1 of 23

Enhancing integrated insect pest management strategies for U.S. potato production systems

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

​

Participants: B. Nault (lead), A. Alyokhin, Z. Szendrei, T. Waters and R. Groves

​

Participating states: NY, ME, MI, WA and WI

2 of 23

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

3 of 23

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

4 of 23

  • Evaluate a standard neonicotinoid-based program and novel non-neonicotinoid-based programs

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

5 of 23

  • Evaluate a standard neonicotinoid-based program and novel non-neonicotinoid-based programs

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

How to identify non-neonic programs?

6 of 23

https://ipm.ucanr.edu/bee-precaution-pesticide-ratings/

Context for selecting non-neonicotinoid

season-long insecticide programs

“Safe”

“Danger”

I

“Caution”

II

III

Bee Precautionary Pesticide Rating*

*NOT the language on the pesticide label; These are GENERAL terms to refer to levels of precaution taken with products relative to bee safety

7 of 23

 

Target Pests

 

Colorado potato beetle

 

 

 

1st- generation

2nd- generation

​

​

Treatment

At-Plant

Foliar

(Foliar only)

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

​

​

2) Standard program (includes neonic @ planting)

​

±

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Treatment list: 2024 season-long insecticide programs

8 of 23

 

Target Pests

 

Colorado potato beetle

 

 

 

1st- generation

2nd- generation

​

​

Treatment

At-Plant

Foliar

(Foliar only)

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

​

​

2) Standard program (includes neonic @ planting)

​

±

​

​

​

3) Novel program A (no neonics)

​

±

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Treatment list: 2024 season-long insecticide programs

9 of 23

 

Target Pests

 

Colorado potato beetle

 

 

 

1st- generation

2nd- generation

​

​

Treatment

At-Plant

Foliar

(Foliar only)

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

​

​

2) Standard program (includes neonic @ planting)

​

±

​

​

​

3) Novel program A (no neonics)

​

±

​

​

​

4) Novel program B (no neonics)

-

*

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Treatment list: 2024 season-long insecticide programs

* Not labeled in the USA

10 of 23

 

Target Pests

 

Colorado potato beetle

 

 

 

1st- generation

2nd- generation

​

​

Treatment

At-Plant

Foliar

(Foliar only)

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

​

​

2) Standard program (includes neonic @ planting)

​

±

​

​

​

3) Novel program A (no neonics)

​

±

​

​

​

4) Novel program B (no neonics)

-

*

​

​

​

​

5) Novel program C (no neonics; ‘Level III’ products only)

-

​

​

​

​

Treatment list: 2024 season-long insecticide programs

* Not labeled in the USA

11 of 23

 

Target Pests

 

Colorado potato beetle

 

 

 

1st- generation

2nd- generation

Potato leafhopper

Colonizing aphids

Treatment

At-Plant

Foliar

(Foliar only)

(Foliar only)

(Foliar only)

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

-

-

2) Standard program (includes neonic @ planting)

​

±

​

​

​

3) Novel program A (no neonics)

​

±

​

​

​

4) Novel program B (no neonics)

-

*

​

​

​

​

5) Novel program C (no neonics; ‘Level III’ products only)

-

​

​

​

​

Treatment list: 2024 season-long insecticide programs

* Not labeled in the USA

12 of 23

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

  • Locations: ME ‘Reba’

MI ‘Lamoka’

NY1 ‘Snowden’

NY2 ‘Snowden’

WA ‘Clearwater Russet’

WI ‘Goldrush’

​

  • Insecticides applied at maximum labeled rates following typical action thresholds/ or phenological timings

Cultivar

13 of 23

  • Evaluate a standard neonicotinoid-based program and three novel non-neonicotinoid-based programs, and then compare the following:

​

    • Colorado potato beetle densities and defoliation
    • Marketable potato tuber yield
    • Natural enemies and other non-target arthropods

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

14 of 23

  • Evaluate a standard neonicotinoid-based program and three novel non-neonicotinoid-based programs, and then compare the following:

​

    • Colorado potato beetle densities and defoliation
    • Marketable potato tuber yield
    • Natural enemies and other non-target arthropods

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

15 of 23

Treatments

1st Gen - No. at- plant treatments

​

​

​

Product (all)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

2) Standard w/neonics

Platinum

1

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

3) Novel program A

Verimark

1

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

4) Novel program B

-

-

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

5) Novel program C

-

-

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

*Torac also needed

Number of applications applied at each location in 2024

16 of 23

Treatments

1st Gen - No. at- plant treatments

1st Gen - No. of foliar

application(s)

​

​

Product (all)

Product

ME

MI

NY1

NY2

WA

WI

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

2) Standard w/neonics

Platinum

1

Agri-Mek

1

0

0

0

1

2

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

3) Novel program A

Verimark

1

Rimon

1

1

0

0

1

3*

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

4) Novel program B

-

-

PLINAZOLIN

1

1

1

1

2

2

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

5) Novel program C

-

-

Calantha

3

3

3

2

2

3

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

*Torac also needed

Number of applications applied at each location in 2024

17 of 23

Treatments

1st Gen - No. at- plant treatments

1st Gen - No. of foliar

application(s)

2nd Gen. - No. of foliar application(s)

​

Product (all)

Product

ME

MI

NY1

NY2

WA

WI

Product

ME

MI

NY1

NY2

WA

WI

​

​

​

​

​

​

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

​

​

​

​

​

​

2) Standard w/neonics

Platinum

1

Agri-Mek

1

0

0

0

1

2

Exirel

1

1

2

2

2

2

​

​

​

​

​

​

3) Novel program A

Verimark

1

Rimon

1

1

0

0

1

3*

Delegate

1

0

2

2

2

2

​

​

​

​

​

​

4) Novel program B

-

-

PLINAZOLIN

1

1

1

1

2

2

Delegate

1

0

2

2

2

2

​

​

​

​

​

​

5) Novel program C

-

-

Calantha

3

3

3

2

2

3

Vantacor

1

1

2

2

2

2

​

​

​

​

​

​

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

*Torac also needed

Number of applications applied at each location in 2024

18 of 23

Treatments

1st Gen - No. at- plant treatments

1st Gen - No. of foliar

application(s)

2nd Gen. - No. of foliar application(s)

PLH

Sivanto applications

Product (all)

Product

ME

MI

NY1

NY2

WA

WI

Product

ME

MI

NY1

NY2

WA

WI

ME

MI

NY1

NY2

WA

WI

1) Untreated control

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2) Standard w/neonics

Platinum

1

Agri-Mek

1

0

0

0

1

2

Exirel

1

1

2

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

0

1

3) Novel program A

Verimark

1

Rimon

1

1

0

0

1

3*

Delegate

1

0

2

2

2

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

4) Novel program B

-

-

PLINAZOLIN

1

1

1

1

2

2

Delegate

1

0

2

2

2

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

5) Novel program C

-

-

Calantha

3

3

3

2

2

3

Vantacor

1

1

2

2

2

2

0

1

0

1

0

1

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

*Torac also needed

Number of applications applied at each location in 2024

19 of 23

Cumulative mean (± SEM) number of CPBs on potato treated with different insecticide programs in 2024

(pooled across locations; n=6)

Adults

Egg masses

Untreated

Standard

Novel A

Novel B

Novel C

+

+

+

+

Untreated

Standard

Novel A

Novel B

Novel C

+

+

+

+

20 of 23

Untreated

Standard

Novel A

Novel B

Novel C

+

+

+

+

Untreated

Standard

Novel A

Novel B

Novel C

+

+

+

+

Cumulative mean (± SEM) number of CPBs on potato treated with different insecticide programs in 2024

(pooled across locations ; n=6)

Small larvae

Large larvae

21 of 23

Untreated

Standard

Novel A

Novel B

Novel C

+

+

+

+

Untreated

Standard

Novel A

Novel B

Novel C

+

+

+

+

Maximum (± SEM) % defoliation and Total marketable potato tuber yield (± SEM) in different insecticide programs in 2024

(pooled across locations ; n=6)

Max defoliation

Total yield

22 of 23

  • Colorado potato beetle densities, maximum levels of defoliation, and marketable potato tuber yields were similar between standard neonicotinoid program and all novel programs

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

Summary

23 of 23

  • Repeat field studies in 2025 and compare results with those conducted in 2024
  • Conduct similar studies using MSU’s “insect resistant” cultivars

​

Objective 1A. Reduced-risk management program for control of key regional insect pests

Future Research