ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS-EFFICACY TEST METHODS
                                       VOLUME III
                         GENERAL SOIL TREATMENTS
         -.•" ,
                              EPA-540/10-77-007

-------
                      REPORT To THE
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
  INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS - EFFICACY TEST METHODS
                      VOLUME III
                GENERAL SOIL TREATMENTS
    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.

-------
                 GENERAL SOIL TREATMENTS TASK GROUP
                              Chairman:

                       PR. MAHL0W FAIRCHILP
                   University of Missouri-Columbia
PR. CHRISTIAN C. BURKHARPT
University of Wyoming
PR. J. MARSHALL MAGWER
Monsanto Company
PR. WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL
North Carolina State University
PR. GERALP J. MUSICK
Coastal Plain Experiment Station
PR. JOHW L1BBV
University of Wisconsin
EPA Observer:
AIBS Coordinators:
MR. ROGER PIERP0WT                MS. PATRICIA RUSSELL
Criteria and Evaluation Division  MR. POMALP R. BEEM

-------
                       GENERAL SOIL TREATMENTS
                          Table of Contents
                                                                 Page
Introduction	1
Pesticide Test Report	3
Corn	4
  Corn Rootworm	4
  Cutworms	16
  Wireworms	19
Peanuts	22
  Southern Corn Rootworm (Spotted Cucumber Beetle)	22
  Lesser Cornstalk Borer	24
  Granulate Cutworm	26
  Burrowing Bug	27
  Tobacco Thrips	28
  Potato Leaf hopper	30
Sugarbeets	31
  Sugarbeet Root Maggot	31
Tobacco	35
  Tobacco Wireworm - Southern Potato Wirevora	35
  Dark-sided Cutworm	37
  Green June Beetle	39
  Tobacco Flea Beetle	40
Vegetable Crops	43

  Cabbage, Cauliflower, Broccoli, Brussels Sprouts
    Cabbage Maggot	43

  Radish
    Cabbage Maggot	45

  Rutabaga, Turnip
    Cabbage Maggot, Turnip Maggot	47

  Onion
    Onion Maggot	50

-------
   Snap Bean, Lima Bean,  Dry Beans, Sweet Corn, English
     or Garden Pea, Cucurbits
     Seed Corn Maggot	52

   Sweet Potatoes
     Tobacco Wireworm,  Southern Potato Wireworm	54

   Potatoes
     Wireworms	•	56
 Exhibits:

 1   Test Method for Southern Corn Rootworm on Corn	60

 2   Test Method for Northern and Western Corn Rootworm on Corn	63

 3   Test Method for Cutworms on Corn.	65

 4   Test Method for Black Cutworm on Corn	67

 5   Test Method for Cutworms on Corn	70

 6   Test Method for Wireworms on Corn	75

 7   Test Method for Wireworms on Corn	77

 8   Test Method for Wireworms on Corn	80

 9   Insecticide Test Method for Southern Corn Rootworm on Peanuts...85

10   Insecticide Test Method for Thrips Control on Peanuts.	87

11   Insecticide Test Method for Potato Leafhopper Control on
       Peanuts	91

12   Procedures for Testing Insecticides Against Sugarbeet
       Root Maggot	93

13   Test Method for Determining Field Efficacy of Soil Insecticides
       for Control of Sugarbeet Root Maggots	94

14   Methods to Evaluate Insecticides for Sugarbeet Root
       Maggot Control	96

15   Insecticide Test Method for Flea Beetle on Tobacco	98

16   Method of Testing Chemicals for Efficacy Against the
       Cabbage Maggot, Hylemya Brassioae (Bouche)	100

-------
                            INTRODUCTION
     The testing of soil insecticides for efficacy is extremely complex and
it would be impossible to put together guidelines for all soil insecti-
cides; therefore, an attempt has been made to pull together some test
methods for major pests on a few commodities.  The commodities selected
are corn, vegetables, sugarbeets, peanuts and tobacco.  It would be
impossible to cover all pests that might require soil insecticides
under each of the commodities chosen.

     The problems related to compiling generally accepted test methods
to provide efficacy data for soil insecticides are many and complex.
For example, when dealing with such groups as cutworms, wireworms,
grubs, corn rootworms, maggots, and others, one is not working with
individual species, but from one to many different species of insects
in each of the groups mentioned.  Researchers cannot be sure of the
number of species that make up a particular complex of insects that
might attack a given crop.  This makes testing of insecticides very
difficult and must be given consideration when one determines the
number of test sites that should be included for soil insecticides
on a complex of insects such as wireworms, cutworms, grubs, etc.
Many times in the past a species of a given insect has actually gone
unidentified.

     A first endeavor was to review and accept a report form that
would be common for all commodities where soil insecticides are being
tested.  A copy of a suggested form is attached.  Determining the ef-
ficacy of a particular soil insecticide in soil is a very complex
study and for that reason this report form includes necessary data for
a complete evaluation of a compound.  It is known that factors such
as organic matter content, soil type, pH, microorganisms, soil moisture -
to mention a few - have a tremendous effect on the performance of soil
insecticides.  The number of tests that must be conducted to determine
the efficacy of a particular insecticide is dependent upon the vari-
ability of the soil in which the pest organisms are found.

     Complete published methods for efficacy testing of soil insecti-
cides are for the most part unavailable.  Test methods described here-
in were compiled from applicable reports of time tested procedures.

     It is recognized that protocols for testing soil insecticides
must not be static and a great amount of flexibility must remain for
determining the efficacy of soil insecticides.  For example, the plot
size that should be used may vary from a one row plot 20 feet long to
a plot as large as an acre in size, depending upon the objectives of the
particular experiment.  Also, the plot size is going to be dependent
upon such variables as uniformity of the soil, magnitude of the in-
festation, and equipment available to the scientist.  As a rule, the
smaller the plot size, the less variability one would encounter and
likewise, the less number of replicates that would be needed to obtain
statistically sound data.  Plot size should be given serious considera-
tion when one is working with insects which might migrate from plot to

-------
                              -2-
plot.  Methods of application also are dependent upon the particular
material involved and the availability of material.  Likewise, as
newer materials become available, new methods of application must be
given consideration.  It is unwise to limit the rate of application
per acre.  The rate of application per acre is dependent upon the
efficacy of the compound, economics of the particular material, and
the hazards which might be encountered from the use of the material.
Future compounds may dictate some very unusual rates compared to those
commonly used today.  The rate of application really should not be con-
sidered a function of the test method.  However, rates tested should
be given in pounds active ingredient per acre (kilograms per hectare).
When row applications are made, rates should be expressed as ounces
per linear foot of row (grams per meter).  In such cases, row spacing
should always be given.

-------
                              -3-

                        PESTICIDE TEST REPORT

     The following information  should be provided as completely as
applicable in reporting the results of efficacy tests:

CROP (AND VARIETY)	

PEST(S) (AND STAGE - e.g., LARVAE, ADULT)_	

COOPERATOR'S NAME_	

LOCATION	

YEAR
COMPOUND
FORMULATION AND LOT OR BATCH NUMBER_

SPECIFIC METHOD OF APPLICATION

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
RATE OF ACTIVE INGREDIENT APPLIED
TOTAL FORMULATION AND TOTAL VOLUME OF SPRAYS APPLIED PER ACRE OR PER 100
GALLONS	__	___	

PLANTING DATE	

PLOT SIZE AND ROW SPACING	

NUMBER OF REPLICATES	

PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF PHYTOTOXICITY
PERFORMANCE  (INSECT COUNTS, ROOT AND LEAF RATINGS, PRE-TREATMENT COUNTS
WHERE APPLICABLE, ETC.)   	         	
SOIL TYPE WHERE SOIL PESTICIDES ARE APPLIED_

YIELD DATA
WEATHER CONDITIONS DURING TEST
OTHER PESTICIDES USED ON SAME PLOTS_

COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER PRODUCES
PRESENCE OF WILDLIFE AND BENEFICIAL INSECTS (IDENTIFY)

EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE OR BENEFICIAL INSECTS	

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS

-------
                                    -4-
                                     CORN
      Corn is  attacked by  several soil inhabiting insect pests  that  include
 corn rootworms,  cutworms, wireworms, seed corn maggot, seed corn beetles,
 white grubs,  corn  root  aphids, and billbugs.  Populations of these  soil
 insects  are controlled  by applications of insecticides to the  soil.  Although
 the major proportion of the soil insecticide treatments on corn is  for soil
 insects,  some above-ground insects such as armyworm, European  corn  borer, and
 south-western corn borer  are controlled by systemic action of  soil  applied
 insecticides.  Although all of these insects can become a significant problem
 on corn,  the  major soil insects based on pounds of soil insecticide used are
 the corn  rootworms, cutworms, and wireworms.

      The  complex association of these pests with the soil adds another dimen-
 sion to  studies  on insect biology and insecticide efficacy.  In addition to
 insect population  parameters and environmental factors, soil factors such as
 soil type, texture, organic matter, and drainage must be evaluated.

      The  test  methods reported are compiled from several sources.   They are
 continually changing as new techniques and methodology for insect detection
 and soil  analysis  are developed.  Consequently, an appendix of test methods
 must be routinely  updated to reflect these changes,


 Corn Rootworm

      The major species  of corn rootworm larvae attacking the root systems of
 corn are  the southern corn rootworm (D-idbrot-isa undecimpunctata howard-i Barber) ,
 northern  corn  rootworm  (Diabrotioa longi.corn-is (Say)) and the western corn
 rootworm  (Di-abrotiaa V-irg-ifera LeConte) .  Although specific test methods vary,
 they contain much  similarity.


      Site Selection:—Site selection for field tests of efficacy is based on
 severe corn rootworm damage the preceeding year (8), on a fall egg  population
 estimate  (3,8), on the  presence of numerous adults in August of the preceding
year  (5,6,8),  or on a combination of these techniques.  In addition, trap crops
are  often used (5,6,7,  Exhibit II).  The trap crop consists of corn which is
planted later than normal in an area of high beetle populations.  The beetles
are  attracted into the  trap crop and oviposit there.


      Crop and Plot Management:—A commercially adapted variety is selected
which  is susceptible to rootworm feeding and is noted for poor root regeneration
 (5,6,7,8,10,  Exhibit II).  Row spacings and plant populations are those consis-
 tent with current  recommended agronomic practices (3,5,6,7,8, Exhibit I, II).

      Plot management techniques are generally the same as employed  for normal
 corn production at the  test site (3,6,7,8, Exhibit I, II),  To evaluate the
 efficacy of soil insecticides for control of corn rootworm larvae under normal

-------
                                   -5-
field conditions, it is important to maintain fertility, weed control and
planting procedures similar to those accepted for good corn production.  Gen-
erally, the corn rows are planted parallel to the old rows (8) and coincide
with those at the test site which facilitates normal field operations (fertil-
ization, cultivation, etc.).


     Test Procedures;—Standard statistical designs are employed as necessary
to meet the objective of the experiment (1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, Exhibit I, II).
Generally, 4 replications are adequate for field efficacy studies.

     Insecticidal evaluations are based on plots from 1-8 rows wide (1,3,5,6,
7,8,9,10, Exhibits I, II) and from 25'-100' (7.6-30.5 meters) long (1,3,5,6,7,
10, Exhibit I, II).  Usually, the test site is located within a field of larger
dimension than the test plot to minimize any border effects.   When this is not
feasible, borders range from 2-4 rows around the edge of the field.  No evalua-
tions are made in the first or last 10-15 ft. (3.05-4.6 meters) of each plot
to allow for variations in treatments because of equipment starting or stopping
(6,8).

     For granular soil insecticides, the methods for applying soil insecticides
range from a modified V-belt seeder to a commercial planter equipped with
commercially available granular insecticide boxes (1,3,6,7,8,10, Exhibit I, II).

     For the liquid formulations, applications are usually made with a modified
spray delivery system (5,7,8), which is hand carried or planter mounted.

     Because applications in a 7 inch (17.5 cm) band centered over the corn
row and in front of the presswheel have been shown to be the most effective (9) ,
initial efficacy is generally based on this type of application (2,7,8, Exhibit
II).  Other methods of application commonly evaluated are in-furrow at planting
(2,7,8, Exhibit I), preplant broadcast incorporated (5,6,9, Exhibit I) and
combinations with liquid fertilizers at planting (5,6,7,8).

     Both granular and liquid soil insecticide applications for control of corn
rootworm larvae are made at planting and/or at first cultivation (3,4,5,6,7,8,
10, Exhibit I).  Planting time applications are consistent with normal planting
dates and often include some planting dates which are early and/or late for the
area (3,4,6,7,8).

     All efficacy tests on soil insecticides contain untreated controls and at
least one standard insecticide treatment for comparison in each replication of
the test.

     Natural infestations are relied upon for these tests,  To enhance the
probability of an infestation, the procedure as outlined under Site Selection
is employed (i.e., egg counts, trap crops, etc.).


     Evaluations:—The efficacy of a soil insecticide for control of corn root-
worm larvae is based on larvae counts, (3,7, Exhibit II), root damage ratings
(4,5,6,7,8,10, Exhibit II), adjusted root damage rating (5), root damage inde^
(7),  or a combination of 2 or more of these methods.  Although yield determina-

-------
                                   -6-
tions are used, usually efficacy is measured by one or more of the above methods.
The most utilized method is the root damage rating.

     Evaluations are made at the time of peak root feeding damage.  Oftentimes,
evaluations commence when the majority of the insect population is in the pupal
stage, except for the southern corn rootworm where seed and seedling damage is
evaluated (Exhibit I).

     Most data are analyzed according to standard Analysis of Variance  (ANOVA)
procedures.  Differences among means are determined by numerous methods  (LSD,
Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, etc.) (3,4,5,6,7,8,10, Exhibits I, II).  Most
inferences are made at the 95% confidence level,


     Effectiveness:—To be judged effective against the corn rootworm larvae,
a soil insecticide must compare favorably with currently recommended insecticides
(3,4,5,6,7,8,10, Exhibit I, II).  In addition, it must show no adverse effects
on yield or no phytotoxicity.   Phytotoxicity is determined by general plant
vigor and/or stand counts (2,6,7,8, Exhibit I, II).  Phytotoxicity studies can
be independent of insecticide efficacy studies (2) .
                                  References


 (Modified references follow this section on References and Exhibits)


 1.   Apple, J. W.  1961.  Appraisal of insecticidal granules in the row against
        damage by the northern corn rootworm.  J. Eoon.  Entomol,  54(5):833-36.

 2.   Apple, J. W.  1971.  Response of corn to granular insecticides applied
        to the row at planting.  J.  Eoon.  Entomol.   64(5):1208-11.

 3.   Apple, J. W. , E. T. Walgenbach, and W. J. Knee.  1969.  Northern corn
        rootworm control by granular insecticide application at planting and
        cultivation time.  J.  Eoon.  Entomol.   62(5):1033-35.

 4.   Hills, Tom M., and Don C. Peters.  1971.  A method of evaluating postplant-
        ing insecticide treatments for control of western corn rootworm larvae.
        J.  Eoon,  Entomol.   64(3):764-65.

 5.   Hills, Tom M., and Don C. Peters.  1972.  Methods of applying insecticides
        for controlling western corn rootworm larvae.  J. Eoon. Entomol.   65(6) :
        1714-18.

6.   Hills, TomM., Don C.  Peters, and Walter G. Lovely.  1972.  Application
        equipment and techniques  used in the evaluation of granular insecticide
        for control of  western corn rootworm larvae.  J. Eoon.  Entomol,   65(4) :
        1116-19.

-------
                                   -7-
        AS MODIFIED:
9.
10.
                      J.  J-  Tollefson,  Assistant Professor,
                      Department of Entomology,  Iowa State
                      University, Ames, Iowa,
     Mayo, Z. B.  1975.  A five-year comparison of insecticides applied to
        control larvae of western and northern corn rootworm.   Institute of
        Agriculture and Natural Resources,  University of Nebraska -- Lincoln.
        Agric.  Exp. Sta. SB 535.

        AS MODIFIED;  Z. B. Mayo

     Musick, G. J.  1974.  Efficacy of liquid starter fertilizer - insecticide
        combinations for control of resistant northern corn rootworm larvae.
        J. Econ. Entomol.  67(5) :668-70.

        AS MODIFIED;  G. J. Musick

     Musick, G. J.  1975.  Best corn rootworm control with banded insecticides.
        Ohio Rep.  60(1): 3-5.

     Musick, G. J. , and M. L. Fairchild.   1967,  Preliminary study on some of
        the factors affecting control of  western corn rootworm larvae with soil
        insecticide.  J. Econ.  Entomol.   60(6) :1522-25 .
11.  Musick, G. J. and M. L. Fairchild.  1968.   Comparison of application rates
        of some soil insecticides for control of western corn roo±worm larvae
        in Missouri.  J, Econ.  Entomol.  61(5) :1188-89 -
Exhibit I.   Test Method for Southern Corn Rootworm on Corn,   E,  H.  Floyd.
             Professor, Department of Entomology,  Louisiana State University,
             Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Exhibit II.  Test Method for Northern and Western  Corn Rootworm on Corn.   D.  D.
             Walgenbach.  Associate Professor,  Department of  Entomology,  South
             Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota,
                              Modified References
6.   Hills, Tom M.,  Don C. Peters, and Walter G. Lovely.   1972.   Application
        equipment and techniques used in the evaluation of granular insecticide
        for control  of western corn rootworm larvae.   J.  Econ, Entomol.   65(4):
        1116-19.
        AS MODIFIED:
                      J.  J.  Tollefson,  Assistant Professor,
                      Department  of Entomology,  Iowa State
                      University,  Ames, Iowa,

-------
     Test Site:—

     Insect infestation - A test site is selected primarily on the basis of
the number of corn rootworm that are anticipated will be present during the
test year.  Population estimates obtained during the fall of the previous year
are used to select fields that are expected to have a sufficiently high popula-
tion of larvae to provide a good test of the efficacy of the chemicals used.
The sampling methods used are adult counts during the month of August and egg
counts in October.

     Topography - The test plots used are a single row wide.  Consequently,
appreciable soil movement due .to erosion that may carry along the insecticides
being evaluated cannot be tolerated.  To avoid this, the area of a rootworm
infested field that is selected for an insecticide evaluation study is located
in an area of the field with minimum slope.

     Border effects - The plots are positioned within a field so as to minimize
border effects.  The only restriction on the placement, other than slope mentioned
previously, is that the plot must be readily accessible to farm equipment from
at least one point.


     Climatic Conditions:—The field evaluations of insecticides for the control
of corn rootworms are designed to simulate typical agronomic practices and as
such are subject to the same climatological restrictions as normal field work.


     Test Crop:—

     Variety - A commercially produced hybrid is used that is considered
"susceptible" to rootworm damage.  A hybrid is considered susceptible if it is
prone to lodging under rootworm infestations.  This is generally the result of
having a small root system with little secondary root growth.

     Row spacing - The row spacing used by the cooperator is matched so that
all tillage operations normally employed are also applied to the test plot,

     Plant population - A plant population slightly higher than the state average
is used.  The current population, at planting time, being used is 22-24,000
plants per acre (54,362-59, 304 plants per hectare).  This practice is followed
so that the chemicals are evaluated under conditions normally employed that pro-
vide the most stress on the performance of the insecticides,  The higher plant
populations cause more competition and the root systems are not as fully developed
This makes any loss of roots more serious,,


     Test Plot Management:-—

     Plot management procedures to insure infestations - Rather than relying
totally on chance infestations several trap crops are planted across the state.
These trap crops consist of late planted corn that attracts the beetles by pro-
ducing fresh silks,  a preferred food source, late in the season to  lure the
insects from surrounding fields in which the silks have dried and are  no longer
available.

-------
                                   — 9—
     Planting procedures - The row spacing and direction used by the cooperator
are duplicated and the rows are aligned as closely as possible to those in the
rest of the field.  This allows all tillage practices employed after the plots
have been established to be applied to the plots so that the tests are represen-
tative of typical agronomic practices.

     Fertility procedures - The cooperator treats the plot area in exactly the
same way up to planting time, using the same fertility procedures.

     Weed control - Herbicides are generally used to control weeds.  If the
herbicides are not applied during the planting operation, the farmer will apply
them using his own equipment at the same time as he treats the rest of the field.
If the farmer applies his herbicide as he plants, the herbicide is applied by
the researchers at the time the plots are established.  The herbicide used is
selected to fit into the grower's cropping practices.  If the field in which the
plots are located are rotary hoed or cultivated, the plots are tilled just as
though it were part of the field.


     Procedures:—

     Statistical design -

     Design:  randomized complete block
     Replications:  4

     Locations required - New insecticides are evaluated at 3 locations across
the state to test the chemicals under several sets of environmental conditions
and tillage practices.  Using more than one location guards against failure to
collect any data due to the lack of establishment of an insect infestation.

     Specific plot plan -

     Number and length of rows:  The treatments within each replication are
applied to a single row 100 ft. (30.5 meters) long.

     Border effect:  A minimum of four guard rows are planted on each side of
the test area at the time the plot is planted and the plot is nested within a
large field to avoid border effects.

     Treatment dates:  Treatments are applied at planting time.

     Distance between replications:  No evaluations are made in the first or
last 15 ft. (4.6 meters) of a plot to allow for variability in the treatments
due to the equipment starting and stopping.

     Specific treatment procedures -

     Methods:  The methods and equipment used have been described in the
publication:

     Hills, T. M., D. C. Peters, and W. G. Lovely.  1972.  Application equipment
        and techniques used in the evaluation of granular insecticides for con-
        trol of western corn rootworm larvae.  J. Eaon. Entomol.  65:1116-1119.

-------
                                    -10-
     Rate of application:  Rate of application depends on the formulation and
 toxicity of each specific insecticide,

     Stage of crop at treatment:  Planting time.

     Time of applications:  Chemicals are applied at planting time.  The specific
 time this occurs will vary depending on weather conditions.  It may begin as
 early  as the third week of April and progress until the end of May,  It is  usually
 advised to have planting completed by May 15, however, so that full advantage  of
 long season hybrids may be realized, some replanting occurs much  later than this.

     Controls:  An untreated control and standard insecticide treatments are in-
 cluded in each replication at all locations to serve as standards.

     Infestation procedures -

     Natural:  Tests are located on privately owned land that has shown a poten-
 tial rootworm hazard based on adult and egg-counts taken the previous year.

     Trap crops:  Trap crops of late planted, mixed maturity corn are planted
 on  state owned farms in an attempt to draw the rootworms into these fields.  Due
 to  the limited distance over which the rootworms are attracted, this procedure
 produces variable results and reliance on natural infestations is still required.


     Evaluations:—

     Damage evaluations -

     Root damage:  The amount of damage to the root systems of five plants  in
 each treatment within each replication is- characterized by using  a root rating
 scale  ranging from 1 (no damage) to 6 (severe damage) ,  The root  rating scale
 has been described by Eiben (Eiben, G, J.  1967.  A comparison of methods used
 in  evaluating corn for corn rootworm resistance.  Ph.D. Diss., Iowa State Univ.,
 Ames,  Iowa.  198 pp.).  It has also been cited in a paper by Hills and Peters
 (Hills, T. M., and D. C. Peters.  1971.  A method of evaluating postplanting
 insecticide treatments for control of western corn rootworm larvae,  J. Eoon,
 Entomol.  64:764-765).  The average root rating within a replication is computed
 for each treatment by taking the arithmetic mean of the 5 individual ratings.

     Yield:  The average yield for each treatment at each location is computed
 by  randomly hand harvesting 1/1000 of an acre (1/2471 of hectare) for each
 treatment within each replication and computing the arithmetic mean of the  4
 observations.   The average is adjusted to yield per acre of No. 2 shelled corn
 based  on its moisture content.

     Evaluation intervals -

     Root rating:  The amount of root damage is evaluated at pollen shed.   This
 is when the maximum amount of root growth has occurred and the majority of root-
worm feeding has been completed.

-------
                                   -11-
     Yield:  The yields are determined as soon as the moisture content in the
grain drops below 35%.  This normally occurs during October or November.

     Analysis of data -

     Procedures:  Analysis of variance is used to determine if any differences
occur between mean root ratings or between average yields within each location
and also between the overall means computed using all locations.  Differences
between individual means are identified using Duncan's new multiple range test.

     Probability level:  P<0,05.


     Phytotoxicity:—

     Evaluation - The average number of plants per 1/1000 of an acre (1/2471 of
a hectare) is determined for each treatment at each location.

     Time interval - The time interval starts as soon as the plants have emerged
and become well established, usually from mid to late June,

     Analysis - Analysis of variance is used to determine if there are any
differences between the means.  Differences between individual means are iden-
tified using Duncan's new multiple range test.

     Probability level - P<0.05.


     Effectiveness:—The minimum requirements for an insecticide to be judged
effective is that it must consistently protect the roots from damage as well or
better than the materials currently recommended while having no phytotoxic
effects on the plant.


     Reporting Procedures;—A preliminary report is prepared following root
damage evaluations that include only the statistical evaluations of the phyto-
toxicity and root damage data.  A final report is issued after harvest that
includes:  a description of the evaluation procedures used; field data sheets
that contain the descriptive information for each location; tables of means for
the phytotoxicity. root rating and yield data with differences detected by
Duncan's test identified for all locations and combined over locations when
similar tests were conducted at more than 1 location; and tables containing
daily maximum/minimum temperature and precipitation data.  The data included
in the final report is complete enough to provide all the information requested
on the EPA list required for registration except:  lot or batch number of
chemical, compatibility of formulation with other products, presence of wildlife
and beneficial insects, and effects on wildlife and beneficial insects.
7.    Mayo, Z. B.  1975.  A five-year comparison of insecticides applied to
        control larvae of western and northern corn rootworm,  Institute of
        Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
        Agric.  Exp.  Sta.   SB 535.

-------
                                   -12-
        AS MODIFIED:  Z. B. Mayo


     Test Site:—

     Agronomic factors - Where possible, soils with high sand content are
avoided as they adversely affect rootworm larval survival.

     Topography - Well drained areas.

     Fields completely surrounded with fields planted to continuous corn are
preferred.


     Test Crop:—

     Variety - Corn hybrids adapted to the area with poor root regeneration
capabilities are preferred.

     Row spacing - 30 to 40 inch (76.2 to 101,6 cm) row spacings,

     Plant population - 16,000 to 24,000 plants/acre (39,536 to 59,304 plants/
hectare).  Where root pull resistance is used as a damage index, plant spacings
of not less than 10 inches (25,4 cm) apart are preferred regardless of the row
spacing.


     Test Plot Management;—

     Special management - Where possible, a plot should be planted to trap
corn (late planted corn), the previous year.  Appropriate planting dates vary
with location but the corn should be pollinating in mid-to-late August to
attract ovipositing females from surrounding areas.  Mixed maturities of hybrids
or inbred lines planted together are best,

     Normal planting procedures.

     Normal irrigation and fertilization procedures.


     Procedures:—

     Statistical design -

     Several designs are used with the most common being the randomized complete
block.   However,  depending on the particular circumstance of a test several
other designs are useful including split plots, lattice designs, latin square,
etc.   Analysis of duplicate experiments over locations is by means of combined
analyses of randomized complete block experiments,

     A minimum of four replications.

     Location required - One location is required but results vary from place

-------
                                   -13-
to place and duplications in other areas are highly desirable.  Five locations
are used in Nebraska for certain tests.

     Specific plot plan -

     One row plots, 50 ft. (15.2 meters) long are used for band insecticide
studies.  Three, four, six and 10 row plots are used for broadcast experiments
and other studies.

     A minimum of four rows for a border between experiments.

     Treatment dates:

          Planting time larval control - apply at planting, earlier planting
dates preferred  (April 25 - May 7).

          Cultivation - apply at first cultivation and prior to June 15 in
most years.

     Distance between replications:  Minimum of 5 feet (1,5 meters).

     Other consideration:  Where possible keep replication no larger than 35 ft,
(10.7 meters) wide (14 rows or 14 one-row treatments) X 50 ft, (15,2 meters)
long to avoid as much with-in plot population variation as possible.

     Specific treatment procedures -

     Granule application method:

          Planting time treatments -

               V-Belt Seeder with drops (6" (15,2 cm) bander)  in front of press
          wheel  calibrated for 50 ft.  (15.2 meters) row.  Amount of insecticide
          required for 50 ft. (15.2 meters) of row is weighed and placed into a
          container, prior to going to the field.  In the field the material is
          spread evenly on the V-belt and applied to the plot by the planter,

               Noble Metering Units calibrated according to speed.  Used for
          band application and in-seed furrow application.

               Liquids are applied by a one quart, C02 pressurized sprayer
          mounted on the planter with a 7" (17.8 cm) band in front of the press
          wheel.  (One unit/planter unit),

     Rate of application:  Band and in-furrow - Depends on material but most
treatments are applied at 3/4 - 1# AI/A (40" row) (.841 -1.12 kg/hectare) rates.

     Stage of crop at treatments:

               Most applications are at planting time.

               Cultivation treatments are applied before June 15 for best control,
          Corn growth stages range from 1 to 2 based on the Iowa State University
          scale of corn growth stages.

-------
                                   -14-
     Time of applications:  Planting - April 25 to May 20.

     Controls:  An untreated control and a treated control are included in
each test.  The treated control (treatment standard) presently used in Nebraska
studies is carbofuran 10G-1.2 ounces AI/1000 linear ft. of row (34.05 g./304.8
meters of row).

     Infestation procedures:  Use of trap corn in the field previous years.
Trap corn in Nebraska should be planted from June 15 - 20,


     Evaluations:—

     Damage evaluations -

     Damage ratio:  (Beginning in 1975) - A damage ratio will be calcualted
for each treatment based on the untreated entry or entries.

     Damage ratings:

          Plant stand in 30 ft. (9.1 meters) of row will be used to evaluate
seedling .phytotoxicity.

          Two systems are used depending on the experiment involved, one or
both of the following evaluation techniques will be employed,  In areas where
there is considerable soil variability, only root damage ratings will be used.

               Root pull resistance on 10 plants in each treatment row follow-
          ing methods described by:  Ortman, E. E,, D. C. Peters, and P. J,
          Fitzgerald.  1968.  Vertical-pull technique for evaluating tolerance
          of corn root systems to northern and western corn rootworm,  J, "Boon.
          Entomol.  61(2):373-75.

               Root damage ratings will be made for 5 plants in each treatment
          row.  A modified 1-6 (Hill and Peters 1971) damage scale is used.

     Insect counts:  In most experiments only general area counts will be made.
In specific experiments insect counts will be made by:

          Digging 4 plant samples/treatment (7" (17.8 cm) cube of soil surround-
ing roots) and floating larvae.

          Placing 6' X 6' X 6' (19.7 X 19.7 X 19.7 meters) saran cages over 2
rows and collecting emerging beetles to estimate larval populations.

     Yield:  Hand harvesting 20' or 30' (6.1 - 9.1 meters) of row per treatment
and converting to number of bushels of #2 corn/acre.

     Lodging:  The number of plants leaning 30° or more at the base are consid-
ered lodged.  Twenty or 30' (6,1-9.1 meters) of row are counted per treatment.

     Evaluation intervals - Larval damage evaluations are made at the time of
peak damage.  Depending on the year, it ranges from July 7-20.

-------
                                   -15-
     Analysis of data -

     Standard analysis of variance and Duncan's Multiple Range tests are employed
on all tests.  Analysis for duplicate experiments at other locations is accom-
plished by combined analysis over locations.

     Probability level:   .05 level.


     Phytotoxicity;—

     Type -

     Seed or seedling damage by planting time applications:  No. plants/30'
(9.1 meter) row and evaluate about 2 week post planting,

     Foliage damage by post-planting applications:  % affected plants.


     Effectiveness;—

     Minimal evaluation necessary to be judged effective.

     Root damage ratings:  Root damage ratings in excess of 3,0 are considered
economic damage.

     Root pull resistance:  Pull resistance is related to the conditions of the
soil at evaluation time and all values are considered in relation to the other
entries and the standards in each experiment.

     Yield:  Yield reductions in excess of 15% are usually considered economic
(depending on year).  Smaller yield differences are economic but are difficult
to determine whether the differences are due to treatment effects or experimental
error.
     Reporting Procedures;—In most of the items listed in this outline are
included in the report.
     Musick, G. J.  1974.  Efficacy of liquid starter fertilizer - insecticide
        combinations for control of resistant northern corn rootworm larvae.
        J. Econ. Entomol.  67(5) :668-70.

        AS MODIFIED:  G, J, Musick
     Site Selection;—Test site selection is based on fall egg count survey.
Ten composite 1 pint soil samples are taken from each potential field.  A
potential field is defined as a field with high beetle population the preceeding
August or a field with severe root lodging.  Egg counts must average over 25/
pint (25/473.25 ml) of soil before selection as a test site.

-------
                                   -16-
     Crop and Plot Management:—A commercially adapted variety with minimal
root regeneration potential is selected.  Row spacings and fertility practices
are those normally employed by the cooperator.  For damage evaluations, plant
populations are maintained at 16-20,000/acre (39,536-49,420/hectare) .  Corn
rows are planted parallel to previous years rows or consistent with the coop-
erator 's planting.


     Test Procedures:—At least 1 location is essential.  These tests are  re-
peated  for 2-3 years.


     Evaluations:—

     Root ratings are used to measure efficacy.  Root ratings on a scale of
1-6 or  1-9 are used.  The rating scheme for 1-6 is as outlined by Hills and
Peters, 1971.

     Hills, Tom M. , and Don C. Peters.  1971.  A method of evaluating postplant-
        ing insecticide treatments for control of western corn rootworm larvae.
        J. Econ. Entomol,  64(3):764-65.

     Rating scheme for 1-9 is:

     1  - No feeding damage
     2  - Light feeding damage, no pruning
     3  - Feeding damage with only an occasional pruned root  (1-2 pruned roots
         per mass)
     4  - Feeding damage and some pruning (less than 10% of roots pruned 2-3
         inches)
     5  - Feeding damage and moderate pruning (10-50% of roots pruned 2-3 inches)
     6  - Feeding damage and severe pruning (more than 50% of roots pruned)
     7-1 node of roots destroyed (root stubs 1 inch or less)
     8-2 nodes of roots destroyed
     9-3 nodes of roots destroyed


     Evaluations:—Phytotoxicity is routinely taken on all experimental com-
pounds.  In-furrow placement of soil insecticides is often investigated, espe-
cially  in first such placement.  Phytotoxicity is measured by plant population
reduction over untreated checks.
Cutworms


     Although several species of subterranean cutworms have been known to
attack corn, the 10 major species include black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel);
bristly cutworm, Laoinipolia venigera (Stephens); bronzed cutworm, Nephelodes
minions Guenee;  dark-sided cutworm, Euxoa messoria (Harris); dingy cutworm,
Fletia subgothica (Haworth); glassy cutworm, Crymodes devastator (Brace); granu-
lated cutworm, Feltia subterranea (Fab.); army cutworm, Euxoa auxiliaris (Grot.);
variegated cutworm,  Pefidroma sauoia (Hubner); and sand hills cutworm, Euxoa

-------
                                    -17-
detersa (Walker).  The test methods for soil insecticides remains rather con-
sistent over the subterranean cutworm complex.  However, efficacy may vary with
the genera and/or species encounterd.


     Site Selection:—Most test sites are selected on the basis of field reports
of economic populations of cutworms (4,5, Exhibits 3,4,5).  Prediction and
sampling techniques have not been refined enough to allow selection prior to the
occurrence of the pest.  An exception is when artificial infestation procedures
are used (1, Exhibit 4).  Under these conditions, site selection is restricted
to normal corn producing soils,


     Crop and Plot Management;—A commercially adapted variety is selected.
Row spacings and plant populations are consistent with current agronomic prac-
tices  (Exhibits 3,4,5).  For these evaluations, procedures similar to those
currently being used at the test site (i.e., cooperator, fertilization, culti-
vation, etc.) are maintained.


     Test Procedures;—Although various experimental designs are used depending
on experimental objective, most tests employ the standard randomized complete
block  design with 3 or more replications (1, Exhibits 3,4,5),

     Efficacy test are based on plots from 1-10 rows wide and from 10-100 ft.
(3.05-30.05 meters) long (1, Exhibits 3,4,5).  To minimize border effects,
sampling is restricted to the center portion of a plot (4, Exhibits 4,5).

     Cutworm tests are conducted with granule, spray and/or bait formulations.
Granular soil insecticides are applied from commercially available granular
applicators or specially modified granular applicators (1,4, Exhibits 3,4).
Liquid formulations are applied with modified spray delivery applicators which
are calibrated for proper rates and are hand carried or tractor mounted (Exhibits
3,4).  Bait formulations are applied by hand, or through commercially available
gravity feed applicators (Cyclone-Seeder® type).

     Methods of applying soil insecticide for control of subterranean cutworms
include banding in a 6-14 inch (15.2-35,6 cm) band in front of the presswheel
at planting (1,5, Exhibits 4,5), banding of a directed spray at post plant, pre-
plant  (incorporated) broadcast (1,4, Exhibit 4), or post plant (not incorporated)
broadcast (1,4, Exhibit 4).

     All tests include an untreated control and at least one standard insecti-
cide treatment (1,5, Exhibits 3,4,5).

     If plots are artificially infested with cutworm the following procedure is
followed.   At present, this procedure is used for tests with black cutworms only.
Insecticides are applied as previously outlined.  After application, 6" (15.2 cm)
aluminum barriers are installed (1,3, Exhibit 4).  The barriers enclose an area
consisting of 1-2 rows wide and from 3-7 feet (0.9-2.1 meters) long (1,3, Exhibit
4).  There is one barrier for each treatment and replication.  The experimental
design is  as previously outlined.   After the barriers are erected, 4th or 5th-
stage larvae are released in each barrier,  The number of cutworms released in

-------
                                    -18-
 each barrier.  The number of cutworms released in a barrier  is  dependent  on
 the number  of  corn plants within the barrier usually  1  larva/plant  (1,  Exhibit 4).
 These  tests  are usually confined to corn that is in the 2-leaf  stage  (1,  Exhibit
 4).  Releases  are usually made the evening following  the application  of the
 insecticide  (Exhibit 4), or by some other method (1) .


     Evaluations:—Preliminary screening for efficacy of a soil insecticide for
 control  of  subterranean cutworms can be conducted in  the greenhouse  (2) .   Field
 efficacy is  determined by stand counts (4,5, Exhibits 4,5),  plant damage  (Exhibits
 3,4),  plant  weight (1), and yield (4, Exhibits 3,5).  Because most evaluations
 are on natural occurring field infestations, the number of damaged and  undamaged
 plants in each plot are determined before treatment with an  insecticide (Exhibits
 3,4,5).   Control is based on the % change in these damaged plants after treatment
 (Exhibits 3,4,5).  Evaluations are made once or at regular intervals  ranging
 from daily  to  bi-monthly through pupation (1,4, Exhibits 3,4,5).

     Most data are analyzed according to standard ANOVA procedures.   Differences
 among  means  are determined by numerous methods (LSD,  DNMRT)  (1,4,5, Exhibits
 3,4,5).   Most  inferences are made at the 95% confidence level.


     Effectiveness:—To be judged effective, an insecticide  must have plant
 population  (stand counts) which are significantly above the  untreated control
 or perform  favorably with a standard insecticide treatment,  If effective,  the
 insecticide must show no adverse effects on yield or no phytotoxicity (1,5,
 Exhibits 3,4,5).
                                  References


 1.   Apple, J. W.  1967,  Insecticidal control of regulated populations of
        black cutworm on corn.  J. Eoon.  Entomol.  60(6):1612-15.

 2.   Sechriest, R. E.  1966.  A simple technique for screening insecticides
        to control black cutworm larvae,  Agrot-Ls ipsilon (Hufnagel).  J. Econ.
        Entomol.  59(2):485.

 3.   Sechriest, R. E.  1967.  Evaluating artificial infestations of black cut-
        worms.  J. Eoon. Entomol.   60(4):923-5.

 4.   Sechriest, R. E.  1967.  Studies on black cutworm control.  Proc. N. C.
        Branch, ESA.   22:89-93.

 5.   Sechriest, R. E.  1974.  Chemical control of Euxoa detersa in corn.
        J.  Econ.  Entomol.   67(l):138-9.


Exhibit 3,   Test Method for Cutworms on Corn.  Z, B. Mayo.   Assistant  Professor,
            Department of  Entomology, University of Nebraska,  Lincoln, Nebraska,

-------
                                   -19-
Exhibit 4.  Test Method for Black Cutworm on Corn.  G. J, Musick,  Associate
            Professor, Department of Entomology, Ohio Agricultural Research
            and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio.

Exhibit 5.  Test Method for Cutworms on Corn,  J. J. Tollefson,  Assistant
            Professor, Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames,
            Iowa.
Wireworms
     Although the number and distribution of the various species of wireworm
are not known, the test methods for the different species are quite similar,
However, efficacy may vary with the genera and/or species encountered.


     Site Selection;—The selection of a test site is based on fields with a
previous history of wireworms (2,3, Exhibits 6,7), current report of wireworm
damage  (2, Exhibit 8), corn following old established sods, wireworm counts (1) ,
baiting with corn and wheat (Exhibit 7), or a combination of one or more of
these selection procedures.  Generally, wireworm infestations are found to be
more severe in fields with soils of a more sandy texture (3),


     Crop and Plot Management;—A corn variety adapted for use in the area of
the test is selected.  Row spacings and plant populations are consistent with
current agronomic practices (3. Exhibits 7,8).  To evaluate soil insecticides
under field conditions, procedures similar to those currently being used at the
test site (i.e., fertilizer, cultivation, etc,) are maintained.


     Tejst Procedures:—The standard statistical design composed of a randomized
complete block, split plot, or other statistical methods with 4 or more repli-
cations is used (1,2,3, Exhibits 6,7,8),

     Insecticidal evaluations are based on plots from 1-8 rows wide (1,2,3,
Exhibits 6,7,8) and ranging from 50 feet (15,2 meters) long to the entire length
of the  test field (1,2,3, Exhibits 6,7,8).  No evaluations are made in the first
or last 10-20 feet (3.05-6.1 meters) of each plot (Exhibit 8).

     Granular soil insecticides are applied with commercially available insec-
ticide boxes which are mounted on a corn planter (1,3, Exhibits 7,8) or are
modified for broadcasting.

     Methods of application include banding of the insecticide over the corn
row (Exhibits 6,7,8), in-furrow (3, Exhibits 7,8), as a seed treatment (1,3)
and/or as an incorporated broadcast preplant application (1,2,3, Exhibits 6,7,8),

     Although most treatments are applied preplant or at planting (1,3, Exhibits
7,8), some treatments are applied post-planting (2).

-------
                              -20-
     Insecticidal applications are usually made at the normal planting
date for a given location or area, unless the treatments are applied
after an economic infestation has been identified (1, 2, 3, Exhibits
6, 7, 8).

     All tests for insecticidal efficacy must include an untreated
control and  at least one standard insecticide treatment for control
of wireworm larvae (1, 2, 3, Exhibits 7, 8).

     These tests are dependent on natural insect infestations.  To
increase the probability of an infestation, the site selection pro-
cedures outlined-previously is followed, including multiple locations.


     Evaluations:—The efficacy of a soil insecticide for control of
wireworm larvae is determined by stand counts (1, 2, 3, Exhibits 6,
7, 8), wireworm larval population determinations (3 and Exhibit 7),
yield (1, 2, 3, Exhibits 7, 8), or a combination of these methods.

     Evaluations usually are made at emergence of the corn plants
(1, 2, Exhibits 6, 7), and/or from 2-4 weeks after planting (3, Ex-
hibits 7, 8).  The first evaluation furnishes information on seed
attack; whereas, the second evaluation discloses the degree of seed-
ling damage.  Because stand counts are used in evaluations, it is
important to have a planting unit that gives uniform and consistent
seed drop.

     Standard analysis of variance techniques are used in analyses
of the data.  Usually, differences among means are determined by
either Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (DNMRT) or the Least Sig-
nificant Difference (LSD).   Most inferences are based on a 90-95%
probability level (1, 2, 3, Exhibits 6, 7, 8).
     Effectiveness:—To be judged effective against wireworm larvae,
a soil insecticide must have plant populations (stand counts) which
are significantly better than the untreated control and compare fa-
vorably with standard insecticide treatment.  Additionally, it must
show no adverse affects on yield or no phytotoxicity.  Phytotoxicity
is measured by plant vigor and/or plant population reductions.
                             References

1.  Apple, J. W., F.  E.  Strong, E. M. Raffensperger.   1958.  Efficacy
       of insecticidal seed treatments against wireworms on lima
       beans and corn.   J.  Eoon.  Entomol.   51(5):690-92.

2.  Keaster, Armon J. and Mahlon L. Fairchild.  1960.  Occurrence and
       control of sand wireworm in Missouri.   J.  Eoon.  Entomol.
       53(5):963-4.

3.  McBride, Dean K.   1971.  Wireworm control in corn.  North Dakota
       Farm Res.    29(1):12-16.

-------
                              -21-
Exhibit 6.  Test Method for Wireworms on Corn.  W. G. Genung. Professor
       Agricultural Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, Florida.

Exhibit 7.  Test Method for Wireworms on Corn.  Z. B. Mayo.  Assistant
       Professor, Department of Entomology, University of Nebraska,
       Lincoln, Nebraska.

Exhibit 8.  Test Method for Wireworms on Corn.  J. J. Tollefson.
       Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, Iowa State
       University, Ames, Iowa.

-------
                              -22-
                             PEANUTS
     Peanuts are attacked by a complex of soil insect pests that include
the lesser cornstalk borer, southern corn rootworm, granulate cutworm,
and burrowing bug.  Other soil inhabiting pests are important in localized
areas such as wireworms, white-fringed beetle, and white grubs.

     Foliage feeding insects such as the tobacco thrips and potato leaf-
hopper are commonly controlled with soil-applied systemic insecticides.

     Soil types and soil moisture have a marked influence on the pest
status of soil insects.  For this reason the lesser cornstalk borer is a
major pest in sandy soils while the southern corn rootworm favors poorly
drained, heavy, soils.  Insecticide tests for soil insects attacking pea-
nuts should therefore be established in areas having a history of damage
from the desired pest species.


Southern corn rootworm, Spotted cucumber beetle, Didbvotiea undeoimpunota
howardi Barber

     The larva of the southern corn rootworm tunnels into the pegs (immature
peanuts with unsculptured hull) and pods (hull sculptured) causing a
direct loss in harvestable peanuts.

     Since the adult beetle has been collected on more than 200 host
plants (3) sampling for adults to estimate damage threshold is not
very effective.  Estimation of larval populations is further complica-
ted by the effect of environmental factors on adult oviposition and
egg hatch (1).  The adult prefers a heavy,,poorly drained soil for
oviposition.   Oviposition is low in dry, sandy soil and few eggs hatch.
Insecticide tests will be more successful if the test site includes soil
that is heavy, or high organic matter content, or poorly drained soil.

     Site Selection;—Select an area with a history of southern corn
rootworm damage,  usually poorly drained soil, or soils with organic
matter content of 2.0% or higher.

     Procedures:—(Exhibit 9).

     Statistical  design - Randomized complete block or split plot for inter-
action studies.

     Replication  - Three or more replicates.

     Plot size -  Preferable minimum is 4 rows x 20 ft. (6.1 m).

     Row spacing  - Usually 36-inch (91.4 cm).

     Application  equipment - Any equipment that will accurately deliver as
low as  5  Ib.  granules  per acre with preference for granular row applicators.

-------
                              -23-
     Application method - Apply granules in a band over the row to cover
the fruiting zone (generally 12-18 inches or 30,4-7 cm) and incorporate
with a rotary hoe in top 1-2 inches  (2,5-5 cm) of soil, except where
excess plant growth does not permit  incorporation.

     Time of application (Insecticide) - Apply at pegging time (about 40
days post planting) to 30 days post-pegging.

     Time of application (combination Insecticide-Nematicide) - Apply
at planting (5) in a 12-14 inch (30.4-35.5 cm) band over the row or just
prior to planting and incorporate with a rototiller to a depth of 2-4
inches (5-10 cm).

     Controls - Untreated control plot and a standard insecticide treat-
ment should be included for relative efficacy.

     Evaluation;—(1,4).

     Sample size - Select at random  a minimum of 4 plants from each plot,
remove all the pegs and pods, and count the number penetrated by the root-
worm.

     Interval between treatment and  damage evaluation - 60 days after
pegging  application, or 30 to 45 days after post-pegging application,
or approximately 20 to 40 days prior to harvest.

     Calculation % damage - Use formula:

          No. rootworm damaged pegs  + pods
             Total No.  pegs + pods
                                           X 100
     Yields  - Harvest  at  least  2 rows  of each plot, field cure on stack
poles  or  artifically cure and weigh.

     Effectiveness;—Candidate  insecticides  should compare favorably with
those  currently  registered.
                            Eeferenoes

1.  Campbell, W. V.  , and D. A. Emery.  1967-  Some environmental factors
       affecting feeding oviposition, and survival of the Southern corn
       rootworm.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 60:1675-8.

2.  Sasser, J. N., K. R. Barker, and L. A. Nelson.  1975.  Chemical soil
       treatments for nematode control on peanuts and soybeans.  Plant
       Dis. Rep.  59:154-8.

3.  Sell, R. A.  1916.  Notes on the 12-spotted cucumber beetle.  J". Eoon.
       Entomol.  9:551-6.

-------
 4.   Smith, J. C. L971.  Field evaluation  of  candidate  insecticides  for
        control of the Southern corn rootworm on peanuts  in Virginia.
        J. Eoon. Entomol.   64:280-1.

 5.   Smith, J. C.  1972.  Tobacco thrips-nematode  control on Virginia-
        type peanuts.  J. Eoon. Entomol.   65:1700-3.
 Exhibit  9.   Insecticide Test Method for Southern Corn Rootworm on
       Peanuts.  W. V. Campbell, Department of Entomology, North
       Carolina State University, Raleigh.
 Lesser  cornstalk borer, Elasmopalpus lignosellus  (Zeller)

     The  larva of the lesser cornstalk borer attack any part of  the  pea-
 nut plant that is in contact with the soil  (1,3).  Larvae may  enter  the
 main stem or lateral branches in contact with the soil and tunnel up
 and down  the stems.  After pegs and pods form, larvae attack them at
 and below the soil surface.  Associated with the larvae at the point
 of entrance into the plant or fruit is a silken tube or webbing  ex-
 creted  by the larva.

     Damage to seedling plant may cause stunting or death of the plant.
 Damage  to seedling plants is most common on late planted peanust; how-
 ever, the greater damage usually occurs after pegging (4).

     Infestation and damage by the lesser cornstalk borer is more severe
 on dryland peanuts, in sandy soils,  and during periods of drought.

     Site Selection:—

     Test site - Select an area with a history of drought and lesser corn-
 stalk borer damage.  Due to the sporadic nature of damage by the lesser
 cornstalk borer, field surveys for active infestations will provide  the
 best test site.

     Method of estimating infestation - Examine a minimum of 5 plants
at each location (2).   Include sufficient locations or stops in the
field to provide the desired acreage for the intended experiment.
At least 10% of the plants should be infested with cornstalk borers
within the selected test site.

     Procedures:—(1,  5).

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design.

     Replications - Preferable minimum of three replicates.

     Plot size - At least 4 row wide; however, the length of rows and number
 of rows will be dictated by the distribution patterns of lesser  cornstalk
 borer.

-------
                              -25-
     Application method - Apply insecticide in a 16 to 20 inch (40.6 to
50.8 cm) band over the row.

          Basal directed spray:  Use one flat-fan nozzle 80-degree even-
     flow on each side of the row.  Tilt the nozzles at a 45 degree
     angle to the horizontal and adjust height to spray 8 to 10 inches
     (20.3 to 25.4 cm) on each side of the plant.  The spray pattern
    should cover  only the  soil  and  lower  leaves.   It  is  important  to
    use at least  20  gallons  finished  spray per acre (5).

         Application of  granules:   Apply  granules  when the  foliage is
    dry in an 18  to  20 inch  (4.5  to 50.8  cm)  band  over the  row (1).
     Incorporate  granules with a rotary hoe if vine growth permits or
irrigate within 48 hours  (5).  Any  type of granular row appli-
cator that will accurately  deliver  as  little  as  5  Ibs  granules
per acre is  satisfactory.

     Controls  - Include an  untreated control  and a standard insecticide
treatment for  comparative efficacy.

     Evaluations:—  (1,5)

     Sample  size  - Select 80 to 100 plants in each treatment and examine
for live borers and  fresh damage.

     Interval  between  treatment and damage evaluation  - Examine plants
one week after treatment and at weekly intervals thereafter for residual
insecticide  efficacy data.

     % control -  May be calculated  from pre-treatment  and post-treatment
counts compared   with  the untreated check.

     Yields  -  The entire plot should be harvested, if  feasible, and record
yield and grades  of  cured peanuts.

     Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should compare favorably with
the insecticide(s) currently registered for the  lesser cornstalk borer
on peanuts.
                            References

1.  French, J. C., and L. W. Morgan.  1972.   The  damage  and  control  of
       the lesser cornstalk borer.  J, Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Assoc.  Inc.
       4:41-2.

2.  Hamman, P. J., C. E. Hoelscher, and J. W.  Smith.       Texas
       guide for controlling insects on peanuts.  Tex. Agri-c. Ext. Ser.
       Leaf. L-704.

3.  Leuck, D. B.  1966.  Biology of the lesser cornstalk borer  in
       south Georgia.  J. Econ. Entomol.  59:797-801.

-------
                             -26-
4.  Leuck, D. B.  1967.  Lesser cornstalk borer damage  to peanut
       plants.  J.  Econ. Entomol.  60: 1549-51.

5.  Smith, J. W., P. W. Jackson, R. L. Holloway, and C. E. Hoelscher.
       1975.  Evaluation of selected insecticides for control  of  the
       lesser cornstalk borer on Texas peanuts.  Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn.
       Prog. Rep.   PR-3303:16 p.


Granulate cutworm,  Feltia subterranea (F.)

     The moth oviposites singly or in small groups on the leaves at the
periphery of the plant.  The young larvae^enter the soil at the base of
the plant and feed on leaf litter  or leaves touching the soil.

     As larvae become more mature  they will crawl up on the peanut plant
at night and consume the foliage.   During the day they remain hidden in
the soil.  Larvae will also tunnel into peanut pods,  A heavy infestation
of cutworms will result in complete defoliation of the crop and extensive
pod loss.

     Damaging infestations occur most frequently about mid July in Georgia
and early August in North Carolina.

     Site Selection:—Cutworm infestations  are sporadic and unpredictable;
therefore it will be necessary to  scout for infested fields.  They prefer
sandy loam well-drained soils.  Initiate examination of fields for damage
about mid-season.

     Procedures : — ( 2.).

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block experiment or split
plot design.

     Replication - Three or more replicates.

     Plot size - 4 rows x 40 ft. (12.2 m) .

     Row spacing - Usually 36-inch (91.4 cm) rows.

     Application method - Granules, baits,  or sprays are applied in a
band over the row to cover the foliage.

     Time of application - Apply insecticides late in the afternoon.

     Controls - Include an untreated control and a standard insecticide
treatment for relative efficacy.

-------
                              -27-
     Evaluation:—(2)

     Sample size - Select a minimum of 10 ft,  (3.0 m) of row,  Count all
living and/or dead larvae from the center of one middle row to the center of
a second middle row including the middle alley between the two rows.

     Interval between treatment and evalution for efficacy - Evaluate
insecticide performance 24 hours post treatment.  Additional counts may be
made at 24 hour intervals; however, interplot movement of cutworms may
occur and mask the results.

     Calculation of % control - Use Abbott's formula (1) or standard
analysis of variance.

     Yields - Harvest the entire plot for yield if this is feasible.

     Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should compare favorably with
those currently registered for cutworm control on peanuts.


                            References

1.   Abbott,  W. S.   1925.  A method of computing the effectiveness of
       an insecticide.   J.  Eaon,  Entomol.   18:265-7.

2.   Morgan,  L. W., and J.  C.  French.  1971.   Granulate cutworm control
       in peanuts in Georgia.  J.  Eoon.  Entomol.   64:937-9.


Burrowing bug, Pangaeus bilineatus  (Say)

     Burrowing bug adults migrate from weed hosts and invade pea-
nut fields from mid-June through August in Texas  (1).  Females
oviposit in the soil at the base of the peanut plant and adults  and
nymphs pierce the developing peanut kernels.

     Feeding by the burrowing bug results in yellow to dark brown spots
on the kernel which may be referred to as "pitting'1.  Yields are generally
not affected but peanuts with burrowing bug damage are downgraded if damage
exceeds 2%.  The grower is thus penalized for this damage by reducing the
price paid for the affected load of peanuts.

     Site Selection:—Select an area with a history of damage from the
burrowing bug.  Take soil samples and examine for burrowing bugs at regular
intervals starting in mid-June.  When bugs are first observed in soil
samples, establish the experiment.

     Procedures:—(2).

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design.

-------
                             -28-
     Replication - Four replicates or more.

     Plot size - Minimum of 2 rows.  Plot size will be governed by the
distribution population of burrowing bugs,

     Row spacing - Usually 36-inch (91,4 cm),

     Application equipment - A granular row applicator

     Application method - Apply insecticide granules in a 10 to 14 inch
(25.4 to 35.5 cm) band over the row.  If moisture is inadequate, irrigate
the plots within 48 hours after treatment.

     Time of application - Apply candidate insecticides within 7 days
after adult burrowing bugs first invade the peanut field.

     Controls - Include an untreated control and a standard insecticide
treatment for relative efficacy.

     Evaluation :—  (2).

     Sample size - Collect soil from at least four 1-row ft, (30 cm)
samples in each replicated plot and count the number of adults and nymphs
of the burrowing bug.

     Interval between treatment and evaluation - Collect soil samples at
10-14 day intervals after insecticide application for adult and nymphal
counts.  Collect a minimum of 50 pods at harvest and examine the kernels
for burrowing bug damage.  Express damaged kernels as % damage.

     Yields - Obtain yield, grade, and dollar value/acre based on % bur-
rowing bug damaged kernels.

     Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should compare favorably with
those insecticides currently registered for control of burrowing bug,


                            References
1.  Smith,  J. W.,  Jr.,  and J. T.  Pitts.   1974.   Pest  status  of Pangaeus
        bilineatus  attacking peanuts  in  Texas.   J. Econ,  Entomol,  67:111-3.

2.  Smith,  J. W. ,  Jr.,  T.  H. Horlen,  and  J.  T.  Pitts.   1974.   Field evaluation
        of insecticides  for controlling  burrowing bug in South  Texas.
        Tex. Agria.  Exp.  Stn.  Prog. Rep.  PR-3268:5 p.


Tobacco thrips, FrankHniella fusca Hinds

     Thrips injury to peanuts results in malformed leaves and stunted plants.
Severe injury may delay flowering and fruiting several weeks and an 80%

-------
                             -29-


 loss in stand of very susceptible breeding lines occurred in North
 Carolina.   Severe thrips damage does not occur every year in all pea-
 nut  producing areas,  in fact,  the value of thrips control on yield in-
 crease has been questioned (1,4,5).

      Granular systemic insecticides  applied for thrips control may
 control a  complex of  insects  (2).  For this reason,  in-furrow, at
 planting application  of systemic insecticide should  include the ef-
 ficacy against the complex of  insects.

      The researcher should consider  interaction effects of the soil-
 insecticide and the insecticide-peanut variety interaction as it af-
 fects insect control  (Exhibit  10)  and phytotoxicity.


      Site  Selection:—(Exhibit 10).   Locate the test on the edge of
 a field with a weedy  border or alternate host.


      Procedures: —(4.5. Exhibit 10).

      Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design
for interaction  studies.

      Soil  type - It is desirable to  include a variety of soil types,

      Replications - 3 or more replicates.

      Plot  size - 1 row X 20 to 40 ft.  (6.1 to 12.2 m) minimum.

      Row spacing - Usually 36-inch (91.4 cm) rows.

      Insecticide formulation - Granular or liquid systemic insecticides.
     Application equipment - Gandy^ 901-2 row applicator or equivalent
or tractor-mounted granular row applicator or any technique that accurately
and evenly distributes granules or liquids in a band.

     Application method - Insecticide granules are applied in the seed
furrow at planting time.  Liquid systemic insecticides should be applied
with injection equipment at planting time.  Insecticides must be in the
immediate zone of the germinating seed for efficient uptake or absorption
of the systemic insecticide.

     Control - Untreated control and one standard insecticide treatment
should be included for relative efficacy.

     Evaluation;—

     Sample size (thrips)—Select from the center row(s) of each plot
one terminal quadrifoliate leaf from 10 plants and record the number
of adult and immature thrips (2, Exhibit 10).

-------
                              -30-
     Sample size (thrips damage)  - Count the number of thrips-damaged
leaves on one center row of each  plot (Exhibit 10) or count the number
of thrips-damaged leaves on 20 plants in the two center rows (4) or
count the number of damaged leaflets on 10 plants from a sample of 12
leaflets per plant (5).

     Interval between treatment and evaluation (Exhibit 10): —

     Thrips counts:  At  weekly intervals or 30 to 45 days post
planting.

     Thrips damage:  At  weekly intervals or 45 to 60 days post
planting.

     Yield - Harvest the entire plot or at least two rows.


     Effectiveness:—Candidate systemic soil-applied insecticides
should compare favorably with insecticides currently registered for
thrips control.
                             References

1.  Arthur, B.  W.,  and L.  L.  Hyche.   1959.   Soil applications of in-
       secticides  for control of tobacco thrips on peanuts.  J.  Eoon.
       Entomol.  52:451-2.

2.  Campbell,  W.  V.   1969.  Influence of seasonal insect control on
       the incidence of stunt virus  in peanuts.  J.  Am.  Peanut Res. Ed.  Assoo.
       1:41-5.

3.  Campbell,  W.  V., D. A. Emery, J.  C. Wynne,  and R.  W. Batts.   1975.
       Interaction of peanut variety and insecticides.  J.  Am. Peanut Res.  Ed.
       Assoo.   7:(Abstract).

4.  Morgan, L.  W.,  J. W. Snow, and M. J. Peach.  1970.  Chemical
       thrips  control; effects on growth and yield of  peanuts in
       Georgia.  J.  Eoon.  Entomol. 63:1253-5.

5.  Smith, J.  C.   1971.  Thrips control; effect on yield and grade of
       Virginia-type peanuts in Virginia.  J. Am. Res. Ed.  Assoo.  3:172-6.


Exhibit 10.  Insecticide Test Method for Thrips Control on Peanuts.
       Campbell,  W. V.  North Carolina State University.


Potato leafhopper,   Empoasoa fdbae Harris

     See Exhibit  11.

                             References

Exhibit 11.  Insecticide Test Method for Leafhopper Control on Peanuts.
       Campbell,  W. V.  North Carolina  State University.

-------
                              -31-
                             SUGARBEETS
     Sugarbeets, Beta vulgari-s3 are subject to attack by a number of
soil insects which reduce yields and affect the quality of sugarbeets.
Among these insects are the sugarbeet root maggot, wireworms, root
aphids, and various cutworms.  Above ground portions of the plants are
also attacked by aphids, leafhoppers, flea beetles, spinach carrion
beetles, and larval stages of several lepidopterous insects.  Some of
the foliar feeding insects are controlled by soil treatment with sys-
temic insecticides.

     Sugarbeet root maggot is one of the major soil insect pests of
sugarbeets.  The test method for it is the only one reported here at
this time, and is compiled from several sources.  It is subject to re-
vision and updating as needed.
Sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis (Roder)

     Researchers have used various modified test methods for evaluating
chemical control of the sugarbeet root maggot.   Test methods must of
necessity be flexible because of the complexity of soil in relation to
the problem.  Species of insect, edaphic factors, distribution and other
unpredictability of hidden populations relate to plot size and other
variables.  An attempt is made here to propose a composite test pro-
cedure with the necessary flexibility to cope with the variables en-
countered within an area and from area to area.
     Site Selection;—The fields in which the test site is to be lo-
cated should have been in sugarbeets the previous year or two, and
have sufficient evidence of high potential maggot infestation.  Lighter
soils are frequently more apt to have heavy maggot populations than
extremely heavy soils (1, 2, Exhibits 13, 14).
     Crop and Plot Management:—A commercial susceptible variety of
sugarbeet adapted to the area should be planted.  Plot management
techniques are usually the same as those employed for normal sugar-
beet production (Exhibit 13).
     Test Procedures:—The standard statistical or experimental designs
are used (2, 3, Exhibits 13, 14).  Usually a randomized complete block
design is used but depending on the objectives of the experiment a
split plot or other design might be better suited.

     Generally 4 replications are adequate (2, 3, Exhibits 12, 13, 15),

-------
                              -32-
but frequently more are used (2, 3, Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15).

     Plot size may also vary from a single row 25 to 50 feet (7.5 to
15 meters) (1, and Exhibit II)  to 2 or more rows wide by 25 to 100
feet (7.5 to 30 meters) (2, 3,  Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15).

     Soil insecticides applied  are primarily granular formulations.
Adequate moisture will be necessary to activate the granules.  Methods
of granule application vary from a V-belt seeder (1, 2) to commercial
planter-mounted granular applicators (Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15).  Gran-
ules are usually applied in a 4 to 7 inch (10.2 to 17.8 centimeter) band
over-the-row at planting time (1, 2, Exhibits 12, 13, 14).  Granules
are sometimes applied as in-furrow treatments (Exhibits 13, 14, 15).
In addition to or in place of planting-time treatments, postemergence
treatments may be made by applying granules in a 4-6 inch  (10.2 to
15.2 centimeter) band over the  row when plants are in the 2-8 leaf
stage, or no later than one week after first fly emergence (Exhibits
12, 13, 14, 15).

     All insecticide granules should be at least lightly incorporated
with either power incorporators, finger weeders, scratchers, a dragging
chain or some similar device (Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15).

     Tests should contain untreated checks and at least one or more
commercially acceptable or currently registered insecticides.

     Natural infestations are relied upon for these tests.
     Evaluations:—To evaluate the efficacy of soil insecticides for
control of sugarbeet root maggots, technique criteria should include
such things as stand counts, maggot counts, damage classification,
yield and/or observations or measurements on phytotoxicity (1, 2, 3,
Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15).

     1st count — after plants have completely emerged to check for
effects on germination and/or any phytotoxicity (Rating Scale 1-5
where 1 = no damage and 5 = severe damage).

     2nd count — immediately after mechanical thinning but before
any stand reduction (plant loss) due to maggot injury (establishing
base number for next count).

     3rd count — after major damage by maggots has occurred and no
more stand loss is expected.  A comparison of the 2nd and 3rd count
gives reduction of stand due to maggots.
     Maggot counts:—If taken, should be taken during mid-July in
many states, by digging 4-10 beets per treatment per replication.
Examine beet and soil within a 2-inch (5.1 centimeters) radius of
beet to a depth of 8-10 inches (20.3-25.4 centimeters).  Count and
record as number of maggots per beet (1, 2, 3, Exhibits 12, 13, 15).

-------
                               -33-
     Damage evaluation:—(1, Exhibits 12, 13, 15) on roots (beets) can
be made at the same time or on the same beets dug for maggot counts, or
in lieu of maggot counts.  The classes of damage rank from 1 to 5 and are
defined as follows:

     Class 1 - no damage

     Class 2 - light damage; occasional small feeding scars

     Class 3 - moderate damage; numerous small feeding scars but no
               tip damage

     Class 4 - heavy damage; growing tip damage and/or heavy feeding
               scars

     Class 5 - severe damage; tap root severed, severe feeding scars,
               dead or nearly dead or will die.

The root or beet damage classification is the most stable and most re-
liable criterion.
     Yield data:—Consist of harvesting a minimum of a single row 20
to 100 feet  (6 to 30 meters) in length per treatment per replication at
normal harvest season for the area  (1, 2, 3, Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15).
Size of harvest sample may vary depending on equipment available.  Al-
though size  of plot may vary, data recorded should include number of
beets per acre (hectare), tons (tonnes) of beets per acre (hectare),
and/or pounds (kilograms) of sugar per acre (hectare).  If desired,
percent sucrose and purity can be determined from the same samples.
     Effectiveness:—In all categories of evaluations, experimental
treatments are compared with standard treatments and untreated controls.
Percent control is based on treatments versus untreated checks.  The
data are analyzed according to standard analysis of variance procedures.
Differences among treatment means are determined by numerous methods
such as LSD, Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, etc. (1, 2, 3, Exhibits
12, 13, 14, 15).
                             References
1.  Peay, W. E., C. E. Stanger, and A. A. Swenson.  1968.  Preliminary
       evaluation of soil insecticides for sugarbeet root maggot control.
       J. Econ.  Entomol.  61(1):19-21.

2.  Peay, W. E., G. W. Beards, and A. A. Swenson.  1969.  Field
       evaluations of soil and foliar insecticides for control of the
       sugarbeet root maggot.  J.  Econ.  Entomol.  62(5): 1083-8.

-------
                              -34-
3.  Yun, Y. M.  1972.   Additional criterion for evaluating insecticide
       treatments for control of sugarbeet root maggot larvae. J.  Am.
       Sugar Beet Technol.   17(l):49-52.
Exhibit 12.   Procedures for Testing Insecticides Against Sugarbeet
       Root  Maggot.   C. C.  Blickenstaff.   USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho.

Exhibit 13.   Test Method for Determining  Field Efficacy of Soil
       Insecticides  for Control of Sugarbeet Root Maggots. C. C.
       Burkhardt. University of Wyoming,  Laramie.

Exhibit 14.   Methods to Evaluate Insecticides for Sugarbeet Root
       Maggot Control.   R.  D.  Frye.   North Dakota State University,
       Fargo.

Exhibit 15.   Methods of Insecticide Testing for Sugarbeet Root Maggot
       Control.   Y.  Mok Yun.   Great Western Sugar Company, Longmont,
       Colorado.

-------
                              -35-
                              TOBACCO
     Tobacco is attacked by a complex of soil inhabiting insects and leaf
feeding pests in the plant bed, newly set transplants, and established
plants in the field until leaf harvest,

     The major soil insects are primarily a problem in the plant bed,
newly set transplants, and young field plants.  This soil insect complex
includes larvae of the tobacco wireworm Conoderus vespertinus   (F.),
southern potato wireworm Conoderus falli Lane, green June beetle Cotinus
niti-da L., dark-sided cutworm Enxoa messopia  (Harris), and the mole
cricket Scapter-isous aoletus Rehn and Hebard.

     Foliage feeding pests such as the tobacco flea beetle Epitrix
hivt-ipennis  (Melsheimer), tobacco budwormSeZ-iotfois virescens (F.), and
the tobacco  hornworni Manduaa  sexto.  (L.) may be controlled by soil-applied
systemic insecticides.

     The test methods for control of'selected insects are those generally
accepted by  the tobacco researchers but the test methods are intended to
be flexible  and will be changed or updated as more effective methods are
developed.


Tobacco wireworm.Conoderus vespertinus  (F.) and Southern potato wireworm,
Conodevus falli Lane

     Wireworms attack tobacco overwinter as larvae and therefore cause
the greatest damage to transplants and young  field plants.  Wireworm
populations  are variable even in areas with a history of wireworm damage;
therefore, prior knowledge of the wireworm population is essential to the
success of the insecticide test.

     Site Selection:—Survey  each spring to locate field with heavy wire-
worm populations perferably in the range of 100-300 thousand larvae/acre
(2).

     Procedures:—

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design.

     Replication - Three or more replicates.

     Plot size - 4 rows wide and 36 ft. (11 meters) long with 8 ft.  (2.4
meters) alleys between blocks (3) to 62-1/2 ft. (19.1 meters) long with
20 ft.  (6.1 meters) alleys between blocks (2).

     Row spacing - Usually 48-inch (121.9 cm) rows.

     Application method - Broadcast granules by hand  (3) or by  tractor
mounted granular applicator (1) that will accurately and evenly apply

-------
                              ^36-
granules.  Granules should be broadcast and immediately disked into the
soil one to four weeks prior to transplanting (2) .  Fumigants were in-
jected on 12-inch (30.4 cm) centers to a depth of 6 to 8 inches and
sealed in with a drag.  Liquids are applied with a sprinkling can and
rotary tilled to a depth of 4 to 5 inches (9.1 to 12.7 cm)  (3); or
liquids are applied broadcast with a tractor-mounted sprayer.

     Control - Untreated control and a standard insecticide treatment
should be included for comparative efficacy.
     Evaluation:—

     Sample size - Examine 40 plants (2) to 192 plants (3) taken from
the middle two rows.   Split the stems lengthwise with a scalpel and
record wireworm damaged plants.

     Interval between treatment and evaluation - Collect plants for
damage evaluation 10 to 14 days after transplanting (2) or record plants
killed by wireworms at 7 day intervals after transplanting and examine
the remaining plants for wireworm damage to the roots and stems
within approximately 4 weeks after transplanting (3).

     Analysis of data - Data are subjected to ANOVA and Duncan's
multiple range test (3) or percentages are transformed to angles
and then analyzed statistically using Duncan's multiple range test (2).
     Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should compare favorably
with insecticides currently registered for wireworm control.  Phyto-
toxicity ratings are important expecially for cigar-wrapper tobacco
(3).
                             Eeferences

1.  Allen, Norman.  1973.  Experiments on the interval between treat-
       ment for the control of wireworms and transplanting flue-
       cured tobacco.  Tob.  Soi,   17:93-5.

2.  Mistric, W. J., and F. D. Smith.  1969.  Chemical control of
       tobacco and southern potato wireworms on flue-cured tobacco
       during 1964-68.  J. Eoon. Entomol.  62:712-15.   (See modification
       following references.)

3.  Tappan, W. B.  1966.   Insecticides tested for wireworm control on
       cigar-wrapper tobacco.  J.  Eoon. Entomol.  59:1161-3.

-------
                              -37-
             Modification of Mistric and Smith (1969)

     Site Selection;—Take 5 core soil samples of 4 inch (10,1 cm)
diameter and 6 inches CL5t2 cm) deep over an area of 0,1 acre or take
50 core samples over an area of 1 acre,  Slowly screen each soil sample
through a % to % inch (0.6 x 0.6 cm) hardware cloth and recover and count
larvae as they fall.  One larva/5 core samples = 100,000/acre,  Select
fields with heavy larvae population; that is, 100,000 to 300,000/acre,

     Interval between treatment and transplanting:—One to four weeks

     Interval between transplanting and sampling for wireworm damage:—
10 to 14 days,

     Size of sample for damage evaluation:—40 plant sample.


Dark-sided Cutworm, Euxoa messoria  (Harris)


     The dark-sided cutworm overwinters in the egg stage and young larvae
hatch in the spring and feed on the rye cover crop,  When tobacco is
transplanted in the spring, cutworm larvae (after the 3rd instar) attack
the leaves, growing points, and stems.  Replanting may be necessary when
cutworm populations are high (1) .

     Site Selection:—Select fields with a range of soil types,  Preferably
fields selected should have a history of cutworm damage and not treated with
insecticides for several years  (1) .

     Procedures :—(1, 2, 3).

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design.

     Plot size - 4 rows or more with a minimum of 40 plants in each  row.

     Plant spacing - Transplant tobacco plants on 24 inch  (61 cm) centers.

     Row Spacing - Minimum of 42-inch  (106 cm) row width,

     Barrier strip - Aluminum barrier strips 8 inches high  (20.3  cm) are
embedded in the soil to a depth of  3 inches  (7.6 cm) completely encircling
the untreated control plot to prevent cutworm larvae from migrating  to
adjacent plots.

     Replication - A minimum of two replicates but preferably more.

     Method of insecticide application - Apply broadcast over the rye  cover
crop, or over the soil surface, or  over the plants.  Sprays are applied
with a knapsack sprayer or tractor  powered sprayer that will deliver 25
gal spray/acre.  Baits may be hand  distributed.  Insecticides should be
incorporated to a depth of 1 inch  (2.5 cm) immediately after  treatment,

-------
                              -38-
      Control  - Untreated  control  and  a  standard  insecticide treatment should
 be  included for  comparative  efficacy.

      Evaluation  :—(1, 2, 3)

      Sample size - Examine all  plants in  the  center  row(s)  for cutworm
 damage  and for larval  populations.

      Interval between  transplanting and evaluation - Counts should be made
 at  weekly intervals  starting one  week after transplanting and  continue
 until larvae  complete  their, feeding and pupate.

      Percent  damage  -  Record damage as  %  damage  based on the total number
 of  plants examined in  each sampled row.

      Tobacco  quality evaluation - Leaf  samples from  5 pullings (leaf
 harvests) per plot  are dried and  ground to pass  through a  2 mm sieve.
 Samples are  then freeze dried and analyzed for  % total alkaloids
 (4) and reducing sugars (5).

      Analysis of data  - Data should be  subjected to  an analysis of variance
 and Duncan's  multiple  range  test.
      Effectiveness:—Candidate  insecticides  should  compare  favorably with
 insecticides  currently  registered  for  cutworm  on  tobacco.   Phytotoxicity
 rating,  insecticide residue, and smoke taste evaluations are  usually re-
 quired  for  registration of  insecticides.
                            References

1.  Cheng, H. H.  1971.   Field studies on the chemical control of the dark-
         sided cutworm (Lepidoptera:  Noctuidae) on tobacco in Ontario, with
         particular reference to Dursban.  Can.  Entomol.  103:649-53,

2-  Cheng, H. H.  1973a.   Laboratory and field tests with Bacillus thuringiensis
         against the dark-sided cutworm, Euxoa messoria. (Lepidoptera:
         Noctuidae) on tobacco.  Can.  Entomol.  105:941-5.

3'  Cheng, H. H.  1973b.   Further field evaluation of insecticides for control
         of the dark-sided cutworm  (Lepidoptera:  Noctuidae) on tobacco in
         Ontario.  Can.  Entomol.105:1351-7.

4-  Griffith, R. B.  1957.  The rapid determination of total alkoloids by steam
         distillation.  Tob.  Sci.1:130-7.

5-  Harvey, W. R.,  H. M.  Stahr, and W. C« Smith.  1969.  Automated determination
         of reducing sugars and nicative alkaloids on the same extract of
         tabcco leaf.  Tob. Sci.13:13-15.

-------
                              -39-
Green June Beetle, Cotinus rtitida (L.)

     Adults are attracted to manure or other organically rich soil for
oviposition in late summer.  Larvae feed on organic matter in the soil
or on the soil surface at night.  Feeding and tunneling in the soil
continues until cool weather.  Larvae overwinter as mature 3rd instar
and become active when the temperature rises (generally above 55°F) in
the spring.

     Larvae damage tobacco in the plant bed which is established in the
winter.  Larvae do not feed directly on the tobacco seedlings but cause
damage by uprooting plants in search for food near the soil surface and
on the soil surface (1, 4).  'Large numbers of larvae also completely
pulverize the soil and cause excessive moisture stress on the young
plants.

     Site Selection:—Survey for an area with evidence of green June
beetle larvae.  Damage may best be detected in late September and October.
The application of manure to a rich, moist snady loam soil may be useful
in attracting ovipositing adults to the test site.  Larvae may also be
easily reared (3) for artificial infestation or to supplement natural
infestation.

     Procedures:—(1, 4).

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block, Latin square or
split plot design.

     Replication - 4 or more replicates.

     Plot size - 1 sq. yd (sq. meter) or larger.  Separate plots by 6-inch
to 8-inch  (15.2 to 20.3 cm) boards placed in ground 2-inches to 6-inches
(5.1 to 15.2 cm) deep to prevent larval migration.

     Application method - Apply granules and baits by hand or with granular
or fertilizer applicators.  Liquids are applied with knapsack sprayer
and drenches with a sprinkling can.  Mix insecticides into the top 2 inches
(5.1 cm) of soil immediately when insecticides are applied prior to
planting.  Cover plots with tobacco cloth to exclude birds and animals.

     Application time - Apply when the larvae are active in the fall or just
prior to seeding the plant bed or after seedling plants are established.

     Control - Include an untreated control and a standard insecticide
treatment for comparative efficacy.

     Evaluation:—(1, 2, 4).

     Sample size - Sample the whole plot,  Count dead larvae on soil sur-
face.  Moribund larvae are counted as dead since they do not re-enter the
soil.

-------
                              -40-
      Interval  between  treatment  and  evaluation  - Approximately 6  weeks
 after seed  germination when  plots  are  treated just  prior  to  seeding.
 If treatments  are  applied  in the spring when larvae are active, sample
 for dead larvae  2  days after treatment and  continue to record  mortality
 for one week.  At  the  end  of two weeks excavate the plot  to  a  depth of
 6 to 12 inches (15.2 to  30,4 cm) and count  all  living and/or dead larvae,

      Analysis  of data  -  Subject  data to an  analysis of variance and
 Duncan's multiple  range  test.

      Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should  compare favorably with
 those currently  registered for green June beetle control.  Phytotoxicity
 and tobacco quality determinations should be made consistent with accepted
 standards.
                            References

}_  Dominick, C. B.  1950.  Organic insecticides for the control of green June
        Beetle larvae.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 43:295-8.

2.  Dominick, C. B.  1955.  Further experiments with insecticides for control
        of green June beetle larvae.  J. Eoon. Entomol. 48:621-2.

3.  Howe, W. L., and W. V. Campbell. 1953.  A simple method for rearing green
        June beetle larvae.  u, S. Bur. Entomol. Plant Juar.  ET-307.


4.  Scott, L. B. 1956.  Test with new insecticides to control green June beetle
        larvae in tobacco-plant beds.  J. Eoon. Entomol,  49:868-9,


Tobacco flea beetle, Epitrix hirtipennis (Melsheimer)

     Newly set tobacco plants are especially vulnerable to attack by over-
wintering adults of the tobacco flea beetle.  Flea beetles are considered
the most damaging pest of burley tobacco in Kentucky (2).  High populations
of the second generation may severely damage leaves of the lower third
of the mature plant.  In addition larvae feed upon tobacco roots and
may severely damage newly set plants (1).

     Site Selection:—Locate test near flea beetle overwintering sites
near a woodlot or an old field (Exhibit 16).

     Procedures:—

     Statistical design - Randomized complete  block.

     Replications - 3 or more replicates.

     Plot size - 6 rows wide and 24 ft,  (7.3 m) long with an uncultivated
border strip 8 ft. wide (2.4 m) separating plots on all sides  XD.

-------
                              -41-
or plots 4 rows X 62% ft.  (19.0 m) with blocks separated by  20 ft.
(6.1 m) alleys  (3) or 4 to 8 rows wide X  20 to 30 ft.  (6.1 m to 9.1 m)
long (2).

     Row spacing - 49-inch (120 cm) rows  (Exhibit 16).

     Plant spacing - Plants  spaced  20  inches  (50,8  cm)  on center
(Exhibit 16).

     Application  equipment - Apply  granules with a  hand applicator or
cyclone seeder.   Sprays  are  applied with  hand or tractor-mounted  sprayer.

     Application  method  - Apply granules  broadcast  or in-furrow or apply
granules and sprays  in a 12  inch (30.4 cm) band.

     Pretransplant  treatments  are disked  immediately into the  soil to  a
depth  of ca. 3 to 4  inches (7.6 to  10.1 cm)  0 to 4  days prior  to  transplanting.

     Post transplant treatments are applied  on both sides of the  row just
ahead  of the final  cultivation.

     Control - Untreated control and at least one standard  insecticide
treatment  (Exhibit 16).

     Evaluation:—

     Sample  size  - Select 5  plants  in  each of the two middle rows and  examine
for  live flea beetles.   Count  the number  of feeding punctures  on damaged leaves
from each of 6 randomly  selected  plants in the two  center rows on newly set
tobacco or count  all beetles on 6 randomly selected plants during late season.
Count  the number  of  adult flea beetles and number of flea beetle holes/
20 plants  at intervals during  the season.

     Interval between  treatment and evaluation - The most damaged leaf from
each of 6  randomly selected  plants  in  the two center rows of each plot are
removed 14 days after  transplanting to count  flea beetle punctures.  Late
season evaluation is made by beetle population counts at weekly intervals
beginning  4  weeks after  transplanting.

     Analysis of  data  -  Subject data to an analysis of  variance test,
Duncan's Multiple Range  test,  or  transform data  to  square roots and analyze.

     Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should  compare favorably with
those  currently registered for control of flea beetles  on tobacco.  Phyto-
toxicity and tobacco quality ratings are  necessary  for  registration of a
new  soil insecticide.

                             References

1.   Dominick, C.  B.   1967.  Systemic insecticides applied to the soil
        for control  of  the tobacco flea beetle on tobacco.   J.  Eoon.
        Entomol.   60:1468-9.

-------
                              -42-
    Jones, G. A.  and Richard Thurston.  1973.  Seasonal control of
       insects on hurley tobacco with soil-applied insecticides.
       Tob.  Sci.   17:102-4.

    Mistric, W. J. and F.  D. Smith.  1973.  Carbofuran and other
       systemic insecticides for control of insects on flue-cured
       tobacco.  J,  Econ.  Entomol.   66: 480-4.
Exhibit 16.   Insecticide Test Method for Flea Beetle on Tobacco.
       P-  J.  Semtner.   Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
       University,  Southern Piedmont Research and Education
       Center,  Blackstone,  Virginia.

-------
                              -43-
                           VEGETABLE CROPS
     Vegetable crops are subject to attack by numerous soil insects
which lower crop quality, reduce yields, or result in crop failure.
Among these soil insects are the wireworm complex, white grubs,
various species of root maggots, cutworms, and root weevils.

     The test methods for control of selected insects are prepared
from those methods generally employed by past and present research-
ers around the country.  Though individual test methods may vary
with the soil insects and the crops of various areas of the country
the test methods proposed are composite procedures with sufficient
flexibility to meet the variables.  These test methods are subject
to revision as needed.
Cabbage maggot, Rylemya brass-ieae  Bouche

     The test crops include:  cabbage, Bvassioa oleracea L. (Capitata
group)  (5); cauliflower, Bvassica olevaoea L.  (Botrylis group); Broccoli,
Brass-ioa oleracea  (Italica group); and brussels sprouts, Brass-ica
oleracea L. (Gemmifera group).
     Site Selection:—Conduct test in an area where crucifers have been
grown for several years and a root maggot infestation is present.


     Plot Management:—Transplants may be set at an in-row spacing of
12-21 inches  (30-50 cm) with rows spaced at 18-36 inches (0.5-0.9m).

     Plant seed at a depth of ca 1/2 inch (12 mm) or less.


     Procedures:—

     Use a randomized complete block, split plot, or other experimental
design.

     Use four or more replications.

     Use one or more rows 10 to 50 feet  (3-15m) or longer per plot  (3,4).

     Plant one or more border rows on each side of the experimental
block.  Treat just prior to planting, at planting, just after planting
(pre- or post emergence) for direct seeded crops, or treat seed.  Trans-
plants can be treated prior to planting  (root dip or broadcast  treatment),
at planting  (transplant water or spray drench) or just after planting

-------
                               -44-
(spray drench).   Additional sprays directed at the base of the plant
and soil surface may be applied as succeeding generations of root
maggots emerge during the growing season (3,4).

     Effective time of treatment can be determined by fly-emergence
peaks from baited cone screen traps, wood stakes treated with a sticky
material as Tanglefoot®, and/or by use of day degree accumulations (1).

     Apply granules with a cone seeder, V-belt seeder, Planet Jr.®, or
other calibrated hand equipment or use hoppers with a metering device
or broadcast applicators (2,3,4).

     Apply dusts with a calibrated hand or power duster.

     Apply liquid treatments with calibrated hand or power equipment
(2,3,4).  Transplant water treatments can be applied with the nutrient
solution by means of a commercial applicator to each plant or with a
measured amount  of solution applied by hand.

     Treat seed  by slurry, use of powders or dusts and a sticker,
planter box treatment or other method as infusion.

     Untreated controls shall be used to determine the severity of
maggot infestation and to provide a basis for comparison of the treat-
ments.

     A standard  insecticide treatment should be included, whenever pos-
sible, for comparison of the treatments.
     Evaluations:—(2, 3)

     Determine percent infestation by counting maggot damaged roots in
a given sample size.   Sample size may vary from 10 to 25 or more roots
per replicate depending on the infestation.

     Damage ratings can be utilized to determine efficacy as follows:
1-no feeding scars; 2-minor damage and tunneling moderate to extensive.
The percent of roots  in each damage class is then determined.

     A similar system is as follows:  1-clean, no discernible maggot
injury; 2-slight,  with a few minor surface injuries, or injury confined
to the tap root, which is normally removed; 3-moderate, with 2 maggot
tunnels; 4-heavy,  with 3 or more maggot tunnels.  A control rating is
obtained by multiplying the numbers of clean roots by a factor of 4;
those with slight injury by 0.  With 25 roots examined per plot, the
highest control rating possible would be 100 (3)-

     The actual number of root maggot tunnels or infested plants can
be counted for a sample of 10 to 25 or more roots per replicate.  The
means are compared (4).

     Yield data should be taken whenever possible and expressed in tons

-------
                              -45-
per acre  (Kg./ha.) or pounds  (Kg) per given number of heads.

     Evaluations may be conducted after each generation of root maggots
to determine the term of effective control provided by a given material
or at harvest to determine effective control on a seasonal basis  (3,4).

     Observe seedling plants  for phytotoxic effects as off-color  foliage,
delayed emergence, loss of stand related to the insecticide, etc. Con-
duct plant stand counts (3).

     Analyze the results using conventional analysis of variance  and
express significance at the 95% confidence level.  If another type of
analysis  is used, so state.
                             References
1.  Eckenrode, C. J., and R. K. Chapman.  1971.  Observations on cabbage
       maggot activity under field conditions.  Am. Entomol. Soc. Am.
       64:1226-30.

2.  Hedden, 0. K.  1966.  Equipment for Applying Soil Pesticides.
       USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook No. 297, 37 pp.

3.  Howitt, A. J., and S. G. Cole.  1962.  Chemical control of Hylemya
       brassicae in the Pacific Northwest.  J. Econ. Entomol. 55:33-8.

4.  Judge, F. D., H. B. Rinick, Jr., and F. L. McEwen.  1968.  Field
       testing candidate insecticides on radish, cabbage and cauli-
       flower for control of the cabbage maggot in New York State.
       J. Econ. Entomol.  61:1572-7.

5.  Magness, J. R., G. M. Markle, and C. C. Compton.  1971. Food and
       Feed Crops of the United States.  I. R. Bull. No. 1; N. J. Agric.
       Exp. Sta. Bull. 848, 255 pp.
Cabbage Maggot., Hylemya brass-icae  (Bouche)
     The test crop is the radish  (Raphanus sativus L.), synonym
Rabano.
     Site Selection:—Conduct test in an area where cruciferous crops
have been grown previously and a cabbage maggot infestation is present,
The cabbage maggot includes radish, rutabaga, turnip, cabbage, cauli-
flower, broccoli and brussels sprouts among its host crops.

-------
                              -46-
     Plot Management:—Plant rows at 15 to 36 inches apart (0.375-0.9m)
in other plot areas (1,2,3,4,6,8).
     Procedures:—

     Use a randomized complete block, split plot, or other experimental
design.

     Use four or more replications per treatment.

     Use single row treatments 10 to 50 feet long (3-15m).

     Plant one or more border rows on each side of plot block.
     Apply granules with a cone seeder,  V-belt seeder, Planet Jr.®, or
other calibrated hand equipment or use hoppers with a metering device
or broadcast applicators (1,2,3,4,5,6,8).

     Apply dusts with a calibrated hand or power duster.  Apply liquid
treatments with calibrated hand or power equipment.

     Treat seed by slurry, use of powders  or dusts and a sticker, planter
box treatment or other method as infusion.

     Applications should be made whenever  a crop of radish is planted
as there are at least three generations of cabbage maggot per growing
season in Northern United States production areas.

     Untreated controls shall be used to determine the severity of
maggot infestation and to provide a basis  for comparison of the treat-
ments .
     Evaluations: — (1,2,3,4,6,8)

     Determine percent infestation by counting maggot damaged radishes
in a given sample size.   Sample size may vary from 25 to 100 or more
per replicate depending on the maggot population.

     The number of maggot tunnels on a given number of radishes, for
example, 25 per replicate are counted and recorded.

     Radish is a short period crop from planting to harvest.  Maggot
damage evaluations should be conducted at harvest.

     Observe seedling plants for phytotoxic effects as stunting, off-
color foliage, delayed emergency, loss of stand related to the insecti-
cide rather than the insect, etc. (3, 8).

     Analyze the results using conventional analysis of variance and ex-
press significance at the 95% confidence level.  If another type of
analysis procedure is used, so state.

-------
                               -47-
                             References
1.  Davis, A. C., and F. L, McEwen.   1965.   Control  of  cabbage maggot,
       Hylemya brassioae, on radish with  insecticides.  J. Eoon.
       Entomol.  58,947-9.

2.  Doane, J. R., and R. K. Chapman.   1962.   Control of root maggots
       on radish, turnip, and rutabaga in Wisconsin.  J. Eoon.
       Entomol.  55:160-4.

3.  Eckenrode, C. J.  1972.  A  continuing search  for effective cabbage
       maggot control in New York.  Search Agrio.  N.Y.S.A.E.S. Geneva,
       Vol. 2, no. 11,  6 pp.

4.  Goble, H. W., F. L. McEwen, H. E.  Braun,  and  R.  Frank.  1972.
       Cabbage maggot control in root  and stem crucifers with new
       insecticides.  J. Eoon. Entomol.   65:837-42.

5.  Redden, 0. K.  1966.  Equipment for Applying  Soil Pesticides.
       USDA-ARS Agricultural Handbook  No. 297, 37 pp.

6.  Judge, F. E., H. B. Rinnick, Jr.,  and F.  L. McEwen.  1968.
       Field testing candidate  insecticides  on radish,  cabbage and
       cauliflower for  control  of the  cabbage maggot in New York
       State.  J. Eoon. Entomol.   61:1572-7.

7-  Magness, J. R., G.  M. Markle, and  C.  C.  Compton.  1971.  Food
       and Feed Crops of the United States.   IR Bull. No. 1;
       N.J. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 848, 255  pp.

8.  Stitt, L. L.  1951.  Control of Hylemya  brassicae in radishes.
       J. Eoon. Entomol.  44,87-9.
Cabbage Maggot, Hylemya brassicae('Bouche) ,Turnip Maggot, Hylemya
floral-is (fall.)

     The test crops include:  rutabaga  (Brassi-oa napus L.J  (9)  (synonyms-
Swede, Swedish turnip, turnip, rooted cabbage, Laurentian turnip, Russian
turnip); and Turnip (Brassioa ocanpestri-s  "L.)  (synonyms-Rappina, Rappone,
Rapa, Rapini).
     Site Selection;—Conduct test in an area where  cruciferous  crops
have been grown previously and a root maggot infestation  is present.
     Plot Management:—A 36 inch  (0.9m) spacing between rows and  a
seeding rate of 12 to 20 seeds per foot is generally used.  After plants
are growing plots should be thinned to 1 plant every 4 to  6 inches

-------
                              -48-
(10-15 cm).


     Procedures: — (1,2,3,5,6,7,8,10, Exhibit 17).

     Use a randomized complete block, split plot, or other experimental
design.

     Use four or more replications.

     Single row treatments 10' (3 m) or more long.

     Plant one or more border rows on each side of plot block.

     Treat just prior to planting, at planting, just after planting, or
treat seed.  Additional treatments directed at the base of the plant
and soil surface may be applied as succeeding generations of root mag-
gots emerge during the growing season.

     Effective time of treatment can be determined by fly-emergence
peaks from baited cone screen traps, wood stakes treated with Tangle-
foot® and/or by use of day degree accumulations (4).

     Apply granules with a cone seeder, V-belt seeder, Planet Jr.®, or
other calibrated hand equipment or use hoppers with a metering device
or broadcast applicators.

     Apply dusts with a calibrated hand or power duster.

     Apply liquid treatments with calibrated hand or power equipment.

     Treat seed by an accepted method as slurry, use of powders or
dusts and a sticker, planter box treatment or other method as infusion.

     Untreated controls shall be used to determine the severity of
maggot infestation and to provide a basis for comparison of the treat-
ments.

     A standard insecticide treatment should be included, whenever pos-
sible, for comparison of the treatments.


     Evaluations:—(1,2,3,5,7,8,10).

     Determine percent infestation by counting maggot damaged roots in
a given sample size.  Sample size may vary from 10 to 25 or more roots
per replicate depending on the infestation.

     Damage ratings can be utilized to determine efficacy as follows:
1-no feeding scars. 2-minor damage; 3-surface damage moderate; 4-5-sur-
face damage and tunneling moderate to extensive.  The percent of roots
in each damage class is then determined.

-------
                              -49-
     A similar system is as follows:  1-clean, no discernible maggot
injury; 2-slight, with a few minor surface injuries, or injury confined
to the tap root which is normally removed; 3-moderate, with 1-2 maggot
tunnels; 4-heavy, with 3 or more maggot tunnels.  A control rating is
obtained by multiplying the numbers of clean roots by a factor of 4;
those with slight injury by 2; moderate by 1; and those with heavy in-
jury by 0.  With 25 roots examined per plot, the highest control rating
possible would be 100 (5, 7, Exhibit 17).

     The actual number of root maggot tunnels per root can be counted
for a sample of 10 to 25 or more roots and the means compared as in 3.5.

     Evaluations may be conducted after each generation of root maggots
to determine term of effective control provided by a given material or
at harvest to determine effective control on a seasonal basis  (1,2,3,
5,7,8,10, Exhibit 17).

     Observe seedling plants for phytotoxicity symptoms, off-color fo-
liage, delayed emergence, loss of stand related to the insecticide, etc.
Conduct plant stand counts.

     Analyze the results using conventional analysis of variance and ex-
press significance at the 95% confidence level.  If another type of
analysis procedure is used, so state.
                             References
 1.  Chapman, R. K., and C. J. Eckenrode.  1973.  Effect of insecticide
        placement on predator numbers and cabbage maggot control.
        J. Econ. Entomol.  66,1153-8.

 2.  Doane, J.F., and R. K. Chapman.  1962.  Control of root maggots
        on radish, turnip, and rutabaga in Wisconsin.  J.  Econ.
        Entomol.  55,160-4.

 3.  Eckenrode, C. J.  1972.  A continuing search for effective cabbage
        maggot control in New York.  Search Agric.  N.Y.S.A.E.S. Geneva,
        vol. 2, no. 11, 6 pp.

 4.  Eckenrode, C. J., and R. K. Chapman.  1971.  Observations on
        cabbage maggot activity under field conditions.  Ann. Entomol.
        Soc. Am.  1226-30.

 5.  Goble, H. W., F.L. McEwen, H. E. Braun, and R. Frank.  1972.
        Cabbage maggot control in root and stem crucifers with new
        insecticides.  J. Econ. Entomol.  65:837-42.

 6.  Redden, 0. K.  1966.  Equipment for Applying Soil Pesticides.
        ARS-USDA Ag. Handbook 297, 37 pp.

-------
                              -50-
 7.  King, K.  M.,  and A.  R.  Forbes.   1954.  Control of root maggots
        in rutabagas.  J.  Econ.  Entomol,   47:607-15.

 8.  Libby, J. L., R. K.  Chapman and T. J. Hartberg.  1974.  Cabbage
        maggot control on rutabaga in Wisconsin.  J. Econ,  Entomol.
        67:243-6.

 9.  Magness,  J.  R.,  G. M. Markle, and C. C. Compton.  1971.  Food
        and Feed  Crops of the United States.  IR Bull. No.  1; N. J.
        Agric. Exp. Sta.  Bull.   848, 255 pp.

10.  Stitt, L. L.   1953.   Insecticide tests for control of maggots in
        turnips.   J.  Eoon. Entomol.   46:961-5.
Exhibit 17-   Method of Testing Chemicals for Efficacy Against the
        Cabbage Maggot, Hylemya brass-icae (Bouche).   H. H. Crowell.
        Dept. of Entomology, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Onion maggot (Eylemya anti-quo. Meigenj

     The test crop is the onion, Alliim oepa L. (2), synonym - cebolla.


     Site Selection:—Conduct test in an area where onions have been
grown for several years and an onion maggot infestation is present.
The onion maggot is specific to onion as its agricultural host crop is
favored by cool, wet  spring seasons.


     Plot Management:—Plant transplants 4-6 inches (10-15 cm) apart
in the row or seed at a rate to yield 6 to 12 plants per foot (30 cm)
of row.
     Procedures:—(1, 3)

     Use a randomized complete block, split plot, or other experimental
design.

     Use four or more replications.,

     Use single row treatments 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9m) or more long.

     Plant one or more border rows on each side of plantblock.

     Treatments should be applied at or near planting time during the
overwintering brood onion maggot emergence period.

     Apply granules with a cone seeder, V-belt seeder, Planet, Jr.®, or
other calibrated hand equipment or use hoppers with a metering device

-------
                              -51-
or broadcast applicators.

     Apply dusts with a calibrated hand or power duster.

     Apply liquid treatments with calibrated hand or power equipment.

     Treat seed by slurry, use of powder or dusts and a sticker,  planter
treatment or other method as infusion.

     Untreated controls shall be used to determine the severity of mag-
got infestation and to provide a basis for comparison of the treatments.

     A standard insecticide treatment should be included, whenever pos-
sible, for comparison of the treatments.


     Evaluations:—

     Determine percent damage by counting and removing maggot injured
plants until plant mortality ceases and computing from total plant
stand for each treatment.

     Damage ratings can be used to assess the stand: 1-even stand to
5-extensive damage.

     Direct counts of maggot injured plants per given length of row
can be utilized (3).

     Yield data can be expressed as bags per acre (2) or as cwt per
acre.

     Evaluate weekly or as needed while damaged plants continue to
appear (3).

     A stand rating would be conducted when overwintering brood maggot
injury terminated.

     Early plant stand observations for phytotoxicity and counts are
made to determine any delayed germination with final stand counts made
when the first maggot injury appears.

     Analyze the results using conventional analysis of variance and
express significance at the 95% confidence level.  If another type of
analysis procedure is used, so state.
                             References
1.  Hedden, 0. K.  1966.  Equipment for Applying Soil Pesticides,
       USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook 297, 37 pp.

-------
                              -52-
2.  Magness, J. R.,   G. M. Markle, and C. C. Compton,  1971.  Food
       and Feed Crops of the United States.  I. R. Bull. No. 1;
       N.  J, Agria.  Exp, Sta.  Bull,  848, 255 pp.

3.  Sleesman, J. P.   1973.  The onion maggot and its control.
       Pesticide News.   26:101-3.
Seed corn maggot, Eylemya
    The test crops include:  snap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. (6);
lima bean, Phaseolus lunatus L. ; dry beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L.;
sweet corn, Zea mays L. ;  English or garden pea, Pisum sativum L.; and
the curcubits, cucumber,  Cucumis sativus L. ; pumpkin and summer squash,
Cueurbito pepo L.; winter squash, Cuourbita mosehata; and Duch ex poir,
C. maxima Duch.

     Site Selection: — The seed corn maggot has a rather broad host range
of vegetable crops and prefers areas of high humus (7).  Cool wet seasons
that slow seed germination favor seed corn maggot damage.
     Plot Management:—

     Infestations can be enhanced by baiting along the rows with meat
and bone meal at the rate of ca. 0.5 Ib. (0.225 Kg) per 15 feet (4.5m)
of row (2,3,7).

     One hundred or more seeds should be planted in rows 15 feet long
(4.5m) or longer (1,2,3,4,7).
     Procedures: — (1,2,3,4,5,7) .

     Use a randomized complete block, split plot, or other experimental
design.

     Use four or  more replications.

     Single row treatments are sufficient.

     Plant one or more border rows on each side of the plot block.

     Treatments should be applied at or near planting time during the
overwintering generation seed corn maggot emergence period.

     Effective time of treatment  can be determined by timing planting
with fly-emergence peaks from baited cone screen traps (4) or wood
stakes treated with Tanglefoot®,  and/or by use of day degree accumula-
tions  (8).

-------
                              -53-
     Apply granules with a cone seeder, V-belt seeder, Planet, Jr.®,
or other calibrated hand equipment or use hoppers with a metering de-
vice or broadcast applicators.

     Apply dusts with a calibrated hand or power duster.

     Apply liquid treatments with calibrated hand or power equipment.

     Treat seed by slurry, use of powders or dusts and a sticker,
planter box treatment or other method as infusion.

     Untreated controls shall be used to determine the severity of
maggot infestation and to provide a basis for comparison of the treat-
ments .

     A standard insecticides treatment should be included, whenever
possible, for comparison of the treatments.


     Evaluations:—

     Determine percent damage by counting maggot injured plants or
healthy plants and computing from total plant stand for each treat-
ment (2,3,4,7).

     Damage ratings can be used to assess the stand:  0-no damage
to 10-total destruction (1).

     Direct counts of maggot injured plants or healthy plants per given
length of row can be utilized (7,9).

     Or, dig up and examine a minimum of 10 plants or seeds per
replicate (1,9).

     Evaluate when second true leaves have fully expanded (2), or 2 to
4 weeks after planting (2,3,4,7,9).

     Phytotoxicity observations should be made at seedling emergence
and thereafter.  Stand reduction, delayed emergence, distortion, or
off-color foliage due to chemical injury should be recorded.

     Analyze the results using conventional analysis of variance and
express significance at the 95% confidence level.  If another type
of analysis procedure is used, so state.
                             References
1.  Broersma, D. B.  1967.  Control of the seed-corn maggot and the
       striped cucumber beetle on pumpkins.  J. Eoon. Entomol.
       60:819-21.

-------
                              -54-
    Eckenrode,  C.  J.,  N.  L.  Gauthier,  D.  Danielson,  and D.  R. Webb.
       1973.   Seedcorn maggot:   Seed treatments and  granule furrow
       applications for protecting beans  and sweet corn.  J.  Econ.
       Entomol.   66:1191-4.

    Judge,  F.  D. ,  and  F.  L.  McEwen.   1970.   Field testing candidate
       insecticides as seed  treatments for  control of the seed-corn
       maggot  on lima  beans  in  New York State.   J. Econ. Entomol.
       63:1332-3.

    Judge,  F.  D.  and J. J. Natti.   1972.   Insecticide-fungicide treat-
       ments  for bean  seed.   J.  Econ.  Entomol.   65:248-50.

    Lange,  W.  H.,  Jr.  1959.   Seed  treatment as  a method of insect
       control.   Ann.  Rev. Entomol.   4:363-88.

    Magness,  J.  R., G. M. Markle,  and C.  C. Compton.  1971.  Food and
       Feed Crops of the United States.  IR Bull. No. 1; N. J. Agric.
       Exp. Sta.  Bull.  848.

    McEwen,  F.  L.  and  A.  C.  Davis.  1965.  Tests with insecticides for
       seed-corn maggot control in lima beans.   J. Econ. Entomol.
       58:369-70.

    Strong,  F.  E., and J. W. Apple.   1958.   Studies  on the thermal
       constants and seasonal occurrence of the seed-corn maggot in
       Wisconsin.   J.  Econ.  Entomol.  51:704-7.

    Vea, E.  V., D. R.  Webb,  and C. J.  Eckenrode.  1975.  Seedcorn
       maggot  injury.   N. Y. Food Life Sci. Bull. No. 55.   Plant
       Sci.,  Entomology  (Geneva)  No.  8,  N.Y.S.A.E.S., Geneva, 3pp.
Tobacco wireworm, Conoderus vespertinus (Fair.) and Southern potato
  wireworm, Conoderus falli Lane

     The test crop is the sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. (5).


     Site Selection:—

     Conduct test in an area known to have a wireworm infestation (1).

     If necessary, sample soil to determine wireworm species.  At least
4 soil samples of 6 inches X 6 inches X 6 inches (15 cm X 15 cm X 15  cm)
each would be needed; where populations are sparse, enlarge samples to
12 inches X 12 inches X 6 inches (30 cm X 30 cm X 15 cm) or use the
6X6X6 inch sample size or all samples (2).

     Allowing plots to grow up in native grasses and weeds is conducive
to high populations of C. falli Lane (2) .

-------
                              -55-
     Procedures:--(1,2,3,4)

     Use a randomized complete block or split plot design.

     Use three or more replications.

     Use 3 or more rows 25 feet (7.5m) long or longer per treatment.

     Use 1 or more center rows of each treatment for results.

     Applications made early in the oviposition period are most effective
in the Southeastern U. S. (2).

     Apply granules or baits with a cyclone seeder, modified Mitchell-
Ventura®  planter, or other calibrated hand equipment or hoppers with
a metering device or broadcast applicator.  Disc into upper 4-5 inches
of soil for pre-plant incorporation.  Mid-season granular treatments
remain on soil surface.

     Apply other formulations with calibrated hand or power equipment.

     Applications are made prior to planting and midseason as over the
foliage treatments with granules or baits for soil treatment.

     Untreated controls shall be used to provide a basis for comparison
of the treatments.

     A standard insecticide treatment should be included, whenever
possible, for comparison of the treatments.


     Evaluations:—

     Determine injury by randomly selecting a sample of 25 or more
roots per replicate and counting the number of wireworm injured tubers
and the total number of wireworm scars.

     A damage index can be utilized whereby wireworm damage is evaluated
by digging the 2 center rows in each plot, from which sweet potatoes ar-
selected at random for scoring.  One hundred samples are taken per treat-
ment for each experiment.  Damage classes are: 0=no damage; l=up to 5
holes; 2= 6-10 holes; and 3= 11 or more holes per sweet potato.  The
damage figure averages constitute the "damage index".

     "Percent damage control" is arrived at by the following formula:
for treated sweet potatoes let A = the damage index and B = the percent
sweet potatoes damaged; for untreated control sweet potatoes let X =
the damage index and Y = the percent sweet potatoes damaged; then
100 - (AB/XY x 100) = percent damage control, a factor which reflects
the effectiveness of the insecticide by comparing wireworm damage to
sweet potatoes from treated plots with potatoes from untreated plots  (1).

-------
                              -56-
     Sweet potatoes are a long term crop with a five to six month
period from planting to harvest in the Southeastern U. S. (1).
Damage has not been observed on newly set plants but appears a month
or two later when roots begin to enlarge.  Therefore, treatments are
evaluated for effectiveness at harvest.

     Observe plants for phytotoxic injury as stunting, off-color
foliage, etc. after planting, for pre-plant treatments, and after the
mid-season over the foliage treatments.

     Analyze the result's using conventional analysis of variance and
express significance at the 95% confidence level.  If another type
of analysis procedure is used, so state.
                             Eeferences
1.  Brett, C. H., G. D.  Jones, D. A. Mount, and J. D. Rudder.  1966.
       Wireworms in sweet potatoes:  Resistance to cyclodiene in-
       secticides and control with a midsummer application over
       foliage.  J.  Econ.  Entomol.   59:99-102.

2.  Cuthbert, F. P., Jr.,  W. J. Reid, Jr., and Augustine Day.  1959.
       Parathion on cover crop and fallowing for control of Southern
       potato wireworm.   J.  Econ. Entomol. 52:772-3.

3.	_.  1959.  Evaluation of certain insecticides for Southern
       potato wireworm control.  Ibid 52:780-1.

4.  Redden, 0. K.  1966.  Equipment for Applying Soil Pesticides.
       USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook No. 297, 37 pp.

5.  Magness, J. R.,  G. M.  Markle and C. C. Compton.  1971.  Food and
       Feed Crops of the United States.  IR Bull 1, N.  J. Agric.  Exp.
       Sta. Bull.  828,  255 pp.
           L-imontus, and Ctenicera spp.
  Some of the species would be:  Southern potato wireworm, Conodevus
  falli Lane; Pacific Coast Wireworm, Limonius canus Le Conte; Great
  Basin wireworm, CteniceTa prwinina (Horn).

     The test crop is the potato, Solanym tuberoswn L. (2) (synonyms
Irish potato, white potato).
     Site Selection:—Southern potato wireworms are favored by areas
that have grown up to grasses before crops are planted or are cover
cropped to produce a high level of organic matter (11).

-------
                               -57-
     Onsager developed a method of sampling to detect economic in-
festations of Li-monius spp. based upon the relationship among the
number of 1/4 ft^. (7.5cm2) subsamples, number of wireworms and upper
confidence limit of population density for Limon-ius spp.  His sampling
data followed a Poisson distribution.  The method was developed to de-
tect and estimate economic populations (0.1 per ft^) .  Refer to Referen-
ces (3, 9) for the details of the sampling method.
     Procedures:—

     Use a randomized complete block, split plot or other experimental
design.

     Use two or more replications for large acreage tests (10) and
four or more replications for smaller plots.

     Use four or more rows per treatment with a row length of 25 feet
(7.5m) or more (4,6,7,9,11).

     Use 2 or mroe center rows for small plot results (4, 11) or
harvest a given number of hills for examination (4,6,11).
     Apply granules or baits with a cyclone seeder, Planet, Jr.® or
other calibrated hand equipment or hoppers with a metering device or
broadcast applicator (1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11).

     Apply other formulations with calibrated hand or power equipment
(1, 6).

     Treat seed pieces by slurry, use of powders or dusts and a sticker,
planter box treatment, dipping, or other stated method.

     Applications are made prior to planting, at planting, or post
planting (pre- or post-emergence) (4,6,7,9,11).

     Untreated controls shall be used to provide a basis for comparison
of the treatments.

     A standard insecticide treatment should be included whenever pos-
sible, for comparison of the treatments.
     Evaluations:—

     Determine injury by randomly selecting at least 100 tubers per
replicate and counting the numbers of wireworm injured tubers  (4, 6,
9, 11).

     Harvest and examine all tubers in at least 25 feet (7.5m) of row
per plot for wireworm injury (7).

-------
                              -58-
     Determine yield at harvest (4,9).

     Observe plants for phytotoxic injury as stunting, off-color
foliage, delayed emergence, etc. from the time plants emerge.

     Results may be analyzed by subjecting percentage injury and
damage by wireworms on the basis of tuber numbers and tuber weights
to correlation and linear regression analyses to determine the rela-
tionship between numerical percentages and weight percentages. This
analysis indicated that percentage ratings based on tuber counts or
weights were directly comparable for LimonLus canus LeConte injury
(5,8).

     Results may be analyzed using conventional analysis of variance
and express significance at the 95% confidence level.
                             Befevences
1.  Hidden, 0. K.  1966.  Equipment for Applying Soil pesticides.
       USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook No. 297, 37 pp.

2.  Magness, J. R.,  G. M. Markle, and C. C. Compton.  1971.  Food
       and Feed Crops of the United States.  IR-4 Bull. No. 1,
       N.  J. Agrio.  Exp. Sta.  Bull.  828, 255 pp.

3.  Onsager, J, A.  1969.  Sampling to detect economic infestations
       of Limonius spp.  J.  Eoon. Entomol.  62: 183-9.

4.	. 1969. Nonpersistent insecticides for control of Pacific
       Coast Wireworm.  J.  Eoon Entomol, 1065-7.

5.  	.  1975.  Pacific Coast wireworm:   Relationship between
       injury and damage to tubers.  J.  Eoon. Entomol. 68:203-4.

6.  Onsager, J. A.,  B. L. Landis, and H. W. Rusk.  1966.  Control of
       wireworms on potatoes in Eastern Washington by soil fumigants
       and organophosphorous insecticides.   J. Eoon. Entomol.
       59:441-3.

7-  Onsager, J. A. and L. L. Foiles.  1969.  Chemical control of the
       Great Basin wireworm.  J. Eoon. Entomol.  62:1506-7.

8.  	.  1970. Relative efficiency of three methods for chemical
       control of Pacific Coast wireworms in potatoes.  Am. Potato J.
       47:379-85.
9.  	.   1970.  Control of wireworms on summer potatoes in Eastern
       Washington.  J.  Eoon.  Entomol.   63:1883-5.

-------
                              -59-
10.  Onsager, J. A., B. L. Landis, and Lee Fox.  1975.  Efficacy of
        fonofos band treatment and a sampling plan for estimating wire-
        worm populations on potatoes.  J, Econ, Entomol.  68:199-202.

11.  Workman, R. B.  1964.  Southern potato wireworm control at Hastings,
        Florida. Proc.  Fla. State EoTt. Soc.  77:210-12.

-------
                                  -60-
                                                            Exhibit 1
               TEST METHOD FOR SOUTHERN CORN ROOTWORM ON CORN

                          E. H. Floyd, Professor
                         Department of Entomology
                        Louisiana State University
                          Baton Rouge, Louisiana
     Test Site:—Any soil type and/or location where a natural infestation
of the species occurs or is anticipated to occur.
     Climatic Conditions:—Accept what occurs.   Average or above average
rainfall conducive to damage by the insect - along with a prolonged cool
spring.  All testing must  be done by 1st to middle of May since damage
to corn by this insect in  Louisiana ceases at this time.  Damage is
confined to the seed in the ground before emergence and to the young
seedling plant until it is approximately 5 to 6" (12.7-15.2 cm) high.
     Test Crop;—Any adapted field corn hybrid or open pollinated field
corn variety (ones usually grown in the area).

     All seed are treated before planting with a fungicide; row spacing
is usually 36-40 inches (.91-1.02 meters).

     All tests are planted using a spacing chain and dropping one seed
per 12 inches (30.5 cm) for a total of 100 seed per treatment replicate.

     Plots are treated with atrazine at 2 1/2  Ibs./A.  (2.8 kg/hectare)
immediately post planting.  If soil compaction occurs later the plots may
be lightly cultivated to provide a more desirable environment.
     Insect:—Southern Corn Rootworm, Spotted Cucumber Beetle.

     At time of treatment insect is in the larval stage (young) and the
adult beetles are still laying some eggs (dependent on date of planting).

     The larvae develop on the corn seed and young corn seedlings as well
as grass, etc.  About the time the corn plant is 5-6 inches (12.7-15.2 cm)
in height, the larvae have matured and pupated (in the soil) and the newly
emerged beetles begin to appear.  Further damage to corn by this species
does not normally occur in Louisiana.  The adults may feed in a limited
manner on the corn leaves, but they soon disperse - reportedly in a north-
ward migration where the succeeding generations may feed on and cause
damage to roots of growing corn in areas north of Louisiana.

-------
                                  -61-
     Test Plot Management:—No special management procedures prior to planting.
A field that was growing a green cover crop during the winter and spring
prior to planting usually supplies a test site with a high infestation rate
since the adults are attracted in early spring to the green cover crops.  Also,
use of an old pasture or sod field for the test usually insures an above
average insect population.

     All plots are fertilized as per the recommendations for the particular
area for maximum corn yields.  If possible, irrigation is employed when
needed.
     Procedures:—A Latin Square design may be employed or a randomized plot
arrangement may be used.  The plot arrangement selected is dependent on the
local situation.  Several test plot locations are desired in order to include
as many different soil types and conditions as possible in order to more
fully evaluate and understand the results obtained.

     Individual plots (replicates) may be a single row 100 ft. (30.5 meters)
long and containing 100 seed, or the plot may be as much as 3 or 5 rows wide
each 100 ft. (30.5 meters) long.  At least 2 or more border rows are used on
each side of the experiment.  Where more than one row is used in a replicate,
the center row is employed as the record row - the remainder serving as
border rows.  The number of rows employed per replicate is dependent on
field size and availability.

     Treatment date(s) are same as planting dates.

     A minimum of 4 replicates per treatment is used.  On occasion where
land is available the number of replicates may be increased to as many as
10.  The usual  number of replicates used is 4.

     At present, the insecticide being investigated is formulated on sand
as 10% sand granule.  The particle size is very uniform and the product is
free of foreign matter (rocks, strings, etc.).  This material will flow by
gravity from a definite size opening at a constant rate.  Therefore, by
using a proper-size opening and a uniform rate of walking it is possible to
apply a desired amount of chemical in a definite length of row.  Error in
application is usually less than 5%.  (This method of application is not
applicable for applying granules formulated in clays.)

     For actual use a one quart grain can is attached at an angle to the
end of a 4-5 ft. (1.2-1.5 meters) stake.  In the lid of the can (screw-
type lid) is a smooth round hole (approximately 1/4" (.64 cm) in dia.).
Size of hole opening is variable.  Rate of chemical application may be
controlled by either speed of walking or size of hole opening.  Operator
simply walks down the plot row at the desired speed with the can opening
held a few inches above the opened row or drill which receives the
chemical.  Seed placement occurs immediately before or after the chemical
is applied.  The seed is then covered to desired depth using a single row
planter with the opener removed.

-------
                                  -62-
     Application of insecticide may be at time of planting either in the
drill along with seed or post planting on soil surface immediately above the
seed drill, or the chemical may be broadcast - either pre or post planting.
Where a broadcast treatment is used a plot containing at least 5 rows is
employed.  A cyclone seed sower is used to apply the granules in this case
and a minimum of 5 rows is needed to reduce effects of overlap.

     An untreated control is always included in all tests as a basis for
comparison or evaluating effectiveness of the treatments.


     Infestation Procedures:—Only naturally occurring infestations are used.


     Evaluations;—Evaluation of effectiveness of the various treatments are
determined as follows:

     Stand counts are made on 100 row ft.  (30.5 meters) beginning at time
plants are about 2" (5.1 cm) high and continuing at 2-3 day intervals until
damage has ceased (plants 5-6" (12.7-15.2 cm) in height) at each examination
all plants that are damaged by the rootworm are recorded and removed from
the plot.  (This procedure precludes double counting of a damaged plant.)
When the plants average approximately 12" (30.5 cm) in height a plant height
measurement is made.  A total of 25 plants per replicate is measured to
obtain the average plant height in each replicate.

     From the above data the effectiveness of each treatment on plant stand
and seedling vigor or growth is determined.

     A yield (dry grain) record is made after the plants have matured and
the grain moisture has reached 20%.  From the yield figures the effectiveness
of the treatments on production under the specific conditions of each test
is made.  Grain weights are based on 15 1/2% grain moisture.  Yields are
taken from the entire 100 ft. (30.5 meters) length of each plot.

     The data may be subjected to standard procedures of analysis of variance.


     Phytotoxicity;—All treatments are scored for phytotoxicity.

-------
                                  -63-

                                                             Exhibit 2


        TEST METHOD FOR NORTHERN AND WESTERN CORN ROOTWOKM ON CORN

                             D. D. Walgenbach
                            Associate Professor
                         Department of Entomology
                       South Dakota State University
                          Brookings, South Dakota
     Site Selection:—Area must have uniform measurable edaphic factors.
Soil type, pH, organic matter, exchange capacities, nitrate-nitrite
measurements taken for comparative purposes.

     Topography must be suitable for valid statistical design.

     Field history on cropping sequence, herbicide and insecticide must be
obtained.
     Climatic Conditions;—Wind velocity and soil moisture conditions
(surface) should be stated at time of application.
     Test Crop:—Corn varieties must be listed and overall susceptibility
to rootworm damage noted.  Varieties do show differential responses to
rootworm damage in either or both root regeneration and susceptibility to
root rotting organisms.

     Phytotoxicity measurements - The rate of plant emergence as well as
total plants emerged are necessary for determining phytotoxic responses.

     Row spacing, plant population and date of planting - insecticide
application should conform to the area norms.


     Test Plot Management;—Trap crops are necessary to insure both the
adequacy and uniformity of infestation across test plots.

     The trap crop should be harvested when the soil is firm to reduce
compaction.  Tillage operations should be minimal and timely to prevent
rough seedbed and application surface.

     Judicious use of herbicides to limit cultivations are necessary to
prevent distortion of the insecticide band.
     Procedures;—

     Design - RGB, 4 replications, 5 samples per replicate.

-------
                                  -64-
     Locations - Test plot locations should be in areas with exposure to
different insecticides rather than one location with exposure to numerous
compounds because of rootworm tolerance potential.

     Plot Plan -

     1.  Row X 100 ft. (30.5 meters) with no samples taken 15 ft. from
         either end.

     2.  At least 2 border rows on each side of the plot.

     3.  Planting date must be earlier than May 20 unless unusual
         circumstances or a sequence of dates are involved.

     4.  Plot size should be limited to 15 treatments.

     Treatment Procedures -

     1.  Application through metering device.  Shaker acceptable under
         limited conditions.

     2.  Metering units must be calibrated under field  conditions and
         recalibrated with changes in weather conditions.
     Evaluations:—

     Damage - (Hills and Peters,  1971,  see previous methods).

     Larval counts on a plant basis.

     Yield determinations.   Components  must include distance and number
     of plants.

-------
                                  -65-


                                                            Exhibit 3

                     TEST METHOD FOR CUTWORMS ON CORN

                      Z. B. Mayo, Assistant Professor
                         Department of Entomology
                          University of Nebraska
                             Lincoln, Nebraska


     Test Site;—Most tests are conduct/d on fields reported damaged by the
insects not on predetermined fields.


     Test Crop;—Varieties well adapted to the area.


     Test Plot Management;—Normal production practices.


     Procedures;—

     Statistical Design - Randomized complete block with unit-subsampling.

     Replications - Minimum of 4 replications.

     Several locations preferred.

     Specific plot plan -

          1.  Three or 4 row plots are used for each treatment.
              Each treatment is adjacent to an equal number of
              untreated rows.  Fifty or 100 ft. (15.2-30.5 meters)
              long plots are used.  Where 100 ft.  (30.5 meters)
              long plots are used they are divided  into 3 thirty
              ft. (9.1 meters) sub-units.

          2.  Minimum of 4 border rows.

          3.  Treatment dates - When infestations  are located but
              before major damage has occurred.

          4.  Distance between replications - Minimum of 5 ft.  (1.5
              meters).

     Specific treatment procedures -

          1.  Methods of application

              a.  Granules - A hand operated applicator mounted on
                  bicycle wheels with Noble metering units  is  used
                  for band and broadcast applications.  A 6  inch
                  bander is used for band applications  and  a 14 inch
                  bander for broadcast treatments.

-------
                                       -66-
                   b.   Liquids - A hand carried CC>2 or air pressurized sprayer
                       is used for liquid applications.

          2.   Rate of  application - Depends on material but usually is around
              1-1 1/2  Ibs.  AI/Acre (1.1-1.68 kg/hectare) (40 inch (1.01 meters)
              row) .

          3.   Stage of crop at treatment - Plant growth stages range from 1
              to 2 based on the Iowa State University scale of corn growth
              stages.

          4.   Time of  application - May 15 to June 15 in most years.

          5.   Due to extreme variation in cutworm infestations in a test
              area, each treatment is located next to an untreated row or rows.
     Evaluations;—

     Damage evaluations -

          1.  When plots are established the number of damaged and undamaged
              plants in each plot or 30 ft.  (9.1 meter) sub-unit is recorded.

          2.  Ten days to 2 weeks later the  number of damaged plants is
              checked again to determine % control.

          3.  Yields are taken in 20 ft. (6.1 meters) of row.

     Analysis of Data - Standard Analysis of Variance used.


     Effectiveness:—No specific known requirements.  In most trials, yield must
be increased by at least 15% to detect treatment effects.  Stand losses in excess
of 20% are considered economically damaged.   To be highly effective, treatments
must provide at least 75% control.

     Phytotoxicity: —

     Type -

          1.  Seed or seedling damage by planting time applications - No.
              plants/301 (9.1 meters) row.

          2.  Foliage damage by post-planting applications - % affected plants.


     Reporting Procedures:—Most of the items listed are included in the report
with the exceptions of compatibility with other products, presences and effects
on wildlife and beneficial insects.

-------
                                       -67-
                                                                   Exhibit  4

                        TEST METHOD FOR BLACK CUTWORM ON CORN

                          G. J. Musick, Associate Professor
                              Department of Entomology
                The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
                                    Wooster, Ohio


     Site Selection;—For natural infestations selections are restricted to those
fields which have economic infestations.  For tests using artificial infestations,
selection is restricted to normal corn producing soils.


     Crop and Plot Management:—A commercially adapted variety is planted at the
row spacing and plant population consistent with the normal procedures of the
cooperator and accepted agronomic practices (i.e., fertilization, etc.).

     No special plot management techniques are employed except as necessary to
maintain plot identification.  Plots are planted parallel to existing corn rows
to enhance fertilization and harvesting procedures.


     Procedures:—The experimental design is consistent with the experimental
objective and facilitates planting of  the crop.  Usually, randomized complete
block or split plot designs are used.

     Efficacy tests against black cutworm are conducted over several sites in a
year or at one site over 2  or more years.  The interaction of this pest with
the environment makes this  essential.

     Plots for evaluation of  efficacy  are 4 rows wide  by 15  ft.  (4.5 meters)
long  (artificial  infestation)  or 4-6 rows wide by  50  ft.  (15.2 meters)  long
(natural infestation).  Plots  are usually located  in  the center  of a larger
infested area to  minimize border effects.  Also  sampling is  restricted  to  the
center 1/2 of the plot.

     Applications of the insecticide is dependent  on  the infestation technique.
With natural infestations,  treatment is always after  the economic  infestation
has been identified.  For artificial infestations, generally,  infestation  follows
treatment by about  1/2  day.   For these latter  tests,  treatment dates are
consistent with normal  occurrence  of the pest.

     The methods  for field  application of  insecticides for cutworm tests range
from hand spreading of  baits  (preliminary  tests  of efficacy) to  calibrated
commercial  field  equipment  (advanced development under field conditions).
Formulations  include sprays,  granules  and  baits.

      Insecticidal placement includes banding and broadcast of all formulations.
Both  placement  are evaluated  as preplant  incorporated, postplant incorporated,
and postplant unincorporated  (especially  baits).

-------
                                 -68-
     Application rates range from 0.25 to 4.0 pounds AI/Acre (0.3 Kg. to
4.4 KG. AI/Hectare) for all placement and insecticides.  Initial rates are
as suggested from preliminary screening or commercial company recommendation.
All tests include an untreated check and a standard recommended treatment
in each replication.


     Artificial Infestation Procedure;—After insecticidal application,
barriers (6 inch (15 cm) aluminum lawn edging) are placed around the 2
center rows of each plot.  The enclosed plot dimension is approximately
2 rows by 6 feet (1.8 meters).  One barrier is placed in each treatment
of each replication.  After the barriers are in place, late 4th or 5th
stage black cutworm larvae are released in the center of each plot at the
rate of 1 larva/plant.  Releases are usyally during the late afternoon or
early evening following treatment.  These tests are conducted on corn
that is between 2- and 4-fully emerged leaves with the ideal being the
2-leaf stage.
     Evaluations;—For natural infestations, efficacy is measured by
stand counts.  Prior to treatment stand counts are made to establish
the plant population.  Approximately 3 days (range 2-6) after treatment
stand counts are made and data reported as % stand reduction.  Counts
are repeated from 1-2 more times or until plant cutting ceases.

     For artificial infestations, efficacy is measured by leaf feeding
and various degrees of cutting (cutting at whorl, second leaf or at base
of soil).  Data are expressed as % cut plants or % of plants with cutworm
damage  (including leaf feeding).  Evaluations are made every 2-3 days
until cutting ceases.

     The data are analyzed according to normal statistical procedures,
and means separated by the Least Significant Difference (LSD), Duncan's
New Multiple Range Test (DNMRT), or, if a factorial design, by orthogonal
comparisons.  Inferences are usually at the 0.05 level.


     Phytotoxicity;—Notes on phytotoxicity are made as it is visibly
evident.  Stunting, loss of vigor, and stand reductions are normal indica-
tions.  However, care is exercised to insure that it is phytotoxicity
and not insect related damage.


     Effectiveness:—Effectiveness is measured against an untreated check
and a standard insecticide treatment.  To be judged effective it must have
values significantly higher than the untreated check while maintaining
values near the standard insecticide.  It must show no adverse phytotoxicity
or no yield reduction.

-------
                                 -69-
     Reporting Procedure:—Reports contain all pertinent information about
the test and include information on the variety, pests, stage of pest,
cooperator's name, location, insecticide (rate and formulation), planting
date(s), evaluation date(s), plot size, row spacing, number of replications,
soil type and performance.  As available, information is furnished on
weather conditions, compatibility with other insecticides, phytotoxicity,
effects on non-target organisms and special comments on observations.

-------
                                 -70-



                                                           Exhibit 5

                    TEST METHOD FOR CUTWORMS ON CORN

                  J. J.  Tollefson,  Assistant Professor
                        Department  of Entomology
                          Iowa State University
                               Ames, Iowa
     Test Site:—

     Insect Infestation - The study fields are selected on the basis of
the actual population levels that are present.  When a grower reports a
serious infestation of one of these insects, the field is visited, the
damage surveyed, and the population level of the insect estimated.  If the
insect is present in economic numbers, the stage of the insect is such that
it will remain and continue feeding, and the farmer consents to allow a
test plot to be located in his field, the original stand of corn will be
disked out and the test established.  The actual location of these tests is
unknown until an infestation is reported.

     In the case of cutworm infestations reported after it is too late to
replant,rescue treatments may be applied.  The existing plants will be used
in these tests and the chemicals applied as dictated by the formulation and
use practices.  The rates for these tests cannot be selected until the in-
festation is reported and then the plots must be treated as rapidly as
possible.

     Topography - The test plots used are a single row wide.  Consequently,
appreciable soil movement due to erosion that may carry along the
insecticides being evaluated cannot be tolerated.  To avoid this, the area
of a cutworm infested field that is selected for an insecticide evaluation
study is located in an area of the field with minimum slope.

     Border effects - The plots are positioned within a field so as to
minimize border effects.  The only restriction on the placement, other than
slope mentioned previously, is that the plot must be readily accessible
to farm equipment from at least one point.
     Climatic Conditions;—The field evaluations of insecticides for the
control of cutworms are designed to simulate typical agronomic practices
and as such are subject to the same climatological restrictions as normal
field work.
     Test Crop:—

     Variety - A commercially produced hybrid that has achieved wide
acceptance by growers is used.  If the field required replanting rather late
in the year, the variety chosen is a shorter season variety grown by the
northern portions of the region.

-------
                                  -71-
     Row Spacing - The row spacing used by the cooperator is matched so that
a11 tillage operations normally employed are also applied to the test plot.

     Plant Population - A plant population considered about average for the
state is used.  This is not as dense a population as that used for rootworm
evaluations because the late planted corn will be more likely to encounter
moisture stress during the critical pollination period due to the later
maturing date.
     Test Plot Management;—

     Plot management procedures to insure infestation - Plots are established
where the insect has become established and is causing economic damage.

     Planting procedures - The row spacing and direction of the cooperator
are duplicated and  the rows are aligned as closely as possible to those in
the rest of the field.  This allows all tillage practices employed after the
plots have been established to be applied to the plots so that the tests are
representative of typical agronomic practices.

     Fertility procedures - The cooperator treats the plot area in exactly
the same way up to  planting time, using the same fertility procedures.
     Procedures:—

     Statistical design  - Randomized complete block.

     Replications - 4.

     Locations required  - An  attempt is made to repeat the experiment at
least once.  This is dependent however on the availability of suitable
insect infestations.

     Specific plot plan  -

          1.  Number and length  of rows - The treatments with each
              replication are applied to a  single row 100 ft. (30.5
              meter) long.

          2.  Border effect - A  minimum of  four guard rows are planted
              on each side of the plot at the time  the plot is planted
              and the plot is nested within a large field to avoid
              border effects.

          3.  Treatment  dates -  Treatments  are applied as suitable
              fields become available.

          4.  Distance between replications - No evaluations are made
              in the first or last 15 ft.  (4.6 meter) of a plot to
              allow for  variability in the  treatments due to the
              equipment  starting and stopping.

-------
                                 -72-

     Specific  treatment  procedures  -

          1.   Methods  -  The methods and  equipment  used  have been
              described  in the  publication:

              Hills, T.M., B.C.  Peters,  and  W.G. Lovely.   1972.
              Application equipment and  techniques used in the
              evaluation of granular insecticides  for control
              of  western corn rootworm larvae.  J.  Econ.  Entomol.
              65:1116-1119.

          2.   Rate of  application - Rate of  application depends  on
              the formulation and toxicity of  each specific
              insecticide.

          3.   Stage of crops at treatment -  Crops  are treated at plant-
              ing time,  except  for  cutworm rescue  treatments in  which
              the plants may be as  large as  growth stage 1.5, 6  leaves
              fully emerged.

          4.   Time of  application - The  chemicals  are applied as needed
              depending  on planting dates, weather conditions, and the
              insects  which, acting together,  will determine when the
              appropriate application  time is.  Normally these plots  will
              be  established from mid  May through  the middle of  June.

          5.   Controls - A check (untreated) row and currently
              recommended treatments are included  in each replication
              at  all locations  to serve  as standards.

     Infestation  procedures -

          Natural - Plots are located  on land  where economically damaging
populations have  been  found.
     Evaluations:—

     Damage evaluations  -

          1.  Plant stand - The amount of damage suffered by the crop
              is determined on the amount of stand reduction that
              results due to the feeding of the insect.   The stand is
              determined by counting all the plants in 1/1000 of an
              acre in each replication.   The average plant population
              is computed by taking the arithmetic mean of the stand
              counts for the 4 replications.

          2.  Yield - The average yield for each treatment at each
              location is computed by hand harvesting 1/1000 of an
              acre (1/2471 of hectare) for each treatment within each
              replication and computing the arithmetic mean of the 4
              observations.   The average is adjusted to yield per acre
              of No. 2 shelled corn based on its moisture content.

-------
                                 -73-
          3.  Insect - In addition to plant stand and yield evaluation,
              the numbers of living and dead insects are also counted to
              determine efficacy.

     Evaluation interval -

          1.  Plant stand - The stand counts may be taken as soon as
              the plants are well established, 3-4 weeks following
              emergence.

          2.  Yield - The yields are determined as soon as the moisture
              content in the grain drops below 35%.  This normally occurs
              during October or November.

          3.  Insect - At the same time stand counts are taken.

     Analysis of data -

          1.  Procedures - Analysis of variance is used to determine
              if any differences occur between stands or between
              average yields within each location and also between
              the overall means computed using all locations.
              Differences between individual means are identified
              using Duncan's new multiple range test.

     Probability level - P< 0.05.
     Phytotoxicity:—

     Evaluation - The average number of plants per 1/1000 of an acre
(1/2471 of hectare) is determined for each treatment at each location.

     Time interval - The time interval starts as soon as the plants have
emerged and become well established, usually from mid to late June.

     Analysis - Analysis of variance is used to determine if there are
any differences between the means.  Differences between individual means
are identified using Duncan's new multiple range test.

     Probability level - P< 0.05.


     Effectiveness:—The minimum requirements for an insecticide to be
judged effective is that it must consistently protect the plants from
damage as well or better than the materials currently recommended while
having no phytotoxic effects on the plant.

-------
                                 -74-
     Reporting Procedures:—A preliminary report is prepared following stand
count evaluations that include only statistical evaluations of the
phytotoxicity and stand count data.  A final report is issued after harvest
that includes:  a description of the evaluation procedures used; field data
sheets that contain the descriptive information for each location; tables of
means for the phytotoxicity, stand count and yield data with differences
detected by Duncan's test identified for all locations and combined over
locations  when similar tests were conducted at more than 1 location; and
tables containing daily maximum minimum temperature and precipitation data.
The data included in the final report is complete enough to provide all the
information requested bytthe EPA:   lot or batch number of chemical
compatibility of formulation with other products, presence of wildlife and
beneficial insects, and effects on wildlife and beneficial insects.

-------
                                 -75-



                                                         Exhibit 6

                   TEST METHOD FOR WIREWORMS ON CORN

                        W. G. Genung, Professor
               Agricultural Research and Education Center
                         Belle Glade, Florida


     Site Selection:—In order to insure that tests will be on land with a
suitable wireworm population, bait stations are established at pre-
determined space intervals, using nubbins or otherwise defective sweet
corn ears or fermented corn-meal balls placed at depths of 3 to 6 inches
(7.6-15.2 cm)  (into zone of soil moisture).  These bait stations are then
checked in about 5-7 days for penetration or approach by wirewonns.
Lands previously in grass or graminaceous crops  usually have heavy
wireworm populations.
     Soil Analysis:—After the test site is selected, soil samples are
taken to determine pH and nutrient levels  (including trace elements).
Analysis is made by the Soils Section personnel and fertilization is
based on this analysis.
     Weed Control;—Since grass and weeds can dilute severity of soil
insect attack on crop plants, good weed control is maintained.  Either
a pre-emergent herbicide application or manual cultivation is used to
control weeds.  Herbicide usage is based on the recommendation of the
Plant Physiologist.


     Transplantation of Wireworms:—In some cases, it has been found
convenient to add wireworms from outside sources to under-populated
experimental areas.  By thus "sweetening" or "seeding" the plots with
wireworms, satisfactory populations can be built up.  In these cases,
we add 10, 20, 30, to 50 or more wireworms to each plot prior to applica-
tion of chemicals, the number depending on availability of material for
transplantation.  The wireworms collected for this purpose are kept in
buckets of moist soil until ready for transplantation.  Addition of a
suitable food material will prevent any serious degree of cannibalism
among the confined larvae.


     Plot Size:—4 rows, 3 ft.  (0.9 meter) between rows, 25 ft.  (7.6 meters)
long.An unplanted and untreated buffer zone  of 12' (3.6 meters) is
maintained between plots and blocks.


     No. Replications:—Usually 4, occasionally 3 or 5.  A randomized
complete block design is used.

-------
                                 -76-
     Soil Type:—Everglades peat and muck, about 80 to 85% organic matter,


     Formulations:—Granules, WP, EC.
     Rate of Application:—As a rule-of-thumb, we start with 4.00 Ibs
AI/A (4.5 kg/hectare) on organic soil unless advised by manufacturers to
use less or more.
     Time of Application/Crop Stagej— (a)  Pre-plant (2 wks before planting)
broadcast or,  (b)  in the row at planting.  In recent years, we have
largely used (b)  above, as the growers have resisted using (a) above.


     Stage of Crop and Insect at Application:—Crop:  not planted or in
seed stage.  Insect:  in larval stage.


     Method of Application:—(a)  broadcast 2 weeks pre-plant or (b)  in
the row at planting.


     Interval/Treatment to Observation;—Observations are commenced as
soon as germination is completed,  a) a stand count is first made,  then,
b) stand loss counts are commenced as follows:  When a wilted plant is
found, that plant is immediately dug out to determine the cause.  If
it is killed by a wireworm, cutworm, lesser cornstalk borer, or other
subterranean insects, then, this is recorded.  It can then be determined
what percent stand loss occurred as a result of wireworm, cutworm,  etc.,
attack.  Counts are made at daily intervals until plants are about a
foot high.  The cumulative percent stand loss caused by the various
species can then be computed for the different treatments.


     Interval Between Observations;—Observations are made daily.


     Yields:—Yields may or may not be taken.  If taken, these are expressed
in crates/acre.


     Pertinent Comments;—Because of the tremendous buffering action of these
Florida organic soils, normally amounts of insecticides to be incorporated
therein, must be doubled to get control equivalent to half that amount on
mineral soils.
    Phytotoxicity:—As given on report forms, any burn, discoloration, dis-
tortion, or retardation or reduction in germination as a result of treatments
is noted after comparison with untreated checks.

     Sample data sheets of some recent corn tests are included.

-------
                                 -77-
                                                              Exhibit 7

                   TEST METHOD FOR WIREWORMS ON CORN

                    Z. B. Mayo, Assistant Professor
                       Department of Entomology
                        University of Nebraska
                       Lincoln, Nebraska  68503


     Test Site;—Test sites are selected on the basis of (1) number of wire-
worms in corn baits,  (2) previous history of wireworm problems and  (3)
land only 1 or 2 years out of sod.  Preferably, plots are placed in fields
with an average of over 5 wireworms/bait (baited either in the spring or
fall) and or on land with a serious wireworm problem the previous year.


     Climatic;—No specific requirements but cool wet springs are considered
conducive to increased damage.


     Test Crop;—No specific requirements.  Normal production practices.


     Test Plot Management;—Normal production practices.


     Procedures;—

     Statistical design or designs - Randomized complete block with unit
subsampling.

     Replications - A minimum of  4 replications.

     Due to problems associated with wireworm studies,  several locations are
preferred.

     Specific plot plant  -

          1.  One row plots at  least  100 ft.  (30.5 meter)  long are
              used for band and  in-furrow  insecticide  comparisons.
              If broadcast treatments  are  used,  3  or more  rows are
              used for each treatment  depending  on equipment
              available.  Each  treatment row per  replication is
              divided into 30  ft. (9.1 meter)  sub-units for eval-
              uation.  Each treatment  is adjacent  to an untreated
              row or rows.

           2.  Minimum of  4 border rows.

           3.  Treatment  dates  -  Early planting  times are preferred
               (April  25  to May  15).

-------
                                 -78-
          4.  Distance between replications - Minimum of 5 ft.
              (1.5 meter).

     Specific treatment procedures - Same as described for rootworms with
minor modifications in some instances.

     Controls - Due to extreme variation in wireworm populations in a test
area, each treatment is located next to an untreated row or rows.
     Evaluations;—

     Damage evaluations -

          1.  Approximately two weeks after planting the number of
              plants in each 30 ft. (9.1 meter) sub-unit are
              counted.

          2.  At the same time, the number of skips (places
              where it is judged that a plant should be) are
              counted.

          3.  Each skip is dug to recover the seed to determine
              if it has (1) been damaged by wireworms, (2)
              failed to germinate but no feeding damage apparent,
              or (3) no seed was planted.

          4.  Number of damaged plants (with whorl wilting) are
              counted and dug to determine if wireworms are
              feeding on the stem below ground.

          5.  Number of wireworms, if present, per skip or
              damaged plant are counted.

          6.  Ten days to 2 weeks later, the plants in each 30 ft.
              sub-unit are examined again to see if any additional
              damage has occurred.

          7-  All damaged seeds and plants per 30 ft. (9.1 meter)
              sub-unit for both counts are totaled to determine
              percent damaged.

          8.  Yield - Yield is taken in 20 ft. (6.1 meter) of row
              from each treatment if damaging populations were
              present.

     Analysis of data -

          1.  Analysis procedure - Standard analysis of variance
              and Duncan's Multiple Range tests are conducted on
              the average of the sub-units per replication.

              In addition, each 30 ft. (9.1 meter) sub-unit of a
              treatment is analysed (using a T test) against
              the untreated rows adjacent to it.

-------
                                 -79-
              Also, all treatments with similar damage in the adjacent
              untreated rows are compared to each other.

          2.  Tests are analyzed at the .05 level.
     Phytotoxicity;—

     Type -

          1.  Seed or seedling damage by planting time applications -
              No. plants/30' (9.1 meters) row.

          2.  Foliage damage by post-planting applications - %
              affected plants.
     Effectiveness;—No specific known requirements.  In most trials,
yield must be increased by at least 15% to detect treatment effects.
Stand losses in excess of 20% are considered economically damaged.  To
be highly effective, treatments must provide at least 75% control.
     Reporting Procedures:—Most of the items listed are included in the
report.

-------
                                -80-
                                                              Exhibit 8

                   TEST METHOD FOR WIREWORMS ON CORN

                 J.  J.  Tollefson,  Assistant Professor
                       Department  of Entomology
                        Iowa State University
                           Ames,  Iowa  50010
     Test Site;--

     Insect infestation - The study fields are selected on the basis of
the actual population levels that are present.  When a grower reports a
serious infestation of  one of these insects, the field is visited, the
damage surveyed, and the population level of the insect estimated.  If
the insect is present in economic numbers, the stage of the insect is
such that it will remain and continue feeding, and the farmer consents
to allow a test plot to be located in his field, the original stand of
corn will be disked out and the test established.  The actual location
of these tests is unknown until an infestation is reported.

     Topography - The test plots used are a single row wide.   Consequently,
appreciable soil movement due to erosion that may carry along the
insecticides being evaluated cannot be tolerated.  To avoid this, the
area of a wireworm infested field that is selected for an insecticide
evaluation is located in an area of the field with minimum slope.

     Border Effects - The plots are positioned within a field so as to
minimize border effects.  The only restriction on the placement, other
than slope mentioned previously, is that the plot must be readily accessible
to farm equipment from at least one point.


     Climatic Conditions;—The field evaluations of insecticides for the
control of wireworms are designed to simulate typical agronomic practices
and as such are subject to the same climatological restrictions as normal
field work.
     Test Crop;—

     Variety - A commercially produced hybrid that has achieved wide
acceptance by growers is used.  If the field requires replanting rather
late in the year, the variety chosen is a shorter season variety grown
by the northern portions of the region.

     Row spacing - The row spacing used by the cooperator is matched so
that all tillage operations normally employed are also applied to the test
plot.

-------
                                 -81-
     Plant population - A plant population  considered about average for the
state is used.  This is not as dense a population as that used for rootworm
evaluations because the late planted corn will be more likely to encounter
moisture stress during the critical pollination period due to the later
maturing date.


     Test Plot Management:—

     Plot management procedures to insure infestation - Plots are established
where the insect has become established and is causing economic damage.

     Planting procedures - The row spacing and direction of the cooperator are
duplicated and the rows are aligned as closely as possible to those in the
rest of the field.  This allows all tillage practices employed after the
plots have been established to be applied to the plots so that the tests are
representative of typical agronomic practices.

     Fertility procedures - The cooperator treats the  plot area in exactly
the same way up to planting time, using the same fertility procedures.

     Weed control - The necessary herbicides to provide weed control will
usually have been applied when the original plant stand was established.
If any additional measures are taken subsequent to the establishment of the
plot, the research area is treated in the same way as the rest of the field.
     Procedures:—

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block.

     Replications - 4.

     Locations required - An attempt is made to repeat the experiment
at least once.  This is dependent however, on the availability of suitable
insect infestations.

     Specific plot plan -

          1.  Number and length of rows - The treatments within each
              replication are applied to a single row  100 ft.
              (30.5 meters) long.

          2.  Border effect - A minimum of four guard rows are planted
              on each side of the plot at the time the plot is planted,
              and the plot is nested within a large field to avoid
              border effects.

          3.  Treatment dates - Treatments are applied as suitable
              fields become available.

          4.  Distance between replications - No evaluations are made
              in the first or last 15 ft. (4.6 meters) of a plot to
              allow for variability in the treatments due to the
              equipment starting and stopping.

-------
                           -82-
Specific treatment procedures -

     1.   Methods - The methods and equipment used have been described
         in the publication:

         Hills, T.M.,  D.C.  Peters, and W.G.  Lovely.   1972.
         Application equipment and techniques used in the
         evaluation of granular insecticides for control of
         western corn rootworm larvae.  J. Econ.  Entomol.
         65:1116-1119.

     2.   Rate of application - Rate of application depends on
         the formulation and toxicity of each specific insecticide.

     3.   Stage of crops at  treatment - Crops are treated at
         planting time, except for wireworm  rescue treatments
         in which the plants may be as large as growth stage
         1.5, 6 leaves fully emerged.

     4.   Time of application - The chemicals are applied as needed
         depending on planting dates, weather conditions,  and
         the insects which, acting together, will determine when
         the appropriate time is.  Normally  these plots will be
         established from mid-May through the middle of June.

     5.   Controls - A check (untreated) row  and currently
         recommended treatments are included in each
         replication at all locations to serve as standards.

Infestation procedures -

     1.   Natural - Plots are located on land where economically
         damaging populations have been found.

     2.   Trap crops - Not used.


Evaluations:—

Damage evaluations -

     1.   Plant stand - The  amount of damage  suffered by the
         crop is determined on the amount of stand reduction
         that results due to the feeding of  the insect.  The
         stand is determined by counting all the plants in
         1/1000 of an acre  (1/2471 of a hectare) in each
         replication.

         The average plant  population is computed by taking
         the arithmetic mean of the stand counts for the 4
         replications.

-------
                                 -83-
          2.  Yield - The average yield for each treatment at each
              location is computed by hand harvesting 1/1000 of an
              acre (1/2471 of a hectare) for each treatment within
              each replication and computing the arithmetic mean of
              the 4 observations.  The average is adjusted to
              yield per acre of No. 2 shelled corn based on its
              moisture content.

          3.  Insect - In addition to plant stand and yield
              evaluation, the numbers of living and dead insects
              are also counted to determine efficacy.

     Evaluation interval -

          1.  Plant stand - The stand counts may be taken as soon
              as the plants are well established, 3-4 weeks
              following emergence.

          2.  Yield - The yields are determined as soon as the
              moisture content in the grain drops below 35%.
              This normally occurs during October or November.

     Analysis of data -

          1.  Procedures - Analysis of variance is used to
              determine if any differences occur between stand
              counts or between average yields within each
              location and also between the overall means
              computed using all locations.  Differences
              between individual means are identified using
              Duncan's new multiple range test.

          2.  Probability level - P  0.05.
     Phytotoxicity;—

     Evaluation - The average number of plants per 1/1000 of an acre
(1/2471 of a hectare) is determined for each treatment at each location.

     Time interval - The time interval starts as soon as the plants have
emerged and become well established, usually from mid-to late June.

     Analysis - Analysis of variance is used to determine if there are
any differences between the means.  Differences between individual means
are indentified using Duncan's new multiple range test.

     Probability level - P  0.05.

-------
                                 -84-
     Effectiveness;—The minimum requirements for an insecticide to be
judged effective is that it must consistently protect plant stand as well
or better than the materials currently recommended while having no
phytotoxic effects on the plant.
     Reporting Procedures:—A preliminary report is prepared following
stand and insect evaluations that include only the statistical evaluations
of the phytotoxicity and stand and insect data.  A final report is issued
after harvest that includes:  a description of the evaluation procedures
used; field data sheets that contain the descriptive information for each
location; tables of means for the phytotoxicity, stand counts and yield
data with differences detected by Duncan's test identified for all
locations and combined over locations when similar tests were conducted at
more than 1 location; and tables containing daily maximum minimum
temperature and precipitation data.   The data included in the final report
is complete enough to provide all the information requested on the EPA
list required for registration except:  lot or batch number of chemical,
compatibility of formulation with other products, presence of wildlife
and beneficial insects, and effects  on wildlife and beneficial insects.

-------
                                 -85-
                                                              Exhibit 9

     INSECTICIDE TEST METHOD FOR SOUTHERN CORN ROOTWORM ON PEANUTS

                            W. V. Campbell
                       Department of Entomology
                    North Carolina State University
                          Raleigh, NC  27607


     The southern corn rootworm Diabrotica undecimpuncta howardi Barber
adults feeds on the unopened quadrifoliate leaves during June, July,  and
August.  Adult damage is of minor importance.

     Adults commence to oviposite in late July and continue until harvest.
Adults reach a peak in numbers on peanuts in North Carolina during the first
10 days in August (ovipositing adults) and the third week in September
(emerging adults).

     Single and multiple sprays for adult control have not been satisfactory.
The best control has been obtained with granular insecticides applied after
pegging and before mid-August in North Carolina.
     Site Selection:—Tests are established in silt loam and sandy loam
soils having an organic matter content of 2% to 5.5%.

     Commercial Virginia type peanuts Arachis hypogaea are utilized, such
as 'Florigiant,'  'NC 2', 'NC 5', or  'shulamit'.
     Procedures:—

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design.

     Replications - 3 replicates.

     Plot size - 4 rows x 30 ft.  (9.1 m).

     Row spacing - usually 36 inches (91.4 cm).

     Application equipment - Candy  901-2 granular row applicator.

     Application method - Granules are applied in an 18-inch (45.7 cm)
band over the row and incorporated into soil 1 to 2 inches  (2.5-5 cm) with
a rotary hoe except when excess vine growth does not permit incorporation.

     Time of application - Apply  at pegging time (about 60 days post
planting) to 30 days post pegging.

     Controls - Untreated control and a standard insecticide treatment
should be included for relative efficacy.

-------
                                 -86-
     Evaluation:—

     Sample Size - Select at random 5 plants from each plot, remove all
pegs and pods and count the number penetrated by the rootworm.  Interval
between treatment and damage evaluation - 60 days after pegging application
or 30 to 45 days after post-pegging application or approximately 20 to 40
days prior to harvest.

     Calculation % damage - use the formula:

                   No. rootworm damaged pegs + pods
        % damage =	X 100
                        Total no.  pegs +• pods
     Yields - Harvest entire plot or at least two rows,  field cure or
artificially cure,  and weigh.  Weight may be converted into Ib/acre
(kg/hectare).


     Effectiveness:—Candidate insecticides should compare favorably with
those currently registered.

-------
                                    -87-
                                                                   Exhibit 10

              INSECTICIDE TEST METHOD FOR THRIPS CONTROL ON PEANUTS

                                 W. V. Campbell
                            Department of Entomology
                         North Carolina State University
                               Raleigh, NC  27607


     The tobacco  thrips Frankliniella fusca Hinds attacks peanuts from the
time they crack the ground until mid-season in North Carolina.

     Thrips oviposit in the leaves and petioles and immature thrips develop
within the unopened quadrifoliate leaves.  When the leaflets unfold, damaged
leaflets are scared and malformed.  If thrips attack very young leaves, the
leaves have a burned appearance.

     Peanut varieties differ in susceptibility to thrips injury.  Variety-
insecticide interactions are common and may have a profound effect on the
efficacy of an insecticide, especially systemic soil-applied insecticides
(1).


     Test Plot Management:—Locate the test on the edge of a field with a
weedy border or adjacent to alternate host.


     Procedures;—

     Statistical  design - Randomized complete block or split plot design for
interaction studies.

     Replications - 3 replicates or more.

     Plot size -  1 to 4 rows x 30 ft. (9.1 m).

     Row spacing  - Usually 36-inch (91.4 cm) rows.

     Formulation  - Granular or liquid systemic insecticide,

     Application  equipment - Gandy  901-2 row applicator, or sprayer, or
equipment for soil injection of liquids.

     Application method - Systemic insecticides are applied in the opened seed
furrow at planting time.  The peanut seed are planted in the furrow with the
insecticide.  Insecticides must be in the immediate zone of the seed for efficient
uptake of the systemic insecticide.

     Control - Untreated control at least one standard insecticide treatment
should be included for relative efficacy.

-------
     Evaluation:—

     Sample size (thrips)  - Select from center of the plot one terminal leaf
from 5 plants in each of the two center rows.   Record the number of thrips
from the 10 plant terminals.

     Sample size (thrips damage) - Count the number of thrips-damaged leaves
on one center row.   (Minimum 20 ft.  or 6.1 m).

     Interval between treatment and evaluation -

          1.  Thrips counts - At weekly intervals or 30 to 45 days post
              planting.

          2.  Thrips damage - At weekly intervals or 45 to 60 days post
              planting.

     Yields - Harvest the entire plot or at least two-rows.


     Effectiveness:—Candidate systemic soil-applied insecticides should compare
favorably with those insecticides currently registered for thrips control.
1.  Campbell, W.  V.,  D.  A.  Emery,  J.  C.  Wynne, and R.  W. Bates.  1975.
       Interaction of peanut variety and insecticides.  J.  Am.  Peanut Res.
       Ed.  Assoo.   7:(Abstract).

-------
                                    -89-
                                                                   Exhibit _U

        INSECTICIDE TEST_METHOp FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPER CONTROL ON PEANUTS

                                 W. V. Campbell
                            Department of Entomology
                         North Carolina State University
                               Raleigh, NC  27607


     The potato  leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris is a mid-season to late-
season pest of peanuts.  Feeding by the leafhopper on peanuts results in a
"V"-shaped yellowing  of  leaves at the tip.  This yellowing or "hopperburn"
may cause the leaves  to  shed prematurely.

     Peanut varieties differ in susceptibility to leafhopper injury.  Variety-
insecticide interactions have been observed which affect the efficacy of soil-
applied systemic  insecticides  (1).

     The potato  leafhopper overwinters in the Gulf coast region and migrates
to North Carolina in  June.  The population peak in North Carolina occurs in
late July and early August.  Since damage or "hopperburn" is accumulative,
damage is most evident during August and September.  The leafhopper population
decreases after mid-August.


     Site Selection:—Locate the test on the edge of a field to obtain more
uniform population of leafhoppers.  Select a field with sufficient width to
permit one range  per  replicate.
     Procedures:—

     Statistical design - Randomized complete block or split plot design for
interaction studies.

     Plot size - Minimum 4 rows X 20 to 40 ft (6.1 to 12.2 m) .

     Replications - At least 3 replicates.

     Soil type - Soil type affects phytotoxicity.  Phytotoxic symptoms are
more severe on peanuts grown in light, sandy soil than on peanuts grown in
heavier soils.

     Formulation - Any granular or liquid systemic insecticide with particles
size that permits accurate calibration of granular row applicators.

     Time of application - Apply systemic insecticide in the seed furrow at
planting time.  Non systemic and systemic granular formulation applied at
pegging time for the southern corn rootworm efficacy studies also provide
differential control of the potato leafhopper.

-------
                                    -90-
     Method of application - Apply at planting granular systemic insecticide
with a Gandy  901-2 row applicator, or tractor mounted granular row applicator,
or any method that will uniformly and accurately distribute the granules or
liquids in the seed furrow.  Apply at pegging time (early July in North Carolina)
granular insecticides, as for southern corn rootworm control, in a 16 to 18 inch
(40.6 to 45.7 cm) band over the row with a granular row applicator.

     Controls - Untreated control plot and one standard insecticide treatment
should be included for comparative efficacy.
     Evaluation:—

     Sample size - Count the number of leafhopper adults and nymphs on 10 plants
in the two center rows of each plot, or the number collected per 10 ft (3.0 m)
row (minimum) by D-Vac , or number collected in 10 net sweeps, or count the
number of leaves with "hopperburn" on one entire center row of each plot, or
determine by a visual estimate the % "hopperburned" leaves in the two center
rows of each plot for seasonal control.

     Interval between treatment and evaluation - Leafhopper counts may be taken
at the population peak (late July) or approximately 10 weeks post treatment
(planting).  Leafhopper damage evaluation may be taken 10 to 15 weeks post
planting  (treatment).  Residual seasonal control may best be determined by
evaluating leafhopper damage 14 to 15 weeks post treatment (late August in North
Carolina).

     Calculation for efficacy - May be converted into % control or % reduction
in damage and analyzed by standard analysis of variance.

     Yields - Harvest entire plot or at least two rows, cure the peanuts, weigh,
and grade when feasible.
     Effectiveness:—Candidate granular insecticides should compare favorably
with insecticides currently registered.
                                    Reference


1.  Campbell, W. V., D. A. Emery, J. C. Wynne, and R. W. Batts.  1975.
       Interaction of peanut variety and insecticides.  J. Am. Peanut Res. Ed.
       Assoa.  7:(Abstract).

-------
                                     -91-
                                                                   Exhibit 12
      	PROCEDURES FOR TESTING INSECTICIDES AGAINST SUGARBEET ROOT MAGGOT

                               C. C. Blickenstaff
                                    ARS, USDA
                                 Kimberly, Idaho


     Procedures:—

     Replications - 4 to 6.

     Plot size - 2, 3, or  6 rows wide by 50-100 feet long.

     Method of application - tractor-mounted experimental applicator.  Six
metering devices each with a delivery tube to the row.  Materials delivered
variably at planting in relation to seed:  above, below, to the side, or over
the row in 4-5-inch bands and incorporated.  At post-emergence, applied in
bands over the row and lightly incorporated.

     Time of application - at seeding to post-emergence (up to 6-leaf stage).


     Evaluations: —

     Stand counts - are sometimes made before and after thinning.

     Maggot counts - are sometimes made at mid-season when most maggots are
mature (usually mid-July in central Idaho).  These are made by sifting soil
from 4- to 6-inch cores surrounding beets and expressed as number of maggots/
beet.

     Damage ratings - these are made on a scale of 0-5 at mid-season.

     Yields - these are taken at harvest in October-November.


     Effectiveness;—Determined by comparison with untreated checks.

-------
                                    -92-
                                                                   Exhibit 13

               TEST METHOD FOR DETERMINING FIELD EFFICACY OF SOIL
               INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF SUGARBEET ROOT MAGGOTS

                                 C.  C.  Burkhardt
                            Department  of Entomology
                              University of Wyoming
                                  Laramie, Wyo.


     The sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis (RHder) is one of the
major soil insect pests in many areas where sugar beets are grown.  Yield
losses may range from 3 to 15 tons per  acr-e.  The most effective method of
control is through the use of soil insecticides  to kill the larvae or maggots
in the soil.


     Test Site Selection:—Fields of sugar beets that have been in beets for
the previous two years or  more are preferred.  Generally infestations are
heaviest on sandy or sandy loam soils.


     Test Plot Management:—Plot management techniques are usually the same as
those employed for normal  sugarbeet production.


     Test Procedures:—The standard statistical  or experimental designs are
used.  Usually a randomized complete block design is used but depending on the
objectives of the experiment, a split plot or  other design might be better suited.

     Generally 4 replications are adequate, but  4 to 6 are frequently used.

     Size of plot may also vary, but a  single  row plot 25 to 50 feet in length
is adequate.  A plot 2 to  6 rows wide may be desirable depending on available
equipment.

     Method of application involves the use of granule applicators mounted on
planters.  Granular insecticides are applied in  a 4-6-inch band over the row
and incorporated lightly with either power incorporators, finger weeders,
scratchers, or dragging a chain.  Other methods  may include in-furrow applications,

     Time of application may vary.  Most applications are made at planting time,
However, postemergence applications may also be  made and if so, are usually
timed to be applied 1 week after first  fly emerges (especially in Wyoming) or
when the plants are in the 4-8-leaf stage.


     Evaluations:—To evaluate the efficacy of soil insecticides for control of
sugarbeet root maggots, technique criteria should include stand counts, maggot
counts, damage classification, yield, and observations or measurements on
phytotoxicity.

-------
                                    -93-
      Stand  counts  should  involve  the following from 25, 50, or 100 feet of row
 Per  treatment  per  replication:
 rh •         stand  count  -  taken  shortly after plant emergence but prior to
   nning  to determine what,  if  any, phytotoxicity or effect on germination and
 seedlings exists  from insecticides used.

      Immediate  post-thinning stand count - taken immediately following thinning
 to establish a  basic stand count  for the season, prior to any seedling loss to
 maggots.

      Mid-season stand count  - this should be taken after most of stand loss due
 to maggots has  taken place.

 Comparing the 2nd and 3rd stand count gives reduction of stand due to maggots.

      Maggot counts should be taken the second or third week in July (in Wyo.).
 Sugar beets (4  to 10 per  treatment per replication) should be dug.  Examine
 beet  and  soil within a  2-inch radius of beet to a depth of 8-10 inches.  Count
 and record as number of maggots per beet.

      Damage evaluations on roots  (beets) can be made on the same beets dug for
 maggot counts.  The classes  of  damage rank from 1 to 5 and are defined as follows:

      Class 1 -  no damage.

      Class 2 -  light damage;  occasional small feeding scars.

      Class 3 -  moderate damage; numerous small feeding scars but no tip damage,

      Class 4 -  heavy damage;  growing tip damage and/or heavy feeding scars.

      Class 5 -  severe damage; tap root severed, severe feeding scars, plants
                dead or  nearly dead or will die.

 The root  or  beet  damage classification is the most stable and most reliable
 criterion.

     Yield data consist of harvesting a single row 25 to 50 feet in length per
 treatment  per replication.   Although size of plot may vary, data recorded should
 include number  of  beets per  acre, tons of beets per acre, and/or pounds of sugar
 per acre.


     Effectiveness : — In all  categories of evaluations experimental treatments
 are compared with  standard treatments and untreated checks,  Percent control is
based on  treatments versus untreated checks.  The data are analyzed according to
 standard  analysis  of variance procedures.  Differences among treatment means are
determined by numerous  methods  such as LSD Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, etc.

-------
                                     -94-
                                                                   Exhibit 14
       METHODS TO EVALUATE INSECTICIDES FOR SUGARBEET ROOT MAGGOT CONTROL

                                   R,  D.  Frye
                            Department of Entomology
                          North Dakota State University
                               Fargo,  North Dakota
     Test site:—Tests are established in beet fields having a silty loam to
silty clay loam type of soil.
     Procedures:—

     Replications - 7 to 12.

     Plot size - 6 rows (22 inches between rows)  wide; 100 feet long; 4 center
rows in each plot tested.

     Method of application - materials are applied in 7-inch bands over the row
and incorporated into the soil with 1 3/4-inch drag chains; or applied into the
furrow.

     Time of application - a) in-the-furrow at planting, b) band over the row
at planting time, and c) band over the row when plants are in the 4-6-leaf stage,
     Evaluations:—

     Yields - yields are taken from 30 feet of beet row from row 3 in each plot
at harvest time (late September to mid-October).


     Effectiveness;—Percent control is determined by comparing yields in tons
per acre in treated beets with untreated beets.

-------
                                    -95-
                                                                   Exhibit 15

        METHODS OF INSECTICIDE TESTING FOR SUGARBEET ROOT MAGGOT CONTROL

                                   Y. Mok Yun
                          Agricultural Research Center
                           Great Western Sugar Company
                               Longmont, Colorado


     Test site:—To be established in beet fields where soil is usually a sandy
loam with 2% organic matter.


     Procedures; —

     Statistical design - randomized complete block, split plot, factorial,
paired "t" test.

     Replications - 4 to 6.

     Plot size - 2 rows wide and 25 feet long for initial screening test and
4 rows wide and 50 feet long for advanced performance test.

     Method of application - applied with application equipment to portions  of
field treated (in-furrow, band, or broadcast), and incorporated with power
incorporation, scratchers, side dress, etc.

     Time of application - preplant, at planting, preemergence and postemergence.


     Evaluations:—

     Phytotoxicity - ratings from 1-5 where 1 = no damage or best, and 5 =
serious damage or worst.

     Stand counts - number of beets per 40 to 80 ft row/plot or 2 ft/row for 2
rows in 25 ft plots.

     Maggot counts - number of insects/5 beets/plot (20 beets/plot for strip
trials).

     Root ratings - on a 1-5 scale where 1 = no damage or best and 5 = serious
damage or worst.

     Yields - in tons per acre, percent sucrose and pounds of sugar per acre.


     Effectiveness:—Effectiveness is expressed in percent control by comparing
treatments with untreated checks.

-------
                                    -96-
                                                                   Exhibit 16

               INSECTICIDE TEST METHOD FOR FLEA BEETLE ON TOBACCO

                                  P.  J.  Semtner
               Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
                 Southern Piedmont Research and Education Center
                           Blackstone, Virginia  23824
     Insect Pest:—

     Common name - Tobacco flea beetle.

     Scientific name - Epitrix hiTtipennis (Melsheimer).

     Newly set tobacco plants are especially vulnerable to attack by over-
wintering adults of the tobacco flea beetle and high populations of the 2nd
generation may severely damage leaves on the lower third  of the mature plant.
In addition, larvae feed upon tobacco roots and may severely damage newly set
plants (2).


     Test Plot Management:—

     Test site - Locate test near flea beetle overwintering sites near a wood-
lot or an old field.


     Procedures:—

     Statistical design - Randomized Complete Block.

     Replications - 3 or more replicates.

     Plot size - 6 rows wide and 24 ft.  long with an uncultivated border strip
8 ft. wide separating plots on all sides (Dominick, 1971).

     Row spacing - 48-inch (1.2 m) rows.

     Plant spacing - 20 inches (50.8 cm),


     Application Equipment;—

     Broadcast - Apply granules with a hand applicator.  Emulsifiable concen-
trates are diluted in water and applied with a single nozzle sprayer.  Following
application, disk the materials into the soil to a depth of ca. 4 in.' or 10.1 cm
(4).

     Band Application - Infurrow granules and sprays are  placed in a 12 inch
(30.4 cm) band with hand applicators in advance of a fertilizer-applicator row
lister (4) .

-------
                                    -97-
     Control - Untreated check and at least one standard should be included for
comparative efficacy.


     Evaluation;—

     Sample Size - Flea beetles damage on newly set tobacco is evaluated by
counting feeding punctures on the seriously damaged leaves from each of 6 randomly
selected plants in the 2 center rows of each plot.  Late season control is
determined by counting all beetles on 6 random plants from the 2 center rows of
each plot (3).

     Interval between treatment and evaluation - The most damaged leaf from each
of 6 randomly selected plants in the two center rows of each plot are removed 14
days after transplanting to determine the number of flea beetle punctures,  Late
season evaluation is determined by making population counts at weekly intervals
beginning 4 weeks after transplanting and continuing until early August (1).

     Analysis of data - Data are subjected to ANOVA and Duncan's Multiple Range
test.
     Effectiveness:—Candidate soil systemic insecticides should be as effective
or more effective  than chemicals currently recommended for tobacco flea beetle
control.  Phytotoxicity and tobacco quality ratings are necessary for registra-
tion of a new soil insecticide.
                                   References


1.  Dominick, C. B. 1965.  Experiments with insecticides applied in the soil
       for tobacco flea beetle and green peach aphid control.  J. Econ. Entomol,
       58(2):224-5.

2.  Dominick, C. B. 1967.  Systemic insecticides applied to the soil for control
       of the tobacco flea beetle on tobacco.  J. Eoon. Entomol.  60(5):1468-9.

3.  Dominick, C. B. 1969.  Evaluation of insecticides for tobacco flea beetle
       control.  Tab. Sc-i.  13:164-5.

4.  Dominick, C. B. 1971.  Evaluation of systemic insecticides for green peach
       aphid control on tobacco.  J. Eoon. Entomol.  64(6) ;1565-6.

-------
                              -98-
                                                        Exhibit 17
              METHOD OF TESTING CHEMICALS FOR EFFICACY

       AGAINST THE CABBAGE MAGGOT, HILEMYA BEASSICAE  (BOUCHE)

                            H, H. Crowell
                      Department of Entomology
                       Oregon State University
                       Corvallis, Oregon 97331
     In screening chemicals for activity against the cabbage maggot,
Bylemya brassicae, purple-top, globe turnips are used as the host
plant to be protected for several reasons:  the growth period of
about 60 days is long enough to allow for attack by at least one
generation of the maggot, but short enough so that 2 tests can be run
during a single growing season if desired; evaluation of results can
be conducted in the field by a 2 man team in a relatively short period
of time; and because good performance in a test of this sort would in-
dicate great promise for the material for protection against the mag-
got on other root and stem cruciferous crops.

     The procedure is as follows:   the land is prepared (worked down
to seed-bed tilth) and then rows marked and fertilized using tractor
equipment; single-row, 20-foot plots are marked off in replicated blocks
(usually 4); granular chemicals in measured amounts are applied to the
surface of the soil by hand in a narrow band (2-1/2" wide) along the
marked rows using a jar with perforated metal screw-cap; turnip seed
is planted along the rows with a Planet, Jr.R hand planter equipped
with side-sweeps to return displaced granules and soil to be compressed
by the packer wheel; and seedling stand counts may or may not be taken
(as an indication of phytotoxicity).  Liquid insecticides are tested
by diluting the concentrates so that 1 pint of liquid per 20 foot plow-
row will contain the amount of chemical desired.   Coarse drenching
sprays are directed along the rows after the turnips have reached the
1 or 2 leaf stage (20 or more days after planting).  Compressed air
hand sprayers can be calibrated to accomplish this rate of applica-
tion.  The rates of active ingredient most often used are 1.0 and 1.5
ounces AI/1000 feet of row (equal to 0.91 and 1.35 Ibs Al/acre at 36"
row spacing).  The plots are irrigated (overhead sprinklers) and culti-
vated for 60 days or until the roots are of marketable size.  Sampling
is done by an assistant, who selects and pulls 25 roots from each plot
according to their marketable size.  The roots are examined in the
field by the investigator and classified for degree of maggot injury
(called Control Rating)  according to the following categories:
     Clean, where no maggot injury is discernible;
     Slight, with a few minor surface injuries, or injury confined
        to the tap root distinct from the edible portion;
     Moderate, with 1-2 well-defined maggot tunnels; and
     Heavy, with 3 or more established maggot tunnels.

-------
                              -99-
     The Control Rating  itself  is  obtained by multiplying the numbers
of Clean turnips by  a  factor  of 4;  those with Slight injury by 2; Mod-
erate by 1; and those  with Heavy injury by 0.  With 25 roots examined
per plot, and  4 replications, be highest Control Rating possible would
thus be 100 -  analogous  to "100% Control".
                                               U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE—1977-720-117/1939/3-L

-------