I‘ E‘

d
’f

.V
.d

D

‘ I V

M I -

‘I. ‘
".2 .~
. ar— ' -

-

v.4.

. .
-aa

""~L_ .

i

I.) -
3‘. I

«511:4
- ." o

\

I":
.‘.‘v,‘.(-
--- O-

.

 
  
   
 
  

”'73:” 90.

~r:::';.

 

   

' o A I o. :1: t"; T‘z‘:
- . .u.’ '
1“."‘3'. - gm :ux'v'Mv—HN ."3

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Effects of Various 1m
Formulations on the Control of
Insects Cannon to Potatoes
and Beam

presented by

Arthur Ham Blower

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

11.8. degree in Bataaoloy

jor professor

Date July—1.0! 3953 .

A ‘. ' f . _~ , .
fL'Qul" y‘.“ .".‘ ‘ J In. ‘. V k ‘

' . ‘ \
7“! - v...-
.

.
""x‘

V

I
l
.
5!

«mafia. IVV-

. l , - ‘!.‘ :-~ . 'i-:l“n"‘.’

"'4 ‘ ‘1. .'.7§£Ihl.slv‘}, ’3'
-' V .a' - .

. '
0’ I. . f I ' '. v
' o‘.b'~l"..5. - I“ r"

. . l. s \ '
. . '7 ' ‘~' _ . - .
c . 'A'. 3.6. .Iz'.. . - ...‘~.V.1:.’| .Il:‘-"- 9 ‘Iss , .
. . Idibflwl-Jmlmepn '. H - o 4

-"‘ ‘u. . A

—
. .‘

 

 

V3?“
1 L UV]

Sub“ 1

EFFECTS OF VARIOUS DDT FORMULATIONS ON THE CONTROL OF
INSECTS COMMON TO POTATOES AND BEANS

By

Arthur Warren Bloomer

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of.Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Entomology

Year 1953

Approveޢ 1 7m

7632,?
3(955

 

 

Arthur Warren Bloomer

Studies were made during the growing season of 1952 to
determine the effects of various formulations of DDT in the
control of insects common to potatoes and beans. Five dif-
ferent wettable powders were tested in these studies. Three
of the formulations were 75 percent DDT wettable powders pre-
pared and furnished by the Michigan Chemical Corporation.
Another formulation was E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Com-
pany's 75 percent DDT wettable powder sold under the trade
name of Deenate. The fifth formulation was Sherwin-Williams
Company's 50 percent DDT wettable powder. All Sprays were
applied at the rate of one pound of actual DDT per hundred
gallons of water. ‘

Sprays were applied to the potato plots with a tractor
drawn sprayer which received its power from the "power take-
off" mechanism of the tractor. Two hand-drawn, gasoline
powered Sprayers were used to apply sprays on the bean plots.
Sweeping counts were made at various periods after Spraying
to determine the amount of‘insect control obtained. Yield
determinations were made on the potato plots, but none were
made on the bean plots.

The populations of insects were generally smaller on
the-beans and larger on the potatoes. This was probably due
to the great differences in the rates of application of the
spray materials. The potatoes received an average of'llS‘

gallons of spray material per acre whereas the beans re-

308885

1

Arthur Warren Bloomer

ceived from 225 to 250 gallons of spray material per acre.
Drift had a greater effect on the potatoes than it did
on the beans.
No apparent difference was great enough in the control
obtained by any of the formulations used to allow the recom-
mendation of any one of them over the rest collectively, or

any one singly.

EFFECTS OF VARIOUS DDT FORMULATIONS ON THE CONTROL
OF
INSECTS COMMON T0 POTATOES AND BEANS

By

ARTHUR WARREN BLOOMER

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

xi
Department of Entomology \-

1953 2;}

~\‘\
\ \\

THESIS

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his deepest appreciation to
Professor Ray Hutson, Head of the Department of Entomology,
for his guidance in the conduct of this work; to Dr. Herman L.
King for his assistance and guidance in the preparation of this
manuscript; to Dr. J. R. Hoffman for his advice and interest.
in this work; to his wife, Barbara, for the typing of this manu-
script; to Oscar Taboada for his suggestions in the preparation
of the manuscript; and to the graduate students in the Entomology
Department for the assistance and c00peration they gave through-
out the course of this work. Finally the writer wishes to ex-
press his sincere appreciation to the Michigan Chemical Corp-
oration for the support of the field work under which this work

was done and for the insecticial materials which they supplied.

II.

III.

IV.
V.
VI.

CONTENTS

Introduction . . . .
Review of Literature
A. Potatoes . . . .
B. Beans . . .'. .
Procedure . . . . .
A. Potatoes . . . .
B. Beans . . . . .
Experimental Data .

Discussion . . . . .

Conclusions and Summary

Literature Cited . .

O

Page

cc (n -q b) \p

11

1h
64
70

72

INTRODUCTION

Insects have long been pests of man. They have damaged his
health, his home, his animals and his food. Much work has been done
'to find control measures for injurious insects, and much more will
'be done in the future.

Perhaps one of the most important types of insect damage is
the harm they cause to field crOps. Modern methods of agriculture
produce conditions favorable for insects. The resulting infestations
<2ause inestimable damage to farm products every year.

At present the largest field of research for insect control is
‘with insecticides. The advent of DDT and the numerous other synthetic
insecticides which followed have stimulated unpredictable interest
in this field. Industry as well as governmental agencies spend much
Inoney every year on research.

The advent of these modern insecticides has helped agriculture
as well as many other branches of human livelihood. Recommendations
.for the use of insecticides usually refer to the insects involved.
'Various factors other than insects must also be taken into considera-
‘tion when making these recommendations. Two of the more important
ones are the formulations used and the host plants to be treated.
'This paper deals with the control of insects common to both potatoes
wand.beans with DDT. Five formulations of DDT wettable powders were
used to see if any differences in control resulted from the dif-

tferences in formulations.

'zriblt

L

Tamar: I . Fit”. 61.4
a

W
a
..i

Iv.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

POTATOES:

Prior to DDT there was no one insecticide which would
control the majority of potato insects. Muncie and Morofsky
(20) have written a report of their findings which partially
summarizes potato insect control before the advent of DDT.

‘With the discovery of DDT and the large amount of pmmli-
city that accompanied it, much experimental work was carried out
to see what insects it was effective against. 'Granovsky (8),
reported in l9hh that DDT gave very good control of the potato
flea beetle, Egitrix cucnumeris (Harr.), and showed promising
results in the control of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa
decemlineata, (Say); tarnished plant bug, Lygug lineolaris P. deB.);
and other mirids. Swingle and Mayer (25) reported that DDT as
a Spray at the rate of one pound per hundred gallons of water,
caused complete mortality of all instars of Colorado potato
beetle infesting potato plants in an outdoor garden. Weigel (31)
stated that in laboratory tests with potato cuttings DDT gave
complete kill of Colorado potato beetles and potato flea beetles.
Roark and McIndoo (22 & 23) stated that DDT was very effective
against thevpotato flea beetle and the Colorado potato beetle.
They also said that it gave good control of the six-Spotted leaf-
hOpper, Macrosteles divisus (Uhl.) and the potato leafhopper,

Empoasca fabae (Harr.).

 

L

1hr, 3'

 

‘ —-q. an“ .

1..

In 1945 workers added more data to that of previous years.
Thompson (26) attributed large increases in potato yeild to the
control of the potato leafhopper by DDT. Fox and Perron (7)
reported that DDT gave the best control of potato leafhopper
nymphs, while the arsenicals the poorest control of nymphs.
zThe plots protected by DDT also gave them the best yields.
Gyrisko, Jodka, and Rawlins (9) found that DDT produced very
favorable reductions in infestations of Colorado potato beetle,
aphids, flea beetles, and leafhoppers. They further reported
that insect populations remained at low levels for ten or more
days after application. In their work, dusts did not have the
residual power that sprays did, and they noticed no phytotoxi-
city. Bruce and Tauber (3) stated that DDT not only controlled
the potato leafhopper and flea beetle, but also controlled the
potato aphid, Macrosiphun solanifolii (Ashmead) as well.

In 19h6 Gyrisko, Wene, and Rawlins (10) reported that DDT
‘ gave better control of the potato aphid and the green peach
aphid,.flygp§ persicae (Sulzer) than such standard aphicides
as rotenone, nicotine, and thiocyanates. They found that only
nicotine fumigation gave better control than DDT. These workers
reported that at least two pounds of DDT, as a Spray or dust, was
necessary for good control. Bronson and Smith (2) found that DDT
applied as an emulsion, aerosol, dust mixture, or suspension was
effective in reducing aphid populations. They found that the dust
was more effective, but more DDT per acre was applied with the

dust.

{)4
.rzms

 

5.

Morofsky and Muncie (IO), and Muncie and Morofsky (19) re-
ported in 19h? that DDT applied either as a spray or dust gave
the best control of potato insects. Kulash (13) reported the
same year that DDT gave good control of Colorado potato beetle
larvae. He also found that chlordane and benzene hexachloride
gave good control of the larvae but that benzene hexachloride
did not have the residual power of DDT. Kulash (It) also found
that DDT gave good control of the potato flea beetle and the
tobacco flea beetle, Epitrix hirtipennis (Mels.). The DDT
dusts proved to have more residual power than did the Sprays of
DDT and benzene hexachloride.

Heuberger and Stearns (12) investigated the apparent growth-
promoting effects of DDT and reported their findings in l9h8.
They decided that the better growth might result from leafhopper
control. In their work they found that DDT gave excellent con-
trol of leafhoppers and high yield reaponses, DDT had no fungicidal
value, and DDT caused no apparent injury to potatoes. Voss and
Andre (30) found that DDT oil emulsion gave better control of
aphids than DDT wettable powder. (Campbell and Pepper (A) re-
ported in 1948 that parathion was outstanding in aphid control
and resulted in the highest yield, whereas plots Sprayed with
DDT and benzene hexachloride were similar in yield and these
yields were not significantly lower than that produced by the
use of parathion. They also found the DDT oil emulsion gave
better aphid control than DDT wettable powder. Turner and

Woodruff (28) found that DDT provided better flea beetle control

Lianne

 

"- .l. “'2' I

on potatoes. than chlordane, methoxychlor, and toxaphene. They
also stated that DDT spray powder of fine particle size provided
significantly better control of flea beetles and higher yields than
did DDT spray powder of coarse particle size. Morofsky and Muncie
(17) found that DDT gave better potato leafhopper control, in
general, than did benzene hexachloride although DDT varied greatly
in its effects upon the six-Spotted leafhopper. Doyle and Duncan
(6) in comparing the effects of DDT with calcium arsenate, chlor-
dane, and Lethane "B-72" found that DDT was the most effective
insecticide in~ controlling potato insects and that it significantly
increased potato yields.

Tuner and Woodruff (29) reported in 1949 that yields from
fields Sprayed with DDT wettable powder were significantly higher
than yields from fields sprayed with DDT emulsion even though
the DDT emulsion gave better control of aphids. The DDT wet-
table powders gave better flea beetle control.

Mitchene (15) reported in 1950 that when potatoes were
heavily infested with both potato leafhoppers and Colorado po-
tato beetles, DDT gave the best control and yields as compared
With aldrin, dieldrin, toxaphene, and calcium arsenate. Morof—
Sky and Muncie (18) reported that while DDT emulsion and wettable
powder gaVe good control of potato flea beetles and leafhoppers,
an emu1310n of 25% DDT and 3% Parathion gave better aphid control
than either of the preceding.

Many other workers have investigated the control of potato

insects, the above being a small representation. It is felt

» Mir); ,‘—"

 

.. I...- .~\ufi«i fl

~... “ca—.5.

7.

that most of the findings and views are shown by the sources

cited.

BEANS:

Various workers have tested DDT on beans with nearly the
same results. Weigel reported in l9hh that DDT caused no mortality
to the Mexican bean beetle, Epilachna varivestis (Mule) adults
or larvae when applied as a Spray or dust on plants in a green-
house. Nelson (21) and Roark and McIndoo (22 & 23) also report-
ed that DDT was not very effective in controlling the Mexican
bean beetle. Harries (11) reported that bean leaves dusted with
DDT killed 36 percent of the third instar Mexican bean beetle
larvae that fed on them.

Bjornseth (1) reported in 19h6 that DDT, if properly applied,
gave adequate and economical control of leafhoppers on beans and
substantially increased the yield. Turner (27) stated that
DDT was much less effective than methoxychlor or rotenone in
Mexican bean beetle control.

In l9h8 Ditman and Cory (5) reported that DDT as an aerosol
was ineffective in controlling the Mexican bean beetle.

Not much work has been done with DDT on beans because of its

inability to control the major pest, the Mexican bean beetle.

-N-‘ 1'4".

 

PROCEDURE
POTATOES:

On May 26, 1952, twelve hundred pounds of certified Sebago
seed potatoes were planted on approximately two-thirds of an acre
of muck located at the Michigan State College Experimental Muck
Farm in Clinton County, Michigan. They were planted in forty-
eight rows, two hundred feet long, the rows being three feet apart.
The rows ran in a northerly and southerly direction. On the north
and west sides the potato field was bounded by a sugar-beet field.
The sugar beets were later plowed under because of the extreme weedi-
ness of the field.) The south side of the field was bounded by a willow
hedgerow and the east side by a weal-filled ditch. A gravel road was
located east of the ditch.

Six plots were established with two four-row replicates in
each plot. The plots ran from east to west in a consecutive order
(see Fig. 1). One plot was designated as the check plot and was
sprayed with fungicide only. The other plots were Sprayed with a
fungicide and one of the insecticides.

The insecticides used consisted of five formulations of wettable
powder DDT. Three of the formulations were 75 percent DDT wettable
powders furnished by the Michigan Chemical Corporation of St. Louis,
Michigan. One formulation was E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's
75 percent DDT wettable powder sold under the trade name of Deenate.
The other formulation was Sherwin-Williams Company's (abbreviated in
Figures and Tables as Sher-Will) 50 percent DDT wettable powder. All
of these formulations were applied at the rate of one pound of DDT

per hundred gallons of water.

I *th.

 

 

Tribasic Copper Sulfate was used as the fungicide for these
toms and was applied to all of the plots. The rate of application
for the fungicide was three pounds per hundred gallons of water.
Approximately 110 gallons of Spray material were applied per acre.

All plots were sprayed on the same day with two hours elapsing
fun the time of starting to the time of finishing. The sprayer
used in these tests was a tractor-drawn John Bean sprayer with
mnmle tanks (see Fig. 3). Each tank could be emptied separately
mulwas capable of holding one hundred gallons. Both tanks were
tmed as speed up the process of Spraying. Enough of the chemicals were
Tufighed in advance to make twenty-five gallons of spray material for
each plot. Material for two consecutive plots was mixed in the
sprayer simultaneously. The hoses and boom were thoroughly flushed
out to eliminate errors due to any other chemicals which might have
been present in the system. The Sprayer tanks were always thoroughly
flushed before any materials were added. By taking these pre-
cautions it was felt that errors were kept at a minimum.

The sprayer received its power through the "power take-off"
mechanism of the tractor. A four-row potato boom was used with
three nozzles per row. Number three spray discs were used in the
nozzles, and these discs were changed after every three days of
Spraying. This was done to prevent too great a variance in the
rate of aruflication. The material was arplied at 225 pounds of

pressure.

7’1:th

 

 

 

 

"N

L !~. Hf: E

10.

All plots were sprayed five times with the applications being

nude on the following dates:

June 19 & 30.

July 7, 21 & 28.
TM)strips in each replicate were left unsprayed on July 7. This
was accomplished by laying a 15' x 20' tarpaulin on the potato plants
mnirunning the sprayer over it. The tarpaulin shielded the plants
from U19 spray and a fifteen-foot Skip Spot was left. The purpose
cfi‘this added variation was to see if the insects would build up on the
skipped areas.

Sweepings were made with a standard insect sweeping net. They
were taken immediately before spraying and three days after Spraying.
By not Spraying on July 1h sweepings were also obtained for ten,
fourteen, seventeen and twenty-one days after Spraying. Only the
middle two rows of each replicate were used in making the sweeping
counts. This was done to remove the influence of spray drift from
the other plots.

The sweeping proCedure used was to make five complete oscilla-
tions through the center two rows of each replicate with a standard
Size sweeping net. Each oscillation was accompanied by a step forward
thus making;one complete oscillation per step. The sweepings were
taken from randomized areas in the replicates each time. Sweepings
were taken on the following dates:

June 25 & 30.
July 3, 7, 10*, 14*, 17*, 21*, 2h, 28 & 31.
August 7, ll, & l3.

* Sweepings also taken in strips protected from
spray.on July 7.

L 7.1 C_)~”‘.g.;

-..,.—fi

 

“as. a...)

 

11.

The insects collected by sweeping were killed in cyanide jars
and placed in labelled paper bags. The insects were identified and
counted in the laboratory. I

Yield data were taken on September 19, 1952. Two forty-foot
strips were dug in each replicate, one strip in each of‘the center
two rows of the replicate. All of the U. S. No. l and No. 2 grade
potatoes from these strips were gathered and weighed. The weights
of each grade were recorded separately. This gave a total of four

'yield samples for each plot.

BEANS:

On June 10, 1952, Red Kidney beans were planted on a part of
the Michigan State College farm located in Ingham County, Michigan.
They were planted in five replicates of twenty-five rows each. The
rows were twenty feet long and two feet apart. The replicates were
separated by eight-foot aisles of'bare soil. Later, two replicates
‘were disced under because of their extreme weediness.

The rows ran in an easterly and westerly direction (see Fig. 2).
The area was bounded on the north side by five rows of beans. The
'west side was bounded by a field of ensilage corn, and the south and
east sides by the dirt service road.

Six plets were established in this field with three replicates
per plot. Each spray plot replicate Contained four rows each, and
the check plot replicates contained five rows each. The Spray
‘materials for the beans were the same as those used on the potatoes
'with one exception; no fungicide was used on the beans. The DDT was
applied at the rate of one pound of actual DDT per hundred gallons
of‘water, the same as the potatoes. The rate of application per acre

was between 225 and 250 gallons.

C‘CLBJS

 

V ;|- I"

ah;

4%"

sA-I

5)

vh

r:-
(n

a"

 

12.

All of the plots were sprayed on the same day with two hours
elapsing from the time of starting to the time of finishing. Two
different Sprayers were used in Spray applications. The first
three sprays were applied with a Lowell Cyclone wheelbarrow sprayer
(see Fig. A). It had a capacity of fifteen gallons and Sprayed with
fifty pounds of pressure. The rest of'the Sprays were applied with a
John Bean Spartan sprayer (see Fig 5). It also had a fifteen-gallon
capacity, but it sprayed at a pressure of 200 pounds. Both Sprayers
'were hand-drawn with motors supplying power for Spraying. The Spray
guns were hand operated. Sprays were applied on the following dates:

August 1, 8, 15, 22 & 29.
September 5 8c 12.

Sweeping counts were taken immediately before and three days
after spraying. The sweeps were taken lengthwise of the rows sampled.
To eliminate as much as possible the effects of drift, only the
xniddle two rows of the Spray replicates and any two of the middle
three rows of the check replicates were sampled. Four sweeps per
row or eight per replicate were taken at each Sweeping.

Sweeping counts were made on the following dates:

July 17*.

August 1*, A, 8, 12, 15, 18, 22, 25 & 29.

September 3, 5, 8 & 12.

* Counts made preliminary to any spraying.
The insects collected in the Sweeping counts were killed in
cyanide bottles and placed in paper bags. The bags were labelled

and the insects were later classified and counted in the laboratory.

13.

been
had
ods

the p

3

ans a

on the be

taken

ere

les w

samp

ield

No y

Sis.
analy
chemical

d for

picks

"L151

. r.

 

‘ul. .1"

 

 

 

 

EXPERIMENTAL DATA

4:53}:

 

11+.

’3:AT"~13:£I‘:‘.‘.‘27'I‘ OF TORITO

1 A
.Le ”-

"I3.

is
L

 

 

 

1
Check

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

» Wan):

--_.

'l'31‘Vs .

 

revive-1..

15.

 

 

 

 

Check

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deenate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SherAWill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1335

 

 

l
l
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
4

 

 

 

Deenate I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sum:

1
L

 

...il.... l o. .3.

-.|s,\.H lid! 30" *z.

 

16.

 

 

FIG. 3. JOHN BEAN SPRAYER USED FOR SPRAYING POTATOES.

 

 

FIG. 1.. LOWELL WHEELBARROW SPRAYER USED FOR SPRAYING BEANS.

 

FIG. 5. JOHN BEAN SPARTAN SPRAYER USED FOR SPRAYING BEANS.

7
AI

rug-5‘5

 

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep.

10*

\It

FIG. 6. NUMBER OF POTATO LEAFHOPPERS ON POTATOES AT 17°

VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

LEGEND : /
/ /

1333—- - - -— / ,
133h—-- —- I
1335—----—-—
Sher-Will----——-

Deenate ’0 \ /
Check 7’ \

 

 

 

 

7 10

Number 0! Days After Spraying.

. .
mI-I

 

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

18.

FIG. 70 NUMBER OF SIX-SPOTTED LEAFHOPPERS ON POTATOES AT VARIOUS DAYS

2 I
5 AFTER SPRAYING.

20

\\
/
\

H
\J'I

l L

I
I
ax/
\
\
\
\
\

\
\\
\ \

/ I

‘ I
l LEGEND: \_ //

 

 

5 I ‘\ I
1333 ----- ,
. ss__ \ /

 

 

 

 

,’ 1335-——---- ————
‘ Sher—Will-——---———
// Deenate
4 Check 1_
3 7 10 1h 17

Number 0! Days After Spraying.

Pf‘_h‘s

 

 

Total Nvmber 0f Insects For All SI-reeps.

10*

 

/ . \ 1333 —————
/ 133a-— - - —-

19.

FIG. 8. NUMBER OF O'I'Hm LEAFHOPPERS ON POTATOES

AT V.-"-.RI(_)US DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

\ LEGEND:

, \ LBS—“"—

 

 

 

\ Sher-Will —
\ Deenate
I Cheek

 

 

 

 

Number 01‘ Days After Spraying.

't‘s‘fil.‘

 

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep.

FIG. 9. NUMBER OF SPITTLE-BUGS ON POTATOES

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

LBEEND: / I

‘ 133 ----

2.0 i 1332—— - - ——

1335 — - - - —-

I Sher-Will —— - -—--—
Deenate

4 Check

 
 
 
 
 
  

 

 

1.5“

l

J

l

J

 

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

20.

to“;

 

 

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep.

21.

FIG. 10. NUMBER OF TARNISHED PLANT BUGS ON POTATOES

3T VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

2.0 T

L

 

 

 

 

 

1.0“
I/
-I I
,’ LEGEND:
1 ,,// 1333-- - - -
,,’ 133h— - - —-
I 1335—-- - —
Sher-wm—- -———
,5 Deenate
Check
3 7 10 1A 17 21

Number Of Days After Spraying.

!r_:s($

 

 

 

2:151};

 

 

 

 

 

 

v

ramifig

 

.uh

Average Number Of Insects Per Sueepo

Jr
[JILILLLI

W

N

IJILI

l

I

nlJmll

_J

21+.

FIG. 13° NUMBJR OF PLEA BJSTLBS ON POTATOSS

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

LEGEND: / //
I

1333----- /
133a —- —— /
1335-— --- — '
Sher-Will—— -— I I
Deenate ‘//
Check

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number 0! Days After Spraying.

-515

I

.5: 1. n..

III/i

II I 5|.I

 

 

0mm a am e. 32. an e 3 0:3. 33% Signage 52% *

 

iii-.. 'lll'lv'llul

£838 803 @3980 wcaaoozm 3qu

 

’lll 'al’ IDIIII‘C-II

 

 

 

 

 

 

x0020 ”wx ,
3233 (.
ll .. [Hafiionm .00
’un n'mMMH .
ll null¢mma .
l Illnmmma .05
52mg
10m
6m
. H
09.
an."

t. .Nmmd qmmgm mo Qonmm Emma. gunman mmoeinbm 20 mmMLAOEfinA oefiSm mo mmmzaz 12.. .cHh

'edeens 9AM .103 810981.11 3'0 .19qu eBuuv

3:151:

 

“a .1. 1..

 

Total Number Of Insects Fbr Sweeps On All Plotso

26.

FIG. 15. NUMBER OF SIX SPOTTED LEAFHOPPERS ON POTA'roas

DURING '1‘st PERIOD OF summit, 1952., *

30*

20‘

10‘

 

 

iiéiouli'zziz'hzsaid'z‘lil}
June July Aug.

Dates Sweeping Samples Were Takeno

 

* Spray application dates: June 19 k 30; July 7, 21 & 28.

flu... ‘J .1. ~ IN

27.

FIG. 16. NUMBER OF APHIDS ON PO‘I‘IRTOES DURING TBST PERIOD OF SUI/373R, 1752. 3"

360
350 l
310 I
300

290
1333--- — _ / I
I
l:

LEGEND: /

280 1331. — " ——
1335 — -- - — .
250 Sher-Will—- -— I

. Deenate I,
a 21.0 Check I I

 

 

e

we
N
H
O

x

g

4‘
‘
when...“
\\‘

190* I

H

3

\
\—

170« I
“160.

150* i/,//flc;/

O! I sects For Five 5

in

go

Aver
F“
3
‘5'?“
\
\\
\
\

 

 

’/
ZOJ / [I /
/
1 47:.” "\ \ "Q :f //

25 30 3 7'1‘01L1'rz 221. 2331 [1 1113
Dates Sweeping Samples Were Taken.

* Spray application dates: June 19 & 30; July 7, 21 & 28.

28.

 

.mu a am .a sage mom s we mean "moses cospsoafiaas ampam *

 

.2389 £03 meanfimm mafiqmozm woven

 

 

mane ease
mm mm mm MN hm 1mm 0% N. m on mm
4/, 1‘ . +1 .
.l I I. l / ll \/
x..\ a \M / a) \\
\\\\ ./ \ x. \
/ \\ / x a .U/ 3 ‘ \
/\ , / a I a I ‘ rm

 

scope
33009 , /
:I.-:|uaaa31pogm

..|.---...nmma

 

I. .. Isms
..... name

0 ozmcmq

a. .Nmmvd «@35qu mo QOHxanm 9mm? ORUSQ acydubm 20 @045 923nm QHZWHZmFH mo mammal“ .hH .UHh

.3

.ON

 

°sdeeng can; .10.; 340951111 30 .10qu OBBJOAV

4:25;:

 

Lu. __

 

 

29.

.mm s am e. .33. mom s E 8% 83% nonsmoflaae swam *

6.8.39 203 «macaw mcwnmozm maven

Hm mm 4N Hm 5H .2 HA k. m on

 

 

 

 

 

. , ,
x026 ,, /, / , _
Beacon ,; I a
II. I lladnzlaezm

, \
: -IlumMMH , /, , \ .4
II -- 1L3 ,, ,, / 1
..... RS / a. . /
a
1m

"ozmaq

 

1. 1&3 .mmasm me 822 .52 SEE 8848a zo

mcDm p.25; BurmHzWJwH 25E. dams mono 923m m0 552:2 .mH .UHm

°sdeens mm .103 unseen]; go .19qu eSeJeav

sny,‘

 

30.

 

 

W
9326 a
/0#803 “H O
ledziozm J
n \ l I - - IRS m1
s \ \ I}...
l <\\ I. I 5 -133 ow m.
a
” \\\ 5584 m.
J
_ .
u u \\ mN Nu
w t a m
a. m
u \ m a
. I .s
_ a
\
. on
.
.\
mm
m .mmaa . ,. n n mo 82$ .59 0233 weeps“. 20 92.8%..-

.2. .92

 

 

 

32.

NUNBSR OF POTATO LEAFHOPPERS ON BEANS

FIG. 21.
2 h‘ AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.
2.01 5
ft:
1.;
m ‘-
3
U) 1 O 5 ..
in
0
CL .
m
*6 .
0
U)
l:
H q
M
O
h
jg 1.0‘
0 q
no
«3
t; -
5
<1: /

 

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

IIII .1

 

 

 

~

.ll EM

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

33.

FIG. 22. “UVBflR CF SIX-SPOTTiD LiAFHOPPSRS ON BEANS

 

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFPQR SFRAYINQ.
16'
LEGEND:
15‘ 1333“——-—
1331.—---—
133s——-- ——
‘ Sher-Willr------
Deenate
Check

 

 

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

 

 

Minis

 

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

701
65*
60‘
55‘

50‘

20‘
15 ‘

10+

 

3l+e

FIG. 23. UUIBSR OF ”FREE LJAFEUPFURS ON BEANS

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

   
  
 

 

LEDEND:

1333'" " ‘ "
13315— ' ' —
1335‘— “ ‘ ‘ ‘—
Sher-Will—-— - ——
Deenate

 

Check

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

.- r1515

 

,1}.INA

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

35.

no. 21.. “I’D-'33? OF SUITTL; 2:11:13. :31: mans

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

l3 ‘\

10 . LSJEND:

1333 -----
. 133a—-- —
1335——-————
Sher~Will '
Deenate
Check

 

 

 

I
\ /'/”f7
“)6/
/* ”

 

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

M. < - “n—A‘.‘ -_——.u-.x- In my ‘ .1—1‘
' .

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

181

15‘

H
O
1

\h
L

1

L

 

36.

FIG. 25. NUMBER OF TARNISHED PLANT BUGS ON BSANS

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

IDOL-3ND:

1333 -----
l33h— - - ——
1335 —‘ ‘ ‘ ‘—
Shen—h’ill—w - ——

.‘Oeenate
CbeCk /

 

 

 

Number of Days After Spraying.

.‘ .0! J”
~r

LV- _ J .I‘.‘h.‘

'v. “I” ‘lt"tn~'44‘.o...:

Wrihl

 

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

37.

FIG. 26. Nva‘xBER OF OPHER PLANT BUGS ON BEANS

 

 

 

 

 

551 AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.
1
50‘
1.5‘ --
F
l':
r.
i
1.0. 1f
1.4234111): I
1333- — -- - g
. 133h—‘ ‘ _ .I
35 1335 — -- — "‘
Sf:er—'.r.'ill———- - -———-
Deenate
Check
30‘
254
20*
15 ~ ,,
ll
/
/ I
//
I
10 1 ,’ -
/-:_____,_.—-—-—""- f,
_.—v—‘—-';-7‘— //
I / /
w”, ’_ .. / I”;
51’ ,..../
("I
3 7

Number Of Days After Spraying.

~-

' 15‘;

 

Total Number Of Insects For All Sweeps.

38.

FIG. 27. NOB-(BER OF APHIDS ON BEANS
AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

20‘F\\\ ‘.—"- _,__———--"
19"}‘(f

. \
18 ~‘\\\‘ //’
17‘ ‘\\\\\\\\
1a /

/ \

15" / ”/”
11‘. ” I’ ll,
13. ’,,/’/ ’/

ll-‘
10*

 

12 M, / / 1333 -----

/// 1” l33h‘—“"__‘

 

/// 1335-——-----—-
SherQWill‘——““—_‘
///.,’ ' Deenate
’ Check

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

‘94:
. e

 

.

Total Number Of Insects For All Swesns.

111

101

 

FIG. 28. NUMBER OF FLEA BEETLES ON BEANS

AT VARIOUS DAYS AFTER SPRAYING.

    

LEGEND:

1333 -----
133a—--—
133s—--- ——
Sherewill -
Deenate
Check

 

 

 

 

 

Number Of Days After Spraying.

 

.NH m . hobfimpumm mom fl mm .md am as warms: unmade COHuwofiaan hauam *

 

 

[0-0 e

.ceme one; moaaasm mafiommzm mopma

 

 

 

 

 

Sousa
obscene
II - IISSLEm
II -- Fiend
.l - - [in

I - - .. ARA

 

"Q23umq

/ \AV\\\ \ fimm

., C“ \\ T:

g \ 1m 4

°sdbens eats Jog sqoeeul Jo Jeqmmu eSeaeav

 

I \ a 41~4 s .1. . .) ..1 o
- . 5......5... . .5 SN. .5. 3.. a 3.: .5 93.2 .1: . .
.4 3%.. N. to 72.. . e .. A: . .. m .. at? 5.58.. so $8.51 .3 SE

41.

TABLE I
PHYSICAL DATA OF FORMULATIONS TESTED

Obtained from Michigan Chemical Corporation, L.E. Pauling,
representive. 9-23-52.

Sherwin-
1333 1331a 1335 Deenate Williams

 

 

f
_‘__7

% DDT 75.1 75.3 75.8 76.2 50.1+
Average mean partic e

Diameter (microns) 2.3 2.32 2.1+]. 3.33 1.99
-200 mesh (dry) 100% 99.98% 99.98% 99.66% 100%
Suspension2 1.56% 0.35% 2.18% 0.059% 1.36%
pH3 7.20 7.30 7.21. 7.92 7.98
Wettability“ - Floc. - Floc. -

 

1 As determined by Fisher Sub-Sieve Sizer (Air Permea-
tion Method).

2 Figures show the actual % DDT left in suspension 30
minutes after the formation of a 2.5% DDT by weight

suspension.

3 Reaction of a 1.76 suspension (58 of the powder sus-
pended in 120 gr. of distilled water).

1* Appearance of scum or flocculation in a 1.76 suspen-
sion with tap water.

Days
After
Spraying

10
lb
17
21

10
1h
17
21

10
1h
17
21

Total
Number of

Sweepg

1.0
50
no
30
20
10 A

40
5O
40
30
20
10

#0
5O
#0
3C)
20
1C)

TABLE II

POTATO INSECTS

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep

PLOTS
1535 Deenate 1:525

Sher-

Check 12;; Will

6.3
9.2
7.7
13.6
8.6
1A.6

.1.
.3
.3
.8
.3
.5

.3

0
kl #4 1‘ CD

Potato Leafhogpers

.6
1.6
1.9
5.A

3.3
10.2

 

.2
.2
.h
.6
.3
.h

 

.6 .5 .6

.9 1.0 1.2

1.2 1.6 1.3

2.5 . 2.5 2.7

1.9 1.8 1.9

'5.8 h.2 h.5

Six4Spotted Leafhoppers

.2 .l .2

.A .3 .2

. .2 .1 .3

.h .5 .8

.h .3 .5

.7 .5 .5
chgglleafhoppers

”o o o

.2 .2 .2

.1 .1 o

O O O

0 .1 .1

.1 0 .1

F4 0* C) C) i“ C)

.A
.9
1.7
5.6
1.8
6.h

.h
.2
.4
.8
.5

O O
c: :a ta so no <3

7115183111??? '. I 2 g !

quk

lg...- A.
i

Days
After
Spraying

10
lb
17
21

10
1A
17
21

10
1h
17
21

TABLE II CONTINUED

Total
Number of

Sweeps

DO
50
A0
30
20
10

#0
50
DO
30
20
10

#0
5O
40
30
20
10

43.

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep

Check 1332 Will

1.0
1.1
.8
.7
1.0
.9

 

 

 

 

nan
Sher-
1221-: Deenate 1335
Spittle Bugs
.6 .6 .6 .8 .6
1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2
1.1 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2
1.6 1.1 i 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.2 .9 .8 1.2
2.1 2.3 1.1 2.0 2.2
Tarnished Plant Bugs
.6 1.0 .5 .h .5
1.2 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.5
1.6 1.6 1.2 l.h 1.9
1.A 1.1 .9 1.1 1.2
l.h 1.3 2.1 .9 1.3
1.9 1.5 1.2 l.h 1.6
Other Plant Bugs

0 0 .1 -.l .2
.2 .2 .1 .9- .2
.3 .A .2 .3 .2
.5 .3 .5 .h .7
.h .A .3 .3 .6
.3 .2 .8 .5 1.0

-2,

1'... n.- _ "

'A ”Ft!

{9— ul— rt- mgr-5.0.1 L.
1

Days

After

10
lb
17
21

10
1h
17
21

Total

Number of
Spraying Sweeps

no
50
'40
30
20
1o

40
50
40
30
20
10

TABLE II

CONTINUED

#6.

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep

2212251222
1.0 1.8
1.0 2.3
2.0 5.7
2.9 8.6

15.4 29.5

.h .8
.3 0
1.2 .2
.8 .h
1.5 2.1
1.9 1.1
2.5 4.5

 

ma
Sher-
y_1__1_1_ 122]: Deenate
M
2.0 1.6 1.9
2.3 1.8 2.h
8.0 9.7 5.5
11.6 17.3 12.3
2h.3 30.7 35.9
1.0 1.2 1.5
Flea Beetles
0 0 O
.1 .1 .1
.1 .2 .2
1.6 1.5 1.8
1.6 1.1 2.2
3.5 h.7 5.6

1212

1.7
2.2
6.3
10.8
20.6
1.h

.1
.2
.1
3.7
1.6
9.6

f 45.

TABLE III

NUMBER OF POTATO LEAFHOPPERS 0N POTATOES

Average Number Of Insects For Five Sweeps

 

21.0.12
2199 9153315 1133- Sh'er-Will 1334 Deenate 1322

June 25 ------------------ No Record --------------- '---

June 30 18 16 11 13 9 22

July 3 84 9 11 10 10 3

July 7 75 16 10 12 15 16

July 10 21 2 1 15 1 2

July 14 74 11 8 a 6 5

July 17 97 16 9 16 14 7

July 21 133 51. 23 23 28 60
July 24 19 2 1 1 2 1..
July 28 67 12 4 7 8 5
July 31 3 0 0 0 0 1
Aug. 4 15 3 2 1 l 2
Aug. 7 20 2 1 l 0 3
tug. 11 15 2 1 3 2 1,
1g. 13 20 4 1 3 1 2

 

gyalJl‘m

gap
qu225
qua30
JulyB
Jub'7
.hdy'lo
July 16
July 17
July 21
July-24
hfly28
July 31
Aug. 4
4us. 7
2g.411
9. JL?.

TABLE IV

NUMBER OF SIX SPOTTED LEAFHOPPERS 0N POTATOES

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

Check

1322 Sher-Will

PLOTS

 

Deenate

46.

1335

------------------- No Record------------—-----

0
2
1
2
2
3
z.
2
5
2
1
1
o
o

QHOHHHwWF-NONHN

1m
0 0
1 1
1 0
1 1
4 5
2 0
2 2
2 o
6 2
1 0
1 o
1 1
0 o
0 0

HHQNHNwMNle-JHN

F9 <3 P’ c: x» A) 26 p— as x» u: 26 h' A)

"'1“-

.FW. .

I". L c»:

Qppg
June 25
June 30
July 3
July 7
July’ll)
July 14
July.17
4JU1}’.21
uQLLy 2%;

July 28

TABLE V

NUMBER OF LEAFHOPPERS OTHER THAN POTATO

AND SIX-S POTTED LEAFHOPPERS

0N POTATOES

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

Check

6

O
0
0
1
0
C)
1
C)
.1
C)
1.
C)
(J
C)

PLOTS

.1223.

HOOOI—‘OOOOOOOOI—‘N

SherAWill 1334

6

OOOOOOOI—‘OOOOOH

l.

l-‘OOOOOOOOi-‘OOON

 

473
Deenate 1335
5 3
0 O
0 0
0 O
O 0
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
l 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0

 

‘75???" - ~.r'~v Is
I

1+8.

TABLE VI

NUMBER OF APHIDS 0N POTATOES

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

 

3.142.152 {
9.2.13.2 911.29}; 1333 Sher-Will 133p Deenate 1335 3
June 25 l 0 2 2 2 1 i
June 30 1 3 o 2 2 3 2
July 3 5 5 6 1 2 5 :
July 7 4 12 8 5 ll 7
July 10 4 16 12 15 10 9
July 14 8 21 6 4 11 3
July 17 7 6 7 8 5
July 21 6 7 9 6 6
July 24 6 10 5 3 8 4
July 28 5 8 9 10 10 7
July 31 6 6 18 13 18 15
Aug. 4 8 18 32 25 27 39
Aug. 7 29 92 149 181 96 114
Aug. 11 35 117 159 247 176 151

Aug. 13 148 286 ' 191 304 354 204

TABLE VII

NUMBER OF TARNISHED PLANT BUGS 0N POTATOES

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

 

2.1.9.12
933:9 Q1395 1223 Sher-Will 1__3_3_4 Deenate

June 25 O 2 3 l 3
June 30 11 14 13 11 14
July 3 10 4 8 7 5
July 7 5 17 11 15 22
July 10 6 7 10 2 4
July 14 6 9 12 8 12
July 17 7 12 12 10 8
July 21 5 8 7 6 7
July 24 4 1 2 2 2
July 28 6 4 4 5 2
July 31 1 1 l o 1
Aug. 4 2 1 2 o 2
Aug, 7 5 l 1 1 3
Aug. 11 3 2 2 2 1
Aug. 13 6 3 3 0 2

49.

1335
2

l4
5
21
3
13

H
\J'I

NOUOOWNOO.

2523
Junejfl)
July 3
July 7
July 10

July 14
July 17
July 21
July 24
July 28
July 31
Aug. 4
Aug. 7
Aug. 11
Aug. 13

TABLE VIII

NUMBER OF PLANT BUGS OTHER THAN
TARNISHED PLANT BUGS 0N POTATOES

Check

1

1
5
1
3
7
4
1
2
0
2
l
l
l

PLOTS

12.3.}.

N

OOOD—‘Ol—‘OV'IWI—‘OO-‘O

Sher-Will

b.)

C) C) *4 <3 C) A) CD to \n 10 C> A) +4

1334
1

<3 k4 c> <3 c: 14 +4 \w v: +4 #4 1a c>

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

50.

Deenate 1335

0

OHOOONHWWWOWH

HOHHOHWO‘NWHNOH

'u 1.3- mum-1““. .l‘n-n l m H

A

TABLE IX

NUMBER OF FLEA BEETLES ON POTATOES

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

 

21212

92.1.7.2 M 1333 Sher-Will % Deenate 1222
July 3 . l 0 0 0 0 0
July 7 C) 0 0 0 0 0
July 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
July 14 1 0 0 0 0 0
July 17 7 l 3 3 3 2
July 21 14 3O 24 21 25 53
July 24 3 1 0 0 0 1
July 28 18 4 3 3 4 5
July 31 2 o 0 o o 0
Aug. 4 13 0 0 0 0 1
Aug. 7 10 2 0 1 0 0
Aug. 11 0 0 1 0 0
Aug. 13 2 O 0 1 1

TABLE X

NUMBER OF SPITTLE BUGS 0N POTATOES

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

 

 

 

52.

119.18.

Date 933933 1333 Sher-Will 1334 Deenate 1335
June 25 3 0 0 1 3 2
June 30 4 8 15 8 14 8

July 3 5 7 7 6 12 8

July 7 8 12 18 22 21 17

July 10 7 2 4 3 2

July 14 12 9 9 6 9 4

July 17 7 9 12 13 10 14
July 21 3 7 6 14 13 10
Ju1y 24 6 3 2 3 1 2
Ju1y28 3 4 4 4 6 ' 6

July 31 2 1 o o o 1
Aug. 4 2 2 1 2 l 2
Aug. 7 3 2 1 o 2 0
Aug. ll 2 4 o 2 1 4
Aug. 13 2 1 4 1 2 1

53.

TABLE XI

POTATO YIELD IN BUSHELS PER ACRE
Based On One Bushel Equals Sixth Pounds
821.3.
Replicate Check 1333 Sher-Will 1334 Deenate 1335
Grade - U.S. No. 1

l 146 354 384 436 498 318

2 383 281 475 482 342 535

3 465 628 352 442 451 421

_4_.. .223. 2.9.4 .526 23.1. 4.112 2.52
Average 389 467 442 473 435 408

Grade - U.S. N0. 2

1 33.2 33.2 30.2 25.7 24.2 36.3
2 .36.3 30.2 39.3 30.3 36.2 43.9
3 36.3 33.2 43.9 33.2 30.3 24.2
._4_ 42.4 13.6 16.2. 2;ng 161.1 $3.33

 

Average 37.0 27.6 37.4 29.1 31.8 29.5

Days
After
Spraying

Total’
Number of

Sweegs

144
144

144
144

144
144

144
144

144
144

144
144

TABLE XII

BEAN INSECTS

Average Number Of Insects Per Sweep

Check 133;_ Will

1.8
2.4

.4
.3

PLOTS
Sher-

 

Potato Leafhoppers

1334 Deenate

 

.1 .1 .1 .1
.3 .4 .7 .3
Six-Spotted Leafh0ppers
O O .1 O
O .1 O O

Other Leafhoppers

 

 

0 O O O

.3 .2 .3 .2
fipittle Bugs

0 O O O

O O O O

Tarnished Plant Bugs
0 O O O
.1 .1 O O

Other Plant Bugs

0 .1 O O
.1 .1 0 .1

51+.

#

55.

TABLE x11 CONTINUED

 

Average Number Of Insects Per SweeE

 

 

 

 

Days Total _ PLOTS.
After Number of Sher-
Sgraxing Sweegs Check 1333 Will 1334 Deenate 1335
Aghids
3 144 .1 .l .1 .1 O O
7 144 .l .1 .l .l .1 .l
Flea Beetles
144 .l O O O O O

7 _ 144 O 0 0 O 0 O
A Mexican Bean Beetles .

3 . 144 O O O O 0 O

7 144 O O O 0 0 O

l— a— —....- is pl—uvwmm‘xulih‘os .1
O ‘ ‘ ~ b .

u
'4

TABLE XIII

NUMBER OF POTATO LEAFHOPPERS 0N BEANS

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

93.2 2193.4
July 17 23
Aug. 1 44
Aug. 4 22
Aug. 8 45
Aug. 12 19
Aug. l5 17
Aug. 18 8
Aug. 22 5
Aug. 25 4
Aug. 29 3
Sept. 3 2
Sept. 5 1
Sept. 8 o
SePt. 12 2

ELQI§
12;;

23 13
54 42
1 1
5 4
1 1
4 6
o o
1 '2
1 o
1 o
o o
0 o
o 0
o o

Sher-Will 1334

 

21
24
1
8

I-‘N
H

ONOOHOOH

Deenate

15

p
O

OOOOOOOOVINPO

56.

1335
17

.p
p

OOHOOOHOWH'WO

TABLE XIV

NUMBER OF SIX SPOTTED LEAFHOPPERS ON BEANS

Date

July
Aug.
Aug.

17

Aug. 8

Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug,
Aug.
Sept.

12
15
18
22
25
29

3

Sept. 5

Sept.
Sept.

 

12

Average Number of‘Insects For Five Sweeps

Check
13

OOOOO'OOOOOwl-Jw

 

1323 Sher-Will 1334

1

00000000000045“

PLOTS

2

OOOOOOOOOD—‘NON

ll

OOOOOOOI—‘Ot—‘OOW

 

Deenate 1332
3 3
3 5
l O
1 l
O l
1 O
O O
0 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
O 0
O O

57.

Date

July
Aug.
Aug.

TABLE XV

NUMBER OF LEAFHOPPERS OTHER THAN POTATO

AND SIX-SPOTTED LEAFHOPPERS ON BEANS

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

17

Aug. 8

Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.

Sept.

12
15
18
22

29
3

Sept. 5

Sept. 8

Sept. 12

Check

w

NONPQ-PNI—‘HHl-‘OP

PLOTS
123; Sher-Will 1334

1.4

OOOOO‘l-‘HOl-‘OOOO

l

OOOOmI—‘OOOOOOO

Deenate 1335

 

OOOOQP—‘i—‘OHOHOHN

l

HOOOW'OOOOOOOP

1

OOOOOHHOHOOOH

 

'{w pus-Abr-
l.

NUMBER OF APHIDS ON BEANS

TABLE XVI

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

Date

July
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.

17
1

4

8

12
15
18
22
25
29

Sept. 3

Sept.
Sept.
Sept.

12

Check
2

OOOOOOHI—‘OOOOW

PLOTS

1333 Sher—Will 1334

O

OOOOHOHl—‘OOHHH

O

OOOONOI—‘NOOONH

O

c> <3 <3 c> zu c> <3 P‘ <3 c> he .a ..

 

Deenate 1335
O O
2 O
O O
O O
O O
1 O
l O
1 ' O
O l
1 2
O O
O O
0 0
O O

59.

“in.

.3“;'\ I“; .A 4 .‘vj 11

.v a: '0‘: a.

TABLE XVII

NUMBER OF TARNISHED PLANT BUGS ON BEANS

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

Date
July 17

Aug.
Aug.

Aug. 8

Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.

12
15
18
22
25
29

3

12

Check
4

HOOOOOl—‘l-‘l—‘Ol-‘NO

OOOOOOOOOOi—‘OH

1333 Sher-Will 1334

2

PLOTS

1

OOOOF—‘OOl—‘OOHOH

C> c> c> c5 C> C) C) C) re <3 <3 0 P'

l

Deenate

OOOOOOOOOOOONP

60.

1.;
b)
\1)
U1

OOOOOOOHOOOOOHI

 

221:3
hflyl?
Aug. 1
Aug. 4
Aug. 8
Aug. 12
Aug. 15
Aug. 18
Aug. 22
Aug. 25
Aug. 29
Sept. 3

Sept. 5
Sept. 8

Sept. 12

NUMBER OF OTHER PLANT BUGS ON BEANS

TABLE XVIII

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

Check

8

6
2
2
5
1
2
1
2
3
l
1
l
2

PLOTS

1333 Sher4Will 1334

7

HOOONOOOOOOON

3

H
O

HOOOOOOI—‘OOHO

3

CDCDCDCDIM’F-‘(DOOCDCDOJ>

Deenate

Us.)

OOOOHOOOOOOO?

61.

1335

OOOOOOOOOOHOJ-‘Vw

‘ 3“ ., ... =4.-—4.‘1

at: M}. be: Nu' Innu-
‘ l.
I

NUMBER OF FLEA BEETLES ON BEANS

TABLE XIX

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

2353
July 17
Aug. 1
Aug. 4
Aug.
Aug. 12
Aug. 15
Aug. 18
Aug. 22
Aug. 25
Aug. 29
Sept. 3
Sept. 5
Sept. 8
Sept. 12

Check
1

OOOOOOOHOHOOO

1333 Sher-Will 3334

O

OOOOOOOOOOOOO

PLOTS

 

O

OOOOOOOOOOOOH

O

OOC>C)l-"’OCDCDCDOCDCD!"-J

 

Deenate 1335
O l
O 0
O O
O O
O 0
0 0
O O
O O
O 0
O O
O O
O O
O O
O 0

62.

NUMBER OF SPITTLE BUGS UN BEANS

TABLE XX

Average Number of Insects For Five Sweeps

 

Aug. 12
Aug. 15
Aug. 18

Aug. 25
Aug. 29

Sept. 3'

Sept. 5
Sept. 8
Sept. 12

Check
3

OOOOHOHOOOHNN

1333 Sher-Will 1334

1

OOOOOOOOOOOOH

PLOTS

l

OOOOOOHOOOOOH

l

OOOOOOOOOOOOH

Deenate $332
1 1
O 1
O O
O 0
O 0
O O
O 0
0 l
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0

63.

lieu—Mm. on. ~‘ WWMHAIQ'KSI
k

DISCUSSION

The five formulations of DDT that were used in this work
were of three types, generally speaking. Michigan Chemical
Corporation‘s 1334 and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's
Deenate were of the flocculating type; Michigan Chemical Corpora-
tion's 1333 and Sherwin Williams Company's formulation were of
the intermediate suspension type; and Michigan Chemical Corpora-

tion's 1335 was of the high suspension type.

'd m my-m‘w.—..m__——1_
I! ‘
I

Sankeur (24), in his report in 1952, stated that Michigan
Chemical Corporation's 1334 and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Com-
pany's Deenate were similar in amounts initially deposited and
retained but were inferior to the other three preparations. He
further stated that Michigan Chemical Corporation's 1335 resem-
bled in behavior the SherwinAWilliams Company's product but that
the former product was generally superior to all of the others
in amounts initially retained. He flaund that Michigan Chemical
Corporation's 1333 and SherwinAWilliams Company's product were
superior in lasting qualities with the former being superior to
all others in lasting qualities and inferior to all others in
amounts initially deposited. He also found from the analysis
of samples from unsprayed plots that drift was an important
factor.

This study was primarily concerned with three specific

insects and members of five families of insects that were found

64

65.

on both potatoes and beans. These were the potato leafhopper,
the six-spotted leafhopper, the tarnished plant bug, other
members of the families Cicadellidae and Miridae, members of
the family Aphididae, adults of the family Cercopidae, and flea

beetle adults of the family Chrysomelidae.

POTATOES: I

Very definite and good control was obtained for the potato I
leafhopper. In all cases pOpulations of this insect on the !
sprayed plots remained below the pOpulations on the check plot. 1
Control of this insect varied little with the formulation used 1
up to ten days after spraying (see Fig. 6). After ten days,
variations appeared, but the data was insufficient to justify
any comparisons. Drift apparently affected the pOpulations of
this insect on the check plot (see Fig. 14). A

The populations of the six-spotted leathpper showed that
this insect was rather evenly dispersed throughout the field re-
gardless of spraying (see Fig. 7). Spraying did affect the
Populations to varying degrees throughout the testing period
(see Fig. 15). Based on the populations on the check plot DDT
gave poor control of this insect (see Table IV). Drift may
have obscured the true results in this case.

DDT gave some control of the other leathppers found on
potatoes. The difference in populations on the Sprayed plots
and the check plot were slight (see Fig. 8).

In most instances the spittle bug pepulations were greater

66.

on the sprayed plots than.the populations on the check plot

(see Fig. 9). This can be SXplained most clearly by the habits

of the adult Spittle bugs. These insects move about and are easily
disturbed. The disturbance caused by spraying may have caused
many to move to the weeds bordering the field or the spray may
have killed those that were on the potatoes at the time of spray-
ing. In either case the insects would move into the field again
after a period of time had elapsed and settle on the more succu-
lent foliage of the sprayed plants (see Fig. 20).

The tarnished plant bug pOpulations behaved in much the same
way as did those of the spittle bugs (see Fig. 10). These in-
‘sects are strong fliers and readily disturbed and may have flown
to the weeds during spraying operations and returned later.
These insects require meristematic tissue to oviposit in and
would naturally collect on the more succulent foliage of the
Sprayed plants. Spraying either controlled the insects present
at the time of spraying or caused them to leave the field and
remain for a short time (see Fig. 17).

The other plant bugs found on potatoes appeared to be con-
trolled to some extent by DDT (see Fig. 11). These insects may
have behaved in nearly the same manner as the preceeding two,
but in most instances populations on the Sprayed plots were low-
er than those on the check plot (see Fig. 18).

Aphids appeared to benefit from Spraying with DDT. The
data show clearly that aphid populations were generally higher
on the Sprayed plots than on the check plot (see Figs. 12 & 16).

—<—.._.__

 

67.

Aphid populations continued to increase on the sprayed plots at
a much faster rate throughout the testing period than they did
on the cheek plot. These facts verified previous findings that
DDT wettable powders give little or no control.of aphids. Ap-
parently, at the rate applied, DDT kills the parasites and pre-
dators that prey on the aphids but not enough aphids to lower
the reproductive potential markedly.

The flea beetles on potatoes were definitely controlled by
DDT. Good control was obtained up to ten days after spraying
(see Fig. 13). POpulations then increased rapidly if no DDT
was applied. Drift appeared to influence the numbers of these
insects on the check plot to a large extent (see Fig. 19).

The various formulations did not seen to vary too much in
the amount of control they gave. In all instances the sprayed
plots gave higher average yields of U. S. No. 1 potatoes than
did the check plot. The plot receiving Michigan Chemical Cor-
poration's 1335 did not give an average yield much higher then
the check plot, but both of these plots had one replicate which
bordered on weedy margins of the field. These two plots re-
ceived a greater amount of insect damage because the migration
of insects from the weeds into the field would have come pri-

marily through the replicates which bordered the weeds.

BEANS:
At the rate applied, DDT gave excellent control of potato

leafhoppers on beans (see Fig. 21). Drift may have influenced

!-“~ .q! 1‘14. "-4.7 nun-r.- . 1.x“-.gaz

68.

the populations of this insect on the check plot, but not to
the extent that it did on the potatoes (see Fig. 29).

The populations of the six-Spotted leafhopper were small
throughout the testing season. After spraying started, this
insects' numbers were reduced to practically nothing and re-
mained low during the rest of the testing period (see Table
XIV). Apparently the heavy rate of application was the chief
reason for such complete control.

DDT gave good control of the other leafhoppers found on
the beans. In most cases the sprayed plots had populations
below those of the check plot (see Table XV). There was a
marked increase in these insects on August 29 although only
seven days had elapsed since the last spray application (see
Table IV). Good control was obtained up to seven days after
Spraying (see Fig. 23).

Good control of epittle bugs was obtained. The insect
populations remained low for at least seven days after Spray-
ing (see Fig. 24). Migration into the plots after Spraying
did not seem to be a factor.

Fair control of the tarnished plant bug was obtained
also. The numbers of insects on the Sprayed plots remain-
ed below the numbers of this insect on the check plot al-
though they built up faster than the spittle bugs did (see
Fig. 25). Migration onto the plots was probably a larger
factor in this case.

DDT gave very good control of the other plant bugs on

‘.

 

M“ ' '-

69.

beans. P0pulations on Sprayed plots remained low for at

least seven days after spraying (see Fig. 26). After Spraying
had started, pOpulations on the check plot were always higher
than populations on the sprayed plots although in most cases
the difference was small (see Table XVIII).

The aphid population was of low density throughout the
test period (see Table XVI). Only winged forms were observed
or collected. DDT had little or no apparent effect on the
aphids unless it was to attract them to the sprayed plots be-
cause of the white powder which remained as a residue from
spraying (see Fig. 27).

The populations of flea beetles were low on all plots.
DDT apparently gave some control but the numbers of insects
were quite low and it would be difficult to state the effects

exactly (see Fig. 28).

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

1. The pOpulations of insects were in general smaller on the
beans and larger on the potatoes. This was most likely due to
the great differences in the rates of application of the Spray

materials.

2. Drift had a greater effect on the potatoes than it did on
the beans.

3. No apparent difference was great enough in the control ob—
tained by any of the formulations used to allow the recommenda-
tion of any one of them over the rest collectively or any one
singly.

A. Good control was obtained for the potato leathpper on
both the potatoes and beans.

5. Little if any control seemed to be obtained for the six-
spotted leathpper on potatoes while good control was obtained

.for this insect on beans.

6. Good control of other leathppers was obtained on both

potatoes and beans .

'7. Spittle bugcontrol was questionable on the potatoes,

xmigration being a possible factor. On beans, good control of

spittle bugs was obtained.
23. Control of the tarnished plant bug followed the same pat-

tern as the control of spittle bugs, being questionable on

potatoes and good on beans.

9. Only fair control was obtained for other plant bugs on

gustatoes whereas good control was obtained for them on beans.

70

71.

10. Aphids appeared to benefit by the spraying of DDT on

potatoes. Aphid pOpulations were higher on the Sprayed plots
than on the check plot. The pOpulations of this insect were
insufficient on the bean plots to allow a definite statement.
11. Definite and good control of flea beetles resulted from

the application of DDT on potatoes. Not enough flea beetles

m. d fi'l V.”
7

were present on beans to warrant a definite statement, but

DDT apparently gave some control of this insect on these

I -—':‘4l‘.‘..lvuw ‘- Lad.

plants.

4.

5.

7.

11),

LITERATURE CITED

Bjornseth, E. H.
1946 One Year's Results From Dusting Snap Beans to
Control Anthracnose and Leafhoppers. Michigan
Ag. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bul., 28:3, 191-193. 1

Bronson, T. E. and Smith, Floyd F.
1946 Control of Aphids on Potatoes in Northeastern
Maine. Jour. Econ. Ent., 39:189-194.

Bruce, Willis N. and Tauber, Oscar E. F
1945 Trials With DDT on Potatoes, Cabbage, and Squash. 1
figur. Econ. Ent., 38:439-441. 4

Cam bell John C. and Pepper, Bailey B.
l 48 Promising New Chemicals For the Control of Diseases
and Insects. Amer. Potato Jour., 25:82-6.

Ditman, L. C. and Cory, E. N.
1948 Liquefied Gas Aerosols to Control Bean Beetles.
Jour. Econ. Ent., 41:268-275.

Doyle J. A. and Duncan, J.

1948 Comparison of Calcium Arsenate, Chlordane, Lethane,
and DDT in the Control of Potato Insects. Seventy-
ninth Annual Report of the Entomological Society
of Ontario. pps. 22-24.

Fox, C. J. and Perron, J. P.

1945 Report on a Potato Leafhopper Control Experiment
at Ottawa with DDT and Copper Sprays. Seventy-
sixth Annual Report of the Entomological Society
of Ontario. pps. 27-31.

Granovsky, A. A.
1944 Tests of DDT for the Control of Potato Insects.
2222-.EQQQ- Eat., 37:493-499.

Gyrisko, George G.; Jorka, Joseph F. T. and Rawlins, W. A.
1945 DgTigg Eggtrol Potato Insects. £232. Eggn. §Q§.,
3 : "' o

Gyrisko, G. G.; Wene, George P. and Rawlins, W. A.
1946 DDT to Control Potato Aphids. Jour. Econ. Ent.,
39:205-208.

72

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

195

ZCL.

21,-

73.

Harries, F. H.
1944 Laboratory Tests With DDT Against the Pea Aphid
and the Mexican Bean Beetle. Jour. Econ. Ent.,

37:151.

Heuberger, J. W. and Stearns, L. A.
1948 Compatibility of DDT and Fungicides on Potatoes.
Jour. Econ. Ent., 39:267-268.

Kulash, Walter M.
1947 Benzene Hexachloride, DDT, and Chlordane for Colorado
Potato Beetle Control. Jour. Econ. £32.,
[+0 :640-6143 0

Kulash, Walter M.
1947 DDT and Benzene Hexachloride for Potato Flea Beetle
Control. Jour. Econ. Ent., 40:651-654.

 

uwu-v..--—.....__.—__._ _ __ . . ,
' .V ‘.».l ..'- - .' h- .=.‘-.‘!
i

Mitchener, A. V. E
1950 A Comparison of Recent Insecticides with Calcium g_
Arsenate for Control of Potato Insects. Jour. Econ.
Enio ’ [6'3 :176-1780

Morofsky,'W. F. and Muncie, J. H.
1947 The Use of New Insecticides in the Control of
Potato Insects. Amer. Potato Jour., 24:5, 162-166.

Morofsky, W. F. and Muncie, J. H.
1948 Use Of Certain New Materials in the Control of
Potato Insects in Michigan. Amer. Potato Jour.,

25:6, 255-259.

Morofsky, W. F. and Muncie, J. H.

1950 Effectiveness of Certain Insecticidal and Fungicidal
Sprays in Control of Leafhoppers, Aphids, Flea Beetles,
and Early Blight on Potatoes. Michigan Ag. Expt.

Sta. Quart. Bul., 32:3, 307-310.

Muncie, J. H. and Morofsky, W. P.
1947 Results of Spraying and Dusting Potatoes in Michigan
in 1946. Amer. Potato Jour., 24:6, 183-187.

Muncie, J. H. and Morofsky, W. F.
1947 Results of Spraying and Dusting Trials With Fungi-
cides and Insecticides on Potatoes, 1938-45.
Michigan State College Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul. 204.

Nelson, R. H.
1944 Field Experiments on DDT for Control of the Mexican
Bean Beetle. Jour. Econ. Ent., 37:151.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

L30.

131.

74.

Roark, R. C. and McIndoo, N. E.
A Digest of the Literature on DDT Through April 30,
1944. U. S. D. A. Bureau of Ent. and Plant Quarantine.
December, 1944. E-631.

Roark, R. C. and McIndoo, N. E.
A Second Digest of the Literature on DDT. (May 1,
1944, to December 31, 1944) May, 1946. E-687.

Sankuer, Raymond F.
1952 Report on a Study of DDT Residues on Treated Plants
During the 1952 Growing Season. Unpublished re-
ports, Fall, 1952. j

Swingle, M. C. and Mayer, E. L. J
1944 Laboratory Tests of DDT Against Various Insect Pests. k
Jour. Econ. Ent., 37:141-142. 3

Thompson, R. W. *"'
1945 DDT for Potato Leafhopper Control. Seventy-sixth
annual Report of the Ent. Society of‘Ontario.
pps. 22- 26.

Turner, Neely.
1946 Organic Insecticides for Control of the.Mexican
Bean Beetle. Conn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 512.
ppS Q 68-69 9

Turner, Neely, and Woodruff, Nancy.
1948 Chlorinated Insecticides for Control oftshe Potato
Flea Beetle. Jour. Econ. Ent., 21:328-329.

Turner, Neely and Woodruff, Nancy.
1949 Effect of Formulations of DDT and of Chlordane on
Potato Flea Beetle and Yield. Jour. Econ. Ent.,

#23270'h730

Voss, C. M. and Andre, Floyd.
1948 Observations of Aphids on Potatoes in Northern
Wisconsin, 1947. Amer. Potato Jour., 25: 266-272.

Wiegel, C. A.
1944 DDT Against Some Pests of Vegetable CrOps. Jour.
Econ. Ent., 37:150.

/
:l
JI/r’;

’0
f

\
\ .
\
\.

k..—

L-~~

3.3- .

 

 

114.1 ti‘»

 

 

ROOM USE 05 I

 

 

IIIHIIIIIIHHIUIIH

MVIWI‘JI

03058

III
I
N'
l
'
I
I'
l
l
l
l
l
'

lllllllllllllll

2054

93

31