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

Learn More →

Evaluation of an Experimental Systemic Insecticide Applied as Either an In-Furrow or Seed Treatment for the Control of Colorado Potato Beetle on Potato in Wisconsin, 2020

Evaluation of an Experimental Systemic Insecticide Applied as Either an In-Furrow or Seed... applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsab098 Section E: Vegetable Crops POTATO: Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Evaluation of an Experimental Systemic Insecticide HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Applied as Either an In-Furrow or Seed Treatment for the History=Text=History=Text_First Control of Colorado Potato Beetle on Potato in Wisconsin, EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC 1, Benjamin Z. Bradford, Scott A. Chapman, and Russell L. Groves EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 and Corresponding author, ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA e-mail: bbradford@wisc.edu ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: John Palumbo ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Potato | Solanum tuberosum Colorado potato beetle (CPB) | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say Potato leafhopper (PLH) | Empoasca fabae (Harris) Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae Thomas Green peach aphid | Myzus persicae (Sulzer) This trial was conducted at the University of Wisconsin’s Hancock using a standard 16 in. sweep net (15 sweeps per plot). PLH nymph Agricultural Research Station, located 1.1 miles west of Hancock, and aphid (including Potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, and Wisconsin, in field E-24 (44.114352° N, -89.535914° W) on a loamy Green peach aphid, Myzus persicae) populations were assessed by sand soil in 2020. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ was visual inspection of 25 leaves per plot. A  pre-count of CPB adults hand-planted on Apr 14 with a 12-in. seed spacing. Four replicate and egg masses was performed on Jun 4 when pest presence was blocks of eight plots were arranged in a randomized complete block identified. Full CPB counts were then performed on Jun 18, 23, and design. Plots measured two rows (6 ft.) wide by 20 ft. long. Plots 30 (14, 19, and 26 d after pest presence identified). PLH and aphid were separated by one empty row or 8 ft. of bare ground; replicates counts were performed on Jun 23 and Jun 30 (19 and 26 days after were separated by 12 ft. alleys. Furrow was closed after seed was pest presence identified). All plots achieved high levels of emergence placed and any in-furrow applications were completed. and no signs of treatment-related phytotoxicity or reduced plant This trial consisted of one untreated check, three rates of an vigor were observed. Insect counts were log(x+1) transformed prior experimental at-plant product applied as an in-furrow (‘EXP IF’), to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Defoliation one rate of Admire Pro (350  g a/ha) applied as an IF commercial percentages were arcsine square-root transformed. Treatment main standard, two rates of the experimental applied as a seed treatment effects were determined using analysis of variance. Means separation (‘EXP ST’), and one rate of Admire Pro (12.55  g a/100  kg seed) letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = .05). applied as an ST commercial standard. All seed used in this experi- Peak CPB adult counts occurred on Jun 18, but no significant ment was also treated with Maxim Seed Protectant applied at 2.5 g differences in mean counts between treatments were observed on that a/100  kg seed. In-furrow treatments were applied using a CO - date or on any other count date (Table 1). Peak egg deposition was also pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with a 6 ft. boom, operating observed on Jun 18, but no significant differences in egg mass counts at 30 psi and delivering 20 gal/ac through four flat-fan nozzles (Tee between treatments were observed on this date or on any other count Jet XR 8002-VS) spaced 18 in. apart while traveling at 3.5 ft./s and date (Table 2). Peak small larvae counts occurred on Jun 23, where holding the spray boom low over the furrows. the overall treatment effect was significant with P  = 0.037 (Table 3). Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Small larvae counts were lower on average in both the Admire Pro populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the IF (Trt 5) and ST plots (Trt 8) versus the EXP IF (Trts 2, 3, 4) or ST center of each plot for the following life stages: adults, egg masses, plots (Trt 6, 7). Small larvae counts were also significantly different the small larvae (1st–2nd instars), and large larvae (3rd–4th instars). prior week (P = 0.0028), on Jun 18, with the lowest counts present in Potato leafhopper (PLH), Empoasca fabae, adults were sampled the high rate of EXP ST (Trt 7) and Admire Pro ST (Trt 8) plots. No © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 significant differences in small larvae counts were observed on Jun 30. Defoliation remained low on Jun 18 (<2%), rising by Jun 23 Peak large larvae counts occurred on Jun 30, but there were no signif- (<15%), and poorly controlled in most plots by Jun 30 (up to icant differences between treatments on that date (P = 0.64, Table 4). 62.5%, Table 5). On Jun 23, the least defoliation was observed The best separation between treatments occurred on Jun 23, with the in the Admire Pro ST plots (Trt 8), followed by the high rate of overall treatment effect significant at P  = 0.0013. On this date, large EXP ST (Trt 7), then the Admire Pro IF (Trt 5). On Jun 30, with larvae counts were lowest in the Admire Pro ST plots (Trt 8), followed overall defoliation rates high, the lowest rates were observed by the high rate of EXP ST (Trt 7). Overall, seed treatments appeared in the Admire Pro plots. Leafhopper nymph and adult counts to perform better than in-furrow applications across all treatments. were sporadic and low throughout the trial, with no significant Significant differences in large larvae counts were observed on Jun 18 differences observed between any of the treatments. Very few as well, early in their lifecycle, probably influencing peak counts later. aphids were observed, with no significant differences between See Table 4 for more details. treatments. Table 1. Colorado potato beetle adult counts Table 2. Colorado potato beetle egg mass counts Trt Product(s) Rate Delivery CPB adult counts Trt Product(s) Rate Delivery CPB egg mass counts No. (amt/ac) No. (amt/ac) 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 4.50a 0.00a 0.00a 1 Untreated 0.75a 0.25a 0.00a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 2.00a 0.50a 0.00a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 0.50a 0.00a 0.00a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 1.75a 0.00a 0.25a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 0.50a 0.25a 0.00a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 1.75a 0.50a 0.00a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 0.50a 0.00a 0.00a 5 Admire Pro 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 3.00a 0.25a 0.00a 5 Admire Pro 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 1.00a 0.25a 0.00a 4.6 SC 4.6 SC 6 EXP SC Low Seed 1.25a 0.25a 0.00a 6 EXP SC Low Seed 0.50a 0.00a 0.00a 7 EXP SC High Seed 2.50a 0.75a 0.00a 7 EXP SC High Seed 1.50a 0.00a 0.00a 8 Admire Pro 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 4.25a 1.00a 0.00a 8 Admire Pro 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 2.75a 0.50a 0.25a 4.6 SC 4.6 SC a a P > F 0.26 0.076 0.48 P > F 0.065 0.36 0.43 a a Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). HSD, α = .05). This research was supported in part by direct industry funding. Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 3 Table 3. Colorado potato beetle small larvae counts Trt No. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Delivery CPB small larvae counts 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 26.00ab 28.75ab 16.25a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 34.75b 41.25ab 15.00a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 30.25b 56.25b 25.00a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 34.50b 35.00ab 27.50a 5 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 23.00ab 31.25ab 50.00a 6 EXP SC Low Seed 37.00b 46.25b 25.00a 7 EXP SC High Seed 18.00ab 32.50ab 43.75a 8 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 12.25a 17.50a 52.50a P > F 0.0028 0.037 0.12 Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). Table 4. Colorado potato beetle large larvae counts Trt No. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Delivery CPB large larvae counts 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 10.50bc 41.25b 52.50a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 10.75c 53.75b 58.75a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 4.25abc 42.50b 67.50a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 8.25c 45.00b 66.25a 5 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 0.25ab 32.50b 63.75a 6 EXP SC Low Seed 8.75abc 46.25b 63.75a 7 EXP SC High Seed 0.00a 20.00ab 63.75a 8 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 0.00a 10.00a 46.25a P > F 0.00024 0.0013 0.64 Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). Table 5. Defoliation estimates Trt No. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Delivery Defoliation estimates 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 0.8%a 10.8%bc 38.3%ab 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 2.0%a 13.3%c 62.5%b 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 1.3%a 11.3%bc 51.3%ab 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 2.1%a 12.8%c 42.5%ab 5 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 0.5%a 5.0%abc 27.5%ab 6 EXP SC Low Seed 2.0%a 11.3%bc 56.3%ab 7 EXP SC High Seed 0.5%a 1.9%ab 35.0%ab 8 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 0.5%a 1.1%a 14.5%a P > F 0.23 0.00074 0.023 Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of an Experimental Systemic Insecticide Applied as Either an In-Furrow or Seed Treatment for the Control of Colorado Potato Beetle on Potato in Wisconsin, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-an-experimental-systemic-insecticide-applied-as-either-boqp90DYwc
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsab098
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsab098 Section E: Vegetable Crops POTATO: Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Evaluation of an Experimental Systemic Insecticide HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Applied as Either an In-Furrow or Seed Treatment for the History=Text=History=Text_First Control of Colorado Potato Beetle on Potato in Wisconsin, EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC 1, Benjamin Z. Bradford, Scott A. Chapman, and Russell L. Groves EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 and Corresponding author, ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA e-mail: bbradford@wisc.edu ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: John Palumbo ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Potato | Solanum tuberosum Colorado potato beetle (CPB) | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say Potato leafhopper (PLH) | Empoasca fabae (Harris) Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae Thomas Green peach aphid | Myzus persicae (Sulzer) This trial was conducted at the University of Wisconsin’s Hancock using a standard 16 in. sweep net (15 sweeps per plot). PLH nymph Agricultural Research Station, located 1.1 miles west of Hancock, and aphid (including Potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, and Wisconsin, in field E-24 (44.114352° N, -89.535914° W) on a loamy Green peach aphid, Myzus persicae) populations were assessed by sand soil in 2020. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ was visual inspection of 25 leaves per plot. A  pre-count of CPB adults hand-planted on Apr 14 with a 12-in. seed spacing. Four replicate and egg masses was performed on Jun 4 when pest presence was blocks of eight plots were arranged in a randomized complete block identified. Full CPB counts were then performed on Jun 18, 23, and design. Plots measured two rows (6 ft.) wide by 20 ft. long. Plots 30 (14, 19, and 26 d after pest presence identified). PLH and aphid were separated by one empty row or 8 ft. of bare ground; replicates counts were performed on Jun 23 and Jun 30 (19 and 26 days after were separated by 12 ft. alleys. Furrow was closed after seed was pest presence identified). All plots achieved high levels of emergence placed and any in-furrow applications were completed. and no signs of treatment-related phytotoxicity or reduced plant This trial consisted of one untreated check, three rates of an vigor were observed. Insect counts were log(x+1) transformed prior experimental at-plant product applied as an in-furrow (‘EXP IF’), to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Defoliation one rate of Admire Pro (350  g a/ha) applied as an IF commercial percentages were arcsine square-root transformed. Treatment main standard, two rates of the experimental applied as a seed treatment effects were determined using analysis of variance. Means separation (‘EXP ST’), and one rate of Admire Pro (12.55  g a/100  kg seed) letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = .05). applied as an ST commercial standard. All seed used in this experi- Peak CPB adult counts occurred on Jun 18, but no significant ment was also treated with Maxim Seed Protectant applied at 2.5 g differences in mean counts between treatments were observed on that a/100  kg seed. In-furrow treatments were applied using a CO - date or on any other count date (Table 1). Peak egg deposition was also pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with a 6 ft. boom, operating observed on Jun 18, but no significant differences in egg mass counts at 30 psi and delivering 20 gal/ac through four flat-fan nozzles (Tee between treatments were observed on this date or on any other count Jet XR 8002-VS) spaced 18 in. apart while traveling at 3.5 ft./s and date (Table 2). Peak small larvae counts occurred on Jun 23, where holding the spray boom low over the furrows. the overall treatment effect was significant with P  = 0.037 (Table 3). Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Small larvae counts were lower on average in both the Admire Pro populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the IF (Trt 5) and ST plots (Trt 8) versus the EXP IF (Trts 2, 3, 4) or ST center of each plot for the following life stages: adults, egg masses, plots (Trt 6, 7). Small larvae counts were also significantly different the small larvae (1st–2nd instars), and large larvae (3rd–4th instars). prior week (P = 0.0028), on Jun 18, with the lowest counts present in Potato leafhopper (PLH), Empoasca fabae, adults were sampled the high rate of EXP ST (Trt 7) and Admire Pro ST (Trt 8) plots. No © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 significant differences in small larvae counts were observed on Jun 30. Defoliation remained low on Jun 18 (<2%), rising by Jun 23 Peak large larvae counts occurred on Jun 30, but there were no signif- (<15%), and poorly controlled in most plots by Jun 30 (up to icant differences between treatments on that date (P = 0.64, Table 4). 62.5%, Table 5). On Jun 23, the least defoliation was observed The best separation between treatments occurred on Jun 23, with the in the Admire Pro ST plots (Trt 8), followed by the high rate of overall treatment effect significant at P  = 0.0013. On this date, large EXP ST (Trt 7), then the Admire Pro IF (Trt 5). On Jun 30, with larvae counts were lowest in the Admire Pro ST plots (Trt 8), followed overall defoliation rates high, the lowest rates were observed by the high rate of EXP ST (Trt 7). Overall, seed treatments appeared in the Admire Pro plots. Leafhopper nymph and adult counts to perform better than in-furrow applications across all treatments. were sporadic and low throughout the trial, with no significant Significant differences in large larvae counts were observed on Jun 18 differences observed between any of the treatments. Very few as well, early in their lifecycle, probably influencing peak counts later. aphids were observed, with no significant differences between See Table 4 for more details. treatments. Table 1. Colorado potato beetle adult counts Table 2. Colorado potato beetle egg mass counts Trt Product(s) Rate Delivery CPB adult counts Trt Product(s) Rate Delivery CPB egg mass counts No. (amt/ac) No. (amt/ac) 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 4.50a 0.00a 0.00a 1 Untreated 0.75a 0.25a 0.00a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 2.00a 0.50a 0.00a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 0.50a 0.00a 0.00a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 1.75a 0.00a 0.25a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 0.50a 0.25a 0.00a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 1.75a 0.50a 0.00a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 0.50a 0.00a 0.00a 5 Admire Pro 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 3.00a 0.25a 0.00a 5 Admire Pro 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 1.00a 0.25a 0.00a 4.6 SC 4.6 SC 6 EXP SC Low Seed 1.25a 0.25a 0.00a 6 EXP SC Low Seed 0.50a 0.00a 0.00a 7 EXP SC High Seed 2.50a 0.75a 0.00a 7 EXP SC High Seed 1.50a 0.00a 0.00a 8 Admire Pro 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 4.25a 1.00a 0.00a 8 Admire Pro 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 2.75a 0.50a 0.25a 4.6 SC 4.6 SC a a P > F 0.26 0.076 0.48 P > F 0.065 0.36 0.43 a a Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). HSD, α = .05). This research was supported in part by direct industry funding. Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 3 Table 3. Colorado potato beetle small larvae counts Trt No. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Delivery CPB small larvae counts 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 26.00ab 28.75ab 16.25a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 34.75b 41.25ab 15.00a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 30.25b 56.25b 25.00a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 34.50b 35.00ab 27.50a 5 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 23.00ab 31.25ab 50.00a 6 EXP SC Low Seed 37.00b 46.25b 25.00a 7 EXP SC High Seed 18.00ab 32.50ab 43.75a 8 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 12.25a 17.50a 52.50a P > F 0.0028 0.037 0.12 Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). Table 4. Colorado potato beetle large larvae counts Trt No. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Delivery CPB large larvae counts 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 10.50bc 41.25b 52.50a 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 10.75c 53.75b 58.75a 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 4.25abc 42.50b 67.50a 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 8.25c 45.00b 66.25a 5 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 0.25ab 32.50b 63.75a 6 EXP SC Low Seed 8.75abc 46.25b 63.75a 7 EXP SC High Seed 0.00a 20.00ab 63.75a 8 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 0.00a 10.00a 46.25a P > F 0.00024 0.0013 0.64 Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). Table 5. Defoliation estimates Trt No. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Delivery Defoliation estimates 18 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 1 Untreated 0.8%a 10.8%bc 38.3%ab 2 EXP SC Low In-furrow 2.0%a 13.3%c 62.5%b 3 EXP SC Med In-furrow 1.3%a 11.3%bc 51.3%ab 4 EXP SC High In-furrow 2.1%a 12.8%c 42.5%ab 5 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 8.7 fl oz/ac In-furrow 0.5%a 5.0%abc 27.5%ab 6 EXP SC Low Seed 2.0%a 11.3%bc 56.3%ab 7 EXP SC High Seed 0.5%a 1.9%ab 35.0%ab 8 Admire Pro 4.6 SC 0.35 fl oz/cwt Seed 0.5%a 1.1%a 14.5%a P > F 0.23 0.00074 0.023 Means followed by same letter code(s) are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05).

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: May 11, 2021

Keywords: Potato | Solanum tuberosum; Colorado potato beetle (CPB) | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say; Potato leafhopper (PLH) | Empoasca fabae (Harris); Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae Thomas; Green peach aphid | Myzus persicae (Sulzer); imidacloprid

There are no references for this article.