m1\wwwwmm

\

      
       
   

MW

1

1

W

W

4—3—3
14>4>
(DLON

Q _._r_ -::;"l

 

.UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

EVALUATING ORGANIC-COMPLIANT
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR STRIPED
CUCUNIBER BEETLE IN CUCUMERS

presented by

Matthew E. Kaiser

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Entomology

 

 

Zoo/4% 4%

Major Professor’s Signature
W /, 200. 7
r / -

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

 

 

— _.-.—-n----.-.---.-.-.-.-.--p-.-.-.-u-v-o.

_ _.-.-.-—.-.-.—.—

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 KzlProleocaProlelRClDateDue.indd

EVALUATING ORGANIC-COMPLIANT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
FOR STRIPED CUCUMBER BEETLE IN CUCUMBERS

By

Matthew E. Kaiser

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Entomology

2009

ABSTRACT

EVALUATING ORGAN IC-COMPLIANT MANAGENIENT STRATEGIES
FOR STRIPED CUCUMBER BEETLE IN CUCUMBERS

By

Matthew E. Kaiser
The use of a squash trap crop, row covers and a polyculture of cucumbers and tomatoes
for managing stn'ped cucumber beetle, Acalymma vittatum Fabricius (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae), was studied in mid-Michigan in 2006 and 2007. The trap crop had a
greater effect in reducing beetle presence and injury to cucumber than a cucumber
monoculture early in the season, but the benefits were reduced later in the season. Early
in the season, striped cucumber beetles reached densities up to three times greater in the
cucumber monoculture than in cucumber with a trap crop, and up to six times more
beetles on the trap crop than on the cucumbers. The polyculture of cucumber and tomato
added to the trap crop treatment provided little to no additional protection. Row covers
provided complete striped cucumber beetle exclusion until they were removed to allow
for pollination. Other factors tested included distance from the trap crop, and the potential
for foliar applications of the biological attractant, cucurbitacin, to enhance the trap crop
effect. While there was early season protection of cucumber with these organic-compliant
and non-insecticidal management methods, late season protection did not occur, greatly
reducing marketable yield due to fruit scarring and reduced fruit production. This study
supports the use of trap crops and, when economical, row covers for early season
protection of cucumbers from striped cucumber beetle and discusses potential methods

for extending protection later in the growing season.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to acknowledge my major professors Mike Brewer and Edward Grafius and my
advisory committee members Mathieu Ngouajio and Chris Difonzo. I would also like to
acknowledge the hard work and invaluable aid of my colleagues Vianney Willot and
Ajay Nair and my student workers Dustin Wayo and Jonathan Landis. Thanks also go out
to the Horticulture Farm managers Bill Chase and Gary Winchell as well as James
Counts and all the folks at the Student Organic Farm, and to Andrea Buchholz for her

design and layout expertise.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ......................................................................................... v
List of Figures ...................................................................................... vii
Key Words .......................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: General Introduction ............................................................... 1
Overview of Cucumber Production ...................................................... 2
Description of Striped Cucumber Beetle Biology and Damage ..................... 5
Conventional Production Solutions ...................................................... 8
Organic Production Solutions and Challenges ......................................... 9

Chapter 2: Evaluating Organic-Compliant and Non-Insecticidal Approaches for
Managing Striped Cucumber Beetle, Acalymma viaatum (Fabricius) (Coleoptera:

Chrysomelidae), on Cucumbers ................................................................. 13
Introduction ................................................................................ 14
Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 18
Results and Discussion ................................................................... 26

Chapter 3: General Summary and Conclusion ............................................. 42
General Findings and Implications ..................................................... 43
Recommended Methods for Organic Management of Striped Cucumber Beetle. 45
Obstacles Encountered ................................................................... 47
Further Research .......................................................................... 49

Appendix 1: Record of Deposition of Voucher Specimens. ............................... 51
Appendix 1.1 Voucher Specimen Data .............................................. 52

Appendix 2: ANOVA and LSD Means Separation Tables. 53

Literature Cited ................................................................................... 70

iv

 

Ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table A21: 2006 Number of beetles per plant ANOVA of plant diversity treatments 53
Table A22: 2006 Percent defoliation per plant ANOVA of plant diversity treatments ...54

Table A23: 2006 Number of striped cucumber beetles per plant LS means separation of
plant diversity treatments .......................................................................... 55

Table A24: 2006 Percent defoliation per plant LS means separation of plant diversity
treatments ............................................................................................ 56

Table A25: 2007 Number of striped cucumber beetles per plant ANOVA of plant
diversity treatments ................................................................................. 57

Table A26: 2007 Percent defoliation per plant ANOVA of plant diversity treatments ...58

Table A27: 2007 Number of striped cucumber beetles per plant LS means separation of
plant diversity treatments .......................................................................... 5 9

Table A28: 2007 Percent defoliation per plant LS means separation of plant diversity
treatments ............................................................................................ 60

Table A29: 2007 Percent scarring per fruit LS means separation of plant diversity
treatments ................................................................................................................... 61

Table A210: 2006 Number of striped cucumber beetles per plant ANOVA of attractant
treatments ............................................................................................ 62

Table A211: 2006 Percent defoliation per plant AN OVA of attractant treatments ...... 63

Table A2.12: 2006 Number of beetles per plant ANOVA of Butternut Squash rows at
1.5m and 9m from the trap crop ................................................................... 64

Table A213: 2006 Percent defoliation per plant ANOVA of Butternut Squash rows at
1.5m and 9m from the trap crop .................................................................. 65

Table A214: 2006 Number of striped cucumber beetles per plant LS means separation of
attractant treatments ................................................................................ 66

Table A215: 2006 Percent defoliation per plant LS means separation of attractant
treatments ............................................................................................ 67

Table A216: 2006 Striped cucumber beetles per plant LS means separation of Butternut
Squash rows ........................................................................................... 68

Table A217: 2006 Percent defoliation per plant LS means separation of Butternut Squash
rows ................................................................................................... 69

vi

ans-4w. - .'u.':'l ‘,_.

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Field layout of the plant diversity field site at the MSU Horticulture Farm ...19
Figure 2.2: Field layout of the attractants field site at the MSU Student Organic Farm . . .20

Figure 2.3: Mean number of beetles per plant across the cucumber growing season taken
in cucumbers grown in monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a
cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row
cover as well as the squash trap crop at the Horticulture Farm organic transition site, East

Figure 2.4: Mean percent defoliation across the cucumber growing season taken in
cucumbers grown in monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a
cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row
cover as well as the squash trap crop at the Horticulture Farm organic transition site, East

Figure 2.5: Mean marketable cucumber yield in cucumbers grown in monoculture,
cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a
squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row cover at the Horticulture Farm organic
transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2006 30

Figure 2.6: Mean number of beetles per plant across the cucumber growmg season taken
in cucumbers grown in monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a
cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row
cover as well as the squash trap crop at the Horticulture Farm organic transition site, East
Lansing, MI, 2007 31

Figure 2.7: Mean percent defoliation across the cucumber growing season taken in
cucumbers grown in monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a
cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row
cover as well as the squash trap crop at the Horticulture Farm organic transition site, East

Figure 2.8: Mean percent scarring of cucumber fi'uit surface across the cucumber growing
season taken in cucumbers grown in monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap
crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a
row cover at the Horticulture Farm organic transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2007 ...... 34

Figure 2.9: Mean marketable cucumber yield in cucumbers grown in monoculture,
cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a
squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row cover at the Horticulture Farm organic
transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2007 ........................................................... 35

vii

 

Figure 2.10: Mean number of beetles per plant in a Blue Hubbard squash trap crop, a
Blue Hubbard squash trap crop with added cucurbitacins, a row of Butternut squash 1.5
m from the trap crop and a row of Butternut squash 9 m from the trap crop at the Student
Organic Farm field site, East Lansing, MI, 2006 .............................................................. 38

Figure 2.11: Mean percent defoliation in a Blue Hubbard squash trap crop, a Blue
Hubbard squash trap crop with added cucurbitacins, a row of Butternut squash 1.5 m
from the trap crop and a row of Butternut squash 9 m from the trap crop at the Student
Organic Farm field site, East Lansing, MI, 2006 .......................................................... 40

viii

 

Key Words

trap crop
polyculture
biological attractants
IPM

organic

l'OW COVCI‘S

ix

CHAPTER ONE:

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

41"” A i '0

 

Overview of Cucumber Production

Michigan is one of the leading states in cucumber, Cucumis sativus L., production
(Swiader and Ware 2002) with 759,000 th of cucumbers produced statewide in 2008
(Agricultural Statistics Board 2009). Cucumber, along with other vine crops, is a member
of the Cucurbitaceae plant family, which consists of some 96-120 genera and over 800
species (Decker 1988, Swiader and Ware 2002, T eppner 2004, Jeffrey 2008). Of those
genera, there are three of commercial importance in the United States: Cucumis
(cucumbers and muskmelon), Citrullus (watermelon), and Cucurbita (pumpkins and
squash). There are 40 species in the Cucumis genus, many of which are grown
commercially. Cucumber is both a leading commercial crop and a popular home garden
vegetable in the United States (Meglic et a1. 1996, Swiader and Ware 2002). Immature
cucumber fiuits are harvested and sold fresh or processed into pickles, relishes and other
condiments.

Cucumbers are believed to be native to India, although there is evidence of their
cultivation in western Asia for over 3,000 years (Whitaker and Davis 1962, Meglic et a1.
1996, Meglic and Stuab 1996, Swiader and Ware 2002). There is also some evidence that
wild cucumbers were used by humans in Thailand around 9750 BC, some 2000 years
before true agriculture began in either the Near East or Central America (Meglic et a1.
1996, Meglic and Stuab 1996). From India, the cucumber is thought to have spread to
Western Asia, Greece and Italy before reaching China (Meglic et al. 1996, Meglic and
Stuab 1996, Swiader and Ware 2002). Cucumbers were most likely spread to the rest of
Europe by the Romans. Historical records show the presence of cucumber cultivation in

France in the 9th century, in England during the 14th century and in North America as

 

early as the mid-16th century (Meglic and Stuab 1996, Swiader and Ware 2002). Among
the first to cultivate cucumbers in the Americas were New England colonists and the
Iroquois Indians (Meglic and Stuab 1996).

Cucumber is an annual warm season crop and young plants can be easily injured
by frost. The plants grow along the ground or up trellises in a Vining structure. The main
stem branches into several trailing laterals exhibiting determinate, indeterminate, or r
compact growth depending on the cultivar. Cucumbers grow best in warm, rich and limey

soils but can grow well in any well-drained fertile soil (Coleman 1995, Swiader and Ware

 

2002, Lijuan et a1. 2008). Proper fertilization increases yield and reduces pest problems

‘W

with sheep, horse and dairy compost being favored soil amendments (Coleman 1995).
Cucumbers are either directly seeded or transplanted into the field. Transplants are
typically sown in a greenhouse in 5 cm (2”) plug trays with 3 seedsplanted per cell
between 4 and 5 wk after the years first frost free date to avoid frost damage to the plants
(Swiader and Ware 2002). Cucumber production is divided almost equally into two major
groups. “Slicer cucumbers” varieties are usually fresh-marketed. “Pickling cucumbers”
are produced primarily for processing into pickles, relishes and other condiments, usually
by cooking in a solution of various seasonings and preservatives such as salt and vinegar
before canning and preserving. Direct-seeded cucumber crops are typically planted in
rows with in-row spacing around 5-13 cm (2”-5”) for pickling varieties and 46 cm (18”)
for slicer cucumbers with a distance between 1.5 m and 1.8 m (5-6 ft.) between rows.
Plastic mulches are commonly used to reduce weed populations and row covers are
sometimes used to provide protection from insect pests, particularly in smaller scale

operations. Both plastic mulches and row covers also increase the temperature at which

the cucumber plants are grown by retaining more heat and thus accelerating plant growth
(Motsenbocker and Bonanno 1989, Wolfe et a1. 1989, Ibarra et a1. 2001).

Most cucumber varieties are monoecious, with separate male and female flowers
on the same plant, while some varieties are gynoecious, containing almost exclusively
female blossoms (N andgaonkar and Baker 1981, Swiader and Ware 2002). Most
cucumber varieties require insect pollination, so row covers, if used, must be removed
once the vines begin to flower. Poor pollination leads to fruit abortion, misshapen fruit,
poor fruit sets and decreased yield (Swiader and Ware 2002). Slicing cucumbers are
typically hand harvested five to ten times during the season once the first fiuit have
grown to a marketable size. Most pickling cucumbers are machine harvested when about

half of them have reached the appropriate size.

 

Description of Striped Cucumber Beetle Biology and Damage

The striped cucumber beetle, Acalymma vittatum Fabricius (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae), is a major pest of cucumbers, and a top concern of cucumber growers in
the United States. These beetles have been a threat worthy of investigation by the
Department of Agriculture since 1915 (Chittenden 1923). They overwinter as adults,
emerging early in the growing season when temperatures exceed 10° C. They seek out
and immediately begin to feed on cucumbers in the plant’s early growth stages when the
risk of plant death from feeding damage is highest (Pitblado and Lucy 1994). Beetles
may enter fields before the cucumber plants emerge and crawl into soil crevices to
damage the seedlings. Striped cucumber beetles damage cucumber plants by feeding on
cotyledons, shoots, stems and leaves. Later in the season they also feed on cucumber
blossoms and fruit. Damage reduces both yield in the form of biomass production and
fi'uit marketability (Capinera 2001). F eedingon young plants leads to stand reduction and
delays in growth of surviving plants, both leading to reduced biomass production. Fruit
scarring affects fruit size and marketability. Striped cucumber beetle adults also transmit
diseases such as bacterial wilt and cucumber mosaic virus. In addition, adults lay eggs in
the soil around the bases of cucumber plants. After hatching, larvae burrow through the
soil to feed on cucumber roots and stems, although this damage is rarely as severe as that
caused by the adults (Brewer et a1. 1987).

Adult striped cucumber beetles measure approximately 0.5 cm long and 0.2 cm
wide. They have black heads and abdomens as well as striped black and yellow wing
covers. The legs are mostly yellow and the antennae, tarsi and tibia are black (Foster et

a1. 2005). Larvae are creamy white in color with darkened areas at the head and posterior

 

tip of the abdomen (Bellinder 1994). It is important to distinguish striped cucumber
beetles from the western corn rootworms, Diabrotica virgifera LeConte (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae), which also occasionally feeds on cucurbits. Western corn rootworms
have a similar appearance, but their central black stripe does not extend all the way to the
tip of the abdomen and their abdomens are yellow instead of black (Foster et al. 2005).
Despite the similarity to the striped cucumber beetle, western corn rootworms are less
damaging to cucurbits. The adults are only present in the field in the mid to late summer,

they do not transmit cucurbit diseases, and their larvae can only develop on the roots of

r5.“— V‘-_.-.)E.K—xfl_' .‘.'I T
. '1'

com, Zea mays L. (Foster et a1. 2005).

Striped cucumber beetles are native to the United States, inhabiting all regions
east of the Rocky Mountains from southern Canada to Mexico (Chittenden 1923,
Capinera 2001). Cucurbits are the only known food source for striped cucumber beetle
larvae, but the adults occasionally attack other crops, including peas (Pisum sativum L.),
apples (Malus domestica Borkh) and corn (Z. mays L.). Adults also feed on goldenrod
(Solidago sp. L.), aster (Aster sp. Shirokujaku), sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), great
ragweed (Ambrosia sp. L.), chokeberry (A rom'a melanocarpa Elliot), Juneberry
(Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt), cherry (Prunus sp. L.) and related plants, feeding primarily
on flowers and fruits (Chittenden 1923, Flint 1990, Capinera 2001).

In the northern United States, the striped cucumber beetle is univoltine due to the
climate (Chittenden 1923, Davidson & Lyon 1979, Lewis 1992, Capinera 2001). Females
lay between 400 and 500 eggs on average, with up to 1,457 eggs/female recorded. Eggs
are laid in the soil around the base of cucurbits and usually hatch within 1 — 2 wks

depending on temperature. The larvae burrow through the soil to feed on roots,

 

occasionally also feeding on the stems and fruit where they come into contact with the
earth. The larval stage lasts 2 — 6 wk before the beetle enters the pre-pupa stage, lasting 2
— 5 d. The pupa lasts from 5 —- 8 d in warmer weather or up to 2 wk in colder
temperatures. The new generation of adults emerges as early as the first week in July,
with continued emergence staggered over the next few weeks (Chittenden 1923, Capinera
2001 , Ellers-Kirk and F leisher 2006). The previous generation of beetles usually lives
through the end of July, so there is overlap between the two generations of adults
(Chittenden 1923). They may be multivoltine in the southern states, with as many as four

generations per year recorded in Texas (Chittenden 1923, Godfrey 1999).

m

 

_9'_'. ‘4‘.“ —-

 

Conventional Production Solutions

In conventional cucumber production, striped cucumber beetle control often
involves using systemic insecticides such as carbofirran (Furadan 4F®), imidacloprid
(Admire Pro®, Nuprid®), or thiamethoxam (Platinum®) at planting and/or spraying
foliar insecticides as soon as beetles are detected (Foster et a1. 2005, Bird et a1. 2008).
Insecticides registered as foliar sprays to control striped cucumber beetle in conventional
production include several formulations of carbaryl, Asana, Baythroid, bifenthrin
(Bifenture, Brigade, Capture), endosulfan, Lannate, perrnethrin (Ambush, Perm-UP,
Pounce), or Warrior (Foster et al. 2005, Bird et al. 2008). In areas where striped
cucumber beetles transmit bacterial wilt, the economic threshold for spraying is less than
one beetle per plant (Foster et al. 2005), which means growers generally spray as soon as
striped cucumber beetles are detected and at regular intervals afterwards, usually without
continuing to monitor beetle numbers. Some growers may simply spray their cucumber
crop regularly to avoid monitoring carefully for the first appearance of striped cucumber
beetles in their fields. Conventional growers try to avoid adverse effects on pollination by
selecting insecticides with limited toxicity to honey bees and other pollinators (Johansen
1977, Lewis 1992). Some insecticides in conventional use combine insecticide with
cucurbitacins as a feeding stimulant to increase efficiency and selectivity, while requiring
a smaller amount of the active ingredient (commonly carbaryl [Sevin TMD. (Brust and
Foster 1995, Cranshaw 1998, Foster et a1. 2005). These products are not approved for

organic use.

 

 

Organic Production Solutions and Challenges

Organic cucumber production has more restrictions on chemical inputs than
conventional production in order to meet organic labeling requirements. Since the
varieties and amounts of chemical inputs are limited in organic systems, control of pest
insects often requires more detailed knowledge of the biology of both host plant and
insect pest. In addition, the market price for organic cucumbers is not significantly higher
than the price for conventionally produced cucumbers. Thus organic control methods
cannot cost much more than conventional control methods for organic cucumber
production to be commercially and economically viable (Heissenhiber and Ring 1992,
Estes et a1. 1999, Miles and Peet 2000). Current organic approaches for managing
cucumber beetles focus on population monitoring, cultural practices, trapping, natural
enemies and organically approved insecticides and protectants.

Population monitoring deterrrrines when overwintering cucumber beetles in an
area emerge to better time control measures taken to prevent crop damage. For example,
Cornell University entomologists recommend surveying a field twice weekly by checking
the undersides of the leaves of at least five plants in five different locations in a field,
including field edges, particularly when plants have fewer than five true leaves (Petzoldt
2001). Midwest guidelines similarly recommend scouting fields two to three times
weekly, paying particular attention to field edges (Foster et a1. 2005).

Cultural practices include any form of land or crop management which adversely
affects pest reproduction, the time and level of, or crop exposure to, the pest insect.
Cultural practices used for the management of striped cucumber beetles include delayed

planting, row covers, mulching, plant trellising, cultivation, residue removal,

 

intercropping, and insect vacuuming. Delaying planting of cucurbits until after cucrunber
beetles lay their eggs (mid-June in the Midwest) is an effective control measure, but may
be impractical for growers targeting the higher sale prices of early-season cucurbits,
including cucumbers (Foster et a1. 2005 ). Row covers provide a physical barrier between
pest and plant, but must be removed once the crop flowers to allow access by pollinators.
Smaller-scale operations may also produce cucumbers in greenhouses which also provide
a physical barrier to pests. Greenhouse production requires the use of special I
parthenocarpic cultivars that produce fruit without pollination, although many of the
parthenocarpic varieties must be sprayed with a fruit growth hormone such as
chlorflurenol in order to obtain normal fruit growth (Coleman 1995, Swiader and Ware
2002). Heavy mulching can deter cucumber beetles from laying their eggs around the
base of a plant and may protect vines and fruit from larval feeding, but does nothing to
protect the leaves, flowers and fruit from feeding damage by adults (Cranshaw 1998).
Trellising plants makes leaves and fruit less accessible to larvae and decreases egg laying,
but does not protect against adult feeding. Cultivation and residue removal after harvest
may reduce overwintering populations of striped cucumber beetles (Chittenden 1923).
Intercropping one crop variety with other crop types to form a polyculture can lead to a
10 to 30 fold reduction in striped cucumber beetle populations compared to a
monoculture (Bach 1980). A tomato crop, Solanum lycopersicum L., added to a field of
cucurbits can reduce the number of striped cucumber beetles present (Lawrence and Bach
1989). Vacuuming allows growers to mechanically remove adult striped cucumber
beetles from their host plants, but is highly labor intensive (Power 1987).

Several kinds of traps can be employed to help manage striped cucumber beetles,

lO

l—‘In L'.‘._ _.‘-I'-d_1“ “w-“
I

including trap crops, trap baits, and sticky traps, which attract the striped cucumber
beetles away from the protected crop with a combination of scent, color and pheromones
(Radin and Drummond 1994, Maclntyre-Allen et al. 2001, Jackson et al. 2005, Lam
2007). Trap crops are plant varieties that the pest finds more attractive than the protected
crop. Striped cucumber beetles are attracted. to plants which produce high levels of
cucurbitacin, a feeding stimulant, as well as a variety of floral volatiles. To be an
effective lure, a trap crop usually needs to have a higher level of these chemicals than the
protected crop (Metcalf 1985, Andersen and Metcalf 1989, Andrews et a1. 2007). Organic
botanical insecticides may then be applied to the trap crop to kill the striped cucumber
beetles that are gathered there (Caldwell et al. 2005). Trap baits combine pest-attracting i
pheromones, kairomones, and other chemical attractants with insecticides. Cucurbitacins
are used in various forms in trap baits for the control of striped cucumber beetle (Metcalf
1985). Yellow sticky traps attract and trap striped cucumber beetles by virtue of their
color (Levine and Metcalf 1988, Levine and Oloumi-Sadeghi 1991). Some also have
chemical attractants added for added effectiveness.

Natural enemies such as predators, parasitoids, and pathogens can be exploited as
a natural means of biologically controlling an insect pest. Natural enemies of striped
cucumber beetle include soldier beetles (Coleoptera: Cantharidae), tachinid flies
(Celatoria diabroticae Shimer, Diptera: Tachinidae), braconid wasps (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae), certain nematodes (Lyon and Smith 2000, Reed et a1. 1986, Ellers-Kirk
2000), and some species of bats (Snyder and Wise 2000). Studies show that many insect
natural enemies are attracted to a field with a flowering border of buckwheat (Platt et al.

1999). However, striped cucumber beetles often reach high infestation levels far above

11

the economic threshold in cultivated cucurbits, even in the presence of these natural
enemies (Godfrey 1999).

A number of organic insecticides and protectants, such as the botanical
insecticides sabadilla and pyrethrum, are recommended for cucumber beetle control.
However, sabadilla and pyrethrum are highly toxic to honeybees, Apis mellifera L.
(Hymenoptera: Apidae), and should not be used when pollinators are present in the field
(Shepherd et al. 2003). Some organic growers use pyrethrum in combination with a
particle film barrier called Surround WP TM (Engel- hard Corp, Iselin, NJ) Crop
Protectant (Caldwell et al. 2005). Rotenone is another moderately effective insecticide
used by organic growers in the past, but no formulations are currently approved by the
Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) in organic production (Caldwell et al. 2005).
Rotenone also poses a risk to pollinators. Recent research showed that plant-growth-
promoting rhizobacteria decreased striped cucumber beetle feeding. Both cucumber
beetle feeding and incidence of bacterial wilt were reduced by the addition of soil
drenches composed of a mixture of the rhizobacteria Pseudomonas putida, Serratia
marcesens, F lavomonas oryzihabitans, and Bacillus pumillis, although inoculum for this
treatment method is not yet commercially available (Zehnder et al. 2001).

Of these organic techniques, this experiment focuses on assessing and comparing
the ability of row covers and trap crops to control striped cucumber beetle. Methods for

enhancing the trap crop by adding attractants or a tomato intercrop are also analyzed.

12

CHAPTER 2

EVALUATING ORGANIC-COMPLIANT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
FOR STRIPED CUCUMBER BEETLE IN CUCUMBERS

13

Introduction

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in, and demand for, organic
produce (Tavemier 2003). Organic production faces many of the same pest challenges as
conventional production, but often cannot incorporate conventional pest management
solutions, which commonly focus on spraying crops with pesticides. Organic growers
need to satisfy organic labeling restrictions which limit the types and amounts of
chemical inputs (Phelan et al. 1995, Caldwell et al. 2005), often requiring them to employ
different pest management techniques than conventional growers. In addition, some
growers have a desire to grow fresh produce free of pesticide inputs, whether organic-
compliant or not.

Cucumbers, Cucumis sativus L., are a major vegetable crop in the United States
(Swiader and Ware 2002). The striped cucumber beetle, Acalymma vittatum Fabricius
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), is a major pest of cucumber. This pest is of great concern
to vegetable growers in both organic and conventional production due to the feeding
damage that adult beetles cause to the plant’s seeds, foliage, flowers, and fruit; the adults’
ability to vector bacterial wilt; and the larvae feeding on plant roots (Chittenden 1923,
Foster et al 2005). Striped cucumber beetles overwinter as adults and emerge to feed
early in the growing season, badly damaging or killing young cucurbit seedlings or new
transplants. After emergence the adults feed and lay eggs in the soil around the base of
their host plant. Striped cucumber beetles are univoltine in the north central United
States, and can be bivoltine in the warmer southern gulf states (Chittenden 1923,
Davidson & Lyon 1979, Capinera 2001). The larvae feed on roots, but they are less of a

threat to cucumber production since they do not begin feeding until the plants are large

14

and they do not transmit bacterial wilt (Chittenden 1923, Foster et al. 2005). The larva
does not cause fruit scarring as long as the fruits are not in direct contact with moist soil
(Chittenden 1923). The striped cucumber beetle host range covers most cultivated
Cucurbitaceae, including squash, melons, and cucumbers.

While there are several insecticides available for striped cucumber beetle control
(Bird et al. 2008), few are certified for use in organic production systems and, like other
insecticides, they can harm beneficial organisms such as natural enemies and pollinators
(Johansen 1977). In areas where bacterial wilt is infrequent, such as in many parts of the
north central United States (Hayward 1991), cucumber plants can withstand up to 25%
defoliation without exhibiting significant yield loss (Burkness and Hutchison 1998). In
these conditions, organic-compliant techniques to manage cucumber beetle are possible
and some, such as trap cropping, are employed with varying degrees of success.

Trap cropping is used in commercial settings for striped cucumber beetle
management, but the technique commonly relies on the application of an insecticide to
the trap crop once beetles are detected, which is not desirable for some organic producers
(Hokkanen 1991, J avaid and J oshi 1995, Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006). On
muskmelons, C. melo L., 82% of northern corn rootworrn, Diabrotica howardi Barber
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), and striped cucumber beetles were found on the trap crop
rather than on the muskmelon crop (Metcalf 1985). In another study, striped cucumber
beetle densities were 42% to 81% higher in an NK530 squash perimeter trap crop,
Cucurbita maxima Duchesne, than in the main melon crop, C. melo L. (Caldwell and
Stockton 1998, Caldwell et al. 1998). In an extension program, all participating growers

stated that their pest control using a perimeter trap crop of Blue Hubbard squash, C.

15

maxima Duchesne, around their green and yellow summer squash, C. pepo L., was “much
better” than in previous years without a trap crop (Boucher and Durgy 2004). Radin and
Drummond (1994) recorded that at least 70% of striped cucumber beetles were in a
squash trap crop, C. maxima cv. ‘Sweet Mama’, compared to 30% in a cucumber crop.
Squash trap crops also protect watermelon, C itrullus sp., and muskmelon, C. melo, from
striped cucumber beetle (Cline 2004, Hoffman 1999). Blue Hubbard squash is a
particularly promising candidate for a trap crop because striped cucumber beetles prefer it
over most other cucurbit species (Reed et al. 1984, Pair 1997, Boucher and Durgy 2004,
Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006).

Increasing plant diversity in the field through intercropping and polyculture is an
organic-compliant approach which can cause a 10 to 30 fold reduction in striped
cucumber beetle populations compared to a monoculture (Bach 1980). The addition of a
_ non-host tomato crop, Solanum lycopersicum L., to a field of cucurbits in some cases
reduces the number of striped cucumber beetles present (Lawrence and Bach 1989). In
comparison, trap cropping tends to be more effective at reducing phytophagous insect
pest populations than intercropping (Banks and Ekbom 2004), but it is not clear whether
in combination the effects are additive.

A trap crop’s attractiveness to an insect pest can sometimes be enhanced with
biological attractants such as kairomones (Hokkanen 1991, Javaid and Joshi 1995,
Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006). The addition of biological attractants can significantly
enhance trap crops in the control of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa
decemlineata Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) (Martel 2005). Kairomones that attract

striped cucumber beetle and which may be useful in trap crop enhancement have been

16

 

identified and are commercially available (Lewis et a1. 1990, Fleischer and Kirk 1994,
Ernst and Foster 1995, Jackson et al. 2005). Attractive kairomones were used to enhance
the attractiveness of sticky traps to reduce cucumber beetle populations by 50% by
placing 40 kairomone enhanced sticky traps per acre around field edges (Hoffmann
1996). Such kairomones were also used in several different striped cucumber beetle baits
(Fleischer and Kirk 1994, Burst and Foster 1995, Schroder et al. 2001, Martin et al. 2002,
Jackson et al. 2005).

This study focuses on investigating organic-compliant non-insecticidal methods
for managing striped cucumber beetles in cucumber production by increasing the level of
plant diversity using a trap crop and an intercrop. Specifically, a comparison was made
between the effectiveness of a squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture
added to the trap crop, and a squash trap crop with added biological attractants in
reducing striped cucumber beetle densities on cucumbers. Floating row covers placed
over the cucumbers and use of an organically approved insecticide were also included in

the comparison of organic-compliant techniques.

17

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted in 2006 and 2007 at an organic transition research plot
(Fig. 2.1) and at the nearby student organic farm (Fig. 2.2) located at the Michigan State
University Horticulture Teaching and Research Center in East Lansing, MI (42° 41’ N,
84° 30’ W). In the organic transition field site, ‘Cob‘ra’ slicing cucumber and ‘Mountain
Fresh Plus’ tomatoes (commonly used in commercial production) were grown in a 90 m x
34 m field in raised beds covered with plastic mulch and drip irrigation. In 2006, the
tomatoes were sown in transplant trays in a greenhouse on 11 May, 2006 and the Blue
Hubbard trap crop transplant trays were sown in the greenhouse on 18 May, 2006. The
tomato and Blue Hubbard plants were transplanted into the field on 6 June, 2006 at the
same time that the ‘Cobra’ slicing cucumbers were direct-seeded. In 2007, the Blue
Hubbard trap crop was sown in transplant trays on 6 May, 2007 and the tomatoes and
cucumbers were sown in transplant trays on 15 May, 2007 in the greenhouse. All plants
were transplanted into the field on 7 June, 2007. The rows were 7.6 m-long and spaced
1.8 m apart with an in-row plant spacing of 0.5 m. The field site was planted with a rye,
Secale cereale L., cover crop in the fall of 2006 and 2007 which was mowed and plowed
into the soil before planting the field with cucumber and tomato, and had been in a
soybean, Glycine max L., monoculture in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The student organic farm
site (ca. 800 m from the organic transition plot) was a 91 m x 17 m field of assorted
cucurbits planted in raised beds and drip irrigated. Rows were 1.5 m apart and in-row
plant spacing was 0.8 m. This field previously contained a potato, Solanum tuberosum L.,
monoculture in 2005. Weeds were managed with plastic mulch at the organic transition

research field site and hand hoeing at the student organic farm field site.

18

Cucumber Cucumber
Cucumber +Tomato Cucumber +Tomato

Cucumber w Trap w Trap W Trap w Trap

 

R4£§CGC$2C QQQ§T

 

 

 

 

RZQECGCEC §£§§T

 

 

R1rzccecsc ccsar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1
IO
.4
0
0
IO
IO
kn
.g
IO
4
O
.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f f it +

:n 0 2:: -l

2 g as g
3’

lero M03 —D

doro dell —>

+_____ 50 m (26bedsor1.ameach+a3mauey) —p

 

Bed Spacing is 1.8 at center to center
Tomato ln-row spacing is 0.5 m
Cucumber In-row spacing is 0.5 m

 

 

 

C = Cucumber T = Tomato
G = Guard row S = Squash Trap Crop

Figure 2.1: Field layout of the organic transition research field site.

19

 

Grass Grass+ Grass+ Grass Grass Grass+ Grass+ Grass Grass+ Grass

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trap Trap+ Trap+ Trap Trap Trap+ Trap+ Trap Trap+ Trap

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Butternut Butternut Butternut Butternut Butternut

[f l
.‘« _' ,
J.__

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Butternut Butternut Butternut Butternut Butternut

 

 

#7” ##LL; rw’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘l
v

91m

N“

Figure 2.2: Field layout of the attractants field'site at the student organic farm. Grass =
untreated grass. Grass+ = grass with a cucurbitacin spray. Trap = an untreated Blue
Hubbard trap crop. Trap+ = a Blue Hubbard trap crop with a cucurbitacin spray.
Butternut = Butternut squash rows sampled at 1.5m and 9m from the trap crop. Unlabeled

grey bars represent rows of other assorted cucurbits that were not sampled.

20

Each site was visually scouted bi-weekly for the first appearance of striped
cucumber beetles. The first detection of striped cucumber beetles at the organic transition
field site was 20 June in 2006 and 27 June in 2007, and first detection was on 12 June in
2006 at the Student Organic Farm site. In both settings, striped cucumber beetle densities
were measured visually by counting the total number of beetles on randomly selected
plants.

Increasing levels of plant diversity to protect cucumber. In 2006 at the organic
transition field site, three treatments differing in their level of plant diversity were tested
for their effect on striped cucumber beetle density and plant damage. The treatments were
replicated plots of cucumber alone (cucumber monoculture), cucumber with a squash trap
crop, and cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop. The cucumber
monoculture plots were separated from the plots containing trap crops by a 3 m alley of
bare soil. For treatments with a squash trap crop, the trap crop was placed in its own row
in the center of the plot 2 m from the nearest rows. The trap crop was Blue Hubbard
squash. While squash trap crops protecting cucumber are usually placed on the field
perimeter, our trap crop was placed in the field interior for this study to focus on the
relative attractiveness of the trap crop and cucumber crop, separating the effect of the trap
crop from field edge effects. For the cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap
treatment replicates, two sets of four raised beds alternated with cucumbers and tomatoes.
The treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design (Fig.
2.1). A row of cucumbers covered with a floating row cover was also placed in each
treatment to serve as a positive control. The row covers were removed once the cucumber

plants began to flower (17 July in 2006 and 11 July in 2007) to allow pollinator access.

21

This study was a subcomponent of a larger experimental plot that also explored effects of
tomato planting strategies and cover crops on soil building.

Data collection. While adult beetles were active, beetles were visually counted.
and percent defoliation was visually estimated approximately twice per week on eight
randomly selected cucumber plants in internal rows of the cucumber monoculture and
cucumber with trap crop treatment replicates, four randomly selected cucumber plants on
internal rows of the cucumber and tomato polyculture with trap crop treatment, four
squash trap crop plants for appropriate treatments, and four cucumber plants in the rows
with floating row cover by manipulating and observing the plants through the transparent
row cover without removing it. Cucumbers were harvested on a weekly basis for five
weeks and marketable yield was recorded. Marketable yield was based on visually
assessing the damage and fruit quality and sorting the total yield into marketable and
unrnarketable fruit.

2007 modifications. In 2007, the experimental design remained the same
except that the cucumbers were transplanted instead of direct seeded, and a foliar
spray of PyGanic EC 1.4 (pyrethrum, 1.17 liters/ha, McLaughlin Gormley King
Company, Minneapolis, MN), an organically certified insecticide, was applied to the
Blue Hubbard trap crop. Both these changes were aimed at relieving cucumber beetle
feeding pressure on the seedling cucumber plants. Spraying was triggered whenever
striped cucumber beetle counts exceeded 2 per plant in the trap crop. To supplement
the marketable yield data, beetle damage on fruit was measured as percent scarring per
fruit for cucumber on the vine on eight randomly selected plants per replicate in all

lICfltlIlCl‘ltS .

22

Data analysis. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a
randomized complete block design was conducted using PROC MIXED (SAS Institute
2004) to compare striped cucumber beetle densities, percent defoliation and percent fruit
scarring among the three plant diversity treatments across all dates of observation. All
data were log (x + 1) transformed to stabilize variances and meet the assumptions of
ANOVA. Based on the ANOVA, the interaction between plant diversity treatment and
date was significant in both years of the study (see Results and Discussion). Therefore a
post hoc ANOVA was performed for each individual sample date, and plant diversity
treatments were compared using t-tests of least squares means (P < 0.05) (SAS-Institute
2004). The same procedure was also used to test plant diversity treatment differences in
total marketable yield for each year, except accumulated yield was analyzed and date was
not a factor in the analysis. Means and standard errors of beetle densities, defoliation, and
yield data that were taken on the squash trap crop and cucumber under the row covers
were also calculated as a reference for the AN OVA results comparing the plant diversity
treatments.

Trap crop enhancement to protect cucumber. In 2006 at the student organic
farm, a 90 m-long trap crop of Blue Hubbard squash was planted along the edge of a
90 m x 17 m field of assorted cucurbits to test the potential of enhancing trap crop
effectiveness by adding cucurbitacins. Beyond the Blue Hubbard squash (away from
the crop) was a 90 m-long swath of unmowed grass. These paired rows were divided
into five 18 m-long replicates. In each replicate, half of the trap crop and half of the
grass strip was randomly assigned to be treated with an attractant while the other half

was left untreated in a two by two factorial design of five replicated blocks (Fig. 2.2).

23

The attractant was a twice weekly spray of cucurbitacin (2 liters of water mixed with
2.3 grams of powdered buffalo root per liter [C ucurbita foetia’issima HBK, Cidetrak®,
Trécé Incorporated, Salinas, Califomia]). The relative attractiveness of these
treatments to striped cucumber beetles was measured by counting the number of
beetles twice weekly 1 day after spraying the cucurbitacin on four randomly selected
plants per replicate in the Blue Hubbard squash treatments and, for one sampling date,
on an equivalent ground surface area in the unmowed grass. A visual estimate of
percent defoliation of the blue hubbard was also taken. Defoliation was not recorded
in the unmowed grass. Beetles were also counted on four randomly selected Butternut
squash, C. moschata Duchesne, plants within each of two 90 m-long rows of
Butternut squash in the field. Plants in these rows were paired with the nearest
treatment replicate; one row was 1.5 m from the trap crop at the edge of the field and
the other was near the center of the field, 9 m from the trap crop. Data were taken bi
weekly.

A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a randomized two by
two factorial design was conducted using PROC MIXED (SAS Institute 2004) to
compare striped cucumber beetle densities and percent defoliation among the Blue
Hubbard squash and unmowed grass treatments with and without cucurbitacin sprays,
across dates of observations. A separate repeated measures (date) single factor
(distance from the trap crop row) ANOVA was used to compare cucumber beetle
densities and percent defoliation on the two 90 m-long rows of Butternut squash in the
field. Based on the ANOVA results, a date interaction with the main treatments was

significant (see Results and Discussion); therefore a post hoc ANOVA was performed

24

as in the plant diversity experiment (SAS-Institute 2004).

25

Results and Discussion

Increasing levels of plant diversity to protect cucumber. The effect of the
increasing levels of plant diversity with an emphasis on use of trap crops was tested by
comparing the striped cucumber beetle densities in the cucumber monoculture to the
densities found in the cucumber plots protected by a trap crop and a polyculture of
cucumber and tomato protected by a trap crop. For each year of the study at the organic
transition field site the plant diversity treatment by date interaction was significant for the
cucumber beetle count variable (2006, F= 2.38, df=28, 621, P=0.0001; 2007, F= 14.85,
df= 26, 579, P < 0.0001). Samples were pooled. by date for further analysis in a post hoc
ANOVA of individual sampling dates separately to compare plant diversity treatment
effects within each date.

In early 2006 striped cucumber beetle density was low and there were no
significant differences between the cucumber monoculture and the cucumber plots
protected by a trap crop (Fig. 2.3, 23-27 June, df = 9, P>0.05). As overall beetle
densities in the field increased in late June and early July, significantly more striped
cucumber beetles were found in the cucumber monoculture than in the cucumbers
containing the Blue Hubbard trap crop (Fig. 2.3, 30 June, df =9, t = 3.70, P = 0.0049; 3
July, df= 9, t = 3.52, P = 0.0065; 6 July, df= 9, t = 2.96, P = 0.016; 10 July, df= 9, t=
3.53, P = 0.0064). Later in the growing season, around the time the cucumber plants
started flowering, beetle counts stabilized at about 4 to 5 per plants across both these
treatments (Fig. 2.3, 13 July and later, df = 9, P > 0.05). The addition of a tomato
polyculture to the trap crop system provided no measurable benefit in reducing striped

cucumber beetle densities. The polyculture of cucumber and tomato protected by a trap

26

 

Striped Cucumber Beetles/Plant +I- SEM

 

 

/
/ '\ i.

- -<>- - Cucumber Monoculture
+Cucumber & Trap Crop
- -A- - Polyculture & Trap Crop

 

‘ :1 Cucumber & Row Cover -
l ———e—-— Trap Crop

 

\ , :l

o a
a
o
o
o
I
a
, I
l
r

. O

\

$

\

I
I

1}

s
’ \ O
\

\

 

 

20-Jun

...l

27-Jun l l
4qu “

25-Jul '
1-Aug B
&Aug ‘

Figure 2.3: Mean number of beetles per plant across the cucumber growing season

taken in cucumbers grown in three plant diversity treatments: monoculture, cucumbers

grown next to a squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash

trap crop. Counts were also taken on cucumbers under a row cover and the squash trap

crop found within the plant diversity treatments. Row cover was removed on 17 July.

Organic transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2006.

27

 

crop did not have beetle densities significantly lower than the cucumber plots protected
by a trap crop (Fig. 2.3, df = 9, P > 0.05). During a few dates, there were significantly
higher numbers of beetles in the polyculture with a trap crop compared with the
cucumber only protected by a trap crop (Jun 23, df = 9, t = -2.37, P = 0.042; Jul 3, df =
9, t = -2.24, P = 0.044; Jul 6 df= 9, t = ~2.60, P = 0.029, Jul 10, df= 9, t = -3.35, P =
0.0086). The early to mid-season benefits that the trap crop provided can also be seen
by comparing the densities of beetles on the Blue Hubbard trap crop and the cucumber
crop it was protecting. The cucumber beetle density in the Blue Hubbard trap crop was
much higher than the density on the cucumbers it was protecting (Fig. 2.3, 20 June, 23
June, 27 June, 30 June, 3 July, 10 July, 21 July, and 27 July).

Percent defoliation of the cucumber monoculture rose through 6 July, 2006 at
which time defoliation was greater in the monoculture than on cucumber protected by
the trap crop (Fig. 2.4, df = 9, t = 4.34, 0.0019). As with the cucumber beetle counts,
the cucumber-tomato polyculture with a trap crop showed no advantage in reducing
defoliation compared to the cucumber and trap crop treatment (Fig. 2.4). There was
also no significant difference in cumulative season-long marketable yield between the
treatments (Fig. 2.5, P > 0.05). In summary, the Blue Hubbard trap crop provided
some protection to the cucumber growing adjacent to it early to mid—growing season.
However, the trap crop effect broke down late in the season, resulting in no season-
long protection to the cucumber fi'uit.

In 2007 when Pyganic was applied to the trap crop as additional protection,
there tended to be more beetles in the cucumber monoculture than in the cucumber

plot protected by the trap crop from 8 July through 11 July (Fig. 2.6, 8 July, df = 9, t =

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 - -o- - Cucumber Monoculture

”SJ 2006 +Cucumber & Trap Crop
(D 60 ‘ - -A- - Polyculture 8. Trap Crop
\I meets—— Cucumber & Row Cover
+ 50 — ——o—-Trap Crop
g . o
3": 40 ‘ o 0 .
IE
.2 30 - g- . ‘ ' ' -
o , , ‘ -
D ’1’ ' a . g~ Q . ’ 0 ~
vO-l 20 ‘ ' r " - _ o A‘ , ' ~ 9
c: , . ~ . ..~ --.-—--- ..
0 I, l 4 - I A ' ~ .
e 10 ’A "' 2 /E/ 1'
0 g ’ ""
fl. 0 ._ _‘___;___w_ ..-..e»==~—-----2‘==~~ 3/

c — — '— — or or

.=. a a a a = =

Figure 2.4: Mean percent defoliation across the cucumber growing season taken in three
plant diversity treatments: monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a
cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop. Defoliation was also taken on
cucumbers under a row cover and the squash trap cr0p found within the plant diversity
treatments. Row cover was removed on 17 July. Organic transition site, East Lansing,

MI, 2006.

29

 

Marketable Yield (kg/m) +I- SEM
w

 

     

 

Cucumber Cucumber & Polyculture & Cucumber &
Monoculture Trap Crop Trap Crop Row Cover

Figure 2.5: Mean marketable cucumber yield in cucumbers grown in three plant
diversity treatments: monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a
cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop. Yield of cucumber under a

row cover was also taken. Organic transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2006.

30

30

Striped Cucumber Beetles/Plant +I- SEM

 

25-

201

15*

10-

 

 

2007

 

- -o- - Cucumber Monoculture

+Cucumber & Trap Crop
.. -A- . Polyculture & Trap Crop

m~-;‘;,-—— Cucumber & Row Cover
--e—--—- Trap Crop

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.6: Mean number of beetles per plant across the cucumber growing season

taken in three plant diversity treatments: monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a

squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop. Counts

were also taken on cucumbers under a row cover and the squash trap crop found

within the plant diversity treatments. Row cover was removed on 11 July. PyGanic

insecticide was applied to the trap crop rows when beetle counts exceeded two per

plant (arrows). Organic transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2007.

31

y I J.
.. 1L 3 I,
i". '1 * .T H ‘ ‘ ‘ ° " I
if I’- + ’/’l\:‘ i . . a? . A ' ‘4‘
f \ " . / ’ ' ’. I I" ‘ ' I
/ 1A R' . u ‘ I r . 3' ‘ O
A' . 3' - ‘ :r \A ‘ m \jf" . :5
WPP—ifi r r 1.7.? 1..r —L..f Lu.
- — _ — U) U) U)
a? $ 3 $ 2 a 2
V ‘— 00 ID i I I
‘— v- N ‘- Q In
F

2.92, P = 0.017; 11 July, df = 9, t = 3.43, P = 0.0076). But as the season progresses,
the counts were similar from 18 July through 25 July (Fig. 2.6, 18 July-25 July, df = 9,
P > 0.05), and then a significantly larger number of beetles occurred in cucumber with
a trap crop from 29 July through 12 August (Fig. 2.6, 29 July, df = 9, t= -3.28, P =
0.0095; 1 Aug, df= 9, t = -9.91, P < 0.0001; 5 Aug, df= 9, t = -l3.70, P < 0.0001; 8
Aug, df = 9, t = -3.42, P = 0.0076; 12 Aug, df= 9, t= -4.66, P = 0.0012). Despite the
use of Pyganic, there were high densities of beetles in the trap crop mid- to late-season
(F ig. 2.6).

Following this pattern, defoliation was significantly greater in the cucumber
monoculture than the cucumber plot protected by the trap crop early in the season
(Fig. 2.7 1 July, df= 9, t = 2.81, P = 0.020; 4 July, df= 9, t= 2.52, P = 0.033). This
difference was not significant later in the month of July (Fig. 2.7 8-29 July, df = 9, P >
0.05), and in August defoliation was significantly greater in the cucumber with a trap
crop treatment than in the cucumber monoculture (Fig. 2.7, 5 Aug, df = 9, t = -6.71, P
< 0.0001; 8 Aug, df= 9, t = -6.75, P < 0.0001; 12 Aug, df= 9, t = -5.08, P = 0.0007;
15 Aug, df = 9, t = -9.76, P < 0.0001). As reference, defoliation on the squash trap
crop itself led to percent defoliation of 25% by late July, and plant death of 50% and
higher thereafter (Fig. 2.7) Fruit scarring inthe cucumber monoculture and cucumber
protected by a trap crop was similar early season, but later it was higher in the
cucumber with a trap crop than the cucumber monoculture in August (Fig. 2.8, 5 Aug,
df= 9, t = -5,72, P = 0.0003; 12 Aug, df= 9, t =-5.82, P = 0.0003). As in the previous
year, there was no significant difference in yield between the cucumber monoculture

and the cucumber protected by a trap cr0p (Fig 2.9, P < 0.0001). As in 2006, the

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 “I - -<>- - Cucumber Monoculture
E " 2007
11.1 30 a +Cucumber & Trap Crop
CI.) - ~A- - Polyculture & Trap Crop r <: Highdefoliation & plant
\
I; 25 I 'f Cucumber 8. Row Cover death hereafter
:g 20 _ ——G——Trap Crop ..
Us
«3 15 ~ . . l
D , ’
d-o _ _. ,
r: 10 . ,
8 r ' ¢ - .- i-m ' h I I n 1' E
a 5 ‘1 . o ‘
D.
O | " I l v—l l I l
5 '5 3 5 3 C” 0’
w '5 "D 3 3
4 ob 3 E3. 0') <. <F
‘— N N In a

Figure 2.7: Mean percent defoliation across the cucumber growing season taken in
three plant diversity treatments: monoculture, cucumbers grown next to a squash trap
crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash trap crop. Defoliation was also
taken on cucumbers under a row cover and the squash trap crop found within the plant
diversity treatments. Row cover was removed on 11 July. PyGanic insecticide was
applied to the trap crop rows when beetle counts exceeded two per plant. Organic

transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2007.

33

 

 

- 0 - Cucumber Monoculture
35 +Cucumber & Trap Crop
- A - Polyculture & Trap Crop

2007

-—D—Cucmber 8. Row Cover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent Scaring of Cucumbers +I- SEM

31 -J ul
1 -Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
1 O-Aug
1 1-Aug
1 2-Aug

29-Jul
30-Jul

Figure 2.8: Mean percent scarring of cucumber fruit surface across the cucumber
growing season taken in three plant diversity treatments: monoculture, cucumbers
grown next to a squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with a squash
trap crop. Estimates of scarring was also taken on cucumbers under a row cover. Row

cover was removed on 11 July. Organic transition site, East Lansing, MI, 2007.

34

 

_ 2007

 

Marketable Yield (kg/m) +I- SEM

 

 

Cucumber Cucumber & Polyculture & Cucumber &
Monoculture Trap Crop Trap Crop Row Cover

Figure 2.9: Mean marketable cucumber yield in cucumbers grown in monoculture,
cucumbers grown next to a squash trap crop, a cucumber and tomato polyculture with
a squash trap crop, and cucumbers under a row cover at the organic transition site,

East Lansing, MI, 2007.

35

cucumber-tomato polyculture continued to show no advantage in reducing striped
cucumber beetle density (Fig. 2.6) or defoliation (Fig. 2.7) compared to the cucumber
with trap crop treatment.

The gradual decrease in the difference between beetle densities in the trap crop
and in the protected cucumber crop may have been due to feeding damage to the trap
crop, which caused deterioration and some plant death late in the season in both years.
This deterioration probably reduced the trap crop’s relative attractiveness as a food
source. The attractiveness of the cucumber plants may also have increased as blossoms
opened coinciding with decline in the trap crop. To reduce this feeding pressure, a
PyGanic spray was applied to the trap crop in 2007 when beetles exceeded two per
plant on the trap crop. Use of PyGanic appeared effective in reducing feeding
pressure early to mid-season, but as beetles densities increased to over 10 per plant
(Fig. 2.6 on 27 June, 4 July, 11 July, 18 July, 22 July and 29 July), the trap crop
deteriorated quickly and the beetles spread throughout the field. Striped cucumber
beetles are highly mobile and strong flyers (Chittenden 1923), they are preferentially
attracted to the squash trop crop over cucumber early through mid-season (Fig. 2.3,
Fig. 2.6) and those that survive the PyGanic may move due to the irritant
characteristics of this and other pyrethrins (Gould 1991). These combined factors
present a significant challenge in managing cucumber beetle and its ability to soar fruit
mid- to late-season during years when beetle populations are high. The few available
organic insecticides present a significant challenge to growers who wish to supplement

a trap crop with insecticide. Other potential supplements to the trap crop, such as use

36

of cucurbitacins to enhance the attractions of the trap crop or replace the need for the
trap crop may better maintain protection to the protected crop mid- to late-season.

Used as a positive control reference nested in the plant diversity treatments, the
floating row covers excluded striped cucumber beetles until they were removed, as
determined by visual inspection and sticky cards inside the row covers in both years
(Fig. 2.3, 23 June through 17 July; Fig. 2.6, 27 June through 11 July). Defoliation was
much lower under the row covers than on the plant diversity treatments (Fig. 2.4, 27
June through 17 July; Fig. 2.7, 22 July through 12 Aug). This resulted in considerably
better yield and less fruit scarring (Figs. 2.5, 2.8, and 2.9). The cucumber plants under
the row covers were also noticeably larger than those growing outside of the row
covers. Less stress from striped cucumber beetle feeding along with higher
temperature and humidity under the row covers likely benefitted yield under the row
covers (Motsenbocker and Bonanno 1989, Wolfe et al. 1989, Ibarra et al. 2001).

Trap crop enhancement to protect cucumber. For the trap crop
enhancement experiment, a date interaction with the main treatments was significant
(F = 2.02, df= 13, 470, P = 0.0175); therefore, post hoc ANOVAs were run separately
for each sampling date to compare treatment effects as in the previous experiment.
Comparing squash trap crop and unmowed treatments with and without cucurbitacin
spray, adding cucurbitacin to the squash trap crop resulted in more beetles in the trap
crop compared with the squash trap crop alone on three dates (Fig. 2.10, 3 July, df = 6,
t= -4.51, P = 0.0041; 7 July, df= 6, t = -4.66, P = 0.0035; and 11 July, df= 6, t= -
7.12, P < 0.0001). The unmowed grass treatments attracted very few striped cucumber

beetles with or without the cucurbitacin spray, averaging 0.20:1:020 and 0.60i0.24 on

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

\'
+ 60
u —-o—Trap Crop
g 2006 . .
E 50 g - 4:1- - Trap Crop & Cucurbrtacrns
B —A—Buttemut Crop at 1.5 m
0
3;" 40— ' " -+-ButtemutCropat9m
s ' l ‘2
sac ,1 "it '
w ' ‘ I
a m r f \‘ r \‘
E '/ \\‘ I
= 20 T r/ ‘-.
0
3
U 10 ‘ I
'5 .1
8.
:5 ° . ‘e e I. e- e is is e
m S 3. 3 7 7 7 7 7 3
a" 0', 3 co o N v v- fit
‘— ‘— N ‘— ‘— N 0') N

Figure 2.10: Mean number of beetles per plant across the growing season in the Blue

Hubbard squash trap crop, a Blue Hubbard squash trap crop with added cucurbitacins,

a row of Butternut squash 1.5 m from the trap crop and a row of Butternut squash 9 m

from the trap crop at the Student Organic Farm field site, East Lansing, MI, 2006.

38

July 11, without and with cucurbitacins respectively (P > 0.05). There was no
difference in defoliation in the trap crop with and without cucurbitacin spray during all
observation dates 031g. 2.11, P > 0.05). The addition of a cucurbitacin spray provided
some additional attractiveness to the Blue Hubbard squash, but the Blue Hubbard
squash are already quite attractive resulting in only modest benefits to adding the
cucurbitacin to the trap crop on some dates. The almost complete lack of beetles in
the unmoved grass with and without cucurbitacins confirms the strong attractiveness
of the squash trap crop. At this field site, the protection afforded by the trap crop
remained fairly strong throughout the growing season without breaking down towards
the end as occurred in the other field site (Fig. 2.10). This may be due in part to the
size that these plants reached before striped cucumber beetle infestation occurred (0.6
m in height vs. 0.4 m at the organic transition field site).

The value of using the trap crop on the field edge as, recommended by others
(Hokkanen 1991, Javaid and Joshi 1995, Boucher and Durgy 2004, Shelton and
Badenes-Perez 2006) was seen in this plot. The protection the Blue Hubbard trap crop
provided, as measured by these beetle densities and defoliation data, was not
consistently different on the Butternut squash rows 1.5 m or 9 m from the trap crop
(Fig. 2.10 and 2.11). The Blue Hubbard trap crop on the field edge had consistently
higher striped cucumber beetle densities than the Butternut squash rows that it was
protecting as far as 9 m from the trap crop. Although this difference declined as the
season progressed as in the other experiment, the decline was not as severe (compare
Figs. 2.3 and 2.10). The trap crop in this experiment was much larger when the beetles

first appeared, and trap crop did not deteriorate as the season progressed.

39

 

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 2006 -—o-—Trap Crop __

I“ - D- - Trap Crop & Cucurbitacins

m 25 “ i f

4 -—z_~.—Buttemut Crop at 1.5 m

+ >

C 20 t - + - Buttemut Crop at 9 m / '

I2 4 .

‘5 « _

= 15 a

.2 ~ .

8 _, ' ' /= r ' I

"" 10 fl 31* -.____. : ° . . ' ' .

c . . _. ’ — .

8 . A\=I ‘ ‘ a ‘

r. 5 ~ ‘ _ _ - -! ,

Q)

Q.

0 r I T .

c: — — _ _ or or
3 3’ 3’ g 3) 3 :3
7 «'9 cr') (5 ,t < <
0') I I
N ‘— N N or) 8

Figure 2.11: Mean Percent defoliation in a Blue Hubbard squash trap crop, a Blue
Hubbard squash trap crop with added cucurbitacins, a row of Butternut squash 1.5 m
from the trap crop and a row of Butternut squash 9 m from the trap crop at the Student

Organic Farm field site, East Lansing, MI, 2006.

40

Overall these data provide evidence that adding plant diversity in the form of a
Blue Hubbard squash trap crop can provide a cucumber crop with protection from
striped cucumber beetle, particularly early in the season. But without another form of
added protection to supplement the trap crop benefit in attracting beetles does not
translate to improved yield. The traditional form of added protection is the use of an
insecticide once beetles are detected in the trap crop (Hokkanen 1991, Javaid and
J oshi 1995, Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006). A polyculture system or spray of
cucurbitacins may be more viable for organic production and more suitable for those
organic producers wishing to avoid use of insecticides. Unfortunately, neither of these
alternatives provided substantial addition to the attractiveness of the squash trap crop,
as compared-with the high level of protection provided by the row covers. The use of
an organic certified insecticide the second year of our experimentation did reduce a
high beetle population early in the season, confirming the advise to use insecticides
once beetles are detected, but high beetle populations encountered and placement of
the trap crop within the field may have prevented seeing the full value of using an
insecticide to a trap crop grow on a field edge as seen by others (Hokkanen 1991,
J avaid and Joshi 1995, Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006). Given the good mobility of
cucumber beetles, addition of a feeding deterrent to the protected crop along with the
attractiveness of the squash trap crop may be another approach to consider (Miller and
Cowles 1990) for those organic producers who wish to avoid use of insecticides and

cannot use row covers due to cost or other factors.

41

CHAPTER THREE:

GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

42

 

General Findings and Implications

Adding plant diversity in the form of a trap crap: This study found evidence that a
Blue Hubbardtrap crop, Cucurbita maxima (Duchesne), can provide early season
protection to a cucumber crop, Cucumis sativus L., from striped cucumber beetle,

A calymma vittatum Fabricius (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). The protection can break
down later in the season, resulting in feeding damage to the cucumber fruits which
reduces marketable yield. Ways to prolong the life and benefits of the trap crop were
explored.

Cucumber in polyculture protected by a trap crop: The addition of a tomato
polyculture, Solanum lycopersicum L., to the cucumber crop with a trap crop did not
further reduce cucumber beetle densities on the cucumbers compared to cucumber with a
trap crop alone. This evidence suggests that while increased plant diversity in the field
can aid in pest control as stated in previous studies (Bach 1980), increasing the number of
species may not always have an additive effect.

Addition of a cucurbitacin foliar spray: Enhancing the attractiveness of the
Blue Hubbard trap crop through the addition of a cucurbitacin foliar spray occurred
during some observations, but not consistently. This may simply be because the plants
are already very attractive to the beetles, making it difficult to improve attraction.

Other methods of increasing the attractiveness or longevity of the trap crop may
be worthy of investigation. For example, a secondary trap might disperse the stress the
striped cucumber beetles placed on the trap crop. The use of a secondary trap crop that is
significantly less attractive than the primary trap crop, but still more attractive than the

protected crop can also serve as a buffer in case the main trap crop deteriorates or beetle

43

numbers overflow the primary trap crop (Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006). Insecticide
can be applied to the trap crop to increase its longevity, but such applications may cause
these highly mobile beetles to move elsewhere, a behavior that may have obscured
treatment differences in the second year of this study.

If making the trap crop more attractive to striped cucumber beetles proves
difficult, it may be better to turn efforts to trying to decrease the attractiveness of the
main cucumber crop to the striped cucumber beetles.

Row covers: Floating row covers provided an excellent physical exclusion barrier
against striped cucumber beetles. This finding is not new (Adams et al. 1990, Bextine et
al. 2001, Mueller et al. 2006) but the comparison of its effectiveness with the other
methods used in this study is striking and may provide incentive for growers who are not

already using them to seriously consider floating row covers as a control method.

Recommended Methods of Organic Management of Striped Cucumber Beetle

Based on the results presented here, this study strongly supports the use of
floating row covers to growers so long as they are an economically viable option for the
scale of their cucumber production operation. The caveat for this control method is that
the row covers must be removed once the cucumber plants begin flowering to allow
pollination, and their benefits can be minimized by late season feeding damage to and
subsequent scarring of the cucumber fruits. This method would be most effective when
combined with some other control measure that provides protection later in the growing
season after the row covers have been removed.

The use of a trap crop is also recommended based on this study’s results, but does
not appear to be sufficient to provide striped cucumber beetle protection on its own. I
would recommend using a Blue Hubbard trap crop in addition to row covers over the
protected crop. To minimize breakdown of the Blue Hubbard trap crop later in the
season, use transplants. The more time they have to grow before the beetles arrive, the
better their chances are of surviving to provide protection later in the growing season.
The use of a secondary trap crop may also help as a backup in case the primary trap crop
fails to contain the striped cucumber beetles throughout the growing season (Shelton and
Badenes-Perez 2006) and should be investigated in this system.

The trap crop effect might well be enhanced through the use of the stimulo-
deterrent strategy by decreasing the attractiveness of the cucumber crop to the striped
cucumber beetles with some form of deterrent (Miller and Cowles 1990). Known
deterrents of striped cucumber beetles include: tetrahydropyranyl ethers (Reed and

Jacobson 1983), an ethanol extract of T rewia nudiflora (Euphorbiaceae) seed (Freedman

45

et al. 1982), an ether extract of the defatted nuts of tung, Aleuritesfordii Hemsl.
(Jacobson et al. 1978), the extracts of Piper spp., Piperaceae, (Scott et al. 2004 and 2008),
and several botanical derivatives (Reed and Jacobson 1989). Kaolin clay dust and other
particle film barriers have also been shown to have repellant effects on striped cucumber
beetle feeding (Chittenden 1923).

Pesticide use is limited in an organic system, but it could prove an important tool
for reducing striped cucumber beetles late in the season once the row covers have been
removed, particularly if the other control measures such as the perimeter trap crop are not
diverting enough of the striped cucumber beetles away from the cucumber crop’s
developing fruit. Pesticide use should be limited as much as possible to reduce impacts

on pollinators and other beneficial insects.

46

Obstacles Encountered

During the course of this study a number of obstacles presented themselves. The
addition of the PyGanic spray during the second year was meant to lower stress on the
trap crop and prevent its deterioration later in the season, thereby enhancing our treatment
differences. The PyGanic spray did reduce overall density of the beetles through mid-
season, but later seemed to lead to redistribution of striped cucumber beetle densities and
ended up obscuring many of the treatment differences apparent in 2006. This result may
be due to the PyGanic acting as an irritant as well as a toxin to the striped cucumber
beetles (Gould 1991) thereby decreasing the relative attractiveness of the Blue Hubbard
squash trap crop compared to the unsprayed cucumber crop.

While this study tested several methods of organic and sustainable control of
striped cucumber beetle, those that showed promise were most effective early in the
growing season and provided much less protection after the plants had flowered and
fiuits began to form. Scarring of the fruit from striped cucumber feeding damage reduced
marketable yield to suboptimal levels and is an issue that will have to be dealt with in any
successful striped cucumber beetle control program.

Other problems included the tendency of striped cucumber beetles to aggregate on
some plants in much higher numbers than on others. This is a well know attribute (Carroll
and Hoffman 1980, Smyth and Hoffman 2003). Comparing attractiveness of damaged
and undamaged squash and cucumber is advisable to determine the effect of damaged
plants on their relative attractiveness to the beetles.

This field study was originally intended to be correlated with a set of laboratory

studies to present striped cucumber beetles in an olfactory chamber a choice between

47

various plant volatiles, but attempts to establish a laboratory colony of striped cucumber
beetles were unsuccessful. The rearing method in Howe and Zdarkova (1971) was used,

but problems arose, including mould, drying out of eggs and larvae, low fecundity rates

and unexplained adult death.

 

48

Further Research

There are a number of lines of inquiry which further research might take.
Research focusing on the trap crop element of this study could look at assessing other
kinds of trap crop enhancements, since it may be that other methods of adding more
cucurbitacins to the Blue Hubbard trap crop or the use of other chemical attractants
might prove more effective than the method tested in this study. Other potential
attractants include striped cucumber beetle aggregation pheromones and cucurbit
flower volatiles (Metcalf 1985, Andersen and Metcalf 1989, Smyth and Hoffman
2003, Andrews et al. 2007). Sex pheromones have been isolated for banded cucumber
beetle, Diabrotica balteata LeConte (McLaughlin et al. 1991, Ventura et al. 2001), so
similar pheromones may exist for striped cucumber beetles which could also be
extracted and used as an attractant. Several other kairomone formulations have been
found to be effective in attracting striped cucumber beetles (Jackson et al. 2005) which
could likewise be tested as a trap crop enhancement.

The stimulo-deterrent method could also be used to increase the relative
attractiveness of the trap crop by testing various methods of decreasing the
attractiveness of the main cucumber crop, and a future study could focus on
comparing various methods and techniques to that end. In this study it was difficult to
determine the effects that the addition of a PyGanic spray had in the second year of the
study, so future research could include such insecticide use as a treatment to better
gauge its actual effectiveness in lowering striped cucumber beetle densities when

applied to the trap crop. This treatment could be compared with other methods for

49

 

reducing striped cucumber beetle densities on the trap crop such as the use of a bug
vacuum.

Since row covers provide early season exclusion of striped cucumber beetles,
future experiments could test placing row covers over the trap crop as well as the
protected crop. This should deny striped cucumber beetles suitable habitat and
oviposition sites in the field early in the season. This tactic could potentially prevent
striped cucumber beetles from infesting the trap crop only to multiply and spill over into
the protected crop as soon as the row covers are removed. By barring the cucumber
beetles access to all potential host plants in the field, many of them would be forced to
relocate and lay their eggs elsewhere, potentially reducing the number of beetles in the
field later in the season after row cover removal. Meanwhile this tactic might save the
trap crop for later use, keeping it fresh for when row covers are removed.

Finally, it would be good to correlate observations in this study and any similar
field studies that may follow with an analogous laboratory study to better zero in on

specific treatment effects in a more controlled environment.

50

APPENDIX 1: RECORD OF DEPOSITION OF VOUCHER SPECIMENS

The specimens listed on the following sheet(s) have been deposited in the named museum(s) as
samples of those species or other taxa, which were used in this research. Voucher recognition
labels bearing the Voucher No. have been attached or included in fluid-preserved specimens.
Voucher No.: 2008-11

Title of thesis or dissertation (or other research projects):

EVALUATING ORGANIC-COMPLIANT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR
STRIPED CUCUMBER BEETLE IN CUCUMBERS

Museum(s) where deposited and abbreviations for table on following sheets:

Entomology Museum, Michigan State University (MSU)

Other Museums:

Investigators Name(s) (typed)
Matthew E. Kaigr

 

 

 

Date November 20, 2908

*Reference: Yoshimoto, C. M. 1978. Voucher Specimens for Entomology in North America.
Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 24: 141-42.

Deposit as follows: .
Original: Include as Appendix 1 in ribbon copy of thesis or dissertation.

Copies: include as Appendix 1 in copies of thesis or dissertation.
Museum(s) files.
Research project files.

This form is available from and the Voucher No. is assigned by the Curator, Michigan State
University Entomology Museum.

51

 

 

’ iiibéiiilifir

.

... . 822$... .93.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

.mmfiv. .m 25552....
93.8 AmeENZmEmeszE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
t r.l .......
a S
W We. .....
e a
m P .............................
.w 1. .............................
p.“ ..... l. ..... r l
..Sml
.l.
.e
.m..9 -
.Cwa
..UMDI
.0.”
WV. ....... ...........
.
.

D
U)
2
O
m:
"':
C)
O
O
O
O

Jimmie»... was“. 5-32-333.ew._e,v.,....a.,z . . , 832...: .eEESeufi

 

vogmoamu.

new tom: 8 382.8 9.253% .2 Sue _mnm._ :88. 350 .o 3.025.

deposned
Other
Adults ?
Adults 7
Pupae
Nymphs
Larvae

Museum

where

 

Eggs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

go .3252

 

52

 

226.85.; ..N... .8 .828”.

88... SN .8 seesaw: ..E....ae.a> S + ...a...a....a> a... e abaam
:2... ..N. .8 83.86% ...ata...a> N. + 282.853., ..m... N4 8528
43...... SN Ne eschews. ...a.a> o... + Eraser; N. + 88.8%.... a... m as.
88... ..NN .8 ..eeeaeams. .2885 + 9283......» 8... ..N 28...:
.8.....v :8 Ne esteem... 3.83.285 + Erase...» N. 1.82855» 8.: e. 2....
8...... SN 8 25.36%: 38.5.5.0 + ..E....§.3> ..e + 2:23.33» 8.8 N E
.— .m m: Sta Each Sta 22:5 :82 6833.”.— oaascw :82 mm— 3.5.5

38.58... ass»... .5... 8 $52... 2...... .2. 8.32. .e .257. 8....N "..N... 2......

mHJMEF ZO—Pém—mm—m mZ<HE m4 Q73. <>OZ< "N NHGZm—mmde

53

 

2.8.825... .2.... N8 .88....

:8... 8.... :8 9.8.8.5... .........a.....> 8 + ..8...§....> 8...... a Etaam
8...... 2.. .8 9.8.8282 .8..28...> N. + ..8...§.....> 8...... 8 32.28.
8...... 2.... 8 88.2852 32...... .8. + .8..28....> N. + 2.8.82.5... 8.... m .3.
8...... 8.. .8 2.8.8.8.... 6.8.5.0 + 2.8.8.5., 8...... ..N 28......
.8.....v ..E 8 32.22%: 3.8.5.285 1.2.28.2; N. + ..8...§.....> . . .... N. 2....
..N...... 3% a 25.38%: 3.8.55.0 + ..5...E....> 8 + ..8...§..a> 8.... N E

.— .a .2— Sta 83,—. .35.”.— ouasvm :32 e289..— 235 :32 .3 3.50m

$58.3... 3.9.3:. :3... he <>OZ< :3:— uoa 335—89.. 2.3.5.— 33 .m.u< 03:.

54

 

60.0 H m .w 82.80000 335:3... $0.08 950.. 30.0.. 300.0... 9.2.3 N

www.08m 0 .8
«00.08000
«00.082...
«00.08. mg.”
25.08006
mm0.0800.m
00m. 088.0
00— . .8. 0.0
09.08006
mmm.08m0.~
«2.0800.
050.3 _. _

0000.080 _ .0

09.0 0...:- 3 83...:- Q 2.0

 

a

 

.282: 8803-88. .00 $8.-. wEm: 02.388 203 9.32 .

 

«00080:.

www.080mé

«5.08506

mom-0896

mun-0886

$0.088...

0.0.0820

53.080...”

«0.00800.—

«0008mm.—

aw _ 0800.0

2.; .0830

000.0820

09.0 0...:- 3 305.850

00008000

«00.08:...

805.080 _ .v

35083...”

000.800..V

«00. .83...

03083.0

000. 800$

000—88..»-

0.0.0800...

«5.080 _ .0

«2.0830

“00.08000
30:52.0

 

8.5.53.5- ..0 :33... um 2:32
.3553... 5.9.3:. .5...— 00 5.323.... 232: 0..— .aa... .8.— 3330 20055.5 02...... 0.. 50:57. 000" 3.3.. 20:.

2.-..-.-
8-8-.
8.1.3
8..-.NN
8-2-.
8-..-.-
8-...-.
8-...-.
8-8-.
8-...-.
8-8-8
BAN-8
8.8..

8.5

55

 

.00. 0.!- n. .0 82.0.0.0... Ewe-.085 00.005 8.6. 80.0.. 05.0.0... 8000-. N

8.80:. manna-.80. ..o 3.0... mew: 00.00800 0.03 2.00.). _

 

56

 

 

00.38.30. 000. .83.... «008%.... 00- . m-0
0.m..800.~. ...N..800.N. 03883.0. 00-0m-0
00088000. 03. .80. .n . 000. .83.... 00-3-0
«01.8%.... «on. .8000. 0V0. .8008. 00- . 0-0
0.3. .8000. 03.. .8000. 00.0.0830. 00-0 . -0
00m.~8ww..m 000.8000. «36800.3 00-2-0
30.8.0.0... 00:800.: 03.8000.“ 00.0...-
0m0..800.0~ 000.83.... 000N800?“ 00-00-0
03. .8000. 0mm. .800... 0008800. .N 00-m0-0
0. 0.89.... an... .830 «on. .8000. 00-0m-0
00.0 0...... .5 c.0:w%.~0..%.mmw 09.0 0...:- Bmmmmmhmwrw ”Mmhwww 00-00-0
.85....00. 0.. .. 5...... 0m 2.00.). 0.09

0.2.0.500... 0.8-.0.»... ...0... .0 550.000... 2.00:. m.— .ua... .0.. 5.52.800 2.00.0.— 0000 .v. N< 0.00.0

030.9

:5ch

m :56

586v

:5ch

=5ch
.—

34 a?
8+ an
and am
3.: an
3.2 3.
8.2 a

..— u: Sta

2§c3§5>
2323va :Evaam5> 9.. + €€§m§>
2328”.va Agorséi> 2 13:23:;
32.28va 32:; a: + 32.28:; 2 + 2§EEE>
€36;va 35.50 + =32863>

32.23sz 95.3655 + 32.28E> S + egzsmra>

:Bvaaamz 3.6.3.50 + atcaaaa> cm 1.328%;

53,—. beta

36

9.6

2.—

$6

nmé

vflmv

3::

9.25m :32 6892:”..— ouaavm :32 an

E 3:23
a 9535

on 3528

m 3m
8 2.5.5
2 2.5
N ta.

3.55

3552.9: £22,... .5...— u: <>Oz< «as... .3.— aozaoa 52:58.5 cont: .3 52.8: Z San "m.~< 033—.

57

 

oEmd

Smod

286

886V

Soodv

Scodv
.—

Ed

ow;

£5

3.:

86¢

Eumv
.m

:v

:v

R

:v

5N

a

a: BEN 53,—. Ste

A_§2$¢E>
enigma: 23:33“; 8 + €§8m§>
2932352 a~€§§> 2 + 2.328%;

82.2%va ear; .5 + scrawny; 2 + 2.32865,
cgzmoémz GEES + €§sz>
82.2%va 35.50330 + 32.285> N. + 2§2m£5>

55:?ng 3335.55 + thaaga> 8 + €§3m§>

mood

mood

mood

:od

mmod

mfld

owed

5 3:23
o Ebaam
R 3528
m 3m
a 28.5
a 28

N th

9.53% caoE‘uoBeaxm 2.35m :32 an 3.55

35.53.. 9.52.. .5... .e <>oz< =3... .2. 83:82. 2.83.. 22 5.3 2...;

58

 

.mod n .— ... 80:205.“. .§Qc_=m_m ©Ew6 36.. $82. mist? 883-— N
.2808 8.833-38— Mo 38... was: 8.358 803 £802 _

mmwdfiwmd
ammdflood—
nordfivvw
noadnmm _ SN
93.. 71 wd
. 53. 3.2:.
paling.—
wmvdfim _ .m
ammdfio.
padefimmN
nanfioflonm
novdnmood
movdfinn;

92.336
:20 as:- 3 8.5.3. an 2.0

 

N

«am. 1mm»;
nww. 33.:
n: Woman...
nbmdfiéém
own. 3.0-5.3
pZ-dfiamé
paw _ .oumwod
mmmdflwmé
2&6.”va
«36.2.0.—
mwmdfimod
£36..”me
momdfimn;

€8.33...
9:0 52,—. 3 .0.—5.6.5

 

avodfimod

aocgflo. .N.

ammdfiafim

«no. .flamw

avvdumood

movdfiooé

mmmdfiad

mmndumoow

«~21va

nondHNN-d

nmcdfiamé

3213”;

mmmdflam;

awodfimod
3.5.3.5

 

3.38.3.5 no .359... um was:

no-mTw

S-NTw

no-wo-w

no-mo-w

S- _ o-w

ho-oN-N.

no-mm-h

no-NN-n

B-w _ 4-

5o; Th

no-wo-N.

no-2:-

mo-S-n

SIN-o

8.5

.35....«9: 5.23:. 2.....— u.. 55338 2.3:. ma— ...Sa .8.— mo_.ooa .2.—5.9.5 can...“ a: .0.—8:2 25m .h.«< 939—.

59

.mod n m B 82.2on Emommcwfi atawfi 952 $88 mama-£6 E033 N

amfimfimod fl
nmodfimd—
Abodfimfi fl
9;. Inwmxc. _
Emdfito
«9»de ..c
3 ~ dub ~ .o
www.cfimo.o_
956%th

awomdnmmfim
no.5 92,—. .3 32::- d 2.0

 

owwdfimodm

shadfil .3

5: Gaul-N:

23.71%:

«we. 33.x

3??”va

«2.326

«3.3”: .o

momdfimmé

ammdflwd

:30 92,—. 3 52.5.8.5

.2:on mamzwm-amwfl no 333 mafia 339:8 295 232 _

 

«2.33;

«3.3”in

womNflood

awwdflmnd

«body-.88

ammdflwfic

mmmdfi m6

«madfimfie

nwmdfimfiw

nwmdflmoé
uni—52.0

 

 

no-m 7w

RYE-w

ho-wo-w

ho-mo-w

no-oN-n

E-Nm-h

no; 75

ho-wo-n

no-2:-

S- _ o-n

8.5

35:53.: b.9826 «as... .3 ..wzauanom 2.3:. ma :3... ..2. .53383. 2.3.5.— 53 £.N< 03:.

60

.36 u m .5 magenta. 38$ch émcwfi 9.6. 880.. m:_..ot_© 38.0-— N
.232: 8.9.3-68. ..o 33.... mew: 3.59.80 0.03 882 _

nwbdfloodm anodfio _ cum
DOQNmedN avm.mfimo.mm
«modfimoém .6... 12.12

:30 92,—. .3 3.2.8,.- Q 2.0 no.0 9...:- 3 .3839“.

 

 

93.12.? no-NTw

moo. 11o... no-mo-w

mm _ .353: 8.2..-
3.15.2.0

 

35.53:. .3 .559... om 2.82

0...:

3.3.5.3... 3.22.... 2...... .3 559.33. 2.3... m: 2...... ..2. ”5.9.3. .59.».— 53 ..a ~< «SF—-

61

 

222.0%... 83 o: .3633.

33.3 as o: 2323..va 253833. :3. + 222863.. a... 3 3,535
.83. 3.. o: 23:28..va 32.23:; m + cggméi> N... S 33:28
2%... .3 N. 32.23va 32:3. N: 13:285.. 3 132335.. «2. v 33.
RS... 8.. .5 2328..va .3385 1.22.3.5... 3... m. 5.28
.89? 8.2 mm 3233..va 3:05.285 + 32...3%E> w + 2.328135 2.... 2 28
383v 8.8 a... .3286; 23 + 8535..va 3:. 3.23.50 + .3:3§E> «N + ._§255> 3.2 m E
.— m r:— ........n._ 53,—. Sta 9.25m :32 6389.”.— ouaaum :32 ha— 3.55

8.3.5.3... 2.3.3.5.. ..e <>OZ< 2.5.. .3.— 8:oo.. .3533 92...: .3 .0.—:52 33 5..N< 03:.

62

v8.2. 86 RN cgawoémz
58.? 3a 02 22.29%va
£2 a; 8 savanna: £8... + 32.2%va 38¢
:83 :._ RN 23385;
82:. 9mm 3 23231va M: :5 + 32.2%va «$3
88.: 3:2 2 cggmoémz 3 + 353:.»va mo

.— .m 39 beta 53,—. ..PEH

$535.; wood

zuaaéE> 22m + fiasméfi> ~85

32.05:; 38.» + €§§E> Rod

82:2, 3“ + 32.28:; E + 22.3393, was
3.0330 + 2§2w§5> 23

3.28.285 + aurséE> :23 + A_SE§_E> a8:
3.28.55 + 2535?; R + cggwoéa> 23

9335 :32 @2393..— .ouaaam :32 an:

RN 2323
o Autism
mm 8528
v 3m
h 5.23
h 23

_ tn.
ooh—Sm

3:253... 2.32:3: he <>OZ< :3..— .6: 553.82. 2.3.5.— 25" u—_.u< 03:.

63

 

282828>
33 88 o: 28282va :éaaaa> 2 + @8822;
:85 85 at. 28282va 8:282; m + 28282:;
$85 93 mm @58va 3025 N: + 32.28:; m + 282828>
2 3o :3 at. 28282va 3.285 + 98235.»
58.? 8.8 8 32.28va 9:28.285 + €2.28va> m + 28282:;
$85 23: o 22:35...va 8:28.55 + QEVEEmE> E + 282825>

A— ..— ma ..ctm Each. ..etm—

mood

wwmd

mvmd

god

02.—

mad—

and

at. .8282
o 9595

mm 82.25

w 32
2 5.28
2 25
_ 5

9.35m :32 6389m— oaaaam :32 “a 993cm

:93 an... 2: Ea... So 1.3 Er..— .a 9:9. anus—i 2.583: .3 <>Oz< :3..— ..2_ 8.33 ..e 22...... Z ween "u—.N< 03:.

64

 

2867.393, 3386 cam :32an—

888 Ra RN 28282va 2283285» am? 18232:; 388.8 8 Autism
88.8 22 88. 2828282 28:28E> 88.8 1.828%; 588.8 8 82.28
28.8 88 2.8 28282va 888 + 32.28va 888 328$ 3m + €2.28E> 28 + 2828228, 288.8 8 as.
88.8 $8 88 2828282 8:285 + 28282:; 388.8 n 5.28
.88.? 8.8 808 9828282 2 :8 + 32.28va 888 $88285 18:28:; :88 + 28282:; 88:8 5 25
NEE 88 88.8 28282va 3 195.25va .8 8:28.225 + 2583525.» 8 + 28282:; 888.8 _ E

.— .m m: .885 Ego... 29...”..— uausam =82 savanna. «<53: ha— 095%

name an... 2: Es...— Ea 3:. En; .a 2:... 5.5.5 2.582.: be (>07? :3..— .Sn coca—£3. 2.3.3.— 25" "2.32 03:.

65

 

medfiocd

8.....2.....< + 89.0

.3... n m .a 8053...... .52.:ch fiEwa 2.6. 80.8 wccotfi 82.3 N

womdfiomd

89.0

 

moodflondm

«3.30%

35deth

«we. 13m .2

movdfimm. .N

omodflowfim

awhdfimvdm

93,930.?

anoéfimmdm

memdfiové—

«3483.3

«9683.?

«we. Immed—

mmm. .Hmmd

3:33.52 + anus—5

.832: $838 .32 ..o 38... mam: 3.868 0.03 mane—z _

 

www.mfim _ .om

Shfifimqg

w—vdflofimm

8%. 738m _

www.mumcmd.

23.3”on—

www.mfimwd—

2 ..mfiomé.

m:.N8mm.E

mo¢.~8¢m.m_

mamfiflmwfim

«woéfimodm

now. 32.3

«modfioflm

fiasvm 323::

 

.858395. .3 55...... um 8:32
$238.3... 2.83.5... .8 5:32.: 2.3:. m4 2...... .2. 3:3.— ..onasuso 62:...“ ..e .2.—5.2 eceu 31S. 03....

woé _ -w

co- 5-x

8-3-5

ooé _ A.

8-3 4.

co; Th

09-8-..

288...

coémé

ooémé

oo---c

2:: -0

8% _ -0

co-N_ -c

3:—

66

 

.mod n m .m moose-8&6 835...»... bawa 2.6. 80.8.. mafia-.6 82.3 N
.28... 8:53-88— ..o 8.8-. was: 3.858 253 2.3.2 _

www.mfiomN.
«mg—fiend
3.65826
92. Snow...
mmoéflofiw
www.mfiooA:
3N. .Hood.

2 _. .88. m .
3:83.35. + ..maaam

 

 

nmvwfiowg
«mm. _ 8mm. .—
mmndficmd
«mo. Snood
«85800.0
25. 115.2

«8.82%

www.mfimnd.
nuns—.m 3.23::

oo-oTw

co- _ o-w

co-nN-N.

eo-w _ A

we... . -5

00-. Th

8.8.5

8.8-0

3.:—

...aogao... 2.32.5... a: 55933.. 2.3... ww— ....._.. .8.— =o=a=£oc Esau.— ech find... 2...;

67

 

 

.30 u 0 3 80:80.06 ugocmcwfi @2me $58 $88 wctoté EBB-H N
.288 moazwm-ammfl 00 $8: mam: 3.8088 0.83 382 _

 

.25.. saga—um 2.58:5 .8 5332—3 232.. md 23:“

oflflhozflm Ea

 

25.83:: Em.—

uaaoaeaoah a: 5:93 am 2:82
.3.— 8380 3053.5 02:30 000m "0_.~< 93:.

m0_. $00.0 m00.~H00.m_ 00-070
«00.00000 «2.3000 00- 5.x
30. 300.3 «00. TENN— 00-54-
mmh.0fi00.v mm0.0fi0~. 0 00-0 _ 4-
mv0.0ummv.m mdeflmNd 00-3-0
«00.0«00N 500.006 fl ._ 00; TN.
www.0fim0fi a?w.0fi00.~ 00-004.
mom. Bunk-.0 m00.0Hmm.m 00-m0-0
w:.0umm0.m m0m.0flm0.m 00-0N-0
50.0300 www.0fimmd 00-0N-0
30.0001“ .30. Sum _ .v 00-Nm-0
«00.0306 «mm. 3000 00-070
0wm.0fi0m.v m0v.0umn~.m 00-0 _ -0
m0m.0flmm._ «3.00000 00-5-0

8a:

68

 

 

 

.00. 0H m 3 «855.06 880805 00805 258 $88 056006 8033 N
.282: «9833-68— 00 383 053 003088 22$ «:32 _

«00.00000

«00030.3

«00 .0HONé

«00.0%000

«0v.0fl00.0

«3.1.00.0

«00.30000

«00 . 130. _ 0
2.58::— 50

 

 

«00.3000

«vv.0fl00.v

«00.0300

«N ~ . 300.0

«00.3000

«00. 130.0

«3.300.:

«00:00.0—
35825 804

Nazca—BEE .3 E593 mm «:8

00-070

00- _0-0

00-0N-0

00-0 70

00-3-0

00-_ T0

00-00-0

00-0N-0

3.5

m3?— amasum 2.58::— .3 5.3.303 «:8:— 04 N25:— 30 553—890 2.3.5.— 003 .0—. ~< 035.

69

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, R.G., R.A. Ashley, and MJ. Brennan. 1990. Row covers for excluding insect
pests from broccoli and summer squash plantings. J. Econ. Entomol. 83: 948-954.

Agricultural Statistics Board. 2009. USDA vegetables 2008 summary. NASS/USDA.
VG 1-2/January 2009. p18.

 

Andersen, J.F. and KL. Metcalf. 1989. Identification of a volatile attractant for q
diabrotz'ca and acalymma species from blossoms of cucurbita-maxima. J. Chem. Ecol. ‘
12: 687-700.

Andrews, E.S., N. Theis, and LS. Adler. 2007. Pollinator and herbivore attraction to
Cucurbita floral volatiles. J. Chem. Ecol. 33: 1682-1691. LU"

 

Bach, C.E. 1980. Effects of plant density and diversity on the population dynamics of
a specialist herbivore, the striped cucumber beetle, Acalymma vittata (F ab.) on
cucumbers. Ecology 61: 1515-1530.

Banks, J.E. and B. Ekbom. 1999. Modeling herbivore movement and colonization:

pest management potential of intercropping and trap cropping. Agricultural and Forest
Entomology 1: 165-170.

 

Bellinder, RR. 1994. Pest management recommendations for commercial vegetable and
potato production. Cornell Cooperative Extension. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Bextine, B., A. Wayadande, B. D. Bruton, S. D. Pair, F. Mitchell, and J. Fletcher.
2001. Effect of insect exclusion on the incidence of yellow vine disease and of the
associated bacterium in squash. Plant Disease. 85: 875-878.

Bird, G., B. Bishop, M. Hausbeck, L. J. Jess, W. Kirk, W. Pett, and F. Warner.
2008. Insect, Disease and Nematode Control for Commercial Vegetables. Michigan
State University bulletin. East Lansing MI. Bulletin # E-312. Available at:
hgpzflweb4.msue.msu.edu/veginfo/E3 12/ (accessed 7-30-08).

Boucher, T..J. and R. Durgy. 2004. Demonstrating a perimeter trap crop approach to
pest management on summer squash in New England. Journal of Extension 42: 1-6.

Brewer, M. J., R. N. Story, and V. L. Wright. 1987. Development of summer
squash seedlings damaged by striped and spotted cucumber beetles (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 80: 1004-1009.

Brust, C.E. and R.E. Foster. 1995. Semiochemical-based toxic baits for control of
striped cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in cantaloupe. J. Econ. Entomol.

70

88: 112-116.

Burkness, EC. and W.D. Hutchison. 1998. Action thresholds for striped cucumber
beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on ‘Carolina’ cucumber. Crop Protection. 17: 331-
336.

Caldwell, J.S. and S. Stockton. 1998. Trap cropping in management of striped
cucmnber beetles. Commercial Horticulture Newsletter. Virginia Tech. Available at:
http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/commhort/1998-08/1998-08-04.htm1
(accessed 7-12-08). . E

Caldwell, J.S., S. Johnson, M. Lachance, and S. Stockton. 1998. Threshold
monitoring, trap cropping, and aluminum mulch repulsion for management of striped
cucumber beetles on cucurbits. HortScience 33: 475.

Caldwell, B., E.B. Rosen, E. Sideman, A. Shelton, and C. Smart. 2005. Resource
guide for organic insect and disease management. New York State Agricultural
Experiment Station. Geneva, New York. Pp. 169. Available at:
http://www.nysaes.comelLedu/pp/resourceguide/ (accessed 7-12-08).

 

Capinera, J.L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. Academic Press, San Diego CA.
Pp. 2700.

Carroll, RC. and C.A. Hoffman. 1980. Chemical feeding deterrent mobilized in
response to insect herbivory and counteradaptation by Epilachna tredecimnotata.
Science. 209: 414-416.

Chittenden EH. 1923. The striped cucumber beetle and how to control it. US.
Department of Agriculture Farmers Bulletin No. 1322. Washington, DC.

Cline, G. 2004. Organic management of striped cucumber beetles in cucurbits.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Project # LSOl-127. Available at:
http://www. sare. org/reporting/report_viewer.asp?pn=LSO 1 -127&ry=2004&rf=0
(accessed 7-12-08).

Coleman, E. 1995. The new organic grower: a master’s manual of tools and techniques
for the home and market garden. Chelsae Green Publishing. White River Junction,
Vermont. Pp. 340.

Cranshaw, W. 1998. Pests of the West. Revised: Prevention and control for today’s
garden and small farm. Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, CO. Pp. 256.

DavidSon, R. H. and W. F. Lyon. 1979. Pests of cucurbit and cruciferous crops.
Lnsectpesm of farm. garden, and orchjard 7th edition. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Decker, D.S. 1988. Origin(s), evolution, and systematics of Cucurbita pepo

71

(Cucurbitaceae). Economic Botany. 42: 4-15.

Ellers-Kirk, C.D. 2000. Potential of entomopathogenic nematodes for biological control
of Acalymma vittatum (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in cucumbers grown in conventional
and organic soil management systems. J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 605-612.

Ellers-Kirk, C. and SJ. Fleisher. 2006. Development and life table of Acalymma
vittatum (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a vector of Erwinia tracheiphila in cucurbits.
Environ. Entomol. 35: 875-880.

Estes, E.A., T. Kleese, L. Laufi'er, D. Treadwell, and R. Burton. 1999. An overview of
the North Carolina organic industry. North Carolina State University, Department of
Agricultural and Research Economics, Report No: 17, North Carolina. 1-108.

Fleischer, SJ. and D. Kirk. 1994. Kairomonal baits: effect on acquisition of a
feeding indicator by diabroticite vectors in cucurbits. Environ. Entomol. 23: 1138-
1149.

 

Flint, M.L. 1990. Pests of the garden and small farm: a grower’s guide to using less
pesticide. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. University of California, Oakland, CA. Pp. 286.

Foster, R., G. Brust, and B. Barrett. 2005. Watermelons, muskmelons, and cucumbers,
p. 157-168. In: Rick Foster and Brian Flood (eds.) Vegetable insect management with
emphasis on the Midwest. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, OH.

Freedman. B., D.K. Reed, R.G. Powell, R.V. Madrigal, and C.R. Smith Jr. 1982.
Biological activities of Trewia nudiflora extracts against certain economically important
insect pests. J. of Chem. Ecol. 8: 409-418.

Godfrey, L.D. 1999. Cucumber beetles. In: M.L. Flint (ed.) U.C. IPM pest management
guidelines: cucurbits. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, Oakland, CA. Bulletin # 3445.

Gould, F. 1991. Anthropod behavior and the efficiency of plant protectants. Ann. Rev.
Entomol. 36: 305-330.

Hayward, A.C. 1991. Biology and epidemiology of bacterial wilt caused by
Pseudomonas solanacearum. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 29: 65-87.

Heissenhiber, A. and H. Ring. 1992. Economical aspects of organic farming. MEDIT 2:
25-33.

Hoffman, M.P. 1996. Field tests with kairomone-baited traps for cucumber beetles and
corn rootworms in cucurbits. Environ. Entomol. 25: 1 173-1181.

72

Hoffman, M. 1999. Developing sustainable management tactics for striped cucumber
beetles in cucurbits. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Project #
ANE95-022. Available at:

h :/./www.sare.or re ortin
(accessed 7-12-08).

    

Hokkanen, T. 1991. Trap cropping in pest management. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36: 119-
138.

Howe, W.L. and E. Zdarkova. 1971. A simple method for continuous rearing of the
striped cucumber beetle. Scientific Notes. 64: 1337.

Ibarra, L., J. Flores and J. C. Dial-Perez. 2001. Growth and yield of muskmelon in
response to plastic mulch and row covers. Scientia Horticultmae 87: 139-145.

Jackson, D.M., K.A. Sorensen, C.E. Sorensen, and RN. Stow. 2005. Monitoring
cucumber beetles in sweet potato and cucurbits with kairomone-baited traps. J. Econ.
Entomol. 98: 159-170.

Jacobson, M., D.K. Reed, M.M. Crystal, D.S. Moreno and E.L. Soderstom. 1978.
Chemistry and biological activity of insect feeding deterrents from certain weed and crop
plants. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 24: 448-457.

Javaid, I. and J. J oshi. 1995. Trap cropping in insect pest management. J. Sustain.
Agric. 5: 117-136.

Jeffrey, C. 2008. A Review of the Cucurbitaceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society. 81: 233-247.

Johansen, CA. 1977. Pesticides and pollinators. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 22: 177-192.
Lam, W.K.F. 2007. An alternative sampling technique for cucumber beetles
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and diurnal beetle activity on muskmelon. J. Econ.
Entomol. 100: 823-829.

Lawrence, W.S. and C.E. Bach. 1989. Chrysomelid beetle movements in relation to
host-plant size and surrounding non-host vegetation. Ecology. 70: 1679-1690.

Levine, E. and H. Oloumi-Sadeghi. 1991. Management of diabroticite rootworms in
corn. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 36: 229-255.

Levine, E. and R. Metcalf. 1988. Sticky attractant traps for monitoring corn rootworm
beetles. The Illinois Natural History Survey Reports, No. 279.

Lewis, D.R. 1992. Striped and spotted cucumber beetles. Integrated pest management for
commercial cucurbit growers. Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA.

73

 

Lewis, P.A., R.L. Lampman, and R.L. Metcalf. 1990. Kairomonal attractants for
Acalymma vittatum (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 19: 8-14.

Lijuan, Y., T. Li, F. Li, J.H. Lemcoff, and S. Cohen. 2008. Fertilization regulates soil
enzymatic activity and fertility dynamics in a cucumber field. Scientia Horticulturae 116:
21-26.

Lyon, W.F. and A. Smith. 2000. Striped cucumber beetle. HYG-2139-88. Ohio State
University Extension Fact Sheet, Columbus, OH. Available at: http://www.ag.ohio-
state.edu/~ohioline/hyg-fact/ZOOO/Zl 39.html (accessed 7-12-08).

Maclntyre-Allen, J.K., C.D. Scott-Dupree, J.H. Tolman, C.R. Harris, and SA.
Hilton. 2002. Integrated pest management options for the control of Acalymma
vittatum (Fabricius), the striped cucumber beetle in southwestern Ontario. Proceedings
of the Entomological Society of Ontario. 132: 27-38.

Martel, J.W. 2005. Synthetic host volatiles increase efficacy of trap cropping for
management of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Agricultural
and Forest Entomology 7: 79-86.

Martin, P.A.W., M. Blackburn, R.F.W. Schroder, K. Matsuo, and B.W. Li. 2002.
Stabilization of cucurbitacin E-glycoside, a feeding stimulant for diabroticite beetles,
extracted from bitter Hawkesbury watermelon. J. Insect Sci. 2: 1-6. Available at:
http://insectscience.org/2. 19 (accessed 7-12-08).

McLaughlin, J .R., J.H. Tumlinson, and K. Mori. 1991. Response of male
Diabrotica balteata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to sterioisomers of the sex
pheromone 6,12-dimethylpentadecan-2-one. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 99-102.

Meglic, V., F. Serquen, and J.E. Staub. 1996. Genetic diversity in cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.): I. A reevaluation of the US. gerrnplasm collection. Genetic
Resources and Crop Evolution. 43: 533-546.

Meglic, V. and J.E. Staub. 1996. Genetic diversity in cucumber (Cucumis sativus
L.): 11. An evaluation of selected cultivars released between 1846 and 1978. Genetic
Resources and Crop Evolution. 43: 547-558.

Metcalf, R. L. 1985. Plant kairomones and insect pest control. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv.
Bull. 33: 175-98.

Miles, J.A. and M. Peet. 2000. Organic greenhouse vegetable production. North
Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural Science, Raleigh. 1-32.

Miller, J. R. and RS. Cowles. 1990. Stimulo-deterrent diversion: a concept and its
possible application to onion maggot control. J. Chem. Ecol. 16: 3197-3212.

74

 

Motsenbocker, C.E. and A.R. Bonanno. 1989. Row cover effects on air and soil
temperatures and yield of muskmelon. HortScience 24: 601-603.

Mueller, D., M. Gleason, A.J. Sisson, and J. Massman. 2006. Effect of row covers on
bacterial wilt and muskmelon production in Iowa. Phytopathology. 96: S82.

Nandgaonkar, A.K. and LR. Baker. 1981. Inheritance of multi pistillate flowering
habit in gynoecious pickling cucumber Cucumis sativus. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 106:
755-75 7. F

Pair, SD. 1997. Evaluation of systemically treated squash trap plants and attracticidal
baits for early-season control of striped and spotted striped cucumber beetles s
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and squash bug (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in cucurbit crops. :
J. Econ. Entomol. 90: 1307-1314.

 

Petzoldt, C. 2001. Chapter 18. Cucurbits. New York State IPM program, Cornell L .
University. Available at:
http://www.nysaes.comell.edu/recommends[1 8cucurbits.html#insect (accessed 7-12-08).

Phelan, P. L., J. F. Mason, and B. R. Stinner. 1995. Soil-fertility management and host
preference by European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hiibner), on Zea mays L.: A

comparison of organic and conventional chemical farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 56:
1-8.

Pitblado, R.E. and R.N. Lucy. 1994. Cucumber beetles, Pages 147-148. In: Ronald J. ,
and Howard, J. (eds.) Diseases and Pests of Vegetable Crops in Canada. The Canadian
Phytopathological Society of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Platt, J.O., J.S. Caldwell, and LT. Kok. 1999. Effect of buckwheat as a flowering
border on p0pu1ations of cucumber beetles and their natural enemies in cucumber and
squash. Crop Protection. 18: 305-313.

Power, A.C. 1987. Plant community diversity, herbivore movement, and an insect-
transmitted disease of maize. Ecology. 68: 1658-1669.

Radin, A.M. and EA. Drummond. 1994. An evaluation of the potential for the use
of trap cropping for control of the striped cucumber beetle, Acalymma vittata (F.)
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Agric. Entomol. 1 1: 95-1 13.

Reed, D.K. and M. Jacobson. 1983. Evaluation of aromatic tetrahydropyranyl ethers as
feeding deterrents for the striped cucumber beetle, Acalymma vittatum (F.). Cellular and
Molecular Life Sciences. 39: 378-380.

Reed, D.K. and M. Jacobson. 1989. Further studies on botanical derivatives as
antifeedants against cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Agric. Entomol. 6:

75

1-5.

Reed, G.L., H.S. Myers, and JD. Powell. 1984. Comparison of cucurbit cultivars as
hosts and description of a technique for rearing striped cucumber beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 77: 337-338.

Reed, K.K., G.L. Reed, and CS. Creighton. 1986. Introduction of entomophagous
, nematodes into trickle irrigation to control striped cucumber beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 79: 1330-1333.

SAS-Institute. 2004. SAS version 9.1 for Windows. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Schroder, R.F.W., P.A.W. Martin, and M.M. Athanas. 2001. Effect of a phloxine B-
Cucurbitacin bait on diabroticite beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
94: 892-897.

Scott, I.M., H. Jensen, R. Nicol, L. Lesage, R. Bradbury, P. Sanchez-Vindas, L.
Poveda, J .T. Amason, and B.J.R. Philogene. 2004. Efficacy of Piper (Piperaceae)
extracts for control of common home and garden insect pests. J. Econ. Entomol. 97:
1390—1403.

Scott, I.M. H.R. Jensen, B.J.R. Philogene, and J.T. Amason. 2008. A review of Piper
spp. (Piperaceae) phytochemistry, insecticidal activity and mode of action.
Phytocherrristry Reviews. 7: 65-75.

Shelton, A.M. and ER. Badenes-Perez. 2006. Concepts and applications of trap
cropping in pest management. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 51: 285-308.

Shepherd, M., S.L. Buchmann, M. Vaughan, and S. Hoffman Black. 2003. Pollinator
conservation handbook. Portland: The Xerces Society. Pp. 145.

Smyth, RR. and M.P. Hoffman. 2003. A male-produced aggregation pheromone
facilitating Acalymma vittatum (F .) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) early-season host plant
colonization. Journal of Insect Behavior. 16: 347-359.

Snyder, W.E. and D. H. Wise. 2000. Antipredator behavior of spotted cucumber beetles
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in response to predators that pose varying risks. Environ.
Entomol. 29: 35-42.

Swiader, J.M. and G. W. Ware. 2002. Producing vegetable crops, fifth edition.
Interstate Publishers, INC. Danville, Illinois. Pp. 640.

Tavernier, E.M. 2003. An empirical analysis of producer perceptions of traceability
in organic agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19: 110-117.

Teppner, H. 2004. Notes on Lagenaria and Cucurbita (Cucurbitaceae) review and

76

 

.-

new contributions. Phyton (Horn Austria) 44: 245-308.

Ventura, M.U., E.P. Mello, A.R.M. Olivera, F. Simonelli, F.A. Marques, and P.
H. G. Zarbin. 2001. Males are attracted by female traps: a new perspective for
management of Diabrotica speciosa (Germar) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) using
sexual pheromone. Neotropical Entomology. 30: 361-364.

Whitaker, T.W. and G.N. Davis. 1962. Cucurbits. Leonard Hill, Ltd., London and
Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York Pp. 249.

Wolfe, D.W., L.D. Albright, and J. Wyland. 1989. Modeling row cover effects on
microclimate and yield 1. Growth response of tomato and cucumber. J. Amer. Soc. Hort.
Sci. 114: 562-568.

Zehnder, G.W., J.F. Murphy, E.J. Sikora, and J .W. Klopper. 2001. Application of
rhizobacteria for induced resistance. European J. Plant Pathol. 107: 39-50.

77