THE BIOLOGY AND CONTROL OF

RED CLOVER INSECTS IN MICHIGAN"

Thesis Ice tho Dog“. of M. 5.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY I
WIEIeI Theodora Van Velzzan
I960

OQQQI...-.

"

-.~

. I. ’
‘ .§ - .«
I... ‘4'"

   

LIBRARY L"
Michigan State
U . .

 
     

 

9“? ~ fit .75] -m, ‘,v’ 3 V
‘Jrk’kurjx‘; l XXIII.) (Li! 1. :3 3; r'?

\

by

Willet Thecfimrg Van Velzgn

If.‘ 1“: fiti F .t 71;“ . Jfi 'I.\ m

Submittefl to the Calleqe cf

State Umlvarsity sf Agri

L.
H a.-
“i

n 1:" .
cuxrurc and Iyylffii
in p£ftial fulfilIWfiht sf the gen 3

for the dfigxae of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

mm

-fiartment of Entnwology

Apurbveé jéZ%9d/L,/
I ‘ . --—~-..-—- .~— ‘ . .u. 1 x- '-‘-Crwm

,0

~ 2’- 1: I: .- r

I

,3

An Invesiiqatimn wag Cnfiductcfi in 1G?3 ta stufiy the

L—d

-bio mgw and evaluate khe aheracal control 0f the major reé

'{
,

clover inaects. This Etudy w3§ @Qnfiuctefi en {ha Farm Crflpg

Expfiriwvntel Farw at Nfrhiqan State Hnivgrsfiky, East hangin

fl

{

p1chigan.
The “lover zvmt borer And the civvar root CDICU310 wfire
heafi

fannj to be the must immorfant anil ins ctS. Of th

m

I

infestlng pests thg clwver yari widge the Clover seed
chalcid and fhe clover heafl mmpvif wgre the insects mofit
Commnnly fcunfi. Afihifis. swiftlchuqs, plant bugs anfi 1;&f»
hagvers compriséfi thfi west nuwernua f011aqe pegts.
Heptachlnr. thindafi thimat and DST wwrg ameied anfi an
attempt mag mafia to determine the effectivenébs of thege
inaecticideg in crntrolIing insect pfifts. Ina©ct swaeoipgg.

hfad analy§es, stand maagureanaa, sgefl yield anc othgr

abservatians ware taken thruughmut the growing season”

If

fievtfiri

lat gravafi to be effgctEVE in Controlling the
clover xnmt hater, clover twat aurculic and Swittlebug and

‘ 13 I N I ‘5""." ‘ " "W "‘ " " v. A ,r. . 7 . s- w fi- r A ’I
In ad Itlvfi lfifihuvec giant vigur and infiifiafififi Ewéfl V1ela.

“a
3
@
g
”7
AI
b—d.
’3
n
a;
b:
p
I!
{‘3
Ffl
A
”'3’
I“
C
m
'1'
L
I I
7-5;}
M
m
w"

rs substantialiy {@fiuvefl

populations of splttlebugs and aphids. Thimet granules were
effective in centroiling leafhoppers, plant bugs and aphids
as a systemic insecticiée. A refiuction in insect populatimns
immafiia%c3y fcllowinq the tnimet appliwatien infiicatefi that
this insecticiae may have acted as a fumigant. The DDT sprays
were ertective 1n :eductng populatlons of plant bugs, leat-
noppers and sptttlebugs. varinus interactians were found
between the heptachlor 5611 application and the foliar

sprays.

THE PIOKfiCY END COVTDOL CF

PHD CLOVER I“SECTS I“ MICHT”AN

1W

Willfif Theodore Van Vclyen

Submitted to the College of Science and Artg hf Michigfih
State University of Agriculture and Afinliefi Science
in partial fulfillment of the réquirements
far the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department Of EntmeIngy

1 £30

/990

izyreéa

A C VN OWL}: DC? It) 3'??? NT 8

My grateful annreciation is extended to Professor Ray
Hutson, heafi of the Entomology Department, for making this
investigation possible.

The author wiahes to express sincere thanks to Dr.
Gordon B. Guyer, undrr whose directiun this study was mafia
and to w nm the results are herewith dea'cated.

My sincere gratitude is extended to Mr. Harry D.
Niemczyk and Mr. Richard L. Cooper for their invaluable
assistance thrnuqhuut this project.

I wish to extend my appreciation to Dnctors Roland L.
Fischer. E. C. Martin and Fred C. Elliott for their critical
reading of the manuscript. I also extend thanks to Mrs.
Kendall Frazier of the Soils Department anfi Mr. Arthur L.
wells for assistance in the statistical analysis of data, to
Dr. P. w. Oman, Department of Agriculture Research Service.
Beltsville, Marylani, anfi Dr. 0 :ar Tnbcala far the idente
ificatinn of innéct rpecimens. in Mrssars. Husein Elmwra and
John R. Paul Eur their help in thy Cullaction of fieii fiata
and t0 the Farm Crgga Department for prnviding the facilitier

and equipment cred in this inverfiigatinn.

rhu'w or ”CNTE?TS

.~: 11. kin—l

I. INTROUUCTION . . . . . .

II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . .

III. PROCEDURE . . . . . .

Sfiil Insecticifies . . . .

'31

[*ijar Sprays. . . . .

Sampling ani Moths”

g J
V a
A
I“
:3
D
find
‘C
L
HI
U3

IV. P?ESENTATIMW AND DISCUSSION OF DATA .

Notea on the Biolugy of Rafi Cluver
Insects . . . . .

(3
p.-
O
4
m
'1
:13
C;
S
(‘f‘
r
a
1"

£3;

Clover 82:3 Chaici

Meaficw S

g.
’vl
T
n
m
r 7’
C

as}

Plant Bugs . . . .

Evaluation of Chemical Central .

.3

Hrptaqhinr Sail Treatment .

(

.. J3

F’
L13

, ,
if
("v

Meadow Spittlnbug Control

1",

:. .'

Lea TF‘hcypv'j : Cent {'01 .

thimvt Sail Truatmgnt .
Ciuvnr Head Weavil
Ciovcr Serfi Chaicid
Plant Bug Cantrol .

Ca'iifi-‘rlt’ffil . .

Auhifi

L

Cuntrol.

v _ 1 - 0-..- ,
1483 5:1 055118 1'.

DDT Fwiifiqn Treatments .

Contrul

Cont

us-
CJntroi

’1

(N.

Meafiuw Syittlebug Cuntrol

Plant Bug Central .
Clovar

c
Led C h C on

L0

Plant Response to Innecticide
Application . . .
V. SUMMARY . . . . . .

VI. LITERATURE CITED . . . .

trul.

,4

d Midge ané Clovgr
a

n;

116*
'I

#7.

"a

.r f4;

Lr‘\)

I NTRODUC’I‘ I ON

There has been a consistent decline in rei clover seed
production in Michigan. Research undertaken because of this
decline has placed increased emphasis on insect problems
associated with the growing of red clover. Published reports
of red clover insect problems in other areas. as well as
limited observations in Michigan. indicated that post insects
often have been important factors in the decline of this
crop.

Many insects have been found to attack red clover at
different stages of its development. Some of these insects
damage the roots. some feed upon the foliage and others
destroy the developing seed. These insects cause direct
damage to the plants and in addition act as vectors of
important red clover diseases. Several insect species aid
the entrance of diseaseaproducing organisms through the
damage they inflict upon the plants. On the other hand
insects serve as the maior pollinators for this crop and
their presence is a primary factor in the production of
clover seed. A difficult situation arises in attempting to
control the destructive insects while not eliminating those

necessary for fertilization.

The purpose of this luv

biology of some oi

and to evaluate

stigdtifln was to stufly inn
the ”339? Tad slnver infesting "

the use of chemicals for their control.

LI T 8 RATE}??? E3 REVI {SW

The difficultiet encountered in the growing of red
clover. both on this continent and in Europe, have l‘cen
recorded for over two centuries {Fergus and Valleau, 1926}.
In evaluating the various factors contributing to clover
failure. particular attention has been given to the important
part that insects have played in both seed and forage
production. Pieters and Hollowell (1023) and Heusinkveld
(19h8) stressed the damage wrought by insects to red clover.
These workers also listed disease, unadapted and poor s;ed,
unsuitable soil conditions and seedbed preparation as
limiting factors in the growing of red clover for seed. In
most cases the studies of red clover failure have been
associated with specific problems, such as the effect of a
particular insect or disease upon the crop. General studies
have been few and in most cases very brief, yet the cause of
clover failure in many areas has been attributed to a complex
of factors and not to any single factor. The literature
indicated that the "complex" varies with various geographic
areas and therefore the solution for one area cannot
necessarily be applied to another.

In addition to insect pests, beneficial insects such as

3

&
those revealed by the studies of Megoe an; Kelty (1”??? have
shown that the amount of seed set is often proportional to
the number of pollinators present. This iumediately revealed
the need for applying insecticides which satisfactorily
controlled the injurious insects while not affecting the
pollinators. Packard (1952) mentions that cultural control
measures still continue to be the best if not the only
method of control for some forage insects. This is well
illustrated by the practice of cutting red clover early to
destroy the clover seed midge larvae present in the heads.

Studies on the biology of many of the important forage
pests have been carried on by various workers. A great deal
of attention has been given to the complex of soil insects.
Workers such as Koehler and Gyrisco (1959) have made
substantial contributions in their study of soil and plant
conditions which affect clover root borer incidence.
Gustafson and Morrison (1957). in their study of the above
ground activity of the clover root borer,have added much to
our knowledge of this insect. In Michigan. Niemczyk (lQé8)
studied the distribution and magnitude of the clover root
borer and clover root curculio infestations.

Numerous publications have appeared dealing with the

biology of forage pests in general. Outstanding among these

5
papers is that of Elliott (1952) in which the importance of
not only the insects but also plant diseases was explored in
West Virginia. Metcalf at _l (1951) presented a listing of
the important legume insects with notes on their importance,
type of injury. plants attacked. distribution, life history
and recommended control measures. Dickason and Every (1055)
studied the life histories of some of the more important
Western pests. Detailed contributions on the biology of
specific foliar pests have been made by Weaver and King (1053)
in their paper on the biology, ecology and control of the
meadow spittlebug, and Markkula and Tinnila (1056) in their
study of the lesser clover leaf weevil Peters and Painter
(1‘78) studied the biology of legume aphids in relation to
their host plants. Sorenson (1033) conducted similar studies
on the seed chalcis-fly in Utah-

Considerable attention has been given to the use of
insecticides both in an attempt to increase forage yield and
seed production Stitt (1059) and Gyrisco (1098) attempted
to increase the amount and quality of forage through the
application of various chemicals. iedler and Scholl (1“HT)
also directed their work along this line, using DDT and
sabadilla, Chamberlain and Medler (lVflQ) and Wilson (1‘37)

used DDT to determine the length of the effective control of

.injHrious insects.

In reviewing the vriuminnus amnunt of literature that
'has been puhlished during the past few years it hecame
readily apparent that much work is being conductefi regarding
the ecology. distribution and control of red clover ineect
pests. The literature indicates that many problems still

exist and each investigation unveils new problems.

 

 

.I
.~(l

w:
‘..
.‘\
C.

A
jr“
HI
I
7
A
Q
fill
-11
.
+Yn
."I
fr

AH:

I»
2‘
1
I"

PROCEDURE

A fielfi of Penaeett variety red clover {Trifnl

iwv

U m

‘Qratense L.), seeded in the spring of 195?, was uzea for this

 

investigation. This fielfl consistefi of annroximately 2.€
acres and was located on the Farm Crone Experimental Farms

of Michigan State University at East Lansing, Michigan. An
area 480 by 180 reet was Chosen Jivided into four retlicationa
120 by 100 feet and each replication sun-divided into five
plots 2& by 150 teat (Figure 1). Each plot was marked with

two border stakes and, in adfiiticn, by a taller center stake

to facilitate sweepings and other plot investigationm.

The five plots in each replication were then ranfiomly
assigned numbers, Item 1 to S. wnich correeponded to the
insecticifie application that each plot was scheduled tn
receive (Figure l).

.
,

Tue fielfl in general presenteu a level surface however

’-

plots 2 and j in repl cation IV nlopefl slightly flownhill.

Soil Imitatitidfie. On April 13. 1959, refilicetinna

__ I
«.

 

I and III were treated with an apnlication of granuiar
heptachlor at the rate of 2 poun&3 actual insecticifie per
acre (80 pounds of 2.5 percent YGmOC atta-clay granulea).

The anolication was made 11sing a Svred—N—Till Gandy

1 -'
\A‘)

Apnlicator. with a gauge setting vf JR. onliec by a Farmall
Cub tractor driven at 2.7 miles :cr thI, The insecticifle

was anolied in six feat swaths c vering the entire refilication.
Renlications II and IV were retained as untreated "centrols'

and are referred to as "untreaied reolications" regardl

:'~ 1*.
3 r)

C)

of the fact that certain clots within them received foliar
sprays.

On July 20, Q percent thimet granules were aoolied to
plot 2 in each replication at the rate of 2 pounds actual
insecticide per acre. The same aooaratus described above
for acolying heptachlor was used, with the exception that

the gauge on the Gandy Applicator was set at 9.

Foliar Spravs. An app'ication of thiodan was made to
plot 1 in each replication on May 1% using a Farmall Cub
tractor equipped with a 12 feet. 3 nozzle boom sprayer
designed by the Farm Crops Department. This apparatus
applied 36 gallons of spray per acre when traveling at a
speed of h miles per hour. The thiodan was applied at the
rate of one-half nound of insecticide per acre 52 pounds oer
gallon emulsion).

A DDT spray was applied to plots 3 and k in each

reclication on July 20 at a rate of 1 pound actual insecticide

jp— M_--_____. -

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
I
:L
I '7
_— .4
l
. L; 1
("‘J I t
a" I \ ' j
.1} .
O
t -‘

: —-J
I
l -
|— A
I
a
,1
‘—
fl
_1

\»

 

’ Cont (")1 }

 

A f 4
‘7' 1".” J. 131C" :- )

 

AQ'J

l <Thicdan)

? ~--. "\I

-,,_.‘_,- -7.-.--,.

—-w‘—~~~__-...- a..-“ ~~_—ql

a {novel Application)

 

 

 

 

% 3 {DDTvQ Applications)

 

.“.
Ill

-—

l
a- .I

s
.‘a

-
"1‘1

,-
u

..ali;§i:

a
’4

o

f

4

analno

Ln

’

 

pk)

per acre ’3 pounds per gallon emulsion). The surly was
applied with the same Equipmen‘ discussei above for the
application of thiodan. A second application of DDT at the
same rate and formulation was applied to plot 7 on July ht.

In referring to the foliar sprays all number 5 plots
are considered as "controls" regardless of the fact that
those in replications I and III received a soil treatmeit
of heptachlor.

Sampling and Methods of Analysrg. In order to sample
the insect complex of each plot, weekly sweepings were taken
until the first cutting on June 16. AFter the growth of the
second cutting had started. the number of sweep samples was
increased to two per week to more adequately record changes
in insect populations. The total period of sweeping 2xtendei
from May 10 to August 13.

A standard type. short-handled. 12 inch diameter beating
net was used for sampling. On each collection date ten 180
degree sweeps were taken at 18 foot intervals along the length
of each plot. The insects thus obteined were separated from
the debris by the use of a modified Berlese funnel in which
nethyl-iso-butyl ketone was used as a repellent. This funnel

is a modification of the one used by Gray and Schuh (lfifil)

11

.for sampling pea aphid populations. When the insects had
aiccumulated in the collecting bottle at the bottom of the
funnel. they were immersed in KAAD for a short time and then
‘preserved in 35 percent ethyl alcohol. Such a process
allowed the preservation of all soft-bodied insects for later
identification.

Actual counts were made of all insects in each samole
en<cept for those samples collected at the time of the greatest
SHDittlebug and pea aohid concentrations. In such cases the
Saunple was evenly distributed in a petri dish marked off into
ftsnr pie-shaped sections. The number of insects on one
sesction was then counted and this number multiplied by four

t6) determine the total number of insects collected.

A standard form (Figure 2) was used for recording the

111

La

ects from each sample. The fact that the insect samples
‘Nezre preserved in alcohol made possible accurate counts of
iJhneture forms as well as adults. Identification of the
:irisects was confirmed through comparison with a synoptic
cxsllection previously identified by competent authorities.

In an attempt to determine the factors affecting seed
EDIwoduction. a series of ten heads was collected weekly from
each plot from July 16 through August ‘23. Heads of

allF’Droximately the same light tan shade were selected to assure

I‘litt NU.

4‘m—--‘ .4.

Dfite TJkan

 

 

 

 

 

 

I lllle .. .- -—‘_..
_ _——__..‘. ‘ - .‘fl 0 ‘H .

 

RD'YL'PS I_i“'M.-" TYTVH

                   

 

Misc. Grasshnfi'e*s A__D%__J_u_mnu+n___-m

AdélflhfidflriS 1irev:lat us A-_ n.” W-
Adelphgcoris rap;:us _H
Lygu: lingulari IS__m__ A

 

 

}—----—~~-—--—--~-1r—----‘-*---—‘--—---—"--— -- .—

Misc. Miriuae . ".m.-w~"w_hummwv_h
Macros phum Gisi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“-JH—u-v—~-. - ---.- . -- ‘ - ._ .. .--
Theriaphis trifolii.nm~__w *”+___n_4n_.4,__m“ufl_
Philaerus leucophthalmus-_ %;_u__ _“.k+_fi u-uw _ _-_
Empoasca tabae _ A

 

Ma:ros:eles fa in): rons 4 _m_w~4
Aceratagaliia SangU1n(uanR1._+___-n- _” ”~-~M;
Paraphlepsius LIEOIdtUH _ ‘u , _ . _ _ ‘ .
Cl_oanthus fronta115___,______w___.-fl _fiF___n_...___nu.mm-%
Draeculaceohala antica HLH«N,,H,M4
Erdria ianlca flLvh_fifikm~_’u*~mnmmflm-h h
M13:.Leafhcpper3___ 1

..——________.1— ._-_
_. ’~.~-- - -~-—--.—.. -,

 

 

 

 

 

 

V.
I

Grak.m)]itha intE' rstinctana_,
Hypera nlgr: xvzizis -4

 

 

 

 

: . '\
.-‘_ ‘pl. ’ .' ’ , _ .- ‘
1.44 __ . o (.L Ink. - _ “4-- ._-{L___,__-.- __ 1

Hypera punet&ta _+-_m_u_mmum“w-fl.u-.
Sltana *ub“?ufiu1a - _

Sitona flavescens "_~.h H_h__-
173'6721115 step 153F151 «- . --. __‘_.'
Edi.q . Nfitjxhilids -H.m“-_“w_..
Misc. Pbaiarrids
Ni$¢. F‘

t
\
Pantatnm-ds ,_ L_“mvh_.m<fl.__ . ,_ J
J

 

 

 

 

 

 

\’.. ",
__;.5_- f -4.

b;
3

 

'ushnghagus gibbus
Dasyneura leguminicola _

 

 

 

?:onrp 9 gyamofie 0? Farm ugefl for recnrfiing insects taken
in ~Jvru saf~134 tram re 1 C3_0w er fielfl at East
ansing Mirnigan.1030.

that all heads were the eame age. The heads were then placed
in pint jars with cheese-cloth covers and allowed to dry.

After drying at room temuerature. six of the ten heads
were randomly selected from each bottle. The florets from
two of the six heads were placed in a metal dish marked off
into four equal sectione and one-quarter of the florets
counted. The remaining four heads were treated similarly.
The first ten florets counted from each pair of heads were
retained for further analysis. These ten florets were
examined under a binocular microscope to determine the
percent of fertilization and the number of seeds destroyed
by insects.

On September 19 ten plants were randomly dug from each
plot and the roots examined in the field for clover root
borer and clover root curculio damage.

At the time of the first cutting. on June 16. a swath
of hay 6 by 30 feet was cut and weighed from the thiodan
and central plots. These swaths were cut to the right of
the center stake in each plot to avoid the area trampled by
the weekly insect collecting. A smaller sub—samele was
retained from each of these plots. weighed. dried and
reweighed to determine moisture content.

In order to gather information on variations which might

occur in the clover stand, four square yard areas were
staked out in each olot {symbols A-D, Figure l). A connt
was made of the total numher of living olants in each of
these areas on July 8 and October 2.

An attempt was made to record differences in bloom on

July 30 and August 18. A thin 12 by 12 inch wooden frame,

snooorted by 9

inch legs, was randomly placed at ten locations
along the length of the olots and the number of clover heafls
falling within its margin was recrrded. All heads that
showed a sign of bloom were counted.

In preparation for seed harvest dinitro (3 pints in 10
gallons of fuel oil per acre) was applied to the field as a
dessicant. On eptember 21 two swaths 7 feet wide were

combined from each plot. The seed from each plot was

bagged, weighed and then cleaned and reweighed.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSTOV OF DATA

Netes on the Bioloqv SE Rel Clever Insertq

- n..—-."‘ m 00“...“ - ‘—.—-~.-‘ —.._.~

 

The failure 0E red clover._:rifoliuq‘3§s:ense L.. often

 

has been attributed to the complex of soil insects infestlng
the roots of the clover plants. Of this camp ex. the clover
root borer and the clover root cureulio are the most important
pests. Both insects do aopreciable damage filrectly to the
plants ani in afldition weaken them and allow the entrance at
flisease causing organisms. Detailed studies of the biology

of the clover rout burer and the clover root cureulio were

not made during this stud“, however observations associated

with the colle~tlon of control data were recorded.

Clover Rant Borer Lyle
In this stuiy an effvrt was male to roughly ascertain

th

CL'

perlefl of adult migration. On May 12 four 10 by 15 inch
”Tree Tanglefoot" coated pieces of aluminum were randomly
placed in the experimental area. The traoe ware plavefi
pernendiCular to and about 1? inzhes abnve the grouni. Ex «pt
for the use of aluminum the method was the same as that usej

by Newsnm {1039). The traps were examined twice weekly to

note the ndmbfir of aiult rgot borers pregent. Between Ray
15 anJ May ?H a tntal of ll sperimtns were ramnvai frum the
traps. The last béetle was rtmuved on May Q5. Betause the
number of clover ront borera removal wag 33 small it way
postulate] that the principal part of the migration had
occurrei before May 12. During similar stufiies employing
the same methwfi. at Masan. Michigan, Niemnzyk and Guyer (1099}
observed that on May 15 clover root borers were leaving 01d
clover fields in considerable numbers, however traps placed
in a one year all E1619 she-half mile away revealefl relatively
few of these insects. These workers suggest that the peak
period of migration teak place between May 10 and 15.
The cnly afiult Clover root borers taken in the sweep
samples in this study were four specimens collected on May 10.
In a random sample of plants taken from the untreatei
plots on July 1. a 100 percent infestation of roots by the
here: was resorfled. This infestation consisted of 27 percent
larvae anfl ?3 perCcnt adults. No pupae were ohservefi durlnq
tha examination.

When the plots were sampled for the evaluation of
Chemical control an September l8. 70 percent of the plants
taken frgm repllflatinns It and I? were infested. vase

plantn hai roots heavily iamaqed and averaged from f to 0

17

I
rent mofegj per gggqt. This infestation wee composed primarily

af fuliy ‘JVelwpeE 135x32 and afluits. On September 11‘ 1337.

It.
:»'>

in a survey at 45 sauther Michigan counties,Niemczyk {133 )

found infestations averaging 15.3 percent larvae, 1”.i

percent {night-2 :1an 7'3.) percent; aiuits.

u.

Clover Rant Curculio Sitggg higgifigfi} (F-)

Very little information was recorfled on the biology cf

('1‘

the clover root curculio Other than the abundance of afiul 3
in the regular sweep samples throughout the sampling periei.
Mercaif‘g£._l ‘1“61) stated that the aiuita are very active
during the spring months. This is then Eoilowej by a period
of decreased activity during the summer ani increased activity
in the early fali. Sweep samples in this study substantiate
this trend for numeYOuS beetles were taken in May. a s-ead11y

decreasing number during June anfl very few during Jujy. An

increaee was again natined after the firgt week in Auguxt.

Clover Seefl Miige Dasvneugg Lglggiggggig (Lint.).

In this stufiy the first aiult mifiges were collected when
Sweep sanpitng began on May 19. approximately six fiays before
the first binom appeared. The first heai collection. taken

an Juiy 2?, showed that the florets were infested with larvae

\Fiqure 3‘. The infestation continued thrnnqhout July anfl

I

P’
t: 1

the fiber: week of Atrnist. The Elvzwsixlx-3-1 agapear-an::et<a :32? the

clover heala, nansefl by the activity 3f the ane& midge larvae,
was evident during the entire hlnmming neriod. On August 13,
ten @aya after a large incre35u in the number of aldlt miigea
had appearei in the sweep sanples, a similar increase wag
observel in the incidence of larvae in the heade examinefl.
Metcalf et 1 {1031) state that the first of the summer
generation of adults appear Jurinq the first part of July,

In this stuny a ennsiderable inereaee in the number» 55

ajult midges caller 23 early in Augual prnbauly inflicate]

this Seesnj generatien of the seed miflge {Figure 3).

Clever Head Weevil Tychine fiéfifihéfiii Schfinh.

Adult weevils were taken in this stuly as eocn a3
sweepinge were initiate? On May )9 a3 shown by Figure 5.
A concentration 0f five weeVils per sweep was founi on June
12. As soon as the clover began forming bufla these insects
became extremely numerous anfl could easily be found on the
bloaaams anfl buds. It was net at all unusual to find as
many as 3 or 5 weevils per blossom during May and early June.
After June 13 a rapid decline of beetles occurrel, reaching
a low of approximately one per sweep by the middle of Augnet.

Heads collecte] on July 2? averaged 2.5 larvae per head

_ ___T,-_T _ _

7- —-’<V' fl

 

I llll II. it-.¢v‘u‘l¢-§ -lll

 

4."-

3.!-

Lllllb}: -iTP- .1. l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wi t'n a high of 'f'. 1 1:1 $573.11 Der heal"! in mrme ..‘.'§.;}1!F‘{E-'?TJ.E§. Flairfl:
examination {Figure 3} shmqed that the vwnventration of
larvae was highest during the middle of July but tavern} aft
sharply by the firet of August. A small nunher nf larvae

were eviient throughnut Augunt and a few during the first

week in Suptther'

Clover Seed Chalcid pruwhophggug gihhqg {Boh.).
The clover aeel chalcid has been repertel to he one u?

my. Elliott {1333) ani

L.
C.)
r“
1
1
9-5
h
f\
V
N
{1

the mast inmartant fleet
b L

3
I

Dixkasan anfl 51ery fl?3$) recer.el tww. or in some cages
three generations of the chalcifl per year. The inseflt overe
winters as a larvae in the clover seed and the anults emerge
with the advent of warm weather.
The July 2? heafl collection showed the highest infestattan
of Chalcifl larvae Fauna in this stuiy with lfifi larvae feuuj
in 120 heads examine}. A rapid decreaee in the numbers of
larvae was recorfied throughout the last week in July anm the
firet week in August as ShOWfi by Figure 5. An increase in
the number at larvae was again reuorlefi during the willie of
Auguet but this taoerel off during the last week in the month.
Great fluctuatiene in the numbers of aflult chalcifis

were recordei throughout August. Serenson (1053) fauna the

 

 

[
l

mHmwuayc

m H... J a v... (m.

~.N.\\.unx.o .

nr m L53. rm
4

. I, .\
4" . n .. "
rkwf.rvr.;.p I

It'lIWIH‘.“ .. z

a .

I FIIIIILI

/ t)
49“.

b

/

 

fl .3

"N . A... . .; .
Tianéu r. “ML". L -

.\u w
. ...v. r)
m.r.(~> 0t

mrfiflrg I'll

.-

Euxqqna 191

 

;¢

rh-u:c—ao—r~»'- "
r. ‘

\ ~ K."
| {-|

D
J

7.:

EE

{3'}.

 

“I Wilt C

RT

{.1- It.

I
s

‘0
I

"T
‘3

r."
I

~...
.. "
4‘ '-

.91

0‘ .-
¢

0-1
w A
n 7
_ .
W . _
F6

«

 

 

activity Of tha see 1 chal : id in be z'art ~311ar1y e&;n itive t)
temperature Changes. The Lgnt*uai.nn in numhetn uf tha13135
taileézei in this inveatiqatifin fixy have bsen sauaul by this

factor. The highest “)n.,n?21*1®n sf aJul' t chalcii ocuurre)

U2

urtng the mitule of August.

M-adow Spittlehug Philaanus 1e3f1j111h31mu3 {L.).

 

In this stufly the first nymphs were observe) on May 11.
Phis hatching 3a‘ge F3113 within the range listei by Weavgr
ani King 71131} tar §tates at approxinately the same
latitufie. The f1r5t nymphs Observufi WEEB hidden hahinJ the
leaf stipules, withu ut spittle fnrmatian. or Were jus
beginning to form Spittle mas es in the unfalfiei leavfis.

Swamp qamples from May 19 to May 27 containel ret‘tively
few Spittiebug nynphs, but h; June 3 a canaifierahle increaae
in numbers ha} tak an pla?8. The largest anber 06 nymphg
were callectei on June 13. On June 3 spitt1ebug counts were
“onfiuctefl in which 37 ytems Exam the theck plots were
selected ranJomly anfl examine} for agittle mas ‘3.§11:1t1
II and IV funtreatel} had 3.1% and 3.33 masses per stem
respectively. Elliott (1033} state& that ea 2h snittle mass
nclnsed frnm one to a dozen or mare nymphs. In this

innx untigat iyn tne Spittlebugs per mass ranged from 1 tn 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vaalcid an East Lansing. Michigan.

31'; 1
\
\
l
I a)"
: \
| \
1 \
I
\
O‘-
G 1
H L., ‘
P1 _7:U "'
Q:
a: \
46
a <0 \
2 H
I Q! «1 \
CL ,‘K’
5 s1)
9 9’
I if:
1 a at
c w 4
H
H
' fl
' u
o , -‘
[-4 5U -
.L) -
10 q
, / \
5/ .\V k _
‘ -O
' T ~~"""1"""""""T"'”‘ ”“1” “""T """'""' T f Y
‘ JULY aUGUST ssyramazu
_~“~111_17 U _1
E’¢.J a. 1 ;‘ .. ,, . a __-
~ 3'43 3 , damnance and: .LLSL‘ILDJL1.0!? of the Claw-er sea»;

1".»5'": .

No aanlt spittlehugs were taken in the «ween ~ample5 on
June 3 hfiwever {fleecinga taken on Jung 1“ perHCed nearly

equal pravfintions of adults and nyprS. On June 15 n3 nymphfi
were taken in t.

He sweey sampies and the aflult spihtlehug
population had attainei

rFigure

O'\
and

Leafhapners.

V
."

The Patato Leafhopper, Emnmascg gggqg {Harr.), was tne
predominant leafhapper encounterei in this study. On May
10, when the sweepings were startul, a small pnpulatinn 3f
the adult insect was

present. A grafiual increasc was note]

throughnut the season until by the mifidle of August nearly

Qfi times the original number was present.

Smaller numbers of C1n&nt§a3

 

Evil-£1113 f’JanD. ‘; ,
Aceratzagaujg §_.;1_qg.gf;z}’jli__tg;_tq (Prmr. ) . @321: WILL-lei 3:501}; 2'12

(Sta1.), Enéria jqfimi"

 

{Say}, in their refpe‘*‘

were a350
nfitei thraughuut the seafion.

Various immature leafhgo-

. pg r1»; we :9 name {‘0 L15

- samyle‘ an] akrainei their highESt numbers Juring th:
firflfit week

of June {Figure .},

Aphid 3

Ellintt {1952) statefi that injurious infestations of
eaphifiq had nut been abservei an rofl clover anfl that the
tartatgst numbers apnearel in the sprtng soon after the plants

- 4

estartel new qtnwth. This seemel to hold tra» in this stufly

(fl

g.

ince the highest populations of aphidq. pteinminataly thw

. — . . \ - ., _
{pea.aph1d, figcrwglfifigfl gist fHarrxs). were recorded aurlng

a. .9 "Q _.

tine last week of Miy. A grafiual tapetlnq off ocvurtel in
kane, and luring idly aai August “”1fiarli.dmld few aphifis
appearel‘l in the swmepingra. ”Fwd ot‘wzzt «19131113. _'I‘_1_‘_.____.~ri; “'1‘“ i
tLriFolgt ’ cn .: an} "ELiflhli fizfigfit (ancn},wete also muted

1:1 the swat samples.

Althougn Huttes and Frisan

f'\

1931) statei that the
Ehngli3h grain aghij. gigggiifiggq ggiggngq (Kirby). has been
:nallected frem rel clover. the literature on tel clover
irfisects cantains li ttle mentinn of this aphi1. On August 1“
aEfi'N roxiznataly 63 percent of the stems examine} haj infesta~

t1 fins of from 1 to #3 Engliihr?rain 3phii3. ffl:ee;e aphifls

“”flrWQ fauni betwaen the lnsf Stl‘liJ an! the plant sten.

n 1 _ 1
"44 iit 8133.
An abunfiancc of 9lmnt bugfi, especially the tarnishei

‘ “3?1t Dug, Lygua llneolarts

'0
U»
(D
33
\1
S
(O
r‘
CO
0
6
tr
fl
“‘1.
N
3—.
D
,4-
LJ’

 

 

-1 [:- 1"

3‘} DIS? F1711:

net

“1&0

1
4;.

1.‘ :2 r

Catch

 

 

Scale

flgfiDJW.%

Lansing,

populatimns of
East

4.‘
m

w
G If)
u
m U

533;._{MMATUgQ‘L3AEHQPPERs

clnver in

red
Michigane

MAY ' JUNE ' JULY ' AUG

10.13:)

27

field during the study. By the first week of August approx-

imately 20 tarnished plant bug's were present in each sample
and remainei at 12113 level 6:):- the re‘aainder of the callectlng

period {Figure 5). Smaller mmhers of Adelyhocorls
raoidus Say were

lineolatus Goeze and a few AdaLghocogg ._.-..

 

also collected throughout the season.

Immature plant bugs became numerous in the sweep samples

as early as June 12’) and by the seccnd week in August 7'5 to

1'33 of thaw. inset-ts per tangle was: not unusual.

F... '0‘, '.' “ -W‘ I‘ . _
...."r.l‘.'v‘i’_.kw3!l .«: v.2;«:.~ 1‘ and- n.
“Ouwfifikw-.H- O Q " O p . ’--‘“ - .J 0—".

Heptachlwr 5311 Treatment.

”9313-wa 32.5"tolefiggdclgn‘t'g'zl. The fir-3t difference

H ~-....

 

(flaserved resulting from the heptaehlnr application wa3 the
(affect an the mcafiJw apirtlebug pagelAtlan. As early as May

131 it was pneslble to fielineate the bounlnrles between the
A "épt-a-Thlrfir an": an! Waltz-3’; :‘rfitli‘ ill'l‘; $11192; ‘3‘} {pitting $1711:
clover plants an} observing the nun‘abera of spittle merges.

I]? the untreated replications there were numerous masses in

comparison with the heg‘)1:a::h3<‘)r plots.

rd
.1
J
Fh
?
.4
p.)
U
'
3-!
)J
?
h
J
J
m
I
w
”I
I
r-d
ta

On J'm-a 3‘? :1 ‘Lnj'fi: vigil (may
“a. 3:22;; Tm .1 L‘a'x.‘..fs;'-1 sample "If
l“tt'g_')lii‘-1iilf)’l. '31.) s;_-itfle "M : +3: #3:: ‘_"".“,“)'r_‘ql"i'4 free the
13L‘1L.1rt‘f‘.l.;): ire-std? area-"J. In the untreated are-31's ":34 Uercent
C>f the stems in replication II and 5h percent of the stems
1r) replication IV cuntainei from one to two suirtle masses.
-AF1 average of fi.§3 snittle masses uer stem was found in the
‘Jrrtreatei replicatiens. Niemczyk and Guyer (1939) annliefi
h‘9:Dta-z‘nlm: at the same rate an? anhievei similar spitflehug
Cmntrnl. Only one spittle mass f'f)‘.\’.‘;vi33i marten-'33 per stern) way;
1‘-

‘311n1 in an examination 0f 2?? raj clover sLems callecte}

,-" - ."'
Ll Lott.) o

rm their hepiez‘hlnr

In the xx-un) armples Lafixuilréivson M1] Tfltvv] Tune 13
.1 signiFinxmr li??erewce wag fawnl between the nunber of
riymphs taken From the twn replieltljne. Not mere than 3
ruymnhs per 23 sweepe were collevtel on a single almnle flate
.in the heptachlor replications while in the untreatefl
{NfiwllCllinns es mdny l3 4‘ nymphs per 27 sweeps were rwaariwl.

L

(Du June 13,

S?itL16buq h3~i hEQn hated,

tlie

sweeps in

Of sweeps

nuznlwer

Clfiwer Rnat Ba:

 

‘vv ', a~ - ‘. ‘:
Aggrorimategy -

untrelte-i

he pi‘daflli)‘:

'b

lays after the

trei-,

first adult

1113 adults were taken from 33
replicatians anfi only 23 in an equal

fPJ areas.

l‘t‘v’ Q.
Cladtfh

at of heptachlnr

A tntal of 93 planta were dug from ed:

was; Iii-.15?» of" Ulant rails to ascertain the
can the rent berer.

re plicatlim

OF L”

..H

V

in

‘3"! i it"na‘é

insect

3' 1.‘3Tl thi‘
W'hérefg-y; every plant
‘3 l t’ner in Fee Lei with

on July 1 and B anfl the roots examine}

Only fine hf the

h94Menfiulnr llyflliCfillflng shrwnal raut

from the untreitel

alnlt an} larval

reglijtions wa

root borers or

for

93 plants Samplel

lyjrer'ahmnage,

$1

’3
.A

showe

\flarisiderahle damage resulting frnm feeding and egg laying

ac": ivities.

On September 13 a more thorough root examinatinn was

(:13 ' .1 J ‘ ‘
n-UI~1.*';‘21 1.” 'anCh

1

3 plant»; were dug at

renlom from eevh

IL

Ar,“ 7 _ .y-x . _ ,- n _. ‘
k ' ' t‘“ * 3 " )9“ ‘ (it '3'" V“ .1: I. 1 * "n‘IH-i"...‘

{jiifif. Pzfial fluily :_:5 5.3554 741, . in,. 3 5“ .u
A 11 From the untr35toi rwylifiatimnfi w&rfi Jamaqal while nat

;a single plant was damaged in the heptaablor tre5tei areas.

1:1 1’F4 Nipmczvk an! Sayer alfaln l aimilar clnver root

lx5n9r«rwsnt.'nl nalng the same rate J? h'fn. 1“1‘"' Gyrlbwo
f 1053) alas lists héptdchlor among the insacticlleq

(730818tcntl” giving @003 re4ult5 in ?53 sastrvl 5E this

During this phase 3?? the E‘atje r1 want: a record was

p

Rfiiintalned at the numb er of raots wh izh were neither flimagcl
lay the ClflVQK rcr t borer mat the Cl mrer LOOt curculio. Of
t?19 130 plants L1q in the haota .ulnr trdxtm:n 71 percent

aware ant lrely free of damage while, of an mq 51 number aamglefl

1:1 the untreated replic5tlnn5, only 0 percent were free of

Clive: Hi5} figgggl.gggtrjl. The fir5t indi :a'ifln 0f

‘anfitrnl Hf the clever heaJ wwe vil was noticei in tha May

pa

oer sweep were

U3

Sfivcnay 55m3135. An average of 3 beet e

L

“331.1ectefl 1n the untreated replications and less than 1

V

-\ . ‘ . - - ‘ fl
‘”3‘:fle per aweup in the n+n“ fnlfir r5511L5FLGn5 £2990? “ml

‘ x‘ . . s
t ‘C3 June 5 sample, 1n wnich apgrmximltely eqqal nnmner5 5F

‘2‘???“ ‘. . . ' F ” . . ‘ ~ . -. . , A
“‘%\’115 were taken frmm all replicationa, this drffcrnntial

bi

unfit fim13'xniniinel ?\H: inif9&;h‘.13lr"TQWTHfli* 1% cmiltun,1n?
{)t) {'1 \fl‘j .
r . ”.1 - - I' ’~ - ~ r o"- .1 ’1‘ P t ‘ ’0 ‘ .- 1 Q 0 -\
Interesting mafia weft? 111' ‘3 “.u'tJL.lll"3~-4 k)“ tJ‘l'J L. \ “val .hziirj

he 5."; fast :1 may:

(”f

weevil larvae popuIatlon at the time 3?

hejd cal1ectinn. On July 2?, Q3} clover heals were pickcl

an! plans} in bvttles Lo qty On July 37, before disaectinn

'J
m
('9'
I- ‘1
i1-
3'
"J

.ajs hai taken place, an examination of the battles
reverie} that the weevil larvae had crawlel out of the heain
an} ha? drnowe? to the battgm sf the i&r3. A count of thexe

larvae, as preaanLc} in Table I, shawe

ha.

.1

a total of G V){Nif
Qfifi heafis far the untreitei replications, compared with 2%
per 9fifi heads frfim the hcptachlor repliCitlnnS.

An anal“5i: of data from floret» LJken Eran hgafi»

V
'
;

cullestul Emtween fatty '32 an! Sarate'nber 2 Shawn-3 mat there

were signific&nfi1y fawer claver htai weevil larvae in the

heptaxhlar than in the untre&tei replications.

Thtofian Ffilidge Sprays.

:1; iE-nw $31-2; {313231 gout (:31, SW26; .csaznul e3 taken .‘setwocn
May 1’3 anJ June 1“ averaqai z inttlehaq nymwhs yer firwen in
the contrfll plots and ¢.U9 nymphs per Sweeo in the thindgn

plfits. Spittle N185 taunts canfiuctul On May ? supportal the

swcaqatiata, 5W9 Sui“tJ¢2'missac VHHfis Enunfi rnx'Tfl Stflfifi EMELéctc~

 

 

Tab 18 I . le‘éfi‘m‘.‘ :: F c 1 av
frmm firjind red clcvcr K911: an In“? , 1"“.
a Elst LGH§in3. Mitfiizdn.
_.”.'..’.-'_-,;._;.1.Z.-*'.‘ : : 2 ; f ‘11ij its; .;.|:)‘}‘:“.I:;:I:'\;d:_ 25:: r;:“; .'{::::: “"57" "‘1": - _' ° 4, ~
__ T'N-l'iignrfi J“ - *-__q .-- - ‘ .--.. ”_ 4" -__M*_ "17'4“: W. .
'T": i "Vii Ll T.- g‘? Q
Thimet & 1
DDT—2 apog. 3
DDT—l aprl. 1 i
Ckvntxfivl 3 1
Trial ‘* ‘ 3'. 1
3’ aqgtnrhluu T: f”
.w_w..h A-- . .h. ”M
w
Thimet - 3R
DDTs? app}. 33
DDT”: agx}. 9Q
Contrai i3. 33
Tara 33‘ 173 3,m
_____*flund._‘-.--.-- aL4_ma..*.&W.,-£‘u4~i,-,aL-A,.m,

 

.) l
’1

"’ 1' '1 ." 0’-~ -1 a- -. A J. ' .v «I‘ .~ "1» " ~ .~. ' v- ‘r-« ‘ » 1 1‘
dt {111124.313 LF-JTQ Lflz'f ifl?J-.w3zl LJLA‘UCD 93:11. '_: .11.] 1313:7‘11’33 (if I )1

maasca gar htdfl worn rcsarua} from stems pickei in the
control plots.

Pram sweep samples tdkan 3n June 15, 5.5 adult spittle-
bugs per survey were 1'~‘-.-_.~312.'}.1:.~2 firm the thiazi‘an plats Par-5
<33nwa ru‘} t3 5% per sweep Eran the control plots. After June
1x3, the date of the first cutting, the adult spittlebugs

n1igratej nut of the field &nfi thus prevente 3 colle Mi n of

fiirther data.

 

Pea hphjfi ”WW? 31. An arthtan* n; dif wn19 between

:4

t

>

xiaian an} cantrol plots was noted in the pea awhid

3t:
Pcwpulation flaring May (Table II). The thiodan plots averagei

3539115“: M11181" I? 3;)‘1‘2113 per awe en Omnpéu’ezi with ) {mar és’w'eefis

43 aphids were taken from

q _. . 1 ’1 "'

sweepfi in a cuntrol plat wniYG never more than 4; were

1...:
"b
J

”’Dllertai 11mm 1} sdh913 ta ken in the thtoian plots.

,L;;:fl;zgfif Q0 Mt rql. From May lfl to June 15 the central

,, _ -

pl<3t3 averagel .4 immature leafhmr pars per Swevu, approxu

l

lmwifely three times the number Conn} in the thioian plb*~
Nfiéirly the same ratin existaj in tha swaep samples taken

0.

1&1" wgfgn July 1;") arr} AU-g‘JSt .13

. , - - ~ ‘
i“’\ L» , ' . ‘ " 1 \ l‘vv‘h‘ l’ )
Aka 'J’_~e i i . _. - x L 19-h ", L- ~. ’ )‘1 .. ‘
‘ 1 ~ .. .1
I ‘S . :' v a- ‘ .‘ ..1 r, y E
kq A - . fi 1“ J _ ¢ ‘- t . - ‘
A - ‘ . A ? "
7 J .. V. I'“ 7 , ’ I -_ . .1.
C r .Q _ \ i ’
u. . "v‘ 1. 1-1 —. \ 0 9| . ‘J M 4 [.1 b ls . . , l l 'l l- ‘1 ‘5—‘ o ,
. v
3.5.41,‘ 1—...- a O.‘ 'u $.74 A, u A '1. , , 4. a f..- -4-3 -...l-. . - u a , --v<q——o :- -1 1-- -.- -’7""J r -
— _. 1‘ w-‘ — 1 _, r‘ 7, :- I - m - ,._. . o _. -- - .o . — , v --v - r ‘. —.—1- F‘!‘ — "(—1- —_— “-n.—v_a;“ ¢~ 5-. .- -...--z.:‘.

 

C '. r n t. r a 1 P 101. 1: 7"“:‘1 1. 1111:: W P 1

 

‘—‘ «5": 31-..- 9‘-.- r'U‘ 'n. .nvo a ,v—s , .‘IJ . -..- . _ VH—_v-q_ --- -,

L. ,. .~ P ' I‘ “' ‘Q T X
Tarniahvxr? 1’ .3 M". 91.4? 1‘

H
‘4
1
v 4

to

1
r.
L.
0 1
«i

-v
.‘n

*1.
"i
Pr .
L1;
1!:

”Ni
5nd
I J
, J
H
‘

l \

J

U)
0
w
m
't‘
d
m
Q1
C.
Lu
3
"1
.« 1-;
P.
pd
{’1‘
1‘.‘
(1
I
(a
P J
“J
H
”a
i
,4
rd
fwd
u,

rad
I
I

' '. '7 _ ‘ A"; - * -.'. -‘ 3 '1'” Y .T
bgittxcnnq N'MUJU 1% 1,1 1

9
g
9-1!
~~’I
J
H
0’ 1:1
‘\
\‘J \
p‘:
H

Ekfitatz) Lfiahfhagjpexf 1'

IEI‘;%‘1'18.t.1II'{-‘: La :1 f}: 7.9171391; 1'5 1 ‘7 f 1. ,1 "'1
' ~ . ~11 ~~ - ,3 .11 r v

Clover Head Neev11 a): 7’1 ng 313 $13

2 "'

Clover Seed Midge 3 O 13 ,

 

‘— ‘---J -‘ ‘M7‘-- . “1—-“ Wm... - o - r. -.,.-‘ a _,_, a 7,, 1.7,, C- a ##0##... .-_ -,_ .._- ,1. q . a -g <

H‘~:fi. f4vH T H111 E»crd;. Yfifil. T”§J

{—J

A i ‘ ‘ ‘ 1! "'_ - I “A... . O: 34 ‘t .v.‘;..~.f . ‘ ’ .~ ..e_ i . __ ‘ ,.
w‘j 13.n'e’r‘ [I‘K’ia-u “I.:":‘-',1E ~\- —‘.‘-5, )3. . H I *1: .u‘ (Jug! : ~33"? (I u) n __ b:t£t.&"3 J2!

 

per Sweep ta 3.1 beetles fiwf ewwmfi wvfi rc:¢r1~l in tan C
head weevil populatinn lmmefliattly fsllnwing the granulnt+
thingt 4yglitahian. rhe Atnfilva 3E albrur hall #ch11
alalts :gnulqsl canalatently 10WEr(Table III)in the thimtt
than in the contrnl plots.

An analysis Of florets taken from the hfiads collected
between July 22 and Saptember 2 shuwed an &pparent trend
towarus a reéucticn 1n the nuwber :f larvae fcund 1n the

thimet plats as Cnaoaxed to the control plota. This

reuuctio“ was Clout t3 tut not Significant at the 5 percent

Clgver Seni Chalcid Contrcl. Only a small varlatlun k&5
recorded 1n the numbers of adult Clover seed ch&lcifis
collected from the plntg during this investxgation {Table II}.

An examinatinn 05 ilorets during th: head analysia
shcwed that there was a significant difference betweun 'he

thimct and central plots {Table IV}.

giant Bug Cvntrnl. A 6ecrease in the nunters of afiult

 

tarnishefi plant bugs wecurxzd on the day following the

11", Vll‘fiiIU'uil‘

O K
I. J
at . - 1
| 2: I
\
I: a
or! I
u
' n‘
r4
r ~: 1 w.
V w r
,l\ .r I “I O- \\ l
l. . a
a
,. * ‘ I ‘ It
r; A‘. I .~ N
l\ I\ I\ I .l C.
. u a \o
f \ rl ol 7! to (

l.)1! ! '1‘!" I1..- 1I1u.

‘ fl kl . Q o a I-
i .4 ¢.\ us! ”0;. .Of J.

'..'1‘l[¥1ff‘1.1'"f‘ll‘v ’1’"- ‘1”

'4

K:
m

r4

1"bll.;’ll.O.'l‘

muowm awaace

 

wmsh Fcum :mxmu

£911.!n“|

9'1
’I‘.

f...".

‘.| 13." .\

lw. \ .r x
.1 . ‘ x. t
f .\ \\ \
. \ \u
. H _ 4.
r. M H , A
m a- a : +
p .r r ; f. .
. . _ _
. . .. .. .
P1 r» f r .l q A . ( r .
i \ 1!: u
r. a . « .\l.
_ r . p .
p 4‘ u ’ v I\
0 \f. \. \\ .
w r. b .
‘ ‘1 .‘ J l ‘ 7
a. (I F pl. H
I f nl 19‘ 1|- ... - l- !I 9. t I 17‘

.mfifi ubwfl Hagan.“ .m

\.I

run.

r“!

*-

r'

. w.) .v. .V La...) 81.
A.~.».‘ . Cod-"lot.“ r.N..Cm.u...\I.4 all.

xv wwflmd

.. - I Ill|J> 1’ I: [u \f‘l..'ll'll| I I. $ 4v 0. ‘ rlbti
".- .V [ll ‘1. -..,l|‘|..|»l. *Vu‘AvOI It‘LII’

‘uowm um>oflu mmu Scum
4

.0. . n. .l. {2" . a ‘ J.
Gm.awnw 9f :Qiffi a. h

I ...
Q r ‘Rhl.

(.‘QIII‘II‘II‘FP‘.“."§ IIQI‘I

\l h. H c 4 \Jvl- .I ‘ .. 1.4 '1
I; ~;.PI..... \M .H mka w» 0‘ mK...I Pt
I. J )1, \l ‘ 1 ‘1 n14 ow \h. .4)
n. w...;»uo nfflh. 3...; pr

mm

W4

In

I
.w
(“-I

am mqunfl )u:wnEEM

Own firm “deum fimfimuxn.&

thiret application. humevcr later uween Samules shgwed
il'fle lilftzcncce in y'puletinne hctwnen the thimct ens
contrcl plots. The m<tility cf this 1nnect an} narruw :15;
width was probably respfin?ib‘u tor the reQOpulation cf plant
bugs in the thiwe: plate. A mere striking, residual effect
was recorded fur the less mnbile immature forms of planfl
tugs. A complete absence of immature farms was regarded
during the first week {allowing the thimet asplication. For
the remainder cf the SWeep period the total number of
immature plant hugs taken remained consistently low in the
thimet plots (Table II). On Awgust 13, at the peak period
of populations at theee insec s, the control plots average:
0 bugs per sweee. This was approximately three tiMee the

r"

average in the thimet plots 1”Figure {3.

fipniz Central. The r&pid decline in the aphid OOPUIatifn

L.

 

during June afforded little comyarison of control between
the various treatments, however at the time of the increase
of these insects during the seconé week in August, the
control plots Contained eight times as many aphids as the
thimet plots.

Cannlete control was achieved of Therinenhis trnfn ii

{M0n.) in the thimet plats immeiiately following applicatiun.

5-.

"V . . i .‘u so“ 1". '.- “ .- VF . — I‘ t. .— v 4 s, | — t _ .4 ‘ -.. O: -_ q ' . ‘7
L..-ntr:-«l plot eaif.t.le.n tamer. Culling the 0th L‘HLIL"'4 C‘-‘n§!3111t3r

a

» ' f3 ' A r ' '0" s 4 4 ~ . . :1 '-. ' -a!‘ r .
from t.l to l_:neriwd sis trifwlii per :wECp.

 

 

‘-

On September 13 an examination of the stipules of the
rei clover leaves showed complete contrei of the English

rain aehid, Macrosichum granarium {Kirh‘l in the thimot
. A ’4‘ . I 3

 

 

 

plots. Approximately 60 percent of the stems in the tontr 1

plots had infestations of from 1 to 30 aphids each.

Leafhgpfer Control Nearly complete Control of petdtw

 

leafhupper adults was recorfled on the day foilUWin. the
thimet applieatien {Figure 9}. This sudfen reauction in
leafhonpers may have been due to the fumigation action of
thimet as suggested by Cook ’IGSG). A graéual increase was
recorfied until August 13, when the numbers of this insect
in the control plots were comoarable to those recorfie” in the
thimet plots. Other adult leathOppers image ?3) totaled
between 0 l and 0.2 per sweep in the thimet clots during the
sampling period while the control plots averaged 1.6
leafhonoers per sweeu.

The immature leafhopper Donulation in the thimet clots
was reduced from h.5 per sweep on July 20 to 0.05 per sweep
on July 22 an& remained at the latter level for the renainfier

of the sampling period.

H).

r:

I

{wit

_-
D

T:

9-

13 In

Ta. t)

Saed

A . fig 0

—-a “—0 ‘-.5.._._L 1.“: '1...- .
I

V '.~."k ‘«-’ —‘ -o-A '

-—-.+— 4!-
\ v-v

 

numb“

aver

;

Cl

Cw!" :1

H“.—

K.
1t~.

4L.
0!. fl
‘ L

-‘_l 5.93

x
L

‘ “-7'_. ;_.¢~~—v. *- 4—..-

‘Q. J. I
Vii'mf \f

V
l

(a
AJ‘W.‘—OJ‘.M=u-¢_§—+fi “‘44.

.7: w
1:);a2;

 

Th

Thtmét

hm

a b

.T

* ‘7‘..&

< .- xa 4‘ 'fl~’—, ‘Am‘gfla‘ '1-Vu-O

-- ‘ .1 Ar“.““ J .2 .3-..

‘Q J du‘.‘

-—'~‘ wroimm

 

than

541 ~ .—
1. 9 ‘ ‘
a, I v o.

t
“'

pmmon 1

{I

t-

31

‘V' ‘2:

ha

3.

th'

at

flifwerent

Signlti

are

*5

t

the traatmen

a"

'9
.0

ha

L; (:3

DDT Foliage Treatments.

Meadow Smittlebug Control. In spite of the mobility

 

displayefl by adult spittlebuge, eweepings taken from July

"3

20 to August 13 ha& from 1.§ to 5 times as many of these
insects in the control plots as in the DDT plots. From 1

to 2 adult spittlebugs per sweep were collected from the

3‘

DDT plots as Compared with 4 per sweep from the control

blots.

Plant Bug Control. The population of immature plant

 

bugs was almost eradicated in the plots receiving two
applications of DDT. In those plots receiving one application
of DDT, only an occasional immature Dlant bug was taken in

the sweeps during July and August. During this same period

as many as Q immature plant bugs per sweep were taken from

the control plots.

plover Seed Midg, anfi Clover Seed Chalcifi Control.

 

 

The examination of clover heads collected between July 22

ft

and September 5 showed that the numbere of clover seed midge

larvae present in the florets of the plots with 2 applications
of DDT were significantly larger than the numbers collectej

in the control anfi other treatment plots.

hl

.omcfl .cmmunUwz .mcfimcaq ummm um

mos; ncmflm eunumeew ca cofiumofiammm wtaofiuommcH mo uomwmw m£9 .w musmwu
P l. .9. O

 

mommfiwfl (.3 H00 W#UWWLH I. .Qfinom

AUGUST

      
 

 

A
1
3 fi
N. 8
O
.A
C
I
L N
P .U
P I I),
.A a... .
A1... “L T
a I
T L
D D. T
D P w.
A M
. . ..
1 H 7!!
m. T r 9..
D L
D O
R
T
N
m
. ( . 9

.0;

 

CF clever

.
’4.-

The numbers

significantly less in both

control plate

larvae were
.3 than in the

DDT-P A?!” 1311773.? {'M’S

ID

.'\

'55
l1]
[’4

.c CF .cmnwroflz .mcwmcmn elem em mrrwuwwroea
ensemetfl c0 ccflumuHfinom mefiumpuwwcfl we pumwwm esp .r musm.m

    

APDTTPA“FWV

‘1 Um “I
e M .

1-. x
n H r
.L my

mama
nodumuwfimoa

 

 

17x

r..>

 

AUGUST

JULY

m.

 

ElfiiicfifiififlfliifltilifilifiilillieAEPlifatinn

Forage yield measurements taken on the June 16 cutting
showed that little variation existed between the amount of
growth of the heptachlor and untreated replications. A
very noticeable difference in plant height and amount of
bloom existed between the heptachlor ani untreated replications
by July 1?. At this time it was possible to distinguish the
boundaries between the two replications from a conei&erable
distance by the difference in the height of the plants and,
at a shorter distance, by the amount of bloom present. By
July 27 a difference of 2 to § inches existed between the
two replications. In the untreatefi replications the plants
averagefi O to 10 inches while in the heptachlor replications
the plants averaged 12 to 1a inches.

Plant stana counts taken on Octoter 2 showed that a
similar reduction in the numbere of plants had occurrefi
between the two replications {Table V}. A 32 an& N1 percent
refluction in the number nf plants present per square yard,
since the July 7 count,wes recorded for the heptachlor and
untreatefi repliceticns respectively. A similar reduction

in stanfi Counts was recorfied by Niemezyk anfi Guyer ’IDQQ).

.L"

Stand caunte taken if these worlers the following 5?!

9“, PT
‘ v

1-. .- '«u-

ll 1 .
'5 .v——- vs.

4. -;

L‘AH.

‘ d . .5. W“ ~—M‘—.O+O‘ 1 D ‘—

l‘ I"

o-.--o-- O u.- ----~‘-—.--

--
I"
, \
-- r-u .au‘; ““4 ‘-—--‘a -— noun...- 3-4 a.

w:
.4 -o—q-c
9% 1| 9-
.-
a

. 3511111
. J" at...
'.‘
J- t
'Q-fi—.-.rn_‘—Q---*-vi

1'.
J‘

-....._ ‘_. q

'-

o

.c- _o

.oq- ‘-
o‘—
-'_.

T

"a
L.

'J

«‘5‘

k

.\

gs
u

w—F‘- _' -u- .. 4-" .—.i

0
n. \.

.-:rm‘_O<-o .W‘ m

m _- “ --~L---.

o
P

‘9
A-‘M‘ed‘m

L..

reatment

 

”V In ‘ .=-
“‘..
a

‘5

-‘vq‘vn‘ofi

[I]

0
I
'1”:
L
I’]
A

l
C

.i M .9. 7..
a... .a w...”
Al .. I“; ‘J.
I... 1 1..
a4 5;. v... QJ SJ .3 a-.. a: 1) 1). OH. 1.. 20 3.. «at. a; P- h.
“4.0/3 1.9.? 1.x, flifiifi.?_fl. 0.. 3_>_§.
1 1 Ti 1 1 1. 1 1.. 1 ‘1. vi 1 1. I... t. 11

2
,5
,1
24
7
1.
J

‘ 1
'1.

15

.8

.9 if
(V

'3
L-
nix
”J
J.
,3
I
A
L...

7
‘4

l
I) .-
2
a 1-
1
I) z '
L.

'1
1*.

:'
’3‘;
‘- ,/‘
33
Th——'
L. t
25
a-
:21
or:
Lil
f5
£1
53
2'4
"31
(.J.
' N
:sb
l"‘

x... 7! .1 .L. 3 I, .1. x} a.-. {U 3 1 «.4: .1 .2; 1.,
Wu . .lwiJ ‘Inx ’IWL id: Wu. ., fliyi .Ir.» .1“. .1). «~11. VI.“ “.5". .A "but. X1.” .vxri. fynl v.» .
) ..\ I. a ., \l .I, .a. .. . I. .I
up... . \ I — tr.“ _ a . O . uc‘I ‘ F“... _.H.\. O. . are? any I ’1.» . ‘1. v
-. n.‘ 1/ n3. 1., .. .a. a. 1 41...? or. 2 2 7.1.- 1

l 1 .u. .1 w . I). Q. m4 2/ .2. m- a: z) .4“ 0. 7.
.. t In. :1, 3. .r., u. 2.. C... :A. 7 r. ._ .0 9.44 .4 .1. O z?
.1 :1)... .5. .9, r , A”. - fl. .9. A... 7- 7.1,. u...“ ”a,
. it u r.) 7), my; . .. r.» .3: .I . ’3; A»... 1.. 1 9!. l w...“ n...”
w.,,n. Jirrpna. ,hR,u K,E r.§.-. Li
I. pa- ”.1 .V I. .r-:/ J} "L: ~I4: 4 n.“ ¢0\1 ,4. m.“ ~4P); l“ . u 9 I.
1
1 ‘
51% "v“
twu : a... _ 17,1... 2.73.21...
: : z; ; u Lexi. tail: at; ,. v.9iiiintxw,
9.. t. .‘4
T... x. .t
a. 3 u.
.- 7 .3. "H .u .21.? .4 7 t. L A O .35 H «A .4 v- a... f)
, .. , x . - .. . 1 ., , s-
a» . L (ix C . rt Fl 1‘. in: .4. .rv C _/h\. C ., «F 1.1% via... _. . .r‘ . fa.
1v e: .21.
f .‘ (as
'3 I. 1"
‘IL V ‘L

1 A}; .L‘I. o 1..., r1... pH). 1 in? I P)... In...” C... 17.. i".

I
I
IV.

7;

v.3 r39

+quare

a M ‘—M‘m -A-y-p—n

4

—L -o v! 4-.
ti :5". 13'

n

M...

I.

e; I m l. T: eat! {at

 

.-
1...“ t“ l
' u

‘1
.

I"

W 4.0 -.--O C. flwtat—OW‘.

 

shtsti a siqnifitant &ifferenCE Lttwuen the hentathlmr and

u
o

n I

Contrnl plots, with a 6? and 5% percent reduction respectively.
On August 3 striking fiifferences coulfl be Eeen between
the bloom of the two replitations. The heptachlor replicnu
tions were in full bloem at this time while the untreated
replicatinns ha} an estimated 6O percent hloom. Square font
head counts taken on August 18 substantiated this observation
for statistical analysis showed a Significant difference at
the ? percent level between the two renlinations {Table V13.
A significant difference at the 1 percent level was also
fanni among the treatments and an interaction was shown
between the foliage treatments and the heptachlor soil
application. By the first week in July, when both replication;
were past full bloom anfl beginning to turn brown, these
éifferences were only slightly nnticeable.
Frnm the middle of August until seed harvest an obvious
difference was evident in the amount of weed growth present
in the treatefl and untreated replications. Large patcheg
of grass and breadeleaf weeds dominated much of the area in the
untreated replications whereas only moderate amounts were
scatterefl through the heptachlor replications. When the
clover seed was altaned in Octolcr. the untreated rnwlicati ts

averagefi O.{ «f a hrnnd more werfi scefl than the hepfmchlcr

. . -_ '. ,-- ~ g -. . ‘ -' " w‘ '5 ‘ a~ 7.; ‘u ‘ c- - ' ;
qudre furm.zea1.1u)vek hcai {Nuanfiu fianan at
31

:fi; Lanfiizvg, fii:flx®gan. lfiifi‘

--m r 9" J’M"1‘~—.J‘AA A- K '1 Q 9 I a... _‘.- i ‘J‘L-~fl ..-¥4--.v- -a“~.¥AL.... Fag—4A ‘-v—¢ :z o. ‘4; . V.— ., , . . M~.o

.a r- ,
u- 1 m'u'w-‘.‘-~_c‘—‘-m..n _-a-'k I - ‘_-_“ d—s-‘I a 0—- ‘ ‘4‘. — -1- -"L ,' , h +.- QArO-r»n_‘ " 2 '1

 

JU 1y _"-I"v

“flaw

Rent. No R. Bert. No H. Mfign
7 TT I! IV

A g. .L
-m-“-.u—fifl;m -—=-A m..- H—M--——-. ,‘_q~’-. wtau— .. H-..” * .~ ‘-4; A- ,~_‘J-‘ '— {v

Thinzt‘fzm 1 . n 1:“: . 7- 1‘3 . 1H; ‘4‘“? .

Thimet 71.9 1’. 1~.” 13.? :
3T~3 appl. ?”.3 1%,? ‘7 3 1?.€ }" f

EDT-l appl. 2f.} 15.3 '1.” E’.5 l-
COHLEWI T1.€ 1?.h Ir.3 [3.“ 17.!

mr-cn.‘~.n. ma ”u- . '-.'- H ’- -' 7.. s .-

‘fi
‘

t
at
.a

‘1—

' ' . :'I ‘.
Atari: ‘5 1
M

w

Hept. No B. Hept. No H. Mean

 

~ . _: - . y? p, (A —r u‘ f‘. ,
T1‘1‘U’wchn 3. o ,' '3 )u ‘- 31s . 1 :;

Thimfit 3a,; L“.0 31.7 33.

*J
“J"

Q
’d

if)“
I
a

.... ‘ I‘" ' (jrv y} 1- -
DDT=2 aypi. 3:.7 ¢{.£ ,1.0 ?%.
.u ...1 «we ‘ 9 u ~.~- ,n“ . r.’ 1.- ,
DwT~1 3? L. ?- F I A» 2 “a g ‘1.’

Control 32.5 23.0 W3.3 26.6 31.1

r 3. ’ v
Mean 39.4 1b.? 17.1 1%.}

replicationg. This Couifi perhfipe he attrifiate4.*o the Favt
that the slower growth of h) slave: in the untreated

replicatiwns gave less commetit‘ rags and weefis.

H
O
:3
n
o
(‘7‘
D'
(t

a

Statistical analysis did not reveal a significant
difference betwaen the see& yield in the hemtaahlar anj
untreated replications. The difference that existefi, howevar.

was close to significance at the % percent level. R tHaLEy

\

the heptachlor treated plots averaged 3.0% naunflg VWE paundg
per acre) as comparefi with 3.63 pounés (Yfi pnunfla p;r actfii

in the untreated replications (Table VII).

Tab 1.3 I‘jl I .

H1.» -‘flHcW‘O-flt-
m... ‘; “'1‘ _~...--

 

Thimet

EDT-2 applications
CDT-71 appli
Control

RealiC'tinn

24‘: 4.71.“

 

i
g:
}

 

“‘:*:T:L;;::L:
Htutafihior
I. III.

.. r a . z

§.t3 4.3%

fl
.0
-J

D

3‘

H

«L.
"‘1
P

«M.- m-’mu—fi

red

1’. i

.’\

t . I"
t")
9"
1;.

f 4

alover

.a— ”I ~- .. :3 .'
file glut at East Lmnmxng,

» a
.2» <3 ‘3“ .A

MichigarL

\’J

.91.."

.‘ L--. --

“v...”

- ‘ 1
~L \ I

. v. I i -

1""
t...

(g, A,

C.)

r

”—1. MM“-- ;‘_..- -

VB :

T a
l

' )
.. -
.
9”"
.) \

‘w 1.1

In 13%“, an investigation was connected at Ea3t Lansing,
Michigan, to stvdy the hielngy of the major refl clover
insects and evaluate their chemical control. The results
inflicate that:

1. Both the clover rcot borer and the clover root
curculio were important soil pests associated with the
clover roots.

?. Meaflcw spittlehugs, leafhonners, olant bugs, aphids
and miscellaneous fnliage pests were renaistently Dresent
auring the investigation.

3. The clever seed chalcia, clover head weevil and
clever seed midge were the imnortant head infesting insects.

H. The anniication cf heetachlor to the soil refiuced
the damage from the clover root rarer and the clever root
curculio.

9. Fumigation as well as systemic activity from the
apnlication of granular thimet to the soil was suggested by
a re uctfwn in the numbers of clover head weevils. plant
bugs, aphiés an” leafhnnners on the day following treatment.

Both soil application of hentachlor and foliar

treatments at thiofldn eliminafed swittlnhug nnnulatinns.

r,

larvae and the penulations of plant bugs, snittlehugs
leafhoppers.

9 A reduction in the pea aphid ambulation was
nbtainefi by the application of thioflan scrays.

0 Soil aonlication of heotachlor increased the

height anfi bloom of the clover plants as well as seefi

producticn.

,. DnT reducefi the infestatian of clover seed u;

C"
H
4
"I
’71
’LA
1
,‘1
D
{1
r)
#4
.4
I 1
U

Chamberlain. T. R. ani J. T. Medler
1939. Tests against the neaéow spittlehug en n.

n

Jaur. LCD“. Ent: 7'11.

ya
Hr
‘Cfi
b J
"fi
{4

Cook, W. C.
1050. Thimet as a low-temfierature fumigant against
the pea aphid. Juur. Econ. Ent 9?: 1213
Dickason, E. A. an} R. w. Every
1365. Legume insects cf Cregmn. Orugvn State Cal.
Ext. Bul. Ne. TkQ. 38 pp.

Elliatt, E. S.
lQEE. Diseases, insects an& ether factnrs in relatinn
t3 refi clever failure in West Virginia. stt
Virginia Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. No. 331.
65 ee.

Fergus, E. N. and W. D. Valleau
1026. A study of Clever failure in Kentucky. Kentunky
Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 26?: lQEwElO.

Gray, K. W. and J. Schuh
1331. A method and contrivance for sampling 9
aghii populations. JOur. Been. Ent. ifi: fill-filfl,

Gustafsen, J. and F. O. Morrison
19%7. Abuve ground activity of the clever root borer.
Ann. Soc. Ent. Quebec 3: 11-33.

Gyrisco, G. G.
1958. Forage insects and their control. Annual Rev.
Ent. 3: aslahfia.

Heusinkveld, D.
thS. Red clover for Illinois. Illinois Agr. Ext.
Serv. Circ. 627: 1323.

Hsttes. F. C.

1C1 {'1 o

Koehler,
1090.

Medler, J. T.

, v Wu 9".
1V“(.

Megee, C. R.

103?.

Metcalf, C. L.,

1?51.

Newsnm, L. D.

lgfifi.

Niemczyk, H.
1058.

Niemczyk. H.

C. S. arfl G. G.

arr? T. 3!. Pris u:
The rlant lice. or . ,1
Illin ls State Nat. {lzt.

ms“ .‘-.'”"7
L 1"“ ‘ ,' .

*noifz .
N3. 10:

f

Gyriscm

of rowt size and 5221
number of clover root borer. L
clover roots. Jour. Econ. Ent. 3?: 6€9~663.

and A. Tinnils
Studies of the biology of the lesser Clover
leaf weevil, thtcngfiug Electrostrgg Fabr.

Finnish State Agr. Res. Bcard Pub. 1C2. W

{a P“-
and J. M. Scholl

Contra! of Insects affecting alfalfa seefi
prajuction in Wisconsin. Jour. Econ. Ent.

fiD: €79=?51.

and R. H. Kelty

The influence of beau upOn clover and alfalfa
seafi production. Michigan Agr. Expt. Sta.
Omar. Pul. 1&: 271-977.

W. P. Flint and R. L. Matcalf
Destructive and useful insects.
Book Campany, New York. 1071 pp.

McGraw Hill

The biology and economic importance of the
clover rvot borer, Hzlagginus 22533595 Marsham.
Thesis fer degree of Ph.D.. Cornell Univ.

139 pp. Unpublished.

D.

The flistributien and magnitude of injury by the
clover root borer, flxlnstigg§_g§§gugg§ Marsham.
and c over rnot curcullo, Sitagg spp., to red
clover anfi mammoth clover in the lnwer peninaula
of Michigan. Thesis for degree of M. 5..
Michigan State Univ. 53 PP. Unpublished.

D o an'a G o E a Guyar
erscnal communication.

Packard, C. M.
QEQ. Cereal and fatage insects. In U. S. Degt. Agr.
Yuarb wk. Insects. PP. 5y1-aug.

Peters, D. C. uni R. H. Painter
IDHB. Stufiies an the biolngles Hf three relatefi
legume aphlfis in relation to thalr host plants.
Kansas State Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bu}.
0}, R3 pp,

Pieters, A. J. anfl E. A. Hullowell
139%. Claver failure. H. 8. Dept. Aqr. Farmers'
Bu}. 136%. 24 pp.

SatenSQn, C. J.
1330. The alfalfa-seefl Chalcistfly in Utah IQQE=20.
inclusive. Utah Aqr. Exgt. Sta. Bul. 218.
T36 pp.

lflhfi, REdUCtjon Of the vegetative growth of alfalfa
by insects. Jour. Econ. Ent. t1: 730-731_

Weaver, C. R. an& D. R. King
193“. Meaflnw spxttlabug. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. Res.
Bul. 741. 00 pp.

Wilson. M. C.
1333. Organic inSGCthiéCS to control alfalfa ins:cts.
Jour. Eton. Ent. hfiz fiQéwfiCE.