Arthropod Management Tests

Ebbenga, Dominique, N;Burkness, Eric, C;Tran, Anh, K;Hutchison, William, D

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz033

spinetoram, lambda-cyhalothrin, Beta-Pinene polymer, 0,0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate of diethyl mercaptosuccinate Cabbage (red, white, savoy) | Brassica oleracea var. capitata Imported cabbageworm (ICW) | Pieris rapae (L.) The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of insecticide treatments for use in cabbage. ‘Capture’ was planted 29 Jun at the University of Minnesota Research and Outreach Center in Rosemount, MN. Treatments were arranged in an RCB design with four replications. Plots were three rows wide, 25 ft (7.6 m) long with 40 inch (1.02 m) row spacing. Each replicate was separated by a 5-ft (1.52 m) alley. Treatment applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer with a 10-ft boom with 6 nozzles on 20-inch centers (XR-Teejet 8002 flat fan, with no screen). The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 20 gpa (187.04 l/ha) at 35 psi (242 kPa). The nonionic surfactant Transfix (Winfield Solutions, St. Paul, MN) was added to all treatments at a rate of 4 fl oz/acre. Treatments were applied on 26 Jul and 2, 9, and 16 Aug. Treatments were evaluated for CL, ICW, and DBM larval infestations on 3 and 18 Aug. All larval counts were taken from the middle row of each plot. Plots were harvested 18 Aug by selecting 10 consecutive heads, with 4 wrapper leaves on each head, from the middle row, and evaluating each head for feeding damage using Greene’s rating scale (J. Econ. Entomol. 1969 62: 798–800), where 1 = no feeding damage; 2 = minor feeding damage on the wrapper leaves (0–1% eaten) with no head damage; 3 = moderate feeding damage on the wrapper leaves (2–5% eaten) with no head damage; 4 = moderate feeding damage on the wrapper leaves (6–10% eaten) and minor feeding scars on the head; 5 = moderate to heavy feeding on the wrapper leaves (11–30% eaten) and moderate feeding scars on the head; 6 = greater than 30% of the wrapper leaves eaten and numerous feeding scars on the head. The number of larval contaminants, within the 4 wrapper leaves and head, was also noted. Count data for CL, ICW, and DBM were transformed using the square root transformation to obtain mean separations. All data were subjected to ANOVA; means were compared using Turkey’s HSD test (P = 0.05). Means from nontransformed data are presented in the tables. Preliminary larval counts recorded on 25 Jul revealed an average of 9.9 CL, 0.3 ICW, and 1.0 DBM per 10 heads. On 3 Aug, one day following the second application, treatment counts indicated that only the Radiant treatment resulted in a significant decrease in the CL densities compared with the untreated check (Table 1). There were no significant differences among treatments for total ICW or DBM compared with the untreated check. On 18 Aug, after a total of four applications, there were no significant differences in CL, DBM, or ICW counts compared with the untreated check (Table 2). Despite relatively low larval counts later in the season, the number of head contaminants for Radiant and Warrior II was significantly reduced compared with the untreated check. The marketability rating data indicated that when compared with the untreated check, Radiant provided a significantly better marketability rating. No phytotoxicity was observed. Table 1. 8 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment / formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBM1 Total ICWa Radiant 1 SC 5.00 fl oz 0.25 b 0.00 0.00 Malathion 5 32.00 fl oz 3.50 ab 0.50 0.25 Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 ab 0.50 0.00 Untreated check – 6.75 a 0.50 2.25 NS NS 8 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment / formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBM1 Total ICWa Radiant 1 SC 5.00 fl oz 0.25 b 0.00 0.00 Malathion 5 32.00 fl oz 3.50 ab 0.50 0.25 Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 ab 0.50 0.00 Untreated check – 6.75 a 0.50 2.25 NS NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05); Tukey HSD mean separation test. NS = not significant ANOVA. aTotal includes all larval instars and pupae. Open in new tab Table 1. 8 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment / formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBM1 Total ICWa Radiant 1 SC 5.00 fl oz 0.25 b 0.00 0.00 Malathion 5 32.00 fl oz 3.50 ab 0.50 0.25 Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 ab 0.50 0.00 Untreated check – 6.75 a 0.50 2.25 NS NS 8 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment / formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBM1 Total ICWa Radiant 1 SC 5.00 fl oz 0.25 b 0.00 0.00 Malathion 5 32.00 fl oz 3.50 ab 0.50 0.25 Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 ab 0.50 0.00 Untreated check – 6.75 a 0.50 2.25 NS NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05); Tukey HSD mean separation test. NS = not significant ANOVA. aTotal includes all larval instars and pupae. Open in new tab Table 2. 18 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment/formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBMa Total ICWa Mean number larval contaminants per 10 headsb Marketability ratingc Radiant 1 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 1.15 b Malathion 5 32.0 fl oz 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 ab 1.23 ab Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 b 1.20 ab Untreated check – 0.50 1.25 0.00 2.00 a 2.05 a NS NS NS 18 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment/formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBMa Total ICWa Mean number larval contaminants per 10 headsb Marketability ratingc Radiant 1 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 1.15 b Malathion 5 32.0 fl oz 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 ab 1.23 ab Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 b 1.20 ab Untreated check – 0.50 1.25 0.00 2.00 a 2.05 a NS NS NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05); Tukey HSD mean separation test. aTotal includes all larval instars and pupae. bLarval contaminants include all larval instars and pupae of all three species (CL, DBM, and ICW) found within the head and four wrapper leaves. cGreene’s rating system; refer to text. Open in new tab Table 2. 18 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment/formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBMa Total ICWa Mean number larval contaminants per 10 headsb Marketability ratingc Radiant 1 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 1.15 b Malathion 5 32.0 fl oz 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 ab 1.23 ab Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 b 1.20 ab Untreated check – 0.50 1.25 0.00 2.00 a 2.05 a NS NS NS 18 Aug Mean number per 10 heads Treatment/formulation Rate per acre Total CLa Total DBMa Total ICWa Mean number larval contaminants per 10 headsb Marketability ratingc Radiant 1 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 1.15 b Malathion 5 32.0 fl oz 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.25 ab 1.23 ab Warrior II 2.08 CS 1.92 fl oz 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 b 1.20 ab Untreated check – 0.50 1.25 0.00 2.00 a 2.05 a NS NS NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05); Tukey HSD mean separation test. aTotal includes all larval instars and pupae. bLarval contaminants include all larval instars and pupae of all three species (CL, DBM, and ICW) found within the head and four wrapper leaves. cGreene’s rating system; refer to text. Open in new tab This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide from Winfield United, Corteva Agriscience, and Syngenta Crop Protection. © 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]

Taillon,, Nicki;Lorenz,, Gus;Plummer,, Andrew;Cato,, Aaron;Black,, Joe;Thrash,, Ben

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz074

Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp Tarnished plant bug (TPB) | Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) Tarnished plant bug is the number one pest of cotton in the Mid-South and many growers rely efficacy data to make treatment decisions in order to effectively manage this pest. The objective of this study was to evaluate the selected insecticides for control of tarnished plant bug in cotton. Cotton was planted on 27 May at Lon Mann Cotton Research Station in Marianna, AR. Plot size was 4 rows by 50 feet long planted on 38 inch rows, arranged in a RCB design with four replications. Insecticides were applied with a Mud-Master sprayer equipped with a multi-boom delivering 10 gpa at 40 psi through txvs-6 cone jet nozzles with 19.5-inch spacing. All treatments received insecticide applications on 15 Jul and 18 Jul. Plant bug densities were determined by sampling 10 row-ft per plot with a black drop cloth. Percent square retention was measured by recording the presence or absence of the first positions square on the third node from the top of 25 randomly selected plants within a plot. Boll damage was recorded by splitting 10 random nickel sized bolls/plot and checking for discolored lint. Samples were taken on 18 Jul, 21 Jul, 26 Jul, 29 Jul, and 1 Aug: 3 days after the first treatment (3 DAT1), and 3, 8, 11, and 14 days after the second treatment (3 DAT2, 8 DAT2, 11 DAT2, 14 DAT2), respectively. A two-row John Deere cotton picker was used to harvest plots. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and means were separated using a Duncan’s New MRT (P < 0.10). At 3 DAT1 all treatments except Admire Pro 3 oz/acre reduced TPB densities compared with the untreated check (Table 1). At 3, 8, and 11 DAT2, all products reduced TPB densities compared with the untreated check. At 3 DAT2, Transform and Orthene delivered the greatest control of TPB. Transform had the greatest control of TPB at 8 DAT2, although it was no different from Orthene or Admire Pro 2.5 oz/acre. At 11 DAT2, both Orthene and Transform had lower TPB densities than all other treatments. At 14 DAT2, all products except Admire Pro 1.7 oz/acre had TPB densities lower than the untreated check with Transform providing the greatest control. All products had lower season total TPB densities than the untreated check with Orthene and Transform providing the greatest control. Table 1. Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Tarnished plant bugs/10 row ft Season Total Plant Bugs 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 71.25a 69.15a 29.29a 39.9a 32.4a 245.61a Carbine 50 WG 1.7 49.75bcd 33.06b 18.43b 14.81b 14.26bc 131.14b Carbine 50 WG 2.85 53bc 25.08b 12.62bc 8.19bc 10.93c 111.53bc Carbine 50 WG 4.2 42.75bcd 24.39b 6.98de 7.78bc 13.67bc 96.38c Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 45.5bcd 24.67b 10.68cd 12.8bc 21.51ab 114.89bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 50.5bcd 22.32b 15.82bc 13.32bc 10.93c 113.4bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 51.25bcd 26.43b 5.72ef 10.42bc 8.64cd 104.21bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 56.5ab 24.6b 12.93bc 7.09c 9.05cd 111.03bc Orthene 97 16 36.75cd 10.71c 4.77ef 3.68d 6.38d 63.86d Transform 50 WG 2 33d 7.57c 2.53f 3.16d 3.4e 49.5d P 0.0266 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Tarnished plant bugs/10 row ft Season Total Plant Bugs 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 71.25a 69.15a 29.29a 39.9a 32.4a 245.61a Carbine 50 WG 1.7 49.75bcd 33.06b 18.43b 14.81b 14.26bc 131.14b Carbine 50 WG 2.85 53bc 25.08b 12.62bc 8.19bc 10.93c 111.53bc Carbine 50 WG 4.2 42.75bcd 24.39b 6.98de 7.78bc 13.67bc 96.38c Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 45.5bcd 24.67b 10.68cd 12.8bc 21.51ab 114.89bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 50.5bcd 22.32b 15.82bc 13.32bc 10.93c 113.4bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 51.25bcd 26.43b 5.72ef 10.42bc 8.64cd 104.21bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 56.5ab 24.6b 12.93bc 7.09c 9.05cd 111.03bc Orthene 97 16 36.75cd 10.71c 4.77ef 3.68d 6.38d 63.86d Transform 50 WG 2 33d 7.57c 2.53f 3.16d 3.4e 49.5d P 0.0266 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT (P < 0.10). Open in new tab Table 1. Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Tarnished plant bugs/10 row ft Season Total Plant Bugs 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 71.25a 69.15a 29.29a 39.9a 32.4a 245.61a Carbine 50 WG 1.7 49.75bcd 33.06b 18.43b 14.81b 14.26bc 131.14b Carbine 50 WG 2.85 53bc 25.08b 12.62bc 8.19bc 10.93c 111.53bc Carbine 50 WG 4.2 42.75bcd 24.39b 6.98de 7.78bc 13.67bc 96.38c Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 45.5bcd 24.67b 10.68cd 12.8bc 21.51ab 114.89bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 50.5bcd 22.32b 15.82bc 13.32bc 10.93c 113.4bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 51.25bcd 26.43b 5.72ef 10.42bc 8.64cd 104.21bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 56.5ab 24.6b 12.93bc 7.09c 9.05cd 111.03bc Orthene 97 16 36.75cd 10.71c 4.77ef 3.68d 6.38d 63.86d Transform 50 WG 2 33d 7.57c 2.53f 3.16d 3.4e 49.5d P 0.0266 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Tarnished plant bugs/10 row ft Season Total Plant Bugs 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 71.25a 69.15a 29.29a 39.9a 32.4a 245.61a Carbine 50 WG 1.7 49.75bcd 33.06b 18.43b 14.81b 14.26bc 131.14b Carbine 50 WG 2.85 53bc 25.08b 12.62bc 8.19bc 10.93c 111.53bc Carbine 50 WG 4.2 42.75bcd 24.39b 6.98de 7.78bc 13.67bc 96.38c Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 45.5bcd 24.67b 10.68cd 12.8bc 21.51ab 114.89bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 50.5bcd 22.32b 15.82bc 13.32bc 10.93c 113.4bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 51.25bcd 26.43b 5.72ef 10.42bc 8.64cd 104.21bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 56.5ab 24.6b 12.93bc 7.09c 9.05cd 111.03bc Orthene 97 16 36.75cd 10.71c 4.77ef 3.68d 6.38d 63.86d Transform 50 WG 2 33d 7.57c 2.53f 3.16d 3.4e 49.5d P 0.0266 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT (P < 0.10). Open in new tab There were no differences between treatments and the untreated check in square retention 3 DAT1 (Table 2). At 3 DAT2, all treatments had greater square retention than the untreated check. Only Carbine 4.2 oz/acre, Admire Pro 1.7 oz/acre, Orthene, and Transform had greater square retention than the untreated check at 8 DAT2. At 11 DAT2, all treatments had lesser boll damage than the untreated check. At 14 DAT2, Orthene and Transform were the only treatments that had lesser boll damage than the untreated check. Orthene- and Transform-treated plots resulted in the greatest yields numerically but were only significantly better than Admire Pro 1.7 oz/acre and the untreated check. Table 2. Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre % Square Retention % Boll Damage Yield (lbs seed cotton/acre) 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 74.7a 77d 83.21d 57.5a 27.5abc 3434.705c Carbine 50 WG 1.7 80.32a 86abc 88.69a-d 32.5b 35a 3847.383abc Carbine 50 WG 2.85 77.16a 84bc 87.05bcd 20b 25abc 3920.463ab Carbine 50 WG 4.2 81.81a 87.5abc 93.12a 15b 20b-e 4032.23a Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 81.29a 83c 90.09abc 27.5b 30ab 3520.678bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 81.03a 86abc 85.15cd 27.5b 22.5bcd 3963.45ab Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 83.49a 87abc 88.39a-d 30b 17.5cde 3855.98abc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 77.81a 91a 85.48cd 22.5b 20b-e 3864.578abc Orthene 97 16 84.44a 90ab 92.25ab 20b 12.75de 4191.285a Transform 50 WG 2 88.15a 91a 92.61ab 20b 10e 4221.375a P Value 0.2946 0.0066 0.0566 0.0195 0.0134 0.0517 Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre % Square Retention % Boll Damage Yield (lbs seed cotton/acre) 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 74.7a 77d 83.21d 57.5a 27.5abc 3434.705c Carbine 50 WG 1.7 80.32a 86abc 88.69a-d 32.5b 35a 3847.383abc Carbine 50 WG 2.85 77.16a 84bc 87.05bcd 20b 25abc 3920.463ab Carbine 50 WG 4.2 81.81a 87.5abc 93.12a 15b 20b-e 4032.23a Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 81.29a 83c 90.09abc 27.5b 30ab 3520.678bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 81.03a 86abc 85.15cd 27.5b 22.5bcd 3963.45ab Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 83.49a 87abc 88.39a-d 30b 17.5cde 3855.98abc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 77.81a 91a 85.48cd 22.5b 20b-e 3864.578abc Orthene 97 16 84.44a 90ab 92.25ab 20b 12.75de 4191.285a Transform 50 WG 2 88.15a 91a 92.61ab 20b 10e 4221.375a P Value 0.2946 0.0066 0.0566 0.0195 0.0134 0.0517 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT (P < 0.10). Open in new tab Table 2. Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre % Square Retention % Boll Damage Yield (lbs seed cotton/acre) 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 74.7a 77d 83.21d 57.5a 27.5abc 3434.705c Carbine 50 WG 1.7 80.32a 86abc 88.69a-d 32.5b 35a 3847.383abc Carbine 50 WG 2.85 77.16a 84bc 87.05bcd 20b 25abc 3920.463ab Carbine 50 WG 4.2 81.81a 87.5abc 93.12a 15b 20b-e 4032.23a Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 81.29a 83c 90.09abc 27.5b 30ab 3520.678bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 81.03a 86abc 85.15cd 27.5b 22.5bcd 3963.45ab Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 83.49a 87abc 88.39a-d 30b 17.5cde 3855.98abc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 77.81a 91a 85.48cd 22.5b 20b-e 3864.578abc Orthene 97 16 84.44a 90ab 92.25ab 20b 12.75de 4191.285a Transform 50 WG 2 88.15a 91a 92.61ab 20b 10e 4221.375a P Value 0.2946 0.0066 0.0566 0.0195 0.0134 0.0517 Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre % Square Retention % Boll Damage Yield (lbs seed cotton/acre) 18 Jul 3 DAT1 21 Jul 3 DAT2 26 Jul 8 DAT2 29 Jul 11 DAT2 1 Aug 14 DAT2 Untreated Check 74.7a 77d 83.21d 57.5a 27.5abc 3434.705c Carbine 50 WG 1.7 80.32a 86abc 88.69a-d 32.5b 35a 3847.383abc Carbine 50 WG 2.85 77.16a 84bc 87.05bcd 20b 25abc 3920.463ab Carbine 50 WG 4.2 81.81a 87.5abc 93.12a 15b 20b-e 4032.23a Admire Pro 4.6 SC 1.7 81.29a 83c 90.09abc 27.5b 30ab 3520.678bc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2 81.03a 86abc 85.15cd 27.5b 22.5bcd 3963.45ab Admire Pro 4.6 SC 2.5 83.49a 87abc 88.39a-d 30b 17.5cde 3855.98abc Admire Pro 4.6 SC 3 77.81a 91a 85.48cd 22.5b 20b-e 3864.578abc Orthene 97 16 84.44a 90ab 92.25ab 20b 12.75de 4191.285a Transform 50 WG 2 88.15a 91a 92.61ab 20b 10e 4221.375a P Value 0.2946 0.0066 0.0566 0.0195 0.0134 0.0517 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to DMRT (P < 0.10). 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]

Studebaker,, Glenn;Spinks,, Courtney

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz091

Sorghum (broom, durra, Guinea corn, jowar) | Sorghum bicolor Sugarcane aphid (SCA) | Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, flupyradifurone, clothianidin The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of insecticide seed treatments on sugarcane aphid (SCA) on grain sorghum in Arkansas. Grain sorghum hybrid ‘83P17’ was direct seeded on 1 May 2017 at the Northeast Research and Extension Center in Keiser, AR into rows on 38-inch centers. Stand establishment was achieved using natural rainfall and irrigated via furrow irrigation thereafter. Plots were four rows 12.7 ft wide by 20 ft long. Four replications of each treatment were arranged in an RCB design. Insecticide seed treatments, in-furrow insecticides, and rates are listed in Table 1. Insecticide in-furrow treatments were applied as directed sprays with a planter mounted sprayer with one flat-fan nozzle per row delivering a direct application at 20 psi and 5 gpa into the seed furrow on 1 May 2017. Numbers of SCA were counted on 10 plants per plot in each replicate and data were recorded on corresponding dates in Table 1. Data were analyzed using ANOVA as part of the Agricultural Research Management statistical package (ARM 2017.4, Gylling Data Management). Differences among means on each sampling date and in each treatment were determined using the Least Significant Difference Test (P ≤ 0.05). Table 1. Treatment . Rate . SCA/10 plants . . . . . . . . . 11 Jul . 18 Jul . 27 Jul . 1 Aug . 11 Aug . 21 Aug . Yielda . Untreated check 167.6 a 77.3 a 1.1 a 0.0 a 259.5 a 27.9 a 72.7 a Cruiser 5 FS 7.6b 6.9 b 0.0 b 2.0 a 5.8 a 9.9 bc 87.0 a 79.0 a Poncho 5 FS 6.4b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 a 7.5 a 16.7 ab 97.4 a 79.8 a Gaucho 5 FS 6.4b 6.1 b 1.3 b 0.8 a 0.0 a 9.2 bc 75.2 a 71.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 4c 2.7 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 50.9 a 82.7 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 5c 7.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 2.5 a 0.0 c 73.6 a 84.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 7c 1.6 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.8 bc 48.0 a 75.5 a Treatment . Rate . SCA/10 plants . . . . . . . . . 11 Jul . 18 Jul . 27 Jul . 1 Aug . 11 Aug . 21 Aug . Yielda . Untreated check 167.6 a 77.3 a 1.1 a 0.0 a 259.5 a 27.9 a 72.7 a Cruiser 5 FS 7.6b 6.9 b 0.0 b 2.0 a 5.8 a 9.9 bc 87.0 a 79.0 a Poncho 5 FS 6.4b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 a 7.5 a 16.7 ab 97.4 a 79.8 a Gaucho 5 FS 6.4b 6.1 b 1.3 b 0.8 a 0.0 a 9.2 bc 75.2 a 71.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 4c 2.7 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 50.9 a 82.7 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 5c 7.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 2.5 a 0.0 c 73.6 a 84.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 7c 1.6 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.8 bc 48.0 a 75.5 a Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, LSD. aYield reported as bu/acre. bcwt product/1,000 seeds. coz/acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate . SCA/10 plants . . . . . . . . . 11 Jul . 18 Jul . 27 Jul . 1 Aug . 11 Aug . 21 Aug . Yielda . Untreated check 167.6 a 77.3 a 1.1 a 0.0 a 259.5 a 27.9 a 72.7 a Cruiser 5 FS 7.6b 6.9 b 0.0 b 2.0 a 5.8 a 9.9 bc 87.0 a 79.0 a Poncho 5 FS 6.4b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 a 7.5 a 16.7 ab 97.4 a 79.8 a Gaucho 5 FS 6.4b 6.1 b 1.3 b 0.8 a 0.0 a 9.2 bc 75.2 a 71.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 4c 2.7 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 50.9 a 82.7 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 5c 7.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 2.5 a 0.0 c 73.6 a 84.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 7c 1.6 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.8 bc 48.0 a 75.5 a Treatment . Rate . SCA/10 plants . . . . . . . . . 11 Jul . 18 Jul . 27 Jul . 1 Aug . 11 Aug . 21 Aug . Yielda . Untreated check 167.6 a 77.3 a 1.1 a 0.0 a 259.5 a 27.9 a 72.7 a Cruiser 5 FS 7.6b 6.9 b 0.0 b 2.0 a 5.8 a 9.9 bc 87.0 a 79.0 a Poncho 5 FS 6.4b 0.0 c 0.0 b 0.0 a 7.5 a 16.7 ab 97.4 a 79.8 a Gaucho 5 FS 6.4b 6.1 b 1.3 b 0.8 a 0.0 a 9.2 bc 75.2 a 71.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 4c 2.7 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 0.0 c 50.9 a 82.7 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 5c 7.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 a 2.5 a 0.0 c 73.6 a 84.8 a Sivanto 1.67 EC 7c 1.6 bc 0.0 b 0.0 a 0.0 a 3.8 bc 48.0 a 75.5 a Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, LSD. aYield reported as bu/acre. bcwt product/1,000 seeds. coz/acre. Open in new tab The SCA population level in the nontreated check was high for the 11 Jul and 11 Aug ratings. All treatments had significantly fewer SCA than the nontreated on all sampling dates with the exception of 27 Jul, 1 Aug, and 21 Aug. No significant differences in the number of SCA were observed across treatments for those three dates (Table 1). No significant differences were observed in yield (Table 1). The plots experienced significant amounts of bird damage at the end of the season which may have masked any yield differences. This research was supported in part by industry gifts of pesticides 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]

Dorman,, Seth;Malone,, Sean;Taylor, Sally, V

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz044

Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp Tarnished plant bug (TPB) | Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) Insecticide use targeting TPB in Virginia cotton has increased since 2013. To better understand the efficacy of various insecticides available for TPB management in Virginia cotton systems, selected foliar broadcast-applied insecticides were evaluated in 2017 and 2018 at the Virginia Tech Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Suffolk, VA. Cotton variety PhytoGen 499 WRF was planted 16 May 2017, and mixed-variety cotton was planted 24 May 2018 both on 36-inch row spacing. Single foliar applications of Admire Pro, Belay, Bidrin, Brigade, Brigade + Orthene, Centric, Endigo, Orthene, Transform, and Warrior were applied both years. Single foliar applications of Brigade + Diamond and Diamond were included during 2018 only. Applications were applied on 18 Aug in 2017 and 8 Aug in 2018 with a CO2-pressurized Spider Spray Trac high-clearance sprayer. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 19.88 gpa at 38 psi through 8002TJ nozzles spaced 18 inches apart. An RCB design was used with four replicates; plots were eight (2017) or four rows (2018) wide by 35-ft long. Plant bug populations were assessed 7 and 13 days after treatment (DAT) on 25 and 31 Aug in 2017 (Table 1) and 6 and 13 DAT on 14 and 21 Aug in 2018 (Table 2) using one (2017) or two (2018) drop cloth samples per plot. Drop cloth estimates were sampled from 5 row-ft by vigorously shaking plants from two rows over the drop cloth. Lint yield was determined in November by harvesting two rows of each plot using a commercial 2-row cotton picker. Yields from 2018 were not analyzed due to having multiple varieties among treatments. Subsamples were ginned to determine lint versus seed and trash weight (43.9% lint, 56.1% seed and trash). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and LSD statistical procedures. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft Lint yield lbs/acrea 7 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7b 6.5b-d 2.0 15.5a 1.0 880c Belay 2.13SC 5.0b 9.8ab 1.3 10.5ab 0.0 874c Centric 40WG 2.5c 8.5a-c 1.3 9.8a-c 0.3 932bc Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92b 10.8a 2.3 12.8a 0.5 862c Brigade 2EC 6.4b 4.3d-f 1.3 5.3b-d 0.5 1,024bc Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0b 5.3c-e 1.0 5.5b-d 1.3 867c Brigade 2EC+ 6.4b + 0.8f 0.3 0.8d 0.3 1,259a Orthene 97PE 8.0c Orthene 97PE 8.0c 1.8ef 1.0 4.0cd 0.3 1,040a-c Bidrin 8EC 4.0b 3.3d-f 0.8 3.3d 0.0 1,039a-c Transform 50WG 2.25c 3.8d-f 0.8 2.3d 0.5 1,118ab Untreated check – 10.8a 1.5 10.5ab 0.3 932bc P > F <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.41 0.02 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft Lint yield lbs/acrea 7 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7b 6.5b-d 2.0 15.5a 1.0 880c Belay 2.13SC 5.0b 9.8ab 1.3 10.5ab 0.0 874c Centric 40WG 2.5c 8.5a-c 1.3 9.8a-c 0.3 932bc Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92b 10.8a 2.3 12.8a 0.5 862c Brigade 2EC 6.4b 4.3d-f 1.3 5.3b-d 0.5 1,024bc Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0b 5.3c-e 1.0 5.5b-d 1.3 867c Brigade 2EC+ 6.4b + 0.8f 0.3 0.8d 0.3 1,259a Orthene 97PE 8.0c Orthene 97PE 8.0c 1.8ef 1.0 4.0cd 0.3 1,040a-c Bidrin 8EC 4.0b 3.3d-f 0.8 3.3d 0.0 1,039a-c Transform 50WG 2.25c 3.8d-f 0.8 2.3d 0.5 1,118ab Untreated check – 10.8a 1.5 10.5ab 0.3 932bc P > F <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.41 0.02 Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (LSD, P = 0.05). aCotton was harvested on 27 Nov. Yields are based on representative gin samples with a mean of 43.9% lint. bfl oz/acre. coz wt/acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft Lint yield lbs/acrea 7 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7b 6.5b-d 2.0 15.5a 1.0 880c Belay 2.13SC 5.0b 9.8ab 1.3 10.5ab 0.0 874c Centric 40WG 2.5c 8.5a-c 1.3 9.8a-c 0.3 932bc Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92b 10.8a 2.3 12.8a 0.5 862c Brigade 2EC 6.4b 4.3d-f 1.3 5.3b-d 0.5 1,024bc Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0b 5.3c-e 1.0 5.5b-d 1.3 867c Brigade 2EC+ 6.4b + 0.8f 0.3 0.8d 0.3 1,259a Orthene 97PE 8.0c Orthene 97PE 8.0c 1.8ef 1.0 4.0cd 0.3 1,040a-c Bidrin 8EC 4.0b 3.3d-f 0.8 3.3d 0.0 1,039a-c Transform 50WG 2.25c 3.8d-f 0.8 2.3d 0.5 1,118ab Untreated check – 10.8a 1.5 10.5ab 0.3 932bc P > F <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.41 0.02 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft Lint yield lbs/acrea 7 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7b 6.5b-d 2.0 15.5a 1.0 880c Belay 2.13SC 5.0b 9.8ab 1.3 10.5ab 0.0 874c Centric 40WG 2.5c 8.5a-c 1.3 9.8a-c 0.3 932bc Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92b 10.8a 2.3 12.8a 0.5 862c Brigade 2EC 6.4b 4.3d-f 1.3 5.3b-d 0.5 1,024bc Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0b 5.3c-e 1.0 5.5b-d 1.3 867c Brigade 2EC+ 6.4b + 0.8f 0.3 0.8d 0.3 1,259a Orthene 97PE 8.0c Orthene 97PE 8.0c 1.8ef 1.0 4.0cd 0.3 1,040a-c Bidrin 8EC 4.0b 3.3d-f 0.8 3.3d 0.0 1,039a-c Transform 50WG 2.25c 3.8d-f 0.8 2.3d 0.5 1,118ab Untreated check – 10.8a 1.5 10.5ab 0.3 932bc P > F <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.41 0.02 Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (LSD, P = 0.05). aCotton was harvested on 27 Nov. Yields are based on representative gin samples with a mean of 43.9% lint. bfl oz/acre. coz wt/acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft 6 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7a 1.1bc 0.5 1.6 0.0 Belay 2.13SC 5.0a 1.4bc 0.6 1.6 0.4 Centric 40WG 2.5b 1.1bc 0.1 1.4 0.3 Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92a 2.4b 0.5 1.3 0.3 Brigade 2EC 6.4a 1.0bc 0.5 0.9 0.1 Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0a 1.9bc 0.4 1.8 0.1 Brigade 2EC + Orthene 97PE 6.4a + 8.0b 0.3c 0.1 0.1 0.0 Orthene 97PE 8.0b 0.4c 0.3 0.3 0.0 Bidrin 8EC 4.0a 0.5c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Transform 50WG 2.25b 0.6c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Brigade 2EC+ Diamond 0.83EC 6.4a + 9.0a 0.8bc 0.4 1.0 0.0 Diamond 0.83EC 12.0a 0.5c 0.1 0.4 0.1 Untreated check – 4.6a 0.1 2.1 0.1 P > F <0.01 0.60 0.22 0.26 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft 6 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7a 1.1bc 0.5 1.6 0.0 Belay 2.13SC 5.0a 1.4bc 0.6 1.6 0.4 Centric 40WG 2.5b 1.1bc 0.1 1.4 0.3 Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92a 2.4b 0.5 1.3 0.3 Brigade 2EC 6.4a 1.0bc 0.5 0.9 0.1 Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0a 1.9bc 0.4 1.8 0.1 Brigade 2EC + Orthene 97PE 6.4a + 8.0b 0.3c 0.1 0.1 0.0 Orthene 97PE 8.0b 0.4c 0.3 0.3 0.0 Bidrin 8EC 4.0a 0.5c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Transform 50WG 2.25b 0.6c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Brigade 2EC+ Diamond 0.83EC 6.4a + 9.0a 0.8bc 0.4 1.0 0.0 Diamond 0.83EC 12.0a 0.5c 0.1 0.4 0.1 Untreated check – 4.6a 0.1 2.1 0.1 P > F <0.01 0.60 0.22 0.26 Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (LSD, P = 0.05). Lint yields are not reported due to mixed seed among treatments. afl oz/acre. boz wt/acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft 6 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7a 1.1bc 0.5 1.6 0.0 Belay 2.13SC 5.0a 1.4bc 0.6 1.6 0.4 Centric 40WG 2.5b 1.1bc 0.1 1.4 0.3 Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92a 2.4b 0.5 1.3 0.3 Brigade 2EC 6.4a 1.0bc 0.5 0.9 0.1 Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0a 1.9bc 0.4 1.8 0.1 Brigade 2EC + Orthene 97PE 6.4a + 8.0b 0.3c 0.1 0.1 0.0 Orthene 97PE 8.0b 0.4c 0.3 0.3 0.0 Bidrin 8EC 4.0a 0.5c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Transform 50WG 2.25b 0.6c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Brigade 2EC+ Diamond 0.83EC 6.4a + 9.0a 0.8bc 0.4 1.0 0.0 Diamond 0.83EC 12.0a 0.5c 0.1 0.4 0.1 Untreated check – 4.6a 0.1 2.1 0.1 P > F <0.01 0.60 0.22 0.26 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre oz product Plant bugs per 5 row-ft 6 DAT 13 DAT Nymphs Adults Nymphs Adults Admire Pro 4.6F 1.7a 1.1bc 0.5 1.6 0.0 Belay 2.13SC 5.0a 1.4bc 0.6 1.6 0.4 Centric 40WG 2.5b 1.1bc 0.1 1.4 0.3 Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92a 2.4b 0.5 1.3 0.3 Brigade 2EC 6.4a 1.0bc 0.5 0.9 0.1 Endigo 2.06ZC 5.0a 1.9bc 0.4 1.8 0.1 Brigade 2EC + Orthene 97PE 6.4a + 8.0b 0.3c 0.1 0.1 0.0 Orthene 97PE 8.0b 0.4c 0.3 0.3 0.0 Bidrin 8EC 4.0a 0.5c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Transform 50WG 2.25b 0.6c 0.3 0.9 0.0 Brigade 2EC+ Diamond 0.83EC 6.4a + 9.0a 0.8bc 0.4 1.0 0.0 Diamond 0.83EC 12.0a 0.5c 0.1 0.4 0.1 Untreated check – 4.6a 0.1 2.1 0.1 P > F <0.01 0.60 0.22 0.26 Means within a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (LSD, P = 0.05). Lint yields are not reported due to mixed seed among treatments. afl oz/acre. boz wt/acre. Open in new tab During 2017, all of the insecticide treatments, except Belay, Centric, and Warrior, significantly reduced numbers of tarnished plant bug nymphs compared with the untreated check at 7 DAT (Table 1). Also, plots treated with Orthene or Brigade plus Orthene had significantly fewer plant bug nymphs compared with plots treated with Admire Pro, Belay, Centric, or Warrior. There were no significant differences among treatments for numbers of tarnished plant bug adults at 7 or 13 DAT. At 13 DAT only Brigade plus Orthene, Orthene, Bidrin, and Transform significantly reduced numbers of tarnished plant bug nymphs compared with the untreated check. Only Brigade plus Orthene resulted in significantly greater yields than the untreated check. During 2018, all of the insecticide treatments significantly reduced numbers of tarnished plant bug nymphs at 6 DAT (Table 2). Plots treated with Brigade plus Orthene, Orthene, Bidrin, Transform, or Diamond had significantly fewer plant bug nymphs compared with plots treated with Warrior. There were no significant differences among treatments for numbers of tarnished plant bug nymphs at 13 DAT or plant bug adults at 6 or 13 DAT. This research was supported in part by industry gifts of products and 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]

Mollet, Kayla, A;Hirzel, Grace, E;Oliveira-Hofman,, Camila;Peterson, Julie, A

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz002

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Western corn rootworm (WCRW) | Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte clothianidin, bifenthrin, tefluthrin, tebupirimfos, cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, chlorantraniliprole, thiamethoxam The western corn rootworm is an important pest of corn that can compromise yield by feeding on plant roots during its larval stage. WCRW management has been complicated by the development of resistance in some regions, including Nebraska, to transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) traits, particularly the protein Cry3Bb1, which confers cross-resistance to mCry3A. A field trial was established to evaluate the efficacy of neonicotinoid seed treatments in combination with in-furrow insecticides on a corn hybrid expressing Cry3Bb1 and Cry34/35Ab1 Bt proteins against corn rootworm in an area with a history of rootworm resistance to CryBb1. The trial was conducted in a farmer’s field in Keith County near Ogallala, NE (41.117228° N, −101.652686° W). Damage from WCRW to corn expressing Cry3Bb1 proteins was documented in the field during the previous seasons. An RCB design with four replications and 10 treatments (including an untreated check) was used. Each plot was six rows by 35 ft. The trial was planted on 6 May 2016 using a small plot research planter at 32,000 seeds/acre at an approximate depth of 1.4–1.75 inches in 30-inch rows. The hybrid planted was Munson 6642SS (Munson Hybrids, Galesburg, IL) with the SmartStax RIB Bt trait package, which expresses Cry3Bb1 and Cry34/35Ab1 along with other Bt toxins that target lepidopteran pests. All seeds, including the untreated checks (UTCs), were treated with Maxim Quattro fungicide at 0.064 mg AI/seed. The tested insecticides were applied in-furrow, with calculations based on an application volume of 5 gal/acre. The at-plant insecticide treatments were applied on 6 May 2016 at rates described in Table 1. Soil type at the experimental site was Lex loam with low water percolation capacity. The plots received irrigation, fertilization, and weed management inputs identical to the commercial field surrounding the plots following standard agronomic practices for the region. An aerial application of 2.6 fl oz/acre Mustang Maxx (zeta-cypermethrin) and 1 pt/acre dimethoate insecticide targeting western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta Smith) was made on 26 Jul 2016. On 25 Jul 2016, eight plants from the central two rows and interior 22 ft of each plot were randomly chosen and removed along with roots. The roots were washed and rated for damage using the Iowa State 0 to 3 Node Injury Scale, where a rating of 1 would indicate one node of root injury due to rootworm feeding. The data were analyzed using PROC MIXED with mean separation by least square means (P = 0.05) in SAS version 9.4. Table 1. Insecticidal seed treatment In-furrow insecticide treatment Mean node injury scale (0–3)a Product (AI) Rate (mg AI/seed) Product (AI) Rate (per acre) Untreated check – Untreated check – 0.49a Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 – – 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Capture LFR (Bifenthrin) 16 fl oz 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Force 3G (Tefluthrin) 5 lb 0.12b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Aztec 4.67G (Tebupirimphos + Cyfluthrin) 3 lb 0.04b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Ampex Insecticide (Clothianidin) 5.12 oz wt (0.16 lb AI) 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 19 fl oz 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 15 fl oz 0.08b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 9.6 fl oz 0.10b Lumivia (Chlorantraniliprole) + Cruiser (Thiamethoxam) 0.25 + 0.25 – – 0.23b Insecticidal seed treatment In-furrow insecticide treatment Mean node injury scale (0–3)a Product (AI) Rate (mg AI/seed) Product (AI) Rate (per acre) Untreated check – Untreated check – 0.49a Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 – – 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Capture LFR (Bifenthrin) 16 fl oz 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Force 3G (Tefluthrin) 5 lb 0.12b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Aztec 4.67G (Tebupirimphos + Cyfluthrin) 3 lb 0.04b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Ampex Insecticide (Clothianidin) 5.12 oz wt (0.16 lb AI) 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 19 fl oz 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 15 fl oz 0.08b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 9.6 fl oz 0.10b Lumivia (Chlorantraniliprole) + Cruiser (Thiamethoxam) 0.25 + 0.25 – – 0.23b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05). aThe node injury scale indicates the number of nodes of feeding injury to roots caused by WCRW, with one node of feeding indicated by a score of 1.0. Open in new tab Table 1. Insecticidal seed treatment In-furrow insecticide treatment Mean node injury scale (0–3)a Product (AI) Rate (mg AI/seed) Product (AI) Rate (per acre) Untreated check – Untreated check – 0.49a Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 – – 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Capture LFR (Bifenthrin) 16 fl oz 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Force 3G (Tefluthrin) 5 lb 0.12b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Aztec 4.67G (Tebupirimphos + Cyfluthrin) 3 lb 0.04b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Ampex Insecticide (Clothianidin) 5.12 oz wt (0.16 lb AI) 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 19 fl oz 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 15 fl oz 0.08b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 9.6 fl oz 0.10b Lumivia (Chlorantraniliprole) + Cruiser (Thiamethoxam) 0.25 + 0.25 – – 0.23b Insecticidal seed treatment In-furrow insecticide treatment Mean node injury scale (0–3)a Product (AI) Rate (mg AI/seed) Product (AI) Rate (per acre) Untreated check – Untreated check – 0.49a Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 – – 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Capture LFR (Bifenthrin) 16 fl oz 0.18b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Force 3G (Tefluthrin) 5 lb 0.12b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Aztec 4.67G (Tebupirimphos + Cyfluthrin) 3 lb 0.04b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Ampex Insecticide (Clothianidin) 5.12 oz wt (0.16 lb AI) 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 19 fl oz 0.11b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 15 fl oz 0.08b Poncho (Clothianidin) 0.5 Asana XL (Esfenvalerate) 9.6 fl oz 0.10b Lumivia (Chlorantraniliprole) + Cruiser (Thiamethoxam) 0.25 + 0.25 – – 0.23b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05). aThe node injury scale indicates the number of nodes of feeding injury to roots caused by WCRW, with one node of feeding indicated by a score of 1.0. Open in new tab Low-to-moderate WCRW damage was indicated by the UTC, where node-injury ratings ranged from 0.00 to 3.00 with a mean of 0.49. All seed treatments, with or without in-furrow insecticide treatment, provided statistically significant root protection when compared with the UTC but did not differ from each other (Table 1). These data show that when an effective Bt protein (Cry34/35Ab1) is expressed in the corn plant, seed treatments alone (Poncho 600 0.50 mg AI/seed or Lumivia + Cruiser 5FS 0.25 + 0.25 mg AI/seed) provide satisfactory root protection against Cry3Bb1-resistant WCRW. The application of in-furrow insecticides provided no additional benefit to seed treatments, and therefore, their use should be limited (when an effective Bt protein is present) in the absence of other soil insect pests. This research was supported by an industry gift of products, seed, 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]

Gott, Ryan, C;Coffey, Peter, L;Bechtel,, Michael

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz004

Kale/Collard greens | Brassica oleracea var. acephala Imported cabbageworm (ICW) | Pieris rapae L The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of behavior-based deterrence methods for control of imported cabbageworm (ICW, Pieris rapae) in collards. This common but untested management suggestion for this pest is based in a claim that ICW is territorial and will avoid any area in which another ICW or a white item that resembles an ICW currently resides. Collards (var. ‘Tiger’) were planted at Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens in Pittsburgh, PA, on 13 Jul 2017, and at the Carroll County Agriculture Center’s Demonstration Garden in Westminster, MD on 31 Aug 2017. At each site, plants were transplanted into six rows spaced 32 inches from center. Each row contained nine plants, spaced 12 inches from center. Plant evaluations were made using the middle plant of each set of three plants in a row, creating a buffer of two plants between each evaluated plant. Each evaluated plant was assigned one of two ICW mimic treatments or the check treatment. Treatments were assigned using a randomized complete block design, with each planted row as a replicate. The two mimic treatments were a white wire marking flag (MSC Industrial Supply Co., Melville, New York, Savage by Swanson model FW15100 2- × 3-inch flag on 15-inch wire staff) and a white plastic butterfly mimic (Fly Spray Art, Xiamen, Fujian, China, 24 piece artificial white butterfly), colored with a black permanent marker to mimic the wing patterns of a female ICW. Butterfly mimics were attached to a 15-inch marking flag wire with a built in magnet. Control plants had no markers. Each treatment was placed at canopy level and raised using hollow bamboo stakes as the plants grew. ICW eggs and larvae were counted from the evaluated plant every 2 wk in PA for 12 wk and every wk in MD for 5 wk and were totaled over the season used to calculate mean counts. Data for each site were analyzed using ANOVA and linear regression in R Studio (RStudio Team, v. 3.4.1). All plants at both sites experienced pest pressure throughout the study. ANOVA analysis showed no block effect on egg and larval counts. ANOVA analysis removing the block factor showed no treatment effect on counts (Table 1). Linear regression showed that the number of eggs and larvae increased at the same rate between all treatments and sites. The common suggestion of using white objects to ‘claim territory’ and deter ICW does not work in collards across different sites. Table 1. Location PA MD Treatment Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Check 5.5 9 2 2.3 Flag 5.5 7.8 2.2 1.3 Mimic 5.7 7.8 0.8 1.8 F value 0.01 0.11 2.19 0.57 P value 0.99 0.9 0.15 0.58 Location PA MD Treatment Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Check 5.5 9 2 2.3 Flag 5.5 7.8 2.2 1.3 Mimic 5.7 7.8 0.8 1.8 F value 0.01 0.11 2.19 0.57 P value 0.99 0.9 0.15 0.58 Mean egg and larval counts per plant are not significantly different between treatments (P > 0.05) as determined by ANOVA analysis in RStudio. Open in new tab Table 1. Location PA MD Treatment Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Check 5.5 9 2 2.3 Flag 5.5 7.8 2.2 1.3 Mimic 5.7 7.8 0.8 1.8 F value 0.01 0.11 2.19 0.57 P value 0.99 0.9 0.15 0.58 Location PA MD Treatment Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Eggs/plant Larvae/plant Check 5.5 9 2 2.3 Flag 5.5 7.8 2.2 1.3 Mimic 5.7 7.8 0.8 1.8 F value 0.01 0.11 2.19 0.57 P value 0.99 0.9 0.15 0.58 Mean egg and larval counts per plant are not significantly different between treatments (P > 0.05) as determined by ANOVA analysis in RStudio. Open in new tab This work was funded by Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens and supported by UMD Extension with the use of field trial space. © 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)

Canas,, Luis;Acosta, Nuris, M

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz029

Tomato | Lycopersicon esculentum Sweetpotato whitefly (SWF) | Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius), ‘Biotype B’ Beauveria bassina, Isaria fumosorosea The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of Trabon EC (soybean oil) as a foliar spray against sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci Biotype B, and compare it against the combined products Botanigard 22WP + PFR-97, two industry standards, (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 design 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 liters/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 whitefly eggs. On each selected plant, five leaflets were selected and six pairs (male:female) of sweetpotato whitefly adults were placed inside a plastic clip cage to prevent their escape. Whitefly adults were obtained from colonies maintained at the Canas lab. After 24 to 48 h, all the adults were removed to prevent plant cross-contamination. Once the adults were removed, all whitefly eggs on the leaflets were counted. The plants were ready for treatment once nymphs hatched from eggs. Before treatments started the total number of nymphs found was counted on each leaflet. For the duration of the experiment, five leaves were evaluated from each plant, and the number of SWF nymphs and adults was 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 whitefly nymphs (Table 1). Table 1. DATa Average number of sweetpotato whitefly nymphs 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 96.8 19.3 a 88.5 14.9 a 90.0 13.2 a 99.3 8.4 a 0.22 3, 9 0.8824 D7 109.5 28.6 a 42.0 5.8 a 46.3 20.2 a 49.8 18.4 a 2.40 3, 9 0.1349 D14 73.8 17.1 a 32.8 7.3 a 29.0 6.4 a 27.8 11.7 a 2.80 3, 9 0.1013 D21 25.8 9.6 a 3.3 1.3 b 4.0 1.6 b 4.3 1.4 b 7.15 3, 9 0.0094 D28 18.0 4.5 a 9.8 3.8 a 24.0 13.5 a 2.0 1.2 a 1.76 3, 9 0.2238 D35 29.8 6.6 a 12.3 4.5 ab 23.5 11.6 ab 0.8 0.5 b 5.03 3, 9 0.0256 D42 71.5 15.9 a 23.8 5.9 b 27.8 11.0 b 6.5 2.4 b 16.40 3, 9 0.0005 DATa Average number of sweetpotato whitefly nymphs 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 96.8 19.3 a 88.5 14.9 a 90.0 13.2 a 99.3 8.4 a 0.22 3, 9 0.8824 D7 109.5 28.6 a 42.0 5.8 a 46.3 20.2 a 49.8 18.4 a 2.40 3, 9 0.1349 D14 73.8 17.1 a 32.8 7.3 a 29.0 6.4 a 27.8 11.7 a 2.80 3, 9 0.1013 D21 25.8 9.6 a 3.3 1.3 b 4.0 1.6 b 4.3 1.4 b 7.15 3, 9 0.0094 D28 18.0 4.5 a 9.8 3.8 a 24.0 13.5 a 2.0 1.2 a 1.76 3, 9 0.2238 D35 29.8 6.6 a 12.3 4.5 ab 23.5 11.6 ab 0.8 0.5 b 5.03 3, 9 0.0256 D42 71.5 15.9 a 23.8 5.9 b 27.8 11.0 b 6.5 2.4 b 16.40 3, 9 0.0005 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 sweetpotato whitefly nymphs 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 96.8 19.3 a 88.5 14.9 a 90.0 13.2 a 99.3 8.4 a 0.22 3, 9 0.8824 D7 109.5 28.6 a 42.0 5.8 a 46.3 20.2 a 49.8 18.4 a 2.40 3, 9 0.1349 D14 73.8 17.1 a 32.8 7.3 a 29.0 6.4 a 27.8 11.7 a 2.80 3, 9 0.1013 D21 25.8 9.6 a 3.3 1.3 b 4.0 1.6 b 4.3 1.4 b 7.15 3, 9 0.0094 D28 18.0 4.5 a 9.8 3.8 a 24.0 13.5 a 2.0 1.2 a 1.76 3, 9 0.2238 D35 29.8 6.6 a 12.3 4.5 ab 23.5 11.6 ab 0.8 0.5 b 5.03 3, 9 0.0256 D42 71.5 15.9 a 23.8 5.9 b 27.8 11.0 b 6.5 2.4 b 16.40 3, 9 0.0005 DATa Average number of sweetpotato whitefly nymphs 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 96.8 19.3 a 88.5 14.9 a 90.0 13.2 a 99.3 8.4 a 0.22 3, 9 0.8824 D7 109.5 28.6 a 42.0 5.8 a 46.3 20.2 a 49.8 18.4 a 2.40 3, 9 0.1349 D14 73.8 17.1 a 32.8 7.3 a 29.0 6.4 a 27.8 11.7 a 2.80 3, 9 0.1013 D21 25.8 9.6 a 3.3 1.3 b 4.0 1.6 b 4.3 1.4 b 7.15 3, 9 0.0094 D28 18.0 4.5 a 9.8 3.8 a 24.0 13.5 a 2.0 1.2 a 1.76 3, 9 0.2238 D35 29.8 6.6 a 12.3 4.5 ab 23.5 11.6 ab 0.8 0.5 b 5.03 3, 9 0.0256 D42 71.5 15.9 a 23.8 5.9 b 27.8 11.0 b 6.5 2.4 b 16.40 3, 9 0.0005 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 Nymphs There were no statistical differences between treatments 7 days after treatment (DAT) (Table 1). However, there was a numerical trend for all insecticide treatments to have fewer whitefly nymphs compared with the untreated check. At 14 DAT, similar results were observed. At 21 DAT, all treatments had statistically fewer whitefly nymphs than the untreated check. At 35 DAT, only the combined product had statistically fewer whitefly nymphs compared with the untreated check. At 42 DAT, all treatments had statistically fewer whitefly nymphs compared with the untreated check. The results show that the combined treatment had the best nymph control followed by the two Trabon rates. Adults All insecticide treatments had numerically fewer whitefly adults than the untreated check at all dates evaluated (Table 2). At 21 DAT, all insecticide treatments had significantly fewer whitefly adults compared with the untreated check with the combined product having the fewest number of whitefly adults. At 28, 35, and 42 DAT all insecticide treatments had statistically fewer whitefly adults than the untreated check. Table 2. DATa Average number of sweetpotato whitefly 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 D14 17.0 6.3 a 10.3 3.4 ab 8.0 2.6 ab 1.5 1.0 b 6.80 3, 9 0.0109 D21 58.8 9.3 a 15.3 3.8 bc 17.3 4.0 b 4.8 2.2 c 22.63 3, 9 0.0002 D28 78.3 16.4 a 16.5 6.0 b 19.0 6.1 b 7.8 2.5 b 17.17 3, 9 0.0005 D35 63.3 13.2 a 16.3 3.4 b 15.0 7.2 b 8.5 1.0 b 14.89 3, 9 0.0008 D42 64.5 15.2 a 19.3 4.1 b 19.0 7.4 b 5.0 1.3 b 20.45 3, 9 0.0002 DATa Average number of sweetpotato whitefly 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 D14 17.0 6.3 a 10.3 3.4 ab 8.0 2.6 ab 1.5 1.0 b 6.80 3, 9 0.0109 D21 58.8 9.3 a 15.3 3.8 bc 17.3 4.0 b 4.8 2.2 c 22.63 3, 9 0.0002 D28 78.3 16.4 a 16.5 6.0 b 19.0 6.1 b 7.8 2.5 b 17.17 3, 9 0.0005 D35 63.3 13.2 a 16.3 3.4 b 15.0 7.2 b 8.5 1.0 b 14.89 3, 9 0.0008 D42 64.5 15.2 a 19.3 4.1 b 19.0 7.4 b 5.0 1.3 b 20.45 3, 9 0.0002 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 sweetpotato whitefly 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 D14 17.0 6.3 a 10.3 3.4 ab 8.0 2.6 ab 1.5 1.0 b 6.80 3, 9 0.0109 D21 58.8 9.3 a 15.3 3.8 bc 17.3 4.0 b 4.8 2.2 c 22.63 3, 9 0.0002 D28 78.3 16.4 a 16.5 6.0 b 19.0 6.1 b 7.8 2.5 b 17.17 3, 9 0.0005 D35 63.3 13.2 a 16.3 3.4 b 15.0 7.2 b 8.5 1.0 b 14.89 3, 9 0.0008 D42 64.5 15.2 a 19.3 4.1 b 19.0 7.4 b 5.0 1.3 b 20.45 3, 9 0.0002 DATa Average number of sweetpotato whitefly 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 D14 17.0 6.3 a 10.3 3.4 ab 8.0 2.6 ab 1.5 1.0 b 6.80 3, 9 0.0109 D21 58.8 9.3 a 15.3 3.8 bc 17.3 4.0 b 4.8 2.2 c 22.63 3, 9 0.0002 D28 78.3 16.4 a 16.5 6.0 b 19.0 6.1 b 7.8 2.5 b 17.17 3, 9 0.0005 D35 63.3 13.2 a 16.3 3.4 b 15.0 7.2 b 8.5 1.0 b 14.89 3, 9 0.0008 D42 64.5 15.2 a 19.3 4.1 b 19.0 7.4 b 5.0 1.3 b 20.45 3, 9 0.0002 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 There was a numerical trend for the combined product to have fewer whitefly adults. However, this trend of fewer whitefly adults was not statistical different from the two Trabon rates except for one instance: the higher Trabon rate at 21 DAT. Phytotoxicity No phytotoxicity (from ratings) differences were observed between the untreated check and the treatments (Table 3). Also, all plants had similar size at the end of the experiment (Table 4). Table 3. DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 4.8 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Trabon EC 9.75 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Botanigard 22WP 1 lb/100 gal + PFR-97 28 oz/100 gal Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.25 0.75 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.50 0.87 a 1.75 0.48 a 0.25 3, 9 0.8571 D14 2.25 0.48 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.75 0.25 a 3.50 0.29 a 3.53 3, 9 0.0618 D21 3.83 0.55 a 4.20 0.71 a 3.70 0.68 a 4.28 0.57 a 0.17 3, 9 0.9138 D28 3.65 0.23 a 3.85 0.24 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.95 0.09 a 0.43 3, 9 0.7379 D35 3.85 0.15 a 3.83 0.22 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.78 0.26 a 0.26 3,9 0.8520 D42 4.30 0.10 a 4.35 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 0.53 3, 9 0.6732 DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 4.8 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Trabon EC 9.75 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Botanigard 22WP 1 lb/100 gal + PFR-97 28 oz/100 gal Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.25 0.75 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.50 0.87 a 1.75 0.48 a 0.25 3, 9 0.8571 D14 2.25 0.48 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.75 0.25 a 3.50 0.29 a 3.53 3, 9 0.0618 D21 3.83 0.55 a 4.20 0.71 a 3.70 0.68 a 4.28 0.57 a 0.17 3, 9 0.9138 D28 3.65 0.23 a 3.85 0.24 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.95 0.09 a 0.43 3, 9 0.7379 D35 3.85 0.15 a 3.83 0.22 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.78 0.26 a 0.26 3,9 0.8520 D42 4.30 0.10 a 4.35 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 0.53 3, 9 0.6732 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 4.8 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Trabon EC 9.75 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Botanigard 22WP 1 lb/100 gal + PFR-97 28 oz/100 gal Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.25 0.75 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.50 0.87 a 1.75 0.48 a 0.25 3, 9 0.8571 D14 2.25 0.48 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.75 0.25 a 3.50 0.29 a 3.53 3, 9 0.0618 D21 3.83 0.55 a 4.20 0.71 a 3.70 0.68 a 4.28 0.57 a 0.17 3, 9 0.9138 D28 3.65 0.23 a 3.85 0.24 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.95 0.09 a 0.43 3, 9 0.7379 D35 3.85 0.15 a 3.83 0.22 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.78 0.26 a 0.26 3,9 0.8520 D42 4.30 0.10 a 4.35 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 0.53 3, 9 0.6732 DATa Average phytotoxicity ratings RCBD ANOVA Treatments Untreated Trabon EC 4.8 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Trabon EC 9.75 fl oz/25 gal (1–3) Botanigard 22WP 1 lb/100 gal + PFR-97 28 oz/100 gal Mean SEb Statsc Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats Mean SE Stats F dfd (N, D) P D7 2.25 0.75 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.50 0.87 a 1.75 0.48 a 0.25 3, 9 0.8571 D14 2.25 0.48 a 2.25 0.25 a 2.75 0.25 a 3.50 0.29 a 3.53 3, 9 0.0618 D21 3.83 0.55 a 4.20 0.71 a 3.70 0.68 a 4.28 0.57 a 0.17 3, 9 0.9138 D28 3.65 0.23 a 3.85 0.24 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.95 0.09 a 0.43 3, 9 0.7379 D35 3.85 0.15 a 3.83 0.22 a 3.50 0.50 a 3.78 0.26 a 0.26 3,9 0.8520 D42 4.30 0.10 a 4.35 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 4.38 0.03 a 0.53 3, 9 0.6732 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 2596714.8 194411.3 a 2540395.5 205750.4 a 2302329.5 139871.4 a 2109754.6 125858 a 2.3 3, 8 0.1504 D42 2371582.0 325528.1 a 2420338.7 680274.4 a 1860283.1 222987 a 1989048.3 453459.4 a 0.5 3, 8 0.7096 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 2596714.8 194411.3 a 2540395.5 205750.4 a 2302329.5 139871.4 a 2109754.6 125858 a 2.3 3, 8 0.1504 D42 2371582.0 325528.1 a 2420338.7 680274.4 a 1860283.1 222987 a 1989048.3 453459.4 a 0.5 3, 8 0.7096 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 2596714.8 194411.3 a 2540395.5 205750.4 a 2302329.5 139871.4 a 2109754.6 125858 a 2.3 3, 8 0.1504 D42 2371582.0 325528.1 a 2420338.7 680274.4 a 1860283.1 222987 a 1989048.3 453459.4 a 0.5 3, 8 0.7096 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 2596714.8 194411.3 a 2540395.5 205750.4 a 2302329.5 139871.4 a 2109754.6 125858 a 2.3 3, 8 0.1504 D42 2371582.0 325528.1 a 2420338.7 680274.4 a 1860283.1 222987 a 1989048.3 453459.4 a 0.5 3, 8 0.7096 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, all insecticide treatments significantly lowered the number of whitefly nymphs and adults compared with the untreated check. The combined treatment (Botanigard + PFR-97) had the best numerical nymph and adult control followed by the two Trabon rates, but these numerical differences were not statistical significant except in one instance. 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]

McManus, Bradley, L;Fuller, Billy, W

2019 Arthropod Management Tests

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz050

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Northern corn rootworm (NCR) | Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence, Western corn rootworm (WCR) | Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte bifenthrin, tebupirimfos, cyfluthrin, tefluthrin Corn rootworm (NCR/WCR) management efficacy trials were conducted to evaluate liquid and granular insecticide treatments near Bryant and Cavour in South Dakota. Experimental plots were arranged in an RCBD with four replications consisting of four rows (~50 ft long, spaced 30 inches apart). Granular and liquid insecticides were applied in the open seed furrow ahead of trench closer wheels. Planting-time liquid insecticides were applied using compressed air delivery systems to each row of the planter. These insecticides were mixed with water or 8-24-4 liquid fertilizer and applied at 5gal/acre. Granular insecticides were applied using a computer-assisted Smartbox insecticide delivery system. All metering units were calibrated on a four-row Kinze corn planter before treatment applications. Nonrootworm-resistant hybrids evaluated in this efficacy trial in 2017 included Pioneer P9526AM at the Bryant location and Syngenta/NorthrupKing N31H3220EZ4 at Cavour. Corn seed was planted at a rate of ~ 31,000 kernels per acre. Six roots per replication were dug randomly from the two outer rows, washed, and rated using the Oleson 0 to 3 root node injury scale (NIS). Yield assessments in bushels per acre were taken from the center two rows. Yield and root rating data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED/PDIFF option with Saxton’s lettering macro in SAS (version 9.2). Corn rootworm node injury damage greatly exceeded the ~0.25 EIL at the Bryant (2.79) and Cavour (1.73) sites in the untreated control corn plots. Due to extremely high root injury scores in the untreated control at the Bryant location, some insecticide treatments failed to prevent root injury scores from exceeding the 0.25 EIL (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate Bryant (Pioneer 9526AM) Cavour (NK N31H3220EZ4) Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Untreated check 0.5a 2.79a 166.0bc 18.7bc 26.4a 97.5a 1.73a 78.8b 15.4a 25.5a 88.8a Ethos XB 8.5b 0.32b-d 184.9ab 19.1b 25.0a 44.8cd 0.24b 63.9b 15.4a 25.3a 66.3ab Temitry LFR 9.5b 0.31b-d 181.7b 18.4c 25.0a 81.3ab 0.18b 78.0b 15.3a 26.0a 45.8b-d Capture LFR+VGR 8.5b 0.20b-d 180.1bc 18.3c 24.6a 61.9bc 0.24b 61.9b 15.5a 24.8a 53.8bc Capture LFR 8.5b 0.34bc 196.6a 18.3c 25.8a 27.3d 0.25b 71.6b 15.2a 24.5a 25.5de Capture LFR 8.5b  +VGR 8.5b  +Puma 4.0b 0.11cd 182.8ab 18.8bc 23.9a 34.4d 0.16b 62.6b 15.1a 24.0a 59.5b Capture 3RIVE 3D 8.0c 0.39b 174.9bc 19.7a 26.4a 70.6b 0.10b 102.5a 15.2a 22.8a 12.8e Force3G 8.0d 0.08d 182.8ab 19.0b 24.1a 26.6d 0.08b 73.0b 15.5a 23.5a 30.0c-e P 0.0001 0.0115 0.0016 0.3492 0.0001 0.0001 0.0160 0.3524 0.8782 0.0001 Treatment/formulation Rate Bryant (Pioneer 9526AM) Cavour (NK N31H3220EZ4) Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Untreated check 0.5a 2.79a 166.0bc 18.7bc 26.4a 97.5a 1.73a 78.8b 15.4a 25.5a 88.8a Ethos XB 8.5b 0.32b-d 184.9ab 19.1b 25.0a 44.8cd 0.24b 63.9b 15.4a 25.3a 66.3ab Temitry LFR 9.5b 0.31b-d 181.7b 18.4c 25.0a 81.3ab 0.18b 78.0b 15.3a 26.0a 45.8b-d Capture LFR+VGR 8.5b 0.20b-d 180.1bc 18.3c 24.6a 61.9bc 0.24b 61.9b 15.5a 24.8a 53.8bc Capture LFR 8.5b 0.34bc 196.6a 18.3c 25.8a 27.3d 0.25b 71.6b 15.2a 24.5a 25.5de Capture LFR 8.5b  +VGR 8.5b  +Puma 4.0b 0.11cd 182.8ab 18.8bc 23.9a 34.4d 0.16b 62.6b 15.1a 24.0a 59.5b Capture 3RIVE 3D 8.0c 0.39b 174.9bc 19.7a 26.4a 70.6b 0.10b 102.5a 15.2a 22.8a 12.8e Force3G 8.0d 0.08d 182.8ab 19.0b 24.1a 26.6d 0.08b 73.0b 15.5a 23.5a 30.0c-e P 0.0001 0.0115 0.0016 0.3492 0.0001 0.0001 0.0160 0.3524 0.8782 0.0001 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. aSeed applied insecticide = mg/seed. bIn-furrow spray application, liquid fertilizer = fl oz/acre. cIn-furrow spray application, water = fl oz/acre. dIn-furrow granular application, rate unit = oz product/1000 row ft. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate Bryant (Pioneer 9526AM) Cavour (NK N31H3220EZ4) Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Untreated check 0.5a 2.79a 166.0bc 18.7bc 26.4a 97.5a 1.73a 78.8b 15.4a 25.5a 88.8a Ethos XB 8.5b 0.32b-d 184.9ab 19.1b 25.0a 44.8cd 0.24b 63.9b 15.4a 25.3a 66.3ab Temitry LFR 9.5b 0.31b-d 181.7b 18.4c 25.0a 81.3ab 0.18b 78.0b 15.3a 26.0a 45.8b-d Capture LFR+VGR 8.5b 0.20b-d 180.1bc 18.3c 24.6a 61.9bc 0.24b 61.9b 15.5a 24.8a 53.8bc Capture LFR 8.5b 0.34bc 196.6a 18.3c 25.8a 27.3d 0.25b 71.6b 15.2a 24.5a 25.5de Capture LFR 8.5b  +VGR 8.5b  +Puma 4.0b 0.11cd 182.8ab 18.8bc 23.9a 34.4d 0.16b 62.6b 15.1a 24.0a 59.5b Capture 3RIVE 3D 8.0c 0.39b 174.9bc 19.7a 26.4a 70.6b 0.10b 102.5a 15.2a 22.8a 12.8e Force3G 8.0d 0.08d 182.8ab 19.0b 24.1a 26.6d 0.08b 73.0b 15.5a 23.5a 30.0c-e P 0.0001 0.0115 0.0016 0.3492 0.0001 0.0001 0.0160 0.3524 0.8782 0.0001 Treatment/formulation Rate Bryant (Pioneer 9526AM) Cavour (NK N31H3220EZ4) Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Root rating Yield bu/ac Harvest % moisture 28/DAT plants/A % lodged per row Untreated check 0.5a 2.79a 166.0bc 18.7bc 26.4a 97.5a 1.73a 78.8b 15.4a 25.5a 88.8a Ethos XB 8.5b 0.32b-d 184.9ab 19.1b 25.0a 44.8cd 0.24b 63.9b 15.4a 25.3a 66.3ab Temitry LFR 9.5b 0.31b-d 181.7b 18.4c 25.0a 81.3ab 0.18b 78.0b 15.3a 26.0a 45.8b-d Capture LFR+VGR 8.5b 0.20b-d 180.1bc 18.3c 24.6a 61.9bc 0.24b 61.9b 15.5a 24.8a 53.8bc Capture LFR 8.5b 0.34bc 196.6a 18.3c 25.8a 27.3d 0.25b 71.6b 15.2a 24.5a 25.5de Capture LFR 8.5b  +VGR 8.5b  +Puma 4.0b 0.11cd 182.8ab 18.8bc 23.9a 34.4d 0.16b 62.6b 15.1a 24.0a 59.5b Capture 3RIVE 3D 8.0c 0.39b 174.9bc 19.7a 26.4a 70.6b 0.10b 102.5a 15.2a 22.8a 12.8e Force3G 8.0d 0.08d 182.8ab 19.0b 24.1a 26.6d 0.08b 73.0b 15.5a 23.5a 30.0c-e P 0.0001 0.0115 0.0016 0.3492 0.0001 0.0001 0.0160 0.3524 0.8782 0.0001 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. aSeed applied insecticide = mg/seed. bIn-furrow spray application, liquid fertilizer = fl oz/acre. cIn-furrow spray application, water = fl oz/acre. dIn-furrow granular application, rate unit = oz product/1000 row ft. Open in new tab Treatments exceeding 0.25 EIL were Capture LFR (0.34), Capture 3RIVE 3D (0.39), Ethos XB (0.32), and Termitry LFR (0.31). Root injury scores were lower at the Cavour site, where the untreated checks scored 1.73 (1.6 nodes of damage less than at Bryant). All insecticide treated plots at Cavour scored 0.25 NIS or less. The Capture LFR-treated plots at Bryant yielded 30.6 bu/acre more (P = 0.0115) than the untreated controls. Yield from the other insecticide-treated plots was not significantly different from the untreated (8.9 to 18.9 bu/acre higher than the untreated controls). The Capture 3RIVE 3D insecticide treatment at Cavour had 23.7 bu/acre greater yield than the untreated controls (P = 0.0160). The yield from the Cavour site was greatly reduced by abnormally dry conditions that started in May and continued through the middle of July. This site averaged 82.5 bu/acre less than the field at Bryant that received slightly above average rainfall during the season. A portion of this research was supported by USDA–NIFA and 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]