Arthropod Management Tests

Canas,, Luis;Acosta, Nuris, M

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz030

Tomato | Lycopersicon esculentum Two spotted spider mite (TSSM) | Tetranychus urticae Koch Beauveria bassina, Isaria fumosorosea The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of Trabon EC (soybean oil) as a foliar spray against two spotted spider mites, Tetranychus urticae, and compare it against the industry standard, Botanigard 22WP + PFR-97 (Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA + Isaria fumosorosea Apopka Strain 97). The experiment was conducted at a greenhouse at Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster, OH. On 17 Feb, the greenhouse was cleaned and disinfected; wire trellis systems were set up and grow bags hydrated. On 18 Feb tomato seedlings ‘Campari’, provided by Soave Agricultural Group from Kingsville, Ontario Canada, were transplanted into Golden Grow Hydroponics Premium Grow Bags from Projar, made of coco husk. Plots were arranged in an RCBD with four replications. Each treatment consisted of three plants spaced 0.46 m apart with 1.2 m between rows. A drip irrigation system was set up at transplant and a greenhouse grade fertilizer (MGS SELECT Customized Soluble Nutrition) was injected every 6 h to the tomato plants at the rate of 1:100 by using a Dosatron D14MZ2 injector and emitter with a flow rate of 1.9 l/h beginning 18 Feb and ending 9 Jun. For weight support and ease of pruning, trellis twine with hooks were hung from main wire lines and each plant was tied with trellis clips to the vine stalk on 20 Feb. The insecticide Spinosad at 0.44 liter/ha was applied on 27 Feb and 11 Apr to control thrips. Treatments were applied using a backpack CO2-pressurized sprayer (275.79 Kpa, 447 l/0.4 ha, 3.8 kph) beginning on 5 May and ending on 16 Jun for a total of seven applications. An RCBD design was used with four treatments, including an untreated check, and four replicates. Tomato plants were selected at random from each unit and were infested with two spotted spider mite adults. On each selected plant, four leaflets were selected and six two spotted spider mite adults were placed. Mite adults were obtained from colonies maintained at the Canas lab. Before the treatments started the total number of eggs, nymphs and adults found was counted on each leaflet. For the duration of the experiment, four to seven leaves were evaluated from each plant, and the number of TSSM eggs, nymphs and adults were counted. All count data were analyzed via ANOVA and a Tukey’s test was used to separated means (α = 0.05). When necessary non-normal data were transformed using a Log (X + 10) transformation. During each date, plants were evaluated for phytotoxicity. For this, we use a qualitative rating system that evaluated leaf damage and ranged from 0 to 10. Zero is the lowest number and indicates no leaf damage, and 10 is the highest indicating complete leaf burn in the whole plant. Because we included all leaf damage, the most important comparison is against the untreated check. All treatments started with similar numbers of mite nymphs (Table 1). Table 1. DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite eggs per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 4.0 0.9 a 2.5 1.0 a 4.5 2.6 a 3.5 2.2 a 0.61 3,9 0.6240 D7 17.5 5.1 a 7.8 3.9 a 13.8 6.9 a 13.0 6.3 a 2.53 3,9 0.1227 D14 0.8 0.8 a 1.8 1.0 a 0.5 0.3 a 2.0 1.4 a 1.73 3,9 0.2296 D21 5.8 2.5 a 1.0 1.0 a 3.0 2.1 a 2.3 1.0 a 1.79 3,9 0.2186 D28 12.0 3.7 ab 4.3 1.8 b 4.8 1.4 b 21.3 5.1 a 9.53 3,9 0.0037 D35 21.3 4.9 a 4.0 2.2 b 7.3 2.8 b 3.8 1.1 b 12.19 3,9 0.0016 D42 11.0 3.0 a 2.0 0.8 b 0.8 0.8 b 0.3 0.3 b 24.02 3,9 0.0001 DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite eggs per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 4.0 0.9 a 2.5 1.0 a 4.5 2.6 a 3.5 2.2 a 0.61 3,9 0.6240 D7 17.5 5.1 a 7.8 3.9 a 13.8 6.9 a 13.0 6.3 a 2.53 3,9 0.1227 D14 0.8 0.8 a 1.8 1.0 a 0.5 0.3 a 2.0 1.4 a 1.73 3,9 0.2296 D21 5.8 2.5 a 1.0 1.0 a 3.0 2.1 a 2.3 1.0 a 1.79 3,9 0.2186 D28 12.0 3.7 ab 4.3 1.8 b 4.8 1.4 b 21.3 5.1 a 9.53 3,9 0.0037 D35 21.3 4.9 a 4.0 2.2 b 7.3 2.8 b 3.8 1.1 b 12.19 3,9 0.0016 D42 11.0 3.0 a 2.0 0.8 b 0.8 0.8 b 0.3 0.3 b 24.02 3,9 0.0001 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = Degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab Table 1. DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite eggs per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 4.0 0.9 a 2.5 1.0 a 4.5 2.6 a 3.5 2.2 a 0.61 3,9 0.6240 D7 17.5 5.1 a 7.8 3.9 a 13.8 6.9 a 13.0 6.3 a 2.53 3,9 0.1227 D14 0.8 0.8 a 1.8 1.0 a 0.5 0.3 a 2.0 1.4 a 1.73 3,9 0.2296 D21 5.8 2.5 a 1.0 1.0 a 3.0 2.1 a 2.3 1.0 a 1.79 3,9 0.2186 D28 12.0 3.7 ab 4.3 1.8 b 4.8 1.4 b 21.3 5.1 a 9.53 3,9 0.0037 D35 21.3 4.9 a 4.0 2.2 b 7.3 2.8 b 3.8 1.1 b 12.19 3,9 0.0016 D42 11.0 3.0 a 2.0 0.8 b 0.8 0.8 b 0.3 0.3 b 24.02 3,9 0.0001 DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite eggs per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 4.0 0.9 a 2.5 1.0 a 4.5 2.6 a 3.5 2.2 a 0.61 3,9 0.6240 D7 17.5 5.1 a 7.8 3.9 a 13.8 6.9 a 13.0 6.3 a 2.53 3,9 0.1227 D14 0.8 0.8 a 1.8 1.0 a 0.5 0.3 a 2.0 1.4 a 1.73 3,9 0.2296 D21 5.8 2.5 a 1.0 1.0 a 3.0 2.1 a 2.3 1.0 a 1.79 3,9 0.2186 D28 12.0 3.7 ab 4.3 1.8 b 4.8 1.4 b 21.3 5.1 a 9.53 3,9 0.0037 D35 21.3 4.9 a 4.0 2.2 b 7.3 2.8 b 3.8 1.1 b 12.19 3,9 0.0016 D42 11.0 3.0 a 2.0 0.8 b 0.8 0.8 b 0.3 0.3 b 24.02 3,9 0.0001 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = Degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab Eggs There were no statistical differences between treatments at 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment (DAT) (Table 1). At 28 DAT, both Trabon treatments had statistically fewer mite eggs than the untreated check and the industry standard. At 35 and 42 DAT, all insecticide treatments had statistically fewer mite eggs than the untreated check. The results show that the two Trabon rates performed as well as the industry standard in reducing the number of mite eggs. Nymphs and Adults There were no statistical differences between treatments at 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT (Table 2). At 35 and 42 DAT all insecticide treatments had statistically fewer TSSM nymphs and adults than the untreated check. Table 2. DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite nymphs and adults per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 21.5 0.6 a 24.5 1.9 a 24.8 1.5 a 21.5 1.0 a 2.27 3,9 0.1493 D7 7.8 1.8 a 7.5 2.3 a 13.5 5.3 a 3.8 1.9 a 1.72 3,9 0.2325 D14 5.3 1.7 a 1.5 0.6 a 2.0 1.1 a 1.8 0.8 a 1.80 3,9 0.2174 D21 9.8 1.9 a 4.0 0.7 a 4.0 1.7 a 4.3 1.1 a 3.27 3,9 0.0729 D28 12.3 1.5 a 6.8 2.3 a 5.5 0.6 a 9.5 1.3 a 2.90 3,9 0.0939 D35 22.8 4.6 a 3.0 0.7 b 6.8 2.0 b 4.5 1.8 b 10.08 3,9 0.0031 D42 13.5 3.2 a 2.5 1.3 b 1.5 0.9 b 1.3 0.5 b 12.06 3,9 0.0017 DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite nymphs and adults per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 21.5 0.6 a 24.5 1.9 a 24.8 1.5 a 21.5 1.0 a 2.27 3,9 0.1493 D7 7.8 1.8 a 7.5 2.3 a 13.5 5.3 a 3.8 1.9 a 1.72 3,9 0.2325 D14 5.3 1.7 a 1.5 0.6 a 2.0 1.1 a 1.8 0.8 a 1.80 3,9 0.2174 D21 9.8 1.9 a 4.0 0.7 a 4.0 1.7 a 4.3 1.1 a 3.27 3,9 0.0729 D28 12.3 1.5 a 6.8 2.3 a 5.5 0.6 a 9.5 1.3 a 2.90 3,9 0.0939 D35 22.8 4.6 a 3.0 0.7 b 6.8 2.0 b 4.5 1.8 b 10.08 3,9 0.0031 D42 13.5 3.2 a 2.5 1.3 b 1.5 0.9 b 1.3 0.5 b 12.06 3,9 0.0017 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab Table 2. DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite nymphs and adults per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 21.5 0.6 a 24.5 1.9 a 24.8 1.5 a 21.5 1.0 a 2.27 3,9 0.1493 D7 7.8 1.8 a 7.5 2.3 a 13.5 5.3 a 3.8 1.9 a 1.72 3,9 0.2325 D14 5.3 1.7 a 1.5 0.6 a 2.0 1.1 a 1.8 0.8 a 1.80 3,9 0.2174 D21 9.8 1.9 a 4.0 0.7 a 4.0 1.7 a 4.3 1.1 a 3.27 3,9 0.0729 D28 12.3 1.5 a 6.8 2.3 a 5.5 0.6 a 9.5 1.3 a 2.90 3,9 0.0939 D35 22.8 4.6 a 3.0 0.7 b 6.8 2.0 b 4.5 1.8 b 10.08 3,9 0.0031 D42 13.5 3.2 a 2.5 1.3 b 1.5 0.9 b 1.3 0.5 b 12.06 3,9 0.0017 DATa Average number of two spotted spider mite nymphs and adults per plant RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 21.5 0.6 a 24.5 1.9 a 24.8 1.5 a 21.5 1.0 a 2.27 3,9 0.1493 D7 7.8 1.8 a 7.5 2.3 a 13.5 5.3 a 3.8 1.9 a 1.72 3,9 0.2325 D14 5.3 1.7 a 1.5 0.6 a 2.0 1.1 a 1.8 0.8 a 1.80 3,9 0.2174 D21 9.8 1.9 a 4.0 0.7 a 4.0 1.7 a 4.3 1.1 a 3.27 3,9 0.0729 D28 12.3 1.5 a 6.8 2.3 a 5.5 0.6 a 9.5 1.3 a 2.90 3,9 0.0939 D35 22.8 4.6 a 3.0 0.7 b 6.8 2.0 b 4.5 1.8 b 10.08 3,9 0.0031 D42 13.5 3.2 a 2.5 1.3 b 1.5 0.9 b 1.3 0.5 b 12.06 3,9 0.0017 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab The results show that the two Trabon rates performed as well as the industry standard in reducing the number of mite nymphs and adults. However, five applications were necessary before the mite population levels were lowered. Phytotoxicity No phytotoxicity (from ratings) differences were observed between the untreated check and the treatments, except on 28 DAT when all the treatments were statistically different from the untreated check (Table 3). Because there were no statistical differences on any other date and all plants had similar size at the end of the experiment, our conclusion is that phytotoxicity was not an issue (Table 4). Table 3. DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.7 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 1.3 0.3 a 2.7 1.0 a 2.48 3,9 0.1273 D14 2.5 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 2.3 0.8 a 2.9 0.9 a 1.31 3,9 0.3312 D21 2.7 0.7 a 3.1 0.8 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.6 a 1.56 3,9 0.2663 D28 1.0 1.0 a 3.6 0.6 b 4.0 0.2 b 4.1 0.6 b 6.91 3,9 0.0103 D35 3.4 0.4 a 3.6 0.5 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.3 a 1.98 3,9 0.1880 D42 4.7 0.4 a 4.4 0.1 a 4.3 0.2 a 4.7 0.2 a 0.88 3,9 0.4855 DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.7 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 1.3 0.3 a 2.7 1.0 a 2.48 3,9 0.1273 D14 2.5 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 2.3 0.8 a 2.9 0.9 a 1.31 3,9 0.3312 D21 2.7 0.7 a 3.1 0.8 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.6 a 1.56 3,9 0.2663 D28 1.0 1.0 a 3.6 0.6 b 4.0 0.2 b 4.1 0.6 b 6.91 3,9 0.0103 D35 3.4 0.4 a 3.6 0.5 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.3 a 1.98 3,9 0.1880 D42 4.7 0.4 a 4.4 0.1 a 4.3 0.2 a 4.7 0.2 a 0.88 3,9 0.4855 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab Table 3. DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.7 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 1.3 0.3 a 2.7 1.0 a 2.48 3,9 0.1273 D14 2.5 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 2.3 0.8 a 2.9 0.9 a 1.31 3,9 0.3312 D21 2.7 0.7 a 3.1 0.8 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.6 a 1.56 3,9 0.2663 D28 1.0 1.0 a 3.6 0.6 b 4.0 0.2 b 4.1 0.6 b 6.91 3,9 0.0103 D35 3.4 0.4 a 3.6 0.5 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.3 a 1.98 3,9 0.1880 D42 4.7 0.4 a 4.4 0.1 a 4.3 0.2 a 4.7 0.2 a 0.88 3,9 0.4855 DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.7 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 1.3 0.3 a 2.7 1.0 a 2.48 3,9 0.1273 D14 2.5 1.0 a 1.6 0.5 a 2.3 0.8 a 2.9 0.9 a 1.31 3,9 0.3312 D21 2.7 0.7 a 3.1 0.8 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.6 a 1.56 3,9 0.2663 D28 1.0 1.0 a 3.6 0.6 b 4.0 0.2 b 4.1 0.6 b 6.91 3,9 0.0103 D35 3.4 0.4 a 3.6 0.5 a 3.6 0.5 a 4.5 0.3 a 1.98 3,9 0.1880 D42 4.7 0.4 a 4.4 0.1 a 4.3 0.2 a 4.7 0.2 a 0.88 3,9 0.4855 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab Table 4. DATa Plant volume (cm3) RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 2171036.1 137732.4 a 2511379.7 327104.7 a 2095013.5 169504.6 a 2179571.0 105840.6 a 0.54 3,9 0.67 D42 2732676.7 504163.6 a 2988349.7 161793.8 a 3027659.7 291650.8 a 3672333.3 308587.9 a 1.81 3,9 0.22 DATa Plant volume (cm3) RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 2171036.1 137732.4 a 2511379.7 327104.7 a 2095013.5 169504.6 a 2179571.0 105840.6 a 0.54 3,9 0.67 D42 2732676.7 504163.6 a 2988349.7 161793.8 a 3027659.7 291650.8 a 3672333.3 308587.9 a 1.81 3,9 0.22 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab Table 4. DATa Plant volume (cm3) RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 2171036.1 137732.4 a 2511379.7 327104.7 a 2095013.5 169504.6 a 2179571.0 105840.6 a 0.54 3,9 0.67 D42 2732676.7 504163.6 a 2988349.7 161793.8 a 3027659.7 291650.8 a 3672333.3 308587.9 a 1.81 3,9 0.22 DATa Plant volume (cm3) RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 141.95 ml/94.64 liters Trabon EC 288.34 ml/94.64 liters Botanigard 22WP 0.45 kg/378.54 liters + PFR-97 0.79 kg/378.54 liters Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D0 2171036.1 137732.4 a 2511379.7 327104.7 a 2095013.5 169504.6 a 2179571.0 105840.6 a 0.54 3,9 0.67 D42 2732676.7 504163.6 a 2988349.7 161793.8 a 3027659.7 291650.8 a 3672333.3 308587.9 a 1.81 3,9 0.22 All products were applied on 5 May, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 2 Jun, 9 Jun, and 16 Jun. aDAT = Days after treatment. bSE = Standard error of the mean. cStats = Results from mean separation analysis. ddf = degrees of freedom (N: numerator, D: denominator). Open in new tab In summary, in this experiment, Trabon preformed as well as the industry standard, PFR-97, to control spider mites. Support for this project was kindly provided by Crop Protection Technologies PTE LTD, Singapore 658071. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Nault, Brian, A;Seaman,, Abby

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz081

Potato | Solanum tuberosum Colorado potato beetle | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say pyrethrin, azadirachtin, Sabadilla alkaloids, Chromobacterium subtsugae, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacillus galleriae These trials were conducted to evaluate insecticides allowed for organic production. The trials were conducted at the ACDS Research Inc. farm near North Rose, NY. In 2017, ‘B’ grade tubers of a late-season maturing, white-skinned potato cultivar, ‘Genesee’, were planted on 4 May. In 2018, ‘B’ grade tubers of a mid-season maturing, red-skinned potato cultivar, ‘Nordanna’, were planted on 11 May. Tubers were planted mechanically at a density of approximately 1 per foot. Plots included two 25-ft long rows flanked by a single unplanted row. Rows were 36 inches apart and plots were separated by a 5-ft alley of bare ground within rows. Weeds and diseases were managed following typical practices for this region. Other insect pests such as potato leafhopper, potato aphid, green peach aphid, and European corn borer were either absent or only observed at very low densities that did not damage the crop. Eight treatments including an untreated check were included in 2017, and seven were included in 2018 (Table 1). Treatments and an untreated check were arranged in a randomized complete block design with five replications. Table 1. Treatment . Active ingredient . 2017 Rate/A . 2018 Rate/A . Untreated check – – – Azera pyrethrin+azadirachtin 40 fl oz 40 fl oz Entrust SC spinosad 10 fl oz 3.5 and 7 fl oz Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lbs 3 lbs V-10433 Sabadilla alkaloids 11 fl oz 11 fl oz BeetleGONE! B.t. galleriae Strain SDS 502 4 lbs Not tested Trident B.t. tenebrionis 3 and 6 qts 3 qts Treatment . Active ingredient . 2017 Rate/A . 2018 Rate/A . Untreated check – – – Azera pyrethrin+azadirachtin 40 fl oz 40 fl oz Entrust SC spinosad 10 fl oz 3.5 and 7 fl oz Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lbs 3 lbs V-10433 Sabadilla alkaloids 11 fl oz 11 fl oz BeetleGONE! B.t. galleriae Strain SDS 502 4 lbs Not tested Trident B.t. tenebrionis 3 and 6 qts 3 qts Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Active ingredient . 2017 Rate/A . 2018 Rate/A . Untreated check – – – Azera pyrethrin+azadirachtin 40 fl oz 40 fl oz Entrust SC spinosad 10 fl oz 3.5 and 7 fl oz Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lbs 3 lbs V-10433 Sabadilla alkaloids 11 fl oz 11 fl oz BeetleGONE! B.t. galleriae Strain SDS 502 4 lbs Not tested Trident B.t. tenebrionis 3 and 6 qts 3 qts Treatment . Active ingredient . 2017 Rate/A . 2018 Rate/A . Untreated check – – – Azera pyrethrin+azadirachtin 40 fl oz 40 fl oz Entrust SC spinosad 10 fl oz 3.5 and 7 fl oz Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lbs 3 lbs V-10433 Sabadilla alkaloids 11 fl oz 11 fl oz BeetleGONE! B.t. galleriae Strain SDS 502 4 lbs Not tested Trident B.t. tenebrionis 3 and 6 qts 3 qts Open in new tab Foliar insecticide applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer and a boom equipped with four hollow-cone nozzles (Conejet TXVS-12) in which two nozzles each were directed over the canopy of single row (i.e., two rows were sprayed simultaneously with one pass of the spray rig). The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 31 gal of spray per acre at 40 psi. Insecticides were applied during the vegetative and early bloom stages to manage first-generation larvae. In 2017 treatments were applied on 15, 19, and 24 Jun with the exception of the 6 qt rate of Trident, which was sprayed on 19 and 26 Jun. In 2018 treatments were applied 15, 20, and 26 Jun. All applications were co-applied with NuFilm at 8 fl oz per acre. After first-generation adults started emerging in early July and when potatoes were in late bloom/early post bloom stages, in 2017 Coragen SC was applied at 5 fl oz/acre on 8 and 14 Jul and in 2018 a co-application of Coragen SC at 5 fl oz/acre + Radiant SC at 8 fl oz/acre + Induce at 0.125% v:v was applied on 14 Jul to all treatments to prevent first-generation adults from causing further damage (untreated plots were also treated). Efficacy of treatments was evaluated by recording the number of CPB life stages per plant during the first CPB generation. Numbers of egg masses (EM), adults (AD), small larvae (SL) (=1st and 2nd instars) and large larvae (LL) (=3rd and 4th instars) were recorded per plant from 10 randomly selected plants per plot. In 2017, for the 6 qt rate of Trident, data were taken on 26 Jun and 4 Jul, but are included in Table 2 under 23 and 29 Jun. For all other treatments and the untreated check, sampling dates included 19, 23, and 29 Jun. In 2018, sampling dates included 20 and 26 Jun and 4 Jul. Table 2. . . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 19 . . . . Jun 23 . . . . Jun 29 . . . . Product Rate/A EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check 0.9 0.3 b 58 a 3.1 0.1 b 0.06 62 a 33 a 0 0 13 ab 46 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 49 a 1.2 0.3 b 0.2 65 a 10 c 0 0 37 a 56 a Entrust SC 10 fl oz 1.9 1.8 a 3 b 0.1 0.9 a 0.3 1 c 0 d 0 0.1 1 c 1 b Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.3 1.1 ab 52 a 2.0 0.1 b 0.2 47 ab 29 abc 0 0 7 bc 39 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 52 a 2.4 0.1 b 0 64 a 27 ab 0 0 23 a 59 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 0.7 ab 67 a 2.5 0.1 b 0.1 71 a 31 ab 0 0 7 bc 31 a Trident (3 apps.) 3 qt 1.3 0.8 ab 57 a 3.5 0.2 b 0.1 51 ab 12 bc 0 0.1 15 ab 27 a Trident (2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 0.0 b 0.2 33 b 18 abc 0 0 11 ab 46 a P value NS 0.0301 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 NS <0.0001 0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 . . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 19 . . . . Jun 23 . . . . Jun 29 . . . . Product Rate/A EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check 0.9 0.3 b 58 a 3.1 0.1 b 0.06 62 a 33 a 0 0 13 ab 46 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 49 a 1.2 0.3 b 0.2 65 a 10 c 0 0 37 a 56 a Entrust SC 10 fl oz 1.9 1.8 a 3 b 0.1 0.9 a 0.3 1 c 0 d 0 0.1 1 c 1 b Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.3 1.1 ab 52 a 2.0 0.1 b 0.2 47 ab 29 abc 0 0 7 bc 39 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 52 a 2.4 0.1 b 0 64 a 27 ab 0 0 23 a 59 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 0.7 ab 67 a 2.5 0.1 b 0.1 71 a 31 ab 0 0 7 bc 31 a Trident (3 apps.) 3 qt 1.3 0.8 ab 57 a 3.5 0.2 b 0.1 51 ab 12 bc 0 0.1 15 ab 27 a Trident (2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 0.0 b 0.2 33 b 18 abc 0 0 11 ab 46 a P value NS 0.0301 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 NS <0.0001 0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). Open in new tab Table 2. . . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 19 . . . . Jun 23 . . . . Jun 29 . . . . Product Rate/A EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check 0.9 0.3 b 58 a 3.1 0.1 b 0.06 62 a 33 a 0 0 13 ab 46 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 49 a 1.2 0.3 b 0.2 65 a 10 c 0 0 37 a 56 a Entrust SC 10 fl oz 1.9 1.8 a 3 b 0.1 0.9 a 0.3 1 c 0 d 0 0.1 1 c 1 b Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.3 1.1 ab 52 a 2.0 0.1 b 0.2 47 ab 29 abc 0 0 7 bc 39 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 52 a 2.4 0.1 b 0 64 a 27 ab 0 0 23 a 59 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 0.7 ab 67 a 2.5 0.1 b 0.1 71 a 31 ab 0 0 7 bc 31 a Trident (3 apps.) 3 qt 1.3 0.8 ab 57 a 3.5 0.2 b 0.1 51 ab 12 bc 0 0.1 15 ab 27 a Trident (2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 0.0 b 0.2 33 b 18 abc 0 0 11 ab 46 a P value NS 0.0301 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 NS <0.0001 0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 . . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 19 . . . . Jun 23 . . . . Jun 29 . . . . Product Rate/A EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL EM AD SL LL Untreated check 0.9 0.3 b 58 a 3.1 0.1 b 0.06 62 a 33 a 0 0 13 ab 46 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 49 a 1.2 0.3 b 0.2 65 a 10 c 0 0 37 a 56 a Entrust SC 10 fl oz 1.9 1.8 a 3 b 0.1 0.9 a 0.3 1 c 0 d 0 0.1 1 c 1 b Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.3 1.1 ab 52 a 2.0 0.1 b 0.2 47 ab 29 abc 0 0 7 bc 39 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.1 0.7 ab 52 a 2.4 0.1 b 0 64 a 27 ab 0 0 23 a 59 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 0.7 ab 67 a 2.5 0.1 b 0.1 71 a 31 ab 0 0 7 bc 31 a Trident (3 apps.) 3 qt 1.3 0.8 ab 57 a 3.5 0.2 b 0.1 51 ab 12 bc 0 0.1 15 ab 27 a Trident (2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 0.0 b 0.2 33 b 18 abc 0 0 11 ab 46 a P value NS 0.0301 <0.0001 NS <0.0001 NS <0.0001 0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). Open in new tab Visual estimates of defoliation were made on 26 Jun and 3 Jul in 2017 and on 26 Jun and 4 Jul in 2018. Defoliation estimates for each plot were based on the following 14-point scale (0%, 0–3%, 3–9%, 9–17%, 17–27%, 27–38%, 38–50%, 50–62%, 62–73%, 73–82%, 82–93%, 93–97%, 97–100%, and 100%). The midpoint of each estimate was used in the statistical analyses. On 24 Aug (both years), the left-hand row in each plot was harvested and the numbers of Grade ‘A’ (>1.5 inches in diam.) and Grade ‘B’ (<1.5 in diam.) tubers were weighed. All data were analyzed using a mixed linear model procedure of SAS (PROC MIXED) in which treatment was considered fixed and replication as random in the model. All pairwise comparisons between means were made using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test at P < 0.05. Insect count data and tuber yield data were transformed with a log10 (x + 1) function to stabilize variance. Defoliation rating data were transformed with a square root (x + 0.001) function to stabilize variance. In 2017, CPB pressure was high. Conditions were moderate and wet from early May through late June. A moderate rainfall event occurred less than 30 min after the first application, whereas other rainfall events generally occurred within a day or so after the other applications. On 15 Jun, before treatments were applied, densities of EM, AD, SL, and LL per plant were 2.0, 0.4, 0.7, and 0.02, respectively. The action threshold recommended in NY for biologically based products is 1.5 SL per plant, 0.6 LL per plant and evidence that 25% of EM are hatching. While larval densities were below threshold, over 25% of the EM were hatching, so a decision was made to initiate applications. On 19 Jun (4 d after the first application for all treatments except Trident at 6 qt/A), there were more AD and EM in plots treated with Entrust than in the untreated check; densities of AD and EM in the other treatments were intermediate between the untreated check and Entrust treatment (Table 2). More AD and EM in the Entrust treatment compared with the untreated check was likely an anomaly rather than a consequence of Entrust on the population. An alternative explanation was that plants in the Entrust treatment were more attractive to colonizing AD than the other treatments because they had fewer CPB and slightly less feeding injury (injury was less than 5% among all treatments). Entrust was the only product that significantly reduced the numbers of SL compared with those in the untreated check (Table 2). These results indicated that despite the moderate rainfall event that occurred soon after the plots were treated, Entrust worked extremely well. There were too few LL at this point in the season to observe an impact of the various insecticide treatments. On 23 Jun, there continued to be more AD and EM in the Entrust treatment compared with the untreated check and other insecticide treatments (Table 2). However, Entrust was significantly better in controlling the larval population (both SL and LL) compared with all other insecticide treatments (Table 2). The high rate of Trident also significantly reduced densities of SL compared with the untreated check, whereas the low rate of Trident and Azera significantly reduced densities of LL compared with the untreated check (Table 2). On 29 Jun, only Entrust significantly reduced the larval population compared with the other treatments (Table 2). Overall, season mean total numbers of ADs and EMs in the Entrust treatment were greater than those in the untreated check, but SL and LL densities were significantly lower than in the untreated control and all other insecticide treatments (Table 3). CPB defoliation levels provided a better indication of insecticide performance than CPB densities. On 26 Jun, all treatments except Grandevo and BeetleGONE significantly reduced defoliation levels compared with those in the untreated check (Table 3). The lowest level of defoliation was observed in the Entrust treatment, followed by both Trident treatments, Azera and V-10433. On 3 Jul, all treatments except Grandevo, BeetleGONE, and V-10433 significantly reduced defoliation levels compared with those in the untreated check (Table 3). The lowest level of defoliation was observed in the Entrust treatment, followed by both Trident treatments and Azera. Table 3. Product . Rate/A . Season mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . 26 Jun . 3 Jul . Untreated check 1.0 b 0.4 b 133 a 82 a 69 a 100 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.4 ab 0.9 ab 151 a 67 a 16 c 31 b Entrust SC 10 fl oz 2.8 a 2.2 a 5 b 1 b 0 d 1 c Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.4 ab 1.2 ab 107 a 69 a 71 a 98 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.2 ab 0.7 ab 139 a 88 a 38 b 98 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 b 0.8 ab 145 a 65 a 81 a 100 a Trident (low rate x 3 apps.) 3 qt 1.5 ab 1.0 ab 123 a 43 a 11 c 16 b Trident (high rate x 2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 8 c 36 b P value 0.0243 0.0094 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Product . Rate/A . Season mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . 26 Jun . 3 Jul . Untreated check 1.0 b 0.4 b 133 a 82 a 69 a 100 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.4 ab 0.9 ab 151 a 67 a 16 c 31 b Entrust SC 10 fl oz 2.8 a 2.2 a 5 b 1 b 0 d 1 c Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.4 ab 1.2 ab 107 a 69 a 71 a 98 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.2 ab 0.7 ab 139 a 88 a 38 b 98 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 b 0.8 ab 145 a 65 a 81 a 100 a Trident (low rate x 3 apps.) 3 qt 1.5 ab 1.0 ab 123 a 43 a 11 c 16 b Trident (high rate x 2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 8 c 36 b P value 0.0243 0.0094 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). Open in new tab Table 3. Product . Rate/A . Season mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . 26 Jun . 3 Jul . Untreated check 1.0 b 0.4 b 133 a 82 a 69 a 100 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.4 ab 0.9 ab 151 a 67 a 16 c 31 b Entrust SC 10 fl oz 2.8 a 2.2 a 5 b 1 b 0 d 1 c Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.4 ab 1.2 ab 107 a 69 a 71 a 98 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.2 ab 0.7 ab 139 a 88 a 38 b 98 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 b 0.8 ab 145 a 65 a 81 a 100 a Trident (low rate x 3 apps.) 3 qt 1.5 ab 1.0 ab 123 a 43 a 11 c 16 b Trident (high rate x 2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 8 c 36 b P value 0.0243 0.0094 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Product . Rate/A . Season mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . 26 Jun . 3 Jul . Untreated check 1.0 b 0.4 b 133 a 82 a 69 a 100 a Azera 40 fl oz 1.4 ab 0.9 ab 151 a 67 a 16 c 31 b Entrust SC 10 fl oz 2.8 a 2.2 a 5 b 1 b 0 d 1 c Grandevo WDG 3 lbs 1.4 ab 1.2 ab 107 a 69 a 71 a 98 a V-10433 11 fl oz 1.2 ab 0.7 ab 139 a 88 a 38 b 98 a BeetleGONE! 4 lbs 0.7 b 0.8 ab 145 a 65 a 81 a 100 a Trident (low rate x 3 apps.) 3 qt 1.5 ab 1.0 ab 123 a 43 a 11 c 16 b Trident (high rate x 2 apps.) 6 qt – – – – 8 c 36 b P value 0.0243 0.0094 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). Open in new tab In 2018, weather conditions were hot and dry in June and July and hot with moderate rainfall in August. CPB pressure was very high. On 15 Jun, immediately before treatments were applied, densities of EM, AD, SL, and LL per plant were 2.3, 1.3, 5.3, and 0.1, respectively. Action thresholds were mentioned previously; the threshold was exceeded for small larvae, so the trial was initiated. On 20 Jun (5 d after the first application), densities of LL in both Entrust treatments and Trident were significantly lower than those in the untreated check (Table 4). Densities of LL were similar between the Entrust treatments and both were significantly lower than those in Trident. Densities of SL and LL in Azera, Grandevo, and V-10433 were similar to those in the untreated check (Table 4). There were fewer SL in the high rate of Entrust compared with all other treatments and the untreated check, but not all of these differences were statistically significant. Densities of ADs and EMs were low and similar among all treated and untreated plots (Table 4). Table 4. Product . Rate/A . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 20 . . . . Jun 26 . . . . Jul 4 . . . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 12 ab 36 a 0.1 0 8 48 0 0 0 37 a Azera 40 oz 0.6 0.1 17 a 21 a 0.1 0 8 44 a 0 0 0 48 a Entrust SC (low) 3.5 oz 0.8 0.2 13 ab 1 c 0.4 0.2 2 1 c 0.1 0.1 0 7 b Entrust SC (high) 7 oz 0.8 0.2 5 b 1 c 0.2 0.1 0 0 c 0.1 0 0 3 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 0.9 0.1 17 ab 30 a 0.1 0 5 59 a 0 0 0 32 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.6 0.1 15 a 24 a 0.1 0 7 50 a 0 0 0 40 a Trident 3 qt 0.5 0.3 16 a 7 b 0 0.1 7 19 b 0 0 0 42 a P value NS NS 0.0125 <0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 NS NS NS <0.0001 Product . Rate/A . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 20 . . . . Jun 26 . . . . Jul 4 . . . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 12 ab 36 a 0.1 0 8 48 0 0 0 37 a Azera 40 oz 0.6 0.1 17 a 21 a 0.1 0 8 44 a 0 0 0 48 a Entrust SC (low) 3.5 oz 0.8 0.2 13 ab 1 c 0.4 0.2 2 1 c 0.1 0.1 0 7 b Entrust SC (high) 7 oz 0.8 0.2 5 b 1 c 0.2 0.1 0 0 c 0.1 0 0 3 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 0.9 0.1 17 ab 30 a 0.1 0 5 59 a 0 0 0 32 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.6 0.1 15 a 24 a 0.1 0 7 50 a 0 0 0 40 a Trident 3 qt 0.5 0.3 16 a 7 b 0 0.1 7 19 b 0 0 0 42 a P value NS NS 0.0125 <0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 NS NS NS <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). Open in new tab Table 4. Product . Rate/A . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 20 . . . . Jun 26 . . . . Jul 4 . . . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 12 ab 36 a 0.1 0 8 48 0 0 0 37 a Azera 40 oz 0.6 0.1 17 a 21 a 0.1 0 8 44 a 0 0 0 48 a Entrust SC (low) 3.5 oz 0.8 0.2 13 ab 1 c 0.4 0.2 2 1 c 0.1 0.1 0 7 b Entrust SC (high) 7 oz 0.8 0.2 5 b 1 c 0.2 0.1 0 0 c 0.1 0 0 3 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 0.9 0.1 17 ab 30 a 0.1 0 5 59 a 0 0 0 32 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.6 0.1 15 a 24 a 0.1 0 7 50 a 0 0 0 40 a Trident 3 qt 0.5 0.3 16 a 7 b 0 0.1 7 19 b 0 0 0 42 a P value NS NS 0.0125 <0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 NS NS NS <0.0001 Product . Rate/A . Mean numbers per plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun 20 . . . . Jun 26 . . . . Jul 4 . . . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . EM . AD . SL . LL . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 12 ab 36 a 0.1 0 8 48 0 0 0 37 a Azera 40 oz 0.6 0.1 17 a 21 a 0.1 0 8 44 a 0 0 0 48 a Entrust SC (low) 3.5 oz 0.8 0.2 13 ab 1 c 0.4 0.2 2 1 c 0.1 0.1 0 7 b Entrust SC (high) 7 oz 0.8 0.2 5 b 1 c 0.2 0.1 0 0 c 0.1 0 0 3 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 0.9 0.1 17 ab 30 a 0.1 0 5 59 a 0 0 0 32 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.6 0.1 15 a 24 a 0.1 0 7 50 a 0 0 0 40 a Trident 3 qt 0.5 0.3 16 a 7 b 0 0.1 7 19 b 0 0 0 42 a P value NS NS 0.0125 <0.0001 NS NS <0.0001 <0.0001 NS NS NS <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS= not significant). Open in new tab On 26 Jun (6 d after the second application), results were similar to those on 20 Jun (Table 4). Densities of LL in both Entrust treatments and Trident were significantly lower than those in the untreated check and the other treatments. Densities of SL and LL in both Entrust treatments were significantly lower than those in Trident. Densities of ADs and EMs were similar among all treated and untreated plots (Table 4). On 4 Jul (8 d after the third application), only Entrust significantly reduced the numbers of LL compared with those in the untreated check and the other treatments (Table 4). Densities of LL in the high rate of Entrust were significantly lower than those in the low rate of Entrust. Densities of ADs, EMs, and SL were very low and similar among all treated and untreated plots (Table 4). Overall, the high rate of Entrust had the fewest numbers of SL and LL compared with all other treatments (Table 5). The low rate of Entrust, which had the second lowest numbers of LL, also performed well (Table 5). Although LL densities in Trident did not differ significantly from the untreated check, densities were reduced by almost 50% compared with those in the untreated check. None of the other treatments affected larval populations. CPB defoliation levels tended to positively correlate with the CPB densities. On 26 Jun, Entrust, Trident, and Azera had either no defoliation or very low levels of defoliation compared with those in the untreated check and the other treatments (Table 5). On 4 Jul, which was near the end of the first generation, the lowest level of defoliation was observed in both Entrust treatments, followed by Trident and Azera. Table 5. Product . Rate/A . Mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % Defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . Jun 26 . Jul 4 . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 20 a 121 a 21 a 78 a Azera 40 oz 0.7 0.2 25 a 113 a 3 b 21 b Entrust SC 3.5 oz 1.3 0.4 15 a 9 b 0 b 1 c Entrust SC 7 oz 1.1 0.4 5 b 3 c 0 b 0 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 1.0 0.1 22 a 121 a 21 a 80 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.7 0.1 22 a 114 a 14 a 79 a Trident 3 qt 0.6 0.4 23 a 68 a 1 b 15 b P Value NS NS 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Product . Rate/A . Mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % Defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . Jun 26 . Jul 4 . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 20 a 121 a 21 a 78 a Azera 40 oz 0.7 0.2 25 a 113 a 3 b 21 b Entrust SC 3.5 oz 1.3 0.4 15 a 9 b 0 b 1 c Entrust SC 7 oz 1.1 0.4 5 b 3 c 0 b 0 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 1.0 0.1 22 a 121 a 21 a 80 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.7 0.1 22 a 114 a 14 a 79 a Trident 3 qt 0.6 0.4 23 a 68 a 1 b 15 b P Value NS NS 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). Open in new tab Table 5. Product . Rate/A . Mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % Defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . Jun 26 . Jul 4 . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 20 a 121 a 21 a 78 a Azera 40 oz 0.7 0.2 25 a 113 a 3 b 21 b Entrust SC 3.5 oz 1.3 0.4 15 a 9 b 0 b 1 c Entrust SC 7 oz 1.1 0.4 5 b 3 c 0 b 0 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 1.0 0.1 22 a 121 a 21 a 80 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.7 0.1 22 a 114 a 14 a 79 a Trident 3 qt 0.6 0.4 23 a 68 a 1 b 15 b P Value NS NS 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Product . Rate/A . Mean total numbers per plant . . . . Mean % Defoliation . . . . EM . AD . SL . LL . Jun 26 . Jul 4 . Untreated check – 0.8 0.2 20 a 121 a 21 a 78 a Azera 40 oz 0.7 0.2 25 a 113 a 3 b 21 b Entrust SC 3.5 oz 1.3 0.4 15 a 9 b 0 b 1 c Entrust SC 7 oz 1.1 0.4 5 b 3 c 0 b 0 c Grandevo WDG 3 lb 1.0 0.1 22 a 121 a 21 a 80 a V-10433 11 fl oz 0.7 0.1 22 a 114 a 14 a 79 a Trident 3 qt 0.6 0.4 23 a 68 a 1 b 15 b P Value NS NS 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by the same letter within column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5; NS = not significant). Open in new tab This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1011209. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Buntin, G, David;All, John, N

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz052

Sorghum (broom, durra, Guinea corn, jowar) | Sorghum bicolor Lesser Cornstalk borer (LCSB) | Elasmopalpus lignosellus (Zeller) chlorpyrifos, clothianidin, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, thiamethoxam Lesser cornstalk borer (LCSB) is a seedling pest of sorghum and can cause severe plant injury and stand loss under hot, dry conditions with conventional tillage. Two trials evaluating soil-applied and seed-applied insecticides were conducted at the University of Georgia Southeast Research and Education Center (32.8750, −82.2146) located near Midville, GA. Sorghum was planted in Trial 1 on 10 Jul and Trial 2 on 11 Sep. Each trial was arranged in an RCB design with 5 replications. Plots were 2 rows by 20 ft long. Seed was planted with a 2-row cone planter in 36 inch rows at the rate of 100,000 seeds per acre. Seed treatments were applied to seed by the manufacturer and included a base fungicide seed treatment from each manufacturer. All seed was treated with Concep III for use of Dual Magnum (S-metolachlor) herbicide (Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC) at planting. Lorsban 15G treatments were applied at planting as a 7-inch band and lightly incorporated. Liquid insecticides were applied immediately after planting of seed as a broadcast spray using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer using TeeJet 8002 flat-fan nozzles applying 25 gpa at 40 psi. Stand counts and number of damaged (dead and dying with dead-heart symptoms) plants were measured in the entire plot at 15 and 23 days after planting (DAP) in Trial 1 and at 14 DAP in Trial 2. Untreated plants in border rows were inspected to confirm damage was by LCSB. Yield of Trial 1 was measured by hand harvesting all viable panicles in a 10-ft section of row and threshing panicles with a small bundle thresher. Grain weight, test weight, and moisture content were measured and grain yield calculated and adjusted to 14% moisture content. Grain yield was not measured in Trial 2. In Trial 1, rainfall total of 2.34 inch fell on days 2–4 after planting with no additional rainfall before the second stand count and rating. In Trial 2, 0.84 inch of rain fell from planting to 14 DAP. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed model analyses (PROC MIXED, SAS Institute 2008) with treatment modeled as a fixed effect and replication modeled as a random effect. Percentage data were arcsine-square root transformed before analysis. When analyses suggested differences among treatments (α = 0.05), treatments were separated using the LS means separated PLM option in SAS. LCSB reduced plant stands and cause extensive seedling damage in both trials. No other insect pest was present at damaging levels and sugarcane aphid was not present in 2012. In Trial 1, plant stands were significantly different among treatments, but stands with insecticide treatments usually were not different when compared with base fungicide only treatment (Table 1). Seed treatment with clothianidin (NipsIt Inside, Poncho 600) alone or with Lorsban 15G, Lorsban 4E or Karate Z had greater plant numbers than the bare seed check at 23 DAP. Plant numbers in Cruiser 5FS treatments at 23 DAP were not greater than the bare seed check and in most comparisons had fewer plants than the clothianidin seed treatments. The clothianidin treatments alone or with Lorsban 15G, Lorsban 4E, and Karate Z also had a lower percentage of damaged plants than the comparable base fungicide or bare seed treatments. Cruiser 5FS treatments had similar percentages of damaged plants as the base fungicide and bare seed treatments. The only treatment that yielded more than the bare seed treatment in Trial 1 was the NipsIt Inside treatment. No other treatment yielded significantly more than the bare seed treatment, including the other treatments with clothianidin on the seed. In Trial 2, LSCB borer infestation was severe with almost 90% of plants with damage in the bare seed check (Table 2). All insecticide seed treatments and Lorsban 15G without a seed treatment had greater plant numbers than the bare seed check and the Bayer and Valent base fungicide treatments. The percent of damaged plants was large in all treatments. All three seed treatments and NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G treatment had significantly fewer damaged plants than the bare seed check. The seed treatments with clothianidin (Poncho 600, NipsIt Inside) reduced seedling damage by LSCB. Cruiser 5FS seed treatments were not effective in Trial 1 but did partly reduce damage in Trial 2. However, at the severe level of damage in these trials, no treatment was highly effective in preventing LCSB seedling damage. No phytotoxicity was observed. Table 1. Trial 1 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Grain yield bu/acre 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) Untreated bare seed – 151.2bcd 135.6de 38.1bc 46.0ab 35.3bc Bayer base fungicide treatment – 165.8abc 155.4ab 34.8bc 47.4ab 37.4bc Poncho 600 + Bayer fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 167.8ab 159.6a 12.9d 29.5de 42.4ab Valent base fungicide treatment – 145.4cd 138.8cd 49.1ab 52.7a 25.8c NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 169.4ab 149.8a-d 13.0d 25.4e 51.8a Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 147.2cd 121.2e 50.3a 38.2bcd 30.8bc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 139.6d 135.0de 43.3abc 47.7ab 26.7c Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 149.2cd 140.0bcd 35.9c 44.9ab 35.5bc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 171.0ab 159.4a 10.4d 31.7cde 44.1ab NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E - broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 170.2ab 152.6abc 12.3d 31.9cde 38.7abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 175.6a 164.8a 13.9d 37.5b-e 42.4ab Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 156.0bcd 135.6de 33.1c 41.8abc 34.4bc P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0004 0.0269 CV 7.93 8.66 28.04 24.21 29.8 Trial 1 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Grain yield bu/acre 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) Untreated bare seed – 151.2bcd 135.6de 38.1bc 46.0ab 35.3bc Bayer base fungicide treatment – 165.8abc 155.4ab 34.8bc 47.4ab 37.4bc Poncho 600 + Bayer fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 167.8ab 159.6a 12.9d 29.5de 42.4ab Valent base fungicide treatment – 145.4cd 138.8cd 49.1ab 52.7a 25.8c NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 169.4ab 149.8a-d 13.0d 25.4e 51.8a Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 147.2cd 121.2e 50.3a 38.2bcd 30.8bc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 139.6d 135.0de 43.3abc 47.7ab 26.7c Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 149.2cd 140.0bcd 35.9c 44.9ab 35.5bc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 171.0ab 159.4a 10.4d 31.7cde 44.1ab NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E - broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 170.2ab 152.6abc 12.3d 31.9cde 38.7abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 175.6a 164.8a 13.9d 37.5b-e 42.4ab Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 156.0bcd 135.6de 33.1c 41.8abc 34.4bc P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0004 0.0269 CV 7.93 8.66 28.04 24.21 29.8 Column LS means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (PROC MIXED, protected T-groupings, α = 0.05). acwt = 100 lb of seed. b0.5 lb AI per acre. c0.03 lb AI per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Trial 1 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Grain yield bu/acre 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) Untreated bare seed – 151.2bcd 135.6de 38.1bc 46.0ab 35.3bc Bayer base fungicide treatment – 165.8abc 155.4ab 34.8bc 47.4ab 37.4bc Poncho 600 + Bayer fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 167.8ab 159.6a 12.9d 29.5de 42.4ab Valent base fungicide treatment – 145.4cd 138.8cd 49.1ab 52.7a 25.8c NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 169.4ab 149.8a-d 13.0d 25.4e 51.8a Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 147.2cd 121.2e 50.3a 38.2bcd 30.8bc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 139.6d 135.0de 43.3abc 47.7ab 26.7c Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 149.2cd 140.0bcd 35.9c 44.9ab 35.5bc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 171.0ab 159.4a 10.4d 31.7cde 44.1ab NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E - broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 170.2ab 152.6abc 12.3d 31.9cde 38.7abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 175.6a 164.8a 13.9d 37.5b-e 42.4ab Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 156.0bcd 135.6de 33.1c 41.8abc 34.4bc P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0004 0.0269 CV 7.93 8.66 28.04 24.21 29.8 Trial 1 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Grain yield bu/acre 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) 15 DAP (24 Jul) 23 DAP (2 Aug) Untreated bare seed – 151.2bcd 135.6de 38.1bc 46.0ab 35.3bc Bayer base fungicide treatment – 165.8abc 155.4ab 34.8bc 47.4ab 37.4bc Poncho 600 + Bayer fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 167.8ab 159.6a 12.9d 29.5de 42.4ab Valent base fungicide treatment – 145.4cd 138.8cd 49.1ab 52.7a 25.8c NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 169.4ab 149.8a-d 13.0d 25.4e 51.8a Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 147.2cd 121.2e 50.3a 38.2bcd 30.8bc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 139.6d 135.0de 43.3abc 47.7ab 26.7c Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 149.2cd 140.0bcd 35.9c 44.9ab 35.5bc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 171.0ab 159.4a 10.4d 31.7cde 44.1ab NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E - broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 170.2ab 152.6abc 12.3d 31.9cde 38.7abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 175.6a 164.8a 13.9d 37.5b-e 42.4ab Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 156.0bcd 135.6de 33.1c 41.8abc 34.4bc P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0004 0.0269 CV 7.93 8.66 28.04 24.21 29.8 Column LS means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (PROC MIXED, protected T-groupings, α = 0.05). acwt = 100 lb of seed. b0.5 lb AI per acre. c0.03 lb AI per acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Trial 2 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Untreated bare seed – 84.8e 88.7a Bayer base fungicide treatment – 90.2de 83.2ab Bayer fungicides + Poncho 600 6.4 fl oz/cwt 144.8ab 66.4bcd Valent base fungicide treatment – 80.0e 79.4ab NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 132.8abc 57.6cd Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 117.0bcd 76.7abc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 131.6abc 53.2d Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 107.4cde 76.5abc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 153.4a 70.6bcd NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 137.6ab 75.1abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 138.4ab 73.0abcd Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 127.2abc 79.2abc P > F 0.0001 0.0351 CV 19.38 21.05 Trial 2 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Untreated bare seed – 84.8e 88.7a Bayer base fungicide treatment – 90.2de 83.2ab Bayer fungicides + Poncho 600 6.4 fl oz/cwt 144.8ab 66.4bcd Valent base fungicide treatment – 80.0e 79.4ab NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 132.8abc 57.6cd Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 117.0bcd 76.7abc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 131.6abc 53.2d Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 107.4cde 76.5abc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 153.4a 70.6bcd NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 137.6ab 75.1abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 138.4ab 73.0abcd Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 127.2abc 79.2abc P > F 0.0001 0.0351 CV 19.38 21.05 Column LS means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (PROC MIXED, protected T-groupings, α = 0.05). acwt = 100 lb of seed. b0.5 lb AI per acre. c0.03 lb AI per acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Trial 2 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Untreated bare seed – 84.8e 88.7a Bayer base fungicide treatment – 90.2de 83.2ab Bayer fungicides + Poncho 600 6.4 fl oz/cwt 144.8ab 66.4bcd Valent base fungicide treatment – 80.0e 79.4ab NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 132.8abc 57.6cd Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 117.0bcd 76.7abc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 131.6abc 53.2d Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 107.4cde 76.5abc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 153.4a 70.6bcd NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 137.6ab 75.1abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 138.4ab 73.0abcd Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 127.2abc 79.2abc P > F 0.0001 0.0351 CV 19.38 21.05 Trial 2 Treatment/formulation Rate Amt/cwta or acre Total plants per 40 ft row Damaged plants (%) Untreated bare seed – 84.8e 88.7a Bayer base fungicide treatment – 90.2de 83.2ab Bayer fungicides + Poncho 600 6.4 fl oz/cwt 144.8ab 66.4bcd Valent base fungicide treatment – 80.0e 79.4ab NipsIt Inside + Valent fungicides 6.4 fl oz/cwt 132.8abc 57.6cd Syngenta base fungicide treatment – 117.0bcd 76.7abc Cruiser 5FS + Syngenta fungicides 5.1 fl oz/cwt 131.6abc 53.2d Valent base fungicides + Lorsban 15G as a band 3.4 lb/acreb 107.4cde 76.5abc NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 15G as a band 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 153.4a 70.6bcd NipsIt Inside + Lorsban 4E – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 3.4 lb/acreb 137.6ab 75.1abc NipsIt Inside + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 6.4 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 138.4ab 73.0abcd Cruiser 5FS + Karate Z (2.08) – broadcast spray 5.1 fl oz/cwt 1.92 fl oz/acrec 127.2abc 79.2abc P > F 0.0001 0.0351 CV 19.38 21.05 Column LS means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (PROC MIXED, protected T-groupings, α = 0.05). acwt = 100 lb of seed. b0.5 lb AI per acre. c0.03 lb AI per acre. Open in new tab This research was supported in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Schmidt-Jeffris, Rebecca, A;Coffey,, John

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz073

Bean | Phaseolus spp Twospotted spider mite (TSSM) | Tetranychus urticae Koch propylene glycol, fenpyroximate The objective of this test was to determine the efficacy of Acaritouch for control of TSSM on lima bean, either alone or in combination with Portal XLO and applied one or two times. The experiments were conducted in a propagation room in Charleston, SC. Lima bean var. ‘Henderson Bush’ were grown in pots in a greenhouse, with 15 seeds sown in each pot on 3 Sep 2018. The pots were moved into a propagation room 15 d after seeding and spaced evenly apart to prevent them from touching. Plants were infested with TSSM 15 d after seeding by placing three infested lima bean leaves taken from a laboratory colony on plants within each pot. The colony was established on lima bean in Apr 2018 from TSSM collected from a commercial strawberry field in Mt. Pleasant, SC. Movement of the mites onto the new plants occurred for 4 d, and then pots were sorted into replicates by level of visible damage. The experiment was RCBD, with each replicate consisting of a single pot. There were five replicates, for a total of 25 pots (5 treatments × 5 replicates). Treatments were water check, Portal (industry standard), Acaritouch sprayed once, Portal + Acaritouch, and Acaritouch sprayed twice. All plants from a treatment were grouped together and sprayed outdoors with 100 ml (to dripping) of the appropriate pesticide solution or water using a spray bottle. Solutions were mixed according to the surface area of the pot. All treatments except the water check were mixed with Induce at 0.25% v/v. The second spray of Acaritouch occurred 3 d after the first. After residues dried, plants were placed back into the propagation room. TSSM eggs and motiles were counted at 3, 7, 10, and 14 DAT by removing three leaves at random per plant and counting mites under a dissecting microscope. All DAT time points refer to the first application. Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model in SAS (PROC GLIMMIX), specifying a negative binomial distribution for count data. Replicate was treated as a random effect. Treatments were compared using least-squared means at P < 0.05. At 3 DAT, there were no significant differences between the numbers of eggs or motiles in any of the treatments (Table 1). However, both treatments containing Portal had numerically fewer motile TSSM than the other three treatments. At 7 DAT, the numbers of eggs and motiles in the two treatments containing Portal were significantly lower than in the other treatments and statistically similar to each other (Table 1). At 10 DAT, the Acaritouch 2× was the only treatment with egg numbers that did not significantly differ from the check. Numerically, the egg numbers in this treatment were much lower than those in the check, but variability within treatments was high. Acaritouch 2× was also statistically similar to Portal alone and Acaritouch 1× at this time point. The three best treatments for egg reduction, which did not statistically differ, were Portal alone, Acaritouch 1×, and Portal+Acaritouch. For motiles, Acaritouch 1× did not differ from the check. Acaritouch 2× was intermediate, and Portal and Portal+Acaritouch were the best treatments. At 14 DAT, there were no statistical differences among treatments in either egg or motile counts (Table 1). Egg counts substantially decreased at this time point compared with previous evaluations, likely because of the reduced quality of the plants due to mite feeding. Differences in motiles were marginally nonsignificant, with numerically fewer motiles in the Portal, Acaritouch 1×, and Portal+Acaritouch treatments. In general, adding Acaritouch to Portal did not increase efficacy over Portal alone. Acaritouch alone, when applied twice, may be slightly more effective than the water check. Table 1. 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 14 DAT Treatment/formulation Rate Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Water check – 214a 131a 464a 234a 279a 312a 19a 432a Portal XLO 32 fl oz/acre 205a 85a 25b 44b 30bc 51c 23a 127a Acaritouch 1× 25 fl oz/100 gal 301a 134a 479a 358a 76bc 292a 9a 178a Portal XLO + Acaritouch 32 fl oz/acre + 25 fl oz/100 gal 215a 48a 16b 35b 21c 47c 15a 106a Acaritouch 2× 25 fl oz/100 gal 360a 141a 557a 350a 97ab 182b 22a 341a F4, 16 1.61 2.61 25.73 20.51 5.64 32.96 0.27 2.51 P 0.22 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.90 0.08 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 14 DAT Treatment/formulation Rate Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Water check – 214a 131a 464a 234a 279a 312a 19a 432a Portal XLO 32 fl oz/acre 205a 85a 25b 44b 30bc 51c 23a 127a Acaritouch 1× 25 fl oz/100 gal 301a 134a 479a 358a 76bc 292a 9a 178a Portal XLO + Acaritouch 32 fl oz/acre + 25 fl oz/100 gal 215a 48a 16b 35b 21c 47c 15a 106a Acaritouch 2× 25 fl oz/100 gal 360a 141a 557a 350a 97ab 182b 22a 341a F4, 16 1.61 2.61 25.73 20.51 5.64 32.96 0.27 2.51 P 0.22 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.90 0.08 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. Open in new tab Table 1. 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 14 DAT Treatment/formulation Rate Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Water check – 214a 131a 464a 234a 279a 312a 19a 432a Portal XLO 32 fl oz/acre 205a 85a 25b 44b 30bc 51c 23a 127a Acaritouch 1× 25 fl oz/100 gal 301a 134a 479a 358a 76bc 292a 9a 178a Portal XLO + Acaritouch 32 fl oz/acre + 25 fl oz/100 gal 215a 48a 16b 35b 21c 47c 15a 106a Acaritouch 2× 25 fl oz/100 gal 360a 141a 557a 350a 97ab 182b 22a 341a F4, 16 1.61 2.61 25.73 20.51 5.64 32.96 0.27 2.51 P 0.22 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.90 0.08 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 14 DAT Treatment/formulation Rate Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Eggs Motiles Water check – 214a 131a 464a 234a 279a 312a 19a 432a Portal XLO 32 fl oz/acre 205a 85a 25b 44b 30bc 51c 23a 127a Acaritouch 1× 25 fl oz/100 gal 301a 134a 479a 358a 76bc 292a 9a 178a Portal XLO + Acaritouch 32 fl oz/acre + 25 fl oz/100 gal 215a 48a 16b 35b 21c 47c 15a 106a Acaritouch 2× 25 fl oz/100 gal 360a 141a 557a 350a 97ab 182b 22a 341a F4, 16 1.61 2.61 25.73 20.51 5.64 32.96 0.27 2.51 P 0.22 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.90 0.08 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. Open in new tab This research was supported in part by industry gifts of pesticide and research funding. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America 2019. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. This Open Access article contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/).

Bradford, Benjamin, Z;Chapman, Scott, A;Crubaugh, Linda, K;Groves, Russell, L

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz045

Potato | Solanum tuberosum L Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance of several experimental foliar treatments for the control of aphids on potato relative to commercial standards and an untreated check. Experimental plots were established on a commercial potato field near Coloma, Wisconsin (44.027462, −89.605643) on a loamy sand soil in 2018. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Atlantic’ was machine planted on 25 Apr with a 1-ft seed spacing and 3-ft row spacing. In early August, a portion of this field was divided into four replicates of 13 treatment plots and one untreated check plot arranged in an RCB design. Two-row plots measured 6 ft by 20 ft and were separated by either one untreated guard row or 5 ft of untreated plants along rows. The field received standard commercial fungicide and insecticide programs prior to plot initiation. Foliar treatments were applied on 6 Aug (Table 1). Treatments were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer with a 6-ft boom operating at 30 psi delivering 20 gpa through 4 flat-fan nozzles (Tee Jet XR8002XR) spaced 18 apart while travelling at 3.5 ft/s. No signs of phototoxicity were observed. Table 1. Trt no. Producta Rate (amt/acre) Mean aphid countb 10 Aug (4 DAT) 13 Aug (7 DAT) 1 Untreated check 174.25 c 286.00 cd 2 EXP-1 Low 271.00 c 229.50 cd 3 EXP-1 Med 236.00 c 108.50 bcd 4 EXP-1 High 149.50 bc 47.00 abc 5 Movento 240SC 3.99 fl oz 178.50 bc 53.50 abc 6 Movento 240SC 5 fl oz 82.00 abc 55.75 abc 7 Actara 25WG 3 oz wt 19.75 a 12.25 a 8 Fulfill 50SC 2.74 oz wt 110.50 bc 47.75 abc 9 EXP-2 304.50 c 416.50 d 10 EXP-3 253.50 c 188.75 cd 11 Exirel 100OD 20 fl oz 102.25 abc 58.00 abc 12 Sivanto 200SL 10.5 fl oz 59.25 abc 46.25 abc 13 Transform 240SC 1.5 fl oz 26.25 ab 25.25 ab 14 BeLeaf 50SG 2.8 oz wt 61.75 abc 20.75 ab P <0.0001 <0.0001 Trt no. Producta Rate (amt/acre) Mean aphid countb 10 Aug (4 DAT) 13 Aug (7 DAT) 1 Untreated check 174.25 c 286.00 cd 2 EXP-1 Low 271.00 c 229.50 cd 3 EXP-1 Med 236.00 c 108.50 bcd 4 EXP-1 High 149.50 bc 47.00 abc 5 Movento 240SC 3.99 fl oz 178.50 bc 53.50 abc 6 Movento 240SC 5 fl oz 82.00 abc 55.75 abc 7 Actara 25WG 3 oz wt 19.75 a 12.25 a 8 Fulfill 50SC 2.74 oz wt 110.50 bc 47.75 abc 9 EXP-2 304.50 c 416.50 d 10 EXP-3 253.50 c 188.75 cd 11 Exirel 100OD 20 fl oz 102.25 abc 58.00 abc 12 Sivanto 200SL 10.5 fl oz 59.25 abc 46.25 abc 13 Transform 240SC 1.5 fl oz 26.25 ab 25.25 ab 14 BeLeaf 50SG 2.8 oz wt 61.75 abc 20.75 ab P <0.0001 <0.0001 aAll treatments include 0.25% Dyne-Amic added except untreated check. bMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). Open in new tab Table 1. Trt no. Producta Rate (amt/acre) Mean aphid countb 10 Aug (4 DAT) 13 Aug (7 DAT) 1 Untreated check 174.25 c 286.00 cd 2 EXP-1 Low 271.00 c 229.50 cd 3 EXP-1 Med 236.00 c 108.50 bcd 4 EXP-1 High 149.50 bc 47.00 abc 5 Movento 240SC 3.99 fl oz 178.50 bc 53.50 abc 6 Movento 240SC 5 fl oz 82.00 abc 55.75 abc 7 Actara 25WG 3 oz wt 19.75 a 12.25 a 8 Fulfill 50SC 2.74 oz wt 110.50 bc 47.75 abc 9 EXP-2 304.50 c 416.50 d 10 EXP-3 253.50 c 188.75 cd 11 Exirel 100OD 20 fl oz 102.25 abc 58.00 abc 12 Sivanto 200SL 10.5 fl oz 59.25 abc 46.25 abc 13 Transform 240SC 1.5 fl oz 26.25 ab 25.25 ab 14 BeLeaf 50SG 2.8 oz wt 61.75 abc 20.75 ab P <0.0001 <0.0001 Trt no. Producta Rate (amt/acre) Mean aphid countb 10 Aug (4 DAT) 13 Aug (7 DAT) 1 Untreated check 174.25 c 286.00 cd 2 EXP-1 Low 271.00 c 229.50 cd 3 EXP-1 Med 236.00 c 108.50 bcd 4 EXP-1 High 149.50 bc 47.00 abc 5 Movento 240SC 3.99 fl oz 178.50 bc 53.50 abc 6 Movento 240SC 5 fl oz 82.00 abc 55.75 abc 7 Actara 25WG 3 oz wt 19.75 a 12.25 a 8 Fulfill 50SC 2.74 oz wt 110.50 bc 47.75 abc 9 EXP-2 304.50 c 416.50 d 10 EXP-3 253.50 c 188.75 cd 11 Exirel 100OD 20 fl oz 102.25 abc 58.00 abc 12 Sivanto 200SL 10.5 fl oz 59.25 abc 46.25 abc 13 Transform 240SC 1.5 fl oz 26.25 ab 25.25 ab 14 BeLeaf 50SG 2.8 oz wt 61.75 abc 20.75 ab P <0.0001 <0.0001 aAll treatments include 0.25% Dyne-Amic added except untreated check. bMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). Open in new tab Populations of potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, were assessed by counting the number of adults and nymphs on 25 randomly selected leaves in each plot. Insect counts occurred on 10 Aug and 13 Aug (4 and 7 days after application, respectively). Insect count data were log transformed prior to analysis. Treatment main effects were determined using analysis of variance. Means separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = .05). Aphid counts in the Actara and Transform treatments were significantly lower than the untreated check on 10 Aug, 4 days after treatment (Table 1). On 13 Aug (7 DAT), all of the registered commercial products outperformed the untreated check, with Actara and Transform continuing to perform better than the other treatments. One factor affecting the performance of the experimental treatments is the application of fungicide to the field in the weeks proceeding the initiation of the experiment, as these experimental compounds were biologics susceptible to fungicide residues. This research was supported by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Disi, Joseph, O;Sial, Ashfaq, A

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsy112

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Spotted-wing drosophila (SWD) | Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) spinosad, zeta-cypermethrin The objective of this trial was to determine efficacy of SPLAT (Specialized Pheromone and Lure Application Technology) HOOK SWD against spotted-wing drosophila (SWD), Drosophila suzukii in rabbiteye blueberries. This trial was conducted at a commercial blueberry farm in Pierce County. Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with each treatment replicated 4 times for a total of 12 plots (2 acres per replicate). Treatments included: 1) grower commercial standard insecticide application (grower standard); 2) grower standard + HOOK SWD applied at 7-d intervals; and 3) grower standard + HOOK SWD applied at 14-d intervals. Grower standard did not receive any SPLAT application beside two applications of zeta-cypermethrin (Mustang Maxx 8EC) made by air blast sprayer. HOOK SWD was distributed according to manufacturers’ recommended rate with modifications. Briefly, HOOK SWD was applied as strips at the base of blueberry canes and on lower foliage were possible. Application was made on every other blueberry bush on the east side of every row using a 4-gal backpack sprayer equipped with a brass adjustable cone nozzle. Every plot was maintained using the standard commercial practice used for blueberry production in South Georgia. One Scentry lure SWD trap (Great Lakes IPM, INC.) was hung in the center of each plot within a bush in each treatment replicate (n = 12 traps) to sample flies. Traps were deployed 7 d before first SPLAT treatment for a pretreatment assessment and then weekly after SPLAT application for a period of 4 wk (May 31–June 27). Fruit infestation was monitored by sampling immature SWD (larva and pupa) in ripe blueberries. A total of three 8.0-oz cups of blueberries were hand-picked 7 d before SPLAT application (May 31) and then weekly thereafter (June 7, June 14, June 21, and June 27). Same quantity of fruits was also harvested from the edges to determine edge effect. Fruit samples were incubated 6–7 d under controlled environment (24°C, RH 65%). Fruits were crushed, and salt extraction method was used to sample SWD larvae and pupae in the fruit. Total fly capture data were Log10 transformed and then analyzed by ANOVA using JMP Pro 13, but actual mean numbers were presented in the table. Where significant, means were separated by Tukey–Kramer HSD (P < 0.05). Fruit infestation was summarized as immatures and presented in the table. The results show that there was no significant difference in the number of flies captured from traps between grower standard and SPLAT HOOK SWD treatments applied at 7- or 14-d intervals earlier in the season for sample dates May 31, June 7, June 14, and June 21 (Table 1). However, later in the season on June 27 significantly fewer flies were captured in traps from HOOK SWD applied 7-d interval treatment compared with grower standard treatment (Table 1). Generally, there was low fruit infestation in the field and only a small number of immature SWD were detected in the fruit samples collected from grower standard and grower standard + HOOK SWD applied at 14-d interval treatments. However, zero immature SWD were detected in fruit samples collected from grower standard + HOOK SWD applied at 7-d interval treatment throughout the season (Table 2). There was no observable phytotoxicity effects on foliage throughout the period of the trial. Table 1. Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of adult SWD per trap May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 27 Grower standard – 16.75 ± 5.20a 20.75 ± 6.07a 27.75 ± 9.84a 20.67 ± 9.68a 251.00 ± 84.00a HOOK SWD at 7-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 12.75 ± 3.84a 48.33 ± 4.06a 32.00 ± 9.48a 9.75 ± 2.43a 57.75 ± 5.20b HOOK SWD at 14-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 15.50 ± 3.50a 13.67 ± 5.97a 19.00 ± 7.57a 26.50 ± 15.91a 86.50 ± 19.54b Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of adult SWD per trap May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 27 Grower standard – 16.75 ± 5.20a 20.75 ± 6.07a 27.75 ± 9.84a 20.67 ± 9.68a 251.00 ± 84.00a HOOK SWD at 7-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 12.75 ± 3.84a 48.33 ± 4.06a 32.00 ± 9.48a 9.75 ± 2.43a 57.75 ± 5.20b HOOK SWD at 14-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 15.50 ± 3.50a 13.67 ± 5.97a 19.00 ± 7.57a 26.50 ± 15.91a 86.50 ± 19.54b Means within a column followed by similar letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05, ANOVA). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of adult SWD per trap May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 27 Grower standard – 16.75 ± 5.20a 20.75 ± 6.07a 27.75 ± 9.84a 20.67 ± 9.68a 251.00 ± 84.00a HOOK SWD at 7-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 12.75 ± 3.84a 48.33 ± 4.06a 32.00 ± 9.48a 9.75 ± 2.43a 57.75 ± 5.20b HOOK SWD at 14-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 15.50 ± 3.50a 13.67 ± 5.97a 19.00 ± 7.57a 26.50 ± 15.91a 86.50 ± 19.54b Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of adult SWD per trap May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 27 Grower standard – 16.75 ± 5.20a 20.75 ± 6.07a 27.75 ± 9.84a 20.67 ± 9.68a 251.00 ± 84.00a HOOK SWD at 7-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 12.75 ± 3.84a 48.33 ± 4.06a 32.00 ± 9.48a 9.75 ± 2.43a 57.75 ± 5.20b HOOK SWD at 14-d intervals 2.0 L/acre 15.50 ± 3.50a 13.67 ± 5.97a 19.00 ± 7.57a 26.50 ± 15.91a 86.50 ± 19.54b Means within a column followed by similar letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05, ANOVA). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of immature SWD per fruit sample May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 28 Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Grower standard – 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 HOOK SWD at 7 d interval 2.0 L/acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOOK SWD at 14 d interval 2.0 L/acre 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of immature SWD per fruit sample May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 28 Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Grower standard – 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 HOOK SWD at 7 d interval 2.0 L/acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOOK SWD at 14 d interval 2.0 L/acre 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 Immartures are defined as larvae or pupae. Center and edge are the locations of the plot where fruit samples were harvested by hand. No statistical analysis was performed because of the small number of immatures extracted from fruits. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of immature SWD per fruit sample May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 28 Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Grower standard – 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 HOOK SWD at 7 d interval 2.0 L/acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOOK SWD at 14 d interval 2.0 L/acre 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 Treatment SPLAT application rate (L/acre) Mean number of immature SWD per fruit sample May 31 June 07 June 14 June 21 June 28 Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Center Edge Grower standard – 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 HOOK SWD at 7 d interval 2.0 L/acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOOK SWD at 14 d interval 2.0 L/acre 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 Immartures are defined as larvae or pupae. Center and edge are the locations of the plot where fruit samples were harvested by hand. No statistical analysis was performed because of the small number of immatures extracted from fruits. Open in new tab We thank IR-4 Program for providing funding and ISCA Technologies, Inc. for donating the HOOK SWD product. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

DeVries, Terry, A;Wright, Robert, J

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz055

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Western corn rootworm (WCR) | Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte cyfluthrin, tefluthrin, bifenthrin, clothianidin, tebupirimfos The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of seed-applied, liquid, and granular insecticide formulations applied at planting for larval WCR control under irrigated, continuous corn production. ‘Munson 6699VT2P RIB’ (contains VT Double Pro RIB Complete Corn Blend traits for above-ground insects) corn hybrid was planted at 32,100 seeds per acre on 30 Apr 2018 at the South Central Agricultural Laboratory near Harvard, NE. During 2017 the trial site was planted to corn (late-planted) and pumpkin (insecticide free). The experimental design was an RCB with four replicates. Plot size was 4 rows × 69–75 ft length with 30-inch row spacing. Row length of each plot was determined and used for plant density and yield calculations. Soil type was a Crete silt loam. Insecticide compounds, formulations, and application rates are provided in Table 1. The corn hybrid seed received either a seed-applied insecticide treatment of Poncho 500 (clothianidin at 0.5 mg AI/seed), Poncho 1250 (clothianidin at 1.25 mg AI/seed), or left untreated. Seed-applied insecticides (SAI) were applied to seed commercially. Plots that received and in-furrow insecticide treatment (liquid or granular) were planted with seed that did not receive an insecticide seed treatment. Liquid insecticide formulations were applied IF in a 5 gpa water solution via compressed air system. Granular insecticide formulations were applied IF via SmartBox application system. Plant density was determined on 21 May. The total number of plants in the center two rows of each plot was counted and converted to plants per acre (PPA). Initial WCR egg hatch was first documented on 29 May. Extended leaf height (ELH) of 20 randomly selected plants in the center two rows of each plot was recorded in inches on 14 Jun. Initial adult WCR emergence was observed on 25 Jun. The total number of root lodged plants in the center two rows of each plot due to larval WCR feeding was recorded on 29 Jun and converted to percent root lodged plants. A plant was considered to be root lodged if it was leaning ≥45° from vertical. Larval feeding damage was evaluated on 9 Jul. Five randomly selected plants were dug from each plot (three from row 1 and two from row 4), washed, and rated for corn rootworm injury using the 0–3 node injury scale (0 = no feeding, 1 = one node of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, 2 = two nodes of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, 3 = 3 or more nodes of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk). From planting (30 Apr) to larval feeding damage evaluation (9 Jul), rainfall totaled 8.87 inches and overhead irrigation, 1.10 inches. The center two rows of each plot were machine harvested on 20 Oct. Percent moisture and lbs of grain were recorded and corrected to 56 lbs/bu at 15.5% moisture to evaluate yield. Data were analyzed by PROC MIXED with mean separation using differences of least square means (P = 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate form./1000 row ft Rate (SAI) (mg AI/seed) Placementa Root injury rating % Root lodging Yield (bu/acre) ELHb (inches) Plants/ acre Ampex 1.73SCc 0.73 fl oz – IF 0.65abc 1.7a 252.4a 50.6 28,799 Ampex 1.73SCc 0.50 fl oz – IF 0.97bcd 12.6ab 251.7a 51.4 29,052 Aztec 4.67Gd 3.00 oz – IF 0.36a 2.4a 250.7ab 50.6 28,529 Force 2.1CSc 0.57 fl oz – IF 0.49ab 2.3a 247.4abc 50.3 28,763 Poncho 5FSe – 0.5 mg SAI 1.18cd 41.2cd 246.2abc 50.7 29,004 Capture LFR 1.5SCc 0.98 fl oz – IF 1.13cd 26.8abc 238.4bc 50.4 28,443 Poncho 5FSe – 1.25 mg SAI 1.40d 39.3bcd 235.1c 50.5 28,712 Untreated check – – – 1.09cd 54.2d 236.5c 49.5 28,413 P > F 0.0064 0.0017 0.0303 0.0832 0.3254 Treatment/formulation Rate form./1000 row ft Rate (SAI) (mg AI/seed) Placementa Root injury rating % Root lodging Yield (bu/acre) ELHb (inches) Plants/ acre Ampex 1.73SCc 0.73 fl oz – IF 0.65abc 1.7a 252.4a 50.6 28,799 Ampex 1.73SCc 0.50 fl oz – IF 0.97bcd 12.6ab 251.7a 51.4 29,052 Aztec 4.67Gd 3.00 oz – IF 0.36a 2.4a 250.7ab 50.6 28,529 Force 2.1CSc 0.57 fl oz – IF 0.49ab 2.3a 247.4abc 50.3 28,763 Poncho 5FSe – 0.5 mg SAI 1.18cd 41.2cd 246.2abc 50.7 29,004 Capture LFR 1.5SCc 0.98 fl oz – IF 1.13cd 26.8abc 238.4bc 50.4 28,443 Poncho 5FSe – 1.25 mg SAI 1.40d 39.3bcd 235.1c 50.5 28,712 Untreated check – – – 1.09cd 54.2d 236.5c 49.5 28,413 P > F 0.0064 0.0017 0.0303 0.0832 0.3254 Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not statistically different using the differences of least square means (MIXED; p|t| > 0.05). aIF = In-Furrow, liquid spray or granule, SAI = seed applied insecticide. bELH = Extended leaf height. cLiquid insecticide applied in a 5 gpa water solution at planting. dGranular insecticide applied with SmartBox application system at planting. eSeed applied insecticide. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate form./1000 row ft Rate (SAI) (mg AI/seed) Placementa Root injury rating % Root lodging Yield (bu/acre) ELHb (inches) Plants/ acre Ampex 1.73SCc 0.73 fl oz – IF 0.65abc 1.7a 252.4a 50.6 28,799 Ampex 1.73SCc 0.50 fl oz – IF 0.97bcd 12.6ab 251.7a 51.4 29,052 Aztec 4.67Gd 3.00 oz – IF 0.36a 2.4a 250.7ab 50.6 28,529 Force 2.1CSc 0.57 fl oz – IF 0.49ab 2.3a 247.4abc 50.3 28,763 Poncho 5FSe – 0.5 mg SAI 1.18cd 41.2cd 246.2abc 50.7 29,004 Capture LFR 1.5SCc 0.98 fl oz – IF 1.13cd 26.8abc 238.4bc 50.4 28,443 Poncho 5FSe – 1.25 mg SAI 1.40d 39.3bcd 235.1c 50.5 28,712 Untreated check – – – 1.09cd 54.2d 236.5c 49.5 28,413 P > F 0.0064 0.0017 0.0303 0.0832 0.3254 Treatment/formulation Rate form./1000 row ft Rate (SAI) (mg AI/seed) Placementa Root injury rating % Root lodging Yield (bu/acre) ELHb (inches) Plants/ acre Ampex 1.73SCc 0.73 fl oz – IF 0.65abc 1.7a 252.4a 50.6 28,799 Ampex 1.73SCc 0.50 fl oz – IF 0.97bcd 12.6ab 251.7a 51.4 29,052 Aztec 4.67Gd 3.00 oz – IF 0.36a 2.4a 250.7ab 50.6 28,529 Force 2.1CSc 0.57 fl oz – IF 0.49ab 2.3a 247.4abc 50.3 28,763 Poncho 5FSe – 0.5 mg SAI 1.18cd 41.2cd 246.2abc 50.7 29,004 Capture LFR 1.5SCc 0.98 fl oz – IF 1.13cd 26.8abc 238.4bc 50.4 28,443 Poncho 5FSe – 1.25 mg SAI 1.40d 39.3bcd 235.1c 50.5 28,712 Untreated check – – – 1.09cd 54.2d 236.5c 49.5 28,413 P > F 0.0064 0.0017 0.0303 0.0832 0.3254 Means in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not statistically different using the differences of least square means (MIXED; p|t| > 0.05). aIF = In-Furrow, liquid spray or granule, SAI = seed applied insecticide. bELH = Extended leaf height. cLiquid insecticide applied in a 5 gpa water solution at planting. dGranular insecticide applied with SmartBox application system at planting. eSeed applied insecticide. Open in new tab Mean root injury ratings (0–3 node injury scale) for the untreated check averaged 1.09 (Table 1). Only Aztec and Force significantly reduced larval WCR root injury ratings compared with the untreated check. All liquid and granular insecticides applied at planting-time significantly reduced percent root lodged plants compared with the untreated check. Seed applied insecticides did not reduce root injury of percent root lodged plants compared with the untreated check. Only Ampex (both rates) and Aztec resulted in significantly higher yields compared with the untreated check. There were no significant differences among treatments for extended leaf height or plant density. This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide and research funding. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Blaauw, Brett, R

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz037

Peach | Prunus persica San Jose scale | Comstockaspis perniciosus (Comstock) petroleum oil, spirotetramat, diatomaceous earth/diatomite, buprofezin, Burkholderia spp The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of several insecticides and timings against San Jose scale (SJS) on Georgia peaches. Single-tree plots were established in an 9-yr-old planting of ‘Scarletprince’ peach trees with row spacing of 20 × 18 ft, located at the Fort Valley State University research farm in Fort Valley, GA. Treatments were replicated four times in an RCB design with at least one buffer tree separating all plots. All treatments were applied using a backpack CO2 Sprayer (Bellspray, Inc.) with a two-nozzle boom calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 40 psi (Table 1). The immature stage of SJS, or ‘crawlers’, was monitored starting on 3 Apr 2018, proceeding on a weekly basis through harvest until 29 Aug 2018 with a piece of double-sided tape positioned over a strip of black electrical tape and wrapped around an infested branch. Two monitoring tapes were deployed per sampling tree and were removed and replaced on a weekly basis. The number of SJS crawlers on each tape (adjusted to per 5 cm of tape) was counted using a stereomicroscope. Additionally, 20 fruits were harvested from each of the single-tree plots on 26 Jun 2018 and examined individually for injury due to SJS (number of individual scales). The mean abundance of settled scale per peach at harvest and crawlers per 5 cm of tape at preharvest (21 May through 26 Jun 2018) and seasonal summation (3 Apr through 29 Aug 2018) were compared across the 10 treatments using ANOVA (data were square-root transformed) and means separation with Student’s t-test (P < 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Application timinga Scales per peachb Mean abundance (crawlers/5 cm tape) Preharvest abundance Seasonal total Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal A 0.74 cde 172.8 ab 853.5 a Omni Supreme Sprayd 0.4 qt B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.7 de 2.9 e 79.1 c Venerate XCc 4 qt A 1.51 abc 97.2 bc 843.8 ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 0.61 de 22.1 cde 189.5 c Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal Venerate XCe 4 qt F 1.2 bcd 66.1 bcd 301.1 bc Celite 610c 2.2 lb A 1.65 ab 61.5 cde 455.24 bc Celite 610d 2.2 lb B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.54 de 54.4 cde 393.4 bc Centaur WDGc 34.5 oz A 0.3 e 10.4 de 264.3 c Moventod 8.2 fl oz D 0.92 bcd 44.4 cde 497.3 bc Untreated check n/a n/a 2.12 a 214.3 a 1101.8 a Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Application timinga Scales per peachb Mean abundance (crawlers/5 cm tape) Preharvest abundance Seasonal total Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal A 0.74 cde 172.8 ab 853.5 a Omni Supreme Sprayd 0.4 qt B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.7 de 2.9 e 79.1 c Venerate XCc 4 qt A 1.51 abc 97.2 bc 843.8 ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 0.61 de 22.1 cde 189.5 c Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal Venerate XCe 4 qt F 1.2 bcd 66.1 bcd 301.1 bc Celite 610c 2.2 lb A 1.65 ab 61.5 cde 455.24 bc Celite 610d 2.2 lb B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.54 de 54.4 cde 393.4 bc Centaur WDGc 34.5 oz A 0.3 e 10.4 de 264.3 c Moventod 8.2 fl oz D 0.92 bcd 44.4 cde 497.3 bc Untreated check n/a n/a 2.12 a 214.3 a 1101.8 a Within a column, means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, Student’s t-test). aApplication date: week A = 23 Feb, B = 24 Apr, C = 17 May, D = 21 May, E = 29 May, F = 14 Jun, G = 26 Jun, H = 9 Jul, and I = 27 Jul 2018. bFruit was harvested 26 Jun 2018. cApplied at delayed-dormant timing. dApplied within the season. eApplied at the second-generation timing of SJS. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Application timinga Scales per peachb Mean abundance (crawlers/5 cm tape) Preharvest abundance Seasonal total Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal A 0.74 cde 172.8 ab 853.5 a Omni Supreme Sprayd 0.4 qt B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.7 de 2.9 e 79.1 c Venerate XCc 4 qt A 1.51 abc 97.2 bc 843.8 ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 0.61 de 22.1 cde 189.5 c Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal Venerate XCe 4 qt F 1.2 bcd 66.1 bcd 301.1 bc Celite 610c 2.2 lb A 1.65 ab 61.5 cde 455.24 bc Celite 610d 2.2 lb B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.54 de 54.4 cde 393.4 bc Centaur WDGc 34.5 oz A 0.3 e 10.4 de 264.3 c Moventod 8.2 fl oz D 0.92 bcd 44.4 cde 497.3 bc Untreated check n/a n/a 2.12 a 214.3 a 1101.8 a Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Application timinga Scales per peachb Mean abundance (crawlers/5 cm tape) Preharvest abundance Seasonal total Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal A 0.74 cde 172.8 ab 853.5 a Omni Supreme Sprayd 0.4 qt B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.7 de 2.9 e 79.1 c Venerate XCc 4 qt A 1.51 abc 97.2 bc 843.8 ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 0.61 de 22.1 cde 189.5 c Omni Supreme Sprayc 1.5 gal Venerate XCe 4 qt F 1.2 bcd 66.1 bcd 301.1 bc Celite 610c 2.2 lb A 1.65 ab 61.5 cde 455.24 bc Celite 610d 2.2 lb B, C, E, F, G, H, I 0.54 de 54.4 cde 393.4 bc Centaur WDGc 34.5 oz A 0.3 e 10.4 de 264.3 c Moventod 8.2 fl oz D 0.92 bcd 44.4 cde 497.3 bc Untreated check n/a n/a 2.12 a 214.3 a 1101.8 a Within a column, means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, Student’s t-test). aApplication date: week A = 23 Feb, B = 24 Apr, C = 17 May, D = 21 May, E = 29 May, F = 14 Jun, G = 26 Jun, H = 9 Jul, and I = 27 Jul 2018. bFruit was harvested 26 Jun 2018. cApplied at delayed-dormant timing. dApplied within the season. eApplied at the second-generation timing of SJS. Open in new tab There were significant treatment differences for the number of SJS per peach at harvest (F = 3.9, df = 9, 30, P = 0.002) where all treatments trees, except Venerate XC alone at delayed-dormant timing and Celite 610 at delayed-dormant timing, had fewer SJS than the UTC (Table 1). Centaur applied at delayed-dormant had the fewest SJS per peach at harvest, with similar injury levels to Omni Supreme Spray oil at delayed-dormant and within-season timings, Venerate XC + Omni Supreme Spray at delayed-dormant timing, and within-season applications of Celite 610 (Table 1). At preharvest, the timing where SJS abundance would result in fruit injury, all treatments except for Omni Supreme Spray oil at delayed-dormant and Venerate XC alone at delayed-dormant had significantly fewer crawlers per 5 cm of tape than the UTC (F = 4.8, df = 9, 30, P = 0.0005; Table 1). Evaluating the total abundance of crawlers per 5 cm collected from 3 Apr through 29 August, there were significant differences among treatments for the total abundance of crawlers per 5 cm of tape (F = 3.3, df = 9, 30, P = 0.006). Although only two of the treatments were applied postharvest, the results of the SJS crawler abundance during the preharvest timing predicted the seasonal total results: all treatments except for Omni Supreme Spray oil at delayed-dormant and Venerate XC alone at delayed-dormant had significantly fewer crawlers per 5 cm of tape than the UTC (Table 1). The within-season application Omni Supreme Spray had the lowest overall abundance of SJS at the end of the season, followed by Venerate XC + Omni Supreme Spray at delayed-dormant, and Centaur. These results suggest that there are several compounds that can effectively suppress SJS populations in Georgia peaches. Remarkably, though, applying 0.1% horticultural oil (Omni Supreme Spray) several times throughout the season as a ‘cover spray’ significantly reduced SJS numbers below the standard delayed-dormant application. This, along with Venerate XC + Omni Supreme Spray and Celite 610, provides encouraging results for new and effective SJS management tools in addition to the proven insect growth regulators. This research was supported by industry gifts of material and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Britt, Kadie, E;Kuhar, Thomas, P

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz062

Industrial hemp | Cannabis sativa Corn earworm (CEW) | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Tarnished plant bug (TPB) | Lygus lineolaris (Palisot) (Hemiptera: Miridae), Grasshoppers (GH) | Melanoplus spp. (mix of species) (Orthoptera: Acrididae) Bacillus thuringiensis, sulfoxaflor, lambda-cyhalothrin, chlorantraniliprole The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of three insecticides on insect pest densities and yield of industrial hemp (for grain) in Virginia. Treatments included Thuricide (Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki) targeting lepidopteran pests, Closer (sulfoxaflor) targeting sucking insect pests, and Besiege (lambda-cyhalothrin + chlorantraniliprole) targeting all insect pests, and an untreated check. Hemp field plots were established at Virginia Tech’s Kentland Research Farm in Whitethorne, Virginia. Field plots were arranged in a 4 × 4 Latin square design with four replicates. ‘Felina 32’ hemp seed was direct seeded on 8 Jun 2018 at a seeding rate of 30 lbs/acre. Individual plots were 12-ft (3.6 m) long by 12-ft wide with 5-ft (1.5 m) alleys between. Foliar spray treatments were initiated once insects were seen in plots (3 Jul 2018) and were repeated once every 10 d (13 Jul, 23 Jul, 6 Aug, and 17 Aug 2018) for a total of 5 sprays before harvest. A three-nozzle boom with spray tips spaced 20″ apart powered by a CO2 backpack sprayer was used for the first two spray events. For the remaining three spray events, a single-nozzle boom powered by a CO2 backpack sprayer was used to spray each plant to runoff (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Insects per 2 min visual sample per plot Grain yield (lbs/acre) 16 Aug 22 Aug 29 Aug CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH Besiege 10 fl oz 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148.64 Thuricide 15 fl oz 0.00 1.50 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 172.43 Closer 5 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 153.12 Untreated check – 0.25 1.25 0.75 1.00a 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 164.29 P > F 0.63 0.40 0.15 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.63 0.63 0.53 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Insects per 2 min visual sample per plot Grain yield (lbs/acre) 16 Aug 22 Aug 29 Aug CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH Besiege 10 fl oz 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148.64 Thuricide 15 fl oz 0.00 1.50 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 172.43 Closer 5 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 153.12 Untreated check – 0.25 1.25 0.75 1.00a 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 164.29 P > F 0.63 0.40 0.15 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.63 0.63 0.53 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Insects per 2 min visual sample per plot Grain yield (lbs/acre) 16 Aug 22 Aug 29 Aug CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH Besiege 10 fl oz 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148.64 Thuricide 15 fl oz 0.00 1.50 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 172.43 Closer 5 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 153.12 Untreated check – 0.25 1.25 0.75 1.00a 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 164.29 P > F 0.63 0.40 0.15 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.63 0.63 0.53 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Insects per 2 min visual sample per plot Grain yield (lbs/acre) 16 Aug 22 Aug 29 Aug CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH CEW TPB GH Besiege 10 fl oz 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 148.64 Thuricide 15 fl oz 0.00 1.50 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 172.43 Closer 5 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00b 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 153.12 Untreated check – 0.25 1.25 0.75 1.00a 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.25 164.29 P > F 0.63 0.40 0.15 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.63 0.63 0.53 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. Open in new tab On 16 Aug (10 DAT), 22 Aug (5 DAT), and 29 Aug (12 DAT), numbers of CEW, TPB, and GH were recorded per 2-min visual observation of each plot. On 5 Sep, plots were harvested, and yield was ultimately recorded as lbs of seed per acre. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Means were separated using Student’s t-test at the 0.05 level of significance. Insect pressure was low overall and principally comprised of CEW, TPB, and GH. Insect counts of CEW, TPB, or GH were not significantly different among treatments on 16 or 29 Aug. Insect counts were not significant on 22 Aug except for CEW. On 22 Aug, CEW counts in untreated check plots were significantly higher than counts in all other treatment plots. Cumulatively, TPB presence was not significant among treatments. CEW cumulative counts were significantly higher in untreated check plots than treatment plots. Grasshopper counts were significantly higher in untreated check plots than Besiege and Closer treatment plots, but not significantly different from plots treated with Thuricide. There was no effect of treatment on yield. No signs of phytotoxicity were observed. Chemicals for these trials were provided by Corteva and Syngenta. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

Haviland, David, R;Rill, Stephanie, M;Son,, Youngsoo

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz086

Shiny xylosma | Xylosma congestum Photinia sp. | Photinia fraseri flupyradifurone This study was conducted to evaluate two rates of flupyradifurone (Altus, Bayer CropSciences) for its efficacy against GWSS on three ornamental hosts that are common in urban regions of California’s central valley. Twelve plants of each Xylosma sp., Photinia sp., and Euonymous sp. growing in 1-gal pots were used to compare three treatments: Altus 14 fl oz, Altus 7 fl oz, and a water-only check. Assignments were made such that the data could be evaluated as a completely randomized design of nine treatments by four replications (3 hosts × 3 treatments × 4 replicates). On 23 Aug, a spray bottle was used to treat each shrub using 160 ml of insecticide solution (to runoff) equivalent to 200 gal of water per acre. The effects of insecticide residues on GWSS mortality were evaluated at weekly intervals by caging adult GWSS onto the treated foliage using 5-gal paint strainer bags. Adult GWSS were collected each week from a local organic citrus orchard; ten mixed-gender adults were placed into a bag (1 cage per tree). On the day of treatment, the spray residues were allowed to dry for approximately 1 h and then one bag per plant containing the adults was placed onto each of the 36 plants. Mortality of GWSS within the bags was recorded 7 d later (1 WAT) by removing the bag and counting the dead and live adults. A new cage with new adults was placed onto the plant weekly for 6 wk after the initial application. Percentage mortality among treatments was compared by ANOVA with means separated by Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05) after arcsine transformation. Both rates of Altus had significant effects on GWSS mortality (Table 1). During the first WAT, both rates of Altus on all three ornamental hosts provided 100% GWSS control, compared with 18.8 to 78.6% mortality in the check. Both rates of Altus continued to provide >90% GWSS mortality in all rate and host combinations 2 and 3 WAT compared with 0 to 22.5% mortality in the check. This trend continued 4–6 WAT with highly significant GWSS mortality for all rates and host combinations where Altus was applied. Table 1. Plant variety . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Euonymous Water check – 18.8c 10.0c 22.5c 5.3c 0.0d 6.3c Photinia Water check – 78.6b 10.0c 17.0c 10.0c 0.0d 9.4c Xylosma Water check – 22.3c 10.0c 0.0c 7.5c 6.7d 5.0c Euonymous Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0ab 100.0a 97.5a 91.7ab 100.0a Photinia Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 97.5a 94.4a 84.3ab Xylosma Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 90.0b 100.0a 84.0ab 68.0c 83.2ab Euonymous Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 92.5ab 94.7ab 68.9b Photinia Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 78.1b 69.6bc 82.6b Xylosma Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 97.5ab 92.5b 72.5b 79.7abc 63.5b F 160.25 43.37 67.07 15.41 13.03 9.07 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Plant variety . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Euonymous Water check – 18.8c 10.0c 22.5c 5.3c 0.0d 6.3c Photinia Water check – 78.6b 10.0c 17.0c 10.0c 0.0d 9.4c Xylosma Water check – 22.3c 10.0c 0.0c 7.5c 6.7d 5.0c Euonymous Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0ab 100.0a 97.5a 91.7ab 100.0a Photinia Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 97.5a 94.4a 84.3ab Xylosma Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 90.0b 100.0a 84.0ab 68.0c 83.2ab Euonymous Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 92.5ab 94.7ab 68.9b Photinia Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 78.1b 69.6bc 82.6b Xylosma Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 97.5ab 92.5b 72.5b 79.7abc 63.5b F 160.25 43.37 67.07 15.41 13.03 9.07 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P ≤ 0.05, FPLSD after arcsin transformation of the percentage mortality. Original means are shown. aRate of formulated product per 200 gal of water, sprayed to runoff. bPercentage mortality of GWSS exposed to pesticide residues for 7-d periods from 1 to 6 weeks after treatment (WAT). Open in new tab Table 1. Plant variety . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Euonymous Water check – 18.8c 10.0c 22.5c 5.3c 0.0d 6.3c Photinia Water check – 78.6b 10.0c 17.0c 10.0c 0.0d 9.4c Xylosma Water check – 22.3c 10.0c 0.0c 7.5c 6.7d 5.0c Euonymous Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0ab 100.0a 97.5a 91.7ab 100.0a Photinia Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 97.5a 94.4a 84.3ab Xylosma Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 90.0b 100.0a 84.0ab 68.0c 83.2ab Euonymous Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 92.5ab 94.7ab 68.9b Photinia Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 78.1b 69.6bc 82.6b Xylosma Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 97.5ab 92.5b 72.5b 79.7abc 63.5b F 160.25 43.37 67.07 15.41 13.03 9.07 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Plant variety . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Euonymous Water check – 18.8c 10.0c 22.5c 5.3c 0.0d 6.3c Photinia Water check – 78.6b 10.0c 17.0c 10.0c 0.0d 9.4c Xylosma Water check – 22.3c 10.0c 0.0c 7.5c 6.7d 5.0c Euonymous Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0ab 100.0a 97.5a 91.7ab 100.0a Photinia Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 97.5a 94.4a 84.3ab Xylosma Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 90.0b 100.0a 84.0ab 68.0c 83.2ab Euonymous Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 92.5ab 94.7ab 68.9b Photinia Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 100.0a 97.5ab 78.1b 69.6bc 82.6b Xylosma Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 97.5ab 92.5b 72.5b 79.7abc 63.5b F 160.25 43.37 67.07 15.41 13.03 9.07 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P ≤ 0.05, FPLSD after arcsin transformation of the percentage mortality. Original means are shown. aRate of formulated product per 200 gal of water, sprayed to runoff. bPercentage mortality of GWSS exposed to pesticide residues for 7-d periods from 1 to 6 weeks after treatment (WAT). Open in new tab Since there was no host by treatment interaction, numbers were pooled across plant species (Table 2). There were no significant differences between the two Altus rates through 3 WAT. By 4 WAT, the high rate of Altus provided improved mortality compared with the low rate. By 5 WAT, mortality rates of the high rate continued to be numerically, but not statically, higher than the low rate for the remainder of the trial. Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Water check – 39.9b 10.0b 13.2b 7.6c 2.2b 6.9c Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0a 99.2a 93.1a 84.8a 89.3a Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 99.2a 96.7a 81.1b 81.3a 71.8b F 108.89 173.61 209.68 56.03 38.75 34.76 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Water check – 39.9b 10.0b 13.2b 7.6c 2.2b 6.9c Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0a 99.2a 93.1a 84.8a 89.3a Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 99.2a 96.7a 81.1b 81.3a 71.8b F 108.89 173.61 209.68 56.03 38.75 34.76 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P > 0.05, FPLSD after arcsin transformation of the percentage mortality. Original means are shown. aRate of formulated product per 200 gal of water, sprayed to runoff. bPercentage mortality of GWSS exposed to pesticide residues for 7-d periods from 1 to 6 weeks after treatment (WAT). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Water check – 39.9b 10.0b 13.2b 7.6c 2.2b 6.9c Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0a 99.2a 93.1a 84.8a 89.3a Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 99.2a 96.7a 81.1b 81.3a 71.8b F 108.89 173.61 209.68 56.03 38.75 34.76 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acrea . Mean GWSS mortality (%)b . . . 1 WAT . 2 WAT . 3 WAT . 4 WAT . 5 WAT . 6 WAT . Water check – 39.9b 10.0b 13.2b 7.6c 2.2b 6.9c Altus 14 fl oz 100.0a 95.0a 99.2a 93.1a 84.8a 89.3a Altus 7 fl oz 100.0a 99.2a 96.7a 81.1b 81.3a 71.8b F 108.89 173.61 209.68 56.03 38.75 34.76 P <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P > 0.05, FPLSD after arcsin transformation of the percentage mortality. Original means are shown. aRate of formulated product per 200 gal of water, sprayed to runoff. bPercentage mortality of GWSS exposed to pesticide residues for 7-d periods from 1 to 6 weeks after treatment (WAT). Open in new tab This research was supported by the Consolidated Central Valley Table Grape Pest and Disease Control District. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]