Advertisement

Comparison of Two Different Statistical Methods for Assessing Insecticide Efficacy in Small Plot Trials Targeting Wireworms, Limonius californicus (Mannerheim) (Coleoptera: Elateridae), in Potato

  • Jeffrey A. Lojewski
  • Erik J. WenningerEmail author
Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

The efficacy of insecticides is often assessed in small-plot field trials that compare insect damage and yield loss relative to an untreated check, typically in a randomized complete block (RCB) design. When insect damage is not uniformly distributed across a field, differences among treatments might reflect differences in local pest pressure rather than differences in treatment efficacy. One potential way to account for patchy distributions is to use a “running check” in which each plot contains an insecticide treatment and its own untreated check. Any benefits of this approach must be weighed against the additional labor involved. Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) are soil-dwelling insects that typically exhibit patchy distributions that can confound insecticide efficacy trials. Several species of wireworms feed on potato tubers, causing damage that makes the tubers unmarketable and, aside from crop rotation, insecticides remain a cornerstone of wireworm management in potato. The current investigation evaluated insecticide efficacy trials targeting wireworms in potato by comparing two different analyses for the same data sets spanning five years and seven different studies. Data collected using the running check approach were analyzed using analysis of covariance and compared with analysis of variance as if the experiment were designed as a RCB. In a majority of cases, both methods resulted in similar levels of statistical power and similar conclusions; however, including data from the running check as a covariate did sometimes eliminate or reveal differences between treatments compared to ANOVA. Overall, given the similarity of the results and the additional labor involved in using running checks, the standard RCB design would have been appropriate for the experiments assessed here. However, for wireworms and other pests that exhibit patchy distributions, care must be taken when designing experiments and interpreting results.

Keywords

Tuber Feeding damage ANOVA ANCOVA Power analysis Statistical methods 

Resumen

La eficiencia de los insecticidas a menudo se evalúa en ensayos de pequeños lotes de campo, que compara el daño del insecto y la pérdida de rendimiento en relación con el testigo, típicamente en un diseño de bloques completamente al azar (RCB). Cuando el daño por el insecto no está uniformemente distribuido en el campo, las diferencias entre los tratamientos pudieran reflejar diferencias en la presión local de la plaga en vez de las diferencias en la eficacia de los tratamientos. Una manera potencial a considerar para distribuciones por manchones es usar un “testigo de corrido”, en el que cada lote contiene un tratamiento de insecticida y su propio testigo sin tratar. Cualquier beneficio de este enfoque debe ser pesado contra el trabajo adicional involucrado. Los gusanos de alambre (Coleoptera: Elateridae) son insectos del suelo, que típicamente exhiben distribuciones por manchones que pueden confundir los ensayos de eficacias de insecticidas. Varias especies de insectos de alambre se alimentan de los tubérculos de la papa, causando daño que hacen que los tubérculos no sean aptos para el mercado, y, aparte de la rotación de cultivos, los insecticidas permanecen como piedra angular del manejo del gusano de alambre en papa. La investigación actual evaluó la eficacia de los ensayos de insecticidas con los gusanos de alambre en papa como objetivos, mediante la comparación de dos análisis diferentes para el mismo grupo de datos abarcando cinco años y siete estudios diferentes. Los datos colectados usando el enfoque del testigo de corrido se analizó usando un análisis de covarianza y se comparó con un análisis de varianza como si el experimento fuera designado como un RCB. En la mayoría de los casos, ambos métodos resultaron en niveles similares de poder estadístico y conclusiones similares; no obstante, al incluir los datos del testigo de corrido como una covariación, en algunas ocasiones eliminó o reveló diferencias entre los tratamientos en comparación con ANAVA. En general, considerando la similitud de los resultados y del trabajo adicional involucrado en el uso de testigos de corrido, el diseño RCB estándar pudiera haber sido apropiado para los experimentos analizados aquí. No obstante, para el gusano de alambre y otras plagas que exhiben distribuciones en “manchones”, se debería tener cuidado cuando se diseñen experimentos y en la interpretación de los resultados.

Notes

Acknowledgements

William Price provided helpful advice on statistical analyses. For technical assistance, we thank: Lucy Standley, Anastasia Stanzak, Amy Lockner, Dan Henningsen, Dave Walker, Dave Ruhter, Megan Williams, Neyle Perdomo, Jessica Vogt, Vince Adamson, and Wyatt Shewmaker. Funding for this project was generously provided in part by numerous chemical companies that funded the underlying efficacy trials.

References

  1. Adams, A., J. Gore, F. Musser, D. Cook, A. Catchot, T. Walker, and C. Dobbins. 2016. Efficacy of selected insecticides applied to hybrid seed rice. Journal of Economic Entomology 109: 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 2005. Limonius californicus. Bulletin OEPP 35: 377–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antwi, F.B., G. Shrestha, G.V.P. Reddy, and S.T. Jaronski. 2018. Entomopathogens in conjunction with imidacloprid could be used to manage wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) on spring wheat. Canadian Entomologist 150: 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrington, A.E., G.G. Kennedy, and M.R. Abney. 2016. Applying insecticides through drip irrigation to reduce wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) feeding damage in sweet potato. Pest Management Science 72: 1133–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsics, F., E. Haubruge, and F.J. Verheggen. 2013. Wireworms’ management: An overview of the existing methods, with particular regards to Agriotes spp. (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Insects 4: 117–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benefer, C., P. Andrew, R. Blackshaw, J. Ellis, and M. Knight. 2010. The spatial distribution of phytophagous insect larvae in grassland soils. Applied Soil Ecology 45: 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackshaw, R.P., and R.S. Vernon. 2008. Spatial relationships between two Agriotes click-beetle species and wireworms in agricultural fields. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 10: 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Bonmatin, J.M., C. Giorio, V. Girolami, D. Goulson, D.P. Kreutzweiser, C. Krupke, M. Liess, E. Long, M. Marzaro, E.A.D. Mitchell, D.A. Noome, N. Simon-Delso, and A. Tapparo. 2015. Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherry, R., and P. Stansly. 2008. Abundance and spatial distribution of wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in Florida sugarcane fields on muck versus sandy soils. Florida Entomologist 91: 383–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Culliney, T.W. 2014. Crop losses to arthropods. In Integrated pest management, ed. D. Pimentel and R. Peshin, 201–225. Dordrecht, the Netherlands. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-94-007-7802-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas, A.E. 2018. Strategies for enhanced crop resistance to insect pests. In: Merchant, S.S. (ed.) Annual Review of Plant Biology 69: 637-660.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, L. 2014. Fifty years since silent spring. Annual Review of Phytopathology 52: 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etzler, F.E. 2013. Identification of economic wireworms using traditional and molecular methods. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman.Google Scholar
  14. Gacera, C., E. Molto, and P. Chueca. 2014. Factors influencing the efficacy of two organophosphate insecticides in controlling the California red scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell). A basis for reducing spray application volume in Mediterranean conditions. Pest Management Science 70: 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gould, F., Z.S. Brown, and J. Kuzma. 2018. Wicked evolution: Can we address the sociobiological dilemma of pesticide resistance? Science 360: 728–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, D.C., G.C. Scott, J.R. Lofty, and P.F. Roberts. 1969. Laboratory and field tests in 1966-1967 on chemical control of wireworms (Agriotes spp.). Annals of Applied Biology 64: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hajek, A.E., R.S. Soper, D.W. Roberts, T.E. Anderson, K.D. Biever, D.N. Ferro, R.A. Lebrun, and R.H. Storch. 1987. Foliar applications of Beuveria 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. Canadian Entomologist 119: 959–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hancock, M., D. Green, A. Lane, P.L. Mathias, C.M. Port, and S.J. Tones. 1986. Evaluation of insecticides to replace aldrin for the control of wireworms on potato. Annals of Applied Biology 108 (Supplement): 28–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heijbroek, W., and A.W.M. Huijbregts. 1995. Fungicides and insecticides applied to pelleted sugar-beet seeds. 3. Control of insects in soil. Crop Protection 14: 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heil, K., and U. Schmidhalter. 2017. Improved evaluation of field experiments by accounting for inherent soil variability. European Journal of Agronomy 89: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horton, D.R. 2006. Quantitative relationship between potato tuber damage and counts of Pacific coast wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in baits: Seasonal effects. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 103: 37–48.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhar, T.P., and J.M. Alvarez. 2008. Timing of injury and efficacy of soil-applied insecticides against wireworms on potato in Virginia. Crop Protection 27: 792–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhar, T.P., J. Speese, V.M. Barlow, R.J. Cordero, and R.Y. Venkata. 2003a. Evaluation of soil-applied insecticides for controlling wireworm in potato, 2002. Arthropod Management Tests 28: E59.  https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/28.1.E59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhar, T.P., J. Speese, J. Whalen, J.M. Alvarez, A. Alyokhin, G. Ghidiu, and M.R. Spellman. 2003b. Current status of insecticidal control of wireworms in potatoes. Pesticide Outlook 14: 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morales-Rodriguez, A., and K.W. Wanner. 2015. Efficacy of thiamethoxam and fipronil, applied alone and in combination, to control Limonius californicus and Hypnoidus bicolor (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Pest Management Science 71: 584–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P., S. Maipas, C. Kotampasi, P. Stamatis, and L. Hens. 2016. Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Frontiers in Public Health 4: Article number 148.Google Scholar
  27. Oerke, E.C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 144: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oerke, E.C., and H.W. Dehne. 2004. Safeguarding production – Losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Protection 23: 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker, W.E., and J.J. Howard. 2001. The biology and management of wireworms: (Agriotes spp.) on potato with particular reference to the UK. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramsden, M.W., S.L. Kendall, S.A. Ellis, and P.M. Berry. 2017. A review of economic thresholds for invertebrate pests in UK arable crops. Crop Protection 96: 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reding, M.E., and C.M. Ranger. 2018. Residue age and attack pressure influence efficacy of insecticide treatments against ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 111: 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salt, G., and F.S.J. Hollick. 1946. Studies of wireworm populations. 2. Spatial distribution. Journal of Experimental Biology 23: 1–46.Google Scholar
  33. SAS Institute. 2012. The SAS system for windows. Release 9.4. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Simon-Delso, N., V. Amaral-Rogers, L.P. Belzunces, J.M. Bonmatin, M. Chagnon, C. Downs, L. Furlan, D.W. Gibbons, C. Giorio, V. Girolami, D. Goulson, D.P. Kreutzweiser, C.H. Krupke, M. Liess, E. Long, M. McField, P. Mineau, E.A.D. Mitchell, C.A. Morrissey, D.A. Noome, L. Pisa, J. Settele, J.D. Stark, A. Tapparo, H. Van Dyck, J. Van Praagh, J.P. Van der Sluijs, P.R. Whitehorn, and M. Wiemers. 2015. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stewart, K.M. 1981. Chemical control of wireworms (Elateridae) in potatoes. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 9: 357–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stroup, W.W. 1999. Mixed model procedures to assess power, precision, and sample size in the design of experiments. 1999 Proceedings of the biopharmaceutical section, 15–24. Alexandria: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  37. Stroup, W.W. 2002. Power analysis based on spatial effects mixed models: A tool for comparing design and analysis strategies in the presence of spatial variability. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 7: 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, J.A., H.Y. Chen, M. Smallwood, and B. Marshall. 2018. Investigations into the opportunity for spatial management of the quality and quantity of production in UK potato systems. Field Crops Research 229: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Toba, H.H. 1985. Lateral movement of sugar beet wireworm Limonius californicus larvae in soil. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 2: 248–255.Google Scholar
  40. Traugott, M., C.M. Benefer, R.P. Blackshaw, W.G. van Herk, and R.S. Vernon. 2014. Biology, ecology, and control of elaterid beetles in agricultural land. Annual Review of Entomology 60: 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. USDA AMS. 2011. United states department of agriculture agricultural marketing service. United States standards for grades of potatoes. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Potato_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2018.
  42. Vernon, R.S., and W.G. van Herk. 2013. Wireworms as pests of potato. In Giordanengo, P, Insect pests of potato, ed. C. Vincent and A. Alyokhin, 103–164. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Waterfield, G., and D. Zilberman. 2012. Pest management in food systems: An economic perspective. In: Gadgil, A., and D.M. Liverman (eds.) Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 223–245.Google Scholar
  44. Wenninger, E.J., A. Rashed, S.I. Rondon, A. Alyokhin, and J.M. Alvarez. 2019. Insect pests and their management. In Potato production systems. New York: Springer Publishing Company (in press).Google Scholar
  45. Wilde, G., K. Roozeboom, M. Claassen, K. Janssen, and M. Witt. 2004. Seed treatment for control of early-season pests of corn and its effect on yield. Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology 21: 75–85.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, Z.Q., X.F. Zhang, Y.H. Zhao, W. Mu, and F. Liu. 2017. Efficacy of insecticidal seed treatments against the wireworm Pleonomus canaliculatus (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in China. Crop Protection 92: 134–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Potato Association of America 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology, and Nematology, Kimberly Research and Extension CenterUniversity of IdahoKimberlyUSA

Personalised recommendations