Evaluation of phorate and Di-Syston for potato insect control in New York
- 5 Downloads
The systemic insecticides phorate and Di-Syston were applied at varying rates in bands in the row at planting time. Phorate gave good flea beetle control throughout the season during two years of the three that the experiments were conducted. Di-Syston was less effective.
Di-Syston was considerably better for the control of aphids than phorate. Potato leafhopper control was excellent when either systemic was used except in an experimental trial where Irish Cobbler was planted.
A split application of one half dosage at planting time and the other half applied in the row at mid-season did not appear to have any advantage over a full dosage at planting.
KeywordsIrish Cobbler Green Peach Aphid Flea Beetle Phorate Split Application
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bacon, O. G. 1960. Systemic insecticides applied to cut seed pieces and to soil at planting time to control potato insects. Jour. Econ. Ent. 53: 835–839.Google Scholar
- 2.Granovsky, A. A. and A. G. Peterson. 1954. Evaluation of potato leaf injury caused by leafhoppers, flea beetles and early blight. Jour. Econ. Ent. 47: 894–902.Google Scholar
- 3.Hofmaster, R. N. and E. M. Dunton, Jr. 1961. Soil application of insecticides for the control of foliage pests of Irish potato. Am. Potato J. 38: 341–345.Google Scholar
- 4.Kelly, R. A. 1950. Preliminary tests of a systemic insecticide for the control of aphids on potatoes. Ent. Soc. Ontario, 81 Ann. Rpt. 86-88.Google Scholar
- 5.Knoke, J. K. and R. K. Chapman. 1960. The effect of granular formulation on the absorption of systemic insecticides by potatoes. Proc. N. Cent. Br. Ent. Soc. Am. 15: 110–111.Google Scholar
- 6.Schwartz, P. H., C. E. Osgood and L. P. Ditman. 1961. Experiments with granulated systemic insecticides for control of insects on potatoes, lima beans and sweet corn. Jour. Econ. Ent. 54: 663–665.Google Scholar
- 7.Wright, J. M. 1960. Granular systemics on vegetable crops in Wisconsin. Proc. N. Cent. Br. Ent. Soc. Am. 15: 109–110.Google Scholar