Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:03:45.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FOLIAR APPLICATIONS OF BEAUVERIA BASSIANA (BALSAMO) VUILLEMIN FOR CONTROL OF THE COLORADO POTATO BEETLE, LEPTINOTARSA DECEMLINEATA (SAY) (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE): AN OVERVIEW OF PILOT TEST RESULTS FROM THE NORTHERN UNITED STATES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Ann E. Hajek ,
Richard S. Soper ,
Donald W. Roberts ,
Thomas E. Anderson ,
K. Duane Biever ,
David N. Ferro ,
Roger A. LeBrun  and
Richard H. Storch
Ann E. Hajek
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, Plant Protection Research, Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA14853
Richard S. Soper
Affiliation:
USDA, ARS, Plant Protection Research, Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA14853
Donald W. Roberts
Affiliation:
Insect Pathology Resource Center, Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA14853
Thomas E. Anderson
Affiliation:
Insect Pathology Resource Center, Boyce Thompson Institute, Ithaca, New York, USA14853
K. Duane Biever
Affiliation:
Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Yakima, Washington, USA98902
David N. Ferro
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA01003
Roger A. LeBrun
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology & Entomology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA02881
Richard H. Storch
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA04473
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An overview of data from five research groups participating in a 3-year pilot test on the efficacy of foliar applications of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin for control of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), populations in the northern United States is presented. Four treatments were used at each site: high and low B. bassiana dosages (5 × 1013 colony forming units (CFU) per hectare (ha) and 5 × 1012 CFU/ha), the recommended insecticide for each region, and an untreated check. The primary response variable was potato yield. For analyses considering test sites as replicates, during all 3 years the highest yields were produced in plots treated with insecticides. Within test sites, yields from plots receiving B. bassiana applications were greater than control plot yields in 8 of 24 trials but in only two of these instances, B. bassiana plot yields also did not differ from insecticide plot yields. Evaluating 1983 data from all states together, no differences were found between either high or low B. bassiana treatments and controls. The 1983 study design allowed no plot replication within states. In 1985, an altered plot design providing within-site replication demonstrated increased yield with increased dosage of B. bassiana when initial egg density was used as a covariate.

Potato yields greater than control plot yields were noted with a minimum of 5.39 and 6.62 × 1011 CFU/ha B. bassiana. The lowest B. bassiana concentration producing yields not significantly different from insecticide plot yields was 6.62 × 1012 CFU/ha (Rhode Island, 1984). Defoliation ratings did not differ between B. bassiana treatments and controls in 1984 and 1985, although variability was found between yields.

Résumé

On présente un sommaire des données provenant de cinq groupes de chercheurs participant à une étude pilote de l’efficacité des applications foliaires de Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin pour la lutte contre les populations du doryphore de la pomme de terre, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Quatre traitements ont été utilisés à chaque site : une dose élevée (5 × 1013 unités génératrices de colonie [CFU] par hectare [ha]), une dose faible (5 × 1012 CFU/ha), un traitement insecticide tel que recommandé pour la région, et un témoin non-traité. La mesure d’efficacité principale était le rendement. Pour les analyses considérant les sites comme des réplicats, les rendements les plus élevés au cours de 3 ans furent obtenus dans les parcelles traitées aux insecticides. Une analyse intra-site montre que le rendement des parcelles ayant reçu des applications de B. bassiana était supérieur à celui des parcelles témoins dans 8 de 24 essais, mais dans seulement deux de ces cas, le rendement avec B. bassiana ne différait-il pas de celui du traitement insecticide. Les données de 1983 pour l’ensemble des états ne montrent pas de différence entre les traitements au B. bassiana à dose élevée ou basse, et les témoins. L’étude de 1983 n’avait pas prévu de réplicats dans chaque état. En 1985, un plan expérimental avec réplication par état a permis de démontrer une augmentation du rendement avec un dosage plus élevé de B. bassiana lorsque la densité initiale d’oeufs était ajoutée comme covariable.

Des rendements supérieurs aux témoins ont été obtenus avec un minimum de 5,39 et 6,62 × 1011 CFU/ha de B. bassiana. La concentration minimale de B. bassiana ayant produit des rendements non significativement différents de ceux des parcelles traitées aux insecticides fût de 6,62 × 1012 CFU/ha (Rhode Island, 1984). Les indices de défoliation ne différaient pas entre les traitements et les témoins en 1984 et 1985, quoique qu’il y avait de la variabilité entre les rendements.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 119 , Issue 11 , November 1987 , pp. 959 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alyeshina, O.E. 1978. Status and prospects of the study of entomopathogenic fungi in the USSR. pp. 20–34in Ignoffo, C.M. (Ed.), Proc. 1st Joint US/USSR Conference on Production, Selection, and Standardization of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
Anderson, T.E., Roberts, D.W., and Soper, R.S.. 1988. Use of Beauveria bassiana for suppression of Colorado potato beetle in New York State (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Ent. In press.Google Scholar
Bajan, C., Kmitowa, K., Wojciechowska, M., and Fedorko, A.. 1977. The effect of entomopathogenic micro-organisms introduced into the soil on the development of successive generations of the Colorado beetle. Pol. Ecol. Stud. 3: 157–165.Google Scholar
Campbell, R.K., Anderson, T.E., Semel, M., and Roberts, D.W.. 1985. Management of the Colorado potato beetle using the entomogenous fungus Beauveria bassiana. Am. Pot. J. 62: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, G.E., Cantelo, W.W., and Schroder, R.F.W.. 1986. Effect of Beauveria bassiana on underground stages of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Grt. Lakes Ent. 19: 81–84.Google Scholar
Fargues, J. 1973. Sensibilité des larves de Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say (Col., Chrysomelidae) a Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuill. (Fungi Imperfecti, Moniliales) en présence de doses réduites d'insecticide. Ann. Zool. Ecol. Anim. 5: 231–246.Google Scholar
Fargues, J. 1975. Étude experimentale dans la nature de l'utilization combinée de Beauveria bassiana et d'insecticides a dose réduite contre Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Ann. Zool. Ecol. Anim. 7: 247–264.Google Scholar
Fargues, J., and Ferron, P.. 1975. Biological control of the Colorado beetle by Beauveria bassiana (Bals.) Vuillemin. VIII Intern. Plt. Prot. Congr., Sec. V., pp. 73–85.Google Scholar
Fargues, J., Cugier, J.P., and van de Weghe, P.. 1980. Experimentation en parcelles du champignon Beauveria bassiana (Hyphomycète) contre Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Col., Chrysomelidae). Acta Ecologica 1: 49–61.Google Scholar
Forgash, A.J. 1985. Insecticide resistance in the Colorado potato beetle. pp. 33–52in Ferro, D.N., and Voss, R.H. (Eds.), Proc. Symp. on the Colorado Potato Beetle, XVIIth Intern. Cong. Ent. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 704: 33–52.Google Scholar
Franz, J.M. 1961. Biological control of pest insects in Europe. Annu. Rev. Ent. 6: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galaini, S. 1984. The efficacy of foliar applications of Beauveria bassiana conidia against Leptinotarsa decemlineata. M.S. thesis, Cornell University. 94 pp.Google Scholar
Gardner, W.A., Sutton, R.M., and Noblet, R.. 1977. Persistence of Beauveria bassiana, Nomuraea rileyi, and Nosema necatrix on soybean foliage. Environ. Ent. 6: 616–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, N.L., Hofmaster, R.N., and Semel, M.. 1981. History of Colorado potato beetle control. pp. 13–33in Lashomb, J.H., and Casagrande, R. (Eds.), Advances in Potato Pest Management. Hutchinson Ross Publ. Co., Stroudsburg, PA.Google Scholar
Harcourt, D.G. 1963. Population dynamics of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) in eastern Ontario. I. Spatial pattern and transformation of field counts. Can. Ent. 95: 813–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, J.D. 1980. Impact of defoliation by the Colorado potato beetle on potato yields. J. econ. Ent. 73: 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, J.D., and Andreadis, T.B.. 1983. Variation in the susceptibility of Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) when reared on different host plants to the fungal pathogen, Beauveria bassiana in the field and laboratory. Environ. Ent. 12: 1892–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. 1984. Use, misuse, and role of multiple-comparison procedures in ecological and agricultural entomology. Environ. Ent. 13: 635–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappa, N.V. 1978. Practical applications of entomopathogenic muscardine fungi. pp. 51–57in Ignoffo, C.M. (Ed.), Proc. 1st Joint US/USSR Conference on Production, Selection, and Standardization of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
Larczenko, K.I. 1958. Length of the development of the Colorado beetle as depending upon temperature. Rocz. Nauk. Roln., Serv. A 78: 27–42.Google Scholar
Lipa, J.J. 1985. Progress in biological control of the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) in Eastern Europe. Bull. OEPP 15: 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, P.A., and Casagrande, R.A.. 1980. Predicting Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) density and potato yield loss. Environ. Ent. 9: 659–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loria, R., Galaini, S., and Roberts, D.W.. 1983. Survival of inoculum of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana as influenced by fungicides. Environ. Ent. 12: 1724–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meynell, G.G. 1957. Inherently low precision of infectivity titrations using a quantal response. Biometrics 13: 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D.W., LeBrun, R.A., and Semel, M.. 1981. Control of the Colorado potato beetle with fungi. pp. 119–137in Lashomb, J.H., and Casagrande, R. (Eds.), Advances in Potato Pest Management. Hutchinson Ross Publ. Co., Stroudsburg, PA.Google Scholar
Shands, W.A., Simpson, G.W., and Gordon, C.C.. 1971. Growth characteristics of potato plants useful in studies of population dynamics and biological control of aphids. Am. Pot. J. 48: 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological methods. Chapman and Hall, New York. 524 pp.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc. 1982. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 584 pp.Google Scholar
Watt, B.A., and LeBrun, R.A.. 1984. Soil effects of Beauveria bassiana on pupal populations of the Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Ent. 13: 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojciechowska, M., Kmitowa, K., Fedorko, A., and Bajan, C.. 1977. Duration of activity of entomopathogenic microorganisms introduced into the soil. Pol. Ecol. Stud. 3: 141–148.Google Scholar
Yevlakhova, A.A. 1978. Basic trends in the use of entomopathogenic fungi in the Soviet Union. pp. 36–50in Ignoffo, C.M. (Ed.), Proc. 1st Joint US/USSR Conference on Production, Selection, and Standardization of Entomopathogenic Fungi. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.Google Scholar