3. Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial

Transcription

1 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 1 3. Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial Soil-applied crop protectants in potato production for full-season pest management and yield enhancement Hancock Agricultural Research Station Hancock, Wisconsin, USA.1156ºN, ºW Crop: Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. Russet Burbank Treatments: 5 full-season treatment programs including systemic insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, and soil enhancers applied in-furrow and as foliar sprays Targets: 1. Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata). Potato Leafhopper (Empoasca fabae) 3. Potato Aphid (Macrosiphum euphorbiae) and other colonizing aphid species on potato Purpose This experiment was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a proposed regimen of at-plant systemic insecticides, fungicides, and soil enhancers for season-long control of pest insects and damaging fungal pathogens in potato. Target insects: Colorado potato beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata, potato leafhopper (PLH), Empoasca fabae, and potato colonizing aphid species. Objectives 1. Evaluate mixing and crop safety of Belay at 1.0 fl oz/a + Elumin (V-1008) at 8 fl oz/a (0.5 lb ai/a) + EndoMaxx 6 gr/a and AveoEZ at 0.7 fl oz/a as crop protectants and enhancers when delivered as in-furrow application. Measure the control performance of Belay 1.0 fl oz/a for CPB when combined with additional soil protectants and enhancers 3. Capture yield enhancements vs. standards Materials and Methods Site. This experiment was conducted at Hancock Agricultural Research Station (HARS) located 1.1 mile (1.8 km) southwest of Hancock, Wisconsin in field E-3 (.1156ºN, ºW) in 017. Soil was of a loamy sand type ( Plainfield Sand ). Experimental Design. Four replicates of 5 experimental treatments and 1 untreated control were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Furrows were cut using a commercial potato planter without closing discs attached. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. Russet Burbank, seed pieces were machine planted on May 1. Seed pieces were spaced approximately 1 inches apart within rows. Rows were spaced on 3 ft. centers. The four-row plots were 1 ft wide by 0 ft long, for a total of acres. One untreated guard row separated plots.

2 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial Treatments. In-furrow treatments (single compound and tank mixes) were applied at planting with a CO -pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi with a nozzle boom equipped with Tee Jet 8001 flat fan nozzles delivering 11.1 gallons per acre (see Treatments, Table 1). Immediately after the infurrow treatments were applied, all seed was covered by hilling. Foliar applications (Phostrol) were performed on June and July 6. See trial calendar, Table. All plots were maintained according to standard commercial production practices by HARS staff (see Table 3 for field management events and agronomic inputs). Insect Counts. Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB) populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in each plot for the following life stages: adults, egg masses, small larvae (1 st - nd instars), large larvae (3 rd and th instars). Potato Leafhopper adults were sampled using sweep net techniques (0 sweeps per plot). PLH nymphs and aphids were assessed by visual inspection of 5 leaves per plot. CPB counts by life stage are reported in Tables -7 and summarized graphically as cumulative counts in Figures 1-. PLH nymphs, adults, and aphid counts are reported in Tables 8-10 and graphically in Figures 5-7. Plant Health. Stand counts were conducted by counting the number of emerged plants in each of the two center rows in each plot. Stand counts are not reported here but can be found in the supporting data. No signs of phytotoxicity were observed among experimental treatments. Defoliation ratings (% DF) were determined by visual observation of the entire plot. Stand counts were within the expected range and can be found in the raw data files if desired. Defoliation is presented in Figure 8. No signs of phytotoxicity were observed in any of the treatments during the course of the experiment. Harvest. A single row from each plot was harvested on Aug 5 to determine yield and tuber quality. Tubers were graded using an AgRay Vision X-Ray grading machine which generated electronic measurements of tuber size and weight. The second-largest value of a tuber s dimension in the X, Y, and Z directions was considered its diameter and compared against the following USDA classification scheme: A-size tubers are larger than in diameter, B-size tubers fall between and 1.5, and C-size tubers fall below 1.5 diameter. Yields, including relative performance of experimental treatments versus control and commercial standards plots, are reported in Tables 1-13 and Figure 9. Additional grading data generated by the grading machine, including proportion hollow tubers, proportion knobbed tubers, and proportion double tubers is presented in Table 1. Specific gravity measurements, based on dry and submerged weights of approximately 15 tubers from each plot, is also presented in Table 1. Data Analysis. Insect count data was log transformed (log( +1)) and percentages were arcsine square root transformed (sin ) prior to analysis. Main effects were determined using analysis of variance including both treatment and replicate effects. Means separation letter codes were generated

3 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 3 Table 1. Treatments Trt Product Type Form Conc. Form Type Form Unit Rate Rate Unit Delivery 1 Untreated Belay INSE.13 SC lb ai/gal 1 fl oz/a In-Furrow Elumin FUNG SC lb ai/gal 8 fl oz/a In-Furrow Phostrol FUNG 6.69 SL lb ai/gal 10 pt/a Foliar, apps 3 Belay INSE.13 SC lb ai/gal 1 fl oz/a In-Furrow Belay INSE.13 SC lb ai/gal 1 fl oz/a In-Furrow Elumin FUNG SC lb ai/gal 8 fl oz/a In-Furrow Phostrol FUNG 6.69 SL lb ai/gal 10 pt/a Foliar, apps MA Endomaxx INOC.5 WP K CFU/g 6 g/a In-Furrow 5 Belay INSE.13 SC lb ai/gal 1 fl oz/a In-Furrow Elumin FUNG SC lb ai/gal 8 fl oz/a In-Furrow Phostrol FUNG 6.69 SL lb ai/gal 10 pt/a Foliar, apps MA Endomaxx INOC.5 WP K CFU/g 6 g/a In-Furrow Aveo EZ NEMA SC B CFU/mL 0.7 fl oz/a In-Furrow 6 Platinum INSE 75 SG % w/w.67 oz wt/a In-Furrow Ridomil Gold SL FUNG SL lb ai/gal 0. fl oz/1000 row-ft In-Furrow Phostrol FUNG 6.69 SL lb ai/gal 10 pt/a Foliar, apps In-Furrow applications performed May 3. Foliar applications (Phostrol) on Jun and July 6. Table. Trial Calendar Date Day Week Events 3-May 1 1 Planting, In-furrow applications -Jun 31 5 Stand count, CPB pre-count 5-Jun 3 5 Stand count, Vigor, CPB pre-count 15-Jun 7 CPB, PLH, Aphid, Defoliation counts 19-Jun 8 7 CPB, PLH, Aphid, Defoliation counts -Jun 51 8 Phostrol first application 6-Jun 55 8 CPB, PLH, Aphid, Defoliation counts 6-Jul Phostrol second application 7-Jul CPB, PLH, Aphid, Defoliation counts 1-Jul CPB, PLH, Aphid, Defoliation counts 0-Jul 79 1 CPB, PLH, Aphid, Defoliation counts 5-Aug Harvest

4 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial Table 3. Field Management Record Date Equipment Product Type Rate Unit 5/3/017 Hiller, Row Closer 5/3/017 Potato Planter - Kverneland S+micros FERT 550 lb / acre 5/3/017 Soil Finisher, Brillion 5//017 Hiller/Sidedresser S Ammonium Sulfate FERT 360 lb / acre 5//017 Hiller/Sidedresser IrrigAid Gold ADJ 0.5 pints / acre 5/3/017 Spray Coupe Parallel HERB 1 pints / acre 5/3/017 Spray Coupe Metribuzin 75DF HERB 0.5 lb / acre 6/8/017 Airflow Fertilizer Applicator Ammonium Nitrate FERT 350 lb / acre 6/1/017 Spray Coupe Matrix HERB 1.5 dry oz. / acre 6/1/017 Spray Coupe Non Ionic Surfactant 80/0 ADJ 1 pints / acre 6/0/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 6/1/017 Spray Coupe Coragen INSE 7.5 fluid oz / acre 6/1/017 Spray Coupe MSO ADJ fluid oz / acre 6/9/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 6/30/017 Airflow Fertilizer Applicator Ammonium Nitrate FERT 110 lb / acre 6/30/017 Spray Coupe Coragen INSE 5 fluid oz / acre 6/30/017 Spray Coupe MSO ADJ fluid oz / acre 7/6/017 Spray Coupe Tanos FUNG 8 dry oz. / acre 7/6/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 7/13/017 Airflow Fertilizer Applicator Ammonium Nitrate FERT 150 lb / acre 7/1/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 7/1/017 Spray Coupe Headline FUNG 1 fluid oz / acre 7/1/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 7/7/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 8//017 Spray Coupe Revus Top FUNG 7 fluid oz / acre 8//017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 8//017 Spray Coupe Non Ionic Surfactant 80/0 ADJ 1 pints / acre 8/11/017 Spray Coupe Bravo Weather Stik ADJ 1.5 pints / acre 8/1/017 Spray Coupe Diquat E HERB 1.5 pints / acre 8/1/017 Spray Coupe Non Ionic Surfactant 80/0 ADJ 1 pints / acre 8/1/017 Spray Coupe Diquat E HERB 1.5 pints / acre 8/1/017 Spray Coupe Non Ionic Surfactant 80/0 ADJ 1 pints / acre 8/5/017 Potato Digger, Blue

5 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 5 Table. CPB Adult Counts Jun 0 Jun 05 Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 3) (day 35) (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum 1.75 ±.63 a.75 ±.99 a.5 ± 1.71 a 3.75 ±.63 a.00 ± 1.83 a.5 ±.87 a ± 5.9 ab 3.5 ± 5.7 a ± a.50 ± 0.58 a 1.5 ± 0.50 a 8.00 ±.69 a 1.00 ±.97 ab 13.5 ± 5.56.b.75 ± 1.89 a 1.75 ±.7.b ± a ± 77.6 a ±.08 a 3.00 ± 0.8 a 7.75 ± 3.30 a ± 6.5 ab 1.00 ± 7.79 ab 3.75 ± 3.86 a 7.00 ±.83 ab ± a ± 5.77 a 5 6 +MA.5 ±. a.5 ± 1.71 a 7.50 ± 3.00 a 8.50 ± 3.87 ab 6.5 ± 5.3 ab.50 ± 1.91 a 3.50 ±.65 a 7.00 ± a ±.16 a 1.5 ± 1.6 a.5 ±.63 a 9.75 ± 5.19 a 16.5 ± 1.01 ab 1.00 ±.08.b 5.00 ±.08 a 7.00 ±.55 ab 9.50 ± 55.6 a ± a.75 ± 0.50 a.75 ± 1.50 a ± 8.68 a ± 5.7.b 9.00 ± 5.8 ab.5 ± 0.50 a 6.75 ± 0.96 ab 61.5 ± 75.9 a ± 85. a N.S. N.S. N.S. P<.05 P<.05 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. Figures reported are mean count per 10 plants ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD, Table 5. CPB Egg Mass Counts Jun 0 Jun 05 Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 3) (day 35) (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum 1 0 ± 0 a 10.5 ± 7.18.b.5 ± 3.10 a.50 ± 0.58 a 1.5 ± 0.96 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a.5 ± 1.6 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.00 ± 3.37 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 1.00 ± 1.1 a 5.00 ±.16 a 3.75 ±.75 a 0.75 ± 0.96 a.00 ± 0.8 a 0.50 ± 1.00 a ±.31 a 3 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a.50 ± 0.58 a 7.5 ± 3.59 a.75 ± 3.50 a 1.00 ±.00 a 0.75 ± 0.96 a 0 ± 0 a ± 5.9 a 5 6 +MA 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.00 ± 1.83 a 5.75 ± 3.77 a 3.00 ±.16 a.00 ±.71 a 0.50 ± 0.58 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a ± 7.9 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.75 ± 1.6 a 5.00 ±.5 a.00 ±.5 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 13.5 ±.19 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a.50 ± 1.9 a.00 ±.5 a 3.5 ±. a 0 ± 0 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a 1.00 ± 1.1 a 1.00 ± 3.7 a N.S. P<.0001 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. Figures reported are mean count per 10 plants ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD,

6 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 6 Table 6. CPB Small Larvae Counts Jun 0 Jun 05 Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 3) (day 35) (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum 1 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 56.5 ± 3.0.b ± 70..b 1.00 ± b 1.75 ±.36 a 6.5 ± 5.68 a 1.00 ±.00 a 9.50 ± b 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 7.00 ± 1.08 a 1.00 ±.00 a 8.00 ± 11.6 a 3 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.50 ± 1.00 a ± 1. ab 0 ± 0 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a 5.5 ± 9.8 a ± 19.7 a +MA ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.00 ±.31 a 0.75 ± 1.50 a 5.50 ± 10.3 a 0.75 ± 0.96 a.00 ±.71 a ± 10.3 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 6.75 ± 6.18 ab 0.75 ± 0.50 a 0 ± 0 a.5 ±.63 a 9.75 ±.57 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.75 ± 0.96 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 5.50 ±.65 a 3.50 ± 3.51 a 10 ± 7.53 a P ns ns P<.0001 P<.0001 P<.001 ns ns ns P<.001 Figures reported are mean count per 10 plants ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different Table 7. CPB Large Larvae Counts Jun 0 Jun 05 Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 3) (day 35) (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum 1 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a ± 1.19.b 3.5 ±.50.b 1.5 ± 0.50.b 0.75 ± 0.50 a 1.75 ±.36 a ± b 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 3 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0 ± 0 a 0.50 ± 1.00 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.00 ± 0.8 ab 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 1.50 ± 3.00 a 1.50 ± 3.00 a +MA 5 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 3.50 ± 6.35 a 3.50 ± 6.35 ab 6 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.5 ±.50 a 1.50 ±.38 ab P ns ns ns P<.05 P<.01 P<.0001 ns ns P<.05 Figures reported are mean count per 10 plants ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD,

7 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 7 Table 8. Potato Leafhopper Adult Counts Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum ± 6.0.b 13.5 ±.57.b 0.5 ± 0.50 a 6.00 ± 1.63.b 16.5 ± 3.77.b ± 1.73.b ± b 1.00 ± 0.8 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 3.50 ±.0 a 1.50 ± 1.9 a 7.50 ± 3.70 a ± 0.96 a 1.75 ± 1.71 a 0 ± 0 a 1.50 ±.38 a.5 ±. ab.75 ±.50 a ±. a +MA ± 1.9 a 1.00 ± 1.1 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.50 ± 0.58 a 1.75 ± 1.50 a.75 ±.06 a 7.75 ±.75 a 1.00 ± 1.1 a 0.75 ± 0.96 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.50 ± 0.58 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a 1.00 ± 0.8 a.50 ±.08 a 1.00 ± 1.15 a 1.75 ± 1.6 a 0 ± 0 a 0.50 ± 1.00 a.00 ± 3.65 ab.50 ±.3 ab ± 8.6 a P<.0001 P<.001 ns P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.001 Figures reported are mean count per 0 sweeps ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD, Table 9. Potato Leafhopper Nymph Counts Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum ± 1.89 a.00 ± 1.83.b 0.75 ± 0.96 a.50 ± 1.9.b 10 ± 3.7.b 8.75 ± 9..b 9.75 ± b 1.5 ± 1.89 a 1.50 ± 1.00 ab 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.75 ± 1.71 a ± 0.96 a 1.00 ± 0.8 ab 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.75 ± 1.50 a 1.00 ± 1.15 a 3.75 ± 0.50.b 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.75 ± 1.50 a +MA ± 1.15 a 1.5 ± 1.89 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.5 ±.87 a ± 0.58 a 1.75 ± 0.96 ab 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a.5 ± 1.50 a P ns P<.05 ns P<.0001 P<.0001 P<.01 P<.0001 Figures reported are mean count per 5 leaves ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD,

8 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 8 Table 10. Aphid Counts Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 Cumul. Trt Products (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) sum ± 0.96 a 8.00 ±.16.b 0.75 ± 0.96 a 1.50 ± 0.58.b.5 ±.50.b 8.00 ± 7.1.b 3.5 ± b 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 3 0 ± 0 a 0.75 ± 0.96 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.00 ± 1.15 a 5 6 +MA 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.75 ± 1.50 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.50 ± 1.00 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.75 ±.36 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.50 ± 1.00 a 0 ± 0 a 0 ± 0 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 0.5 ± 0.50 a 1.5 ± 0.96 a ns P<.0001 ns P<.0001 P<.001 P<.01 P<.0001 Figures reported are mean count per 5 leaves ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD, Table 11. Defoliation Trt Products Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 6 Jul 07 Jul 1 Jul 0 (day 5) (day 9) (day 56) (day 67) (day 7) (day 80) 1 1.8% ± 0.5%.b.5% ± 0.6%.b.0% ± 0.8%.b 1.8% ± 1.0% a 1.5% ± 0.6% a.8% ±.9% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 13.5% ± 11.0% a 3 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 0.8% ± 0.5% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 3.0% ±.7% a +MA % ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a.0% ± 0.8% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 8.3% ± 6.% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 1.0% ± 0.0% a 7.5% ± 11.7% a P P<.001 P<.0001 P<.01 ns P<.05 ns

9 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 9 Figures reported are mean percent defoliation ± standard deviations. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD,

10 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 50 Table 1. Yield Performance Trt Products Total Yield Mkt Yield (A+B) Class A Class B Class C Culls ± 39.8 a.9 ± a ± 1.6 a 1.35 ± 6.30 a 7.90 ± 6.30 a 7.53 ± 1.7 a ± a ± a 0.99 ± a 39.0 ±.58 a ±.58 a 7.8 ± 3.0 a ± a ± a 53.7 ± 9.61 a 5.05 ± 11.5 a 13.1 ± 11.5 a 6.33 ± 3. a ± 6.37 a ± 8.3 a ± 6.18 a 7.7 ± 5.1 a 1.7 ± 5.1 a 5.30 ±.53 a +MA ± a ± 15.5 a 1.90 ± a 9.7 ± 7.01 a ± 7.01 a 7.33 ±.38 a ± 7.91 a 7.80 ± a 33.5 ± 9.09 a 7.37 ± 11.5 a ± 11.5 a 7.5 ±.8 a P ns ns ns ns ns ns Yields reported in units of cwt/a, calculated from a harvested area per plot of 10 sq. ft. (one 0 ft. row). Means followed by same letter are not significantly different (Tukey s HSD,

11 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 51 Table 13. Yield Performance Relative to Controls Trt Products Total Yield Mkt Yield (A+B) Class A Class B Class C Culls Performance relative to control MA Performance relative to commercial standard MA Yields reported in units of cwt/a, calculated from a harvested area per plot of 10 sq. ft. (one 0 ft. row)

12 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 5 Table 1. Tuber Quality Trt Products Proportion A's Proportion B's Proportion C's Prp Hollow Prp Double Prp Knob Specific Gravity 1 7.3% ± 6.7% 17.1% ±.0% 8.7% ± 3.0% 3.9% ± 1.3% 1.6% ± 1.% 1.8% ± 3.8% ± % ± 0.%.8% ± 0.% 13.9% ± 0.%.8% ± 0.7% 0.8% ± 0.7% 15.% ± 1.6% 1.07 ± % ± 13.6% 16.6% ± 7.3% 11.5% ± 6.5%.8% ± 0.9% 1.1% ± 0.8% 17.5% ± 3.7% ± % ± 5.% 16.8% ±.6% 10.7% ±.8% 3.1% ± 0.7% 0.9% ± 0.5% 16.9% ± 1.5% ± MA 5 70.% ± 6.0% 18.1% ±.7% 11.7% ± 3.% 3.0% ± 0.8% 1.1% ± 0.5% 16.0% ±.0% ± MA % ± 6.9% 17.% ±.% 1.% ± 3.3%.% ± 1.0% 0.8% ± 0.5% 16.0% ± 1.3% ± 0.00 P N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. Hollow, double, and knobbed tubers were flagged by the AgRay Vision X-ray grading machine. Specific gravity calculations based on comparison of dry and submerged weight of approximately 15 tubers.

13 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 53 Figure 1. Cumulative CPB Adult Counts Log scale CPB adults / 10 plants May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates Figure. Cumulative CPB Egg Mass Counts Log scale 3 16 CPB egg masses / 10 plants May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates

14 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 5 Figure 3. Cumulative CPB Small Larvae Counts Log scale CPB small larvae / 10 plants May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates Figure. Cumulative CPB Large Larvae Counts Log scale 3 16 CPB large larvae / 10 plants May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates

15 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 55 Figure 5. Cumulative Potato Leafhopper Adult Counts Log scale 6 3 PLH adults / 0 sweeps May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates Figure 6. Cumulative Potato Leafhopper Nymph Counts Log scale 3 16 PLH nymphs / 5 leaves May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates

16 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 56 Figure 7. Cumulative Aphid Counts Log scale 3 16 Aphids / 5 leaves May 5-Jun 1-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 3-Jul 10-Jul 17-Jul -Jul Trt 1. Trt. Trt 3. Trt. +MA Trt 5. +MA Trt 6. Phostrol App Dates Figure 8. Defoliation 30% 15-Jun 19-Jun 6-Jun 7-Jul 1-Jul 0-Jul 5% Percent Defoliation 0% 15% 10% 5% 0% +MA +MA

17 Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial 57 Figure 9. Total Yield A's B's C's Yield (cwt/a) MA +MA