Arthropod Management Tests

Hubbard, Caleb, B;Gerry, Alec, C

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz006

Cattle | Bos Taurus L House Fly (HF) | Musca domestica L permethrin, GS-omega/kappa-Hxtx-HV1a The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel commercial insecticide (VST-006340LC) for the control of house flies (HF) when applied as a fog/mist. The treatments were 1) Water (negative check), 2) Silwet L-77 0.1% (surfactant), 3) VST 2.5 parts per thousand (ppt), 4) VST 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 0.1%, 5) VST 5 ppt, 6) VST 5 ppt + Silwet L-77 0.1%, and 7) Permectrin II (permethrin) (positive check) (Table 1). An insectary-maintained colony of house flies collected from the field in 2015 was utilized for this experiment. Flies were removed from colony fly cages by vacuum, chilled and counted into groups of 50 mixed sex flies, and then placed into mesh ring cages (4 cm wide × 15.5 cm dia. cardboard rings covered with mesh; Multi Packaging Solutions Paper Tube & Can. Chicago, IL) for 16–18 h prior to treatment application. Flies were provided a 20% sucrose solution by filling 4-ml clear glass vial and then capping with a dental wick plug. The vial was inserted through, and held in place by, the cardboard ring until treatment application. The vial was removed during treatment to avoid contamination of the sugar source by the treatment. Pretreatment mortality was recorded immediately before a treatment was applied. For each treatment, five mesh ring cages containing flies were suspended from rebar support poles at a height of approximately 1 m off of the ground and placed in a line with 3 m separating each mesh ring cage. Trials were conducted in an outdoor environment at the University of California at Riverside Agricultural Operations facility, with the five mesh ring cages. Insecticide treatments were applied using a hand-held cold fogger with a droplet size of 15–20 microns (Longray ULV Cold Fogger Model 2680A, San Francisco, CA) at an application rate indicated in Table 1. After each treatment, the cold fogger was cleaned with soap and water followed by a water-only rinse prior to application of the next treatment. Treatment order was randomly assigned through the use of a random number generator, with all treatments applied on the same day and using the same population of laboratory-reared flies. After each treatment application, mesh cages were again provisioned with 20% sucrose placed into holding containers held at room temperature (24.5°C). Mortality was assessed at 1, 4, 24, 72, and 120 h post-treatment. After the 120-h count, containers were frozen and fly sex was determined by cage. Each treatment application was replicated across three dates: 18 Sep, 26 Sep, and 10 Oct 2018. Table 1. Treatment Application rate and method Treatment composition Water (negative check) 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog H2O Silwett L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 99.5-Polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a, 1,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one + 99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST 5-006340LC ppt + Silwet L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one +99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane Permectrin II 1 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 10-Permethrin, 90- other ingredients (contains petroleum distillates) Treatment Application rate and method Treatment composition Water (negative check) 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog H2O Silwett L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 99.5-Polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a, 1,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one + 99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST 5-006340LC ppt + Silwet L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one +99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane Permectrin II 1 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 10-Permethrin, 90- other ingredients (contains petroleum distillates) Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment Application rate and method Treatment composition Water (negative check) 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog H2O Silwett L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 99.5-Polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a, 1,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one + 99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST 5-006340LC ppt + Silwet L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one +99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane Permectrin II 1 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 10-Permethrin, 90- other ingredients (contains petroleum distillates) Treatment Application rate and method Treatment composition Water (negative check) 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog H2O Silwett L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 99.5-Polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a, 1,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST-006340LC 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one + 99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane VST-006340LC 5 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one VST 5-006340LC ppt + Silwet L-77 0.1% 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog GS-omega/kappa-Kxtx-Hv1a,2-benzisonthiazolin-3-one +99.5-polyalkyleneoxide modified hetamethyltrisioloxane Permectrin II 1 ppt 1 L per 1,000 ft2Mist/Fog 10-Permethrin, 90- other ingredients (contains petroleum distillates) Open in new tab Statistics Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was utilized to determine if there was a difference in mortality rate among treatments, with differences in overall mortality between treatments analyzed by log-rank test. Proportional fly mortality in each mesh ring cage at each time interval sampled was transformed using arcsine-square root to normalize the data prior to analysis. For differences in mortality among treatments at each time point, ANOVA was utilized with Tukey’s post hoc test (α = 0.05) to separate differences of means. All statistics performed using R Statistical package v. 3.5.1. Kaplan–Meir survival analysis figure created using Prism version 8.0.1 for Mac OS X (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA). Discussion/Results The mortality rate was not different for house flies treated with VST-006340LC at 2.5 ppt or 5 ppt, with or without Silwett L-77 0.1% (a surfactant), relative to the negative check (Water) (Table 2). The mortality rate was greater for flies treated with permethrin (Permectrin II) relative to all other treatments, including the water check, VST, Silwet, and VST + Silwet treatments. Proportional fly mortality at each time point similarly did not vary statistically among the VST, Silwet, VST + Silwet, and water check treatments, whereas the permethrin treatment produced significantly greater mortality at all time points evaluated relative to other treatments (Table 2). This experiment concludes that at the concentrations tested, the VST-006340LC product was not effective for control of house flies when applied alone or in combination with Silwet L-77 as a fog at the application rates indicated. Table 2. Water (negative check) Silwett L-77 0.1% VST 2.5 ppt VST 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 VST 5 ppt VST 5 ppt + Silwet L-77 Permectrin II (positive check) Time (h) Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE 1 0.005 ± 0.005 a 0.014 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.005 a 0.034 ± 0.015 a 0.022 ± 0.006 a 0.642 ± 0.079 b 4 0.016 ± 0.007 a 0.036 ± 0.011 a 0.027 ± 0.008 a 0.026 ± 0.008 a 0.060 ± 0.019 a 0.034 ± 0.008 a 0.663 ± 0.067 b 24 0.057 ± 0.014 a 0.046 ± 0.018 a 0.062 ± 0.013 a 0.062 ± 0.014 a 0.092 ± 0.021 a 0.073 ± 0.016 a 0.674 ± 0.052 b 72 0.109 ± 0.021 a 0.076 ± 0.030 a 0.090 ± 0.018 a 0.093 ± 0.020 a 0.149 ± 0.029 a 0.166 ± 0.015 a 0.750 ± 0.046 b 120 0.135 ± 0.019 a 0.120 ± 0.025 a 0.190 ± 0.024 a 0.126 ± 0.020 a 0.241 ± 0.037 a 0.252 ± 0.020 a 0.781 ± 0.046 b Water (negative check) Silwett L-77 0.1% VST 2.5 ppt VST 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 VST 5 ppt VST 5 ppt + Silwet L-77 Permectrin II (positive check) Time (h) Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE 1 0.005 ± 0.005 a 0.014 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.005 a 0.034 ± 0.015 a 0.022 ± 0.006 a 0.642 ± 0.079 b 4 0.016 ± 0.007 a 0.036 ± 0.011 a 0.027 ± 0.008 a 0.026 ± 0.008 a 0.060 ± 0.019 a 0.034 ± 0.008 a 0.663 ± 0.067 b 24 0.057 ± 0.014 a 0.046 ± 0.018 a 0.062 ± 0.013 a 0.062 ± 0.014 a 0.092 ± 0.021 a 0.073 ± 0.016 a 0.674 ± 0.052 b 72 0.109 ± 0.021 a 0.076 ± 0.030 a 0.090 ± 0.018 a 0.093 ± 0.020 a 0.149 ± 0.029 a 0.166 ± 0.015 a 0.750 ± 0.046 b 120 0.135 ± 0.019 a 0.120 ± 0.025 a 0.190 ± 0.024 a 0.126 ± 0.020 a 0.241 ± 0.037 a 0.252 ± 0.020 a 0.781 ± 0.046 b Arcsine-square root transformed data used for analysis, but raw data are shown in table. Letters indicate significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) among treatments by time (rows). Open in new tab Table 2. Water (negative check) Silwett L-77 0.1% VST 2.5 ppt VST 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 VST 5 ppt VST 5 ppt + Silwet L-77 Permectrin II (positive check) Time (h) Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE 1 0.005 ± 0.005 a 0.014 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.005 a 0.034 ± 0.015 a 0.022 ± 0.006 a 0.642 ± 0.079 b 4 0.016 ± 0.007 a 0.036 ± 0.011 a 0.027 ± 0.008 a 0.026 ± 0.008 a 0.060 ± 0.019 a 0.034 ± 0.008 a 0.663 ± 0.067 b 24 0.057 ± 0.014 a 0.046 ± 0.018 a 0.062 ± 0.013 a 0.062 ± 0.014 a 0.092 ± 0.021 a 0.073 ± 0.016 a 0.674 ± 0.052 b 72 0.109 ± 0.021 a 0.076 ± 0.030 a 0.090 ± 0.018 a 0.093 ± 0.020 a 0.149 ± 0.029 a 0.166 ± 0.015 a 0.750 ± 0.046 b 120 0.135 ± 0.019 a 0.120 ± 0.025 a 0.190 ± 0.024 a 0.126 ± 0.020 a 0.241 ± 0.037 a 0.252 ± 0.020 a 0.781 ± 0.046 b Water (negative check) Silwett L-77 0.1% VST 2.5 ppt VST 2.5 ppt + Silwett L-77 VST 5 ppt VST 5 ppt + Silwet L-77 Permectrin II (positive check) Time (h) Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE 1 0.005 ± 0.005 a 0.014 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.006 a 0.010 ± 0.005 a 0.034 ± 0.015 a 0.022 ± 0.006 a 0.642 ± 0.079 b 4 0.016 ± 0.007 a 0.036 ± 0.011 a 0.027 ± 0.008 a 0.026 ± 0.008 a 0.060 ± 0.019 a 0.034 ± 0.008 a 0.663 ± 0.067 b 24 0.057 ± 0.014 a 0.046 ± 0.018 a 0.062 ± 0.013 a 0.062 ± 0.014 a 0.092 ± 0.021 a 0.073 ± 0.016 a 0.674 ± 0.052 b 72 0.109 ± 0.021 a 0.076 ± 0.030 a 0.090 ± 0.018 a 0.093 ± 0.020 a 0.149 ± 0.029 a 0.166 ± 0.015 a 0.750 ± 0.046 b 120 0.135 ± 0.019 a 0.120 ± 0.025 a 0.190 ± 0.024 a 0.126 ± 0.020 a 0.241 ± 0.037 a 0.252 ± 0.020 a 0.781 ± 0.046 b Arcsine-square root transformed data used for analysis, but raw data are shown in table. Letters indicate significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) among treatments by time (rows). Open in new tab Funding to support this research was provided in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Rodriguez-Saona,, Cesar;Holdcraft,, Robert;Kyryczenko-Roth,, Vera

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz008

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Aphids | Illinoia azalea (Mason) acetamiprid, flonicamid, bifenthrin, sulfoxaflor, cyantraniliprole, methomyl, spirotetramat, flupyradifurone This experiment tested the efficacy of eight insecticides for controlling aphids in highbush blueberry. The treatments and rates were Assail 30SG (acetamiprid) at 5.3 oz/acre, Beleaf 50SG (flonicamid) at 4.3 oz/acre, Bifenture 10DF (bifenthrin) at 16 oz/acre, Closer SC (sulfoxaflor) at 5.75 fl oz/acre, Exirel 10SE (cyantraniliprole) at 20.5 fl oz/acre, Lannate LV (methomyl) at 1.5 pt/acre, Movento 240SC (spirotetramat) at 10 fl oz/acre (+ Dynamic 0.5% v:v), Sivanto (flupyradifurone) at 4.3 fl oz/acre, and an untreated control. Note: all insecticides were used at the recommended label rate for the crop, except for Sivanto that was used at a lower rate. The experiment was conducted in blueberry field cv. ‘Bluecrop’, a mid-season variety, located at the P.E. Marucci Blueberry/Cranberry Center in Chatsworth, New Jersey. Plots consisted of nine bushes (one bush per treatment), with treatments repeated on five plots in a CRB design, and separated by at least two buffer bushes and a buffer row. Applications were made with an R&D CO2 backpack sprayer, using 2-liter plastic bottles. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 40 gal of volume per acre at 30 psi, using a single ConeJet TXVS 10 nozzle, yielding 125.1 ml (4.23 fl oz) per bush. Treatments were applied on the morning of 17 Jun. Treated foliage (new-growth terminals with 3–4 leaves attached) was randomly sampled from each bush on days 1 and 3 after treatment (1 DAT, 3 DAT) on 18 Jun and 20 Jun, respectively. Zero precipitation was recorded during this period by an on-site weather station. Each terminal was inserted in a florists’ water pick, enclosed in a ventilated 40-dram plastic vial, and secured on Styrofoam trays. Five vials were set up for each treatment, with each vial considered a replicate. A single adult aphid and 5 nymphs were placed on the foliage in each vial within a few hours of the foliage being removed from the field. Aphids used in the trial were from a greenhouse colony reared on blueberries and established from individuals collected from an organic blueberry farm in Hammonton, New Jersey, on 24 May 2018. Assay vials were placed on a light bench in the laboratory at approximately 25°C, on a 15:9 (L:D) h cycle. Aphid numbers were assessed at 48 h after exposure to treated foliage, with the total number of live nymph and adult aphids recorded. Percent control was calculated for each treatment as % control = [1 − (avg total aphids on treated foliage/avg total aphids on control foliage)] × 100. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey tests at P = 0.05. At 1 DAT, all insecticides, except for Exirel and Movento, significantly reduced number of aphids when compared with controls (Table 1). Beleaf, Closer, Lannate, and Sivanto reduced aphids by >65% when compared with controls. At 3 DAT, only Closer and Sivanto reduced number of aphids when compared with controls (Table 1). No phytoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatments. Table 1. Treatment Rate/acre Total Live Aphids (mean ± SE) 1 DAT (18 Jun) 3 DAT (20 Jun) Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 3.8 ± 0.86 C D (61) 3.6 ± 0.4 A B (0) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 2.0 ± 0.71 D (80) 4.4 ± 0.75 A B (0) Bifenture 10DF 16 oz 6.0 ± 0.45 B C (39) 3.2 ± 0.86 A B (0) Closer SC 5.75 fl oz 0.6 ± 0.24 D (94) 2.2 ± 0.58 B (31) Exirel 10SE 20.5 fl oz 8.8 ± 0.86 A B (10) 4.4 ± 1.29 A B (0) Lannate LV 1.5 pt 3.2 ± 0.58 C D (67) 3.8 ± 0.49 A B (0) Movento 240SC* 10 fl oz 7.4 ± 0.51 A B (24) 7.4 ± 1.72 A (0) Sivanto 4.3 fl oz 3.2 ± 0.92 C D (67) 2.6 ± 0.51 B (19) Control – 9.8 ± 1.28 A 3.2 ± 0.66 A B Treatment Rate/acre Total Live Aphids (mean ± SE) 1 DAT (18 Jun) 3 DAT (20 Jun) Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 3.8 ± 0.86 C D (61) 3.6 ± 0.4 A B (0) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 2.0 ± 0.71 D (80) 4.4 ± 0.75 A B (0) Bifenture 10DF 16 oz 6.0 ± 0.45 B C (39) 3.2 ± 0.86 A B (0) Closer SC 5.75 fl oz 0.6 ± 0.24 D (94) 2.2 ± 0.58 B (31) Exirel 10SE 20.5 fl oz 8.8 ± 0.86 A B (10) 4.4 ± 1.29 A B (0) Lannate LV 1.5 pt 3.2 ± 0.58 C D (67) 3.8 ± 0.49 A B (0) Movento 240SC* 10 fl oz 7.4 ± 0.51 A B (24) 7.4 ± 1.72 A (0) Sivanto 4.3 fl oz 3.2 ± 0.92 C D (67) 2.6 ± 0.51 B (19) Control – 9.8 ± 1.28 A 3.2 ± 0.66 A B *Movento treatment includes the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.5% v:v. DAT = days after treatment. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Tukey test, P ≤ 0.05). Numbers in parentheses are % control = [1 − (avg aphids on treated foliage/avg aphids on control foliage)] × 100. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment Rate/acre Total Live Aphids (mean ± SE) 1 DAT (18 Jun) 3 DAT (20 Jun) Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 3.8 ± 0.86 C D (61) 3.6 ± 0.4 A B (0) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 2.0 ± 0.71 D (80) 4.4 ± 0.75 A B (0) Bifenture 10DF 16 oz 6.0 ± 0.45 B C (39) 3.2 ± 0.86 A B (0) Closer SC 5.75 fl oz 0.6 ± 0.24 D (94) 2.2 ± 0.58 B (31) Exirel 10SE 20.5 fl oz 8.8 ± 0.86 A B (10) 4.4 ± 1.29 A B (0) Lannate LV 1.5 pt 3.2 ± 0.58 C D (67) 3.8 ± 0.49 A B (0) Movento 240SC* 10 fl oz 7.4 ± 0.51 A B (24) 7.4 ± 1.72 A (0) Sivanto 4.3 fl oz 3.2 ± 0.92 C D (67) 2.6 ± 0.51 B (19) Control – 9.8 ± 1.28 A 3.2 ± 0.66 A B Treatment Rate/acre Total Live Aphids (mean ± SE) 1 DAT (18 Jun) 3 DAT (20 Jun) Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 3.8 ± 0.86 C D (61) 3.6 ± 0.4 A B (0) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 2.0 ± 0.71 D (80) 4.4 ± 0.75 A B (0) Bifenture 10DF 16 oz 6.0 ± 0.45 B C (39) 3.2 ± 0.86 A B (0) Closer SC 5.75 fl oz 0.6 ± 0.24 D (94) 2.2 ± 0.58 B (31) Exirel 10SE 20.5 fl oz 8.8 ± 0.86 A B (10) 4.4 ± 1.29 A B (0) Lannate LV 1.5 pt 3.2 ± 0.58 C D (67) 3.8 ± 0.49 A B (0) Movento 240SC* 10 fl oz 7.4 ± 0.51 A B (24) 7.4 ± 1.72 A (0) Sivanto 4.3 fl oz 3.2 ± 0.92 C D (67) 2.6 ± 0.51 B (19) Control – 9.8 ± 1.28 A 3.2 ± 0.66 A B *Movento treatment includes the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.5% v:v. DAT = days after treatment. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Tukey test, P ≤ 0.05). Numbers in parentheses are % control = [1 − (avg aphids on treated foliage/avg aphids on control foliage)] × 100. Open in new tab Funding This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide 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]

Vanweelden, Matthew, T;Beuzelin, Julien, M

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz076

Sugarcane | Saccharum officinarum Sugarcane rust mite | Abacarus sacchari Channabasavanna abamectin/avermectin B1, tolfenpyrad, spiromesifen Sugarcane rust mite infestations have been detected in Florida sugarcane since 2007; however, no miticides have been registered for management purposes. In response to this need by the local sugarcane industry, the efficacy of miticides for control of the sugarcane rust mite in sugarcane was evaluated in a commercial field of variety ‘CPCL 05-1102’ (1st stubble) near Belle Glade, FL. Three foliar miticides and an untreated check were assessed in an RCB design with four blocks and one replicate of each treatment per block. Plots were four rows wide (5-ft row spacing) and 40 ft long with 10-ft alleys separating each plot. Prior to miticide application, 20 plants were randomly selected from the middle two rows and injury was recorded on the top visible dewlap (TVD) + 1 and TVD + 3 leaves. Because sugarcane rust mites are difficult to examine in the field, a visual symptomatic rating was developed for injury symptoms: (0) no discoloration of the leaf tissue, (1) light discoloration of <25% leaf tissue area, (2) moderate discoloration on 25–75% of leaf tissue area, and (3) >75% heavy discoloration throughout leaf tissue area. Miticide sprays were applied to the foliage on 18 Aug 2017 using a tractor propelled, high clearance four-row spray boom with 13 nozzles spaced 18 inches apart calibrated to deliver 10 gpa at 40 psi. Treatments were delivered to the boom using a pressurized system with portable CO2 tanks. Injury was rated on a scale of 0–3 at 5, 12, and 19 DAT. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS Institute) with treatment, sampling date, and the treatment by sampling date interaction as fixed effects. The SPLICE and SPLICEDIFF options were used to compare sugarcane rust mite injury ratings as affected by treatment on each date. Means were separated using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05). Differences in sugarcane rust mite injury ratings were detected among treatments (F = 17.8, P < 0.001, Table 1) and sampling dates (F = 61.6, P ≤ 0.001). The treatment by sampling date interaction was also significant (F = 8.2, P < 0.001). Injury ratings pretreatment and 5 DAT did not differ (P > 0.05), ranging from 1.3 to 1.4, and 1.3 to 1.5, respectively. Plots treated with the three miticides exhibited reductions in leaf injury ratings compared with the untreated check. Injury ratings in the treated plots averaged 0.8 to 0.9 12 DAT and 0.5 to 0.6 19 DAT compared with 1.3–1.7 in the untreated check. Table 1. Treatment Rate amt (fl oz/acre) Leaf Injury Rating1 Pre-Treatment SE (± 0.1) 5 DAT SE (± 0.1) 12 DAT SE (± 0.1) 19 DAT SE (± 0.1) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 1.3a 1.3a 0.9b 0.6b Torac 21 1.3a 1.3a 0.8b 0.5b Oberon 2 SC 16.0 1.4a 1.4a 0.8b 0.5b Untreated Check N/A 1.3a 1.5a 1.7a 1.3a F 0.1 1.4 25.6 20.4 P > F 0.982 0.259 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment Rate amt (fl oz/acre) Leaf Injury Rating1 Pre-Treatment SE (± 0.1) 5 DAT SE (± 0.1) 12 DAT SE (± 0.1) 19 DAT SE (± 0.1) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 1.3a 1.3a 0.9b 0.6b Torac 21 1.3a 1.3a 0.8b 0.5b Oberon 2 SC 16.0 1.4a 1.4a 0.8b 0.5b Untreated Check N/A 1.3a 1.5a 1.7a 1.3a F 0.1 1.4 25.6 20.4 P > F 0.982 0.259 <0.001 <0.001 1Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s test, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment Rate amt (fl oz/acre) Leaf Injury Rating1 Pre-Treatment SE (± 0.1) 5 DAT SE (± 0.1) 12 DAT SE (± 0.1) 19 DAT SE (± 0.1) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 1.3a 1.3a 0.9b 0.6b Torac 21 1.3a 1.3a 0.8b 0.5b Oberon 2 SC 16.0 1.4a 1.4a 0.8b 0.5b Untreated Check N/A 1.3a 1.5a 1.7a 1.3a F 0.1 1.4 25.6 20.4 P > F 0.982 0.259 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment Rate amt (fl oz/acre) Leaf Injury Rating1 Pre-Treatment SE (± 0.1) 5 DAT SE (± 0.1) 12 DAT SE (± 0.1) 19 DAT SE (± 0.1) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 1.3a 1.3a 0.9b 0.6b Torac 21 1.3a 1.3a 0.8b 0.5b Oberon 2 SC 16.0 1.4a 1.4a 0.8b 0.5b Untreated Check N/A 1.3a 1.5a 1.7a 1.3a F 0.1 1.4 25.6 20.4 P > F 0.982 0.259 <0.001 <0.001 1Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s test, α = 0.05). Open in new tab This research was partially supported by industry gifts including field sites and products. © 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]

Moretti , Erica, A;Nault, Brian, A

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz003

Onion | Allium cepa Onion thrips | Thrips tabaci Lindeman sulfoxaflor, abamectin/avermectin B1, methomyl, spinetoram, lambda-cyhalothrin Onion thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman) control using foliar insecticides was evaluated in a commercial onion field near Elba, NY (GPS coordinates: 43.14094444, −78.11583333). On 25 Apr 2017, dry bulb onion seeds treated with FarMore FI500 were planted at a rate of 6.08 seeds/ft with a soil drench of manzate and ridomil for control of early season pests, including onion maggot (Delia antiqua M.) and fungal pathogens. Treatments were arranged in an RCB design with four replications. Each plot consisted of five 15-ft long (4.6 m) rows spaced 15 inches apart. Treatments were applied at 36 gpa and 40 psi using CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with four twin-flat fan nozzles (TJ-60 8003 VS). Spray trials were initiated on 10 Jul at which time densities were 0.33 thrips per leaf. Plots were sprayed weekly following initiation on 17, 26, and 31 Jul, and 9 and 16 Aug. Conditions were cool to moderate and unusually wet during the entire season. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated weekly by counting larvae on 15 randomly selected plants from the inner three rows of each plot. Adults were not recorded, as they can move easily between plots and consequently do not accurately represent treatment efficacy. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in SAS (v. 9.4; PROC MIXED) with larval counts as the fixed effect and block as the random effect. Treatment means were compared using Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) test at P < 0.05. Data were transformed using a ln e(x + 1) function before analysis, but back-transformed means are presented. Wet, cool conditions reduced thrips densities throughout the trial compared with previous years. Densities were particularly low in the first 3 wk of the trial, but increased steadily over the course of the 6-wk trial (Table 1). For this reason, during the first 3 wk after spraying (17, 25, and 31 Jul), thrips densities did not differ across any of the treatments, including the untreated check. Four (8 Aug) and 5 wk (15 Aug) following spray initiation, only Radiant SC and Warrior + Lannate LV reduced thrips populations relative to the untreated check. After 6 wk (22 Aug), all treatments except Warrior alone reduced thrips. Across the duration of the trial, treatments did not differ substantially; however, neither Closer nor Warrior alone were effective at controlling thrips. Radiant SC was the only product that controlled thrips consistently across the last 3 wk of the trial. No phytotoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatment applications. Table 1. Treatmenta Rate (fl oz /acre) Mean number of larvae per plant (±SEM)b 17 Jul 25 Jul 31 Jul 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug Season total Untreated check – 3.4 ± 2.5 5.9 ± 3.4 7.3 ± 4.4 8.9 ± 3.1 a 13.7 ± 6.8 a 51.6 ± 7.1 a 90.9 ± 25.9 a Closer 5.75 2.1 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.9 5.3 ± 2.9 3.9 ± 1.2 ab 8.2 ± 2.8 ab 10.8 ± 1.9 bc 33.0 ± 5.6 ab Radiant SC 8 2.1 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 1.0 1.5 ± 1.0 0.8 ± 0.5 b 0.6 ± 0.2 c 1.1 ± 0.2 d 7.5 ± 2.9 b Agri-Mek 3.5 3.5 ± 1.3 5.5 ± 1.6 7.2 ± 4.0 4.1 ± 1.7 ab 3.9 ± 1.4 abc 2.8 ± 0.7 cd 27.1 ± 9 ab Warrior 1.92 1.8 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 1.5 7.3 ± 5.1 ab 5.5 ± 2.0 abc 40.4 ± 16.5 ab 63.0 ± 25.9 a Lannate LV 48 2.8 ± 1.6 3.3 ± 2.1 4.2 ± 2.9 2.9 ± 1.1 ab 4.8 ± 1.6 abc 3.7 ± 1.5 cd 21.6 ± 10.7 b Agri-Mek + Warrior 3.5 + 1.92 1.9 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.7 ab 2.4 ± 0.8 abc 1.1 ± 0.3 d 10.6 ± 1.8 b Agri-Mek + Lannate LV 3.5 + 48 3.6 ± 2.1 4.4 ± 1.8 3.5 ± 2.0 1.9 ± 0.7 ab 2.0 ± 1.2 bc 0.8 ± 0.2 d 16.1 ± 7.6 b Warrior + Lannate LV 1.92 + 48 1.5 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 b 2.3 ± 0.7 abc 1.3 ± 0.4 d 7.5 ± 1.1 b Treatmenta Rate (fl oz /acre) Mean number of larvae per plant (±SEM)b 17 Jul 25 Jul 31 Jul 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug Season total Untreated check – 3.4 ± 2.5 5.9 ± 3.4 7.3 ± 4.4 8.9 ± 3.1 a 13.7 ± 6.8 a 51.6 ± 7.1 a 90.9 ± 25.9 a Closer 5.75 2.1 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.9 5.3 ± 2.9 3.9 ± 1.2 ab 8.2 ± 2.8 ab 10.8 ± 1.9 bc 33.0 ± 5.6 ab Radiant SC 8 2.1 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 1.0 1.5 ± 1.0 0.8 ± 0.5 b 0.6 ± 0.2 c 1.1 ± 0.2 d 7.5 ± 2.9 b Agri-Mek 3.5 3.5 ± 1.3 5.5 ± 1.6 7.2 ± 4.0 4.1 ± 1.7 ab 3.9 ± 1.4 abc 2.8 ± 0.7 cd 27.1 ± 9 ab Warrior 1.92 1.8 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 1.5 7.3 ± 5.1 ab 5.5 ± 2.0 abc 40.4 ± 16.5 ab 63.0 ± 25.9 a Lannate LV 48 2.8 ± 1.6 3.3 ± 2.1 4.2 ± 2.9 2.9 ± 1.1 ab 4.8 ± 1.6 abc 3.7 ± 1.5 cd 21.6 ± 10.7 b Agri-Mek + Warrior 3.5 + 1.92 1.9 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.7 ab 2.4 ± 0.8 abc 1.1 ± 0.3 d 10.6 ± 1.8 b Agri-Mek + Lannate LV 3.5 + 48 3.6 ± 2.1 4.4 ± 1.8 3.5 ± 2.0 1.9 ± 0.7 ab 2.0 ± 1.2 bc 0.8 ± 0.2 d 16.1 ± 7.6 b Warrior + Lannate LV 1.92 + 48 1.5 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 b 2.3 ± 0.7 abc 1.3 ± 0.4 d 7.5 ± 1.1 b aAll products were coapplied with Induce at 0.25% v:v to improve the efficacy of the insecticide application. bMeans followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 4). Data were transformed using a ln e(x + 1) function before analysis, but back-transformed means are presented. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatmenta Rate (fl oz /acre) Mean number of larvae per plant (±SEM)b 17 Jul 25 Jul 31 Jul 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug Season total Untreated check – 3.4 ± 2.5 5.9 ± 3.4 7.3 ± 4.4 8.9 ± 3.1 a 13.7 ± 6.8 a 51.6 ± 7.1 a 90.9 ± 25.9 a Closer 5.75 2.1 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.9 5.3 ± 2.9 3.9 ± 1.2 ab 8.2 ± 2.8 ab 10.8 ± 1.9 bc 33.0 ± 5.6 ab Radiant SC 8 2.1 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 1.0 1.5 ± 1.0 0.8 ± 0.5 b 0.6 ± 0.2 c 1.1 ± 0.2 d 7.5 ± 2.9 b Agri-Mek 3.5 3.5 ± 1.3 5.5 ± 1.6 7.2 ± 4.0 4.1 ± 1.7 ab 3.9 ± 1.4 abc 2.8 ± 0.7 cd 27.1 ± 9 ab Warrior 1.92 1.8 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 1.5 7.3 ± 5.1 ab 5.5 ± 2.0 abc 40.4 ± 16.5 ab 63.0 ± 25.9 a Lannate LV 48 2.8 ± 1.6 3.3 ± 2.1 4.2 ± 2.9 2.9 ± 1.1 ab 4.8 ± 1.6 abc 3.7 ± 1.5 cd 21.6 ± 10.7 b Agri-Mek + Warrior 3.5 + 1.92 1.9 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.7 ab 2.4 ± 0.8 abc 1.1 ± 0.3 d 10.6 ± 1.8 b Agri-Mek + Lannate LV 3.5 + 48 3.6 ± 2.1 4.4 ± 1.8 3.5 ± 2.0 1.9 ± 0.7 ab 2.0 ± 1.2 bc 0.8 ± 0.2 d 16.1 ± 7.6 b Warrior + Lannate LV 1.92 + 48 1.5 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 b 2.3 ± 0.7 abc 1.3 ± 0.4 d 7.5 ± 1.1 b Treatmenta Rate (fl oz /acre) Mean number of larvae per plant (±SEM)b 17 Jul 25 Jul 31 Jul 8 Aug 15 Aug 22 Aug Season total Untreated check – 3.4 ± 2.5 5.9 ± 3.4 7.3 ± 4.4 8.9 ± 3.1 a 13.7 ± 6.8 a 51.6 ± 7.1 a 90.9 ± 25.9 a Closer 5.75 2.1 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.9 5.3 ± 2.9 3.9 ± 1.2 ab 8.2 ± 2.8 ab 10.8 ± 1.9 bc 33.0 ± 5.6 ab Radiant SC 8 2.1 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 1.0 1.5 ± 1.0 0.8 ± 0.5 b 0.6 ± 0.2 c 1.1 ± 0.2 d 7.5 ± 2.9 b Agri-Mek 3.5 3.5 ± 1.3 5.5 ± 1.6 7.2 ± 4.0 4.1 ± 1.7 ab 3.9 ± 1.4 abc 2.8 ± 0.7 cd 27.1 ± 9 ab Warrior 1.92 1.8 ± 0.5 3.6 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 1.5 7.3 ± 5.1 ab 5.5 ± 2.0 abc 40.4 ± 16.5 ab 63.0 ± 25.9 a Lannate LV 48 2.8 ± 1.6 3.3 ± 2.1 4.2 ± 2.9 2.9 ± 1.1 ab 4.8 ± 1.6 abc 3.7 ± 1.5 cd 21.6 ± 10.7 b Agri-Mek + Warrior 3.5 + 1.92 1.9 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.8 1.8 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.7 ab 2.4 ± 0.8 abc 1.1 ± 0.3 d 10.6 ± 1.8 b Agri-Mek + Lannate LV 3.5 + 48 3.6 ± 2.1 4.4 ± 1.8 3.5 ± 2.0 1.9 ± 0.7 ab 2.0 ± 1.2 bc 0.8 ± 0.2 d 16.1 ± 7.6 b Warrior + Lannate LV 1.92 + 48 1.5 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.2 0.8 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 b 2.3 ± 0.7 abc 1.3 ± 0.4 d 7.5 ± 1.1 b aAll products were coapplied with Induce at 0.25% v:v to improve the efficacy of the insecticide application. bMeans followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 4). Data were transformed using a ln e(x + 1) function before analysis, but back-transformed means are presented. Open in new tab This research was partially supported by industry gifts including products 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]

Swoboda-Bhattarai, Katharine, A;Daniel, Samantha, R;Peterson, Julie, A

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz090

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Western bean cutworm (WBC) | Striacosta albicosta (Smith) bifenthrin, zeta-cypermethrin, chlorantraniliprole, indoxacarb The objective of this field trial was to determine if application timing affects the efficacy of single applications of foliar insecticides at preventing feeding damage by the western bean cutworm (WBC), an important pest of corn and dry beans in the North American Corn Belt. This study was located at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Henry J. Stumpf International Wheat Center in Perkins County, NE (40.856851°N, −101.701335°W). The experimental design used was an RCB design with a total of 10 treatments (three insecticides applied at three application timings, plus an untreated check) and four replications; the treatment design was an incomplete 4 × 3 factorial in which the UTC occurred during the ideal application timing only. Seeds of DKC62-95 (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO), a non-Bt hybrid with RR2 herbicide tolerance, were planted on 5 May 2018 using a commercial 8-row planter at 32,000 seeds/acre at approximately 1.40–1.75 inches deep in 30-inch rows. Individual plots measured 20 ft (8 rows) wide x 35 ft long. Standard agronomic practices for the region were followed for irrigation, fertilization, and weed management inputs. No insecticide applications were made other than the experimental treatments. A backpack sprayer with an 8.3-ft handheld boom was used to apply all foliar insecticide treatments. Insecticides were delivered at 15 gpa carrier volume through six TeeJet AIXR 11002 air induction flat fan nozzles spaced 20 inches apart; 40 psi pressure was maintained with a CO2 propellant. Applications were made to a 10 × 30 ft area in the middle four rows of each plot with a single pass at 3 mph. Plots were scouted twice per week for the presence of WBC eggs and larvae following the onset of moth flight on 28 Jun. The recommended timing of insecticide applications for WBC is when 90–95% of the plants in a field have tasseled. To assess how application timing might affect treatment efficacy, we applied insecticides early (17 Jul at 50% tasseled), at the ideal time (24 Jul at 90% tasseled), and late (31 Jul at 100% tasseled). Scouting results indicated that 16% of plants were infested with an egg mass or larvae prior to the early application, 17% prior to the ideal application, and 18% prior to the late application. On 20 Aug (34 days after application [DAA] for early treatments, 27 DAA for ideal treatments, and 20 DAA for late treatments), 10 ears were randomly chosen and removed along with the husks from the treated area in each plot. Ears were husked and the amount of feeding damage, measured in square centimeters, to aborted kernels at the ear tip and to harvestable kernels was determined. The presence of WBC and CEW larvae and secondary fungal infection in the ears was also recorded. To determine if treatments had a measurable impact on yield, a standardized subsample of ears (1/1000 of an acre) from each plot were hand-harvested on 1 Nov and shelled to calculate yield. Total grain weight and % moisture measurements were recorded and standardized to 56 lbs per bushel and 15.5% moisture. Damage to aborted ear tip kernels, harvestable kernels, both kernel types (total damage), and yield were analyzed separately using mixed models with insecticide treatment and application timing as fixed effects and block as a random effect in PROC GLIMMIX (SAS v. 9.4). For all analyses, mean separations were obtained using Tukey’s test (α = 5%). Untransformed means are presented. Application timing did not significantly affect the efficacy of single applications of foliar insecticides at preventing damage to aborted ear tip kernels, harvestable kernels, and both kernel types (Table 1). Similarly, application timing was not a significant effect on its own and damage to all kernel types did not differ between early, ideal, and late applications overall. However, insecticide treatment did have a significant impact on the amount of harvestable kernel and total kernel damage observed; harvestable kernel damage was lower in plots treated with Prevathon than in UTC plots, whereas total kernel damage was lower in plots treated with Prevathon than in UTC plots and plots treated with Steward (Table 2). Yield was not affected by insecticide treatment, application timing, or a combination of the two factors (Tables 1 and 2). The efficacy and residual activity of the foliar insecticide treatments tested in this study may have been negatively affected by a hail event prior to applications that damaged plants throughout the study area, and other inclement weather. Fungal infection is related to WBC infestation, and ears from the ideal and late Prevathon treatments, as well as the late Steward treatment, did not exhibit any fungal infection. Table 1. Application timing . Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/ acre) . Total number of WBC larvae collected . Total number of CEW larvae collected . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) a . Overall proportion of ears infested with larvaea,b . Overall proportion of ears with fungal infectiona,b . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 9 1 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 0.43 0.05 185.35a Early Hero 1.24EC 5 1 3 0.49a 0.39a 0.88a 0.23 0.10 190.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 1 0.47a 0.14a 0.61a 0.13 0.05 199.54a Steward 1.25EC 10 4 2 1.04a 0.88a 1.93a 0.35 0.05 237.02a Ideal Hero 1.24EC 5 4 0 0.7a 0.26a 0.96a 0.23 0.08 209.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 0 0.18a 0.12a 0.30a 0.08 0.00 223.25a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 0 0.69a 0.43a 1.12a 0.20 0.03 210.42a Late Hero 1.24EC 5 4 2 1.11a 0.45a 1.56a 0.38 0.05 208.15a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 1 0 0.19a 0.21a 0.40a 0.18 0.00 226.20a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 3 0.99a 0.19a 1.18a 0.25 0.00 213.25a P > F 0.70 0.32 0.56 0.29 Application timing . Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/ acre) . Total number of WBC larvae collected . Total number of CEW larvae collected . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) a . Overall proportion of ears infested with larvaea,b . Overall proportion of ears with fungal infectiona,b . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 9 1 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 0.43 0.05 185.35a Early Hero 1.24EC 5 1 3 0.49a 0.39a 0.88a 0.23 0.10 190.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 1 0.47a 0.14a 0.61a 0.13 0.05 199.54a Steward 1.25EC 10 4 2 1.04a 0.88a 1.93a 0.35 0.05 237.02a Ideal Hero 1.24EC 5 4 0 0.7a 0.26a 0.96a 0.23 0.08 209.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 0 0.18a 0.12a 0.30a 0.08 0.00 223.25a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 0 0.69a 0.43a 1.12a 0.20 0.03 210.42a Late Hero 1.24EC 5 4 2 1.11a 0.45a 1.56a 0.38 0.05 208.15a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 1 0 0.19a 0.21a 0.40a 0.18 0.00 226.20a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 3 0.99a 0.19a 1.18a 0.25 0.00 213.25a P > F 0.70 0.32 0.56 0.29 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05). aData were collected 34 DAA for early treatments, 27 DAA for ideal treatments, or 20 DAA for late treatments; corn ears were at the early dent stage (R5) when collected. bData for the percent of ears infested with larvae and the percent of ears with fungal infection were not analyzed statistically. Open in new tab Table 1. Application timing . Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/ acre) . Total number of WBC larvae collected . Total number of CEW larvae collected . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) a . Overall proportion of ears infested with larvaea,b . Overall proportion of ears with fungal infectiona,b . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 9 1 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 0.43 0.05 185.35a Early Hero 1.24EC 5 1 3 0.49a 0.39a 0.88a 0.23 0.10 190.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 1 0.47a 0.14a 0.61a 0.13 0.05 199.54a Steward 1.25EC 10 4 2 1.04a 0.88a 1.93a 0.35 0.05 237.02a Ideal Hero 1.24EC 5 4 0 0.7a 0.26a 0.96a 0.23 0.08 209.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 0 0.18a 0.12a 0.30a 0.08 0.00 223.25a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 0 0.69a 0.43a 1.12a 0.20 0.03 210.42a Late Hero 1.24EC 5 4 2 1.11a 0.45a 1.56a 0.38 0.05 208.15a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 1 0 0.19a 0.21a 0.40a 0.18 0.00 226.20a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 3 0.99a 0.19a 1.18a 0.25 0.00 213.25a P > F 0.70 0.32 0.56 0.29 Application timing . Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/ acre) . Total number of WBC larvae collected . Total number of CEW larvae collected . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) a . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) a . Overall proportion of ears infested with larvaea,b . Overall proportion of ears with fungal infectiona,b . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 9 1 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 0.43 0.05 185.35a Early Hero 1.24EC 5 1 3 0.49a 0.39a 0.88a 0.23 0.10 190.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 1 0.47a 0.14a 0.61a 0.13 0.05 199.54a Steward 1.25EC 10 4 2 1.04a 0.88a 1.93a 0.35 0.05 237.02a Ideal Hero 1.24EC 5 4 0 0.7a 0.26a 0.96a 0.23 0.08 209.90a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0 0 0.18a 0.12a 0.30a 0.08 0.00 223.25a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 0 0.69a 0.43a 1.12a 0.20 0.03 210.42a Late Hero 1.24EC 5 4 2 1.11a 0.45a 1.56a 0.38 0.05 208.15a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 1 0 0.19a 0.21a 0.40a 0.18 0.00 226.20a Steward 1.25EC 10 2 3 0.99a 0.19a 1.18a 0.25 0.00 213.25a P > F 0.70 0.32 0.56 0.29 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05). aData were collected 34 DAA for early treatments, 27 DAA for ideal treatments, or 20 DAA for late treatments; corn ears were at the early dent stage (R5) when collected. bData for the percent of ears infested with larvae and the percent of ears with fungal infection were not analyzed statistically. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/ formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 185.35a Hero 1.24EC 5 0.77a 0.37ab 1.13ab 202.98a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0.28a 0.16b 0.44b 216.33a Steward 1.25EC 10 0.91a 0.50ab 1.41a 220.23a P > F 0.08 0.0308 0.0124 0.13 Treatment/ formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 185.35a Hero 1.24EC 5 0.77a 0.37ab 1.13ab 202.98a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0.28a 0.16b 0.44b 216.33a Steward 1.25EC 10 0.91a 0.50ab 1.41a 220.23a P > F 0.08 0.0308 0.0124 0.13 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/ formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 185.35a Hero 1.24EC 5 0.77a 0.37ab 1.13ab 202.98a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0.28a 0.16b 0.44b 216.33a Steward 1.25EC 10 0.91a 0.50ab 1.41a 220.23a P > F 0.08 0.0308 0.0124 0.13 Treatment/ formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mean feeding damage to aborted kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean feeding damage to harvestable kernels per ear (cm2) . Mean total feeding damage per ear (cm2) . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated check – 1.07a 0.85a 1.92a 185.35a Hero 1.24EC 5 0.77a 0.37ab 1.13ab 202.98a Prevathon 0.43SC 14 0.28a 0.16b 0.44b 216.33a Steward 1.25EC 10 0.91a 0.50ab 1.41a 220.23a P > F 0.08 0.0308 0.0124 0.13 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05). Open in new tab This research was supported by industry gifts of products 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]

McManus, Bradley, L;Fuller, Billy, W

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz080

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Northern corn rootworm (NCR) | Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence, Western corn rootworm (WCR) | Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte tebupirimfos, cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, chlorethoxyfos Corn rootworm (NCR/WCR) management efficacy trials were conducted in 2016 to evaluate insect-resistant hybrids and granular insecticide combination treatments near Cavour, and Colman, South Dakota. The experimental plot was arranged in an RCBD with four ~50-ft-long replications. Treatments were established at planting time using four rows spaced 30 inches apart. Each hybrid tested was planted with no insecticide as well as with Aztec and Index. Granular Aztec HC insecticide was applied with the SmartBox delivery system. SmartBox meters were adapted to fit small bottles and a plate was attached to the bottom side of unit to fit in Noble meter mounting brackets on a 4-row Kinze corn planter. The SmartBox meters and liquid application equipment were calibrated before treatment application. In-furrow treatments were placed directly into the open seed furrow between double-disk openers. The trial was conducted within two corn germlasm groups (Dekalb and Pioneer). The Dekalb hybrid group evaluated consisted of 1) VT Double PRO RIB Complete ‘DKC45-66RIB (VT2P)’ (check with no CRW Bt) and 2) SmartStax RIB Complete (SS), Monsanto/DeKalb ‘45-65RIB’. The pioneer hybrid group consisted of 3) Pioneer Optimum AcreMax Xtra (AMX) ‘P9526AMX’ and 4) Pioneer Optimum AcreMax XTreme (AMXT)’P926AMXT. The Pioneer AMX hybrid uses a single mode of action and the AMXT has two modes of action against rootworm larvae. Corn seed was planted at a rate of ~ 31,000 kernels per acre. Six roots per replication were randomly dug from the two outer rows, washed, and rated using the Iowa 0 to 3 root injury rating scale. A combine was used to harvest the center two rows of each plot for a yield assessment. Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED/PDIFF in SAS version 9.2 option with Saxton’s lettering macro (Table 1). Corn rootworm feeding damage to roots of untreated VT2P corn exceeded the 0.25 EIL at Colman (1.60) and Bryant (1.71) sites. When Aztec HC was applied to these non-CRW hybrids, damage to the roots was significantly reduced from over 1.5 nodes of injury to 0.08 at both Colman and Bryant. No significant yield differences were measured at either location. Even with a moderately heavy rootworm feeding injury scores (1.6 and 1.71) associated with the check treatment (VT2P), the number of bushels per acre was not significantly reduced at either location in 2017 compared with the same treatment where root injury and lodging was largely managed by use of an insecticide application. Table 1. . . Colman . Bryant . Treatment/formulation . Rate . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . VT2(Check) 0.5 1.60a 200.6a 25.0a 1.71a 185.0a 59.3a Aztec HCa 1.5oz 0.08b 216.1a 0.6bc 0.08b 201.9a 10.3b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.07b 210.7a 1.3bc 0.06c 208.1a 0.0c SSTX RIB – 0.06b 196.5a 1.9b 0.07c 201.5a 0.1c Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.02c 206.7a 0.0c 0.04d 201.7a 0.1c Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.03c 201.4a 0.0c 0.04d 202.8 0.1c P 0.001 0.0576 0.0001 0.0001 0.8420 0.0001 AMX — 0.08a 170.3a 8.9ab 0.08a 184.6a 0.3b Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 132.8a 36.0a 0.05a 186.6a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.05b 136.1a 14.6a 0.04a 187.9a 0.0b AMXT – 0.07a 185.4a 0.5c 0.08a 176.3a 3.9 Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 184.0a 1.3bc 0.04a 184.9a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.04b 193.9a 0.2c 0.04a 191.5a 0.0b P 0.0018 0.2401 0.016 0.6257 0.5147 0.0019 . . Colman . Bryant . Treatment/formulation . Rate . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . VT2(Check) 0.5 1.60a 200.6a 25.0a 1.71a 185.0a 59.3a Aztec HCa 1.5oz 0.08b 216.1a 0.6bc 0.08b 201.9a 10.3b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.07b 210.7a 1.3bc 0.06c 208.1a 0.0c SSTX RIB – 0.06b 196.5a 1.9b 0.07c 201.5a 0.1c Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.02c 206.7a 0.0c 0.04d 201.7a 0.1c Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.03c 201.4a 0.0c 0.04d 202.8 0.1c P 0.001 0.0576 0.0001 0.0001 0.8420 0.0001 AMX — 0.08a 170.3a 8.9ab 0.08a 184.6a 0.3b Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 132.8a 36.0a 0.05a 186.6a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.05b 136.1a 14.6a 0.04a 187.9a 0.0b AMXT – 0.07a 185.4a 0.5c 0.08a 176.3a 3.9 Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 184.0a 1.3bc 0.04a 184.9a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.04b 193.9a 0.2c 0.04a 191.5a 0.0b P 0.0018 0.2401 0.016 0.6257 0.5147 0.0019 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly (P > 0.05) different using SAS, version 9.2. PROC MIXED/PDIFF option with Saxton’s lettering macro. aIn-Furrow SmartBox delivery system. bIn-Furrow solid stream nozzle tip delivery. Open in new tab Table 1. . . Colman . Bryant . Treatment/formulation . Rate . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . VT2(Check) 0.5 1.60a 200.6a 25.0a 1.71a 185.0a 59.3a Aztec HCa 1.5oz 0.08b 216.1a 0.6bc 0.08b 201.9a 10.3b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.07b 210.7a 1.3bc 0.06c 208.1a 0.0c SSTX RIB – 0.06b 196.5a 1.9b 0.07c 201.5a 0.1c Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.02c 206.7a 0.0c 0.04d 201.7a 0.1c Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.03c 201.4a 0.0c 0.04d 202.8 0.1c P 0.001 0.0576 0.0001 0.0001 0.8420 0.0001 AMX — 0.08a 170.3a 8.9ab 0.08a 184.6a 0.3b Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 132.8a 36.0a 0.05a 186.6a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.05b 136.1a 14.6a 0.04a 187.9a 0.0b AMXT – 0.07a 185.4a 0.5c 0.08a 176.3a 3.9 Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 184.0a 1.3bc 0.04a 184.9a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.04b 193.9a 0.2c 0.04a 191.5a 0.0b P 0.0018 0.2401 0.016 0.6257 0.5147 0.0019 . . Colman . Bryant . Treatment/formulation . Rate . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . Root rating . Yield bu/ac . Lodged % row . VT2(Check) 0.5 1.60a 200.6a 25.0a 1.71a 185.0a 59.3a Aztec HCa 1.5oz 0.08b 216.1a 0.6bc 0.08b 201.9a 10.3b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.07b 210.7a 1.3bc 0.06c 208.1a 0.0c SSTX RIB – 0.06b 196.5a 1.9b 0.07c 201.5a 0.1c Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.02c 206.7a 0.0c 0.04d 201.7a 0.1c Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.03c 201.4a 0.0c 0.04d 202.8 0.1c P 0.001 0.0576 0.0001 0.0001 0.8420 0.0001 AMX — 0.08a 170.3a 8.9ab 0.08a 184.6a 0.3b Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 132.8a 36.0a 0.05a 186.6a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.05b 136.1a 14.6a 0.04a 187.9a 0.0b AMXT – 0.07a 185.4a 0.5c 0.08a 176.3a 3.9 Aztec HCa 1.5 oz 0.03b 184.0a 1.3bc 0.04a 184.9a 0.0b Indexb 0.72 fl oz 0.04b 193.9a 0.2c 0.04a 191.5a 0.0b P 0.0018 0.2401 0.016 0.6257 0.5147 0.0019 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly (P > 0.05) different using SAS, version 9.2. PROC MIXED/PDIFF option with Saxton’s lettering macro. aIn-Furrow SmartBox delivery system. bIn-Furrow solid stream nozzle tip delivery. Open in new tab A portion of this research was supported 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]

Collins, Judith, A;Drummond, Francis, A

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz085

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Blueberry flea beetle (FB) | Altica sylvia Malloch azadirachtin, lambda-cyhalothrin, spinosad, Chromobacterium subtsugae The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of four insecticides against blueberry flea beetle larvae (FB). Materials were applied to 6.1- × 6.1-m plots in a vegetative-year blueberry field at Jonesboro, ME. There were three treated plots for each material plus untreated check plots. Treatments were blocked according to prespray population levels. Insecticides were applied in 3.8 L water-mixture per acre using a CO2-propelled, 193-cm boom sprayer (203-cm swath) equipped with four, flat spray 8002VS TeeJet nozzles operating at 35 psi. Speed was regulated using a metronome. Blueberry plants were 2.5 to 3.8 cm tall and scattered and flea beetle larvae were mid to late instar. On sample dates indicated in Table 1, 10 sweeps with a standard 30.5-cm diameter sweep net were taken systematically through the center area of each plot avoiding plot boundaries. After the larvae were counted, they were distributed back into the same plot. Analysis of Variance (RCBD) and LSD (P ≤ 0.05) were used to compare numbers of flea beetle larvae captured in sweep-net samples. Data were transformed by log10(X + 1) to stabilize variance prior to analysis. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Larvae/10 sweeps . . Rate/acre . 7 Juna . 9 Jun . 10 Jun . 11 Jun . Untreated check – 9.3a 20.3a 17.3a 11.7b Cyonara 9.7 20b 9.0a 0.3c 0.3b 1.0c Entrust SC 48b 10.0a 3.0b 2.0b 2.3c AzaSol 6c 9.7a 27.3a 34.7a 27.7a Grandevo CG 6c 9.3a 27.7a 40.3a 28.7a P value 0.9995 0.0008 0.0009 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Larvae/10 sweeps . . Rate/acre . 7 Juna . 9 Jun . 10 Jun . 11 Jun . Untreated check – 9.3a 20.3a 17.3a 11.7b Cyonara 9.7 20b 9.0a 0.3c 0.3b 1.0c Entrust SC 48b 10.0a 3.0b 2.0b 2.3c AzaSol 6c 9.7a 27.3a 34.7a 27.7a Grandevo CG 6c 9.3a 27.7a 40.3a 28.7a P value 0.9995 0.0008 0.0009 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, LSD. aLog10 (X + 1) transformed data used for analysis, nontransformed means shown in the table. boz product per acre. coz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Larvae/10 sweeps . . Rate/acre . 7 Juna . 9 Jun . 10 Jun . 11 Jun . Untreated check – 9.3a 20.3a 17.3a 11.7b Cyonara 9.7 20b 9.0a 0.3c 0.3b 1.0c Entrust SC 48b 10.0a 3.0b 2.0b 2.3c AzaSol 6c 9.7a 27.3a 34.7a 27.7a Grandevo CG 6c 9.3a 27.7a 40.3a 28.7a P value 0.9995 0.0008 0.0009 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Larvae/10 sweeps . . Rate/acre . 7 Juna . 9 Jun . 10 Jun . 11 Jun . Untreated check – 9.3a 20.3a 17.3a 11.7b Cyonara 9.7 20b 9.0a 0.3c 0.3b 1.0c Entrust SC 48b 10.0a 3.0b 2.0b 2.3c AzaSol 6c 9.7a 27.3a 34.7a 27.7a Grandevo CG 6c 9.3a 27.7a 40.3a 28.7a P value 0.9995 0.0008 0.0009 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, LSD. aLog10 (X + 1) transformed data used for analysis, nontransformed means shown in the table. boz product per acre. coz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Prespray populations were not significantly different among the treatments (P = 0.9995). Cyonara (lambda cyhalothrin) and Entrust (spinosad) significantly reduced the seasonal density of blueberry flea beetle larvae in comparison with the untreated checks. AzaSol (azadirachtin) and Grandevo (Chromobacterium subtsugae) strain PRAA4-1T were not effective. This project was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch (or McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health, etc.) Project number ME0-21505 through the Maine Agricultural & Forest Experiment Station. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Publication Number 3710. © 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]

Bernaola,, Lina;Stout,, Michael

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz020

Rice | Oryza sativa; glaberrima Sugarcane borer (SCB) | Diatraea saccharalis (F.) Mexican rice borer (MRB) | Eoreuma loftini (Dyar) Rice stalk borer (RSB) | Chilo plejadellus (Zincken) clothianidin The SCB, MRB, and RSB constitute the complex of stem-boring pests of rice in Louisiana. Infestations occur during tillering and ripening stage. Larvae of these borers injure the vascular tissue of the stems during reproductive stages of rice, thereby impairing maturation of the emerging panicles and grain development, and causing a typical symptom called ‘whitehead’. Whiteheads are whitish and empty panicles that result from these damaged tillers. Whitehead densities associated with stem borer infestations in rice not protected with insecticide can result in yield losses. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of seed treatments containing clothianidin (NipsIt INSIDE) and mycorrhiza (MycoApply EndoMaxx) against stem borer infestations in ‘CL111’, a conventional variety of rice, at the LSU AgCenter H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station, Crowley, LA. Seeds were treated by the manufacturer (Valent USA, Walnut Creek, CA) at a rate of 1.92 fl oz (0.075 lb AI/100 lbs seed) of Nipsit INSIDE (clothianidin 47.8%) and 2 lb/acre for the MycoApply EndoMaxx (mycorrhiza 6.6%) formulation. Rice seeds were drilled-seeded at a rate of 60 lbs/acre on 27 Mar (Experiment 1) and 3 May (Experiment 2) in 2018. Field plots in both experiments were 4.1-ft wide by 18-ft long. Rice seedlings emerged by 17 Apr and 17 May for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, respectively. Plots were cultivated following recommendations of the LSU AgCenter for drill-seeded rice with the exception of insect control. Each experiment consisted of a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design with 10 replications of each treatment combination. Factor 1 was insecticide seed treatment and consisted of rice seed treated with Nipsit Inside (clothianidin) or no seed treatment insecticide (untreated). Factor 2 was mycorrhizal fungi inoculation and consisted of seed inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and noninoculated seed (untreated). Incidence of whiteheads resulting from stem borer infestations of rice at the reproductive stage was determined by counting the total number of whiteheads in each plot weekly on five different dates beginning when plants reached 80–100% heading. During the last 3 wk of whitehead counts, plants showing whitehead symptoms were collected and tillers with whiteheads were dissected by opening the stem longitudinally with a knife to remove and identify the stem borer species. Numbers of whiteheads and stem borers from 5 and 3 wk of sampling, respectively, were summed to obtain the total number of whiteheads and stem borers in each plot and these numbers used in statistical analyses. Whitehead and stem borer data were analyzed for each experiment by two-way ANOVA using PROC MIXED in SAS with insecticide treatment, mycorrhizal inoculation, and their interaction as fixed effects and block as a random effect. Means were separated using LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Approximately 70% of stem borer larvae collected after dissecting rice stems were MRB, with the remaining larvae a mix of SCB and RSB. In Experiment 1, there was no significant interaction between insecticide seed treatment and mycorrhiza inoculation for number of whiteheads or number of stem borers per m2 (Table 1). There were also no significant differences among insecticide seed treatments or mycorrhiza inoculation treatments for number of whiteheads or stem borers per m2. In Experiment 2, there was no significant interaction between insecticide seed treatment and mycorrhiza inoculation for number of whiteheads or number of stem borers per m2 (Table 2). NipsIt INSIDE seed treatment significantly reduced whitehead or stem borers numbers per m2 compared with the untreated check (no insecticide seed treatment). Also, inoculation of plots with AMF resulted in significantly more whiteheads compared with noninoculated plots. Table 1. Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.22 0.19 No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.30 0.25 P > F 0.12 0.30 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.29 0.23 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.23 0.22 P > F 0.21 0.91 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.22 0.21 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.21 0.30 No Insecticide + AMF 0.36 0.24 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.24 0.14 P > F 0.26 0.09 Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.22 0.19 No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.30 0.25 P > F 0.12 0.30 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.29 0.23 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.23 0.22 P > F 0.21 0.91 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.22 0.21 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.21 0.30 No Insecticide + AMF 0.36 0.24 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.24 0.14 P > F 0.26 0.09 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant for insecticide or variety (P ≤ 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). aTotal across weekly samples of weeks 1 through 5. bTotal across weekly samples of weeks 3 through 5. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.22 0.19 No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.30 0.25 P > F 0.12 0.30 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.29 0.23 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.23 0.22 P > F 0.21 0.91 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.22 0.21 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.21 0.30 No Insecticide + AMF 0.36 0.24 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.24 0.14 P > F 0.26 0.09 Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.22 0.19 No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.30 0.25 P > F 0.12 0.30 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.29 0.23 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.23 0.22 P > F 0.21 0.91 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.22 0.21 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.21 0.30 No Insecticide + AMF 0.36 0.24 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.24 0.14 P > F 0.26 0.09 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant for insecticide or variety (P ≤ 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). aTotal across weekly samples of weeks 1 through 5. bTotal across weekly samples of weeks 3 through 5. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.32a 0.13a No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.71b 0.38b P > F <0.01 <0.01 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.58b 0.26 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.45a 0.24 P > F 0.04 0.81 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.35 0.13 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.30 0.13 No Insecticide + AMF 0.81 0.39 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.60 0.36 P > F 0.19 0.81 Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.32a 0.13a No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.71b 0.38b P > F <0.01 <0.01 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.58b 0.26 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.45a 0.24 P > F 0.04 0.81 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.35 0.13 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.30 0.13 No Insecticide + AMF 0.81 0.39 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.60 0.36 P > F 0.19 0.81 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant for insecticide or variety (P ≤ 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). aTotal across weekly samples of weeks 1 through 5. bTotal across weekly samples of weeks 3 through 5. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.32a 0.13a No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.71b 0.38b P > F <0.01 <0.01 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.58b 0.26 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.45a 0.24 P > F 0.04 0.81 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.35 0.13 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.30 0.13 No Insecticide + AMF 0.81 0.39 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.60 0.36 P > F 0.19 0.81 Treatment Whiteheads/m2a Stem borer larvae/m2b Insecticide seed treatment Nipsit INSIDE 0.32a 0.13a No Insecticide (Untreated Check) 0.71b 0.38b P > F <0.01 <0.01 Mycorrhiza inoculation Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) 0.58b 0.26 No Inoculation (Untreated Check) 0.45a 0.24 P > F 0.04 0.81 Insecticide seed treatment x mycorrhiza inoculation Nipsit INSIDE + AMF 0.35 0.13 Nipsit INSIDE + No Inoculation 0.30 0.13 No Insecticide + AMF 0.81 0.39 No Insecticide + No Inoculation 0.60 0.36 P > F 0.19 0.81 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant for insecticide or variety (P ≤ 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). aTotal across weekly samples of weeks 1 through 5. bTotal across weekly samples of weeks 3 through 5. Open in new tab This research was supported by a grant from the Louisiana Rice Research Board. Treated seed was generously provided by Valent. © 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]

Huseth, Anders, S;D’Ambrosio, Damon, A;Lafferty, Amanda, J

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz019

bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, clothianidin Potato (sweet) | Ipomoea batatas Tobacco wireworm | Conoderus vespertinus Fabricius, Corn wireworm | Melanotus communis Gyllenhal, Southern corn rootworm | Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber, Flea beetle | Systena spp The overall goal of this study was to evaluate soil-applied insecticides against common soil-borne insects that damage sweet potato. The specific objectives were to document damage differences among insecticides applied at different times (preplant incorporated, soil barrier at lay-by, or their combination). We evaluated wireworm root damage and damage severity among insecticide treatments. This experiment was performed at North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Cunningham Research Farm near Kinston, NC in 2018 (GPS Coordinates: 39.298308, −77.572707). To increase wireworm pressure, the experiment was planted in a wireworm nursery where corn was grown in the previous season. On 14 Jun, sweet potato slips, cv. Covington, were planted at a density of 1 slip per ft using a tractor-mounted transplanter. Plots consisted of four rows each 30-ft long and rows were spaced 42 inches apart. A 5-ft section of bare ground separated experimental blocks. Insecticides were applied either preplant incorporated (PPI) or as a lay-by soil barrier treatment [post directed (PD)] prior to vine running. The experimental design included insecticide treatments and an untreated check arranged in a randomized complete block design replicated four times. On 11 Jun, PPI soil insecticides were applied directly to preformed hills using a CO2-pressurized sprayer that delivered a spray volume of 10.1 gal per acre at 30 psi directed through two flat-fan nozzles (XR8002VS TeeJet) positioned to broadcast insecticide across the center and sides of two hills. Insecticides were immediately incorporated after application using a hilling implement that included a sweep shank tillage tool to mix treated soil prior to final hill shaping. PD lay-by treatments were applied and incorporated with a rolling cultivator 2 Jul when the crop began to vine. All best management practices were used for sweet potato fertility and weed management. Plots were not fumigated prior to planting; however, nematode and disease pressure was very low across the experiment. Plants were mechanically dug with a two-row harvester on 5 Oct. All roots were hand harvested from ten linear feet (two row digger = 20 total feet of row sampled). Roots were weighed (kg) by grade: Jumbos, US-1, US-2, and culls (data not presented). After weighing, a random subset of 50 US-1 roots were separated, washed, and evaluated for soil-borne insect damage (WDS: Wireworm spp./Diabrotica/Systena Flea Beetle). The number of damage sites per root was counted and analyzed to determine 1) the probability of root damage and 2) the number of WDS feeding sites per damaged root. Data were analyzed using logistic regression with PROC GLIMMIX in the SAS System, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Because some treatments included both a PPI and PD treatment, we compared these treatment combinations as separate main effects of treatment timing during the growing season. Individual sweet potatoes were modeled as a binary outcome (damaged or undamaged) of PPI, PD, and the PPI x PD interaction (Table 1). Experimental block was included as a random effect and means separations were conducted post hoc using Tukey’s HSD. Table 1. Treatment Insecticide formulation Active ingredient Application rate per acre Application date (2018) Percent damaged rootsa Mean number or WDS holes per damaged root 1 Untreated check – – – 51.2a 2.48a 2 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) + chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 34.7ab 2.36a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 3 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 33.0b 2.57a 4 Belay (PPI) + clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.5b 1.89a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 5 Belay (PPI) clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.0b 2.51a 6 Capture LFR (PPI) bifenthrin 9.6 fl oz 11 Jun 26.9b 2.09a Treatment Insecticide formulation Active ingredient Application rate per acre Application date (2018) Percent damaged rootsa Mean number or WDS holes per damaged root 1 Untreated check – – – 51.2a 2.48a 2 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) + chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 34.7ab 2.36a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 3 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 33.0b 2.57a 4 Belay (PPI) + clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.5b 1.89a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 5 Belay (PPI) clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.0b 2.51a 6 Capture LFR (PPI) bifenthrin 9.6 fl oz 11 Jun 26.9b 2.09a aMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment Insecticide formulation Active ingredient Application rate per acre Application date (2018) Percent damaged rootsa Mean number or WDS holes per damaged root 1 Untreated check – – – 51.2a 2.48a 2 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) + chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 34.7ab 2.36a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 3 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 33.0b 2.57a 4 Belay (PPI) + clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.5b 1.89a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 5 Belay (PPI) clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.0b 2.51a 6 Capture LFR (PPI) bifenthrin 9.6 fl oz 11 Jun 26.9b 2.09a Treatment Insecticide formulation Active ingredient Application rate per acre Application date (2018) Percent damaged rootsa Mean number or WDS holes per damaged root 1 Untreated check – – – 51.2a 2.48a 2 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) + chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 34.7ab 2.36a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 3 Lorsban Advanced (PPI) chlorpyrifos 64.0 fl oz 11 Jun 33.0b 2.57a 4 Belay (PPI) + clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.5b 1.89a Capture LFR (PD) bifenthrin 25.5 fl oz 2 Jul 5 Belay (PPI) clothianidin 12.0 fl oz 11 Jun 22.0b 2.51a 6 Capture LFR (PPI) bifenthrin 9.6 fl oz 11 Jun 26.9b 2.09a aMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. Open in new tab The percent of damaged sweet potatoes in Table 1 is based on the outcome of the effects of the PPI treatments only (F3,18 = 14.92, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the percent of damaged sweet potatoes based on the PD treatment (F1,18 = 0.27, P = 0.61) and there were no significant differences in the PPI x PD interaction (F1,18 = 0.05, P = 0.82). This result suggests that the probability of detectable root damage in this study is associated with use of a PPI. The average number of WDS sites present on each damaged root was then analyzed with a model containing main effects of PPI and PD, along with the PPI x PD interaction (Table 1). Experimental block was included as a random effect. Means separations were conducted post hoc using Tukey’s HSD. Only damaged sweet potatoes (WDS holes ≥ 1) were included in the analysis. There was no significant treatment effect of PPI (F3,363 = 1.13, P = 0.34), PD (F1,363 = 2.46, P = 0.12), or the PPI x PD interaction (F1,363 = 0.64, P = 0.43). This result shows that the average number of feeding sites was not statistically different when a sweet potato root was damaged. This research was supported in part by funding from industry. © 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]

Villegas, James, M;Wilson, Blake, E;Stout, Michael, J

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz014

Rice | Oryza sativa, glaberrima Rice stink bug | Oebalus pugnax (F) alpha-cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin The rice stink bug is an important late-season pest of rice in southern United States. This pest injures rice by feeding on developing grains at the flowering, grain filling, milk, and dough stages of grain development. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of two foliar applied insecticides against rice stink bugs at the LSU AgCenter H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station in Crowley, Louisiana. Seeds of long-grain Clearfield rice variety ‘CL153’ were drill-seeded in small field plots (4.1 by 38 ft, 7 rows at 7-inch spacing) at a seeding rate of 60 lbs/acre on 23 Mar 2018. Field plots were surface irrigated as necessary for stand establishment and nitrogen was applied in the form of urea at 120 lbs N/acre on 16 May 2018. Permanent flood was established the following day (17 May 2018). Prior to insecticide application, presence of rice stink bugs was assessed in each plot using insect sweep nets (15-inch diameter). Foliar applications of two rates of Fastac (AI: alpha-cypermethrin), two rates of Mustang Maxx (AI: zeta-cypermethrin), and an untreated check were made on 13 Jul 2018. The insecticide treatments and the untreated check were assigned to plots following a randomized complete block design with 4 blocks and 1 replicate per block. Insecticide treatments were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 gpa at 30 psi. The sprayer is equipped with two Teejet TP11001 nozzles at 19-inch spacing. Densities of rice stink bugs were assessed by recording the total number of nymphs and adults per 10 sweeps of 15-inch diameter sweep net in each plot at 3, 7, and 10 days after treatment (DAT). Stink bug data were analyzed separately for each sampling date using generalized linear mixed model (SAS, PROC GLIMMIX) with insecticide treatment as a fixed effect and block as a random effect. Means were separated using LSD (α = 0.10). At 3 DAT, plots treated with Fastac at 3.2 oz per acre and Mustang Maxx at 4 oz per acre had significantly fewer stink bugs compared with untreated check (Table 1). There were no significant differences among treatments observed for rice stink bug densities at 7 or 10 DAT. During the experiment, pest densities never reached the threshold of 3 rice stink bugs per 10 sweeps in any of the plots. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (fl oz) Mean RSB/10 sweeps 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT Fastac 0.83EC 3.2 0.0b 0.3 2.0 Fastac 0.83EC 3.8 0.5ab 1.5 1.0 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 3.2 0.5ab 0.3 1.3 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 0.0b 0.8 1.3 Untreated Check – 1.5a 0.8 1.0 P > F 0.09 0.15 0.79 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (fl oz) Mean RSB/10 sweeps 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT Fastac 0.83EC 3.2 0.0b 0.3 2.0 Fastac 0.83EC 3.8 0.5ab 1.5 1.0 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 3.2 0.5ab 0.3 1.3 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 0.0b 0.8 1.3 Untreated Check – 1.5a 0.8 1.0 P > F 0.09 0.15 0.79 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.10, LSD). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (fl oz) Mean RSB/10 sweeps 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT Fastac 0.83EC 3.2 0.0b 0.3 2.0 Fastac 0.83EC 3.8 0.5ab 1.5 1.0 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 3.2 0.5ab 0.3 1.3 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 0.0b 0.8 1.3 Untreated Check – 1.5a 0.8 1.0 P > F 0.09 0.15 0.79 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (fl oz) Mean RSB/10 sweeps 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT Fastac 0.83EC 3.2 0.0b 0.3 2.0 Fastac 0.83EC 3.8 0.5ab 1.5 1.0 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 3.2 0.5ab 0.3 1.3 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 0.0b 0.8 1.3 Untreated Check – 1.5a 0.8 1.0 P > F 0.09 0.15 0.79 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.10, LSD). Open in new tab This research was partially supported by industry and rice research checkoff funds. © 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]