a
resistance
LSD 0.10 0.25 0.41 0.91 1.08 1.25 1.61 0.52 0.79 0.41 0.50
F 1.130 5.876 1.824 3.503 2.075 4.224 2.773 6.235 4.049 12.371 2.237
Prob. (F) 0.3881 0.0074 0.1891 0.0408 0.1473 0.0231 0.0765 0.0059 0.0264 0.0003 0.1259
(df = 4, 19).
Table 35. Mymaridae adults sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs.

Management________________________________________________________
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.1 a 0.2 b 0.2 b 0.6 ab 2.3 b 6.3 ab 3.6 be 0.3 c 1.3 be 0.2 c 0.1 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.1 a 0.3 ab 0.4 ab 1.4 a 3.9 b 10.7 ab 2.2 cd 4.6 a 9.0 a 1.9a 1.5 ab
systemic
Conventional
0.1 a 0.3 ab 0.3 ab 0.6 ab 2.4 b 5.0 b 4.6 ab 0.1 c 0.6 c 0.0 c 0.3 b
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 0.4 ab 0.4 ab 0.3 b 3.4 b 16.5 ab 6.8 a 1.5b 4.6 ab 0.7 b 1.3 ab
foliar
Transgenic
0.1 a 0.8 a 0.9 a 0.4 b 9.9 a 20.4 a 1.1 d 2.2 b 5.3 a 1.8a 2.4 a
resistance
LSD 0.05 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.79 1.73 0.48 0.30 0.86 0.19 0.51
F 1.615 1.880 1.657 2.367 4.594 2.045 10.538 25.455 7.056 21.802 3.005
Prob. (F) 0.2340 0.1787 0.2240 0.1112 0.0176 0.1517 0.0007 0.0001 0.0037 0.0001 0.0623
(df = 4, 19).
Table 36. Predators sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insect management
Mean predators per sample

Management
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.9 a 3 ab 2.3 ab 1.8 ab 4.1 a 5.2 ab 4.3 a 0.7 d 1.8c 0.2 c 0.4 c
systemic
Reduced-
0.4 ab 4.0 a 1.9 ab 2.4 a 5.4 a 7.9 a 4.4 a 6.6 a 11.1 a 8.9 a 5.6 ab
risk systemic
Conventional
0.8 a 0.8 c 1.1 b 2.7 a 5.7 a 3.6 b 5.3 a 0.4 d 2.7 c 0.4 c 0.9 c
foliar
Selective
0.2 b 1.8 be 2.5 ab 0.8 be 2.9 a 8a 6.6 a 4.3 b 6.4 b 4.2 b 4.1 b
foliar
Transgenic
0.1 b 2.6 ab 3a 0.4 c 3.5 a 7.9 a 1.2 b 2.4 c 6.2 b 6.4 ab 7.8 a
resistance
LSD 0.20 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.70 0.67 0.69 0.42 0.48 0.45 0.61
F 2.980 8.291 2.660 6.157 1.534 3.265 4.473 22.519 21.438 35.337 14.214
Prob. (F) 0.0636 0.0019 0.0847 0.0062 0.2543 0.0498 0.0192 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002
(df = 4, 19).
Mean predators per vacuum sample

Management_________________________________________________________
program
Nabidae Anthocoridae Spiders Syrphidae Chrysopidae Coccinellidae Total
Conventional
0.3 b 8.6 c 12.8 c 0.0 b 2.3 a 0.3 b 24.3 c
systemic
Reduced-risk
2.4 a 20.1 ab 31.9a 0.5 a 3.5 a 0.6 ab 59.0 a
systemic
Conventional
0.7 b 8.8 c 11.2c 0.3 ab 2.9 a 0.5 ab 24.3 c
foliar
Selective
1.2 ab 15.9 b 18.4 b 0.1 ab 5.4 a 0.9 ab 41.7 b
foliar
Transgenic
1.0 ab 21.5 a 10.3 c 0.3 ab 6.4 a 1.6a 41.1 b
resistance
LSD 0.44 0.56 0.51 0.16 0.84 0.41 0.73
F 2.573 16.805 33.354 1.771 1.599 1.482 23.106
Prob. (F) 0.0918 0.0001 0.0001 0.1995 0.2377 0.2684 0.0001
(df = 4, 19).
Ni
CD
Table 38. Spiders sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management programs.

Management________________________________________________________
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.4 ab 1.0 ab 1.5a 1.4 ab 2.6 a 2.3 b 1.9 a 0.4 c 1.1 c 0.2 c 0.3 b
systemic
Reduced-
0.2 b 1.6 a 0.8 b 1.8a 2.4 a 4.0 a 1.8a 3.9 a 6.1 a 6.2 a 3.1 a
risk systemic
Conventional
0.6 a 0.2 c 0.6 b 1.9a 2.2 a 2.3 b 1.8a 0.2 c 0.9 c 0.3 c 0.2 b
foliar
Selective
0.2 b 0.6 be 0.8 ab 0.6 be 1.1 b 3.5 ab 1.6a 2.0 b 3.3 b 2.8 b 1.9a
foliar
Transgenic
0.1 b 0.6 be 0.9 ab 0.3 c 1.1 b 2.1 b 0.3 b 0.4 c 1.1 c 2.4 b 1.9a
resistance
LSD 0.13 0.27 0.21 0.31 0.32 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.40 0.41
F 3.299 5.109 2.832 5.709 4.466 3.309 3.327 14.899 26.574 22.523 7.788
Prob. (F) 0.0484 0.0123 0.0725 0.0082 0.0193 0.0479 0.0472 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0025
(df = 4, 19).
K>
Table 39. Anthocoridae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management
Mean anthocorids per vacuum sample

Management_________________________________________________________________________________
program
6-16 6-22 6-30 7-7 7-14 7-23 7-27 8-4 8-11 8-18 8-24
Conventional
0.4 a 1.8 ab 0.4 c 0.2 a 0.7 a 2.6 ab 1.9 ab 0.2 b 0.5 c 0.0 c 0.1 c
systemic
Reduced-
0.0 a 2.2 a 0.9 be 0.2 a 1.8a 3.5 a 2.2 ab 2.1 a 3.8 a 1.3 b 2.1 b
risk systemic
Conventional
0.1 a 0.4 c 0.4 c 0.4 a 1.9 a 0.8 b 2.8 a 0.3 b 1.7 be 0.1 c 0.6 c
foliar
Selective
0.0 a 1.1 be 1.4 ab 0.1 a 1.1 a 3.1 ab 3.1 a 1.6a 2.8 ab 0.9 b 0.7 c
foliar
Transgenic
0.0 a 1.6 ab 1.8 a 0.1 a 1.4 a 3.8 a 0.6 b 1.6 a 4.7 a 2.6 a 3.3 a
resistance
LSD 0.17 0.30 0.31 0.17 0.53 0.64 0.61 0.37 0.42 0.21 0.28
F 0.864 4.945 3.927 0.897 0.776 2.391 2.205 5.474 10.215 22.522 19.071
Prob. (F) 0.5131 0.0137 0.0291 0.4956 0.5618 0.1087 0.1298 0.0096 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001
(df = 4, 19).
294
Figure 1. Aphid and braconid populations sampled from transgenic

resistance and conventional foliar management programs on
Russet Burbank potatoes. Coloma Farms, Coloma Wisconsin
1999.
295
75
70 ♦ Aphid- Newleaf plus
— ■— Aphid- Foliar
65
— A — Braconid- Newleaf plus;
60
Mean braconids per vacuum sample

- Braconid- Foliar /
55
50
45
40
35
30
25 j r ~ "
20
15
10
5
0
6/16 6/23 6/30
296
D. COMPARISONS OF SELECTIVE AND BROAD-SPECTRUM SYSTEMIC

AND FOLIAR INSECTICIDES ON POTATOES. COLOMA FARMS,
COLOMA, Wl, 2000.
Field management comparisons of conventional and reduced-risk (reduced
rate) systemic and foliar insecticides were conducted on commercially grown
Russet Burbank potatoes during 2000 at Coloma Farms, Coloma Wisconsin.
This trial was designed similarly to field trials conducted in 1997 and 1999 at
Coloma Farms where season long insect management programs evaluated
conventional and reduced-risk systemic and selective foliar insecticides for
potato insect control and effects on beneficial arthropods. Recent developments
and reduced consumer confidence in GMO technologies have resulted in the
loss of genetically modified potato varieties as an insect management tool and in
2000, transgenic resistant varieties were not included in the management
programs studied. Our goal was to continue investigating alternative insecticide
management programs that incorporated selective and/or less toxic insecticides
into insect management programs for potatoes in Wisconsin while maintaining
effective insect pest control and cost effectiveness.
Management programs included conventional foliar and conventional
systemic management programs compared with reduced-risk foliar and systemic
programs.
Individual management programs were based on the approach to Colorado
potato beetle control in the program. In the conventional foliar management
297
program Colorado potato beetles were controlled with one application of
esfenvalerate/piperonyl butoxide (Asana® 0.66EC/PBO®) at 0.04 lb. a.i./A and 4
oz. c.p./A and two applications of cyfluthrin/piperonyl butoxide (Baythroid® 2.8
EC/PBO®) at 0.088 lb. a.i./A and 4 oz. c.p./A. Colorado potato beetles were
managed in the selective foliar management program with Bacillus thuringiensis
var. tenebrionis (Novodor®) at the rate of 3 quarts product per acre followed by
spinosad (Spintor® 2SC) at 0.063 lb. a.i./A. In the systemic programs
imidacloprid (Admire® 2F) was applied with the fertilizer at planting at 0.15 and
0.25 lb. a.i./A (conventional and reduced-risk systemic management programs).
Second-generation Colorado potato beetles in the reduced-risk systemic
management program were treated with spinosad (Spintor® 2SC) at 0.063 lb.
a.i./A and foliar imidacloprid (Provado® 1.6F) at 0.047 lb. a.i./A. The
conventional systemic program did not require supplemental control for second-
generation Colorado potato beetle.
Potato leafhoppers were treated in the conventional foliar management
program with dimethoate (Dimethoate® 4E) at 0.5 lb. a.i./A while permethrin
(Pounce® 3.2EC) was applied at 0.1 lb. a.i./A to control leafhopper adults in the
reduced-risk and selective foliar management programs.
Aphids were treated with pymetrozine (Fulfill® 50WG) at 0.086 lb. a.i./A in the
selective management program and methamidophos (Monitor® 4E) at 0.75 lb.
a.i./A was applied in the conventional foliar management program. Table 40
298
summarizes the insecticide treatments and application dates for each
management program.
Certified Russet Burbank potato seed (cut A’s), were planted on April 26 into
an 80 acre center pivot irrigated field with a loamy sand textured soil. The field
was divided into four replications arranged in a randomized complete block
experimental design. Replications were divided into four treatment blocks
consisting of 48 rows (30 inch row spacing) 1200 feet long. Treatment blocks
were divided into 4 subunit-sampling points where insect surveys were taken
and averaged to obtain a single count for analysis. Systemic treatments were
impregnated on the starter fertilizer and applied immediately prior to planting.
Foliar insecticides were applied with a 120‘ boom sprayer operating at 70 psi,
delivering 20 or 25 gpa depending upon the insecticide treatment. Coloma
Farms personnel conducted plot maintenance (application of pesticides,
irrigation, soil, and plant fertility) as per commercial potato production
recommendations. The plot was vine killed on September 20 and harvested on
October 4 and 5. A yield monitor, mounted on the potato harvester, determined
yields as the field was being harvested. Eight 80-pound tuber samples were
collected from each management program (two per replication) while the plot
was being harvested to conduct size grading. Samples were stored at Coloma
Farms potato storage facilities until they were graded at the Hancock Agricultural
Research Station on October 13.
299
Beneficial and pest insect populations were surveyed weekly from June 14
through August 21. Surveys included plant count (10 plants per subunit) for all
stages of Colorado potato beetle while leaf defoliation ratings were determined
visually for each subunit in a management program. Potato leaf counts,
consisting of 20 leaves per subunit, were used to monitor potato leafhopper
nymphs, green peach aphid, and potato aphid populations. Sweep net samples,
consisting of 15 sweeps per subunit, were taken to monitor potato leafhopper
adults. Vacuum samples were also taken weekly from each subunit to monitor
pest and beneficial arthropods. Vacuum samples consisted of collecting insects
from the plots by sucking them from the potato canopy into a collection net
mounted on a leaf blower air intake (Homelite HB 180V), while walking along a
potato row for a period of fifty seconds. Samples were placed into 70% alcohol
and examined later under magnification.
First generation Colorado potato beetle larvae were treated with foliar
Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis in the selective foliar management program
on June 15 and a second application of spinosad on June 21. Esfenvalerate
was applied in the conventional foliar management program on June 21 but
failed to provide complete Colorado potato beetle larval control and plots were
retreated with cyfluthrin on June 27.
Second generation Colorado potato beetle larvae were treated with spinosad
and foliar imidacloprid in early August in the reduced-risk systemic management
300
program while cyfluthrin was applied in the conventional foliar management
program.
Potato leafhopper adults were treated with dimethoate in the conventional
foliar management program on June 15 while permethrin was applied in the low-
risk foliar management program. Permethrin was also applied on July 5 in the
reduced-risk systemic and the selective foliar management programs. Potato
leafhoppers did not exceed threshold levels in the conventional systemic
management program and did not require foliar insecticide control.
Two applications of methamidophos on July 11 and August 15 were required
to control aphids in the conventional foliar management program in response to
grower concern over infested spots scattered in the field while pymetrozine was
applied in the selective foliar management program on July 18.
Agricultural Research Manager Version 6.0 (Gylling Data Management, Inc., 405
Martin Blvd., Brookings, South Dakota, 57006-4605). Mean separation was
determined using Least Significance Difference Test, P=0.05.
First generation Colorado potato beetle adults entered the plots in late May
and egg masses and resultant small larvae were detected in the foliar
management programs on June 14 (Tables 41-45). Bacillus thuringiensis var.
tenebrionis is most effective against small Colorado potato beetle larvae and
applications were made in the selective foliar management program on June 15.
A week later, small larval numbers had increased and applications of
esfenvalerate and spinosad were made in the conventional and selective foliar
management programs. Split applications of Bacillus thuhngiensis var.
tenebrionis and spinosad effectively reduced larval numbers in the selective
foliar management program but esfenvalerate failed to reduce larval numbers in
the conventional foliar management program and a supplementary application of
cyfluthrin was made in the conventional foliar management program on June 27.
First-generation Colorado potato beetle larvae were present in the systemic
management programs but numbers were not large enough to justify insecticide
applications. Second-generation larvae were treated with spinosad (August 2)
and foliar imidacloprid (August 15) in the reduced-risk systemic management
program while cyfluthrin was applied once (August 2) in the conventional foliar
management program. The conventional imidacloprid systemic management
program did not require treatment for second generation Colorado potato
beetles. Leaf defoliation among the management programs was minimal (2-3%)
with the highest levels seen in late July. There were no differences among
treatments.
Aphid numbers as determined by leaf counts were at low levels during much
of the 2000-growing season (Tables 46 and 48). Vacuum sampling was more
effective than leaf sampling for both potato aphid (Table 47) and green peach
aphid (Table 10). More intensive leaf sampling conducted in mid July revealed
302
green peach aphid hotspots scattered among the conventional foliar and
selective foliar management programs. Applications of methamidophos in the
conventional foliar management program on July 11 and pymetrozine in the
selective foliar management program on July 18 were used and both effectively
reduced aphid numbers. Aphid numbers peaked at 31.0 potato aphids and 9.9
green peach aphids per sample among the management programs on July 25
(Tables 47 and 49). A second application of methamidophos was made in the
conventional foliar management program on August 15 due to further green
peach aphid hotspots. Systemic insect management programs effectively
controlled aphids and foliar aphicide applications were not required.
Potato leafhopper adults again entered the plots early in 2000 and were over
the threshold of one adult per sweep in the non-systemic programs on June 14
(Table 50). Both dimethoate (conventional foliar) and permethrin (selective
foliar) provided effective control. The selective foliar plots required retreatment
on July 5 while the conventional foliar plots which received two applications of
pyrethroid for Colorado potato beetle control and two applications of
methamidophos for aphid control did not require further leafhopper
management.
Potato leafhopper nymphs did not exceed threshold levels in any of the
management programs during the season and no additional foliar insecticides
targeted nymphs (Table 51).
303
In 2000, yields were extremely high (Table 52) and total yields that ranged
from 524.7 cwt./A in the reduced-risk systemic management program to 568.0
cwt./A in the conventional foliar management program. The software that
manipulates yield data (Harvestmaster) downloaded from the harvester
malfunctioned in 2000 and generated only total yield for each treatment and thus
no statistical analysis could be run and no yield differences could be
demonstrated. However, samples were graded by percent grade and size
distribution and no significant size grade differences were detected among the
plots.
Insecticide costs and toxicity unit accumulations varied considerably among
the management programs (Table 40). The conventional systemic management
program, which required no supplemental controls in 2000, was the least
expensive management program to implement ($69.75/A) and had the lowest
toxicity unit accumulation. When late season insect pressure is light
imidacloprid at 0.2 lb. a.i./A can frequently provide adequate control thus
eliminating the need for additional insecticide inputs. The selective foliar
management program was the most expensive program to implement
($106.45/A) and toxicity unit accumulation was slightly higher than the reduced
risk systemic management program (105 vs. 74). Toxicity unit accumulation was
highest in the conventional foliar management program due to repeated
applications of pyrethroids and organophosphates. Potatoes from this program
yielded higher than either the selective foliar or conventional systemic
304
management programs but growers would be justified in selecting a slightly
higher cost program in order to reduce program toxicity.
Beneficial arthropods were collected in lower numbers from the management
programs during 2000 than were collected from similar plots during 1999 (see
preceding Section). However, beneficial trends among management programs
were similar to those observed in 1999. Total beneficial arthropods ranged from
26.3 in the conventional foliar management program to 65.6 in the selective
foliar management program (Table 53). Significantly lower numbers of beneficial
insects were collected from the conventional foliar management program than
were collected from the selective foliar management program. Applications of
dimethoate, permethrin, esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin, methamidophos, and
imidacloprid negatively affected beneficial insects. Selective insecticides had
varied effects on beneficial arthropods. Beneficial numbers increased after
spinosad was applied in the reduced-risk systemic management program on
August 2 but they decreased after it was applied in the selective foliar
management program on June 15. Pymetrozine did not have any negative affect
on beneficial arthropods.
Predators were collected in larger numbers during sampling than were
parasitoids in 2000 and significant differences were only observed among
predator numbers (Table 54). Significantly higher numbers of predators were
observed in the selective foliar, conventional, and reduced-risk systemic
305
management programs than were collected from the conventional foliar
management program.
Predators were collected season long but highest numbers occurred in
August (Table 55). Predator numbers peaked at 15.6 predators per sample in
the selective foliar management program on August 9, coinciding with peak
numbers of second-generation Colorado potato beetle larvae. Predators were
negatively affected by applications of dimethoate, esfenvalerate, permethrin,
imidacloprid, and methamidophos. Cyfluthrin also negatively affected predator
numbers and applications in the conventional foliar management program on
July 27 and August 2 severely limited increasing predator numbers in
comparison to the other management programs. Predators were not adversely
affected by applications of spinosad in the selective foliar management program
on June 21 and in the reduced-risk systemic management program on August 2.
Predators were also unaffected after applications of pymetrozine in the selective
foliar management program on July 18. Methamidophos had varied effects on
predators; numbers decreased in the conventional foliar management program
after methamidophos was applied on July 11 while numbers increased after
methamidophos was applied on August 15.
Seven predator families and spiders were collected during sampling:
anthocorids, nabids, chrysopids, coccinellids, geocorids, pentatomids, and
syrphids (Table 56). Total predator numbers ranged from 36.1 predators in the
selective foliar management program to 15.0 predators in the conventional foliar
306
management program. Among the predator families spiders were collected in
greatest numbers and they comprised 75 percent of the total number of
predators. Generally, predator numbers were lowest in the conventional foliar
management program while numbers were similar among the systemic and
selective foliar management programs.
Spiders were collected season long but numbers peaked during mid August
(Table 57). Peak spider numbers ranged from 4.7 spiders per sample in the
conventional foliar management program to 13.9 spiders per sample in the
selective foliar management program. Broad-spectrum, long residual
insecticides had the greatest harmful affect on spiders. Applications of
esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin, and methamidophos had much greater negative
impacts on spiders than did spinosad and pymetrozine. Spider numbers
declined after dimethoate was applied in the conventional foliar management
program on June 15 however numbers also declined in other management
programs during the same period. Spider numbers also declined after
applications of permethrin in the selective foliar management program on June
15 and in the reduced-risk systemic management program on July 5 but
numbers increased after permethrin was applied in the selective foliar
management program on July 5. Spider numbers also declined after
imidacloprid was applied in the reduced-risk systemic management program on
August 15.
307
Chrysopids were collected in low numbers from June through August (Table
58). Numbers were at such low levels during the season that insecticide effects
are difficult to determine, although significantly lower total chrysopid numbers
were observed in the conventional foliar management program. Chrysopid
numbers were also significantly lower in both systemic management programs
compared to the selective foliar management program. Total chrysopid numbers
ranged from 0.6 chrysopids in the conventional foliar management program to
4.6 chrysopids in the selective foliar management program. It is evident that
chrysopids are negatively affected by repeated applications of broad-spectrum
insecticides.
Beneficial parasitoid adults were collected throughout the season and total
numbers ranged from 11.3 adults in the conventional foliar management
program to 29.5 adults in the selective foliar management program (Table 59).
Total parasitoid numbers were variable and did not significantly differ among the
management programs. However, twice as many adults were collected from the
selective foliar management program than were collected from the conventional
foliar management program. Peak parasitoid adult numbers were collected
during sampling in June and July. Parasitoid adult numbers declined after
applications of the pyrethroids esfenvalerate on June 21, cyfluthrin on June 27,
and permethrin on July 5. Adult numbers also dropped after applications of
methamidophos on July 11 and spinosad on August 2. Early season
applications of dimethoate, Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis, permethrin,
308
and spinosad, and late season applications of cyfluthrin, imidacloprid,
methamidophos, and pymetrozine did not adversely affect parasitoid adults.
Four parasitoid families were collected during sampling: braconids,
mymarids, pteromalids, and encyrtids (Table 60). Braconids were the most
commonly collected parasitoid and were the only family where significant
differences among management programs were observed.
Braconid adults were collected from June through August with peak numbers
occurring during late July and August (Table 61). Total braconid numbers
ranged from 4.9 adults in the conventional foliar management program to 11.8
adults in the low-risk foliar management program. Braconids were greatly
influenced by aphids and increased aphid infestation attracted larger numbers of
braconids among the management programs. Braconid numbers increased after
applications of dimethoate, cyfluthrin, pymetrozine, and spinosad but adult
numbers declined after applications of Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis in
combination with permethrin, esfenvalerate, methamidophos, and imidacloprid.
3. Conclusions
All the insect management programs provided effective insect pest control
which was reflected in the high yields from the plots. All foliar insecticides
targeting Colorado potato beetles were effective except esfenvalerate, which
failed to reduce Colorado potato beetle larval numbers after application.
Systemic management programs also effectively controlled Colorado potato
309
beetles and they required the least number of insecticide applications with costs
that were comparable to the other management programs. The selective foliar
management program required additional insecticide applications for
leafhoppers and aphids and insecticide costs were the highest among the
management programs.
Beneficial arthropods were found in all treatment programs and predators
were much more common than parasitoids. Significantly lower numbers of
beneficial insects were collected from the conventional foliar management
program than were collected from the selective foliar management program.
Applications of dimethoate, permethrin, esfenvalerate, cyfluthrin,
methamidophos, and imidacloprid negatively affected beneficial insects while
selective insecticides had varied effects.
Table 40. Insecticide management programs used to control insect pests on Russet Burbank potatoes. Coloma Farms, Coloma, W l, 2000.

Management
Program
Toxicity Approx
4-26 6-15 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 8-2 8-15
Units cost/A
Conventional ... — ... ... ... ... ... ...

Admire® 40 $69.75
systemic
Reduced-risk ... ... ... ... ...

Admire® Pounce® Spintor® Provado® 74 $78.11
systemic
Conventional .. . ... ...

Dimethoate® Asana® Baythroid® Monitor® Baythroid® Monitor® 879 $86.93
foliar
.. . Novodor® ... ... ... ...

Selective foliar Spintor® Pounce® Fulfill® 105 $106.45
Pounce®
310

Management ___________________________________________________
Program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 a 0.2 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.2 a 0.1 b 1.1 a 1.8 b 1.9a 2.5 b 2.8 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.4 a 0.2 a 0.5 a 0.6 a 0.2 a 0.4 b 8.9 a 15.8 a 4.1 a 3.4 b 0.6 a
systemic
Conventional
1.1 a 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.1 b 0.4 a 2.5 a 0.6 a 3.4 ab 6.1 a 10.3 a 2.7 a
foliar
Selective foliar 1.4 a 0.3 a 0.1 b 0.1 b 0.1 a 0.1 b 0.7 a 11.5 ab 4.4 a 1.7b 0.3 a
LSD 0.56 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.22 0.49 2.06 2.27 1.41 0.86 1.48
F 1.707 0.492 11.783 7.864 1.152 6.930 2.277 3.737 1.226 8.650 1.004
Prob. (F) 0.3025 0.7070 0.0187 0.0374 0.4304 0.0461 0.2216 0.1177 0.4094 0.0319 0.4777
(df = 3,15).

Management ______________________________________________________
Program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.4 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.0 a 0.3 a 0.1 a 0.0 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.2 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.0 a 0.6 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.3 a 0.6 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.00 0.23 0.07 0.22 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.51 0.07 0.29 0.00
F 0.000 1.672 1.333 1.323 1.000 0.667 0.000 1.262 6.311 1.593 0.000
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.3089 0.3813 0.3838 0.4789 0.6150 1.0000 0.3995 0.0536 0.3239 1.0000
(df = 3, 15).
312

Management ___________________________________________________
Program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 b 0.1 b 0.0 a 0.8 b 0.3 b 2.1 a 0.5 a 0.3 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.3 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 b 0.2 b 0.4 a 0.3 b 3.1 a 2.7 a 0.8 a 5.9 a 1.1 a 12.9 a 0.2 a
systemic
Conventional
4.8 a 38.9 a 9.5 a 1.1 b 0.5 b 0.1 a 2.0 a 3.6 a 0.6 a 0.0 a 0.1 a
foliar
Selective foliar 5.5 a 13.9 b 0.4 a 3.9 a 0.1 b 0.1 a 0.3 a 0.8 a 0.0 a 2.1 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.99 2.44 1.91 0.46 0.27 0.83 0.48 1.93 0.46 2.46 0.17
F 6.130 12.913 3.470 9.270 22.855 2.511 2.591 1.070 1.189 2.422 1.564
Prob. (F) 0.0562 0.0159 0.1303 0.0284 0.0056 0.1975 0.1901 0.4556 0.4198 0.2062 0.3296
(df = 3, 15).
313

Management ___________________________________________________
Program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.1 a 2.5 a 1.1 b 0.6 a 0.6 b 1.1 a 0.6 a 0.4 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 b 1.6b 0.1 a 4.4 a 4.3 a 0.6 a 1.4b 0.5 a 4.7 a 0.3 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 6.2 a 14.1 a 0.8 a 0.8 a 0.2 b 2.9 a 10.5 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.0 a 1.2b 0.0 b 0.1 a 4.3 a 0.3 b 0.3 a 0.8 b 2.5 a 1.1 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.00 0.54 0.72 0.33 1.91 0.30 0.70 1.34 1.13 1.56 0.38
F 0.000 22.089 50.021 1.919 0.691 39.039 3.423 6.806 0.633 0.654 0.352
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.0060 0.0013 0.2681 0.6.35 0.0020 0.1328 0.0475 0.6314 0.6212 0.7912
(df = 3, 15).
314
Table 45. Defoliation ratings of Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management programs.
Mean percent defoliation per plot

Management ______________________________________________________
Program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.9 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.4 a 3.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 1.9a 3.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.5 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 2.5 a 0.0 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.0 a 0.6 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 2.5 a 1.3 ab 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a
LSD 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.53 2.74 0.00 0.00 0.61
F 0.000 8.000 25.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 4.467 0.000 0.000 1.000
Prob. (F) 1.0000 0.0364 0.0047 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.4789 0.0911 1.0000 1.0000 0.4789
(df = 3, 15).
315

Management ____________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.6 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 4.3 a 0.1 a 0.2 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.07 1.35 0.05 0.14 0.38 0.05 0.15
F 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.667 1.458 0.999 0.861 0.751 0.999 1.000
Prob. (F) 1.0000 1.0000 0.4789 0.4789 0.6150 0.3519 0.4791 0.5301 0.5763 0.4791 0.4789
Means in a column followed by the same letter do not significantly differ,

(df = 3, 15)
316

Management
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.7 b 0.4 b 0.8 b 1.3 b 2.2 b 2.2 a 0.7 b 0.7 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.4 b 0.1 b 0.3 be 2.1 b 2.4 b 3.0 a 1.8b 5.6 a
systemic
Conventional
0.8 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 b 0.9 b 0.0 c 0.4 b 1.8b 2.3 a 7.6 a 0.9 a
foliar
Selective
1.0a 0.0 a 1.4a 13.9 a 3.1 a 29.3 a 31.0 a 9.5 a 3.6 a 1.9b 4.3 a
foliar
LSD 0.50 0.09 0.79 1.42 0.34 0.26 1.53 0.37 1.28 0.81 1.24
F 1.321 1.000 0.831 11.705 17.069 934.820 24.945 55.633 0.244 10.756 3.393
Prob. (F) 0.3845 0.4788 0.5421 0.0189 0.0096 0.0001 0.0047 0.0010 0.8620 0.0220 0.1344
(df = 3, 15).
317

Management ____________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.4 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.3a 7.6 a 0.1 a
systemic
Conventional
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.6 a 0.0 b 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.6 a 0.4 a 0.1 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.4 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.2 a 0.0 a 1.5a 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.17 1.36 0.06 0.18 0.19 0.59 1.76 0.10
F 0.776 0.000 0.667 0.667 1.108 150.822 0.824 0.893 0.628 2.486 0.714
Prob. (F) 0.5653 1.0000 0.6150 0.6151 0.4438 0.0001 0.5452 0.5178 0.6341 0.1998 0.5928
(df = 3, 15).
318

Management ______________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.3 b 0.2 a 1.6 b 4.0 a 2.0 a 1.0 b 0.1 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.3 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.5 a 0.1 b 0.2 a 1.9b 4.0 a 1.8 a 0.0 c 5.9 a
systemic
Conventional
0.3 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.5 a 2.2 a 0.1 a 2.8 b 3.0 a 1.6a 2.1 a 0.1 b
foliar
Selective foliar 0.6 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.7 a 1.8 ab 5.6 a 9.9 a 3.4 a 2.2 a 0.3 c 0.4 ab
LSD 0.47 0.11 0.08 0.27 0.52 1.34 0.73 0.98 0.99 0.16 1.15
F 0.428 0.733 2.111 1.767 5.187 1.694 14.133 0.215 0.073 36.300 3.792
Prob. (F) 0.7445 0.5842 0.2415 0.2922 0.0728 0.3048 0.0135 0.8817 0.9715 0.0023 0.1153
(df = 3, 15).
319

Management ____________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
2.4 b 0.6 b 4.3 a 7.9 c 2.5 a 2.3 ab 1.9 ab 1.3b 0.5 a 0.2 b 0.1 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
3.9 b 1.6 a 5.9 a 17.4 a 0.8 b 2.2 ab 0.8 b 0.4 c 0.0 a 0.3 b 0.4 a
systemic
Conventional
20.3 a 0.3 b 0.1 a 0.2 d 0.4 b 0.1 b 3.8 a 1.8 ab 0.6 a 0.7 b 0.0 a
foliar
Selective foliar 21.4 a 0.5 b 2.6 a 10.8 b 1.1 ab 2.4 a 2.8 ab 2.1 a 0.5 a 1.8a 0.0 a
LSD 1.24 0.33 1.41 0.20 0.41 0.73 0.68 0.19 0.30 0.18 0.33
F 24.319 5.928 2.831 716.143 6.499 3.603 3.143 23.442 1.912 21.995 0.890
Prob. (F) 0.0050 0.0592 0.1703 0.0001 0.0511 0.1238 0.1488 0.0053 0.2692 0.0060 0.5190
(df = 3, 15).
320

Management _____________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.2 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.2 a 0.1 a 0.4 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 1.0a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.1 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.4 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.6 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
LSD 0.16 0.31 0.07 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.29 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.12
F 0.672 1.000 0.667 1.604 13.07 0.000 1.953 0.667 0.000 0.999 1.000
Prob. (F) 0.6123 0.4790 0.6150 0.3216 0.0157 1.0000 0.2630 0.6150 1.0000 0.4791 0.4789
(df = 3, 15).
Table 52. Yield and percent grade of Russet Burbank potatoes harvested from different insecticide management
Percent size grade Mean percent grade

Management Total
Program (Cwt./A)
Conventional
8.6 a 22.9 a 35.3 a 13.9 a 7.1 a 7.8 a 95.7 a 2.6 a 1.8a 546.5
systemic
Reduced-risk
10.9 a 24.9 a 35.9 a 11.0a 6.1 a 3.7 a 92.5 a 5.1 a 2.5 a 524.7
systemic
Conventional
8.4 a 25.8 a 33.6 a 12.7 a 6.7 a 5.9 a 93.1 a 4.7 a 2.2 a 568.0
foliar
Selective
9.4 a 22.8 a 35.2 a 13.3 a 6.1 a 6.9 a 93.7 a 3.9 a 2.4 a 538.3
foliar
LSD 3.284 6.299 3.094 5.545 2.688 1.436 3.789 3.463 1.354
F 1.204 0.565 1.040 0.532 0.315 1.569 1.376 1.015 0.535
Prob. (F) 0.3625 0.6519 0.4208 0.6715 0.8146 0.2636 0.3116 0.4305 0.6700
(df = 3, 15).
322
Table 53. Beneficial arthropods (parasitoids and predators) sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with
different insecticide management programs. Coloma Farms, Coloma, Wl, 2000.

Management_________________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21 Total
Conventional
1.7a 0.4 c 1.6 a 5.3 a 7.4 a 2.3 ab 3.1 ab 5.6 b 10.4 a 5.9 a 4.5 ab 47.1 ab
systemic
Reduced-risk
2.2 a 0.9 b 2.1 a 6.3 a 2.4 b 2.4 ab 3.8 ab 3.8 be 14.8 a 8.0 a 1.7b 46.5 ab
systemic
Conventional
1.8a 1.3a 0.1 a 0.6 b 2.9 b 0.6 b 1.6b 1.9c 6.0 a 6.2 a 3.6 ab 26.3 b
foliar
Selective
5.6 a 0.8 be 0.7 a 6.3 a 2.8 b 3.8 a 5.4 a 9.3 a 18.4 a 6.7 a 6.3 a 65.6 a
foliar
LSD 1.34 0.15 0.73 0.63 0.76 0.66 0.80 0.59 1.89 0.96 1.07 2.05
F 1.448 12.412 2.409 18.492 7.240 4.424 3.568 16.262 2.459 0.514 2.806 5.173
Prob. (F) 0.3542 0.0171 0.2076 0.0083 0.0429 0.0924 0.1255 0.0150 0.2025 0.6942 0.1722 0.0731
(df = 3, 15).
323
Table 54. Beneficial arthropods sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide
Mean beneficials
Management
program
Conventional
31.8 a 17.9 a 47.1 ab
systemic
Reduced-risk
31.6 a 18.1 a 46.5 ab
systemic
Conventional
15.1 b 11.3a 26.3 b
foliar
Selective foliar 42.9 a 29.5 a 65.6 a
LSD 1.65 1.98 2.05
F 6.686 2.555 5.173
Prob. (F) 0.0489 0.1934 0.0731
(df = 3, 15).
324
Table 55. Predators sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insect management
Mean predators per sample

Management
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
1.1 b 0.3 ab 0.6 ab 2.6 a 4.8 a 1.4 a 1.4 a 1.9 ab 8.7 be 2.9 ab 3.2 a
systemic
Reduced-
1.3 b 0.6 a 1.2a 3.6 a 1.1 b 0.8 ab 1.1 a 1.4 be 12.9 ab 3.6 a 0.8 b
risk systemic
Conventional
1.3 b 0.7 a 0c 0.1 b 1.8b 0.2 b 0.8 a 0.7 c 4.9 c 1.9b 2.7 a
foliar
Selective
3.7 a 0.1 b 0.4 be 2.6 a 1.6 b 1.5a 1.6a 2.7 a 15.6 a 3.3 a 2.8 a
foliar
LSD 0.47 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.42 0.33 0.37 0.31 0.88 0.36 0.36
F 4.427 3.931 5.391 24.833 10.532 3.214 0.575 6.271 6.368 2.900 8.376
Prob. (F) 0.0258 0.0363 0.0139 0.0001 0.0011 0.0616 0.6425 0.0083 0.0079 0.0788 0.0028
(df = 3, 15).
325
Total predators
Management_____________________________ __________________
program
Spider Anthocorid Nabid Chrysopid Coccinellid Geocorid Pentatomid Syrphid Total
Conventional
22.0 a 2.7 a 0.6 a 2.8 b 0.4 b 0.4 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 29.2 a
systemic
Reduced-
21.5 a 3.0 a 0.4 a 2.5 b 0.6 ab 0.3 ab 0.1 a 0.0 b 28.4 a
risk systemic
Conventional
10.3 b 2.9 a 0.3 a 0.6 c 0.5 b 0.3 ab 0.1 a 0.2 a 15.0 b
foliar
Selective
23.0 a 5.5 a 1.1 a 4.6 a 1.3 a 0.1 b 0.4 a 0.3 a 36.1 a
foliar
LSD 1.21 1.03 0.44 0.33 0.24 0.12 0.18 0.05 1.24
F 5.475 1.283 1.250 29.999 4.761 3.801 1.513 16.995 7.847
Prob. (F) 0.0670 0.3942 0.4028 0.0033 0.0829 0.1149 0.3401 0.0097 0.0376
(df = 3, 15).
326
Table 57. Spiders sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management programs.

Management_______________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.8 a 0.1 a 0.3 ab 1.9b 3.5 a 1.1 a 0.9 a 1.4 a 8.0 a 1.8a 2.2 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.4 a 0.2 a 0.6 a 2.5 a 0.9 b 0.7 a 0.7 a 1.3 ab 12.3 a 1.8 a 0.6 b
systemic
Conventional
0.3 a 0.2 a 0.0 c 0.1 d 1.6 ab 0.1 a 0.6 a 1.1 b 4.7 a 0.9 b 1.5 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.8 a 0.0 a 0.1 be 1.0c 1.3 ab 1.1 a 1.2 a 1.4 ab 13.9 a 1.3 ab 1.4a
LSD 0.42 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.67 0.44 0.58 0.30 1.59 0.20 0.31
F 0.838 1.334 8.560 212.228 3.596 1.887 0.277 2.687 2.758 7.339 7.226
Prob. (F) 0.5394 0.3812 0.0325 0.0001 0.1241 0.2728 0.8403 0.1818 0.1759 0.0420 0.0430
(df = 3, 15).
327
Table 58. Chrysopidae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide management

Management _______________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21 Total
Conventional
0.0 a 0.0 b 0.2 ab 0.2 a 0.6 a 0.1 ab 0.1 a 0.2 b 0.4 ab 0.5 a 0.6 a 2.8 b
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.0 a 0.1 ab 0.3 a 0.4 a 0.1 b 0.0 b 0.2 a 0.2 b 0.3 b 0.9 a 0.1 b 2.5 b
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 c 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.2 a 0.3 ab 0.6 c
foliar
Selective foliar 0.1 a 0.0 b 0.1 be 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.2 a 0.1 a 0.9 a 1.2a 0.9 a 0.6 a 4.6 a
LSD 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.26 0.18 0.07 0.19 0.16 0.26 0.54 0.17 0.33
F 0.999 1.000 8.668 1.113 5.463 4.000 0.571 9.819 6.213 0.712 4.746 29.999
Prob. (F) 0.4791 0.4789 0.0318 0.4423 0.0673 0.1069 0.6632 0.0257 0.0550 0.5940 0.0833 0.0033
(df = 3, 15).
328
Table 59. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insect
Mean adults per sample

Management
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21 Total
Conventional
1.0 b 2.9 b 1.3b 2.6 a 2.7 a 0.9 be 1.7c 0.6 a 0.1 b 0.9 a 2.0 ab 17.9 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
2.1 ab 4.4 a 0.9 b 2.6 a 1.3 b 1.6 ab 2.6 b 0.9 a 0.3 ab 0.9 a 1.7b 18.1 a
systemic
Conventional
2.8 a 4.3 a 0.8 b 0.5 b 1.1 b 0.4 c 0.8 d 0.5 a 0.6 a 0.1 b 1.8 ab 11.3a
foliar
Selective foliar 1.5 ab 3.3 ab 3.3 a 3.8 a 1.1 b 2.3 a 3.8 a 1.9a 0.7 a 0.3 ab 2.5 a 29.5 a
LSD 0.41 0.37 0.50 0.53 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.43 0.19 0.29 0.67 1.98
F 2.413 2.727 4.545 5.302 6.057 5.682 27.585 2.077 3.317 3.242 2.516 2.555
Prob. (F) 0.1340 0.1063 0.0335 0.0222 0.0153 0.0183 0.0001 0.1736 0.0708 0.0744 0.1240 0.1934
(df = 3, 15).
329
Table 60. Beneficial parasitoids sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs.
Mean total adults

Management ________________________________________________
program
Braconids Mymarids Pteromalids Encyrtids Total
Conventional
5.5 b 6.9 a 4.0 a 1.6a 17.9 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
6.1 ab 6.3 a 3.6 a 2.1 a 18.1 a
systemic
Conventional
4.9 b 2.2 a 2.4 a 1.8a 11.3a
foliar
Selective foliar 11.8a 9.1 a 5.8 a 2.9 a 29.5 a
LSD 0.92 1.46 0.81 0.71 1.98
F 4.551 2.425 2.278 0.494 2.555
Prob. (F) 0.0887 0.2059 0.2215 0.7057 0.1934
(df = 3, 15).
330
Table 61. Braconidae sampled from Russet Burbank potatoes managed with different insecticide programs. Coloma
Farms, Coloma, Wl, 2000.

Management ______________________________________________________
program
6-14 6-21 6-27 7-5 7-11 7-18 7-25 8-2 8-9 8-15 8-21
Conventional
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.1 a 0.9 a 0.3 a 0.3 b 0.3 b 0.8 b 0.9 a 1.4a 0.5 a
systemic
Reduced-risk
0.1 a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.8 a 0.2 ab 0.4 ab 0.3 ab 0.7 b 0.8 a 1.8a 0.8 a
systemic
Conventional
0.0 a 0.1 a 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.1 b 0.1 b 0.3 b 0.3 b 0.4 a 2.9 a 0.6 a
foliar
Selective foliar 0.3 a 0.1 a 0.2 a 0.7 a 0.2 ab 0.9 a 1.4 a 2.7 a 1.8a 1.8a 1.9 a
LSD 0.21 0.07 0.17 0.38 0.09 0.66 0.38 0.25 0.81 0.72 0.62
F 0.667 0.666 1.013 1.379 3.012 3.805 3.838 20.506 0.550 1.072 1.457
Prob. (F) 0.6151 0.6153 0.4744 0.3702 0.1573 0.1148 0.1133 0.0068 0.6748 0.4550 0.3521
(df = 3, 15).
332
E. DISCUSSION AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Systemic nicotinyl insecticides are currently the most frequently used insect
management tool on potatoes in Wisconsin. They are attractive to growers
because a single application at planting provides Colorado potato beetle, aphid,
and potato leafhopper control for at least 70 days after planting. This reduces
insect control concerns and growers only need to be concerned with second-
generation Colorado potato beetles, high numbers of potato leafhoppers, late
season aphid buildup and sporadic pests such as Lepidoptera, which
imidacloprid does not control. However, reliance on a single product is not a
good long-term insecticide resistance management strategy. Continuous
insecticide exposure for several months over an overwhelming percentage of
potato acreage puts tremendous selection pressure on insect populations that
can lead to rapid development of insecticide resistance. Olson et al. (2000)
conducted imidacloprid baseline susceptibility assays on Colorado potato
beetles from Wisconsin in 1995 showing that populations were relatively
susceptible (>80% mortality in most cases), however Colorado potato beetles
from three of the five Wisconsin locations tested exhibited tolerance to azinphos-
methyl. In previous studies in Wisconsin (Wyman et al. 1995) widespread
resistance to pyrethroid and organochlorine insecticides was demonstrated in
Colorado potato beetles. Olson et al. (2000) also showed positive cross
resistance patterns among imidacloprid, esfenvalerate, and azinphos-methyl. In
the past several years pyrethroid, organochlorine, organophosphate and
333
carbamate resistance among Colorado potato beetles in the Central Sands
region of Wisconsin is becoming even more widespread (Wyman et al. 1995)
providing an alarming harbinger of what is to come for the nicotinyl insecticides.
Current insecticide resistance trends with imidacloprid resistance already
documented in Colorado potato beetle in the eastern United States (Bishop and
Grafius 1996) indicate that the potential is high for rapid imidacloprid resistance
development in certain Colorado potato beetle populations in Wisconsin.
There are currently no data to indicate that Colorado potato beetle
populations at Coloma Farms are developing tolerance to imidacloprid (Olson et
al. 2000) and it remains an effective control option for Colorado potato beetles,
potato leafhoppers, and aphids. Imidacloprid applied systemically was effective
from 0.15 to 0.25 lb. a.i./A however, the higher rates provided significantly longer
insect pest control and reduced the need for supplemental foliar sprays. Yields
among imidacloprid treatments were similar except in situations of high second
generation Colorado potato beetle pressure and increased defoliation in
reduced rate imidacloprid programs. Imidacloprid applied systemically ranged in
cost from $44.00 (0.15 lb. a.i./A) to $70.00 (0.25 lb. a.i./A) and in years of high
second-generation Colorado potato beetle pressure where supplemental foliar
insecticide applications were needed, insect control costs were increased
markedly and the overall toxicity of the Colorado potato beetle control programs
was also increased.
334
Beneficial arthropod numbers were often lowest in the systemic management
programs as a result of the season long aphid control generated, which limited
the available prey (aphids) for beneficial arthropods. Research indicates that
natural enemies forage for longer periods in patches where the rate of encounter
with prey is highest (Hassell 1978). Since aphid numbers were generally low in
the systemic management programs, natural enemies were spending little time
foraging in the plots, which contributed to the low incidence of beneficial
arthropods, imidacloprid may have also had negative impacts on the beneficial
arthropods. Imidacloprid applied systemically may be less harmful to nontarget
insects than the foliar spray because it is less likely to come in direct contact
with the nontarget insect (Mizell and Sconyeres 1992) but nontarget arthropods
may come into contact with the insecticide in various other ways. Many natural
enemies feed on plant material to supplement their diet. If the insecticide is
translocated to flowers, beneficial insects feeding on nectar or pollen may ingest
the insecticide. It has also been demonstrated that systemic pesticides can in
some cases be translocated to the surface of the plant or enter a vapor stage
and come in direct contact with insects on the plant (Croft 1990). Smith and
Krischik (1999) found that imidacloprid applied systemically generally reduced
coccinellid mobility on sunflower, chrysanthemum, and dandelion but increased
mortality was found only on sunflower.
Genetically modified potato plants were integrated into insect management
programs during 1997 and 1999 but due to public concerns over environmental
335
and human health side effects, Btt potato use was discontinued in 2000. Btt
expressing potato plants provided excellent season long Colorado potato beetle
control and proved to be very Colorado potato beetle selective. Transgenic
resistance management programs generally cost $10.00 to $15.00 per acre
more to implement than the conventional foliar management programs and yield
of grade A tubers from transgenic resistance management programs were
significantly lower than the highest yielding management programs.
Offsetting the yield reduction however, beneficial arthropod populations were
consistently highest in the transgenic management programs, indicating that
Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis expression in the plant did not negatively
affect natural enemies. These data are consistent with recent research
concerning Btt toxicity to non-target arthropods. Riddick and Barbosa (1998)
found that Btt had no negative effect on the lady beetle Coleomegilla maculate
(DeGeer) when fed Cry3A intoxicated neonate Colorado potato beetle larvae.
Dogan et al. (1996) also demonstrated that the development and fecundity of the
convergent lady beetle, Hippodamia convergens Guerin-Meneville were not
altered when fed green peach aphids that had fed upon Cry3A-transgenic
foliage. Delta endotoxin containing transgenic plants in other crop systems have
also had little (Hilbeck et al. 1998) or no (Orr and Landis 1997, Pilcher et al.
1997) detrimental effects on natural enemies.
Conservation of natural enemies often fails to regulate aphid populations
when acting alone as seen in 1997, however the higher parasitoid and predator
336
populations in selective programs delayed aphicide applications for two weeks
(compared to the conventional foliar management program). In 1999, high
beneficial arthropod populations (predominantly braconids) during late July and
August provided effective aphid bioregulation. These data provided an excellent
example of how conserving beneficial arthropods through selective insecticide
use can provide effective regulation of pest populations. Beneficial arthropod
numbers were high in the transgenic resistance management programs because
the need for broad-spectrum, long residual insecticide applications was reduced
or they were applied early in the season. Data from research in preceding
chapters indicates that broad spectrum insecticide use early in the season is not
as detrimental to beneficial arthropods as similar applications late in the season.
However, Wisniewska and Prokopy (1997) found that insecticides, even if
applied only early in the season, had a season long negative effect on spider
populations in commercial apple orchards in Massachusetts. We hypothesize
that in potato plantings, insecticide applications prior to July are less detrimental
to beneficial arthropods than applications in July and August when natural
enemy numbers are increasing along with increasing aphid numbers.
The interaction of aphid and braconid populations seen in the transgenic and
conventional foliar management programs in 1999 support our hypothesis
(Figure 1). Aphid numbers in the transgenic resistance management program
rapidly increased during late June and peaked in July. Meanwhile, braconid
adult numbers were low during June but increased during early July in response
337
to the aphid population increase. Applications of long residual, broad-spectrum
insecticides (dimethoate) in June had little effect on subsequent braconid
numbers but applications during early July, when braconid numbers were initially
increasing, would have been more pronounced.
Selective insecticides are also now registered on potato which can provide
good Colorado potato beetle (Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis, spinosad,
and abamectin) and aphid (pymetrozine) control while plots treated with these
materials had yields that were generally similar to conventionally managed
programs. Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis, spinosad, and abamectin were
effective Colorado potato beetle insecticides but they must be applied with
greater attention to timing and plant coverage than traditional insecticides.
Pymetrozine also provided effective aphid control but its slow mode of action
must be accounted for in scouting programs to avoid misinterpretation of its
effectiveness.
Selective management programs were typically the most expensive programs
to execute because insect specific insecticides were applied for each pest.
However, yields among the selective foliar management programs were usually
comparable to yields from the conventional foliar management programs and the
toxicity of the insecticide programs were reduced dramatically.
Beneficial arthropods were consistently found in high numbers among the
selective foliar management programs and in 1997 they delayed aphicide
applications for two weeks (compared to the conventional foliar management
338
program). Abamectin did not reduce beneficial arthropods and numbers in those
plots were among the highest sampled. Shean and Cranshaw (1991) also found
that abamectin had no negative effect on encyrtids or braconids after leaf dip
assays conducted on aphid mummies. Spinosad also had few negative effects
on natural enemies and these data are consistent with results in the literature
(Boyd and Boethel 1998b, Elzen et al. 1999, Tillman and Mulrooney 2000, Elzen
2001). Beneficial arthropods were also unaffected by Btt applications and
numbers were often the highest among the management programs where Btt
was applied. Products containing Bt have been used in agriculture for several
decades and are commonly considered to have little or no negative effect on
natural enemies of pest insects (Flexner et al. 1986, Boyd and Boethel 1998b,
Croft 1990).
Insecticides used in the conventional foliar management program effectively
controlled Colorado potato beetle, potato leafhoppers, and aphids at a low cost.
But Colorado potato beetle larvae exhibited considerable tolerance to
esfenvalerate at Coloma Farms during 2000. Yields among the conventional
management programs were consistently among the highest and when coupled
with the low cost of such programs they remain an attractive option for growers.
However, the foliar insecticides used in conventionally managed programs
were typically the most disruptive to beneficial arthropods which is consistent
with previous research found in the literature (Yokoyama et al. 1984, Mansour
and Nentwig 1988, Scott et al. 1988, Baker et al. 1995, Kok et al. 1996, Rumpf et
339
al. 1997, Boyd and Boethel 1998a, b, Epstein et al. 2000, Suh et al. 2000,
Nowak et al. 2001).
Data from these studies demonstrate that potato insect pests in Wisconsin
can be effectively managed with combinations of selective foliar, systemic, and
transgenic resistance technologies. These selective approaches were
sometimes more expensive but provided other advantages. Beneficial insects
were consistently conserved in management programs that employed selective
insecticide technologies and although beneficial insects generally failed to
provide complete aphid control, their activity in bioregulation was measurable
and they could be augmented effectively with specific aphicides such as
pymetrozine.
In 1996, the Wisconsin potato industry established incremental pesticide
toxicity reduction goals for 1997 and 1999 compared to the baseline established
in 1995. Pesticide toxicity reduction goals for acute, chronic, and combined
toxicity in 1997 were 25%, 15%, and 20% (Benbrook et al. 2002). In 1999, the
reduction goals doubled to 50% for acute, 30% for chronic and 40% for
combined toxicity. Monitoring pesticide toxicity unit accumulation and using
programs similar to those described in these and similar trials conducted in the
Central Sands area revealed that a 28% decrease in total toxicity units was
achieved in 1997 and a 37% total toxicity unit reduction was achieved in 1999
(Benbrook et al. 2002). These reductions were very close to the goals
established by the Wisconsin potato industry in 1996 and led to the
340
establishment of an eco-label for Wisconsin potatoes that incorporated
standards for adoption of IPM and reduction of pesticide toxicity. It is projected
that increased premiums associated with the eco-labeled product will offset the
increased program costs when sufficient market share is established.
341
F. LITERATURE CITED
Anon. 2001. New eco-labeled potatoes enter grocery stores. Badger Common
‘Tater. 53-12:18-20.
Baker, J.E., D K. Weaver, J.E. Throne, and J.L. Zettler. 1995. Resistance to
Protectant Insecticides in Two Field Strains of the Stored-Product Insect
Parasitoid Bracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
88(3): 512-519.
Benbrook, C., E. Groth, J. Halloran, M. Hansen, and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest

Management at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers. 204 pp.
Benbrook, C.M., D.L. Sexson, J.A. Wyman, W.R. Stevenson, S. Lynch, J.

Wallendal, S. Diercks, R. Van Haren, and C.A. Granadino. 2002.
Developing a Pesticide Risk Assessment Tool to Monitor Progress in
Reducing Reliance on High-Risk Pesticides. Amer. J. of Potato Res. 79:
183-199.
Bishop, B.A., and E. Grafius. 1996. Insecticide resistance in the Colorado

potato beetle, pp. 355-377 in Chrysomelidae Biology, Jolivet and Hsaia
(eds ), Amsterdam, SBP Academic Publishing, the Netherlands.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 a. Residual Toxicity of Selected Insecticides
to Heteropteran Predaceous Species (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae, Nabidae,
Pentatomidae) on Soybean. Envir. Entomol. 27(1): 154-160.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 b. Susceptibility of Predaceous Hemipteran

Species to Selected Insecticides on Soybean in Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol.
91(2): 401-409.
New York. 723 p.
Dogan, E.B., R.E. Berry, G.L. Reed, and P.A. Rossignol. 1996. Biological
Parameters of Convergent Lady Beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) Feeding
on Aphids (Homoptera Aphididae) on Transgenic Potato. J. Econ. Entomol.
89: 1105-1108.
Toxicological Responses of the Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Ectoparasitoid Catolaccus grandis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to Selected
342
Elzen, G.W. 2001. Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Insecticide Residues on

Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Geocoris punctipes
(Hemiptera: Lygaeidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94(1): 55-59.
Broad-spectrum Insecticides on Epigeal Arthropod Biodiversity in Pacific
Northwest Apple Orchards. Env. Entomol. 29(2): 340-348.
Flexner, J.L., B. Lighthart, and B.A. Croft. 1986. The Effects of Microbial
Pesticides on Non-target, Beneficial Arthropods. Agric. Ecosysl. Envir. 16:
203-254.
Hassell, M.P. 1978. The Dynamics of Arthropod Predator-Prey Systems.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 237 p.
Hilbeck, A., M. Baumgartner, P.M. Fried, and F. Bigler. 1998. Effects of

Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Corn-fed Prey on Mortality and
Development Time of Immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae). Environ. Entomol. 27: 480-487.
Hoppin, P. 1997. Reducing pesticide reliance and risk through adoption of IPM:
an environmental and agricultural win-win. In Proc. Of 3rd National IPM
Symposium/Workshop. Lynch, S., C. Greene, and C. Kramer-LeBlanc Eds.
Economic Research Service Report, Miscellaneous Publication Number
1542.
Kok, L.T., J.A. Lasota, T.J. McAvoy, and R.A. Davis. 1996. Residual Foliar
Toxicity of 4’-Epi-Methylamino-4”-Deoxyavermectin B1 Hydrochloride (MK-
243) and Selected Commercial Insecticides to Adult Hymenopterous
Lynch, S., D. Sexson, C. Benbrook, M. Carter, J. Wyman, P. Nowak, J. Barzen,

S. Diercks, and J. Wallenhal. 2000. Working out the bugs. A Continuing
effort in Wisconsin models a promising pathway toward addressing both
public and producer concerns over pesticide risk and pest control. Choices,
3rd Quarter. 2000: 28-32.
Mansour, F. and W. Nentwig. 1988. Effects of Agrochemical Residues on Four

Spider Taxa: Laboratory Methods for Pesticide Tests with Web-building
Spiders. Phytoparasitica. 16(4): 317-326.
McCallum, M. and G. Brown. 2001. Going Eco. Some Wisconsin spuds will
carry new ecologo. Spudman. 39-6: 30-33.
343
Mizell, R.F., and M.C. Sconyers. 1992. Toxicity of Imidacloprid to Selected

Arthropod Predators in the Laboratory. Fla. Entomol. 75: 277-280.
Olson, E.R., G.P. Dively, and J.O. Nelson. 2000. Baseline Susceptibility to
Imidacloprid and Cross Resistance Patterns in Colorado Potato Beetle
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(2): 447-
458.
Orr, D.B. and D.A. Landis. 1997. Oviposition of European Corn Borer
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Impact of Natural Enemy Populations in
Transgenic Versus Isogenic Corn. J. Econ. Entomol. 90:905-909.
Pilcher, C.D., J.J. Obrycki, M.E. Rice, and L.C. Lewis. 1997. Preimaginal
Development, Survival, and Field Abundance of Insect Predators on
Transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis Corn. Environ. Entomol. 26:446-454.
Riddick, E.W., and P. Barbosa. 1998. Effect of Cry3A-lntoxicated Leptinotarsa

decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Pollen on the Consumption,
Development, and Fecundity of Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera:
Coccinellidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 91: 303-307.
Rumpf, S., C. Frampton, and B. Chapman. 1997. Acute Toxicity of Insecticides

(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) LC50 and LC100 Estimates for Various Test
Durations.
Scott, J.G. and D.A. Rutz. 1988. Comparitive Toxicities of Seven Insecticides to
House Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and Urolepis rufipes (Ashmead)
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Econ. Entom. 81(3): 804-807.
Shean, B. and W.S. Cranshaw. 1991. Differential Susceptibilities of Green

Peach Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) and two Endoparasitoids
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae and Braconidae) to Pesticides. J. Econ. Entomol.
84(3): 844-850.
Smith, S.F. and V.A. Krischik. 1999. Effects of systemic imidacloprid on

Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Envir. Entomol. 28(6):
1189-1195.
Suh, C.P.C., D.B. Orr, and J.W. Van Duyn. 2000. Effect of Insecticides on
Trichogramma exiguum (Trichogrammatidae: Hymenoptera) Preimaginal
Development and Adult Survival. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(3): 577-583.
Tillman, P.G. and J.E. Mulrooney. 2000. Effect of Selected Insecticides on the
Natural Enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens
344

Bracon mellitor, Cardichiles nigriceps, and Cotesia marginiventris
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 93(6): 1638-1643.
Wisniewska, J. and R.J. Prokopy. 1997. Pesticide Effect on Faunal

Composition, Abundance, and Body Length of Spiders (Araneae) in Apple
Orchards. Environ. Entomol. 26(4): 7630776.
Wyman, J.A., D. Butz, and R. VanHaren. 1995. The status of Colorado potato
beetle resistance to insecticides in Wisconsin. Proc. Wis. Ann. Potato
Meetings. 8: 55-59.
Wyman, J.A., J.O. Jensen, D. Curwen, R.J. Jones, and T. Marquardt. 1985.
Effects of Application Procedures and Irrigation on Degradation and
Movement of Aldicarb Residues in Soil. J. Envir. Tox. Chem. 4: 641-651.
Yokoyama, V.Y., J. Pritchard, and R.V. Dowell. 1984. Laboratory Toxicity of

Pesticides to Geocoris pallens (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), a Predator in
California Cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 77:10-15.
345
VI. FOLIAR INSECTICIDE RESIDUE BIOASSAYS CONDUCTED ON

COLEOMEGILLA MACULATA (DEGEER) (COLEOPTERA:
COCCINELLIDAE) AND ORIUS INSIDIOSUS (SAY) (HEMIPTERA:
ANTHOCORIDAE) ADULTS.
A. Introduction
Foliar insecticides have been associated with primary pest release,
resurgence, and increases in secondary pest populations (Michelbacher et al.
1946, Doutt 1948, Debach and Bartlett 1951, Lingren and Ridgeway 1967,
Yokoyama et al. 1984, Mansour and Nentwig 1988, Scott et al. 1988, Baker et
al. 1995, Kok et al. 1996, Rumpf et al. 1997, Boyd and Boethel 1998a, b, Epstein
et al. 2000, Suh et al. 2000, Nowak et al. 2001). Even the newly developed
selective insecticides can have acute effects on various natural enemies (Croft
1990, Elzen et al. 1999, Elzen et al. 2000, Hill and Foster 2000, Ibrahim and Yee
2000, Brunner et al. 2001, Nowak et al. 2001).
Generally, three insecticide screening methods have been used to determine
insecticide and beneficial compatibilities; topical application of insecticides in the
laboratory, monitoring natural enemy populations before and after applications
of insecticides in the field, and exposure to residues of insecticides applied to
leaves. The first method is a measure of direct insecticide toxicity to beneficial
insects but via an exposure that would happen only occasionally in the field
during an application. The second method effectively evaluates insecticide
impacts on beneficial populations in the field but incorporates all of the factors
that can impact the interaction without distinction as to cause. The third method
346
assesses insecticide residue effects on beneficial insects and has the advantage
of isolating individual species/insecticide interactions via exposures that are
likely to happen commonly in the field.
Coccinellids and anthocorids were commonly collected during sampling of
the various trials in this dissertation and were chosen as test subjects because
they represent two different orders of insects and they are commercially
available. Coccinellids and anthocorids are documented generalistic predators
of Colorado potato beetles, leafhoppers, and aphids on a variety of crops
including potato (Martinez and Pienkowski 1982, Groden et al. 1990, Hazzard et
al. 1991, Heimpel and Hough-Goldstein 1992, Hough-Goldstein et al. 1993,
Hilbeck and Kennedy 1995).
A foliar insecticide residue trial was conducted in 2000 at the Hancock
Agricultural Research Station to examine the residual toxicity of several
registered and experimental foliar insecticides on Coleomegilla maculata
(DeGeer) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera:
Anthocoridae) adults.
Plots consisting of 20' rows of Russet Burbank variety potatoes were planted
at the Hancock Agricultural Research Station, Hancock, Wisconsin on May 15,
2000. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block experimental
design, replicated four times consisting of rows on 3' centers with plants spaced
347
12-14" apart. Insecticides were applied with a C02 backpack sprayer with a
three-foot boom equipped with 2 TXVS10 hollow cone nozzles delivering 20 gpa
while operating at 30 psi. Plot maintenance (irrigation, plant nutrition, weed and
disease control) was conducted by the Hancock Agricultural Research Station
staff and plots were hand weeded as necessary.
The following materials were evaluated:
Registered: imidacloprid (Provado® 1.6F) at 0.047 lb. a.i./A,
dimethoate (Dimethoate® 4E) at 0.5 lb. a.i./A, spinosad (Spintor® 2SC) at
0.078 lb. a.i./A, Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis (Novodor®) at 3.0
quarts product per acre, cyfluthrin (Baythroid® 2EC) at 0.063 lb. a.i./A,
esfenvalerate (Asana® 0.66EC) 0.04 lb. a.i./A, pymetrozine (Fulfill®
50WG) at 0.086 lb. a.i./A, methamidophos (Monitor® 4) at 0.086 lb. a.i./A,
and permethrin (Pounce® 2EC) at 0.063 lb. a.i./A.
Experimental: fipronil (Regent® 4SC) at 0.25 lb. a.i./A.
Insecticides were applied on July 27 for the coccinellid bioassays and on
August 8 for the anthocorid bioassays. Leaf samples containing insecticide
residues were collected one, five, and eight days after application for the
coccinellid bioassays. Leaf samples were collected one, five, and ten days
following application for the anthocorid bioassays. Leaf samples consisted of
collecting fully expanded leaves from the upper one third of the plant canopy
which would have received the most thorough spray coverage. Leaves were
placed into a water pick (Aqua tube #54) at the field site, to reduce leaf
348
desiccation, and then placed into a 2-inch diameter plastic cylinder cage. Test
insects were purchased as adults from a commercial supplier; Biocontrol
Network, 5116 Williamsburg road, Brentwood, TN 37027. Forty test insects per
treatment (10 per replication) were placed into cages (5 per cage) the same day
as leaf sampling and allowed to move around the treated foliage for one day.
Dead insects were removed and fresh untreated foliage was added daily during
surveys. Insects were observed for 72 hours and they were considered dead
when they were unable to right themselves after being placed on their back.
Data were analyzed using Agricultural Research Manager Version 6.0
Generally, anthocorid mortality was higher than coccinellid mortality during
the assays and total mortality of both insects typically decreased as insecticide
residual time increased after initial application (Tables 1-6).
Insecticide toxicity among coccinellids exposed to one-day old insecticide
residues ranged from a low of 0% (Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis) to a
high of 45% (cyfluthrin) (Table 1). Cyfluthrin residues were the only treatment to
cause significant mortality to coccinellids. Cyfluthrin caused significant mortality
within twelve hours of exposure after which mortality was similar to the remaining
349
treatments. Coccinellid adult mortality from five-day residues ranged from 0%
(imidacloprid and dimethoate) to 23% (cyfluthrin) (Table 2). Coccinellid adults
exposed to five day insecticide residues had lower mortality rates overall but
cyfluthrin was still causing significantly higher mortality than many of the other
treatments. Overall mortality declined among the coccinellids that were exposed
to eight-day insecticide residues (Table 3). Mortality rates ranged from 0%
(pymetrozine) to 15% (esfenvalerate) and mortality was significantly higher in
the esfenvalerate treatments.
Mortality rates were higher among anthocorid adults indicating that they are
more sensitive to a broader range of insecticides than were the coccinellids
(Tables 1-6). Mortality rates among anthocorid adults were similar during the
seventy-two hour period whereas coccinellid mortality was typically higher during
the first twenty-four hours after exposure. Total insecticide mortality among
anthocorids exposed to one-day residues ranged from 23% (untreated) to 80%
(cyfluthrin) (Table 4). The pyrethroids cyfluthrin and esfenvalerate caused the
highest mortality during the first twenty-four hours of exposure (45% and 33%).
Anthocorid adults exposed to five day insecticide residues had lower mortality
rates overall but cyfluthrin was still causing significantly higher mortality than
many of the other treatments. Anthocorid adult mortality from five-day residues
ranged from 8% (untreated) to 55% (cyfluthrin) (Table 5). Overall mortality
increased among the anthocorids that were exposed to eight-day insecticide
residues (Table 6). Mortality rates ranged from 8% (spinosad) to 40%
350
(imidacloprid) and mortality was significantly higher in the imidacloprid,
esfenvalerate, and Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis treatments than in the
spinosad treatment.
3. Conclusions
There was some variability in response of the two species tested to the
insecticides selected. However, the pyrethroids cyfluthrin and esfenvalerate
caused greater mortality than many of the other insecticides tested. These data
are consistent with research conducted by Tillman and Mulrooney (2000) on C.
maculata in cotton leaf bioassays. They found that the pyrethroid lambda
cyhalothrin caused significantly higher C. maculata mortality than did spinosad.
Al-Deeb et al. (2001) also found that the pyrethroid cyfluthrin caused significant
mortality to O. insidiosus in 1998.
Anthocorid mortality was higher than coccinellid mortality and may be the
result of several factors. The anthocorids may be more sensitive to the
insecticides tested. Anthocorids are only the fraction of the size of an adult
coccinellid and they may have received a higher insecticide dose than the
coccinellids (body weight). None of the test insects were fed during the trial and
the anthocorids may have less body fat reserves than the coccinellids, however
mortality was significantly higher among several of the treatments than the
untreated insects.
351
Potato IPM is complex and relies heavily on insecticides. Data on the
selectivity of newer insecticides with novel modes of action are useful because
they may replace conventional insecticides. While most insecticides are thought
to be very toxic to beneficial insects, future IPM strategies will seek to employ
insecticides that are less toxic. This and other research indicates that
insecticide and beneficial insect compatibility issues are species dependent and
that many of the newer novel insecticides are less toxic to beneficial insects than
the more traditional broad-spectrum pyrethroids.
352
B. LITERATURE CITED
Al-Deeb, M.A., G.E. Wilde, and K.Y. Zhu. 2001. Effect of insecticides used in
corn, sorghum, and alfalfa on the predator Orius insidiosus (Hemiptera:
protectant insecticides in two field strains of the stored-product insect
parasitoid Bracon hebetor (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
88(3): 512-519.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 a. Residual toxicity of selected insecticides
to Heteropteran predaceous species (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae, Nabidae,
Pentatomidae) on soybean. Envir. Entomol. 27(1): 154-160.
Boyd, M.J., and D.J. Boethel. 1998 b. Susceptibility of predaceous Hemipteran

species to selected insecticides on soybean in Louisiana. J. Econ. Entomol.
91(2): 401-409.
pesticides on Colpoclypeus florus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) and
Trichogramma platneri (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), parasitoids of
leafrollers in Washington. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1075-1084.
New York. 723 p.
Debach, P., and B. Barlett. 1951. Effects of insecticides on biological control of

insect pests of citrus. J. Econ. Entomol. 41:118-1191.
Doutt, R.L. 1948. Effects of codling moth sprays on natural control of the Baker
Mealybug. J. Econ. Entomol. 41: 372-383.
Toxicological responses of the Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Ectoparasitoid Catolaccus grandis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to selected
insecticides. J. Econ. Entomol. 92(2): 309-313.
Elzen, G.W., S.N. Maldonado, and M.G. Rojas. 2000. Lethal and sublethal
effects of selected insecticides and an insect growth regulator on the Boll
353
Elzen, G.W. 2001. Lethal and sublethal effects of insecticide residues on Orius
insidiosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Geocoris punctipes (Hemiptera:
Lygaeidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 94(1): 55-59.
broad-spectrum insecticides on epigeal arthropod biodiversity in Pacific
Northwest apple orchards. Env. Entomol. 29(2): 340-348.
Groden, E., F.A. Drummond, R.A. Casagrande, and D.L. Haynes. 1990.
Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae): Its predation upon the
Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and its incidence in
potatoes and surrounding crops. J. Econ. Entomol. 83(4): 1306-1315.
Hazzard, R.V., D.N. Ferro, R.G. Van Drieshe, and A.F. Tuttle. 1991. Mortality of
eggs of Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) from predation
by Coleomegilla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Envir. Entomol.
20(3): 841-848.
Heimpel, G.E. and J.A. Hough-Goldstein. 1992. A survey of arthropod

predators of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) in Delaware potato fields. J.
Agric. Entomol. 9(2): 137-142.
Hilbeck, A., and G.G. Kennedy. 1995. Predators feeding on the Colorado
Potato Beetle in insecticide-free plots and insecticide-treated commercial
potato fields in Eastern North Carolina. Biol. Cont. 6: 273-282.
Hill, T.A. and R.F. Foster. 2000. Effect of insecticides on the Diamondback
Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and its parasitoid Diadegma insulare
(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93(3): 763-768.
Hough-Goldstein, J.A., G.E. Heimpel, H.E. Bechmann, and C.E. Mason. 1993.
Arthropod natural enemies of the Colorado potato beetle. Crop Protection.
12(3): 324-334.
Kok, L.T., J.A. Lasota, T.J. McAvoy, and R.A. Davis. 1996. Residual foliar
toxicity of 4’-Epi-Methylamino-4”-Deoxyavermectin B1 Hydrochloride (MK-
243) and selected commercial insecticides to adult Hymenopterous
354
Martinez, D.G. and R.L. Pienkowski. 1982. Laboratory studies on insect

predators of potato leafhopper eggs, nymphs, and adults. Envir. Entomol.
11(2): 361-366.
Mansour, F. and W. Nentwig. 1988. Effects of agrochemical residues on four

spider taxa: Laboratory methods for pesticide tests with web-building spiders.
Phytoparasitica. 16(4): 317-326.
Michelbacher, A.E., C. Swanson, and W.W. Middlekauf. 1946. Increase in

populations of Leucanium pruinosum on English Walnuts following
applications of DDT sprays. J. Econ. Entomol. 39:812-813.
Susceptibility of adult Hymenopteran Parasitoids of the Nantucket Pine Tip
Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to broad-spectrum and biorational
insecticides in a laboratory study. J. Econ. Entomol. 94(5): 1122-1129.
Rumpf, S., C. Frampton, and B. Chapman. 1997. Acute toxicity of insecticides

(Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) LC50 and LC100 estimates for various test
durations.
Scott, J.G. and D.A. Rutz. 1988. Comparitive toxicities of seven insecticides to
house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and Urolepis rufipes (Ashmead)
(Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae). J. Econ. Entom. 81 (3): 804-807.
Tillman, P.G. and J.E. Mulrooney. 2000. Effect of selected insecticides on the
natural enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens
Bracon mellitor, Cardiochiles nigriceps, and Cotesia marginiventris
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 1638-1643.
Yokoyama, V.Y., J. Pritchard, and R.V. Dowell. 1984. Laboratory toxicity of

pesticides to Geocoris pallens (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), a predator in
California cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 77: 10-15.
355
Table 1. C. maculata adult mortality after exposure to various insecticide

residues on leaves sampled one day after application. Hancock,
W l 2002.
Mean dead adults Mean

Rate
Treatment Hours after exposure total
(lb. a.i./A)
dead
12 24 48 72
Imidacloprid 0.047 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 be
Dimethoate 0.50 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.5 be
Fipronil 0.25 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.5 a 0.5 be
Spinosad 0.78 0.0 b 0.3 ab 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.5 be
Btt 3.0 qt./A 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c
Cyfluthrin 0.063 3.3 a 0.8 ab 0.0 a 0.5 a 4.5 a
Esfenvalerate 0.04 0.5 b 0.5 ab 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.3 be
Pymetrozine 0.086 0.5 b 0.5 ab 0.0 a 0.5 a 1.5 be
Methamidophos 0.50 0.5 b 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.8 be
Permethrin 0.063 0.5 b 1.0a 0.0 a 0.0 a 1.5b
Untreated —
0.3 b 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.5 a 1.0 be
LSD 0.33 0.35 0.17 0.30 0.52
F 6.550 1.217 0.778 0.774 3.755
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.3198 0.6491 0.6524 0.0023

Df = 10, 43. N = 10.
356

residues on leaves sampled five days after application. Hancock,
W l 2002.
Mean dead adults

Mean
Rate
(lb. a.i./A)
dead
12 24 48 72
Imidacloprid 0.047 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 d
Dimethoate 0.50 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 d
Fipronil 0.25 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 0.8 ab 0.8 bed
Spinosad 0.78 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.5 bed
Btt 3.0 qt./A 0.3 a 0.3 a 0.0 c 0.3 be 0.8 bed
Cyfluthrin 0.063 0.0 a 0.3 a 1.3a 0.8 ab 2.3 a
Esfenvalerate 0.04 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 be 0.5 be 0.8 bed
Pymetrozine 0.086 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 0.3 be 0.5 bed
Methamidophos 0.50 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 1.3a 1.5 ab
Permethrin 0.063 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 be 0.0 c 0.3 cd
Untreated —
0.0 a 0.0 a 0.8 ab 0.5 be 1.3 abc
LSD 0.18 0.15 0.25 0.27 0.40
F 0.677 0.818 3.368 2.996 3.064
Prob. (F) 0.7363 0.6140 0.0048 0.0097 0.0085

Df= 10,43. N = 10.
357

residues on leaves sampled eight days after application. Hancock,
W l 2002.

Treatment ( Ib a i/A ) Hours after exposure total
dead
12 24 48 72
Imidacloprid 0.047 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.5 b
Dimethoate 0.50 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.5 b
Fipronil 0.25 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.5 a 0.3 ab 1.0 ab
Spinosad 0.78 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.3 b
Btt 3.0 qt./A 0.0 b 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.3 b
Cyfluthrin 0.063 0.3 a 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.5 b
Esfenvalerate 0.04 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.5 a 1.0a 1.5a
Pymetrozine 0.086 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 b 0.0 b
Methamidophos 0.50 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 b 0.3 b
Permethrin 0.063 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.3 ab 0.5 b
Untreated —
0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.3 ab 0.3 b
LSD 0.09 0.13 0.27 0.28 0.36
F 1.000 0.871 0.682 1.087 1.553
Prob. (F) 0.4655 0.5690 0.7322 0.4026 0.1694

Df=10, 43. N = 10.
358
Table 4. 0. insidiosus adult mortality after exposure to various insecticide

residues on leaves sampled one day after application. Hancock,
W l 2002.

Rate
(lb. a.i./A)
dead
24 48 72
Imidacloprid 0.047 0.5 de 0.5 b 1.8 abc 2.8 cd
Dimethoate 0.50 0.3 e 1.3 ab 1.5 abc 3.0 cd
Fipronil 0.25 0.3 e 1.0b 1.8 abc 3.0 cd
Spinosad 0.78 0.0 e 1.8 ab 0.8 be 2.5 cd
Btt 3.0 qt./A 1.8 be 0.8 b 0.5 c 3.0 cd
Cyfluthrin 0.063 4.5 a 0.8 b 2.8 a 8.0 a
Esfenvalerate 0.04 3.3 ab 2.8 a 0.8 be 6.8 ab
Pymetrozine 0.086 1.5 cd 1.5 ab 0.8 be 3.8 cd
Methamidophos 0.50 1.0 cde 1.0b 2.5 ab 4.5 be
Permethrin 0.063 0.8 cde 1.8 ab 1.8 abc 4.3 bed
Untreated —
0.3 e 0.8 b 1.3 abc 2.3 d
LSD 0.43 0.49 0.57 0.55
F 8.035 1.549 1.344 4.293
Prob. (F) 0.0001 0.1709 0.2533 0.0009

Df = 10, 43.
359

residues on leaves sampled five days after application. Hancock,
W l 2002.

Rate
(lb. a.i./A) .
dead
24 48 72
Imidacloprid 0.047 0.8 a 1.0 ab 0.0 b 1.5b
Dimethoate 0.50 0.5 a 1.0 ab 1.0 ab 2.5 ab
Fipronil 0.25 0.8 a 0.0 b 1.3 ab 2.0 b
Spinosad 0.78 0.0 a 1.3 ab 0.0 b 1.3b
Btt 3.0 qt./A 0.8 a 0.3 ab 1.5 ab 2.5 b
Cyfluthrin 0.063 1.3 a 1.5 a 2.8 a 5.5 a
Esfenvalerate 0.04 0.8 a 0.5 ab 1.3 ab 2.5 b
Pymetrozine 0.086 0.5 a 0.8 ab 0.8 ab 2.0 b
Methamidophos 0.50 1.3a 1.3 ab 0.3 b 2.8 ab
Permethrin 0.063 0.0 a 1.0 ab 1.3 ab 2.3 b
Untreated —
0.8 a 0.3 ab 0.0 b 0.8 b
LSD 0.47 0.52 0.64 0.70
F 0.820 0.974 1.429 1.641
Prob. (F) 0.6122 0.4854 0.2155 0.1427

Df=10, 43. N = 10.
360

residues on leaves sampled ten days after application. Hancock,
W l 2002.

Treatment (Ib^sfT/A) Hours after exposure total
dead
24 48 72
Imidacloprid 0.047 1.0 abc 0.5 ab 2.5 a 4.0 a
Dimethoate 0.50 1.7 a 0.0 b 1.0 ab 2.7 ab
Fipronil 0.25 0.5 be 0.5 ab 0.8 ab 1.8 ab
Spinosad 0.78 0.0 c 0.3 ab 0.5 b 0.8 b
Btt 3.0 qt./A 0.5 be 0.5 ab 2.3 ab 3.3 a
Cyfluthrin 0.063 0.5 be 0.0 b 1.3 ab 1.8 ab
Esfenvalerate 0.04 1.0 ab 0.3 ab 2.0 ab 3.3 a
Pymetrozine 0.086 0.3 be 0.3 ab 2.0 ab 2.5 ab
Methamidophos 0.50 0.5 be 0.8 a 1.0 ab 2.3 ab
Permethrin 0.063 0.3 be 1.0a 0.8 ab 2.0 ab
Untreated —
0.0 c 0.0 b 1.5 ab 1.5 ab
LSD 0.37 0.31 0.67 0.65
F 2.052 1.508 0.887 1.295
Prob. (F) 0.0671 0.1903 0.5568 0.2824
Df=10, 43. N = 10.

Conservation of Arthropod Natural

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conservation of Arthropod Natural

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSERVATION OF ARTHROPOD NATURAL ENEMIES IN POTATO

PRODUCTION THROUGH USE OF PEST-SPECIFIC INSECT MANAGEMENT

Scott Alan Chapman

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company