Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:13:51.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPARISON OF PLASTIC-LINED TRENCHES AND EXTRUDED PLASTIC TRAPS FOR CONTROLLING LEPTINOTARSA DECEMLINEATA (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

G. Boiteau  and
W.P.L. Osborn
G. Boiteau
Affiliation:
Potato Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 20280, 850 Lincoln Road, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 427
W.P.L. Osborn
Affiliation:
Potato Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 20280, 850 Lincoln Road, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B 427
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The efficacy of an extruded plastic trap placed on the ground was measured against plastic-lined trenches used to prevent the colonization of potato fields by walking overwintered Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Laboratory comparisons showed that the original standard extruded trap did not capture as many adult beetles as the plastic-lined trench but that this could be corrected by abrading its surface. Beetles took longer to be trapped by the extruded trap than by the trench and walked away more frequently. The efficacy of the two barriers was unaffected by light simulated rain. Field tests in 1996 and 1997 confirmed that plastic-lined trenches can reduce adult abundance and egg deposition within field even when beetle populations were low. The original extruded trap did not significantly reduce egg deposition. However, it is suggested that a modified extruded trap could be used together with the plastic-lined trench to provide temporary closure of untrenched field sections used for farm equipment access or to surround small fields.

Résumé

L’efficacité d’un piège de plastique placé à la surface du sol a été comparée à celle d’une tranchée recouverte de plastique utilisée pour le controle des adultes de Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say) lorsqu’ils colonisent des champs de pomme de terre en marchant. Les comparaisons en laboratoire démontrèrent que le piège de plastique original ne capturait pas autant d’adultes que les tranchées recouvertes de plastique mais que son efficacité pouvait être améliorée si sa surface était sablée. La capture des adultes se fit plus rapidement avec la tranchée recouverte de plastique qu’avec le piège de plastique. Les doryphores ont rebroussé chemin plus souvent en abordant le piège de plastique que la tranchée recouverte de plastique. Le taux de capture dans les deux pièges demeura inchangé suite à l’application d’une pluie légère simulée. Des essais en champs effectués en 1996 et en 1997 confirmèrent qu’une tranchée recouverte de plastique peut réduire l’abondance des adultes et la ponte en parcelles de pomme de terre même lorsque la densité du doryphore est basse. Le piège de plastique utilisé lors de ces essais n’a pas réussi à réduire la ponte de façon significative. Cependant, un piège de plastique modifié pourrait être utilisé avec la tranchée recouverte de plastique pour fermer temporairement les sections permettant l’accès au champ pour la machinerie de ferme ou pour entourer les petits champs.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 131 , Issue 4 , August 1999 , pp. 567 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1999

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

Boiteau, G., Vernon, R. 1999. Barrières physiques contre les insectes nuisibles. In Vincent, C., Panneton, B., Fleurat-Lessard, F. (Eds.), La lutte physique en phytoprotection. Edition INRA, Versailles, France. In pressGoogle Scholar
Boiteau, G., Pelletier, Y., Misener, G.C., Bernard, G. 1994. Development and evaluation of a plastic trench barrier for protection of potato from walking adult Colorado potato beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 87: 1325–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferro, D.N. 1996. Mechanical and physical control. pp. 53–67in Duchesne, R-M and Boiteau, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Potato Insect Pest Control, Development of a Sustainable Approach. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, L'Union des producteurs agricoles, and Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation, QuébecGoogle Scholar
Howard, R.J., Garland, J.A., Seaman, W.L. 1994. Diseases and Pests of Vegetable Crops in Canada, Ottawa: The Canadian Phytopathological Society and the Entomological Society of CanadaGoogle Scholar
Misener, G.C., Boiteau, G., McMillan, L.P. 1993. A plastic-lining trenching device for the control of Colorado potato beetle: Beetle Excluder. American Potato Journal 70: 903–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, D.D. 1995. Trapping the Colorado potato beetles with plastic-lined trenches. 1994 New York State Vegetable Project Reports Relating to IPM. New York State IPM Publication 118Google Scholar
Radcliffe, E.B., Flanders, K.L., Ragsdale, D.W., Noetzel, D.M. 1991. Pest management system for potato insects, pp. 587–621in Pimentel, D. and Hanson, A.A. (Eds.), CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. Boca Raton: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1990. SAS/Stat User's Guide, Version 6. 4th ed. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Weber, D.C., Ferro, D.N., Buonaccorsi, J., Hazzard, R.V. 1994. Disrupting spring colonization of Colorado potato beetle to nonrotated potato fields. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 73: 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehnder, G.W., Powelson, M.L., Jansson, R.K., Raman, K.V. (Eds.). 1994. Advances in Potato Pest Biology and Management. St Paul: APS PressGoogle Scholar