NUARY
1977
ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS • EFFICACY TEST METHODS
VOLUME VI
LAWNS, ORNAMENTALS, FOREST LANDS
EPA-540/10-77-004
-------
REPORT To THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANALYSIS CF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS - EFFICACY TEST METHODS
VOLUME VI
LAWNS., ORNAMENTALS, FOREST LANDS
The work upon which this publication is based was performed in whole
or in part under Contract No. 68-01-2457 with the Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Report To The
Environmental Protection Agency
By The
American Institute of Biological Sciences
Arlington, Virginia 22209
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This Report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation for use.
-------
LAWNS, ORNAMENTALS, FOPFST LANDS TASK GROUP
Chairman:
MR. GARV W. CLARK
O.M. Scott and Sons Company
PR. R. LEE CAMPBELL PR. RICHARE K. LIWPOL'IST
Western Washington Research and Ohio Agricultural Research and
Extension Center Development Center
MR. FREDERICK W. HONING PR. HEWRV WILLCOX
U.S. Forest Service, Forest Insect ERA Laboratory, Inc.
and Disease Management
EPA OBSERVER: AIBS COORDINATORS:
MR. ROGER PIERPOWT MS. PATRICIA RUSSELL
Criteria and Evaluation Division MR. POWALP R. 8EEM
-------
LAWNS, ORNAMENTALS, FOREST LANDS
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
General Considerations 3
Lawns and Turf 5
Chinchbugs 5
Grubs 6
Greenhouse Floricultural Crops 9
Twospotted Spider Mite 11
Aphids 13
Flower Thrips 15
Iris Borer 16
Root Mealybugs 17
Greenhouse Whitefly 18
Outdoor Woody Ornamentals 21
Adelgids 23
Aphids 23
Borers 24
Bud and Tip Destroyers 24
Bugs 25
Defoliators 26
Eriophyids 26
Gall Insects 27
Leafminers 27
Mealybugs 27
Root Feeders 28
Scales 28
Tetranychids 29
Thrips 30
Forest and Shade Trees 31
Gypsy Moth 32
Spruce and Western Spruce Budworm 33
Douglas-fir Tussock Moth 34
Bark Beetles 35
Exhibits:
1 Use of Aerosol Propellant to Apply Insecticides 36
2 Green Peach Aphid Control on Chrysanthemums 37
3 Tests on Carnations for the Control of the Two
Spotted Spider Mite, Tetranychus wcticae 38
4 Chrysanthemum Tests Green Peach Aphid Cqntrol 40
5 Green Peach Aphid Control on Chrysanthemums 41
6 Granular Systemic Insecticides for Green Peach
Aphid Control on Chrysanthemums 43
-------
Table of Contents Continued
Page
7 Flower Thrips Extraction 44
8 Flower Thrip Experiment . . 45
9 The Effectiveness of Various Insecticides for the
Control of the Greenhouse Whitefly on Gerbera ..... 47
10 Whitefly Control on Poinsettias 48
11 Evaluating Insecticides for Greenhouse Whitefly
Control on Poinsettia 49
12 Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of the Cypress
Tip Moth, Argyresthia cupressella, on Thuja 50
13 Evaluation of Granulated Insecticides for Control of
Whiteflies on Container-Grown Celt-Is austral'is. .... 51
14 Evaluation of Insecticides Applied as Sprays for
Control of the Barberry Looper, Coryphista meadi,
on Container Grown Oregon Grape, Mdhonia aquifolia. . . 52
15 Evaluation of 3 Types of Application of Insecticide
for Control of the Lettuce Root Aphid, Pemphigus
bursarn-us_, on Lombardy Poplar 53
16 Evaluation of Insecticides and Spraying Schedules
for Control of Kuno Scale, Leoanium junoens'is,
on Pyracantha 55
-------
INTRODUCTION
Test methods, protocols and procedures for evaluating the effective-
ness of invertebrate control agents on turf, ornamentals, forest lands
and shade trees are discussed in this report. Specific techniques and
methods are documented in selected references, exhibits and other appro-
priate sources of information. All available references using similar
procedures and methods are not cited in order to avoid duplication and
repetition. Those cited contain generally accepted protocols and methods,
but it is realized that they are not all inclusive and other references
may include different methods or variations of those presented. Due
to the large numbers of host plants and pests and the limited number of
researchers working in subject areas, considerable flexibility in require-
ments for test methods is necessary.
The scope of organizing test methods for turf, greenhouse and
outdoor ornamentals, shade trees and forest lands is briefly addressed
in the following comments.
LAWNS AND TURF
Turf throughout the country provides a fairly uniform habitat for
invertebrates and creates a situation where methods used for evaluating
pesticides on turf pests such as grubs, and sod webworms and chinchbugs
are basically similar in many respects. Such factors as insect population
densities, soil types and conditions, and turf quality have resulted
in variations of basically similar methods or completely novel approaches.
Broadly accepted and commonly used methods to evaluate pesticide effec-
tiveness on other turf pests or localized pest problems such as mole
crickets, hyperodes weevil, flea beetles, vegetable weevils, fruit flies,
millipedes, centipedes, sowbugs, slugs and snails are not readily available.
This is due to the limited number of researchers concentrating their efforts
on these problems.
GREENHOUSE FLORICULTURAL CROPS
It is nearly impossible to produce a commercially acceptable green-
house floricultural crop without conducting an effective pest control
program. Although, compared to field crops, there are relatively few
insect and mite pests that attack greenhouse crops, the pests that are
present can cause severe injury. There is also a great diversity of green-
house crops that are attacked, and, generally, there are many cultivars
(varieties) produced on a year-round basis. These factors coupled with
-------
-2-
the relatively few environmental hazards (natural enemies, cold, storms,
etc.) faced by the pest populations, create a unique situation and make
it difficult to standardize test procedures for even the major pests on
each major crop.
OUTDOOR WOODY ORNAMENTALS
'Woody ornamentals are generally produced in commercial nurseries
and are used for landscaping public and institutional buildings, parks,
industrial sites, home grounds, etc. Such plants include a nearly in-
finite and constantly increasing number of cultivafs, contained in more
than 1000 species, 150 genera, and 60 families. Approximately 2000
species of invertebrates attack these plants (Westcott 1973). Because
of the large number of hosts and pests, and the limited number of active
researchers, evaluation of insecticides on outdoor woody ornamentals
and shrubs is difficult and, therefore, specific test methods fox: every
pest are not available.
FOREST AND SHADE TREES
Approximately one-third of the total land area of the continental
United States and coastal Alaska is covered by forests, and about 500
species of insects cause damage to these forest trees. Pesticides are
developed to prevent attack or to destroy existing pest populations
in these forests. The efficacy of these compounds is evaluated by the
Insect and Disease Suppression programs of the U.S. Forest Service and
other investigators. The programs evaluate pesticides used on insects
that attack shade trees as well as forest trees, and pesticides that are
applied to a single tree or thousands of trees in single or multiple
applications. The test procedure used is determined by the pest problem
under consideration.
Reference
Westcott, C. 1973. The Gardeners Bug Book. Doubleday, Garden City,
N.Y. 689 pp.
-------
-3-
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The test methods in this report are suggested for evaluating the
effectiveness of pesticides for control of invertebrates on lawns and
turf, greenhouse floricultural crops, woody ornamentals, and forest and
shade trees. These methods are to be used as guides and will require
revision and updating periodically, as well as the addition of others.
The procedures and methods are organized on a pest grouping basis due to
the numbers of both invertebrates and host plants involved.
Certain aspects concerning test site location, experimental design,
reporting of data including phytotoxicrty, and analysis of data applicable
to most test methods are:
Location of Test Site:—Outdoor application sites should be selected
where known infestations exist and should reflect variations in environ-
mental conditions which may be encountered.
Greenhouse applications, due to their controlled environments, are
similar, regardless of location. Normally, data from three locations
is adequate as long as they cover the range of variation in temperatures,
relative humidity, growing practices, etc., likely to be encountered.
Experimental Test Design:—A sound experimental test design should
be used to reduce variability but yet be practical. Random observation
or pretreatment counts may be used to determine population distribution
and/or to provide guidance in establishing plot location. Experimental
designs generally used are randomized complete block design, completely
randomized design or Latin square.
Generally, four to six replicates are desirable, but three may
provide adequate data. There are cases where neither of these criteria
may be met, due to limited plant availability, size or area infested
and uniformity of the infestation. Larger numbers of replications may
be used when an infestation is sparse and uneven. In cases such as
greenhouse testing, where an entire greenhouse may be fumigated, a series
of individual trials over a period of time utilizing a single greenhouse
may provide adequate data.
Reporting of Data:—A thorough and complete reporting of test data
is essential to draw conclusions concerning the effectiveness of a pesti-
cide. Refer to the Guidelines for Registering Pesticides, for desired
variables that should be reported. All parameters addressed in the
General Considerations and those specific considerations incorporated in
each test method should also be reported.
-------
-4-
Phytotoxicity:—Due to the complexity of subject areas of interest
and the sizable number of plant hosts involved, it is apparent and necessary
that plant tolerance to pesticide applications be considered. This is
an integral part of evaluating the effectiveness of pesticides since plants
differ in their response to chemicals.
Phytotoxicity data is pertinent since a product registered for use
against a pest on one host may be registered for use against that pest
on another host, providing phytotoxicity data indicates plant tolerance.
Analysis of Data:—Statistical analysis of data should be applied
wherever possible using a simple analysis such as Duncan's Multiple Range
Test, or an analysis of variance. If significant differences are obvious
without analysis of variance, a comparison of means would suffice.
Evaluation of results usually involves counting the number of pests which
survive the treatment and comparison of this with an untreated check
and/or standard commercial treatment (check). Presentation of means
and percent control compared to an untreated check or commercial standard
(check) is common practice.
Additional Considerations:—Application techniques, sampling techniques,
sampling intervals, and pertinent details differing from those provided
under General Considerations are described either under the applicable
subject area or each individual test method which follows.
-------
-5-
LAWNS AND TURF
The test methods for evaluating the effectiveness of pesticides
on invertebrate pests of lawns and turf are organized on a pest group
basis, including insects such as chinch bugs, grubs and sod webworms.
The comments offered under General Considerations are applicable to
these test methods unless otherwise specified.
Chinchbugs
The following procedures have proven successful for evaluation
of effectiveness of insecticides for control of chinchbugs: Blissus
leuoopterus hirtus Montandon and Blissus insularis Barber.
Experimental Design:—The experimental design commonly used to test
the effectiveness of insecticides, which yields data suitable for simple
statistical analysis utilizes a 3m x 3m (equivalent to 10' x 10') plot
(Kerr 1962, Polivka 1963, Reinert 1972, Streu and Cruz 1972) with treat-
ments arranged in a randomized complete block design (Kerr 1962, Reinert
1972, Streu and Cruz 1972). Pretreatment counts are usually taken for
the purpose of establishing population uniformity and to provide guidance
in establishing the experimental design (Kerr 1962, Reinert 1972, Streu and
Cruz 1972). Alleyways between plots are desirable to prevent pesticide
contamination when applying treatments, but are not always practical.
Application Methods:—Granular formulations are usually applied by
using a shaker can (Reinert 1972) or a lawn fertilizer spreader (Polivka
1963). Wettable powder and emulsifiable concentrate formulations are
mixed with water and usually applied with a sprinkling can (Reinert 1972,
Polivka 1963), but may be applied with a pressurized sprayer or other
suitable calibrated applicator. Watering plot areas prior to treatments
to moisten the turf and/or thatch is a desirable practice (Kerr 1962) .
It is not always applicable due to turf conditions, thatch thickness,
etc. and may also depend upon whether liquids or granules are being
applied. Watering plot areas following application (Kerr 1962, Reinert
1972, Streu and Cruz 1972) is a common practice where applicable, for the
purpose of washing the insecticide into the zone of insect activity.
Sampling and Counting Techniques:—Chinchbug counts are taken by
forcing a metal cylinder (open at both ends), covering an area of
approximately 0.06 sq. m to 0.09 sq. m (equivalent to two thirds to one
square foot), into the turf (Kerr 1962, Reinert 1972, Streu and Cruz
1972). The cylinder is filled with water and the live chinchbugs which
float to the surface in a 7 to 10 minute period are counted (Kerr 1962,
Reinert 1972, Streu and Cruz 1972). One (Kerr 1962, Reinert 1972) to
three (Streu and Cruz 1972), Polivka 1963) samples may be taken per
replication. Actual counts should be recorded. In high density populations,
such as those that occur in Florida, counts in excess of 100 chinchbugs
are recorded as 100, and counting stopped at that factor (Reinert 1972).
-------
-6-
Sampling Intervals:—Counts of live chinchbugs should be taken
within a 7 day period (Reinert 1972) following application, to provide
a measure of initial kill. Subsequent counts may be taken on a one
(Reinert 1972), two (Kerr 1962, Streu and Cruz 1972) or four to six
(Polivka 1963, Streu and Cruz 1972) week intervals, extended over a
period of time sufficient to determine the residual effectiveness of the
treatments.
References
Kerr, S. H. 1962. Lawn insect studies - 1962: Chinchbugs. Pros.
Annu. Fla. Turf-Grass Manage. Conf. 10:201-208.
Polivka, J. B. 1963. Control of hairy chinchbug, Blissus leuoopterous.
Mont., in Ohio. Ohio Agrio. Res. Dev. Cent. Res. Giro. 122:1-8.
Reinert, J. A. 1972. Control of the Southern chinchbug, Blissus
insularis, in South Florida. Fla. Entomol. 55(4):231-235.
Streu, H. T. and Carlos Cruz. 1972. Control of the hairy chinchbug
in turf-grass in the Northeast with Dursban insecticide. Down
to Earth 28(1):1-4.
Grubs
The following procedures have proven successful for evaluation
of effectiveness of insecticides for controlling larval stages of the
Japanese beetle, Northern and Southern masked chafers, European chafer,
Oriental beetle, Asiatic garden beetle and Phyllophaga sp.
Experimental Design:—A commonly used experimental design to test
the effectiveness of insecticides for control of grubs utilizes plot
sizes ranging from 3 m x 3 m (10' x 10') to 7.5 mx 7.5 m (25* x 25')
(Dunbar and Beard 1975, Gambrell et al. 1968, Tashiro and Fiori 1969).
This allows for sampling and resampling at periodical intervals. Treat-
ments are usually arranged in a randomized complete block design (Dunbar and
Beard 1975, Tashiro and Neuhauser 1973) will yield more dependable results.
Application Methods:—Granular formulations may be applied with a
shaker can (Polivka 1965) or a lawn fertilizer spreader (Dunbar and
Beard 1975, Tashiro and Neuhauser 1973). Liquids from wettable powders
and emulsifiable concentrates should be mixed with water and applied
with a sprinkler can (Dunbar and Beard 1975, Polivka 1965, Tashiro and
Neuhauser 1973) pressurized sprayer or other suitable calibrated applicator.
The method used should provide thorough coverage of the plot area at the
desired rate of application. This may be accomplished by applying
premeasured amounts to each plot, in two directions at right angles to each
other (Tashiro and Neuhauser 1973).
-------
-7-
Watering plot areas prior to treatments to moisten the thatch
and/or soil is a desirable practice. It is not always applicable due to
the turf conditions, thatch thickness, etc, and may also depend upon
whether liquids or granules are being applied. Where applicable, plots
should be watered thoroughly following application of treatments (Dunbar
and Beard 1973, Tashiro and Fiori 1969).
Sampling Techniques:—Since grubs generally feed on the roots of
turf, a device for digging and sampling is required. Several suitable
tools are available, such as a 175 m x 175 m (7" x 7") ice scraper,
a 100 mm (4") diameter metal cut and mechanical sod cutters.
The depth of the sample can be determined by the depth of the grubs.
Randomly selected samples of 3 to 10 per plot (Dunbar and Beard 1975,
Polivka 1965, Tashiro and Fiori 1969) provides suitable data for analysis.
Generally, sampling at least a total area of 0.09 sq. m ( 1 sq. ft.) per
plot is desired, utilizing sample sizes such as 100 mm (4") diameter
(Polivka 1965), 160 mm (6.4") diameter (Dunbar and Beard 1975) and
175 mm x 175 mm (7" x 7") sample.
Actual counts of living grubs in each sample should be recorded.
Sampling Intervals:—Parameters of individual tests will determine
the intervals for sampling. Spring or summer treatments during the
period of grub activity may be evaluated in 1 to 3 weeks following
application to determine initial kill or on a 4, 6 to 8 week interval
(Dunbar and Beard 1975, Tashiro and Neuhauser 1973) to determine effective-
ness and/or residual activity of the insecticide. Generally, summer
applications (July-August) directed at killing young grubs are evaluated
in the fall (September-October) when the remaining grubs are large enough
to be readily found and soil moisture is adequate to allow for proper
sampling and examination (Tashiro et al. 1971). Counts on longer term
studies following a spring, summer or fall treatment may be taken from a
9 to 12 month period or long intervals (annually) to determine residual
control activity (Gambrell et al. 1968).
References
Dunbar, D. M., and R. L. Beard. 1975. Japanese and oriental beetles
in Connecticut. Conn. Agri-a. Exp. Stn. Bull. 757:1-5.
Gambrell, F. L., H. Tashiro, and G. L. Mack. 1968. Residual activity
of chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in permanent turf for
European chafer control. j. Eoon. Entomol. 61(6)-.1508-1511.
Polivka, J. B. 1965. Effectiveness of insecticides for control of white
grubs in turf. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Cent. Res. C-lfo. 140:1-7.
-------
Tashiro, H., and B. J. Fiori. 1969. Susceptibilities of European
chafer and Japanese beetle grubs to chlordane and dieldrin:
suggesting reduction in application rates. J. Econ. Entomol.
62(5):1179-1183.
Tashiro, H., K. E. Personius, D. Zinter, and M. Zinter. 1971.
Resistance of the European chafer to cyclodiene insecticides.
J. Econ. Entomol. 64(1):242-245.
Tashiro, H., and W. Neuhauser. 1973. Chlordane - resistant Japanese
beetles in New York. N.Y. Agric. E.xp. Stn. Ithaca Mem. Search.
Agric. 3(3):1-6.
-------
-9-
GREENHOUSE FLORICULTURAL CROPS
Methods outlined are designed so that insecticides and acaricides
can be evaluated against insects and mites on the following general crop
groups (crops listed are examples of major crops with each group):
1. Pot plants (Flowers) - include poinsettia, chrysanthemum, cyclamen,
hydrangea, geranium, gloxinia.
2. Cut flowers - includes rose, carnation, chrysanthemum, snapdragon.
3. Bedding plants - includes salvia, petunia, marigold, pansy.
After data are obtained that show a material to be effective in
controlling a pest on one crop within a group, that material may be
considered effective against that pest on all crops, where it occurs,
in the group. However, adequate phytotoxicity data must be obtained on
all crops on which a material is to be used.
These methods have been gathered from several sources, and documented
by published and unpublished reports. Cited material is only to serve as
a guide for a procedure and often many more references containing the
same or similar procedure could have been listed.
Application Techniques and Equipment:—Many researchers use small
compressed air sprayers (capacity 3.8 - 7.5 liters = \-2 gallons) in
evaluating materials. Others simulate high volume sprays by dipping leaves
or plants into insecticide solutions or suspensions (Henneberry and
Smith 1965, Webb et al. 1974), or by using small hand-held aerosol
propellent cans to spray plants (Lindquist 1974). The common element in
all applications is coverage to the point of runoff and no matter which
method is used, data obtained from these tests may be used to support
results of larger, commercial trials, if proper sampling and adequate
replication have been used. However, at least one trial must be conducted
with the kind of equipment and under conditions similar to that found
in commercial greenhouses to substantiate results obtained from the above
trials.
For most pests of greenhouse crops, it is particularly important
to direct sprays at the undersides of leaves to contact surfaces where
pests are generally found.
Granular insecticides usually are scattered evenly over the soil
surface of plant beds or pots or over foliage of closely-spaced plants.
Application rates for granular materials are calculated either on the
basis of surface area or on volume of soil (Smith 1952), Both procedures
may provide adequate efficacy data, depending upon the objectives of the
experiment. Following application, water is applied to wash off any
granules adhering to foliage and to carry the toxicant down to the root
zone. Applications may be made with a shaker jar or broadcast spreader
that does not grind the granules.
-------
-10-
Liquid systemic insecticides are usually applied in dilute form
to the soil of pots or plant beds. Enough solution is applied to carry
the toxicant to the root zone (Neiswander 1962).
Aerosols, fumigants, fogs (thermal and non-thermal) are applied
at a certain rate per cubic meter, with the appropriate specialized
application equipment.
Location of Tests:—Because tests are conducted in greenhouses
under controlled conditions, geographical differences are not as critical
as when evaluating insecticides under field conditions. Valid data should
be obtained from at least three or four different locations.
Plot size:—Plot size for greenhouse evaluations can vary depending
on available plant material, number of insecticides included in the test,
and whether evaluations are conducted in a research greenhouse or commercial
range.
For preliminary, or supplemental testing with insecticides, data
obtained in replicated tests with only 1-3 plants per replicate should
be considered valid if other test parameters are adequate (Webb et al.
1974,Lindquist 1975). These data can be used as supportive, but should
not be considered "primary". At least one trial must also be conducted
under commercial growing conditions to validate data obtained in small
plot tests.
Replication:—Four replicates are preferred, but at least 3 replicates
of each treatment are necessary for statistical analysis of data. In
aerosol or other fumigant applications, where an entire greenhouse must
be treated, a series of 3-4 trials over a period of time provides a
means of replication when insufficient area is available for replication
at one time.
Sampling:—Pre-treatment counts are often made to establish the pre-
sense of an infestation before selecting plants to be treated or as an
aid in designing the experiment. These counts are not always necessary
nor are they always included in tabular results.
In some tests, e.g., with aerosols, fumigants, fogs, etc., pre-
treatment counts are necessary to establish the efficacy of a treatment.
For these treatments a known number of insects or mites may also be put
in cages and placed in different areas of the greenhouses to measure
efficacy.
It is essential to have temperature records, especially at times
when treatments were applied. These data might provide information on the
effectiveness of a material over a range of temperatures or a clue as
to why phytotoxic symptoms appeared,
Phytotoxicity:—On ornamental plants, phytotoxicity evaluations
are equal in importance to efficacy data. Because of the diversity of
-------
-11-
specles, and cultivars within species, few materials are completely
safe on all ornamentals. Therefore, some phytotoxicity is to be ex-
pected and the task is to put it in perspective. Measurement of injury
can be done by a numerical rating system, or by statements describing
the injury symptoms. In all cases, a statement concerning the commercial
acceptability of any injury that does appear should be made.
References
Henneberry, T. J., and W. R. Smith. 1965. Malathion synergism against
organophosphate-resistant two-spotted spider mites. J. Econ.
Entomol. 58(2):312-4.
Lindquist, R. K. 1974. Use of aerosol propellant to apply insecticides.
(Exhibit 1).
. 1975. Green peach aphid control on chrysanthemum. (Exhibit 2).
Neiswander, Ralph B. 1962. The use of systemic insecticides on potted
chrysanthemums in the greenhouse. J. Boon. Entomol. 55 (4)-.497-501.
Smith, Floyd F. 1952. Conversion of per-acre dosages of soil insecticide
to equivalents for small units. J. Econ. Entomol. 45(2):339.
Webb, Ralph E., Floyd F. Smith, A. L. Boswell, E. S. Fields, and R. M.
Waters. 1974. Insecticidal control of the greenhouse whitefly on
greenhouse ornamental and vegetable plants. J. Econ. Entomol.
67(1):114-8.
Twospotted Spider Mite, Tetranyohus urticae Koch
For methods and statements concerning insect and mite control on
all greenhouse floricultural crops, see both the general introduction and
introduction to the greenhouse crops section.
Spider mites are probably the most serious pests of greenhouse crops
throughout the world (Hussey et al. 1969) largely because of their ability
to develop resistance to many acaricidal materials.
Spider mites will feed on and damage some 200 host plants (Hussey
et al. 1969) but the few techniques from major hosts listed here may
serve as examples of methods for nearly all hosts.
Sampling Procedures:—Some details of sampling procedures may vary
with individual host plants, but most fall into several basic categories:
1. Recording mites from a certain number of leaves or flowers. Depending
on the host, samples are taken at random, from leaves of similar age, or near
leaves that have feeding damage (Baranowski 1966, Binns 1969, Poe and McFadden
1972, Poe and Wilfret 1972).
-------
-12-
2. Recording mites from a certain number of leaf discs, removed at
random from leaves showing any feeding injury (Taylor et al. 1969),
3. Using bean seedlings as host plants, trimmed of all but 2 leaves.
Plants are infested by pinning infested leaves from mite colony to seed-
ling leaves for 2-4 hr., then dipping entire plant in insecticide solutions.
Living and dead mites are then recorded from the entire plant (Henneberry
and Smith 1965).
4. Using a Renderson-McBurnie mite brushing machine to brush mites
onto glass plates coated with a material causing mites to adhere to the
surface (Schuder 1974).
In all of the above procedures, some magnification is necessary to
make mite counts. Generally, a binocular microscope (12-15X) is used
for this purpose.
Reporting Results:—When mites are sampled using one of the general
procedures listed above, results can be recorded as:
1. Mean no. mites and/or eggs per leaf, leaflet, leaf disc, or groups
of these.
2. Mean no. mites per glass plate, removed from a certain amount of
foliage.
3. Average infestation rating.
4. Live and dead mites per plant.
Sampling Interval:—The sampling interval can vary, depending upon
the objectives of the experiment, but some common intervals include 24
hr, 7 days, and 14 days post-treatment (see references under sampling
procedures).
References
Baranowski, R. M. 1966. Soil application of systemic insecticides
for mite control on chrysanthemums. Proa. Fla. State Hort. Soo.
478-81.
Binns, E. S. 1969. The chemical control of red spider mite on glass-
house roses. Plant Pathol. 18:49-56.
Henneberry, T.J., and W.R. Smith. 1965. Malathi.oi; synergism against
organophosphate-resistant two-spotted spider mites. J. Eaon.
Entomol. 58 (2):312-14.
Hussey. N.W.,^W.H. Read, and J.J. Hesling. 1969 The Pests of Protected
Cultivation. American Elsevier, Inc., New "lorlc.
-------
-13-
Poe, S.L., and S. McFadden. 1972. Effect of benomyl and surfactants
on populations of the two spotted spider mite on dwarf marigold.
J. Ga. Entomol. Soe. 7(3):167-70.
Poe, S. L. and G. J. Wilfret. 1972. Factors affecting spidermite
(Tetranyohus urtioae Koch) population development on carnation:
relative cultivar susceptibility and physical characteristics.
Proo. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 85:384-7.
Schuder, D. L. 1974. Twospotted spider mite experiment, (Exhibit 3)
Taylor, E. A., T. J. Henneberry, and F. F. Smith. 1969. Control of
resistant spider mites on greenhouse roses. J. Boon. Entomol.
52(5):1026-7.
Aphids
For methods and other information applicable to testing insecticides
against all insects on greenhouse floricultural crops, see both the
general introduction and introduction to the greenhouse crops section.
Most methods cited concern the green peach aphid, Myzus peps'ioae,
on greenhouse chrysanthemums. This aphid also infests many other hosts,
but little information is available for test methods on these hosts.
Other common aphids include the rose aphid, Macrosi,phum rosae, potato
aphid, Macro siphim euphorfiae, and chrysanthemum aphid, Maorosiphoniella
saribovni-. Several other species can and do occur (Hussey et al. 1969).
Because the green peach aphid is the most common species and the
most difficult to control (Hussey et al. 1969) efficacy data obtained
on a material for controlling this species may also indicates the effective-
ness for that material in controlling other species.
Sampling of Treated Population
Aphids on Leaves, Stems, and Terminal Shoots:—Sampling methods
can be divided into several basic types, including:
1. Counting aphids on entire plants (Gould 1969, Webb and Smith 1973), or
on leaves (Helgesen 1971, Poe and Marousky 1971, Poe and Green 1974).
Counting aphids on entire plants should eliminate any variation in location
of aphid populations on different cultivars of a host (Markkula et al. 1969,
Webb and Smith 1973). However, if samples are taken from the same location
on all plants, this potential source of bias may be eliminated.
2. Counting aphids on stems, or recording stems and/or terminal shoots
as infested or not infested.
Sometimes recording stems or shoots as infested or not infested is com-
bined with a weighted rating system to give an estimate of the severity of
infestation (Overman and Poe 1971, Lindquist 1972). Because aphids in
greenhouses are all females that give birth to living young without mating,
the presence of one or more aphids on a stem leaf, or flower indicates that
there is the potential for a severe infestation (Hussey et al. 1969).
-------
-14-
3. Introducing a known number of aphids onto previously uninfested plants
just prior to treatment (Helgesen and Tauber 1974),
Aphids in Flowers:—Often, controlling aphids in open flowers is
necessary before plants are sold, or insecticides are applied to prevent
flowers from becoming infested. Recording the number of flowers with
and without aphids (Appleby 1972), the number of live aphids in a number
of flowers (Lindquist 1974), or using an extraction technique to separate
aphids from flowers (Gray and Schuh 1941) should provide adequate efficacy
data.
Aphids are capable of migrating into greenhouses from outdoor plant-
ings, or moving around within greenhouses (Dixon 1971), it often is
necessary to obtain an estimate of a material's residual killing power.
This can be achieved by placing infested plants among treatments, using
untreated check plants as the potential source of a new population, or
to reinfest plants at intervals after treatments have been applied
(Gould 1969). This latter procedure should provide the most reliable data
on residual effectiveness, because aphids are not always in a migratory
(winged) stage.
References
Appleby, J. E. 1972. Chrysanthemums tests-green peach aphid control,
(Exhibit 4).
Dixon, A. F. G. 1971. Migration in aphids. Sci. Prog. 59:41-53.
Gould, H. J. 1969. Further tests with insecticides for the control of
Myzus persicae (Sulzer) on year round chrysanthemums. Plant. Pathol.
18:176-81.
Gray, K. W. , and J. Schuh. 1941. A method and contrivance for sampling
pea aphid populations. J. Eoon. Entomol. 34(3):411-5.
Ilelgesen, R. G. 1971. Green peach aphid control on chrysanthemums.
(Exhibit 5).
Helgesen, R. G., and L. Tauber. 1974. Pirimicarb, an aphicide nontoxic
to three entomophagous arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 3(1):99-101.
Hussey, N. W., W. H. Read, and J. J. Hesling. 1969. The 'Pests of Pro-
tected Cultivation. American Elsevier, Inc. New York, pp 106-21.
Lindquist, R. K. 1972. Insect control on outdoor roses. Pesticide News
25(1):8-12.
1974. Granular systemic insecticides for green peach aphid control
on chrysanthemums. (Exhibit 6).
-------
-15-
Markkula, M., K. Roukka, and K, Tiittanen. 1969. Reproduction of Mysus
persiaae (Sulz.) and Tetranychus telarius (L,) on different
chrysanthemum cultivars, Ann, Agrio, Fenn, 8:175-183,
Overman, A,J,, and S. L, Poe, 1971, Suppression of aphids, mites, and
nematodes with foliar applications of chemicals. Pros, Fla, State
Hort. Soo. 84:419-22,
Poe, S. L., and J. L. Green, 1974, Pest management determinant factors
in chrysanthemum culture. Proa. Fla, State Eort. Soc. 87:467-71,
Webb, Ralph E., and Floyd F. Smith. 1973. Control of aphids on
chrysanthemums with aerosols, J. Econ. Entomol. 66(5):1135-6,
Flower Thrips, FTankl-iniella tri,t-ici. (Fitch), (in open flowers)
For general methods and statements concerning insect and mite control
on flowering plants, see both the general introduction and introduction
to the greenhouse crops section. Most general information contained
in the latter section also pertains to floral crops grown out-of-doors.
Sampling Methods:—Sampling treated flowers can be divided into 3
basic methods:
1. The Wash Method (Taylor and Smith 1955, Ota 1968). This procedure
involves tearing flowers apart in a detergent solution, allowing flower
parts to float to the top and thrips to settle out, then pouring the mix-
ture through a series of different sized screens to separate the thrips
from the fluid.
2, The Mechanical Method (Henneberry et al. 1964). Infested rose
flowers are torn apart, placed in a plastic container with a screen
bottom, and shaken over a wet, black cloth.
3. The Irritation Method (Evans 1933). An irritant, such as turpentine,
ethyl acetate, or methyl isobutyl ketone is used to drive thrips out of
infested flowers and into a pan of water or onto a paper coated with a
sticky substance. Another technique is to use a Berlese Funnel to drive
thrips into an alcohol solution (Schuder 1974, Morishita 1975).
According to Ota (1968), the wash method yielded a significantly
higher percentage of thrips than the other 2 methods. However, if
efficacy of an insecticide is being measured, it should only be necessary
to obtain relative abundance figures, not absolute numbers.
Reporting of Results:—With all of the techniques above, results
were reported as number of thrips per flower, or groups of flowers.
Sampling Interval:—After applications of an insecticide, the first
samples usually are taken 1 day after treatment (Henneberry et al. 1961,
Lindquist 1972, Schuder 1974). Following this initial sample, subsequent
counts to measure residual action can be made at the discretion of the
researcher.
-------
-16-
Eeferences
Evans, J. W. 1933. A simple method of collecting thrips and other
insects from blossoms. ~Bull. Entomol. Res. 24:349-50.
Henneberry, T. J., F. F. Smith, and David Schriver. 1964. Flower thrips
in outdoor rose fields and an improved method of extracting thrips
from rose flowers. J. Eoon. Entomol. 57(3):410-2.
Henneberry, T. J. , E. A. Taylor, and F. F. Smith. 1961. Foliage and
soil treatments for the control of flower thrips in outdoor roses.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 54(2):233-5.
Lindquist, K. 1972. Insect control on outdoor roses. Pesticide News.
25(1):8-13.
Morishita, Frank S. 1975. Thrips extraction. (Exhibit/).
Ota, Asher, K. 1968. Comparison of three methods of extracting the
flower thrips from rose flowers. J. Eoon. Entomol. 61(6):1754-5.
Schuder, D. L. 1974. Flower thrip experiment. (Exhibits).
Taylor, E. A., and F. F. Smith. 1955. Three methods for extracting
thrips and other insects from rose flowers. J. Eoon. Entomol.
48:767-8.
Iris Borer, Macronoctua onusta Grote (on iris)
For general methods and statements concerning insect and mite
control on outdoor flowers, see both the general introduction and intro-
duction to the greenhouse crops section. Most general information con-
tained in the latter section also pertains to floral crops grown out-
of-doors .
Sampling Methods:—Only two basic methods for sampling treated areas
were found in the literature, and they depnd on the season of the year.
Iris borers begin their development on and within leaves during April,
May or June, and eventually bore down into the rhizomes in July and
August. Pupation usually occurs in the soil near infested rhizomes
(Neiswander 1961). Thus, one method involves examining a certain number
of leaves for larvae, or larval feeding injury (Schuder 1958). The
second technique is to examine rhizomes and/or surrounding soil for injury,
larvae, or pupae. This usually means digging up the treatments, or portions
thereof, and physically inspecting rhizomes or searching the soil (Schread
1970, Dunbar 1975). The first method is valid during the early part of the
season, and the second during the latter part.
-------
-17-
Reporting of Results:—If. leaves are examined for larvae, results
may be recorded as percent dead, no. live or no. dead (Schuder 1958).
Results of examination of rhizomes and soil usually are reported as
mean no. live larvae or pupae per plot (Schread 1970, Dunbar 1975).
Sampling Interval:—The interval between treatment and recording
of results will depend upon whether the researcher measures early-season
larval control in leaves, or wishes to wait until larvae have entered
rhizomes and/or pupated. If leaves are to be examined, counts should
be made by mid-June in most areas. Rhizomes and soil can be examined
during August (Neiswander 1961, Schread 1970).
References
Dunbar, Dennis M. 1975. What's new in iris borer control? Bull.
Am. Iris Soc. 216:44-7.
Neiswander, C. R. 1961. The iris borer, Macvonoctua onusta Grote,
its behavior and methods of control. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn. Res.
Bull. 892. 8 pp.
Schread, John C. 1970. Iris borer and its control. Conn. Agi"ic. Exp.
Stn. Res. Circ. 235. 6 pp.
Schuder, Donald L. 1958. Promising insecticides for the control of
the iris borer. Bull. Am. Iris Soc. 150:1-5.
Root Mealybugs, R-izoecus spp. (on container-grown greenhouse floricultural
crops)
For methods and statements concerning all insects on greenhouse
floricultural crops, see both the general introduction and introduction
to the greenhouse crops section.
Application Methods:—Depending on the formulation used, 3 application
methods are employed:
1. Spreading granules on soil surface (Poe 1972, Poe et. al. 1973,
Hamlen 1974).
2. Applying liquid suspensions as soil drenches (Poe 1972, Poe et. al.
1973, Hamlen 1974).
3. Submerging pot and root ball for a certain amount of time (5 minutes)
in insecticide suspensions (Poe 1972).
-------
-18-
Sampling Methods:—Mealybug populations are measured by lifting
each plant from its container and counting individuals lying adjacent
to the exposed roots on the outside of the root ball (Poe 1972). These
counts may be made in a restricted band (Hamlen 1974) .
Reporting Tabular Data:—Efficacy can be reported as percent control,
compared with untreated checks (Poe 1972), or mean no. individuals per
plant (Hamlen 1974).
Sampling Interval;—Counts of mealybugs are made, beginning 7 days
post-treatment (Poe 1972), and at weekly or bi-weekly intervals there-
after (Hamlen 1974).
References
Hamlen, R. A. 1974. Control of Rhizoecus floridanus Hambleton
(Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on bromeliads. PTOO, Fla. State
Hort. Soc. 87:516-8.
Poe, S. L. 1972. Treatment for control of a root mealybug on nursery
plants. J. Eoon. Entomol. 65(1):241-2.
Poe, S. L. , D. S. Short, and G. W. Dekle. 1973. Control of Rhizoecus
americanus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) on ornamental plants.
J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 8(l):20-6.
Greenhouse Whitefly, Trialeurodes vapor>aviorwn (Westwood)
For methods and other information applicable to testing insecticides
against all insects on greenhouse floricultural crops, see both the
general introduction and introduction to the greenhouse crops section.
Most of the emphasis is on evaluation of materials to control
the immature stages (egg, nymphs, "pupae" - the last nymphal instar),
rather than the adult stage. There are two reasons for this: (1) the
adult is susceptible to many materials, and although it is desirable
to control this stage, a material is more valuable if it controls the
developing nymphs because fewer applications will be necessary; (2) adults
are able to fly among the treatments, and mortality is difficult to assess
unless treatments are separated by some physical barrier (screens, separate
greenhouse compartments, etc.). Therefore, beyond rather immediate killing
power of a material, residual effects on adults are hard to measure.
Pest Population
Greenhouse whitefly populations usually are readily available in
most greenhouses, and few specific rearing instructions for the insects
should be necessary. However, large numbers of whiteflies can be reared
on tobacco plants, or on the specific host plants to be used in the tests.
-------
-19-
Rearing can be done in a separate greenhouse compartment or caged area
within a compartment, and the adult population used to obtain life
stages of known age (Smith et al. 1970, Webb et al. 1974).
Because whiteflies normally develop from the apical portion of the
plant downward on undersides of leaves, similar age group distribution
can be obtained by selecting these areas to make counts (adults and
eggs on apical leaves, nymphs and pupae on subapical leaves).
Sampling of Treated Population
Adults:—Sampling adult populations normally involves counting them
on a certain number of apical leaflets (Lindquist 1972), on the entire
plant (Webb et al. 1974), or on blackened glass plates (or paper) placed
among the plants (Smith et al, 1970, Webb et al. 1974). All of these
procedures may give reliable data on whitefly adult mortality. Residual
killing can only be measured by using glass plates or paper, or by
caging adults on treated leaves at intervals after application (Krueger
et al. 1973). If glass plates or paper are used, dead adults must be
removed each time data are recorded. The other methods give only estimates
of immediate kill, unless treatments are physically separated by a barrier
(cages) or in separate greenhouses.
In some cases, e.g., aerosol or fumigation trials when materials
must be applied to an entire greenhouse or greenhouse compartment, pre-
treatment and post-treatment counts will be necessary (Lindquist 1974).
Nymphs and Eggs:—There are many procedures used to evaluate control,
or mortality, of whitefly immature stages. Procedures mentioned can be
used to develop reliable data, with adequate replication.
1. Recording life stages from entire leaves, leaflets, or per unit of
leaf area. This can be done if the same plant species (or cultivar)
is utilized for efficacy trials. This method was used by Smith et al.
(1970), Webb et al. (1974), Krueger et al. (1973), Lindquist (1974), and
Schuder (1974).
2. Recording life stages from portions (e.g., 1/2) of leaves. The
same criteria apply as in (1) above.
3. Recording life stages from uniform-sized leaf discs or punches. This
method should give the best estimate of populations if several cultivars
of the same species or several different species are included in a trial,
because the area sampled will be equal for all plants. Discs or punches
should be removed from the same relative areas on all plants to insure
an uniform age distribution of sampled population. See Smith et al.
(1970), Allen (1972), Lindquist et al. (1972) for examples of this pro-
cedure.
4. Recording the number of live and dead life stages in the first 50
or 100 encountered (Webb et al. 1974).
-------
-20-
Recording of Efficacy Data
Adults:—Can be recorded as no. alive per sampling unit (leaf,
leaflet, plant), or no. dead per glass plate or paper square.
Immature States:—These data can be recorded in several ways (Smith
et al. 1970).Schuder (1974) counted live nymphs plus empty "puparia"
(i.e., adults had emerged). This procedure should provide adequate
data if pre-treatment observations establish that only young nymphs are
present.
Intervals after treatment for recording data may vary. Adult
mortality can be measured within a few hours, but if effects on immature
stages are to be measured, it will be necessary to wait at least 7 days
before any effects are noted. Appropriate intervals are found in Smith
et al. (1970), Allen (1972), Schuder, (1974).
References
Allen, W. L. 1972. Greenhouse whitefly control. (Exhibit 9).
Krueger, H. R. , R. K. Lindquist, J. F. Mason, and R. R. Spadafora.
1973. Application of methomyl to greenhouse tomatoes: Greenhouse
whitefly control and residues in foliage and fruits. J. Boon.
EntomoZ. 66(5):1223-4.
Lindquist, R. K., W. L. Bauerle, and R. R. Spadafora. 1972. Effect
of the greenhouse whitefly on yields of greenhouse tomatoes.
J. Boon. Entomol. 65(5):1406-8.
. 1974. Use of Micro-Gen Insecticide Dispersal Unit and Micro-Gen
BP-300 insecticide for greenhouse whitefly control on greenhouse
tomatoes and cucumbers. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Cent. Res. Summ.
73:31-3.
1975. Whitefly control on poinsettias. (Exhibit 10) .
Schuder, D. L. 1974. Evaluating insecticides for greenhouse whitefly
control on poinsettias. (Exhibit 11).
Smith, Floyd F. , Asher K. Ota, and A. L. Boswell. 1970. Insecticides
for control of the greenhouse whitefly. J. Boon. Entomol.
63(2):522-7.
Webb, Ralph E. , Floyd F. Smith, A. L. Boswell, E. S. Fieldsand R. M. Waters,
1974. Insecticidal control of the greenhouse whitefly on greenhouse
ornamental and vegetable plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 67(1):114-8.
-------
-21-
OUTDOOR WOODY ORNANMENTALS
The most common outdoor woody ornamentals and shrubs include
arborvitae, azalea, boxwood, camellia, chamaecyparis, cotoneaster,
crabapple, dogwood, euonymus, forsythia, holly, honeylocust, juniper,
laurel, lilac, magnolia, oleander, palm, pine, privet, pyracantha,
redbud, rhododendron, spirea, viburnum and yew. For the purpose of
pesticide test methods development, pests of woody ornamentals may be
conveniently grouped as aphids, adelgids, borers, bud and tip destroyers,
bugs, defoliators, eriophyids, gall insects, leafminers, mealybugs, root
feeders, scales, tetramychids, and thrips. Test methods applicable to
each of these groups are given under their respective headings. The
following general statements are applicable to all of these groups:
Application techniques should be appropriate for the use contem-
plated and the size of the test plots used. Frequently, hand-pumped,
compressed air sprayers are used in evaluating materials for efficacy
on woody ornamentals. Results from such applications are comparable
to those obtained with power equipment provided that the same dilution
is used and the same amount of toxicant per plant unit is applied.
Commonly this is achieved by spraying to run-off (Campbell 1968).
Systemic materials applied to the soil should be evenly distributed
over the active root zone and this is assumed to be an area around the
stem equivalent to the area covered by the foliage. Dosages are cal-
culated on a surface area basis or on the basis of stem diameter of the
host (Tashiro 1973). The systemic materials are applied to moist soil,
may be incorporated, and watered in (Scheer & Johnson 1970, Saunders
1970). Dosages for container grown plants are calculated as shown by
Smith (1952). Other application techniques such as ULV, LV, trunk
drenches, implantation, soil injection, or aircraft treatments may be
used when appropriate.
Experiments should be designed to yield valid data. It is desirable
to use field plots of a size sufficiently large to be representative
of actual use practices consistent with good field plot technique.
Supportive data any include results from tests wherein each plot is
a single plant or, in unusal circumstances, a single branch (Koehler
1964). Generally four replicates are appropriate, although three may
be used if test plants are limited and the infestation is uniform. More
than four may be required when the infestation is sparse or uneven
(Koehler 1963, Nielsen et al. 1973). To enhance validity of tests it is
common practice to select test plants that are known to be infested,
before randomization of the plots. This may be done by taking pre-
treatment counts (Reinert 1973). Pre-treatment counts may also be used
to provide guidance in establishing the experimental design (Reinert
and Woodiel 1974).
Evaluation of results usually involves counting the number of
pests which survive the treatment and comparison of this with an un-
treated check and/or a standard commercial check. An indication of
population reduction by reporting percent control in relation to an
-------
-22-
untreated check is common practice (Campbell 1968)- Rating schemes
may be appropriate, but they must be fully explained (Campbell and
Balderston 1969). Efficacy may be evaluated on the basis of plant
protection, rather than on counts of living insects, when appropriate.
For example, it is immaterial whether a leaf miner is dead or alive
if it has already destroyed the aesthetic value of the leaf in which
it occurs and so it is reasonable to assess the efficacy of a pesticide
on the basis of the number of leaves marred per test plant in comparison
to an untreated check (Hartzell et al. 1943). The concept of an Aesthetic
Injury Level in contrast to the conventional Economic Injury Level is
valid.
References
Campbell, R. L. 1968. Control of some pests of Scotch pine Christmas
trees in Ohio. J. Econ. Entomol. 61(5):1365-1369.
Campbell, R. L., and C. P. Balderston. 1969. New control for maple
bladder gall mite. Pesticide News 22(3):78, 80.
Hartzell, A., D. L. Collins, and W. E. Blauvelt, 1943. Control of the
holly leaf miner. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 13(l):29-34.
Koehler, C. S. 1963. Lygus Hesperus as an economic insect on Magnolia
nursery stock. J. Econ. Entomol. 56(3) :421-422.
Koehler, C. S. 1964. Control of Asterolecanitm scales and Cynipid
leaf galls on oak in Northern California. J. Econ. Entomol.
57(4):579-581.
Nielsen, D. G., F. F. Purrington, and C. P- Balderston. 1973. Evalu-
ation of insecticides for control of lilac borer, Podosesia syringae,
in Rancho Roundhead ash. Pesticide News 26(4):94-95.
Reinert, J. A. 1973. Cuban laurel thrips: systemic insecticides for
control. J. Econ. Entomol. 66(5):1217-1218.
Reinert, J. A., and N. L. Woodiel. 1974. Palm aphid control on
'Maylayan Dwarf coconut palms. Fla. Entomol. 57(4):411-413.
Saunders, J. L. 1970. Carbofuran drench for black vine weevil control
on container-grown spruce. J. Econ. Entomol. 63(5):1698-1699.
Scheer, C. F., and G. V. Johnson. 1970. Systemic insecticides against
the spirea aphid, birch leaf miner, and Nantucket pine tip moth.
J. Econ. Entomol. 63(4)-.1205-1207.
Smith, F. F. 1952. Conversion of per-acre dosages of soil insecticide
to equivalents for small units. J. Econ. Entomol. 45(2):339-340.
-------
-23-
Tashiro, H. 1973. Evaluation of soil applied systemic insecticides
on insects of white birch in nurseries. Search Agi"Lc. (Geneva,
N.I.) 3(9):1-11,
Adelgids
On spruce, where the object of control is prevention galls,
observations on efficacy should be made after new _growth has developed.
At other times of the year counts of living adelgids per unit length
of twig are useful supplemental data (Campbell and Balderston 1972b).
On hosts where the object of control is population reduction of free-
living adelgids, counts of living adelgids per plant unit (length of
twig, area of bark, etc.) are appropriate. These plant units should be
chosen at random from each plot and the counts should be averages of
at least three subsamples per plot (Campbell and Balderston 1972a).
References
Campbell, R. L., and C. P. Balderston. 1972a. Insecticidal control
of Eastern spruce gall aphid during autumn in Ohio. J. Econ.
Entomol. 65(6):1745-1746.
Campbell, R. L., and C. P. Balderston. 1972b. Insecticidal control
of Adelges cooleyi- Douglas-fir in Ohio, with notes on biology.
J. Econ. Entomol. 65(3):912-914.
Aphids
Colonies to be treated experimentally should be composed predomi-
nately of apterous nymphs. The presence of substantial members of
parasites of predators at the time treatment may confound results of the
trial. Some species of aphids are easily dislodged by a spray stream
regardless of toxicant, especially if a high pressure spray is used.
In this case it is advisable to include a "water only" spray treatment
as the untreated check to ensure validity of the results.
Observations on effectiveness can be made 24 hours after treatment
and should be repeated at 48 hours and then continued on a weekly
basis until population levels on treated plants again approximate those
on untreated checks. Counts of living aphids are usually based on some
convenient plant unit (length of stem, number of leaves, etc.). These
sampling units should be chosen at random from each plot and the counts
should be averages of at least three subsamples per plot (Reinert and
Woodiel 1974). Beating trays or other mechanical devices may be used
for sampling plots if the above principles regarding randomization and
subsampling are adhered to (Campbell 1968).
-------
-24-
Eeferences
Campbell, R. L. 1968. Control of some pests of Scotch pine Christ^
mas trees in Ohio. 3. Eoon. Entomol* 61(5):1365-1369,
Reinert, J. A., and W. L. Woodiel. 1974. Palm aphid control on
'Malayan Dwarf coconut palms. Fla, Entomol. 57(4):411-413.
Borers
Usually entire susceptible portions of plants are treated but
Neiswander (1961) used excised bolts successfully. Evaluation of re-
sults may be made by counting the number of adults which emerge from
treated wood (Appleby 1973), counting new attacks on susceptible plant
parts (Coster et al. 1972) , or by indexing schemes such as the frass
indexing scheme used by Nielsen et al. (1973).
References
Appleby, J. E., R. Randell, and S. Rachesky. 1973. Chemical control
of the bronze birch borer. J. Econ. Entomol. 66(1):258-259.
Coster, J. E., R. G. Merrifield, and R. A. Woessner. 1972. Evaluation
of four systemic insecticides against the cottonwood twig borer.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 65(2):612-613.
Neiswander, R. S. 1961. Control of the flat headed apple tree borer.
Proc. N. Central Branch, Entomol. Soc. Am. 16:77-79.
Nielsen, D. G., F. F. Furrington, and C. P. Balderston. 1973. Evalua-
tion of insecticides for control of lilac borer, Podosesia syringae,
in Rancho Roundhead ash. Pesticide News 26(3):58, 60.
Bud and Tip Destroyers (including shoot moths, tip moths, tip midges
and budworms)
Results of trials may be evaluated by examining entire plants for sur-
viving insects (Pree and Saunders 1972) , by examining appropriate plant
units (Campbell 1968), by counting the number of adults which emerge
from the test plants (Appleby and Neiswander 1966) , or by an appropriate
rating scheme (Koehler and Tauber 1964). Combinations of these are also
used. Cocoons per unit weight of foliage were counted 10 months after
treatment and an insect damage rating scheme was used by Koehler (1974).
If plant units are used they should be selected at random from each
plot and the counts should be averages of at least three subsamples per
plot.
-------
-25-
References
Appleby, J. E,, and R. B, Neiswander. 1966. Life history and control
of the juniper tip midge. Ohio Agrio. Res. Dev. Cent. Res., Bull.
980:26.
Campbell, R. L. 1968. Control of some pests of Scotch pine Christmas
trees in Ohio. J. Eoon. Entomol. 61(6):1365-1369.
Koehler, C. S. 1974, Evaluation of insecticides for control of the
cypress tip moth, Argyresthia oupressella3
-------
-26-
Defoliators (including caterpillars, leaf beetles, sawflies, skeletonizers)
When test plants are small it is possible to count survivors per
plant (Koehler 1973). Timed-count procedures were used successfully in
oakworm trials by Koehler (1975). Larvae were not removed after counting
and so were were available for counting at subsequent sampling intervals.
Using a stopwatch, a person would record the number of live larvae seen
in a one or two minute search of intact foliage. Another one or two persons
would follow the same procedure in the same plot. Alternatively several
people can enter the same plot at the same time, with a timer left outside.
Nielsen et al. (1971) examined each plant for 30 man-records and recorded
the number of leaves with at least one weevil. Efficacy of ovicides can be
evaluated by determining percent hatch (Swenson et al. 1969).
References
Koehler, C. S. 1973. Evaluation of insecticides applied as sprays for
control of the barberry looper, Coryphista meadi, on container grown
Oregon grape, Mdhonia aquifolia. (Exhibit 14).
1975. Personal Communication.
Nielsen, D. C., H. Gilbertson, K. Waite, and C. P- Balderston. 1971.
Control of the yellow poplar weevil, Odontopus calceatus (Say).
Pesticide News 24(3):64, 66.
Swenson, K. G., H. Tashiro, F. L. Gambrell, and H. Breitfeld. 1969.
Ovicidal efficiency of parathion and diazinon for quarantine treat-
ment of the western tent caterpillar. J. Econ. Entomol. 62(4):875-879.
Eriophyids
For species which cause galls or other distinctive plant symptoms,
rating of damage may be used as an indication of efficacy (Campbell
1969). Free living forms may be counted by examining appropriate plant
material with the aid of a microscope (Saunders and Barstow 1972) .
References
Campbell, R. L. and C. P. Balderston. 1969. New control for maple
bladder gall mite. Pesticide News 22(3):78, 80.
Saunders, J. L., and D. A. Barstow. 1972. Trisetacus campnodus control
on Finns sylvestris. J. Econ. Entomol. 65(2):500-501.
-------
-27-
Gall Insects (See also specific test methods for Adelgids)
Counts of cynipid leaf gall wasps can be made prior to leaf drop
(Koehler 1964) using enough leaves per plot to assure validity of results.
Galls may be collected and examined for living inhabitants, reporting the
% galls with live aphids (Koehler 1974).
References
Koehler, C. S. 1964. Control of Asterolecanium scales and cynipid leaf
galls on oak in Northern California. J. Econ. Entomol. 57 (4):579-581,
1974. Evaluation of 3 types of application of insecticides for
control of the lettuce root aphid, Pemphigus bursarlus, on Lombardy
Poplar. (Exhibit 15).
Leafminers
The proper interval between treatment and evaluation depends on
the species involved (Matthysse and Naegele 1952) , but in any case counts
must be made before injured leaves drop from the plants (Hartzell et al.
1943). Species (such as some infesting conifers) which cause symptoms
other than mines can be evaluated by counting the number of such sites
(Tashiro 1974). Typically the proportion of damaged leaves on treated
and untreated plants is compared by examining an appropriate number of
leaves per plant (Kulp 1963)-
References
Hartzell, A., D. L. Collins, and W. E. Blauvelt. 1943. Control of
the holly leafminer. Contri-b. Boyce Thompson Inst. 13(l):29-34.
Kulp, L. 1963. Control of the native holly leaf miner, Phytomyza
ilicicola (Diptera: Agronyzidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 56(6):736-
739.
Matthysse, J. G. , and J. A. Naegele. 1952. Control of several tree and
shrub leaf miners. J. Econ. Entomol. 45 (3) -. 377-383.
Tashiro, H. 1974. Biology and control of the spruce needle miner.
J. Econ. Entomol. 67(1):89-92.
Mealybugs
Root inhabiting forms may be counted by lifting each plant and
counting individuals on the exposed roots (Poe 1972). Stem or leaf
inhabitants may be counted by examining aerial portions of plants
(Campbell and Balderston 1971).
-------
-28-
References
Campbell, R. L., and C. P, Balderston, 1971, Insecticldal control
of grape mealybug on Taxus nursery stock on Ohio, J", Eeon.
Entomol. 64(4):985.
Poe, S. L. 1972. Treatment for control of a root mealybug on nursery
plants. J. Eaon.. Entomol, 65(1);241-242.
Root Feeders (including weevils, wireworms, grubs)
The type of soil or other medium in which the plants are grown
must be specified and, if container grown, the volume of medium should
be stated (Saunders 1970). Evaluation should be made by counting living
insects in the root area (Saunders 1970).
Reference
Saunders, J. L. 1970. Carbofuran drench for black vine weevil con-
trol on container-grown spruce. J. Econ. Entomol. 63(5):1698-
1699.
Scales
The stage of development of the scales when treated must be speci-
fied (Smith et al. 1971). If foliar treatments are being tested against
migrating crawlers it may be necessary to account for mechanical dislodge-
ment. This may be done by including a "water only" treatment as the
untreated check. Efficacy may be determined by counting survivors per
plant unit (Koehler et al. 1965) or by determining percent mortality by
examining a given number of individuals per plot (Nielsen and Johnson
1972).
Determination of individual scale mortality differs according to
whether the scale species is armored or not. Kouskolekas and Self (1972)
evaluted relative effectiveness of treatments for the armored tea scale
on the basis of mortality of adult females at monthly or bimonthly
intervals after treatment. Leaf samples of 3-4 infested leaves were
taken from the middle and upper portion of each plant. Female scales
were selected at random, the test was removed, and mortality was deter-
mined under magnification. At each sampling date two mortality counts
of 100 females were made and averaged.
Koehler et al. (1965) evaluated results of trials against the
unarmored irregular pine scale by taking 5 current-season twigs from
-------
-29-
each plot and determining mortality of scales on them by puncturing each
with a needle under magnification; live scales exude a clear-yellowish
fluid when punctured while dead scales are either dry or exude a discolored
fluid.
Evaluation may be delayed to allow residues to dissipate and survivors
to mature to a size which can be easily counted (Koehler 1974).
References
Koehler, C. S. 1974. Evaluation of insecticides and spraying schedules
for control of Kuno scale, Lecani-um kunoensis,, or pyracantha. (Exhibit 16)
Koehler, C.S., M.E. Kattoulas, and R.L. Campbell. 1965. Timing of
treatments for control of the irregular pine scale. J. Econ. Entomol.
58(6):1102-1105.
Kouskolekas, C. A., and R. L. Self. 1972. Control of tea scale on
container-grown camellias with systemic insecticides. J. Econo.
Entomol. 66(5):1163-1166.
Nielsen, D. G., and N. E. Johnson. 1972. Control of the pine needle
scale in central New York. J. Econ. Entomol. 65(4):1161-1164.
Smith, F. F., A. K. Oto, C. W. McComb, and J. A. Weidhaas, Jr. 1971.
Development and control of a wax scale, Ceroplastes ceviferus.
J. Econ. Entomol. 64(4):889-893.
Tetra nychids
Mite control on broad leaved plants may be evaluated by weekly
counts under magnification of the number of live mites per leaf using
adequate subsampling procedures (Wilson and Oliver 1969). On narrow-
leafed evergreens samples of twigs may be taken and counts made of live
mites per twig (Matthysse and Naegele 1952) . Twig lengths should be
standardized or else the counts should be reported on the basis of
number per cm. of twig. Alternatively mites can be extracted from
foliage samples by exposure to an irritant such as methyl isobutyl
ketone (Koehler and Frankie 1968).
References
Koehler, C. S., and G. W. Frankie. 1968. Distribution and seasonal
abundance of Oligonychus subnudus Monterey pine. Ann. Entomol.
Soc. Am. 61(6)-.1500-1506.
Matthysse, J. G., and J. A. Naegele. 1952. Spruce mite and southern
red mite control experiments. J. Econ. Entomol. 45(3):383-387.
-------
-30-
Wilson, N. L., and A. D. Oliver, 1969, Evaluation of some acaricides
for control of spider mites on three woody ornamentals in Louisiana.
J. Econ, Entomol. 62(6):1400-1401.
Thrips
Reinert (1973) evaluated efficacy by counting the average number of
thrips per leaf on 8-12 subsamples per replicate at weekly intervals
after treatment and this allowed him to determine the residual period
of each material in the test.
Reference
Reinert, J. A. 1973. Cuban laurel thrips: systemic insecticides for
control. J. Boon. Entomol. 66(5):1217-1218.
-------
-31-
FOREST AND SHADE TREES
Insecticides are tested for use on forest lands either to prevent
damage from, or to destroy, existing insect pest populations. Approxi-
mately one-third of the total land area of the continental United States
and coastal Alaska is covered by forests. There are about 500 different
species of insects that cause damage to forest trees. However, insecticides
are generally developed for use only against those pests which have re-
ceived attention in U. S. Forest Service Insect and Disease Regulatory
Programs and by other investigators in various sections of the United
States. These programs cover a wide spectrum of forestry uses and
may encompass treatments of from single trees to thousands of acres
in single or multiple applications. Because of the large acreages involved,
and the amount of publicly owned forest lands, public agencies also
conduct their own insecticide evaluation tests in the public interest.
It is estimated that defoliating insects and bark beetles are responsible
for 40% of all tree mortality from all destructive sources, therefore,
for the purpose of test method guidelines, these are the only insect
pests dealt with. Few insecticides have been developed that can be used
to suppress or control large-scale outbreaks of destructive forest insects.
Experimental Design (General):—It is desirable to use the largest
plot size practicable with aircraft application as soon as chemical
effectiveness is proven, to reflect actual field practices and obtain
operational dosage rates. Therefore, minimum plot size is generally
50 acres in a fixed-wing aircraft test, 20 acres for helicopter, and
1-3 individual trees for backpack or hydraulic sprayer studies. Corners
of plots using aircraft should be marked for guidance using helium filled
kytoons, groups of balloons, or other highly visible markers (Doane
1966, Doane and Dunbar 1973, USDA 1975). Study areas are usually es-
tablished with the following minimum criteria:
1. An area in which insect pest population is building and which no
more than one year's noticeable defoliation or damage has occurred prior
to the test year, to insure that natural virus incidence is minimal.
2. A readily measurable population is present.
3. Predominance of preferred host trees suitable for population
sampling (USDA 1974).
Three replications of each concentration tested are generally used
with a minimum of five replicate sample stations within each plot.
Foliage protection is frequently as important as population reduction as
an efficacy criterion (USDA 1974).
-------
-32-
Referenoes
Doane, C. C., 1966. Field tests with newer materials against the gypsy
moth. J. Econ. Entomol. 59(3):618-20.
Doane, C. C. and D. M. Dunbar, 1973. Evaluation of insecticides against
the gypsy moth and elm spanworm and repellant action of chlordi-
meform. J. Econ. Entomol. 66(5):1187-89.
USDA. 1974. Final environmental statement on the cooperative 1974
gypsy moth suppression and regulatory program, USDA Forest Service
and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. March 29, 1974.
Unpubl.
USDA. 1975. Pilot project work plan for 1 and 2 aerial applications
of fenitrothion for control of western spruce budworm 1975. US
Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, OR. Unpubl.
Gypsy Moth - Porthetrta dispgp L.
Experimental Design:—Generally two parameters are examined in an
efficacy evaluation study: foliage protection and population reduction.
Study areas with 100-900 egg masses/acre (Herbaugh et al. 1975) and a
predominance of oak trees are appropriate. Infested apple orchards
lend themselves well for ground application studies (Doane 1966).
Application Methods:—Experimental test plot sizes for ground
application are a minimum of 0.05 acres with 5-25 acres sufficient for an
aerial test; four studies are conducted on proven insecticides using
triplicate plots of 150 acres or larger. More than one geographic area
is desireable (USDA 1975). Application is usually made when the majority
of larvae are in late 2nd instar with oak foliage 50-75% expanded.
Sampling Methods:—Foliage protection is estimated by visual exami-
nation in 20% increments before and after treatment on l/40th acre
subplots on all tree species on both test and control plots. Population
reduction is estimated by measuring the percent mortality due to treatment
as evidenced by pre- and post-treatment square-yard drop cloth counts
(Merriam et al. 1970, USDA 1975) and pre- and post-treatment egg mass
counts (Herbaugh et al. 1975). Estimates of residual population are
usually measured by 24 inch terminal branch larval counts (AFRI 1972) ,
by 5 or 10 minute timed counts on I/10th acre (Merriam et al. 1970 ,
Doane 1966) or on l/40th acre subplots (USDA 1975), or by larval counts
under burlap bands (Merriam et al. 1970).
Reduction of populations to less than 250 egg masses/acre generally
will not require retreatment. Usually the measurement of treatment
effects should be followed into the following season.
-------
-33-
References
AFRI. 1972. Environmental impact and efficacy of Dylox used for gypsy
moth control in New York State. Applied Forestry Research Institute,
Syracuse, NY, Res. Rpt. No. 10. 94 pp.
Doane, C. C. 1966. Field tests with newer materials against the gypsy
moth. J. Eaon. Entomol. 59(3):617-20.
Herbaugh, L. L., W. H. McLane and C. R. Stacy. 1975. Field evaluations
of insecticides against the gypsy moth, Porthetvia di-spav L. Gypsy
Moth Methods Development Laboratory, Otis AFB, MA. Unpubl. 27 pp.
Merriam, W. A., G. C. Tower, E. C. Paszek and J. L. McDonough. 1970.
Laboratory and field evaluation of insecticides against the gypsy
moth. J. Boon. Entomol. 63(1):155-59.
Spruce and Western Spruce Budworm - Choi"istoneura fwniferana (clem.)
and C. occidentalss Freeman
Experimental Design:—Study areas 20-1000 acres in size with a pre-
dominance of spruce/fir or Douglas-fir having more than 8 larvae per
100 square inches of bark surface/mid-crown branch are appropriate
(USDA 1975, Schmiege et al. 1970).
Application Methods:—Treatment is generally scheduled shortly after
75% of the larvae reach 5th instar (USDA 1975) or in late 4th instar
(USDA 1974). Instar identification is determined using Carolin's larval
head capsule characteristics (Carolin and Coulter 1972).
Sampling Methods:—Unually 15 trees/plot in the range of 30-50 feet
high are selected as sample trees. From 2-4 fifteen-inch branch samples
are excised from the mid-crown region of each tree. Population density
is expressed as larvae/100 new buds or shoots (USDA 1975, Honing 1968,
McCowan et al. 1973). Foliage protection is usually measured by optical
examination of volume of feeding on 100 buds/tree, recorded as percent
defoliation to nearest 10% (USDA 1975, USDA 1974).
References
Carolin, V. M. and W. K. Coulter. 1972. Sampling populations of western
spruce budworm and predicting defoliation on Douglas-fir in eastern
Oregon. Pac. NW Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Paper No.
149. 38 pp.
-------
-34-
Honing, F. B. 1968. Spruce budworm Zectran pilot control test-1966.
USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 12 pp. Unpubl.
McCowan, V. F. and D. A. Stark. 1973. Operational test of mexacarbate
(Zectran) against spruce budworm in Main-1973. US Forest Service,
Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Upper Darby, PA.
Kept. No. P-73-5.
Schmiege, D. C., C. E. Crisp, R. L. Lyon, P. Miskus, R. B. Roberts
and P. J. Shea. 1970. Evaluation Report on Zectran as a substitute
of DDT in control of western spruce budworm. US Forest Service, Pac.
SW Forest and Range' Exp. Sta, Berkley, CA. Unnumbered Rpt. 35 pp.
USDA. 1974. Final environmental statement on cooperative spruce bud-
worm project. Maine 1974 Activities. Northeastern Area, State and
Private Forestry, Upper Darby, PA. 102 pp.
USDA. 1975. Pilot project work plan for 1 and 2 applications of fenitro-
thion for control of western spruce budworm-1975. US Forest Service,
Region 6, Portland OR. Unpubl.
Douglas-fir Tussock Moth - Orygia pseudosugata McD.
Experimental Design:—Study areas 20-1000 acres in size with a pre-
dominance of Douglas-fir or true firs having 20 or more larvae and/or
egg masses/1000 square inches of foliage are usually appropriate (USDA
1974, Mason 1970).
Application Methods:—Treatment is generally schedule shortly after
70% of the egg masses have hatched (USDA 1974) .
Sampling Methods:—Usually 15 trees/plot in the range of 30-50 feet
high are selected as sample trees. From 2-4 eighteen-inch branches are
excised from the mid-crown region of each tree. Population density is
expressed as larvae/1000 square inches of foliage (USDA 1974) . Foliage
protection is measured by optical examination of volume of feeding on
100 buds/tree expressed as percent defoliation to nearest 10% (USDA 1974)
References
Mason, R. R. 1970. Development of sampling methods for the Douglas-fir
tussock moth. Can. Entomol. 102:836-45.
USDA. 1974. Final environmental statement, cooperative Douglas-fir
tussock moth pest management plan. 562 pp. Unpubl.
-------
-35-
Bark Beetles - Dendroctonus frontalis Zim., Dendroctonus spp.
Experimental Design:—This group of forest insect pests includes the
southern pine beetle, mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir bark beetle, etc.
Test trees are generally mature, of even diameter at breast height and of
the same overall height. Cut bolt sections, 15 to 18 inches long, may
also be selected for test purposes (Frye and Wygant 1971). Treatments
should be randomly assigned to trees or bolt sections.
Application Methods:—Insecticide formulations are applied in
sufficient amounts for runoff to occur (spray to drip) using hand-held
garden watering cans, compressed-air sprayers, or hydraulic spray equip-
ment (Massey and Wygant 1954, Stevens 1959, Lyon 1965).
Sampling Methods:—Pre- and post-treatment counts are made for the
numbers of bark beetle larvae, pupae, and adults per square foot in both
standing infested forests and cut bolt sections (Lyon 1965, Ragenovich
and Coster 1974, Buffam et al. 1973, Massey and Wygant 1954).
References
Buffam, P. E., C. K. Lister, R. E. Stevens, and R. H. Frye. 1973. Fall
cacodylic acid treatments to produce lethal traps for spruce beetles.
Environ. Entomol. 2:259-262.
Lyon, R. L. 1965. Structure and toxicity of insecticide deposits for
control of bark beetles. USDA Technical Bulletin No. 1343. 59 p.
Lyon, R. L., and B. E. Wickman. 1960. Mortality of the western pine
beetle and California five-spined Ips in a field trial of lindane.
U.S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-166. 7 p.
Massey, C. L., and N. D. Wygant. 1954. Biology and control of the
engelmann spruce beetle in Colorado. USDA Circular No. 944. 35 p.
Ragenovich, I. R., and J. E. Coster. 1974. Evaluation of same carbamate
and phosphate insecticides against southern pine beetles and Ips
bark beetles. J. Econ. Entomol. 67:763-5.
Schmid, J. M. 1972. Reduced ethylene dibromide concentrations or field
oil alone kills spruce beetles. J. Soon. Entomol. 65:1520-1.
Stevens, R. E. 1959. Ethylene dibromide sprays for controlling bark
beetles in California. U.S. Forest Service, California Forest
and Experiment Station Note No. 147. 6 p.
Yasinski, F. M. 1956. Pilot test of ethylene dibromide in an oil
solution for control of roundheaded pine beetle, Coconino National
Forest. Forest Service Research Note RM-29. 2 p.
-------
-36-
Exhibit 1
USE OF AEROSOL PROPELLANT TO APPLY INSECTICIDES
R. K. Lindquist
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio
This method is for the use of small universal aerosol devices
to apply insecticides to run-off to small groups of plants.
The units, Universal Aerosol Kits®, manufactured by ICN Pharma-
ceuticals, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, are very useful in applying insecti-
cides to small groups of plants. Insecticide solutions or suspensions
are mixed in 100-150 ml lots and placed in container attached to the
pressurized can by means of a plastic holder. Applications with these
devices simulates spraying to run-off with a larger sprayer.
-------
-37-
Exhibit 2
GREEN PEACH APHID CONTROL ON CHRYSANTHEMUMS
R, K, Lindquist
Department of Entomology
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 44691
Control of green peach aphids on greenhouse chrysanthemums with
insecticides applied as foliar sprays.
Mean no, aphids on indicated day after
Application treatment.^/
Treatment Rate 1
A 0,25 gm 0
A 1.0 gm 0
B 0,25 gm 0.5
B 1.0 gm 0.2
Check - 18,2
2
0
0
0
0,5
18
6 14 21 27
000 0.2
0 1.0 1.2 0
0 000
0 000
20 20 24 26
*L>Means of 4 replications; 2 plants/replicate; aphids recorded from upper
surface of 4 apical leaves/replicate.
Cultivar: 'Bright Golden Anne'
Stage of Growth: Vegetative, 4 wk after potting.
Application Equipment: 7.8 liter compressed air sprayer.
Temperature: Generally 23-24°C day, 16-16°C night.
Phytotoxicity: None noted in this test.
Remarks: Both materials were effective in controlling green peach
aphids at rates used.
-------
-38-
Exhibit 3
TESTS ON CARNATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE
TWO SPOTTED SPIDER MITE, Tetranychus urticae (Koch)
D. L. Schuder
Department of Entomology
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
An established bed of carnations was divided into . 8 m^ (9 ft2)
and an experiment laid out with 4 replications on April 12, 1974 at
the Indiana State Soldier's Home greenhouse. At the time of application
it was bright and sunny, the temperature was 35°C (96°F) and the relative
humidity was 64%. Sprays were applied with a 3.8 liter B & G compressed
air sprayer. Granules were app;ied by passing a Vibro-Seeder between
the rows of carnation plants, plants were watered immediately. Aerosols
were applied for 45 seconds per plot at approximately 46 cm (18 in.)
from the plants.
A 30 cm (12 in.) sample of carnation stem and leaves was removed,
placed in a paper bag and transported to the laboratory where the samples
were brushed from the plants with a Henderson-McBurnie mite brushing
machine. Mites removed from the plant were collected on 12 cm round
glass plates. The mites were counted beneath a binocular, dissecting
microscope.
There was some aerosol burn from A, and C caused some blanching of
buds.
Samples were taken at time of treatment (T) and at T + 1, T + 7,
(time of 2T 4/22/74) 2T + 7, 2T + 14.
The results of this experiment are shown in the following table:
Formulation
Treatment
A
B
A
A
A
C
D
E
F
Check - Untreated
LRSD 5%
LRSD 1%
Average
T T + 1
.8
1.0
1.8
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.8
.3
8
4.3 8
5.4
-
no. mites
T + 7
1.8
2.8
6.3
4.0
3.0
1.5
1.0
.5
7.5
10.5
5.4
-
sample dates
2T + 7
4
9.3
4,5
3
9.3
8
0
13
27.8
11
9.7
13.1
2T + 14
7.5
38.0
13.0
7.7
6.7
4.8
.3
21
25
17.5
13.5
18.2
-------
-39-
Examination of these data indicate that all of the treatments except
F reduced the population of the two spotted spider mite significantly
in the first experiment. The second treatment did not result in a
dramatic reduction of the numbers of mites. D was the outstanding material
for control of the two-spotted mite on carnations. Of the series of A
treatments applied, the granular formulation seemed to perform the best
and gave the longest period of effectiveness.
-------
-40-
Exhibit 4
CHRYSANTHEMUM TESTS
GREEN PEACH APHID CONTROL
J. E. Appleby
Illinois Natural History Survey
Urbana, Illinois 61801
CROP: Greenhouse chrysanthemums (pot): Cvs. "Orange Bowl", "Mermaid",
"Neptune", "Vermilion", "Ice Follies".
STAGE: Nearly full bloom
PEST: Green peach aphid, Mysus persioae
METHODS: Chemicals were applied as soil drenches onto 21,2 cm diam. pots,
each pot containing 5 plants of one variety. Each treatment was
applied onto 1 pot of each variety.
TREATMENT DATE: April 21, 1972
TEMPERATURE: 21-230C
Treatments
Applied
April 21, 1972
Pretreatment
No. of blooms
with live
aphids
Count
with no
live aphids
May 7,
No. of blooms
with live
aphids
1972
with no
live aphids
Check
A
B
49
73
69
0
0
0
49
10
34
Phytotoxicity
None, blooms are open on all varieties
0
63
35
-------
-41-
Exhibit 5
GREEN PEACH APHID CONTROL ON CHRYSANTHEMUMS
R. G. Helgesen
Department of Entomology
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14850
Materials and Methods
The experimental design to test the efficacy of four systemic
insecticides to control aphids on chrysanthemums included a control
and insecticide treatments of A, B, C and D at dosages of approximately
1/2X, IX and 3X recommended rates applied to the following ten chry-
santhemum varieties:
1 - Mefo 6 - Indianapolis
2 - Southern Comfort 7 - Princess Anne
3 - Fred Shoesmith 8 - Iceberg
4 - Albatross 9 - May Shoesmith
5 - Southern Sun 10 - Detroit News
The design was replicated four times.
Five cm rooted cuttings of these varieties were obtained from Yoder
Brothers of Barberton, Ohio. The rooted cuttings were planted in 12.7
cm pots containing the Cornell Peat-lite mix. The plants were maintained
on a constant feed program of a 20-20-20 fertilizer and grown at 21°C day -
15°C night temperatures. They were brought to flower under standard com-
mercial practices. One week after potting ten green peach aphids were
placed on each plant from cultures maintained at the insectary. Three
weeks after potting insecticides were applied to the soil at the following
rates:
Dosage of formulated material
Formulation 1/2X IX 3X
(recommended rate)
15% granular
19% granular
10% granular
R LC
.5 gm
.5 gm
.5 gm
.5 gm
1 gm
1 gm
1 gm
1 gm
3 gm
3 gm
3 gm
3 gm
-------
-42-
The same applications were repeated 8 weeks after planting, so that
the insecticide treatment consisted of two applications during the pro-
duction of the crop.
Twelve weeks after potting, when flowers were in full bloom, the
number of aphids on the top leaf of each plant was counted. The height
of the plant was measured and the level of phytotoxicity was evaluated
on a scale of 0-5 (0 = none, 5 = total). Analysis of variance of these
data were computed using the analysis of variance, program for factorial
design developed by the Computer Activities Group at Cornell,
Results and Discussion
Three dependent variables: (1) the number of aphids per top-leaf,
(2) the relative level of visible phytotoxicity, and (3) plant height,
were observed as measures of insecticide efficacy in this experiment. A
three-level factorial design including insecticide treatment, dosage and
plant variety was used for the analysis of variance for each of the de-
pendent variables.
Aphid Control:—Although there were significant differences in the
number of aphids per top-leaf at all three levels, the differences between
insecticide treatment means (F = 74) were much greater than those between
dosages (F = 4) and varieties (F = 5). When all dosages were considered,
the number of aphids per top-leaf was lowest in the 10G treatment in all
varieties (x 8).
-------
GRANULAR SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES FOR GREEN PEACH APHID CONTROL ON CHRYSANTHEMUMS
R. K. Lindquist
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 446910
Regular and latered release formulations for green peach aphid control on pot- grown chry-
santhemums .
Treatment^/
Rate Mean no. aphids/plant at indicated interval pre- and posttreatmentJl'
(gm/pot) Pretreat 24 hr 72 hr 7 day 14 day 21 day 28 day
Regular 0.1
Regular 0.05
Altered release 0.1
Altered release 0.05
Untreated
62.8
65.5
105.2
68
86.5
29.5
55
125
325
127.2
0
3.5
22.2
4.0
153.2
0
0
0
0
281.2
0
.2
0
0
340.2
0
0
0
0
490.2
2.5
10.5
19.2
14.8
1020.5
LO
I
—'Applied 10/22/74; all treatments applied to soil surface; cv. "Bright Golden Anne"; plants
approximately 6 wk old.
—'Means of 4 replicates; aphids recorded from 1 plant/rep.
Temperatures were variable, depending on sky cover. Generally, the range was 21-22°C day,
18-19°C night.
No phytotoxicity noted.
Was very little difference in effectiveness of the 2 formulations in controlling green peach
aphids in this test.
w
x
cr
H-
cr
H-
-------
-44-
ExhibjLt 7
FLOWER THRIPS EXTRACTION
F, S. Morishita
Department of Entomology
University of California
Riverside, California
Extracting thrips or aphids out of the flower or plant samples is
accomplished with Berlese funnels. With this technique, the samples
are collected in alcohol and labelled so that if time does not permit
an immediate count, the count can be made later.
-------
-45-
Exhibit 8
FLOWER THRIP EXPERIMENT
D. L. Schuder
Department of Entomology
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
An established bed of carnations was divided into 1 nr- plots and
an experiment laid out with 4 replications on April 12, 1974 at the
Indiana State Soldier's Home greenhouse. At the time of application it
was bright and sunny, the temperature was 35°C (96°F) and the relative
humidity was 64%. Sprays were applied with a 3,8 liter B and G sprayer
and, granulaes were applied with a Vibra-seeder passed between the rows
of carnation plants and watered immediately. Aerosols were applied for
45 seconds approximately .5 m from the plants.
Carnation flowers from each plot were removed, placed in paper
sacks and transported to the laboratory where the flowers were split
open and placed in Berlese tunnels for 24 hours. The thrips driven from
the blossoms were caught in vials containing 70% alcohol and then counted
in a watch glass under a binocular, dissecting microscope. Samples were
taken at the time of treatment (T) and at T + 1, T+4, T+7, T+10
(time of second treatment 4/22/74) and samples were taken at 2T + 7 and
2T + 10.
There was some aerosol burn from A and C caused some blanching of
buds.
The results of the experiment are shown in the following table:
-------
1974
FLOWER TRIPS, Franklini,ella trit-ioi FITCH ON CARNATIONS
INDIANA STATE SOLDIER'S HOME
Formulation
Treatment T T + 1
A - 33.6
B - 8.5
C - 27.5
D - 31
E - 31
F - 22
G - 15 . 3
H - 37
Check 61.3 36
Average No. thrips/f lower
Sample Dates
T + 4
2.3
3.0
0
7.5
4.3
8.5
' 11
8
15
T + 7
1.5
23.3
2
1.8
2
2.5
9
7.3
14.5
T + 10 2T + 4
4 2.8
3.3 11
11 8.3
3.8 5
2.3 19.3
2.5 7
6 32.3
24.5 53.8
19.5 38.3
2T + 7
5.3
17.8
6
5.3
5.8
11
10.8
1
16
2T + 10
4.8
12
12.8
10.8
20.3
12.5
9.8
21.5
28.3
I
•e-
LRSD
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
-------
-47-
Exhibit 9
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS INSECTICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF
THE GREENHOUSE WHITEFLY ON GERBERA - San Jose, 1972
W. L. Allen
Department of Entomology
University of California
Berkeley, California
The tabular data illustrate the use of pre-treatment counts in es-
tablishing the presence of a infestation, suitable sampling methods and
sampling intervals.
Material
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Check
Lbs. act.
per 100 gals. I/
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-
Pre-
Treatment
count
9,080
11,152
7,228
12,896
11,604
10,748
10,424
12,732
11,954
11,430
9 /
Post treatment count after:—'
12 days 20 days 27 days
93 a 992 a 64
1,719 b 957 a 2,212
6,007 c 4,488 ab 3,254
9,232 c 1,730 a 683
21,527 c -
10,956 c -
11,439 c -
12,102 c -
20,004 c -
11,532 c 7,443 b 6,037
.I/Full coverage sprays applied on March 31.
A/The number of whiteflies found on 5 leaf punches 4 cm in diameter. Counts
followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
No injury was evident from any of the treatments.
-------
-48-
Exhibit 10
WHITEFLY CONTROL ON POINSETTIAS
R, K, Lindquist
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 44691
Poinsettias were grown in 10.2 cm diam. pots.
Granules were broadcast on foliage of closely-spaced plants with a
shaker jar; granules were applied to foliage from pre-weighed dosages in
glass vials.
Temperatures during the experiment varied but were generally 21-22°C
day and 18-20°C night.
No phytotoxicity was observed throughout the trial.
Treatment^/
Soil (Broadcast)
Wet Foliage (Broadcast)
Dry Foliage (Broadcast)
Untreated
CultivarW
White
Red
White
Red
White
Red
White
Red
Mean no . nymphs on inducated
day posttreatment^.'
14
75.8
216.0
166.5
159.8
329.0
143.0
460.2
206.5
21
10
7.2
14.5
8
26.2
24.2
45.5
39.8
37
0.2
0
4.8
4.2
0.5
0,8
76,8
30.2
83
0.2
1
0.5
4.8
0
2.2
70.5
50.2
104
26.5
17
34.5
24.0
3.0
18.2
52.5
18.5
£'Applied 10/30/73; foliar treatments applied at rate of 4 oz. formulation/
100 ft2; soil treatment applied at rate of 0.1 gm formulation/10.2 cm diam.
(= 4-in.).
WWhite = "Ekkespoint C-l White"; Red = "Dark Red Hegg".
£/Means of 8 replications; whitefly nymphs recorded from 2 subapical leaves/
rep.
-------
EVALUATING INSECTICIDES FOR GREENHOUSE WHITEFLY CONTROL ON POINSETTIA
D. L. Schuder
Department of Entomology
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana
Similarly infested 15.2 cm tall (6-in.) plants were selected, and each treatment applied to 4 plants
(1 plant = 1 replicate). Leaves for future sampling of immature stages were marked with white tags. Tempera-
ture at application was 28°C (80°F). Application was made with B & G sprayers operating at 30 psi. Counts
of the number of live nymphs and empty "puparia" were made 7 and 14 days post treatment. No mention was
made of the number of leaves or leaf sections sampled. This should be made clear in the future use of this or
similar method.
Results of Whitefly Experiment
Material
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Check
L.R.S.D. 5%
L.R.S.D. 1%
Gals. Water
3/4 Ib
Aerosol
1 qt.
Aerosol
75%
2 qts.
Aerosol
Untreated
Counting
T T + 7
Live Emerged Live
71. 5a
124 a
145. 2a
158. 8a
193. 5a
226. 5b
470. 8b
162.3 71.2 220 a
132.5
216.6
Dates
Emerged
25 a
10 a
31 a
70. 3b
7.3a
20. 5a
84. 3b
75. 8b
47.7
—
T + 14
Live
157. 3a
151. 3a
178. 5a
190. 9a
217. 5a
203. 5a
345. 3b
196. 7a
110
180
Emerged
4.8
3.3
20.5
64.8
5.0
10.8 jw
41.0 £
rt
45.0 £
NS
NS
-------
-50-
Exhibit 12
EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF THE CYPRESS TIP
MOTH, 'Arqiji'esthia cupressella, ON Thuja (ARBORVITAE) , Berkeley Calif.
1973-74
C. S. Koehler
Division of,Entomology and Parasitology
University of California
Berkeley, California
Treatment^/
A
A
B
C
D
E
(3 EC)
(3 EC)
(75 EC)
(4,320 lU/Mg)
(2 EC)
(4 EC)
Untreated
Act, toxicant,
Ib./lOO gal.
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
-
Avg , no .
cocoons/
10 grams
foliage±/
0.32
0.30
0.43
10.53
0.37
1.57
14.95
Unsight-
liness
rating^-'
1.5
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.5
2.0
3.8
I/
2/
3/
Treatments applied May 16, 1973, when adult moths were active. Full
coverage sprays applied by hand compression sprayer to single plant
(4-6' tall) plots replicated 4 times. No evidence of phytotoxicity
noted from any treatment.
Cocoon counts made Mar. 15, 1974 after taking 4, 4" terminal samples
of foliage from each plot. Foliage samples weighed to standardize
foliage volume.
1 = no unsightliness attributable to tip moth, to 4, representing severe
browning of plants. Rating of 2.0 or over considered unacceptable.
-------
-51-
Exhibit 13
EVALUATION OF GRANULATED INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF WHITEFLIES ON
CONTAINER-GROWN Celtis australis, Saratoga, Calif. 1973
C. S. Koehler
Division of Entomology and Parasitology
University of California
Berkeley, California
Material!/
A
A
A
B
10 C
10 C
10 C
1 Cl/
Untreated
Act. tox. ,
Ib. /acre
5
7.5
10
10
-
Formulation Immature whitef lies/20
(g.) used/ after (days):—'
6" pot 20
.1 17
.15 21
.2 13
2 24
41
34
16
6
2
19
116
39
10
7
0
18
50
48
14
7
7
39
65
55
12
7
11
24
106
leaves
62
13
20
11
95
73
74
36
11
35
396
72
—' Applied to single 1 gal. pots by sprinkling granules on soil surface.
Plants 12" tall, replicated 4 times. No phytotoxicity noted.
?_/ 5 leaves taken from each plant at intervals noted, and examined under
magnification. Nymphs and pupae counted.
^ On 8-8-8 fertilizer.
-------
-52-
Exhibit 14
EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES APPLIED AS SPRAYS FOR CONTROL OF THE BARBERRY
LOOPER, Coryphista meadi} ON CONTAINER GROWN OREGON GRAPE, Mahonia aqui folia,
Saratoga, Calif. 1973
C. S. Koehler
Division of Entomology and Parasitology
University of California
Berkeley, California
Mater ialA-/
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Untreated
No.
Ib./lOO gal, 5
1.0 0
.5 0
1.0 0
.5 0
I/ 1
i/ 12
.5 0
.5 0
130
living larvae/6
after (days) :^
12
0
0
0
1
13
21
1
10
71
plants
26
1
2
1
0
4
8
2
6
14
I/
I/
Applied to single plant (12-24" high) plots, replicated 6 times, on June 7
Full coverage sprays applied using hand compression sprayers. No
phytotoxicity noted from any treatment.
All living larvae on each plant counted at intervals noted.
2 lb. wettable powder formulation, containing 4,320 I.U./Ng used/100 gal.
water.
0.5 lb. wettable powder formulation, containing 6,000 A.U.Ak./Mg, used/
100 gal. water.
-------
-53-
Exhibit 15
EVALUATION OF 3 TYPES OF APPLICATION OF INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF THE
LETTUCE ROOT APHID,
Pemphigus bursccrius, ON LOMBARDY POPLAR4' , Lompoe^
Calif, 1974
C, S. Koehler
Division of Entomology and Parsitology
Material
A (50 WP)
B (75 SP)1/
C (2 EC)
Untreated
C (2 EC)
B (2.67 EC)
Untreated
D (86 Technical)
D (86 Technical)
Untreated
University of California
Berkeley, California
No. galls No
Actual counted
toxicant in
in Ibs. 2 min.
per acre period
Spray Applications^-'
0.5 67
1.0 28
0.375 41
128
Paint-on Applications-i-'
38 '
31
63
Trunk Implementations-^-'
109
129
188
. galls
opened
for
aphid
count
60
27
40
78
36
29
54
28
40
40
No . live
aphids
in
galls
opened
1048
0
47
4953
501
538
2588
876
787
2097
%
galls
with
live
aphids
24
0
3
99
27
34
89
55
33
98
-L/ Treatments applied Apr. 5, 1974. Evaluations made May 16, 1974.
2 /
—' Sprayed to point of complete coverage using hydraulic equipment at
200 psi. Four replications of all treatments; single tree plots.
-------
-54-
Slight marginal or interveinal necrosis (phytotoxicity) resulted from
treatment.
One foot wide encircling band applied at ground level, using paint
brush and undiluted insecticide formulation. Three replications of all
treatments, single tree plots.
One and 2 ml. Mauget units used, respectively. Applied 6' below point
of first tree branching. Six inch interval. Two replications of all
treatments; single tree plots.
-------
-55-
Exhibit 16
EVALUATIONl/ OF INSECTICIDES AND SPRAYING SCHEDULES FOR CONTROL OF KUNO
SCALE, Lecanium kunoensis, ON PYRACANTHA, Walnut Creek, Calif. 1973-74
C. S, Koehler
Division of Entomology and Parasitology
University of California
Berkeley, California
Material
A
A
B
B
C
C
(75 SP)
(75 SP)
(3 EC)
(3 EC)
(80 Spr.)
(80 Spr.)
Untreated
Act. tox. , Date(s) of Avg. no.
Ibs. per application?-' scales/inch of
100 gal. in 1973 twig growth!/
1.0 June 16 2
1.0 June 16, July 5 0
0.5 June 16 0
1.0 June 16 0
1.0 June 16 1
1.0 June 16, July 5 0
- - 3
.23
.65
.97
.82
.33
.45
.28
% scale
reduction^/
32
80
70
75
59
86
-
I/
I/
3/
Single plant plots sprayed to point of complete coverage using hand
compression sprayer. Four replications.
Peak of crawler emergence in 1973 occurred approximately June 1.
Evaluation made May 27, 1974; surviving females counted on 5 twig
samples, each approximately 11 inches long, collected from each plot,
------- |