.‘-

v'v vwvvvvv v1
I

V
' I

AN EVALUATIGN 20.? A 3939563139351?“-

V‘v—yv' ‘v'v‘

v

vyuyv.v“

v—- ‘1‘
I

y—

w

 

. --- _.---A- -
vvvv y yv v

I

=‘ I." "I" 'V'YW‘W'W”

“WY.

VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.
. . I.. 9‘.
.n..3f¢t~v,‘. '57_321~IL .- 1v.
. I I. a... .. on. I}! -II1II.III_4Po-OI.4I
. . _. IO. IIwII¢ . VI 0‘... 0’45 .005 ONOOIo...o V .I
I . oooooo I . 0 III 0 I o I I. .J . I. I.
I . I I. .. .Cco . II . .0,>IJ I§I IL 0 ‘.n. o. I
a . . I O I . I. O . rJ l. J o b. a o o
. . . . I I oh: I 4;. 0 I. . I
I II 9. 9|. >3 . I I H
I I... I II 2I.. I'.III LII
P .0 .' I» Q n
. I O . .J. . . ’7 L. on I
n . a1 . I . I I I 0.! OI. .0 I 6 t J
. . 1:... I I. In I... I’ldxtd J... P
:II...III II o a. .s..a ..
.. . . .uook. .. I‘llr. Ha... .h..' o
. IIo.c. I .IO.)..0 ‘IIIIIFI:
I I I 4 J I I I. . I... II I‘
. I o .0 Infi‘. 0.2.
. . . .._I~..:._IAI .l iI-J
v I O a 3.9.1.. I ‘i.
I .. .. .3 .z - 4.1.». II?
I I... . .¢ I. II ‘1 IL; .QI .1
II. I II LI I ..o-:I. 1.4.1".
I I). . 4 0.8363 .r'I‘V
. , o . I u. I I’lvt l.. ‘3'...
I I. O I I I 't.... LI.III0‘ I
II. o. o I , o..:I batolo L4.-
. I 1.00:7 I v'...‘
II'I‘JI I .. oooo'f I 1.1.-- .Io“
I I ... I I v0.3.3! .‘i‘n ..
I . I_ I I. .“1. I..I.Z.hl.£5
. I J I I: 'l I O I... I. I
.1 I .-Q s lo a. u. v"- . o: I. ““0?
I. . I o I DO I I‘m-Iva Shuts
. \C I I ’9 .J..§I..‘ r. . o
I I b I.‘ “It, .nIIoquH.I-D
I ‘IO. Ir‘ ....0‘ ’
I I I .II.‘ I I.‘.Ic.rnun.‘o.l.
I K . I... ._ . 35- I I
o I I ..u '3 3I £.1Ihfifl‘2v¢
I If ...e. , II;.I.LII
o I gb I 9 7‘3»! . 0.1....
-.o o 1... ..Oo I.a".-‘
I A II I; :5. 13.01.. u. I
II III II .o' a 3:4; _. .3
I III I c I Ian-3:04.383... v o“
I I :5 . Iova‘ .‘0‘.' o
I III p I. IV! C whylizuoif.’ ¢ 1 v
I I. h. ‘. o I. .I...1...V.o ‘ O I
. I n (IlIoc‘IL’I .11, o
I 3'. II . D . ..¢\vt.IJnIo!.I . A '
I n J I'I‘IaI3alzl). . 0 ‘
.I I o. .quiuhunfiil I a IIIgIIIoIvoi i I I
.9? I «n.0,..- ‘ IIIII; .IOI.
O I III I Oil“? “1 H I“..v-I.4IIAOIII .04“ I.“'O.o 4 ..~ 0 ‘j. “I. I”
III. 9 .25.}: 05‘.th III-H. 3. .0? 0%,? no
| I1 I uI r . Ir . I.” ‘ul Ii" - . c-24n‘l
.I I I II. I . II III: IIofibflofl.8fi2c. 33828.3...«881' I
I I . II III . II It... soil! I .1!!! a’ o in... .2 I
. I o. .31} 11... 03 9...}... It 0.0.4.1.“...‘gl. I‘!¢I|l$§.- I.
I I III 3. I... II I. t. . o 2.35! 3... oft-0:0 ZYI‘nlulilI: 2:! at
I I. . I I . I - . ...-I.SIIL.I.HIIIIJ.?!I 1:11.83’r. lo‘
. I .I. .I .I 0k II I r .l..I...Hm1 3.. GI III I," II to II
I. . II a it‘s} cl Ina .II.'I\.‘II33216I.I¢I;{I I.
I . I &r.I II t 3. In 3. 5.3). I'll-0‘.b:m" 'Otorvifl Isaac;
. 0.: I I I II I t . I. In. I. II:1 «‘IIIIIllv-f.’;§ I ‘0
I .I II I I I ..I . I I TIIIoII. at” ,ififczz 0303.! .I‘
I I I I 5 I; .II I C ‘1' I Ig“,o' ’2. ’2'... on..."
E. I II III I I 5“. II II. III-Q. hi. ‘3': .07. izflfllt’Ifoai-vr‘}. '
. . I . . I I II .I J .4. II I. 3 I0- ‘ol :1 . £50.!"I'I
s. a I .. 0.001.... .0! 0'. 7 Jill. II!YO,‘I§O%§: 3 . I-
. I, . t _ .I I. . o. fl .2 : I. III}: a 93'! 3.2a".19‘..’-§IJN~II!
. I I I I.II III aIII. .’ IIIoa' - I a 0.4;! O. Ichz'nc‘v :07}.
u .......... 3’: .4: - t I. \ I I. .01) I». I. ‘f.h‘:zo£.. :‘Irou'
.I I I I I I. .I .31. 0.0... .23.! I411 ‘2?...§i§l2.33 II 32'
l. I . . . I III. I. I. 0.. a. o I ‘00.. IIigvuloI-z‘onvgoogr‘ 'b...‘
I T a I I I I II..I I 4 . I.I...YI.._. .1. a . . ..¢It....8..|' “ If I 1... .I
I. I . I :0 I III . I II II II- ...‘I‘... 51‘} ‘0’3‘ .IQ...‘I~(OU&.¢I r"!‘
I I I . .I I .I I I I ' . III. I 1.0. o .I I. 700.... I‘qunul... ‘.B‘I..v’|.ln.l¢’ iacg‘l’i
I . I I I . I 21.. II 0:3 0‘ t.I.I.c LII-Is..- .IQ- 435$." I. 9:."
I . I 9 II I I. I I .OI . I..I.’.!. 2....[II'IIIfflI’SsoI‘g3'9 ¥Itl
. . I I I I I. I I I I II... I In III...II~..I .. .300... IfiIfOoI. I. .I'i.‘ Iu")t¥6 O‘
. I , ' . I I I n I: . II I . . I . II . it... IIIIIIY .. I3.QI$I-.o ”II-tot'PIIo'bIVIII‘IIOI-fni
, . . .. I I . I I I I I I3 III-I 7c 13'}! O. ID:'$..II.} 1;...
. 1 KS. n . . I . III I I III I II .. III 0. §IOI1FIIIOof§£u .05“.
. . , {I . II I I I I III I. {I I I)? III-«I6 4‘1231-5330 ’II‘IIBaIILIOqu-Il‘lt
. . . . I II II. II III} o‘l‘iIIfQ.‘ IEIIIIIIIII
I I . I 0 I OI- 90., I'M-0-1. 3% '9'... ncv’t’i"'x‘ox II.
. . . I . I . I III I I I I I II .LIIIpIaIIII-zofo Itidii‘I'
, . «I I . oI . . II . . I I I ' II 1:03.. 9’. I r’a II Oblonisol’j"tt cal
. n I . 0000‘ I- v III E‘Iiol I I I _
III . 3 'I II.I I I -III'III II" I]; III I 4‘ III-LI «.4? J
. . . _ . . I I I II II , .. 'IIIII . IIIII¢ «IIIQIIISIIIois 1.-.... IIIIIIII"
I . . . . . I I I I . . .. .. I O I I III .I II Iiflil... 2.400...in '8.‘. I
. . I . . o I . I I III- I III I I l A.” III- I"".'Il‘. cl"! -
I .. . I... ooooo . . III I I III II III I III .‘I I... F?§I.7.l'l.’].’!l|l 'le . I.
I .. . .. I I I I 'I II“- 3 noIiIlI O! ‘1’. :- OIC ‘3‘! ‘
.f I I . I I I I I! II II I. 9“ iI”.1¢J rating: 03.. II ‘\
I I I . . . I. . . .I I I I II II IIYI III I 1 .IILIIJIIO. .chIIII:Io It. I I.
I . .E . I . I II II I III‘II'II’VI’II 6011.00.02.3112 .4! II
I . C . . I I II I. P I II .\ II I. .III‘ I, I il'.“..oo-IIIOI‘I 'IIIIIIIII“
I I. I“ . . . I I . II I lull I; Ecli9II 21"th II- .I.
A I If .. I . .I II II I II II IAN”! II)! {IIIJIIIIHFIII‘stI Ilsa'.‘ I
I . . II I II I I o Ins..l.0I I .I .IIIII.
I p . ..... I I III I . aIz.‘oI III In guru} ,IIII:IIII .lla.l . INVIII I
I . ’ . r. I P I I! .I I I II I. II..II3 I ' 53.1.."ifflIlI2I’IIYI1
. . . . I I I II II II. III." . ItoII‘I’. IIIIIII'IIIIIU‘II III
I I . . I I l I I II it: {I'll I.‘I§t.§x.f,i".:o‘
I I In I I I I III II E! 03.0IinIotV II};I:'I2. Io
, . . I . I .. . . I I I I II III III III! 3 II’I"; i..-oa.IIIIrI II III
I . r . . I .II OJ .. ..\.I‘ III ’Ono‘ovu’iau._.v’bf_ I Iw'V .Ipligiio III
. . . II. I II II II. IIQIII J I I . Ill:
. I .E I . II- I II .vl. I' I.IO‘,...IIIIIII.II- 0:.9403IIII’ ’ IIIIIIIII I,
. I . I _ , I. II I I . a I III III? II I {Ii-‘ro'IOI‘II‘I I’M“; ‘
.. I . I I II III III I.TII.I..- III»
s .e . - I II I I I III-I-.IIIIOII ITOIOIXIIIIIOQIII‘; "IIIII’P"
I I II . D I. .I IIIIII II 4" -I I, O"'I’..il~‘f§ II), III ‘
. I _. . u . I . . I I I II . II II I I I .I Ila-I: II. IIIIJII IIII‘I; ‘tIoo‘IIo II
I I. I I . . I III II I .I I I I'll-o5. ‘03,... iIIIIl,AIP£ !‘I.1I-
I _ . . I , I I III III III III). I ‘Iz.‘ol’1r‘ J $‘OEI
” . I . I. I . w l . I I III. I II I. I I... IIQ:O: I rfi I II ACI<I I
. I . II . I III I' | I. II IIII-I .I. 0', III“- nui’tlQol.“ ffgl
. . . . .I I II II I. III..- II I I 'b ‘0 I
. p . 4 I I . . , 0 «d I I O I I III III' I... it! DIG-Ooh?!" flat-I-"
. . .E I . I I . I I III! III‘ IIII:I.‘!I.III~C’ VQIIIIII '0 III.
I I .1 II «III VfarI' III. IIIIIIIIIIII.‘IIIII I} 120.1
.I:.. I . I I II V :I! o? ‘0'!” III I'IIII'IIIIIIEI‘ -
n , I . . . . I. -IFII :i I IIIVIII- I
I F. I I I I I I l I f I)! It"... In?!" I!" III I, 'IJ-III I!
. . I I f. I I I III I II 0.. I «IIIIOQ I‘ll.Ipn I." .i‘c'é Uni- '.
, . I . _ I I I I I. . I .
R N n "I . . o
D G. 9
I .
.
R . law,
I . o I .I
IIO c-
B I.
IIM~

' MEASURE ASAI‘ISI‘S‘I IIzgsscr Mmmgfi;

 

 

.. I
o
s n...o..'%“i'¢.l‘l I
. I.‘ o I .0 _.
.. . . I I III It, I. l §.IICICIOQ'0'I I. ‘ I' L‘ I
. I I I ‘I II' III 1 II III 110 'val.‘oOa-l“‘l\‘ I II
. , . . , . III I I I I701 ’IIIILI I,.IiIi-II’:[ IIII'III‘
I . I o I I I III! I I I I III-III III. OI E!’-Ii'£v‘i"£fI‘II
I. I . . I III \VI.‘!YIIII43II.'J.I'IIIIIII.II II'OII‘I‘I
R I I I I .oIIII II II III :I‘ilglv Iggc‘ozII III
If .0 I III II I II IIIIIIIIOI ' II. III-IIIIIIII III.III’GI¢IIIII'II.
.. . I I II. II I I III CIIII'IVI'I-
‘ I I . . I I .II‘I I I . l . III I .v‘oll . .E'.IIIII.'.I]I!..I¢.\IOIII If 0" III I II.
. I I I I III I I I III- 11“ TIIGIIII'I I. IIIEII I.
P s I II V . ' I III I \III . (I. '0 III-ll ;.‘0Il-vov «I! II .p'f'I’
. I . , I. I I I I III I! III I' "’I f!’.". .Il""l..f
". I I I. . I. I II II II I; IIIIIIIIVIIIII.“I #60:, O. ‘4'; I- I.
. I, I I III I II- I. .II ‘I If IIIII‘IA’III” II," I. I. I
. I I O . I I..- In- I II I V I’I ’I’Iv’.t§'Ii!-.Ij’ I..-
, a. I I. I I II I I II! II‘EIit’I I‘DI‘I‘OII..I’£II‘. II
II I I I: III III . III III- .IIIIII’IIIII‘IIovI‘vII. 05"“ I- II
, ,I. I I III I»! I III II I Igcéi“'.rl' I.
I I ’06 III I I I II E.‘ I 4.11 II'I 0"
v I II I! I ll .III‘IIJI‘II“, If.
3: I I I II éstIIIIIIVI IIIII'IIIIIIIIIO
. . I I I l I I II II...§I [I£.I"I'I'I '
. . I II I I I ' I I III" " III.‘ .III.!‘ I.“ III!
I , I I I. II I I I'll. - ' rI III..II III P'Iét‘III'IOI‘g I.
_ I I I I I . . III 7 II .II ’33. 123i, III-III.
I . . 0 III- I, 0' I. II 9’ I III III I'D .
g I I I II Io...oI I I III III. fl! 31.0.0.0..1‘ If
I. . I III I'IIII I I I' If¥.ti II I
. I I f c i \I I I ‘II III I I)-..» II. II f-EI'IIIE“
N I IIIIII IIIIVIII I II II III' I! 30“” III! I]. I
I I I I III III II. III I I ‘III .I III I {Iloil’r'f I
I I II I I to I II'II'I I‘ III III! III IIIQIII1" III I
...I. I..." I t- ,I'IIIIIV.‘II] f!
I '0 III 00 III; 1" I. IIII'II E’s-III III '
- I . . . o. I II! I .’ II...‘ODII.!. .- II§III I
I I lav ,I’oo {III I--- atoo’ilg‘ ‘III -
I. I I, .III II. I III II I. I ‘III II .OI.o.IIIIIIO\aO.. :0“;
c I I II OIII I II I III. II IIII'IIIII III' .I'l'o.¥§ili‘
. . I l I I . ’I III II II it i‘tii?’ I
I I I I. I II I. O'ID-LI I! I; 3”"- '10!“
I I I II III I I. I- ‘I III II' ItIczgfI'
I I! [If :xIOI’I‘.\II-I‘IIIII I. .
I II . I II 1| II I II II, "I -. ‘Ivlif'ii-
I O . I! III I. ,III’ I 'I‘EI‘IE' I! I.
I' I. If II II II 90.0. II‘O‘EIII‘E‘C",
I 0- I OI . I I‘ll"" II ii I,"." ’ -
I III .. III! I I It." ‘I‘l‘liilu III
II .II I? .II II I II II I III .0 I. I IIIII'III’III I III-
I I-'4 II. IO." II I'II'III-'I£'IIO.'¥
_ I I I ' I I III III I; II\)If- I .'
II III I. .IIII. (I II.) III I.“ IOIIO II'I'II III! I.
I I III I I .II .vII II II II III! III’IIIIII II. IE! 5.
I II III- I I IOII¢104 0;] III“ ‘
I II II I III I I:.I 'I I III'IIIIIII I III I if" II
II I I .I I I III I II III, III'?‘ II’. I -
. IIrIJII) III I I I‘III' I..IIII.I.II.IIIIIIII’! II"!
I I I , I . I III IIE‘CIII'IIOII‘I‘ I-
II I III I I' IIIOI In!" I III) I‘II"¢I. IoI'IIIIlll IIP'.’ ‘III
II I. I III... g III: I.
I I 'I III: nIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIf I I. I
I I I I-I‘III£‘-\‘IIII0'D’ I I.
I III I II I I I I: III. I II III: II .JDI‘I'IIIIIVI
I III. II IIIIII OI.’I| .. I I -
I I II III I'VIII I III. .~.I.II ' l¢v bu' fl‘rpfliai‘
I I II V II I’ II’fIIII III III I.
I I I I II I I II I I II II.'.II I III II‘E‘;
II III III III II I). III}; I'lI . i
I I I I . II I II III... ': IIIIIOIGI .If.’ I
I I. I I I ’5" ’ I“!IO".,I ‘
I II I I iI‘I III I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIOIII
I I III IIIII III III [III \II IIIII‘II \
I I .I I I ll- II. I. I'II’IIIIIII.‘
I I I I I III III I I .I I I.
I I III I III I III- I I II I I. A. ‘IIIIIIIII Ii. f
I I II II.’ I I. ’0 . I I ‘
I... I I II :1 )- .'1' '1'...
I . I I I a Y | I I II. I I . IIIII I
I I I I (III I I I IIr’I’IIII
- III - I .I .I' - -‘l I\ i
I I. I II. I. III III. . ‘II III III.
I. III II . If I. I
I. 'l'IIll-O.I"O II? I II
| I I I I . I I JII I
I I ll. IP‘IIII II‘I'IIII'I III.
I II . , II I I III I I
I I I I III. EIIIIIIII‘I I
| I I I I . IIII'I I I
I- ' II II I'!‘ - II I 8" “
II I II I I , III I I
I I I'll III- III III I I
I I. I , I'I II I I
| I I I I. I’II I I? II I-
I II I . I II I -I' I
II I IIII‘- . I I II
I IIIII II I I I II
III -I I I I III I II'I'I I
I I. I I I II I I I II
I I .I . .I' (I III. I! If I
I I I I I I II I I I I 'II IIIII'I I
l I I V II I II. I I
I . I I I I 'I I I l' I! I- .I II I I
I I III - II. I I ' I III. .III.‘ Q'III‘OIIII . {It‘l‘l‘
I II- .I II- I I II I I. , III I...‘ I - IIIIIIIIII I
I. I II I .- I I' I.IOI I I I II'I. I. II IIIIIIIII,I IIIQII 'III-IIII -0:'-v0h11" -
I I I III I In . I III . . I .. .. . .I I III¢I.I. . flora II Johny“. J.” L5. 1.1. .Lw an Pafcflw
I I a. a l I . v . I I I - a.. o I I II I . n ‘D . I
In...:.rl. . 0 II IoII II I. . . I .0: . _ I I I 'r . .L-. 0 Id -

 

H ' unfit,

AN EVALUATION OF A BORDER SPRAY CONTROL PROGRAM AS
A PREVEETIVE MEASURE AGAINST INSECT MIGRATION
FROM BORDER FIELDS TO CROP AREAS

by

JOHN GARY BRADY

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Entomology
Year 1958

Approved

 

 

ABSTRACT

The primary purpose of this study was to deter-
mine the effectiveness of a border spray control program
in preventing the movement of the potato leafhopper,
Empoasca ggbgg Harris, and the six-spotted leathpper,
Macrostelgg fascifrons (Stal), from bordering areas to
cultivated crOps. The arrival dates and seasonal fluctu-
ations in populations of these leathppers were also de-
termined.

A second objective of this program was the evalu-
ation of insecticidal spray materials for control of in-
sect pests on potatoes, carrots, beans, and celery.
Thiodan and Sevin were compared with the standard DDT -
parathion recommendation.

The Michigan State University Muck Experimental
Farm, Clinton County, Michigan, was chosen as the location
for this study. Nine sampling stations were established.
Six stations were in the bordering fields, two were in the
border spray area, and one was a plot inside the border
which was planted to grass but was not sprayed. Beginning
10 April, 1958, and lasting for a period of twenty-three
weeks, sweep-net samples were taken weekly from each of
these locations. To determine the effectiveness of the

border spray control program, twelve plots were chosen

inside the border on which insecticide trials were being

conducted. The insecticides being tried were Thiodan, Sevin,

and a combination of DDT - parathion. The insecticide trial

plots included six plots of potatoes on which all three

materials were being applied on one or more plots, two plots

of celery on which DDT - parathion and Sevin were used, two

carrot plots on which these same two materials were used,

and two plots of beans on which Thiodan and Sevin were

applied.

The results were as follows:

1.

The first potato leafhopper was collected on
8 May, 1958. One specimen was taken on this date.
The first six-Spotted leafhopper appeared in
the sample taken 15 May, 1958 when two specimens

. were collected.

3.

The border spray program proved effective in
slowing the movement of E. fascifrons from.the
border fields to the cultivated areas. A total
of 458 Specimens were taken outside the border
and 120 inside the border.

The border spray control program did not prove
successful in preventing movement of E. gaggg
fram the border fields to the crop area. A
total of 89 potato leafhonners were collected

outside the border and 153 inside the border.

5. The DDT - parathion mixture was found to be

the most satisfactory of the materials against the
insect pests involved in this study. There
were, however, indications that this mixture
was not effective against adult spittlebugs on
carrots.

Sevin at 2 pounds of 50 per cent wettable pow—
der was effective against leathppers, particu-
larly g. fascifrons. Sevin gave no control of
the green peach aphid. There were indications
that this material was less effective against
flea beetles and spittlebug adults than the
other materials.

Leafh0pper pepulations were abnormally low dur—
ing the entire 1958 season.

Thiodan at two quarts of 25 per cent emulsion
was effective against all insects. Thiodan at
one quart of 25 per cent emulsion did not prove
effective against the green peach aphid. There
were indications that this material was not as
effective against E. gagag as Sevin and the

DDT - parathion mixture.

AN EVALUATION OF A BORDER SPRAY CONTROL PROGRAM AS
A PREVENTIVE MEASURE AGAINST INSECT MIGRATION
FROM BORDER FIELDS TO CROP AREAS

by

JOHN GARY BRADY

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Entomology

Year 1958

’.— “crat‘?
C: 75.3%

ACKNOWLEDGEHENTS

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the
help of Professor Ray Hutson, Head of the Department of
Entomology, in making this study possible. For his advice
as chairman of the author's advisory committee, the author
also wishes to express his gratitude.

To Dr. Gordon Guyer, the author's major professor,
especial acknowledgemaflsis made far his constant guidance
and advice throughout this study. '

To Drs. Herman King, J. R. Hoffman, B. H. Grigsby,
and Roland Fischer, the author expresses his sincere grati-
tude for their critical reading of the manuscript.

The author wishes to thank Mr. Larry Sheppard,
Superintendent of the Muck Experimental Farm, for his co-
Operation in this study. Gratitude is expressed to Mr.
George Beebe who did the spraying. Grateful acknowledge-
ment is expressed to Mr. William.Gillis of the Department
of Botany for the identification of the weeds at the sample
locations.

To Mr. Rudolph Scheibner and Mr. Alfred Borgatti,
gratitude is expressed for their suggestions and encourage-
ment during this study and for their assistanCe in taking

some of the samples.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LI TERATURE REVIEY] O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
General Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potato Leafh0pper, Empoasca fabae Harris .

Six-spotted Leafh0pper, Macrosteles fasci-
frons (Stal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chemical Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potato Leafh0pper, Empoasca fabae Harris .

Six~spottgd Leafh0pper, Macrosteles fasci-
fI'ODS (Stal) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Insect Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PROCEDURE 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0
Description of the Area . . . . . . . . . . . .

methOd-s . C . . . O . . O . C O C O O . O . C .
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA . . . . . . . .
SWARY . . . O O . . O O C O . . 0 O O O O O C . .

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11
ll

14
16

22
22
23

32

58

61

Table

10

11

LIST OF TABLES

List of Weeds at Sampling Stations at Muck
Experimental Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dates of Application of Border Sprays . . .

Spray Dates and Rates of Application on
Crops Inside Border of Muck Experimental

Farm 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station A Located Outside
Border Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station B Located Outside
Border Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station C Located in Bor-
der Area 0 I o 0 O O o O O o o e o O O O 0

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station D Located Outside
Border Area C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station E Located Outside
Border Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Numbers of InSects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station F Located in the
Border ”ea 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date From Station G Located Outside
Border Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col—

lection Date From Onion Plot Located Outside

Border Area 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O

Page

25
29

30

55

56

37

58

39

4O

41

42

Table
12

13

14

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

Total Numbers of Insects Collected Per Col-
lection Date from Grass Plot Located Outside
Border Area 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 1+4

Summary of Totals Shown in Tables 4-12 Show-
ing Totals and Average Per Station for Sta-
tions Outside and Inside Border and Average
Per Plot for Plots Inside Border . . . . . . 45

Total Numbers of Insects Collected from
Spray Plots Inside Border . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Locations of sampling stations outside,
inside, and in border and cr0p locations
inside border at the Muck Experimental Farm. 24

Seasonal fluctuations in pepulation of po-
tato leathpper as shown by total collected
from all stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Comparison of potato leafhopper pepulation:
outside, inside and in the border area. . . 47

Seasonal fluctuations in pepulation of Six-
spotted leathpper as shown by total col-
lected from all stations . . . . . . . . . . 49

Comparison of pepulations of six-spotted
leafhoppers outside, inside, and in the bor-
der spray area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Seasonal fluctuations in pepulation of po-
tato flea beetles as Shown by total col-
lected from all stations. . . . . . . . . . 52

INTRODUCTION

In Michigan, the potato leafh0pper, Dmpoasca gaggg
Harris, and the sixespotted leadhopper,.Macrostele§ gaggi-
fgggg (Stgl), are serious pests of many vegetable creps.
The potato leafh0pper, by its feeding, causes injury known
variously as "tipburn" and "hepperburn." The six-spotted
leafh0pper transmits the virus which causes the aster
yellows disease. Many of the crops grown on muck soil are
important hosts of these leafh0ppers.

It has been assumed that spring build-ups of popu-
lations occur in the border fields prior to attainment of
sufficient growth of cultivated host plants to support in-
sect p0pulations. If the migrating insects could be pre-
vented from moving from the border areas to the crops, the
damage caused by their feeding could be greatly reduced.
For this reason, a standard recommendation, especially in
muck farming areas, has been that a border spray control
program be followed.

This study was therefore undertaken to determine:
(1) the effectiveness of a border Spray control program in
preventing movement of these insects into the crop areas,
(2) the arrival dates and seasonal fluctuations in popula-
tion of the potato leafh0pper and the Six-spotted leaf—
h0pper at the Muck EXperimental Farm, (5) the effectiveness

- 1 _

of two new insecticides, Thiodan and Sevin, as compared to

the standard DDT - parathion recommendation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

General Biology

Potato Leafh0pper, Empoasca fabae Harris.

 

Disagreement exists in the literature regarding
the life history of the potato leafh0pper, Empoasca fgbag
Harris.* In Iowa, Fenton and Hartzell (1920) conducted
greenhouse experiments on.the life history of E. fgbgg
and compared their results with field experiments. These
findings indicated that the potato leafh0pper overwintered
in the adult stage and became active in April. At this
time the adults were found on various weeds and remained
there until June. This first generation migrated to early
planted potatoes where the females laid eggs on the vines.
These adults died in July. The first nymphs appeared in
late June and early July. By August these nymphs had ma-
tured into adults and were able to lay eggs which hatched
in late August and early September. At the time of the
first frost all immature stages and summer brood adults
were killed. The second generation adults matured in
late August but did not lay eggs. They remained on the

vines until frost. These adults then flew to weeds and

 

‘ Note: for convenience, the specific name with
priority, fabae, is used in place of mali when the latter
was used by the author being cited.

- 5 -

4

remained there until the weeds were frosted at which time
they entered hibernation. In April and May, 1919, E.
fgpgg was found on common yellow dock, 33mg; crispus L.,
which seemed to be the preferred host. Potted potato
plants were placed among theweeds but were not infested by
the leafh0ppers. On the morning of 6 July, 1919, the leaf-
heppers suddenly left the weeds and migrated to early
planted potatoes. Fenton and Hartzell deduced that this
sudden.migration was correlated with temperature and hu-
midity as well as sexual maturity of the insects. Ripe
eggs were found for the first time following this migra-
tion. In addition to this spring migration there was a
summer migration from early-planted to late-planted pota-
toes. This second migration differed from the first
flight in that it occurred over a longer period of time.
In order to determine whether a complete genera-
tion could be reared on some of the plants on which E.
ggbgg had been found, Hartzell (1921) conducted experi-
ments using curly dock, Carolina poplar, pigweed, and
broadleaf plantain. All of these plants gave negative re-
sults except curly dock which produced a complete genera-
tion. Hartzell stated the potato leafh0pper had been bred
on apple, bean, and potato. De Long (1928) found that
E. fgbgg was able to complete its life cycle on a number

of wild and cultivated plants. Included among these hosts

were common dock, bean, potato, egg plant, rhubarb, elo-
ver, alfalfa, apple, and several ornamentals. In Ohio,
bush bean appeared to be the preferred early host. Eggs
were laid as early as 20 May on beans. The adults mi-
grated to potato about a month later. In 1926 and 1927,
DeLong found four distinct generations. One mating was
sufficient for the life of a female.

Smith (1951) studied the feeding habits of some
leafh0ppers of the genus Empoasca. When E. gghgg was con-
fined on tender stems and petioles, wilting of the plant
parts above the point of feeding occurred. When the
leafh0pper was confined to the lower surface of the leaf-
let, the midvein and lateral veins became lighter in color
and wilting took place in one or two days. When there was
less feeding, wilting did not take place but the typical
symptoms of "tipburn" or of reddening or yellowing of
leaves appeared after a longer period of time. Smith made
microscopic examinations of sections through the leaves
and feund that the cells of the phloem were frequently
punctured. These cells were torn and distorted or were
partially or completely filled with leaf sheath material.

DeLong (1951), in studies on the distribution of
the potato leafh0pper, found E. Egggg to be an important
pest throughout the eastern and southern United States.

Studies in western states showed that E. fabae occurred

westward to the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. At high
elevations (5500-4500 feet) it occurred in small numbers.

It occurred in California, also in small numbers. In no
place in the western states were pepulations large enough
to cause economic injury. No specimens were found in the
high inter-mountain area between the Rocky Mountains and

the Sierra Nevadas. Three other economically important
species were found to replace E. Egggg in the higher a1-
titudes and the arid regions of the west. Empoasca EEEQ-
Egggg DeL. was abundant throughout western Colorado, Utah,
Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Wyoming, and southern Montana on
potatoes, beans, and sugar beets. Two other species, E.
abrupta DeL. and E. gaggg DeL., were found to be the most
important on truck creps in California. E. abrupta obtained
its greatest development on the cucurbit group of plants,
especially squash, cucumber, watermelon, and cassaba and
honeydew melons. Potatoes, beans, parsnips, sweet potatoes,
okra, and celery were also preferred hosts. E. abrupta

was found in Texas, Arizona, Oregon, and occasionally in
Colorado.

Beginning in 1927, DeLong and Caldwell (1955) made
attempts to find, or recover, E. Egggg in winter quarters
under natural conditions in Ohio. These attempts were
'unsuccessful. This is in disagreement with the work done

in Iowa by Fenton and Hartzell. DeLong and Caldwell

7

found the earliest records of E. Egggg for Columbus, Ohio,
were in late May with the main migration occuring in the
middle of June. A detailed search in thefield during

the early season for a period of eight years upon all types
of host plants failed to yield any positive proof that E.
Egggg overwintered in the egg stage. In view of these
findings, DeLong and Caldwell concluded that in all proba-
bility the potato leafh0pper passes the winter in the
south. Material taken in Florida and the Gulf states
showed that E. Egggg breeds on alfalfa and similarly

growing creps.

Six-spotted Leafh0pper, Macrosteles fascifrons (Stfil).*
As is the case with the potato leafh0pper, there

are many points concerning the life history of the six-
spotted leafh0pper, Macrosteles fascifrons (Stfil), upon
which there is disagreement.

One of the early studies on.the life history of E.
fascifrons was conducted by Osborn (1916). This worker
found that the six-spotted leafh0pper was a very widely

distributed species occuring in EurOpe and North America

 

*Note: for convenience, the name with priority,
Egcrosteles fascifrons (Stal), is used in place of Cicadula
sexnotatg, Macrosteles sexnotata, and Macrosteles divisus
when the latter were used by the authors being cited.

from Alaska to Florida. In Maine, Osborn.found adults of
E. fascifrons plentiful in late June and early July.
There was a well-marked brood occuring in July. Adults
were found to lay eggs in the leaf Sheath and at the base
of the leaf blade of oats and other grasses. There ap-
peared to be three generations per year. One generation
occurred in grasslands before 1 July. A later generation
was found between 15 July and 15 August. An autumn gen—
eration occurred between 15 August and 1 October. This
generation deposited eggs which overwintered. Beckwith
and Hutton (1924) found adult six-spotted leafh0ppers on
cranberry bogs in New Jersey in May and early June. It
was concluded that E. fascifrons overwintered as adults.
The food was not definitely determined but was believed
to be grass.

Kunkel (1926) kept E. fascifrons in culture for
three years. These leafh0ppers produced twenty-five gen-
erations. It was observed that females of one generation
were still depositing eggs when females of the next gen-
eration began to deposit. The average age reached when the
temperature was kept between 70 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit
was about one hundred-twenty days. This age was reached
when only a few leafh0ppers were kept in a cage. Nhen
large numbers were kept in a cage, they lived not more

than Sixty days. Eggs hatched in from ten or eleven days

to three weeks under ordinary greenhouse conditions. Eggs
were deposited under both the lower and upper epidermis

of aster leaves. Some females deposited eggs in leaf
petioles and even in small branches and the main stem.

The favored hosts were found by Kunkel to be aster, lettuce,
sow thistle, great ragweed, daisy fleabane, English plan-
tain, dandelion, wheat, oats, rye, barley, calendula, and
daisy. Some plants which were not preferred were tobacco,
potato, tomato, peach, begonia, and alsike clover.

Relying on the fact that E. fascifrons transmits
the virus that causes aster yellows, Linn (1940) made sur-
veys in New York state during April covering most of the
weeds bordering farms. These surveys showed that the com-
mon plantain, Plantago Eglgg L., was the principal, if not
the sole, weed that overwintered the yellows virus on
Staten Island. Experiments suggested that E. fascifrons
did not overwinter in the egg stage. Because of the pre-
sence of yellows infected plantain, it was concluded that
some of the leafh0ppers found in the Spring should have
been viruliferous if they had overwintered in the border-
ing weeds. Three hundred fifty adults captured in the
Spring were caged over lettuce seedlings in the greenhouse.
At the end of five weeks none of these plants had deveIOped
symptoms of yellows. This indicated that none of the leaf-

h0ppers were viruliferous when they first appeared and none

10

of these individuals had fed on diseased weeds prior to
collection.

Hervey and Schroeder (1947), noting the confusion
in the literature as to overwintering in the northern lati-
tudes and the question as to whether E. fascifrong over—
wintered in the region at all, conducted experiments de-
signed to find the answer. In November, 1945, near Geneva,
New York, large numbers of Six-spotted leafh0ppers were
observed in a field of winter barley adjoining a carrot
field that had a high pepulation early in the summer. In
March, 1946, ten clumps of barley plants were dug from
this field, placed in the greenhouse and caged. Within
ten days, newly hatched nymphs appeared. An average of
eighty-five insects were reared to maturity from each of
the ten cages. The field was again examined in late April
and a few newly hatched nymphs were observed. A cage
measuring four by eight feet was erected over the barley.
This cage yielded 1550 adults between 15 June and 26 June.
Collections made in May and June indicated nymphs on wheat,
rye, barley, and grasslands. 0n the basis of these ob-
servations it appeared obvious that the six-spotted leaf-
hOpper overwintered in the area and strongly suggested that
it must overwinter in the egg stage. No eggs were found

however.

11

Chemical Control

Potato Leafh0pper, Empoasca fabae Harris.
Dudley (1920) experimented with three chemicals

and an entomOphagous fungus to obtain control of the po-
tato leafh0pper, Emgoasca M Harris. A 10 per cent
kerosene emulsion was applied to Early Ohio and Green
Mountain potatoes. Three applications were made with no
control of the insect. Nicotine sulfate and fish oil soap
gave no control with four applications. Bordeaux mixture
4-4-50 was also applied four times. This material gave
no control until the middle of July. From this time on
control was good. Dudley also experimented with an ento-
mophagous fungus, Entomophtgggg sphaerosperma. Results
showed that this fungus attacked both adults and nymphs
and greatly reduced the population.

DeLong, Reid, and Barley (1950) experimented with
cepper sulfate to control E. Egggg. Dilutions to and in-
cluding 1:6500 gave a high degree of control. A wettable
powder formulation of cepper sulfate was used. This was
mixed with a 5 per cent sugar solution or with tap or
distilled water. Nymphs lived for an average of twelve
days on the sugar solution and three days on tap or dis-
tilled water. The roots of bean plants were placed in

different dilutions of cepper sulfate solution and the

l2

leafh0ppers allowed to feed. A high rate of mortality of
E. Egggg was observed and cepper was found in the plant
juices of the leaves. Other bean plants were sprayed with
solutions of copper sulfate and of calcium hydroxide.
Nymphs were then placed on these plants. Cepper sulfate
caused 50 per cent mortality while the calcium hydroxide
was not toxic to E. gngQ.

McDaniel (1956) used Lethane 440, Lethane dust, 4
per cent nicotine dust, Lore, and Pyrethrum "A" dust on
dahlia. Of these materials, the 4 per cent nicotine dust
proved to have very good repellant value but produced only
very slight kill. Lethane 440 spray was found to kill by
contact as was Lore. The other materials had very little
or no value either as repellants or as contact poisons.
None of these materials exhibited any phytotoxicity.

Lewis (1942) observed that E. Egggg had become an
important pest of citrus in the San Joaquin Valley of
California. Injury to ripening fruit was caused by the
leafh0ppers puncturing the rind of the fruit causing a
blemish. A whitewash composed of hydrated lime and zinc
sulfate was used in an attempt to control this insect.
This material was applied at the rate of 55.5 pounds of
hydrated lime plus 5 pounds of zinc sulfate, 0.67 pounds
of casein spreader or 1 pint fish oil per 100 gallons of

spray. This material gave satisfactory control of E.

13

Egggg. Lewis also found that any white dust or spray
sediment discouraged the feeding of the leafh0ppers.

P003 (1945) used a DDT spray of 252 grams of 10
per cent DDT in perphyllite added to one gallon of water,
a 2 per cent DDT dust in perphyllite, and a pyrethrum-
sulfur dust containing 0.1 per cent of pyrethrins. The
spray was applied at the rate of 27 gallons per acre and
the dusts at 25 pounds per acre. Two applications of each
material were made. Good control of the potato leafh0pper
was obtained with all three insecticides. No nymphs de-
velOped in the areas where DDT was applied. The pyrethrum—
sulfur dust soon lost its effectiveness and nymphs began
develOping within a comparatively short time.

Mitchner (1950) compared wettable powder formula-
tions of five chemicals with calcium arsenate. These five
were 50 per cent DDT, 25 per cent aldrin, 25 per cent
dieldrin, 40 per cent toxaphene, and 50 per cent chlordane.
The rates per fifty gallons water in actual material were
24 ounces chlordane, 2 and 1 ounces aldrin, 2 and 1 ounces
dieldrin, and 8 and 4 ounces toxaphene. The plots were
sprayed on 50 June at the rate of 72.5 gallons per acre
and on 27 July at 145 gallons per acre. The amount of
spray was doubled for the second application because of the
increase in the amount of foliage to be covered. or these

insecticides, only DDT destroyed potato leafh0ppers. A

14

possible exception was toxaphene at 8 ounces which gave
some control but not the complete control obtained with

DDT.

Six—spotted Leafh0pper, Macrosteles fascifrons (Stdl).

Inpper and Haenseler (1959) used seven combina-
tions of various materials in 1956. The combinations
were (1) rotenone-pyrethrum-sulfur, (2) cepper plus lime
dust, 25-75, (5) derris mare plus sulfur, (4) derris root
plus talc sulfur (0.75 per cent rotenone) (5) nicotine
sulfate (1-600) plus Aresket, (6) nicotine sulfate (1-600)
plus soap, and (7) Bordeaux mixture 5-5-50. Rotenone-
pyrethrum-sulfur and derris root plus sulfur dusts gave a
significant reduction in leafh0pper nymph pepulations and
a slight decrease in diseased plants. All the other com-
binations gave practically no control of the disease or of
E. fascifrons. In 1957, Pepper and Haenseller used seven
dust combinations. These were (1) pyrethrum, (2) pyrethrum
plus sulfur, (5) derris root plus pyrethrum plus sulfur,
(4) pyrethrum plus varying amounts of activators, (5)
pyrethrum plus neutral copper, (6) pyrethrum plus 1 per
cent Santomerse, and (7) derris root plus sulfur. The
pyrethrin content of the pyrethrum dusts was 0.5 per cent.

The rotenone content of the derris root was 0.75 Per cent.

15

The pyrethrin-rotenone contents of the derris root plus
pyrethrum plus sulfur was reduced to one-half normal.
When sulfur was used, the content was 25 per cent. There
were five applications made at ten-day intervals starting
when the plants were approximately ten days old. The
pyrethrum dusts containing sulfur, the derris root plus
sulfur, and derris root plus sulfur dusts gave the best
control of E. fascifrons and yellows while pyrethrum plus
activator gave good control of the leafh0ppers but failed
to give any appreciable reduction of diseased plants.

Linn (1940) suggested the eradication of weeds
bordering crOp areas was perhaps the best means of control.
Several herbicides were tested including sodium chlorate
crystals, sodium chlorate, Atlacide, Sinox, Sinox Special,
and Elgetol solutions. The results showed that sodium
chlorate crystals gave the best control.

Hoffman (1952) conducted border spray experiments
in 1951 using DDT, parathion, and a DDT-parathion mixture.
When used as a mixture, parathion was used at one pound
of 15 percent wettable powder and DDT at two pounds 50
percent wettable powder per 100 gallons of water. This
mixture was applied at 25 gallons of water per acre. When
used alone, parathion was mixed at 1 pound of 15 percent

wettable powder per 100 gallons of water and DDT at one

16

and one-half pints 25 percent emulsifiable concentrate per
100 gallons water. These sprays were also applied at

25 gallons per acre. Hoffman concluded that the border
spray resulted in a definitely lower incidence of yellows
infected plants than would have been observed had no bor-
der sprays been applied.

Chiykowski and Chapman (1958) found that DDT at
two pounds per acre and parathion at one-half pound per
acre gave good control of the six-spotted leafh0pper
when applied every three days. When the interval between
sprays was increased to nine days, only DDT gave good con-
trol. Tests conducted in 1956 and 1957 indicated that
malathion at one-half pound every three and one-half days

gave the best control.
Insect Migratigg

There are, as has been presented, some gaps between
the observed habits, life history, and abundance of leaf-
h0ppers. These discrepancies are at least partially re—
solved by a brief account of the knowledge of insect mi-
gration in general and of leafh0ppers in particular.

Williams (1957) defined migration as the movement
of animals in a direction and for a distance over which
they have control and which results in a temporary or per-

manent change of habitat. The minimum distance an animal

17

must move in order to constitute a true migration is ex-
tremely difficult to determine. By definition, a migra-
tion results in a change of habitat. What determines a
change in habitat is a factor which must be arbitrarily
determined by the observer. This could possibly be a

few feet or many miles. There actually is no upper limit.
A migration may extend up to a thousand miles or more.

The number of individuals in a single movement may range
from a few hundred up to thousands of millions.

Evidence that migrations of insects do occur may
come from several sources. Observations of large numbers
of insects flying steadily in a definite direction lends
credence to the idea that insects do migrate. Shannon
(1916) observed Monarch butterflies and dragonflies habitu-
ally traveling westward along the southern Long Island
shore in an apparent attempt to reach the mainland and an
overland route to the South. Another evidence that migra-
tions exist is the sudden appearances of winged insects in
an area where they were not known to be previously present
and with no evidence of local breeding or emergence.
Knight (1956) noticed Ozarkian forms arriving in central
Iowa after the drought of 1950. The boxelder bug, Egpgg-
coggg trivittatus Say, and the chinch bug, Blissus leucop-
Egggg Say, which were rather scarce in the period 1925 to

1950, increased greatly in numbers during 1950. Species

18

that were known previously as normal to the southern half
of Missouri also began to appear. During this same period,
Bird (1957) noted E. trivittatus in Manitoba where very
large swarms had congregated for hibernation in the autumn.
A third evidence of insect migration is the presence of
flying insects at sea or on oceanic islands. Stearns and
MacCreary (1958) reported a collection of leafh0ppers from
light traps on four lighthouses on Delaware Bay. These
lighthouses had beams visible from a distance of 14.9
miles. Over a period of 144 days, 5466 specimens repre-
senting 55 genera and 50 Species of leafh0ppers were cap-
tured. Of this total, 106 were the potato leafh0pper,
Empoasca fabae Harris. This total included fifty males
and fifty-six females. The lighthouses were at distances
of three, six, nine, and ten miles from Shore. At the
three mile light, 57 E. Egggg and 60.1 per cent of all the
leafh0ppers were taken. At six miles, 29 E. Egggg and
26.9 per cent of the total were taken. The nine mile
lighthouse yielded 25 E. Egggg and 7.2 per cent of the to—
tal. At a distance of ten miles, 17 potato leafh0ppers
and 6.2 per cent of the total were captured. The other
leafh0ppers were, for the most part, non-economic forms.
Leafh0ppers were present on ninety-two of the one hundred
forty-four days collections were taken. Nights on which

leafh0ppers were not trapped occurred usually in groups in

19

which there was a definite interference with activity by
the weather. This interference included low temperature,
cloudiness, strong winds, and rainfall. Peak flights were
definitely associated with the following combination of
factors: a high mean temperature, a clear night, and a
light to moderate wind.

Williams (1957) lists several factors as suggested
external guides to orientation. Some of these factors
are the sun, wind, temperature gradients, moisture, baro-
metric pressure and the earth's magnetic field. As in-
sects have no sense of time, the sun and moon can probably
be ruled out. Insects are, however, able to perceive
light and the sun would therefore have an effect as far
as providing light.

Temperature has an effect on the migration of in-
sects. Carter (1950) observed the result of a mass migra-
tion on the night of 17 September at Rocky Ford, Colorado.
On the day of the flight an unusual and sudden drOp in
temperature of between 20 and 50 degrees F. was experi—
enced. This caused a flight of insects, mostly Hemiptera,
into the town of Rocky Ford where they covered the streets.
One sample examined by Carter totaled 5,666 insects. Of
this total, 5,094 were members of the family Cicadellidae.

Linn (1940), in experiments to determine the dis-

persion of the six-spotted leafh0pper, Macrosteles

2O

fascifrong (Stal), stated that the distance the leafh0p-
pers jump or are carried by air currents and the frequency
of jumps are determined by (1) wind velocity and direction,
(2) temperature, humidity, and rainfall, (5) preference
of the leafh0ppers for the particular plant on which it
attempts to feed, and (4) number and frequency of culti-
vations and overhead irrigations. In experiments with
dyed leafh0ppers, Linn traced the dispersal of m, gaggi—
Egggg. Winds were from the northwest, north, and north-
east for a total of 65 per cent of the test period.
Seventy-four percent of the dyed leafh0ppers were collected
southeast, south, and southwest of the dusted area. The
dye used was a dust consisting of one part methyl-violet
5B concentrated powder and nine parts wheat flour. This
was applied to an area approximately three hundred square
feet. Insects have been observed flying against the wind.
Williams (1957) states that locusts have been observed to
alter their body axis during a side gust so that their
direction of movement relative to the ground was kept
constant.

Smith and Allen (1952) found that the spotted cu-
cumber beetle, Diabrotica duodecimpunctata Fabr., regularly
migrates northward during the spring and early summer. The

offspring migrate back to the south during fall with none

21

surviving the winter north of central Missouri. No true
hibernation takes place in the south.

Fulton (1940) developed a method of determining
the distance the beet leafh0pper, Circulifer (5 Eutettix)
tenellus (Baker), migrates by measuring the chloroform
soluble components as a measure of the reserve energy of
the leafh0pper. Sex ratios of adults also proved useful
in some localities since the females move farther than the
males. Sweep net collections and chloroform extractives
were, in general, greatest nearest the breeding area and
decreased prOgressively with the distance from the breed-
ing area.

Hervey and Schroeder (1947) reported a migration
of the six-spotted leafh0pper from a barley field, where
they had evidently overwintered, to a field of carrots.
These two fields were separated by a beet field 500 feet
wide. The migration took place during a period from 20
May to the end of June. The approaching maturity of the
barley appeared to hasten the migration. Movement of the
leafh0ppers from the carrots to winter grains took place
in early October or as soon as these crops emerged. Adult

E. fascifrons were found on wheat, barley, and rye.

PROCEDURE

Description of the Area

The Michigan State University Muck Experimental
Farm is located approximately eleven miles northeast of
East Lansing in Clinton County. The total area of the
farm is 520 acres. Forty acres are currently being used
for crap production. The outbuildings and housing for
farm personnel take up six acres. One-hundred twenty
acres, purchased during fiscal 1957-58, are presently be-
ing seeded to bluegrass, Egg spp. Before being purchased
by Michigan State University, this area was used for the
production of mint and corn. The remaining 154 acres are
border fields and roads and are not being used for cr0p
production. Since the Muck EXperimental Farm is maintained
for experimental use by Michigan State University, there
is no major crOp occupying a majority of the land area.
The cr0ps are not limited to those normally grown on
muck soil. Included are crops indigenous to other soil
types. The crops include onions, celery, cabbage, carrots,
corn, sugar beets, potatoes, snap beans, soy beans, cauli-
flower, red beets, mint, and broccoli.

Many of the experiments are associated with fer-

tilizer and variety trials. There are also chemical

- 22 -

23

control experiments. These include disease, weed, and
insect control work. In addition to this, the Muck Ex-
perimental Farm in c00peration with the Entomology Depart-
ment of Michigan State University carried out an extensive

border spray control program in 1958.

Methods

On 10 April, 1958, seven sampling stations were
established. Of these, five were outside and two were in
the border spray area. These sites were given letter de-
signations, A through G. Stations A, B, D, E, and G were
outside the border area. Stations C and F were in the
border area. The approximate location of each of these
stations is shown in figure 1. The plant types at each
of these stations are shown in table 1. A total of
twenty-three weekly samples were taken from each of these
stations beginning 10 April, 1958, and continuing until
11 September, 1958. All of these locations, except sta-
tions A and C, were on level terrain.

Stations A and C were on ditch banks. Station A
was located at the extreme southeast corner of the new
section of the farm on the bank of a drainage ditch. Sta-
tion B was located in an open field approximately midway
between station A and section A of the farm. Station C

was on the bank of a drainage ditch which runs north and

“a mQOHpmooa @090 one awoken aw use .odwmsw .mwflmpso macapwpm mnwamamm Ho mnOflpmooA

nodnop condemn
hapamsmeHnH

Rodeo
condemn manta mm

moanpmswm
+ eon I
qfi>om
qflbom
nw>mm I
.3 H
qwcoana I
.pu a
quOflAa I
qw>om I
moanpmsdm
+ 9mm I
ouow\.pv H
meccana I
o908\epw m
nmcowna I
moan»
Imnmm + Bag
nfibmm I

.4 .: a. g
In. . I I- .r:
.‘IIIII. .IIILIII'

“HHHNNNN
humaoo
humamo

madam
mmopwuom
mswom

moondpom
muonumo

muonnwo
mooȢpom
moopmpom

moonwpom
moopmuom

.aumm Hangmaflnomwm Mesa map pm Hermon mofimna

 

.NH

4 Mam

m mum

 

 

 

 

msowno

.nlvooabon...c4. ad u.

L. r .0. o

. H 3&3

o O.v:. .Q

 

Q mam

 

mmwnw

 

 

r «pm

4 00m

 

m 0mm

 

NHHNW

u

 

0 com

 

\\\xx:\§3\\‘\\\\\\\\u \L‘

 

 

 

fl

 

, Q 00m

 

m mum

m 0mm

H a _ N H

 

I///// //A(// / / //

/V/ “J/ I / ////$

 

 

 

a mum

 

 

 

«pm

25

TABLE 1

List of Weeds at Sampling Stations

   

Sttion A
Cruciferae
Curled Dock

Downy Bromegrass
Other grasses

Station E

Wild Lettuce
Aster
Goldenrod
Goldenrod
Boneset
Ragweed
Peppermint
Sedge
Beggar Tick
Station 9

Broom Sedge
Spear Grass

Station E

Goldenrod
Meadow-sweet

Station E

Thistle
Aster
Agrimony
Goldenrod
Meadow-sweet
Brome

Station E

Bluegrass
Station 9

Reed—canary grass
Grass

Broom Sedge

species not determined
Rumex crispus

Bromus tectorum
species not determined

Lactuca spicata

Species not determined

Solidago graminifolia var. nuttallii
Solidago rugosa
Eupatorium sp.

Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Mentha piperita

Carex sp.

Bidens coronata

AndrOpogon virginicug
Poa annua

Solidago altissima
Spireae alba

Cirsium sp.

Aster azureus
Agrimonia parviflora
Solidago rugogg

Spireae alba
Bromus commutatus

Poa _p.
Phalaris arundinacea

AndropOgon virginicus

 

26

south along the east side of the cultivated area of the
farm. Station D was at the extreme south end of the farm
midway between the east and west boundaries of the culti-
vated area. Station E was at the southwest corner of
section C of the farm, approximately fifty yards west of
the crap area. Station F was on a border strip of grass
which runs east and west between sections C and E of the
farm. Station G was at the northwest corner of section E.
On 5 June, 1958, an eighth station was added.
This was a plot of onions with which in-row applications
of insecticides were being evaluated. A total of 14 sam-
ples were taken from this station beginning on 5 June,
1958, and ending 5 September, 1958. At this time the
onions were harvested. The ninth sample location was added
7 July, 1958. This was an area which was planted to grass.
It included most of the southern half of section B of the
farm. This station, while technically inside the border,
was considered as being outside the border area. The bor-
der to the south of this area was sprayed infrequently and
the plot itself was sprayed only once. For these reasons,
this station was considered as being outside the border.
To obtain data from inside the border spray area,
five plots were chosen on which insect control experiments
were being conducted. These plots included four crops;

celery, beans, carrots, and potatoes. The spray dates and

27

rates of application inside the border are shown in table
5. The locations of these plots are shown in figure 1.
For purposes of sampling, a standard 12-inch di-
ameter sweeping net was used. A sample consisted of ten
double sweeps. Thesamples were put in one-half pint mason
jars. A paper tag giving the site designation, the number
of the sample, and the date was placed in each jar. In
April and early May, one-quart calcium cyanide killing
jars were used. When the plants became green, these cyan-
ide jars were replaced with plain glass jars. This change
was necessitated by the presence of green plant parts in
the jars. Because of respiration by these plant parts,
(moisture was condensed on the jars. This made recovery of
the specimens difficult. This difficulty was largely
eliminated by the use of the plain jars. Carbon tetra-
chloride was used as the killing agent. From the field,
these samples were taken to the laboratory for killing,
separating, and counting. The separation was done in a
porcelain pan. The samples were emptied onto the pan and
the plant parts discarded after the insects were removed
from them. The insects were then counted and the numbers
recorded on the analysis sheet for each location. The
Specimens were then placed in 2 5/4 inch pillboxes. These
containers were lined with tissue paper to absorb any mois-

ture which might have been present. The tag which had been

28

placed in the jar in the field was also placed in the
pillboxes as a means of identifying the sample.

For the border spray program, the standard DDT-
parathion mixture was used. The rates of application for
these materials were DDT one-quart of 25 percent emulsion
and parathion one pint of 25 per cent emulsion. This was
added to 150 gallons of water and applied at 150 gallons
per acre. A John Bean model 8RC Air Crap mist blower was
used. This sprayer has a 200 gallon tank and delivers
14.27 gallons per minute at 400 pounds pressure. This
sprayer was used for most of the spraying on the plots
inside the border also. On windy days, however, a boom
sprayer was used. This was a John Bean model 70-TG boom
sprayer. This sprayer has a 150 gallon tank and delivers
7 gallons per minute at 400 pounds pressure. All of the
spraying was done by personnel of the Muck EXperimental
Farm. During June, the border was sprayed every day ex-
cept Saturday and Sunday. During July and August the.
interval between applications was increased to three to

five days.

Table 2
Dates of Application of Border Sprays

 

 

Month: May June July August
Day: 50 2 2 l
5 7 4
4 11 8
5 14 11
6 18 15
9 51 15
10 18
11 22
12
1'5
16
17
18
19
2O
23
24
25
26
27

5O

 

30

 

 

 

m .pmmm m .pmom m .pamm m .pdom m .pamm m .pamm
ma ma ma ma ma ma
NH Na Na Na NH NH
m .ms< m .msa m .ms< m .msa m .m:« m .ms<
0m 0m on on on on
NN NN NN NN NN NN
ma ma ma ma ma ma
m m m m m m
m mass m mass m mass m mass m sass m mass "open
and saw
case H
sownpmnmm
.Hssm me me on .Hssm 3mm .Hssm omN .Hssm me me on soapwassnom
pnmsv H a N wands N news a ahead A % N was opmm
necesna sfi>om madcana success Ban qH>om Hwanopms
moopMpom nacho

\III
"

swam Headmawammwm Moss Ho
amcnom oonqH macho no soaprflHmmd Ho mopwm use mopwn

m sands

henna

51

 

 

 

 

 

N .pamm N .pmmm N .paom N .pmmm N .pmom N .pmmm
oH oH mH mH mH 0H
NH NH NH NH NH NH
m .m34 m .m54 m .m54 m .ms4 m .ms< m .mds
6m 0m om on on on
NN NN NN NN NN NN
mH mH mH mH mH mH
m N w m m m
N aHss N aHse N aHse N sts N mHss N sHss “muse
.Hsas amN .Hssm amN
qum H peHm H
QOHQ PMHMnH QC .233me
.Hssm emN ma on me on .Hssm emN .Hssm amN me on noHpmHssnom
paws H a N a N ppm: H snags H a N age opwm
egg qH>mm nH>mm ameoHee amn qH>om HmHnopms
hHono manom mpoHHwo “mono
.emserqoo .m mHnma

PRESENTATION AID DISCUSSION OF DATA

The first samples on the crOp area were not taken
until after the first spray application. Spraying was be-
gun on 2 July and the first sample taken 7 July. Sampling
was started in the border area prior to the first spray
application. The first samples were taken on 10 April.
The first spray application was on 50 May. The total
number of specimens taken, especially of leafh0ppers, was
abnormally low. The reasons for the low pOpulations could
not be definitely ascertained. The total number of
Empoasca fabae Harris‘from all collecting stations was 182
and of Macrosteles fascifrons (Stal) 509. These totals
are less than some workers have collected in a single
sample. These low totals could possibly have been caused
by the cool weather which prevailed throughout most of the
spring. Williams (1957) stated that temperature gradients
might serve as a means of orientation for migrating in-
sects. Assuming that this is correct, it is possible that

the bulk of the leafh0ppers did not reach Michigan but

 

*Determinations of E. fabae were made according to
published information. Recent investigations by H. H.
JRoss of the Illinois Natural History Survey indicate that
'what is now known as the potato leafh0pper may actually
‘be a complex of species. This information is as yet un-
published .

- 32 -

55

stOpped somewhere south of this state where temperatures
were more favorable. Another possibility was that sub-
normal temperatures in the breeding areas prevented or
hindered reproduction and subsequent pOpulation buildups.
This would tend to decrease the number of migrating in-
sects. Williams (1957) also stated that the prime in-
stigator of migratory flights was thought to be overpOpu-
lation. If breeding in southern areas were hindered, this
p0pu1ation pressure would not exist thereby reducing the
number of leafh0ppers migrating northward.

The first specimen of E. Egpgg was collected on 8
May and three more were collected on 15 May. All of these
leafh0ppers were adults. This is somewhat in advance of
the usual date of arrival of the potato leafh0pper. Med-
ler (1957) listed the usual date of arrival in the north-
central states as 25-27 May. Medler added, however, that
the potato leafh0pper had been recorded as early as April
and as late as June in the north-central area. The six-
spotted leafh0pper was first collected on 15 May when two
adult Specimens were collected. Tables 4 through 12 show
the results of collections from all stations outside the
border area. It was from these stations, specifically
stations A and F, that these first arrivals were collected.

Figure 2 shows the fluctuations in population of

E. fabae. This figure represents the total number of

54

gnarHflmjmwrmwa.Nww.ew®

msHHmamm we open

Jlll:.Jlll - -l IJI--I

  

.mQOHpspm HHm sown copooHHoo
HmpOp hp macaw mm nmamonmon evapom Ho
nowpstmom :H mqowpwsposHH Hmnommom

.N ouzmHm

,-m.. figmeg NHK} 0H\\L Rm ms 060 H60 m3 mN_\m mmkm mmxm lm\ H\m em} 9.? 0H}

LullJl

 

psqoettoo susmroeds quog

 

55

 

 

 

 

me on on mm NN em mHHBOB
o m o o o e mH
H o o H o 0 HH
N m m m H o m .pmmm
0 mm o m o N mm
0 HH m 0H m o NN
o m o N o o eH
m m o m m o m .msa
mH e s 0H m NN Hm
OH 6 o m N o mN
o m H HH 0 N mH
H N o N o 0 0H
m N on NH 0 o u aHse
o o m N o o 6N
H o o a m o mH
H o o N o N HH
N o N o H o m mass
0 o o m o o mN
o o o o H o mN
o o o o o H mH
o o o o o H w
o o o o o o H has
0 o o o o o eN
o o o o o 0 5H

.0 o o o o 6 0H HHam¢

mmeoom mmm pstm mpafidd Hammonmmoq Hammonuwoa
one ememHnnme avenge meanppHmm soppommstm cpapom open

 

 

 

dams. mammom man—”memo Qmedooq
.¢. ZOHBHHBQ 20mm HES ZOHBOMHAOO mam QmBUmQHOO mBommZH mo mmmmfibz .HHHBOE

4H amda

36

 

 

 

ea eH Hm NNH HN eH NHNaos

o o o o o 0 NH

0 o o o o 0 HH

H H o m o o m .meN
H N N u N o NN

o H N NH H o NN

o m o HN m o eH

N N 6 NH H o N .Nsa
H o o HN H m Hm

0H s a NH N N NN

o H o N: o N NH

N 0 NH 0H 0 0 OH

0 o 0 NH o H N sHss
a o u N N o NN

m o o N m 6 NH

N o o a N 6 HH

0 o o o e o m muss
N o o o o o NN

o o o o o. o mN

N o o o o o NH

0 o o o o o N

o o o o o o H mas
o o o o o o eN

o o o H o 0 NH

0 o o o o 6 0H HHHNH

moHpmmm msm “ENE“ m 623.3. Hmaonmmog nmgmonmmmq

mon ememHanm meHema NsanppHNN emppommeHN ouwpom «pen

4% mmamom mnHmBDO QmHSHUQH m ZOHBdBm 20mm
935 ZQHBOEQOO mam QMBOMQHOU mBOfimZH m0 mmmmfibz 94809

n NHNNB

57

 

0
P1

K0
N'\
N
d’

 

OOOOOd‘d’OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI—l

OOOHHHOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO d‘
OOOOOOOOOOOHKOKOmr-IOOOOOCI'O
OOOOOOOOOOOOUDIOd‘LRKOI—ld'OOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOHOOOO (\l
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOO H

a mHss

m wand

H has
eN

NH
0H HHHNN

 

moHpomm
Noam

mam pnNHm mpH56< Hammonmwog Hmmqonmwma
Noequnme mNHnNN NspmepHmN sappodmuxmm opened

«mmdemammom ZH QMB¢OOH o ZOHB<BM 20mm
m9¢n ZOHBOWQAOD mam nmaomflqoo maoamzH mo mamabz H4808

m MQMNB

open

58

 

 

 

N ON NeN OOH HN OH NHNOON
O O O O O H NH
O O O O O O HH
O H O H O O N .pNoN
O H O N N H NN
O N O N e N NN
O O O N H O NH
O O O N N O N .Nsa
O N NN NN N O HN
O N NNH NH O O NN
O s ON NH N H NH
O N NH N O O OH
O N O N N O N NHss
O O O O H O NN
N O O H N H NH
O H O O HH N HH
N O O N N O N mass
N O O O O O NN
O O O O O H NN
O O O O O H NH
O H O O O O N
O O O O O O H mes
O O O O O O eN
O O O O O O NH
O O O O O O OH HHNNN
moapmom msm pumam mpaso4 Hammonmwmg Hammonmmmq
mmHN OoemHenmmI NOHNNN N590prHNN Nmppommuwwm opmpmm opwmll

 

dmmd mmmmom mmHmBDO mmedooq Q HOHB<BW 20mm
$949 ZQHEOEHAOO mam ameomqaoo meommzH mo mmnmfibz H4808

N NHNNN I

59

 

 

 

NH NN HOH NNH Ne NN NHNNOB
o m o H o H NH
o N N N o 0 HH
O H OH N O O N .meN
0 HH 0 NH o m NN
H d 0 NH H o NN
o o 0 NH o o ¢H
H H HH NH H e N .NNH
o N we NN N N Hm
N o O NH N e NN
N 0 ON NN o 0 NH
e o N mm o 0 0H
s O O NH O N N NHsN
o o o H H o 0N
H o o O NN o NH
0 o o o N H HH
0 o o N o o N mash
O O O O N H NN
N o o o o 0 mm
o o o o O H NH
o o o o o o N
O O O O O O H Na:
0 o o o o o #N
o o o o o 0 NH
O O O O O O OH HHHNH
moHpoom mum pnNHm mpH5O4 Hemmmnmwmq HammonmNoH
NmHfl UmansHmBI NNNQQN mzpmfippHmm Omppommemm opwpon mummll

 

 

4mm< mammom mQHmEDO QMB<OOQ m ZOHadam 30mm
mega ZOHBOHHHOO mam nmaomqgoo maummzH mo mmmmfibz H4808

m QHMNB

4O

 

H
N

Lf\
N
\D
M

 

OOOOO\U\ONOOOOOOOOOOOOONHN

H

OOOOHWCOOOOOOOOOOOHOOONO O\
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOMOOOMNO O\
OOOOOOOOOOOOOONBNOOOOMOO
OOOOONONOOOOHOOOOHOOHBMO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOH M

N .pdom

N .NsH

N NHss

m mafia

H has

OH HHHmd

 

mOHpomm
mmHm

mam psmHM mpHddd Hmmmdnmmmq HNQQOAHNNH
Omequwwa NOHNNN NaomepHNN Omppommume opwpom

mpwn

 

«EmN manmom Mme 2H QME<OOH m ZOHB4BW 20mm
MBNQ.ZDHBOHHHOO mam Dmaomggoo MBOHGZH mo mmmmzbz #4908

m mgmda

41

 

 

 

 

mm N mN méH wN H deeoe
N o o H o o NH
o o o o o 0 HH
N O O N HH O N .NNNN
H o H t H o NN
0 ¢ 0 N H o NN
N o 0 HH NH o ¢H
O O O NH . NH O N .Nsa
H o 0 ON ON H Hm
o o o N o O NN
o N o w o 0 NH
0 o HN NH o o OH
O O O NN H O N NHON
o o o O o 0 ON
0 o o N N O NH
O o d H N 0 HH
0 o o N N o N Nada
H o O O N o NN
N o o N o o NN
N o o o o o NH
o o o o o o m
H o o o o o H ham
H o o o o o #N
o o o o o o NH
O O O O O O OH HHHNN
mmemmm wmm pqum mpHsc¢ HemmonHNNH HNQQNHMNNH
NNHfl Wmnmmnnww. mOwnmd mznoprflmm weapommINHm opmpom mmell
«mad mammOm mmHmeDO QmB4OOH w moHedam 20mm Nada

HOHBOQHHOO mmm QmBOMHHOO maommzH NO mmmmzbz
OH mflmde

H4908

42

 

m

\0

NNH NN

0
(\l

mH<BOB

 

OOHHOROHOOOOOOOOHOMOHMOCD

H
H
N
H

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOd'OOOO L\
OOOOOOOOO¢OOOHOOOOOOHOOO
OOOOOONONHNOKOBQBd-(fi Od'NOr—l
MH Nr-I
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO r-l

OOOOOOOMMMBOHOOO

NH
HH
N .pmmm

N .Ns<

N NHss

N Nash

H has

OH HHHmd

 

mNHpmNm
NNHN

mam panm mpH5U¢ HNQQOAHNNH Hemmdnmwmq
NmemHanNa NNNNNN NONNHNNNNN NoppommeHN opmpom

<mm< mmamom mnHmBDO mmedooq O ZOHedam 20mm
HB<Q ZOHBOmHHOO mam QMBOQHHOO maommzH mo mmmmfibz H¢EOB

HH Hands

opmm

45

 

 

 

N N N NH HOH o queoa
O H H O N O N .38
N o o o N o NN
o o o H o o NN
N H o N HN o #H
O O O N ON O. N .Ng
H o H H ON 0 HN
o o o H NH o NN
o N H H H o NH
0 H o N o 0 OH
H H O O O O N NHE.
o o o o H o NN
O O O O N O NH
o o o o o 0 HH
0 H o o N o N mash
mmemom Imwm psmHm mpHSN< Hammonmwoq HNQQOQHNNH
No smsqunw- N.Hnm¢ NanoprHmm .NppommeHN Oprom opwn

«mmd mammom mQHmBDO QMB¢OOH ROAM ZOHZO 20mm
ma<n ZOHBOMHHOO mam QWEOSHHOO NBOMNZH mo mmflmzbz 94909

HH mHm4B

 

r-l
H
l'.\
N
O
M
O\
H
O
H
H
3
E!
0
El

 

 

o o o o H 0 NH

0 o o o H 0 HH

N N O O N O N .NNNN

o o o N N o NN

e O O NH OH O NN

¢ N o N N o #H

O H O N NH H N .N54

0 HH 0 NH NN o HN

O N O NH NH O NN

o N 0 mm N o NH

0 o o o o 0 OH

O H O N e O N NHss
mNHpoom mam pnNHm mpHsud Hammonmmmq Hmmmonmmoq
NNHN NNANNsHNN mwmnmd NsanppHmN Nmppommemm opmpom mumpil

 

 

4mm4 mmamom mmHmBDO QMBdOOQ 809m mm4mo 20mm
madm ZOHHOMHHOO mam NMBOQHAOO maommzH mo mmmNEDz H¢BOB

NH mum¢a

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.HH m.om m.m® m.om No.H m.m Hodnom
:/ mOquH pOHm
4 Mom owmno>4

m.mH m.m m.mm m.mm 0H m QOHpmpm

Ham owmnm>¢
Hm m m Nm ON N m
0H ¢ mm m: m H o
Hocnom

qH mepoa
m.¢m N.Nm m.Nw m.NHH m.mm mH QOHpmpm

Rom mwmno><

HH Nm 0 mm HOH H mmwnw

N N m NH HOH o mQOHno
N N om NOH mN H O
mH mm HOH mmH mé mm m
w on N¢N 00H Hm OH 9
¢¢ #H Hm NmH Hm #H m
NO ON ON Nw mm ON 4

Hmdnom

Odepdo

mepoa

mOHpmom mwm panm mpHfiod nmmmdnmmmH pmmmogmmoq
deh Omnmmnnwey meng4 msanppHmm wmppommtxmm opwpom Gowpmpm

 

 

mammom WQHmzH meoqm mom
Roam mam ma¢mw>¢ mad manmom mmHmzH 924 QQHMEDO mZOHadam mom
ZOHB<Bm mam mw4mm>< Q24 madeoa wzHaomm NHIi magmda ZH zzomm madaoa m0 Mmdfifibm

MH mnm<e

46

potato leafh0ppers collected from all sampling stations
outside and inside the border and in the border area. As
mentioned above, tables 4 through 12 show the results of
collections outside the border. Of these, tables 6 and

9 are the two stations in the border area. Table 15 shows
the results of sampling from the plots inside the border.
It should be again pointed out that the number of leaf-
h0ppers was abnormally low. As shown by figure 2, the
p0pulation of E. fabae remained low until 10 July. For
the next three weeks there was a gradual build-up until a
peak population was reached on 31 July. This peak was
followed by a gradual decrease until 22 August. A second
peak was reached the following week as shown by the col-
lections of 29 August. After this second peak, there was
another drop in population. A comparison of pepulations
inside and outside the border and in the border spray area
are shown in figure 5. As discussed previously, a peak
pOpulation was reached 31 July. This peak occured mainly
in the fields outside the border spray area. This peak
was followed by a decrease in pOpulation in the bordering
fields. This decrease was accompanied by an increase in
pOpulation inside the border spray area. This dr0p out-
side the border and the accompanying increase inside the
border indicated that there was probably a movement of E.

fabae from outside to inside the border. The decrease in

mnHHQSmm mo mama

 

0H\0 H60 m\0 0% wa #3 S Hmk. 0%. an OH\N. Q0 omb 0Hx© HH\© Q0 0m.\m mmxm mH\m w\m H\m :gH NH} OH}
H _ _ H 4 _. _ _ _ _ _ J |. i s n l J _ T . 4 _ _
v llllllllillllll

/ x \

\ . / \ < /
\: < \/ \\/\
L /

 

.Hmdnnom HHH lllllll

Hounom mOHmnH .II.I.IIII

 

nmdnom odepzo

.mosm nmdnop amp nH was ochQH .oOHmpdo
mGOHpMHsmom HammonHOmH opmpom no nomHumgaoo .m mHsmHm

 

sdeams uaq Jed suemroads JO Jeqmnn

48

population between 29 August and ll September probably
were caused by killing frosts which occurred during this
period.

Figure 4 shows the fluctuations in pOpulation of M.
fascifrong. Two noticeable peaks were indicated. The
first was reached on 19 June and the second on 51 July.
These two peaks in population were probably indications
of two generations although no nymphs were found. Osborn
(1916) found indications of three generations per year,
the last being overwintering eggs. Figure 4 tends to sup-
port the findings of Osborn. Figure 5 shows a comparison
of six-spotted leafh0pper p0pulations outside and inside
the border and in the border spray area. The two peaks
discussed previously are shown by figure 4 to have occurred
mainly in the fields outside the border. The first peak
occurred entirely in the bordering fields. The samples
taken in the border area showed no M. fascifrons during
this period. The second peak occurred simultaneously in
all areas. A peak was reached 5 September in the border
area. This occurred after border spraying was stOpped.
Following this peak there was a rapid decrease in numbers.
This decrease was probably caused by frost destroying the
host plants.

The seasonal fluctuations in pOpulation of the potato

flea beetle, fipitrix cucumeris (Harris), are shown in

mzHHmsmw mo spam
NOS HHNNO mm momma mme 3.3.. NNw 1H..m\N 0NN mH_\N OHKN N.\N owns NNO HHNO NAO oQN NRE HAN :qu NH\¢ Orgy

 

 

9 10H
4

on

I

1

ON

1

ow

1

O0

.mQOprpm HHw Scum OmpomHHoo prop 59 LooH
macaw mm HammonummH coppommlem Ho
qupstmom qH mGOHpm5905HH quommmm .¢ onstm

 

LOHH

peqosTIoo susmroeds quom

quHmamm Ho mpwn

 

NEEwEEEfirfi KNOWNONSHS mommwm NR ma fiweafi OS

\ J

 

 

Happen mUquH :I.:|Ily

Hocnop nH uuuuuuu

Henson dempso

 

.wmnd hdnmm Henson
esp QH Osm .oOquH .mOHmpso mummmonmme
cmppommlem no mQOprHsmom mo nomwnwmaoo .m oHsmHm

 

U\d'N\(\l

\O

O
H

H
H

MN
Hr-I

d.
H

sdeems ueq 18d suemroads JO JeqmnN

51

figure 6. An early peak in population was reached on
15 May. There was a gradual rise beginning on 24 April
and continuing until the peak was reached. A decrease fol-
lowed until 11 June. From this time there was a gradual
increase until a second peak was reached 29 August. Fol-
lowing this peak there was a rapid decrease. Flea beetles
overwinter as adults so this last decrease was probably
caused by the beetles entering hibernation. The increase
in pOpulation between 11 June and 29 August was probably
an indication of a new generation of potato flea beetles.
Tables 4 through 12 show the results of sampling
from the collecting stations outside the border and in the
border spray area. Tables 6 and 9 show the results of
collections from stations C and F respectively. These two
stations were in the border spray area. Previous to the
first spray application one six-spotted leafh0pper was
collected from station 0 and four from station F. No
potato leafh0ppers were collected from either station
prior to spraying. After spraying, the potato leafh0pper
papulation remained low at both stations. Station F
yielded nine E, fascifrons on 31 July. There was no bor-
der spray application between 18 July and 31 July. The
sample from this station was taken before the spray appli-
cation of this date. When spraying was resumed on a regu-

lar basis, this population drapped and remained low until

wnHHmawm Mo mpwa

 

0H\0 HH\0 N\0 0m\w mmxw ¢H\m Nb HNAN 0mm. wHAN omfi N_\N ”Nib mHuo HH_\0 Nwo fin mmfim NHNN Wm H_\N ism} NQNWHNH

2
5

 

"I'lll‘k

\

.mQOHpmpm HHw
Bonn OopoOHHoo prop hp macaw mm mmeoop «0H9
cpupom Ho qupMHsmom QH mQOprdposHm quomdom .m onsmHm

J

ON

 

suorqeqs {In mom; steqom

55

spraying was ceased. On 29 August, the six-spotted leaf-
h0pper pepulation at station F began to increase. This
last buildup can be at least partially explained. This
station was between sections C and E of the Muck Experi-
mental Farm (fig. 1). There were three potato fields north
and three south of this station. One plot to the south was
separated from station F by only a narrow road. Two plots
to the north were separated from this station by a sugar
beet field fifty feet wide. Although none of these plots
were included in the regularly sampled plots inside the
border, occasional sweepings were taken on them. All
showed substantial p0pulations of M. fascifrons. In late
August and early September, these potato vines began to
die. As the plants became unavailable, or undesirable, as
food plants, the leafh0ppers moved. As a result of this
late migration, some of these insects arrived at station F.
Again, frost was probably responsible for the reduction of
this pepulation.

The effectiveness of the border spray program can
be seen in figures 5 and 5. These figures are based on an
average number of leafh0ppers per ten sweeps. It was evi-
dent that the border spray program was not effective in
preventing the movement of E. fgpgg from the bordering
fields to the crop areas. During the early part of the

study the population in.the bordering fields was higher.

54

From late July to the end of the sampling period, however,
the pOpulation inside the border was higher than that out-
side the border spray area.

The border spray control program did appear to be
effective in controlling the migration of g. fascifrons
from the bordering fields to the crop areas. The pOpula-
tion outside the border was consistently higher than in-
side the border. From 29 August to the end of this study
the papulation in the border area was higher than both in-
side and outside the border. This observation has been

discussed previously.
Chemical Control

Table 14 shows the results of sampling from the
Spray plots inside the border. These plots are grouped by
.the crop grown. Thiodan at one quart of 25 percent emul-
sion per acre and Sevin at two pounds of 50 percent wet-
table powder per acre were applied to two plots each.
Table 14 shows an average for the two plots. All materials
gave satisfactory control of both E. fgpgg_and g, ggsgi-
Egggg. Significant differences were observed between the
materials for control of aphids. The aphids involved were
the green peach aphid, Exaggypersicae (Sulzer). The DDT -
parathion mixture gave good control of these aphids as did

Thiodan at two quarts. Thiodan at one quart gave some

55

 

. - N N m N .Hsas
aNm .3 H
quOHna

u : HO O N O ms aON
um qH>om

madam

 

N O: HN ON O O .Hssm
aNm .pm H
aoanpmnwm
. H55 ONmm
.90 H BOO

mm OH msm OO O OH ma Non
um quom

N O Na NN HH OH .Hsam
aNm .pO m
qsOOHna

m 0H NmH MH 0 Hm .Hdam
*mm .AG H
HOUOHAB

moopwpom

 

 

meanaa mnomxopsm
OOHpmom mam pqum nowom mpHsud Hommonumoq Hommonmwoq HOHnopwa
OOHM Ooannnws noonw mapOprHmm doppommlem evapom mono

 

 

mmmmom HQHMZH mBOHH Hdmmm 20mm Qmaoaqgoc maommZH mo mmmmfibz Q4806
#H mflmda

56

 

o muH mm

OH miH 0

HH #H #H

mm OH N

H .Hdfifi
wmm .pm H
QOansnmm

.Hdam &mm
.pd H 899

O as sON
um OH>om
muonhmo

N .HsaO aNm
.pO H BOO

sH Os aON
um uH>om

NHOHoo

 

mmeomO mam pOmHm
Imem OoOmHanOBw

mcHamw
sommm mpHscd Hommonmwom
momma wSDOprHOm umppommlxmm

onow\0pmm
nommoamwmq HmHnopOS
opwpom mono

 

.Ooqupaoo .sH OHme

 

57

control but could not be called satisfactory. Sevin gave
very little control of aphids on potatoes._ The green peach
aphid pOpulations on plots sprayed with Sevin were con—
siderably higher than those on the plots sprayed with the
other materials. Spittlebugs and flea beetles were more
numerous in the plots sprayed with Sevin.

Both Sevin and Thiodan at one quart gave satis-
factory control of leafh0ppers on beans. There was an in-
dication that Thiodan gave better control of aphids although
both pOpulations were low as shown by table 15. These
aphids were also the green peach aphid.

Observations on celery indicated that Sevin gave
better results in controlling six-spotted leafh0ppers than
did the DDT - parathion mixture. Both materials gave
satisfactory control of all other insects.

The results of samples taken on carrots also in-
dicated Sevin gave better control of M, fascifrons than
the DDT - parathion mixture. Spittlebug populations were
high in both the Sevin and DDT - parathion plots. Both

materials gave satisfactory control of all other insects.

SUMMARY

The primary purpose of this study was to determine
the effectiveness of a border spray control program in
preventing the movement of the potato leafh0pper, Empoasca
fgpgg_fiarris, and the six-spotted leafh0pper, Macrosteleg
fascifrong (seal), from bordering areas to cultivated
craps. The arrival dates and seasonal fluctuations in
pepulations of these leafh0ppers were also determined.

A second objective of this program was the evalu-
ation of insecticidal spray materials for control of in—
sect pests on potatoes, beans, carrots, and celery. Thio-
dan and Sevin were compared with the standard DDT - parathion
recommendation.

The Michigan State University Muck Experimental
Farm, Clinton County, Michigan, was chosen as the location
for this study. Nine sampling stations were established.
Six of these were in the bordering fields, two were in the
border spray area, and one was a plot inside the border
which was planted to grass and was not sprayed. Beginning
10 April, 1958, and lasting for a period of twenty—three
weeks, sweep-net samples were taken weekly from each of
these locations. To determine the effectiveness of the
border spray control program, twelve plots were chosen in-

side the border on which insecticide trials were being

- ,3 -

conducted.

59

The insecticides tried were Thiodan, Sevin,

and DDT - parathion mixture. The insecticide trial plots

included six plots of potatoes on which all three materials

were being applied on one or more plots, two plots of

celery on which DDT - parathion and Sevin were used, two

carrot plots on which these same two materials were used,

and two plots of beans on which Thiodan and Sevin were ap-

plied.

The results were as follows:

1. The first potato leafh0pper was collected on 8

May, 1958. One specimen was taken on this date.

2. The first sixhspotted leafh0pper appeared in

3.

the sample taken 15 May, 1958, when two speci-
mens were collected.

The border spray program proved effective in
slowing the movement of g. fascifrons from the
border fields to the cultivated areas. A total
of 458 were taken outside the border and 120
inside the border.

The border spray control program did not prove
successful in preventing movement of E. fgpgg
from the border fields to the crop area. A
total of 89 potato leafh0ppers were collected
outside the border and 155 inside.

“2.1...-

 

 

‘

 

5.

60

The DDT - parathion mixture was found to be the
most satisfactory material against all of the
plant pests involved in this study. There were,
however, indications that this mixture was not
effective against adult spittlebugs on carrots.
Sevin was effective against leafh0ppers, parti-
cularly E. fascifrons. Sevin gave no control
of the green peach aphid. There were indica-
tions that this material was less effective
against flea beetles than the other materials.
Leafh0pper populations were abnormally low dur-
ing the entire 1958 season.

Thiodan at two quarts of 25 percent emulsion
was effective against all insects. Thiodan at
one quart of 25 percent emulsion did not prove
effective against the green peach aphid. There
were indications that this material was not as
effective against E. fapgg as Sevin and the DDT—

parathion mixture.

 

 

LITERATURE CITED

Beckwith, Charles S. and Sidney B. Hutton
1924. Life history notes on some leafh0ppers that
occur on New Jersey cranberry bogs. Jour.
No Ye Ente SOC. 37:425’270
Bird, R. D.
1957. Research notes. Can. Ent. 69:119-20.
Carter, Walter
1950. Record of an insect migration in the Arkansas
Valley, Colorado. Pan-Pacific Entomologist
6:155-54.
Chiykowski, L. N. and R. K. Chapman
1958. Control of aster yellows on lettuce, celery,
and carrots. Proceedings, XIII Annual Meet-
ing, North Central Branch, Entomological
Society of America. 15:50-51.
DeLong, Dwight M.
1928. Some observations upon the biology and control
of the potato leafh0pper (Empoasca fabae Harris)
1951. Distribution of the potato leafh0pper (Empoasca
fabae Harris) and its close relatives. Jour.
Econ. Ente 24:475-80
DeLong, D. M. and J. S. Caldwell
1955. Hibernation studies of the potato leafh0pper
(Em oasca fabae Harris) and related species
of Empoasca occuring in Ohio. Jour. Econ. Ent.
28:442-4.
IDeLong, D. M., W. J. Reid, Jr., and M. M. Darley

1950. The toxicity of cepper to the potato leafh0p-
per. Jour. Econ. Ent. 25:590-4.

_ 61 -

62

Dudley, John E.

1920. Control of the potato leafh0pper (Empoasca
mali LeB.) and prevention of hopperburn.
Jour. Econ. Ent. 15:408-15.

Fenton, F. A. and Albert Hartzell

1920. The life history of the potato leafh0pper
(Empoasca mali LeB.). Jour. Econ. Ent. l5:

Fulton, Robert A.

1940. The chloroform soluble components of best
leafh0ppers as an indication of the distance
they move in the spring. Jour. Agric. Res.

61:757—45.
Hartzell, Albert

1921. Further notes on the life history of the po-
tato leafh0pper. Jour. Econ. Ent. 14:62-8.

Hervey, G. E. R. and W. T. Schroeder

1947. Life history of Nacrosteles divisus (Uhler)
in relation to carrot yellows in western New
York. Jour. Econ. Ent. 40:505-8.

Hoffman, J. R.

1952. Leaf hopper control to prevent the spread of
the virus disease aster yellows in commercial
lettuce production: part 2. Quart. Bul.,
Agric. EXpt. Sta., Mich. St. Coll. 54:262-65.

Knight, Harry E.
1956.. Records of southern insect species moving

northward during the drought years of 1950
and 1954. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 29:578-80.

lKunkel, L. O.

1926. Studies on aster yellows. Am. Jour. Bot.

65

Lewis, H. C.

1942. Ldme zinc spray as a repellent for leafh0ppers
on citrus. Jour. Econ. Ent. 55:562-4.

Linn, M. B.

1940. The yellows disease of lettuce and endive.
Cornell Agric. Expt. Sta. Bul. no. 742. 55pp.

McDaniel, E. I.

1956. Control of the potato leafh0pper Empoasca fabae
Harris on dahlia with flour, talc, and infusorial
earth. Jour. Econ. Ent. 29:464.

Medler, J. T.
1957. Migration of the potato leafh0pper - a report
on a c00perative study. Jour. Econ. Ent.
50:495-6.
Mitchner, A. V.

1950. A comparison of recent insecticides with cal-
cium arsenate for control of potato insects.
Jour. Econ. Ent. 45:176-8.

Osborn, Herbert

1916. Studies of life histories of leafh0ppers of
Maine. Maine Agric. Expt. Sta. Bul. no. 248.
27pp-

Pepper, Bailey P. and C. M. Haenseller
1959. Pyrethrum and derris as a control for the
six-spotted leafh0pper, a vector of lettuce
yellows. Jour. Econ. Ent. 52:291-6.
Poos, F. W.
1945. DDT to control corn flea beetles on sweet corn
and potato leafh0pper on alfalfa and peanuts.
Jour. Econ. Ent. 58:197-9.
Shannon, H. J.

1916. Insect migrations as related to those of birds.
Sci. Mon. 5:227-40.

Smith, Floyd F.

1951. The feeding habits of some leafh0ppers of the
genus Empoasca. Jour. Agric. Res. 45:266-84.

Smith, Charles E. and Norman Allen

1952. Migratory habit of the spotted cucumber beetle.

Stearns, L. A. and Donald MacCreary

1958. Leafh0pper migration across Delaware Bay.
JOLII'. Econ. Ent. 51:226-90

Williams, C. B.

1957. Insect migration. IQ Annual Rev. of Ent.
2 : 143-80 0

Ram: usz own R99“ ”3‘3 “m " “Wr

 

 

 

ixltlil‘w'llfiu‘tfl“

96 3683

MIC

 

\fiififlflfllflflifllfllflfiflflj