Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 262
Literature Search on the
D Biological Aspects of the
Use of the
Pesticide Dimethoatei
INTRODUCTION
Dimethoate is a systemic insecticide used extensively in agriculture.
About 2 million lb are used annually in the United States, primarily on
grapes, corn, cotton, sorghum, tobacco, alfalfa, sallower, and vegetable
crops for controlling arthropod pests, such as sucking insects, leaf
miners, and mites. The largest portion of dimethoate used on any single
crop is on grapes, about 23 percent of production; beans account for
another 11 percent of dimethoate used; and sorghum accounts for 16
percent. This appendix reports the results of a literature search
concentrated on aspects of dimethoate use on pests of grapes in
California (California produces about 90 percent of U.S. grapes). Data
also are reported for beans and grain sorghum. Production, acreage
harvested, value of harvest, and acreage treated with pesticides are given
for these crops in Table D. 1.
GRAPES
GRAPE LEAFHOPPER
Need for Grape Leafhopper Control
In California, the grape leafhopper, Erythroneura elegantula, is the single
most important pest of grapes to be controlled with dimethoate. The
262
OCR for page 263
Appendix D
263
USDA/State assessment team on dimethoate cites leafhopper (including
E. variabilis, a leafhopper pest of southern California) problems as being
always heavy in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys and in
southern California. Losses due to uncontrolled leafhopper infestations
in these areas are estimated at 5~100 percent; losses of 1~100 percent
are estimated for other parts of California (usDA/State 1978~.
According to Jensen et al. (1969), however, grapevines can tolerate
high numbers of leafhoppers without reduction in yield or sugar content.
The authors estimated that up to 20 leafhopper nymphs per leaf in the
first brood and 10 nymphs in the second can be tolerated on Thompson
Seedless grapevines. It was concluded that growers' tolerance of these
levels of infestation would eliminate unnecessary pesticide applications
and thereby reduce operating costs, retard the development of pesticide
resistance by pests, and reduce incidences of biological disruption.
Lynn et al. (1965) found no differences in yield caused by leafhoppers
between plots treated with insecticide and untreated plots. Apparently
the leafhoppers were controlled by the parasitic wasp Anagrus epos (see
below), after reaching a peak of eight nymphs per leaf in late July. The
authors concluded that many grape growers use unnecessary pesticide
treatments for leafhopper control, and that this practice sometimes
results in severe secondary outbreaks of mite pests. Petersen (1965) is in
agreement with this conclusion.
In much of California, primarily north and central California, grape
leafhoppers are held below economic injury levels by the parasitic wasp
Anagrus epos. This native wasp parasitizes leafhopper eggs, and overwin-
ters on a noneconomic (i.e., one for which the cost of controlling exceeds
the losses from not treating) leafhopper, the Rubus leafhopper, Dikrella
cruentata. While the grape leafhopper undergoes reproductive diapause
during the winter, the Rubus leafhopper remains active, living on
evergreen Rubus species. Doutt and Nakata (1973) state that the peak
spring emergence of A. epos adults from Rubus leafhopper eggs is
~im~ll~nen~s with the beginning of grape leafhopper oviposition in
vineyards. At this time, A. epos expands its niche to include grape
leafhopper eggs, and, where vineyards are near Rubus refuges, the
proportion of grape leafhopper eggs killed is very high. If not disrupted
by pesticide treatments, A. epos continues to heavily parasitize grape
leafhopper eggs throughout the summer. In another paper, Doutt and
Nakata (1965) state that the grape leafhopper/Rubus leafhopper/A. epos
host-parasite complex occurs in the wild in California; and, where wild
grapes and Rubus occur in the same area, there are no large populations
of grape leafhoppers on wild grapes. Doutt et al. (1966) studied dispersal
of A. epos from an artificial Rubus refuge and found that A. epos
OCR for page 264
264
U)
4 -
Ct
4 -
a
-
4
Ct
a,
EM
-
.0
o
o
d
m
Cat
1 1
00
Ct
o
._
Cal
._
D
$ -
~4
· Cal
._
:,
·C)
._
C)
Cal
_.
V]
ao
C~
o
4
-
o
._
~0
CO
O ~ O
d.
O C~
t- ~)
~o
~ ~ o
O O -
_ _ X
X X
d.
_
_
69 6~ 6
~o
o
X o O
O X
g O d.
.
oo
~o
O O
_ _
X X
oO
~ ~0
1 ~ ~
1 - _
C) ~ ~ O
o
U.
~?
D
a,
D
·_1 .
oO
cr~
~ _
-
~ ~ .
_ - _
_ - ~L)
~S ~ ~
aa ~
cq cq ~
.. .. ..
O O O
q5 ~ C~
OCR for page 265
Appendix D
265
electively controlled grape leafhoppers for a radius of 3.5 miles around
the refuge, an area of 38 square miles. However, Jensen et al. (1969) state
that A. egos is not equally elective on all grape varieties and that
planting Rubus refuges for overwintering A. egos populations is not
always effective in controlling the grape leafhopper.
Toxicity of Dimethoate to Parasitoid Wasps
No data were found concerning dimethoate toxicity to A. egos. Bartlett
(1963, 1966) reported that dimethoate is highly toxic to five species of
parasitoid wasps, Aphytis lignanertsis, A. melinus, Metaphycis luteolus, M.
helvolus, Spalangia drosophilae, and Leptomastix dactyloppii. Shorey
(1963) found dimethoate relatively nontoxic to the parasitic wasp
Diaretiella rapae.
Effectiveness of Dimethoate for Leafhopper Control
AliNiazee et al. (1971) found dimethoate elective for leafhopper control
on grapes at application rates of 1 lb/acre and 2 lb/acre. Jensen et al.
(1961) found dimethoate elective for grape leafhopper control when 0.7
lb/acre was applied as dust or 1.1 lb/acre was applied in a water
dilution, but not when 0.6 lb/acre was applied in a water dilution.
Stafford and Kido (1969) found that dimethoate applied at 2 lb/acre
reduced the leafhopper population by 99 percent on the test plot. No
yield data were given in any of these studies.
PACIFIC SPIDER MITE
Need for Spider Mite Control
The most important mite pest of grapes in California is the pacific spider
mite, Tetranychus pacificus. According to the usDA/State assessment
team on dimethoate (usDA/State 1978), pacific mite populations increase
rapidly during the warmer times of the year, and, within a 10-day period,
an otherwise healthy vineyard may become brown and sickly because of
mite feeding. Dimethoate gives adequate control, but is usually used only
when leafhopper control is the primary objective. Mites are a problem in
all grape-growing areas of California except the central coast, and are
sporadically problematic in southern California.
Flaherty and Huffaker (1970) found no significant differences in yield
between check plots and plots treated with acaricides when mite
populations became large late in the growing season. However, a
OCR for page 266
266
Appendix D
TABLE D.2 Effects of Pacific Mites on Thompson
Seedless Grape Berries and Raisins
From Vines
with Pacific
Mite Damage
From Vines
without Pacific
Mite Damage
Average weight 1.96 2.02
per berry (g)
Raisins (grade)a
B+ (percent) 34 65
C(percent) 56 30
C- (percent) 10 5
a Raisin samples were run through the California Raisin Advisory Board
Air Stream Sorter. B+ is above average heavy; C; is minimum require-
ment; C- is not acceptable, too light. Sorter measures meatiness, which
correlates with berry size and sugar content.
Source: Modified from Flaherty and Huffaker (1970).
decrease in berry size and quality was found when mite populations
became large early in the season (Table D.2~. Laing et al. (1972) studied
the ejects of pacific mites on grape yield and quality. Using a vine-by-
vine analysis, the authors did not find significant correlation between
mite densities on the grapevines and yield or sugar content of the grapes.
The study was done in two vineyards. In the first, average mite density
on vines sampled ranged from 2.1 to 225 mites/leaf during the 3-week
study period; in the second, it ranged from 10.8 to 205.8 mites/leaf
during a 4-week period. The authors concluded that high mite densities
would have to occur early in the season to produce defoliation and a
significant reduction in yield, but that late-season high mite densities
may result in yield reductions in the following year. Kinn et al. (1974)
also studied the ejects of pacific mites on grape yield and quality and
found that mite infestations caused reduction in grape quality only when
the grapevines were under high stress. The authors report an increase in
grape yield of 66 percent on plots where mite predators were released to
control pacific mites.
Role of Mite Predator in Control of the Pacific Mite
The Phytoseiid mite, Metaseiulus occidentalis, is the most important
native predator of pacific mites (Flaherty and Hu~aker 1970, Kinn et al.
1974~. Flaherty and Hunker (1970) and Kinn and Doutt (1972) studied
OCR for page 267
Appendix D
267
M. occidentalis and pacific mites on grapevines. They found that in
vineyards that were infrequently treated with pesticides, M. occidentalis
was an efficient predator capable of controlling the pacific mite and able
to respond to both high and low prey densities. The willamette mite,
Eotetranychus willamettei, which was considered to be a serious pest in
the past, was found to be relatively innocuous as a grapevine pest, and
an integral part of the predator-prey system. The willamette mite is
distributed diffusely on the grapevine in relatively stable numbers in
contrast to the pacific mite, which congregates on leaves that receive the
most sun and increases explosively in number during the warmer times
of the year. In undisturbed vineyards, the willamette mite serves as a
food base on which M. occidentalis maintains a stable population. Under
these conditions, when the pacific mite starts to increase, M. occidentalis
will be present in sufficient numbers to keep the pacific mite under
control.
Secondary Mite Outbreaks
The pacific spider mite has become a serious pest of vineyards only since
organic pesticides have come into widespread use for control of the
grape leafhopper and other insect pests (Flaherty et al. 1969, 1972;
Flaherty and Huffaker 1970; Kinn and Doutt 1972; Kinn et al. 1974;
Laing et al. 1972~. Furthermore, it has been noted that vineyards on
which little or no pesticide has been used were not likely to have mite
outbreaks, while those vineyards which relied on frequent pesticide use
often had serious mite outbreaks (Flaherty and Huffaker 1970, Flaherty
et al. 1972~. Flaherty et al. noted that Towers in Fresno County alone
had been spending about $1 million annually on spider mite control, yet
considerable vineyard damage still occurred.
Flaherty and Hu~aker (1970) studied the vineyard mite situation in
detail. They stated that pesticide treatments tend to disrupt the predator-
prey balance by directly destroying the predators, or by indirectly
destroying the predators by destroying their prey, or a combination of
both. Once the predator population is destroyed, any surviving pacific
mites can reproduce explosively and reach economically damaging
densities before the predator population can increase enough to control
them. This disruption leads to wildly fluctuating predator and prey
populations and results in overexploitation of the prey by the predator,
bringing about population crashes and continuation of imbalance. Once
pesticide use is curtailed in a vineyard, it takes several years for a stable
predator-prey balance to reestablish itself. Flaherty and Huffaker (1970)
observed a 3-year average of 0.09 predator mites/prey mite during spring
OCR for page 268
268
Appendix D
TABLE D.3 Distribution of Peak Predator (Metaseialus occidentalis)
and Prey (Pacific and Willamette) Mite Populations In Pesticide Treated
and Untreated Vineyards (last treated July, 1964; data collected August 19,
1970)
Item, Number of
Vineyard with
Treatment History
Vineyard without
Treatment History
Willamette mites on 40 leaves98461500
Leaves (out of 40) with Willamette mites4027
Pacific mites on 40 leaves366810
Leaves (out of 40) with Pacific mites3,5
M. occidentals on 40 leaves6729
Leaves (out of 40) with M. occidentalis108
M. c~ccidental~s to prey (ratio)0.0050.020
Source: Flaherty, D. L., and C. B. Huffaker. Biological control of Pacific mites and Willamette
mites in San Joaquin valley-vineyards. I. Role of Metaseiulus occidentalis. II. Influence of dis-
persion patterns of Metaseiulus occidentalis. Hilgardia 40:267-330, Copyright 1970. By per-
m~ssion of the University of California.
in a vineyard with a history of pesticide treatments, while one with no
history of pesticide treatments had 2.42 predator mites/orev mite. More
data are provided from these authors in Table D.3.
r - -a
Flaherty and Huffaker (1970) suggested several measures that can help
to restore mite predator-prey balance in vineyards once pesticide
treatments have been stopped. It has been noted that vineyards planted
with Sudan grass have less of a spider mite problem than the more
common clean and cultivated vineyards. Sprinkler irrigation helps
control mite pests without upsetting predators. Sprinkling costs more
money than furrow irrigation, but the use of sprinkler irrigation increases
grape quality and production, electively reduces spring frost, summer
heat, and powdery mildew problems, and saves money by reducing the
need for pesticide applications. The judicious use of acaricides, which are
selectively poisonous to pacific mites but not to M. occidentalis, can help
the grower avoid loss during the normalizing period. Any practices that
increase grapevine vigor reduce susceptibility to pacific mite damage.
Toxicity of Dimethoate to Phytoseiid Predators
No studies were found that tested the toxicity of dimethoate on M.
occidentalis; however, data were found concerning other phytoseiids.
Bartlett (1964), after studying the toxicity of pesticides on Amblyseius
OCR for page 269
Appendix D
269
hibisci, concluded that low-persistence toxicants such as dimethoate can
completely eliminate populations of phytoseiids. Bartlett found Mat
dimethoate at 0.5 lb/acre was highly toxic to A. hibisci. Smith et al.
(1963) studied the residual toxicity of 31 pesticides on Typhlodromus
fallacus and Phytoseiulus persimilis and found that dimethoate residues
remained toxic to these predators for 20 days, 7 days longer than any
other pesticide tested. When 19 pesticides were tested for short-term
toxicity, dimethoate was one of three pesticides that consistently cause
100 percent mortality in both predators. Watve and Lienk (1975) tested
36 pesticides for toxicity to Amblyseius fallacis and Typhlodromus pyrii
and found dimethoate to be one of the two most toxic pesticides tested.
Effectiveness of Dimethoate for Pacific Mite Control
No usable data were found on the electiveness of dimethoate for pacific
mite control.
THRIPS
Western Flower Thrips
The western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, is attracted to grape
flower clusters and may be present during fruit formation. The flower
thrips cause scarring and dwarfing of new shoots in early spring. The
flower thrips oviposit in developing berries, causing the formation of
scars, called halo spots, which usually only mar the appearance of the
grapes, but which can cause the skin of Italia grapes to weaken and
break, leading to bunch rot (usDA/State 19784.
Jensen (1973) stated that only a few varieties of grapes, such as
Almeria, Calmeria, and Italia, are ordinarily affected by halo spots.
Yokoyama (1977b) studied scarring of table grapes by western flower
thrips and found that the thrips scarred the rachis, laterals, and berry
pedicels of Thompson Seedless and Calmeria grapes, but did not cause
necrotic scars on the surface of the fruit. The author found that grape
clusters that supported up to 1,582 thrips did not have a greater amount
of surface scars than noninfected clusters. Data from Yokoyama are
presented in Tables D.4 and D.5.
Jensen (1973) studied dimethoate for western flower thrips control and
found that dimethoate-treated Calmeria and Italia grapes had sig-
nificantly less halo spotting than untreated grapes, especially when
treatment was applied during early bloom stages, or when multiple
OCR for page 270
270
~ V
V ~
~ on
V
~ .=
V: :
o ~
·_ S
· :~,
`.L, to,
~ .S
Cal ~
pi. o
C.~-
o Cal o
~ ~ o
·~Z ~
~ of
en, on
C
~ 3 ~
so
To
4-
o
z
of
-
rig
o
Us Us Us
. . .
o ~o ~o ~
~^ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 ~
~ =: ~ =: ~ ~
b E ~ E E ~ b b
~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8
$0 r 0, ~t r ~ r 0
-
_
r~ ~ v) _ C~ ~ ~ o0
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
~ O ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ cr~
00 _ _ ~ _ ~ _
00 ~ 00
O _ 00
O C-1 0 - 1
~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ _
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
~ l~ ~ _ _ 00 ~ O 00
'} _ ~ _
cr ~0
-
r~
_
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
~_ ~ ~ ~ O
~ _ ~ _ _ O _
~) c~
~ ~ ~ ~_
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1
d- t~N \= ~ oo _ ~ 0 -
_ _ _
o
O O
O ~_.
-
'e
.= - ~
·c ~o
o o
~ ~4
~;
. - o
=:
.
~o
aq ~
aq ~
~o
~c~
OCR for page 271
Appendix D
271
treatments were used (Tables D.6 and D.7~. A paper by Jensen and
Luvisi (1973) reported similar findings (Table Deb.
Grape Thrips
The USDA/State assessment team on dimethoate states that grape thrips,
Drepanothrips reuteri, do most of their damage to grapes by scarring the
berries and making them unfit for the table market. Grape thrips also
damage the vines by feeding on the young leaves and tender shoots.
Grape thrips are electively controlled by dimethoate (usDA/State 1978~.
Yokoyama (1977a) examined the ejects of grape thrips on Thompson
Seedless grapes and found that the thrips were not associated with
scarred fruit. The thrips did cause distortion of some of the leaves, but
the author concluded that it is unnecessary to control grape thrips as a
routine vineyard practice.
BEANS
A summary of yield data found in the literature on dimethoate use on
beans is presented in Table D.9.
GRAIN SORGHUM
The greenbug, Schizaphis graminum, is the most important sorghum pest
controlled by dimethoate. The report of the usDA/State assessment team
on dimethoate (usDA/State 1978) gave potential grain sorghum losses to
greenbugs as 25 percent, if no controls were available to treat
infestations.
Cate et al. (1973) carried out experiments to test the electiveness of
experimental and registered pesticides for greenbug control on grain
sorghum. They found that yields were not increased by greenbug control
at the levels of infestation encountered during the 3-year study, and
concluded that much of the greenbug control practiced is unwarranted.
DePew (1971) found that dimethoate treatment did not produce a
statistically significant increase in grain sorghum yield. DePew (1972)
and Daniels (1972) reported only small increases in yield due to
dimethoate control of the greenbug (Table D.10~.
Peters et al. (1975) and Teetes et al. (1975b) reported dimethoate
resistance in strains of the greenbug. Grain sorghum strains have been
developed that are effectively resistant to greenbug damage (Harvey and
Hackerott 1974, Starks and Wood 1974, and Teetes et al. 1975a). Data
from Harvey- and Hackerott and Teetes et al. are given in Table D.11.
OCR for page 272
272 Appendix D
TABLE D.S Comparison of the Quality of Calmeria Table Grapes That
Were Exposed to Frankliniella occidentalis During Bloom
Percent Bloom
Number of Adults
Caged per Cluster
Number of Berries
per Centimeter
of Rachis
Percent of Berries
with Oviposi-
tional Scars
0 0 2 0
50 0 6+2 3 +3
100 0 8+2 12+22
100 25 5+2 16+8
100 75 7+3 58+3
100 100 5+1 31+22
Source: Yokoyama(1977b).
TABLE D.6 Effect of Dimethoate Treatment and
Timing of Treatment on Thrips Damage to Italia Grapes
(! lb/acre dimethoate per treatment)
Treatment Dates
Percent Fruit with
Halo Spotting
Check (no treatment)
May 1 (5 percent bloom)
May 8 (95 percent bloom)
May 15 (shatter stage, berries
4-5 mm in diameter)
May22
Mayl,8, 15,22
18.3
4.02
4.37
14.4
17.9
0.559
Source: Adapted from F. Jensen. Flower thrips damage to table grapes
in San Joaquin Valley: (1) Halo spot timing; (2) nymphs and scarring.
California Agriculture 27 (10) :6-7, Copyright 1973. By permission of
the University of California.
OCR for page 273
Appendix D
TABLE D.7 Effect of Dimethoate Treatment and
Tim~ng of Treatment on Thrips Damage to Calmeria
Grapes (! lb/acre dimethoate per treatment)
Treatment Dates
Percent Fruit with
Halo Spotting
Check (no treatment)
May 8 (20 percent bloom)
May 15 (70 percent bloom)
May 22 (past shatter, berries
4-6 mm in diameter)
May 30 (berries 6-8 mm in diameter)
May 8, 15, 22, 30
12.6
7.24
3.42
9.15
13.4
Q.652
Source: Adapted from F. Jensen. Flower thrips damage to table grapes
in San Joaquin Valley: (1) Halo spot timing; (2) nymphs and scarring.
California Agriculture 27(10):6-7, Copyright 1973. By permission of
the University of California.
TABLE D.8 Effect of Dimethoate Treatments and
Timing of Treatments on the Amount of Halo Spotting of
Thompson Seedless Grapes (! Ib/acre dimethoate per
treatment)
Date Treated
Area of Berry Scarreda
Checked (no treatment)
April 29 (early bloom)
May 9 (100 percent plus bloom)
April 29 and May 9
5.11
1.19
0.794
0.394
a The area of berry scarred is the product of the percentage of berries in a
cluster with scars, times the percentage of the surface covered by the
scarring on the affected berries, divided by 100.
Source: Modified from F. Jensen and D. Luvisi. Flower thrips nymphs
involved in scarring of Thompson seedless grapes. California
Agriculture 27(10):8-9, Copyright 1973. By permission of the Univer-
sity of California.
273
OCR for page 274
274
o
V,
Cal
O '~D
o
Do.
at
3
8 ~
o V
o
o ~ ~ ~ ~.5 ~ ~2
3 3
~ =,
o o o o o o o Hi,
D D D D ~ ~CL ~D D ~ 5 D D
oo ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ID ID Ho ~~,
. . ~ ~ oo O ~ O O
Ct A
X D
~ ~ O V 5 ~ O ~ ~ ~ E v- ~ _ ~ _
D D D ~ S- SW
== ~ 2 ~3 3 3
~5 ~ ~ ~ E E ~ ~
OCR for page 275
Appendix D
TABLE D.10 Effect of Dimethoate Treatments for Greenbug Control on
Grain Sorghum
275
State Treatment Yield Source
Kansas Check 4754 Ib/acre DePew (1972)
0.25 Ib/acre spray 4879 Ib/acre
Texas Check 1461 Ib/acre Daniels (1972)
0.15 lb/acre spray 1461 Ib/acre
0.50 Ib/acre spray 1559 Ib/acre
TABLE D. ~ ~ Grain Sorghum Yield of Greenbug Susceptible and
Resistant Strains of Sorghum
Greenbug
Sorghum Straina Exposure Yield Source
Susceptible Yes 158 g/plant Harvey and
Susceptible No 211 g/plant Hackerott
Resistant Yes 186 g/plant (1974)
Resistant No 179 g/plant
Susceptible X
Resistant Yes 179 g/plant
Susceptible X
Resistant No 190 g/plant
Susceptible X Teetes et al.
Susceptible Yes 2600 Ib/acre (1975a)
Susceptible X
Resistant A Yes 5500 Ib/acre
Susceptible X
Resistant B Yes 4317 Ib/acre
Resistant C X
Resistant A Yes 4233 Ib/acre
a The use of an X in this column indicates a cross between strains with the resultant progeny
used in the experiment.
NOTE
1. None of the literature cited in this appendix was referenced in the draft report of
the usDA/State assessment team on dimethoate (usDA/State 1978) submitted to BPA as
input into the economic impact analysis for the dimethoate RPAR. As of this writing, the
final report of the usDA/State assessment team was not complete. However, the sections on
grapes, beans, and sorghum were not expected to vary from the draft version.
OCR for page 276
276
REFERENCES
Appendix D
AliNiazee, M. Taskeen, M.H. Frost, Jr., and E.M. Stafford (1971) Chemical control of
grape leafhoppers and pacific spider mites on grapevines. Journal of Economic
Entomology 64:697-700.
Bartlett, B.R. (1963) The contact toxicity of some pesticide residues to hymenoptera
parasites and coccinellid predators. Journal of Entomology 56:694-698.
Bartlett, B.R. (1964) The toxicity of some pesticide residues to adult Amblyseius hibisci,
with a compilation of the effects of pesticides upon phytoseiid mites. Journal of
Economic Entomology 57:559-563.
Bartlett, B.R. (1966) Toxicity and acceptance of some pesticides fed to parasite
Hymenoptera and predatory coccinellids. Journal of Economic Entomology 59:1142-
1149.
Bushing, R.W. and V.E. Burton (1974) Partial pest management programs on dry large
lima beans in California: regulation of I. Iesperus. Journal of Economic Entomology
67:259-261.
Cate, J.R., Jr., D.G. Bottrell, and G.L. Teetes (1973) Management of the greenbug on grain
sorghum in testing foliar treatments of insecticides against greenbugs and corn leaf
aphids. Journal of Economic Entomology 66:945-951.
Daniels, N.E. (1972) Insecticidal control of greenbugs in grain sorghum. Journal of
Economic Entomology 65:235-240.
DePew, L.J. (1971) Evaluation of foliar and soil treatments for greenbug control on
sorghum. Journal of Economic Entomology 64: 169-172.
DePew, L.J. (1972) Further evaluation of insecticides for greenbug control on grain
sorghum in Kansas. Journal of Economic Entomology 65: 1095-1098.
Doutt, R.L. and J. Nakata (1965) Parasites for control of grape leafhoppers. California
Agriculture 19(4):3.
Doutt, R.L. and J. Nakata (1973) The Rubus leaLhopper and its parasitoid: an endemic
biotic system useful in grape-pest management. Environmental Entomology 2:381-386.
Doutt, R.L., J. Nakata, and F.E. Skinner (1966) Dispersal of grape leafhopper parasites
from a Uackberry refuge. California Agriculture 20(10): 1~15.
Dupree, M. (1970) Control of thrips and the bean leaf beetle on lima beans with systemic
insecticides. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 5:48-52.
Flaherty, D.L. and C.B. Huffaker (1970) Biological control of pacific mites and willamette
mites in San Josquin valley vineyards. I. Role of Metaseialus occidentalis. II. Influence of
dispersion patterns of Metaseiulus occidentalis. Hilgardia 40:267-330.
Flaherty, D.L., C.D. Lynn, F.L. Jensen, and D.A. Luvisi (1969) Ecology and integrated
control of spider mites in San Joaquin vineyards. California Agriculture 23(4): 11.
Flaherty, D., C. Lynn, F. Jensen, and M. Hoy (1972) Correcting imbalances-spider mite
populations in southern San Joaquin vineyards. California Agriculture 26(4): 10-12.
Hagel, G.T. (1970) Systematic insecticides and control of insects and mites on beans.
Journal of Economic Entomology 63: 1486-1489.
Harvey, T.L. and H.L. Hackerott (1974) Effects of greenbugs on resistant and susceptible
sorghum seedlings in the field. Journal of Economic Entomology 67:377-380.
Jensen, F. (1973) Flower thrips damage to table grapes in San Josquin Valley: (1) Halo
spot timing; (2) nymphs and scarring. California Agriculture 27(10):6-7.
Jensen, F. and D. Luvisi (1973) Flower thrips nymphs involved in scarring of Thompson
Seedless grapes. California Agriculture 27(10):~9.
Jensen, F.L., E.M. Stafford, H. Kido, and C.D. Lynn (1961) Field tests for control of grape
leafhoppers resistant to insecticides. California Agriculture 15(7): 13-14.
OCR for page 277
Appendix D
277
Jensen, F.L., D.L. Flaherty, and L. Chiarappa (1969) Population densities and economic
injury levels of grape leafhopper. California Agriculture 23(4):9-10.
Kinn, D.N. and R.L. Doutt (1972) Natural control of spider mites on wine grape verities in
northern California. Environmental Entomology 1 :513-518.
Kinn, D.N., J.L. Joos, R.L. Doutt, J.T. Sorenson, and M.J. Foskett (1974) Effects of
Tetranychus pacificus and irrigation practices on yield and quality of grapes in north
coast vineyards of California. Environmental Entomology 3:601 606.
Laing, J.E., D.L. Calvert, and C.B. Huffaker (1972) Preliminary studies of effects of
Tetranychus paciJicus on yield and quality of grapes in the San Joaquin Valley,
California. Environmental Entomology 1 :658-663.
Lynn, C.D., F.L. Jensen, and D.L. Flaherty (1965) Leafhopper treatment levels for
Thompson Seedless Grapes used for raisins and wine. California Agriculture 19(4):4-5.
Peters, D.C., E.A. Wood, Jr., and K.J. Starks (1975) Insecticide resistance in selections of
the greenbug. Journal of Economic Entomology 68:339 340.
Petersen, M.L. (1965) Integrated pest control . . . new tactics against grape pests.
California Agriculture 19(4):2.
Pimentel, D., J. Krummel, D. Gallahan, J. Hough, A. Merrill, I. Schreiner, P. Vittum, F.
Koziol, E. Back, D. Yen, and S. Fiance (1978) Benefits and costs of pesticide use in U.S.
food production. BioScience 28:772, 778-784.
Ratcliffe, R.H., L.P. Ditman, and J.R. Young (1960) Field experiments on the insecticidal
control of insects attacking peas, snap and lima beans. Journal of Economic
Entomology 53:818-820.
Shorey, H.H. (1963) Differential toxicity of insecticides to the cabbage aphid and two
associated entomophagous insect species. Journal of Economic Entomology 56:844
847.
Shorey, H.H., A.S. Deal, and M.J. Snyder (1965) Insecticidal control of lygus bugs and
effect on yield and grade of lima beans. Journal of Economic Entomology 58: 12~126.
Smith, F.F., T.J. Henneberry, and A.L. Boswell (1963) The pesticide tolerance of
Typhlodromus fallacus (German) and Phytoseialus persimilis A. H. and with some
observations on the predator efficiency of P. persimilis. Journal of Economic Entomolo-
gy 56:274-278.
Stafford, E.M. and H. Kido (1969) Newer insecticides for the control of grape insects and
spider mite pests. California Agriculture 23(4):6-8.
Starks, K.J. and E.A. Wood, Jr. (1974) Greenbugs: Damage to growth stages of susceptible
and resistant sorghum. Journal of Economic Entomology 67:456457.
Teetes, G.L., J.W. Johnson, and D.T. Rosenow (1975a) Response of improved resistant
sorghum hybrids to natural and artif~cial greenbug populations. Journal of Economic
Entomology 68:546-548.
Teetes, G.L., C.A. Schaefer, J.R. Gipson, R.C. McIntyre, and E.E. Latham (1975b)
Greenbug resistance to organophosphorus insecticides on the Texas high plains. Journal
of Economic Entomology 68:214-216.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1977) Agriculture Statistics, 1077. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture/State Assessment Team on Dimethoate (1978) Assessment
of Dimethoate in Agriculture. Draft Report II prepared by Office of Environmental
Quality Activities, United States Department of Agriculture, submitted to Office of
Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (Un-
published)
Watve, C.M. and S.E. Lienk (1975) Responses of two phytoseiid mites to 36 pesticides used
in New York apple orchards. Environmental Entomology 4:747~00.
OCR for page 278
278
Appendix D
Wolfenbarger, D.O. (1963) Control measures for the leafhopper Empoasca kraemeri on
beans. Journal of Economic Entomology 56:417-419.
Yokoyama, V.Y. (1977a) Drepanothrips reuteri on Thompson seedless grapes. Environmen-
tal Entomology 6:21-24.
Yokoyama, V.Y. (1977b) Frankliniella occidentalis and scars on table grapes. Environmen-
tal Entomology 6:25-30.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
california agriculture
