Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T12:13:39.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effect of Insecticide Applications on the Insect Fauna and Seed Yield of Alsike Clover in Southern Ontario1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

D. P. Pielou
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph

Extract

The work described here is an attempt to assess the effect of insecticides, particularly DDT, on the more prominent elements of the insect fauna of alsike clover Trifolium hybridum L., and on the yield of seed harvested. The decline in legume seed production, over a period of years, in districts which were once major seed producing areas is a familiar story in North America. For instance, Sorenson (1939) records that in 1925 Utah produced nearly 40 per cent of the total alfalfa seed in the United States. Five years later this state produced less than 4 per cent, the drop being largely the result of a decline in yield from an average of 6.4 to 1.2 bushels per acre. A similar history has been experienced in the production of alsike clover seed in Southern Ontario in the last twenty years. Haldimand County once produced heavy and profitable yields of over 5 bushels per acre but now yield is so poor and unprofitable that it is difficult even to find fields left for Experimental work. No doubt many causes are at work in this reduction but there is good reason to believe that the successful establishment oi specific insect pests, as a large and permanent part of the fauna, has been partly responsible in both these cases.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1950

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

Arnott, D. A. 1948. The Clover Seed Weevils, Tychius picirostris and Tycbius griseus as Pests of Clover Seed in South-western Ontario. 78 Ann. Rept. Ent. Soc. Ont. 1947.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, T. R. and Medler, J. T. 1949. Tests against the Meadow Spittlebug on Alfalfa. Jour. Econ. Ent. 43(1): 711.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, T. R., Medler, J. T. and O'Neill, E. J. 1948. Insecticides for Control of Spittlebug Nymphs in Wisconsin. Jour. Econ. Ent. 41(3): 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, W. G. and Arant, F. S. 1948. DDT Residues on Alfalfa. Jour. Econ. Ent. 41(3): 383387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, E. H. and Allen, T. C. 1946. Alfalfa and Clover Severely Damaged by Spittlebugs. Wis. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 469: 15.Google Scholar
Hills, O. A. 1944. DDT and other insecticides for the Say stinkbug and tarnished plant bug. Jour. Econ. Ent. 31(1): 142–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, F. V. 1945. New insecticides for control of Alfalfa seed insects. Utah Agr. Expt. Sta. Farm and Home Sci. 6(3): 34.Google Scholar
Lieberman, F. V. 1946. Experiments with DDT, Sabadilla and pyrethrum dusts for control of Lygus spp. on seed alfalfa. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 38(6): 489–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng-Fi, Li and Larson, R. E. 1949. Meligethes aeneus as a Factor in the Musk Melon Breeding Program in Pennsylvania. Jour. Econ. Ent. 42(2): 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medler, J. T. and Scholl, J. M. 1947. Control of Insects Affecting Alfalfa Seed Production in Wisconsin. Jour. Econ. Ent. 40(4): 579581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medler, J. T. and Chamberlin, T. R. 1948. Seed Yields of Red and Ladino Clovers Increased by Use of Insecticides. Jour. Econ. Ent. 41(1): 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelbacher, A. E., Smith, R. F. and Smith, G. L. 1945. In Investigations with DDT in California, 1944. Univ. Calif. Ag. Expt. Sta.Google Scholar
Packard, C. M. 1945. Experiments with DDT for control of insects attacking cereal and forage crops in the field and in storage. U.S.D.A., B.E.P.Q. E640.Google Scholar
Pederson, C. E. 1948. Insecticides Increase Legume Seed. Michigan Agr. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bul. 30(3): 298308.Google Scholar
Scholl, J. M. and Medler, J. T. 1947. Spittlebugs in Relation to Alfalfa Seed Production in Wisconsin. Jour. Econ. Ent. 40(3): 466467.Google ScholarPubMed
Schwardt, H. H., Newson, L. D. and Norton, L. B. 1947. Increasing Red Clover Yields by Treatment with DDT or Hexachloro-cyclohexane. Jour. Econ. Ent. 40(3): 363365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, F. R. and Butler, G. D. 1949. The Effects of DDT, Benzene Hexachloride and Parathion on the Honeybee. Jour. Econ. Ent. 42(5): 855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. F. and Michelbacher, A. E. 1946. Control of Lygus Bugs in Alfalfa Seed Fields. Jour. Econ. Ent. 39(5): 638648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. F., Fullmer, O. H. and Messenger, P. S. 1948. DDT Residues on Alfalfa and Seed Chaff. Jour. Econ. Ent. 41(5): 755758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. F., Hoskins, W. M. and Fullmer, O. H. 1948. Secretion of DDT in Milk of Dairy Cows Fed Low Residue Alfalfa Hay. Jour. Econ. Ent. 41(5): 759763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson, C. J. 1932. Insects in Relation to Alfalfa Seed Production. Utah Agr. Expt. Sta. Circ. 98.Google Scholar
Sorenson, C. J. 1936. Lygus Bugs in Relation to Occurrence of Shrivelled Alfalfa Seed. Jour. Econ. Ent. 29(2): 454457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson, C. J. 1939. Lygus Bugs in Relation to Alfalfa Seed Production. Utah Expt. Sta. Bull. 284.Google Scholar
Sorenson, C. J. 1942. Insecticidal Tests for Field Control of Lygus Bugs in Seed Alfalfa. Jour. Econ. Ent. 35(6): 884886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson, C. J. and Carlson, J. W. 1946. Insecticidal Control of Lygus in Alfalfa Seed Production. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 38(6): 495501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stitt, L. L. 1940. Three Species of Genus Lygus and their Relation to Alfalfa Seed Production in Southern Arizona and California. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 741.Google Scholar
Way, M. J. and Synge, A. D. 1948. Effect of DDT and of Benzene Hexachloride on Bees. Ann. Appl. Biol. 35(1): 94109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, M. C. 1949. Organic Insecticides to Control Alfalfa Insects. Jour. Econ. Ent. 42(3): 496498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar