Click for next page ( 263


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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 262
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.