FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W622867969> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W622867969 abstract "New restrictions on insecticides for aphid control presents new challenges for lettuce growers. Dimethoate is soon to be unavailable and the future status of other conventional aphicides is uncertain. However, a number of new active ingredients will soon be available that offer lettuce growers valuable alternatives for aphid management in lettuce. The present dilemma and potential for implementing new chemistries into lettuce IPM programs is discussed in this report. The Desert Aphid Complex An aphid complex consisting of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae, the potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, and Acyrthosiphon lactucae has seemingly always caused problems for Arizona lettuce growers. Green peach aphid has generally been considered the most important aphid species of the complex because of its relative tolerance to some older insecticides (Kerns, et. al. 1998), and its ability to reach high population levels in lettuce. This has recently changed as two new species have emerged that now pose serious concerns to the lettuce industry A new exotic aphid species, the lettuce aphid, Nosanovia ribis-nigri was found infesting lettuce in the Salinas Valley of California in 1998. This aphid quickly spread throughout the coastal growing areas and is now considered their primary aphid pest (Anonymous 2003). Commonly found on lettuce in Europe and Canada, this pest had never previously been reported in the western U.S. By 2000, the lettuce aphid was found in the desert growing of Arizona, presumably arriving from the coast via lettuce transplants and harvest equipment. Although this aphid reportedly has a narrow host range for composite species, it has quickly become established in the desert growing areas and is now considered a key pest of spring lettuce in Arizona (Palumbo 2003a). To add further complexity to the aphid situation, another new aphid species, the foxglove aphid, Aulacorthum solani, was found infesting commercial lettuce fields in the Yuma area for the first time in 2002 (Palumbo 2003b). This species is principally considered a serious pest of potatoes throughout the U.S, and is only considered an occasional pest of lettuce and leafy vegetables grown in Canada. Although it has been reported on a wide range of hosts in California, it was not previously thought to occur in Arizona. Based on our recent observations over the past 3 years in Yuma, it appears that foxglove aphid has become established in the desert (Palumbo 2003a). Many growers and PCAs now consider foxglove aphid a serious aphid pest in desert lettuce production. It is not uncommon to find all five aphid species simultaneously infesting lettuce fields in desert cropping systems, and if not controlled populations can quickly build up to very high densities throughout the plant depending on weather conditions ((Palumbo 2003a). Green peach aphids and potato aphids can be difficult to control with contact insecticides because they feed primarily on the lower surface of older lettuce leaves, gradually moving into the heads as population densities increase. In contrast, lettuce and foxglove aphids present a different challenge in controlling aphids in lettuce. These aphid species prefer to feed and colonize in the terminal growth of lettuce plants, and particularly deep within developing lettuce heads. Control of lettuce and foxglove aphids with contact insecticides can be more difficult because of the aphids’ preference for the protected terminal growth. Once aphids are detected, it is not uncommon for growers to apply insecticides on a regular basis. Aphid Management in the Desert Historically, pest management programs for aphids on vegetable crops in Arizona and California have been developed around the availability of effective insecticides (Kerns and Palumbo 1996). Prior to 1994, meviphos (Phosdrin) was the most effective insecticide available for aphid control and was used extensively. Because it was a highly volatile compound and extremely toxic to aphids, growers were able to apply meviphos near harvest and eliminate aphid infestations deep inside heads. However, worker exposure issues forced the manufacturer to remove the product from the market in 1994. Since then, Arizona growers have relied on two different management approaches to control aphids in lettuce. Both of them are preventative approaches that utilize insecticides to prevent aphids from colonizing and contaminating plants. One aphid management approach involves the soil application of the systemic, neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid (Admire 2F). The compound has low environmental risk and is considered an OP replacement. Long residual control of green peach and potato aphids in lettuce can be achieved by a single, at-planting soil application. Through root uptake, the compound provides significant reduction of aphid colonization on winter lettuce crops for up to 75 days. Furthermore, because Admire is applied as a liquid in the bed preparation or planting operations, there is no additional application costs associated with its use. This prophylactic approach has been the industry standard since 1993 and has been applied on as much as 80% of the head and leaf lettuce acreage planted annually in the AZ and CA deserts (Agnew 2000). However, several recent developments have caused the lettuce industry to seek alternatives to prophylactic Admire use (Anonymous 2003). First, because of the intense reliance on Admire for aphid and silverleaf whitefly management in the desert, resistance has become a serious concern (Palumbo, et. al. 2003). The recent registration of several new neonicotinoid compounds on cotton, melons and vegetables has expanded the number of compounds available for whitefly and aphid control on these crops. The sustained efficacy of Admire over the past 10 years exceeds the expectations of many who speculated that whiteflies and aphids would quickly evolve resistance (Kerns, et. al. 1998, Palumbo 2003a). However, no field failures have been reported thus far, in part perhaps, because Admire has been used sparingly in cotton and other summer crops. However, the recent registration of new members of this class of chemistry, acetamiprid and thiamethoxam, may lead to much greater use of this class in cotton against whiteflies. If not used judiciously, successive whitefly generations could be exposed to several neonicotinoid compounds on a variety of different crops throughout the year. Such a scenario places increased selection pressure on exposed whitefly and aphid populations and thereby greatly increases the risk of resistance. In addition, Admire soil treatments do not appear to be as effective against lettuce and foxglove aphids when used at rates that are normally effective against green peach and potato aphids (16 oz or less). Studies at the Yuma Ag Center have shown that Admire applied at-planting does not consistently prevent lettuce aphids from contaminating heads, particularly at higher densities (Palumbo 2000, 2001, 2002). Furthermore, studies conducted in 2003 showed that Admire applied at 16 oz provided season-long control of green peach and potato aphids, but provided less than 80% control of foxglove aphids late in the season (Palumbo 2003a). However, preliminary results in 2004 from field studies at YAC showed that foxglove aphids were controlled in lettuce when Admire was applied at rates of 20 oz or greater (Palumbo, unpublished). The second approach to aphid management in the desert growing areas of Arizona and California is a preventative foliar approach. Fields not planted with Admire are routinely treated with foliar insecticides upon detection of aphid colonization. With the exception of the foliar formulation of imidacloprid (Provado), foliar aphid control has been achieved almost entirely through the use of high-risk, organophosphate insecticides from germination to harvest. The organophosphates endosulfan, dimethoate, acephate, oxydemeton-methyl and diazinon, and the carbamate methomyl are the most frequently used insecticides for foliar aphid control in lettuce (Anonymous 2003, Agnew 2000, Kurtz 1999; Table 2). After years of extensive use, many of these compounds only provide marginal efficacy against green peach aphid, and it is now a common practice for pest control advisors and growers to tank-mix the OPs with a pyrethroid, or other OPs to achieve adequate control (Kerns, et. al. 1998, Palumbo 2003c)." @default.
• W622867969 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W622867969 creator A5017911386 @default.
• W622867969 date "2004-09-01" @default.
• W622867969 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W622867969 title "Is Aphid Management Sustainable in Desert Head Lettuce" @default.
• W622867969 cites W1532701215 @default.
• W622867969 cites W2287862331 @default.
• W622867969 cites W25609969 @default.
• W622867969 cites W567466312 @default.
• W622867969 cites W581283535 @default.
• W622867969 cites W587012082 @default.
• W622867969 cites W596902112 @default.
• W622867969 cites W750209966 @default.
• W622867969 cites W751934709 @default.
• W622867969 cites W802593028 @default.
• W622867969 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W622867969 type Work @default.
• W622867969 sameAs 622867969 @default.
• W622867969 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W622867969 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W622867969 hasAuthorship W622867969A5017911386 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C2775976403 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C2776130869 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C2780312720 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C54286561 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C6557445 @default.
• W622867969 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C151730666 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C17744445 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C199539241 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C2775976403 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C2776130869 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C2780312720 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C39432304 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C54286561 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C6557445 @default.
• W622867969 hasConceptScore W622867969C86803240 @default.
• W622867969 hasLocation W6228679691 @default.
• W622867969 hasOpenAccess W622867969 @default.
• W622867969 hasPrimaryLocation W6228679691 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W145737877 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W1599101382 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W2081505666 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W25609969 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W57820817 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W581283535 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W602908650 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W606027496 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W608620672 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W624465303 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W647817670 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W654132267 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W746138463 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W749035550 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W792315842 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W815668869 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W832629349 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W832736548 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W833200717 @default.
• W622867969 hasRelatedWork W837138625 @default.
• W622867969 isParatext "false" @default.
• W622867969 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W622867969 magId "622867969" @default.
• W622867969 workType "article" @default.