Arthropod Management Tests

Evaluation of Intrepid Edge for Control of the Sugarcane Borer in Louisiana Sugarcane, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa049

Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp (BSGW) | Hemadas nubilipennis Ashmead Blueberry | Vaccinium spp acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, spirotetramat, flupyradifurone, diafenthiuron The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of systemic insecticides applied by chemigation or foliar application for control of Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp (BSGW). Treatments were made to a mature ‘Liberty’ cultivar planting in Nunica, MI. Bushes in the planting had vigorous growth and lead canes 5–6 ft high. Four replicates of each insecticide treatment and the untreated control plots were used, each five bushes long and one row wide at a 10′ × 3′ ft spacing. Soil applications were made using a modified drip irrigation system that was placed adjacent to the existing emitters (18 inch spacing) on both sides of the row, matching the emitters to ensure that the product contacted the roots of bushes. Insecticide treatments were delivered through the experimental irrigation system using a CO2 pressurized system and the drip tape was flushed though with additional water until no liquid was left in the tubes. Once all treatments were complete, the existing irrigation system was run to apply 1 inch of irrigation to further ensure that the treatments contacted the root zone. A foliar applied Movento treatment was also applied twice after bloom using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer operating at 55 PSI in a volume of water equivalent to 100 gallons per acre, using a single head boom and a TeeJet 8003VS spray nozzle. The spray solutions were applied to both sides of the plots, and this treatment included R-11 as a penetrant to ensure the insecticide moved into the plant tissues. In November, once leaves had dropped off the bushes, the number of small, medium, large and total galls per bush were recorded on the three center bushes in each plot. The data were analyzed using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution. Differences in the mean number of all gall size classes and the total numbers were compared among treatments using a Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05). All analyses were performed using JMP Pro 13 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). There was a significant difference in the total number of galls between treatments (χ 2 = 12.87, d.f. = 5, P = 0.024) (Table 1). The treatments applied with the irrigation system were not significantly difference from the untreated control. However, the Movento + R-11 treatment applied twice to the bushes had significantly fewer galls than all the other treatments. This reduction was driven by a reduction in the number of medium and large galls, and this was the only treatment in which there were zero large galls observed on the bushes.1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small . Medium . . Large . . Total . . . . Average ± S.E. . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . Untreated Check – – 26.7 ± 2.79 14.5 ± 1.58 a 1.8 ± 0.41 ab 43.0 ± 4.16 Scorpion 13.25a A 26.4 ± 1.87 14.6 ± 0.96 a 1.9 ± 0.67 a 42.9 ± 2.07 Sivanto 28a A 25.8 ± 2.76 14.4 ± 1.85 a 2.1 ± 0.61 ab 42.3 ± 3.76 Platinum 4b A 27.0 ± 1.70 13.2 ± 1.71 a 1.9 ± 0.56 ab 42.1 ± 3.09 Admire Pro 14a A 22.6 ± 1.78 17.1 ± 4.03 a 1.3 ± 0.47 ab 41.0 ± 5.23 Movento + 10a B, C 24.9 ± 2.65 3.7 ± 0.59 b 0.0 ± 0.00 b 28.6 ± 2.85 R-11 0.38c B, C Statistic χ2 = 3.67, d.f. = 5, P = 0.597 χ2 = 27.43, d.f. = 5, P < 0.0001 χ2 = 18.35, d.f. = 5, P = 0.002 χ2 = 12.87, d.f. = 5, P = 0.024 Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small . Medium . . Large . . Total . . . . Average ± S.E. . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . Untreated Check – – 26.7 ± 2.79 14.5 ± 1.58 a 1.8 ± 0.41 ab 43.0 ± 4.16 Scorpion 13.25a A 26.4 ± 1.87 14.6 ± 0.96 a 1.9 ± 0.67 a 42.9 ± 2.07 Sivanto 28a A 25.8 ± 2.76 14.4 ± 1.85 a 2.1 ± 0.61 ab 42.3 ± 3.76 Platinum 4b A 27.0 ± 1.70 13.2 ± 1.71 a 1.9 ± 0.56 ab 42.1 ± 3.09 Admire Pro 14a A 22.6 ± 1.78 17.1 ± 4.03 a 1.3 ± 0.47 ab 41.0 ± 5.23 Movento + 10a B, C 24.9 ± 2.65 3.7 ± 0.59 b 0.0 ± 0.00 b 28.6 ± 2.85 R-11 0.38c B, C Statistic χ2 = 3.67, d.f. = 5, P = 0.597 χ2 = 27.43, d.f. = 5, P < 0.0001 χ2 = 18.35, d.f. = 5, P = 0.002 χ2 = 12.87, d.f. = 5, P = 0.024 A = 25 June 2019, B = 29 June 2019, C = 7 July 2019. afl. oz product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. c% v/v of product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small . Medium . . Large . . Total . . . . Average ± S.E. . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . Untreated Check – – 26.7 ± 2.79 14.5 ± 1.58 a 1.8 ± 0.41 ab 43.0 ± 4.16 Scorpion 13.25a A 26.4 ± 1.87 14.6 ± 0.96 a 1.9 ± 0.67 a 42.9 ± 2.07 Sivanto 28a A 25.8 ± 2.76 14.4 ± 1.85 a 2.1 ± 0.61 ab 42.3 ± 3.76 Platinum 4b A 27.0 ± 1.70 13.2 ± 1.71 a 1.9 ± 0.56 ab 42.1 ± 3.09 Admire Pro 14a A 22.6 ± 1.78 17.1 ± 4.03 a 1.3 ± 0.47 ab 41.0 ± 5.23 Movento + 10a B, C 24.9 ± 2.65 3.7 ± 0.59 b 0.0 ± 0.00 b 28.6 ± 2.85 R-11 0.38c B, C Statistic χ2 = 3.67, d.f. = 5, P = 0.597 χ2 = 27.43, d.f. = 5, P < 0.0001 χ2 = 18.35, d.f. = 5, P = 0.002 χ2 = 12.87, d.f. = 5, P = 0.024 Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small . Medium . . Large . . Total . . . . Average ± S.E. . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . Untreated Check – – 26.7 ± 2.79 14.5 ± 1.58 a 1.8 ± 0.41 ab 43.0 ± 4.16 Scorpion 13.25a A 26.4 ± 1.87 14.6 ± 0.96 a 1.9 ± 0.67 a 42.9 ± 2.07 Sivanto 28a A 25.8 ± 2.76 14.4 ± 1.85 a 2.1 ± 0.61 ab 42.3 ± 3.76 Platinum 4b A 27.0 ± 1.70 13.2 ± 1.71 a 1.9 ± 0.56 ab 42.1 ± 3.09 Admire Pro 14a A 22.6 ± 1.78 17.1 ± 4.03 a 1.3 ± 0.47 ab 41.0 ± 5.23 Movento + 10a B, C 24.9 ± 2.65 3.7 ± 0.59 b 0.0 ± 0.00 b 28.6 ± 2.85 R-11 0.38c B, C Statistic χ2 = 3.67, d.f. = 5, P = 0.597 χ2 = 27.43, d.f. = 5, P < 0.0001 χ2 = 18.35, d.f. = 5, P = 0.002 χ2 = 12.87, d.f. = 5, P = 0.024 A = 25 June 2019, B = 29 June 2019, C = 7 July 2019. afl. oz product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. c% v/v of product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was made possible by support from the Michigan Blueberry Commission, Michigan State Horticultural Society, Project GREEEN, and USDA-NIFA’s Crop Protection and Pest Management program (2018-70006-28917). We thank the chemical companies for providing insecticides to test. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Villegas, James, M;Wilson, Blake, E;Salgado, Leonardo, D

Efficacy of Foliar Applied Insecticides for Control of Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa056

Sugarcane borer | Diatraea saccharalis (F.) Sugarcane | Saccharum officinarum chlorantraniliprole, methoxyfenozide, spinetoram A field trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of Intrepid Edge for control of the sugarcane borer (SCB) on a stemborer susceptible sugarcane variety (HoCP 00-950, 1st ratoon) at the LSU AgCenter Sugar Research Station in St. Gabriel, Louisiana. Two rates of Intrepid Edge (AI: methoxyfenozide and spinetoram), one rate of Prevathon (AI: chlorantraniliprole), and an untreated check were evaluated in a randomized block design with six replications. Treatment plots consisted of two 24-ft rows (0.006 acre) separated by 5-ft gaps. To increase pest pressure, corn was intercropped with sugarcane on every third row. Corn was inoculated with laboratory-reared SCB larvae on 15 Jun and ants were suppressed with granular baits to maintain high SCB pressure. Sugarcane plants were scouted on 25 Jul and 28% of stalks were infested with larvae feeding in the leaf sheaths. Insecticides, with Induce® surfactant, were applied 1 ft above the sugarcane canopy on 26 Jul using a CO2-pressurized back pack sprayer calibrated to deliver 15 gpa at 30 psi. The sprayer was equipped with eight Teejet TP11001 nozzles spaced 18-in apart. No rain was documented over the 3 days following the application. Sugarcane was exposed to enhanced infestations for the remainder of the growing season. Samples (12 random stalks in each plot) were collected for determination of SCB injury on 9 Oct. Leaves were stripped and the numbers of total internodes, bored internodes, and emergence holes were recorded. Percentage bored internodes was calculated for each sample prior to analysis. Percentage of bored internodes was also calculated for the bottom (internodes 1–5), middle (internodes 6–10), and top (internodes >11) of stalks to approximate the point during the growing season when injury occurred. Percentage bored internode and emergence per stalk data were analyzed with generalized linear-mixed models (SAS PROC GLIMMIX) with treatment as a fixed effect and replication as a random effect. Kenward–Roger adjustment was used to calculate error degrees of freedom and means were separated with Tukey’s HSD. All insecticide treatments reduced the percentage of bored internodes (whole stalk) and adult emergence relative to untreated check, but differences were not detected among treatments (Table 1). All treatments also reduced injury to the middle internodes corresponding to infestations occurring in late July to mid-August as well as injury to top internodes likely sustained in late August and September. Failure of insecticide treatments to reduce injury in bottom internodes indicates some injury was present prior to the application or that the products failed to cause mortality of older larvae prior to stalk entry. Results suggest Intrepid Edge can provide effective control of SCB infestations, but applications may need to be well timed to target young larvae.1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Percent bored . Emergence per stalk . . . Internodesa . Bottom . Middle . Top . . Untreated check NA 18.9a 13.3 24.7a 18.4a 1.2a Intrepid Edge 4.8 8.0b 8.6 6.9b 8.9b 0.3b Intrepid Edge 9.6 7.6b 11.9 8.3b 3.0b 0.6b Prevathon 0.43SC 20 2.9b 4.4 2.2b 2.0b 0.1b F 17.3 3.0 20.3 12.3 9.6 P <0.001 0.064 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Percent bored . Emergence per stalk . . . Internodesa . Bottom . Middle . Top . . Untreated check NA 18.9a 13.3 24.7a 18.4a 1.2a Intrepid Edge 4.8 8.0b 8.6 6.9b 8.9b 0.3b Intrepid Edge 9.6 7.6b 11.9 8.3b 3.0b 0.6b Prevathon 0.43SC 20 2.9b 4.4 2.2b 2.0b 0.1b F 17.3 3.0 20.3 12.3 9.6 P <0.001 0.064 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 Means which share a letter group are not significantly different (Tukeys HSD, α = 0.05). aWhole stalk. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Percent bored . Emergence per stalk . . . Internodesa . Bottom . Middle . Top . . Untreated check NA 18.9a 13.3 24.7a 18.4a 1.2a Intrepid Edge 4.8 8.0b 8.6 6.9b 8.9b 0.3b Intrepid Edge 9.6 7.6b 11.9 8.3b 3.0b 0.6b Prevathon 0.43SC 20 2.9b 4.4 2.2b 2.0b 0.1b F 17.3 3.0 20.3 12.3 9.6 P <0.001 0.064 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Percent bored . Emergence per stalk . . . Internodesa . Bottom . Middle . Top . . Untreated check NA 18.9a 13.3 24.7a 18.4a 1.2a Intrepid Edge 4.8 8.0b 8.6 6.9b 8.9b 0.3b Intrepid Edge 9.6 7.6b 11.9 8.3b 3.0b 0.6b Prevathon 0.43SC 20 2.9b 4.4 2.2b 2.0b 0.1b F 17.3 3.0 20.3 12.3 9.6 P <0.001 0.064 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 Means which share a letter group are not significantly different (Tukeys HSD, α = 0.05). aWhole stalk. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was partially supported by industry gifts and research funds. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Fanning, Philip, D;Isaacs,, Rufus

Performance of Acramite 4SC on Southern Red Mite in Highbush Blueberry in Georgia, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa050

Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp (BSGW) | Hemadas nubilipennis Ashmead Blueberry | Vaccinium spp The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of foliar applied insecticides for control of Blueberry Stem Gall Wasp (BSGW). Treatments were applied to a ‘Jersey’ cultivar planting in West Olive, MI where mature bushes had been mowed off two years before so there were many vigorous shoots on the 5-ft-tall bushes. There were four replicate plots of each insecticide treatment plus the untreated controls. Plots were seven bushes long and one row wide at a 10′ × 5′ ft spacing. The spray solutions were applied to both sides of the plots using a CO2-powered backpack sprayer operating at 55 PSI in a volume of water equivalent to 100 gallons per acre and equipped with a single head boom and a TeeJet 8003VS spray nozzle. The total number of galls and their size (small, medium, or large) on each of three central bushes in each plot were assessed in November once the leaves had dropped to allow for an accurate assessment. Gall size is correlated with the number of inhabitants per gall, so a reduction in the size of the gall also reflects a reduction in the number of BSGW that will emerge in the following spring. The count data of small, medium, large and total galls per bush from Nov assessments were analyzed using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution. Differences in the mean number of all gall size classes and the total number was assessed using a Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05). All analyses were performed using JMP Pro 13 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Guthion was the most effective treatment with significantly lower total number of galls per bush than all other treatments. Verdepryn also reduced gall density, with the main difference from Guthion being in the average number of small galls. The premixes of Argyle and Cormoran ranked third and fourth, respectively, in the number of galls, but these had higher numbers of medium sized galls compared to the Verdepryn and Guthion treatments (Table 1).1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small galls . . Medium galls . . Large galls . . Total galls . . . . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Untreated – – 25.2 ± 0.156 a 27.2 ± 0.152 a 3.2 ± 0.099 a 55.7 ± 0.203 a Diazinon 16a C 23.4 ± 0.145 ab 21.0 ± 0.145 abc 2.1 ± 0.072 ab 46.5 ± 0.183 ab Mustang Maxx 4b D Acephate 16a C, D 21.4 ± 0.189 abc 22.6 ± 0.158 ab 2.1 ± 0.080 ab 46.1 ± 0.222 abc Lannate 48b C 22.6 ± 0.206 abc 16.6 ± 0.172 bcd 0.8 ± 0.064 bcd 39.9 ± 0.254 bcd Mustang Maxx 4b D Exirel 20.5b C, D 19.1 ± 0.158 abc 13.5 ± 0.141 d 0.5 ± 0.047 cd 33.1 ± 0.212 bcde Exirel 20.5b A, B 15.3 ± 0.122 bc 14.5 ± 0.131 cd 0.7 ± 0.068 bcd 30.6 ± 0.153 cde Cormoran 20b C, D 17.1 ± 0.158 abc 15.8 ± 0.187 bcd 1.8 ± 0.075 abc 32.6 ± 0.231 de Argyle 6b C, D 16.6 ± 0.136 bc 12.3 ± 0.144 de 0.8 ± 0.054 bcd 29.6 ± 0.195 de Verdepryn 11b C, D 14.6 ± 0.150 c 5.6 ± 0.105 ef 0.2 ± 0.041 cd 20.3 ± 0.178 e Guthion 24a C, D 4.0 ± 0.080 d 0.9 ± 0.060 f 0.1 ± 0.029 cd 4.9 ± 0.096 f Statistic χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 104.57, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 56.13, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small galls . . Medium galls . . Large galls . . Total galls . . . . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Untreated – – 25.2 ± 0.156 a 27.2 ± 0.152 a 3.2 ± 0.099 a 55.7 ± 0.203 a Diazinon 16a C 23.4 ± 0.145 ab 21.0 ± 0.145 abc 2.1 ± 0.072 ab 46.5 ± 0.183 ab Mustang Maxx 4b D Acephate 16a C, D 21.4 ± 0.189 abc 22.6 ± 0.158 ab 2.1 ± 0.080 ab 46.1 ± 0.222 abc Lannate 48b C 22.6 ± 0.206 abc 16.6 ± 0.172 bcd 0.8 ± 0.064 bcd 39.9 ± 0.254 bcd Mustang Maxx 4b D Exirel 20.5b C, D 19.1 ± 0.158 abc 13.5 ± 0.141 d 0.5 ± 0.047 cd 33.1 ± 0.212 bcde Exirel 20.5b A, B 15.3 ± 0.122 bc 14.5 ± 0.131 cd 0.7 ± 0.068 bcd 30.6 ± 0.153 cde Cormoran 20b C, D 17.1 ± 0.158 abc 15.8 ± 0.187 bcd 1.8 ± 0.075 abc 32.6 ± 0.231 de Argyle 6b C, D 16.6 ± 0.136 bc 12.3 ± 0.144 de 0.8 ± 0.054 bcd 29.6 ± 0.195 de Verdepryn 11b C, D 14.6 ± 0.150 c 5.6 ± 0.105 ef 0.2 ± 0.041 cd 20.3 ± 0.178 e Guthion 24a C, D 4.0 ± 0.080 d 0.9 ± 0.060 f 0.1 ± 0.029 cd 4.9 ± 0.096 f Statistic χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 104.57, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 56.13, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 A = 31 May 2019, B = 5 June 2019, C = 18 June 2019, D = 25 June 2019. Values in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different (P >0.05). afl. oz product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small galls . . Medium galls . . Large galls . . Total galls . . . . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Untreated – – 25.2 ± 0.156 a 27.2 ± 0.152 a 3.2 ± 0.099 a 55.7 ± 0.203 a Diazinon 16a C 23.4 ± 0.145 ab 21.0 ± 0.145 abc 2.1 ± 0.072 ab 46.5 ± 0.183 ab Mustang Maxx 4b D Acephate 16a C, D 21.4 ± 0.189 abc 22.6 ± 0.158 ab 2.1 ± 0.080 ab 46.1 ± 0.222 abc Lannate 48b C 22.6 ± 0.206 abc 16.6 ± 0.172 bcd 0.8 ± 0.064 bcd 39.9 ± 0.254 bcd Mustang Maxx 4b D Exirel 20.5b C, D 19.1 ± 0.158 abc 13.5 ± 0.141 d 0.5 ± 0.047 cd 33.1 ± 0.212 bcde Exirel 20.5b A, B 15.3 ± 0.122 bc 14.5 ± 0.131 cd 0.7 ± 0.068 bcd 30.6 ± 0.153 cde Cormoran 20b C, D 17.1 ± 0.158 abc 15.8 ± 0.187 bcd 1.8 ± 0.075 abc 32.6 ± 0.231 de Argyle 6b C, D 16.6 ± 0.136 bc 12.3 ± 0.144 de 0.8 ± 0.054 bcd 29.6 ± 0.195 de Verdepryn 11b C, D 14.6 ± 0.150 c 5.6 ± 0.105 ef 0.2 ± 0.041 cd 20.3 ± 0.178 e Guthion 24a C, D 4.0 ± 0.080 d 0.9 ± 0.060 f 0.1 ± 0.029 cd 4.9 ± 0.096 f Statistic χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 104.57, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 56.13, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate form prod/acre . Appl. timing . Small galls . . Medium galls . . Large galls . . Total galls . . . . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Average ± S.E. . . Untreated – – 25.2 ± 0.156 a 27.2 ± 0.152 a 3.2 ± 0.099 a 55.7 ± 0.203 a Diazinon 16a C 23.4 ± 0.145 ab 21.0 ± 0.145 abc 2.1 ± 0.072 ab 46.5 ± 0.183 ab Mustang Maxx 4b D Acephate 16a C, D 21.4 ± 0.189 abc 22.6 ± 0.158 ab 2.1 ± 0.080 ab 46.1 ± 0.222 abc Lannate 48b C 22.6 ± 0.206 abc 16.6 ± 0.172 bcd 0.8 ± 0.064 bcd 39.9 ± 0.254 bcd Mustang Maxx 4b D Exirel 20.5b C, D 19.1 ± 0.158 abc 13.5 ± 0.141 d 0.5 ± 0.047 cd 33.1 ± 0.212 bcde Exirel 20.5b A, B 15.3 ± 0.122 bc 14.5 ± 0.131 cd 0.7 ± 0.068 bcd 30.6 ± 0.153 cde Cormoran 20b C, D 17.1 ± 0.158 abc 15.8 ± 0.187 bcd 1.8 ± 0.075 abc 32.6 ± 0.231 de Argyle 6b C, D 16.6 ± 0.136 bc 12.3 ± 0.144 de 0.8 ± 0.054 bcd 29.6 ± 0.195 de Verdepryn 11b C, D 14.6 ± 0.150 c 5.6 ± 0.105 ef 0.2 ± 0.041 cd 20.3 ± 0.178 e Guthion 24a C, D 4.0 ± 0.080 d 0.9 ± 0.060 f 0.1 ± 0.029 cd 4.9 ± 0.096 f Statistic χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 104.57, d.f. = 9,P < 0.001 χ 2 = 56.13, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 χ 2 = 67.32, d.f. = 9, P < 0.001 A = 31 May 2019, B = 5 June 2019, C = 18 June 2019, D = 25 June 2019. Values in a column followed by the same lower case letter are not significantly different (P >0.05). afl. oz product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by the Michigan Blueberry Commission, Michigan State Horticultural Society, Project GREEEN, and USDA-NIFA’s Crop Protection and Pest Management program (2018-70006-28917). We thank the chemical companies for providing insecticides to test. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Disi, Joseph, O;Barnes,, Tony;Sial, Ashfaq, A

Insecticide Trial for Citrus Red Mite and Effects on the Predatory Mite Euseius tularensis, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa097

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Southern Red Mite | Oligonychus ilicis (McGregor) bifenazate, spiromesifen, fenpyroximate This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Acramite 4SC (bifenazate) for control of spider mites in southern highbush blueberry, V. corymbosum, including Farthing, Suziblue, and Patrecia. There were six treatments, including untreated control, two registered commercial miticide standards (Oberon 2SC and Portal), and Acramite 4SC applied at three different rates: low rate, high rate, and 2X rate arranged in a randomized complete block design. Each treatment plot contained 500 bushes (~ 13750 sq. ft plot area) and was replicated four times. The untreated control was sprayed with surfactant (methylated seed oil—MSO) while formulated Oberon 2SC (spiromesifen) and Portal (fenpyroximate) were used as standards. Miticide application was made once on 10 Aug 2020 with airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 GPA with four nozzles on a side driving at 4 mph. There was no insecticides or herbicides other than daily injection of nitrogen during irrigation and one-time fungicides application made one-week post miticides application. On 7 Aug 2020, prior to miticide applications, 30 leaflets/6 plants were picked randomly from each plot and used for pretreatment assessment. Similarly, posttreatment sampling was conducted on 13 Aug, 17 Aug, and 25 Aug. Leaves were placed in resealable plastic bag and transported to the laboratory in ice cooler. Eggs and motile spider mites were counted within 24 h the leaves were harvested from the bushes to assess the efficacy of the product. Phytotoxicity was assessed based on degree of leaf burn on whole plant basis on a weekly interval: 17 Aug and 25 Aug. Pictures and visual rating on a scale of 0 to 2 (i.e., 0 = no damage, 1 = minor damage, and 2 = total plant leaf damage) were used for the assessments of phytotoxicity. Total egg and motile counts were analyzed by generalized linear model followed by negative binomial regression to account for overdispersion using JMP Pro 15. Treatment effect was checked by sample dates. Where significant, contrast was performed using untreated data as baseline versus other treatments (P = 0.05). Mean southern red mites (SRM) counts were presented in tables. Spider mite species identified in the trail site was the southern red mites. Pretreatment assessment leaf samples collected 3 days before spray (DBS) showed that the number of SRM was not significantly different among treatments. All miticides, including the three levels of bifenazate tested successfully reduced the number of motile life stages in all sample dates compared to the untreated control. There was a significant treatment effect for egg (χ 2 = 19.98, df = 5, P = 0.001, Table 1). However, treatment effect was not significant for the motile life stages. The number of motile life stages was significantly reduced on 25 and 31 Aug compared to 13 and 17 Aug (χ 2 = 23.33, df = 4, P = 0.0001, Table 2). A significant treatment-by-sample date interaction for the motile life stages was recorded (χ 2 = 46.23, df = 20, P = 0.0023, Table 2). In general, the data showed that the number of SRM individuals declined in successive sampling events (Tables 1 and 2). Similarly, there was reduction in SRM individuals in the untreated cohort, which may have been due to high precipitation during the trial period. Average monthly precipitation, temperature, and humidity were 0.30 inches, 91.7°F, and 84.6, respectively. Crop injury data were all zeros and so was not subjected to statistical tests. Pictures of healthy plants from test plots showed no phytotoxicity signs on foliage throughout the period of the trial.1 Table 1. Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 450.3 337.5 281 91.3 108.0 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 295.3 191 155.3 75.3 15.5 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 92.3 40* 9.5* 3.0* 3.0* Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 355.5 324.5 230.8 8.5* 8.0 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 549.8 158.8 86.5 175.5 180.3 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 230.8 167.3 136 104.0 88.8 Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 450.3 337.5 281 91.3 108.0 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 295.3 191 155.3 75.3 15.5 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 92.3 40* 9.5* 3.0* 3.0* Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 355.5 324.5 230.8 8.5* 8.0 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 549.8 158.8 86.5 175.5 180.3 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 230.8 167.3 136 104.0 88.8 GLM Negative Binomial Regression performed and presented on mean egg counts. DBS (days before spray) and DAS (days after spray). *in each column indicates significant difference in egg counts from treatment (P = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 450.3 337.5 281 91.3 108.0 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 295.3 191 155.3 75.3 15.5 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 92.3 40* 9.5* 3.0* 3.0* Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 355.5 324.5 230.8 8.5* 8.0 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 549.8 158.8 86.5 175.5 180.3 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 230.8 167.3 136 104.0 88.8 Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . #Eggs per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 450.3 337.5 281 91.3 108.0 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 295.3 191 155.3 75.3 15.5 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 92.3 40* 9.5* 3.0* 3.0* Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 355.5 324.5 230.8 8.5* 8.0 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 549.8 158.8 86.5 175.5 180.3 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 230.8 167.3 136 104.0 88.8 GLM Negative Binomial Regression performed and presented on mean egg counts. DBS (days before spray) and DAS (days after spray). *in each column indicates significant difference in egg counts from treatment (P = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 171.8 86.8 105.3 25.0 10.5 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 174.3 34.0 2.0* 2.5 0 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 85.3 3.3* 0.8* 0.5 1.3 Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 137.3 23.5 49.0 0.3* 2.3 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 259.3 31.5 23.3* 5.3 0.8 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 208.3 49.0 52.3 8.3 1.5 Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 171.8 86.8 105.3 25.0 10.5 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 174.3 34.0 2.0* 2.5 0 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 85.3 3.3* 0.8* 0.5 1.3 Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 137.3 23.5 49.0 0.3* 2.3 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 259.3 31.5 23.3* 5.3 0.8 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 208.3 49.0 52.3 8.3 1.5 GLM Negative Binomial Regression performed and presented on mean motile counts. DBS (days before spray) and DAS (days after spray). *in each column indicates significant difference in motile counts from treatment (P = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 171.8 86.8 105.3 25.0 10.5 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 174.3 34.0 2.0* 2.5 0 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 85.3 3.3* 0.8* 0.5 1.3 Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 137.3 23.5 49.0 0.3* 2.3 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 259.3 31.5 23.3* 5.3 0.8 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 208.3 49.0 52.3 8.3 1.5 Treatment . Rate product/acre . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . #Motile per 30 leaves . . . 3 DBS 7 Aug . 3 DAS 13 Aug . 7 DAS 17 Aug . 14 DAS 25 Aug . 21 DAS 31 Aug . Untreated + MSO 1.0 pt/a 171.8 86.8 105.3 25.0 10.5 Oberon + MSO 16 fl oz/a + 1.0 pt/a 174.3 34.0 2.0* 2.5 0 Portal + MSO 2.0 pt/a + 1.0 pt/a 85.3 3.3* 0.8* 0.5 1.3 Acramite @low rate + MSO 354 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 137.3 23.5 49.0 0.3* 2.3 Acramite @high rate + MSO 473.2 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 259.3 31.5 23.3* 5.3 0.8 Acramite @2X rate + MSO 946.4 ml/a + 1.0 pt/a 208.3 49.0 52.3 8.3 1.5 GLM Negative Binomial Regression performed and presented on mean motile counts. DBS (days before spray) and DAS (days after spray). *in each column indicates significant difference in motile counts from treatment (P = 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 We thank Subin Neupane for helping with collection of samples and counting of mites. Our thanks also go to Albertha Parkins, Arun Babu, and Courtney Brissey for helping with counting of mites. Special thanks to the farmer cooperator for allowing us to conduct the efficacy trial in his field. Funding for this trial and Acramite 4SC gift was provided by IR-4 Program. Portal was provided by Nichino America. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Control of Cotton Fleahopper in Cotton Using Foliar Applied Insecticides, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa016

Citrus red mite | Panonychus citri (McGregor) Predatory mite | Euseius tularensis Congdon Heavy densities of citrus red mite can affect tree health, yield, and fruit quality. Various rates of pesticides were applied to 9-yr-old ‘Tango’ mandarin trees at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California. Treatments were assigned to eight trees per treatment on 21 Mar 2019, based on pretreatment counts of adult citrus red mites and treatments arranged in an RCB design. Insecticide treatments combined with 0.5% Omni 6E oil were applied at 200 psi and 200 gpa using a 100 gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation on 28 Mar. Mites were sampled on five leaves from the periphery of four quadrants of each sample tree (20 leaves per tree). The number of adult female citrus red mites found on the upper side of each leaf and the number of motile stages of E. tularensis found on the underside of each leaf were recorded every week for 4 wk after the first treatment. The mean number of pest or predatory mites per leaf were compared between treatments using one-way ANOVA after log(x+1) transformation of the data after testing for an NS block effect. Means were separated according to Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (P < 0.05). Citrus red mite densities were significantly reduced for 2 wk by Magister, Nealta and Nexter and 1 wk by Fujimite compared with the untreated check (Table 1). Envidor did not significantly reduce citrus red mites compared with the untreated check. By wk 4, the untreated check population declined significantly below several of the treatments in response to predatory mites. Predatory mite E. tularensis densities were significantly reduced on one date by Nealta and Envidor and two dates by FujiMite, Nexter, and Magister (Table 2).1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of female citrus red mites/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated Check __ 2.93a 3.28a 3.31a 1.35ab 0.24a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 2.99a 0.98b 1.01ab 1.98a 1.11b Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 3.08a 0.55b 1.16bc 1.83a 1.20b Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 3.27a 0.12b 0.41c 0.83b 0.51ab Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 3.33a 0.29b 1.12bc 1.91a 0.83b Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 3.53a 3.38a 2.74ab 2.27a 0.69ab F5,42 0.1 4.47 3.2 1.09 1.75 P 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.14 Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of female citrus red mites/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated Check __ 2.93a 3.28a 3.31a 1.35ab 0.24a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 2.99a 0.98b 1.01ab 1.98a 1.11b Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 3.08a 0.55b 1.16bc 1.83a 1.20b Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 3.27a 0.12b 0.41c 0.83b 0.51ab Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 3.33a 0.29b 1.12bc 1.91a 0.83b Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 3.53a 3.38a 2.74ab 2.27a 0.69ab F5,42 0.1 4.47 3.2 1.09 1.75 P 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.14 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of female citrus red mites/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated Check __ 2.93a 3.28a 3.31a 1.35ab 0.24a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 2.99a 0.98b 1.01ab 1.98a 1.11b Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 3.08a 0.55b 1.16bc 1.83a 1.20b Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 3.27a 0.12b 0.41c 0.83b 0.51ab Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 3.33a 0.29b 1.12bc 1.91a 0.83b Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 3.53a 3.38a 2.74ab 2.27a 0.69ab F5,42 0.1 4.47 3.2 1.09 1.75 P 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.14 Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of female citrus red mites/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated Check __ 2.93a 3.28a 3.31a 1.35ab 0.24a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 2.99a 0.98b 1.01ab 1.98a 1.11b Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 3.08a 0.55b 1.16bc 1.83a 1.20b Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 3.27a 0.12b 0.41c 0.83b 0.51ab Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 3.33a 0.29b 1.12bc 1.91a 0.83b Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 3.53a 3.38a 2.74ab 2.27a 0.69ab F5,42 0.1 4.47 3.2 1.09 1.75 P 0.99 0.02 0.02 0.38 0.14 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/ formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of Euseius tularensis/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated check 0.04a 0.13a 0.01ab 0.18a 0.11a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.03b 0.03a Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.04a 0.10ab 0.04a Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.02a 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 0.09a 0.00b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 0.04a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.04ab 0.02a F5, 42 0.75 2.34 3.20 2.20 0.71 P 0.59 0.06 0.32 0.07 0.62 Treatment/ formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of Euseius tularensis/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated check 0.04a 0.13a 0.01ab 0.18a 0.11a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.03b 0.03a Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.04a 0.10ab 0.04a Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.02a 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 0.09a 0.00b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 0.04a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.04ab 0.02a F5, 42 0.75 2.34 3.20 2.20 0.71 P 0.59 0.06 0.32 0.07 0.62 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/ formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of Euseius tularensis/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated check 0.04a 0.13a 0.01ab 0.18a 0.11a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.03b 0.03a Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.04a 0.10ab 0.04a Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.02a 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 0.09a 0.00b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 0.04a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.04ab 0.02a F5, 42 0.75 2.34 3.20 2.20 0.71 P 0.59 0.06 0.32 0.07 0.62 Treatment/ formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. of Euseius tularensis/leaf 18 Mar 4 Apr 11 Apr 18 Apr 24 Apr Untreated check 0.04a 0.13a 0.01ab 0.18a 0.11a FujiMite SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.03b 0.03a Nealta SC + Omni 6E oil 13.7a + 0.5% 0.06a 0.01b 0.04a 0.10ab 0.04a Magister SC + Omni 6E oil 32.0a + 0.5% 0.02a 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Nexter SC + Dyne-Amic 17.0a + 0.5% 0.09a 0.00b 0.00b 0.00b 0.00a Envidor 2 SC + Omni 6E oil 20.0a + 0.5% 0.04a 0.01b 0.01ab 0.04ab 0.02a F5, 42 0.75 2.34 3.20 2.20 0.71 P 0.59 0.06 0.32 0.07 0.62 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Vyavhare, Suhas, S;Reed,, Blayne

Evaluation of Insecticides to Control Brown Marmorated Stink Bug on Hemp in Virginia, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa090

Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp Cotton Fleahopper (CFH) | Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter) afidopyropen, acephate, sulfoxaflor, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid A trial was conducted to evaluate foliar insecticides for control of cotton fleahopper in cotton. This test was conducted on a dryland commercial cotton field near Plainview, TX. The field was planted on 3 May on 40-inch row spacing. The experiment was designed as an RCB with seven treatments and four replications. The plots were four-rows wide × 40 ft. in length. Treatments were applied on 19 July during the peak bloom stage of cotton. Insecticide applications were made with a CO2 pressurized hand-boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 11.5 GPA through hollow cone TeeJet TXVS6 spray tip nozzles (two per row) at 30 psi. Wind speed was ~9 mph during spray applications. Two drop-cloth samples (average of five plants/sample) were taken from the middle two rows of each plot at 7 DAT and 14 DAT. Numbers of CFH nymphs and adults were counted in each drop cloth sample. Data are reported as mean number of CFHs per 100 plants per plot. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and means were separated by Tukey’s mean separation. Insecticide application had a significant impact on CFH population (Table 1). All the insecticide treatments resulted in significantly fewer CFHs compared to the untreated check on both the sample dates. No significant differences were observed among insecticide treatments.1 Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Rate amt product/acre . Total CFHs per 100 plants . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 60.0a 50.0a Sefina 0.42DC 3 fl oz 17.5b 27.5b Sefina 0.42DC 6 fl oz 10.0b 20.0b Sefina 0.42DC + Orthene 97S 3 fl oz + 4 oz wt 7.5b 15.0b Transform 50WG 1 oz wt 2.5b 5.0b Centric 40WG 2 oz wt 2.5b 2.5b Admire Pro 4.6F 1.5 fl oz 2.5b 7.5b Treatment/ formulation . Rate amt product/acre . Total CFHs per 100 plants . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 60.0a 50.0a Sefina 0.42DC 3 fl oz 17.5b 27.5b Sefina 0.42DC 6 fl oz 10.0b 20.0b Sefina 0.42DC + Orthene 97S 3 fl oz + 4 oz wt 7.5b 15.0b Transform 50WG 1 oz wt 2.5b 5.0b Centric 40WG 2 oz wt 2.5b 2.5b Admire Pro 4.6F 1.5 fl oz 2.5b 7.5b Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Rate amt product/acre . Total CFHs per 100 plants . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 60.0a 50.0a Sefina 0.42DC 3 fl oz 17.5b 27.5b Sefina 0.42DC 6 fl oz 10.0b 20.0b Sefina 0.42DC + Orthene 97S 3 fl oz + 4 oz wt 7.5b 15.0b Transform 50WG 1 oz wt 2.5b 5.0b Centric 40WG 2 oz wt 2.5b 2.5b Admire Pro 4.6F 1.5 fl oz 2.5b 7.5b Treatment/ formulation . Rate amt product/acre . Total CFHs per 100 plants . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 60.0a 50.0a Sefina 0.42DC 3 fl oz 17.5b 27.5b Sefina 0.42DC 6 fl oz 10.0b 20.0b Sefina 0.42DC + Orthene 97S 3 fl oz + 4 oz wt 7.5b 15.0b Transform 50WG 1 oz wt 2.5b 5.0b Centric 40WG 2 oz wt 2.5b 2.5b Admire Pro 4.6F 1.5 fl oz 2.5b 7.5b Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P = 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Britt, Kadie, E;Kuhar, Thomas, P

Evaluation of Commercially Available Miticides for Control of Citrus Rust Mite, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa055

Brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) | Halyomorpha halys (Stål) Hempseed (marijuana) | Cannabis sativa Beauveria bassina, neem oil, spinosad, azadirachtin, pyrethrin, Chenopodium ambrosioides Hemp production in the U.S. increased dramatically in 2019, and still very little information is published with regards to pest management on the crop. The objective of our experiment was to assess the efficacy of several natural insecticide products for control of BMSB, which is a common pest of grain hemp in Virginia. A small plot field experiment was conducted on a planting of ‘Felina 32’ hemp direct seeded with a grain drill at 30 lb seed per acre on 31 May 2019 at the Virginia Tech Kentland Farm. The experiment had six treatments (BoteGHA (Beauveria bassiana strain GHA); Trilogy (clarified hydrophobic extract of neem oil); Entrust (spinosad); Azera (azadirachtin and pyrethrins); Requiem (terpene constituents of the extract of Chenopodium ambrosioides)); and an untreated check arranged in an RCBD with four replicates. Individual plots were 6 ft × 10 ft surrounded by 5 ft alleys with no plants. Hemp plants were sprayed with products in the field using a single-nozzle boom with D3 spray tip powered by a CO2 backpack sprayer set at 40 psi, and delivering 30 gal per acre. Treatments were applied on 13, 20, and 27 Aug. On 16, 23, and 30 Aug, five plants per plot were visually inspected for stink bugs. On 20 Aug., after allowing plants to dry for 4 hr in the field after application, one leaf and one seed head from each plot were excised, placed in a 1 qt plastic deli container, and brought back to the lab for a bioassay with live field-collected BMSB. Approximately 120 late-instar BMSB nymphs were collected from red bud and catalpa trees around Blacksburg, VA within 1 to 3 d prior to the bioassay and were held in a mesh cage with a water wick prior to testing. BMSB were placed 5 bugs per container and mortality was recorded at 1, 2, and 3 DAT. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures and means were separated using Fisher’s LSD at the 0.05 level of significance. BMSB densities were low on field plots and there was no significant effect of treatment. In the BMSB laboratory bioassay, a significant treatment effect occurred at 3 DAT, at which time, Azera had the highest percentage mortality at 60.0%, which was higher than all other treatments except Requiem (40.0%). BMSB mortality on plants treated with BoteGHA, Trilogy, and Entrust was not significantly different from the untreated check.1 Table 1. . . BMSB adults or nymphs per five plants . BMSB mortality (%) on treated hemp leaves and seeds . Treatment . fl oz/acre . Aug 16 . Aug 23 . Aug 30 . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . Untreated check — 0.0 0.3 0.3 5.0 12.5 17.5 c BoteGHA 37.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.0 17.5 30.0 bc Trilogy 44.1 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 735 17.5 bc Entrust 5.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 30.0 32.5 bc Azera 32.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 10.0 22.5 60.0 a Requiem 128.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 5.0 10.0 45.0 ab P ns ns ns ns ns <0.005 . . BMSB adults or nymphs per five plants . BMSB mortality (%) on treated hemp leaves and seeds . Treatment . fl oz/acre . Aug 16 . Aug 23 . Aug 30 . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . Untreated check — 0.0 0.3 0.3 5.0 12.5 17.5 c BoteGHA 37.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.0 17.5 30.0 bc Trilogy 44.1 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 735 17.5 bc Entrust 5.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 30.0 32.5 bc Azera 32.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 10.0 22.5 60.0 a Requiem 128.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 5.0 10.0 45.0 ab P ns ns ns ns ns <0.005 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. Open in new tab Table 1. . . BMSB adults or nymphs per five plants . BMSB mortality (%) on treated hemp leaves and seeds . Treatment . fl oz/acre . Aug 16 . Aug 23 . Aug 30 . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . Untreated check — 0.0 0.3 0.3 5.0 12.5 17.5 c BoteGHA 37.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.0 17.5 30.0 bc Trilogy 44.1 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 735 17.5 bc Entrust 5.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 30.0 32.5 bc Azera 32.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 10.0 22.5 60.0 a Requiem 128.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 5.0 10.0 45.0 ab P ns ns ns ns ns <0.005 . . BMSB adults or nymphs per five plants . BMSB mortality (%) on treated hemp leaves and seeds . Treatment . fl oz/acre . Aug 16 . Aug 23 . Aug 30 . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . Untreated check — 0.0 0.3 0.3 5.0 12.5 17.5 c BoteGHA 37.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 5.0 17.5 30.0 bc Trilogy 44.1 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.0 735 17.5 bc Entrust 5.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 30.0 32.5 bc Azera 32.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 10.0 22.5 60.0 a Requiem 128.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 5.0 10.0 45.0 ab P ns ns ns ns ns <0.005 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry product testing funding from Certis USA. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Effectiveness of Miticides Against Spider Mites in Peanut, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa024

Citrus rust mite (CRM) | Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead) Orange | Citrus sinensis thiamethoxam, cyantraniliprole, tolfenpyrad, petroleum oil, fenbutatin oxide, abamectin/avermectin B1 The citrus rust mite (CRM) causes damage to citrus tree foliage and fruit, which could lead to leaf and fruit drop. Mite feeding on the surface of the fruit also causes grade reductions and reduced juice yield. Its damage is characterized by the russetting and bronzing of the peel. This trial was conducted at the Southwest Florida Research and Education center in Immokalee Florida on 5-yr-old ‘Valencia’ orange trees planted on double-row beds with a row spacing of 18 ft and a tree spacing of 8 ft (302 trees per acre). Five treatments and an untreated check were assigned in an RBC design to plots within two rows each containing two replicates (four blocks). Each plot contained six trees and experimental rows were separated by an untreated buffer row. Applications to both sides of the tree were made using a Durand Wayland AF100-32 air blast speed sprayer operating at 1.9 mph and 300 psi with four (4,4,4,4) John Beane Ceramic nozzles on each side to deliver 115 gpa. Sprays in three of the treatments were made on 11 Jul (Table 1) but were washed by heavy rains within 90 min of the application. These three treatments were resprayed on 12 Jul along with the remaining two treatments. Mite density prior to treatment application was evaluated on 5 Jul by inspection of four fruit in each plot with a 14× Bausch & Lomb Hastings triplex hand lens. A ‘lens field’ of approximately 1.0-cm diameter was used to examine partially shaded areas of each sampled fruit and the mean number of mites per lens field was reported for each plot. After treatment, each plot was sampled weekly from 15 Jul to 3 Sep (3 to 52 DAT) by collecting four fruit from each of four centrally located trees. All data were subjected to ANOVA with means separated by LSD (P = 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate form prod./acre or v:v Mites/lens field Application dates 3 DAT 10 DAT 17 DAT 24 Dat 31 DAT 38 DAT 45 DAT 52 DAT 11 Jul 12 Jul 15 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 26 Aug 3 Sep Untreated check 7.81 a 5.2 a 8.1 a 10.1 a 7.6 a 3.4 a 2.3 a 1.4 a 435 oil 1% x x 2.19 bc 0.7 b 3.2 b 4.4 b 4.5 b 3.4 a 1.2 c 2.1 a Apta 27 x x 0.04 c 0.1 b 0.3 c 0.3 c 0.7 c 0.5 bc 0.5 c 1.3 ab 435 oil 1% x x Agri-Flex 8.5 x x 0.20 c 0.5 b 0.6 c 1.0 c 1.9 c 0.5 bc 2.2 ab 1.2 ab 435 oil 1% x x Minecto Pro 12 x 1.76 bc 0.7 b 1.3 bc 2.1 bc 2.2 c 1.6 b 1.2 bc 0.5 bc 435 oil 1% x Vendex 50 WP 3 lb x 2.96 b 1.0 b 1.8 bc 1.7 c 0.7 c 0.2 c 0.3 c 0.1 c Treatment/formulation Rate form prod./acre or v:v Mites/lens field Application dates 3 DAT 10 DAT 17 DAT 24 Dat 31 DAT 38 DAT 45 DAT 52 DAT 11 Jul 12 Jul 15 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 26 Aug 3 Sep Untreated check 7.81 a 5.2 a 8.1 a 10.1 a 7.6 a 3.4 a 2.3 a 1.4 a 435 oil 1% x x 2.19 bc 0.7 b 3.2 b 4.4 b 4.5 b 3.4 a 1.2 c 2.1 a Apta 27 x x 0.04 c 0.1 b 0.3 c 0.3 c 0.7 c 0.5 bc 0.5 c 1.3 ab 435 oil 1% x x Agri-Flex 8.5 x x 0.20 c 0.5 b 0.6 c 1.0 c 1.9 c 0.5 bc 2.2 ab 1.2 ab 435 oil 1% x x Minecto Pro 12 x 1.76 bc 0.7 b 1.3 bc 2.1 bc 2.2 c 1.6 b 1.2 bc 0.5 bc 435 oil 1% x Vendex 50 WP 3 lb x 2.96 b 1.0 b 1.8 bc 1.7 c 0.7 c 0.2 c 0.3 c 0.1 c Means within columns followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate form prod./acre or v:v Mites/lens field Application dates 3 DAT 10 DAT 17 DAT 24 Dat 31 DAT 38 DAT 45 DAT 52 DAT 11 Jul 12 Jul 15 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 26 Aug 3 Sep Untreated check 7.81 a 5.2 a 8.1 a 10.1 a 7.6 a 3.4 a 2.3 a 1.4 a 435 oil 1% x x 2.19 bc 0.7 b 3.2 b 4.4 b 4.5 b 3.4 a 1.2 c 2.1 a Apta 27 x x 0.04 c 0.1 b 0.3 c 0.3 c 0.7 c 0.5 bc 0.5 c 1.3 ab 435 oil 1% x x Agri-Flex 8.5 x x 0.20 c 0.5 b 0.6 c 1.0 c 1.9 c 0.5 bc 2.2 ab 1.2 ab 435 oil 1% x x Minecto Pro 12 x 1.76 bc 0.7 b 1.3 bc 2.1 bc 2.2 c 1.6 b 1.2 bc 0.5 bc 435 oil 1% x Vendex 50 WP 3 lb x 2.96 b 1.0 b 1.8 bc 1.7 c 0.7 c 0.2 c 0.3 c 0.1 c Treatment/formulation Rate form prod./acre or v:v Mites/lens field Application dates 3 DAT 10 DAT 17 DAT 24 Dat 31 DAT 38 DAT 45 DAT 52 DAT 11 Jul 12 Jul 15 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 26 Aug 3 Sep Untreated check 7.81 a 5.2 a 8.1 a 10.1 a 7.6 a 3.4 a 2.3 a 1.4 a 435 oil 1% x x 2.19 bc 0.7 b 3.2 b 4.4 b 4.5 b 3.4 a 1.2 c 2.1 a Apta 27 x x 0.04 c 0.1 b 0.3 c 0.3 c 0.7 c 0.5 bc 0.5 c 1.3 ab 435 oil 1% x x Agri-Flex 8.5 x x 0.20 c 0.5 b 0.6 c 1.0 c 1.9 c 0.5 bc 2.2 ab 1.2 ab 435 oil 1% x x Minecto Pro 12 x 1.76 bc 0.7 b 1.3 bc 2.1 bc 2.2 c 1.6 b 1.2 bc 0.5 bc 435 oil 1% x Vendex 50 WP 3 lb x 2.96 b 1.0 b 1.8 bc 1.7 c 0.7 c 0.2 c 0.3 c 0.1 c Means within columns followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab CRM density prior to treatment averaged 3.2 ± 8.5 (mean ± SE) mites per lens field. All treatments significantly reduced the number of CRM compared with untreated control through 45 DAT, except 435 oil at 38 DAT and Agri-flex plus 435 oil at 45 DAT (Table 1). At the last sampling date 52 DAT, only Minecto Pro plus 435 oil and Vendex treatments were still showing significant effect compared with untreated control. CRM reduction by 435 oil alone was generally less than those in the other treatments starting 10 DAT, most likely due to its short residual effects. There were no significant differences among Apta, Agri-Flex, Minecto Pro or Vendex treatments through 31 DAT. From 31 to 52 DAT, the lowest overall CRM densities were in plots treated with Vendex.1 Footnotes 1 This trial was partly supported by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Majumdar,, Ayanava;Price,, Matthew

Effectiveness of Miticides Against Spider Mites in Peanut, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa040

Twospotted spider mite | Tetranychus urticae Koch Peanut (groundnut) | Arachis hypogaea aramite, fenpyroximate, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus, Chromobacterium subtsugae, propargite The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of miticides to control two-spotted spider mite, the dominant mite species on peanuts in Alabama. This study was completed at the Chilton Regional Research and Extension Center, Clanton, AL. Peanut, GA O6-G, was planted on 22 May under a high tunnel to exclude rainfall. Spider mite infestations were induced by applying bifenthrin (Tundra, Winfield Solutions, St. Paul, MN) on 14 Aug and zeta-cypermethrin (Mustang Maxx, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA) on 28 Aug. Six treatments were arranged in an RCB design with four replications. Peanut plots were 25 ft long with one treated row separated by 5 ft alleys. Insecticide treatments were applied using a CO2 backpack sprayer with three TX-VS12 hollow cone nozzles mounted on a boom operated at 30 psi and 32 gpa. Miticide treatment were applied on 17, 24, and 30 Sep, and 4 and 10 Oct. Spider mite densities were determined by sampling 10 terminal leaves per plot on Oct 14. Samples were processed by washing in alcohol and counting the number of spider mites per sample. Data are reported as an average number of mites per leaf. Peanut plots were inverted manually on 14 Oct and pods were harvested using a small plot combine. Spider mite counts and yield data were analyzed using ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD, P < 0.05). The year 2019 was marked by a flash drought (rapid extreme heat and dry period) in September that increased spider mite activity resulting in high pest pressure. There were statistically significant differences between treatments for the number of spider mites (Table 1). The untreated plots had the highest spider mite numbers with nearly 50% plant burn and extensive webbing of peanut terminals. All the miticides reduced spider mite densities compared to the untreated check. Also, plots treated with Comite had fewer mites than plots treated with Portal. However, there were no differences among treatments for yield. No phytotoxicity was observed from any of the miticide treatments.1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mites/leaf . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check – – 15.1a 2,149 Portal 0.4EC 1.5c 17, 30 Sep 7.7b 2,548 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 4.2bc 3,009 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e Aramite 50a 48.0d Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b fb 32.0d + 18.0d fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 6.5bc 2,610 Grandevo 30DF fb Aramite 50a + 3.0e fb 32.0d + Bemix 87b fb Grandevo 30DF fb 18.0d fb 3.0e fb Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32.0d + 18.0d Comite 6.55EC 32.0d 17, 30 Sep 3.7c 3,576 PFR-97 20WDG 2.0e 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 5.6bc 1,612 P > F <0.01 0.13 Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mites/leaf . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check – – 15.1a 2,149 Portal 0.4EC 1.5c 17, 30 Sep 7.7b 2,548 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 4.2bc 3,009 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e Aramite 50a 48.0d Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b fb 32.0d + 18.0d fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 6.5bc 2,610 Grandevo 30DF fb Aramite 50a + 3.0e fb 32.0d + Bemix 87b fb Grandevo 30DF fb 18.0d fb 3.0e fb Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32.0d + 18.0d Comite 6.55EC 32.0d 17, 30 Sep 3.7c 3,576 PFR-97 20WDG 2.0e 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 5.6bc 1,612 P > F <0.01 0.13 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P = 0.05. fb = followed by. aAramite is a 50% active liquid formulation. bBemix is a 87% active liquid formulation. cpt form. per acre. dfl oz form. per acre. elb form. per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mites/leaf . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check – – 15.1a 2,149 Portal 0.4EC 1.5c 17, 30 Sep 7.7b 2,548 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 4.2bc 3,009 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e Aramite 50a 48.0d Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b fb 32.0d + 18.0d fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 6.5bc 2,610 Grandevo 30DF fb Aramite 50a + 3.0e fb 32.0d + Bemix 87b fb Grandevo 30DF fb 18.0d fb 3.0e fb Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32.0d + 18.0d Comite 6.55EC 32.0d 17, 30 Sep 3.7c 3,576 PFR-97 20WDG 2.0e 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 5.6bc 1,612 P > F <0.01 0.13 Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mites/leaf . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check – – 15.1a 2,149 Portal 0.4EC 1.5c 17, 30 Sep 7.7b 2,548 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 4.2bc 3,009 Aramite 50a fb PFR-97 20WDG fb 48.0d fb 2.0e Aramite 50a 48.0d Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b fb 32.0d + 18.0d fb 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 6.5bc 2,610 Grandevo 30DF fb Aramite 50a + 3.0e fb 32.0d + Bemix 87b fb Grandevo 30DF fb 18.0d fb 3.0e fb Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32.0d + 18.0d Comite 6.55EC 32.0d 17, 30 Sep 3.7c 3,576 PFR-97 20WDG 2.0e 17, 24, 30 Sep, 4, 10 Oct 5.6bc 1,612 P > F <0.01 0.13 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P = 0.05. fb = followed by. aAramite is a 50% active liquid formulation. bBemix is a 87% active liquid formulation. cpt form. per acre. dfl oz form. per acre. elb form. per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was funded by grant from the National Peanut Board and the Alabama Peanut Producers Association. Industry gift of product also supported this research. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Majumdar,, Ayanava;Price,, Matthew

Onion Maggot Control in Onion, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa074

Peanut (groundnut) | Arachis hypogaea Twospotted spider mite (TSM) | Tetranychus urticae Koch propargite, fenpyroximate, abamectin/avermectin B1, aramite The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of miticides to control twospotted spider mite (TSM), the dominant mite species on peanuts in Alabama. This study was completed at the Chilton Regional Research and Extension Center, Clanton, AL. ‘Virginia’ peanut was planted on 31 May under a high tunnel to exclude rainfall. Spider mites were induced by four applications of synthetic pyrethroids zeta-cypermethrin (Mustang Maxx, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA) on 8 Aug and 22 Aug followed by bifenthrin (Tundra, Winfield Solutions, St. Paul, MN) on 5 Sep and 12 Sep. Five treatments (including untreated check) were replicated six times in an RCB design. Peanut plots were 25 ft long with one treated row separated by 5 ft alleys. Insecticide treatments were applied using a CO2 backpack sprayer with three TX-VS12 hollow cone nozzles mounted on a boom operated at 30 psi and 32 gpa. Miticide treatment dates were 26 Sep and 4 Oct. Spider mite densities were determined by sampling 10 terminal leaves from 10 plants per plot and washing them in alcohol. Spider mites were counted in the laboratory and converted to average mites per leaf. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD (P < 0.05). Year 2017 was a very wet year that resulted in the need for four pyrethroid applications for inducing spider mites for this study. This is different from drought year when only one or two applications of synthetic pyrethroids result in spider mite induction in research plots. Untreated check had the highest spider mite density (Table 1) that resulted in extensive webbing of peanut terminals. TSM counts from plots treated with Comite (registered on peanuts), Portal, and Agrimek were significantly lower compared to the untreated check. Alternative miticide Aramite + Bemix mixture did not provide significant control of spider mites compared to the untreated check. No phytotoxicity was observed from any of the miticide treatments.1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mite counts / leaf . . . . . 3 Oct . 11 Oct . Untreated check - - 19.7a 24a Portal 0.4EC 2c 26 Sep 0.4b 2.3b Agrimek SC 3.5d 26 Sep 0.2b 3.1b Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32d + 18d 26 Sep, 4 Oct 28.2a 25.8a Comite 6.55EC 32d 26 Sep 1.4b 4.9b P <0.01 <0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mite counts / leaf . . . . . 3 Oct . 11 Oct . Untreated check - - 19.7a 24a Portal 0.4EC 2c 26 Sep 0.4b 2.3b Agrimek SC 3.5d 26 Sep 0.2b 3.1b Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32d + 18d 26 Sep, 4 Oct 28.2a 25.8a Comite 6.55EC 32d 26 Sep 1.4b 4.9b P <0.01 <0.01 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P = 0.05. aAramite is a 50% active liquid formulation. bBemix is a 87% active liquid formulation. cpt form. per acre. dfl oz form. per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mite counts / leaf . . . . . 3 Oct . 11 Oct . Untreated check - - 19.7a 24a Portal 0.4EC 2c 26 Sep 0.4b 2.3b Agrimek SC 3.5d 26 Sep 0.2b 3.1b Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32d + 18d 26 Sep, 4 Oct 28.2a 25.8a Comite 6.55EC 32d 26 Sep 1.4b 4.9b P <0.01 <0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Application dates . Spider mite counts / leaf . . . . . 3 Oct . 11 Oct . Untreated check - - 19.7a 24a Portal 0.4EC 2c 26 Sep 0.4b 2.3b Agrimek SC 3.5d 26 Sep 0.2b 3.1b Aramite 50a + Bemix 87b 32d + 18d 26 Sep, 4 Oct 28.2a 25.8a Comite 6.55EC 32d 26 Sep 1.4b 4.9b P <0.01 <0.01 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P = 0.05. aAramite is a 50% active liquid formulation. bBemix is a 87% active liquid formulation. cpt form. per acre. dfl oz form. per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was funded by grant from the National Peanut Board and the Alabama Peanut Producers Association and industry gift of products. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Moretti,, Erica;Nault, Brian, A

Insecticide Efficacy for Chilli Thrips Management in Strawberry, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa007

Onion maggot: Delia antiqua Meigen Onion | Allium cepa thiamethoxam, spinosad, cyromazine Onion maggot (Delia antiqua Meigen) control using seed treatments was evaluated on muck soil in a commercial onion field south of Oswego, New York (GPS: 43°25′04.4″N 76°27′11.4″W) in 2019. On 15 May, dry bulb onion seeds, cultivar ‘Highlander’, were planted with a hand-pushed vacuum seeder. Each plot consisted of two 30-ft rows spaced 10 inches apart. Plots were separated from each other by a 3-ft alley of bare soil. There were four treatments including the fungicide-only check. Treatments were arranged in a RCBD, replicated five times. All treatments, including the fungicide-only control, were commercially treated with Apron XL (10 g a.i./100 kg of seed), Maxim 4 FS (5 g a.i./100 kg of seed), and Dynasty (2.4 g a.i./100 kg of seed) for seedling disease control. Additionally, all plots were treated with an at-planting in-furrow drench of Dithane F-45 Rainshield, applied at 5.6 liters/ha using a gravity fed system, to control onion smut. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated one to two times per week beginning 24 Jun, when maggot damage was first detected, and ending 22 Jul, corresponding to the end of the first generation of onion maggot. At each evaluation, seedlings containing maggot larvae or those obviously dying from maggot feeding (but larva not present) were recorded as dead and then removed from each plot. A final plant stand count was recorded the last day of evaluation, 22 Jul. Because seedling loss from factors such as excessive rainfall, wind, and disease can be confounded with damage from maggot feeding, data were analyzed by taking the sum of all maggot-killed plants and divided by the sum of maggot-killed plants plus the final stand count for each replication. This quotient was the final proportion of plants killed by onion maggot. These data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in SAS (v. 9.4; PROC MIXED) with treatment as the fixed effect and replication as the random effect. Proportion data were transformed using an arcsine square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed means are presented. Treatment means were compared using Tukey’s studentized range (HSD) test at P < 0.05. Conditions were considerably wet and cool during the entirely of the trial, resulting in low plant stands. However, onion maggot pressure remained very high; onion maggots killed nearly two-thirds of the plants in the fungicide-only control (Table 1). The percentage of plants killed in the Cruiser 70WS treatment was also very high and similar to the fungicide-only control. In contrast, the seed treatment combinations (Cruiser + Regard and Cruiser + Trigard) significantly reduced the percentage of plants killed by onion maggot compared with levels in the fungicide-only control and the Cruiser 70WS treatment. The Cruiser + Regard and Cruiser + Trigard treatments did not differ in their control of the pest. No phytotoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatment applications.1 Table 1. Trt# Active ingredients Rates % plants killed by onion maggot (±SEM) 1 Fungicide-only 62.9 ± 9.5a 2 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS 0.2 mg a.i./seed 61.4 ± 9.4a 3 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Regard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.2 mg a.i./seed 16.9 ± 3.3b 4 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Trigard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.225 mg a.i./seed 17.5 ± 4.8b Trt# Active ingredients Rates % plants killed by onion maggot (±SEM) 1 Fungicide-only 62.9 ± 9.5a 2 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS 0.2 mg a.i./seed 61.4 ± 9.4a 3 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Regard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.2 mg a.i./seed 16.9 ± 3.3b 4 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Trigard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.225 mg a.i./seed 17.5 ± 4.8b Means (± standard error) followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s studentized range [HSD] test; n = 5). Data were arcsine square root (x + 0.001) function for analysis, but untransformed data are shown. Open in new tab Table 1. Trt# Active ingredients Rates % plants killed by onion maggot (±SEM) 1 Fungicide-only 62.9 ± 9.5a 2 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS 0.2 mg a.i./seed 61.4 ± 9.4a 3 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Regard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.2 mg a.i./seed 16.9 ± 3.3b 4 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Trigard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.225 mg a.i./seed 17.5 ± 4.8b Trt# Active ingredients Rates % plants killed by onion maggot (±SEM) 1 Fungicide-only 62.9 ± 9.5a 2 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS 0.2 mg a.i./seed 61.4 ± 9.4a 3 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Regard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.2 mg a.i./seed 16.9 ± 3.3b 4 Fungicide + Cruiser 70 WS + Trigard 0.2 mg a.i./seed 0.225 mg a.i./seed 17.5 ± 4.8b Means (± standard error) followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s studentized range [HSD] test; n = 5). Data were arcsine square root (x + 0.001) function for analysis, but untransformed data are shown. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 Commercially treated onion seeds were provided by Syngenta, but the research was primarily funded by the New York Onion Research Development Program. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Lahiri,, Sriyanka;Panthi,, Babu

Tarsonemus bakeri Mite Bioassay, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa046

Chilli Thrips | Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood Hosts: Strawberry | Fragaria spp tolfenpyrad, cyantraniliprole, abamectin/avermectin B1, spinetoram Chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), are invasive economically damaging pests of strawberry in Florida. Several insecticides were compared for efficacy in the field for management of this pest in 2019 in the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma (Hillsborough County). Bare-root short-day strawberry cultivar, ‘Brilliance’, was planted on 8 Oct 2019 in 32-ft-long strawberry plots with 10 ft buffer in a randomized complete block design. There were 50 plants per plot planted at 12-inch plant spacing. Five treatments and one untreated check were replicated four times in this study. Experimental plot maintenance involved the application of DiPel DF (2 lb/acre) for armyworm, Spodoptera spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on a weekly basis from 18 Oct to 20 Dec, which was applied separately from treatments. All experimental products were tank mixed with a surfactant, Induce, at the rate of 0.25% (v/v). The application was done with the help of a backpack sprayer calibrated to 50 gallons per acre (GPA) and the applier used a metronome to calibrate their pace during insecticide application. The pretreatment sampling was conducted on 3 Dec 2019. Insecticide treatments were applied on 4 Dec 2019 thereafter. Posttreatment sampling was conducted on 10, 18, and 24 Dec. Since chilli thrips prefer feeding on young foliage, young strawberry leaflets and flowers were collected from six random plants per plot in sealed bags and washed in 70% ethanol for counting of nymphs and adults on each sampling date. Each plot was assigned a damage rating on each sampling date. Fruits were also harvested on each sampling date followed by grading of fruits into marketable and damaged fruit and weighed. Generalized linear-mixed model was used to model the effects of treatments on insect count, plant damage rating, and marketable yield (SAS 9.4, SAS Institute Inc. 2018). Data were fitted to Poisson distribution and normality of residuals were confirmed with diagnostic plots/student panels. Separation of means was done using the Tukey HSD test (α ≤ 0.05). The pretreatment values of all the variables did not differ among treatments. The effect of treatments was evident on chilli thrips adults and nymphs on leaflets at 14 and 20 DAT, on nymphs on flowers at 6 DAT (Tables 1 and 2), and on seasonal mean of marketable yield (Table 3). Season end plant damage rating was not affected by insecticide treatments. Radiant significantly reduced chilli thrips adults and nymphs on leaflets at 20 DAT, and nymphs on flowers at 6 DAT compared to untreated check. Low rate of Exirel showed significant suppression of chilli thrips nymphs on leaflets at 14 DAT and high rate of Exirel significantly reduced both adults and nymphs on leaflets at 20 DAT. At 20 DAT, all insecticide treatments except Exirel at low rate, suppressed adults on leaflets compared to untreated check. Radiant had significantly high marketable yield compared to all other treatments. Results indicate that Radiant showed promising control of both adults and nymphs with significantly high marketable yield. After Radiant, Exirel at high rate showed promising control of both adults and nymphs. Therefore, Exirel can be rotated in spray program to reduce the selection pressure on insect pests. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 1. Chilli thrips adult and nymph count per strawberry leaflet Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pretreatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.00 0.25 1.08 5.44 2.75a 10.90a 2.66a 15.39a Apta 27 fl oz 0.13 1.25 1.73 2.64 0.25a 4.80ab 0.62b 10.25a Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.00 0.50 1.13 2.25 0.25a 1.13b 2.38a 18.68a Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.25 0.70 7.92 0.00a 4.65ab 0.63b 6.94b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.13 0.50 0.49 8.08 0.50a 6.18ab 0.42b 9.17a Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.24 1.80 0.00a 1.85ab 0.43b 0.49b Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.37 0.75 0.77 1.83 2.91 3.81 3.73 4.53 P 0.2896 0.5971 0.5856 0.1675 0.0495 0.0199 0.0216 0.0102 Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pretreatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.00 0.25 1.08 5.44 2.75a 10.90a 2.66a 15.39a Apta 27 fl oz 0.13 1.25 1.73 2.64 0.25a 4.80ab 0.62b 10.25a Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.00 0.50 1.13 2.25 0.25a 1.13b 2.38a 18.68a Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.25 0.70 7.92 0.00a 4.65ab 0.63b 6.94b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.13 0.50 0.49 8.08 0.50a 6.18ab 0.42b 9.17a Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.24 1.80 0.00a 1.85ab 0.43b 0.49b Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.37 0.75 0.77 1.83 2.91 3.81 3.73 4.53 P 0.2896 0.5971 0.5856 0.1675 0.0495 0.0199 0.0216 0.0102 Means with the same letter in the columns are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P > 0.05). aThe surfactant Induce was included with all treatments at the rate of 0.25 % (v/v). df1 = num DF, df2 = den DF. Open in new tab Table 1. Chilli thrips adult and nymph count per strawberry leaflet Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pretreatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.00 0.25 1.08 5.44 2.75a 10.90a 2.66a 15.39a Apta 27 fl oz 0.13 1.25 1.73 2.64 0.25a 4.80ab 0.62b 10.25a Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.00 0.50 1.13 2.25 0.25a 1.13b 2.38a 18.68a Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.25 0.70 7.92 0.00a 4.65ab 0.63b 6.94b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.13 0.50 0.49 8.08 0.50a 6.18ab 0.42b 9.17a Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.24 1.80 0.00a 1.85ab 0.43b 0.49b Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.37 0.75 0.77 1.83 2.91 3.81 3.73 4.53 P 0.2896 0.5971 0.5856 0.1675 0.0495 0.0199 0.0216 0.0102 Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pretreatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.00 0.25 1.08 5.44 2.75a 10.90a 2.66a 15.39a Apta 27 fl oz 0.13 1.25 1.73 2.64 0.25a 4.80ab 0.62b 10.25a Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.00 0.50 1.13 2.25 0.25a 1.13b 2.38a 18.68a Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.25 0.70 7.92 0.00a 4.65ab 0.63b 6.94b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.13 0.50 0.49 8.08 0.50a 6.18ab 0.42b 9.17a Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.00 0.24 1.80 0.00a 1.85ab 0.43b 0.49b Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.37 0.75 0.77 1.83 2.91 3.81 3.73 4.53 P 0.2896 0.5971 0.5856 0.1675 0.0495 0.0199 0.0216 0.0102 Means with the same letter in the columns are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P > 0.05). aThe surfactant Induce was included with all treatments at the rate of 0.25 % (v/v). df1 = num DF, df2 = den DF. Open in new tab Table 2. Chilli thrips adult and nymph count per strawberry flower Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pre-treatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.08 0.23 16.81 16.99a 0.24 0.58 0.71 3.57 Apta 27 fl oz 0.00 0.11 5.84 12.50ab 0.74 1.50 0.69 4.77 Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.25 0.46 7.29 6.50ab 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.64 Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.11 15.91 10.50ab 1.09 1.00 1.19 1.85 Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.39 0.98 9.00 5.75ab 0.24 0.00 0.76 1.85 Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.33 11.01 4.25b 0.47 0.25 0.24 1.19 Fdf1=5, df2=15 0.27 1.84 0.65 3.97 0.86 1.09 0.39 1.07 P 0.8473 0.1934 0.6672 0.0171 0.5305 0.4057 0.8447 0.4201 Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pre-treatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.08 0.23 16.81 16.99a 0.24 0.58 0.71 3.57 Apta 27 fl oz 0.00 0.11 5.84 12.50ab 0.74 1.50 0.69 4.77 Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.25 0.46 7.29 6.50ab 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.64 Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.11 15.91 10.50ab 1.09 1.00 1.19 1.85 Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.39 0.98 9.00 5.75ab 0.24 0.00 0.76 1.85 Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.33 11.01 4.25b 0.47 0.25 0.24 1.19 Fdf1=5, df2=15 0.27 1.84 0.65 3.97 0.86 1.09 0.39 1.07 P 0.8473 0.1934 0.6672 0.0171 0.5305 0.4057 0.8447 0.4201 Means with the same letter in the columns are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P > 0.05). aThe surfactant Induce was included with all treatments at the rate of 0.25 % (v/v). df1 = num DF, df2 = den DF. Open in new tab Table 2. Chilli thrips adult and nymph count per strawberry flower Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pre-treatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.08 0.23 16.81 16.99a 0.24 0.58 0.71 3.57 Apta 27 fl oz 0.00 0.11 5.84 12.50ab 0.74 1.50 0.69 4.77 Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.25 0.46 7.29 6.50ab 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.64 Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.11 15.91 10.50ab 1.09 1.00 1.19 1.85 Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.39 0.98 9.00 5.75ab 0.24 0.00 0.76 1.85 Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.33 11.01 4.25b 0.47 0.25 0.24 1.19 Fdf1=5, df2=15 0.27 1.84 0.65 3.97 0.86 1.09 0.39 1.07 P 0.8473 0.1934 0.6672 0.0171 0.5305 0.4057 0.8447 0.4201 Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Pre-treatment . . 6 DAT . . 14 DAT . . 20 DAT . . . . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Adults . Nymphs . Untreated Check – 0.08 0.23 16.81 16.99a 0.24 0.58 0.71 3.57 Apta 27 fl oz 0.00 0.11 5.84 12.50ab 0.74 1.50 0.69 4.77 Exirel low 16 fl oz 0.25 0.46 7.29 6.50ab 0.24 0.00 0.32 0.64 Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 0.00 0.11 15.91 10.50ab 1.09 1.00 1.19 1.85 Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 0.39 0.98 9.00 5.75ab 0.24 0.00 0.76 1.85 Radiant 10 fl oz 0.00 0.33 11.01 4.25b 0.47 0.25 0.24 1.19 Fdf1=5, df2=15 0.27 1.84 0.65 3.97 0.86 1.09 0.39 1.07 P 0.8473 0.1934 0.6672 0.0171 0.5305 0.4057 0.8447 0.4201 Means with the same letter in the columns are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P > 0.05). aThe surfactant Induce was included with all treatments at the rate of 0.25 % (v/v). df1 = num DF, df2 = den DF. Open in new tab Table 3. Plant damage rating (Dmg.) and marketable fruit yield (yield in grams) Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Seasonal . . . . Dmg.b . Yield . Untreated Check – 2.07 18.44b Apta 27 fl oz 1.75 67.97b Exirel low 16 fl oz 2.13 53.53b Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 1.75 36.34b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 1.75 48.37b Radiant 10 fl oz 1.33 136.47a Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.69 7.95 P 0.1976 0.0008 Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Seasonal . . . . Dmg.b . Yield . Untreated Check – 2.07 18.44b Apta 27 fl oz 1.75 67.97b Exirel low 16 fl oz 2.13 53.53b Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 1.75 36.34b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 1.75 48.37b Radiant 10 fl oz 1.33 136.47a Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.69 7.95 P 0.1976 0.0008 Means with the same letter in the columns are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P > 0.05). aThe surfactant Induce was included with all treatments at the rate of 0.25 % (v/v). bSeason end plant damage rating. Open in new tab Table 3. Plant damage rating (Dmg.) and marketable fruit yield (yield in grams) Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Seasonal . . . . Dmg.b . Yield . Untreated Check – 2.07 18.44b Apta 27 fl oz 1.75 67.97b Exirel low 16 fl oz 2.13 53.53b Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 1.75 36.34b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 1.75 48.37b Radiant 10 fl oz 1.33 136.47a Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.69 7.95 P 0.1976 0.0008 Treatmenta . Rate/acre . Seasonal . . . . Dmg.b . Yield . Untreated Check – 2.07 18.44b Apta 27 fl oz 1.75 67.97b Exirel low 16 fl oz 2.13 53.53b Exirel high 20.5 fl oz 1.75 36.34b Minecto Pro 10 fl oz 1.75 48.37b Radiant 10 fl oz 1.33 136.47a Fdf1=5, df2=15 1.69 7.95 P 0.1976 0.0008 Means with the same letter in the columns are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P > 0.05). aThe surfactant Induce was included with all treatments at the rate of 0.25 % (v/v). bSeason end plant damage rating. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This work was supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project No. FLA-GCR-005888 and industry sponsors. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Gautam, Sandipa, G;Gu,, Ping;Ouyang,, Yuling;Grafton-Cardwell, Elizabeth, E

Comparison of Commercially Available Insecticides for Control of Sweetpotato Whitefly on TYLCV Tolerant and Susceptible Staked Tomatoes, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa080

Orange | Citrus sinensis Tarsonemus sp. | Tarsonemus bakeri abamectin/avermectin B1, fenazaquin, cyflumetofen, pyridaben, fenpyroximate, cinnamon oil, hexythiazox, silicone polyether copolymer, acequinocyl Tarsonemus bakeri can be found on citrus fruit at the time of harvest and can be a species of export concern. We conducted laboratory experiments in Apr 2020 to determine the effects of eight registered miticides and a surfactant (BreakThru S240) on T. bakeri. Mites from a laboratory colony were reared on Alternaria fungus and molasses on detached mature orange leaves. For each treatment, a 250 ml diluted solution was prepared using the label rate of the miticide or surfactant in 100 gpa and sprayed from an 8-oz spray bottle for 2–3 s onto an orange leaf pre-infested with 25 adult T. bakeri (Table 1).The experimental design was an RCB with five replications, and blocking was based on time as one leaf/wk was prepared for each treatment. Treated leaves were held in a room maintained at 22 ± 2°C for 7 d, and mortality was assessed by observing mites under a stereoscope. Mites showing the ability to move one body length upon prodding were counted as live. Percentage mortality data was arcsine (square root (x)) transformed and means were compared using the Fisher’s Protected LSD test after one-way ANOVA analysis after testing for an NS block effect. Non-transformed means are reported in Table 1. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate-amt form/ acre or vol . Percentage mortality of mites . Agri-Mek SC 4.25a 97.6a Magister SC 36.0a 96.0a Nexter SC 17.0a 95.2a Nealta 13.7a 93.6a Fujimite SC 64.0a 84.0a Onager Optek 24.0a 40.8b Break-Thru 0.1% 36.0b Kanemite 15 SC 31.0a 24.8b Cinnerate Oil 25.0a 20.0b Water control 1.6c F9,40 25.4 P <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate-amt form/ acre or vol . Percentage mortality of mites . Agri-Mek SC 4.25a 97.6a Magister SC 36.0a 96.0a Nexter SC 17.0a 95.2a Nealta 13.7a 93.6a Fujimite SC 64.0a 84.0a Onager Optek 24.0a 40.8b Break-Thru 0.1% 36.0b Kanemite 15 SC 31.0a 24.8b Cinnerate Oil 25.0a 20.0b Water control 1.6c F9,40 25.4 P <0.001 Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after arcsin (sqrt(x) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate-amt form/ acre or vol . Percentage mortality of mites . Agri-Mek SC 4.25a 97.6a Magister SC 36.0a 96.0a Nexter SC 17.0a 95.2a Nealta 13.7a 93.6a Fujimite SC 64.0a 84.0a Onager Optek 24.0a 40.8b Break-Thru 0.1% 36.0b Kanemite 15 SC 31.0a 24.8b Cinnerate Oil 25.0a 20.0b Water control 1.6c F9,40 25.4 P <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate-amt form/ acre or vol . Percentage mortality of mites . Agri-Mek SC 4.25a 97.6a Magister SC 36.0a 96.0a Nexter SC 17.0a 95.2a Nealta 13.7a 93.6a Fujimite SC 64.0a 84.0a Onager Optek 24.0a 40.8b Break-Thru 0.1% 36.0b Kanemite 15 SC 31.0a 24.8b Cinnerate Oil 25.0a 20.0b Water control 1.6c F9,40 25.4 P <0.001 Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after arcsin (sqrt(x) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab All treatments caused significant mortality of T. bakeri compared with the water control (Table 1). Five treatments, namely, Agri-Mek SC, Magister SC, Nealta, Nexter SC, and Fujimite SC resulted in significantly higher mortalities than Onager Optek, Breakthru S240, Kanemite 15 SC, and Cinnerate (Table 1).1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Control of Navel Orangeworm in Almond, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa025

Sweetpotato whitefly (SWF) | Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Tomato | Lycopersicon esculentum flupyradifurone, cyantraniliprole, bifenthrin, zeta-cypermethrin, buprofezin, pyrifluquinazon, imidacloprid, malathion/carbophos, fenpyroximat Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 or biotype B is a major pest of Florida grown tomatoes due to its role as a vector of tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) and ability to cause a physiological disorder resulting in irregular ripening. Current control strategies rely on effective vector control and when appropriate the use of TYLCV-resistant cultivars. The objective of this trial was to evaluate several insecticide regimens and a TYLCV-tolerant variety, respectively, to manage SWF and reduce yield losses incurred by virus infection. Three beds 32 in wide and 430 ft long on 6 ft centers were prepared on 22 Jan 2019 at the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center in Immokalee Florida. Beds were provided with two drip tapes with 8-inch emitter spacing and flow rate of 0.67 gpm/100 ft and covered with black polyethylene film mulch after incorporating approximately 50% of the fertilizer needed for the crop. Beds were fumigated through the drip with PicChlor 60 at 300 lbs acre on 8 Feb. Seedlings obtained from a commercial greenhouse were transplanted on 1 Mar 2019 at an 18-inch spacing. Eight insecticide treatments and an untreated check were distributed in an RCB design experiment with four replications among plots of 20 plants each. Each plot was split into two subplots, transplanted with 10 seedlings of either TYLCV-tolerant ‘Charger’ or susceptible ‘FL-47’ cultivars. The main plots were separated by 5 feet distance as a spray buffer and the split plots were separated by a single plant hole. Soil drenches of Admire Pro at 10.5 oz/acre were made 4 Mar by delivering a 90 ml suspension to the base of each plant using an EZ-Dose sprayer operating at 45 psi (Table 1). Foliar spray treatments (Table 1) were applied with a single-row high clearance sprayer operating at 180 psi and 2.3 mph. The sprayer was fitted with a vertical boom on each side of the plant row equipped with yellow Albuz hollow cone nozzles, each delivering 10 gpa. Total spray volume increased from 40 to 80 gpa as nozzles were added to accommodate plant growth (Table 1). Bacterial spot and/or speck was managed by weekly sprays of Actigard (0. 33-0.50 oz/ac) and Regalia (2 qts/ac). Table 1. Application dates and volume Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre 4 Mar 26 Mar 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr 90 ml 40 gpa 40 gpa 40 gpa 60 gpa 80 gpa Untreated check Sivanto Prime 12 x x Exirel 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Portal 32 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Courier SC 13.6 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 3.2 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x Portal 32 x x Courier SC 13.6 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 1.6 x x x x x Courier 9 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Sefina 14 x x Exeril 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x x x Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre 4 Mar 26 Mar 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr 90 ml 40 gpa 40 gpa 40 gpa 60 gpa 80 gpa Untreated check Sivanto Prime 12 x x Exirel 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Portal 32 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Courier SC 13.6 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 3.2 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x Portal 32 x x Courier SC 13.6 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 1.6 x x x x x Courier 9 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Sefina 14 x x Exeril 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x x x Open in new tab Table 1. Application dates and volume Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre 4 Mar 26 Mar 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr 90 ml 40 gpa 40 gpa 40 gpa 60 gpa 80 gpa Untreated check Sivanto Prime 12 x x Exirel 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Portal 32 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Courier SC 13.6 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 3.2 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x Portal 32 x x Courier SC 13.6 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 1.6 x x x x x Courier 9 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Sefina 14 x x Exeril 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x x x Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre 4 Mar 26 Mar 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr 90 ml 40 gpa 40 gpa 40 gpa 60 gpa 80 gpa Untreated check Sivanto Prime 12 x x Exirel 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Portal 32 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Courier SC 13.6 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 3.2 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 2.4 x x Portal 32 x x Courier SC 13.6 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x PQZ 1.6 x x x x x Courier 9 x x x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x Sefina 14 x x Exeril 16 x x Hero 10.3 x Malathion 57 EC 32 x Dyneamic 0.25% x x Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 x x x Open in new tab Whitefly were monitored on the tolerant ‘Charger’ plants during this experiment. Adults were evaluated weekly from 1 Apr to 29 Apr by carefully inverting of five leaflets from two mid-canopy level true leaves taken from 6 plants. Preimaginal stages were counted under a stereoscopic microscope from 8, 0.5 inch2 leaf discs sampled from three leaflets of one terminal 7th node trifoliate of 5 plants sampled weekly (1 to 29 Apr). TYLCV incidence was recorded weekly from 22 March to 12 Apr by tagging each symptomatic ‘Fl-47’ plant when clear symptoms first appeared. All fruit of marketable size were harvested from 6 plants in each sub-plot on 14 May (‘Charger’) and 15 May (‘FL-47’). Number, size, and weight of fruit were recorded. All data were subjected to ANOVA and means separated using LSD (P = 0.05). Whitefly and virus pressure was extremely high throughout this trial. All treatments on all sample dates significantly reduced the number of adult whitefly compared to the untreated check except for Portal on 15 Apr which was also not different from Courier or PQZ rotation programs (Table 2). The Sefina and PQZ at 3.2 oz treatments consistently had the fewest number of adults observed throughout the sampling period. Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Adults per five leaflets 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr 22 Apr 29 Apr Untreated check 4.25 a 2.64 a 3.35 a 2.86 a 4.45 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 2.04 bc 1.19 cd 1.71 cd 0.92 bc 1.44 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.73 bcd 1.77 b 2.85 ab 1.04 b 1.38 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.46 b 1.50 bc 2.12 bc 0.98 b 1.67 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.64 cd 0.95 cd 1.25 d 0.40 c 0.85 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.06 bc 1.27 bcd 1.63 d 0.85 bc 1.33 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 1.88 bcd 1.50 bc 1.92 cd 0.73 bc 1.08 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 1.77 bcd 1.25 bcd 2.40 bc 0.92 bc 1.14 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 1.23 d 0.92 d 1.58 d 0.56 bc 0.85 c Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Adults per five leaflets 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr 22 Apr 29 Apr Untreated check 4.25 a 2.64 a 3.35 a 2.86 a 4.45 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 2.04 bc 1.19 cd 1.71 cd 0.92 bc 1.44 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.73 bcd 1.77 b 2.85 ab 1.04 b 1.38 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.46 b 1.50 bc 2.12 bc 0.98 b 1.67 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.64 cd 0.95 cd 1.25 d 0.40 c 0.85 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.06 bc 1.27 bcd 1.63 d 0.85 bc 1.33 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 1.88 bcd 1.50 bc 1.92 cd 0.73 bc 1.08 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 1.77 bcd 1.25 bcd 2.40 bc 0.92 bc 1.14 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 1.23 d 0.92 d 1.58 d 0.56 bc 0.85 c Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Means within column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Adults per five leaflets 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr 22 Apr 29 Apr Untreated check 4.25 a 2.64 a 3.35 a 2.86 a 4.45 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 2.04 bc 1.19 cd 1.71 cd 0.92 bc 1.44 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.73 bcd 1.77 b 2.85 ab 1.04 b 1.38 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.46 b 1.50 bc 2.12 bc 0.98 b 1.67 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.64 cd 0.95 cd 1.25 d 0.40 c 0.85 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.06 bc 1.27 bcd 1.63 d 0.85 bc 1.33 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 1.88 bcd 1.50 bc 1.92 cd 0.73 bc 1.08 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 1.77 bcd 1.25 bcd 2.40 bc 0.92 bc 1.14 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 1.23 d 0.92 d 1.58 d 0.56 bc 0.85 c Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Adults per five leaflets 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr 22 Apr 29 Apr Untreated check 4.25 a 2.64 a 3.35 a 2.86 a 4.45 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 2.04 bc 1.19 cd 1.71 cd 0.92 bc 1.44 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.73 bcd 1.77 b 2.85 ab 1.04 b 1.38 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.46 b 1.50 bc 2.12 bc 0.98 b 1.67 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 1.64 cd 0.95 cd 1.25 d 0.40 c 0.85 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 2.06 bc 1.27 bcd 1.63 d 0.85 bc 1.33 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 1.88 bcd 1.50 bc 1.92 cd 0.73 bc 1.08 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 1.77 bcd 1.25 bcd 2.40 bc 0.92 bc 1.14 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 1.23 d 0.92 d 1.58 d 0.56 bc 0.85 c Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Means within column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab All treatments significantly reduced whitefly nymphs when compared to the untreated control on the first 4 samples dates (1 to 22 Apr) (Table 3). On 29 Apr the effect of the Courier treatment was not statistically significant from the untreated check. Table 3. Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Nymphs per 4 square inches 1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr 22-Apr 29-Apr Untreated check 13.95 a 26.45 a 33.15 a 37.45 a 60.55 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 8.80 bc 10.25 bc 13.10 bc 11.40 cd 14.10 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.25 bcd 14.55 b 17.75 b 24.25 b 25.85 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.85 bcd 14.70 b 19.95 b 15.75 bcd 45.05 a Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 5.05 cd 7.65 c 14.05 bc 7.70 d 9.15 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 9.75 b 7.50 c 13.10 bc 9.55 cd 13.30 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 4.10 d 10.60 bc 20.80 b 19.20 bc 17.95 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 8.00 bcd 14.10 b 15.25 b 18.70 bc 17.55 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 6.25 bcd 10.50 bc 7.25 c 11.75 cd 15.70 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Nymphs per 4 square inches 1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr 22-Apr 29-Apr Untreated check 13.95 a 26.45 a 33.15 a 37.45 a 60.55 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 8.80 bc 10.25 bc 13.10 bc 11.40 cd 14.10 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.25 bcd 14.55 b 17.75 b 24.25 b 25.85 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.85 bcd 14.70 b 19.95 b 15.75 bcd 45.05 a Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 5.05 cd 7.65 c 14.05 bc 7.70 d 9.15 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 9.75 b 7.50 c 13.10 bc 9.55 cd 13.30 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 4.10 d 10.60 bc 20.80 b 19.20 bc 17.95 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 8.00 bcd 14.10 b 15.25 b 18.70 bc 17.55 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 6.25 bcd 10.50 bc 7.25 c 11.75 cd 15.70 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Means with column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 3. Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Nymphs per 4 square inches 1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr 22-Apr 29-Apr Untreated check 13.95 a 26.45 a 33.15 a 37.45 a 60.55 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 8.80 bc 10.25 bc 13.10 bc 11.40 cd 14.10 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.25 bcd 14.55 b 17.75 b 24.25 b 25.85 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.85 bcd 14.70 b 19.95 b 15.75 bcd 45.05 a Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 5.05 cd 7.65 c 14.05 bc 7.70 d 9.15 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 9.75 b 7.50 c 13.10 bc 9.55 cd 13.30 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 4.10 d 10.60 bc 20.80 b 19.20 bc 17.95 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 8.00 bcd 14.10 b 15.25 b 18.70 bc 17.55 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 6.25 bcd 10.50 bc 7.25 c 11.75 cd 15.70 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Nymphs per 4 square inches 1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr 22-Apr 29-Apr Untreated check 13.95 a 26.45 a 33.15 a 37.45 a 60.55 a Sivanto Prime 12 Exirel 16 8.80 bc 10.25 bc 13.10 bc 11.40 cd 14.10 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Portal 32 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.25 bcd 14.55 b 17.75 b 24.25 b 25.85 b Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Courier SC 13.6 Dyneamic 0.25% 6.85 bcd 14.70 b 19.95 b 15.75 bcd 45.05 a Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 3.2 Dyneamic 0.25% 5.05 cd 7.65 c 14.05 bc 7.70 d 9.15 c Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Dyneamic 0.25% 9.75 b 7.50 c 13.10 bc 9.55 cd 13.30 bc Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 2.4 Portal 32 Courier SC 13.6 4.10 d 10.60 bc 20.80 b 19.20 bc 17.95 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 PQZ 1.6 Courier SC 9 8.00 bcd 14.10 b 15.25 b 18.70 bc 17.55 bc Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Sefina 14 Exeril 16 6.25 bcd 10.50 bc 7.25 c 11.75 cd 15.70 bc Hero 10.3 Malathion 57 EC 32 Dyneamic 0.25% Admire pro 4.6 SC 10.5 Means with column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab TYLCV incidence could not be effectively evaluated in this trial as 28% of the plants had visible symptoms on 22 Mar prior to the first foliar application on 26 Mar. By 12 Apr 98 % of all susceptible plants showed symptoms of the virus. No treatment effect was seen in the fruit harvested from the Charger variety yielding an average of 56.2 ± 11.8 fruit per plot with a total weight of 20.6 ± 4.7 lbs and the Fl-47 variety averaged at 20.8 ± 7.0 fruit per plot weighing 7.3 ± 5.0 lbs. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported partly by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

, Van Steenwyk, Robert A;Peters-Collaer, Stephen, R

Intrinsic Activity of IGRs and Insecticides Against Cat Fleas, 2016–2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa035

Navel Orangeworm (NOW): Amyelois transitella (Walker) Almond | Prunus dulcis chlorantraniliprole, bifenthrin, methoxyfenozide, spinetoram, acetamiprid This study evaluated the efficacy of reduced risk insecticides for NOW control. The study was conducted in an almond orchard near Manteca, CA. Five treatments and an untreated check were replicated four times in an RCB design, each replicate being a single tree. Two replicates were on an inside row of the orchard, and two were on an outside row. The two rows were both nonpareil with a pollinator row in between. The orchard was planted with 22 ft row × 20 ft tree spacing. Materials were applied with a hand-held orchard sprayer operating at 200 psi with a finished spray volume of 150 gal/ac. NOW were monitored with two egg traps and pheromone traps. Traps were placed in the orchard on 19 Jun and the traps were monitored weekly until 5 Sep. Treatments were applied to the outside row on 10 Jul at the beginning of hull split (5% or less) when eggs were present on NOW egg traps and moths were captured in pheromone traps. A second application was applied on 23 Jul. Treatments were applied to the inside row on 16 Jul at the beginning of hull split (5% or less) when eggs were present on NOW egg traps and moths were captured in pheromone traps. A second application was applied on 30 Jul. The applications occurred during the second flight, with the third flight beginning two weeks after the last application. Due to grower equipment limitations, harvest was delayed and did not occur until 10 Sep. Shortly after harvest (shaking) on 10 Sep, 250 nuts per tree (1,000 nuts/treatment) were picked up from the ground before windrowing and inspected for NOW. Infestation was classified as none, larvae present (predominantly third-generation larvae originating from the third flight) or larvae absent (predominantly second-generation larvae originating from the second flight that already pupated and emerged before evaluation). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation with Fisher’s protected LSD (P < 0.05). All treatments reduced the percentage of nuts infested by second-generation larvae (NOW absent) compared with the untreated check, and there were no significant differences among experimental treatments (Table 1). There were no significant differences in the percentage of nuts with live larvae (NOW present), likely because eggs for these larvae would have been laid two or more weeks after the second application was made. All treatments except for Altacor 35WG had significantly lower percent NOW total compared with the untreated check. Intrepid Edge had significantly lower percent NOW total infestation than Altacor 35WG, and there were no significant differences among the other treatments.1 Table 1. . . Percent infested nuts . Treatment/formulation . Rate form/acre . NOW absent . NOW present . NOW total . Brigade 2EC 12.8 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.0 a 1.4 ab Intrepid 2F 20.0 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.3 a 1.7 ab Altacor 35WG 4.5 oz 0.9 a 1.8 a 2.7 bc KFD-247 20.0 oz 0.8 a 0.9 a 1.7 ab Intrepid Edge 16.0 oz 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.9 a Untreated check — 2.6 b 1.7 a 4.3 c F 5.69 1.34 5.13 P <0.01 0.29 <0.01 . . Percent infested nuts . Treatment/formulation . Rate form/acre . NOW absent . NOW present . NOW total . Brigade 2EC 12.8 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.0 a 1.4 ab Intrepid 2F 20.0 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.3 a 1.7 ab Altacor 35WG 4.5 oz 0.9 a 1.8 a 2.7 bc KFD-247 20.0 oz 0.8 a 0.9 a 1.7 ab Intrepid Edge 16.0 oz 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.9 a Untreated check — 2.6 b 1.7 a 4.3 c F 5.69 1.34 5.13 P <0.01 0.29 <0.01 Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). All experimental treatments include 0.25% v/v Dyne-Amic. Open in new tab Table 1. . . Percent infested nuts . Treatment/formulation . Rate form/acre . NOW absent . NOW present . NOW total . Brigade 2EC 12.8 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.0 a 1.4 ab Intrepid 2F 20.0 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.3 a 1.7 ab Altacor 35WG 4.5 oz 0.9 a 1.8 a 2.7 bc KFD-247 20.0 oz 0.8 a 0.9 a 1.7 ab Intrepid Edge 16.0 oz 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.9 a Untreated check — 2.6 b 1.7 a 4.3 c F 5.69 1.34 5.13 P <0.01 0.29 <0.01 . . Percent infested nuts . Treatment/formulation . Rate form/acre . NOW absent . NOW present . NOW total . Brigade 2EC 12.8 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.0 a 1.4 ab Intrepid 2F 20.0 fl. oz 0.4 a 1.3 a 1.7 ab Altacor 35WG 4.5 oz 0.9 a 1.8 a 2.7 bc KFD-247 20.0 oz 0.8 a 0.9 a 1.7 ab Intrepid Edge 16.0 oz 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.9 a Untreated check — 2.6 b 1.7 a 4.3 c F 5.69 1.34 5.13 P <0.01 0.29 <0.01 Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). All experimental treatments include 0.25% v/v Dyne-Amic. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide and funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Rust, Michael, K;Hemsarth, W Lance, H

Control of Spotted Wing Drosophila in Jersey Blueberries, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz095

Cat fleas (CF) | Ctenocephalides felis felis (Bouché) azadirachtin, diflubenzuron, dinotefuran, tetrachlorvinphos, thiamethoxam The objective of the study was to determine the intrinsic activity of azadirecthin (reported antifeedant and developmental effects), diflubenzuron (chitin synthesis inhibitor), dinotefuran (neonicotinoid with larvicidal and adult activity), novaflumuron (chitin synthesis inhibitor), tetrachlorovinphos (organophosphate with adulticidal activity), and thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid with larvicidal and adult activity) against cat flea larvae. The laboratory studies were conducted at University of California Riverside from 2016 to 2018. Larval cat flea medium consisting of dried beef blood, wheast, sand and ground dog chow was treated with serial dilutions of technical AI insecticides. Exactly 0.2 ml of each solution was placed in 2 cc of treated medium and allowed to dry for 4 h. Ten second–third instars were placed into a glass Petri dish along with the treated medium. The larvae were held in chambers maintained at 75% RH and held at 26.7°C for 21 d. The number of live and emerged adult fleas was counted. The adult data were analyzed by probit analysis with the POLO program. The insect growth regulators (IGRs), diflubenzuron and novaluron, were very active providing 50% inhibition of adult development at 0.02 and 0.03 ppm, respectively (Table 1). Of the adulticides tested, only thiamethoxam prevented adult development at <1 ppm. Table 1. Treatment No.a Slope LC50 ppm (95% CI) LC95 ppm (95% CI) Χ2 df Azadirachtin 500 3.73 ± 0.37 3.28 (2.056–4.269) 9.04 (6.627–18.1) 6.70 3 Diflubenzuron 770 1.75 ± 0.15 0.02 (0.011–0.036) 0.20 (0.116–0.663) 19.04 5 Dinotefuran 730 5.96 ± 0.67 0.83 (0.646–0.944) 1.56 (1.377–1.973) 11.96 6 Novaluron 590 2.85 ± 0.26 0.03 (0.029–0.038) 0.13 (0.103–0.169) 2.87 3 Tetrachlorvinphos 490 6.23 ± 0.87 184.12 (166.714–198.103) 338.16 (301.638–407.525) 1.35 4 Thiamethoxam 540 6.32 ± 0.64 0.33 (0.296–0.357) 0.60 (0.542–0.677) 2.62 3 Treatment No.a Slope LC50 ppm (95% CI) LC95 ppm (95% CI) Χ2 df Azadirachtin 500 3.73 ± 0.37 3.28 (2.056–4.269) 9.04 (6.627–18.1) 6.70 3 Diflubenzuron 770 1.75 ± 0.15 0.02 (0.011–0.036) 0.20 (0.116–0.663) 19.04 5 Dinotefuran 730 5.96 ± 0.67 0.83 (0.646–0.944) 1.56 (1.377–1.973) 11.96 6 Novaluron 590 2.85 ± 0.26 0.03 (0.029–0.038) 0.13 (0.103–0.169) 2.87 3 Tetrachlorvinphos 490 6.23 ± 0.87 184.12 (166.714–198.103) 338.16 (301.638–407.525) 1.35 4 Thiamethoxam 540 6.32 ± 0.64 0.33 (0.296–0.357) 0.60 (0.542–0.677) 2.62 3 aN equals the number of larvae tested. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment No.a Slope LC50 ppm (95% CI) LC95 ppm (95% CI) Χ2 df Azadirachtin 500 3.73 ± 0.37 3.28 (2.056–4.269) 9.04 (6.627–18.1) 6.70 3 Diflubenzuron 770 1.75 ± 0.15 0.02 (0.011–0.036) 0.20 (0.116–0.663) 19.04 5 Dinotefuran 730 5.96 ± 0.67 0.83 (0.646–0.944) 1.56 (1.377–1.973) 11.96 6 Novaluron 590 2.85 ± 0.26 0.03 (0.029–0.038) 0.13 (0.103–0.169) 2.87 3 Tetrachlorvinphos 490 6.23 ± 0.87 184.12 (166.714–198.103) 338.16 (301.638–407.525) 1.35 4 Thiamethoxam 540 6.32 ± 0.64 0.33 (0.296–0.357) 0.60 (0.542–0.677) 2.62 3 Treatment No.a Slope LC50 ppm (95% CI) LC95 ppm (95% CI) Χ2 df Azadirachtin 500 3.73 ± 0.37 3.28 (2.056–4.269) 9.04 (6.627–18.1) 6.70 3 Diflubenzuron 770 1.75 ± 0.15 0.02 (0.011–0.036) 0.20 (0.116–0.663) 19.04 5 Dinotefuran 730 5.96 ± 0.67 0.83 (0.646–0.944) 1.56 (1.377–1.973) 11.96 6 Novaluron 590 2.85 ± 0.26 0.03 (0.029–0.038) 0.13 (0.103–0.169) 2.87 3 Tetrachlorvinphos 490 6.23 ± 0.87 184.12 (166.714–198.103) 338.16 (301.638–407.525) 1.35 4 Thiamethoxam 540 6.32 ± 0.64 0.33 (0.296–0.357) 0.60 (0.542–0.677) 2.62 3 aN equals the number of larvae tested. Open in new tab This research was supported in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Isaacs,, Rufus

Onion Maggot Control Using Insecticide Transplant Treatments for Onion, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa044

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) | Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) spinetoram, tolfenpyrad, phosmet, piperonyl butoxide, pyrifluquinazon, methomyl, zeta-cypermethrin, Chromobacterium subtsugae, bifenthrin, acetamiprid, novaluron, fenpropathrin, spinosad, cyclaniliprole This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of several rates and timings of various insecticides against Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) in Blueberry. Two-bush plots were established in a mature ‘Jersey’ blueberry planting (4 × 12 ft spacing) at the Nye farm, located approximately 3 miles South West of Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville, MI. Treatment plots were replicated four times and set up in an RCB design. Applications began 23 July at first SWD trap catch with ripe fruit and were re-applied on 3- and 7-day covers (Table 1). Test materials were applied with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 GPA at 2.5 mph. No foliar maintenance pesticides were applied to the test plots during the trial. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . . . . 2 Aug . 16 Aug . 23 Aug . Untreated 16a 15.5a 15a Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 2.3a 11.8a 1.8b Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 4a 11.8a 2.8b Apta EC 27 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25 % v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 1.8a 11.3a 3.5ab Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Exponent L 8 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz A 1.5a 13.5a 7ab Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz B Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v B Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Lannate LV 3 pt A 4a 7.5a 5.5 MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz BE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb C TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal C Brigade WS 16 oz D Grandevo 30% WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5a 7.8a 5.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 6a 9.5a 2b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5.5a 10.3a 3.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 8.8a 5.3a 2.3b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 8.5a 9.8a 6.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb A 2.5a 9a 1.3b TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal A Lannate LV 3 pt B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz C Cormoran DC 20 oz D Grandevo WDG 3 lb E NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v E Grandevo WDG 3 lb ABCDE 3a 5a 6.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Danitol 2.4 EC 16 fl oz ABCDE 5.5a 4.8a 4.3ab Entrust SC 6 fl oz ABCDE 7a 8.3a 3ab Argyle 2.52 OD 6 fl oz ABCDE 2.5a 3.3a 4.5ab Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb AB 4a 6.3a 3.3ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal AB MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz C Verdepryn 100 SL 8.2 fl oz DE Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . . . . 2 Aug . 16 Aug . 23 Aug . Untreated 16a 15.5a 15a Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 2.3a 11.8a 1.8b Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 4a 11.8a 2.8b Apta EC 27 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25 % v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 1.8a 11.3a 3.5ab Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Exponent L 8 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz A 1.5a 13.5a 7ab Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz B Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v B Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Lannate LV 3 pt A 4a 7.5a 5.5 MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz BE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb C TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal C Brigade WS 16 oz D Grandevo 30% WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5a 7.8a 5.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 6a 9.5a 2b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5.5a 10.3a 3.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 8.8a 5.3a 2.3b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 8.5a 9.8a 6.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb A 2.5a 9a 1.3b TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal A Lannate LV 3 pt B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz C Cormoran DC 20 oz D Grandevo WDG 3 lb E NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v E Grandevo WDG 3 lb ABCDE 3a 5a 6.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Danitol 2.4 EC 16 fl oz ABCDE 5.5a 4.8a 4.3ab Entrust SC 6 fl oz ABCDE 7a 8.3a 3ab Argyle 2.52 OD 6 fl oz ABCDE 2.5a 3.3a 4.5ab Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb AB 4a 6.3a 3.3ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal AB MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz C Verdepryn 100 SL 8.2 fl oz DE Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 23 Jul (First trap catch with ripe fruit), B = 27 Jul (A + 5–7 days), C = 3 Aug (B + 5–7 days), D = 10 Aug (C + 5–7 days), E = 17 Aug (D + 5–7 days). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . . . . 2 Aug . 16 Aug . 23 Aug . Untreated 16a 15.5a 15a Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 2.3a 11.8a 1.8b Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 4a 11.8a 2.8b Apta EC 27 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25 % v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 1.8a 11.3a 3.5ab Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Exponent L 8 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz A 1.5a 13.5a 7ab Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz B Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v B Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Lannate LV 3 pt A 4a 7.5a 5.5 MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz BE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb C TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal C Brigade WS 16 oz D Grandevo 30% WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5a 7.8a 5.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 6a 9.5a 2b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5.5a 10.3a 3.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 8.8a 5.3a 2.3b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 8.5a 9.8a 6.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb A 2.5a 9a 1.3b TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal A Lannate LV 3 pt B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz C Cormoran DC 20 oz D Grandevo WDG 3 lb E NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v E Grandevo WDG 3 lb ABCDE 3a 5a 6.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Danitol 2.4 EC 16 fl oz ABCDE 5.5a 4.8a 4.3ab Entrust SC 6 fl oz ABCDE 7a 8.3a 3ab Argyle 2.52 OD 6 fl oz ABCDE 2.5a 3.3a 4.5ab Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb AB 4a 6.3a 3.3ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal AB MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz C Verdepryn 100 SL 8.2 fl oz DE Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . SWD per lb . . . . 2 Aug . 16 Aug . 23 Aug . Untreated 16a 15.5a 15a Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 2.3a 11.8a 1.8b Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 4a 11.8a 2.8b Apta EC 27 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25 % v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz AB 1.8a 11.3a 3.5ab Apta EC 21 fl oz CD Exponent L 8 fl oz CD Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v CD Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Delegate 25 WG 6 oz A 1.5a 13.5a 7ab Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz B Superspread 7000 90 EC 0.25% v: v B Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb E TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal E Lannate LV 3 pt A 4a 7.5a 5.5 MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz BE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb C TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal C Brigade WS 16 oz D Grandevo 30% WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5a 7.8a 5.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 6a 9.5a 2b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 10% Form A. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 5.5a 10.3a 3.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 2 lb ABCDE 8.8a 5.3a 2.3b NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Grandevo 15% Form B. WDG 3 lb ABCDE 8.5a 9.8a 6.8ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb A 2.5a 9a 1.3b TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal A Lannate LV 3 pt B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz C Cormoran DC 20 oz D Grandevo WDG 3 lb E NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v E Grandevo WDG 3 lb ABCDE 3a 5a 6.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v ABCDE Danitol 2.4 EC 16 fl oz ABCDE 5.5a 4.8a 4.3ab Entrust SC 6 fl oz ABCDE 7a 8.3a 3ab Argyle 2.52 OD 6 fl oz ABCDE 2.5a 3.3a 4.5ab Imidan 70 WP 1.33 lb AB 4a 6.3a 3.3ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/ 100 gal AB MustangMaxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz C Verdepryn 100 SL 8.2 fl oz DE Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 23 Jul (First trap catch with ripe fruit), B = 27 Jul (A + 5–7 days), C = 3 Aug (B + 5–7 days), D = 10 Aug (C + 5–7 days), E = 17 Aug (D + 5–7 days). Open in new tab Fruits were hand-harvested on 2, 16, and 23 Aug. Samples were weighed in grams, with weights then converted to pounds. The fruit samples were evaluated through the Washington State Department of Agriculture brown sugar method as follows. Blueberries were crushed in a solution of 7 pounds brown sugar to 5 gallons water and floating SWD larvae were counted. Due to differences in sample sizes, data are presented as larvae per pound of fruit. All data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.05. All treatment programs provided significant fruit protection on the 2 Aug evaluation, compared to the untreated check (Table 1). Only Lannate LV/MustangMaxx/Imidan/Brigade, Grandevo (3lb) + NuFilm, Danitol, Entrust, Argyle, and Imidan/Verdepryn/MustangMaxx programs significantly reduced SWD infestation 16 Aug compared to the untreated check. All treatment programs provided significant fruit protection on the 23 Aug evaluation, compared to the untreated check.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Iglesias,, Lindsy;Nault,, Brian

Pathogenicity of Metarhizium anisopliae and Metarhizium brunneum Isolates and Efficacy of Met52 G Against Winter Tick Larvae, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa093

Onion | Allium cepa Onion maggot | Delia antiqua Meigen spinosad, spinetoram Onion maggot (Delia antiqua Meigen) control using insecticide treatments to protect transplanted onion was evaluated on muck soil in a commercial onion field south of Oswego, New York (GPS: 43°26′58.5″N 76°23′56.2″W) in 2018. Onion ‘bare-root’ plants, cultivar ‘Bradley’ (Bejo Seeds, Geneva, NY), were transplanted on 16 May. Each plot consisted of two 10-ft-long rows, separated by 15 inches. Plots were separated from each other by a 3-ft alley of bare soil. There were no guard rows. Plants were transplanted at a density of 3 per ft (60 plants/plot). There were four treatments, including the untreated check that were arranged in an RCBD with six replicates. The amount of insecticide needed to prepare the treatment solution was partially determined by the amount of water that adhered to a single, average-sized onion transplant (0.02 fl oz, determined from previous experiments), and the maximum plant density in transplanted onion fields (125,000 plants/acre). Plants were dipped in the treatment solution for 30 s and allowed to dry prior to transplanting. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated one or two times per week from 5 Jun through 12 Jul. Sampling began as soon as maggots were found until the end of the first generation in mid-Jul. Plants containing maggots or those obviously dying from maggot feeding (but larva not present) were recorded as dead and then removed from the plot. A final plant stand count was recorded on the last day of the evaluation, 12 Jul. In each plot, the percentage of plants killed by maggots was calculated by taking the sum of the number of maggot-killed plants divided by the sum of all maggot-killed plants plus the final plant stand count and then multiplied this quotient by 100. These data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure of SAS (PROC MIXED, v. 9.4) with treatment as the fixed effect and replicate as the random effect. Proportion data were transformed using a square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed means are presented. Treatment means were compared using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test at P < 0.05. Conditions were hot and dry during the entire trial. Onion maggot pressure was considered very high for a New York onion field. Onion maggots killed nearly 6 of 10 onion plants in the untreated control (Table 1). Despite high maggot pressure, both rates of Entrust SC and Radiant SC provided equivalent and commercially acceptable levels of maggot control (<15% damage) (Table 1).1 Table 1. Trt# . Treatment . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by onion maggot . 1 Untreated check - - - 55a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 12b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 10b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 14b Trt# . Treatment . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by onion maggot . 1 Untreated check - - - 55a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 12b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 10b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 14b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 6). Data were transformed using a square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed data are presented. Open in new tab Table 1. Trt# . Treatment . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by onion maggot . 1 Untreated check - - - 55a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 12b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 10b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 14b Trt# . Treatment . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by onion maggot . 1 Untreated check - - - 55a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 12b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 10b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 14b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 6). Data were transformed using a square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed data are presented. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 The insecticides were provided by Corteva Agriscience but research was supported primarily by the New York Onion Research and Development Program. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Sullivan, Cheryl, Frank;Parker, Bruce, L;Davari,, Agrin;Lee, Mi, Rong;Kim, Jae, Su;Skinner,, Margaret

Cranberry Toad Bug Control on Cranberries, 2016–2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa100

Moose | Alces alces Winter tick | Dermacentor albipictus (Packard) Metarhizium anisopliae, Metarhizium brunneum The winter tick, Dermacentor albipictus (Packard), is a one-host tick that infests large ungulates and causes significant mortality in moose, Alces alces (L.). The off-host, larval stage aggregates on the ground in a quiescent state during summer until they quest for hosts on foliage in autumn. This allows an opportunity to treat a vulnerable stage prior to host recruitment. The objectives were 1) evaluate the pathogenicity of the biological control agents Metarhizium brunneum (Petch) strain F52 and two experimental Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschn.) Sorokin isolates within the application rates of commercial products, 2) evaluate the efficacy of Met52 G (Novozymes Biologicals, Inc.), containing the AI M. brunneum F52, and 3) compare Met52 G to Met52 EC under simulated field conditions. Larvae were reared from eggs that originated from adult females collected from a deceased moose calf in northeastern, VT, United States. Fungal isolate M. brunneum F52 originated from Met52 G and experimental M. anisopliae isolates ERL1582 and JEF290 from forest soils in VT, United States and South Korea, respectively. Fungal isolates were cultured for 14 d at ±25°C on potato dextrose agar. Conidial suspensions were prepared in a solution of 0.02% Silwet L-77 (Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC) and sterile distilled water (SDW). Three concentrations (1 × 106, 1 × 107, and 1 × 108 conidia/ml) for each isolate and two checks (0.02% Silwet + SDW solution [base check] and SDW only [untreated check]) were tested. Ten, 12-wk-old larvae were treated using an immersion method by shaking with 1 ml of suspension in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube for 1 min. Ticks were poured onto filter paper then transferred via. paintbrush to a 50 × 9 mm, tight-fit lid Petri dish lined with 47 mm filter paper pre-moistened with 250 µl SDW. Dishes were placed in a white, plastic seed germination tray with a 2-oz cup with water and covered with a clear humidity dome to maintain RH >90%. Trays were and held at ± 25°C on a benchtop with a photoperiod of 15:9 (L:D) h. Each treatment was replicated three times and mortality was assessed every 3 d for 3 wk. Met52 G contained 9 × 108 conidia/g and the recommended rate for broadcast applications to turf for ticks is 0.45 kg (low) - 1.36 kg (high)/92.9 m2. High, medium, low rates, and an untreated check were tested. The amount applied per 0.002 m2 Petri dish was 27 mg (2 granules), 18 mg (1 granule), and 9 mg (1/2 granule). Ten, 10-wk-old larvae were added to the center of a tight-fit lid Petri dish with SDW moistened filter paper. Granules were dropped into the dish at 10 cm ht. Dishes were placed in trays and held as previously described. Mortality was assessed weekly for 3 wk. Each treatment had five replicates and the experiment repeated three times over three consecutive days. Enclosures simulating natural conditions were constructed from 34-oz polypropylene containers with lids retrofitted with fine mesh. Each contained a vertical, nylon rod for questing, a base layer of stone, sand, 50–70 ml SDW and 0.037 g ~ 500 eggs within 2-wk of eclosion. Larvae were treated either in summer during quiescence or when active and questing in autumn. High label rates of Met52 G andMet52 EC and an untreated check were tested. Met52 G was applied at 120 mg/0.007 m2 enclosure. Met52 EC contained 2 × 109 conidia/g with an application rate of 88.72 ml/92.9 m2 for foliar turf applications. A solution was prepared in SDW where 1.21 ml was sprayed using a hand-held, finger-tip sprayer affixed to a 15 ml conical centrifuge tube. Every 2–4 wk larval mortality was assessed using a percent mortality rating: 0 = no mortality; 1 = 1–25%; 2 = 26–50%; 3 = 51–75%; 4 = 76–99%; and 5 = 100%. Treatments were replicated four times in the summer and five in the fall applications. For all trials, spore viability was determined and adjusted to reflect viability >95%.Data on the percent mortality and mortality ratings were analyzed using a general linear model with repeated measures and univariate procedures. Analyses for the isolate and granular experiments were followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) and for the enclosure experiment, Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD). Analyses were conducted using SPSS ver.26 (IBM Corp.) at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The three Metarhizium spp. isolates tested were pathogenic to winter tick larvae. Significant differences in percent mortality were observed within each fungal isolate treatment when compared with the checks over 21 DAT (Table 1). Over 50% mortality was observed within 12 DAT for all isolates at concentrations of 1 × 107 and 1 × 108 conidia/ml where isolate Met52 reaching that mortality level within 6 DAT. Met52 and JEF290 showed a significant concentration-dependent virulence over time: Met52 (F12,36 = 10.49; P < 0.001), JEF290 (F12,36 = 3.36; P = 0.002), ERL1582 (F12,36 = 1.32; P = 0.252). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate (conidia/ml) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 3 DAT . 6 DAT . 9 DAT . 12 DAT . 15 DAT . 18 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Base check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Met52 1 × 106 0.0a 10.0bc 23.3bc 30.0bcd 40.0bcde 46.7abc 46.7bcde Met52 1 × 107 0.0a 76.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 100.0a Met52 1 × 108 6.7a 50.0ab 96.7a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a JEF290 1 × 106 0.0a 6.7bc 6.7c 10.0cd 13.3de 26.7bc 30.0de JEF290 1 × 107 3.3a 10.0bc 43.3abc 56.7abc 56.7abcd 60.0ab 60.0abcd JEF290 1 × 108 6.7a 40.0abc 73.3ab 83.3a 83.3ab 96.7a 96.7ab ERL1582 1 × 106 0.0a 3.3c 20.0bc 23.3bcd 26.7cde 40.0bc 43.3cde ERL1582 1 × 107 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 66.7ab 73.3abc 76.7ab 83.3abc ERL1582 1 × 108 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 60.0abc 80.0ab 80.0ab 83.3abc F10,22 2.47 7.61 10.22 13.21 15.65 12.03 13.11 P 0.037 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate (conidia/ml) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 3 DAT . 6 DAT . 9 DAT . 12 DAT . 15 DAT . 18 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Base check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Met52 1 × 106 0.0a 10.0bc 23.3bc 30.0bcd 40.0bcde 46.7abc 46.7bcde Met52 1 × 107 0.0a 76.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 100.0a Met52 1 × 108 6.7a 50.0ab 96.7a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a JEF290 1 × 106 0.0a 6.7bc 6.7c 10.0cd 13.3de 26.7bc 30.0de JEF290 1 × 107 3.3a 10.0bc 43.3abc 56.7abc 56.7abcd 60.0ab 60.0abcd JEF290 1 × 108 6.7a 40.0abc 73.3ab 83.3a 83.3ab 96.7a 96.7ab ERL1582 1 × 106 0.0a 3.3c 20.0bc 23.3bcd 26.7cde 40.0bc 43.3cde ERL1582 1 × 107 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 66.7ab 73.3abc 76.7ab 83.3abc ERL1582 1 × 108 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 60.0abc 80.0ab 80.0ab 83.3abc F10,22 2.47 7.61 10.22 13.21 15.65 12.03 13.11 P 0.037 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate (conidia/ml) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 3 DAT . 6 DAT . 9 DAT . 12 DAT . 15 DAT . 18 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Base check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Met52 1 × 106 0.0a 10.0bc 23.3bc 30.0bcd 40.0bcde 46.7abc 46.7bcde Met52 1 × 107 0.0a 76.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 100.0a Met52 1 × 108 6.7a 50.0ab 96.7a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a JEF290 1 × 106 0.0a 6.7bc 6.7c 10.0cd 13.3de 26.7bc 30.0de JEF290 1 × 107 3.3a 10.0bc 43.3abc 56.7abc 56.7abcd 60.0ab 60.0abcd JEF290 1 × 108 6.7a 40.0abc 73.3ab 83.3a 83.3ab 96.7a 96.7ab ERL1582 1 × 106 0.0a 3.3c 20.0bc 23.3bcd 26.7cde 40.0bc 43.3cde ERL1582 1 × 107 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 66.7ab 73.3abc 76.7ab 83.3abc ERL1582 1 × 108 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 60.0abc 80.0ab 80.0ab 83.3abc F10,22 2.47 7.61 10.22 13.21 15.65 12.03 13.11 P 0.037 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate (conidia/ml) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 3 DAT . 6 DAT . 9 DAT . 12 DAT . 15 DAT . 18 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Base check - 0.0a 0.0c 0.0c 0.0d 0.0e 0.0c 0.0e Met52 1 × 106 0.0a 10.0bc 23.3bc 30.0bcd 40.0bcde 46.7abc 46.7bcde Met52 1 × 107 0.0a 76.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 96.7a 100.0a Met52 1 × 108 6.7a 50.0ab 96.7a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a JEF290 1 × 106 0.0a 6.7bc 6.7c 10.0cd 13.3de 26.7bc 30.0de JEF290 1 × 107 3.3a 10.0bc 43.3abc 56.7abc 56.7abcd 60.0ab 60.0abcd JEF290 1 × 108 6.7a 40.0abc 73.3ab 83.3a 83.3ab 96.7a 96.7ab ERL1582 1 × 106 0.0a 3.3c 20.0bc 23.3bcd 26.7cde 40.0bc 43.3cde ERL1582 1 × 107 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 66.7ab 73.3abc 76.7ab 83.3abc ERL1582 1 × 108 0.0a 26.7bc 50.0abc 60.0abc 80.0ab 80.0ab 83.3abc F10,22 2.47 7.61 10.22 13.21 15.65 12.03 13.11 P 0.037 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). Open in new tab Significant differences in percent mortality were observed among the Met52 G product treatment rates when compared with the check throughout 21 DAT (F6,96 = 10.62; P < 0.001) (Table 2). Mortality ranged from 72% (low rate) to 89% (high rate) 21 DAT. No significant differences were observed when comparisons were made among the three fungal application rates during the experiment duration (F4,72 = 0.75; P = 0.559). In general, mortality significantly increased over time (F2,72 = 89.52; P < 0.001) regardless of fungal application rates (F2,36 = 3.13; P = 0.056). Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/Petri dish) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated Check - 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b Met52 G 1 × 107 29.3a 57.3a 72.0a Met52 G 2 × 107 35.3a 61.3a 76.0a Met52 G 4 × 107 38.0a 76.7a 89.3a F3,48 20.94 41.07 59.02 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/Petri dish) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated Check - 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b Met52 G 1 × 107 29.3a 57.3a 72.0a Met52 G 2 × 107 35.3a 61.3a 76.0a Met52 G 4 × 107 38.0a 76.7a 89.3a F3,48 20.94 41.07 59.02 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). aAmount per 0.002 m2 Petri dish. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/Petri dish) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated Check - 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b Met52 G 1 × 107 29.3a 57.3a 72.0a Met52 G 2 × 107 35.3a 61.3a 76.0a Met52 G 4 × 107 38.0a 76.7a 89.3a F3,48 20.94 41.07 59.02 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/Petri dish) . Cumulative % mortality . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated Check - 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b Met52 G 1 × 107 29.3a 57.3a 72.0a Met52 G 2 × 107 35.3a 61.3a 76.0a Met52 G 4 × 107 38.0a 76.7a 89.3a F3,48 20.94 41.07 59.02 P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). aAmount per 0.002 m2 Petri dish. Open in new tab In enclosures simulating natural conditions, significant differences in the mortality index were observed among the treatments when Met52 applications were made during the summer from larval quiescence through questing (F14,63 = 6.60; P < 0.001) (Tables 3 and 4). By 10 WAT (Aug), mortality in Met52 G was significantly greater than Met52 EC and the untreated check. No check mortality was observed until 18 WAT (mid-Oct, larval age ~4.5 mo) where Met52 G had significantly higher mortality than in Met52 EC and check treatments. When active, questing-age larvae were treated, significant differences in percent mortality were observed among the treatments over the experiment duration (F6,36 = 3.18; P = 0.013) (Tables 5 and 6). No mortality was observed at the time of treatment application, and by 3 WAT (Oct), mortality in the Met52 EC treatment was significantly greater than Met52 G and untreated check treatments. Differences between treatments were not significant for the remainder of the experiment where at 11 WAT (Dec), live ticks were observed only in the untreated check with 100% mortality observed in the Met52 G and Met52 EC treatments. While 100% mortality was observed in the simulated field enclosures, this was 23 WAT (summer) and 11 WAT (fall) and something unlikely to observe in a natural environment. These results confirmed winter tick larvae are susceptible to formulations of M. brunneum F52 and demonstrate the use of a granular applied prior to their autumn questing phase.1 Table 3. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 1.5a 3.3a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 2.3b 2.5a 4.0b 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 1.5b 2.5b 4.8b 4.8b 5.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 1.5a 3.3a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 2.3b 2.5a 4.0b 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 1.5b 2.5b 4.8b 4.8b 5.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Products were applied on 14 Jun, 23 Aug. Experiment duration was Jun–Nov. aAmount applied per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after initial treatment. cPercent mortality rating: 0 = no mortality; 1 = 1–25%; 2 = 26–50%; 3 = 51–75%; 4 = 76–99%; and 5 = 100%. Open in new tab Table 3. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 1.5a 3.3a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 2.3b 2.5a 4.0b 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 1.5b 2.5b 4.8b 4.8b 5.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 1.5a 3.3a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 2.3b 2.5a 4.0b 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 1.5b 2.5b 4.8b 4.8b 5.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Products were applied on 14 Jun, 23 Aug. Experiment duration was Jun–Nov. aAmount applied per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after initial treatment. cPercent mortality rating: 0 = no mortality; 1 = 1–25%; 2 = 26–50%; 3 = 51–75%; 4 = 76–99%; and 5 = 100%. Open in new tab Table 4. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 13.5a 58.5a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 33.5b 38.5a 76.0b 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 13.5b 38.5b 95.2b 95.2b 100.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 13.5a 58.5a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 33.5b 38.5a 76.0b 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 13.5b 38.5b 95.2b 95.2b 100.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different when analyses were conducted on mortality ratings (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Products were applied on 14 Jun, 23 Aug. Experiment duration was Jun–Nov. aAmount applied per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after initial treatment. cTransformed from the mean mortality rating. Open in new tab Table 4. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 13.5a 58.5a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 33.5b 38.5a 76.0b 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 13.5b 38.5b 95.2b 95.2b 100.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 8 WAT . 10 WAT . 14 WAT . 18 WAT . 21 WAT . 23 WAT . Untreated check - 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.8a 13.5a 58.5a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 0.0 0.0 0.3a 0.3a 33.5b 38.5a 76.0b 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 0.0 0.0 0.5a 13.5b 38.5b 95.2b 95.2b 100.0b F2,9 - - 1.29 13.29 4.33 11.58 27.80 13.36 P - - 0.323 0.002 0.048 0.003 <0.001 0.002 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different when analyses were conducted on mortality ratings (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Products were applied on 14 Jun, 23 Aug. Experiment duration was Jun–Nov. aAmount applied per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after initial treatment. cTransformed from the mean mortality rating. Open in new tab Table 5. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 1.6a 2.4a 3.4a 4.2a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 3.8b 4.4a 4.8a 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 2.8a 3.6a 5.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 1.6a 2.4a 3.4a 4.2a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 3.8b 4.4a 4.8a 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 2.8a 3.6a 5.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Experiment duration was Sept–Dec. Products were applied on 9 Sept. aAmount per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after treatment. cPercent mortality rating: 0 = no mortality; 1 = 1–25%; 2 = 26–50%; 3 = 51–75%; 4 = 76–99%; and 5 = 100%. Open in new tab Table 5. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 1.6a 2.4a 3.4a 4.2a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 3.8b 4.4a 4.8a 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 2.8a 3.6a 5.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative mortality ratingc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 1.6a 2.4a 3.4a 4.2a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 3.8b 4.4a 4.8a 5.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 2.8a 3.6a 5.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Experiment duration was Sept–Dec. Products were applied on 9 Sept. aAmount per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after treatment. cPercent mortality rating: 0 = no mortality; 1 = 1–25%; 2 = 26–50%; 3 = 51–75%; 4 = 76–99%; and 5 = 100%. Open in new tab Table 6. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 16.0a 36.0a 61.0a 80.8a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 71.0b 85.6a 95.2a 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 46.0a 66.0a 100.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 16.0a 36.0a 61.0a 80.8a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 71.0b 85.6a 95.2a 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 46.0a 66.0a 100.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different when analyses were conducted on mortality ratings (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Experiment duration was Sept–Dec. Products were applied on 9 Sept. aAmount per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after treatment. cTransformed from the mean mortality rating. Open in new tab Table 6. Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 16.0a 36.0a 61.0a 80.8a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 71.0b 85.6a 95.2a 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 46.0a 66.0a 100.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Treatment/formulation . Ratea (conidia/enclosure) . Cumulative % mortalityc . . . 3 WATb . 6 WAT . 9 WAT . 11 WAT . Untreated check - 16.0a 36.0a 61.0a 80.8a Met52 EC 2.4 × 107 71.0b 85.6a 95.2a 100.0b Met52 G 1.0 × 108 1.0a 46.0a 66.0a 100.0b F2,12 7.24 2.67 2.61 4.57 P 0.009 0.110 0.115 0.033 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different when analyses were conducted on mortality ratings (P > 0.05, Fisher’s LSD). Experiment duration was Sept–Dec. Products were applied on 9 Sept. aAmount per 0.007 m2 enclosure. bWAT = weeks after treatment. cTransformed from the mean mortality rating. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wildlife & Sport Fish Restoration Program Wildlife Restoration Grant number 06120FY19522 by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, U.S. Geological Survey under Grant number G19AC00241 and the American Wildlife Conservation Foundation. The use of trade or corporation names does not constitute an official endorsement by the University of Vermont, Jeonbuk National University or supporting agencies. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Rodriguez-Saona,, Cesar;Holdcraft,, Robert

Evaluation of Soil-Applied Insecticides for Control of the Wireworm Complex in Sweet Potato, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa105

Cranberry | Vaccinium spp Cranberry toad bug | Phylloscelis rubra Ball abamectin/avermectin B1, acetamiprid, flonicamid, bifenthrin, sulfoxaflor, novaluron, diazinon, cyantraniliprole, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl Experiments were done in 2016 and 2017 to test the efficacy of ten insecticides for controlling the cranberry toad bug in cranberries. The treatments applied and the per acre rates were: Agri-Mek SC (abamectin) at 3.5 floz/ac, Assail 30SG (acetamiprid) at 6.9 oz/ac, Beleaf 50SG (flonicamid) at 2.8 oz/ac, Brigade 2EC (bifenthrin) at 6.4 floz/ac, Closer SC (sulfoxaflor) at 4.25 floz/ac, Cormoran (novaluron + acetamiprid) at 12 floz/ac, Diazinon AG500 at 3 qt/ac, Exirel 10SE (cyantraniliprole) at 13.5 floz/ac, Lorsban 4E (chlorpyrifos) at 3 pts/ac, and Sevin XLR (carbaryl) at 3 L/ac. Exirel was only tested in 2016, while Cormoran was only tested in 2017. The experiments were conducted in a cranberry cv. ‘Early Black’ bed (approx. 20 m wide, 100 m long) located at the Rutgers P.E. Marucci Center in Chatsworth, New Jersey. The bed had a history of high toad bug infestation, and was divided into 40 plots in a 4 × 10 grid, using a 1 m tall black silt fence that consisted of a tightly woven black plastic fabric on wooden stakes. Each plot was approx. 4.5 wide × 6 m long, and the treatments were replicated four times in a CRD. Control plots received no insecticide. Applications were made with a R&D CO2 backpack sprayer, attached to a custom-made (2.4 m) boom. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 50 gal of vol per acre at 35 psi (yielding 1,303.4 ml per plot). For best coverage, two spray swaths were applied per plot; the first swath used five TeeJet 8002VS nozzles, while the second swath was made with four nozzles after one was turned off. Treatments were applied in the mornings of 5 Aug and 4 Aug in 2016 and 2017, respectively. In each plot, two samples were taken using a vacuum (D-Vac) sampler; each within a 1 m2 area (insect captures from both samples were combined prior to analysis). Samples were taken from the middle of plots, i.e., at least 30 cm from the plot’s edges. Pre-spray samples were taken on 3 Aug in 2016 and on 2 Aug in 2017. Post-spray samples were taken on 12 Aug in 2016 and on 10 Aug in 2017 (7 and 6 DAT, respectively). All samples were placed in individual plastic bags and taken to the laboratory to be evaluated under a stereomicroscope. In both years, the total number of toad bugs per sample was recorded. In addition, the number of spiders per sample was recorded in 2016 to assess potential non-target effects of insecticides. Percent toad bug control and percent spider reduction were calculated using the formula: [1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control)] × 100. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Fisher’s LSD test at P = 0.05. Prior to analyses, data were ln(x+0.1)-transformed. Compared to the untreated control, the pyrethroid Brigade, the carbamate Sevin, and the organosphosphates Lorsban and Diazinon provided the best (>95%) toad bug control in both years (Tables 1 and 2). Agri-Mek, Cormoran, and Assail reduced toad bug numbers by ~60–90%. In both years, Beleaf, Exirel, and Closer were the least effective at controlling toad bugs and were not different from the control (Tables 1 and 2). Brigade, Lorsban, and Diazinon significantly reduced the number of spiders by >80% (Table 3). Beleaf, Exirel, Closer, and Assail were the least toxic to spiders. No phytoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatments.1 Table 1. Effects of insecticides on cranberry toad bugs in 2016 Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 6.50 ± 1.26A 7.25 ± 0.85A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 7.00 ± 2.52A 6.75 ± 1.70A (6.9) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 6.00 ± 1.63A 5.50 ± 2.66AB (24.1) Closer SC 4.25 floz 5.00 ± 0.58A 5.75 ± 1.89A (20.7) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 8.00 ± 2.71A 1.00 ± 0.58BCD (86.2) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.29A 1.00 ± 0.41BC (86.2) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 7.50 ± 2.63A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 7.50 ± 2.06A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Sevin XLR 3 L 8.00 ± 0.82A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 7.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 6.50 ± 1.26A 7.25 ± 0.85A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 7.00 ± 2.52A 6.75 ± 1.70A (6.9) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 6.00 ± 1.63A 5.50 ± 2.66AB (24.1) Closer SC 4.25 floz 5.00 ± 0.58A 5.75 ± 1.89A (20.7) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 8.00 ± 2.71A 1.00 ± 0.58BCD (86.2) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.29A 1.00 ± 0.41BC (86.2) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 7.50 ± 2.63A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 7.50 ± 2.06A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Sevin XLR 3 L 8.00 ± 0.82A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 7.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) aMeans within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s LSD test, P ≤ 0.05). bData were ln(x+01)-transformed before analysis. cNumbers in parenthesis are % control = (1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control) × 100. Open in new tab Table 1. Effects of insecticides on cranberry toad bugs in 2016 Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 6.50 ± 1.26A 7.25 ± 0.85A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 7.00 ± 2.52A 6.75 ± 1.70A (6.9) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 6.00 ± 1.63A 5.50 ± 2.66AB (24.1) Closer SC 4.25 floz 5.00 ± 0.58A 5.75 ± 1.89A (20.7) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 8.00 ± 2.71A 1.00 ± 0.58BCD (86.2) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.29A 1.00 ± 0.41BC (86.2) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 7.50 ± 2.63A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 7.50 ± 2.06A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Sevin XLR 3 L 8.00 ± 0.82A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 7.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 6.50 ± 1.26A 7.25 ± 0.85A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 7.00 ± 2.52A 6.75 ± 1.70A (6.9) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 6.00 ± 1.63A 5.50 ± 2.66AB (24.1) Closer SC 4.25 floz 5.00 ± 0.58A 5.75 ± 1.89A (20.7) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 8.00 ± 2.71A 1.00 ± 0.58BCD (86.2) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.29A 1.00 ± 0.41BC (86.2) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 7.50 ± 2.63A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 7.50 ± 2.06A 0.25 ± 0.25CD (96.6) Sevin XLR 3 L 8.00 ± 0.82A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 7.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00D (100.0) aMeans within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s LSD test, P ≤ 0.05). bData were ln(x+01)-transformed before analysis. cNumbers in parenthesis are % control = (1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control) × 100. Open in new tab Table 2. Effects of insecticides on cranberry toad bugs in 2017 Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 7.50 ± 2.90A 6.75 ± 2.56A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 4.50 ± 1.32A 2.25 ± 0.48AB (66.7) Closer SC 4.25 floz 4.00 ± 1.47A 4.50 ± 2.18A (33.3) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 9.75 ± 2.10A 2.75 ± 0.85AB (59.3) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 8.75 ± 2.02A 1.25 ± 0.48B (81.5) Cormoran 12 floz 7.50 ± 0.87A 1.50 ± 0.65B (77.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 4.00 ± 1.41A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 9.00 ± 3.34A 0.25 ± 0.25C (96.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 6.75 ± 2.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 4.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 7.50 ± 2.90A 6.75 ± 2.56A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 4.50 ± 1.32A 2.25 ± 0.48AB (66.7) Closer SC 4.25 floz 4.00 ± 1.47A 4.50 ± 2.18A (33.3) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 9.75 ± 2.10A 2.75 ± 0.85AB (59.3) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 8.75 ± 2.02A 1.25 ± 0.48B (81.5) Cormoran 12 floz 7.50 ± 0.87A 1.50 ± 0.65B (77.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 4.00 ± 1.41A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 9.00 ± 3.34A 0.25 ± 0.25C (96.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 6.75 ± 2.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 4.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) aMeans within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s LSD test, P ≤ 0.05). bData were ln(x+01)-transformed before analysis. cNumbers in parenthesis are % control = (1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control) × 100. Open in new tab Table 2. Effects of insecticides on cranberry toad bugs in 2017 Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 7.50 ± 2.90A 6.75 ± 2.56A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 4.50 ± 1.32A 2.25 ± 0.48AB (66.7) Closer SC 4.25 floz 4.00 ± 1.47A 4.50 ± 2.18A (33.3) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 9.75 ± 2.10A 2.75 ± 0.85AB (59.3) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 8.75 ± 2.02A 1.25 ± 0.48B (81.5) Cormoran 12 floz 7.50 ± 0.87A 1.50 ± 0.65B (77.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 4.00 ± 1.41A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 9.00 ± 3.34A 0.25 ± 0.25C (96.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 6.75 ± 2.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 4.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Controlc . Control - 7.50 ± 2.90A 6.75 ± 2.56A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 4.50 ± 1.32A 2.25 ± 0.48AB (66.7) Closer SC 4.25 floz 4.00 ± 1.47A 4.50 ± 2.18A (33.3) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 9.75 ± 2.10A 2.75 ± 0.85AB (59.3) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 8.75 ± 2.02A 1.25 ± 0.48B (81.5) Cormoran 12 floz 7.50 ± 0.87A 1.50 ± 0.65B (77.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 4.00 ± 1.41A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 9.00 ± 3.34A 0.25 ± 0.25C (96.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 6.75 ± 2.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 4.00 ± 1.29A 0.00 ± 0.00C (100.0) aMeans within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s LSD test, P ≤ 0.05). bData were ln(x+01)-transformed before analysis. cNumbers in parenthesis are % control = (1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control) × 100. Open in new tab Table 3. Effects of insecticides on spiders Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ±SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Reductionc . Control - 1.50 ± 0.96A 4.5 ± 1.2A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 1.00 ± 0.58A 4.3 ± 1.1A (5.6) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 4.3 ± 1.6A (5.6) Closer SC 4.25 floz 1.50 ± 0.96A 5.8 ± 0.9A (0) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 3.00 ± 1.29A 5.5 ± 2.0A (0) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 3.3 ± 0.9A (27.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.0 ± 0.0C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 1.00 ± 1.00A 0.8 ± 0.5BC (83.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 0.00 ± 0.00A 1.8 ± 0.5AB (61.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.8 ± 0.8C (83.3) Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ±SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Reductionc . Control - 1.50 ± 0.96A 4.5 ± 1.2A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 1.00 ± 0.58A 4.3 ± 1.1A (5.6) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 4.3 ± 1.6A (5.6) Closer SC 4.25 floz 1.50 ± 0.96A 5.8 ± 0.9A (0) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 3.00 ± 1.29A 5.5 ± 2.0A (0) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 3.3 ± 0.9A (27.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.0 ± 0.0C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 1.00 ± 1.00A 0.8 ± 0.5BC (83.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 0.00 ± 0.00A 1.8 ± 0.5AB (61.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.8 ± 0.8C (83.3) aMeans within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s LSD test, P ≤ 0.05). bData were ln(x+01)-transformed before analysis. cNumbers in parenthesis are % reduction = (1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control) × 100. Open in new tab Table 3. Effects of insecticides on spiders Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ±SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Reductionc . Control - 1.50 ± 0.96A 4.5 ± 1.2A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 1.00 ± 0.58A 4.3 ± 1.1A (5.6) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 4.3 ± 1.6A (5.6) Closer SC 4.25 floz 1.50 ± 0.96A 5.8 ± 0.9A (0) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 3.00 ± 1.29A 5.5 ± 2.0A (0) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 3.3 ± 0.9A (27.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.0 ± 0.0C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 1.00 ± 1.00A 0.8 ± 0.5BC (83.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 0.00 ± 0.00A 1.8 ± 0.5AB (61.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.8 ± 0.8C (83.3) Test materials . Rate/Acre . Pre-Spray (mean ±SE)a,b . Post-Spray (mean ± SE)a,b . % Reductionc . Control - 1.50 ± 0.96A 4.5 ± 1.2A - Beleaf 50SG 2.8 oz 1.00 ± 0.58A 4.3 ± 1.1A (5.6) Exirel 10SE 13.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 4.3 ± 1.6A (5.6) Closer SC 4.25 floz 1.50 ± 0.96A 5.8 ± 0.9A (0) Assail 30 SG 6.9 oz 3.00 ± 1.29A 5.5 ± 2.0A (0) Agri-Mek SC 3.5 floz 0.00 ± 0.00A 3.3 ± 0.9A (27.8) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.0 ± 0.0C (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 1.00 ± 1.00A 0.8 ± 0.5BC (83.3) Sevin XLR 3 L 0.00 ± 0.00A 1.8 ± 0.5AB (61.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.50 ± 0.50A 0.8 ± 0.8C (83.3) aMeans within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s LSD test, P ≤ 0.05). bData were ln(x+01)-transformed before analysis. cNumbers in parenthesis are % reduction = (1-(numbers in treatment/ numbers in control) × 100. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

D’Ambrosio, Damon, A;Pellegrino, Alyssa, M;Perez, Sawyer, B;Goethe, , James, K;Huseth, Anders, S

Onion Maggot Control Using Insecticide Transplant Treatments for Onion, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa038

Tobacco wireworm | Conoderus vespertinus F, Corn wireworm | Melanotus communis Gyllenhal, Southern corn rootworm | Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber, Flea beetle | Systena spp Potato (sweet) | Ipomoea batatas chlorpyrifos, bifenthrin, clothianidin, spirotetramat The goal of this study was to evaluate soil-applied insecticides against common soil-borne insects that damage sweet potato. The specific objective was to document damage differences among insecticides applied at different times (preplant incorporated [PPI], soil barrier at lay-by, or their combination). We evaluated the probability of wireworm root damage and damage severity among insecticide treatments. This experiment was performed at two locations. The first trial was conducted at the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Cunningham Research Farm near Kinston, NC (35.271778 latitude, −77.647505 longitude). The field site at Kinston was composed of Kalmia loamy sand (ca. 55%) and Portsmouth loam (ca. 45%). It was planted with corn in 2018. The second trial was conducted at the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Horticultural Research Farm near Clinton, NC (35.02346 latitude, −78.276386 longitude). The field site at Clinton was composed of Orangeburg loamy sand (ca. 90%) and Norfolk loamy sand (ca. 10%). It was planted with soybean in 2018. On 11 and 21 Jun in Kinston and Clinton, respectively, 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, with 42-inch row spacing. Experimental blocks were separated by a 5-ft section of bare ground. Insecticides were applied as either PPI, as a post directed lay-by soil barrier treatment (PD) prior to vine running, or foliar application (F). The experimental design included insecticide treatments and an untreated check arranged in an RCB design, each replicated five times. On 10 and 19 Jun in Kinston and Clinton, respectively, PPI soil insecticides were applied directly to pre-formed hills using a CO2-pressurized sprayer at a spray volume of 10.1 gpa at 30 psi through two flat-fan nozzles (XR8002VS TeeJet) positioned to broadcast insecticide across the center and sides of two hills (Tables 1 and 2 for Kinston and Clinton, respectively). Insecticides were incorporated after application using a hilling implement that included a sweep shank tillage tool to mix treated soil prior to final pre-plant hill shaping. Post directed lay-by treatments were applied and incorporated with a rolling cultivator on 2 Jul at both locations when the crop began to vine (Tables 1 and 2 for Kinston and Clinton, respectively). Foliar treatments were applied using a CO2-pressurized sprayer that delivered a spray volume of 15 gpa at 30 psi directed through four flat-fan nozzles (XR8002VS TeeJet) positioned to broadcast insecticide across 6 ft of sweet potato canopy (Tables 1 and 2 for Kinston and Clinton, respectively). Foliar applications (Movento) were applied on 28 Jul and 11 Aug at both locations. Plants were mechanically dug with a two-row harvester on 25 and 27 Sep in Kinson and Clinton, respectively. Roots were hand harvested from ten linear feet of a single row. Roots were graded using a single lane Exiter Accuvision Vision Sorter located at the Horticultural Crops Research Station near Clinton, NC (https://www.exeterengineering.com). The sorter individually weighed and sized roots. Preliminary analysis showed that length, diameter, and weight measurements were all highly correlated. For this report, we analyzed total root weight from each plot. After sorting, a random subset of ~25 US-1 roots were sampled and visually evaluated for soil-borne insect damage (WDS: Wireworm spp./Diabrotica/Systena flea beetle). The number of damage sites per root were analyzed to determine 1) the probability of root damage (i.e., WDS holes ≥1) 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). Individual sweet potatoes were modeled as a binary outcome (damaged or undamaged) of treatment. In a separate analysis, the number of WDS sites present on each damaged root were then log-transformed and analyzed for treatment differences. Only damaged sweet potatoes (WDS holes ≥1) were included in the analysis. Experimental block was included as a random effect in both analyses. Means separations were conducted post-hoc using Tukey’s HSD. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application date . Proportion Damaged Roots . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.34ab 2.88 Lorsban Advanced 64.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.33ab 2.29 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 10 Jun 0.34ab 2.53 Belay 12.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.25abc 2.32 Lorsban Advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 1.87 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.15c 1.95 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 2.61 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.25abc 4.06 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 10 Jun 0.37a 2.59 Movento x 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application date . Proportion Damaged Roots . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.34ab 2.88 Lorsban Advanced 64.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.33ab 2.29 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 10 Jun 0.34ab 2.53 Belay 12.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.25abc 2.32 Lorsban Advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 1.87 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.15c 1.95 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 2.61 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.25abc 4.06 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 10 Jun 0.37a 2.59 Movento x 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. aFluid oz product per acre. bPPI application. cPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by lay-by soil barrier application of second listed treatment. dPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by two foliar spray applications of second listed treatment. ePPI application conducted on first listed date, PD application conducted on second listed date. fPPI application conducted on first listed date, F applications conducted on second and third listed dates. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application date . Proportion Damaged Roots . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.34ab 2.88 Lorsban Advanced 64.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.33ab 2.29 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 10 Jun 0.34ab 2.53 Belay 12.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.25abc 2.32 Lorsban Advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 1.87 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.15c 1.95 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 2.61 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.25abc 4.06 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 10 Jun 0.37a 2.59 Movento x 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application date . Proportion Damaged Roots . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.34ab 2.88 Lorsban Advanced 64.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.33ab 2.29 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 10 Jun 0.34ab 2.53 Belay 12.0 PPIb 10 Jun 0.25abc 2.32 Lorsban Advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 1.87 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.15c 1.95 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.18bc 2.61 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 10 Jun 0.25abc 4.06 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 10 Jun 0.37a 2.59 Movento x 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. aFluid oz product per acre. bPPI application. cPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by lay-by soil barrier application of second listed treatment. dPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by two foliar spray applications of second listed treatment. ePPI application conducted on first listed date, PD application conducted on second listed date. fPPI application conducted on first listed date, F applications conducted on second and third listed dates. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application Date . Proportion Damaged Rootsa . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.70a 4.30 Lorsban advanced 64.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.23c 2.62 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 19 Jun 0.46b 4.31 Belay 12.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.82a 4.91 Lorsban advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.32bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.40bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.46b 4.88 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.35bc 3.43 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 19 Jun 0.26c 5.19 Movento × 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application Date . Proportion Damaged Rootsa . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.70a 4.30 Lorsban advanced 64.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.23c 2.62 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 19 Jun 0.46b 4.31 Belay 12.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.82a 4.91 Lorsban advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.32bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.40bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.46b 4.88 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.35bc 3.43 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 19 Jun 0.26c 5.19 Movento × 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. aFluid oz product per acre. bPPI application. cPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by lay-by soil barrier application of second listed treatment. dPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by two foliar spray applications of second listed treatment. ePPI application conducted on first listed date, PD application conducted on second listed date. fPPI application conducted on first listed date, F applications conducted on second and third listed dates. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application Date . Proportion Damaged Rootsa . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.70a 4.30 Lorsban advanced 64.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.23c 2.62 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 19 Jun 0.46b 4.31 Belay 12.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.82a 4.91 Lorsban advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.32bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.40bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.46b 4.88 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.35bc 3.43 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 19 Jun 0.26c 5.19 Movento × 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Treatment/formulation . Rate per Acrea . Application method . Application Date . Proportion Damaged Rootsa . Mean WDS holes per damaged root . Untreated check – – – 0.70a 4.30 Lorsban advanced 64.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.23c 2.62 Capture LFR 25.5 PPIb 19 Jun 0.46b 4.31 Belay 12.0 PPIb 19 Jun 0.82a 4.91 Lorsban advanced + 64.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.32bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Belay+ 12.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.40bc 3.92 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture LFR + 25.5 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.46b 4.88 Belay 12.0 2 Jule Capture LFR + 17.0 PPI+PDc 19 Jun 0.35bc 3.43 Capture LFR 25.5 2 Jule Capture + 25.5 PPI+Fd 19 Jun 0.26c 5.19 Movento × 2 5 + 5 28 Jul & 11 Augf Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. aFluid oz product per acre. bPPI application. cPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by lay-by soil barrier application of second listed treatment. dPPI application of first listed treatment, followed by two foliar spray applications of second listed treatment. ePPI application conducted on first listed date, PD application conducted on second listed date. fPPI application conducted on first listed date, F applications conducted on second and third listed dates. Open in new tab Significant treatment effects were seen at Kinston (F8,1112 = 4.11, P < 0.001) on the probability of damaged roots (Table 1). A significant treatment effect was also observed at the Clinton study location (F8,1094 = 17.74, P < 0.001) (Table 2). Overall, WDS pressure was higher in Clinton than Kinston. Performance of insecticide combinations also differed between sites. In Kinston, Belay (PPI) + Capture LFR (PD) provided the greatest reduction in WDS damage probability, with Capture LFR (PPI) + Movento × 2 applications (F) providing the least reduction. Belay (PPI) + Capture LFR (PD) was also the only treatment to show a significantly lower probability of WDS damage relative to the untreated check (Table 1). In Clinton, Capture LFR (PPI) + Movento × 2 applications (F) provided the greatest reduction in WDS damage probability, with Belay (PPI) providing the least reduction. In Clinton, all treatments except Belay (PPI) showed a significantly lower probability of WDS damage relative to the untreated check (Table 2). There was no significant effect of treatment at Kinston (F8,286 = 1.43, P = 0.1847) or Clinton (F8,481 = 1.76, P = 0.0826) on the mean number of WDS holes (Tables 1 and 2, respectively). The results suggest that these treatments largely work by reducing the probability of WDS damage occurring, not by reducing the amount of feeding on damaged roots.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported in part by funding from industry, the North Carolina Sweetpotato Growers Association, and Foreign Agricultural Service competitive grant no. TASC-2019-11 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Iglesias,, Lindsy;Nault,, Brian

Efficacy of Foliar Insecticides Against Green Stink Bug and Green Cloverworm in Soybean, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa069

Hosts: Onion | Allium cepa Onion maggot | Delia antiqua Meigen spinosad, spinetoram Onion maggot (Delia antiqua Meigen) control using insecticide treatments to protect transplanted onion was evaluated on muck soil in a commercial onion field south of Oswego, New York (GPS: 43°27′04.3″N 76°23′58.6″W) in 2019. Onion ‘bare-root’ plants (cv. ‘Bradley’, Sunbelt Transplants, Inc., Buckeye, AZ), were established on 22 May. Onions were grown from raw seeds. Each plot consisted of two 15-ft long rows, separated by 15 inches. Plots were separated from each other within rows by a 3 ft alley of bare soil. There were no guard rows. Plants were transplanted at a density of 3 per ft (90 plants/plot). There were four treatments, including the untreated check that were arranged in an RCB design with six replicates (Table 1). Table 1. Trt# . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by maggots . 1 Untreated check - - - 86.4a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 5.3b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 2.6b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 2.2b Trt# . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by maggots . 1 Untreated check - - - 86.4a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 5.3b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 2.6b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 2.2b Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparison Test; n = 4). Data were transformed using a square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed data are presented. Open in new tab Table 1. Trt# . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by maggots . 1 Untreated check - - - 86.4a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 5.3b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 2.6b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 2.2b Trt# . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Rate per 10,000 plants . Rate (AI) per acre . % plants killed by maggots . 1 Untreated check - - - 86.4a 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 1 fl oz 3.1 oz 5.3b 3 Entrust SC Spinosad 2 fl oz 6.2 oz 2.6b 4 Radiant SC Spinetoram 1 fl oz 1.6 oz 2.2b Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparison Test; n = 4). Data were transformed using a square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed data are presented. Open in new tab The amount of insecticide needed to prepare the treatment solutions were partially determined by the amount of water that adhered to a single, average-sized onion transplant (0.02 fl oz, determined from previous experiments), and the maximum plant density in transplanted onion fields (125,000 plants/acre). Plants were dipped in the treatment solution for 30 s and allowed to dry prior to transplanting. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated one or two times per week from 24 Jun through 22 Jul. Sampling began as soon as maggots were found until the end of the first generation in late-Jul. Plants containing maggots or those obviously dying from maggot feeding (but larva not present) were recorded as dead and then removed from the plot. A final plant stand count was recorded on the last day of the evaluation, 22 Jul. In each plot, the percentage of plants killed by maggots was calculated by taking the sum of the number of maggot-killed plants divided by the sum of all maggot-killed plants plus the final plant stand count and then multiplying this quotient by 100. These data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure in SAS (PROC MIXED, v. 9.4) with treatment as the fixed effect and replicate as the random effect. Percentage data were transformed using a square root (x + 0.001) function before analysis, but untransformed means are presented. Treatment means were compared using the Tukey-Kramer Pairwise Comparison Test at P < 0.05. Conditions were wet at planting and during the entirety of the trial. Onion maggot pressure was considered very high for a New York onion field. The percentage of plants killed in the untreated check was very high and significantly greater than the percentages in all treatments (Table 1). Levels of onion maggot damage were low and similar among the Entrust and Radiant treatments, despite high maggot pressure in the field (<6% damage) (Table 1).1 Footnotes 1 " The insecticides were provided by Corteva Agriscience, but research was supported primarily by the New York Onion Research and Development Program. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Zarrabi, Ali, A;Royer, Tom, A;Wallace, George, B;Seuhs, S, Kelly;Giles, Kristopher, L;Harrison, Natalie, L

Evaluations of Insecticide Performance for Control of Alfalfa Weevil and Aphids, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa103

Soybean | Glycine max Green Stink Bug (GSB) | Chinavia hilaris (Say), Green Cloverworm (GCW) | Hypena scabra (F.) chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, beta-cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, chlorantraniliprole, zeta-cypermethrin The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of different insecticides against green stink bug (GSB) and green cloverworm (GCW) in soybean. Asgrow 47X8 soybean was planted on 1 Jun in a farmers’ field in Fairfax, Oklahoma. The first GSB were found in mid-Aug. The plots measured 10 ft × 30 ft planted on 30-inch rows. The plots were arranged in an RCB design with four replications. The pretreatment counts consisting of 15 sweeps per plot were recorded on 25 Aug by counting the number of live GSB (nymphs and adults) and GCW. The mean number of total GSB was 3.2 and mean number of GCW was 13.7, respectively. Treatments were applied on 25 Aug through broadcast spray delivered at 20 gpa using a CO2 handheld sprayer equipped with Tee Jet AIXR110025 flat fan nozzles mounted on a 6 ft. boom at 50 psi. Posttreatment counts were taken at 9, 14, 21, and 30 DAT in each plot for GSB and 9 and 14 DAT for GCW. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and the means separated with Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Percent control (% reduction of insect number compared to untreated) for any sampling date was calculated as: [untreated count – treated count) / untreated count) * 100. All of the insecticide treatments reduced GSB compared to the untreated check on all sampling dates (Table 1). GCW numbers had declined in the untreated plots by 14 DAT, and no significant differences among treatments were observed at 9 or 14 DAT (Table 2). Consequently, no more samples were taken for GCW after 14 DAT.1 Table 1. Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GSB/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 30 DAT . Untreated check - 3.0a 16.8a 19.3a 34.0a 36.0a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 2.3a 2.5b (85) 10.8b (44) 8.5b (75) 18.0b (50) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 3.8a 4.5b (73) 8.5b (56) 9.0b (74) 8.3b (77) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 3.8a 2.8b (83) 11.0b (43) 8.5b (72) 17.8b (51) P>F 0.3824 0.0003 0.0201 0.0003 0.0035 Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GSB/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 30 DAT . Untreated check - 3.0a 16.8a 19.3a 34.0a 36.0a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 2.3a 2.5b (85) 10.8b (44) 8.5b (75) 18.0b (50) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 3.8a 4.5b (73) 8.5b (56) 9.0b (74) 8.3b (77) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 3.8a 2.8b (83) 11.0b (43) 8.5b (72) 17.8b (51) P>F 0.3824 0.0003 0.0201 0.0003 0.0035 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GSB/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 30 DAT . Untreated check - 3.0a 16.8a 19.3a 34.0a 36.0a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 2.3a 2.5b (85) 10.8b (44) 8.5b (75) 18.0b (50) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 3.8a 4.5b (73) 8.5b (56) 9.0b (74) 8.3b (77) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 3.8a 2.8b (83) 11.0b (43) 8.5b (72) 17.8b (51) P>F 0.3824 0.0003 0.0201 0.0003 0.0035 Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GSB/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 30 DAT . Untreated check - 3.0a 16.8a 19.3a 34.0a 36.0a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 2.3a 2.5b (85) 10.8b (44) 8.5b (75) 18.0b (50) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 3.8a 4.5b (73) 8.5b (56) 9.0b (74) 8.3b (77) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 3.8a 2.8b (83) 11.0b (43) 8.5b (72) 17.8b (51) P>F 0.3824 0.0003 0.0201 0.0003 0.0035 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GCW/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 12.3a 2.0a 1.8a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 14.3a 1.3a (60) 1.5a (14) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 13.3a 0.5a (75) 0.0a (100) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 15.0a 0.3a (88) 0.5a (71) P>F 0.6910 0.1187 0.3434 Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GCW/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 12.3a 2.0a 1.8a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 14.3a 1.3a (60) 1.5a (14) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 13.3a 0.5a (75) 0.0a (100) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 15.0a 0.3a (88) 0.5a (71) P>F 0.6910 0.1187 0.3434 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GCW/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 12.3a 2.0a 1.8a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 14.3a 1.3a (60) 1.5a (14) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 13.3a 0.5a (75) 0.0a (100) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 15.0a 0.3a (88) 0.5a (71) P>F 0.6910 0.1187 0.3434 Treatment/form. . Rate/acre (fl oz product) . Pretreatment . Number of GCW/15 sweeps (and % Control) . . . . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 12.3a 2.0a 1.8a Stallion 3.025EC 11.75 14.3a 1.3a (60) 1.5a (14) Leverage 360 3SC 2.8 13.3a 0.5a (75) 0.0a (100) Elevest 2.22SC 8.0 15.0a 0.3a (88) 0.5a (71) P>F 0.6910 0.1187 0.3434 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was funded in part by industry. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Seuhs, S, Kelly

Control of San Jose Scale in Apple, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa106

Alfalfa | Medicago sativa Alfalfa Weevil (AW) | Hypera postica (Gyllenhal), Pea Aphid (PA) | Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), Blue Alfalfa Aphid (BAA) | Acyrthosiphon kondoi (Shinji), Spotted Alfalfa Aphid (SAA) | Therioaphis maculate (Buckton), Cowpea Aphid (CPA) | Aphis craccivora (Koch) lambda-cyhalothrin, zeta-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, afidopyropen, flupyradifurone, sulfoxaflor Eight chemical insecticides were evaluated for efficacy in controlling alfalfa weevil (AW) and aphids infesting the first crop of a fourth-year stand of ‘OK49’ alfalfa at the Cimarron Valley Research Station Perkins, OK (Payne County). Samples collected at stubble application (just breaking winter dormancy) revealed increasing larval numbers with minimal aphids. Pretreatment samples collected at threshold indicated a mean population of (64.0 larvae/25 stems), while aphid populations remained below threshold at (51.0 aphids/25 stems). A single stubble treatment of Warrior II was applied on 4 Mar. The threshold (25 larvae/25 stems) for AW was reached, and insecticides were applied to the remaining treatment area on 21 Mar using a CO2 pressurized bicycle sprayer calibrated to deliver 20 gpa at 19 psi through eight, 8004 flat fan nozzles traveling 3 mph. In order to preserve integrity of the trial and allow continued aphid development with reduced AW pressure, a tank-mix of the insecticide Steward (8.0 oz/acre) was applied to treatments 6–9 (Sefina (3.0 oz/acre), Sefina (6.0 oz/acre), Sivanto Prime, and Transform WG) at threshold. Treatments were arranged in an RCB design using plots 3.6 × 7.6 m in size, replicated 4 times. Weather conditions for the first 3 days after threshold treatment increased activity of insect, with .75 inches of rainfall and a mean daily high of 61.3°F. During the remainder of the trial, through 21 Apr, a total of .75 inches of rainfall occurred and the mean daily high temperature was 64.5°F. Sampling was conducted 3, 7, and 14 days after treatment (stubble). These plots were only sprayed during stubble timing. After AW threshold was reached, sampling (including stubble treatment) occurred 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT from threshold application, by pulling 25 stems per plot and placing them in standard Berlese funnels to extract insects for counting. Abbott’s formula was used to calculate percent control for each insecticide treatment within each sample date, and mean percent control across sample dates per treatment were then analyzed to obtain average percent control. Dry matter yields were estimated for first harvest on 21 Apr by removing forage from a 0.9 × 3.6 m area in each plot using a battery-powered hedge trimmer. Subsamples were dried for determination of moisture content and yields calculated on a dry weight/acre basis. Data was analyzed using ANOVA and mean separation determined using Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Samples taken 3, 7, and 14 days after the early stubble treatment revealed significant control of AW and aphids (Table 1). The population density of AW was above the economic threshold at the time of treatment and rose to 131.25 larvae/25 stems at 14 DAT in the untreated alfalfa. Table 1. Mean number insects/25 stems (stubble) . . . Alfalfa weevil larvae . . . Total aphids . . Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . Untreated check 15.0a 11.0a 21.0a 20.0a 3.5a 3.0a Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 1.0b 3.0b 10.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b P > F 0.041 0.008 0.064 0.030 0.038 0.005 . . . Alfalfa weevil larvae . . . Total aphids . . Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . Untreated check 15.0a 11.0a 21.0a 20.0a 3.5a 3.0a Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 1.0b 3.0b 10.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b P > F 0.041 0.008 0.064 0.030 0.038 0.005 Means within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD; P = 0.05). aStubble application 17 days prior to threshold application timing (4 Mar). Open in new tab Table 1. Mean number insects/25 stems (stubble) . . . Alfalfa weevil larvae . . . Total aphids . . Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . Untreated check 15.0a 11.0a 21.0a 20.0a 3.5a 3.0a Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 1.0b 3.0b 10.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b P > F 0.041 0.008 0.064 0.030 0.038 0.005 . . . Alfalfa weevil larvae . . . Total aphids . . Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . 3DAT . 7DAT . 14DAT . Untreated check 15.0a 11.0a 21.0a 20.0a 3.5a 3.0a Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 1.0b 3.0b 10.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b P > F 0.041 0.008 0.064 0.030 0.038 0.005 Means within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD; P = 0.05). aStubble application 17 days prior to threshold application timing (4 Mar). Open in new tab During the first week after threshold treatment, all insecticides, including the early stubble treatment and plots with Steward tank-mix, reduced AW larval densities below levels recovered in untreated alfalfa (Table 2). Three DAT, one AW insecticide began to perform better than others and this performance continued through the 14 DAT sampling period. Treatments tank-mixed with Steward provided control similar to AW only products during the same period. Average percent control of AW larvae 3 to 28 DAT ranged from a low of 32.0% for Warrior II 2.08 CS to a high of 60.0% for Hero 1.24 EC with both applied based on the alfalfa weevil threshold. There were no differences in percent control among treatments, with no treatment providing >60% control. Table 2. Mean number AW larvae/25 stems Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Yield lbs/acre . Untreated Check 115.5a 128.5a 131.2a 27.5cd 8.5a 653.4cd Warrior II 2.08a 1.92 45.0b 60.0b 88.7ab 24.0cd 11.5a 32.0a 893.0bcd Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 46.5b 33.7c 32.5c 9.0d 9.2a 55.0a 1159.8abc Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 13.7b 7.5d 28.0c 20.2cd 7.5a 60.0a 1165.2abc Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 21.0b 27.5cd 47.2bc 24.7cd 6.2a 52.0a 1121.7abcd Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 29.5b 40.2bc 47.2bc 33.7bcd 19.7a 42.0a 604.0d Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 18.0b 33.7c 35.2c 93.7a 9.7a 46.0a 1154.3abc Sivanto Prime 1.675 SLac 10.0 32.2b 41.5bc 51.7bc 40.2bc 18.7a 40.0a 1181.6ab Transform WGac 1.0 34.0b 27.0cd 46.5bc 29.2cd 14.5a 43.0a 1421.1a P > F 0.0160 0.0001 0.0012 0.0003 0.7965 0.3652 0.0684 Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Yield lbs/acre . Untreated Check 115.5a 128.5a 131.2a 27.5cd 8.5a 653.4cd Warrior II 2.08a 1.92 45.0b 60.0b 88.7ab 24.0cd 11.5a 32.0a 893.0bcd Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 46.5b 33.7c 32.5c 9.0d 9.2a 55.0a 1159.8abc Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 13.7b 7.5d 28.0c 20.2cd 7.5a 60.0a 1165.2abc Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 21.0b 27.5cd 47.2bc 24.7cd 6.2a 52.0a 1121.7abcd Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 29.5b 40.2bc 47.2bc 33.7bcd 19.7a 42.0a 604.0d Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 18.0b 33.7c 35.2c 93.7a 9.7a 46.0a 1154.3abc Sivanto Prime 1.675 SLac 10.0 32.2b 41.5bc 51.7bc 40.2bc 18.7a 40.0a 1181.6ab Transform WGac 1.0 34.0b 27.0cd 46.5bc 29.2cd 14.5a 43.0a 1421.1a P > F 0.0160 0.0001 0.0012 0.0003 0.7965 0.3652 0.0684 Means within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different. (LSD; P = 0.05). aTreatments applied on 21 Mar, when alfalfa weevil threshold was exceeded. bStubble application 17 days prior to threshold application (4 Mar). cA tank-mix of Steward (8.0 oz/acre) was applied to aphid only treatments for AW control. dAverage Percent control calculated from AW threshold timing 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT. (Abbott’s formula per treatment per sample date). eDAT, Days after treatment. First sample date was 3 days after threshold treatment (24 Mar). Pretreatment sampled (21 Mar). Open in new tab Table 2. Mean number AW larvae/25 stems Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Yield lbs/acre . Untreated Check 115.5a 128.5a 131.2a 27.5cd 8.5a 653.4cd Warrior II 2.08a 1.92 45.0b 60.0b 88.7ab 24.0cd 11.5a 32.0a 893.0bcd Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 46.5b 33.7c 32.5c 9.0d 9.2a 55.0a 1159.8abc Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 13.7b 7.5d 28.0c 20.2cd 7.5a 60.0a 1165.2abc Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 21.0b 27.5cd 47.2bc 24.7cd 6.2a 52.0a 1121.7abcd Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 29.5b 40.2bc 47.2bc 33.7bcd 19.7a 42.0a 604.0d Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 18.0b 33.7c 35.2c 93.7a 9.7a 46.0a 1154.3abc Sivanto Prime 1.675 SLac 10.0 32.2b 41.5bc 51.7bc 40.2bc 18.7a 40.0a 1181.6ab Transform WGac 1.0 34.0b 27.0cd 46.5bc 29.2cd 14.5a 43.0a 1421.1a P > F 0.0160 0.0001 0.0012 0.0003 0.7965 0.3652 0.0684 Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form.) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Yield lbs/acre . Untreated Check 115.5a 128.5a 131.2a 27.5cd 8.5a 653.4cd Warrior II 2.08a 1.92 45.0b 60.0b 88.7ab 24.0cd 11.5a 32.0a 893.0bcd Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 46.5b 33.7c 32.5c 9.0d 9.2a 55.0a 1159.8abc Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 13.7b 7.5d 28.0c 20.2cd 7.5a 60.0a 1165.2abc Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 21.0b 27.5cd 47.2bc 24.7cd 6.2a 52.0a 1121.7abcd Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 29.5b 40.2bc 47.2bc 33.7bcd 19.7a 42.0a 604.0d Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 18.0b 33.7c 35.2c 93.7a 9.7a 46.0a 1154.3abc Sivanto Prime 1.675 SLac 10.0 32.2b 41.5bc 51.7bc 40.2bc 18.7a 40.0a 1181.6ab Transform WGac 1.0 34.0b 27.0cd 46.5bc 29.2cd 14.5a 43.0a 1421.1a P > F 0.0160 0.0001 0.0012 0.0003 0.7965 0.3652 0.0684 Means within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different. (LSD; P = 0.05). aTreatments applied on 21 Mar, when alfalfa weevil threshold was exceeded. bStubble application 17 days prior to threshold application (4 Mar). cA tank-mix of Steward (8.0 oz/acre) was applied to aphid only treatments for AW control. dAverage Percent control calculated from AW threshold timing 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT. (Abbott’s formula per treatment per sample date). eDAT, Days after treatment. First sample date was 3 days after threshold treatment (24 Mar). Pretreatment sampled (21 Mar). Open in new tab Yield of alfalfa at first harvest ranged from a high of 1421.1 lb/acre for Transform WG (1.0 lb./acre) to a low of 604.0 lb/acre with Sefina (3.0 oz./acre). Only Transform WG and Sivanto Prime resulted in significantly higher yields than untreated alfalfa. The two predominate aphid species present at the time of AW threshold were BAA and PA. Pretreatment aphid densities were below threshold level (10 aphids/stem BAA and 40 aphids/stem PA) at the time of insecticide application. After a brief spike observed in the untreated plots 3 DAT, aphid populations began to decline and remained below threshold levels throughout the remainder of the test period. Across all sample dates, percent control of aphids ranged from a low of 36.2% for Warrior II 2.08 CS applied at threshold timing to a high of 71.0% with stubble application of Warrior II 2.08 CS (Table 3). During the first week after the applications based on alfalfa weevil threshold, all insecticides significantly decreased aphid densities below levels recovered in untreated alfalfa. Through the 21 DAT sampling period, several products maintained consistent control compared to the untreated alfalfa. In addition to Warrior II 2.08 CS stubble applied at 71.0%, only two other treatments (Sivanto Prime 1.675 SL and Transform WG) provided >60% control. No significant differences were observed among products.1 Table 3. Mean Number Total Aphids/25 stems Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Untreated Check 216.5a 96.0a 41.5b 81.0b 3.0d Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 15.0b 12.0c 73.5a 143.0a 168.0a 36.2a Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 31.0b 15.0c 6.0c 0.0e 52.0b 71.0a Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 14.2b 1.5c 25.0bc 58.7bc 51.2b 52.0a Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 6.0b 37.5b 48.0b 39.7cd 52.0b 41.8a Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 38.5b 31.7b 16.0b 25.0de 37.5bc 56.2a Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 30.0b 12.0c 74.5b 45.0cd 43.0b 43.8a Sivanto Prime 1.675 Sac 10.0 3.2b 18.0c 6.0c 43.5cd 52.5b 62.8a Transform WGac 1.0 35.0b 0.0c 12.0c 35.2cd 11.2cd 62.4a P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9353 Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Untreated Check 216.5a 96.0a 41.5b 81.0b 3.0d Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 15.0b 12.0c 73.5a 143.0a 168.0a 36.2a Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 31.0b 15.0c 6.0c 0.0e 52.0b 71.0a Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 14.2b 1.5c 25.0bc 58.7bc 51.2b 52.0a Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 6.0b 37.5b 48.0b 39.7cd 52.0b 41.8a Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 38.5b 31.7b 16.0b 25.0de 37.5bc 56.2a Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 30.0b 12.0c 74.5b 45.0cd 43.0b 43.8a Sivanto Prime 1.675 Sac 10.0 3.2b 18.0c 6.0c 43.5cd 52.5b 62.8a Transform WGac 1.0 35.0b 0.0c 12.0c 35.2cd 11.2cd 62.4a P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9353 Means within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD; P = 0.05). aTreatments applied on 21 Mar, when alfalfa weevil threshold was exceeded. bStubble application 17 days prior to threshold application (4 Mar). cA tank-mix of Steward (8.0 oz/acre) was applied to aphid only treatments for AW control. dAverage Percent control calculated from AW threshold timing 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT (Abbott’s formula per treatment per sample date). eDAT, Days after treatment. First sample date was 3 days after threshold treatment (24 Mar). Pretreatment sampled (21 Mar). Open in new tab Table 3. Mean Number Total Aphids/25 stems Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Untreated Check 216.5a 96.0a 41.5b 81.0b 3.0d Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 15.0b 12.0c 73.5a 143.0a 168.0a 36.2a Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 31.0b 15.0c 6.0c 0.0e 52.0b 71.0a Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 14.2b 1.5c 25.0bc 58.7bc 51.2b 52.0a Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 6.0b 37.5b 48.0b 39.7cd 52.0b 41.8a Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 38.5b 31.7b 16.0b 25.0de 37.5bc 56.2a Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 30.0b 12.0c 74.5b 45.0cd 43.0b 43.8a Sivanto Prime 1.675 Sac 10.0 3.2b 18.0c 6.0c 43.5cd 52.5b 62.8a Transform WGac 1.0 35.0b 0.0c 12.0c 35.2cd 11.2cd 62.4a P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9353 Treatment . Rate/acre (oz form) . 3DATe . 7DAT . 14DAT . 21DAT . 28DAT . Average % Controld . Untreated Check 216.5a 96.0a 41.5b 81.0b 3.0d Warrior II 2.08 CSa 1.92 15.0b 12.0c 73.5a 143.0a 168.0a 36.2a Warrior II 2.08 CSb 1.92 31.0b 15.0c 6.0c 0.0e 52.0b 71.0a Hero 1.24 ECa 4.0 14.2b 1.5c 25.0bc 58.7bc 51.2b 52.0a Lorsban 4Ea 32.0 6.0b 37.5b 48.0b 39.7cd 52.0b 41.8a Sefina 0.42DCac 3.0 38.5b 31.7b 16.0b 25.0de 37.5bc 56.2a Sefina 0.42DCac 6.0 30.0b 12.0c 74.5b 45.0cd 43.0b 43.8a Sivanto Prime 1.675 Sac 10.0 3.2b 18.0c 6.0c 43.5cd 52.5b 62.8a Transform WGac 1.0 35.0b 0.0c 12.0c 35.2cd 11.2cd 62.4a P > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9353 Means within columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD; P = 0.05). aTreatments applied on 21 Mar, when alfalfa weevil threshold was exceeded. bStubble application 17 days prior to threshold application (4 Mar). cA tank-mix of Steward (8.0 oz/acre) was applied to aphid only treatments for AW control. dAverage Percent control calculated from AW threshold timing 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT (Abbott’s formula per treatment per sample date). eDAT, Days after treatment. First sample date was 3 days after threshold treatment (24 Mar). Pretreatment sampled (21 Mar). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Evaluation of Insecticides for San Jose Scale Management in Georgia Peaches, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa059

Apple | Malus domestica San Jose scale (SJS) | Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) flupyradifurone, spirotetramat, potassium salts of fatty esters The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of several insecticide rates and timings against San Jose scale (SJS) on apple. Two-tree plots were established in a 31-yr-old ‘Red Chief’ apple planting (row spacing 20 × 18 ft) located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville MI (Brown Block). There were four replicates per treatment in an RCB design. Test materials were applied with an FMC 1029 tractor-mounted airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. Rates and timings of test materials are as outlined in Table 1 below. In addition, the following foliar maintenance applications were made; Asana, Aprovia, Battallion, Centaur, Inspire Super, Lannate, and Manzate Pro. Glyphosate was banded below the trees for weed control. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . San Jose Scale per 50 fruit . . . . . 12 Sep . . . . . % Scale Infest. . Mean Scale per fruit . Untreated check 85.2a 15.5a Sivanto Prime 200SL + 14 fl oz ADF 6.4cd 0.3c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 4.5d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz DF R-11 90EC 0.125% v: v DF Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 2.6d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz B R-11 90EC 0.25% v: v B Silmatrix L + 1 % v: v ADE 14.0bc 0.9b SuperSpread 7000 70EC 0.25% v: v ADE X-8064-18 L 2% v: v ABC 20.8b 1.6b Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . San Jose Scale per 50 fruit . . . . . 12 Sep . . . . . % Scale Infest. . Mean Scale per fruit . Untreated check 85.2a 15.5a Sivanto Prime 200SL + 14 fl oz ADF 6.4cd 0.3c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 4.5d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz DF R-11 90EC 0.125% v: v DF Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 2.6d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz B R-11 90EC 0.25% v: v B Silmatrix L + 1 % v: v ADE 14.0bc 0.9b SuperSpread 7000 70EC 0.25% v: v ADE X-8064-18 L 2% v: v ABC 20.8b 1.6b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 10 May (Pink), B = 31 May (Petal Fall), C = 5 Jun (CM Bio + 250DD), D = 3 Jul (1st Gen Crawler Stage), E = 10 Jul (D + 7 days), F = 2 Aug (2nd Gen Crawler Stage). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . San Jose Scale per 50 fruit . . . . . 12 Sep . . . . . % Scale Infest. . Mean Scale per fruit . Untreated check 85.2a 15.5a Sivanto Prime 200SL + 14 fl oz ADF 6.4cd 0.3c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 4.5d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz DF R-11 90EC 0.125% v: v DF Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 2.6d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz B R-11 90EC 0.25% v: v B Silmatrix L + 1 % v: v ADE 14.0bc 0.9b SuperSpread 7000 70EC 0.25% v: v ADE X-8064-18 L 2% v: v ABC 20.8b 1.6b Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . San Jose Scale per 50 fruit . . . . . 12 Sep . . . . . % Scale Infest. . Mean Scale per fruit . Untreated check 85.2a 15.5a Sivanto Prime 200SL + 14 fl oz ADF 6.4cd 0.3c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 4.5d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz DF R-11 90EC 0.125% v: v DF Sivanto HL 400SL + 7 fl oz A 2.6d 0.2c Damoil 90EC 1% v: v A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz B R-11 90EC 0.25% v: v B Silmatrix L + 1 % v: v ADE 14.0bc 0.9b SuperSpread 7000 70EC 0.25% v: v ADE X-8064-18 L 2% v: v ABC 20.8b 1.6b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 10 May (Pink), B = 31 May (Petal Fall), C = 5 Jun (CM Bio + 250DD), D = 3 Jul (1st Gen Crawler Stage), E = 10 Jul (D + 7 days), F = 2 Aug (2nd Gen Crawler Stage). Open in new tab A field evaluation consisting of 50 randomly selected fruit per plot was made on 12 Sep. The number of fruit that had scale damage was counted as well as the number of SJS per fruit. Results are shown as the percentage of SJS damaged fruit and mean number of scales per fruit (Table 1). All data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P < 0.05. ANOVA was run on transformed data, while actual counts are presented. Silmatrix, Sivanto Prime, Sivanto HL, Sivanto / Movento, and X-8064-18 treatments all significantly reduced the incidence of SJS compared to the untreated check, with Sivanto treatments providing the best overall control (Table 1).1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Blaauw, Brett, R;Breedlove,, Jordan

Citricola Scale Insecticide Trial on Citrus, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa078

Peach | Prunus persica San Jose scale | Comstockaspis perniciosus (Comstock) flupyradifurone, spirotetramat, Burkholderia spp, petroleum oil The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of several insecticides and timings against San Jose scale (SJS) on Georgia peaches. Single-tree plots were established in a 9-yr-old planting of ‘Springprince’ peach trees with a row spacing of 20 ft × 18 ft; located at the Fort Valley State University research farm in Fort Valley, GA. A total of 11 treatments were evaluated and replicated four times each in an RCB design with at least one buffer tree separating all plots. All treatments were applied using a backpack CO2 Sprayer (Bellspray, Inc.) with a single-nozzle boom calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 40 psi (Table 1). Treatment applications were initiated at delayed-dormant timing on 26 Feb, shuck off on 6 Apr, and then followed a schedule based on the first and second peak activity events for the SJS immature stage, or ‘crawlers’ (Table 1). The crawlers were monitored starting on 24 Apr 2019, proceeding on a weekly basis through harvest until 23 Aug 2019 with a piece of double-sided tape positioned over a strip of black electrical tape and wrapped around an infested branch. Two monitoring tapes were deployed per sampling tree and were removed and replaced on a weekly basis. The number of SJS crawlers on each tape (adjusted to per 5 cm of tape) were counted using a stereomicroscope. Due to a late freeze, we were unable to assess fruit injury. The mean abundance of crawlers per 5 cm of tape at pre-harvest (24 Apr through 28 Jun 2019) and seasonal summation (24 Apr through 23 Aug 2019) were compared across the 11 treatments using ANOVA (data were natural log-transformed) and means separation with Student’s t (P < 0.05). Table 1. Treatments and data for 2018 San Jose scale insecticide trial Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timinga . Mean abundance (crawlers/ 5 cm tape) . . . . . Pre-harvest abundanceb . Seasonal total . Sivanto Prime 12 oz B 15.3 ± 7.9 254.1 ± 133.1bcd Movento 9 oz D 25.3 ± 14.3 76.1 ± 50.9cd Sivanto Prime + 12 oz B 14.1 ± 3.1 35.7 ± 16.7d Movento 9 oz D Venerate XC 4 qt A 87.9 ± 72.5 442.4 ± 117.7ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 20.9 ± 10.6 297.7 ± 166.1bcd Omni Supreme Spray 1.5 gal A Venerate XCc 4 qt C, D, E, F 17.2 ± 6.9 158.4 ± 130.9bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 1.5 gal A 33.7 ± 13.2 518.2 ± 238.9ab Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 3 gal A 20.4 ± 15.0 297.5 ± 112.5bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 4 gal A 83.1 ± 78.8 320.9 ± 219.1abc Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 8 gal A 5.2 ± 2.4 87.7 ± 40.7cd UTC n/a n/a 361.2 ± 236.6 1874.4 ± 663.3a Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timinga . Mean abundance (crawlers/ 5 cm tape) . . . . . Pre-harvest abundanceb . Seasonal total . Sivanto Prime 12 oz B 15.3 ± 7.9 254.1 ± 133.1bcd Movento 9 oz D 25.3 ± 14.3 76.1 ± 50.9cd Sivanto Prime + 12 oz B 14.1 ± 3.1 35.7 ± 16.7d Movento 9 oz D Venerate XC 4 qt A 87.9 ± 72.5 442.4 ± 117.7ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 20.9 ± 10.6 297.7 ± 166.1bcd Omni Supreme Spray 1.5 gal A Venerate XCc 4 qt C, D, E, F 17.2 ± 6.9 158.4 ± 130.9bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 1.5 gal A 33.7 ± 13.2 518.2 ± 238.9ab Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 3 gal A 20.4 ± 15.0 297.5 ± 112.5bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 4 gal A 83.1 ± 78.8 320.9 ± 219.1abc Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 8 gal A 5.2 ± 2.4 87.7 ± 40.7cd UTC n/a n/a 361.2 ± 236.6 1874.4 ± 663.3a Within a column, means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, Student’s t). aApplication date, event stage: A = 26 Feb, delayed-dormant; B = 9 Apr, shuck off; C = 18 Apr, initiation of first crawler activity peak; D = 25 Apr, first crawler activity peak; E = 17 Jun, initiation of second crawler activity peak; F = 24 Jun, second crawler activity peak. bPre-harvest dates = 24 Apr to 28 Jun 2019. cApplied at the first- and second-generation timings of SJS. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatments and data for 2018 San Jose scale insecticide trial Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timinga . Mean abundance (crawlers/ 5 cm tape) . . . . . Pre-harvest abundanceb . Seasonal total . Sivanto Prime 12 oz B 15.3 ± 7.9 254.1 ± 133.1bcd Movento 9 oz D 25.3 ± 14.3 76.1 ± 50.9cd Sivanto Prime + 12 oz B 14.1 ± 3.1 35.7 ± 16.7d Movento 9 oz D Venerate XC 4 qt A 87.9 ± 72.5 442.4 ± 117.7ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 20.9 ± 10.6 297.7 ± 166.1bcd Omni Supreme Spray 1.5 gal A Venerate XCc 4 qt C, D, E, F 17.2 ± 6.9 158.4 ± 130.9bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 1.5 gal A 33.7 ± 13.2 518.2 ± 238.9ab Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 3 gal A 20.4 ± 15.0 297.5 ± 112.5bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 4 gal A 83.1 ± 78.8 320.9 ± 219.1abc Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 8 gal A 5.2 ± 2.4 87.7 ± 40.7cd UTC n/a n/a 361.2 ± 236.6 1874.4 ± 663.3a Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timinga . Mean abundance (crawlers/ 5 cm tape) . . . . . Pre-harvest abundanceb . Seasonal total . Sivanto Prime 12 oz B 15.3 ± 7.9 254.1 ± 133.1bcd Movento 9 oz D 25.3 ± 14.3 76.1 ± 50.9cd Sivanto Prime + 12 oz B 14.1 ± 3.1 35.7 ± 16.7d Movento 9 oz D Venerate XC 4 qt A 87.9 ± 72.5 442.4 ± 117.7ab Venerate XC + 4 qt A 20.9 ± 10.6 297.7 ± 166.1bcd Omni Supreme Spray 1.5 gal A Venerate XCc 4 qt C, D, E, F 17.2 ± 6.9 158.4 ± 130.9bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 1.5 gal A 33.7 ± 13.2 518.2 ± 238.9ab Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 3 gal A 20.4 ± 15.0 297.5 ± 112.5bcd Omni Supreme Spray 100 gpa 4 gal A 83.1 ± 78.8 320.9 ± 219.1abc Omni Supreme Spray 200 gpa 8 gal A 5.2 ± 2.4 87.7 ± 40.7cd UTC n/a n/a 361.2 ± 236.6 1874.4 ± 663.3a Within a column, means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, Student’s t). aApplication date, event stage: A = 26 Feb, delayed-dormant; B = 9 Apr, shuck off; C = 18 Apr, initiation of first crawler activity peak; D = 25 Apr, first crawler activity peak; E = 17 Jun, initiation of second crawler activity peak; F = 24 Jun, second crawler activity peak. bPre-harvest dates = 24 Apr to 28 Jun 2019. cApplied at the first- and second-generation timings of SJS. Open in new tab There were no significant treatment differences for the number of SJS crawlers per 5 cm collected during the pre-harvest period of 24 Apr to 28 Jun 2019 (F = 1.01, df = 10, 333, P = 0.461). Numerically, all the treatments had considerably fewer scale crawlers than the UTC, but due to high levels of variation and relatively low numbers of SJS crawlers early in the season, these differences were not significant (Table 1). Evaluating the abundance of crawlers per 5 cm collected from 24 Apr through 23 Aug, there were significant differences among treatments for the total abundance of crawlers (F = 3.3, df = 9, 30, P = 0.006). Although numerically lower, by the end of the season, only three treatments—Venerate alone at delayed-dormant timing, 1.5% Omni Supreme Spray at 100 gpa, and 4% Omni Supreme Spray at 100 gpa—did not have significantly lower abundances of SJS crawlers than the UTC (Table 1). The Movento + Sivanto Prime had the lowest overall abundance of SJS at the end of the season, followed by Movento alone, 4% Omni Supreme Spray at 200 gpa, and Venerate applied at the first- and second-generation timings for SJS crawlers. These results suggest that although there is still no silver bullet for SJS management, there are several compounds that can effectively suppress SJS populations in Georgia peaches. Remarkably, though, management with 4% Omni Supreme Spray at 200 gpa during delayed-dormant timing did not statistically differ from 1.5% Omni Supreme Spray at 200 gpa or 4% Omni Supreme Spray at 100 gpa. Similarly, Movento + Sivanto Prime had the lowest overall abundance of SJS but was not statistically different than Movento alone. Nonetheless, the numerically fewer SJS crawlers throughout the season with the 4% Omni Supreme Spray at 200 gpa and the Movento + Sivanto Prime treatments may lead to fewer SJS the following season, which may result in accumulative control after years of management. This, along with the effective management with Venerate XC, provide encouraging results for new and effective SJS management tools in addition to the proven insect growth regulators.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of material and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Efficacy of Selected Insecticides for Managing Brown Stink Bug in Corn, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa086

Orange | Citrus sinensis Citricola scale | Coccus pseudomagnoliarum (Kuwana) tolfenpyrad, thiamethoxam, flupyradifurone, sulfoxaflor, petroleum oil Citricola scale causes loss of tree vigor, yield reduction and downgrading of fruit in the packing house due to sooty mold growth on honeydew deposited by the insect. A field trial was conducted in a 28-yr-old ‘Cutter’ Valencia orange orchard at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California to compare various rates of insecticides for efficacy against citricola scale. Insecticides were applied using 200 PSI and 500 gpa to 10 trees per treatment using a 100 gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation. Treatments were assigned to trees on 25 Apr 2019 in an RCB design based on pretreatment counts of mature female scale found on five twigs (approximately 40 cm in length) randomly selected from the northeast corner of the tree. All insecticide treatments were applied with 0.5% Omni 6E oil on 31 Jul or 1 Aug, when the population consisted of first-instar nymphs infesting leaves. Posttreatment sampling consisted of counts of first-instar nymphs infesting five leaves collected from the NE corner of each sample tree during Sep and Oct 2019. An additional sample of mature females on five twigs per tree was collected on 5 May 2020. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA after testing for NS block effect. Differences in the mean numbers of nymphs per leaf or adult female scale per twig were determined using Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference Test (P < 0.05) after log10(x+1) transformation of numbers. During the fall of 2019, all treatments except for Bexar applied as 27 oz significantly reduced the number of nymphs below the untreated control on at least one evaluation date (Table 1). On 4 Oct, treatments of Sequoia and Sivanto reduced the number of nymphs below the economic threshold of 0.5 nymphs/leaf. In the spring of 2020, all treatments significantly reduced the number of adult females below the untreated control and the treatment threshold of 1.0 adult/twig.1 Table 1. . . . Mean no. of citricola scale per twig or leaf . . . . Treatment . Rate form prod/acre or v:v . Treatment date . 25 Apr 2019a . 6 Sepb . 7 Octb . 5 May 2020a . Untreated Control 1.26a 3.86a 1.84a 3.42a Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.32a 2.38ab 0.76bc 0.38b Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 27.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.30a 2.10ab 1.00ab 0.32b Actara 25 WG + Omni 6E oil 5.5 oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.54a 1.40b 0.56bc 0.12b Sequoia SC + Omni 6E oil 5.75 fl oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.44a 1.36b 0.14c 0.24b Sivanto HL SC + Omni 6E oil 7.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.34a 1.22b 0.27c 0.22b Sivanto Prime + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.38a 0.88b 0.20c 0.18b P > F 0.9965 0.0239 0.0020 <0.0001 F 0.10 2.64 3.96 22.90 df 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 . . . Mean no. of citricola scale per twig or leaf . . . . Treatment . Rate form prod/acre or v:v . Treatment date . 25 Apr 2019a . 6 Sepb . 7 Octb . 5 May 2020a . Untreated Control 1.26a 3.86a 1.84a 3.42a Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.32a 2.38ab 0.76bc 0.38b Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 27.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.30a 2.10ab 1.00ab 0.32b Actara 25 WG + Omni 6E oil 5.5 oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.54a 1.40b 0.56bc 0.12b Sequoia SC + Omni 6E oil 5.75 fl oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.44a 1.36b 0.14c 0.24b Sivanto HL SC + Omni 6E oil 7.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.34a 1.22b 0.27c 0.22b Sivanto Prime + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.38a 0.88b 0.20c 0.18b P > F 0.9965 0.0239 0.0020 <0.0001 F 0.10 2.64 3.96 22.90 df 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10 (x+1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aAdult females sampled. bNymphs sampled. Open in new tab Table 1. . . . Mean no. of citricola scale per twig or leaf . . . . Treatment . Rate form prod/acre or v:v . Treatment date . 25 Apr 2019a . 6 Sepb . 7 Octb . 5 May 2020a . Untreated Control 1.26a 3.86a 1.84a 3.42a Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.32a 2.38ab 0.76bc 0.38b Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 27.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.30a 2.10ab 1.00ab 0.32b Actara 25 WG + Omni 6E oil 5.5 oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.54a 1.40b 0.56bc 0.12b Sequoia SC + Omni 6E oil 5.75 fl oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.44a 1.36b 0.14c 0.24b Sivanto HL SC + Omni 6E oil 7.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.34a 1.22b 0.27c 0.22b Sivanto Prime + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.38a 0.88b 0.20c 0.18b P > F 0.9965 0.0239 0.0020 <0.0001 F 0.10 2.64 3.96 22.90 df 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 . . . Mean no. of citricola scale per twig or leaf . . . . Treatment . Rate form prod/acre or v:v . Treatment date . 25 Apr 2019a . 6 Sepb . 7 Octb . 5 May 2020a . Untreated Control 1.26a 3.86a 1.84a 3.42a Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.32a 2.38ab 0.76bc 0.38b Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E oil 27.0 fl oz + 0.5% Aug 1 1.30a 2.10ab 1.00ab 0.32b Actara 25 WG + Omni 6E oil 5.5 oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.54a 1.40b 0.56bc 0.12b Sequoia SC + Omni 6E oil 5.75 fl oz+ 0.5% Jul 31 1.44a 1.36b 0.14c 0.24b Sivanto HL SC + Omni 6E oil 7.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.34a 1.22b 0.27c 0.22b Sivanto Prime + Omni 6E oil 14.0 fl oz+ 0.5% Aug 1 1.38a 0.88b 0.20c 0.18b P > F 0.9965 0.0239 0.0020 <0.0001 F 0.10 2.64 3.96 22.90 df 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 6, 63 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10 (x+1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aAdult females sampled. bNymphs sampled. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Babu,, Arun;Reisig, Dominic, D

Potato Leafhopper Control in Snap Bean With Insecticides Allowed for Organic Production, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa030

Brown stink bug (BSB) | Euschistus servus (Say) Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays bifenthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, thiamethoxam, acephate, chlorpyrifos The brown stink bug, Euschistus servus (Say), is becoming a major pest of corn, Zea mays L., in the southeastern United States. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of selected insecticides for managing E. servus adults in early silking stage (R1) corn. The experiment was conducted at a grower’s corn field near Terra Ceia, NC (35.5993, −76.7432). The field was planted with ‘Dyna-Gro 55VC45’ (Loveland Products Inc., Loveland, CO), corn on 22 Apr 2019 at a seeding rate of 32,500 seeds/acre and with a row spacing of 30-inches. Experimental plots were arranged in an RCB design with 6 treatments including an untreated check, and treatments were replicated 4 times. Individual plots were four rows by 43 ft long. Plots received insecticide treatment on 14 Jun 2019, when corn plants were at early silking stage (R1). Insecticide commercial names, formulations, and application rates are provided in Table 1. Insecticide treatments were carried out using a pressurized backpack and a spray boom, fitted with TeeJet TX-10 cone spray tips spaced 36 inches apart delivering 10 GPA carrier volume at 40 psi pressure above the canopy. From each plot, post treatment E. servus adult counts were taken from 20 consecutive plants at 3, 6, and 12 DAT. All the above-ground vegetation of corn plants was inspected for E. servus. Data were analyzed using ANOVA (PROC MIXED, SAS, v. 9.4), and mean separation were carried out using Tukey–Kramer (P ≤ 0.05). To normalize the data distribution, E. servus adults counts from 3 and 12 DAT were square-root transformed (X + 1), before analysis. Untransformed means are presented. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean E. servus adults per 20 plants 17 Juna 3 DAT 20 Juna 6 DAT 26 Juna 12 DAT 1. Untreated check 6.50a 6.25a 2.75a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 2.00b 0.75b 3.00a 3. Warrior II 2.08CS 1.2b 1.00b 3.00ab 2.75a 4. Endigo ZC 2.06SE 5.5b 1.50b 0.75b 1.50a 5. Orthene 97S 16.0c 0.00b 0.50b 0.75a 6. Lorsban Advanced 4E 2.0d 1.75b 3.00ab 1.75a P > F 0.0016 0.0009 0.5086 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean E. servus adults per 20 plants 17 Juna 3 DAT 20 Juna 6 DAT 26 Juna 12 DAT 1. Untreated check 6.50a 6.25a 2.75a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 2.00b 0.75b 3.00a 3. Warrior II 2.08CS 1.2b 1.00b 3.00ab 2.75a 4. Endigo ZC 2.06SE 5.5b 1.50b 0.75b 1.50a 5. Orthene 97S 16.0c 0.00b 0.50b 0.75a 6. Lorsban Advanced 4E 2.0d 1.75b 3.00ab 1.75a P > F 0.0016 0.0009 0.5086 Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey-Kramer). Adults counts from 3 and 12 DAT were square-root transformed (X+1), before analysis. Untransformed means are presented. aDate of observation. bfl oz product per acre. coz product per acre. dpt product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean E. servus adults per 20 plants 17 Juna 3 DAT 20 Juna 6 DAT 26 Juna 12 DAT 1. Untreated check 6.50a 6.25a 2.75a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 2.00b 0.75b 3.00a 3. Warrior II 2.08CS 1.2b 1.00b 3.00ab 2.75a 4. Endigo ZC 2.06SE 5.5b 1.50b 0.75b 1.50a 5. Orthene 97S 16.0c 0.00b 0.50b 0.75a 6. Lorsban Advanced 4E 2.0d 1.75b 3.00ab 1.75a P > F 0.0016 0.0009 0.5086 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean E. servus adults per 20 plants 17 Juna 3 DAT 20 Juna 6 DAT 26 Juna 12 DAT 1. Untreated check 6.50a 6.25a 2.75a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 2.00b 0.75b 3.00a 3. Warrior II 2.08CS 1.2b 1.00b 3.00ab 2.75a 4. Endigo ZC 2.06SE 5.5b 1.50b 0.75b 1.50a 5. Orthene 97S 16.0c 0.00b 0.50b 0.75a 6. Lorsban Advanced 4E 2.0d 1.75b 3.00ab 1.75a P > F 0.0016 0.0009 0.5086 Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey-Kramer). Adults counts from 3 and 12 DAT were square-root transformed (X+1), before analysis. Untransformed means are presented. aDate of observation. bfl oz product per acre. coz product per acre. dpt product per acre. Open in new tab Compared with the untreated check, the application of insecticides to early silking stage (R1) corn significantly lowered E. servus adult numbers in all insecticide treatments on 17 Jun, 3 DAT (Table 1). On 20 Jun, 6 DAT, plots treated with Brigade, Endigo ZC, and Orthene 97 exhibited significantly lower E. servus numbers, compared with the untreated check. However, no significant differences between any treatments were observed on 26 Jun, 12 DAT.1 Footnotes 1 This research is supported in part by industry gifts of products and funding. We thank Forrest Howell, Clifton Moore, and Steven Roberson for their cooperation, and also thank Syngenta Inc. for industry support. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Harding, Riley, Suzanne;Nault, Brian, A;Seaman,, Abby

Cranberry Toad Bug Control on Cranberries, 2014

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa071

Bean (snap) | Phaseolus vulgaris Potato leafhopper | Empoasca fabae (Harris) azadirachtin, pyrethrin, Burkholderia spp Potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae Harris) is a serious pest of organically grown snap bean in New York, but little is known about efficacy and timing of insecticides that could manage infestations. The objective of this trial was to identify effective insecticides listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute and to determine the optimal application frequency of these products for managing potato leafhopper in snap bean. Field trials were conducted at Cornell AgriTech’s Fruit and Vegetable Research farm in Geneva, NY (GPS: 42°52′35.3″N 77°01′27.4″W). Snap bean seeds, ‘Huntington,’ were planted on 12 June 2019. All seed was treated with captan, metalaxyl, streptomycin, and thiram to protect against soil-borne diseases. Plots consisted of two 15-ft-long rows at 30-inch row spacing. Each two-row plot was flanked by two planted buffer rows and 3-ft of bare ground within rows to separate plots. The treatments (Table 1) were arranged in an RCB design and replicated five times. Spray programs were initiated when the potato leafhopper infestation reached a threshold of one nymph per trifoliate leaf. Insecticides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer and a two-row boom equipped with four, flat-fan nozzles (TJ-60 8002VS) that delivered 26 gallons per acre at 40 psi. Table 1. Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 17 fl oz/acre Aza-direct Azadirachtin 32 fl oz/acre Venerate XC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 128 fl oz/acre Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 17 fl oz/acre Aza-direct Azadirachtin 32 fl oz/acre Venerate XC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 128 fl oz/acre Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 17 fl oz/acre Aza-direct Azadirachtin 32 fl oz/acre Venerate XC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 128 fl oz/acre Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 17 fl oz/acre Aza-direct Azadirachtin 32 fl oz/acre Venerate XC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 128 fl oz/acre Open in new tab The first application was made on 14 Jul and then followed by either one or two additional sprays at 5-d intervals. After each application (3–5 DAT), efficacy of treatments was evaluated by recording the number of nymphs per 20 randomly selected trifoliates per plot. Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model in SAS (ver. 9.4; PROC GLIMMIX) where treatment was a fixed effect, and replication a random effect in the model. Treatment means were compared using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test at P < 0.05. Leafhopper densities in Aza-Direct and Azera treatments, regardless of the number of applications, were significantly lower than those in the untreated control on most sampling dates and overall (Table 2). Potato leafhopper densities in plots treated with Pyganic Specialty three times were significantly lower than those in the untreated control by the end of the study (Table 2). In contrast, potato leafhopper densities in plots treated with Pyganic Specialty twice did not differ significantly from those in the untreated control by the end of the study (Table 2). Venerate XC was ineffective for controlling potato leafhopper (Table 2).1 Table 2. Product . Number of applications . Mean number of PLH nymphs per trifoliate . . . 19 Jul . 23 Jul . 30 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.6 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2ab 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.5 ± 0.4a Aza-Direct 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.9 ± 0.2c Aza-Direct 3 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.1b 0.8 ± 0.2c Azera 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.1c Azera 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.2c Pyganic specialty 2 0.5 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.1bcd 0.4 ± 0.1ab 1.5 ± 0.3abc Pyganic specialty 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.0bcd 0.1 ± 0.0b 1.1 ± 0.1bc Venerate XC 2 0.7 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.3a 0.7 ± 0.1a 2.6 ± 0.5a Venerate XC 3 0.5 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.1abc 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.2 ± 0.3ab P value NS <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Product . Number of applications . Mean number of PLH nymphs per trifoliate . . . 19 Jul . 23 Jul . 30 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.6 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2ab 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.5 ± 0.4a Aza-Direct 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.9 ± 0.2c Aza-Direct 3 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.1b 0.8 ± 0.2c Azera 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.1c Azera 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.2c Pyganic specialty 2 0.5 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.1bcd 0.4 ± 0.1ab 1.5 ± 0.3abc Pyganic specialty 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.0bcd 0.1 ± 0.0b 1.1 ± 0.1bc Venerate XC 2 0.7 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.3a 0.7 ± 0.1a 2.6 ± 0.5a Venerate XC 3 0.5 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.1abc 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.2 ± 0.3ab P value NS <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means (±standard error) within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5). Open in new tab Table 2. Product . Number of applications . Mean number of PLH nymphs per trifoliate . . . 19 Jul . 23 Jul . 30 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.6 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2ab 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.5 ± 0.4a Aza-Direct 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.9 ± 0.2c Aza-Direct 3 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.1b 0.8 ± 0.2c Azera 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.1c Azera 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.2c Pyganic specialty 2 0.5 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.1bcd 0.4 ± 0.1ab 1.5 ± 0.3abc Pyganic specialty 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.0bcd 0.1 ± 0.0b 1.1 ± 0.1bc Venerate XC 2 0.7 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.3a 0.7 ± 0.1a 2.6 ± 0.5a Venerate XC 3 0.5 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.1abc 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.2 ± 0.3ab P value NS <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Product . Number of applications . Mean number of PLH nymphs per trifoliate . . . 19 Jul . 23 Jul . 30 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.6 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.2ab 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.5 ± 0.4a Aza-Direct 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.9 ± 0.2c Aza-Direct 3 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.1b 0.8 ± 0.2c Azera 2 0.3 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1cd 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.1c Azera 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1d 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.9 ± 0.2c Pyganic specialty 2 0.5 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.1bcd 0.4 ± 0.1ab 1.5 ± 0.3abc Pyganic specialty 3 0.4 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.0bcd 0.1 ± 0.0b 1.1 ± 0.1bc Venerate XC 2 0.7 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.3a 0.7 ± 0.1a 2.6 ± 0.5a Venerate XC 3 0.5 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 0.1abc 0.8 ± 0.1a 2.2 ± 0.3ab P value NS <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means (±standard error) within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1011209. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Rodriguez-Saona,, Cesar;Holdcraft,, Robert

Efficacy of Hirsutella thompsonii and Two Other Biological Control Agents Against the Broad Mite in Mulberry, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa047

Cranberry | Vaccinium spp Cranberry Toad Bug: Phylloscelis atra Germar This experiment tested the efficacy of Actara 25WG, Assail 30SG, Closer SC, Diazinon AG500, Imidan 70WP, Lorsban 4E, Sevin XLR, Voliam Flexi, and two bifenture products Brigade 2EC and Fanfare 2EC for controlling the cranberry toad bug in cranberries. The insecticide treatments and rates were Actara 25WG at 4 oz/ac, Assail 30SG at 6.9 oz/ac, Closer SC at 4.25 floz/ac, Diazinon AG500 at 3 qt/ac, Imidan 70WP at 4 lb/ac, Lorsban 4E at 3 pts/ac, Sevin XLR at 3 L/ac, Voliam Flexi at 4.25 oz/ac, and Brigade 2EC and Fanfare 2EC at 6.4 floz/ac. The experiment was conducted in an ‘Early Black’ cranberry field located at the Rutgers PE Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension in Chatsworth, New Jersey. Plots were 122 × 122 cm each, replicated four times in a CRB design. Control plots received no insecticide. Applications were made with R&D CO2 backpack sprayer, using a 1-liter plastic bottle. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 50 gal per acre at 30 psi, using a single Teejet versus 110,015 nozzle, yielding 69.5 ml per plot. Treatments were applied in 29 August. Treated uprights were randomly selected from the central portion of each plot and clipped for use in a laboratory assay 12 h after treatment on 30 August. A buffer zone of 30 cm from plot edges was not sampled. Four insecticide-treated uprights were inserted in florists’ water picks, enclosed in a ventilated 40-dram plastic vial, and secured on Styrofoam trays. Seven vials were setup for each treatment with three adult toad bugs placed inside each vial; each vial was considered a replicate. All toad bugs used in the trial were collected with a sweepnet on 30 August from an untreated cranberry bog at the Rutgers PE Marucci Center and used the same day of collection. Plants and insects were placed on a light bench in the laboratory at approx. 25°C, on a 15:9 L:D cycle. Mortality was assessed at 24, 48, and 72 h after exposure to treated foliage. The number of toad bugs (alive, moribund, or dead) was recorded, and the percentage of live number of toad bugs was calculated. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, and means separation was done by Fisher’s LSD test at P = 0.05. Percent data were arcsine square-root transformed prior to analysis. After 24 h, all insecticide treatments significantly reduced the survival of adult toad bugs compared with controls (Table 1); mortality was >90% for all insecticides except for Imidan and Closer. After 48 and 72 h, all insecticide treatments had >90% mortality. Percent adult mortality in the control treatment was <20% after 72 h. No phytoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatments.1 Table 1. Treatment . Rate/ac . 24 h . % Control . . . % Live . % Moribund . % Dead . . Actara 25WG 4 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 33.33 ± 16.27A 57.14 ± 17.39C (90.1) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 19.05 ± 9.91A B 71.43 ± 8.69B C (90.1) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 14.29 ± 6.73B C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (85.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 23.81 ± 14.02B 4.76 ± 4.76B C 71.43 ± 13.47B C (75.2) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00C 9.52 ± 6.15B C 90.48 ± 6.15A B (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 14.29 ± 6.73A B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Control – 95.83 ± 4.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.17 ± 4.17D – Treatment Rate/ac 48 hr % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 4.76 ± 4.76B 0.00 ± 0.00B 95.24 ± 4.76A (93.3) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Treatment Rate/ac 72 h % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Treatment . Rate/ac . 24 h . % Control . . . % Live . % Moribund . % Dead . . Actara 25WG 4 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 33.33 ± 16.27A 57.14 ± 17.39C (90.1) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 19.05 ± 9.91A B 71.43 ± 8.69B C (90.1) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 14.29 ± 6.73B C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (85.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 23.81 ± 14.02B 4.76 ± 4.76B C 71.43 ± 13.47B C (75.2) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00C 9.52 ± 6.15B C 90.48 ± 6.15A B (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 14.29 ± 6.73A B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Control – 95.83 ± 4.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.17 ± 4.17D – Treatment Rate/ac 48 hr % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 4.76 ± 4.76B 0.00 ± 0.00B 95.24 ± 4.76A (93.3) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Treatment Rate/ac 72 h % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher test, P ≤ 0.05). Percent data were arcsine square-root transformed prior to analysis. Numbers in parenthesis are % control = [1 − (% live larvae in insecticide treatment / % live larvae in control)] × 100. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate/ac . 24 h . % Control . . . % Live . % Moribund . % Dead . . Actara 25WG 4 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 33.33 ± 16.27A 57.14 ± 17.39C (90.1) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 19.05 ± 9.91A B 71.43 ± 8.69B C (90.1) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 14.29 ± 6.73B C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (85.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 23.81 ± 14.02B 4.76 ± 4.76B C 71.43 ± 13.47B C (75.2) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00C 9.52 ± 6.15B C 90.48 ± 6.15A B (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 14.29 ± 6.73A B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Control – 95.83 ± 4.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.17 ± 4.17D – Treatment Rate/ac 48 hr % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 4.76 ± 4.76B 0.00 ± 0.00B 95.24 ± 4.76A (93.3) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Treatment Rate/ac 72 h % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Treatment . Rate/ac . 24 h . % Control . . . % Live . % Moribund . % Dead . . Actara 25WG 4 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 33.33 ± 16.27A 57.14 ± 17.39C (90.1) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 9.52 ± 6.15B C 19.05 ± 9.91A B 71.43 ± 8.69B C (90.1) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 14.29 ± 6.73B C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (85.1) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00C 0.00 ± 0.00B C 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 23.81 ± 14.02B 4.76 ± 4.76B C 71.43 ± 13.47B C (75.2) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00C 9.52 ± 6.15B C 90.48 ± 6.15A B (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 14.29 ± 6.73A B C 85.71 ± 6.73A B (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.76 ± 4.76B C 95.24 ± 4.76A (100.0) Control – 95.83 ± 4.17A 0.00 ± 0.00C 4.17 ± 4.17D – Treatment Rate/ac 48 hr % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15A 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 4.76 ± 4.76B 0.00 ± 0.00B 95.24 ± 4.76A (93.3) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Treatment Rate/ac 72 h % Control % Live % Moribund % Dead Actara 25WG 4 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Assail 30SG 6.9 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 9.52 ± 6.15B 90.48 ± 6.15A (100.0) Closer SC 4.25 4.25 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Diazinon AG500 3 qt 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Imidan 70 WP 4 lb 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Lorsban 4E 3 pts 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Sevin XLR 3 liter 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Voliam Flexi 4.25 oz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Brigade 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Fanfare 2EC 6.4 floz 0.00 ± 0.00B 0.00 ± 0.00B 100.00 ± 0.00A (100.0) Control – 70.83 ± 9.83A 12.50 ± 6.10A 16.67 ± 6.30B – Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher test, P ≤ 0.05). Percent data were arcsine square-root transformed prior to analysis. Numbers in parenthesis are % control = [1 − (% live larvae in insecticide treatment / % live larvae in control)] × 100. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Kumar, Prakya, Sreerama;Varshney,, Richa

Laboratory Bioassays of Biological/Organic Insecticides to Control Corn Earworm on Hemp in Virginia, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa089

Mulberry | Morus spp Broad Mite (BM) | Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) propargite Mulberry, a fast-growing perennial woody plant, is grown widely in several districts of Karnataka state in India. It is economically important in the sericulture industry as its leaves are used as the sole feed of silkworm [Bombyx mori (L.)]. In Ramanagara district alone, 18,600 ha are under mulberry cultivation by around 26,455 farmers who depend on sericulture for their livelihood. In the past couple of years, the broad mite has attained alarming levels in the district, causing malformation of terminal leaves and shortening of internodes in mulberry. Crop loss is in the range of 20–70%, which in turn has adversely affected the average supply of silkworm cocoons to government markets. Pest management in mulberry is a challenge because silkworm is susceptible to chemical pesticides, and residues on leaves might harm its larvae. It is, therefore, imperative that biological control should be considered as an alternative solution in order to protect the interests of the farmers. During Sep–Oct 2019, we took up a trial to evaluate three biological control agents against the broad mite. The trial plot, located in a farmer’s field at Uduvegere village in Magadi taluk of Ramanagara district, had a 3-yr-old mulberry (cv. Victory-1) crop planted in 4 × 4 ft spacing. A laboratory-made mycelial–conidial liquid formulation of Hirsutella thompsonii F.E. Fisher was tank-mixed to obtain 1 or 1.2% in clean groundwater and applied with a battery-operated backpack sprayer in such a way that both sides of leaves were drenched till run-off. The other two biological control treatments were the minute pirate bug Blaptostethus pallescens Poppius (Anthocoridae) and the predatory mite Neoseiulus indicus (Narayanan & Kaur) (Phytoseiidae). Whereas the anthocorid was mixed with vermiculite and delivered at the rate of 20 adults per plant using a specially devised shaker (powder sprinkler), the phytoseiid was supplemented with wheat bran and vermiculite, and delivered similarly to ensure 200 adults per plant. Untreated check plants were left without any treatment, while propargite 57% EC (‘Omite’, Dhanuka Agritech Limited) at the rate of 0.1% was used as the treated (standard) check. Treatments were applied to individual plants on 19 Sep, 27 Sep, and 4 Oct. Precounts were obtained from the leaves sampled just before the first round of treatments on 19 Sep. Post-treatment leaf sampling was done on 27 Sep, 4 Oct (on both days just before application of treatments), and 10 Oct. At least three leaves each from top and bottom parts of 10 randomly selected replicate plants in each treatment were collected during each sampling. Live mites per each of three randomly chosen 4-mm diameter spots were counted on the abaxial surface of three leaves each from bottom and top part of every replicate plant with the aid of a stereozoom microscope (Nikon SMZ800) at around 63× magnification. The mean of live mites per each spot per leaf, i.e., the density, was computed first and later the mean per leaf separately for the top and bottom parts of every replicate plant was obtained. The biological control agents on all sampling dates significantly reduced the number of broad mites on both bottom and top leaves in comparison with the untreated check (Table 1). In general, they were even better than the chemical (treated check) in bringing down the mite numbers. Hirsutella thompsonii was consistently the best of all, giving not less than 90% reduction in mite density, and there was no significant difference between the two concentrations of the fungal formulation used. Interestingly, H. thompsonii was noticed in other treatments too, as there were no physical barriers between them. Though it cannot be ruled out that at least a small percentage of fungus-induced mortality of the mite could have occurred in other treatments, care was taken to avoid such samples. It should, however, be noted that there were no significant differences in mite density before the treatments, nor was there any fungal infection in the mite population. Also, there was only a negligible presence of predatory insects and mites before the experiment. These, of course, were unaffected by at least the applied biological control agents as observed during the post-treatment sampling dates.1 Table 1. Treatment . Concentration/ rate . Mean number of mites ± SE per 4-mm diameter abaxial leaf area . . . 19 Sep 2019 (Precount) . 27 Sep 2019 . 4 Oct 2019 . 10 Oct 2019 . . . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Hirsutella thompsonii 1% 2.91 ± 0.29 5.36 ± 0.30 0.09 ± 0.09a 0.62 ± 0.20a 0.12 ± 0.05a 0.58 ± 0.23ab 0.11 ± 0.05a 0.65 ± 0.10a Hirsutella thompsonii 1.2% 3.05 ± 0.36 3.09 ± 0.45 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.53 ± 0.15a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.13 ± 0.06a 0.52 ± 0.13a Blaptostethus pallescens 20 bugs/plant 3.88 ± 0.65 5.00 ± 0.41 1.98 ± 0.30c 0.90 ± 0.06ab 0.27 ± 0.14a 2.10 ± 0.29c 0.08 ± 0.05a 1.19 ± 0.18a Neoseiulus indicus 200 mites/plant 4.03 ± 0.45 3.52 ± 0.55 0.83 ± 0.17b 1.69 ± 0.23b 0.21 ± 0.08a 1.23 ± 0.13bc 0.24 ± 0.06a 0.63 ± 0.12a Standard check (Chemical) 0.1% 3.19 ± 0.43 2.68 ± 0.34 0.84 ± 0.15b 1.38 ± 0.16ab 0.21 ± 0.07a 1.59 ± 0.23c 0.35 ± 0.09a 0.66 ± 0.14a Untreated check - 2.46 ± 0.32 4.45 ± 0.69 3.36 ± 0.66d 6.10 ± 0.78c 3.58 ± 0.52b 9.51 ± 0.54d 11.30 ± 1.25b 14.50 ± 1.02b F - - - 29.07 34.13 46.41 118.02 157.25 215.53 P - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment . Concentration/ rate . Mean number of mites ± SE per 4-mm diameter abaxial leaf area . . . 19 Sep 2019 (Precount) . 27 Sep 2019 . 4 Oct 2019 . 10 Oct 2019 . . . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Hirsutella thompsonii 1% 2.91 ± 0.29 5.36 ± 0.30 0.09 ± 0.09a 0.62 ± 0.20a 0.12 ± 0.05a 0.58 ± 0.23ab 0.11 ± 0.05a 0.65 ± 0.10a Hirsutella thompsonii 1.2% 3.05 ± 0.36 3.09 ± 0.45 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.53 ± 0.15a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.13 ± 0.06a 0.52 ± 0.13a Blaptostethus pallescens 20 bugs/plant 3.88 ± 0.65 5.00 ± 0.41 1.98 ± 0.30c 0.90 ± 0.06ab 0.27 ± 0.14a 2.10 ± 0.29c 0.08 ± 0.05a 1.19 ± 0.18a Neoseiulus indicus 200 mites/plant 4.03 ± 0.45 3.52 ± 0.55 0.83 ± 0.17b 1.69 ± 0.23b 0.21 ± 0.08a 1.23 ± 0.13bc 0.24 ± 0.06a 0.63 ± 0.12a Standard check (Chemical) 0.1% 3.19 ± 0.43 2.68 ± 0.34 0.84 ± 0.15b 1.38 ± 0.16ab 0.21 ± 0.07a 1.59 ± 0.23c 0.35 ± 0.09a 0.66 ± 0.14a Untreated check - 2.46 ± 0.32 4.45 ± 0.69 3.36 ± 0.66d 6.10 ± 0.78c 3.58 ± 0.52b 9.51 ± 0.54d 11.30 ± 1.25b 14.50 ± 1.02b F - - - 29.07 34.13 46.41 118.02 157.25 215.53 P - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Statistical analysis: Mite counts were normalized through square-root transformation before conducting ANOVA test with SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM). When ANOVA indicated a significant result (α < 0.05), all the relevant means were compared using Tukey’s post hoc honestly significant difference test at a significance level of 5%. Untransformed means ± SE are presented. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Concentration/ rate . Mean number of mites ± SE per 4-mm diameter abaxial leaf area . . . 19 Sep 2019 (Precount) . 27 Sep 2019 . 4 Oct 2019 . 10 Oct 2019 . . . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Hirsutella thompsonii 1% 2.91 ± 0.29 5.36 ± 0.30 0.09 ± 0.09a 0.62 ± 0.20a 0.12 ± 0.05a 0.58 ± 0.23ab 0.11 ± 0.05a 0.65 ± 0.10a Hirsutella thompsonii 1.2% 3.05 ± 0.36 3.09 ± 0.45 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.53 ± 0.15a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.13 ± 0.06a 0.52 ± 0.13a Blaptostethus pallescens 20 bugs/plant 3.88 ± 0.65 5.00 ± 0.41 1.98 ± 0.30c 0.90 ± 0.06ab 0.27 ± 0.14a 2.10 ± 0.29c 0.08 ± 0.05a 1.19 ± 0.18a Neoseiulus indicus 200 mites/plant 4.03 ± 0.45 3.52 ± 0.55 0.83 ± 0.17b 1.69 ± 0.23b 0.21 ± 0.08a 1.23 ± 0.13bc 0.24 ± 0.06a 0.63 ± 0.12a Standard check (Chemical) 0.1% 3.19 ± 0.43 2.68 ± 0.34 0.84 ± 0.15b 1.38 ± 0.16ab 0.21 ± 0.07a 1.59 ± 0.23c 0.35 ± 0.09a 0.66 ± 0.14a Untreated check - 2.46 ± 0.32 4.45 ± 0.69 3.36 ± 0.66d 6.10 ± 0.78c 3.58 ± 0.52b 9.51 ± 0.54d 11.30 ± 1.25b 14.50 ± 1.02b F - - - 29.07 34.13 46.41 118.02 157.25 215.53 P - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment . Concentration/ rate . Mean number of mites ± SE per 4-mm diameter abaxial leaf area . . . 19 Sep 2019 (Precount) . 27 Sep 2019 . 4 Oct 2019 . 10 Oct 2019 . . . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Bottom . Top . Hirsutella thompsonii 1% 2.91 ± 0.29 5.36 ± 0.30 0.09 ± 0.09a 0.62 ± 0.20a 0.12 ± 0.05a 0.58 ± 0.23ab 0.11 ± 0.05a 0.65 ± 0.10a Hirsutella thompsonii 1.2% 3.05 ± 0.36 3.09 ± 0.45 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.53 ± 0.15a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.21 ± 0.07a 0.13 ± 0.06a 0.52 ± 0.13a Blaptostethus pallescens 20 bugs/plant 3.88 ± 0.65 5.00 ± 0.41 1.98 ± 0.30c 0.90 ± 0.06ab 0.27 ± 0.14a 2.10 ± 0.29c 0.08 ± 0.05a 1.19 ± 0.18a Neoseiulus indicus 200 mites/plant 4.03 ± 0.45 3.52 ± 0.55 0.83 ± 0.17b 1.69 ± 0.23b 0.21 ± 0.08a 1.23 ± 0.13bc 0.24 ± 0.06a 0.63 ± 0.12a Standard check (Chemical) 0.1% 3.19 ± 0.43 2.68 ± 0.34 0.84 ± 0.15b 1.38 ± 0.16ab 0.21 ± 0.07a 1.59 ± 0.23c 0.35 ± 0.09a 0.66 ± 0.14a Untreated check - 2.46 ± 0.32 4.45 ± 0.69 3.36 ± 0.66d 6.10 ± 0.78c 3.58 ± 0.52b 9.51 ± 0.54d 11.30 ± 1.25b 14.50 ± 1.02b F - - - 29.07 34.13 46.41 118.02 157.25 215.53 P - - - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Statistical analysis: Mite counts were normalized through square-root transformation before conducting ANOVA test with SPSS Statistics version 25.0 (IBM). When ANOVA indicated a significant result (α < 0.05), all the relevant means were compared using Tukey’s post hoc honestly significant difference test at a significance level of 5%. Untransformed means ± SE are presented. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was taken up in Mr B. Basavaraj’s field with the help of Mr C.L. Sateesha, Assistant Director of Sericulture, Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka. Mr K.S.K. Subramanya provided yield loss data. Predatory mite and insect were used with permission from Dr Chandish R. Ballal. Mr Maruthi Mehanth and Mr S. Pandian assisted in the field. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Britt, Kadie, E;Kuhar, Thomas, P

Efficacy of Chrysodeixis Includens Nucleopolyhedrovirus for Control of Soybean Looper, 2016

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa102

Hemp Fiber | Cannabis sativa ssp. Indica Corn earworm (CEW) | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, Bacillus thuringiensis, pyrethrin I, spinosad Hemp acreage in the United States is increasing and outdoor crops are susceptible to corn earworm (CEW) feeding injury. Two separate bioassays were conducted in fall 2019 to evaluate the effects of biological/organic insecticide products on CEW in hemp. Bioassay 1 was initiated on 16 Sep 2019 and included the following treatments: Gemstar (Helicoverpa zea nuclear polyhedrosis virus [HzNPV]), Javelin (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki), DiPel (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki), XenTari (Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai + kurstaki), Venerate (94.5% Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 cells and spent fermentation media), Grandevo (30% Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAA4-11 and spent fermentation media), Entrust (Spinosad), and an untreated check (Table 1). Third and fourth instar CEW larvae were collected from ears from an untreated field of sweet corn (Zea mays) established at Virginia Tech’s Kentland Farm in Whitethorne, VA (Kentland). Only vigorous larvae with fresh color were used for the experiment. On 16 Sep 2019, hemp seed heads (‘Felina-32’) were collected from field plots at Kentland, brought to the laboratory, and cut into ~9 cm3 sections. Forty hemp seed head sections were dipped into spray-tank concentrations of each treatment (Table 1) and placed individually into 1 oz plastic diet cups with a single CEW larva. A tray of 10 cups represented a replicate and four replicates were established for each treatment and placed in a different stack on the laboratory bench for the duration of the experiment. Diet cups were placed on the laboratory benchtop and held at laboratory ambient light and temperature (20–25°C) for 96 h and checked daily for mortality. Percent mortality data were analyzed with ANOVA procedures and means separated with Tukey’s HSD. Table 1. . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated check 0.0c 12.5cd 12.5de 15.0d Gemstar 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 2.5c 2.5d 5.0e 10.0d Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 12.5cd 25.0cd 32.5c DiPel 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 17.5cd 32.5c 35.0c XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 12.5abc 52.5ab 57.5b 67.5b Venerate 128 fl. oz. 43.5 ml 15.0abc 30.0bc 37.5c 55.0b Grandevo 48 oz. 15.6 g 20.0ab 22.5cd 22.5cde 22.5cd Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 27.5a 65.0a 87.5a 95.0a P-value 0.0142 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated check 0.0c 12.5cd 12.5de 15.0d Gemstar 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 2.5c 2.5d 5.0e 10.0d Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 12.5cd 25.0cd 32.5c DiPel 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 17.5cd 32.5c 35.0c XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 12.5abc 52.5ab 57.5b 67.5b Venerate 128 fl. oz. 43.5 ml 15.0abc 30.0bc 37.5c 55.0b Grandevo 48 oz. 15.6 g 20.0ab 22.5cd 22.5cde 22.5cd Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 27.5a 65.0a 87.5a 95.0a P-value 0.0142 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Table 1. . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated check 0.0c 12.5cd 12.5de 15.0d Gemstar 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 2.5c 2.5d 5.0e 10.0d Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 12.5cd 25.0cd 32.5c DiPel 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 17.5cd 32.5c 35.0c XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 12.5abc 52.5ab 57.5b 67.5b Venerate 128 fl. oz. 43.5 ml 15.0abc 30.0bc 37.5c 55.0b Grandevo 48 oz. 15.6 g 20.0ab 22.5cd 22.5cde 22.5cd Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 27.5a 65.0a 87.5a 95.0a P-value 0.0142 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated check 0.0c 12.5cd 12.5de 15.0d Gemstar 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 2.5c 2.5d 5.0e 10.0d Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 12.5cd 25.0cd 32.5c DiPel 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 17.5cd 32.5c 35.0c XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 12.5abc 52.5ab 57.5b 67.5b Venerate 128 fl. oz. 43.5 ml 15.0abc 30.0bc 37.5c 55.0b Grandevo 48 oz. 15.6 g 20.0ab 22.5cd 22.5cde 22.5cd Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 27.5a 65.0a 87.5a 95.0a P-value 0.0142 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Bioassay 2 was initiated on 2 Oct 2019 and included the following treatments: Agree (Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai), Javelin (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki), Deliver (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki), XenTari (Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai + kurstaki), Pyganic (pyrethrins), Entrust (spinosad), and an untreated check (Table 2). The experiment was conducted using the same aforementioned procedures except that rather than using field-collected CEW, which were depleted from the field, we used third instars raised on artificial diet that were purchased from Benzon Research Inc., Carlisle, PA. Table 2. . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated control 0.0c 2.5c 2.5d 2.5d Agree 16 oz. 5.21 g 2.5c 7.5c 37.5c 47.5c Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 10.0c 55.0bc 67.5bc Deliver 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 10.0c 47.5bc 60.0bc XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 12.5c 62.5bc 75.0b Pyganic 59 fl. oz. 20.0 ml 97.5a 97.5a 100.0a 100.0a Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 37.5b 82.5b 92.5a 97.5a P-value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated control 0.0c 2.5c 2.5d 2.5d Agree 16 oz. 5.21 g 2.5c 7.5c 37.5c 47.5c Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 10.0c 55.0bc 67.5bc Deliver 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 10.0c 47.5bc 60.0bc XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 12.5c 62.5bc 75.0b Pyganic 59 fl. oz. 20.0 ml 97.5a 97.5a 100.0a 100.0a Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 37.5b 82.5b 92.5a 97.5a P-value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Table 2. . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated control 0.0c 2.5c 2.5d 2.5d Agree 16 oz. 5.21 g 2.5c 7.5c 37.5c 47.5c Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 10.0c 55.0bc 67.5bc Deliver 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 10.0c 47.5bc 60.0bc XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 12.5c 62.5bc 75.0b Pyganic 59 fl. oz. 20.0 ml 97.5a 97.5a 100.0a 100.0a Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 37.5b 82.5b 92.5a 97.5a P-value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 . . . Average % mortality . Treatment . Rate/acre . Rate/1,500 ml water . 1 DAT . 2 DAT . 3 DAT . 4 DAT . Untreated control 0.0c 2.5c 2.5d 2.5d Agree 16 oz. 5.21 g 2.5c 7.5c 37.5c 47.5c Javelin 16 oz. 5.21 g 0.0c 10.0c 55.0bc 67.5bc Deliver 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 10.0c 47.5bc 60.0bc XenTari 16 oz. 5.21 g 5.0c 12.5c 62.5bc 75.0b Pyganic 59 fl. oz. 20.0 ml 97.5a 97.5a 100.0a 100.0a Entrust 5 fl. oz. 1.7 ml 37.5b 82.5b 92.5a 97.5a P-value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab In bioassay 1, CEW mortality varied greatly among treatments. As control mortality remained low (<15%) for the duration of the experiment, the 4 DAT data are probably the most useful because many of the treatments tested take a few days to actually kill larvae (Table 1). Entrust resulted in a significantly higher mortality than any other product with 95% mortality after 4 d. XenTari (67.5%) had a significantly higher mortality than any of the other Bacillus thuringiensis products and its efficacy was similar to Venerate (55%). Javelin and DiPel resulted in a significantly higher mortality (32.5% and 35%, respectively) than Gemstar (10%) and the untreated check (15%). It should be noted that Gemstar frequently takes more than 96 h to have a lethal effect on larger CEW larvae. In bioassay 2, Pyganic and Entrust performed significantly better than all other treatments, resulting in 100% and 97.5% mortality, respectively. XenTari, again, had the highest mortality among the tested Bacillus thuringiensis products (75%). However, it only had significantly higher mortality than Agree (47.5%) and the untreated check (2.5%). Javelin and Deliver obtained 67.5% and 60% mortality, respectively, which was almost double what these treatments achieved with field-collected larvae in Bioassay 1. Resistance to Cry1AB Bt proteins is widespread in Virginia CEW populations, and likely explains this difference. It should be noted that resistance to pyrethroid/pyrethrin insecticides is also observed widely in Virginia CEW populations, and thus, although not tested in Bioassay 1, Pyganic would not be expected to result in 100% mortality of field-collected CEW larvae.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding from Certis USA, and Marrone Bio Innovations. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

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

Performance of Selected Bt Corn Hybrids/Technologies Against Corn Earworm, 2016

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa004

Soybean | Glycine max Soybean looper (SBL): Chrysodeixis includens (Walker) chlorantraniliprole Soybean looper (SBL) is one of the most economically important insect pest affecting soybean in Arkansas. A trial was conducted on a grower field in Phillips County, Arkansas to evaluate the efficacy of Chrysodeixis includens nucleopolyhedrovirus (ChinNPV) on soybean looper. Plot size was four rows by 50-ft long on 38-inch rows, arranged in an 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 80-02 dual flat fan nozzles with 19.5-inch spacing. Insecticide application occurred on 30 Aug. SBL densities were determined by taking 25 sweeps per plot with a 15-inch diameter net. Samples were taken on 2 Sep, 6 Sep, and 9 Sep, 3, 7, and 10 days after treatment (DAT), respectively. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and means were separated using a Duncan’s New MRT (P < 0.10). SBL densities in the untreated control ranged from 50 to 16.6/25 sweeps, 3 and 10 DAT, respectively (Table 1). At 3, 7, and 10 DAT, all treatments reduced SBL densities when compared with the untreated control. Prevathon delivered the greatest control of SBL at 3, 7, and 10 DAT, but was no different than ChinNPV 1.4 or 5.6 oz/acre at 10 DAT.1 Table 1. Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Soybean loopers/25 sweeps 2 Sep 3 DAT 6 Sep 7 DAT 9 Sep 10 DAT Untreated control 50a 38.23a 16.59a ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 0.7 33.13b 14.86b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 1.4 32.5b 13.99b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 2.8 34.17b 17.85b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 5.6 35b 14.08b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml + 1.4 Heligen 7.8 × 108 OB/ml 1.4 29.17b 12.53b 4.08b Prevathon 0.43 SC 14 0c 0.99c 0.43c LSD (0.10) 0.0004 0.0001 0.0002 Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Soybean loopers/25 sweeps 2 Sep 3 DAT 6 Sep 7 DAT 9 Sep 10 DAT Untreated control 50a 38.23a 16.59a ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 0.7 33.13b 14.86b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 1.4 32.5b 13.99b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 2.8 34.17b 17.85b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 5.6 35b 14.08b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml + 1.4 Heligen 7.8 × 108 OB/ml 1.4 29.17b 12.53b 4.08b Prevathon 0.43 SC 14 0c 0.99c 0.43c LSD (0.10) 0.0004 0.0001 0.0002 Means within a column followed by the same letter do not differ statistically according to DMRT (P < 0.10). Open in new tab Table 1. Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Soybean loopers/25 sweeps 2 Sep 3 DAT 6 Sep 7 DAT 9 Sep 10 DAT Untreated control 50a 38.23a 16.59a ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 0.7 33.13b 14.86b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 1.4 32.5b 13.99b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 2.8 34.17b 17.85b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 5.6 35b 14.08b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml + 1.4 Heligen 7.8 × 108 OB/ml 1.4 29.17b 12.53b 4.08b Prevathon 0.43 SC 14 0c 0.99c 0.43c LSD (0.10) 0.0004 0.0001 0.0002 Product/formulation Rate oz product/acre Soybean loopers/25 sweeps 2 Sep 3 DAT 6 Sep 7 DAT 9 Sep 10 DAT Untreated control 50a 38.23a 16.59a ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 0.7 33.13b 14.86b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 1.4 32.5b 13.99b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 2.8 34.17b 17.85b 3.12b ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml 5.6 35b 14.08b 2.04bc ChinNPV 7.5 × 109 OB/ml + 1.4 Heligen 7.8 × 108 OB/ml 1.4 29.17b 12.53b 4.08b Prevathon 0.43 SC 14 0c 0.99c 0.43c LSD (0.10) 0.0004 0.0001 0.0002 Means within a column followed by the same letter do not differ statistically according to DMRT (P < 0.10). Open in new tab Footnotes This research was supported by industry gifts of products and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Cook, Donald, R;Gore,, Jeffrey;Crow,, Whitney

Evaluation of Selected Insecticides for Control of Green Stink Bug, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa095

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Bollworm/Corn Earworm/Tomato Fruitworm | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Bacillus thuringiensis Corn hybrids expressing Bt proteins are commonly planted for the management of caterpillar pests, including stalk borers. Many of these proteins also have activity against corn earworm. The performance of selected Bt corn hybrids/technologies against corn earworm was evaluated at the Delta Research and Extension Center (Washington County), Stoneville, MS. Plots were planted on 5 May at a seeding rate of 34,000 seed per acre. Plot size was four rows (40 in centers) by 40 ft. Hybrids/Bt technologies were replicated four times in an RCB design. The non-Bt corn hybrids Dekalb DKC6694 and Pioneer P1319R were included as comparisons. Efficacy of Bt hybrids/technologies against corn earworm was determined by examining 20 ears per plot on 11 Jul at the R3 growth stage for the presence of larvae and damage. Corn earworm larvae were categorized as small (1st and 2nd instar), medium (3rd and 4th instar), or large (5th and 6th instar). The number of ears with feeding damage was also recorded. Damage was described as feeding on fertilized and developed kernels. Feeding on unfertilized and/or aborted kernels at the ear tip was excluded. On 29 Aug at the R5 growth stage, the number of corn earworm damaged kernels was determined on 10 ears per plot. Again feeding on unfertilized and/or aborted kernels at the ear tip was excluded. Plots were harvested on 8 Sep when grain moisture was ca. 15%. Larval counts are presented as the number of larvae per ear. Number of damaged ears was converted to percent damaged ears. Damaged kernels are presented as number of damaged kernels per ear. Yields were adjusted to 15% moisture content and converted to bu/acre. All data were subjected to ANOVA and means separated according to Fisher’s Protected Least Significant Difference. At the R3 growth stage, plots planted to Pioneer P1319VYHR (Optimum Leptra) had fewer small larvae compared to plots planted to any of the other hybrids/technologies (Table 1). Plots planted to Pioneer P1319HR (Herculex) or Pioneer P1319YHR (optimum Intrasect) had more small corn earworm larvae per ear than those planted to Dekalb DKC6694 (non-Bt). Plots planted to Dekalb DKC6697 (VT Double Pro), Pioneer P1319YHR (Optimum Intrasect), or Pioneer P1319VYHR (Optimum Leptra) had fewer medium corn earworm per ear than plots planted to Pioneer P1319HR (Herculex). Plots planted to Dekalb DKC6697 (VT Double Pro) or Pioneer P1319VYHR (Optimum Leptra) had fewer large larvae compared to plots planted to either of the non-Bt hybrids (Dekalb DKC 6694 or Pioneer P1319R). Plots planted to Pioneer 1319VYHR (Optimum Leptra) had fewer total corn earworm larvae and lower percent damaged ears than plots planted to any of the other hybrids/technologies. Only Dekalb DKC6697 (VT Double Pro) and Pioneer P1319VYHR (Optimum Leptra) had fewer damaged kernels per ear than that observed in the non-Bt hybrids (Dekalb DKC 6694 and Pioneer P1319R) (Table 2). There were no differences among hybrids/Bt technologies observed for yield.1 Table 1. . . Corn earworm larvae/ eare . Percent damaged ears . Hybrid . Bt trait package . Smallf,i . Mediumg . Largeh,i . Total . R3, 11 Jul . Dekalb DKC6694 - 0.4b 0.4ab 0.4a 1.1a 71.3a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 0.8ab 0.2bc 0.0c 1.0a 66.3a Pioneer P1319R - 0.8ab 0.3ab 0.2ab 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 1.0a 0.4a 0.1bc 1.6a 85.0a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 0.9a 0.2bc 0.0c 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.1c 0.0c 0.0c 0.1b 8.8b P>F <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 . . Corn earworm larvae/ eare . Percent damaged ears . Hybrid . Bt trait package . Smallf,i . Mediumg . Largeh,i . Total . R3, 11 Jul . Dekalb DKC6694 - 0.4b 0.4ab 0.4a 1.1a 71.3a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 0.8ab 0.2bc 0.0c 1.0a 66.3a Pioneer P1319R - 0.8ab 0.3ab 0.2ab 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 1.0a 0.4a 0.1bc 1.6a 85.0a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 0.9a 0.2bc 0.0c 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.1c 0.0c 0.0c 0.1b 8.8b P>F <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05, FPLSD). aVT Double Pro expresses the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins. bHerculex expresses the Cry1F protein. cOptimum Intrasect expresses the Cry1F and Cry1Ab proteins. dOptimum Leptra express the Cry1F, Cry1Ab, and Vip3A proteins. eLarval densities determined on 11 Jul at the R3 growth stage. fSmall = 1st and 2nd instar larvae. gMedium = 3rd and 4th instar larvae. hLarge = 5th and 6th instar larvae. iArcsine square root % transformed data used for analysis, non-transformed means presented in table. Open in new tab Table 1. . . Corn earworm larvae/ eare . Percent damaged ears . Hybrid . Bt trait package . Smallf,i . Mediumg . Largeh,i . Total . R3, 11 Jul . Dekalb DKC6694 - 0.4b 0.4ab 0.4a 1.1a 71.3a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 0.8ab 0.2bc 0.0c 1.0a 66.3a Pioneer P1319R - 0.8ab 0.3ab 0.2ab 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 1.0a 0.4a 0.1bc 1.6a 85.0a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 0.9a 0.2bc 0.0c 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.1c 0.0c 0.0c 0.1b 8.8b P>F <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 . . Corn earworm larvae/ eare . Percent damaged ears . Hybrid . Bt trait package . Smallf,i . Mediumg . Largeh,i . Total . R3, 11 Jul . Dekalb DKC6694 - 0.4b 0.4ab 0.4a 1.1a 71.3a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 0.8ab 0.2bc 0.0c 1.0a 66.3a Pioneer P1319R - 0.8ab 0.3ab 0.2ab 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 1.0a 0.4a 0.1bc 1.6a 85.0a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 0.9a 0.2bc 0.0c 1.4a 77.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.1c 0.0c 0.0c 0.1b 8.8b P>F <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05, FPLSD). aVT Double Pro expresses the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins. bHerculex expresses the Cry1F protein. cOptimum Intrasect expresses the Cry1F and Cry1Ab proteins. dOptimum Leptra express the Cry1F, Cry1Ab, and Vip3A proteins. eLarval densities determined on 11 Jul at the R3 growth stage. fSmall = 1st and 2nd instar larvae. gMedium = 3rd and 4th instar larvae. hLarge = 5th and 6th instar larvae. iArcsine square root % transformed data used for analysis, non-transformed means presented in table. Open in new tab Table 2. . . Damaged kernels/ eare . Yield (bu/acre)f . Hybrid . Bt trait package . R5, 29 Aug . 8 Sep . Dekalb DKC6694 - 10.5a 167.6a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 3.6b 203.2a Pioneer P1319R - 9.5a 182.0a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 5.7ab 187.5a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 6.1ab 148.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.0c 169.8a P>F <0.01 0.26 . . Damaged kernels/ eare . Yield (bu/acre)f . Hybrid . Bt trait package . R5, 29 Aug . 8 Sep . Dekalb DKC6694 - 10.5a 167.6a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 3.6b 203.2a Pioneer P1319R - 9.5a 182.0a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 5.7ab 187.5a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 6.1ab 148.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.0c 169.8a P>F <0.01 0.26 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05, FPLSD). aVT Double Pro expresses the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins. bHerculex expresses the Cry1F protein. cOptimum Intrasect expresses the Cry1F and Cry1Ab proteins. dOptimum Leptra expresses the Cry1F, Cry1Ab, and Vip3A proteins. eArcsine square root % transformed data used for analysis, non-transformed means presented in table. fSquare root (X+0.5) transformed data used for analysis, non-transformed means presented in table. Open in new tab Table 2. . . Damaged kernels/ eare . Yield (bu/acre)f . Hybrid . Bt trait package . R5, 29 Aug . 8 Sep . Dekalb DKC6694 - 10.5a 167.6a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 3.6b 203.2a Pioneer P1319R - 9.5a 182.0a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 5.7ab 187.5a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 6.1ab 148.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.0c 169.8a P>F <0.01 0.26 . . Damaged kernels/ eare . Yield (bu/acre)f . Hybrid . Bt trait package . R5, 29 Aug . 8 Sep . Dekalb DKC6694 - 10.5a 167.6a Dekalb DKC6697 VT Double Proa 3.6b 203.2a Pioneer P1319R - 9.5a 182.0a Pioneer P1319HR Herculexb 5.7ab 187.5a Pioneer P1319YHR Optimum Intrasectc 6.1ab 148.5a Pioneer P1319VYHR Optimum Leptrad 0.0c 169.8a P>F <0.01 0.26 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05, FPLSD). aVT Double Pro expresses the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins. bHerculex expresses the Cry1F protein. cOptimum Intrasect expresses the Cry1F and Cry1Ab proteins. dOptimum Leptra expresses the Cry1F, Cry1Ab, and Vip3A proteins. eArcsine square root % transformed data used for analysis, non-transformed means presented in table. fSquare root (X+0.5) transformed data used for analysis, non-transformed means presented in table. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry gifts of pesticides, seed, and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Levy, Grace, E;Zarrabi, Ali, A;Royer, Tom, A;Giles, Kristopher, L;Hess,, Thomas

Insecticide Control of Thrips on Seedling Field Corn, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa037

Green stink bug: Acrosternum hilare (Say) [Chinavia hilaris (Say)] Soybean | Glycine max imidacloprid, beta-cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, chlorpyrifos, lambda-cyhalothrin In this field trial, Asgrow 47X9 soybean was planted in a field located at the Cimarron Valley Research Station located in Perkins, Oklahoma, on 16 May 2019. The plots measured 10 ft × 30 ft with 10 ft alleys. Each plot consisted of four rows that were 30 inch wide. The plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. The first stink bugs in the field were found in mid-Sept. of 2019. The pretreatment numbers of stink bugs were recorded on 27 Sep. The samples were collected by counting the number of live nymph and adult stink bugs collected in 25 sweeps within the plot. The average number of stink bugs (both nymphs and adults) was 16. Foliar applications were made on 1 Oct. using a tractor mounted sprayer equipped with a CO2-pressurized-side delivery boom measuring 15 ft, calibrated to deliver 18 gpa at 40 psi. The nozzles on the boom were Tee Jet XR 8004 flat fan with a 20 in spacing. The tractor traveled at 4 mph to deliver the foliar applications. Weather conditions on the day of application included a temperature of 89°F and winds from the south at about 10 mph. The plots were sampled at 3, 7, and 14 days after treatment (25 sweeps per plot sample). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and the means were separated according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Percent control for all treatments was calculated based on the reduction of pest numbers compared with the mean of the untreated for a given DAT. It ranged 74–97%, 55–85%, and 40–67% at 3DAT, 7DAT, and 14DAT, respectively. The Stallion treatment consistently had significantly fewer stink bugs than the untreated plot and had a higher percent control than the other treatments as compared to the other treatments (Table 1).1 Table 1. Treatment/form. . Rate/acre . . No. of stink bugs/25 sweeps . . . % Control . . . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check – 19.0 26.5a 13.3a 3.0a – – – Stallion 3.025EC 10.5 14.8 0.8b 2.0b 1.0b 97 85 67 Leverage 360 SC 2.8 13.5 4.5b 3.0b 1.3ab 83 77 57 Hero 1.24EC 8.0 14.3 4.3b 3.5b 1.8ab 84 74 40 Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 28.5 15.8 7.0b 6.0b 1.8ab 74 55 40 P > F 0.0017 0.0023 0.2951 Treatment/form. . Rate/acre . . No. of stink bugs/25 sweeps . . . % Control . . . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check – 19.0 26.5a 13.3a 3.0a – – – Stallion 3.025EC 10.5 14.8 0.8b 2.0b 1.0b 97 85 67 Leverage 360 SC 2.8 13.5 4.5b 3.0b 1.3ab 83 77 57 Hero 1.24EC 8.0 14.3 4.3b 3.5b 1.8ab 84 74 40 Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 28.5 15.8 7.0b 6.0b 1.8ab 74 55 40 P > F 0.0017 0.0023 0.2951 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/form. . Rate/acre . . No. of stink bugs/25 sweeps . . . % Control . . . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check – 19.0 26.5a 13.3a 3.0a – – – Stallion 3.025EC 10.5 14.8 0.8b 2.0b 1.0b 97 85 67 Leverage 360 SC 2.8 13.5 4.5b 3.0b 1.3ab 83 77 57 Hero 1.24EC 8.0 14.3 4.3b 3.5b 1.8ab 84 74 40 Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 28.5 15.8 7.0b 6.0b 1.8ab 74 55 40 P > F 0.0017 0.0023 0.2951 Treatment/form. . Rate/acre . . No. of stink bugs/25 sweeps . . . % Control . . . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check – 19.0 26.5a 13.3a 3.0a – – – Stallion 3.025EC 10.5 14.8 0.8b 2.0b 1.0b 97 85 67 Leverage 360 SC 2.8 13.5 4.5b 3.0b 1.3ab 83 77 57 Hero 1.24EC 8.0 14.3 4.3b 3.5b 1.8ab 84 74 40 Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 28.5 15.8 7.0b 6.0b 1.8ab 74 55 40 P > F 0.0017 0.0023 0.2951 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was funded in part by Oklahoma State University research funding and industry support. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Buntin, G, David;Chen,, Yi-Ju

Efficacy of Registered Materials Against Thrips and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in Tobacco, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz092

Corn thrips | Frankliniella williamsi Hood, Tobacco thrips | Frankliniella fusca (Hinds) Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet), Zea mays dimethoate, bifenthrin, spinosad, lambda-cyhalothrin Thrips feed on seedling field corn and usually do not require control, but sometimes can cause noticeably severe leaf injury. A trial evaluating foliar-applied insecticides was conducted at the University of Georgia Southwest Research and Education Center (32.0394, −84.3670) located near Plains, GA. A non-Bt, glyphosate-resistant corn hybrid was planted on 1 May on 36 inch rows at the rate of 34,000 seed per acre. Treatments were arranged in an RCB design with four replications; individual plot size was 6 rows by 25 ft long. Insecticide treatments were applied on 15 May at the 1 leaf stage with a CO2-powered backpack sprayer equipped with TeeJet 8002 flat-fan nozzles applying 15 gpa at 40 psi. Induce adjuvant at 0.5% v/v was added to all treatments. Thrips were sampled by placing above-ground plants in 70% ethanol for 1–2 min to dislodge thrips. Samples were taken at 0, 2, and 7 DAT with 10 plants per plot sampled at 0 DAT and 15 plants per plot sampled at 2 and 7 DAT. Plant thrips injury was rated using the 0–9 scale, where 0 = no injury and 9 ≥ 85% or more chlorosis at 14 DAT. The two center rows were harvested on 13 Sep with a plot combine equipped with a system that measures grain weight, test weight, and moisture content. Grain yields were calculated and adjusted to a standard 14% moisture content. Rainfall total from planting until spray application was 1.5 inches, but only 0.09 inches fell during the sample period. Plots were irrigated twice a week at 0.75 inch per irrigation. Data were analyzed by sample date using generalized linear mixed model analyses (PROC MIXED, SAS Institute 2016) with treatment modeled as a fixed effect and replication modeled as a random effect. When analyses suggested differences among treatments (α = 0.05), treatments were separated using the LS means separated PLM option in SAS. Tobacco thrips accounted for 92 to 93% of all adults thrips collected on all sample dates with the remainder being corn thrips. Thrips nymphs were counted separately, but averaged 0.03 to 1.35 nymphs per plant and were not statistically different among treatments on any sample date (F = 0.45–1.52; df = 5, 18; P = 0.2445–0.8096; data not shown). Adult thrips numbers were not different among treatments at 0 DAT (Table 1). Dimethoate and both rates of Blackhawk reduced thrips numbers at 2 DAT but not at 7 DAT. Both pyrethroid treatments, Bifen 2AG (bifenthrin) and Warrior II, did not reduce thrips numbers on any date. All insecticide treatments reduced the plant damage rating but dimethoate and both Blackhawk treatments were more effective at preventing damage than the pyrethroid treatments. Grain yield was not significantly different among treatments. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre Rate, lb (AI)/acre Thrips/leaf Plant damage ratinga Grain yield bu/acre 0 DAT 2 DAT 7 DAT 15 May 17 May 22 May 14 DAT Blackhawk 36WG 2.0 oz 0.045 8.45a 7.97b 12.32a 1.25c 135.1a Blackhawk 36WG 3.0 oz 0.068 8.65a 7.33b 12.10a 1.50c 138.7a Dimethoate 4EC 16.0 fl oz 0.50 10.53a 6.70b 8.98a 2.00c 131.6a Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92 fl oz 0.03 9.55a 10.13ab 12.45a 3.00b 126.9a Bifen 2AG Gold 6.4 fl oz 0.10 7.48a 13.30a 9.65a 3.75b 129.2a Untreated check – – 10.68a 12.60a 13.55a 4.75a 136.1a P > F 0.6643 0.0074 0.8088 0.0001 0.6732 Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre Rate, lb (AI)/acre Thrips/leaf Plant damage ratinga Grain yield bu/acre 0 DAT 2 DAT 7 DAT 15 May 17 May 22 May 14 DAT Blackhawk 36WG 2.0 oz 0.045 8.45a 7.97b 12.32a 1.25c 135.1a Blackhawk 36WG 3.0 oz 0.068 8.65a 7.33b 12.10a 1.50c 138.7a Dimethoate 4EC 16.0 fl oz 0.50 10.53a 6.70b 8.98a 2.00c 131.6a Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92 fl oz 0.03 9.55a 10.13ab 12.45a 3.00b 126.9a Bifen 2AG Gold 6.4 fl oz 0.10 7.48a 13.30a 9.65a 3.75b 129.2a Untreated check – – 10.68a 12.60a 13.55a 4.75a 136.1a P > F 0.6643 0.0074 0.8088 0.0001 0.6732 Column LS means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (PROC MIXED, protected T-groupings, α = 0.05). aPlant damage rating 0–9 scale, where 0 = no damage and 9 = 85% or more chlorosis and plant death (Burd et al. 1993. J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 974–980). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre Rate, lb (AI)/acre Thrips/leaf Plant damage ratinga Grain yield bu/acre 0 DAT 2 DAT 7 DAT 15 May 17 May 22 May 14 DAT Blackhawk 36WG 2.0 oz 0.045 8.45a 7.97b 12.32a 1.25c 135.1a Blackhawk 36WG 3.0 oz 0.068 8.65a 7.33b 12.10a 1.50c 138.7a Dimethoate 4EC 16.0 fl oz 0.50 10.53a 6.70b 8.98a 2.00c 131.6a Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92 fl oz 0.03 9.55a 10.13ab 12.45a 3.00b 126.9a Bifen 2AG Gold 6.4 fl oz 0.10 7.48a 13.30a 9.65a 3.75b 129.2a Untreated check – – 10.68a 12.60a 13.55a 4.75a 136.1a P > F 0.6643 0.0074 0.8088 0.0001 0.6732 Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre Rate, lb (AI)/acre Thrips/leaf Plant damage ratinga Grain yield bu/acre 0 DAT 2 DAT 7 DAT 15 May 17 May 22 May 14 DAT Blackhawk 36WG 2.0 oz 0.045 8.45a 7.97b 12.32a 1.25c 135.1a Blackhawk 36WG 3.0 oz 0.068 8.65a 7.33b 12.10a 1.50c 138.7a Dimethoate 4EC 16.0 fl oz 0.50 10.53a 6.70b 8.98a 2.00c 131.6a Warrior II 2.08CS 1.92 fl oz 0.03 9.55a 10.13ab 12.45a 3.00b 126.9a Bifen 2AG Gold 6.4 fl oz 0.10 7.48a 13.30a 9.65a 3.75b 129.2a Untreated check – – 10.68a 12.60a 13.55a 4.75a 136.1a P > F 0.6643 0.0074 0.8088 0.0001 0.6732 Column LS means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (PROC MIXED, protected T-groupings, α = 0.05). aPlant damage rating 0–9 scale, where 0 = no damage and 9 = 85% or more chlorosis and plant death (Burd et al. 1993. J. Econ. Entomol. 86: 974–980). Open in new tab This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticides. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Zilnik,, Gabriel;Burrack,, Hannah

Foliar Treatments for Sugarcane Aphid Control in Grain Sorghum, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa072

Tobacco | Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco thrips (TT) | Frankliniella fusca (Hinds) spinetoram, spinosad, acephate The efficacy of registered foliar insecticides against tobacco thrips was assessed at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (UCPRS) in Rocky Mount, NC. At this location, six treatments, including an untreated check, were arranged in an RCB design with four replicates per treatment (Table 1). All plots were 16 ft wide by 50 ft long with 48 in row spacing and transplanted on 30 Apr 2019. Each plot consisted of ca. 25 plants per row. Foliar treatments were applied to the middle two rows using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer fitted with a single TG2 solid cone nozzle calibrated to apply 15 gal/acre spray volume at 52 psi pressure. All treatments were applied on 16 May 2019 (16 d after transplanting), with the second applications of Radiant (1.5 and 3.0 oz per acre) and Acephate made on 23 May 2019 (23 d after transplanting) to the respective plots. Crop oil concentrate at 1% v/v was included with all applications of Radiant. Thrips were counted by randomly sampling five plants on each of the middle two rows on 8, 16, and 23 May and 3 Jun 2019. Sampling was done before application of insecticides on 16 and 23 May. The largest leaf from each of the five plants was collected and placed into a 1-quart container containing approximately 250 ml of 70% EtOH. A total of 10 leaves from each plot was collected. Leaves were brought back to the lab and rinsed and then drained on coffee filters within 4 d of collection, and adult thrips (no immatures were observed) were counted. Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) incidence was determined at 5 wk after transplanting by counting all symptomatic plants in the middle two rows of each plot. Plant density was also determined so that proportion TSWV infected plants could be computed. Thrips and TSWV counts were analyzed in R v. 3.5.3 using LMER with treatment, date, and treatment × date interactions as fixed effects and replicate as a random effect. Proportion TSVW infected plants were analyzed using GLMER with treatment as the fixed effect and replicate as the random effect. Thrips counts were square-root transformed to meet assumptions of the normality. Proportion of TSWV-infected plants was log + 1 transformed, but non-transformed means are presented for clarity. Means were separated by Fisher’s Protected LSD (α = 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Application timing (days after transplant)a . Rate/acre . Total thrips per 10 leavesb . TSWV incidence (no. plants / plot) . Proportion of plants with TSWVc . . . . 8 Mayd . 16 Mayd . 23 Maye . 3 June . . . Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 1.5 fl oz 16.25a 8.50b 24.50a 152.00a 0.75a 0.013a Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 3 fl oz 13.75a 12.25ab 14.00ab 107.50ab 0.75a 0.013a Acephate 97UP 16 & 23 12 oz 13.25a 6.50b 10.50b 74.00b 0.25a 0.004a Radiant 1SCa 16 1.5 fl oz 5.75a 9.00b 19.75ab 81.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Blackhawk 36WG 16 1.6 oz 16.00a 9.5ab 14.50ab 97.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Untreated Check -- -- 13.25a 18.00a 17.75ab 121.00ab 0.50a 0.009a P>F 0.292 0.056 <0.001 <0.001 0.912 0.874 Treatment/formulation . Application timing (days after transplant)a . Rate/acre . Total thrips per 10 leavesb . TSWV incidence (no. plants / plot) . Proportion of plants with TSWVc . . . . 8 Mayd . 16 Mayd . 23 Maye . 3 June . . . Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 1.5 fl oz 16.25a 8.50b 24.50a 152.00a 0.75a 0.013a Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 3 fl oz 13.75a 12.25ab 14.00ab 107.50ab 0.75a 0.013a Acephate 97UP 16 & 23 12 oz 13.25a 6.50b 10.50b 74.00b 0.25a 0.004a Radiant 1SCa 16 1.5 fl oz 5.75a 9.00b 19.75ab 81.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Blackhawk 36WG 16 1.6 oz 16.00a 9.5ab 14.50ab 97.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Untreated Check -- -- 13.25a 18.00a 17.75ab 121.00ab 0.50a 0.009a P>F 0.292 0.056 <0.001 <0.001 0.912 0.874 Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different (α = 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. a16 and 23 d after transplanting = 16 and 23 May, respectively. bThrips counts for all sample dates were square-root transformed, non-transformed means presented. dProportion of plants with TSWV data were log + 1 transformed, non-transformed means presented. dPre-treatment counts. e7 DAT. f18 DAT. gCrop oil concentrate included at 1% v/v. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Application timing (days after transplant)a . Rate/acre . Total thrips per 10 leavesb . TSWV incidence (no. plants / plot) . Proportion of plants with TSWVc . . . . 8 Mayd . 16 Mayd . 23 Maye . 3 June . . . Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 1.5 fl oz 16.25a 8.50b 24.50a 152.00a 0.75a 0.013a Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 3 fl oz 13.75a 12.25ab 14.00ab 107.50ab 0.75a 0.013a Acephate 97UP 16 & 23 12 oz 13.25a 6.50b 10.50b 74.00b 0.25a 0.004a Radiant 1SCa 16 1.5 fl oz 5.75a 9.00b 19.75ab 81.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Blackhawk 36WG 16 1.6 oz 16.00a 9.5ab 14.50ab 97.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Untreated Check -- -- 13.25a 18.00a 17.75ab 121.00ab 0.50a 0.009a P>F 0.292 0.056 <0.001 <0.001 0.912 0.874 Treatment/formulation . Application timing (days after transplant)a . Rate/acre . Total thrips per 10 leavesb . TSWV incidence (no. plants / plot) . Proportion of plants with TSWVc . . . . 8 Mayd . 16 Mayd . 23 Maye . 3 June . . . Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 1.5 fl oz 16.25a 8.50b 24.50a 152.00a 0.75a 0.013a Radiant 1SCf 16 & 23 3 fl oz 13.75a 12.25ab 14.00ab 107.50ab 0.75a 0.013a Acephate 97UP 16 & 23 12 oz 13.25a 6.50b 10.50b 74.00b 0.25a 0.004a Radiant 1SCa 16 1.5 fl oz 5.75a 9.00b 19.75ab 81.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Blackhawk 36WG 16 1.6 oz 16.00a 9.5ab 14.50ab 97.50ab 0.50a 0.009a Untreated Check -- -- 13.25a 18.00a 17.75ab 121.00ab 0.50a 0.009a P>F 0.292 0.056 <0.001 <0.001 0.912 0.874 Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different (α = 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. a16 and 23 d after transplanting = 16 and 23 May, respectively. bThrips counts for all sample dates were square-root transformed, non-transformed means presented. dProportion of plants with TSWV data were log + 1 transformed, non-transformed means presented. dPre-treatment counts. e7 DAT. f18 DAT. gCrop oil concentrate included at 1% v/v. Open in new tab We observed a significant effect of treatment (P = 0.034) and sample date (P < 0.001). No significant interaction between insecticide treatment and sample date was observed for thrips abundance (F = 0.84, df 6,98, P = 0.842); therefore, data are presented by sample date (F = 52.22, df 9,102, P < 0.001). No differences among plots were observed for thrips abundance on 8 May (pre-treatment) (Table 1). Radiant (1.5 oz / acre) and Acephate reduced thrips densities compared to the untreated check on the 16 May sample. No differences between any of the insecticide treatments and the untreated check were observed for the subsequent weeks. The proportion of TSWV-infected plants was below 0.013 in all treatments. No differences among treatments were observed for TSWV incidence (F = 0.290, df 5,18, P = 0.912) or proportion of plants with TSWV infections (F = 0.352, df 5,18, P = 0.874).1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Sholl,, Alexander;Pearson,, Rebecca;Ruth,, Katie;Way, M, O

Evaluation of Insecticides for Management of Aphids in Sweet Corn in Southern Florida, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa002

Sorghum (broom, durra, Guinea corn, jowar) | Sorghum bicolor Sugarcane Aphid (SCA): Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) flupyradifurone, thiamethoxam, lambda-cyhalothrin This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of selected insecticides for control of sugarcane aphid (SCA) on sorghum. The test began when the plots were planted on 18 Apr and was conducted at the Beaumont Center. Four treatments with four replications were arranged in an RCB. Plots consisted of four 30-ft long rows with 30-inch row spacing. Seeds were drill planted at 1 seed/2 inches into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8–4.8%). Plots were fertilized by hand with urea at 38 lb N/acre on 19 Apr and immediately flush irrigated. Thereafter, plots were irrigated or drained as needed. Foliar insecticide treatments were applied on 28 Jun with a 3-nozzle spray boom (800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) while sorghum was heading. SCAs were not detected in significant numbers until this time. SCAs were counted on 10 upper and 10 lower leaves from the center rows at specified intervals starting with a pretreatment count on 27 Jun. Seed heads were collected 36 days after treatment (DAT) from center rows and wet weight measured. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD (P = 0.05). Pretreatment SCA counts on the upper and lower leaves were similar among treatments (Tables 1 and 2). Pre- and posttreatment counts were typically higher on lower leaves. At 4 and 8 DAT, counts were significantly lower in all treated plots relative to the untreated check on upper and lower leaves. Sivanto 200SL provided the best control on lower leaves. At 12 and 15 DAT, SCA populations had declined on the upper leaves in the untreated plots. On lower leaves starting at 12 DAT, increasing populations of SCA were observed in the Endigo ZCX-treated plots. We do not have an explanation for the increase, but there is prior evidence that pyrethroids can flare aphid populations. The other treatments resulted in lower SCA populations on lower leaves compared with the untreated check. All insecticide treatments significantly increased wet weights of sorghum heads compared with the untreated check (Table 3). Sivanto 200SL provided the best control followed by Centric 40WG and Endigo ZCX, although there were no significant differences in wet weight of heads among insecticide treatments. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 1. Treatment/form Rate (oz/A) No. of SCA/upper leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 183.0 367.6a 198.6a 32.9a 7.3 Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 173.9 0.7b 3.6b 7.3b 18.9 Centric 40WGb 2.5d 177.3 0.6b 0.5b 4.0bc 7.4 Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 202.4 1.8b 0.6b 0.1c 0.0 P>F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 NS Treatment/form Rate (oz/A) No. of SCA/upper leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 183.0 367.6a 198.6a 32.9a 7.3 Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 173.9 0.7b 3.6b 7.3b 18.9 Centric 40WGb 2.5d 177.3 0.6b 0.5b 4.0bc 7.4 Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 202.4 1.8b 0.6b 0.1c 0.0 P>F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 NS Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). aPRE = pretreatment. bNonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. cfl. oz product per acre. doz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/form Rate (oz/A) No. of SCA/upper leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 183.0 367.6a 198.6a 32.9a 7.3 Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 173.9 0.7b 3.6b 7.3b 18.9 Centric 40WGb 2.5d 177.3 0.6b 0.5b 4.0bc 7.4 Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 202.4 1.8b 0.6b 0.1c 0.0 P>F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 NS Treatment/form Rate (oz/A) No. of SCA/upper leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 183.0 367.6a 198.6a 32.9a 7.3 Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 173.9 0.7b 3.6b 7.3b 18.9 Centric 40WGb 2.5d 177.3 0.6b 0.5b 4.0bc 7.4 Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 202.4 1.8b 0.6b 0.1c 0.0 P>F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 NS Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). aPRE = pretreatment. bNonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. cfl. oz product per acre. doz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/form. Rate(oz/A) No. of SCA/lower leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 306.1 412.0a 312.6a 156.3ab 55.9b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 268.8 67.8b 38.6b 224.4a 220.1a Centric 40WGb 2.5d 364.2 51.0b 27.6bc 59.3bc 88.5b Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 308.8 6.4b 1.2c 0.7c 0.5b P > F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0035 0.0251 Treatment/form. Rate(oz/A) No. of SCA/lower leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 306.1 412.0a 312.6a 156.3ab 55.9b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 268.8 67.8b 38.6b 224.4a 220.1a Centric 40WGb 2.5d 364.2 51.0b 27.6bc 59.3bc 88.5b Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 308.8 6.4b 1.2c 0.7c 0.5b P > F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0035 0.0251 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). aPRE = pretreatment. bNonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. cfl. oz product per acre. doz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/form. Rate(oz/A) No. of SCA/lower leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 306.1 412.0a 312.6a 156.3ab 55.9b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 268.8 67.8b 38.6b 224.4a 220.1a Centric 40WGb 2.5d 364.2 51.0b 27.6bc 59.3bc 88.5b Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 308.8 6.4b 1.2c 0.7c 0.5b P > F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0035 0.0251 Treatment/form. Rate(oz/A) No. of SCA/lower leaf PREa 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT Untreated check — 306.1 412.0a 312.6a 156.3ab 55.9b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSb 5.0c 268.8 67.8b 38.6b 224.4a 220.1a Centric 40WGb 2.5d 364.2 51.0b 27.6bc 59.3bc 88.5b Sivanto 200SL 10.0c 308.8 6.4b 1.2c 0.7c 0.5b P > F NS <.0001 <.0001 0.0035 0.0251 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). aPRE = pretreatment. bNonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. cfl. oz product per acre. doz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Table 3. Treatment/form. Rate (oz/A) Wet wt. of heads from middle two rows (g) Untreated check — 5,748.5b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSa 5.0b 9,278.0a Centric 40WGa 2.5c 7,929.0a Sivanto 200SL 10.0b 8,795.0a P>F 0.0065 Treatment/form. Rate (oz/A) Wet wt. of heads from middle two rows (g) Untreated check — 5,748.5b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSa 5.0b 9,278.0a Centric 40WGa 2.5c 7,929.0a Sivanto 200SL 10.0b 8,795.0a P>F 0.0065 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). aNonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. bfl. oz product per acre. coz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Table 3. Treatment/form. Rate (oz/A) Wet wt. of heads from middle two rows (g) Untreated check — 5,748.5b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSa 5.0b 9,278.0a Centric 40WGa 2.5c 7,929.0a Sivanto 200SL 10.0b 8,795.0a P>F 0.0065 Treatment/form. Rate (oz/A) Wet wt. of heads from middle two rows (g) Untreated check — 5,748.5b Endigo ZCX 2.7CSa 5.0b 9,278.0a Centric 40WGa 2.5c 7,929.0a Sivanto 200SL 10.0b 8,795.0a P>F 0.0065 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). aNonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. bfl. oz product per acre. coz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes This research was supported in part by an industry gift of research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Beuzelin, Julien, M;Bardin, J, Matt;Olenyo,, Mohammed

Evaluation of Insecticides to Control Stink Bug in Edamame, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa088

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Cotton aphid/melon aphid | Aphis Gossypii Glover sulfoxaflor, flupyradifurone An experiment was conducted in a commercial field of sweet corn hybrid ‘BSS1075’ near Belle Glade, FL, to evaluate the efficacy insecticides for management of Aphis gossypii Glover infesting sweet corn. The field was planted on 14 Jan on 36-inch centers at a density of 28,000 seeds/acre, and the experimental area was 800 feet long and four rows wide. Four insecticide treatments and a nontreated check were evaluated in an RCBD with four blocks and one replicate per block. Plots were four rows wide, 30 ft long, and separated by 8-ft nontreated buffers. Insecticides were applied on 26 Mar when sweet corn was at the blister stage with A. gossypii infestations present and expected to rapidly increase. Insecticides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 gpa at 30 psi with a boom equipped with eight Teejet TP11001VS spaced 15 inches apart ≈ 1 ft above the canopy. No surfactant was used. Plots were sampled 3 d before treatment and 3, 8, and 11 DAT. On each date, five plants on each of the two center rows in each plot were sampled. For each plant, aphids were counted on two leaves, the first leaf below the tassel and the ear leaf for the dominant ear. The numbers of A. gossypii observed pre-treatment were compared using a linear mixed model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS Institute) with treatment, leaf position, and their interaction as fixed effects. The numbers of A. gossypii observed on the three post-treatment sampling dates were compared using a linear mixed model with treatment, sampling date, leaf position, and their two-way and three-way interactions. The SPLICE and SPLICEDIFF options were used to compare mean A. gossypii counts as affected by treatment for each sampling date and by leaf position for each treatment. Means were separated using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05). Three days before treatment, 49% of plants were infested with A. gossypii. Aphid infestation levels among plots assigned to different treatments were not different (P > 0.05), ranging from 2.2 to 3.4 aphids/leaf across leaf positions (Table 1). A difference between leaf positions was not detected (F = 2.8, df = 1,195; P = 0.094), with top and ear leaves being infested with 3.1 and 2.4 aphids/leaf, respectively, across treatments. In addition, the treatment by leaf position interaction was not significant (F = 1.0, df = 1,195; P = 0.436). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . No. A. gossypii/leafa . . . Pre-treatment . 3 DAT . 8 DAT . 11 DAT . Nontreated check -- 3.4a 27.1a 125.4a 243.0a Transform WG 0.75 oz 2.2a 10.1a 36.1b 99.9b Transform WG 1.0 oz 2.7a 6.6a 30.6b 103.4b Transform WG 1.5 oz 2.3a 4.8a 27.6b 97.3b Sivanto Prime 10.5 fl oz 3.1a 11.7a 44.7b 126.0b F 0.3 0.4 8.4 18.1 df 4,12 4,70 4,70 4,70 P > F 0.845 0.829 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . No. A. gossypii/leafa . . . Pre-treatment . 3 DAT . 8 DAT . 11 DAT . Nontreated check -- 3.4a 27.1a 125.4a 243.0a Transform WG 0.75 oz 2.2a 10.1a 36.1b 99.9b Transform WG 1.0 oz 2.7a 6.6a 30.6b 103.4b Transform WG 1.5 oz 2.3a 4.8a 27.6b 97.3b Sivanto Prime 10.5 fl oz 3.1a 11.7a 44.7b 126.0b F 0.3 0.4 8.4 18.1 df 4,12 4,70 4,70 4,70 P > F 0.845 0.829 <0.001 <0.001 aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . No. A. gossypii/leafa . . . Pre-treatment . 3 DAT . 8 DAT . 11 DAT . Nontreated check -- 3.4a 27.1a 125.4a 243.0a Transform WG 0.75 oz 2.2a 10.1a 36.1b 99.9b Transform WG 1.0 oz 2.7a 6.6a 30.6b 103.4b Transform WG 1.5 oz 2.3a 4.8a 27.6b 97.3b Sivanto Prime 10.5 fl oz 3.1a 11.7a 44.7b 126.0b F 0.3 0.4 8.4 18.1 df 4,12 4,70 4,70 4,70 P > F 0.845 0.829 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . No. A. gossypii/leafa . . . Pre-treatment . 3 DAT . 8 DAT . 11 DAT . Nontreated check -- 3.4a 27.1a 125.4a 243.0a Transform WG 0.75 oz 2.2a 10.1a 36.1b 99.9b Transform WG 1.0 oz 2.7a 6.6a 30.6b 103.4b Transform WG 1.5 oz 2.3a 4.8a 27.6b 97.3b Sivanto Prime 10.5 fl oz 3.1a 11.7a 44.7b 126.0b F 0.3 0.4 8.4 18.1 df 4,12 4,70 4,70 4,70 P > F 0.845 0.829 <0.001 <0.001 aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Post-treatment A. gossypii infestation levels changed with sampling date (F = 114.5, df = 2,70; P < 0.001), increasing from 12.1, to 52.9, to 134.0 aphids/leaf 3, 8, and 11 DAT, respectively, across all treatments and leaf positions. Differences in aphid infestation levels were detected among treatments across all sampling dates and leaf positions (F = 14.2; df = 4,12; P < 0.001), with lower infestation levels in insecticide-treated plots than in nontreated plots. However, the treatment by sampling date interaction was significant (F = 4.3; df = 8,70; P < 0.001). Whereas differences among treatments were not detected 3 DAT (P > 0.05, Table 1), aphid infestation levels for all insecticide treatments were lower than for the nontreated check 8 and 11 DAT (P < 0.05, Table 1). Sweet corn plants in insecticide-treated plots had 64.4 to 78.0% less aphids/leaf than in nontreated plots 8 DAT, and infestation levels were 48.1 to 60.0% lower in insecticide-treated plots than in nontreated plots 11 DAT (P < 0.05, Table 1). Across all sampling dates and treatments, a difference between leaf positions was detected (F = 7.4; df = 1,545; P = 0.007), with 16.1% more aphids on top leaves than on ear leaves. However, the leaf position by treatment interaction was significant (F = 3.6; df = 4,545; P = 0.006). Ear leaves in Sivanto Prime-treated plots had 31.2% greater aphid infestation levels than top leaves whereas the number of aphids infesting top leaves was greater than or equal to the number of aphids infesting ear leaves in Transform WG-treated and nontreated plots. The sampling date by leaf position interaction (F = 2.6; df = 2,545; P = 0.073) and the three-way interaction (F = 1.1; df = 8,545; P = 0.393) were not significant.1 Footnotes 1 This research was partially supported by industry gifts, including products. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Sutton, Kemper, L;Kuhar, Thomas, P;Rideout, Steven, L;Zhang,, Bo

Citrus Thrips Insecticide Trial, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa045

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) | Halyomorpha halys (Stål) Soybean | Glycine max cyclaniliprole, bifenthrin, flonicamid, acetamiprid, flupyradifurone The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the efficacy of insecticides on brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) on edible soybean (edamame). Edamame was planted on 6 Jun at Virginia Tech Kentland Farm near Blacksburg, VA. Plots were arranged in an RCB design consisting of two row plots that were 20 ft in length spaced 3-ft apart. The experiment had seven treatments, one of which was an untreated check, with four replicates. BMSB was the predominant stink bug species observed, and bugs were assessed on 9, 19, and 23 Sep by carefully inspecting plants in each plot for 30 s and recording the numbers seen including those that flew away or dropped to the ground. Insecticide applications were made on 5 and 15 Sep using a three-nozzle boom backpack sprayer equipped with D3 tips at 40 psi. Applications were made at 10 GPA when the edamame pods were at the R4 to R5 growth stages. Immediately following the 15 Sep spray application, 5-gal paint strainer mesh bags were placed over fruiting limbs containing at least 10 pods and the bags sealed with twist ties after inserting five adult BMSB collected from nearby untreated edamame. After 4 d in the field, bags were excised from the plants and taken to the lab where insect mortality was assessed. Stink bug counts and proportion mortality data were analyzed using ANOVA. Means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05). BMSB densities were relatively low on 9 Sep, but increased on 19 and 23 Sep. There was a significant treatment effect on BMSB counts on 19 Sep only, when the untreated check plots had significantly more BMSB than Bifenthrin 2E, Harvanta 50SL + Assail 30SG, Sivanto Prime, Harvanta 50SL, and Beleaf 50SG + 1/10th rate Bifenthrin 2E (Table 1). Survival of the caged BMSB averaged 95% in the untreated check, which was significantly higher than all insecticide treatments except Harvanta 50SL and Sivanto 50 SL. Bifenthrin 2E had the lowest survival 0.0%. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 1. . . No. BMSB per 30 s . . . Proportion survival of BMSBa,b . Treatment . Rate/acre . Sep 9 . Sep 19 . Sep 23 . Sep 19 . Untreated check 1.25 2.50 a 0.75 0.95 a Bifenthrin 2E 2.1c 0.00 0.25 c 1.00 0.00 d Harvanta 50SL 22.0c 0.00 0.75 bc 2.00 0.75 ab Assail 30SG 3.8d 0.50 2.00 ab 0.75 0.35 c Harvanta 50SL + Assail 30SG 27.2c + 3.8d 0.50 0.25 c 0.25 0.60 bc Beleaf 50SG + Bifenthrin (1/10th) 2.8d + 0.21c 0.50 0.75 bc 0.75 0.35 c Sivanto Prime 14.0c 0.25 0.50 bc 1.75 0.75 ab P > F NS 0.08 NS 0.001 . . No. BMSB per 30 s . . . Proportion survival of BMSBa,b . Treatment . Rate/acre . Sep 9 . Sep 19 . Sep 23 . Sep 19 . Untreated check 1.25 2.50 a 0.75 0.95 a Bifenthrin 2E 2.1c 0.00 0.25 c 1.00 0.00 d Harvanta 50SL 22.0c 0.00 0.75 bc 2.00 0.75 ab Assail 30SG 3.8d 0.50 2.00 ab 0.75 0.35 c Harvanta 50SL + Assail 30SG 27.2c + 3.8d 0.50 0.25 c 0.25 0.60 bc Beleaf 50SG + Bifenthrin (1/10th) 2.8d + 0.21c 0.50 0.75 bc 0.75 0.35 c Sivanto Prime 14.0c 0.25 0.50 bc 1.75 0.75 ab P > F NS 0.08 NS 0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. aProportion data were arcsine-sqrt transformed to normalize variance before analysis, although untransformed proportions are shown. bAfter 4 d caged in the field on treated foliage and pods cfl. oz product per acre. doz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. . . No. BMSB per 30 s . . . Proportion survival of BMSBa,b . Treatment . Rate/acre . Sep 9 . Sep 19 . Sep 23 . Sep 19 . Untreated check 1.25 2.50 a 0.75 0.95 a Bifenthrin 2E 2.1c 0.00 0.25 c 1.00 0.00 d Harvanta 50SL 22.0c 0.00 0.75 bc 2.00 0.75 ab Assail 30SG 3.8d 0.50 2.00 ab 0.75 0.35 c Harvanta 50SL + Assail 30SG 27.2c + 3.8d 0.50 0.25 c 0.25 0.60 bc Beleaf 50SG + Bifenthrin (1/10th) 2.8d + 0.21c 0.50 0.75 bc 0.75 0.35 c Sivanto Prime 14.0c 0.25 0.50 bc 1.75 0.75 ab P > F NS 0.08 NS 0.001 . . No. BMSB per 30 s . . . Proportion survival of BMSBa,b . Treatment . Rate/acre . Sep 9 . Sep 19 . Sep 23 . Sep 19 . Untreated check 1.25 2.50 a 0.75 0.95 a Bifenthrin 2E 2.1c 0.00 0.25 c 1.00 0.00 d Harvanta 50SL 22.0c 0.00 0.75 bc 2.00 0.75 ab Assail 30SG 3.8d 0.50 2.00 ab 0.75 0.35 c Harvanta 50SL + Assail 30SG 27.2c + 3.8d 0.50 0.25 c 0.25 0.60 bc Beleaf 50SG + Bifenthrin (1/10th) 2.8d + 0.21c 0.50 0.75 bc 0.75 0.35 c Sivanto Prime 14.0c 0.25 0.50 bc 1.75 0.75 ab P > F NS 0.08 NS 0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05. aProportion data were arcsine-sqrt transformed to normalize variance before analysis, although untransformed proportions are shown. bAfter 4 d caged in the field on treated foliage and pods cfl. oz product per acre. doz product (wt.) per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported in part by ISK Biosciences research funding and industry product donations. This work was funded in part by USDA-NIFA SCRI Project # PA63C42V. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Insecticide Efficacy Against Pecan Aphids and Pecan Leaf Scorch Mites, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa012

Citrus thips: Scirtothrips citri Orange | Citrus sinensis A field trial was conducted in a 17-yr-old ‘Parent’ navel orange orchard at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California, to compare the efficacy of various insecticides to protect fruit from citrus thrips rind scarring. Insecticides were applied just after petal fall on 1 or 2 May and all trees received a second application of the same or a different insecticide on 14 or 15 May. Treatments were applied at 250 psi in 200 gpa and applied in an RCB design to four blocks of four tree plots using a 100-gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation and a hand wand with a D6 nozzle. All treatments were combined with 0.50% Omni 6E oil. All outside fruit within reach were evaluated the week of 12 Aug and rated 0, 1–2 (slight), or 3–4 (severe) levels of thrips scarring. The mean number of fruit per tree sampled, the mean % total thrips scarred fruit and the mean % severely scarred fruit per tree were compared between treatments using a one-way ANOVA after testing for an NS block effect. Treatment means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significance different test LSD (P = 0.05) after acrsine(squareroot(x)) transformation of the proportions and log10(x + 1) transformation of the mean sampled fruit. The untreated check trees had 31.1% citrus thrips-scarred fruit and 12.9% severely scarred fruit (Table 1). Two treatments of Delegate did not significantly reduce thrips severe scarring below the untreated control but all other treatments had a significant effect. The most effective treatments, reducing severe scarring below 2%, were Delegate followed by Minecto Pro, Delegate followed by Exirel, Exirel applied twice, PQZ followed by Minecto Pro and Minecto Pro applied twice.1 Table 1. Treatment/ Formulation Applic. dates Rate form/acre or vol Mean fruit per tree % fruit with thrips scarring % fruit with severe thrips scarring Untreated Check 66.0a 31.1a 12.9a Delegate WG + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 86.9bcd 29.1a 9.3a PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 94.9cd 19.3b 4.7b Sivanto HL + Omni 6E Sivanto HL + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 7.0b + 0.5% 7.0b + 0.5% 70.7ab 20.9b 4.5b PQZ SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.4b + 0.5% 89.3bcd 10.8c 2.9bc PQZ SC + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 98.0bcd 8.8c 2.6bc Delegate WG + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 98.1cd 8.8c 1.5cd Delegate WG + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 88.3bcd 9.6c 1.4cd Exirel SE + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 20.5b + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 103.7d 9.8c 1.3cd PQZ SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 107.8d 5.3c 1.1cd Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 12.0b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 88.1abc 5.9c 0.7d F10,165 2.37 11.66 10.97 P <0.012 <0.001 < 0.001 Treatment/ Formulation Applic. dates Rate form/acre or vol Mean fruit per tree % fruit with thrips scarring % fruit with severe thrips scarring Untreated Check 66.0a 31.1a 12.9a Delegate WG + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 86.9bcd 29.1a 9.3a PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 94.9cd 19.3b 4.7b Sivanto HL + Omni 6E Sivanto HL + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 7.0b + 0.5% 7.0b + 0.5% 70.7ab 20.9b 4.5b PQZ SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.4b + 0.5% 89.3bcd 10.8c 2.9bc PQZ SC + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 98.0bcd 8.8c 2.6bc Delegate WG + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 98.1cd 8.8c 1.5cd Delegate WG + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 88.3bcd 9.6c 1.4cd Exirel SE + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 20.5b + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 103.7d 9.8c 1.3cd PQZ SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 107.8d 5.3c 1.1cd Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 12.0b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 88.1abc 5.9c 0.7d F10,165 2.37 11.66 10.97 P <0.012 <0.001 < 0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P ≥ 0.05) after log10(x + 1) of fruit per tree and arcsine [proportion]1/2 transformation of proportion scarred fruit. Untransformed means listed. aoz (wt) product per acre. boz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ Formulation Applic. dates Rate form/acre or vol Mean fruit per tree % fruit with thrips scarring % fruit with severe thrips scarring Untreated Check 66.0a 31.1a 12.9a Delegate WG + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 86.9bcd 29.1a 9.3a PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 94.9cd 19.3b 4.7b Sivanto HL + Omni 6E Sivanto HL + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 7.0b + 0.5% 7.0b + 0.5% 70.7ab 20.9b 4.5b PQZ SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.4b + 0.5% 89.3bcd 10.8c 2.9bc PQZ SC + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 98.0bcd 8.8c 2.6bc Delegate WG + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 98.1cd 8.8c 1.5cd Delegate WG + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 88.3bcd 9.6c 1.4cd Exirel SE + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 20.5b + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 103.7d 9.8c 1.3cd PQZ SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 107.8d 5.3c 1.1cd Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 12.0b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 88.1abc 5.9c 0.7d F10,165 2.37 11.66 10.97 P <0.012 <0.001 < 0.001 Treatment/ Formulation Applic. dates Rate form/acre or vol Mean fruit per tree % fruit with thrips scarring % fruit with severe thrips scarring Untreated Check 66.0a 31.1a 12.9a Delegate WG + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 86.9bcd 29.1a 9.3a PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Bexar 15 SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 6.4b + 16.0b + 0.5% 94.9cd 19.3b 4.7b Sivanto HL + Omni 6E Sivanto HL + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 7.0b + 0.5% 7.0b + 0.5% 70.7ab 20.9b 4.5b PQZ SC + Omni 6E PQZ SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.4b + 0.5% 89.3bcd 10.8c 2.9bc PQZ SC + Omni 6E Delegate WG + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 6.0a + 0.5% 98.0bcd 8.8c 2.6bc Delegate WG + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 98.1cd 8.8c 1.5cd Delegate WG + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.0a + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 88.3bcd 9.6c 1.4cd Exirel SE + Omni 6E Exirel SE + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 20.5b + 0.5% 20.5b + 0.5% 103.7d 9.8c 1.3cd PQZ SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 1 May 14 May 6.4b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 107.8d 5.3c 1.1cd Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E Minecto Pro SC + Omni 6E 2 May 15 May 12.0b + 0.5% 12.0b + 0.5% 88.1abc 5.9c 0.7d F10,165 2.37 11.66 10.97 P <0.012 <0.001 < 0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P ≥ 0.05) after log10(x + 1) of fruit per tree and arcsine [proportion]1/2 transformation of proportion scarred fruit. Untransformed means listed. aoz (wt) product per acre. boz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Acebes-Doria, Angelita, L;Halliday, Pamela, L

Control of Fall Armyworm with Labeled Insecticides and Experimental Surfactants in Sweet Corn, Spring 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa087

Pecan nut | Carya illinoensis Yellow Pecan Aphids (YPA) | Yellow pecan aphid Monelliopsis pecanis Bissell and Blackmargined aphid Monellia caryella (Fitch), Black Pecan Aphids (BPA) | Melanocallis caryaefoliae (Davis), Pecan Leaf Scorch Mite (PLSM) | Eotetranychus hicoriae (McGregor) sulfoxaflor, flonicamid, pyridaben, fenazaquin, afidopyropen The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of insecticides and miticides for the management of yellow pecan aphid complex (YPA: yellow pecan aphids and blackmargined aphids), black pecan aphids (BPA), and pecan leaf scorch mites (PLSM) in an irrigated mature pecan orchard. The study was conducted in a 9-acre orchard with mature ‘Desirable’ pecan trees located in Tyty, GA. The experiment followed an RCB design with 12 treatments randomly assigned in each of the four blocks. The experimental unit was a mature nut-bearing pecan tree. Buffer trees were established surrounding each tree used for the experiment (i.e., buffer trees were both within the same row and across from the trees used in the experiment). Pre-treatment sampling was done on 13 Aug 2018, and spray applications were conducted on 14 Aug 2018 using a 100 gal/acre-calibrated Durand-Wayland 3PT hitch airblast sprayer. Average temperature and accumulated rainfall during the 2-wk period post-application were 26°C and 2 cm, respectively. Post-spray evaluations were conducted on 21 and 28 Aug 2018. Five compound leaves were randomly sampled from the lower and middle canopies of each tree. Due to differences in the numbers of leaflets per compound leaf, only the middle three pairs of leaflets per leaf were checked for the target pests. Data were analyzed using ANOVA (JMP Ver. 14.1.0) following square root transformations. Differences among means on each sampling date were determined using LSD test (P ≤ 0.05). Pre-treatment counts were generally low and below the recommended action threshold, with an average of 0.7 YPA, 0.1 BPA, 0.6 PLSM eggs, and 0.4 PLSM nymphs and adults per compound leaf, suggesting target pest populations increased without treatment interventions after 2 wk as per counts on untreated checks. At 7 DAT, insecticide treatments of low and high rates of Sefina and low rate of Carbine resulted in significantly less YPA than the untreated check; while no significant differences were found in the numbers of other target pests between untreated check and insecticide treatments (Table 1). At 14 DAT, trees sprayed with Sefina at all rates and Nexter SC alone had significantly less YPA than the untreated check. Insecticidal treatments of Closer SC, high Carbine 50 WG rate, high Sefina rate, Nexter SC with Humispread and Magister SC (with and without Humispread) had significantly lesser BPA numbers than the untreated trees at 14 DAT. Movento-treated trees consistently had statistically similar YPA and BPA numbers to untreated check. At 14 DAT, all the treated trees had significantly less PLSM eggs than the untreated check. PLSM nymphs and adults at 14 DAT were not found in all trees treated with Nexter SC and Magister SC with or without Humispread. Overall, Carbine 50 WG, Sefina, and Nexter SC showed some level of efficacy against YPA and BPA, while Closer and Magister were effective on BPA. The miticides, Nexter SC and Magister SC, not only suppressed PLSM populations but have also shown some efficacy on decreasing pecan aphid numbers, particularly useful when both pests are present later in the growing season. The availability of these effective materials with different modes of action offers value to growers for integration into their resistant management program on pecan aphids. Sefina, which is currently pending registration for pecans, will be a promising addition to the arsenal.1 Table 1. Treatment . Rate per acre . Mean no. of YPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of BPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM eggs/compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM nymphs & adults/compound leaf . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 0.4ab 1.0a 0.1 0.4a 0.4 5.9a 0.7 2.8a Closer SC + Humispread 2.75 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.7abc 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.4b 0.0 0.2bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.4 oz 0.1cd 0.6abc 0.0 0.5a 0.0 1.5b 0.0 0.3bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.8 oz 0.2bcd 0.4abcd 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c Sefina + Humispread 3 fl oz 0.0d 0.2cd 0.0 0.4a 0.6 2.1b 3.0 1.2bc Sefina + Humispread 5.5 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.9 1.2b 0.3 0.9bc Sefina + Humispread 14 fl oz 0.1cd 0.1d 0.0 0.0c 0.1 0.8b 2.0 2.0ab Movento + Humispread 8 fl oz 0.15bcd 0.3abcd 0.0 0.4a 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.4bc *Nexter SC 11 fl oz 0.7a 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c *Nexter SC + Humispread 11 fl oz 0.4ab 0.7ab 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC 24 fl oz 0.3abcd 0.7ab 0.2 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC + Humispread 24 fl oz 0.2bcd 1.2a 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c Treatment . Rate per acre . Mean no. of YPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of BPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM eggs/compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM nymphs & adults/compound leaf . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 0.4ab 1.0a 0.1 0.4a 0.4 5.9a 0.7 2.8a Closer SC + Humispread 2.75 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.7abc 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.4b 0.0 0.2bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.4 oz 0.1cd 0.6abc 0.0 0.5a 0.0 1.5b 0.0 0.3bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.8 oz 0.2bcd 0.4abcd 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c Sefina + Humispread 3 fl oz 0.0d 0.2cd 0.0 0.4a 0.6 2.1b 3.0 1.2bc Sefina + Humispread 5.5 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.9 1.2b 0.3 0.9bc Sefina + Humispread 14 fl oz 0.1cd 0.1d 0.0 0.0c 0.1 0.8b 2.0 2.0ab Movento + Humispread 8 fl oz 0.15bcd 0.3abcd 0.0 0.4a 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.4bc *Nexter SC 11 fl oz 0.7a 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c *Nexter SC + Humispread 11 fl oz 0.4ab 0.7ab 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC 24 fl oz 0.3abcd 0.7ab 0.2 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC + Humispread 24 fl oz 0.2bcd 1.2a 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, LSD; Data were sqrt(n)-transformed before analysis. YPA and BPA numbers include both nymphs and adults. Humispread, a nonionic surfactant, was applied at a rate of 1 pt/100 gal. *Miticides, Nexter includes pecan aphids in its label. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate per acre . Mean no. of YPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of BPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM eggs/compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM nymphs & adults/compound leaf . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 0.4ab 1.0a 0.1 0.4a 0.4 5.9a 0.7 2.8a Closer SC + Humispread 2.75 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.7abc 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.4b 0.0 0.2bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.4 oz 0.1cd 0.6abc 0.0 0.5a 0.0 1.5b 0.0 0.3bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.8 oz 0.2bcd 0.4abcd 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c Sefina + Humispread 3 fl oz 0.0d 0.2cd 0.0 0.4a 0.6 2.1b 3.0 1.2bc Sefina + Humispread 5.5 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.9 1.2b 0.3 0.9bc Sefina + Humispread 14 fl oz 0.1cd 0.1d 0.0 0.0c 0.1 0.8b 2.0 2.0ab Movento + Humispread 8 fl oz 0.15bcd 0.3abcd 0.0 0.4a 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.4bc *Nexter SC 11 fl oz 0.7a 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c *Nexter SC + Humispread 11 fl oz 0.4ab 0.7ab 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC 24 fl oz 0.3abcd 0.7ab 0.2 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC + Humispread 24 fl oz 0.2bcd 1.2a 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c Treatment . Rate per acre . Mean no. of YPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of BPA/ compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM eggs/compound leaf . Mean no. of PLSM nymphs & adults/compound leaf . . . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . Untreated check - 0.4ab 1.0a 0.1 0.4a 0.4 5.9a 0.7 2.8a Closer SC + Humispread 2.75 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.7abc 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.4b 0.0 0.2bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.4 oz 0.1cd 0.6abc 0.0 0.5a 0.0 1.5b 0.0 0.3bc Carbine 50 WG + Humispread 2.8 oz 0.2bcd 0.4abcd 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c Sefina + Humispread 3 fl oz 0.0d 0.2cd 0.0 0.4a 0.6 2.1b 3.0 1.2bc Sefina + Humispread 5.5 fl oz 0.1bcd 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.9 1.2b 0.3 0.9bc Sefina + Humispread 14 fl oz 0.1cd 0.1d 0.0 0.0c 0.1 0.8b 2.0 2.0ab Movento + Humispread 8 fl oz 0.15bcd 0.3abcd 0.0 0.4a 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.4bc *Nexter SC 11 fl oz 0.7a 0.2bcd 0.0 0.2ab 0.0 0.0b 0.1 0.0c *Nexter SC + Humispread 11 fl oz 0.4ab 0.7ab 0.0 0.0c 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC 24 fl oz 0.3abcd 0.7ab 0.2 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c *Magister SC + Humispread 24 fl oz 0.2bcd 1.2a 0.1 0.1bc 0.0 0.0b 0.0 0.0c Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, LSD; Data were sqrt(n)-transformed before analysis. YPA and BPA numbers include both nymphs and adults. Humispread, a nonionic surfactant, was applied at a rate of 1 pt/100 gal. *Miticides, Nexter includes pecan aphids in its label. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This project was supported in part by industry funds to the UGA Tree Nut Entomology lab as well as the GA Pecan Commodity Commission. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Control of Vine Mealybug in Wine Grapes, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa022

Fall armyworm (FAW) | Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays zeta-cypermethrin, chlorantraniliprole, spinetoram, methoxyfenozide FAW is a key pest of sweet corn in Florida and larvae can feed on whorls, tassels, silks, and ears leading to a yield and grade reduction. Program approaches using rotations of insecticide mode of action are necessary to reduce the chances of insecticide resistance, and new chemistries are always in demand for more sustainable FAW control. This trial was conducted at the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center in Immokalee Florida on four beds, 32 inches wide, and 430 ft long on 6 ft centers that were prepared on 23 Jan 2019 and fumigated with Pichlor 60 EC on 8 Feb. Fertilizer (8-2-10) was incorporated at 100 lbs N and beds were provided with two drip tape irrigation lines with 8 inch emitter spacing as they were covered with black polyethylene mulch. Corn was direct seeded on 25 Feb at 10 inch spacing with two seeds per hole and a 7-2-7 liquid fertilizer was injected through the drip using a Dosatron over the growing season. Eleven treatments and an untreated check were assigned in an RCB design with four replicates. Each plot contained 35 plant spaces with 8 plant spaces left between plots as a buffer. An untreated row of corn was in between each treated row to act as a buffer. Applications were made with a high clearance sprayer moving at 2.3 mph equipped with four ceramic Albuz ‘yellow’ hollow cone tips each delivering 10 gpa at 180 psi for a total of 40 gpa. The dates of applications and products applied are listed in Table 1. On 9 and 16 May, 10 ears were collected from each plot, and the number of larvae collected was recorded along with the number of damaged ears per plot. FAW numbers were very low in this trial. Table 1. Treatment/formulation rate/acre Application date 22 May 29 May 7 Jun 13 May Untreated check Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Radiant SC 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Intrepid Edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Treatment/formulation rate/acre Application date 22 May 29 May 7 Jun 13 May Untreated check Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Radiant SC 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Intrepid Edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation rate/acre Application date 22 May 29 May 7 Jun 13 May Untreated check Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Radiant SC 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Intrepid Edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Treatment/formulation rate/acre Application date 22 May 29 May 7 Jun 13 May Untreated check Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Radiant SC 6.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz x Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz x Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz x Lannate LV 16.0 oz Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.10% x x x x Intrepid edge 6.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Intrepid Edge 8.0 oz x x x x PTC 0.30% x x x x Open in new tab All treatment programs reduced the number of larvae collected and ears damaged by the larvae compared with the untreated check (Table 2). No statistically significant differences were seen amongst the treatments. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 2. Treatment/formulation rate/acre Total from 2 harvest (May 9 and 16) Larvae/20 ears % of ears damaged Untreated check 1.50a 46.25a Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 18.75b Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 7.50b Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 6.25b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Intrepid edge 8.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.50b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Radiant SC 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 6.25b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 8.75b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 22.5b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 8.75b PTC 0.30% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 12.50b PTC 0.30% Treatment/formulation rate/acre Total from 2 harvest (May 9 and 16) Larvae/20 ears % of ears damaged Untreated check 1.50a 46.25a Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 18.75b Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 7.50b Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 6.25b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Intrepid edge 8.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.50b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Radiant SC 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 6.25b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 8.75b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 22.5b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 8.75b PTC 0.30% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 12.50b PTC 0.30% Means within columns followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation rate/acre Total from 2 harvest (May 9 and 16) Larvae/20 ears % of ears damaged Untreated check 1.50a 46.25a Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 18.75b Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 7.50b Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 6.25b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Intrepid edge 8.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.50b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Radiant SC 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 6.25b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 8.75b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 22.5b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 8.75b PTC 0.30% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 12.50b PTC 0.30% Treatment/formulation rate/acre Total from 2 harvest (May 9 and 16) Larvae/20 ears % of ears damaged Untreated check 1.50a 46.25a Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 18.75b Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 7.50b Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 6.25b PX-0071 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Intrepid edge 8.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.50b 12.50b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Radiant SC 6.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 6.25b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Coragen 20 SC 5.0 oz Lannate LV 16.0 oz 0.25b 8.75b Mustang 1.5 EW 3.0 oz Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 22.5b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.25b 10.00b PTC 0.10% Intrepid edge 6.0 oz 0.00b 8.75b PTC 0.30% Intrepid edge 8.0 oz 0.00b 12.50b PTC 0.30% Means within columns followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was partly supported by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

, Van Steenwyk, Robert A;Peters-Collaer,, Stephen

Citricola Scale Insecticide Trial, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa003

Grape | Vitis vinifera Vine mealybug (VMB) | Planococcus ficus (Signoret) imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos, spirotetramat, sulfoxaflor, flupyradifurone This study evaluated the efficacy of Sequoia and Sivanto as replacements of Lorsban Advanced for VMB control. The study was conducted in a ‘Chardonnay’ vineyard near Manteca, CA. Seven experimental treatments and an untreated check were replicated four times in an RCB design. Each replicate was three vines long. The two outside vines in each replicate were considered treated buffer and not sampled. The vineyard was planted on 5-ft vine by 9-ft row spacing. Foliar treatments were applied with a hand-held sprayer operating with a finished spray volume of 150 gal/acre. Admire Pro and Sivanto HL were applied on 13 May during the second irrigation through a secondary drip cup under each drip emitter. Drip lines were run for 1 h and then Admire Pro and Sivanto HL were placed in the drip cups and dripped into the soil at the same rate as the drip emitter for 1 h. The drip line was run for an additional 7 h after the application. VMB infestation was evaluated in a 1-min search on the trunk of the center vine from 7 May to 19 Jun and the trunk and cordon from 8 Jul to 31 Jul. Infestation assessment was categorized as 0 = no VMB or honeydew, 1 = honeydew but not visible VMB, 2 = honeydew and visible VMB, and 3 = honeydew and greater than 10 VMB. Prior to commercial harvest on 5 Sep, 25 fruit clusters per center vine in each replicate were evaluated for VMB damage using the same scoring system. Clusters with a score of 2 or 3 were considered unmarketable. Trunk and cordon evaluation score data were analyzed using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test at P ≤ 0.05. If there was significance, then comparisons were made with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test with the Bonferroni correction. The fruit infestation data were arcsin transformed and analyzed with an ANOVA with means separation using Fisher’s Protected LSD test at P ≤ 0.05. Data presented as untransformed. On the 7 May evaluation, Sequoia and Lorsban Advanced were applied at postharvest (PH) and delayed dormant (DD) and had numerically, but not significantly, lower VMB infestation when compared with the untreated control (Table 1). There was no significant difference among the treatments on the evaluations on 22 May to 8 July. At the final evaluation on 31 Jul, the Sequoia PH and DD treatment had a significantly lower infestation than the Sivanto fb Sivanto fb Sivanto treatment, Movento 2SC alone, and the untreated check. There was no significant difference among the other treatments. At the harvest evaluation, the Lorsban Advanced at PH and DD applications, Sequoia at PH and DD applications, and the Movento 2SC fb Sequoia fb Sequoia treatment had significantly lower mean percent unmarketable clusters when compared with Movento 2SC alone and the untreated check. These results indicate that Sequoia shows promise as an alternative to Lorsban Advanced for control VMB. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Appl. timing Rate form/acre VMB score Percent unmarketable fruit clusters 7 May 22 May 19 Jun 8 Jul 31 Jul Lorsban Advanceda 12 Oct—Post-harvest 32.00 fl oz 0.75 ab 1.50 a 1.25 a 0.75 a 2.00 ab 8.00 a Lorsban Advancedb 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 32.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Sequoiad 12 Oct—Post-harvest 5.75 fl oz 0.50 a 2.00 a 1.00 a 2.25 a 1.75 a 11.00 a Sequoiab 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 19 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl Oz Sivanto HL (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.75 c 2.00 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 22.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.50 bc 2.50 a 1.50 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 14.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl. oz 2.50 bc 1.50 a 1.50 a 2.50 a 2.00 ab 29.0 abc Movento 2SCb 29 May—Fruit Development 8.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 3.00 c 3.00 a 0.75 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 5.00 a Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiav 31 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 2.25 abc 2.50 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 35.00 bc Untreated check – – 2.25 abc 2.00 a 1.50 a 2.00 a 3.00 b 58.00 c X2 19.67 8.68 2.82 5.40 11.11 3.52 P <0.01 0.28 0.90 0.61 0.03 <0.01 Treatment/formulation Appl. timing Rate form/acre VMB score Percent unmarketable fruit clusters 7 May 22 May 19 Jun 8 Jul 31 Jul Lorsban Advanceda 12 Oct—Post-harvest 32.00 fl oz 0.75 ab 1.50 a 1.25 a 0.75 a 2.00 ab 8.00 a Lorsban Advancedb 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 32.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Sequoiad 12 Oct—Post-harvest 5.75 fl oz 0.50 a 2.00 a 1.00 a 2.25 a 1.75 a 11.00 a Sequoiab 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 19 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl Oz Sivanto HL (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.75 c 2.00 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 22.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.50 bc 2.50 a 1.50 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 14.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl. oz 2.50 bc 1.50 a 1.50 a 2.50 a 2.00 ab 29.0 abc Movento 2SCb 29 May—Fruit Development 8.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 3.00 c 3.00 a 0.75 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 5.00 a Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiav 31 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 2.25 abc 2.50 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 35.00 bc Untreated check – – 2.25 abc 2.00 a 1.50 a 2.00 a 3.00 b 58.00 c X2 19.67 8.68 2.82 5.40 11.11 3.52 P <0.01 0.28 0.90 0.61 0.03 <0.01 aTreatments included 0.25% V/V (32 fl oz/100 gal) of Kinetic NS. bTreatments included 0.25% V/V (32 fl oz/100 gal) of Dyne-Amic. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Appl. timing Rate form/acre VMB score Percent unmarketable fruit clusters 7 May 22 May 19 Jun 8 Jul 31 Jul Lorsban Advanceda 12 Oct—Post-harvest 32.00 fl oz 0.75 ab 1.50 a 1.25 a 0.75 a 2.00 ab 8.00 a Lorsban Advancedb 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 32.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Sequoiad 12 Oct—Post-harvest 5.75 fl oz 0.50 a 2.00 a 1.00 a 2.25 a 1.75 a 11.00 a Sequoiab 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 19 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl Oz Sivanto HL (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.75 c 2.00 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 22.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.50 bc 2.50 a 1.50 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 14.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl. oz 2.50 bc 1.50 a 1.50 a 2.50 a 2.00 ab 29.0 abc Movento 2SCb 29 May—Fruit Development 8.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 3.00 c 3.00 a 0.75 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 5.00 a Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiav 31 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 2.25 abc 2.50 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 35.00 bc Untreated check – – 2.25 abc 2.00 a 1.50 a 2.00 a 3.00 b 58.00 c X2 19.67 8.68 2.82 5.40 11.11 3.52 P <0.01 0.28 0.90 0.61 0.03 <0.01 Treatment/formulation Appl. timing Rate form/acre VMB score Percent unmarketable fruit clusters 7 May 22 May 19 Jun 8 Jul 31 Jul Lorsban Advanceda 12 Oct—Post-harvest 32.00 fl oz 0.75 ab 1.50 a 1.25 a 0.75 a 2.00 ab 8.00 a Lorsban Advancedb 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 32.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Sequoiad 12 Oct—Post-harvest 5.75 fl oz 0.50 a 2.00 a 1.00 a 2.25 a 1.75 a 11.00 a Sequoiab 18 Mar—Delayed dormant 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 19 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiab 29 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl Oz Sivanto HL (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.75 c 2.00 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 22.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl oz 2.50 bc 2.50 a 1.50 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 14.0 ab Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Admire Pro (drip) 13 May—Second irrigation 14.00 fl. oz 2.50 bc 1.50 a 1.50 a 2.50 a 2.00 ab 29.0 abc Movento 2SCb 29 May—Fruit Development 8.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 9 Jul—Verasion 7.00 fl oz Sivanto HLb 29 Jul—Fruit Development 7.00 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 3.00 c 3.00 a 0.75 a 2.25 a 2.75 ab 5.00 a Sequoiab 9 Jul—Verasion 5.75 fl oz Sequoiav 31 Jul—Fruit development 5.75 fl oz Movento 2SCb 29 May—1-3mm size fruit 8.00 fl oz 2.25 abc 2.50 a 1.75 a 2.50 a 3.00 b 35.00 bc Untreated check – – 2.25 abc 2.00 a 1.50 a 2.00 a 3.00 b 58.00 c X2 19.67 8.68 2.82 5.40 11.11 3.52 P <0.01 0.28 0.90 0.61 0.03 <0.01 aTreatments included 0.25% V/V (32 fl oz/100 gal) of Kinetic NS. bTreatments included 0.25% V/V (32 fl oz/100 gal) of Dyne-Amic. Open in new tab This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Control of Codling Moth in Apple, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa014

Citricola scale | Coccus pseudomagnoliarum (Kuwana) Orange | Citrus sinensis flupyradifurone, thiamethoxam, sulfoxaflor, petroleum oil Citricola scale causes loss of tree vigor, yield reduction, and downgrading of fruit in the packing house due to sooty mold growth on honeydew deposited by the insect. A field trial was conducted in a 36-yr-old ‘Washington’ navel orange orchard at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California, to compare various rates of insecticides for efficacy against citricola scale. Insecticides were applied using 200 PSI and 500 gpa to 10 trees per treatment using a 100 gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation. Treatments were assigned to trees on 15 May 2018 in an RCB design based on pretreatment counts of mature female citricola found on five twigs (~40 cm in length) randomly selected from the northeast corner of the tree. All insecticide treatments were applied with 0.5% Summer IAP oil on 31 Jul or 1 Aug, when the population consisted of first-instar nymphs infesting leaves. Posttreatment sampling consisted of counts of first-instar citricola nymphs infesting five leaves collected from the NE corner of each sample tree during Sep and Oct 2018. An additional sample of mature female citricola on five twigs per tree was collected in spring on 22 Apr 2019. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA after testing for NS block effect. Differences in the mean numbers of nymphs per leaf or adult female scale per twig were determined using Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation of numbers. During the fall of 2018, all treatments applied significantly reduced the number of nymphs below the economic threshold of 0.5 nymphs/leaf (Table 1). In the spring of 2019, all treatments had significantly reduced the number of adult females below the threshold of 1.0 adult/twig when compared to the untreated check.1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Treatment Date Mean no. of citricola scale per leaf or twig 15 May 2018a 10 Sepb 9 Octb 22 Apr 2019a Untreated check 1.76a 2.46a 2.96a 5.08a Sivanto HL Sc + Summer IAP oil 7.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.72a 0.16b 0.44b 0.70b Sivanto Prime SC + Summer IAP oil 14.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.64a 0.70b 0.13b 0.16b Sequoia SC + Summer IAP oil 5.75c + 0.5% 31 Jul 1.62a 0.88b 0.20b 0.20b Actara 25 WG + Summer IAP oil 5.5d + 0.5% 41 Jul 1.60a 0.80b 0.28b 0.90b P > F 0.996 0.016 <0.001 <0.001 F 0.06 2.36 11.5 17.66 df 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Treatment Date Mean no. of citricola scale per leaf or twig 15 May 2018a 10 Sepb 9 Octb 22 Apr 2019a Untreated check 1.76a 2.46a 2.96a 5.08a Sivanto HL Sc + Summer IAP oil 7.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.72a 0.16b 0.44b 0.70b Sivanto Prime SC + Summer IAP oil 14.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.64a 0.70b 0.13b 0.16b Sequoia SC + Summer IAP oil 5.75c + 0.5% 31 Jul 1.62a 0.88b 0.20b 0.20b Actara 25 WG + Summer IAP oil 5.5d + 0.5% 41 Jul 1.60a 0.80b 0.28b 0.90b P > F 0.996 0.016 <0.001 <0.001 F 0.06 2.36 11.5 17.66 df 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aCitricola adult females sampled. bCitricola nymphs sampled. coz (fl) product per acre. doz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Treatment Date Mean no. of citricola scale per leaf or twig 15 May 2018a 10 Sepb 9 Octb 22 Apr 2019a Untreated check 1.76a 2.46a 2.96a 5.08a Sivanto HL Sc + Summer IAP oil 7.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.72a 0.16b 0.44b 0.70b Sivanto Prime SC + Summer IAP oil 14.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.64a 0.70b 0.13b 0.16b Sequoia SC + Summer IAP oil 5.75c + 0.5% 31 Jul 1.62a 0.88b 0.20b 0.20b Actara 25 WG + Summer IAP oil 5.5d + 0.5% 41 Jul 1.60a 0.80b 0.28b 0.90b P > F 0.996 0.016 <0.001 <0.001 F 0.06 2.36 11.5 17.66 df 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Treatment Date Mean no. of citricola scale per leaf or twig 15 May 2018a 10 Sepb 9 Octb 22 Apr 2019a Untreated check 1.76a 2.46a 2.96a 5.08a Sivanto HL Sc + Summer IAP oil 7.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.72a 0.16b 0.44b 0.70b Sivanto Prime SC + Summer IAP oil 14.0c + 0.5% 1 Aug 1.64a 0.70b 0.13b 0.16b Sequoia SC + Summer IAP oil 5.75c + 0.5% 31 Jul 1.62a 0.88b 0.20b 0.20b Actara 25 WG + Summer IAP oil 5.5d + 0.5% 41 Jul 1.60a 0.80b 0.28b 0.90b P > F 0.996 0.016 <0.001 <0.001 F 0.06 2.36 11.5 17.66 df 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 4, 45 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aCitricola adult females sampled. bCitricola nymphs sampled. coz (fl) product per acre. doz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Evaluation of Torac, Warrior, and Coragen for First-Generation Colorado Potato Beetle Management in Wisconsin, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa058

Apple | Malus domestica Codling moth (CM) | Cydia pomonella (L.) emamectin/abamectin-aminomethyl, abamectin benzoate, chlorantraniliprole, spinetoram, GS-omega/kappa-Hxtx-HV1a, Bacillus thuringiensis The objective of this trial was to test the efficacy of various products and rates for limiting Codling moth (CM) in apples. Two-tree plots were established in a 32-yr-old Delicious planting (20 × 10 ft row spacing) at the Trevor Nichols Research Center (Indigo Block). Treatment plots were replicated four times in an RCB design. Applications were made with an FMC 1029 tractor-mounted airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. In addition, foliar maintenance applications of Aprovia, Annihilate, Lannate, Asana, Manzate Pro, Inspire Super, and Captan were applied as covers across the entire block. Glyphosate was banded below the rows for weed control. Applications began 250 DD (lower threshold of 50°F) after CM biofix with subsequent applications every 2 wk (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . CM mean damage (frass) per 30 fruit . CM mean tunnels per 50 fruit . CM mean no. live larvae per 50 fruit . . . . Mid season eval 5 Jul . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Untreated Check 6.8a 29a 3.0a Proclaim 5SG + 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 1ab 11b 0.8a LI-700 SL 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Proclaim OPTI 5WG 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 3ab 11.3b 2.3a LI-700 SL+ 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Altacor 35WG 4 oz ABCDEFG 3.8ab 3b 1.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Delegate 25WG 7 oz ABCDEFG 0.5b 5.8b 0.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 1 pt ABCDEFG 1ab 5.3b 0.3a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 2 pt ABCDEFG 1.5ab 11.8ab 2.0a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . CM mean damage (frass) per 30 fruit . CM mean tunnels per 50 fruit . CM mean no. live larvae per 50 fruit . . . . Mid season eval 5 Jul . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Untreated Check 6.8a 29a 3.0a Proclaim 5SG + 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 1ab 11b 0.8a LI-700 SL 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Proclaim OPTI 5WG 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 3ab 11.3b 2.3a LI-700 SL+ 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Altacor 35WG 4 oz ABCDEFG 3.8ab 3b 1.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Delegate 25WG 7 oz ABCDEFG 0.5b 5.8b 0.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 1 pt ABCDEFG 1ab 5.3b 0.3a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 2 pt ABCDEFG 1.5ab 11.8ab 2.0a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on arcsine square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. ANOVA may not be valid as the data failed Bartlett’s test for homogeneity. A = 18 Jun (CM Biofix + 250DD), B = 2 Jul (2C, A + 14 days), C = 17 Jul (3C, B + 14 days), D = 31 Jul (4C, C + 14 days), E = 14 Aug (5C, 2nd Gen CM Biofix + 250DD + 14 days), F = 28 Aug (6C, E + 14 days), G = 11 Sep (7C, F + 14 days). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . CM mean damage (frass) per 30 fruit . CM mean tunnels per 50 fruit . CM mean no. live larvae per 50 fruit . . . . Mid season eval 5 Jul . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Untreated Check 6.8a 29a 3.0a Proclaim 5SG + 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 1ab 11b 0.8a LI-700 SL 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Proclaim OPTI 5WG 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 3ab 11.3b 2.3a LI-700 SL+ 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Altacor 35WG 4 oz ABCDEFG 3.8ab 3b 1.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Delegate 25WG 7 oz ABCDEFG 0.5b 5.8b 0.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 1 pt ABCDEFG 1ab 5.3b 0.3a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 2 pt ABCDEFG 1.5ab 11.8ab 2.0a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application timing . CM mean damage (frass) per 30 fruit . CM mean tunnels per 50 fruit . CM mean no. live larvae per 50 fruit . . . . Mid season eval 5 Jul . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Harvest eval 24 Sep . Untreated Check 6.8a 29a 3.0a Proclaim 5SG + 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 1ab 11b 0.8a LI-700 SL 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Proclaim OPTI 5WG 4.8 fl oz ABCDEFG 3ab 11.3b 2.3a LI-700 SL+ 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Altacor 35WG 4 oz ABCDEFG 3.8ab 3b 1.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Delegate 25WG 7 oz ABCDEFG 0.5b 5.8b 0.0a LI-700 SL + 0.25% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 1 pt ABCDEFG 1ab 5.3b 0.3a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Spear-Lep 2 pt ABCDEFG 1.5ab 11.8ab 2.0a Bt-K Leprotec + 1 pt ABCDEFG LI-700 SL + 0.125% v: v ABCDEFG Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on arcsine square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. ANOVA may not be valid as the data failed Bartlett’s test for homogeneity. A = 18 Jun (CM Biofix + 250DD), B = 2 Jul (2C, A + 14 days), C = 17 Jul (3C, B + 14 days), D = 31 Jul (4C, C + 14 days), E = 14 Aug (5C, 2nd Gen CM Biofix + 250DD + 14 days), F = 28 Aug (6C, E + 14 days), G = 11 Sep (7C, F + 14 days). Open in new tab A mid-season CM damage evaluation was conducted on 5 Jun by sampling 30 random fruit per plot for CM damage (frass). A harvest evaluation was conducted after the last application. On 24 Sep, 50 fruit were harvested from each plot and were cut in quarters and assessed for CM tunnel damage and live CM larvae. All data are presented as treatment means (Table 1) from raw data, while ANOVA was run on transformed data. Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P < 0.05. Delegate significantly reduced the incidence of CM-damaged fruit at the mid-season evaluation (Table 1). All treatments, except Spear-Lep (2 pt/acre) + Bt-K Leprotec (1 pt/acre), provided significant levels of fruit protection at harvest compared to the untreated check.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bradford, Benjamin, Z;Chapman, Scott, A;Groves, Russell, L

Aphid Control on Blueberries, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa018

Colorado potato beetle | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say Potato | Solanum tuberosum Beauveria bassina, spirotetramat This trial was performed to evaluate the first-generation Colorado potato beetle control of Torac and Torac + PBO Twin-Pack relative to industry standards and an untreated check. This trial was conducted at the University of Wisconsin’s Hancock Agricultural Research Station, located 1.1 miles west of Hancock, Wisconsin (44.112332°N, −89.534886°W), on a loamy sand soil in 2019. Potato Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ B-size tubers were machine planted as a solid planting on April 16, 2019. Four replicates of eight experimental plots were arranged in an RCBD region. Plots measured two rows (6 ft) wide by 20 ft long. Plots were separated by one untreated guard row and 8 ft of tilled ground along rows. The entire trial measured 108 ft wide (including a 12 ft drive alley along the center) by 120 ft long. Standard fertilizer inputs and fungicide treatments were applied to maintain plant health. Experimental insecticide treatments included Torac at a low and high rate, Torac + piperonyl butoxide (PBO), Torac + Warrior II, Warrior II, and Coragen. All treatments included either Silwet, NuFilm P, or methylated seed oil (MSO) added at 0.25% v/v as adjuvants. Foliar applications were performed on Jun 19 after 50% CPB egg hatch was observed, and reapplied 7 d later on Jun 26. Applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi, equipped with a 6 ft boom with 4 flat-fan nozzles (TeeJet XR8002VS) spaced 18 in. apart, and delivering 20 gal/ac while travelling at 3.5 ft/s Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata, populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the center of each plot for the following life stages: adults, egg masses, small larvae (first and second instars), and large larvae (third and fourth instars). CPB counts were performed 2, 6, 13, 22, and 27 d after initial foliar treatment applications. Insect counts were log(x + 1) transformed and percent defoliation ratings were arcsine square root transformed prior to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Treatment main effects were determined using ANOVA. Means separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = 0.05). All plots achieved high levels of emergence and colonization and no signs of phytotoxicity were observed among any of the treatments. First-generation (21 Jun, 25 Jun, 2 Jul) CPB adult counts were generally low and did not vary significantly between treatments (Table 1), except on 2 Jul (P = 0.03). Second-generation (11 Jul, 16 Jul) adult counts were higher on 11 Jul in the experimental treatments relative to the check and significantly higher on 16 Jul (P < 0.0001) due to complete defoliation of the check plots by that time. Peak small larvae (first and second instar) activity occurred on 21 Jun, 25 Jun, and 2 Jul (Table 2), with the Torac + Warrior II treatment performing significantly better than the check on 21 Jun (P = 0.05), the Torac + PBO, Torac + Warrior II, and Coragen treatments outperforming the check on 25 Jun (P = 0.01), and only the Coragen treatment outperforming the check on 2 Jul (P < 0.0001). Peak large larvae activity was observed on 2 Jul and 11 Jul (Table 3), with only the Coragen treatment outperforming the check on 2 Jul (P < 0.0001). On 11 Jul, both the Torac + PBO and Coragen treatments kept large larvae numbers significantly lower than the other experimental treatments (P < 0.0001), but the untreated check plots were completely defoliated at this point, so no comparison to the check can be made for this date. Large differences in plot defoliation were observed starting on 2 Jul (Table 4), with all experimental treatments performing significantly better than the check (P < 0.0001). On 11 Jul, the check plots were completely defoliated, while the lowest defoliation was observed in the Torac + PBO, Torac (high rate), and Coragen plots (P<.0001). By 16 Jul, only the Coragen treatment was maintaining low levels of defoliation (5%), with all other treatments greater than 50% defoliation (P < 0.0001). Overall the Coragen treatment had the best performance well into the second generation, followed by the Torac + PBO treatment, which began to fail by the last count date (16 Jul).1 Table 1. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 5.75a 1.00a 0.00a 1.75a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 4.50a 1.75a 0.25ab 13.25a 92.75b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 3.50a 2.50a 0.50ab 12.00a 70.00b 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 3.00a 2.75a 0.50ab 13.25a 35.75b 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 7.50a 1.25a 0.75ab 13.25a 55.50b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 5.00a 3.50a 0.50ab 5.00a 59.25b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 3.00a 2.50a 2.00b 15.50a 34.00b 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 6.75a 3.50a 1.75ab 6.25a 53.00b P < F 0.05* 0.05 0.03 0.12 <.0001* Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 5.75a 1.00a 0.00a 1.75a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 4.50a 1.75a 0.25ab 13.25a 92.75b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 3.50a 2.50a 0.50ab 12.00a 70.00b 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 3.00a 2.75a 0.50ab 13.25a 35.75b 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 7.50a 1.25a 0.75ab 13.25a 55.50b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 5.00a 3.50a 0.50ab 5.00a 59.25b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 3.00a 2.50a 2.00b 15.50a 34.00b 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 6.75a 3.50a 1.75ab 6.25a 53.00b P < F 0.05* 0.05 0.03 0.12 <.0001* Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 1. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 5.75a 1.00a 0.00a 1.75a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 4.50a 1.75a 0.25ab 13.25a 92.75b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 3.50a 2.50a 0.50ab 12.00a 70.00b 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 3.00a 2.75a 0.50ab 13.25a 35.75b 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 7.50a 1.25a 0.75ab 13.25a 55.50b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 5.00a 3.50a 0.50ab 5.00a 59.25b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 3.00a 2.50a 2.00b 15.50a 34.00b 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 6.75a 3.50a 1.75ab 6.25a 53.00b P < F 0.05* 0.05 0.03 0.12 <.0001* Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 5.75a 1.00a 0.00a 1.75a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 4.50a 1.75a 0.25ab 13.25a 92.75b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 3.50a 2.50a 0.50ab 12.00a 70.00b 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 3.00a 2.75a 0.50ab 13.25a 35.75b 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 7.50a 1.25a 0.75ab 13.25a 55.50b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 5.00a 3.50a 0.50ab 5.00a 59.25b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 3.00a 2.50a 2.00b 15.50a 34.00b 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 6.75a 3.50a 1.75ab 6.25a 53.00b P < F 0.05* 0.05 0.03 0.12 <.0001* Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 2. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 69.25b 222.25b 101.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 25.75ab 64.25a 35.00b 0.00a 0.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 26.75ab 98.75ab 88.00bc 1.75a 0.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 25.00ab 117.75ab 48.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 33.25ab 113.50ab 50.50bc 1.75a 0.00a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 20.25a 96.00ab 137.75c 1.25a 0.00a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 29.75ab 64.00a 41.00bc 2.25a 0.00a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 37.25ab 81.25a 2.00a 0.00a 0.00a P < F 0.04 0.01 <0.0001 0.30 n/a Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 69.25b 222.25b 101.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 25.75ab 64.25a 35.00b 0.00a 0.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 26.75ab 98.75ab 88.00bc 1.75a 0.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 25.00ab 117.75ab 48.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 33.25ab 113.50ab 50.50bc 1.75a 0.00a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 20.25a 96.00ab 137.75c 1.25a 0.00a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 29.75ab 64.00a 41.00bc 2.25a 0.00a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 37.25ab 81.25a 2.00a 0.00a 0.00a P < F 0.04 0.01 <0.0001 0.30 n/a Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 2. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 69.25b 222.25b 101.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 25.75ab 64.25a 35.00b 0.00a 0.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 26.75ab 98.75ab 88.00bc 1.75a 0.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 25.00ab 117.75ab 48.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 33.25ab 113.50ab 50.50bc 1.75a 0.00a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 20.25a 96.00ab 137.75c 1.25a 0.00a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 29.75ab 64.00a 41.00bc 2.25a 0.00a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 37.25ab 81.25a 2.00a 0.00a 0.00a P < F 0.04 0.01 <0.0001 0.30 n/a Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 69.25b 222.25b 101.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 25.75ab 64.25a 35.00b 0.00a 0.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 26.75ab 98.75ab 88.00bc 1.75a 0.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 25.00ab 117.75ab 48.25bc 0.00a 0.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 33.25ab 113.50ab 50.50bc 1.75a 0.00a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 20.25a 96.00ab 137.75c 1.25a 0.00a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 29.75ab 64.00a 41.00bc 2.25a 0.00a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 37.25ab 81.25a 2.00a 0.00a 0.00a P < F 0.04 0.01 <0.0001 0.30 n/a Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 3. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB large larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.00a 10.25b 156.00b 1.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 0.50a 37.50b 17.50bc 1.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 3.50ab 37.25b 38.00cd 4.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.00a 1.25ab 59.50b 64.50cd 4.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 64.50b 52.00cd 4.50a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 62.00b 74.50cd 1.75a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 6.50ab 76.00b 93.25d 4.50a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 1.00b 0.50a 0.00a 5.50ab 0.50a P < F 0.02 0.02 <.0001 <.0001 0.03 Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB large larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.00a 10.25b 156.00b 1.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 0.50a 37.50b 17.50bc 1.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 3.50ab 37.25b 38.00cd 4.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.00a 1.25ab 59.50b 64.50cd 4.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 64.50b 52.00cd 4.50a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 62.00b 74.50cd 1.75a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 6.50ab 76.00b 93.25d 4.50a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 1.00b 0.50a 0.00a 5.50ab 0.50a P < F 0.02 0.02 <.0001 <.0001 0.03 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 3. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB large larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.00a 10.25b 156.00b 1.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 0.50a 37.50b 17.50bc 1.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 3.50ab 37.25b 38.00cd 4.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.00a 1.25ab 59.50b 64.50cd 4.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 64.50b 52.00cd 4.50a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 62.00b 74.50cd 1.75a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 6.50ab 76.00b 93.25d 4.50a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 1.00b 0.50a 0.00a 5.50ab 0.50a P < F 0.02 0.02 <.0001 <.0001 0.03 Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) CPB large larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.00a 10.25b 156.00b 1.00a 0.00a 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 0.50a 37.50b 17.50bc 1.00a 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 3.50ab 37.25b 38.00cd 4.00a 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.00a 1.25ab 59.50b 64.50cd 4.00a 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 64.50b 52.00cd 4.50a 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 4.50ab 62.00b 74.50cd 1.75a 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.00a 6.50ab 76.00b 93.25d 4.50a 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 1.00b 0.50a 0.00a 5.50ab 0.50a P < F 0.02 0.02 <.0001 <.0001 0.03 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 4. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) Proportion defoliation 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.02a 0.02a 0.35c 1.00d 1.00c 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.03a 0.07ab 0.59b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.06ab 0.50bc 0.81bc 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.02a 0.02a 0.06ab 0.58c 0.92bc 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.05ab 0.31abc 0.60b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.09b 0.46bc 0.71b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.02a 0.04ab 0.50bc 0.90bc 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 0.03a 0.01a 0.02a 0.02a 0.05a P < F 0.56 0.03* <0.0001* <0.0001 <0.0001 Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) Proportion defoliation 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.02a 0.02a 0.35c 1.00d 1.00c 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.03a 0.07ab 0.59b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.06ab 0.50bc 0.81bc 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.02a 0.02a 0.06ab 0.58c 0.92bc 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.05ab 0.31abc 0.60b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.09b 0.46bc 0.71b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.02a 0.04ab 0.50bc 0.90bc 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 0.03a 0.01a 0.02a 0.02a 0.05a P < F 0.56 0.03* <0.0001* <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Table 4. Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) Proportion defoliation 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.02a 0.02a 0.35c 1.00d 1.00c 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.03a 0.07ab 0.59b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.06ab 0.50bc 0.81bc 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.02a 0.02a 0.06ab 0.58c 0.92bc 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.05ab 0.31abc 0.60b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.09b 0.46bc 0.71b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.02a 0.04ab 0.50bc 0.90bc 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 0.03a 0.01a 0.02a 0.02a 0.05a P < F 0.56 0.03* <0.0001* <0.0001 <0.0001 Trt no. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adjuvant (0.25% v/v) Proportion defoliation 21 Jun 25 Jun 02 Jul 11 Jul 16 Jul 1 Untreateda 0.02a 0.02a 0.35c 1.00d 1.00c 2 Torac 1.29 ECPBO 14 fl oz5.5 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.03a 0.07ab 0.59b 3 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.06ab 0.50bc 0.81bc 4 Torac 1.29 EC 14 fl oz NuFilm P 0.02a 0.02a 0.06ab 0.58c 0.92bc 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Silwet 0.03a 0.02a 0.05ab 0.31abc 0.60b 6 Torac 1.29 ECWarrior II 2.08 SC 14 fl oz1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.01a 0.09b 0.46bc 0.71b 7 Warrior II 2.08 SC 1.92 fl oz Silwet 0.02a 0.02a 0.04ab 0.50bc 0.90bc 8 Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz MSO 0.03a 0.01a 0.02a 0.02a 0.05a P < F 0.56 0.03* <0.0001* <0.0001 <0.0001 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Open in new tab Footnotes This research was supported in part by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Rodriguez-Saona,, Cesar;Holdcraft,, Robert

Control of Woolly Apple Aphid in Apple, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa048

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Aphids: Illinoia azalea (Mason) This experiment tested the efficacy of five insecticides for controlling aphids in highbush blueberries. The insecticide treatments and rates were Assail 30SG at 5.3 oz/ac, Beleaf 50SG at 4.3 oz/ac, Exirel 10SE at 13.5 and 20 floz/ac (+ Dynamic 0.25% v:v), Movento 240SC at 10 floz/ac (+ Dynamic 0.5% v:v), Sivanto at 4.3 floz/ac, and an untreated control. The experiment was conducted in a mid-season blueberry field, cv. ‘Bluecrop,’ located at the P.E. Marucci Blueberry/Cranberry Center in Chatsworth, New Jersey. Plots consisted of single bushes, with treatments repeated on six plots in a CRB design and separated by at least two buffer bushes and a buffer row. Control bushes received no insecticides. 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 7 June. Aphid-infested terminals were collected on 3 June from a commercial blueberry farm in Hammonton, New Jersey, inserted in florists’ water picks secured on plastic shoeboxes, and enclosed in ventilated 40-dram plastic vials. Terminals were maintained in the lab for 3 days before used in experiments. Two days prior to treatment, an undamaged terminal (20–30 cm long with 5–7 leaves attached) was selected on each bush and enclosed in a gauze bag (Temkin International; Springville, UT, USA). After bags were in place, one adult aphid and nine nymphs were placed on each terminal and the bags were sealed. Aphids were given 36 h to settle on the foliage before treatments were applied. On 7 June, each bag was opened and the foliage was sprayed and allowed to dry for 30 min before being re-sealed. There were six terminals for each treatment, with each terminal considered a replicate. Aphid numbers on the bagged terminals were evaluated four days after treatment on 11 June. There was 2.72 cm (1.07 inches) of precipitation after the treatment and before terminals were removed from the field for evaluation. For evaluation, each bagged terminal was clipped and inserted in a florists’ water pick, then brought back to the lab for evaluation under 3× magnification using a headband lens (OptiVISOR, Donegan Optical Co.; Lenexa, KS, USA). The number of live nymph and adult aphids was recorded separately and used to calculate total live aphids and percent control. Percent control was calculated for each treatment as [1 − (avg. aphids on treated foliage/avg. aphids on control foliage)] × 100. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Fisher’s tests at α = 0.05. Count data were ln(x + 0.1)-transformed prior to analysis. Assail, Movento, and Sivanto reduced the number of aphid nymphs by ≥95% (Table 1). Beleaf and Exirel reduced the number of nymphs by 70–85% compared to control (Table 1). Assail and Sivanto reduced the number of adult aphids by >95% (Table 2). Movento, Beleaf, and Exirel at the high rate also reduced the number of adult aphids by 70–90% compared with control (Table 2). No phytoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatments.2 Table 1. Treatment . Rate/ac . Live aphid nymphs (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.33 ± 0.21D (99) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 5.00 ± 2.13BC (81) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 7.83 ± 2.77AB (70) Exirel SEa 20 floz 7.00 ± 1.93B (73) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 1.33 ± 0.71CD (95) Sivanto 22 floz 0.00 ± 0.00D (100) Control – 26.33 ± 5.52A Treatment . Rate/ac . Live aphid nymphs (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.33 ± 0.21D (99) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 5.00 ± 2.13BC (81) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 7.83 ± 2.77AB (70) Exirel SEa 20 floz 7.00 ± 1.93B (73) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 1.33 ± 0.71CD (95) Sivanto 22 floz 0.00 ± 0.00D (100) Control – 26.33 ± 5.52A Count data were ln(X + 0.1) transformed prior to analysis. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s test, P ≤ 0.05). Numbers in parenthesis are % control = [1 − (avg. treated /avg. control)] × 100. DAT, days after treatment. aExirel treatments include the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.25% v:v. bMovento treatment includes the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.5% v:v. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate/ac . Live aphid nymphs (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.33 ± 0.21D (99) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 5.00 ± 2.13BC (81) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 7.83 ± 2.77AB (70) Exirel SEa 20 floz 7.00 ± 1.93B (73) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 1.33 ± 0.71CD (95) Sivanto 22 floz 0.00 ± 0.00D (100) Control – 26.33 ± 5.52A Treatment . Rate/ac . Live aphid nymphs (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.33 ± 0.21D (99) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 5.00 ± 2.13BC (81) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 7.83 ± 2.77AB (70) Exirel SEa 20 floz 7.00 ± 1.93B (73) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 1.33 ± 0.71CD (95) Sivanto 22 floz 0.00 ± 0.00D (100) Control – 26.33 ± 5.52A Count data were ln(X + 0.1) transformed prior to analysis. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s test, P ≤ 0.05). Numbers in parenthesis are % control = [1 − (avg. treated /avg. control)] × 100. DAT, days after treatment. aExirel treatments include the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.25% v:v. bMovento treatment includes the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.5% v:v. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment . Rate/ac . Live Aphid Adults (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 1.50 ± 0.43C (76) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.13AB (21) Exirel SEa 20 floz 1.67 ± 0.56BC (74) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 0.83 ± 0.40CD (87) Sivanto 22 floz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Control – 6.33 ± 1.12A Treatment . Rate/ac . Live Aphid Adults (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 1.50 ± 0.43C (76) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.13AB (21) Exirel SEa 20 floz 1.67 ± 0.56BC (74) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 0.83 ± 0.40CD (87) Sivanto 22 floz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Control – 6.33 ± 1.12A Count data were ln(X + 0.1) transformed prior to analysis. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s test, P ≤ 0.05). Numbers in parenthesis are % control = [1 − (avg. treated /avg. control)] × 100. DAT, days after treatment. aExirel treatments include the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.25% v:v. bMovento treatment includes the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.5% v:v. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment . Rate/ac . Live Aphid Adults (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 1.50 ± 0.43C (76) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.13AB (21) Exirel SEa 20 floz 1.67 ± 0.56BC (74) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 0.83 ± 0.40CD (87) Sivanto 22 floz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Control – 6.33 ± 1.12A Treatment . Rate/ac . Live Aphid Adults (mean ± SE) . % control . . . 4 DAT . . Assail 30SG 5.3 oz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Beleaf 50SG 4.3 oz 1.50 ± 0.43C (76) Exirel SEa 13.5 floz 5.00 ± 1.13AB (21) Exirel SEa 20 floz 1.67 ± 0.56BC (74) Movento 240SCb 10 floz 0.83 ± 0.40CD (87) Sivanto 22 floz 0.17 ± 0.17D (97) Control – 6.33 ± 1.12A Count data were ln(X + 0.1) transformed prior to analysis. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different (Fisher’s test, P ≤ 0.05). Numbers in parenthesis are % control = [1 − (avg. treated /avg. control)] × 100. DAT, days after treatment. aExirel treatments include the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.25% v:v. bMovento treatment includes the spray adjuvant Dynamic at 0.5% v:v. Open in new tab Footnotes 2 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Cyantraniliprole for the Control of Sweetpotato Weevil, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa060

Apple | Malus domestica Woolly apple aphid (WAA) | Erisoma lanigerum (Hausmann) pyrifluquinazon, spirotetramat, Burkholderia spp This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different rates, timings, and a trunk spray method of insecticide treatments against Woolly apple aphid (WAA). One-tree plots arranged in an RCB design were established in a 21-yr-old ‘Golden Delicious’ (Red Block) apple planting (20 × 14 ft spacing) located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center. Test materials were applied with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. DPX-RDS63 (a neonicotinyl) was applied to promote WAA populations. Regular maintenance foliar applications were applied to all treatments, including Aprovia, Asana, Badge, Battallion, Captan, Inspire Super, Annihilate, Lannate, Manzate Pro, and Topsin. In addition, Round Up was banded below the rows for weed control. Treatments were applied as indicated in Table 1. WAA evaluations were made by inspecting shoots for 2 min on 18 Jun (pre-treatment count), 27 Jun, 6 Jul, 13 Jul, and 15 Aug, with the mean number of live colonies reported (Table 1). While actual counts are presented, ANOVA was run on transformed data. Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P < 0.05. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . WAA live colonies per 2-min count . . . . (Precount) 18 Jun . 27 Jun . 13 Jul . 15 Aug . Untreated 5.8a 2.8a 5.5a 10a Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.3cd 1.5ab 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A 0.5d 2.5a 1.8bc 1d Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.5cd 1.8ab 0.3c 0.8d Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 2bcd 2.8a 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A MSO L 2 pt/a A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A 0.8d 3a 2b 5.8ab MSO L 2 pt A Movento 240SC 9 fl oz C 5ab 1.3ab 0.5bc 0.8d Venerate XC L+ 1 qt C 6a 0.5b 0.5bc 1.5cd NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Venerate L + 2 qt C 4.3abc 1.5ab 2b 5bc NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . WAA live colonies per 2-min count . . . . (Precount) 18 Jun . 27 Jun . 13 Jul . 15 Aug . Untreated 5.8a 2.8a 5.5a 10a Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.3cd 1.5ab 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A 0.5d 2.5a 1.8bc 1d Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.5cd 1.8ab 0.3c 0.8d Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 2bcd 2.8a 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A MSO L 2 pt/a A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A 0.8d 3a 2b 5.8ab MSO L 2 pt A Movento 240SC 9 fl oz C 5ab 1.3ab 0.5bc 0.8d Venerate XC L+ 1 qt C 6a 0.5b 0.5bc 1.5cd NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Venerate L + 2 qt C 4.3abc 1.5ab 2b 5bc NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 31 May (Early Application/Petal Fall), B = 12 Jun (Trunk Spray at First Crawler Stage), C = 19 Jun (Threshold after pre-treatment count). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . WAA live colonies per 2-min count . . . . (Precount) 18 Jun . 27 Jun . 13 Jul . 15 Aug . Untreated 5.8a 2.8a 5.5a 10a Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.3cd 1.5ab 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A 0.5d 2.5a 1.8bc 1d Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.5cd 1.8ab 0.3c 0.8d Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 2bcd 2.8a 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A MSO L 2 pt/a A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A 0.8d 3a 2b 5.8ab MSO L 2 pt A Movento 240SC 9 fl oz C 5ab 1.3ab 0.5bc 0.8d Venerate XC L+ 1 qt C 6a 0.5b 0.5bc 1.5cd NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Venerate L + 2 qt C 4.3abc 1.5ab 2b 5bc NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . WAA live colonies per 2-min count . . . . (Precount) 18 Jun . 27 Jun . 13 Jul . 15 Aug . Untreated 5.8a 2.8a 5.5a 10a Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.3cd 1.5ab 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A 0.5d 2.5a 1.8bc 1d Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 1.5cd 1.8ab 0.3c 0.8d Damoil L 1% v: v B Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz A Superspread 7000 L 0.25% v: v A Pyrifluquinazon L + 3.2 fl oz B 2bcd 2.8a 2b 5.5ab Damoil L 1% v: v B Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A MSO L 2 pt/a A Movento 240SC + 9 fl oz A 0.8d 3a 2b 5.8ab MSO L 2 pt A Movento 240SC 9 fl oz C 5ab 1.3ab 0.5bc 0.8d Venerate XC L+ 1 qt C 6a 0.5b 0.5bc 1.5cd NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Venerate L + 2 qt C 4.3abc 1.5ab 2b 5bc NuFilm P L 0.125% v: v C Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 31 May (Early Application/Petal Fall), B = 12 Jun (Trunk Spray at First Crawler Stage), C = 19 Jun (Threshold after pre-treatment count). Open in new tab Venerate (1 qt) significantly reduced WAA populations by the 27 Jun evaluation (Table 1). All treatments significantly reduced WAA populations by the 13 Jul evaluation. Pyrifluquinazon applied at petal fall timing, petal fall + trunk spray, Movento (threshold), and Venerate (threshold) treatments maintained control of WAA through 15 Aug.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Ichinose,, Katsuya;Shima,, Katsuya

Efficacy of Select Insecticides Against Threecornered Alfalfa Hopper in Peanut, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa001

Potato (sweet) | Lopmoea batatas Sweetpotato weevil (SW) | Cylas formicarius F cyantraniliprole, chlorpyrifos The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of cyantraniliprole for control of sweetpotato weevils (SW) on tuber in a summer cultivation of sweetpotato, comparing with the conventional insecticide management of the pest with two applications of chlorpyriphos in granular formulation, 2 and 4 mo after the planting. The experiment was carried out in a grower’s farm about 3000 m2 in Yaese, about 5 km from the Okinawa Prefectural Agriculture Research Center. On 9 May 2017, fipronil in granular formulation (BASF Japan, Tokyo, Japan) was applied with making ridges at an interval of 80 cm as a conventional preplanting treatment by the farmer. The farm was separated into seven parts after the planting slips of a sweetpotato variety, ‘churakoi-beni’, on this day on each ridge at a 30-cm space. Since the grower did not agree with setting plots without insecticide applications after the planting for control in the same number as the other insecticide treatments, control was assigned to only one part in which three plots were made. In each of the rest six parts, four plots were set and two insecticide treatments were assigned randomly in each part: chlorpyriphos in granular form produced by Nissan Chemical (Tokyo, Japan) or cyantraniliprole of 10.3% by FMC Chemicals (Tokyo, Japan), diluted 4000 times with tap water in volume. Both insecticides were applied two times in this experiment, on 22 Jul and 9 Sep 2017. Thus, two replicates of each insecticide treatment were assigned randomly in each of the six parts. The rest part of the farm was divided into three plots, where no insecticides were treated as control. Each plot covered four ridges, on each of which 26 were planted, and thus, 104 slips were present in each plot. No pesticides other than those examined in this study were applied throughout the cultivation. Three sweetpotato plants were randomly selected in each quadrat on 10 Oct 2017 and dissected to find and count infesting weevils in them. The data obtained after root-square transformation for numeral data and arc-sine for proportional ones were analyzed by ANOVA, followed by Fisher’s protected LSD test at P < 0.05. Cylas formicarius weevils were collected a lot from sweetpotato plants, especially in no-insecticide treatment. Pupae and adults occurred significantly more in the control than in the two insecticide treatments, whereas no significant differences were detected among the latter (Table 1). Although no significant differences were detected in the total number of weevils per plant among the treatments, both insecticides reduced the occurrence of weevils by half or more. Table 1. Insecticide treatment Ratea/ha Weevils per plant Before planting b After planting Larva Pupa Adult Hole Total fipronil not applied 60/0 12.1a 6.2a 5.8a 7.4a 31.4a fipronil chlorpyriphos 60/60 7.8a 0.9b 1.1b 3.0a 12.8a fipronil cyantraniliprolec 60/1000 9.1a 2.0b 0.5b 4.3a 15.9a P > F 0.918 0.006 < 0.001 0.370 0.402 Insecticide treatment Ratea/ha Weevils per plant Before planting b After planting Larva Pupa Adult Hole Total fipronil not applied 60/0 12.1a 6.2a 5.8a 7.4a 31.4a fipronil chlorpyriphos 60/60 7.8a 0.9b 1.1b 3.0a 12.8a fipronil cyantraniliprolec 60/1000 9.1a 2.0b 0.5b 4.3a 15.9a P > F 0.918 0.006 < 0.001 0.370 0.402 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, F-protected LSD). Square-root transformed data used for analysis, nontransformed means shown in the table. aKg product per hectare. bKg product per hectare. cLiter diluted 4,000 times product per hectare. Open in new tab Table 1. Insecticide treatment Ratea/ha Weevils per plant Before planting b After planting Larva Pupa Adult Hole Total fipronil not applied 60/0 12.1a 6.2a 5.8a 7.4a 31.4a fipronil chlorpyriphos 60/60 7.8a 0.9b 1.1b 3.0a 12.8a fipronil cyantraniliprolec 60/1000 9.1a 2.0b 0.5b 4.3a 15.9a P > F 0.918 0.006 < 0.001 0.370 0.402 Insecticide treatment Ratea/ha Weevils per plant Before planting b After planting Larva Pupa Adult Hole Total fipronil not applied 60/0 12.1a 6.2a 5.8a 7.4a 31.4a fipronil chlorpyriphos 60/60 7.8a 0.9b 1.1b 3.0a 12.8a fipronil cyantraniliprolec 60/1000 9.1a 2.0b 0.5b 4.3a 15.9a P > F 0.918 0.006 < 0.001 0.370 0.402 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, F-protected LSD). Square-root transformed data used for analysis, nontransformed means shown in the table. aKg product per hectare. bKg product per hectare. cLiter diluted 4,000 times product per hectare. Open in new tab Almost all tubers were infested in plants of control and three-fourths even in the conventional management by chlorpyriphos (Table 2). Better results were obtained by cyantraniliprole treatment. All measurements other than the weight of damaged tuber were significantly different between control and two chemical treatments, among which no significant differences were obtained in any measurements. Table 2. Insecticide treatmenta Tuber weight (kg/plant) Before planting After planting Total Nondamage Damaged % Nondamaged fipronil not applied 0.072a 0.006a 0.026a 0.6a fipronil chlorpyriphos 0.132ab 0.073b 0.120a 27.5ab fipronil cyantraniliprole 0.161b 0.093b 0.118a 43.0b P > F 0.024 0.001 0.962 0.001 Insecticide treatmenta Tuber weight (kg/plant) Before planting After planting Total Nondamage Damaged % Nondamaged fipronil not applied 0.072a 0.006a 0.026a 0.6a fipronil chlorpyriphos 0.132ab 0.073b 0.120a 27.5ab fipronil cyantraniliprole 0.161b 0.093b 0.118a 43.0b P > F 0.024 0.001 0.962 0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, F-protected LSD). Square-root transformed data used for analyses of total, nondamaged, and damaged tuber weight and arcsine-transformed data used for % of nondamaged tuber, means shown in the table. aInsecticide treatments are the same as in Table 1. Open in new tab Table 2. Insecticide treatmenta Tuber weight (kg/plant) Before planting After planting Total Nondamage Damaged % Nondamaged fipronil not applied 0.072a 0.006a 0.026a 0.6a fipronil chlorpyriphos 0.132ab 0.073b 0.120a 27.5ab fipronil cyantraniliprole 0.161b 0.093b 0.118a 43.0b P > F 0.024 0.001 0.962 0.001 Insecticide treatmenta Tuber weight (kg/plant) Before planting After planting Total Nondamage Damaged % Nondamaged fipronil not applied 0.072a 0.006a 0.026a 0.6a fipronil chlorpyriphos 0.132ab 0.073b 0.120a 27.5ab fipronil cyantraniliprole 0.161b 0.093b 0.118a 43.0b P > F 0.024 0.001 0.962 0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, F-protected LSD). Square-root transformed data used for analyses of total, nondamaged, and damaged tuber weight and arcsine-transformed data used for % of nondamaged tuber, means shown in the table. aInsecticide treatments are the same as in Table 1. Open in new tab No phytotoxicity on plants was confirmed in any insecticide treatments. This research was funded by Kyushu Agricultural Research Center. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Torrance, Ty, N;Abney, Mark, R

Foliar Sprays of Organically Labeled and Experimental Insecticides to Control Asian Citrus Psyllid on Orange, Summer 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa085

Peanut (groundnut) | Arachis hypogaea Threecornered Alfalfa Hopper (TCAH) | Spissistilus festinus (Say) lambda-cyhalothrin, novaluron, bifenthrin, flupyradifurone The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of select insecticides for control of threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH) in peanut. TCAH has a wide host range and is commonly abundant in peanut in the southeastern United States, but little is known concerning the economic impact of its feeding in peanut. Though the insect is often treated with insecticides, efficacy data from trials conducted in Georgia are limited. Peanut ‘GA-16HO’ was planted on 25 Apr 2019, in a single row pattern on 36-inch centers on a commercial farm in Grady County, GA. Plots were two rows wide by 30 ft long; there were two untreated border rows between each plot. Treatments were replicated four times in an RCB design. Insecticides, formulations, and application rates are provided in Table 1. Treatments were applied 11 Jun 2019 as broadcast, foliar sprays with a CO2 backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 15 gal/acre spray at 40 psi with 8002 flat fan nozzles. Two, 3 ft sections of row were sampled with a beat sheet in each plot on each sample date. All TCAH nymphs per 6 ft of row were counted at 3 and 6 DAT. Data were subjected to ANOVA. Mean separations were conducted using Fisher’s Protected LSD, where P < 0.05. Table 1. . . TCAH Nymphs per 6 ft of row . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz form.) . 14 Jun (3 DAT) . 17 Jun (6 DAT) . Untreated Check --- 8.5a 14.6a Diamond 0.83 EC 9.0 6.6ab 20.1a Bifenture 2 EC 5.0 4.6ab 3.9b Warrior II w Zeon 2.08 CS 1.6 6.9ab 8.6ab Sivanto 200 SL 14.0 0.4b 0.0c P>F 0.04 <0.01 . . TCAH Nymphs per 6 ft of row . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz form.) . 14 Jun (3 DAT) . 17 Jun (6 DAT) . Untreated Check --- 8.5a 14.6a Diamond 0.83 EC 9.0 6.6ab 20.1a Bifenture 2 EC 5.0 4.6ab 3.9b Warrior II w Zeon 2.08 CS 1.6 6.9ab 8.6ab Sivanto 200 SL 14.0 0.4b 0.0c P>F 0.04 <0.01 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, FPLSD. Open in new tab Table 1. . . TCAH Nymphs per 6 ft of row . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz form.) . 14 Jun (3 DAT) . 17 Jun (6 DAT) . Untreated Check --- 8.5a 14.6a Diamond 0.83 EC 9.0 6.6ab 20.1a Bifenture 2 EC 5.0 4.6ab 3.9b Warrior II w Zeon 2.08 CS 1.6 6.9ab 8.6ab Sivanto 200 SL 14.0 0.4b 0.0c P>F 0.04 <0.01 . . TCAH Nymphs per 6 ft of row . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz form.) . 14 Jun (3 DAT) . 17 Jun (6 DAT) . Untreated Check --- 8.5a 14.6a Diamond 0.83 EC 9.0 6.6ab 20.1a Bifenture 2 EC 5.0 4.6ab 3.9b Warrior II w Zeon 2.08 CS 1.6 6.9ab 8.6ab Sivanto 200 SL 14.0 0.4b 0.0c P>F 0.04 <0.01 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, FPLSD. Open in new tab At 3 DAT, the mean number of TCAH nymphs in Diamond, Bifenture, and Warrior II w Zeon treated plots did not differ significantly from those in the untreated plots. Sivanto significantly reduced TCAH nymphs compared to the untreated check (95% reduction), but not compared to the other insecticides at 3 DAT. At 6 DAT, the mean number of TCAH nymphs in Diamond and Warrior II w Zeon treated plots did not differ from that in the untreated plots. Bifenture and Sivanto significantly reduced nymphs compared to the untreated check at 6 DAT (73 and 100%, respectively). The mean number of TCAH nymphs was significantly lower in the Sivanto treated plots compared to all of the other treatments at 6 DAT.1 Footnotes 1 No industry funding was used to support the work reported here. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Control of Codling Moth and Navel Orangeworm in Walnut, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa020

Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) | Diaphorina citri Kuwayama Orange | Citrus sinensis Sabadilla alkaloids, spinosad, potassium salts of fatty esters The Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) continues to be the most destructive insect pest in Florida citrus because it is the primary vector of huanglongbing (HLB). Chemical control is relied upon for controlling ACP and insecticides with diverse modes of action are needed for rotation to slow ACP resistance and HLB spread. This trial was conducted in a 9-yr-old orchard at the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center planted with sweet orange ‘Hamlin’ orange trees at a plant density of 308 trees/acre. Trees were irrigated with micro-sprinklers and subjected to the grove standard cultural practices. Young shoots needed for ACP reproduction were induced by mechanical pruning approximately 2 wk before sprays were initiated. Six treatments plus an untreated check were assigned to five-tree plots in an RCB design with four blocks contained within two rows of trees. Two blocks were confined in a single tree row and separated from other blocks by an untreated buffer row. Treatments were applied on 16 Jul using a Durand Wayland AF100-32 air blast speed sprayer operating at 1.9 mph and 300 psi equipped with four (4,4,4,4) John Beane ceramic nozzles delivering 115 gpa. Adult populations were monitored on three trees per plot by conducting a standard ‘tap’ sample four times on each tree. For each sample, adults were counted on a white plastic clipboard placed under a randomly chosen limb struck three times with a short length of PVC pipe. Ten randomly selected shoots per plot were collected on 19, 23, 30 Jul and 5, 13 Aug and examined using a stereomicroscope in the laboratory to count ACP nymphs. Data were subjected to ANOVA with means separated using LSD (P = 0.05). ACP population was low in this trial. Significant reduction in ACP adults compared to the untreated check was observed in the treatment of M-pede on 23 Jul and V10487 on 30 Jul and all treatments but V10433 and Pyganic on 5 Aug (Table 1). On 13 Aug, the V10487 treatment was still providing significant reduction in adults compared with the untreated check. Compared with the untreated check nymphs were significantly less in all treatments except V10433 8 oz/acre rate at 3 DAT (19 Jul) (Table 2). Significant reductions were observed with Entrust, V10487 and M-pede on 23 Jul (7 DAT), and all treatments except Pyganic on 30 Jul (14 DAT). On 5 Aug, nymphs were reduced in all treatments compared with the untreated check except Entrust and M-pede, and only in the V10487 treatment on 13 Aug. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 1. Treatment/Formulation Rate form prod./acre ACP adults/tap sample 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13 Aug Untreated check 0.35 b 0.65 ab 0.75 bcd 0.92 a 0.50 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 0.02 b 0.29 bc 0.54 cde 0.50 b 0.29 bc v10433 8 oz 1.02 a 0.98 a 1.08 ab 0.92 a 0.65 a v10433 11 oz 0.08 b 0.90 a 0.833 abc 0.48 b 0.29 bc V10487 4.6 gal 0.06 b 0.25 bc 0.30 e 0.25 b 0.15 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 0.25 b 0.83 a 1.23 a 0.54 ab 0.27 bc M-pede 2.3 gal 0.08 b 0.17 c 0.35 de 0.40 b 0.38 abc Treatment/Formulation Rate form prod./acre ACP adults/tap sample 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13 Aug Untreated check 0.35 b 0.65 ab 0.75 bcd 0.92 a 0.50 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 0.02 b 0.29 bc 0.54 cde 0.50 b 0.29 bc v10433 8 oz 1.02 a 0.98 a 1.08 ab 0.92 a 0.65 a v10433 11 oz 0.08 b 0.90 a 0.833 abc 0.48 b 0.29 bc V10487 4.6 gal 0.06 b 0.25 bc 0.30 e 0.25 b 0.15 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 0.25 b 0.83 a 1.23 a 0.54 ab 0.27 bc M-pede 2.3 gal 0.08 b 0.17 c 0.35 de 0.40 b 0.38 abc Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/Formulation Rate form prod./acre ACP adults/tap sample 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13 Aug Untreated check 0.35 b 0.65 ab 0.75 bcd 0.92 a 0.50 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 0.02 b 0.29 bc 0.54 cde 0.50 b 0.29 bc v10433 8 oz 1.02 a 0.98 a 1.08 ab 0.92 a 0.65 a v10433 11 oz 0.08 b 0.90 a 0.833 abc 0.48 b 0.29 bc V10487 4.6 gal 0.06 b 0.25 bc 0.30 e 0.25 b 0.15 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 0.25 b 0.83 a 1.23 a 0.54 ab 0.27 bc M-pede 2.3 gal 0.08 b 0.17 c 0.35 de 0.40 b 0.38 abc Treatment/Formulation Rate form prod./acre ACP adults/tap sample 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13 Aug Untreated check 0.35 b 0.65 ab 0.75 bcd 0.92 a 0.50 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 0.02 b 0.29 bc 0.54 cde 0.50 b 0.29 bc v10433 8 oz 1.02 a 0.98 a 1.08 ab 0.92 a 0.65 a v10433 11 oz 0.08 b 0.90 a 0.833 abc 0.48 b 0.29 bc V10487 4.6 gal 0.06 b 0.25 bc 0.30 e 0.25 b 0.15 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 0.25 b 0.83 a 1.23 a 0.54 ab 0.27 bc M-pede 2.3 gal 0.08 b 0.17 c 0.35 de 0.40 b 0.38 abc Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre ACP nymphs/flush 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13-Aug Untreated check 19.85 a 8.00 ab 11.90 a 17.98 a 8.10 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 3.33 b 4.15 c 6.03 b 11.73 ab 5.08 abc v10433 8 oz 17.08 a 5.20 bc 6.50 b 6.33 bc 3.52 bc v10433 11 oz 5.20 b 7.20 ab 6.78 b 4.43 c 1.77 bc V10487 4.6 gal 1.48 b 3.73 c 6.53 b 6.05 bc 1.58 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 6.03 b 9.90 a 11.90 a 7.16 bc 9.85 a M-pede 2.3 gal 3.20 b 3.55 c 5.78 b 11.65 ab 4.56 abc Treatment/formulation Rate/acre ACP nymphs/flush 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13-Aug Untreated check 19.85 a 8.00 ab 11.90 a 17.98 a 8.10 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 3.33 b 4.15 c 6.03 b 11.73 ab 5.08 abc v10433 8 oz 17.08 a 5.20 bc 6.50 b 6.33 bc 3.52 bc v10433 11 oz 5.20 b 7.20 ab 6.78 b 4.43 c 1.77 bc V10487 4.6 gal 1.48 b 3.73 c 6.53 b 6.05 bc 1.58 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 6.03 b 9.90 a 11.90 a 7.16 bc 9.85 a M-pede 2.3 gal 3.20 b 3.55 c 5.78 b 11.65 ab 4.56 abc Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre ACP nymphs/flush 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13-Aug Untreated check 19.85 a 8.00 ab 11.90 a 17.98 a 8.10 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 3.33 b 4.15 c 6.03 b 11.73 ab 5.08 abc v10433 8 oz 17.08 a 5.20 bc 6.50 b 6.33 bc 3.52 bc v10433 11 oz 5.20 b 7.20 ab 6.78 b 4.43 c 1.77 bc V10487 4.6 gal 1.48 b 3.73 c 6.53 b 6.05 bc 1.58 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 6.03 b 9.90 a 11.90 a 7.16 bc 9.85 a M-pede 2.3 gal 3.20 b 3.55 c 5.78 b 11.65 ab 4.56 abc Treatment/formulation Rate/acre ACP nymphs/flush 19 Jul 23 Jul 30 Jul 5 Aug 13-Aug Untreated check 19.85 a 8.00 ab 11.90 a 17.98 a 8.10 ab Entrust SC 6 oz 3.33 b 4.15 c 6.03 b 11.73 ab 5.08 abc v10433 8 oz 17.08 a 5.20 bc 6.50 b 6.33 bc 3.52 bc v10433 11 oz 5.20 b 7.20 ab 6.78 b 4.43 c 1.77 bc V10487 4.6 gal 1.48 b 3.73 c 6.53 b 6.05 bc 1.58 c Pyganic 5.0 EC 17 oz 6.03 b 9.90 a 11.90 a 7.16 bc 9.85 a M-pede 2.3 gal 3.20 b 3.55 c 5.78 b 11.65 ab 4.56 abc Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported partly by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

, Van Steenwyk, Robert A;Peters-Collaer, Stephen, R

Efficacy of Selected Botanical Water Extracts for Rice Water Weevil Control, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa034

Walnut | Juglans spp Codling Moth (CM) | Cydia pomonella (L.), Navel Orangeworm (NOW) | Amyelois transitella (Walker) chlorantraniliprole, abamectin/avermectin B1, spinetoram, methoxyfenozide This study evaluated the efficacy of reduced risk insecticide treatment regimes for control of CM and NOW. The study was conducted in a walnut orchard near Tracy, CA. Three treatment regimes and an untreated check were replicated four times in an RCB design. Each replicate was a single tree. The orchard was planted with 22 ft × 22 ft offset spacing. Materials were applied with a hand-held orchard sprayer operating at 250 psi with a finished spray volume of 250 gal/ac. Applications were based on degree-days (DD). DD were calculated using a single sine horizontal cutoff model with a lower threshold of 10°C and an upper threshold of 31.1°C. Maximum and minimum air temperatures were obtained from the Modesto CIMIS #71 weather station in Stanislaus County, CA. The CM population was monitored weekly from 14 Mar through 14 Sep by placing two pheromone traps high in the tree canopy. Biofix was set on 31 Mar for the first CM generation, 11 Jun for the second CM generation, and 26 Jul for the third CM generation. CM and NOW infestation was determined based on 125 nuts per replicate (500 nuts per treatment) collected at commercial harvest on 21 Sep. Infestation was quantified as none, larvae present, or larvae absent. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Treatment regime no. 1 had significantly lower percent CM present than the grower’s standard and untreated check, while treatment regime no. 2 was not significantly different from any treatment (Table 1). The grower’s standard and untreated check were not significantly different from each other. Treatment regime no. 1 had significantly lower percent CM absent than the untreated control. Treatment regime no. 2 and the grower’s standard were not significantly different from any treatment. Treatment regimens no. 1 and 2 resulted in significantly lower CM total infestation than the untreated control, while treatment regime no. 1 also resulted in significantly better control of CM total than the grower’s standard. The grower’s standard was not significantly different compared to the untreated. All experimental and grower standard treatments had significantly lower mean percent NOW larvae present compared to the untreated check and the experimental and grower standard treatments did not differ from one another. There was no significant difference in mean percent NOW larvae absent or total. The husk split application suppressed the NOW present while NOW absent resulted from infestation prior to the husk split application. There was no significant difference among the treatments in the total infestation for CM and NOW.1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation . . Rate form/acre . App. date . Appl. timing . Percent infested nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . . . NOW . . . Total infested . . . . . . Present . Absent . Total . Present . Absent . Total . . 1) Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 0.20 a 0.80 a 1.00 a 2.00 a 3.40 a 5.40 a 6.40 a Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split 2) Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 1.20 ab 2.00 ab 3.20 ab 0.80 a 2.00 a 2.80 a 6.00 a Intrepid Edge + 18.0 fl. oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Grower’s Standard 2.00 b 2.00 ab 4.00 bc 1.20 a 0.60 a 1.80 a 5.80 a Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SG 4.2 fl. oz Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Untreated check — — — 2.60 b 3.80 b 6.40 c 4.00 b 1.00 a 5.00 a 11.40 a Treatment/formulation . . Rate form/acre . App. date . Appl. timing . Percent infested nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . . . NOW . . . Total infested . . . . . . Present . Absent . Total . Present . Absent . Total . . 1) Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 0.20 a 0.80 a 1.00 a 2.00 a 3.40 a 5.40 a 6.40 a Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split 2) Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 1.20 ab 2.00 ab 3.20 ab 0.80 a 2.00 a 2.80 a 6.00 a Intrepid Edge + 18.0 fl. oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Grower’s Standard 2.00 b 2.00 ab 4.00 bc 1.20 a 0.60 a 1.80 a 5.80 a Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SG 4.2 fl. oz Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Untreated check — — — 2.60 b 3.80 b 6.40 c 4.00 b 1.00 a 5.00 a 11.40 a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Experimental treatments include 0.0625% v/v Dyne-Amic (8 fl. oz/100 gal). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . . Rate form/acre . App. date . Appl. timing . Percent infested nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . . . NOW . . . Total infested . . . . . . Present . Absent . Total . Present . Absent . Total . . 1) Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 0.20 a 0.80 a 1.00 a 2.00 a 3.40 a 5.40 a 6.40 a Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split 2) Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 1.20 ab 2.00 ab 3.20 ab 0.80 a 2.00 a 2.80 a 6.00 a Intrepid Edge + 18.0 fl. oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Grower’s Standard 2.00 b 2.00 ab 4.00 bc 1.20 a 0.60 a 1.80 a 5.80 a Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SG 4.2 fl. oz Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Untreated check — — — 2.60 b 3.80 b 6.40 c 4.00 b 1.00 a 5.00 a 11.40 a Treatment/formulation . . Rate form/acre . App. date . Appl. timing . Percent infested nuts . . . . . . . . . . . . CM . . . NOW . . . Total infested . . . . . . Present . Absent . Total . Present . Absent . Total . . 1) Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 0.20 a 0.80 a 1.00 a 2.00 a 3.40 a 5.40 a 6.40 a Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split 2) Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD 1.20 ab 2.00 ab 3.20 ab 0.80 a 2.00 a 2.80 a 6.00 a Intrepid Edge + 18.0 fl. oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SC 4.2 fl. oz Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Intrepid Edge 18.0 fl. oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Grower’s Standard 2.00 b 2.00 ab 4.00 bc 1.20 a 0.60 a 1.80 a 5.80 a Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 23 Apr 1A 261 DD Altacor 35WG + 4.0 oz 15 May 1B 565 DD Agri-Mek 0.70SG 4.2 fl. oz Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 20 Jun 2A 241 DD Delegate 25WG 6.4 oz 11 Jul 2B 665 DD Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz 15 Aug 3rd 493 DD Intrepid 2F 24.0 fl. oz 15 Sep Husk Split Untreated check — — — 2.60 b 3.80 b 6.40 c 4.00 b 1.00 a 5.00 a 11.40 a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P ≤ 0.05). Experimental treatments include 0.0625% v/v Dyne-Amic (8 fl. oz/100 gal). Open in new tab Footnotes " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Sholl,, Alexander;Pearson,, Rebecca;Ruth,, Katie;Way, M, O

Evaluation of Foliar Applications Including BoteGHA and Movento for the Control of Colonizing Aphids and Leafhoppers on Potato in Wisconsin, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa005

Rice Water Weevil (RWW): Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus Kuschel Rice | Oryza sativa; glaberrima The RWW is a key pest of rice in the Southeastern United States where it is native and in California, Japan, China, and the Korean peninsula where it has been introduced. RWW management is mainly based on application of synthetic insecticides which clearly have environmental drawbacks, so there is incentive for the identification of nonsynthetic control tactics that can improve yields while minimizing environmental impacts. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of selected botanical water extracts to prevent RWW damage to rice. The extracts studied were from foliage of ducksalad (Heteranthera limosa (Swartz)), alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides (Martius)), and dayflower (Commelina communis Linnaeus) which occur commonly in SE Texas rice paddies (Table 2). The test began when the pots were seeded on 17 Jun 2017 and was conducted at the Beaumont Center. The test consisted of four treatments with six replications designed in an RCB. Each replication was a pot 14 cm in diameter and 12 cm tall. Pots were filled with League soil, planted with 6 Presidio seeds each, and fertilized with urea based on Texas rice production practices. Two plants were kept per pot, and pots were watered as needed. Three weeks after rice emergence through soil, pots were flooded. Table 2. Treatment No. of RWW feeding scars/plant No. of leaves/plant No. of immature RWW/pot Untreated 99.7 a 4.9 a 7.0 a Ducksalad 50.7 b 3.9 b 1.0 b Dayflower 28.6 b 3.8 b 0.0 b Alligatorweed 44.7 b 4.3 ab 7.0 a Treatment No. of RWW feeding scars/plant No. of leaves/plant No. of immature RWW/pot Untreated 99.7 a 4.9 a 7.0 a Ducksalad 50.7 b 3.9 b 1.0 b Dayflower 28.6 b 3.8 b 0.0 b Alligatorweed 44.7 b 4.3 ab 7.0 a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment No. of RWW feeding scars/plant No. of leaves/plant No. of immature RWW/pot Untreated 99.7 a 4.9 a 7.0 a Ducksalad 50.7 b 3.9 b 1.0 b Dayflower 28.6 b 3.8 b 0.0 b Alligatorweed 44.7 b 4.3 ab 7.0 a Treatment No. of RWW feeding scars/plant No. of leaves/plant No. of immature RWW/pot Untreated 99.7 a 4.9 a 7.0 a Ducksalad 50.7 b 3.9 b 1.0 b Dayflower 28.6 b 3.8 b 0.0 b Alligatorweed 44.7 b 4.3 ab 7.0 a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Open in new tab The ducksalad treatment was prepared by recording the wet weight of 100 leaves and macerating them in a blender with 300 ml of distilled water and 3 ml of AgriDex (crop oil concentrate). The dayflower and alligatorweed treatments were prepared using the above procedure with weight of leaves equal to that for the ducksalad treatment. On Aug 11, each pot was infested with six adult RWW and treatments were applied using 24 fl oz spray bottles sprayed until runoff. After infestation, plants and insects were caged with transparent polyacetate cylindrical tubes. Ten days after treatment (DAT), the tubes and RWW were removed and adult RWW feeding scars and no. of leaves/plant counted. Thirty-two DAT, pot contents were washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD (P = 0.05). All three botanical treatments significantly reduced the no. of feeding scars/plant (Table 1). There was a significant reduction in the no. of leaves in the ducksalad and dayflower treatments compared with the untreated check, but no phytotoxicity was observed. We do not have an explanation for the differences in the no. of leaves. Ducksalad and dayflower treatments significantly reduced the no. of immature RWW/pot compared to the untreated check. Table 1. Scientific name Common name Heteranthera limosa (Swartz) Ducksalad Alternanthera philxeroides (Martius) Alligatorweed Commelina communis L. Dayflower Scientific name Common name Heteranthera limosa (Swartz) Ducksalad Alternanthera philxeroides (Martius) Alligatorweed Commelina communis L. Dayflower Open in new tab Table 1. Scientific name Common name Heteranthera limosa (Swartz) Ducksalad Alternanthera philxeroides (Martius) Alligatorweed Commelina communis L. Dayflower Scientific name Common name Heteranthera limosa (Swartz) Ducksalad Alternanthera philxeroides (Martius) Alligatorweed Commelina communis L. Dayflower Open in new tab This research was supported by funding from a USDA/NIFA organic rice production grant. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bradford, Benjamin, Z;Chapman, Scott, A;Groves, Russell, L

Control of San Jose Scale in Sweet Cherry, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa011

Potato | Solanum tuberosum Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae Thomas, Green peach aphid | Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Potato leafhopper | Empoasca fabae (Harris) Beauveria bassina, spirotetramat This trial was conducted to evaluate the performance of foliar applications of BoteGHA and Movento for controlling colonizing aphid and leafhopper populations on potato in Wisconsin. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Snowden’ B-size tubers were machine planted on May 9, 2019 on the grounds of the Langlade County Airport (45.156639°N, −89.113850°W), 1 mile northeast of Antigo, Wisconsin, on a silt loam soil. Four replicates of five experimental treatments were arranged in an RCB design. Plots measured two rows (6 ft) wide by 20 ft long. Treatments included one untreated check, a low and high rate of BoteGHA, and a low and high rate of Movento. Movento treatments were mixed with 0.25% v/v nonionic surfactant (NIS). Treatments were initiated on Aug 14 and re-applied on Aug 21. Applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi, equipped with a 6 ft boom with 4 flat-fan nozzles (Tee Jet XR 8002VS) spaced 18 inches apart, and delivering 20 gal/acre while travelling at 3.5 ft/s. Aphid and potato leafhopper adult and nymph populations were assessed on Aug 15, 19, and 27 (1, 5, and 13 d after initial foliar applications, respectively) by visual inspection of 25 randomly selected leaves per plot (aphid and leafhopper nymphs), or by performing 15 sweeps of the plant canopy in each plot using a standard 16 inch sweep net. Insect counts were log(x + 1) transformed prior to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Treatment main effects were determined using ANOVA. Mean separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = 0.05). Aphid counts were significantly lower than the untreated check on Aug 19 (5 d after initial treatment) for the high rate of Movento (Table 1), but no significant differences in aphid counts were observed on Aug 15 or on 27. No significant differences in potato leafhopper adult or nymph counts were observed between any of the treatments and the untreated check on any of the count dates (Table 2).1 Table 1. Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) Aphidsa per 25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 4.00a 12.25b 22.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 1.25a 4.75ab 15.25a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 1.25a 7.00b 13.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 2.25a 5.00ab 5.00a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 1.50a 0.25a 4.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.50 0.01b 0.76b Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) Aphidsa per 25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 4.00a 12.25b 22.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 1.25a 4.75ab 15.25a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 1.25a 7.00b 13.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 2.25a 5.00ab 5.00a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 1.50a 0.25a 4.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.50 0.01b 0.76b Means followed by same letter codes are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aAphids counted include the potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, and the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae. bA significant blocking effect. Open in new tab Table 1. Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) Aphidsa per 25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 4.00a 12.25b 22.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 1.25a 4.75ab 15.25a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 1.25a 7.00b 13.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 2.25a 5.00ab 5.00a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 1.50a 0.25a 4.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.50 0.01b 0.76b Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) Aphidsa per 25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 4.00a 12.25b 22.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 1.25a 4.75ab 15.25a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 1.25a 7.00b 13.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 2.25a 5.00ab 5.00a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 1.50a 0.25a 4.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.50 0.01b 0.76b Means followed by same letter codes are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aAphids counted include the potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, and the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae. bA significant blocking effect. Open in new tab Table 2. Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) PLHa adults/15 sweeps PLHa nymphs/25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 0.50a 0.00a 1.00a 6.25a 7.00a 7.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 0.00a 0.25a 0.75a 4.75a 8.00a 19.75a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 0.25a 1.00a 1.75a 7.75a 9.50a 12.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 0.00a 0.75a 1.00a 2.75a 4.75a 7.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00a 0.50a 0.75a 3.50a 8.50a 7.50a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.17 0.48 0.95 0.66 0.82b 0.16b Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) PLHa adults/15 sweeps PLHa nymphs/25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 0.50a 0.00a 1.00a 6.25a 7.00a 7.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 0.00a 0.25a 0.75a 4.75a 8.00a 19.75a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 0.25a 1.00a 1.75a 7.75a 9.50a 12.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 0.00a 0.75a 1.00a 2.75a 4.75a 7.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00a 0.50a 0.75a 3.50a 8.50a 7.50a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.17 0.48 0.95 0.66 0.82b 0.16b Means followed by same letter codes are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aPotato leafhopper, Empoasca fabae. bA significant blocking effect. Open in new tab Table 2. Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) PLHa adults/15 sweeps PLHa nymphs/25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 0.50a 0.00a 1.00a 6.25a 7.00a 7.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 0.00a 0.25a 0.75a 4.75a 8.00a 19.75a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 0.25a 1.00a 1.75a 7.75a 9.50a 12.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 0.00a 0.75a 1.00a 2.75a 4.75a 7.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00a 0.50a 0.75a 3.50a 8.50a 7.50a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.17 0.48 0.95 0.66 0.82b 0.16b Trt No. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt/acre) PLHa adults/15 sweeps PLHa nymphs/25 leaves 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 15 Aug 19 Aug 27 Aug 1 Untreated check 0.50a 0.00a 1.00a 6.25a 7.00a 7.75a 2 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 22 fl oz 0.00a 0.25a 0.75a 4.75a 8.00a 19.75a 3 BoteGHA 11.3 ES 32 fl oz 0.25a 1.00a 1.75a 7.75a 9.50a 12.00a 4 Movento 2 SC 4.5 fl oz 0.00a 0.75a 1.00a 2.75a 4.75a 7.75a NIS 0.25 % v/v 5 Movento 2 SC 5.0 fl oz 0.00a 0.50a 0.75a 3.50a 8.50a 7.50a NIS 0.25 % v/v P > F 0.17 0.48 0.95 0.66 0.82b 0.16b Means followed by same letter codes are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aPotato leafhopper, Empoasca fabae. bA significant blocking effect. Open in new tab Footnotes This research was supported in part by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Control of Putnam Scale in Blue Crop Blueberry, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa061

Cherry (all varieties) | Prunus spp San Jose Scale (SJS) | Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) spirotetramat, flupyradifurone We evaluated the effects of a pre-bloom application of Sivanto, with or without a petal-fall application of Movento, on San Jose scale density on sweet cherry shoots. One-tree plots were established in a 17-yr-old ‘Hedelfingen’ sweet cherry planting (row spacing 20′ × 15′) located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville MI (Sweet Cherry 4). There were four replicated plots per treatment, set up in an RCB design. Test materials were applied on 7 or 23 May with an FMC 1029 tractor-mounted airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 GPA at 2.5 mph. All plots received the following foliar maintenance applications between 7 May and 22 Oct; Annihalate, Asana, Badge, Bravo Weather Stik, Indar, Lannate, Luna Sensation, Merivon, and Rally. On 30 Jul and 22 Oct, we determined the total number of San Jose Scale (SJS) per 25 randomly selected shoots in each plot. Data were analyzed using ANOVA with means separation by Tukey’s HSD (P = 0.05) after square root transformation. The pre-bloom application of Sivanto significantly reduced the incidence of SJS on cherry shoots compared to the untreated check on 22 Oct (Table 1). Additional Reductions were achieved with the addition of Movento at petal fall.1 Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean San Jose scale per 25 shootsb . . . . . 30 Jul . 22 Oct . Untreated check 0.3a 248.3a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 88b Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 27.5c Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Movento 240 SC + 9 oz B Induce 90 SL 0.25% B Treatment/ formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean San Jose scale per 25 shootsb . . . . . 30 Jul . 22 Oct . Untreated check 0.3a 248.3a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 88b Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 27.5c Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Movento 240 SC + 9 oz B Induce 90 SL 0.25% B ANOVA performed after square-root transformation of the data; original means are shown. aA = 7 May (Pre-bloom), B = 23 May (Petal Fall). bMeans within columns followed by same letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean San Jose scale per 25 shootsb . . . . . 30 Jul . 22 Oct . Untreated check 0.3a 248.3a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 88b Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 27.5c Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Movento 240 SC + 9 oz B Induce 90 SL 0.25% B Treatment/ formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean San Jose scale per 25 shootsb . . . . . 30 Jul . 22 Oct . Untreated check 0.3a 248.3a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 88b Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7 oz A 0a 27.5c Induce 90 SL 0.25% A Movento 240 SC + 9 oz B Induce 90 SL 0.25% B ANOVA performed after square-root transformation of the data; original means are shown. aA = 7 May (Pre-bloom), B = 23 May (Petal Fall). bMeans within columns followed by same letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom, Anthony, H;Isaacs,, Rufus

Efficacy Test of Various Insecticides to Control Scirtothrips dorsalis in Southern Highbush Blueberries

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa033

Putnam Scale | Diaspidiotus ancylus (Putnam) Blueberry | Vaccinium spp buprofezin, flupyradifurone, pyriproxyfen The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of several insecticide rates and timings against Putnam Scale on blueberry. Six bush plots were established in a 8-year-old ‘Blue Crop’ blueberry planting (row spacing 12′ × 4′) located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville MI (Blue Crop Block). There were four replicated plots per treatment, set up in an RCB design. Test materials were applied with an FMC 1029 tractor-mounted airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 GPA at 2.5 mph. Rates and timings of test materials are as outlined in Table 1. In addition, regular maintenance foliar applications were applied to all treatments including Abound F, Alliette WDG, Indar 2F, Luna Tranquility F, and Pristine DF. Also, Callisto L and Karmex 80DF were banded below the rows for weed control. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Appl Code . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . . . . 11 Jul . 15 Aug . 6 Sep . Untreated 71.3 a 83.3 a 81.3 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 30.6 b 32.6 b 28.0 b Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 22.0 b 27.3 b 13.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz A 20.6 b 36.0 b 23.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz B 28.0 b 34.6 b 20.7 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz A 18.0 b 25.3 b 13.3 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz B 19.3 b 24.6 b 13.3 b Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Appl Code . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . . . . 11 Jul . 15 Aug . 6 Sep . Untreated 71.3 a 83.3 a 81.3 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 30.6 b 32.6 b 28.0 b Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 22.0 b 27.3 b 13.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz A 20.6 b 36.0 b 23.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz B 28.0 b 34.6 b 20.7 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz A 18.0 b 25.3 b 13.3 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz B 19.3 b 24.6 b 13.3 b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 21 Jun (Crawler Stage), B = 1 Aug (2nd Crawler Stage). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Appl Code . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . . . . 11 Jul . 15 Aug . 6 Sep . Untreated 71.3 a 83.3 a 81.3 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 30.6 b 32.6 b 28.0 b Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 22.0 b 27.3 b 13.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz A 20.6 b 36.0 b 23.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz B 28.0 b 34.6 b 20.7 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz A 18.0 b 25.3 b 13.3 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz B 19.3 b 24.6 b 13.3 b Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Appl Code . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . Putnam scale % infestation per 50 shoots . . . . 11 Jul . 15 Aug . 6 Sep . Untreated 71.3 a 83.3 a 81.3 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 30.6 b 32.6 b 28.0 b Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 22.0 b 27.3 b 13.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz A 20.6 b 36.0 b 23.3 b Sivanto Prime 200 SL 10.5 fl oz B 28.0 b 34.6 b 20.7 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz A 18.0 b 25.3 b 13.3 b Esteem 35 WP 5 oz B 19.3 b 24.6 b 13.3 b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 21 Jun (Crawler Stage), B = 1 Aug (2nd Crawler Stage). Open in new tab A field evaluation consisting of 50 randomly selected shoots per plot was made on 11 Jul, 15 Aug, and 6 Sep. The number of shoots with Putnam Scale were counted. Results are shown as the percent of shoots with Putnam Scale (Table 1). All data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.05. ANOVA was run on transformed data, while actual counts are presented. All treatment compounds and timings provided significant reductions of Putnam scale infestations in blueberries (Table 1).1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Panthi,, Babu;Liburd,, Oscar;Lahiri,, Sriyanka;Rhodes,, Elena

Insecticide Efficacy Against Corn Earworm in Sweet Corn, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa073

Blueberry | Vaccinium spp Chilli thrips | Scirtothrips dorsalis acetamiprid, flupyradifurone, spinetoram, tolfenpyrad This experiment tested the efficacy of four insecticides for controlling S. dorsalis in southern highbush blueberry. The treatments and rates were AptaTM 15SC (tolfenpyrad) at 27 oz/acre, Assail 30SG (acetamiprid) at 5.3 oz/acre, Delegate WG (spinetoram) at 7 oz/acre, Sivanto Prime (flupyradifurone) at 14 oz/acre, Sivanto Prime with Induce (a nonionic adjuvant, 0.25% v:v) and a non-treated control. All insecticides were used at the recommended label rate for the crop. The experiment was conducted in two blueberry fields, located in Plant City, FL and Clermont, FL with southern highbush cultivars: cv. ‘Arcadia’ and ‘Jewel’, respectively. The experimental design was complete randomized block with six treatments and four replicates. Each plot consisted of five blueberry bushes separated by at least two buffer bushes and a buffer row. Applications were made with a CO2 backpack sprayer, using 2-liter plastic bottles. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 50 gal of volume per acre at 40 psi, using a double-nozzle hand-held wand sprayer yielding 200 ml of volume per bush. Treatments were applied between 8 and 10 AM when thrips activity was low. In both field locations, treatments were applied twice, first on Jun 14, 2019 and second on Jun 28, 2019. Data were collected on Jun 14, 17, 21, 28, Jul 1 and 5 (0, 3, 7, 14, 17, and 21 DAT, respectively). Plant damage rating (0–4 scale: 0, no damage; 1, <10% bronzing of leaf and petiole; 2, 10–30% damage (bronzing); 3, 31–60% damage (bronzing and curling); and 4, >60% damage (bronzing, curling and darkening) and leaf samples, from inner three blueberry bushes from each plot. Six young blueberry shoots containing 5–6 leaves were collected in Ziploc bags, stored in cooler and transported to Small Fruits IPM lab in Wimauma, FL for processing the samples. Samples were washed with 70% ethanol solution to dislodge thrips from leaves and filtered through fine nylon mesh cloth. Thrips were identified as Scirtothrips dorsalis, then adults and larvae were counted. An ANOVA was conducted using generalized linear mixed model with block as random effect and sample date as repeated measure in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc. 2018). Damage ratings were fitted to normal distribution and thrips counts were fitted to Poisson distribution with log link. Thrips count and standard error of mean shown in table are back-transformed obtained through ilink function in SAS 9.4 and standard errors of the estimate of the mean are approximate values obtained by applying the delta method. Tukey’s HSD test was used for post hoc mean comparisons. Tolfenpyrad and spinetoram significantly suppressed S. dorsalis adults and larvae compared to non-treated control, although effects were variable for two cultivars, two thrips stages and sampling dates (Table 1). Prior to insecticide application on Jun 14, there were no differences in S. dorsalis adults and larvae and damage ratings among treatments. In leaf samples, there were a greater number of larvae than adults. Scirtothrips dorsalis adults and larvae were significantly affected by treatment and sample date and their interaction. The effect of insecticides on S. dorsalis adults and larvae did not differ among sample dates except in the field with cv. ‘Jewel’ where larval population among treatments differed only on Jun 28 (14 DAT); Assail had fewer larvae than non-treated control on this date. All other samples were pooled across sampling dates to compare the seasonal mean values. Delegate had significantly fewer adults and larva than non-treated control in the field with cv. ‘Arcadia’ for the seasonal mean, whereas in field with cv. ‘Jewel’, Apta had significantly fewer adults than non-treated control. In both cases, the effects of Apta and Delegate were similar on adults and larva on seasonal means. Although the effect of Sivanto was not significantly different from non-treated control, it did better when applied without adjuvant. Table 1. Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Number of chilli thrips per shoot sample (SEM) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATa . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . Stage=adult cv. ‘Arcadia’ Apta 27 0.04 (0.04) 0.88 (0.22) 0.63 (0.18) 0.08 (0.07) 0.58 (0.18) 0.26 (0.09)ab Assail 5.3 0.21 (0.11) 0.63 (0.18) 0.42 (0.15) 0.88 (0.22) 0.42 (0.15) 0.46 (0.09)ab Delegate 7 0.04 (0.05) 0.38 (0.14) 0.50 (0.16) 0.04 (0.04) 0.21 (0.11) 0.15 (0.06)b Sivanto 14 0.25 (0.12) 0.79 (0.20) 0.42 (0.15) 0.79 (0.20) 0.25 (0.12) 0.44 (0.09)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.13) 0.75 (0.20) 0.58 (0.18) 0.54 (0.17) 0.33 (0.13) 0.48 (0.09)ab Control - 0.21 (0.11) 0.96 (0.23) 1.08 (0.24) 0.67 (0.19) 0.79 (0.20) 0.65 (0.12)a F 1.55 1.20 2.99 5.51 0.89 2.75 P 0.23 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.51 0.02 Stage=adult cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.20 (0.12) 0.36 (0.17) 0.56 (0.22) 0.08 (0.07) 0.48 (0.20) 0.27 (0.10)b Assail 5.3 0.67 (0.25) 0.56 (0.22) 0.79 (0.27) 0.67 (0.25) 0.99 (0.32) 0.72 (0.18)a Delegate 7 0.12 (0.09) 0.32 (0.16) 0.67 (0.25) 0.75 (0.26) 0.75 (0.26) 0.43 (0.13)ab Sivanto 14 0.64 (0.24) 0.75 (0.26) 0.71 (0.26) 0.36 (0.17) 1.03 (0.33) 0.66 (0.17)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.71 (0.26) 0.87 (0.29) 0.91 (0.30) 0.60 (0.23) 0.87 (0.29) 0.78 (0.19)a Control - 0.52 (0.21) 0.91 (0.30) 0.91 (0.30) 0.44 (0.19) 1.27 (0.38) 0.75 (0.19)a F 1.55 2.26 0.55 1.63 1.46 2.96 P 0.23 0.10 0.74 0.21 0.26 0.02 Stage=larva cv. ‘Arcadia Apta 27 0.33 (0.23) 1.61 (0.53)bc 2.72 (0.71)ab 1.07 (0.43) 3.17 (0.78)ab 1.37 (0.32)ab Assail 5.3 0.04 (0.08) 2.10 (0.61)a-c 4.16 (0.91)ab 2.35 (0.65) 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.25 (0.55)ab Delegate 7 0.66 (0.33) 0.49 (0.29)c 1.40 (0.49)b 0.87 (0.38) 1.73 (0.55) b 0.93 (0.24)b Sivanto 14 0.08 (0.12) 3.59 (0.83)ab 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.73 (0.55) 3.05 (0.76)ab 1.41 (0.47)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.23) 5.11 (1.03)a 4.20 (0.92)ab 3.50 (0.82) 2.93 (0.74)ab 2.36 (0.49)a Control - 0.62 (0.32) 4.33 (0.93) ab 5.81 (1.12)a 3.13 (0.77) 5.32 (1.06) a 3.04 (0.54)a F 2.93 5.22 2.35 5.32 2.14 4.97 P 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.00 Stage=larva cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.24 (0.18) 0.55 (0.29) 5.66 (1.46)ab 0.43 (0.26) 2.16 (0.70) 0.93 (0.28) Assail 5.3 0.24 (0.18) 2.24 (0.72) 2.47 (0.77)c 0.63 (0.32) 3.73 (1.05) 1.25 (0.36) Delegate 7 0.16 (0.15) 0.51 (0.28) 3.61 (1.02)bc 0.82 (0.37) 3.61 (1.02) 0.97 (0.31) Sivanto 14 0.31 (0.21) 1.02 (0.43) 5.85 (1.50)ab 0.16 (0.15) 2.55 (0.79) 0.94 (0.31) Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.39 (0.24) 1.57 (0.56) 7.66 (1.88)a 0.86 (0.38) 2.47 (0.77) 1.59 (0.42) Control - 0.67 (0.33) 1.14 (0.46) 6.64 (1.67)ab 0.35 (0.23) 3.34 (0.96) 1.43 (0.39) F 1.59 2.70 2.87 1.77 1.12 1.34 P 0.22 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.39 0.26 Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Number of chilli thrips per shoot sample (SEM) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATa . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . Stage=adult cv. ‘Arcadia’ Apta 27 0.04 (0.04) 0.88 (0.22) 0.63 (0.18) 0.08 (0.07) 0.58 (0.18) 0.26 (0.09)ab Assail 5.3 0.21 (0.11) 0.63 (0.18) 0.42 (0.15) 0.88 (0.22) 0.42 (0.15) 0.46 (0.09)ab Delegate 7 0.04 (0.05) 0.38 (0.14) 0.50 (0.16) 0.04 (0.04) 0.21 (0.11) 0.15 (0.06)b Sivanto 14 0.25 (0.12) 0.79 (0.20) 0.42 (0.15) 0.79 (0.20) 0.25 (0.12) 0.44 (0.09)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.13) 0.75 (0.20) 0.58 (0.18) 0.54 (0.17) 0.33 (0.13) 0.48 (0.09)ab Control - 0.21 (0.11) 0.96 (0.23) 1.08 (0.24) 0.67 (0.19) 0.79 (0.20) 0.65 (0.12)a F 1.55 1.20 2.99 5.51 0.89 2.75 P 0.23 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.51 0.02 Stage=adult cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.20 (0.12) 0.36 (0.17) 0.56 (0.22) 0.08 (0.07) 0.48 (0.20) 0.27 (0.10)b Assail 5.3 0.67 (0.25) 0.56 (0.22) 0.79 (0.27) 0.67 (0.25) 0.99 (0.32) 0.72 (0.18)a Delegate 7 0.12 (0.09) 0.32 (0.16) 0.67 (0.25) 0.75 (0.26) 0.75 (0.26) 0.43 (0.13)ab Sivanto 14 0.64 (0.24) 0.75 (0.26) 0.71 (0.26) 0.36 (0.17) 1.03 (0.33) 0.66 (0.17)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.71 (0.26) 0.87 (0.29) 0.91 (0.30) 0.60 (0.23) 0.87 (0.29) 0.78 (0.19)a Control - 0.52 (0.21) 0.91 (0.30) 0.91 (0.30) 0.44 (0.19) 1.27 (0.38) 0.75 (0.19)a F 1.55 2.26 0.55 1.63 1.46 2.96 P 0.23 0.10 0.74 0.21 0.26 0.02 Stage=larva cv. ‘Arcadia Apta 27 0.33 (0.23) 1.61 (0.53)bc 2.72 (0.71)ab 1.07 (0.43) 3.17 (0.78)ab 1.37 (0.32)ab Assail 5.3 0.04 (0.08) 2.10 (0.61)a-c 4.16 (0.91)ab 2.35 (0.65) 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.25 (0.55)ab Delegate 7 0.66 (0.33) 0.49 (0.29)c 1.40 (0.49)b 0.87 (0.38) 1.73 (0.55) b 0.93 (0.24)b Sivanto 14 0.08 (0.12) 3.59 (0.83)ab 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.73 (0.55) 3.05 (0.76)ab 1.41 (0.47)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.23) 5.11 (1.03)a 4.20 (0.92)ab 3.50 (0.82) 2.93 (0.74)ab 2.36 (0.49)a Control - 0.62 (0.32) 4.33 (0.93) ab 5.81 (1.12)a 3.13 (0.77) 5.32 (1.06) a 3.04 (0.54)a F 2.93 5.22 2.35 5.32 2.14 4.97 P 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.00 Stage=larva cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.24 (0.18) 0.55 (0.29) 5.66 (1.46)ab 0.43 (0.26) 2.16 (0.70) 0.93 (0.28) Assail 5.3 0.24 (0.18) 2.24 (0.72) 2.47 (0.77)c 0.63 (0.32) 3.73 (1.05) 1.25 (0.36) Delegate 7 0.16 (0.15) 0.51 (0.28) 3.61 (1.02)bc 0.82 (0.37) 3.61 (1.02) 0.97 (0.31) Sivanto 14 0.31 (0.21) 1.02 (0.43) 5.85 (1.50)ab 0.16 (0.15) 2.55 (0.79) 0.94 (0.31) Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.39 (0.24) 1.57 (0.56) 7.66 (1.88)a 0.86 (0.38) 2.47 (0.77) 1.59 (0.42) Control - 0.67 (0.33) 1.14 (0.46) 6.64 (1.67)ab 0.35 (0.23) 3.34 (0.96) 1.43 (0.39) F 1.59 2.70 2.87 1.77 1.12 1.34 P 0.22 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.39 0.26 Means followed by same letters within the same columns are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD. Means in columns with no letters are not significantly different from each other. aSecond spray date. b0.25% v.v adjuvant. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Number of chilli thrips per shoot sample (SEM) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATa . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . Stage=adult cv. ‘Arcadia’ Apta 27 0.04 (0.04) 0.88 (0.22) 0.63 (0.18) 0.08 (0.07) 0.58 (0.18) 0.26 (0.09)ab Assail 5.3 0.21 (0.11) 0.63 (0.18) 0.42 (0.15) 0.88 (0.22) 0.42 (0.15) 0.46 (0.09)ab Delegate 7 0.04 (0.05) 0.38 (0.14) 0.50 (0.16) 0.04 (0.04) 0.21 (0.11) 0.15 (0.06)b Sivanto 14 0.25 (0.12) 0.79 (0.20) 0.42 (0.15) 0.79 (0.20) 0.25 (0.12) 0.44 (0.09)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.13) 0.75 (0.20) 0.58 (0.18) 0.54 (0.17) 0.33 (0.13) 0.48 (0.09)ab Control - 0.21 (0.11) 0.96 (0.23) 1.08 (0.24) 0.67 (0.19) 0.79 (0.20) 0.65 (0.12)a F 1.55 1.20 2.99 5.51 0.89 2.75 P 0.23 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.51 0.02 Stage=adult cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.20 (0.12) 0.36 (0.17) 0.56 (0.22) 0.08 (0.07) 0.48 (0.20) 0.27 (0.10)b Assail 5.3 0.67 (0.25) 0.56 (0.22) 0.79 (0.27) 0.67 (0.25) 0.99 (0.32) 0.72 (0.18)a Delegate 7 0.12 (0.09) 0.32 (0.16) 0.67 (0.25) 0.75 (0.26) 0.75 (0.26) 0.43 (0.13)ab Sivanto 14 0.64 (0.24) 0.75 (0.26) 0.71 (0.26) 0.36 (0.17) 1.03 (0.33) 0.66 (0.17)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.71 (0.26) 0.87 (0.29) 0.91 (0.30) 0.60 (0.23) 0.87 (0.29) 0.78 (0.19)a Control - 0.52 (0.21) 0.91 (0.30) 0.91 (0.30) 0.44 (0.19) 1.27 (0.38) 0.75 (0.19)a F 1.55 2.26 0.55 1.63 1.46 2.96 P 0.23 0.10 0.74 0.21 0.26 0.02 Stage=larva cv. ‘Arcadia Apta 27 0.33 (0.23) 1.61 (0.53)bc 2.72 (0.71)ab 1.07 (0.43) 3.17 (0.78)ab 1.37 (0.32)ab Assail 5.3 0.04 (0.08) 2.10 (0.61)a-c 4.16 (0.91)ab 2.35 (0.65) 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.25 (0.55)ab Delegate 7 0.66 (0.33) 0.49 (0.29)c 1.40 (0.49)b 0.87 (0.38) 1.73 (0.55) b 0.93 (0.24)b Sivanto 14 0.08 (0.12) 3.59 (0.83)ab 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.73 (0.55) 3.05 (0.76)ab 1.41 (0.47)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.23) 5.11 (1.03)a 4.20 (0.92)ab 3.50 (0.82) 2.93 (0.74)ab 2.36 (0.49)a Control - 0.62 (0.32) 4.33 (0.93) ab 5.81 (1.12)a 3.13 (0.77) 5.32 (1.06) a 3.04 (0.54)a F 2.93 5.22 2.35 5.32 2.14 4.97 P 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.00 Stage=larva cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.24 (0.18) 0.55 (0.29) 5.66 (1.46)ab 0.43 (0.26) 2.16 (0.70) 0.93 (0.28) Assail 5.3 0.24 (0.18) 2.24 (0.72) 2.47 (0.77)c 0.63 (0.32) 3.73 (1.05) 1.25 (0.36) Delegate 7 0.16 (0.15) 0.51 (0.28) 3.61 (1.02)bc 0.82 (0.37) 3.61 (1.02) 0.97 (0.31) Sivanto 14 0.31 (0.21) 1.02 (0.43) 5.85 (1.50)ab 0.16 (0.15) 2.55 (0.79) 0.94 (0.31) Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.39 (0.24) 1.57 (0.56) 7.66 (1.88)a 0.86 (0.38) 2.47 (0.77) 1.59 (0.42) Control - 0.67 (0.33) 1.14 (0.46) 6.64 (1.67)ab 0.35 (0.23) 3.34 (0.96) 1.43 (0.39) F 1.59 2.70 2.87 1.77 1.12 1.34 P 0.22 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.39 0.26 Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Number of chilli thrips per shoot sample (SEM) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATa . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . Stage=adult cv. ‘Arcadia’ Apta 27 0.04 (0.04) 0.88 (0.22) 0.63 (0.18) 0.08 (0.07) 0.58 (0.18) 0.26 (0.09)ab Assail 5.3 0.21 (0.11) 0.63 (0.18) 0.42 (0.15) 0.88 (0.22) 0.42 (0.15) 0.46 (0.09)ab Delegate 7 0.04 (0.05) 0.38 (0.14) 0.50 (0.16) 0.04 (0.04) 0.21 (0.11) 0.15 (0.06)b Sivanto 14 0.25 (0.12) 0.79 (0.20) 0.42 (0.15) 0.79 (0.20) 0.25 (0.12) 0.44 (0.09)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.13) 0.75 (0.20) 0.58 (0.18) 0.54 (0.17) 0.33 (0.13) 0.48 (0.09)ab Control - 0.21 (0.11) 0.96 (0.23) 1.08 (0.24) 0.67 (0.19) 0.79 (0.20) 0.65 (0.12)a F 1.55 1.20 2.99 5.51 0.89 2.75 P 0.23 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.51 0.02 Stage=adult cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.20 (0.12) 0.36 (0.17) 0.56 (0.22) 0.08 (0.07) 0.48 (0.20) 0.27 (0.10)b Assail 5.3 0.67 (0.25) 0.56 (0.22) 0.79 (0.27) 0.67 (0.25) 0.99 (0.32) 0.72 (0.18)a Delegate 7 0.12 (0.09) 0.32 (0.16) 0.67 (0.25) 0.75 (0.26) 0.75 (0.26) 0.43 (0.13)ab Sivanto 14 0.64 (0.24) 0.75 (0.26) 0.71 (0.26) 0.36 (0.17) 1.03 (0.33) 0.66 (0.17)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.71 (0.26) 0.87 (0.29) 0.91 (0.30) 0.60 (0.23) 0.87 (0.29) 0.78 (0.19)a Control - 0.52 (0.21) 0.91 (0.30) 0.91 (0.30) 0.44 (0.19) 1.27 (0.38) 0.75 (0.19)a F 1.55 2.26 0.55 1.63 1.46 2.96 P 0.23 0.10 0.74 0.21 0.26 0.02 Stage=larva cv. ‘Arcadia Apta 27 0.33 (0.23) 1.61 (0.53)bc 2.72 (0.71)ab 1.07 (0.43) 3.17 (0.78)ab 1.37 (0.32)ab Assail 5.3 0.04 (0.08) 2.10 (0.61)a-c 4.16 (0.91)ab 2.35 (0.65) 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.25 (0.55)ab Delegate 7 0.66 (0.33) 0.49 (0.29)c 1.40 (0.49)b 0.87 (0.38) 1.73 (0.55) b 0.93 (0.24)b Sivanto 14 0.08 (0.12) 3.59 (0.83)ab 3.59 (0.83)ab 1.73 (0.55) 3.05 (0.76)ab 1.41 (0.47)ab Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.33 (0.23) 5.11 (1.03)a 4.20 (0.92)ab 3.50 (0.82) 2.93 (0.74)ab 2.36 (0.49)a Control - 0.62 (0.32) 4.33 (0.93) ab 5.81 (1.12)a 3.13 (0.77) 5.32 (1.06) a 3.04 (0.54)a F 2.93 5.22 2.35 5.32 2.14 4.97 P 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.00 Stage=larva cv. ‘Jewel’ Apta 27 0.24 (0.18) 0.55 (0.29) 5.66 (1.46)ab 0.43 (0.26) 2.16 (0.70) 0.93 (0.28) Assail 5.3 0.24 (0.18) 2.24 (0.72) 2.47 (0.77)c 0.63 (0.32) 3.73 (1.05) 1.25 (0.36) Delegate 7 0.16 (0.15) 0.51 (0.28) 3.61 (1.02)bc 0.82 (0.37) 3.61 (1.02) 0.97 (0.31) Sivanto 14 0.31 (0.21) 1.02 (0.43) 5.85 (1.50)ab 0.16 (0.15) 2.55 (0.79) 0.94 (0.31) Sivanto+adjuvant b 0.39 (0.24) 1.57 (0.56) 7.66 (1.88)a 0.86 (0.38) 2.47 (0.77) 1.59 (0.42) Control - 0.67 (0.33) 1.14 (0.46) 6.64 (1.67)ab 0.35 (0.23) 3.34 (0.96) 1.43 (0.39) F 1.59 2.70 2.87 1.77 1.12 1.34 P 0.22 0.06 0.04 0.18 0.39 0.26 Means followed by same letters within the same columns are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD. Means in columns with no letters are not significantly different from each other. aSecond spray date. b0.25% v.v adjuvant. Open in new tab Plants treated with insecticides had significantly less damage than control at seasonal means, except in field with cv. ‘Jewel’ where Sivanto+adjuvant had similar damage as control plots (Table 2). Delegate in both fields and Apta in field with cv. ‘Jewel’ accounted for lowest amount of damage than all other treatments. The amount of damage in plants receiving Delegate was significantly lower than control plots on Jun 17 (3 DAT) and 21 (7 DAT) but was not different on Jun 28 (14 DAT). After the second foliar insecticide application on Jun 28, plants sprayed with Delegate were able to overcome damage, and damage was significantly lower than control plots on Jul 1 (17 DAT) and 5 (21 DAT). The amount of damage in plants receiving Apta was consistently lower than control plots except on Jun 17 (3 DAT) in field with cv. ‘Jewel’, where damage was similar with control plots. Both Apta and Delegate performed better than other insecticides, although Apta performed better in field with cv. ‘Jewel’ compared to cv. ‘Arcadia’. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 2. Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Mean damage rating (0–4 scalea) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATb . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . cv. Arcadia Apta 27 0.6c 0.6c 0.4b 0.5c 0.5b 0.5cd Assail 5.3 1b 1b 0.4b 0.5c 0.3b 0.6c Delegate 7 0.4c 0.2d 0.6ab 0.3c 0.3b 0.4d Sivanto 14 1.3a 1.2b 0.6ab 1ab 0.5b 0.9b Sivanto+adjuvant c 1.2ab 1.7a 0.8a 0.9b 0.6b 1.1b Control - 1.4a 1.9a 0.6ab 1.3a 1.1a 1.3a F 17.84 46.45 2.68 14.96 9.40 72.42 P 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 cv. Jewel Apta 27 1.8a–c 0.4c 0.1a 0.2d 0.2bc 0.6d Assail 5.3 1.7c 1.2ab 0.2a 1ab 0.4a-c 0.9bc Delegate 7 1.5c 0.4c 0.2a 0.4cd 0.2c 0.5d Sivanto 14 1.8bc 0.9b 0.2a 0.7bc 0.6a–c 0.8c Sivanto+adjuvant c 2.2ab 1ab 0.4a 1.3a 0.6ab 1.1ab Control - 2.3a 1.4a 0.4a 0.8bc 0.8a 1.1a F 5.20 9.54 1.10 9.51 3.33 24.52 P 0.000 0.000 0.364 0.000 0.007 0.000 Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Mean damage rating (0–4 scalea) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATb . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . cv. Arcadia Apta 27 0.6c 0.6c 0.4b 0.5c 0.5b 0.5cd Assail 5.3 1b 1b 0.4b 0.5c 0.3b 0.6c Delegate 7 0.4c 0.2d 0.6ab 0.3c 0.3b 0.4d Sivanto 14 1.3a 1.2b 0.6ab 1ab 0.5b 0.9b Sivanto+adjuvant c 1.2ab 1.7a 0.8a 0.9b 0.6b 1.1b Control - 1.4a 1.9a 0.6ab 1.3a 1.1a 1.3a F 17.84 46.45 2.68 14.96 9.40 72.42 P 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 cv. Jewel Apta 27 1.8a–c 0.4c 0.1a 0.2d 0.2bc 0.6d Assail 5.3 1.7c 1.2ab 0.2a 1ab 0.4a-c 0.9bc Delegate 7 1.5c 0.4c 0.2a 0.4cd 0.2c 0.5d Sivanto 14 1.8bc 0.9b 0.2a 0.7bc 0.6a–c 0.8c Sivanto+adjuvant c 2.2ab 1ab 0.4a 1.3a 0.6ab 1.1ab Control - 2.3a 1.4a 0.4a 0.8bc 0.8a 1.1a F 5.20 9.54 1.10 9.51 3.33 24.52 P 0.000 0.000 0.364 0.000 0.007 0.000 Means followed by same letters within the same columns are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD. aDamage ratings (scale of 0 = no damage, 1 = <10%, 2 = 10–30%, 3 = 31–60%, and 4 = >60% damage). bsecond spray date. c0.25% v.v adjuvant. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Mean damage rating (0–4 scalea) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATb . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . cv. Arcadia Apta 27 0.6c 0.6c 0.4b 0.5c 0.5b 0.5cd Assail 5.3 1b 1b 0.4b 0.5c 0.3b 0.6c Delegate 7 0.4c 0.2d 0.6ab 0.3c 0.3b 0.4d Sivanto 14 1.3a 1.2b 0.6ab 1ab 0.5b 0.9b Sivanto+adjuvant c 1.2ab 1.7a 0.8a 0.9b 0.6b 1.1b Control - 1.4a 1.9a 0.6ab 1.3a 1.1a 1.3a F 17.84 46.45 2.68 14.96 9.40 72.42 P 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 cv. Jewel Apta 27 1.8a–c 0.4c 0.1a 0.2d 0.2bc 0.6d Assail 5.3 1.7c 1.2ab 0.2a 1ab 0.4a-c 0.9bc Delegate 7 1.5c 0.4c 0.2a 0.4cd 0.2c 0.5d Sivanto 14 1.8bc 0.9b 0.2a 0.7bc 0.6a–c 0.8c Sivanto+adjuvant c 2.2ab 1ab 0.4a 1.3a 0.6ab 1.1ab Control - 2.3a 1.4a 0.4a 0.8bc 0.8a 1.1a F 5.20 9.54 1.10 9.51 3.33 24.52 P 0.000 0.000 0.364 0.000 0.007 0.000 Treatment . Rate per acre (oz) . Mean damage rating (0–4 scalea) . . . . . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DATb . 17 DAT . 21 DAT . Seasonal mean . cv. Arcadia Apta 27 0.6c 0.6c 0.4b 0.5c 0.5b 0.5cd Assail 5.3 1b 1b 0.4b 0.5c 0.3b 0.6c Delegate 7 0.4c 0.2d 0.6ab 0.3c 0.3b 0.4d Sivanto 14 1.3a 1.2b 0.6ab 1ab 0.5b 0.9b Sivanto+adjuvant c 1.2ab 1.7a 0.8a 0.9b 0.6b 1.1b Control - 1.4a 1.9a 0.6ab 1.3a 1.1a 1.3a F 17.84 46.45 2.68 14.96 9.40 72.42 P 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 cv. Jewel Apta 27 1.8a–c 0.4c 0.1a 0.2d 0.2bc 0.6d Assail 5.3 1.7c 1.2ab 0.2a 1ab 0.4a-c 0.9bc Delegate 7 1.5c 0.4c 0.2a 0.4cd 0.2c 0.5d Sivanto 14 1.8bc 0.9b 0.2a 0.7bc 0.6a–c 0.8c Sivanto+adjuvant c 2.2ab 1ab 0.4a 1.3a 0.6ab 1.1ab Control - 2.3a 1.4a 0.4a 0.8bc 0.8a 1.1a F 5.20 9.54 1.10 9.51 3.33 24.52 P 0.000 0.000 0.364 0.000 0.007 0.000 Means followed by same letters within the same columns are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD. aDamage ratings (scale of 0 = no damage, 1 = <10%, 2 = 10–30%, 3 = 31–60%, and 4 = >60% damage). bsecond spray date. c0.25% v.v adjuvant. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticide and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Owens,, David;Deidesheimer,, Joseph;Stubbs,, Cody

Fuller Rose Beetle Response to Insecticides, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa099

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Corn Earworm (CEW) | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) chlorantraniliprole, spinetoram, lambda-cyhalothrin, beta-cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, indoxacarb, zeta-cypermethrin There is a well-documented decline in pyrethroid and Bt trait efficacy for corn earworm (CEW) in sweet corn in recent years. There were two objectives of this study: evaluate pyrethroid efficacy and pyrethroid rotations in sweet corn and to compare insecticide efficacy in Bt-traited sweet corn. Sweet corn var ‘Obsession’ and ‘Obsession II’ was planted on 24 Jun at the Carvel Research and Education Center in Georgetown, DE at a seeding rate of 24,000 seeds per acre. All treatments were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer powering a single-row boom equipped with two D2 tips and #25 cores spaced 4 inches apart and offset from each other at an angle. The boom was calibrated to deliver 40 GPA at 38 PSI and was held sideways to apply nozzle output directly to the ear. The NIS adjuvant Induce (Helena Chemical Co., Collierville, TN) was added to every treatment at a rate of 1 pt per 100 gal spray volume. The first block of ‘Obsession’ consisted of 3 row plots 25-ft long arranged in an RCBD with eight treatments and four replicates. The third row was chopped out immediately prior to silking. Treatments were applied on 8 Aug, 11 Aug, 14 Aug, 17 Aug, 20 Aug, and 23 Aug. The second block of sweet corn was planted adjacent to the first and consisted of eight rows of ‘Obsession’ and eight rows of ‘Obsession II’; plots in each were 2, 25-ft rows without guard rows, three treatments, and four replicates. Treatments were applied on 8 Aug, 11 Aug, 14 Aug, 17 Aug, 21 Aug, and 23 Aug. Treatments were applied according to university recommendations based upon nearby pheromone trap capture. Twenty-five ears from each plot were harvested on 28-Aug and graded for Lepidopteran damage. Ears with damage were categorized as clean ears, processing ears (clean ears plus ears with tip damage <1″ from the end) or damaged ears (ears with worm damage >1″ from the end). CEW were categorized as small, medium, and large. Total CEW includes worms that completed development and exited the corn, as evidenced by large feeding area and an exit hole in the side of the husk. All treatments reduced the number of earworms per 25 ears compared to the untreated check. Avaunt eVo plots had an intermediate number of worms between the untreated and all other treatments. Baythroid XL resulted in more clean ears than other pyrethroids and was equivalent to a Besiege/Warrior rotation. The ‘IPM’ treatment resulted in intermediate protection between the best treatments and pyrethroids but was better than Coragen alone (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . UTC ___ ___ 5.3a 14.3a 10.3a 41.3a 0.0d 13.9c 86.1a Prevathon 0.43 SC 14.0a 1–6 3.0ab 3.5bc 2.0b 9.8c 38.0bc 83.0a 17.0c Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 0.5b 1.5c 1.0b 4.0c 63.0a 88.0a 12.0c Baythroid XL 2.8a 1–6 0.5b 2.0c 1.0b 5.3c 64.0a 85.0a 15.0c Asana XL 9.6a 1–6 2.0ab 2.8c 1.8b 11.3c 34.0bc 69.0ab 31.0bc Avaunt eVo 3.5a 1–6 3.8ab 9.3ab 3.8b 21.5b 7.0d 54.0b 46.0b Mustang Maxx 4.0a 1–6 2.0ab 4.5bc 2.3b 11.3c 30.0c 73.0ab 27.0bc Coragen 1.67 SC Radiant Warrior II 5.0a 6.0a 1.92a 1,2,3 4 5,6 0.8b 2.5c 2.0b 7.0c 48.0ab 81.0abc 19.0c P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . UTC ___ ___ 5.3a 14.3a 10.3a 41.3a 0.0d 13.9c 86.1a Prevathon 0.43 SC 14.0a 1–6 3.0ab 3.5bc 2.0b 9.8c 38.0bc 83.0a 17.0c Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 0.5b 1.5c 1.0b 4.0c 63.0a 88.0a 12.0c Baythroid XL 2.8a 1–6 0.5b 2.0c 1.0b 5.3c 64.0a 85.0a 15.0c Asana XL 9.6a 1–6 2.0ab 2.8c 1.8b 11.3c 34.0bc 69.0ab 31.0bc Avaunt eVo 3.5a 1–6 3.8ab 9.3ab 3.8b 21.5b 7.0d 54.0b 46.0b Mustang Maxx 4.0a 1–6 2.0ab 4.5bc 2.3b 11.3c 30.0c 73.0ab 27.0bc Coragen 1.67 SC Radiant Warrior II 5.0a 6.0a 1.92a 1,2,3 4 5,6 0.8b 2.5c 2.0b 7.0c 48.0ab 81.0abc 19.0c P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey-Kramer HSD. afl oz/A Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . UTC ___ ___ 5.3a 14.3a 10.3a 41.3a 0.0d 13.9c 86.1a Prevathon 0.43 SC 14.0a 1–6 3.0ab 3.5bc 2.0b 9.8c 38.0bc 83.0a 17.0c Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 0.5b 1.5c 1.0b 4.0c 63.0a 88.0a 12.0c Baythroid XL 2.8a 1–6 0.5b 2.0c 1.0b 5.3c 64.0a 85.0a 15.0c Asana XL 9.6a 1–6 2.0ab 2.8c 1.8b 11.3c 34.0bc 69.0ab 31.0bc Avaunt eVo 3.5a 1–6 3.8ab 9.3ab 3.8b 21.5b 7.0d 54.0b 46.0b Mustang Maxx 4.0a 1–6 2.0ab 4.5bc 2.3b 11.3c 30.0c 73.0ab 27.0bc Coragen 1.67 SC Radiant Warrior II 5.0a 6.0a 1.92a 1,2,3 4 5,6 0.8b 2.5c 2.0b 7.0c 48.0ab 81.0abc 19.0c P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . UTC ___ ___ 5.3a 14.3a 10.3a 41.3a 0.0d 13.9c 86.1a Prevathon 0.43 SC 14.0a 1–6 3.0ab 3.5bc 2.0b 9.8c 38.0bc 83.0a 17.0c Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 0.5b 1.5c 1.0b 4.0c 63.0a 88.0a 12.0c Baythroid XL 2.8a 1–6 0.5b 2.0c 1.0b 5.3c 64.0a 85.0a 15.0c Asana XL 9.6a 1–6 2.0ab 2.8c 1.8b 11.3c 34.0bc 69.0ab 31.0bc Avaunt eVo 3.5a 1–6 3.8ab 9.3ab 3.8b 21.5b 7.0d 54.0b 46.0b Mustang Maxx 4.0a 1–6 2.0ab 4.5bc 2.3b 11.3c 30.0c 73.0ab 27.0bc Coragen 1.67 SC Radiant Warrior II 5.0a 6.0a 1.92a 1,2,3 4 5,6 0.8b 2.5c 2.0b 7.0c 48.0ab 81.0abc 19.0c P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey-Kramer HSD. afl oz/A Open in new tab In the second block, there were no differences between treatments among the two varieties in terms of the number of total worms or ear damage. The Besiege/Warrior rotation provided better protection than Warrior alone. There was no impact of the Bt trait on treatment efficacy (Table 2). No phytotoxicity was observed following any treatment.1 Table 2. Variety . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/Acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . ‘Obsession’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 3.0 7.5 7.5 41.0 0.0b 9.0b 91.0a Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 1.5 3.0 2.5 12.5 36.0a 76.0a 24.0b Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 1.3 1.3 1.0 5.0 60.0a 88.0a 12.0b ‘Obsession 2’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 5.5 10.8 6.5 32.0 2.0 29.0 71.0 Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 6.5 4.5 2.3 16.8 29.0 64.0 36.0 Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 3.0 1.5 0.5 6.5 55.0 87.0 13.0 P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Variety . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/Acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . ‘Obsession’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 3.0 7.5 7.5 41.0 0.0b 9.0b 91.0a Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 1.5 3.0 2.5 12.5 36.0a 76.0a 24.0b Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 1.3 1.3 1.0 5.0 60.0a 88.0a 12.0b ‘Obsession 2’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 5.5 10.8 6.5 32.0 2.0 29.0 71.0 Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 6.5 4.5 2.3 16.8 29.0 64.0 36.0 Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 3.0 1.5 0.5 6.5 55.0 87.0 13.0 P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey-Kramer HSD. afl oz/A. Open in new tab Table 2. Variety . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/Acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . ‘Obsession’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 3.0 7.5 7.5 41.0 0.0b 9.0b 91.0a Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 1.5 3.0 2.5 12.5 36.0a 76.0a 24.0b Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 1.3 1.3 1.0 5.0 60.0a 88.0a 12.0b ‘Obsession 2’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 5.5 10.8 6.5 32.0 2.0 29.0 71.0 Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 6.5 4.5 2.3 16.8 29.0 64.0 36.0 Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 3.0 1.5 0.5 6.5 55.0 87.0 13.0 P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Variety . Treatment/Formulation . Rate/Acre . App. No. . Small CEW . Medium CEW . Large CEW . Total . % Clean ears . % Processing ears . % Damaged ears . ‘Obsession’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 3.0 7.5 7.5 41.0 0.0b 9.0b 91.0a Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 1.5 3.0 2.5 12.5 36.0a 76.0a 24.0b Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 1.3 1.3 1.0 5.0 60.0a 88.0a 12.0b ‘Obsession 2’ Untreated Check ____ ____ 5.5 10.8 6.5 32.0 2.0 29.0 71.0 Warrior II 1.92a 1–6 6.5 4.5 2.3 16.8 29.0 64.0 36.0 Besiege Warrior II 10.0a 1.92a 1,3,5 2,4,6 3.0 1.5 0.5 6.5 55.0 87.0 13.0 P>F 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey-Kramer HSD. afl oz/A. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Insecticide Efficacy Against Alfalfa Weevil, 2018 And 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa017

Fuller rose beetle | Naupactus cervinus Boheman Orange | Citrus sinensis Fuller rose beetle adults feed on leaves and damage the new flush of top-worked trees. The beetle itself does not generally cause economic damage to citrus but the presence of viable eggs on fruit exported to other countries can be a quarantine concern. A field experiment was conducted in a 48-yr-old ‘Atwood’ navel orange block at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California, to test the efficacy of insecticides to kill adults and minimize egg laying. Insecticides were applied in an RCB design to 10 trees per treatment with blocking based on tree rows using a 100-gallon high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation at 200 psi in 500 gpa. Foliar treatments were first applied on 16 and 17 Aug 2018 and treatments were repeated on 16 and 17 Oct. All the fruit from each tree was harvested during 3 to 31 Jan 2019. The number of fruit per tree was recorded. Each fruit was examined for live Fuller rose beetle eggs by lifting the calyx with a small scoop and the presence of eggs was recorded. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA after testing for an NS block effect. Means for the percentage of fruit with live eggs were transformed with arcsine square root(x) and the means were separated according to Fischer’s protected least significant difference test (P = 0.05). All treatments significantly reduced the percentage of fruits with live Fuller rose beetle eggs compared with the untreated trees (Table 1). There were no significant differences between the insecticide treatments. None of the treatments completely eliminated Fuller rose beetle eggs.1 Table 1. Treatment/ Formulation Applic. date Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. fruit per tree % Fruit with live eggs Untreated Control 905 ± 98a 1.55 ± 0.72a Sevin XLR 17 Aug, 17 Oct 160.0a 1010 ± 57a 0.24 ± 0.13b Minecto Pro SC + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 12.0a + 0.5% 888 ± 59a 0.30 ± 0.16b Exirel 10 SE + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 20.5a + 0.5% 964 ± 98a 0.10 ± 0.05b Actara 25 WP 17 Aug, 17 Oct 5.5b 864 ± 38a 0.10 ± 0.04b F4,45 0.66 5.65 P 0.623 <0.001 Treatment/ Formulation Applic. date Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. fruit per tree % Fruit with live eggs Untreated Control 905 ± 98a 1.55 ± 0.72a Sevin XLR 17 Aug, 17 Oct 160.0a 1010 ± 57a 0.24 ± 0.13b Minecto Pro SC + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 12.0a + 0.5% 888 ± 59a 0.30 ± 0.16b Exirel 10 SE + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 20.5a + 0.5% 964 ± 98a 0.10 ± 0.05b Actara 25 WP 17 Aug, 17 Oct 5.5b 864 ± 38a 0.10 ± 0.04b F4,45 0.66 5.65 P 0.623 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after arcsine square root (x) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ Formulation Applic. date Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. fruit per tree % Fruit with live eggs Untreated Control 905 ± 98a 1.55 ± 0.72a Sevin XLR 17 Aug, 17 Oct 160.0a 1010 ± 57a 0.24 ± 0.13b Minecto Pro SC + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 12.0a + 0.5% 888 ± 59a 0.30 ± 0.16b Exirel 10 SE + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 20.5a + 0.5% 964 ± 98a 0.10 ± 0.05b Actara 25 WP 17 Aug, 17 Oct 5.5b 864 ± 38a 0.10 ± 0.04b F4,45 0.66 5.65 P 0.623 <0.001 Treatment/ Formulation Applic. date Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean no. fruit per tree % Fruit with live eggs Untreated Control 905 ± 98a 1.55 ± 0.72a Sevin XLR 17 Aug, 17 Oct 160.0a 1010 ± 57a 0.24 ± 0.13b Minecto Pro SC + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 12.0a + 0.5% 888 ± 59a 0.30 ± 0.16b Exirel 10 SE + IAP Summer oil 16 Aug, 16 Oct 20.5a + 0.5% 964 ± 98a 0.10 ± 0.05b Actara 25 WP 17 Aug, 17 Oct 5.5b 864 ± 38a 0.10 ± 0.04b F4,45 0.66 5.65 P 0.623 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after arcsine square root (x) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Price, Steven, J;Gale, Jody, A;Ramirez, Ricardo, A

Efficacy of Selected Insecticides for Managing Aphids in Cotton, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa094

Alfalfa | Medicago sativa Alfalfa weevil (AW) | Hypera postica (Gyllenhal) chlorpyrifos, lambda-cyhalothrin, dimethoate, malathion/carbophos, zeta-cypermethrin, indoxacarb The objective of the study was to evaluate insecticide efficacy for the management of alfalfa weevil (AW) larvae under Intermountain West growing conditions, specifically Utah. Field trials were conducted in on-farm commercial alfalfa hay fields in Monroe and Price, Utah during 2018 and 2019, respectively. An RCB design was used consisting of four replicates per treatment with an untreated control plot and seven insecticide treatments during 2018, and five insecticide treatments during 2019 (insecticide treatments and rates detailed in Tables 1 and 2). Plots measured 10 feet by 30 feet. Treatments were applied 22 May 2018 and 31 May 2019 using a Bell Spray Inc. JR-201S-JR handheld CO2 boom sprayer fitted with six TJ-8002VS nozzles, spaced 16-inches apart, operating at a target 20 PSI and 17 gallons per acre spray volume. AW populations were assessed by pooling five 180° sweeps using a standard 15-inch sweep net down the center of each plot. During 2018, samples were collected on 29 May (7 DAT), 5 Jun (14 DAT), and 12 Jun (21 DAT). During 2019, samples were collected on 3 Jun (3 DAT), 14 Jun (14 DAT), 21 Jun (21 DAT), and 28 Jun (28 DAT). Samples were placed in labeled bags, stored in a cooler for transport, and then frozen until processed in the laboratory. Data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA using the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Studio) followed by Tukey’s HSD posthoc means comparisons using transformed data where appropriate. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 7 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,d . Untreated Check - 28.50a 9.75ab 19.5a 19.25a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 2.00cd 2.50b 6.50a 3.67c 80.95a Dimethoate 4E EC 16.0 20.50ab 25.00a 18.75a 21.41a −11.25a Malathion 5EC 24.0 28.75a 19.75a 17.75a 22.08a −14.72a Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 25.50ab 23.50a 17.25a 22.08a −14.72a Steward 1.25EC 10.0 0.70d 2.50b 8.50a 3.92c 79.65a Steward 1.25EC 5.0 22.00ab 9.75ab 15.75a 15.83ab 17.75a Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 9.50bc 6.75ab 6.25a 7.5bc 61.04a P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0316 <0.0001 0.0088 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 7 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,d . Untreated Check - 28.50a 9.75ab 19.5a 19.25a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 2.00cd 2.50b 6.50a 3.67c 80.95a Dimethoate 4E EC 16.0 20.50ab 25.00a 18.75a 21.41a −11.25a Malathion 5EC 24.0 28.75a 19.75a 17.75a 22.08a −14.72a Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 25.50ab 23.50a 17.25a 22.08a −14.72a Steward 1.25EC 10.0 0.70d 2.50b 8.50a 3.92c 79.65a Steward 1.25EC 5.0 22.00ab 9.75ab 15.75a 15.83ab 17.75a Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 9.50bc 6.75ab 6.25a 7.5bc 61.04a P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0316 <0.0001 0.0088 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; Tukey’s HSD, P = 0.05. aDAT = days after treatment. bPTA = post-treatment average. cPTA % Control = post-treatment average % control. dSquare-root transformed data were used in analyses; non-transformed means are shown. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 7 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,d . Untreated Check - 28.50a 9.75ab 19.5a 19.25a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 2.00cd 2.50b 6.50a 3.67c 80.95a Dimethoate 4E EC 16.0 20.50ab 25.00a 18.75a 21.41a −11.25a Malathion 5EC 24.0 28.75a 19.75a 17.75a 22.08a −14.72a Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 25.50ab 23.50a 17.25a 22.08a −14.72a Steward 1.25EC 10.0 0.70d 2.50b 8.50a 3.92c 79.65a Steward 1.25EC 5.0 22.00ab 9.75ab 15.75a 15.83ab 17.75a Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 9.50bc 6.75ab 6.25a 7.5bc 61.04a P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0316 <0.0001 0.0088 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 7 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,d . Untreated Check - 28.50a 9.75ab 19.5a 19.25a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 2.00cd 2.50b 6.50a 3.67c 80.95a Dimethoate 4E EC 16.0 20.50ab 25.00a 18.75a 21.41a −11.25a Malathion 5EC 24.0 28.75a 19.75a 17.75a 22.08a −14.72a Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 25.50ab 23.50a 17.25a 22.08a −14.72a Steward 1.25EC 10.0 0.70d 2.50b 8.50a 3.92c 79.65a Steward 1.25EC 5.0 22.00ab 9.75ab 15.75a 15.83ab 17.75a Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 9.50bc 6.75ab 6.25a 7.5bc 61.04a P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0316 <0.0001 0.0088 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; Tukey’s HSD, P = 0.05. aDAT = days after treatment. bPTA = post-treatment average. cPTA % Control = post-treatment average % control. dSquare-root transformed data were used in analyses; non-transformed means are shown. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 3 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . 28 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,e . Untreated check - 347.75a 222.50a 550.50a 240.5a 340.31a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 16.25b 6.25cd 16.50b 7.25c 11.56c 96.60c Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 32.25b 6.50d 15.00b 5.5c 14.81c 95.65c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 80.00b 69.50ab 177.00ab 79.25ab 101.44b 70.19a Steward 1.25EC 6.7 51.25b 41.75ab 60.00b 43.75bc 49.19b 85.55b Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 20.50b 25.25bc 21.75b 46.75ab 28.56b 91.61bc P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 3 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . 28 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,e . Untreated check - 347.75a 222.50a 550.50a 240.5a 340.31a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 16.25b 6.25cd 16.50b 7.25c 11.56c 96.60c Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 32.25b 6.50d 15.00b 5.5c 14.81c 95.65c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 80.00b 69.50ab 177.00ab 79.25ab 101.44b 70.19a Steward 1.25EC 6.7 51.25b 41.75ab 60.00b 43.75bc 49.19b 85.55b Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 20.50b 25.25bc 21.75b 46.75ab 28.56b 91.61bc P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; Tukey’s HSD, P = 0.05. aDAT = days after treatment. bPTA = post-treatment average. cPTA % Control = post-treatment average % control. dLog (X+1) transformed data used in analyses, non-transformed means are shown. eSquare-root transformed used in analysis; non-transformed means are shown. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 3 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . 28 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,e . Untreated check - 347.75a 222.50a 550.50a 240.5a 340.31a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 16.25b 6.25cd 16.50b 7.25c 11.56c 96.60c Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 32.25b 6.50d 15.00b 5.5c 14.81c 95.65c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 80.00b 69.50ab 177.00ab 79.25ab 101.44b 70.19a Steward 1.25EC 6.7 51.25b 41.75ab 60.00b 43.75bc 49.19b 85.55b Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 20.50b 25.25bc 21.75b 46.75ab 28.56b 91.61bc P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (oz form.) . Alfalfa weevil larvae per 5 sweeps . . . 3 DATa,d . 14 DATd . 21 DATd . 28 DATd . PTAb,d . PTA % Controlc,e . Untreated check - 347.75a 222.50a 550.50a 240.5a 340.31a - Cobalt Advanced 2.632EC 24.0 16.25b 6.25cd 16.50b 7.25c 11.56c 96.60c Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 32.25b 6.50d 15.00b 5.5c 14.81c 95.65c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 80.00b 69.50ab 177.00ab 79.25ab 101.44b 70.19a Steward 1.25EC 6.7 51.25b 41.75ab 60.00b 43.75bc 49.19b 85.55b Whirlwind 4EC 24.0 20.50b 25.25bc 21.75b 46.75ab 28.56b 91.61bc P>F <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; Tukey’s HSD, P = 0.05. aDAT = days after treatment. bPTA = post-treatment average. cPTA % Control = post-treatment average % control. dLog (X+1) transformed data used in analyses, non-transformed means are shown. eSquare-root transformed used in analysis; non-transformed means are shown. Open in new tab In 2018, AW populations were well below the economic threshold (20 larvae per sweep) in the untreated control plots throughout the trial. Specifically, AW at the start of the trial was 5.7 larvae per sweep. There were significant differences in AW suppression across all treatments and sample periods (Table 1). Treatments producing the highest levels of control 7 DAT were Steward (10 oz.) and Cobalt (24 oz.). Whirlwind (24 oz.) provided moderate control while dimethoate, Steward (5 oz.), Mustang Maxx (4 oz.), and malathion (5 oz.) did not provide significant control (Table 1, see 7 DAT column). Compared to the untreated control, this pattern remained until 21 DAT when statistical differences were no longer detectable. Overall, Cobalt plots were similar to the high rate of Steward (Table 1 see PTA column). The high rate of Steward (10 oz.) significantly reduced AW compared to the untreated control overall (Table 1). Whirlwind provided moderate but significant control. Several products including Mustang Maxx and Malathion provided no noticeable suppression in comparison to controls. In addition, plots treated with Steward at a reduced rate (5 oz.) had significantly more larvae compared to the high rate (see Table 1, PTA column) and was not significantly different than the untreated control. It is important to note, however, that AW populations were low and variable throughout the trial and although post-hoc testing of % control data did not exhibit statistically significant groupings (see Table 1, PTA % control column), our results may not reflect the efficacy targeting higher AW densities. In 2019, AW populations in untreated controls were much higher than in 2018 and were well above the economic threshold. Specifically, AW had a recorded 77.72 larvae per sweep at the start of the trial in untreated control plots. All treatments suppressed AW populations compared to the untreated control plots across all sample dates (Table 2, see PTA column). At 3 DAT, all treatments were providing statistically significant levels of control compared to the untreated control. By 7 DAT continuing to 28 DAT, Cobalt (24 oz.) and Mustang Maxx (4 oz.) provided the highest level of control (Table 2, see individual columns of respective times, PTA column, and PTA % control column). Whirlwind (24 oz.), Steward (11.3 oz.), and Steward (6.7 oz.) performed similarly beginning 7 DAT and provided similar efficacy until 28 DAT. Cobalt, Mustang Maxx, and Whirlwind provided high levels of AW control across all sample dates compared to untreated controls (Table 2, see PTA column). Moreover, the high (11.3 oz.) and low (6.7 oz.) rates of Steward significantly reduced AW compared to the control. There was no significant difference in larval densities between the rates of Steward.1 Footnotes 1 This project was partially funded by the Utah State University Extension Grants program and USDA-NIFA-AFRP proposal no. 2016-06097. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Babu,, Arun;Reisig, Dominic, D

Seed Corn Maggot Control in Onions in the Columbia Basin

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa031

Cotton aphid | Aphis gossypii Glover Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp bifenthrin, dicrotophos, pymetrozine, imidacloprid, cyantraniliprole, spirotetramat, pyrifluquinazon, dinotefuran, flonicamid, sulfoxaflor, thiamethoxam, flupyradifurone, afidopyropen, acetamiprid A field trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of selected insecticides for managing cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover, in nonirrigated cotton crop at the Revels Farms near Everetts, NC. The field was planted with ‘Stoneville 5020GLT’ cotton on 5 May 2019 at a seeding rate of 50,000 seeds/acre. Individual plots were 4 rows by 30 ft long with a 36-inch spacing between row centers. The plots were arranged in an RCB design with 17 treatments including an untreated check (Table 1), and treatments were replicated four times. The plots received insecticide treatments on 18 Jul 2019. Insecticide treatments were carried out using a pressurized backpack and a spray boom, fitted with TeeJet TX-10 cone spray tips spaced 36 inches apart delivering 10 GPA carrier volume at 40 psi pressure above the canopy. Post treatment aphid counts were taken on 22 Jul, 25 Jul, and 1 Aug; 4, 7, and 14 DAT, respectively. To estimate the cotton aphid density, the fifth leaf from the plant top were sampled from 10 random plants per plot and total aphid counts were noted. To normalize the data distribution, A. gossypii counts from 4 DAT were square-root (x + 1) transformed, and 7 and 14 DAT were log10(x + 1) transformed before analysis. Data were analyzed using ANOVA (PROC MIXED, SAS v. 9.4), and mean separations were carried out using Fisher’s LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Untransformed means are presented (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean aphid counts/10 leaves 22 Jula 4 DAT 25 Jula 7 DAT 1. Untreated check 478.20a 110.80a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 352.00ab 100.50ab 3. Bidrin 8E 8.0b 279.00abc 35.00def 4. Fulfill 50WG 2.75c 168.75abc 55.75abcd 5. Admire Pro 4.0F 1.7b 140.50abc 60.50abcd 6. Exirel 0.83SE 17.0b 127.00abc 39.75abcde 7. Movento 2SC 5.0b 125.25bc 68.25abc 8. PQZ 20SC 3.2b 106.75bc 33.00abcde 9. Venom 70SG 3.0c 83.00c 33.75abcde 10. Carbine 50WG 2.8c 68.25c 5.75g 11. Transform 50WG 1.5c 63.00c 35.25bcde 12. Centric 40WG 2.5c 60.00c 47.50abcde 13. Sivanto HL + LI-700 7.0b + 0.125d 35.00c 34.00abcdef 14. Sefina 0.42DC 3.0b 29.75c 9.50fg 15. Assail 70WP 2.5c 28.75c 25.25cde 16. Sivanto HL + Dyne-Amic 7.0b + 0.125d 20.75c 18.00def 17. Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0b 20.75c 15.00ef P > F 0.0390 0.0002 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean aphid counts/10 leaves 22 Jula 4 DAT 25 Jula 7 DAT 1. Untreated check 478.20a 110.80a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 352.00ab 100.50ab 3. Bidrin 8E 8.0b 279.00abc 35.00def 4. Fulfill 50WG 2.75c 168.75abc 55.75abcd 5. Admire Pro 4.0F 1.7b 140.50abc 60.50abcd 6. Exirel 0.83SE 17.0b 127.00abc 39.75abcde 7. Movento 2SC 5.0b 125.25bc 68.25abc 8. PQZ 20SC 3.2b 106.75bc 33.00abcde 9. Venom 70SG 3.0c 83.00c 33.75abcde 10. Carbine 50WG 2.8c 68.25c 5.75g 11. Transform 50WG 1.5c 63.00c 35.25bcde 12. Centric 40WG 2.5c 60.00c 47.50abcde 13. Sivanto HL + LI-700 7.0b + 0.125d 35.00c 34.00abcdef 14. Sefina 0.42DC 3.0b 29.75c 9.50fg 15. Assail 70WP 2.5c 28.75c 25.25cde 16. Sivanto HL + Dyne-Amic 7.0b + 0.125d 20.75c 18.00def 17. Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0b 20.75c 15.00ef P > F 0.0390 0.0002 Means followed by the same letter in a column is not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey–Kramer). Aphid counts from 4 and 7 DAT were square-root (x + 1) and log10(x = 1) transformed, respectively, before analysis. Untransformed means listed. aDate of observation. bfl oz product per acre. coz product per acre. dv/v in %. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean aphid counts/10 leaves 22 Jula 4 DAT 25 Jula 7 DAT 1. Untreated check 478.20a 110.80a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 352.00ab 100.50ab 3. Bidrin 8E 8.0b 279.00abc 35.00def 4. Fulfill 50WG 2.75c 168.75abc 55.75abcd 5. Admire Pro 4.0F 1.7b 140.50abc 60.50abcd 6. Exirel 0.83SE 17.0b 127.00abc 39.75abcde 7. Movento 2SC 5.0b 125.25bc 68.25abc 8. PQZ 20SC 3.2b 106.75bc 33.00abcde 9. Venom 70SG 3.0c 83.00c 33.75abcde 10. Carbine 50WG 2.8c 68.25c 5.75g 11. Transform 50WG 1.5c 63.00c 35.25bcde 12. Centric 40WG 2.5c 60.00c 47.50abcde 13. Sivanto HL + LI-700 7.0b + 0.125d 35.00c 34.00abcdef 14. Sefina 0.42DC 3.0b 29.75c 9.50fg 15. Assail 70WP 2.5c 28.75c 25.25cde 16. Sivanto HL + Dyne-Amic 7.0b + 0.125d 20.75c 18.00def 17. Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0b 20.75c 15.00ef P > F 0.0390 0.0002 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Mean aphid counts/10 leaves 22 Jula 4 DAT 25 Jula 7 DAT 1. Untreated check 478.20a 110.80a 2. Brigade 2EC 6.4b 352.00ab 100.50ab 3. Bidrin 8E 8.0b 279.00abc 35.00def 4. Fulfill 50WG 2.75c 168.75abc 55.75abcd 5. Admire Pro 4.0F 1.7b 140.50abc 60.50abcd 6. Exirel 0.83SE 17.0b 127.00abc 39.75abcde 7. Movento 2SC 5.0b 125.25bc 68.25abc 8. PQZ 20SC 3.2b 106.75bc 33.00abcde 9. Venom 70SG 3.0c 83.00c 33.75abcde 10. Carbine 50WG 2.8c 68.25c 5.75g 11. Transform 50WG 1.5c 63.00c 35.25bcde 12. Centric 40WG 2.5c 60.00c 47.50abcde 13. Sivanto HL + LI-700 7.0b + 0.125d 35.00c 34.00abcdef 14. Sefina 0.42DC 3.0b 29.75c 9.50fg 15. Assail 70WP 2.5c 28.75c 25.25cde 16. Sivanto HL + Dyne-Amic 7.0b + 0.125d 20.75c 18.00def 17. Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0b 20.75c 15.00ef P > F 0.0390 0.0002 Means followed by the same letter in a column is not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey–Kramer). Aphid counts from 4 and 7 DAT were square-root (x + 1) and log10(x = 1) transformed, respectively, before analysis. Untransformed means listed. aDate of observation. bfl oz product per acre. coz product per acre. dv/v in %. Open in new tab At 4 DAT, all insecticide treatments, except for Brigade, Bidrin, Fulfill, Admire Pro, and Exirel, significantly reduced aphid density on cotton compared with the untreated check (Table 1). At 7 DAT, seven insecticide treatments significantly lowered the aphid population compared with the untreated check (Table 1), and Carbine and Sefina resulted in the lowest density of cotton aphids in the plots. Treatments did not yield significant differences at 14 DAT (P = 0.6067), and therefore results were not presented in Table 1.1 Footnotes 1 This research is supported in part by industry gifts of products. We thank Clifton Moore, Lance Grimes, and Steven Roberson for their cooperation, Revels Farms and Cotton Inc. for support. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Rondon, Silvia, I;Thompson, Daniel, I

Efficacy Foliar Applied Insecticides on Tobacco Budworm in Flue-Cured Tobacco, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa066

Onion | Allium cepa Seed Corn Maggot (SCM) | Delia platura azadirachtin, thiamethoxam, spinosad, Beauveria bassina, Metarhizium anisopliae The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of organic insecticides for control of seed corn maggot (SCM) in the Columbia Basin. ‘Vaquero’ onions were planted on 1 May 2019 after spring wheat. Plots were 1.5 m (5 ft) wide × 4 double rows × 6 m (20 ft) long with 8.9 cm (3.5-inch) plant spacing. To encourage SCM pressure, green wheat material was tilled under into beds; onions were planted directly following tillage. Onions were planted at a rate of 321,236 plants per ha (130,000 plants per ac). Experiment was set up as a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCB) with four replications per treatment. A strip of wheat was left between plots, which served as windbreakers. Normal commercial production practices were followed throughout the season (e.g., fertilization, herbicide, fungicide, etc). Five insecticide treatments plus a control were tested; all seed was treated with mefenoxam, fludioxonil, and azoxystrobin fungicide (FarMore F300) before insecticide treatment application. Fungicide treatments were made by Skagit seed (Mt Vernon, WA). Insecticide treatments included: azadirachtin, thiamethoxam+spinosad, spinosad, Beauveria bassiana, and Metarhizium anisopliae (Table 1). Thiamethoxam+spinosad and spinosad were seed treatments; azadirachtin, B. bassiana, and M. anisopliae treatments were in-furrow applications. In-furrow soil applications were made using a CO2-powered boom sprayer with TeeJet AI8002 nozzles at 40 psi, and 30 GPA (280.6 liter/h), and watered in after application with overhead center pivot irrigation. The control did not receive any insecticide treatment. The soil was an Adkins fine sandy loam, pH 7.0, OM 0.7%, which was disked (2×) 20 Mar and 15 Apr. Full plant emergence was observed on 20 May; however, emergence was poor due to extreme SCM pressure; consequently, plots were replanted 7 days later. A 6 m (20 ft) long row was selected from the center of each plot treatment, and the number of plants that emerged were counted. Counts were extrapolated on a per-acre basis. Stand counts were taken on 7 days after emergence (DAE) 1, 7 DAE 2, and 21 DAE 2 (Table 2). Between 7 DAE 2 and 21 DAE 2, we assessed the change in stand counts. At least five plants per plot were carefully examined for the presence of SCM larva 7, 14, and 28 DAE. In addition, SCM adults were monitored using yellow sticky cards (Alpha Scents). Data were analyzed within sampling dates using ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons. All data analyses were performed using ARM 2019. Table 1. Treatments a.i. . Commercial formulation . Rate/acre . Application method . Azadirachtin Neemix 4.5 1 qt/ac In-furrow Thiamethoxam + spinosad FarMore F1500 * Seeded Spinosad Regard * Seeded Beauveria bassiana Botanigard 1 qt/ac In-furrow Metarhizium anisopliae Met 52 2 qt/ac In-furrow Control - - - Treatments a.i. . Commercial formulation . Rate/acre . Application method . Azadirachtin Neemix 4.5 1 qt/ac In-furrow Thiamethoxam + spinosad FarMore F1500 * Seeded Spinosad Regard * Seeded Beauveria bassiana Botanigard 1 qt/ac In-furrow Metarhizium anisopliae Met 52 2 qt/ac In-furrow Control - - - *Not available. All treatments were treated with mefenoxam, fludioxonil, and azoxystrobin (FarMore F300) Open in new tab Table 1. Treatments a.i. . Commercial formulation . Rate/acre . Application method . Azadirachtin Neemix 4.5 1 qt/ac In-furrow Thiamethoxam + spinosad FarMore F1500 * Seeded Spinosad Regard * Seeded Beauveria bassiana Botanigard 1 qt/ac In-furrow Metarhizium anisopliae Met 52 2 qt/ac In-furrow Control - - - Treatments a.i. . Commercial formulation . Rate/acre . Application method . Azadirachtin Neemix 4.5 1 qt/ac In-furrow Thiamethoxam + spinosad FarMore F1500 * Seeded Spinosad Regard * Seeded Beauveria bassiana Botanigard 1 qt/ac In-furrow Metarhizium anisopliae Met 52 2 qt/ac In-furrow Control - - - *Not available. All treatments were treated with mefenoxam, fludioxonil, and azoxystrobin (FarMore F300) Open in new tab Table 2. . Onion stands/treatment . Treatment . 7 DAE 1a . 7 DAE 2b . 21 DAE 2b . Change . Azadirachtin 13125b 126250a 107500 −18750b Thiamethoxam+spinosad 31250a 101875b 123750 21875a Spinosad 32500a 106250ab 128750 22500a Beauveria bassiana 8750b 107500ab 116875 9375ab Metarhizium anisopliae 17500ab 126875a 110000 −16875b Control 11250b 112500ab 99375 −13125ab F value 5.095 4.336 1.726 4.091 Pr>F 0.0063 0.0122 0.1893 0.0153 . Onion stands/treatment . Treatment . 7 DAE 1a . 7 DAE 2b . 21 DAE 2b . Change . Azadirachtin 13125b 126250a 107500 −18750b Thiamethoxam+spinosad 31250a 101875b 123750 21875a Spinosad 32500a 106250ab 128750 22500a Beauveria bassiana 8750b 107500ab 116875 9375ab Metarhizium anisopliae 17500ab 126875a 110000 −16875b Control 11250b 112500ab 99375 −13125ab F value 5.095 4.336 1.726 4.091 Pr>F 0.0063 0.0122 0.1893 0.0153 Means within column followed by the same letter are not significantly according to Fisher’s protected LSD test at P = 0.05. aDAE1 = Days after emergence of the first planting. bDAE2 = Days after emergence from the second planting. Open in new tab Table 2. . Onion stands/treatment . Treatment . 7 DAE 1a . 7 DAE 2b . 21 DAE 2b . Change . Azadirachtin 13125b 126250a 107500 −18750b Thiamethoxam+spinosad 31250a 101875b 123750 21875a Spinosad 32500a 106250ab 128750 22500a Beauveria bassiana 8750b 107500ab 116875 9375ab Metarhizium anisopliae 17500ab 126875a 110000 −16875b Control 11250b 112500ab 99375 −13125ab F value 5.095 4.336 1.726 4.091 Pr>F 0.0063 0.0122 0.1893 0.0153 . Onion stands/treatment . Treatment . 7 DAE 1a . 7 DAE 2b . 21 DAE 2b . Change . Azadirachtin 13125b 126250a 107500 −18750b Thiamethoxam+spinosad 31250a 101875b 123750 21875a Spinosad 32500a 106250ab 128750 22500a Beauveria bassiana 8750b 107500ab 116875 9375ab Metarhizium anisopliae 17500ab 126875a 110000 −16875b Control 11250b 112500ab 99375 −13125ab F value 5.095 4.336 1.726 4.091 Pr>F 0.0063 0.0122 0.1893 0.0153 Means within column followed by the same letter are not significantly according to Fisher’s protected LSD test at P = 0.05. aDAE1 = Days after emergence of the first planting. bDAE2 = Days after emergence from the second planting. Open in new tab After the first planting, the thiamethoxam+spinosad and spinosad seed treatments showed statistically higher stand counts compared to azadirachtin, B. bassiana, and the control. Following the second planting, no differences in stand counts were observed among treatments; however, overall, stand counts were three-fold higher compared to first planting (Table 2). After 7, 14, and 28 DAE, no live larvae were found (data not shown); however, dead plants showed typical SCM damage. SCM adult counts did not differ among treatments and averaged 10.8 SCM adults per sticky card per trap per week (data not shown). This research was partially supported by gifts from the industry.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was partially supported by private industry. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Zilnik,, Gabriel;Davila,, Rocio;Burrack,, Hannah

Lepidopteran Pest Control in Sweet Corn With Insecticides Allowed for Organic Production, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa101

Tobacco | Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco Budworm (TBW) | Chloridea virescens (F.) indoxacarb, cyantraniliprole, GS-omega/kappa-Hxtx-HV1a, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki The efficacy of registered insecticides against tobacco budworm was assessed at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (UCPRS) in Rocky Mount, NC. At this location, five treatments, including an untreated check, were arranged in an RCB design with four replicates per treatment (Table 1). On 27 Apr 2020 ca. 100 plants were transplanted into 0.018-acre plots. Each plot consisted of four rows (48 in centers), 50-ft in length. Foliar treatments were applied using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer fitted with a single TG2 solid cone nozzle calibrated to apply 15 gal/acre spray volume at 52 psi pressure to the middle two rows. The outer rows of each plot were left untreated to minimize drift. Applications were made at TBW threshold (10% of plants infested with ≥1 TBW) on 22 Jun. Each plant in the middle two rows of a plot was examined for presence of TBW once per week. TBW abundance was recorded prior to application on 22 Jun and then one and two WAT (29 Jun, 6 Jul, respectively). TBW abundance was analyzed in R v. 3.5.3 using LMER with Treatment as a fixed effect and replicate as a random effect. Means were separated by Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timing . Mean TBW abundance . . . . 22 Juna . 29 Junb . 6 Julc . Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 5.25b 5.25b Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 3.13bc 2.63c Denim 0.16EC 8 fl oz 22 Jun 3.13a 1.00c 2.50c Spear-Lep 0.17L + Leprotec 2 pt + 2 pt 22 Jun 5.00a 5.13b 6.50ab Untreated Check - - 3.20a 12.30a 8.30a P>F 0.194 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timing . Mean TBW abundance . . . . 22 Juna . 29 Junb . 6 Julc . Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 5.25b 5.25b Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 3.13bc 2.63c Denim 0.16EC 8 fl oz 22 Jun 3.13a 1.00c 2.50c Spear-Lep 0.17L + Leprotec 2 pt + 2 pt 22 Jun 5.00a 5.13b 6.50ab Untreated Check - - 3.20a 12.30a 8.30a P>F 0.194 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns with the same letter are not different via Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). aPre-treatment count. b1 WAT. c2 WAT. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timing . Mean TBW abundance . . . . 22 Juna . 29 Junb . 6 Julc . Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 5.25b 5.25b Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 3.13bc 2.63c Denim 0.16EC 8 fl oz 22 Jun 3.13a 1.00c 2.50c Spear-Lep 0.17L + Leprotec 2 pt + 2 pt 22 Jun 5.00a 5.13b 6.50ab Untreated Check - - 3.20a 12.30a 8.30a P>F 0.194 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Application timing . Mean TBW abundance . . . . 22 Juna . 29 Junb . 6 Julc . Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 5.25b 5.25b Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz 22 Jun 4.88a 3.13bc 2.63c Denim 0.16EC 8 fl oz 22 Jun 3.13a 1.00c 2.50c Spear-Lep 0.17L + Leprotec 2 pt + 2 pt 22 Jun 5.00a 5.13b 6.50ab Untreated Check - - 3.20a 12.30a 8.30a P>F 0.194 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns with the same letter are not different via Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). aPre-treatment count. b1 WAT. c2 WAT. Open in new tab No difference was observed in the pretreatment counts on 22 Jun (Table 1). At one WAT, all materials reduced TBW counts compared to the untreated check. Denin and Exirel showed continued efficacy at two WAT compared to the untreated check. At two WAT, there was no difference between the Spear-Lep + Leprotect treatment and the untreated check. While Steward and Spear-Lep + Leprotect were not significantly different at two WAT, Steward did differ from the untreated check.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported, in part, by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Harding, Riley, Suzanne;Nault, Brian, A;Seaman, Abby, J

Efficacy of Soil and Foliar Applied Registered and Experimental Materials on Green Peach Aphid and Tobacco Flea Beetle

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa084

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Corn earworm (CEW) | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), European corn borer (ECB) | Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner), Fall armyworm (FAW) | Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) azadirachtin, Beauveria bassiana strain GHA, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, spinosad, HzSNPV (nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Helicoverpa zea) The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of insecticides allowed for organic production to control Lepidopteran pests, especially corn earworm (CEW), on sweet corn. Sweet corn ‘Generator F1’ was direct seeded on 9 Jul 2019 at Cornell AgriTech’s Fruit and Vegetable Research farm in Geneva, NY (GPS: 42°52′24.8″N 77°01′46.4″W). Seeds were planted 8 inches apart within rows, and rows were spaced 30 inches apart. Each plot consisted of two 30-ft-long rows and was flanked by two unplanted rows. Plots also were separated from each other within rows by 8 ft of bare ground. Five replications of each treatment were arranged in an RCB design. Insecticides and application rates are provided in Table 1. Insecticides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer and boom equipped with two flat-fan nozzles (XR-Teejet 8002) calibrated to deliver 28 gallons per acre at 40 psi. Nozzles were separated by 20 inches and directed horizontally toward the primary ear and applied to only one row at a time. All treatments were co-applied with the OMRI-listed surfactant, Nu Film P, at a rate of 8 fl oz/acre. Insecticide applications were initiated on 7 September, shortly after most ears had produced green silks, and additional applications were made on 10, 13, and 17 Sep (four applications total). There was an average of 8 CEW moths captured per trap per night from first silk until several days before harvest. Silks were brown and dry shortly after 17 Sep. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Mean number larvae/ ear . Mean marketable ears (%) . . . CEW . ECB+FAW . Fresh market . Processing . Untreated check - 0.54abc 0.21a 43b 82 Aza-Direct 32 fl oz 0.79a 0.13ab 33b 84 Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz 0.45a–d 0.19ab 49b 87 Gemstar 10 fl oz 0.35cde 0.12ab 54b 91 Javelin 24 oz 0.44bcd 0.15ab 52b 91 Mycotrol ESO + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.57abc 0.13 ab 37b 85 Aza-Direct + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.70ab 0.12 ab 37 b 86 Aza-Direct + Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz + 32 fl oz 0.62abc 0.09ab 42b 88 Entrust SC 4 fl oz 0.13de 0.02ab 84a 97 Entrust SC 6 fl oz 0.09e 0.01b 89a 99 P value <0.0001 0.0274 <0.0001 0.0557 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Mean number larvae/ ear . Mean marketable ears (%) . . . CEW . ECB+FAW . Fresh market . Processing . Untreated check - 0.54abc 0.21a 43b 82 Aza-Direct 32 fl oz 0.79a 0.13ab 33b 84 Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz 0.45a–d 0.19ab 49b 87 Gemstar 10 fl oz 0.35cde 0.12ab 54b 91 Javelin 24 oz 0.44bcd 0.15ab 52b 91 Mycotrol ESO + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.57abc 0.13 ab 37b 85 Aza-Direct + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.70ab 0.12 ab 37 b 86 Aza-Direct + Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz + 32 fl oz 0.62abc 0.09ab 42b 88 Entrust SC 4 fl oz 0.13de 0.02ab 84a 97 Entrust SC 6 fl oz 0.09e 0.01b 89a 99 P value <0.0001 0.0274 <0.0001 0.0557 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Mean number larvae/ ear . Mean marketable ears (%) . . . CEW . ECB+FAW . Fresh market . Processing . Untreated check - 0.54abc 0.21a 43b 82 Aza-Direct 32 fl oz 0.79a 0.13ab 33b 84 Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz 0.45a–d 0.19ab 49b 87 Gemstar 10 fl oz 0.35cde 0.12ab 54b 91 Javelin 24 oz 0.44bcd 0.15ab 52b 91 Mycotrol ESO + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.57abc 0.13 ab 37b 85 Aza-Direct + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.70ab 0.12 ab 37 b 86 Aza-Direct + Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz + 32 fl oz 0.62abc 0.09ab 42b 88 Entrust SC 4 fl oz 0.13de 0.02ab 84a 97 Entrust SC 6 fl oz 0.09e 0.01b 89a 99 P value <0.0001 0.0274 <0.0001 0.0557 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Mean number larvae/ ear . Mean marketable ears (%) . . . CEW . ECB+FAW . Fresh market . Processing . Untreated check - 0.54abc 0.21a 43b 82 Aza-Direct 32 fl oz 0.79a 0.13ab 33b 84 Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz 0.45a–d 0.19ab 49b 87 Gemstar 10 fl oz 0.35cde 0.12ab 54b 91 Javelin 24 oz 0.44bcd 0.15ab 52b 91 Mycotrol ESO + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.57abc 0.13 ab 37b 85 Aza-Direct + Javelin 32 fl oz + 24 oz 0.70ab 0.12 ab 37 b 86 Aza-Direct + Mycotrol ESO 32 fl oz + 32 fl oz 0.62abc 0.09ab 42b 88 Entrust SC 4 fl oz 0.13de 0.02ab 84a 97 Entrust SC 6 fl oz 0.09e 0.01b 89a 99 P value <0.0001 0.0274 <0.0001 0.0557 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5). Open in new tab On 1 Oct, up to 30 primary, market-sized ears were harvested within each plot. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated by recording the number of CEW, European corn borer (ECB), and Fall armyworm (FAW) larvae within each ear as well as the location of their collective damage, which was binned into three categories: 1) no feeding damage (= fresh market); 2) feeding damage to the ear tip only (the top inch or where developed kernels had made a complete ring) (=processing); or 3) damage from one inch below the ear tip to the ear base (= unmarketable). Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model in SAS (ver. 9.4; PROC GLIMMIX) with treatment considered as a fixed effect and replication as a random factor in the model. Treatment means were compared using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test at P < 0.05. A majority of the larvae infesting ears in this trial was CEW (80%), followed by ECB (19%) and FAW (1%). Densities of CEW larvae per ear were significantly lower in plots treated with both rates of Entrust compared with densities in the untreated check (Table 1). None of the other treatments significantly reduced CEW densities compared with those in the untreated check. The average sum of ECB and FAW per ear in the 6 fl oz/acre rate of Entrust was significantly lower than the densities in the untreated check (Table 1). None of the other treatments significantly reduced the sum of ECB and FAW densities compared with those in the untreated check. Feeding damage was moderate with 43 and 82% of the ears in the untreated check acceptable for fresh market and processing, respectively (Table 1). Sweet corn treated with both rates of Entrust had significantly higher percentages of fresh-market quality ears than those in the untreated check and all other treatments (Table 1). The percent of market-sized ears acceptable for processing was high in all treatments, but no treatment differed significantly from the untreated check (Table 1). This can be explained by the feeding habit of CEW, concentrated at the tip of the ear, which can be removed for processing. These results indicated that a total of four applications of Entrust timed at 3-d intervals spanning an 11-d period was highly effective for protecting the ears from this pest.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1011209. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Zilnik,, Gabriel;Burrack,, Hannah

Foliar Sprays of Labeled and Experimental Insecticides to Control Asian Citrus Psyllid on Orange, Summer 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa098

Tobacco | Nicotiana tabacum Myzus persicae (Green Peach Aphid) | Epitrix hirtipennis (Tobacco Flea Beetle) imidacloprid, flupyradifurone, indoxacarb, cyantraniliprole The efficacy of registered insecticides applied as tray drench, transplant drench and foliar sprays against green peach aphid (GPA) and tobacco flea beetle (TFB) was assessed at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (UCPRS) in Rocky Mount, NC. At this location, 12 treatments, including an untreated check, were arranged in an RCB design with four replicates per treatment. On 25 Apr 2019, ca. 25 plants were transplanted into 0.018-acre plots. Each plot was a 4 row (48 in centers) by 50 ft in length plot. Pre-transplant greenhouse tray drench (GTD) insecticide applications were made on 24 Apr 2019 in 1 liter water using a CO2-pressurized sprayer fitted a single flat-fan nozzle. Two liters of water was used to wash the material into the root zone immediately following treatment. Transplant drench (TD) and foliar treatments were applied to the middle two rows. For TD, two liquid oz of solution was applied directly at the base of each plant using plastic cups. Foliar treatments were applied 2 May 2019 (7 days after transplant) using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer fitted with a single TG2 solid cone nozzle calibrated to apply 15 gal/acre spray volume at 52 psi pressure. TFB holes were counted on the largest leaf of 10 plants in the two middle rows of each plot (20 plants total) beginning 7 days after transplant with a pre-treatment count occurring prior to foliar applications. Additionally, total number of TFB was recorded. Total number of GPA infested plants (≥50 aphids per plant) was determined on the middle two rows of each plot. The number of plants on the center two rows of each plot was used to normalize the GPA counts. TFB and hole counts were analyzed in R v. 3.5.3 using LMER with treatment, date, and treatment × date interactions as fixed effects and replicate as a random effects. TFB and hole counts were square-root transformed to meet assumptions of normality. Proportion GPA infested plants were analyzed using GLMER with treatment, date, and treatment × date as the fixed effects and replicate as the random effect. Proportion GPA infested plants were log(x + 1) transformed. Non-transformed means are presented for clarity. Means were separated by Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). All data was initially analyzed as repeated measures. If significant effects were found, then within week, differences were investigated by dropping Date and Treatment × Date terms from the fixed effects and independently analyzing each week. Counts of FB holes revealed a significant effect of Treatment, Date and their interaction. Count of TFB abundance revealed no significant effect of treatment, but did show a significant effect of Date and the Treatment by Date interaction. One week after transplant (2 May) GTD and TD applications resulted in fewer TFB holes than untreated check (Table 1). This pattern continued through 16 May. By 23 May, the Sivanto HL 3.34L GTD and Sivanto HL 3.34L TD treatments did not differ from the untreated check. All foliar treatments resulted in fewer TFB holes than the untreated check at 7 and 14 DAT. Because treatment had no effect on TFB abundance, we did not report those results here. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Tobacco flea beetle feeding holes / 10 leaves . . . . 2 Maya,e . 16 Maye . 23 Maye . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.25d 0.53f 0.69d Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.73d 4.39d 6.23a Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 7.75c 8.10b 6.21a Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb + 2.04d 5.26cd 4.56b Sivanto HL 3.34L + 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 11.75ab 1.79e 1.81c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.84a 1.66e 0.81d Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 10.23bc 0.72ef 1.01cd Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 8.18c 1.46ef 0.66d HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.20a 1.31ef 1.13cd HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 13.53a 1.11ef 1.18cd Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.08a 6.59bc 1.30cd Untreated check - - 12.69a 10.97a 6.06a P>F <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Tobacco flea beetle feeding holes / 10 leaves . . . . 2 Maya,e . 16 Maye . 23 Maye . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.25d 0.53f 0.69d Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.73d 4.39d 6.23a Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 7.75c 8.10b 6.21a Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb + 2.04d 5.26cd 4.56b Sivanto HL 3.34L + 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 11.75ab 1.79e 1.81c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.84a 1.66e 0.81d Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 10.23bc 0.72ef 1.01cd Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 8.18c 1.46ef 0.66d HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.20a 1.31ef 1.13cd HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 13.53a 1.11ef 1.18cd Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.08a 6.59bc 1.30cd Untreated check - - 12.69a 10.97a 6.06a P>F <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns with the same letter are not different via Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). aPre-treatment counts for foliar applications. bGTD = Greenhouse tray drench. cTD = Transplant drench. dFoliar application 7 days after transplant. elog (x + 1) transformed means used in analysis, on transformed means presented. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Tobacco flea beetle feeding holes / 10 leaves . . . . 2 Maya,e . 16 Maye . 23 Maye . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.25d 0.53f 0.69d Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.73d 4.39d 6.23a Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 7.75c 8.10b 6.21a Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb + 2.04d 5.26cd 4.56b Sivanto HL 3.34L + 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 11.75ab 1.79e 1.81c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.84a 1.66e 0.81d Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 10.23bc 0.72ef 1.01cd Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 8.18c 1.46ef 0.66d HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.20a 1.31ef 1.13cd HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 13.53a 1.11ef 1.18cd Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.08a 6.59bc 1.30cd Untreated check - - 12.69a 10.97a 6.06a P>F <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Tobacco flea beetle feeding holes / 10 leaves . . . . 2 Maya,e . 16 Maye . 23 Maye . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.25d 0.53f 0.69d Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 1.73d 4.39d 6.23a Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 7.75c 8.10b 6.21a Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb + 2.04d 5.26cd 4.56b Sivanto HL 3.34L + 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 11.75ab 1.79e 1.81c Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.84a 1.66e 0.81d Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 10.23bc 0.72ef 1.01cd Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 8.18c 1.46ef 0.66d HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.20a 1.31ef 1.13cd HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 13.53a 1.11ef 1.18cd Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 14.08a 6.59bc 1.30cd Untreated check - - 12.69a 10.97a 6.06a P>F <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns with the same letter are not different via Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). aPre-treatment counts for foliar applications. bGTD = Greenhouse tray drench. cTD = Transplant drench. dFoliar application 7 days after transplant. elog (x + 1) transformed means used in analysis, on transformed means presented. Open in new tab There was a significant effect of Treatment, Date and a significant interaction between the two for green peach aphid infested plants. Applications of materials as a GTD or TD reduced the proportion of GPA infested plants across all time points compared to the untreated check. Most foliar applications for TFB did not have any carry-over effect for GPA. The Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl/oz treatment did reduce the proportion of GPA infested plants on 20 and 27 Jun compared to the untreated check (Table 2). The proportion of plants infested by GPA increased across weeks in plots that received any of the foliar treatments and the untreated check.1 Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Mean aphid infested plants . . . . 13 Jun . 20 Jun . 27 Jun . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.25bcd 0.38c 1.00c Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.00d 1.25bc 0.63c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 0.38cd 0.25c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants + GTDb + 0.25bcd 0.00c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 0.75abcd 4.63a 8.75ab Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.13a 7.38a 13.63a Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abc 1.5bc 4.63b Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50ab 4.25a 7.25ab HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50abc 3.88ab 7.13ab HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abcd 4.75a 8.63ab Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.25a 5.38a 11.25ab Untreated check - - 2.25a 6.13a 11.25ab P>F 0.045 0.026 0.005 Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Mean aphid infested plants . . . . 13 Jun . 20 Jun . 27 Jun . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.25bcd 0.38c 1.00c Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.00d 1.25bc 0.63c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 0.38cd 0.25c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants + GTDb + 0.25bcd 0.00c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 0.75abcd 4.63a 8.75ab Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.13a 7.38a 13.63a Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abc 1.5bc 4.63b Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50ab 4.25a 7.25ab HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50abc 3.88ab 7.13ab HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abcd 4.75a 8.63ab Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.25a 5.38a 11.25ab Untreated check - - 2.25a 6.13a 11.25ab P>F 0.045 0.026 0.005 Means within columns with the same letter are not different via Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). aPre-treatment counts for foliar applications. bGTD = Greenhouse tray drench. cTD = Transplant drench. dFoliar application 7 days after transplant. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Mean aphid infested plants . . . . 13 Jun . 20 Jun . 27 Jun . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.25bcd 0.38c 1.00c Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.00d 1.25bc 0.63c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 0.38cd 0.25c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants + GTDb + 0.25bcd 0.00c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 0.75abcd 4.63a 8.75ab Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.13a 7.38a 13.63a Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abc 1.5bc 4.63b Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50ab 4.25a 7.25ab HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50abc 3.88ab 7.13ab HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abcd 4.75a 8.63ab Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.25a 5.38a 11.25ab Untreated check - - 2.25a 6.13a 11.25ab P>F 0.045 0.026 0.005 Treatment/formulation . Rate . Application method and timing . Mean aphid infested plants . . . . 13 Jun . 20 Jun . 27 Jun . Admire Pro 4.6SC 0.6 fl oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.25bcd 0.38c 1.00c Sivanto HL 3.34L 0.17 oz/1000 plants GTDb 0.00d 1.25bc 0.63c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc 0.38cd 0.25c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L + 0.17 oz/1000 plants + GTDb + 0.25bcd 0.00c 0.25c Sivanto HL 3.34L 10.5 fl oz/acre TDc Steward 1.25EC 9.2 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 0.75abcd 4.63a 8.75ab Steward 1.25EC 11.3 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.13a 7.38a 13.63a Exirel 0.83SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abc 1.5bc 4.63b Exirel 0.83 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50ab 4.25a 7.25ab HGW86-944 1.67SC 13.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.50abc 3.88ab 7.13ab HGW86-944 1.67 SC 20.5 fl oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 1.13abcd 4.75a 8.63ab Acephate 97S 12 oz/acre Foliar (7 DAT)d 2.25a 5.38a 11.25ab Untreated check - - 2.25a 6.13a 11.25ab P>F 0.045 0.026 0.005 Means within columns with the same letter are not different via Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05). aPre-treatment counts for foliar applications. bGTD = Greenhouse tray drench. cTD = Transplant drench. dFoliar application 7 days after transplant. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This work was supported, in part, by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

California Red-Scale Insecticide Efficacy Trial, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa021

Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) | Diaphorina citri Kuwayama Orange | Citrus sinensis cyantraniliprole, spirotetramat, abamectin/avermectin B1, thiamethoxam, afidopyropen The Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) continues to be the most important insect pest in Florida citrus due to its ability to transmit citrus green disease, also known as huanglongbing (HLB). Currently, insect control is reliant on the application of chemical insecticides. To minimize the risk of insecticide resistance, diverse modes of action are needed to slow the spread of the disease. This trial was conducted in a 9-yr-old orchard at the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center planted with sweet orange ‘Hamlin’ trees at a plant density of 308 trees/acre. Trees were irrigated with micro-sprinklers and subjected to the grove standard cultural practices. New foliar flush needed for ACP reproduction was induced by mechanical pruning the trees approximately 2 wks before sprays were initiated. Seven treatments plus an untreated check were assigned to 9-tree plots in a RCB design with four blocks. Each block consisted of one row of citrus trees and an untreated row was left between blocks to act as a buffer and pest reservoir. Treatments were applied on 20 Aug using a Durand Wayland AF100-32 air blast speed sprayer operating at 1.9 mph and 300 psi equipped with four (4,4,4,4) John Beane ceramic nozzles delivering 115 gpa. Adult populations were monitored on 7 trees per plot by conducting a standard ‘tap’ sample two times on each sampled tree. For each sample, adults were counted on a white plastic clipboard placed under a randomly chosen limb struck three times with a short length of PVC pipe. Ten randomly selected shoots per plot were collected on 23, 27, 30 Aug and 4, 9 16 Sep and ACP nymphs were counted using a stereomicroscope. Data were transformed with a square root transformation and subjected to ANOVA with means separated using LSD (P = 0.05). Actual means were presented. The ACP population in this trial was relatively low and a sample conducted on 4 trees per plot on 19 Aug prior to the applications yielded 0.3 ± 0.6 (mean ± SD) adult ACP per tap. At thee DAT, all treatments provided a significant reduction of adult ACP when compared with the untreated check (Table 1). Exirel, both rates of cyantraniliprole, Agri-flex and Minecto Pro reduced adults on at least one evaluation date 7–10 DAT. Significant treatment effect was not observed 15 DAT, but all treatments except Sefina reduced adults 20 DAT. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of adults per tap sample 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 0.32 a 0.13 ab 0.13 ab 0.05 ab 0.21 a 0.11 b Exirel 16 0.00 d 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.04 ab 0.00 b 0.02 b 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 0.13 bc 0.00 c 0.04 bcd 0.02 b 0.00 b 0.02 b Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 0.02 cd 0.00 c 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.11 b Sefina 14 0.18 b 0.15 a 0.11 abc 0.11 a 0.21 a 0.75 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 0.04 cd 0.05 bc 0.20 a 0.11 a 0.08 b 0.16 b 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 0.00 d 0.02 bc 0.04 bcd 0.07 ab 0.04 b 0.50 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 0.02 cd 0.04 bc 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.07 b 435 Oil 1% Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of adults per tap sample 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 0.32 a 0.13 ab 0.13 ab 0.05 ab 0.21 a 0.11 b Exirel 16 0.00 d 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.04 ab 0.00 b 0.02 b 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 0.13 bc 0.00 c 0.04 bcd 0.02 b 0.00 b 0.02 b Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 0.02 cd 0.00 c 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.11 b Sefina 14 0.18 b 0.15 a 0.11 abc 0.11 a 0.21 a 0.75 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 0.04 cd 0.05 bc 0.20 a 0.11 a 0.08 b 0.16 b 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 0.00 d 0.02 bc 0.04 bcd 0.07 ab 0.04 b 0.50 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 0.02 cd 0.04 bc 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.07 b 435 Oil 1% Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Data analyzed using square root transformation. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of adults per tap sample 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 0.32 a 0.13 ab 0.13 ab 0.05 ab 0.21 a 0.11 b Exirel 16 0.00 d 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.04 ab 0.00 b 0.02 b 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 0.13 bc 0.00 c 0.04 bcd 0.02 b 0.00 b 0.02 b Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 0.02 cd 0.00 c 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.11 b Sefina 14 0.18 b 0.15 a 0.11 abc 0.11 a 0.21 a 0.75 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 0.04 cd 0.05 bc 0.20 a 0.11 a 0.08 b 0.16 b 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 0.00 d 0.02 bc 0.04 bcd 0.07 ab 0.04 b 0.50 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 0.02 cd 0.04 bc 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.07 b 435 Oil 1% Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of adults per tap sample 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 0.32 a 0.13 ab 0.13 ab 0.05 ab 0.21 a 0.11 b Exirel 16 0.00 d 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.04 ab 0.00 b 0.02 b 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 0.13 bc 0.00 c 0.04 bcd 0.02 b 0.00 b 0.02 b Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 0.02 cd 0.00 c 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.11 b Sefina 14 0.18 b 0.15 a 0.11 abc 0.11 a 0.21 a 0.75 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 0.04 cd 0.05 bc 0.20 a 0.11 a 0.08 b 0.16 b 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 0.00 d 0.02 bc 0.04 bcd 0.07 ab 0.04 b 0.50 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 0.02 cd 0.04 bc 0.02 cd 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.07 b 435 Oil 1% Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05). Data analyzed using square root transformation. Open in new tab All treatments except Cyantraniliprole significantly reduced the number of nymphs per flush when compared with the untreated check at three DAT (Table 2). However, lack of treatment effect for Cyantranilipole could be attributed to delayed mortality and difficulties determining mortality of small nymphs on this date. All treatments reduced nymphs 7 to 15 DAT except Sefina (10, 15 DAT) and Movento (15 DAT), with <1 per flush in plots treated with Exirel, both rates of Cyantraniliprole, and Minecto Pro. Significant reduction compared to the untreated check was not observed at 20 or 27 DAT. The higher rate of Cyantraniliprole kept nymph density below 1/flush for 5 d longer than the low rate. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of ACP nymphs per flush 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 17.95 a 6.28 a 6.38 a 8.15 a 8.83 ab 6.30 abc Exirel 16 4.73 bc 0.05 b 0.10 bc 0.18 c 0.78 b 0.58 bc 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 8.75 ab 0.06 b 0.00 c 0.50 c 5.13 ab 11.50 ab Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 8.65 ab 0.10 b 0.00 c 0.03 c 0.60 b 4.75 bc Sefina 14 1.88 c 0.88 b 2.20 ab 7.25 a 17.23 a 14.69 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 3.33 bc 1.25 b 1.33 bc 3.38 ab 4.65 ab 12.37 abc 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 5.15 bc 0.20 b 1.56 b 1.60 bc 14.73 a 15.30 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 3.48 c 0.78 b 0.33 bc 0.25 c 1.33 b 0.22 c 435 Oil 1% Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of ACP nymphs per flush 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 17.95 a 6.28 a 6.38 a 8.15 a 8.83 ab 6.30 abc Exirel 16 4.73 bc 0.05 b 0.10 bc 0.18 c 0.78 b 0.58 bc 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 8.75 ab 0.06 b 0.00 c 0.50 c 5.13 ab 11.50 ab Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 8.65 ab 0.10 b 0.00 c 0.03 c 0.60 b 4.75 bc Sefina 14 1.88 c 0.88 b 2.20 ab 7.25 a 17.23 a 14.69 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 3.33 bc 1.25 b 1.33 bc 3.38 ab 4.65 ab 12.37 abc 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 5.15 bc 0.20 b 1.56 b 1.60 bc 14.73 a 15.30 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 3.48 c 0.78 b 0.33 bc 0.25 c 1.33 b 0.22 c 435 Oil 1% Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P >0.05). Data analyzed using square root transformation. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of ACP nymphs per flush 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 17.95 a 6.28 a 6.38 a 8.15 a 8.83 ab 6.30 abc Exirel 16 4.73 bc 0.05 b 0.10 bc 0.18 c 0.78 b 0.58 bc 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 8.75 ab 0.06 b 0.00 c 0.50 c 5.13 ab 11.50 ab Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 8.65 ab 0.10 b 0.00 c 0.03 c 0.60 b 4.75 bc Sefina 14 1.88 c 0.88 b 2.20 ab 7.25 a 17.23 a 14.69 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 3.33 bc 1.25 b 1.33 bc 3.38 ab 4.65 ab 12.37 abc 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 5.15 bc 0.20 b 1.56 b 1.60 bc 14.73 a 15.30 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 3.48 c 0.78 b 0.33 bc 0.25 c 1.33 b 0.22 c 435 Oil 1% Treatment/formulation Rate, form prod./acre or v:v No. of ACP nymphs per flush 3 DAT 7 DAT 10 DAT 15 DAT 20 DAT 27 DAT Untreated check 17.95 a 6.28 a 6.38 a 8.15 a 8.83 ab 6.30 abc Exirel 16 4.73 bc 0.05 b 0.10 bc 0.18 c 0.78 b 0.58 bc 435 Oil 1% Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 5.3 8.75 ab 0.06 b 0.00 c 0.50 c 5.13 ab 11.50 ab Cyantraniliprole 100 OD 8 8.65 ab 0.10 b 0.00 c 0.03 c 0.60 b 4.75 bc Sefina 14 1.88 c 0.88 b 2.20 ab 7.25 a 17.23 a 14.69 a 435 Oil 1% Movento MPC 16 3.33 bc 1.25 b 1.33 bc 3.38 ab 4.65 ab 12.37 abc 435 Oil 1% Agri-flex 8.5 5.15 bc 0.20 b 1.56 b 1.60 bc 14.73 a 15.30 a 435 Oil 1% Minecto Pro 12 3.48 c 0.78 b 0.33 bc 0.25 c 1.33 b 0.22 c 435 Oil 1% Means in the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P >0.05). Data analyzed using square root transformation. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported partly by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Efficacy of Chlorantraniliprole for Control of Two Sweetpotato Weevil Species, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa039

California red scale (CRS) | Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) Orange | Citrus sinensis pyriproxyfen, petroleum oil, spirotetramat, afidopyropen CRS infestations cause downgrading of fruit and in extreme cases yield loss due to twig dieback. A field trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of insecticides to control CRS in a 37-yr-old ‘Washington’ navel orange orchard at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California. Treatments were assigned according to CRS population densities found on twigs collected in May 2019. CRS density was determined by counting the total number of live first, second, and third instar and mature female scales on five 1-yr-old twigs (23 cm long) and five leaves on each twig randomly selected from around the outside canopy of tree. Insecticides were applied on 9–10 Jul to 10 trees per treatment in an RCB using 250 psi and a 100 gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation. Treatments were applied in 750 gpa, except Movento was applied in 250 gpa. All treatments were applied with 0.5 or 1.0% Omni 6E oil. CRS densities were evaluated on 15–23 Aug and 30 Sep – 4 Oct on twigs and leaves. The number of fruit per tree in each of three categories (0, 1–10, >10 scales per fruit) was conducted on 22 Nov by examining all fruit within reach and repeated with harvested fruit on 2 Feb 2020. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA after testing for an NS block effect. Mean scales per fruit and leaf plus twig were transformed with log10 (x+1), the percentage of scale-infested fruit were transformed with arcsine (square root (x)) and the means were separated according to Fischer’s protected least significant difference test (P = 0.05). The mean CRS/(twig+5 leaves) was not significantly reduced on any treatment below the untreated check (Table 1). Only the Movento treatment significantly reduced the mean % CRS-infested fruit and % fruit with >10 scales during the on-tree evaluation in Nov and the % CRS-infested fruit at harvest.1 Table 1 Treatment/ formulation . Rate-amt form/acre or vol . Mean CRS/(twig + 5 leaves) . . . On-tree fruit evaluation . . . Harvested fruit . . . . . . . . Mean no. fruit examined per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . Mean no. fruit per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . 8 Maya 15–23 Auga 30 Sep-–4 Octa 22 Nov 22 Nov 22 Nov 2 Feb 2 Feb 2 Feb Untreated check 0.58a 0.58bc 0.44ab 99.7a 8.7a 3.8a 712.5a 5.5a 1.3bc Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 28c + 0.5% 0.41a 1.44a 1.30a 109.6a 7.8a 3.9a 752.8a 8.9a 2.7ab Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 14c + 0.5% 0.63a 0.36c 0.42ab 95.4a 8.9a 4.3a 609.9a 6.6a 2.5ab Esteem 0.86 EC + Sequoia + Omni 6E oil 16c + 5.75 + 0.5% 0.68a 1.36ab 0.52ab 109.1a 8.6a 4.3a 723.7a 10.3a 3.4a Esteem 0.83 EC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 0.5% 0.72a 0.50bc 0.64ab 109.4a 9.1a 4.5a 686.8a 7.6a 2.7ab Movento 240 SC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 1.0% 0.66a 0.26c 0.10b 113.4a 1.0b 0.1b 699.7a 1.8b 0.4c F5,54 0.20 2.53 1.40 0.51 4.31 3.49 0.58 3.75 3.29 P 0.961 0.039 0.239 0.769 0.003 0.008 0.714 0.006 0.012 Treatment/ formulation . Rate-amt form/acre or vol . Mean CRS/(twig + 5 leaves) . . . On-tree fruit evaluation . . . Harvested fruit . . . . . . . . Mean no. fruit examined per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . Mean no. fruit per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . 8 Maya 15–23 Auga 30 Sep-–4 Octa 22 Nov 22 Nov 22 Nov 2 Feb 2 Feb 2 Feb Untreated check 0.58a 0.58bc 0.44ab 99.7a 8.7a 3.8a 712.5a 5.5a 1.3bc Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 28c + 0.5% 0.41a 1.44a 1.30a 109.6a 7.8a 3.9a 752.8a 8.9a 2.7ab Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 14c + 0.5% 0.63a 0.36c 0.42ab 95.4a 8.9a 4.3a 609.9a 6.6a 2.5ab Esteem 0.86 EC + Sequoia + Omni 6E oil 16c + 5.75 + 0.5% 0.68a 1.36ab 0.52ab 109.1a 8.6a 4.3a 723.7a 10.3a 3.4a Esteem 0.83 EC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 0.5% 0.72a 0.50bc 0.64ab 109.4a 9.1a 4.5a 686.8a 7.6a 2.7ab Movento 240 SC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 1.0% 0.66a 0.26c 0.10b 113.4a 1.0b 0.1b 699.7a 1.8b 0.4c F5,54 0.20 2.53 1.40 0.51 4.31 3.49 0.58 3.75 3.29 P 0.961 0.039 0.239 0.769 0.003 0.008 0.714 0.006 0.012 aMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10 (x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are listed. bMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after arcsine [proportion]1/2 transformation. Untransformed means are listed. coz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1 Treatment/ formulation . Rate-amt form/acre or vol . Mean CRS/(twig + 5 leaves) . . . On-tree fruit evaluation . . . Harvested fruit . . . . . . . . Mean no. fruit examined per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . Mean no. fruit per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . 8 Maya 15–23 Auga 30 Sep-–4 Octa 22 Nov 22 Nov 22 Nov 2 Feb 2 Feb 2 Feb Untreated check 0.58a 0.58bc 0.44ab 99.7a 8.7a 3.8a 712.5a 5.5a 1.3bc Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 28c + 0.5% 0.41a 1.44a 1.30a 109.6a 7.8a 3.9a 752.8a 8.9a 2.7ab Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 14c + 0.5% 0.63a 0.36c 0.42ab 95.4a 8.9a 4.3a 609.9a 6.6a 2.5ab Esteem 0.86 EC + Sequoia + Omni 6E oil 16c + 5.75 + 0.5% 0.68a 1.36ab 0.52ab 109.1a 8.6a 4.3a 723.7a 10.3a 3.4a Esteem 0.83 EC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 0.5% 0.72a 0.50bc 0.64ab 109.4a 9.1a 4.5a 686.8a 7.6a 2.7ab Movento 240 SC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 1.0% 0.66a 0.26c 0.10b 113.4a 1.0b 0.1b 699.7a 1.8b 0.4c F5,54 0.20 2.53 1.40 0.51 4.31 3.49 0.58 3.75 3.29 P 0.961 0.039 0.239 0.769 0.003 0.008 0.714 0.006 0.012 Treatment/ formulation . Rate-amt form/acre or vol . Mean CRS/(twig + 5 leaves) . . . On-tree fruit evaluation . . . Harvested fruit . . . . . . . . Mean no. fruit examined per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . Mean no. fruit per treea . % fruit infested with CRSb . % fruit with >10 scalesb . 8 Maya 15–23 Auga 30 Sep-–4 Octa 22 Nov 22 Nov 22 Nov 2 Feb 2 Feb 2 Feb Untreated check 0.58a 0.58bc 0.44ab 99.7a 8.7a 3.8a 712.5a 5.5a 1.3bc Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 28c + 0.5% 0.41a 1.44a 1.30a 109.6a 7.8a 3.9a 752.8a 8.9a 2.7ab Sefina Inscalis DC + Omni 6E oil 14c + 0.5% 0.63a 0.36c 0.42ab 95.4a 8.9a 4.3a 609.9a 6.6a 2.5ab Esteem 0.86 EC + Sequoia + Omni 6E oil 16c + 5.75 + 0.5% 0.68a 1.36ab 0.52ab 109.1a 8.6a 4.3a 723.7a 10.3a 3.4a Esteem 0.83 EC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 0.5% 0.72a 0.50bc 0.64ab 109.4a 9.1a 4.5a 686.8a 7.6a 2.7ab Movento 240 SC + Omni 6E oil 16c + 1.0% 0.66a 0.26c 0.10b 113.4a 1.0b 0.1b 699.7a 1.8b 0.4c F5,54 0.20 2.53 1.40 0.51 4.31 3.49 0.58 3.75 3.29 P 0.961 0.039 0.239 0.769 0.003 0.008 0.714 0.006 0.012 aMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10 (x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are listed. bMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after arcsine [proportion]1/2 transformation. Untransformed means are listed. coz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Ichinose,, Katsuya;Fukami,, Koichiro

Permethrin Resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) From Different Ecological Niches in Southwest San Bernardino County, California

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa075

Potato (sweet) | Ipomoea batatas Sweetpotato weevils (SWC) | Cylas formicarius F, West Indian sweetpotato weevil (SWE) | Euscepes postfasciatus (Fairmaire) chlorantraniliprole, chlorpyrifos The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of chlorantraniliprole for the control of two serious root pests of sweetpotato, sweetpotato weevils (SWC), and West Indian sweetpotato weevil (SWE), in an experimental field of the Okinawa Prefectural Agricultural Research Center, located in Itoman on the Okinawa Island, southern Japan, for the summer cultivation of the crop in 2019. A total of 18 plots were established. Each consisted of six rows of 3.0 m with 0.8 m spacing were made, and three treatments were randomly assigned to them in six replications. Slips of sweetpotato ‘Tamayutaka’ with strong resistance against foot rot disease of sweetpotato (Ichinose, personal observation) were purchased at a commercial market in Ina City, central Japan, and 10 were planted on each ridge with 0.3 m spacing in individual plots on 14 Jun. Thus, there were 60 slips in each plot. Chlorantraniliprole of 5.0% (FMC Chemicals, Tokyo, Japan) was compared for its efficacy on the reduction of infesting weevils and root injuries by the weevil with chlorpyrifos in granular form (Nissan Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) and an untreated check. Chlorpyrifos was applied with 2 g on the ground surface around the main stem of every plant as officially registered in Japan. These insecticides were applied two times during the cultivation, on 24 Aug and 5 Oct, equivalent to 250 ml/ha diluted 4,000 times for the former and 60 kg/ha for the latter. Roots of four plants randomly selected in each plot were harvested on 26 Dec, and tubers ≥ 100 g and the rest of the root system of each plant were weighted at a precision to 0.1 g individually. The roots were dissected to collect and count infesting weevils for each species. Holes made on the root surface when they had emerged were counted, although the species that had made the hole could not be identified. This made the total number of weevils in a given plant larger than the sum of SWC and SWE. The efficacy of insecticide treatments was evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests (P = 0.05) on the number of weevils infesting the root and the proportion of the weight of weevil-injured roots to that of the entire root system of the plant. In these analyses, the weevil numbers, root weight, and injury proportion were passed through square-root, natural logarithmic, and the root-square arcsine transformed, respectively. All means in this report were calculated on non-transformed data. Insecticide compounds, formulations, and application rates are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 6.50a 0.62 8.54a 95.5ab 54.1a 26.6 72.5a Chlorpyrifosa 60.0 1.21b 0.29 2.33b 138.5a 27.2ab 11.1 29.1b Chlorantraniliproleb 250.0 1.62b 0.33 2.42b 68.6b 24.3b 10.1 46.7ab P>F 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.12 >0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 6.50a 0.62 8.54a 95.5ab 54.1a 26.6 72.5a Chlorpyrifosa 60.0 1.21b 0.29 2.33b 138.5a 27.2ab 11.1 29.1b Chlorantraniliproleb 250.0 1.62b 0.33 2.42b 68.6b 24.3b 10.1 46.7ab P>F 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.12 >0.01 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test. akg (wt) product per hectare. bml per hectare. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 6.50a 0.62 8.54a 95.5ab 54.1a 26.6 72.5a Chlorpyrifosa 60.0 1.21b 0.29 2.33b 138.5a 27.2ab 11.1 29.1b Chlorantraniliproleb 250.0 1.62b 0.33 2.42b 68.6b 24.3b 10.1 46.7ab P>F 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.12 >0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 6.50a 0.62 8.54a 95.5ab 54.1a 26.6 72.5a Chlorpyrifosa 60.0 1.21b 0.29 2.33b 138.5a 27.2ab 11.1 29.1b Chlorantraniliproleb 250.0 1.62b 0.33 2.42b 68.6b 24.3b 10.1 46.7ab P>F 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.12 >0.01 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test. akg (wt) product per hectare. bml per hectare. Open in new tab Fewer SWE were detected than SWC in all treatments. The occurrences of SWE were higher in the untreated check, but the difference from the insecticide treatments was not significant. However, both SWC and the sum of both weevils were significantly higher in the former than in the latter, and no significant differences were detected between the two insecticide treatments. Root yield was significantly less in the chlorantraniliprole treatment. Mean root injury in the untreated check was 49.5, 25.5, and 68.0% by SWC, SWE, and both weevils, respectively. Both insecticide treatments significantly reduced the percentage of injured roots by these weevils.1 Footnotes 1 This study was supported by Kyushu Agricultural Research Center. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Sharabyani,, Ainaz;Su,, Tianyun;Brown, Michelle, Q

Control of Apple Maggot in Apple, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa077

Southern house mosquito | Culex quinquefasciatus permethrin Pyrethrins and some pyrethroids are commonly used as adulticide to control nuisance and vector mosquitoes, particularly in response to invasion of newly emerging and resurging vectors or mosquito-borne pathogens. The application frequency and amount of pyrethrins and often synthetic pyrethroids as well depend on purposes and pest targets among urban, suburban, agricultural, and riparian ecozones in the southwest San Bernardino County, California. Urban herewith is referred to an area with dense human dwellings, while suburban is described as a place outside the inner part of the cities where sparse human dwellings and industrial setups and factories are blended. Agricultural zone refers to the farms and dairies, and riparian zone is the interface between land and Santa Ana River near Prado Basin. The objective of this project is to compare the susceptibility of wild zone populations and a laboratory reference colony of the southern house mosquito Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) to selected pyrethroid. Mosquito egg rafts were collected by ovitraps, and egg rafts were hatched individually and reared to 4th instar larvae for identification. At least 10 egg rafts were collected from each ecozone and resulted larvae of the southern house mosquito were pooled and reared to F1 adults for bottle bioassay using technical permethrin at 30 μg/250-ml bottle. Three replications, each with approximately 25 of 3- to 5-d-old female mosquitoes, were made for the reference colony and each field collection. Time-mortality data were subjected to probit analysis to calculate LT50 and LT90. It was noticed that all field populations from various ecozones showed some levels of tolerance or resistance. The resistance ratios (RR) based on LT50 ranked suburban (3.72-fold) > urban (3.16-fold) > agricultural (2.52-fold) > riparian (1.86-fold). The RRs based on LT90 ranked urban (15.10-fold) > suburban (9.84-fold) > agricultural (6.25-fold) > riparian (3.77-fold) (Table 1). It seemed that the urban and suburban populations tended to have higher levels of resistance than those agricultural and riparian populations. Population heterogeneity in terms of response to permethrin was reflected by various slope values of the dose-response curves. As expected, the long-term laboratory reference colony was more homogenous with a slope value of 2.801 than field collections, where moderate differences in population heterogeneity were indicated by the slope values ranging from 1.124 to 1.653. The resistance found in this study could be the result of previous sub-lethal exposures to pyrethrins or other pyrethroids. These differences in resistance levels among various ecozones were presumably attributable to the application patterns and residue distribution of pyrethrins and pyrethroids. The findings in this article may be useful to direct adult mosquito control and pyrethroid resistance management.1 Table 1. . LT50 (95% CI) (min) . LT90 (95% CI) (min) . R2 . # Subject . Slope . RR at LT50 . RR at LT90 . Lab colony 21.00 (15.62–28.23) 60.89 (95.29–81.85) 0.9557 69 2.801 ± 0.066 - - Suburban 78.14 (50.28–121.46) 599.18 (385.52–931.25) 0.7543 80 1.653 ± 0.098 3.72 9.84 Urban 66.43 (36.39–121.25) 919.20 (503.62–1622.70) 0.9823 94 1.124 ± 0.133 3.16 15.10 Agricultural 183.12 (115.18–291.29) 380.82 (239.48–605.59) 0.9691 77 1.492 ± 0.103 8.72 6.25 Riparian 39.00 (25.90–58.23) 229.31 (152.26–345.35) 0.9125 93 1.213 ± 0.091 1.86 3.77 . LT50 (95% CI) (min) . LT90 (95% CI) (min) . R2 . # Subject . Slope . RR at LT50 . RR at LT90 . Lab colony 21.00 (15.62–28.23) 60.89 (95.29–81.85) 0.9557 69 2.801 ± 0.066 - - Suburban 78.14 (50.28–121.46) 599.18 (385.52–931.25) 0.7543 80 1.653 ± 0.098 3.72 9.84 Urban 66.43 (36.39–121.25) 919.20 (503.62–1622.70) 0.9823 94 1.124 ± 0.133 3.16 15.10 Agricultural 183.12 (115.18–291.29) 380.82 (239.48–605.59) 0.9691 77 1.492 ± 0.103 8.72 6.25 Riparian 39.00 (25.90–58.23) 229.31 (152.26–345.35) 0.9125 93 1.213 ± 0.091 1.86 3.77 Open in new tab Table 1. . LT50 (95% CI) (min) . LT90 (95% CI) (min) . R2 . # Subject . Slope . RR at LT50 . RR at LT90 . Lab colony 21.00 (15.62–28.23) 60.89 (95.29–81.85) 0.9557 69 2.801 ± 0.066 - - Suburban 78.14 (50.28–121.46) 599.18 (385.52–931.25) 0.7543 80 1.653 ± 0.098 3.72 9.84 Urban 66.43 (36.39–121.25) 919.20 (503.62–1622.70) 0.9823 94 1.124 ± 0.133 3.16 15.10 Agricultural 183.12 (115.18–291.29) 380.82 (239.48–605.59) 0.9691 77 1.492 ± 0.103 8.72 6.25 Riparian 39.00 (25.90–58.23) 229.31 (152.26–345.35) 0.9125 93 1.213 ± 0.091 1.86 3.77 . LT50 (95% CI) (min) . LT90 (95% CI) (min) . R2 . # Subject . Slope . RR at LT50 . RR at LT90 . Lab colony 21.00 (15.62–28.23) 60.89 (95.29–81.85) 0.9557 69 2.801 ± 0.066 - - Suburban 78.14 (50.28–121.46) 599.18 (385.52–931.25) 0.7543 80 1.653 ± 0.098 3.72 9.84 Urban 66.43 (36.39–121.25) 919.20 (503.62–1622.70) 0.9823 94 1.124 ± 0.133 3.16 15.10 Agricultural 183.12 (115.18–291.29) 380.82 (239.48–605.59) 0.9691 77 1.492 ± 0.103 8.72 6.25 Riparian 39.00 (25.90–58.23) 229.31 (152.26–345.35) 0.9125 93 1.213 ± 0.091 1.86 3.77 Open in new tab Footnotes 1 No special funding was allocated for this project. The research was conducted along with the routine resistance management at the West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Control of Adult Japanese Beetle in Raspberry, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa057

Apple | Malus domestica Apple maggot (AM) | Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) phosmet, zeta-cypermethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, acetamiprid, spinosad The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of several insecticides against apple maggot in apple. Two-tree plots were established in an 18-yr-old ‘Smoothie’ apple planting (row spacing 20 × 13 ft) located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville, MI (Salmon Block). There were four replicates per treatment, set up in an RCB design. Test materials (Table 1) were applied with an FMC 1029 tractor-mounted airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. In addition, the following foliar maintenance applications were made: Aprovia, Captan, Intrepid 2, Imidan 70, Inspire Super, and Manzate Pro. Glyphosate was banded below the trees for weed control. On 3 Sep, 0.5 bushel of apples per plot were harvested into boxes and inverted over racks. Pupae were allowed to drop into trays containing a layer of sand. Apple maggot (AM) reported as mean pupae per 0.5 bushel apples (Table 1). While actual counts are presented, ANOVA was run on transformed data. Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P < 0.05. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . Mean AM pupae per 0.5 bushel . . . . 3 Sep . Untreated check 26.3a Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb ABC 13.8ab Trifol 0.5 pt / 100 gal ABC Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 oz ABC 15.3ab Warrior II 2CS 2.56 oz ABC 19ab Assail 30SG 8 oz ABC 0.8b Splat 67.628 fl oz ABC 4.5ab Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . Mean AM pupae per 0.5 bushel . . . . 3 Sep . Untreated check 26.3a Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb ABC 13.8ab Trifol 0.5 pt / 100 gal ABC Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 oz ABC 15.3ab Warrior II 2CS 2.56 oz ABC 19ab Assail 30SG 8 oz ABC 0.8b Splat 67.628 fl oz ABC 4.5ab Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 25 Jul (AM trap catch + 7–14 days), B = 8 Aug (A + 14 days), C = 23 Aug (B + 14 days). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . Mean AM pupae per 0.5 bushel . . . . 3 Sep . Untreated check 26.3a Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb ABC 13.8ab Trifol 0.5 pt / 100 gal ABC Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 oz ABC 15.3ab Warrior II 2CS 2.56 oz ABC 19ab Assail 30SG 8 oz ABC 0.8b Splat 67.628 fl oz ABC 4.5ab Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . Application code . Mean AM pupae per 0.5 bushel . . . . 3 Sep . Untreated check 26.3a Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb ABC 13.8ab Trifol 0.5 pt / 100 gal ABC Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 oz ABC 15.3ab Warrior II 2CS 2.56 oz ABC 19ab Assail 30SG 8 oz ABC 0.8b Splat 67.628 fl oz ABC 4.5ab Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 25 Jul (AM trap catch + 7–14 days), B = 8 Aug (A + 14 days), C = 23 Aug (B + 14 days). Open in new tab Assail provided significant levels of fruit protection from AM infestation, compared to the untreated check (Table 1). While the other treatments were not statistically different from the check, numerical values suggest that Splat (spinosad bait) was equal or better than the pyrethroid and organophosphate comparisons.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Burkness, Eric, C;Ebbenga, Dominique, N;Hutchison, W, D

Control of Spotted Wing Drosophila in Tart Cherry, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa009

Japanese beetle (JB): Popillia japonica Newman RASPBERRY| Rubus idaeus L. variety ‘Heritage’ carbaryl, spinosad, zeta-cypermethrin The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a foliar insecticide application for management of adult Japanese beetle in Minnesota raspberries. The study was conducted at the University of Minnesota, Rosemount Research and Outreach Center in Rosemount, Minnesota. In a 2-yr-old planting of ‘Heritage’ fall bearing raspberry, five treatments were arranged in an RCB design with four replications. Each plot consisted of three rows of raspberries, each 10 ft (3.05 m) long with 10 ft (3.05 m) alleys between rows and 15 ft (4.57 m) between replicates. On 18 Jul 2019, insecticides were applied to vegetative stage canes that were 2.5 ft (0.76 m) tall using a CO2- pressurized backpack sprayer with a 3 ft (0.91 m) spray boom with 2-nozzles (XR-Teejet 8002 flat fan, with no screen) to both sides of each row within a plot. The sprayer was calibrated to deliver 25 gpa (233.8 liter/ha) at 35 psi (242 kPa). Counts of adult JB were recorded by visually inspecting 1 m of row from within the center row of each plot. Count data were recorded 1 hr before the insecticide application (pre-spray count) and then 1, 4, 7, and 11 d after treatment (DAT) on 19, 22, 25, and 29 Jul. Count data were square-root transformed prior to analysis using ANOVA; untransformed means are presented. Means were separated using a protected LSD (P = 0.05). Mean density of JB adults per meter row was 27.6 for the pre-spray count. At 1 and 4DAT, all insecticide treatments significantly reduced adult JB densities compared with the untreated check (Table 1). In addition, both rates of Sevin XLR Plus and Mustang Maxx also had significantly lower JB counts than Entrust. At 7DAT only the low rate of Sevin XLR Plus and Mustang Maxx significantly reduced beetle densities compared with the check. At 11DAT, JB counts had increased across all treatments with no significant difference in JB counts between any treatment and the untreated check. Although the results suggest that the maximum residual activity of the insecticides tested may be limited to 7 d, the residual could be longer given the next sample date was 11DAT. Phytotoxicity was not observed among treatments. Table 1. Mean JB adults/meter row Treatment/formulation Rate per acre 1DAT 4DAT 7DAT 11DAT Untreated check – 12.00a 11.75a 2.50a 19.25 Entrust 2SC 6.0 fl oz 4.50b 5.75b 2.75a 14.75 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 64.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.50c 1.25ab 13.00 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 32.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.00c 0.25b 17.75 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 fl oz 0.00c 0.75c 0.00b 12.00 NS Mean JB adults/meter row Treatment/formulation Rate per acre 1DAT 4DAT 7DAT 11DAT Untreated check – 12.00a 11.75a 2.50a 19.25 Entrust 2SC 6.0 fl oz 4.50b 5.75b 2.75a 14.75 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 64.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.50c 1.25ab 13.00 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 32.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.00c 0.25b 17.75 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 fl oz 0.00c 0.75c 0.00b 12.00 NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05), protected least significant difference test (LSD). Insect counts were transformed using the square root transformation to obtain mean separations using LSD (P = 0.05); untransformed means are presented. (NS) not significant; (DAT) days after treatment. Open in new tab Table 1. Mean JB adults/meter row Treatment/formulation Rate per acre 1DAT 4DAT 7DAT 11DAT Untreated check – 12.00a 11.75a 2.50a 19.25 Entrust 2SC 6.0 fl oz 4.50b 5.75b 2.75a 14.75 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 64.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.50c 1.25ab 13.00 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 32.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.00c 0.25b 17.75 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 fl oz 0.00c 0.75c 0.00b 12.00 NS Mean JB adults/meter row Treatment/formulation Rate per acre 1DAT 4DAT 7DAT 11DAT Untreated check – 12.00a 11.75a 2.50a 19.25 Entrust 2SC 6.0 fl oz 4.50b 5.75b 2.75a 14.75 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 64.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.50c 1.25ab 13.00 Sevin XLR Plus 4SC 32.0 fl oz 0.00c 1.00c 0.25b 17.75 Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4.0 fl oz 0.00c 0.75c 0.00b 12.00 NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05), protected least significant difference test (LSD). Insect counts were transformed using the square root transformation to obtain mean separations using LSD (P = 0.05); untransformed means are presented. (NS) not significant; (DAT) days after treatment. Open in new tab This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide from Corteva Agriscience and FMC Corp. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Soybean Aphid Insecticide Efficacy Screening, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa042

Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) | Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) Cherry (all varieties) | Prunus spp Chromobacterium subtsugae, spinetoram, phosmet, imidacloprid, spinosad, cyclaniliprole, GS-omega/kappa-Hxtx-HV1a, potassium salts of fatty esters, chlorpyrifos This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of several rates and timings of various insecticides against SWD in Tart Cherry. Single-tree plots were established in a 24-yr-old ‘Montmorency’ cherry planting (15 × 20 ft spacing) at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville, MI (Tart Cherry 4). Treatment plots were replicated four times and set up in an RCB design. Applications began 28 June at a week prior to anticipated initial infestation with ripe fruit and were reapplied on 7 d intervals until 22 July (Table 1). Test materials were applied with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 GPA at 2.5 mph. Regular maintenance foliar applications were applied to all treatments and included Actara DF, Badge SC, Bravo Weatherstik L, Indar 2F, Luna Sensation 500 SC, Merivon 4.17 SC, and Rally 40 W. In addition, glyphosate was banded below the trees for weed control. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate Product, acre . Appl. Code . Mean SWD per pound . . . . . . 12 Jul . 19 Jul . 29 Jul . Untreated 3 a 173.8 a 193.5 ab Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BCDE 10.8 a 188.3 a 246 a NuFilm P 0.25 % v: v BCDE Delegate 25 WG 7 oz BC 3.8 a 43 abc 140.3 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb D TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal D Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb E NuFilm P + 0.25 % v: v E Admire Pro 2.8 fl oz E Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BD 17 a 55.3 abc 46.3 bc NuFilm Pa 0.25 % v: v BD Entrust SCa 6 fl oz CE JetAg 1 % v: v BCDE Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz ABCD 2.8 a 96 abc 180.5 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz BCD 6.5 a 55.5 abc 138.3 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz CD 16.5 a 110.3 ab 212.3 ab Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz D 16.8 a 142 a 121.3 abc Spear T Spider Venom 3 gal ABCD 9 a 88.5 abc 313.3 a Spear T Spider Venom 2 gal ABCD 4.8 a 144.3 a 278 a JetAg 1 % v: v ABCD 4.8 a 89.8 abc 124.8 abc Sil-Matrix + 1 % v: v BCDE 4.5 a 151.8 a 103.3 abc Delegate WG 7 oz BCDE Sil-Matrix L 1 % v: v BCDE 11.8 a 86.3 abc 159.5 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb BCDE 1 a 15.3 bc 32 c TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal BCDE Lorsban 75 WG 2 lb BD 1.3 a 12 c 49 bc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb CE TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal CE Treatment/formulation . Rate Product, acre . Appl. Code . Mean SWD per pound . . . . . . 12 Jul . 19 Jul . 29 Jul . Untreated 3 a 173.8 a 193.5 ab Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BCDE 10.8 a 188.3 a 246 a NuFilm P 0.25 % v: v BCDE Delegate 25 WG 7 oz BC 3.8 a 43 abc 140.3 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb D TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal D Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb E NuFilm P + 0.25 % v: v E Admire Pro 2.8 fl oz E Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BD 17 a 55.3 abc 46.3 bc NuFilm Pa 0.25 % v: v BD Entrust SCa 6 fl oz CE JetAg 1 % v: v BCDE Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz ABCD 2.8 a 96 abc 180.5 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz BCD 6.5 a 55.5 abc 138.3 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz CD 16.5 a 110.3 ab 212.3 ab Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz D 16.8 a 142 a 121.3 abc Spear T Spider Venom 3 gal ABCD 9 a 88.5 abc 313.3 a Spear T Spider Venom 2 gal ABCD 4.8 a 144.3 a 278 a JetAg 1 % v: v ABCD 4.8 a 89.8 abc 124.8 abc Sil-Matrix + 1 % v: v BCDE 4.5 a 151.8 a 103.3 abc Delegate WG 7 oz BCDE Sil-Matrix L 1 % v: v BCDE 11.8 a 86.3 abc 159.5 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb BCDE 1 a 15.3 bc 32 c TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal BCDE Lorsban 75 WG 2 lb BD 1.3 a 12 c 49 bc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb CE TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal CE Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 28 Jun (4 d prior to B), B = 1 Jul (First trap catch with ripe fruit), C = 8 Jul (B + 7 d), D = 15 Jul (C + 7 days), E = 22 Jul (D + 7 d). aApplication made 1 d after JetAg application. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate Product, acre . Appl. Code . Mean SWD per pound . . . . . . 12 Jul . 19 Jul . 29 Jul . Untreated 3 a 173.8 a 193.5 ab Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BCDE 10.8 a 188.3 a 246 a NuFilm P 0.25 % v: v BCDE Delegate 25 WG 7 oz BC 3.8 a 43 abc 140.3 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb D TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal D Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb E NuFilm P + 0.25 % v: v E Admire Pro 2.8 fl oz E Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BD 17 a 55.3 abc 46.3 bc NuFilm Pa 0.25 % v: v BD Entrust SCa 6 fl oz CE JetAg 1 % v: v BCDE Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz ABCD 2.8 a 96 abc 180.5 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz BCD 6.5 a 55.5 abc 138.3 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz CD 16.5 a 110.3 ab 212.3 ab Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz D 16.8 a 142 a 121.3 abc Spear T Spider Venom 3 gal ABCD 9 a 88.5 abc 313.3 a Spear T Spider Venom 2 gal ABCD 4.8 a 144.3 a 278 a JetAg 1 % v: v ABCD 4.8 a 89.8 abc 124.8 abc Sil-Matrix + 1 % v: v BCDE 4.5 a 151.8 a 103.3 abc Delegate WG 7 oz BCDE Sil-Matrix L 1 % v: v BCDE 11.8 a 86.3 abc 159.5 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb BCDE 1 a 15.3 bc 32 c TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal BCDE Lorsban 75 WG 2 lb BD 1.3 a 12 c 49 bc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb CE TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal CE Treatment/formulation . Rate Product, acre . Appl. Code . Mean SWD per pound . . . . . . 12 Jul . 19 Jul . 29 Jul . Untreated 3 a 173.8 a 193.5 ab Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BCDE 10.8 a 188.3 a 246 a NuFilm P 0.25 % v: v BCDE Delegate 25 WG 7 oz BC 3.8 a 43 abc 140.3 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb D TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal D Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb E NuFilm P + 0.25 % v: v E Admire Pro 2.8 fl oz E Grandevo 30 WDG + 3 lb BD 17 a 55.3 abc 46.3 bc NuFilm Pa 0.25 % v: v BD Entrust SCa 6 fl oz CE JetAg 1 % v: v BCDE Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz ABCD 2.8 a 96 abc 180.5 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz BCD 6.5 a 55.5 abc 138.3 abc Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz CD 16.5 a 110.3 ab 212.3 ab Harvanta SL 16.4 fl oz D 16.8 a 142 a 121.3 abc Spear T Spider Venom 3 gal ABCD 9 a 88.5 abc 313.3 a Spear T Spider Venom 2 gal ABCD 4.8 a 144.3 a 278 a JetAg 1 % v: v ABCD 4.8 a 89.8 abc 124.8 abc Sil-Matrix + 1 % v: v BCDE 4.5 a 151.8 a 103.3 abc Delegate WG 7 oz BCDE Sil-Matrix L 1 % v: v BCDE 11.8 a 86.3 abc 159.5 abc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb BCDE 1 a 15.3 bc 32 c TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal BCDE Lorsban 75 WG 2 lb BD 1.3 a 12 c 49 bc Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb CE TriFol 0.5 pt/100 gal CE Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P = 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 28 Jun (4 d prior to B), B = 1 Jul (First trap catch with ripe fruit), C = 8 Jul (B + 7 d), D = 15 Jul (C + 7 days), E = 22 Jul (D + 7 d). aApplication made 1 d after JetAg application. Open in new tab One pound samples of ripe fruit were hand-picked from each replicate plot on 12 July, 19 July, and 29 July. The collected fruit was then evaluated through the Washington State Department of Agriculture brown sugar method as follows. Cherries were crushed in a solution with the ratio of 7 pounds brown sugar to 5 gallons water after which floating larvae were counted. Data are presented as larvae per pound of fruit (Table 1). Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.05. Imidan and Imidan/Lorsban treatments significantly reduced the incidence of SWD larvae in fruit at the 19 July evaluation, compared to the untreated check (Table 1). Imidan, Imidan/Lorsban, and Grandevo/Entrust/JetAg treatments significantly reduced the incidence of SWD larvae in fruit at the 29 July evaluation.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Hodgson, Erin, W;VanNostrand,, Greg

Evaluation of Miticides to Control Hemp Russet Mite on Indoor Hemp in Virginia, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa053

Soybean aphid (SBA) | Aphis glycines Matsumura Soybean | Glycine max chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, lambda-cyhalothrin, zeta-cypermethrin, bifenthrin, thiamethoxam, sulfoxaflor, pyrifluquinazon, afidopyropen Soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura, has drastically changed soybean pest management in the North Central region since 2000. To date, SBA can be successfully managed with timely scouting and foliar insecticides in Iowa, but pyrethroid resistance is an emerging issue. In 2019, we established plots at the Iowa State University Northwest Research Farm on 16 May. NK S24-K2 soybean variety was used for all plots. Treatments were arranged in an RCB design with four replications; each plot was six rows in width and 44 ft in length. Treatments containing a seed treatment were applied by Syngenta. Soybean aphids were counted on randomly selected whole plants within each plot every week from 24 June to 19 Sept. To estimate the total exposure of soybean to soybean aphid, we calculated cumulative aphid days (CAD) based on the number of aphids per plant counted on each sampling date. All foliar applications were made on 16 Aug when plants were at the R5 (beginning seed set) growth stage. Foliar treatments were applied using a custom sprayer and TeeJet (Springfield, IL) flatfan nozzles (TJ 8002) with 20 gpa at 30 lb psi. Yields (bushels/acre) were determined by weighing grain with a hopper and corrected to 13% moisture. One-way ANOVA was used to determine treatment effects within each experiment. Means separation for all studies was achieved using a least significant difference test (α = 0.10). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software. The plots were initially colonized by soybean aphid in July, and uniform aphid colonization was established by the end of that month. Soybean aphids in the untreated plots averaged 1,248 per plant one day prior to the 16 Aug application and peaked on 5 Sept at 1,783 aphids per plant. The untreated plots had 36,827 CAD and were significantly higher than plots treated with insecticides. Most of the CAD accrued after full seed set, therefore reducing the potential yield loss from aphid feeding. There were significant reductions in aphid densities with insecticides versus the untreated plots (Table 1). There was some variability in yield among treatments, and most products labeled for soybean aphid resulted in statistically different yields compared to the check.1 Table 1 Treatment and formulation . Rate . CADa . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated control — 36,827.74g 52.63h Lorsban advanced EC 16.0b 5,760.34abc 59.53bcde Dimethoate 4E 16.0b 5,320.97abc 58.08defg Warrior II CS 1.92b 17,287.58ef 55.25gh Hero EC 5.0b 19,743.35f 54.43h Brigade EC (A) 3.2b 20,240.54f 61.38abcd Brigade EC (B) 4.8b 5,007.24abc 63.43a UPL Lambda (A) 0.92b 8,476.13abcd 60.15abcd UPL Lambda (B) 0.96b 11,782.27cde 52.93h Lambda-Cy EC 0.92b 17,186.71ef 53.53h Cruiser 5FS 0.0756c 16,983.81ef 58.93cdef CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS 0.0945c 11,103.59bcde 59.18cde Transform WG (A) 0.542d 6,089.26abc 62.10abc Transform WG (B) 0.8d 3,282.44ab 59.15cde Pyrifluquinazon (A) 0.8b 8,851.28abcd 55.43fgh Pyrifluquinazon (B) 1.2b 10,307.50bcde 55.40fgh Pyrifluquinazon (C) 1.6b 14,283.49def 55.93efgh Sefina DC 3.0b 5,570.71abc 60.95abcd Warrior II CS and Lorsban advanced EC 1.92b and 16.0b 2,372.33a 58.23defg Stallion SC 11.75b 7,517.73abcd 58.43defg Cobalt Advanced EC 16.0b 3,975.81abc 59.70bcd Cruiser 5FS and Warrior II CS 0.0756c and 1.92b 8,141.55abcd 63.13ab CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS and Warrior II CS 0.0945c and 1.92b 3,984.38abc 63.73a Brigadier SC 5.1b 4,691.71abc 59.43cde Endigo ZCX (A) 3.5b 3,587.27ab 60.75abcd Endigo ZCX (B) 4.5b 4,675.85abc 60.98abcd Sefina DC and Priaxor CS 3.0b and 4.0b 6,625.17abcd 60.28abcd Treatment and formulation . Rate . CADa . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated control — 36,827.74g 52.63h Lorsban advanced EC 16.0b 5,760.34abc 59.53bcde Dimethoate 4E 16.0b 5,320.97abc 58.08defg Warrior II CS 1.92b 17,287.58ef 55.25gh Hero EC 5.0b 19,743.35f 54.43h Brigade EC (A) 3.2b 20,240.54f 61.38abcd Brigade EC (B) 4.8b 5,007.24abc 63.43a UPL Lambda (A) 0.92b 8,476.13abcd 60.15abcd UPL Lambda (B) 0.96b 11,782.27cde 52.93h Lambda-Cy EC 0.92b 17,186.71ef 53.53h Cruiser 5FS 0.0756c 16,983.81ef 58.93cdef CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS 0.0945c 11,103.59bcde 59.18cde Transform WG (A) 0.542d 6,089.26abc 62.10abc Transform WG (B) 0.8d 3,282.44ab 59.15cde Pyrifluquinazon (A) 0.8b 8,851.28abcd 55.43fgh Pyrifluquinazon (B) 1.2b 10,307.50bcde 55.40fgh Pyrifluquinazon (C) 1.6b 14,283.49def 55.93efgh Sefina DC 3.0b 5,570.71abc 60.95abcd Warrior II CS and Lorsban advanced EC 1.92b and 16.0b 2,372.33a 58.23defg Stallion SC 11.75b 7,517.73abcd 58.43defg Cobalt Advanced EC 16.0b 3,975.81abc 59.70bcd Cruiser 5FS and Warrior II CS 0.0756c and 1.92b 8,141.55abcd 63.13ab CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS and Warrior II CS 0.0945c and 1.92b 3,984.38abc 63.73a Brigadier SC 5.1b 4,691.71abc 59.43cde Endigo ZCX (A) 3.5b 3,587.27ab 60.75abcd Endigo ZCX (B) 4.5b 4,675.85abc 60.98abcd Sefina DC and Priaxor CS 3.0b and 4.0b 6,625.17abcd 60.28abcd Means within columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different, P > 0.10, LSD. aCumulative aphid days. bFluid oz formulated product per acre, foliar application. cmg active ingredient per seed, seed treatments. doz (weight) formulated product per acre, foliar application. Open in new tab Table 1 Treatment and formulation . Rate . CADa . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated control — 36,827.74g 52.63h Lorsban advanced EC 16.0b 5,760.34abc 59.53bcde Dimethoate 4E 16.0b 5,320.97abc 58.08defg Warrior II CS 1.92b 17,287.58ef 55.25gh Hero EC 5.0b 19,743.35f 54.43h Brigade EC (A) 3.2b 20,240.54f 61.38abcd Brigade EC (B) 4.8b 5,007.24abc 63.43a UPL Lambda (A) 0.92b 8,476.13abcd 60.15abcd UPL Lambda (B) 0.96b 11,782.27cde 52.93h Lambda-Cy EC 0.92b 17,186.71ef 53.53h Cruiser 5FS 0.0756c 16,983.81ef 58.93cdef CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS 0.0945c 11,103.59bcde 59.18cde Transform WG (A) 0.542d 6,089.26abc 62.10abc Transform WG (B) 0.8d 3,282.44ab 59.15cde Pyrifluquinazon (A) 0.8b 8,851.28abcd 55.43fgh Pyrifluquinazon (B) 1.2b 10,307.50bcde 55.40fgh Pyrifluquinazon (C) 1.6b 14,283.49def 55.93efgh Sefina DC 3.0b 5,570.71abc 60.95abcd Warrior II CS and Lorsban advanced EC 1.92b and 16.0b 2,372.33a 58.23defg Stallion SC 11.75b 7,517.73abcd 58.43defg Cobalt Advanced EC 16.0b 3,975.81abc 59.70bcd Cruiser 5FS and Warrior II CS 0.0756c and 1.92b 8,141.55abcd 63.13ab CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS and Warrior II CS 0.0945c and 1.92b 3,984.38abc 63.73a Brigadier SC 5.1b 4,691.71abc 59.43cde Endigo ZCX (A) 3.5b 3,587.27ab 60.75abcd Endigo ZCX (B) 4.5b 4,675.85abc 60.98abcd Sefina DC and Priaxor CS 3.0b and 4.0b 6,625.17abcd 60.28abcd Treatment and formulation . Rate . CADa . Yield (bu/acre) . Untreated control — 36,827.74g 52.63h Lorsban advanced EC 16.0b 5,760.34abc 59.53bcde Dimethoate 4E 16.0b 5,320.97abc 58.08defg Warrior II CS 1.92b 17,287.58ef 55.25gh Hero EC 5.0b 19,743.35f 54.43h Brigade EC (A) 3.2b 20,240.54f 61.38abcd Brigade EC (B) 4.8b 5,007.24abc 63.43a UPL Lambda (A) 0.92b 8,476.13abcd 60.15abcd UPL Lambda (B) 0.96b 11,782.27cde 52.93h Lambda-Cy EC 0.92b 17,186.71ef 53.53h Cruiser 5FS 0.0756c 16,983.81ef 58.93cdef CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS 0.0945c 11,103.59bcde 59.18cde Transform WG (A) 0.542d 6,089.26abc 62.10abc Transform WG (B) 0.8d 3,282.44ab 59.15cde Pyrifluquinazon (A) 0.8b 8,851.28abcd 55.43fgh Pyrifluquinazon (B) 1.2b 10,307.50bcde 55.40fgh Pyrifluquinazon (C) 1.6b 14,283.49def 55.93efgh Sefina DC 3.0b 5,570.71abc 60.95abcd Warrior II CS and Lorsban advanced EC 1.92b and 16.0b 2,372.33a 58.23defg Stallion SC 11.75b 7,517.73abcd 58.43defg Cobalt Advanced EC 16.0b 3,975.81abc 59.70bcd Cruiser 5FS and Warrior II CS 0.0756c and 1.92b 8,141.55abcd 63.13ab CruiserMaxx Vibrance FS and Warrior II CS 0.0945c and 1.92b 3,984.38abc 63.73a Brigadier SC 5.1b 4,691.71abc 59.43cde Endigo ZCX (A) 3.5b 3,587.27ab 60.75abcd Endigo ZCX (B) 4.5b 4,675.85abc 60.98abcd Sefina DC and Priaxor CS 3.0b and 4.0b 6,625.17abcd 60.28abcd Means within columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different, P > 0.10, LSD. aCumulative aphid days. bFluid oz formulated product per acre, foliar application. cmg active ingredient per seed, seed treatments. doz (weight) formulated product per acre, foliar application. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gift(s) of seed, pesticides, and financial support. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Britt, Kadie, E;Kuhar, Thomas, P

Insecticide Efficacy for Controlling Pecan Aphids, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa082

Hempseed (marijuana) | Cannabis sativa Hemp russet mite (HRM) | Aculops cannabicola (Farkas) abamectin/avermectin B1, sulfur, spirotetramat, paraffinic oil, Chenopodium ambrosioides, Burkholderia spp, Chromobacterium subtsugae, potassium salts of fatty esters, thyme oil, cinnamon oil, citronellol The objective of this experiment was to assess the efficacy of several biological insecticide products for control of Hemp russet mite (HRM) on indoor hemp in Virginia. An experiment was conducted with ‘Suver Haze’ rooted hemp cuttings transplanted into 1 gal pots of Pro-Mix® potting soil media on 15 Sep 2019 at a commercial indoor hemp facility in Hillsville, VA. Plants were hand-watered once every 48 h and were maintained with an 18:6 (L:D) h lighting schedule. No pesticides were applied to plants prior to this experiment and plants were heavily infested with HRM with an avg of >150 mites per cm2. The experiment had 11 treatments: Grandevo (30% Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAA4-11 and spent fermentation media), Venerate (94.5% heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 cells and spent fermentation media), Sulfur (90% sulfur), Requiem EC (16.8% plant extract of Chenopodium ambrosioides), M-Pede (49% potassium salts of fatty acids), PLP Natural Products (mix of natural oils including citronella 3.2%, lemongrass 3.8%, peppermint 3.2%, cinnamon 3.7%, and garlic 3.8%), Mammoth (thyme oil), Agrimek SC (8% abamectin), Movento (22.4% spirotetramat), Suffoil-X (highly refined, pre-emulsified mineral oil), and an untreated check. The experiment was arranged in an RCBD with four replicates (representing four sections of a 30 × 15 ft room). Plots were comprised of five plants, each with pots bunched close to each other and were arranged at least 4 feet apart to prevent drift of foliar spray applications to surrounding plants. Hemp plants were sprayed until runoff using 750 ml manual-pump spray bottles. All treatments were applied twice (6 and 8 Nov). At 6 DAT (14 Nov), 10 DAT (18 Nov), and 22 DAT (3 Dec 2019), a sample of 10 hemp leaves was collected from each plot (group of five plants), placed in a Petri dish, and brought to the laboratory to assess HRM densities with a mite brushing machine (BioQuip Products, Rancho Dominguez, CA). Hemp leaves were dipped between spinning brushes, which dispensed mites uniformly onto a spinning 6-inch diameter glass disc below with a thin film of petroleum jelly to catch the mites. Glass discs were then placed over top of a grid and examined under a dissecting microscope to record the number of HRM present per square cm (Table 1). Data were analyzed using ANOVA procedures. Means were separated using Fisher’s LSD at the 0.05 level of significance. Table 1. . . Hemp russet mites per 1 cm2 at three sample dates post spraying . . . Treatment . Rate/gal . 14 Nov (6 DAT) . 18 Nov (10 DAT) . 3 Dec (22 DAT) . Untreated check -- 120.5 39.3 57.5 ab Grandevo 0.48 oz 57.8 24.8 65.5 a Venerate 0.96 fl oz 55.8 36.8 26.5 cd Sulfur 3 tbsp 58.3 25.5 12.5 cd Requiem EC 0.96 fl oz 73.5 18.3 15.0 cd M-Pede 0.315 fl oz 72.5 33.5 37.5 bc PLP Natural 3.2 fl oz 33.8 6.5 10.5 d Mammoth 3 fl oz 47.0 21.3 6.8 d Agrimek 0.0425 fl oz 53.8 8.5 8.5 d Movento 0.09 fl oz 74.3 15.0 5.8 d SuffOil-X 2.56 fl oz 93.0 13.8 8.0 d P-value NS NS 0.001 . . Hemp russet mites per 1 cm2 at three sample dates post spraying . . . Treatment . Rate/gal . 14 Nov (6 DAT) . 18 Nov (10 DAT) . 3 Dec (22 DAT) . Untreated check -- 120.5 39.3 57.5 ab Grandevo 0.48 oz 57.8 24.8 65.5 a Venerate 0.96 fl oz 55.8 36.8 26.5 cd Sulfur 3 tbsp 58.3 25.5 12.5 cd Requiem EC 0.96 fl oz 73.5 18.3 15.0 cd M-Pede 0.315 fl oz 72.5 33.5 37.5 bc PLP Natural 3.2 fl oz 33.8 6.5 10.5 d Mammoth 3 fl oz 47.0 21.3 6.8 d Agrimek 0.0425 fl oz 53.8 8.5 8.5 d Movento 0.09 fl oz 74.3 15.0 5.8 d SuffOil-X 2.56 fl oz 93.0 13.8 8.0 d P-value NS NS 0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Table 1. . . Hemp russet mites per 1 cm2 at three sample dates post spraying . . . Treatment . Rate/gal . 14 Nov (6 DAT) . 18 Nov (10 DAT) . 3 Dec (22 DAT) . Untreated check -- 120.5 39.3 57.5 ab Grandevo 0.48 oz 57.8 24.8 65.5 a Venerate 0.96 fl oz 55.8 36.8 26.5 cd Sulfur 3 tbsp 58.3 25.5 12.5 cd Requiem EC 0.96 fl oz 73.5 18.3 15.0 cd M-Pede 0.315 fl oz 72.5 33.5 37.5 bc PLP Natural 3.2 fl oz 33.8 6.5 10.5 d Mammoth 3 fl oz 47.0 21.3 6.8 d Agrimek 0.0425 fl oz 53.8 8.5 8.5 d Movento 0.09 fl oz 74.3 15.0 5.8 d SuffOil-X 2.56 fl oz 93.0 13.8 8.0 d P-value NS NS 0.001 . . Hemp russet mites per 1 cm2 at three sample dates post spraying . . . Treatment . Rate/gal . 14 Nov (6 DAT) . 18 Nov (10 DAT) . 3 Dec (22 DAT) . Untreated check -- 120.5 39.3 57.5 ab Grandevo 0.48 oz 57.8 24.8 65.5 a Venerate 0.96 fl oz 55.8 36.8 26.5 cd Sulfur 3 tbsp 58.3 25.5 12.5 cd Requiem EC 0.96 fl oz 73.5 18.3 15.0 cd M-Pede 0.315 fl oz 72.5 33.5 37.5 bc PLP Natural 3.2 fl oz 33.8 6.5 10.5 d Mammoth 3 fl oz 47.0 21.3 6.8 d Agrimek 0.0425 fl oz 53.8 8.5 8.5 d Movento 0.09 fl oz 74.3 15.0 5.8 d SuffOil-X 2.56 fl oz 93.0 13.8 8.0 d P-value NS NS 0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. Open in new tab Although there was no significant treatment effect on mite densities at 6 and 10 DAT due to variability in the data, HRM averaged over 120 per cm2 in the untreated check, which was more than double most of the treatments at 6 DAT (Table 1). By 22 DAT, there was a significant effect of treatment with all of the miticides, except Grandevo and M-Pede, resulting in fewer mites than the check. The lowest mite densities were recorded from Movento, Mammoth, SuffOil-X, Agrimek, and PLP Natural. No visible signs of phytotoxicity were observed.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding from Certis USA, and Marrone Bio Innovations. Plants were provided by a commercial hemp grower in Hillsville, VA. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Mulder, P, G;Seuhs, S, K;Payton, M, E

Miticide Efficacy Against Twospotted Spider Mites on Cotton, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa008

Yellow pecan aphid: Monelliopsis pecanis Bissell, Blackmargined aphid: Monellia caryella (Fitch) Pecan nut | Carya illinoensis spirotetramat, flonicamid, sulfoxaflor, lambda-cyhalothrin We evaluated the efficacy of insecticide tank mixes for yellow pecan aphid (YPA) and blackmargined aphid (BA) suppression in pecan. The trial was conducted in a 24-yr-old pecan orchard (cv. Kanza and Pawnee) at the Cimarron Valley Research Station in Perkins, OK (Payne County). Four treatments and an untreated check were organized as an RCB design with two blocks of plots containing 12 to 20 trees representing both cultivars. Aphicides were applied on 30–31 Aug 2018 as a tank mix with Silencer (λ-cyhalothrin) for pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Horn). All treatments included the nonionic surfactant Transfix at a rate of 6 fl oz/100 gallons of water. At the time of application aphid density was very high (up to 4,000 + per compound leaf) following a weevil treatment using only a pyrethroid 2 wk earlier (Silencer, 16–17 Aug). Applications were made using a Savage PTO-driven, air-blast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa. Because of increasing winds on 30 Aug 2018, one treatment (Carbine, 2.4 oz) was delayed until the next morning. Sampling for aphids was conducted on 27 Aug (pretreatment), then 2, 9, and 14 Sept 2018 by counting the number of aphids (YPA + BA) per compound leaf on ten randomly chosen leaves (high and low) from each of the eight center trees within each plot. During the 2 wk after application, average daily temperatures were in the mid-20s with 13.2 cm of rainfall accumulating 2–9 DAT. Data on the average number of aphids per compound leaf were analyzed by ANOVA for each cultivar with means separated by LSD (<0.05) following square root transformation. All aphicide treatments, with the exception of Movento applied to both pecan cultivars 2 DAT and Carbine 2.4 oz applied to Kanza pecans 14 DAT, reduced aphid density compared with the Silencer alone (check) on all posttreatment evaluation dates (Tables 1 and 2). The lowest aphid densities 9 and 14 DAT in each cultivar were in plots treated with Closer. There were no significant differences in aphid density between the low and high rates of Carbine on any post-application evaluation date. Data suggest that Movento, Carbine, and Closer, each of which represents a different mode of action, can be effective tools in resistance management programs against aphids in pecan. Table 1. Aphid counts in Pawnee pecan Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 679.5 b 384.4 b 22.6 b 35.5 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 943.7 a 86.4 c 38.5 b 80.7 b Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 853.4 ab 115.4 c 42.2 b 82.7 b Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 802.8 ab 91.7 c 14.5 b 18.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 387.2 b 764.9 a 323.6 a 379.7 a Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 679.5 b 384.4 b 22.6 b 35.5 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 943.7 a 86.4 c 38.5 b 80.7 b Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 853.4 ab 115.4 c 42.2 b 82.7 b Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 802.8 ab 91.7 c 14.5 b 18.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 387.2 b 764.9 a 323.6 a 379.7 a Mean within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05) after sqrt(x) transformation. aAll experimental treatments included the nonionic surfactant Transfix at a rate of 6 fluid ounces/100 gallons of water. Silencer was included with all treatments for pecan weevil control. Open in new tab Table 1. Aphid counts in Pawnee pecan Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 679.5 b 384.4 b 22.6 b 35.5 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 943.7 a 86.4 c 38.5 b 80.7 b Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 853.4 ab 115.4 c 42.2 b 82.7 b Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 802.8 ab 91.7 c 14.5 b 18.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 387.2 b 764.9 a 323.6 a 379.7 a Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 679.5 b 384.4 b 22.6 b 35.5 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 943.7 a 86.4 c 38.5 b 80.7 b Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 853.4 ab 115.4 c 42.2 b 82.7 b Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 802.8 ab 91.7 c 14.5 b 18.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 387.2 b 764.9 a 323.6 a 379.7 a Mean within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05) after sqrt(x) transformation. aAll experimental treatments included the nonionic surfactant Transfix at a rate of 6 fluid ounces/100 gallons of water. Silencer was included with all treatments for pecan weevil control. Open in new tab Table 2. Aphid counts in Kanza pecan Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4197.2 a 461.4 a 61.2 b 85.1 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 4451.9 a 215.4 b 61.2 b 202.3 ab Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 2645.9 b 183.2 b 67.4 b 85.6 bc Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4693.7 a 97.9 b 14.8 b 33.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 2847.8 b 638.7 a 393.0 a 399.2 a Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4197.2 a 461.4 a 61.2 b 85.1 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 4451.9 a 215.4 b 61.2 b 202.3 ab Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 2645.9 b 183.2 b 67.4 b 85.6 bc Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4693.7 a 97.9 b 14.8 b 33.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 2847.8 b 638.7 a 393.0 a 399.2 a Mean within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05) after sqrt(x) transformation. aAll experimental treatments included the nonionic surfactant Transfix at a rate of 6 fluid ounces/100 gallons of water. Silencer was included with all treatments for pecan weevil control. Open in new tab Table 2. Aphid counts in Kanza pecan Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4197.2 a 461.4 a 61.2 b 85.1 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 4451.9 a 215.4 b 61.2 b 202.3 ab Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 2645.9 b 183.2 b 67.4 b 85.6 bc Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4693.7 a 97.9 b 14.8 b 33.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 2847.8 b 638.7 a 393.0 a 399.2 a Treatmenta Mean no. of aphids/compound leaf Rate/acre 27 Aug 2 Sep 9 Sep 14 Sep (Pre) (2 DAT) (9 DAT) (14 DAT) Movento SC + Silencer 8.0 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4197.2 a 461.4 a 61.2 b 85.1 bc Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.4 oz + 5.0 fl oz 4451.9 a 215.4 b 61.2 b 202.3 ab Carbine 50 WG + Silencer 2.8 oz + 5.0 fl oz 2645.9 b 183.2 b 67.4 b 85.6 bc Closer SC + Silencer 2.75 fl oz + 5.0 fl oz 4693.7 a 97.9 b 14.8 b 33.6 c Silencer 5.0 fl oz 2847.8 b 638.7 a 393.0 a 399.2 a Mean within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05) after sqrt(x) transformation. aAll experimental treatments included the nonionic surfactant Transfix at a rate of 6 fluid ounces/100 gallons of water. Silencer was included with all treatments for pecan weevil control. Open in new tab This research was supported in part by industry gifts of pesticides and/or research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Steckel,, Sandy;Williams,, Matthew;Stewart,, Scott

Insecticidal Control of Pepper Weevil on Jalapeño Pepper, Spring 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa068

Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp Twospotted spider mite | Tetranychus urticae Koch abamectin/avermectin B1, abamectin benzoate, spiromesifen, clofentezine Selected miticides were evaluated for control of a twospotted spider mite (TSM) infestation on cotton in a grower field in Gleason, TN that had surpassed the economic threshold of 30–50% of plants showing injury with mites present. Cotton was planted on 8 May 2019 on a 30-inch row spacing. The test was arranged in an RCB design with four replicates. Individual plots were 12.5 × 40 ft. Treatments were applied with a high clearance sprayer calibrated to deliver 9.4 GPA at 40 PSI with 8001 flat fan nozzles. The foliar application was made 3 Jul to flowering cotton with a spider mite infestation well in excess of the recommended treatment threshold. Adult and immature TSM were counted in a 1-inch2 area from the underside of 10 leaves of plants from the center two rows (10 inch2 total) of all plots. TSM were counted 6 and 9 DAT. Data were subjected to ANOVA, and means were separated using a protected LSD. All miticide treatments significantly reduced the number of TSM at the initial evaluation timing compared with the untreated check (Table 1). At 6 DAT, plots treated with an unregistered experimental compound had significantly fewer TSM than all other treatments except Oberon. Oberon provided significantly more reduction in TSM than Apollo and the lower rate of Denim. By 9 DAT, the experimental treatment reduced TSM numbers more than any other treatment, and plots treated with Oberon had fewer TSM than did those treated with Apollo or Denim. No phytotoxicity was observed with any treatment.1 Table 1. . . TSM mobiles per 10 inch2 . Treatment/formulation . Rate/ acre (oz form.) . 6 DATa . 9 DATb . Denim 0.16 EC 8.0 52.5b 54.5ab Denim 0.16 EC 10.0 28.8bc 30.3bc Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 1.72 30.5bc 14.8cd Experimental --- 1.0d 0.8e Oberon 4 SC 4.0 11.3cd 8.5d Apollo 4 SC 4.0 53.3b 90.8ab Untreated check 143.8a 114.8a P > F <0.01 <0.01 . . TSM mobiles per 10 inch2 . Treatment/formulation . Rate/ acre (oz form.) . 6 DATa . 9 DATb . Denim 0.16 EC 8.0 52.5b 54.5ab Denim 0.16 EC 10.0 28.8bc 30.3bc Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 1.72 30.5bc 14.8cd Experimental --- 1.0d 0.8e Oberon 4 SC 4.0 11.3cd 8.5d Apollo 4 SC 4.0 53.3b 90.8ab Untreated check 143.8a 114.8a P > F <0.01 <0.01 Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05, F-protected LSD). aData transformed due to unequal variances (sqr (x + .5)); non-transformed means presented. bData transformed due to unequal variances (log (x + 1)); non-transformed means presented. Open in new tab Table 1. . . TSM mobiles per 10 inch2 . Treatment/formulation . Rate/ acre (oz form.) . 6 DATa . 9 DATb . Denim 0.16 EC 8.0 52.5b 54.5ab Denim 0.16 EC 10.0 28.8bc 30.3bc Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 1.72 30.5bc 14.8cd Experimental --- 1.0d 0.8e Oberon 4 SC 4.0 11.3cd 8.5d Apollo 4 SC 4.0 53.3b 90.8ab Untreated check 143.8a 114.8a P > F <0.01 <0.01 . . TSM mobiles per 10 inch2 . Treatment/formulation . Rate/ acre (oz form.) . 6 DATa . 9 DATb . Denim 0.16 EC 8.0 52.5b 54.5ab Denim 0.16 EC 10.0 28.8bc 30.3bc Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 1.72 30.5bc 14.8cd Experimental --- 1.0d 0.8e Oberon 4 SC 4.0 11.3cd 8.5d Apollo 4 SC 4.0 53.3b 90.8ab Untreated check 143.8a 114.8a P > F <0.01 <0.01 Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05, F-protected LSD). aData transformed due to unequal variances (sqr (x + .5)); non-transformed means presented. bData transformed due to unequal variances (log (x + 1)); non-transformed means presented. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was partially supported by industry gifts of pesticide. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Control of Putnam Scale in Blue Crop Blueberry, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa027

Pepper weevil | Anthonomus eugenii Cano Pepper | Capsicum annuum thiamethoxam, spirotetramat, clothianidin, acetamiprid, novaluron, tolfenpyrad, indoxacarb, cyantraniliprole, oxamyl Pepper weevil is a key pest of pepper in Florida, causing extensive yield reduction by feeding on flower buds and fruit. Insecticidal control is not always effective because immature stages are contained within the fruit and protected from foliar pesticide applications. For this trial, greenhouse-raised pepper seedlings were transplanted in the field on 12 Mar at the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center in Immokalee FL. Transplants were set 2 ft apart in two sets of three raised beds on 6-ft centers 430 ft in length and covered with black polyethylene film mulch. The center row in each three row section was planted with zucchini and acted as spray buffer between treated rows. An RCB design was used with four replicates to allocate 10 treatments and the untreated check (Table 1). Each plot contained 12 plants with an 8-ft space left open between plots as a buffer. Maintenance sprays included Kocide (1.5 lbs/acre) and Manzate (1.5 lbs/acre) applied weekly as a tank mix to control foliar disease, in particular bacterial spot. Foliar applications were made with a high clearance sprayer operating at 180 psi at 2.3 mph with spray delivered through two vertical booms each equipped with two yellow Albuz ATR 80 hollow cone nozzles applying spray solution at a rate of 40 gpa (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment/ Formulation Rate (oz/acre) Application dates 24-Apr 30-Apr 6-May 8-May 13-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 28-May 30-May 3-Jun 5-Jun 7-Jun 10-Jun 12-Jun 14-Jun Untreated check Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Vydate 1L 32 x x x x x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Movento 240 SC 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Baythroid 1XL 2.8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Exponent 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x Exirel 20 SC 16 x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Treatment/ Formulation Rate (oz/acre) Application dates 24-Apr 30-Apr 6-May 8-May 13-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 28-May 30-May 3-Jun 5-Jun 7-Jun 10-Jun 12-Jun 14-Jun Untreated check Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Vydate 1L 32 x x x x x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Movento 240 SC 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Baythroid 1XL 2.8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Exponent 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x Exirel 20 SC 16 x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ Formulation Rate (oz/acre) Application dates 24-Apr 30-Apr 6-May 8-May 13-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 28-May 30-May 3-Jun 5-Jun 7-Jun 10-Jun 12-Jun 14-Jun Untreated check Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Vydate 1L 32 x x x x x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Movento 240 SC 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Baythroid 1XL 2.8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Exponent 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x Exirel 20 SC 16 x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Treatment/ Formulation Rate (oz/acre) Application dates 24-Apr 30-Apr 6-May 8-May 13-May 20-May 22-May 24-May 28-May 30-May 3-Jun 5-Jun 7-Jun 10-Jun 12-Jun 14-Jun Untreated check Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Vydate 1L 32 x x x x x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Movento 240 SC 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Baythroid 1XL 2.8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 9 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Cormoran DC 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Torac 15 EC 21 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Exponent 8 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x x Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 x x x x Exirel 20 SC 16 x x x x Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 x x x x Dyne-amic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Open in new tab On 31 May and 6, 13 Jun adults were counted on the five terminal whorls on each of five plants per plot. On the same dates, 10 newly opened flower buds were removed and brought back to the laboratory for inspection under a stereomicroscope to find immature life stages of the weevil. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and differences among treatment means on each sampling date were determined using least significant difference test (P = 0.05). Weevil pressure was extremely high, and fruit did not set until late in the trial. As such all fruit that was set was harvested and weighed regardless of size and quality on 19 Jun. Due to plant mortality in some plots, all data are presented on per plant basis. All treatment programs provided significant reduction in the number of adult weevils visible on five whorls on all three sample dates compared with the untreated check except Cormoran at 9 oz/acre on 13 Jun (Table 2). Most of these treatment effects and adult numbers translated into significant reductions in the feeding and oviposition wounds per flower bud, except Cormoran 9 oz rate and Movento on 31 May and 13 Jun. The reduction in the number of pepper weevil eggs found within the flowers in the treated plots compared with untreated check was significant on 31 May and 13 Jun (Table 2), except Baythroid on 31 May and Cormoran 9 oz rate on 13 Jun, which in turn were not significantly different from several of the other treatment programs. Only the Torac with Dyne-amic or Exponent and Avaunt eVo with Dyne-amic were able to reduce the number of pepper weevil larvae found in flowers on all three sample dates (Table 2), while the Actara/Avaunt/Exirel rotation did decrease the numbers on 31 May and 6 Jun. Cormoran 9 oz rate only did not have a significant reduction on 13 Jun. Larval reduction using Movento was only significant 6 Jun and with Baythroid on 31 May and 13 Jun. Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate, Oz/acre Adult weevils visible per five upper canopy whorls Pepper weevil eggs per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun Untreated check 0.95a 0.70a 0.50a 1.90a 3.32a 3.27a 0.23a 0.04 0.17a 0.28a 0.28ab 0.25ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 0.00c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.80bcd 0.21de 0.55bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.05d 0.05cd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 0.20bc 0.30b 0.05c 1.70a 0.48cde 3.15a 0.05bc 0.03 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.08cd 0.35a Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.05c 0.10bc 0.10bc 1.08b 1.15b 1.25b 0.13ab 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.39a 0.10cd Cormoran DC 9 0.40b 0.20bc 0.30ab 1.88a 0.89bc 2.60a 0.08bc 0 0.10ab 0.25a 0.20bc 0.05cd Cormoran DC 12 0.25bc 0.05c 0.05c 1.08b 0.65bcd 0.75bc 0.08bc 0.05 0.05bc 0.18ab 0.03d 0.08cd Torac 15 EC 21 0.00c 0.05c 0.10bc 0.28cde 0.84bcd 0.28c 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.03cd Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 0.05c 0.00c 0.05c 0.25de 0.23cde 0.68bc 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.05cd Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.00c 0.00c 0.10bc 0.15e 0.15e 1.02b 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.00d 0.00d Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 0.00c 0.10bc 0.10bc 0.88bc 0.73bcde 0.95bc 0.00c 0 0.05bc 0.05bc 0.08cd 0.15bc Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.05c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.60bcde 0.83bcd 0.93bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.10cd 0.13bcd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Treatment/formulation Rate, Oz/acre Adult weevils visible per five upper canopy whorls Pepper weevil eggs per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun Untreated check 0.95a 0.70a 0.50a 1.90a 3.32a 3.27a 0.23a 0.04 0.17a 0.28a 0.28ab 0.25ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 0.00c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.80bcd 0.21de 0.55bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.05d 0.05cd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 0.20bc 0.30b 0.05c 1.70a 0.48cde 3.15a 0.05bc 0.03 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.08cd 0.35a Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.05c 0.10bc 0.10bc 1.08b 1.15b 1.25b 0.13ab 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.39a 0.10cd Cormoran DC 9 0.40b 0.20bc 0.30ab 1.88a 0.89bc 2.60a 0.08bc 0 0.10ab 0.25a 0.20bc 0.05cd Cormoran DC 12 0.25bc 0.05c 0.05c 1.08b 0.65bcd 0.75bc 0.08bc 0.05 0.05bc 0.18ab 0.03d 0.08cd Torac 15 EC 21 0.00c 0.05c 0.10bc 0.28cde 0.84bcd 0.28c 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.03cd Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 0.05c 0.00c 0.05c 0.25de 0.23cde 0.68bc 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.05cd Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.00c 0.00c 0.10bc 0.15e 0.15e 1.02b 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.00d 0.00d Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 0.00c 0.10bc 0.10bc 0.88bc 0.73bcde 0.95bc 0.00c 0 0.05bc 0.05bc 0.08cd 0.15bc Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.05c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.60bcde 0.83bcd 0.93bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.10cd 0.13bcd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate, Oz/acre Adult weevils visible per five upper canopy whorls Pepper weevil eggs per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun Untreated check 0.95a 0.70a 0.50a 1.90a 3.32a 3.27a 0.23a 0.04 0.17a 0.28a 0.28ab 0.25ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 0.00c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.80bcd 0.21de 0.55bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.05d 0.05cd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 0.20bc 0.30b 0.05c 1.70a 0.48cde 3.15a 0.05bc 0.03 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.08cd 0.35a Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.05c 0.10bc 0.10bc 1.08b 1.15b 1.25b 0.13ab 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.39a 0.10cd Cormoran DC 9 0.40b 0.20bc 0.30ab 1.88a 0.89bc 2.60a 0.08bc 0 0.10ab 0.25a 0.20bc 0.05cd Cormoran DC 12 0.25bc 0.05c 0.05c 1.08b 0.65bcd 0.75bc 0.08bc 0.05 0.05bc 0.18ab 0.03d 0.08cd Torac 15 EC 21 0.00c 0.05c 0.10bc 0.28cde 0.84bcd 0.28c 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.03cd Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 0.05c 0.00c 0.05c 0.25de 0.23cde 0.68bc 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.05cd Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.00c 0.00c 0.10bc 0.15e 0.15e 1.02b 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.00d 0.00d Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 0.00c 0.10bc 0.10bc 0.88bc 0.73bcde 0.95bc 0.00c 0 0.05bc 0.05bc 0.08cd 0.15bc Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.05c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.60bcde 0.83bcd 0.93bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.10cd 0.13bcd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Treatment/formulation Rate, Oz/acre Adult weevils visible per five upper canopy whorls Pepper weevil eggs per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae per flower bud Pepper weevil larvae 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun 31 May 6 Jun 13 Jun Untreated check 0.95a 0.70a 0.50a 1.90a 3.32a 3.27a 0.23a 0.04 0.17a 0.28a 0.28ab 0.25ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 0.00c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.80bcd 0.21de 0.55bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.05d 0.05cd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 0.20bc 0.30b 0.05c 1.70a 0.48cde 3.15a 0.05bc 0.03 0.03bc 0.13abc 0.08cd 0.35a Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.05c 0.10bc 0.10bc 1.08b 1.15b 1.25b 0.13ab 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.39a 0.10cd Cormoran DC 9 0.40b 0.20bc 0.30ab 1.88a 0.89bc 2.60a 0.08bc 0 0.10ab 0.25a 0.20bc 0.05cd Cormoran DC 12 0.25bc 0.05c 0.05c 1.08b 0.65bcd 0.75bc 0.08bc 0.05 0.05bc 0.18ab 0.03d 0.08cd Torac 15 EC 21 0.00c 0.05c 0.10bc 0.28cde 0.84bcd 0.28c 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.03cd Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 0.05c 0.00c 0.05c 0.25de 0.23cde 0.68bc 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.03d 0.05cd Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.00c 0.00c 0.10bc 0.15e 0.15e 1.02b 0.00c 0 0.00c 0.00c 0.00d 0.00d Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 0.00c 0.10bc 0.10bc 0.88bc 0.73bcde 0.95bc 0.00c 0 0.05bc 0.05bc 0.08cd 0.15bc Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 0.05c 0.00c 0.15bc 0.60bcde 0.83bcd 0.93bc 0.03bc 0 0.03bc 0.03bc 0.10cd 0.13bcd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab The highest number of fruit were found in the Torac, Torac with Exponent and Avaunt eVo 6 oz rate treatments compared with the untreated check (Table 3). No phytotoxic effects were observed.1 Table 3. Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Harvested fruit Fruit per plant (No.) wt per plant (in g) Untreated check 0.03g 0.27d Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 9.20bcd 39.47bcd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 1.35efg 6.56d Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.95fg 2.67d Cormoran DC 9 3.80cdef 19.86cd Cormoran DC 12 6.50cdef 37.49bcd Torac 15 EC 21 12.85abc 61.17abc Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 16.4a 100.86a Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 14.05ab 82.88ab Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 7.65cde 38.81bcd Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 7.75bcd 34.44cd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Harvested fruit Fruit per plant (No.) wt per plant (in g) Untreated check 0.03g 0.27d Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 9.20bcd 39.47bcd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 1.35efg 6.56d Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.95fg 2.67d Cormoran DC 9 3.80cdef 19.86cd Cormoran DC 12 6.50cdef 37.49bcd Torac 15 EC 21 12.85abc 61.17abc Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 16.4a 100.86a Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 14.05ab 82.88ab Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 7.65cde 38.81bcd Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 7.75bcd 34.44cd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 3. Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Harvested fruit Fruit per plant (No.) wt per plant (in g) Untreated check 0.03g 0.27d Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 9.20bcd 39.47bcd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 1.35efg 6.56d Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.95fg 2.67d Cormoran DC 9 3.80cdef 19.86cd Cormoran DC 12 6.50cdef 37.49bcd Torac 15 EC 21 12.85abc 61.17abc Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 16.4a 100.86a Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 14.05ab 82.88ab Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 7.65cde 38.81bcd Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 7.75bcd 34.44cd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Treatment/formulation Rate, oz/acre Harvested fruit Fruit per plant (No.) wt per plant (in g) Untreated check 0.03g 0.27d Actara 25 WG 5.5 Vydate 1L 32 9.20bcd 39.47bcd Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Movento 240 SC 5 1.35efg 6.56d Dyne-amic 0.25% Baythroid 1XL 2.8 0.95fg 2.67d Cormoran DC 9 3.80cdef 19.86cd Cormoran DC 12 6.50cdef 37.49bcd Torac 15 EC 21 12.85abc 61.17abc Dyne-amic 0.25% Torac 15 EC 21 Dyne-amic 0.25% 16.4a 100.86a Exponent 8 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 14.05ab 82.88ab Dyne-amic 0.25% Avaunt eVo 30 DG 3.5 7.65cde 38.81bcd Dyne-amic 0.25% Actara 25 WG 5.5 Avaunt eVo 30 DG 6 7.75bcd 34.44cd Exirel 20 SC 16 Belay 2.13 SC 2.1 Dyne-amic 0.25% Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P > 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticide and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom, Anthony, H;Isaacs,, Rufus

Insecticidal Control of Green Peach Aphid on Pansies, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa043

Putnam Scale | Diaspidiotus ancylus (Putnam) Blueberry | Vaccinium spp buprofezin The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Centaur at different timings against Putnam Scale on blueberry. Three-bush plots were established in a 9-yr-old ‘Blue Crop’ blueberry planting (row spacing 12′ × 4′) located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville, MI (Blue Crop Block). There were four replicated plots per treatment, set up in an RCB design. Test materials were applied with an FMC 1029 tractor-mounted airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 GPA at 2.5 mph. Rates and timings of test materials are as outlined in Table 1. In addition, regular maintenance foliar applications were applied to all treatments including Indar, Abound, and Pristine. In addition, Callisto and Solicam were banded below the rows for weed control. Table 1. . . . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Treatment/ Formulation Rate Product/ Acre Appl Code per 25 shoots 25-Jul per 25 shoots 22 Oct per 1LB fruit 25 Sep Untreated 89.8 a 84.5 a 64.8 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 156.8 a 31.5 b 66 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 107.5 a 33.3 b 69.8 a . . . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Treatment/ Formulation Rate Product/ Acre Appl Code per 25 shoots 25-Jul per 25 shoots 22 Oct per 1LB fruit 25 Sep Untreated 89.8 a 84.5 a 64.8 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 156.8 a 31.5 b 66 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 107.5 a 33.3 b 69.8 a Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 10 May (Delayed Dormant), B = 25 Jun (Crawler Stage). Open in new tab Table 1. . . . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Treatment/ Formulation Rate Product/ Acre Appl Code per 25 shoots 25-Jul per 25 shoots 22 Oct per 1LB fruit 25 Sep Untreated 89.8 a 84.5 a 64.8 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 156.8 a 31.5 b 66 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 107.5 a 33.3 b 69.8 a . . . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Mean Putnam Scale . Treatment/ Formulation Rate Product/ Acre Appl Code per 25 shoots 25-Jul per 25 shoots 22 Oct per 1LB fruit 25 Sep Untreated 89.8 a 84.5 a 64.8 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz A 156.8 a 31.5 b 66 a Centaur 70 WDG 46 oz B 107.5 a 33.3 b 69.8 a Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on square-root transformed data; data presented are actual counts. A = 10 May (Delayed Dormant), B = 25 Jun (Crawler Stage). Open in new tab A field evaluation consisting of 25 randomly selected shoots per plot was made on 25 July and 22 October. The number of scale insects were counted, and results are shown as mean Putnam scale per 25 shoots (Table 1). A fruit evaluation was conducted on 25 July. One pound of fruit was harvested per plot and the number of scale insects was counted. Fruit infestation was reported as mean number of scale per pound (Table 1). All data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.05. ANOVA was run on transformed data, while actual counts are presented. Both spray timings of Centaur significantly reduced the incidence of Putnam scale on blueberry shoots in the 22 October evaluation, compared to the untreated check (Table 1).1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Vafaie,, Erfan;Pawlik,, Christine

Insecticide Efficacy Against Sugarcane Aphid in Sorghum, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa096

Pansy | Viola tricolor Green Peach Aphid | Myzus persicae Sulzer cyclaniliprole, flonicamid The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of Pradia (Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid) and KleenGrow (Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride) for control of green peach aphids on pansies grown under caged greenhouse conditions. The trial was conducted between 12 Jun 2020 and 10 Jul 2020 in the IPM greenhouse at the AgriLife Research & Extension Center in Overton, TX. Eight aphids (4th instar to adults) were introduced to each plant using a fine brush on 29 May 2020. On 12 Jun 2020, pansy plants were divided into seven replications of each treatment and arranged in a CRD (Table 1). A single replicate constituted one pansy plant in a 4-inch pot placed inside a 47.5 × 47.5 × 47.5-cm netted observation cage (44545F, BugDorm). Temperature and humidity in the greenhouse were recorded using a Hobo Logger (U23, HOBOWARE). All foliar sprays were applied with an R&D CO2 sprayer (Model D-203S) fitted with a 601FA single nozzle spray boom (Bellspray, Inc.) for even coverage and drenches were applied as 125 ml of formulated treatment per pot (Table 1). Assessment of aphid quantities consisted of a 60-second count (all life stages together) per plant and phytotoxicity ratings (0–10) at 0, 3, 7, and 14 DAT. Whole model treatments were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with treatment and DAT as fixed interacting factors and plant ID as random factor (P < 0.05), and Dunnett’s post hoc test with water check as the control group for each DAT. Aphid quantities were assessed at 0, 3, 7, and 14 DAT. Aphid densities caused the quality of several untreated control plants to decline, and a secondary infestation of thrips and spider mites caused a severe decline in plant quality in the treatment replications. Therefore, no aphid counts were conducted by 28 DAT. Table 1. Treatment trade name, active ingredient, application rate, and method of application # . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Application rate . Application method . 1 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 2 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 10.0 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 3 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 13.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 4 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 5 KleenGrow Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 13.0 fl oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 6 Water - - Foliar # . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Application rate . Application method . 1 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 2 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 10.0 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 3 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 13.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 4 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 5 KleenGrow Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 13.0 fl oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 6 Water - - Foliar Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment trade name, active ingredient, application rate, and method of application # . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Application rate . Application method . 1 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 2 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 10.0 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 3 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 13.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 4 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 5 KleenGrow Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 13.0 fl oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 6 Water - - Foliar # . Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Application rate . Application method . 1 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 2 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 10.0 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 3 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 13.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 4 Pradia Cyclaniliprole & Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. / 750 gal. Drench 5 KleenGrow Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 13.0 fl oz. / 100 gal. Foliar 6 Water - - Foliar Open in new tab All rates and methods of Pradia significantly reduced mean aphids by 3 DAT (Table 2) compared to the untreated check. Two of the Pradia treatments, the foliar and one drench, had 0 aphids on pansies by 7 DAT. By 14 DAT, all Pradia treatments had 100% suppression of aphids on the pansies (Table 2). KleenGrow had significantly fewer aphids than the untreated control by 3 DAT (Table 2), but it did not completely suppress the aphids for the duration of the trial. No signs of phytotoxicity were observed in any of the Pradia or KleenGrow treatments for the duration of the trial.1 Table 2. Mean aphids per plant on each DAT . . 0-DAT . 3-DAT . 7-DAT . 14-DAT . # . Treatment . 2 May . 5 May . 9 May . 16 May . 1 Pradia 33.6 5.90* 0.00* 0.00* 2 Pradia 33.4 13.7* 1.10* 0.00* 3 Pradia 34.0 12.7* 0.00* 0.00* 4 Pradia 34.0 24.4 0.40* 0.00* 5 KleenGrow 32.1 17.0* 18.1* 92.9* 6 Water 33.4 35.0 48.0 248 . . 0-DAT . 3-DAT . 7-DAT . 14-DAT . # . Treatment . 2 May . 5 May . 9 May . 16 May . 1 Pradia 33.6 5.90* 0.00* 0.00* 2 Pradia 33.4 13.7* 1.10* 0.00* 3 Pradia 34.0 12.7* 0.00* 0.00* 4 Pradia 34.0 24.4 0.40* 0.00* 5 KleenGrow 32.1 17.0* 18.1* 92.9* 6 Water 33.4 35.0 48.0 248 *Significantly different compared to water check (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method with control log(x + 1) within a column. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean aphids per plant on each DAT . . 0-DAT . 3-DAT . 7-DAT . 14-DAT . # . Treatment . 2 May . 5 May . 9 May . 16 May . 1 Pradia 33.6 5.90* 0.00* 0.00* 2 Pradia 33.4 13.7* 1.10* 0.00* 3 Pradia 34.0 12.7* 0.00* 0.00* 4 Pradia 34.0 24.4 0.40* 0.00* 5 KleenGrow 32.1 17.0* 18.1* 92.9* 6 Water 33.4 35.0 48.0 248 . . 0-DAT . 3-DAT . 7-DAT . 14-DAT . # . Treatment . 2 May . 5 May . 9 May . 16 May . 1 Pradia 33.6 5.90* 0.00* 0.00* 2 Pradia 33.4 13.7* 1.10* 0.00* 3 Pradia 34.0 12.7* 0.00* 0.00* 4 Pradia 34.0 24.4 0.40* 0.00* 5 KleenGrow 32.1 17.0* 18.1* 92.9* 6 Water 33.4 35.0 48.0 248 *Significantly different compared to water check (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method with control log(x + 1) within a column. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry funds and gifts of pesticides. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Owens,, David;Deidesheimer,, Joseph;Stubbs,, Cody

Potato Leafhopper Control in Snap Bean With Insecticides Allowed for Organic Production, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa092

Sorghum (broom, durra, Guinea corn, jowar) | Sorghum bicolor White Sugarcane aphid (SCA) | Melanaphis sacchari Zehntner flupyradifurone, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of insecticides on sugarcane aphid (SCA) control in a commercial sorghum field in Georgetown, DE. Sorghum var Dekalb ‘3816’ was planted with 30″ row spacing on 1 Jun. Plots consisted of four rows 20 ft long arranged in a randomized complete block design with six treatments and four replicates. Foliar applications were made on 11 Sep using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer with a 10′ boom equipped with 6 XR 8004 nozzles calibrated to deliver 20 GPA at 28 PSI. Plots were sampled on 11 Sep (pre count) and again 2, 7, and 14 DAT by removing five flag leaves and five lower leaves (two leaves above lowest) from plants in the middle two rows of each plot. The leaves were photographed and SCA were later counted. Plots experienced droughty conditions causing rapid leaf senescence. By 14 DAT few green leaves were available for sampling. The 2 and 7 DAT data were log transformed prior to ANOVA in SAS JMP. Tukey-Kramer HSD was used for means separation. Presented are non-transformed means. SCA populations were similar in all plots prior to treatment (Table 1). SCA populations increased in the untreated check on 2 and 7 DAT, but had crashed by 14 DAT due to widespread flash drought conditions that, in combination with the aphid pressure, resulted in leaf senescence and plant death. All three rates of Sivanto Prime were effective in controlling SCA as compared to the untreated check at 2 and 7 DAT and compared to the organophosphates (Lorsban and Dimethoate) at 14 DAT. Dimethoate 400 significantly reduced SCA at 2 DAT as compared to the untreated check. However, aphid numbers increased in Dimethoate plots at 7 and 14 DAT. Lorsban 4E did not significantly reduce the SCA population compared to the untreated check at all post-treatment dates. As in the Dimethoate-treated plots, aphid numbers initially decreased at 2 DAT but increased thereafter. Both Dimethoate 400 and Lorsban 4E activity may have been influenced by drought conditions. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Table 1. . . SCA per leaf . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Pre . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . . . 11 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . UTC — 799.0 832.5a 2,030.5a 1.0ab Sivanto Prime 1.67L 3.0a 546.0 42.5bc 1.0b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 5.0a 458.3 19.0c 1.3b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 7.0a 987.0 8.3c 2.3b 0.0b Lorsban 4E 1.0b 1,239.5 309.0a 815.0a 1,244.0a Dimethoate 400 4EC 1.0b 941.3 124.0ab 346.5aa 459.8ab P > F 0.3197 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0079 . . SCA per leaf . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Pre . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . . . 11 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . UTC — 799.0 832.5a 2,030.5a 1.0ab Sivanto Prime 1.67L 3.0a 546.0 42.5bc 1.0b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 5.0a 458.3 19.0c 1.3b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 7.0a 987.0 8.3c 2.3b 0.0b Lorsban 4E 1.0b 1,239.5 309.0a 815.0a 1,244.0a Dimethoate 400 4EC 1.0b 941.3 124.0ab 346.5aa 459.8ab P > F 0.3197 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0079 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. afl. oz. product per acre. bpt. product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. . . SCA per leaf . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Pre . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . . . 11 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . UTC — 799.0 832.5a 2,030.5a 1.0ab Sivanto Prime 1.67L 3.0a 546.0 42.5bc 1.0b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 5.0a 458.3 19.0c 1.3b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 7.0a 987.0 8.3c 2.3b 0.0b Lorsban 4E 1.0b 1,239.5 309.0a 815.0a 1,244.0a Dimethoate 400 4EC 1.0b 941.3 124.0ab 346.5aa 459.8ab P > F 0.3197 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0079 . . SCA per leaf . Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre . Pre . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . . . 11 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . 13 Sep . UTC — 799.0 832.5a 2,030.5a 1.0ab Sivanto Prime 1.67L 3.0a 546.0 42.5bc 1.0b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 5.0a 458.3 19.0c 1.3b 0.0b Sivanto Prime 1.67L 7.0a 987.0 8.3c 2.3b 0.0b Lorsban 4E 1.0b 1,239.5 309.0a 815.0a 1,244.0a Dimethoate 400 4EC 1.0b 941.3 124.0ab 346.5aa 459.8ab P > F 0.3197 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0079 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different. afl. oz. product per acre. bpt. product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry gifts of product. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Harding, Riley, Suzanne;Nault, Brian, A;Seaman,, Abby

Foliar Insecticide Efficacy Against Western Flower Thrips in Staked Tomato, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa070

Bean (snap) | Phaseolus vulgaris Potato leafhopper | Empoasca fabae (Harris) azadirachtin, pyrethrin, thyme oil Potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae Harris) is a serious pest of organically grown snap bean in New York, but little is known about efficacy of insecticides that could manage infestations. The objective of this trial was to identify effective insecticides listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute for managing potato leafhopper in snap bean. Field trials were conducted at Cornell AgriTech’s Fruit and Vegetable Research farm in Geneva, NY (GPS: 42°52′35.3″N 77°01′27.4″W). Snap bean seeds, ‘BA1001,’ were planted on 9 Jun 2017. All seed was treated with captan, metalaxyl, streptomycin, and thiram to protect against soil-borne diseases. Plots consisted of two 15-ft-long rows at 30-inch row spacing. Each two-row plot was flanked by two planted buffer rows and 3-ft of bare ground within rows to separate plots. The treatments listed in Table 1 were arranged in an RCB design and replicated six times. Spray programs were initiated when the potato leafhopper infestation reached a threshold of one nymph per trifoliate leaf. Insecticides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer and a two-row boom equipped with four, flat-fan nozzles (TJ-60 8002VS) that delivered 20 gallons per acre at 40 psi. Table 1. Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 0.4% v:v Thyme guard Thyme oil 0.5% v:v Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 0.4% v:v Thyme guard Thyme oil 0.5% v:v Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 0.4% v:v Thyme guard Thyme oil 0.5% v:v Treatment . Active ingredient(s) . Rate/A . Untreated check - - Azera Azadirachtin + pyrethrin 40 fl oz/A Pyganic specialty Pyrethrins 0.4% v:v Thyme guard Thyme oil 0.5% v:v Open in new tab The first application was made on 11 Jul and then followed by two additional applications made at 5-d intervals. After each application (3–5 DAT), efficacy of treatments was evaluated by recording the number of nymphs per 20 randomly selected trifoliates per plot. Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model in SAS (ver. 9.4; PROC GLIMMIX) where treatment was a fixed effect, and replication a random effect in the model. Treatment means were compared using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test at P < 0.05. Potato leafhopper densities in the Azera and Pyganic treatments were significantly lower than those in the untreated check on most sampling dates and overall (Table 2). Thyme Guard was not effective in reducing leafhopper densities. Further research should be done to understand optimal application frequency of the most efficacious treatments.1 Table 2. Product . Number of applications . Mean number of nymphs per trifoliate . . . 14 Jul . 18 Jul . 21 Jul . 26 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.2 ± 0.1ab 0.6 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.9 ± 0.1a 2.1 ± 0.3a Azera 3 0 ± 0b 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.3 ± 0.1bc 0.6 ± 0.1b Pyganic specialty 3 0 ± 0b 0.2 ± 0.0ab 0.3 ± 0.1b 0.2 ± 0.0c 0.7 ± 0.1b Thyme guard 3 0.2 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.7 ± 0.2a 0.7 ± 0.2ab 2.1 ± 0.4a P value 0.0058 0.0143 0.0104 0.0016 0.0006 Product . Number of applications . Mean number of nymphs per trifoliate . . . 14 Jul . 18 Jul . 21 Jul . 26 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.2 ± 0.1ab 0.6 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.9 ± 0.1a 2.1 ± 0.3a Azera 3 0 ± 0b 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.3 ± 0.1bc 0.6 ± 0.1b Pyganic specialty 3 0 ± 0b 0.2 ± 0.0ab 0.3 ± 0.1b 0.2 ± 0.0c 0.7 ± 0.1b Thyme guard 3 0.2 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.7 ± 0.2a 0.7 ± 0.2ab 2.1 ± 0.4a P value 0.0058 0.0143 0.0104 0.0016 0.0006 Means (±standard error) within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 6). Open in new tab Table 2. Product . Number of applications . Mean number of nymphs per trifoliate . . . 14 Jul . 18 Jul . 21 Jul . 26 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.2 ± 0.1ab 0.6 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.9 ± 0.1a 2.1 ± 0.3a Azera 3 0 ± 0b 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.3 ± 0.1bc 0.6 ± 0.1b Pyganic specialty 3 0 ± 0b 0.2 ± 0.0ab 0.3 ± 0.1b 0.2 ± 0.0c 0.7 ± 0.1b Thyme guard 3 0.2 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.7 ± 0.2a 0.7 ± 0.2ab 2.1 ± 0.4a P value 0.0058 0.0143 0.0104 0.0016 0.0006 Product . Number of applications . Mean number of nymphs per trifoliate . . . 14 Jul . 18 Jul . 21 Jul . 26 Jul . Total . Untreated check - 0.2 ± 0.1ab 0.6 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.9 ± 0.1a 2.1 ± 0.3a Azera 3 0 ± 0b 0.1 ± 0.0b 0.2 ± 0.1b 0.3 ± 0.1bc 0.6 ± 0.1b Pyganic specialty 3 0 ± 0b 0.2 ± 0.0ab 0.3 ± 0.1b 0.2 ± 0.0c 0.7 ± 0.1b Thyme guard 3 0.2 ± 0.1a 0.5 ± 0.1ab 0.7 ± 0.2a 0.7 ± 0.2ab 2.1 ± 0.4a P value 0.0058 0.0143 0.0104 0.0016 0.0006 Means (±standard error) within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 6). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1011209. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bilbo, Tom, R;Schoof, Steven, C;Walgenbach, James, F

Evaluation of Seed Treatment and Soil-Applied Insecticides Against Larval Western and Northern Corn Rootworm, 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa063

Tomato | Lycopersicon esculentum Western Flower Thrips (WFT) | Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) spinetoram, flonicamid, cyclaniliprole, tolfenpyrad, Chromobacterium subtsugae, Burkholderia spp, GS-omega/kappa-Hxtx-HV1a The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of various foliar insecticide treatments for the management of immature and adult western flower thrips (WFT) on staked tomatoes. The trial was conducted from 9 to 31 Jul 2019 in a commercial staked tomato field in Woodleaf, North Carolina, with a history of high WFT populations. Tomato ‘Mountain Fresh’ transplants were set into bare ground the first week of May, watered as needed with overhead irrigation, and sprayed with a standard fungicide program. The trial was established in a 0.6-acre section of an approximately 6-acre field in which plots consisted of a 25-ft-long section of a tomato row. Plants were spaced 1.5 ft apart within rows, which were 5 ft apart. Treatments within the same replicate were placed in the same row and treatment rows were separated by an untreated row. Each treatment consisted of four replications and were arranged in an RCB design. The evaluated insecticides and untreated check are listed in Tables 1 and 2. Each treatment was sprayed with a CO2-powered backpack sprayer delivering 62 gallons per acre through four hollow cone nozzles per row at 40 psi—each treatment was sprayed with a 2-nozzle wand on each side of the row. Treatments were applied on 9, 16, and 24 Jul. Table 1. Products evaluated for western flower thrips control in tomatoes—Woodleaf, NC, 2019 Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Manufacturer . Radiant 30SC Spinetoram Corteva Agriscience Beleaf 50SG Flonicamid FMC Corp. Harvanta 50SL Cyclaniliprole Summit Agro Torac 1.29EC Tolfenpyrad Nichino America Torac rotate with Beleaf see above see above Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Grandevo F Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Venerate SC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 Marrone Bio Innovations B. rinojensis Liquid B. rinojensis Marrone Bio Innovations Spear-T (2%) GS-omega/Kappa-Hxtx-Hv 1a Vestaron Corp. Control ― ― Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Manufacturer . Radiant 30SC Spinetoram Corteva Agriscience Beleaf 50SG Flonicamid FMC Corp. Harvanta 50SL Cyclaniliprole Summit Agro Torac 1.29EC Tolfenpyrad Nichino America Torac rotate with Beleaf see above see above Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Grandevo F Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Venerate SC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 Marrone Bio Innovations B. rinojensis Liquid B. rinojensis Marrone Bio Innovations Spear-T (2%) GS-omega/Kappa-Hxtx-Hv 1a Vestaron Corp. Control ― ― Open in new tab Table 1. Products evaluated for western flower thrips control in tomatoes—Woodleaf, NC, 2019 Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Manufacturer . Radiant 30SC Spinetoram Corteva Agriscience Beleaf 50SG Flonicamid FMC Corp. Harvanta 50SL Cyclaniliprole Summit Agro Torac 1.29EC Tolfenpyrad Nichino America Torac rotate with Beleaf see above see above Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Grandevo F Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Venerate SC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 Marrone Bio Innovations B. rinojensis Liquid B. rinojensis Marrone Bio Innovations Spear-T (2%) GS-omega/Kappa-Hxtx-Hv 1a Vestaron Corp. Control ― ― Treatment/formulation . Active ingredient . Manufacturer . Radiant 30SC Spinetoram Corteva Agriscience Beleaf 50SG Flonicamid FMC Corp. Harvanta 50SL Cyclaniliprole Summit Agro Torac 1.29EC Tolfenpyrad Nichino America Torac rotate with Beleaf see above see above Grandevo WDG Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Grandevo F Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAAA-1 Marrone Bio Innovations Venerate SC Heat-killed Burkholderia spp. strain A396 Marrone Bio Innovations B. rinojensis Liquid B. rinojensis Marrone Bio Innovations Spear-T (2%) GS-omega/Kappa-Hxtx-Hv 1a Vestaron Corp. Control ― ― Open in new tab Table 2. Mean thrips populations and season total cumulative thrips days (CTD) on tomato foliage treated with various insecticides on 9, 16, and 24 Jul—Woodleaf, NC, 2019 . . # Immatures per 10 leaflets . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DATa . 7 DATb . 8 DATc . CTD . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . (12 Jul) . (16 Jul) . (23 Jul) . (31 Jul) . . Radiant SC 6 fl oz 63.5a 57.5cd 11.8bcd 13.3a 75.1abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 21.8a 5.0a 3.0a 8.3a 23.0e Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 31.5a 22.8b 6.0bac 12.8a 40.2de Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 26.5a 29.8bc 10.8bcd 12.8a 45.9cd Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 61.8a 27.8b 5.0ab 7.3a 50.6bcd Grandevo WDG 3 lb 20.8a 57.8d 7.8abc 13.5a 69.6abc Grandevo F 3 qt 34.0a 70.0d 20.3d 13.0a 77.9abc Venerate SC 4 qt 29.5a 63.8d 10.5bcd 14.3a 66.1abcd B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 45.5a 83.3d 14.8cd 13.0a 85.1ab Spear-T 2% AI 25% (1:4 mix) 56.5a 68.0d 15.0cd 13.5a 80.9ab Control ― 49.5a 89.5d 11.3bcd 18.8a 89.6a # Adults per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 27.0b 10.0a 7.0a 8.0bc 25.8ab Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 6.3a 3.3a 5.3a 1.8a 11.0b Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 25.8b 10.0a 5.5a 11.3c 25.6ab Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 14.3b 10.0a 9.3a 5.0ab 21.8ab Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 20.8b 15.8a 5.0a 5.8abc 24.4ab Grandevo WDG 3 lb 26.0b 7.5a 7.8a 4.3ab 23.2ab Grandevo F 3 qt 32.8b 10.8a 11.5a 5.8abc 30.7a Venerate SC 4 qt 22.0b 13.8a 6.5a 10.3bc 26.7a B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 33.5b 11.5a 6.8a 4.8ab 27.4ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 28.0b 9.8a 5.8a 5.5abc 24.1ab Control ― 29.8b 17.8a 10.3a 7.0bc 33.1a # Total thrips per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 90.5d 67.5cd 18.8a 21.3a 100.9abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 28.0a 8.3a 8.3a 10.0a 34.1d Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 57.3bcd 32.8b 11.5a 24.0a 65.8c Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 40.8ab 39.8bc 20.0a 17.8a 67.8bc Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 82.5cd 43.5bc 10.0a 13.0a 75.0bc Grandevo WDG 3 lb 46.8ab 65.3cd 15.5a 17.8a 92.3abc Grandevo F 3 qt 66.8bcd 80.8de 31.8a 18.8a 108.7ab Venerate SC 4 qt 51.5abc 77.5de 17.0a 24.5a 92.7abc B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 79.0cd 94.8de 21.5a 17.8a 112.5ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 84.5d 77.8de 20.8a 19.0a 105.0ab Control ― 79.3cd 107.3e 21.5a 25.8a 122.7a . . # Immatures per 10 leaflets . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DATa . 7 DATb . 8 DATc . CTD . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . (12 Jul) . (16 Jul) . (23 Jul) . (31 Jul) . . Radiant SC 6 fl oz 63.5a 57.5cd 11.8bcd 13.3a 75.1abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 21.8a 5.0a 3.0a 8.3a 23.0e Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 31.5a 22.8b 6.0bac 12.8a 40.2de Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 26.5a 29.8bc 10.8bcd 12.8a 45.9cd Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 61.8a 27.8b 5.0ab 7.3a 50.6bcd Grandevo WDG 3 lb 20.8a 57.8d 7.8abc 13.5a 69.6abc Grandevo F 3 qt 34.0a 70.0d 20.3d 13.0a 77.9abc Venerate SC 4 qt 29.5a 63.8d 10.5bcd 14.3a 66.1abcd B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 45.5a 83.3d 14.8cd 13.0a 85.1ab Spear-T 2% AI 25% (1:4 mix) 56.5a 68.0d 15.0cd 13.5a 80.9ab Control ― 49.5a 89.5d 11.3bcd 18.8a 89.6a # Adults per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 27.0b 10.0a 7.0a 8.0bc 25.8ab Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 6.3a 3.3a 5.3a 1.8a 11.0b Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 25.8b 10.0a 5.5a 11.3c 25.6ab Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 14.3b 10.0a 9.3a 5.0ab 21.8ab Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 20.8b 15.8a 5.0a 5.8abc 24.4ab Grandevo WDG 3 lb 26.0b 7.5a 7.8a 4.3ab 23.2ab Grandevo F 3 qt 32.8b 10.8a 11.5a 5.8abc 30.7a Venerate SC 4 qt 22.0b 13.8a 6.5a 10.3bc 26.7a B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 33.5b 11.5a 6.8a 4.8ab 27.4ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 28.0b 9.8a 5.8a 5.5abc 24.1ab Control ― 29.8b 17.8a 10.3a 7.0bc 33.1a # Total thrips per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 90.5d 67.5cd 18.8a 21.3a 100.9abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 28.0a 8.3a 8.3a 10.0a 34.1d Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 57.3bcd 32.8b 11.5a 24.0a 65.8c Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 40.8ab 39.8bc 20.0a 17.8a 67.8bc Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 82.5cd 43.5bc 10.0a 13.0a 75.0bc Grandevo WDG 3 lb 46.8ab 65.3cd 15.5a 17.8a 92.3abc Grandevo F 3 qt 66.8bcd 80.8de 31.8a 18.8a 108.7ab Venerate SC 4 qt 51.5abc 77.5de 17.0a 24.5a 92.7abc B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 79.0cd 94.8de 21.5a 17.8a 112.5ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 84.5d 77.8de 20.8a 19.0a 105.0ab Control ― 79.3cd 107.3e 21.5a 25.8a 122.7a Means within columns and life stages followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05). a7 days after the first insecticide application. b7 days after the second insecticide application. c8 days after the third insecticides application. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean thrips populations and season total cumulative thrips days (CTD) on tomato foliage treated with various insecticides on 9, 16, and 24 Jul—Woodleaf, NC, 2019 . . # Immatures per 10 leaflets . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DATa . 7 DATb . 8 DATc . CTD . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . (12 Jul) . (16 Jul) . (23 Jul) . (31 Jul) . . Radiant SC 6 fl oz 63.5a 57.5cd 11.8bcd 13.3a 75.1abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 21.8a 5.0a 3.0a 8.3a 23.0e Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 31.5a 22.8b 6.0bac 12.8a 40.2de Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 26.5a 29.8bc 10.8bcd 12.8a 45.9cd Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 61.8a 27.8b 5.0ab 7.3a 50.6bcd Grandevo WDG 3 lb 20.8a 57.8d 7.8abc 13.5a 69.6abc Grandevo F 3 qt 34.0a 70.0d 20.3d 13.0a 77.9abc Venerate SC 4 qt 29.5a 63.8d 10.5bcd 14.3a 66.1abcd B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 45.5a 83.3d 14.8cd 13.0a 85.1ab Spear-T 2% AI 25% (1:4 mix) 56.5a 68.0d 15.0cd 13.5a 80.9ab Control ― 49.5a 89.5d 11.3bcd 18.8a 89.6a # Adults per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 27.0b 10.0a 7.0a 8.0bc 25.8ab Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 6.3a 3.3a 5.3a 1.8a 11.0b Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 25.8b 10.0a 5.5a 11.3c 25.6ab Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 14.3b 10.0a 9.3a 5.0ab 21.8ab Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 20.8b 15.8a 5.0a 5.8abc 24.4ab Grandevo WDG 3 lb 26.0b 7.5a 7.8a 4.3ab 23.2ab Grandevo F 3 qt 32.8b 10.8a 11.5a 5.8abc 30.7a Venerate SC 4 qt 22.0b 13.8a 6.5a 10.3bc 26.7a B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 33.5b 11.5a 6.8a 4.8ab 27.4ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 28.0b 9.8a 5.8a 5.5abc 24.1ab Control ― 29.8b 17.8a 10.3a 7.0bc 33.1a # Total thrips per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 90.5d 67.5cd 18.8a 21.3a 100.9abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 28.0a 8.3a 8.3a 10.0a 34.1d Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 57.3bcd 32.8b 11.5a 24.0a 65.8c Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 40.8ab 39.8bc 20.0a 17.8a 67.8bc Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 82.5cd 43.5bc 10.0a 13.0a 75.0bc Grandevo WDG 3 lb 46.8ab 65.3cd 15.5a 17.8a 92.3abc Grandevo F 3 qt 66.8bcd 80.8de 31.8a 18.8a 108.7ab Venerate SC 4 qt 51.5abc 77.5de 17.0a 24.5a 92.7abc B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 79.0cd 94.8de 21.5a 17.8a 112.5ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 84.5d 77.8de 20.8a 19.0a 105.0ab Control ― 79.3cd 107.3e 21.5a 25.8a 122.7a . . # Immatures per 10 leaflets . . . . 3 DAT . 7 DATa . 7 DATb . 8 DATc . CTD . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . (12 Jul) . (16 Jul) . (23 Jul) . (31 Jul) . . Radiant SC 6 fl oz 63.5a 57.5cd 11.8bcd 13.3a 75.1abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 21.8a 5.0a 3.0a 8.3a 23.0e Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 31.5a 22.8b 6.0bac 12.8a 40.2de Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 26.5a 29.8bc 10.8bcd 12.8a 45.9cd Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 61.8a 27.8b 5.0ab 7.3a 50.6bcd Grandevo WDG 3 lb 20.8a 57.8d 7.8abc 13.5a 69.6abc Grandevo F 3 qt 34.0a 70.0d 20.3d 13.0a 77.9abc Venerate SC 4 qt 29.5a 63.8d 10.5bcd 14.3a 66.1abcd B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 45.5a 83.3d 14.8cd 13.0a 85.1ab Spear-T 2% AI 25% (1:4 mix) 56.5a 68.0d 15.0cd 13.5a 80.9ab Control ― 49.5a 89.5d 11.3bcd 18.8a 89.6a # Adults per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 27.0b 10.0a 7.0a 8.0bc 25.8ab Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 6.3a 3.3a 5.3a 1.8a 11.0b Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 25.8b 10.0a 5.5a 11.3c 25.6ab Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 14.3b 10.0a 9.3a 5.0ab 21.8ab Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 20.8b 15.8a 5.0a 5.8abc 24.4ab Grandevo WDG 3 lb 26.0b 7.5a 7.8a 4.3ab 23.2ab Grandevo F 3 qt 32.8b 10.8a 11.5a 5.8abc 30.7a Venerate SC 4 qt 22.0b 13.8a 6.5a 10.3bc 26.7a B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 33.5b 11.5a 6.8a 4.8ab 27.4ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 28.0b 9.8a 5.8a 5.5abc 24.1ab Control ― 29.8b 17.8a 10.3a 7.0bc 33.1a # Total thrips per 10 leaflets Radiant SC 6 fl oz 90.5d 67.5cd 18.8a 21.3a 100.9abc Beleaf 50SG 4.28 oz 28.0a 8.3a 8.3a 10.0a 34.1d Harvanta 50SL 16.4 fl oz 57.3bcd 32.8b 11.5a 24.0a 65.8c Torac 1.29EC 21 fl oz 40.8ab 39.8bc 20.0a 17.8a 67.8bc Torac EC rotate with Beleaf SG 21 fl oz 4.28 oz 82.5cd 43.5bc 10.0a 13.0a 75.0bc Grandevo WDG 3 lb 46.8ab 65.3cd 15.5a 17.8a 92.3abc Grandevo F 3 qt 66.8bcd 80.8de 31.8a 18.8a 108.7ab Venerate SC 4 qt 51.5abc 77.5de 17.0a 24.5a 92.7abc B. rinojensis (liquid) 7.68 fl oz 79.0cd 94.8de 21.5a 17.8a 112.5ab Spear-T (2% AI) 25% (1:4 mix) 84.5d 77.8de 20.8a 19.0a 105.0ab Control ― 79.3cd 107.3e 21.5a 25.8a 122.7a Means within columns and life stages followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05). a7 days after the first insecticide application. b7 days after the second insecticide application. c8 days after the third insecticides application. Open in new tab Counts of immature and adult thrips were recorded on 12, 16, 23, and 31 Jul (3 and 7 days after the first treatment application, and then again at 7 days after the second application and 8 days after the third application). Thrips were sampled by removing 10 leaflets per plot from a mature leaf located in the upper half of the plant and rinsing each leaflet in a 100 ml plastic cup containing approximately 70 ml of 50% EtOH. Samples were returned to the laboratory where thrips were counted under a stereo microscope. Season total cumulative thrips days were calculated by multiplying the average density on successive sample dates by the sampling interval (days) and adding all thrips days over all sample dates. Number of thrips were log10(x+1)-transformed and analyzed within each sampling date and life stage using ANOVA and means were separated using LSD (P = 0.05). At the time of first application of treatments on 9 Jul, thrips populations averaged 16.1 ± 2.3 (SEM) adults and 47.4 ± 5.4 (SEM) immature thrips per 10 leaflets, collected from eight random samples across all four replicates. Immature thrips in the non-sprayed check increased to a peak density of 89.5 ± 7.8 thrips per 10 leaflets on 16 Jul, and then declined to <20 per 10 leaflets on 23 and 31 Jul (Table 2). Adult populations in the non-sprayed check reached their peak density on 12 Jul (29.8 ± 6.1) and then declined over the remaining weeks to 7.0 ± 1.9 on 31 Jul. At 3 DAT following the first application, none of the treatments significantly reduced the number of immature thrips, although the number of adults was reduced by the application of Beleaf (Table 2). On 16 Jul (7 DAT), Beleaf, Harvanta, and Torac all significantly reduced densities of immature thrips, while there were no differences among treatments in adult densities. Following the second and third application of treatments, counts were highly variable among treatments, and Beleaf was the only treatment to significantly reduce thrips counts below the check. Season total cumulative thrips days (based on both adult and immature thrips counts) are shown in Table 2 and illustrate that Beleaf was the most effective treatment tested in reducing thrips populations. Harvanta, Torac, Grandevo WDG, and Venerate SC also significantly reduced thrips numbers below the check.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Reinders, Jordan, D;Rystrom, Zachary, D;Reinders, Emily, E;Dang, Timothy, B;Meinke, Lance, J

Insecticides for Citrus Leafminer Control, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa120

Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays Western corn rootworm (WCR) | Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte, Northern corn rootworm (NCR) | Diabrotica barberi Smith & Lawrence The effectiveness of various seed treatments and soil-applied insecticides (granular and liquid formulations) at reducing root injury from WCR and NCR larval feeding under continuous corn production was assessed at the Eastern Nebraska Research and Extension Center (UNL-ENREC) near Ithaca, Nebraska. Local Seed Co. hybrid ‘LC0488VT2P’ was utilized in this trial and did not express rootworm-active Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) traits. Individual plots were 4 rows × 30 ft in length with 30-inch row spacing, and planted on 27 Apr 2020 at a seeding rate ca. 32,000 seeds/acre. Eight treatments were compared to an untreated check in a randomized complete block design with four replications per treatment. Insecticide compounds, formulations, and application rates are available in Table 1. Granular insecticides were applied into the open seed furrow at plating using a SmartBox system. Liquid insecticides were applied in water with a finished volume of 5 gpa using a TeeJet® flow regulator (orifice plate, CP4916-28) with a compressed air system pressurized at 20 psi. The WCR was the predominant corn rootworm species at the trial site (>95% WCR). Initial WCR egg hatch was detected on 8 Jun and initial WCR emergence was observed on 7 Jul. Initial plant stands were recorded on 19 May (V1-V2 stages) and on 1 Jun (V3-V4 stage) by counting the total number of plants within 17.5 row-ft in each plot. Final plant stands and plant lodging were recorded prior to harvest on 23 Sep by counting the total number of plants and the number of plants leaning at ≥ 45° angle from vertical in the center 28 ft of the two middle rows per plot, respectively. Larval root injury was assessed on 23 Jul by excavating five plants from the middle two rows of each plot and rating them using the 0–3 node injury scale (NIS; 0 = no feeding, 1 = one node of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, 2 = two nodes of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, and 3 = 3 or more nodes of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk). The center 28 ft from the middle two rows of each plot was mechanically harvested on 7 Oct with a Kincaid 2-row 8-XP combine. Data were analyzed by PROC GLIMMIX in SAS (version 9.4) with data fit to a negative binomial (stand count), beta (NIS, proportion lodged plants), or normal (yield) distribution. Yield per plot was converted to 15.5% moisture prior to analysis. The LSMEANS option was used to determine differences among treatments using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons (P ≤ 0.05). Table 1. . . Application . Plant density per acre . . Proportion lodged . Yield . Treatment/formulation . Rate/Acre . Method . 19 May . 1 June . 23 Sep . NIS ratingg . Plantsh . (bu/acre) . Untreated Check - - 29,250a 29,000a 22,013a 2.01a 0.60a 164.74c Capture LFR 1.5SC 14.2a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,525a 1.02cd 0.05c 225.75a Force 2.1CS 10.0a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,758a 0.76de 0.01c 222.10a Aztec 4.67G 3.75b IFGAPe 31,500a 31,500a 24,891a 0.59e 0.00c 201.36abc Poncho 5FS 0.5c STf 30,500a 30,500a 25,669a 1.82ab 0.53a 169.05bc Poncho 5FS 1.25c STf 31,250a 31,250a 25,047a 1.41bc 0.36 ab 202.47abc Ampex 1.73SC 8.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,500a 25,203a 1.49b 0.35ab 207.50ab Ampex 1.73SC 12.0a IFSAPd 32,000a 32,000a 25,514a 1.51b 0.24b 204.68abc Ampex 1.73SC 15.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,000a 25,436a 1.59ab 0.21b 219.19a (P > F) 0.99 0.99 0.50 <0.01 0.04 0.04 . . Application . Plant density per acre . . Proportion lodged . Yield . Treatment/formulation . Rate/Acre . Method . 19 May . 1 June . 23 Sep . NIS ratingg . Plantsh . (bu/acre) . Untreated Check - - 29,250a 29,000a 22,013a 2.01a 0.60a 164.74c Capture LFR 1.5SC 14.2a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,525a 1.02cd 0.05c 225.75a Force 2.1CS 10.0a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,758a 0.76de 0.01c 222.10a Aztec 4.67G 3.75b IFGAPe 31,500a 31,500a 24,891a 0.59e 0.00c 201.36abc Poncho 5FS 0.5c STf 30,500a 30,500a 25,669a 1.82ab 0.53a 169.05bc Poncho 5FS 1.25c STf 31,250a 31,250a 25,047a 1.41bc 0.36 ab 202.47abc Ampex 1.73SC 8.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,500a 25,203a 1.49b 0.35ab 207.50ab Ampex 1.73SC 12.0a IFSAPd 32,000a 32,000a 25,514a 1.51b 0.24b 204.68abc Ampex 1.73SC 15.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,000a 25,436a 1.59ab 0.21b 219.19a (P > F) 0.99 0.99 0.50 <0.01 0.04 0.04 Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P>0.05). afl oz/A. blbs/A. cmg AI/seed. dIFSAP = In-Furrow Spray At-Planting. eIGAP = In-Furrow Granule At-Planting. fST = Seed Treatment. gNode-injury score (0–3 rating scale). hMean proportion of plants leaning at ≥ 45° angle from vertical per 56 row-ft. Open in new tab Table 1. . . Application . Plant density per acre . . Proportion lodged . Yield . Treatment/formulation . Rate/Acre . Method . 19 May . 1 June . 23 Sep . NIS ratingg . Plantsh . (bu/acre) . Untreated Check - - 29,250a 29,000a 22,013a 2.01a 0.60a 164.74c Capture LFR 1.5SC 14.2a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,525a 1.02cd 0.05c 225.75a Force 2.1CS 10.0a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,758a 0.76de 0.01c 222.10a Aztec 4.67G 3.75b IFGAPe 31,500a 31,500a 24,891a 0.59e 0.00c 201.36abc Poncho 5FS 0.5c STf 30,500a 30,500a 25,669a 1.82ab 0.53a 169.05bc Poncho 5FS 1.25c STf 31,250a 31,250a 25,047a 1.41bc 0.36 ab 202.47abc Ampex 1.73SC 8.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,500a 25,203a 1.49b 0.35ab 207.50ab Ampex 1.73SC 12.0a IFSAPd 32,000a 32,000a 25,514a 1.51b 0.24b 204.68abc Ampex 1.73SC 15.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,000a 25,436a 1.59ab 0.21b 219.19a (P > F) 0.99 0.99 0.50 <0.01 0.04 0.04 . . Application . Plant density per acre . . Proportion lodged . Yield . Treatment/formulation . Rate/Acre . Method . 19 May . 1 June . 23 Sep . NIS ratingg . Plantsh . (bu/acre) . Untreated Check - - 29,250a 29,000a 22,013a 2.01a 0.60a 164.74c Capture LFR 1.5SC 14.2a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,525a 1.02cd 0.05c 225.75a Force 2.1CS 10.0a IFSAPd 31,750a 31,750a 26,758a 0.76de 0.01c 222.10a Aztec 4.67G 3.75b IFGAPe 31,500a 31,500a 24,891a 0.59e 0.00c 201.36abc Poncho 5FS 0.5c STf 30,500a 30,500a 25,669a 1.82ab 0.53a 169.05bc Poncho 5FS 1.25c STf 31,250a 31,250a 25,047a 1.41bc 0.36 ab 202.47abc Ampex 1.73SC 8.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,500a 25,203a 1.49b 0.35ab 207.50ab Ampex 1.73SC 12.0a IFSAPd 32,000a 32,000a 25,514a 1.51b 0.24b 204.68abc Ampex 1.73SC 15.0a IFSAPd 31,500a 31,000a 25,436a 1.59ab 0.21b 219.19a (P > F) 0.99 0.99 0.50 <0.01 0.04 0.04 Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P>0.05). afl oz/A. blbs/A. cmg AI/seed. dIFSAP = In-Furrow Spray At-Planting. eIGAP = In-Furrow Granule At-Planting. fST = Seed Treatment. gNode-injury score (0–3 rating scale). hMean proportion of plants leaning at ≥ 45° angle from vertical per 56 row-ft. Open in new tab Plant populations were similar among treatments throughout the duration of the trial. Plant stand means were not significantly different among treatments on 19 May, 1 Jun, or 23 Sep 2019 (Table 1). Relatively high larval corn rootworm pressure (untreated NIS mean = 2.01) resulted in significant differences in root injury, lodging, and yield between the untreated check and one or more insecticidal treatments. Force 2.1CS and Aztec 4.67G provided the greatest root protection. Lodging recorded from Capture LFR 1.5SC, Force 2.1CS, and Aztec 4.67G treatments was minimal and was significantly lower than lodging in other treatments. In general, the level of lodging increased with increased root injury. However, a similar relationship between root injury and yield was not apparent. Yield was similar among many insecticide treatments with Capture LFR 1.5SC, Force 2.1CS, and two Ampex 1.73SC treatments significantly greater than the untreated check.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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-NonCommercial 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Insecticidal Control of Pepper Weevil with the Use of an Experimental Surfactant on Jalapeño Pepper, Fall 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa013

Citrus leafminer | Phyllocnistis citrella (Stainton) Satsuma (clementine, mandarin, tangerine) | Citrus reticulata A field trial to determine the efficacy of insecticides to protect citrus foliage against citrus leafminer was conducted in a 6-yr-old ‘Tango’ mandarin orchard at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California. Sample trees were pruned on 9 Sep 2019 to stimulate new flush. Insecticides were applied on 3 Oct using 200 psi and 100 gpa to 10 trees per treatment in a CRD using a 100 gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation. All treatments were applied with 0.5% Omni 6E oil. Five to fifteen young flush leaves that could be utilized by citrus leafminer larvae were collected from four branches per tree and examined under a dissection microscope at weekly intervals during Oct through Dec. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Differences in the mean number of larvae per leaf were determined using Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (P ≤ 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. The Intrepid treatment significantly reduced the mean number of larvae compared with the untreated check for 3 wk, the Altacor treatment reduced the mean number of larvae for 4 wk, and the Exirel treatment and Delegate reduced the mean number of larvae through week 5 and during week 7 (Table 1).1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt form/acre or vol) Mean number live larvae/suitable leaf 10 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct 31 Oct 6 Nov 14 Nov 21 Nov 26 Nov Untreated Check 0.21a 0.10a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a Intrepid 2F + Omni 6E oil 16a + 0.5% 0.01b 0.01b 0.02b 0.03ab 0.05a 0.07a 0.02ab 0.08a Altacor WDG + Omni 6E oil 4.5b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.02 b 0.03ab 0.08a 0.04abc 0.04a Exirel SE + Omni 6E oil 20.5a + 0.5% 0.00b 0.01b 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.13a 0.02bc 0.03a Delegate WG + Omni 6E oil 6b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.02b 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.01a 0.00b 0.02a F4,45 11.31 6.09 6.29 4.26 4.76 1.23 2.54 1.08 P <0.0001 0.0005 0.0004 0.0052 0.0028 0.3132 0.0528 0.3800 Treatment/formulation Rate (amt form/acre or vol) Mean number live larvae/suitable leaf 10 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct 31 Oct 6 Nov 14 Nov 21 Nov 26 Nov Untreated Check 0.21a 0.10a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a Intrepid 2F + Omni 6E oil 16a + 0.5% 0.01b 0.01b 0.02b 0.03ab 0.05a 0.07a 0.02ab 0.08a Altacor WDG + Omni 6E oil 4.5b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.02 b 0.03ab 0.08a 0.04abc 0.04a Exirel SE + Omni 6E oil 20.5a + 0.5% 0.00b 0.01b 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.13a 0.02bc 0.03a Delegate WG + Omni 6E oil 6b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.02b 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.01a 0.00b 0.02a F4,45 11.31 6.09 6.29 4.26 4.76 1.23 2.54 1.08 P <0.0001 0.0005 0.0004 0.0052 0.0028 0.3132 0.0528 0.3800 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate (amt form/acre or vol) Mean number live larvae/suitable leaf 10 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct 31 Oct 6 Nov 14 Nov 21 Nov 26 Nov Untreated Check 0.21a 0.10a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a Intrepid 2F + Omni 6E oil 16a + 0.5% 0.01b 0.01b 0.02b 0.03ab 0.05a 0.07a 0.02ab 0.08a Altacor WDG + Omni 6E oil 4.5b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.02 b 0.03ab 0.08a 0.04abc 0.04a Exirel SE + Omni 6E oil 20.5a + 0.5% 0.00b 0.01b 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.13a 0.02bc 0.03a Delegate WG + Omni 6E oil 6b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.02b 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.01a 0.00b 0.02a F4,45 11.31 6.09 6.29 4.26 4.76 1.23 2.54 1.08 P <0.0001 0.0005 0.0004 0.0052 0.0028 0.3132 0.0528 0.3800 Treatment/formulation Rate (amt form/acre or vol) Mean number live larvae/suitable leaf 10 Oct 17 Oct 24 Oct 31 Oct 6 Nov 14 Nov 21 Nov 26 Nov Untreated Check 0.21a 0.10a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a 0.09a 0.07a 0.06a Intrepid 2F + Omni 6E oil 16a + 0.5% 0.01b 0.01b 0.02b 0.03ab 0.05a 0.07a 0.02ab 0.08a Altacor WDG + Omni 6E oil 4.5b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.02 b 0.03ab 0.08a 0.04abc 0.04a Exirel SE + Omni 6E oil 20.5a + 0.5% 0.00b 0.01b 0.02b 0.01b 0.01b 0.13a 0.02bc 0.03a Delegate WG + Omni 6E oil 6b + 0.5% 0.02b 0.02b 0.01b 0.00b 0.00b 0.01a 0.00b 0.02a F4,45 11.31 6.09 6.29 4.26 4.76 1.23 2.54 1.08 P <0.0001 0.0005 0.0004 0.0052 0.0028 0.3132 0.0528 0.3800 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P > 0.05) after log10(x + 1) transformation. Untransformed means are shown. aoz (fl) product per acre. boz (wt) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Evaluation of OMRI and Reduced-Risk Insecticides for Control of Eggplant Flea Beetle in Eggplant, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa029

Pepper weevil | Anthonomus eugenii Cano Pepper | Capsicum annuum cyclaniliprole, clothianidin, thiamethoxam Pepper weevil is a devastating pest of pepper in Florida. Adults use flower buds and fruits for oviposition, which are destroyed by adult and larval feeding. Insecticidal control is difficult because all immature stages are contained within the fruit and as such protected from contact with the spray materials. For this trial, experimental beds were fumigated with Pic-Clor 60 EC (chloropicrin 56.7% + 1,3-dichloropropene 37.1%) at 300 lbs/ac on 14 Aug at the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center in Immokalee, FL. The greenhouse-raised pepper seedlings were transplanted in the field at 2 ft distance between plants in two raised beds on 6-ft centers 420 ft in length, and covered with black polyethylene film mulch on 6 Sep. An RCB design was used with four replicates and five treatments plus the untreated check (Table 1). Each plot contained 12 plants and there was 8 foot buffer space between plots. A row of peppers was also left between to the two treated rows acting as a pest reservoir and spray buffer. Maintenance sprays to control diseases particularly bacterial spot, included Kocide (1.5 lbs/acre) and Manzate (1.5 lbs/acre) applied weekly as a tank mix. Abba Ultra 7.5 oz/acre and Oberon 8.5 oz/acre were also applied for control of broadmite in this experiment. Multiple foliar applications for pepper weevil control in each treatment were made with a high clearance sprayer operating at 180 psi at 2.3 mph with solutions delivered through two vertical booms each equipped with two or three yellow Albuz ATR 80 hollow cone nozzles applying at a rate of 40 or 60 GPA (Table 1). All fallen fruit were collected and counted from all plots on 13, 20 Nov and 7 and 21 Dec. Remaining fruit on plant was collected and graded as marketable or damaged on 20 Nov and 7 Dec. Due to some plant mortality in a few plots, data are presented on a per plant basis. Cumulative data were analyzed using ANOVA and differences among treatment means were determined using least significant difference test (P = 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Rate (oz/acre) . Application dates and Vol/acre . . . 6-Nov . 9-Nov . 12-Nov . 16-Nov . 19-Nov . 21-Nov . 26-Nov . 29-Nov . 3-Dec . 6-Dec . 10-Dec . 13-Dec . 17-Dec . 20-Dec . . . 40 GPA . 40 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . Untreated check Exirel 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Treatment/ formulation . Rate (oz/acre) . Application dates and Vol/acre . . . 6-Nov . 9-Nov . 12-Nov . 16-Nov . 19-Nov . 21-Nov . 26-Nov . 29-Nov . 3-Dec . 6-Dec . 10-Dec . 13-Dec . 17-Dec . 20-Dec . . . 40 GPA . 40 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . Untreated check Exirel 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Rate (oz/acre) . Application dates and Vol/acre . . . 6-Nov . 9-Nov . 12-Nov . 16-Nov . 19-Nov . 21-Nov . 26-Nov . 29-Nov . 3-Dec . 6-Dec . 10-Dec . 13-Dec . 17-Dec . 20-Dec . . . 40 GPA . 40 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . Untreated check Exirel 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Treatment/ formulation . Rate (oz/acre) . Application dates and Vol/acre . . . 6-Nov . 9-Nov . 12-Nov . 16-Nov . 19-Nov . 21-Nov . 26-Nov . 29-Nov . 3-Dec . 6-Dec . 10-Dec . 13-Dec . 17-Dec . 20-Dec . . . 40 GPA . 40 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . 60 GPA . Untreated check Exirel 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x Dyneamic 0.25% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 11 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Harvanta 50 SL 16 x x x x x x x x Belay SC 4 x x x Actara 25 WG 5.5 x x x PX-0071 0.10% x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Open in new tab The Exirel and Harvanta with Dyne-Amic treatments significantly reduced the number of fallen fruit compared with untreated check, whereas the Harvanta treatments at both rates with PX-0071 did not (Table 2). There was significantly more marketable fruit (marketable/damaged/fallen) at harvest in all treatments compared with untreated check except Harvanta 16 oz rate with PX -0071. There were no significant differences in the percentage of marketable fruit among spray treatments (Table 2). No phytotoxic effects were observed in any treatments.1 Table 2. Treatment/formulation . RATE (oz/acre) . Cumulative total from experiment (per plant) . Harvested but damaged (No.) . % marketable . . . Marketable (No.) . Fallen (No.) . . . Untreated check 24.6 a 34.0 a 6.5 a 39.5 b Exirel 16 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 20.6 bc 5.1 a 55.0 a Actara 25WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 18.3 c 5.4 a 56.1 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 18.1 c 3.5 a 58.0 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 39.8 a 29.6 ab 6.4 a 52.5 a Actara 25WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 25.1 abc 5.3 a 49.3 ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Treatment/formulation . RATE (oz/acre) . Cumulative total from experiment (per plant) . Harvested but damaged (No.) . % marketable . . . Marketable (No.) . Fallen (No.) . . . Untreated check 24.6 a 34.0 a 6.5 a 39.5 b Exirel 16 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 20.6 bc 5.1 a 55.0 a Actara 25WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 18.3 c 5.4 a 56.1 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 18.1 c 3.5 a 58.0 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 39.8 a 29.6 ab 6.4 a 52.5 a Actara 25WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 25.1 abc 5.3 a 49.3 ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . RATE (oz/acre) . Cumulative total from experiment (per plant) . Harvested but damaged (No.) . % marketable . . . Marketable (No.) . Fallen (No.) . . . Untreated check 24.6 a 34.0 a 6.5 a 39.5 b Exirel 16 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 20.6 bc 5.1 a 55.0 a Actara 25WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 18.3 c 5.4 a 56.1 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 18.1 c 3.5 a 58.0 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 39.8 a 29.6 ab 6.4 a 52.5 a Actara 25WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 25.1 abc 5.3 a 49.3 ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Treatment/formulation . RATE (oz/acre) . Cumulative total from experiment (per plant) . Harvested but damaged (No.) . % marketable . . . Marketable (No.) . Fallen (No.) . . . Untreated check 24.6 a 34.0 a 6.5 a 39.5 b Exirel 16 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 20.6 bc 5.1 a 55.0 a Actara 25WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 30.6 a 18.3 c 5.4 a 56.1 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 18.1 c 3.5 a 58.0 a Actara 25 WG 5.5 Dyneamic 0.25% Harvanta 50 SL 11 Belay SC 4 39.8 a 29.6 ab 6.4 a 52.5 a Actara 25WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Harvanta 50 SL 16 Belay SC 4 29.7 a 25.1 abc 5.3 a 49.3 ab Actara 25 WG 5.5 PX-0071 0.10% Means within a column followed by same letter are not statistically different (LSD, P = 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was partly supported by industry gifts of products and funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Frank, Daniel, L;Shamblin,, Michael

Effectiveness of In-Furrow Insecticides for Thrips Control in Peanuts, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa006

Eggplant | Solanum melongena Eggplant flea beetle (EFB): Epitrix fuscula Crotch Beauveria bassina, spinosad, azadirachtin, pyrethrin, cyantraniliprole The objective of this experiment was to assess the efficacy of various OMRI and reduced-risk insecticides for control of EFB on eggplant in a central West Virginia field environment. Nine-wk-old ‘Calliope’ eggplant was transplanted on 4 Jun at a privately owned farm in Clay County, WV. The experiment consisted of six treatments arranged in an RCB design with four replicates. Plots consisted of single rows containing 10 plants spaced 46 cm apart with 0.9 m between rows and 0.9 m between treatments. Treatments included BoteGHA ES (11.3% solution of Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA; 2 × 1013 viable spores/quart) at 1 qt/acre, Entrust SC (spinosad) at 3 oz/acre, Neemix 4.5 (Azadirachtin) at 16 oz/acre, Pyganic EC 5.0 (pyrethrins) at 17 oz/acre, Verimark SC (Cyantraniliprole) at 13.5 fl oz/acre, and an untreated check. Verimark was applied as a transplant tray drench 3 d before transplanting eggplant into the field. All other insecticide treatments were applied as foliar sprays at approximately weekly intervals on 15, 22, and 29 Jun, and 6, 11, and 22 Jul using a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 57 GPA at 30 psi through a single TeeJet 8002VS flat fan nozzle. Sampling was conducted prior to application of foliar-applied insecticides. The number of EFB on six plants from the center of each plot was recorded. Leaf feeding injury was also assessed from all plants in each plot using the following percent defoliation scale: 1 = no defoliation; 2 = 1–20% defoliation; 3 = 21–40% defoliation; 4 = 41–60% defoliation; and 5 = >61% defoliation. All data were analyzed using ANOVA, and means were separated using Fisher’s LSD test (P ≤ 0.05). EFB pressure was moderately high, resulting in more than 50% defoliation injury in some plots. Although yields were not recorded, there were no observable differences in plant growth and fruit set among treatments. On 11 and 22 Jul, there were significant effects of treatment on numbers of EFB per six plants (Table 1). However, none of the insecticide treatments provided a significant reduction in EFB numbers compared with the untreated check. On 29 Jun, and 6 and 11 Jul, there were significant effects of treatment on defoliation ratings (Table 2). Verimark applied as a transplant tray drench had consistently lower incidences of defoliation injury than all other treatments. Table 1. Treatment/formulation No. of EFB per 6 plants 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 0.0 a 2.3 a 14.0 a 36.5 a 18.5 ab 12.8 ab BoteGHA ES 0.0 a 3.3 a 25.5 a 26.5 a 22.0 a 14.5 a Entrust 2 SC 0.5 a 6.5 a 11.0 a 13.5 a 10.3 b 5.5 ab Neemix 0.39 EC 0.3 a 2.5 a 13.0 a 19.5 a 13.0 ab 8.8 ab Pyganic 0.41 EC 0.5 a 4.0 a 19.8 a 24.5 a 20.3 ab 13.3 ab Verimark 1.67 SC 0.5 a 6.8 a 12.5 a 22.3 a 16.0 ab 5.0 b Treatment/formulation No. of EFB per 6 plants 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 0.0 a 2.3 a 14.0 a 36.5 a 18.5 ab 12.8 ab BoteGHA ES 0.0 a 3.3 a 25.5 a 26.5 a 22.0 a 14.5 a Entrust 2 SC 0.5 a 6.5 a 11.0 a 13.5 a 10.3 b 5.5 ab Neemix 0.39 EC 0.3 a 2.5 a 13.0 a 19.5 a 13.0 ab 8.8 ab Pyganic 0.41 EC 0.5 a 4.0 a 19.8 a 24.5 a 20.3 ab 13.3 ab Verimark 1.67 SC 0.5 a 6.8 a 12.5 a 22.3 a 16.0 ab 5.0 b Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Fisher’s LSD test. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation No. of EFB per 6 plants 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 0.0 a 2.3 a 14.0 a 36.5 a 18.5 ab 12.8 ab BoteGHA ES 0.0 a 3.3 a 25.5 a 26.5 a 22.0 a 14.5 a Entrust 2 SC 0.5 a 6.5 a 11.0 a 13.5 a 10.3 b 5.5 ab Neemix 0.39 EC 0.3 a 2.5 a 13.0 a 19.5 a 13.0 ab 8.8 ab Pyganic 0.41 EC 0.5 a 4.0 a 19.8 a 24.5 a 20.3 ab 13.3 ab Verimark 1.67 SC 0.5 a 6.8 a 12.5 a 22.3 a 16.0 ab 5.0 b Treatment/formulation No. of EFB per 6 plants 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 0.0 a 2.3 a 14.0 a 36.5 a 18.5 ab 12.8 ab BoteGHA ES 0.0 a 3.3 a 25.5 a 26.5 a 22.0 a 14.5 a Entrust 2 SC 0.5 a 6.5 a 11.0 a 13.5 a 10.3 b 5.5 ab Neemix 0.39 EC 0.3 a 2.5 a 13.0 a 19.5 a 13.0 ab 8.8 ab Pyganic 0.41 EC 0.5 a 4.0 a 19.8 a 24.5 a 20.3 ab 13.3 ab Verimark 1.67 SC 0.5 a 6.8 a 12.5 a 22.3 a 16.0 ab 5.0 b Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Fisher’s LSD test. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Defoliation rating 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.2 ab 2.6 a 2.8 a 2.2 a BoteGHA ES 1.1 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.8 a 2.2 a Entrust 2 SC 1.2 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a 2.4 ab 2.0 a Neemix 0.39 EC 1.1 a 1.9 a 2.4 ab 2.3 a 2.8 a 2.3 a Pyganic 0.41 EC 1.2 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a Verimark 1.67 SC 1.0 a 1.6 a 1.5 b 1.5 b 2.0 b 2.0 a Treatment/formulation Defoliation rating 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.2 ab 2.6 a 2.8 a 2.2 a BoteGHA ES 1.1 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.8 a 2.2 a Entrust 2 SC 1.2 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a 2.4 ab 2.0 a Neemix 0.39 EC 1.1 a 1.9 a 2.4 ab 2.3 a 2.8 a 2.3 a Pyganic 0.41 EC 1.2 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a Verimark 1.67 SC 1.0 a 1.6 a 1.5 b 1.5 b 2.0 b 2.0 a Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Fisher’s LSD test. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation Defoliation rating 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.2 ab 2.6 a 2.8 a 2.2 a BoteGHA ES 1.1 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.8 a 2.2 a Entrust 2 SC 1.2 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a 2.4 ab 2.0 a Neemix 0.39 EC 1.1 a 1.9 a 2.4 ab 2.3 a 2.8 a 2.3 a Pyganic 0.41 EC 1.2 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a Verimark 1.67 SC 1.0 a 1.6 a 1.5 b 1.5 b 2.0 b 2.0 a Treatment/formulation Defoliation rating 15 Jun 22 Jun 29 Jun 6 Jul 11 Jul 22 Jul Untreated check 1.1 a 1.7 a 2.2 ab 2.6 a 2.8 a 2.2 a BoteGHA ES 1.1 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.8 a 2.2 a Entrust 2 SC 1.2 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a 2.4 ab 2.0 a Neemix 0.39 EC 1.1 a 1.9 a 2.4 ab 2.3 a 2.8 a 2.3 a Pyganic 0.41 EC 1.2 a 2.1 a 2.6 a 2.4 a 2.6 a 2.2 a Verimark 1.67 SC 1.0 a 1.6 a 1.5 b 1.5 b 2.0 b 2.0 a Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Fisher’s LSD test. Open in new tab This research was partially supported by industry gifts of products and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Majumdar,, Ayanava;Balkcom,, Kris;Parker,, Chris;Wells,, Larry

Insecticide Efficacy for Control of Banks Grass Mites and Two-Spotted Spider Mites on Corn, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa052

Peanut (groundnut) | Arachis hypogaea Tobacco thrips (TT) | Frankliniella fusca (Hinds) phorate/thimet, imidacloprid, acephate The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of in-furrow insecticides for managing tobacco thrips, the dominant early season pest of peanuts in Alabama. This study was conducted at the Wiregrass Research and Extension Center, Clanton, AL. Peanut, GA O6-G, was planted on 9 May in single and twin rows (two rows with 9 inch between an overall 36 inch spacing). Eleven treatments, including the untreated check, were arranged in an RCB design with four replications. Peanut plots were 40 ft long with four treated rows per plot and 25 ft alleys. At-plant in-furrow liquid insecticides were applied on 9 May using a CO2 powered backpack sprayer with nozzles mounted to spray in-furrow at 3 mph 15 psi at 10 gpa using size 35 orifices for twin rows and size 52 orifices for the single rows. Ground-driven applicator boxes were used for applying granular insecticides. Thrips damage ratings were determined on 18 Jun by examining 10 random peanut terminal leaves using a 10-point damage rating (DR) system: 1 = no damage; 2 = 10% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 3 = 20% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 4 = 30% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 5 = 40% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 6 = 50% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 7 = 60% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 8 = 75% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 9 = 90% of emerging leaves infested or damaged; 10 = 100% of emerging leaves infested or damaged + dead plants. Peanut plots were inverted on 24 Oct and picked on 28 Oct using a two-row peanut combine that weighed pod yield for each plot. The average DR and yield are reported in Table 1. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD, P < 0.05). Table 1. . . . Thrips damage . . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Planting method . rating (1–10 scale) . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check − Twin rows 7.8a 5,028 Thimet 20G 5.7a Single row 2.5e 5,618 Thimet 20G 2.85a Twin rows 5.8b 5,291 Admire Pro 4.6F 10.5b Single row 2.5e 4,828 Admire Pro 4.6F 4.5b Twin rows 4.3cd 5,137 Velum Total 2.17F 18.0b Single row 2.5e 5,799 Velum Total 2.17F 9.0b Twin rows 4.0cd 5,563 Orthene 75S 12.0c Single row 2.5e 5,191 Orthene 75S 6.0c Twin rows 4.8bc 5,373 Advise Four 4F 6.0b Single row 3.0ce 5,309 Advise Four 4F 3.0b Twin rows 4.8bc 5,182 P > F <0.01 0.13 . . . Thrips damage . . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Planting method . rating (1–10 scale) . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check − Twin rows 7.8a 5,028 Thimet 20G 5.7a Single row 2.5e 5,618 Thimet 20G 2.85a Twin rows 5.8b 5,291 Admire Pro 4.6F 10.5b Single row 2.5e 4,828 Admire Pro 4.6F 4.5b Twin rows 4.3cd 5,137 Velum Total 2.17F 18.0b Single row 2.5e 5,799 Velum Total 2.17F 9.0b Twin rows 4.0cd 5,563 Orthene 75S 12.0c Single row 2.5e 5,191 Orthene 75S 6.0c Twin rows 4.8bc 5,373 Advise Four 4F 6.0b Single row 3.0ce 5,309 Advise Four 4F 3.0b Twin rows 4.8bc 5,182 P > F <0.01 0.13 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P = 0.05. alb form. per acre. bfl oz form. per acre. coz (wt) form. per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. . . . Thrips damage . . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Planting method . rating (1–10 scale) . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check − Twin rows 7.8a 5,028 Thimet 20G 5.7a Single row 2.5e 5,618 Thimet 20G 2.85a Twin rows 5.8b 5,291 Admire Pro 4.6F 10.5b Single row 2.5e 4,828 Admire Pro 4.6F 4.5b Twin rows 4.3cd 5,137 Velum Total 2.17F 18.0b Single row 2.5e 5,799 Velum Total 2.17F 9.0b Twin rows 4.0cd 5,563 Orthene 75S 12.0c Single row 2.5e 5,191 Orthene 75S 6.0c Twin rows 4.8bc 5,373 Advise Four 4F 6.0b Single row 3.0ce 5,309 Advise Four 4F 3.0b Twin rows 4.8bc 5,182 P > F <0.01 0.13 . . . Thrips damage . . Treatment/formulation . Rate per acre . Planting method . rating (1–10 scale) . Yield (lb per acre) . Untreated check − Twin rows 7.8a 5,028 Thimet 20G 5.7a Single row 2.5e 5,618 Thimet 20G 2.85a Twin rows 5.8b 5,291 Admire Pro 4.6F 10.5b Single row 2.5e 4,828 Admire Pro 4.6F 4.5b Twin rows 4.3cd 5,137 Velum Total 2.17F 18.0b Single row 2.5e 5,799 Velum Total 2.17F 9.0b Twin rows 4.0cd 5,563 Orthene 75S 12.0c Single row 2.5e 5,191 Orthene 75S 6.0c Twin rows 4.8bc 5,373 Advise Four 4F 6.0b Single row 3.0ce 5,309 Advise Four 4F 3.0b Twin rows 4.8bc 5,182 P > F <0.01 0.13 Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P = 0.05. alb form. per acre. bfl oz form. per acre. coz (wt) form. per acre. Open in new tab Year 2017 was marked by extremely wet weather. There were statistically significant differences between treatments for thrips DR (Table 1). The untreated peanut plots had the highest damage rating. Reduced rates of in-furrow insecticides in twin rows resulted in high thrips foliar damage rating. There was no effect of insecticide treatment on peanut yields in this test. This was possibly due to excessive rainfall and compensatory plant growth. No phytotoxicity was observed from any of the insecticide treatments.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was funded by grant from the National Peanut Board and the Alabama Peanut Producers Association. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Levy, Grace, E;Zarrabi, Ali, A;Royer, Tom, A;Giles, Kristopher, L;Wallace,, George

Effects of Insecticide Treatments on Soldier Beetle Adults, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa036

Banks grass mite: Oligonychus pratensis (Banks), Two-spotted spider mite: Tetranychus urticae Koch Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays hexythiazox, spiromesifen, etoxazole, cyflumetofen In the summer of 2019, the efficacy of several pesticides were tested for their control of Banks grass mites and two-spotted spider mites. Two fields of experimental plots of corn were planted on 2 May at the Oklahoma Panhandle Research & Extension Center (OPREC) located in Goodwell, Oklahoma. The first field trial consisted of plots measuring 10 ft. by 30 ft. with 30 in. spacing between each plot. The plots were arranged in four rows of replicates with a randomized complete block design. The plots were irrigated with 13.5 in. of water in addition to pre-water and rainfall of 11.3 in. The plots were sprayed with Asana XL 8oz./A on 25 Jun and 7 Aug to increase mite populations. John Deer tractor boom sprayer was used with Teejet Air induction 110-025 nozzles at 40 psi and speed of 5 mph with the carrier rate of 15 gallons per acre. Each of the treatments were applied only to two middle rows of each plot on 8 Aug using a John Deer Hi-Boy sprayer with Teejet Air induction 110-025 nozzles at 40 psi and speed of 5 mph with the carrier rate of 15 gallon per acre. The samples were taken from middle two rows at 7, 14, and 21 days following treatment on 15 Aug, 22 Aug, and 29 Aug. Samples consisted of four leaves taken from 4 four randomly selected plants from each plot within each of the four replications. All samples were taken to the laboratory, and mites were counted using an electronic microscope (Leica Microscope 10X/30X). A nonreplicated demonstration plot was set up in another field, which was also planted on 2 May. This demonstration consisted of 3 large plots measuring 50 ft. by 600 ft., two treated and one untreated. The field was also sprayed with Asana® XL 8oz./A on 25 Jun and 7 Aug to increase mite populations. John Deer tractor boom sprayer was used with Teejet Air induction 110-025 nozzles at 40 psi and speed of 5 mph with the carrier rate of 15 gallons per acre. The two treatments were applied to all rows of designated areas on 8 Aug using a John Deere Hi-Boy sprayer with Teejet Air induction 110-025 nozzles at 40 psi and speed of 5 mph with the carrier rate of 15 gallon per acre. The plots were sampled at 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment. Samples consisted of 40 leaves taken from 40 different plants within a plot. Samples were processed for mite counting the same way as replicated trial described earlier. Data for the small plot trial (Table 1) were analyzed using ANOVA and the means were separated according to Fisher’s Protected LSD (p≤0.05). Percent control in this trial was calculated using the Henderson–Tilton’s formula due to un-uniform infestation among plots and across replications. Table 1. Treatment . Rate/acre . Average number of mites per leaf . % Control . . (fl oz product) . Pre-treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check — 202a 452a 782a 396a N/A N/A N/A Onager 1EC 14.0 134ab 453a 383b 268ab 29.4ab 45.3a 8.1a Oberon 2SC 4.33 170ab 385ab 467b 188bc 37.8ab 37.2a 13.3a Zeal 2.88SC1 4.0 140ab 339abc 403b 147bc 43.9ab 28.0a 9.3a Nealta 1.67SC1 13.7 82b 160bc 347b 126c 42.4ab 20.8a 16.1a Zeal 2.88SC1 6.0 147ab 109c 368b 64c 49.3ab 9.1a 39.5a P>F 0.3388 0.0486 0.0047 0.0001 0.5105 0.8907 0.6043 Treatment . Rate/acre . Average number of mites per leaf . % Control . . (fl oz product) . Pre-treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check — 202a 452a 782a 396a N/A N/A N/A Onager 1EC 14.0 134ab 453a 383b 268ab 29.4ab 45.3a 8.1a Oberon 2SC 4.33 170ab 385ab 467b 188bc 37.8ab 37.2a 13.3a Zeal 2.88SC1 4.0 140ab 339abc 403b 147bc 43.9ab 28.0a 9.3a Nealta 1.67SC1 13.7 82b 160bc 347b 126c 42.4ab 20.8a 16.1a Zeal 2.88SC1 6.0 147ab 109c 368b 64c 49.3ab 9.1a 39.5a P>F 0.3388 0.0486 0.0047 0.0001 0.5105 0.8907 0.6043 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P > 0.05). 1Nonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment . Rate/acre . Average number of mites per leaf . % Control . . (fl oz product) . Pre-treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check — 202a 452a 782a 396a N/A N/A N/A Onager 1EC 14.0 134ab 453a 383b 268ab 29.4ab 45.3a 8.1a Oberon 2SC 4.33 170ab 385ab 467b 188bc 37.8ab 37.2a 13.3a Zeal 2.88SC1 4.0 140ab 339abc 403b 147bc 43.9ab 28.0a 9.3a Nealta 1.67SC1 13.7 82b 160bc 347b 126c 42.4ab 20.8a 16.1a Zeal 2.88SC1 6.0 147ab 109c 368b 64c 49.3ab 9.1a 39.5a P>F 0.3388 0.0486 0.0047 0.0001 0.5105 0.8907 0.6043 Treatment . Rate/acre . Average number of mites per leaf . % Control . . (fl oz product) . Pre-treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Untreated check — 202a 452a 782a 396a N/A N/A N/A Onager 1EC 14.0 134ab 453a 383b 268ab 29.4ab 45.3a 8.1a Oberon 2SC 4.33 170ab 385ab 467b 188bc 37.8ab 37.2a 13.3a Zeal 2.88SC1 4.0 140ab 339abc 403b 147bc 43.9ab 28.0a 9.3a Nealta 1.67SC1 13.7 82b 160bc 347b 126c 42.4ab 20.8a 16.1a Zeal 2.88SC1 6.0 147ab 109c 368b 64c 49.3ab 9.1a 39.5a P>F 0.3388 0.0486 0.0047 0.0001 0.5105 0.8907 0.6043 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P > 0.05). 1Nonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Corrected %=1−n in Co before treatment×n in T after treatmentn in Co after treatment×n in T before treatment×100 Mean number of mites per leaf and percent reduction in mites compared to the untreated check for the non-replicated demonstration are included in Table 2. The percent reduction for each treatment and for each sampling date (7, 14, and 21 DAT) was calculated as: Table 2. Treatment . Rate/acre . Average Number of Mites per Leaf . % Reduction in Mites Number . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Zeal SC Miticide +NS 4 oz + 0.25 % v/v 94.1 195.8 168.4 69.0 53.8% 66.5% 89.5% Onager 15 27.2 241.2 136.0 202.6 43.1% 73.0% 69.0% Untreated check N/A 64.7 424.0 502.8 654.7 N/A N/A N/A Treatment . Rate/acre . Average Number of Mites per Leaf . % Reduction in Mites Number . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Zeal SC Miticide +NS 4 oz + 0.25 % v/v 94.1 195.8 168.4 69.0 53.8% 66.5% 89.5% Onager 15 27.2 241.2 136.0 202.6 43.1% 73.0% 69.0% Untreated check N/A 64.7 424.0 502.8 654.7 N/A N/A N/A 1Nonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment . Rate/acre . Average Number of Mites per Leaf . % Reduction in Mites Number . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Zeal SC Miticide +NS 4 oz + 0.25 % v/v 94.1 195.8 168.4 69.0 53.8% 66.5% 89.5% Onager 15 27.2 241.2 136.0 202.6 43.1% 73.0% 69.0% Untreated check N/A 64.7 424.0 502.8 654.7 N/A N/A N/A Treatment . Rate/acre . Average Number of Mites per Leaf . % Reduction in Mites Number . . (fl oz product) . Pre-Treatment . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 21 DAT . Zeal SC Miticide +NS 4 oz + 0.25 % v/v 94.1 195.8 168.4 69.0 53.8% 66.5% 89.5% Onager 15 27.2 241.2 136.0 202.6 43.1% 73.0% 69.0% Untreated check N/A 64.7 424.0 502.8 654.7 N/A N/A N/A 1Nonionic surfactant included at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Average number of mites in untreated average number of mites in treatmentAverage number of mites in untreated∗100 Nealta + NIS and 6 oz. of Zeal resulted in a lower average number of mites compared to the untreated check at all three sampling dates. All other treatments, except Onager, resulted in a lower average number of mites at 21 DAT compared to the untreated check. Zeal SC at 6 oz per acre + NIS resulted in the lowest average number of mites at 21 DAT compared to any other treatment. Percent control for different treatments varied at 7 DAT and 14 DAT. However, Zeal at 6oz./A had the highest % control of 40% at 21 DAT. Table 2 contains the data that represent the data collected from the second field and represents the average number of mites found in each plot pre-treatment and at 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment. Table 2 also contains the percent reduction values of the two treatments when compared with the untreated control plot. The Zeal SC Miticide + NIS controlled the mites better than the Onager as compared to the untreated. The Zeal SC Miticide + NIS had fewer mites than the untreated and had a higher percent control of the mites over the Onager as both compared to the untreated.1 Footnotes 1 This research was funded in part by industry. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Catron, Katlyn, A;Kuhar, Thomas, P

Performance of Seed Treatments and Soil-Applied Insecticides Against Larval Western and Northern Corn Rootworm, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz094

Chauliognathus marginatus (F.) flupyradifurone, sulfoxaflor, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, spinosad Laboratory bioassays were used to evaluate the effects of several common vegetable insecticide formulations on adult Chauliognathus marginatus, commonly referred to as margined leatherwing beetles. Chauliognathus marginatus is a frequent visitor and possible pollinator of several flowering vegetable plants in the eastern United States that may be exposed to insecticide formulations during normal activity. Treatments included Sivanto (flupyradifurone), Closer (sulfoxaflor), Admire Pro (imidacloprid), Assail (acetamiprid), Blackhawk (spinosad), and a water-only control (Table 1). On 10 Jun, adult C. marginatus beetles and flower sprigs were collected from wild hemlock (Conium maculatum) at Virginia Tech’s Kentland Research Farm in Whitethorne, VA. Three 10-cm-long hemlock sprigs were dipped into 500 ml of an insecticide solution prepared at the per-acre field rate of formula, dried for approximately 30 min under a fume hood, inserted into a cube of water-saturated floral foam, and placed upright in a 475-ml deli cup. This was repeated for five replicates of each treatment. Nine beetles were confined in each deli cup and held at laboratory ambient light and temperature. At 1 and 2 DAT, beetle mortality was determined by prodding each insect and observing for movement. Percentage mortality data were analyzed with ANOVA and means separated with Tukey’s HSD. Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Chauliognathus marginatus mortality (%) 1 DAT 2 DAT Water-only control – 22.2a 31.1a Sivanto 200SL 10.0a 97.8b 97.8b Closer SC 4.5a 77.8b 100.0b Admire Pro 1.3a 97.8b 100.0b Assail 30SG 3.0b 97.8b 100.0b Blackhawk 3.3b 26.7a 46.7a F 14.50 11.28 P <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Chauliognathus marginatus mortality (%) 1 DAT 2 DAT Water-only control – 22.2a 31.1a Sivanto 200SL 10.0a 97.8b 97.8b Closer SC 4.5a 77.8b 100.0b Admire Pro 1.3a 97.8b 100.0b Assail 30SG 3.0b 97.8b 100.0b Blackhawk 3.3b 26.7a 46.7a F 14.50 11.28 P <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. afl oz product per acre. boz product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Chauliognathus marginatus mortality (%) 1 DAT 2 DAT Water-only control – 22.2a 31.1a Sivanto 200SL 10.0a 97.8b 97.8b Closer SC 4.5a 77.8b 100.0b Admire Pro 1.3a 97.8b 100.0b Assail 30SG 3.0b 97.8b 100.0b Blackhawk 3.3b 26.7a 46.7a F 14.50 11.28 P <0.0001 <0.0001 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Chauliognathus marginatus mortality (%) 1 DAT 2 DAT Water-only control – 22.2a 31.1a Sivanto 200SL 10.0a 97.8b 97.8b Closer SC 4.5a 77.8b 100.0b Admire Pro 1.3a 97.8b 100.0b Assail 30SG 3.0b 97.8b 100.0b Blackhawk 3.3b 26.7a 46.7a F 14.50 11.28 P <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD. afl oz product per acre. boz product per acre. Open in new tab Chauliognathus marginatus mortality in all treatments was higher than 20%, but Sivanto, Closer, Admire Pro, and Assail caused significantly higher mortality than Blackhawk or the water-only control. There was no significant difference between mortality in the water-only control and the Blackhawk treatment. In summary, these beetles are highly sensitive to four of the five common vegetable insecticides evaluated in this bioassay. This research was supported in part by industry gifts of insecticides. Funding was provided by Southern Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program Graduate Student Grant GS18-188. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Reinders, Jordan, D;Rystrom, Zachary, D;Reinders, Emily, E;Dang, Timothy, B;Meinke, Lance, J

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Aphids in Romaine Lettuce in Florida, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa067

Corn (Hybrid, Maize, Sweet) | Zea mays Western Corn Rootworm (WCR) | Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte, Northern Corn Rootworm (NCR) | Diabrotica barberi Smith & Lawrence The objective of the field trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of seed treatments and soil-applied insecticides (granular and liquid formulations) to reduce root injury from Western Corn Rootworm (WCR) and Northern Corn Rootworm (NCR) larval feeding under continuous corn production. The WCR was the predominant corn rootworm species at the trial site (>90% WCR). Local Seed Co. hybrid ‘LC1289 VT2P’ was used for the trial and did not express rootworm-active Bacillus thuringiensis traits. Seed was treated with a commercial fungicide (Maxim Quattro at 0.064 mg ai/seed). Six treatments were compared to an untreated check in a randomized complete block design with four replications per treatment. Plot size was 4 rows × 35 ft in length with 30-inch row spacing. Seeding rate at planting was ca. 33,800 seeds/acre. Planting date was 26 Apr 2019 at the Eastern Nebraska Research and Extension Center near Ithaca, Nebraska. Insecticide compounds, formulations, and application rates are available in Table 1. Granular and liquid insecticides were applied to the open seed furrow (in-furrow) at planting. Granular insecticides were applied with a SmartBox System. Liquid insecticides were applied in water with a finished volume of 5 gpa using a TeeJet® flow regulator (orifice plate, CP4916-28) with a compressed air system pressurized at 20 psi. Initial plant stands were recorded on 23 May 2019 (V1–V2 stages) and on 6 Jun 2019 (V4 stage) by counting the total number of plants within 15 row-ft in each plot. Initial corn rootworm egg hatch was observed on 6 Jun 2019 and adult WCR emergence was first observed on 9 Jul 2019. Final plant stands and plant lodging were recorded prior to harvest on 8 Oct 2019 by counting the total number of plants and the number of plants leaning at ≥45° angle from vertical in the center 33 ft of the two middle rows per plot, respectively. Larval root injury was assessed on 23 Jul 2019 by excavating five plants from the middle two rows of each plot and rating them using the 0–3 node injury scale (NIS; 0 = no feeding, 1 = one node of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, 2 = two nodes of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk, and 3 = 3 or more nodes of roots pruned to within 1.5 inches of the stalk). The center 33 ft from the middle two rows of each plot was mechanically harvested on 21 Oct 2019 with a Kincaid 2-row 8-XP combine. Data were analyzed by PROC GLIMMIX in SAS (version 9.4) with data fit to a negative binomial (stand count), beta (NIS, proportion lodged plants), or normal (yield) distribution. Plant stands were analyzed as plants per 15 row-ft (23 May 2019, 6 Jun 2019) and plants per 66 row ft (8 Oct 2019), but are presented as plants per acre in Table 1. Yield per plot was converted to 15.5% moisture prior to analysis. The LSMEANS option was used to determine differences among treatments using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons (P ≤ 0.05). Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Application method . Application rate . Plant density per acre . NIS ratingg . Percent lodged plantsh . Yield (bu/acre) . . . . 23 May . 6 Jun . 8 Oct . 23 Jul . . . Untreated check - - 30,202a 29,621a 25,410a 1.70a 1.3a 194a Capture LFR 1.5SC IFSAPa 0.98d 31,363a 31,363a 27,280a 0.24c 0.0a 203a Force 2.1CS IFSAPa 0.57d 31,944a 31,944a 26,620a 0.31bc 0.7a 226a Aztec 4.67G IFGAPb 3.0e 32,815a 32,235a 26,823a 0.33bc 0.0a 213a Poncho 5FS STc 1.25f 33,686a 32235a 27,060a 0.59b 3.9a 203a Poncho 5FS STc 0.5f 31,944a 31,073a 25,476a 1.34a 3.3a 197a Ampex 1.73SC IFSAPa 0.69d 32,815a 32,235a 26,400a 0.33bc 1.5a 222a P > F 0.99 0.99 0.96 <0.01 0.45 0.53 Treatment/formulation . Application method . Application rate . Plant density per acre . NIS ratingg . Percent lodged plantsh . Yield (bu/acre) . . . . 23 May . 6 Jun . 8 Oct . 23 Jul . . . Untreated check - - 30,202a 29,621a 25,410a 1.70a 1.3a 194a Capture LFR 1.5SC IFSAPa 0.98d 31,363a 31,363a 27,280a 0.24c 0.0a 203a Force 2.1CS IFSAPa 0.57d 31,944a 31,944a 26,620a 0.31bc 0.7a 226a Aztec 4.67G IFGAPb 3.0e 32,815a 32,235a 26,823a 0.33bc 0.0a 213a Poncho 5FS STc 1.25f 33,686a 32235a 27,060a 0.59b 3.9a 203a Poncho 5FS STc 0.5f 31,944a 31,073a 25,476a 1.34a 3.3a 197a Ampex 1.73SC IFSAPa 0.69d 32,815a 32,235a 26,400a 0.33bc 1.5a 222a P > F 0.99 0.99 0.96 <0.01 0.45 0.53 Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P>0.05). aIFSAP = In-Furrow Spray At-Planting. bIFGAP = In-Furrow Granule At-Planting. cST = Seed Treatment. dfl oz/1,000 row-ft. eoz wt/1,000 row-ft. fmg ai/seed. gNode injury score rating. hMean percent of plants leaning at ≥45° angle from vertical per 66 row-ft, 8 Oct 2019. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Application method . Application rate . Plant density per acre . NIS ratingg . Percent lodged plantsh . Yield (bu/acre) . . . . 23 May . 6 Jun . 8 Oct . 23 Jul . . . Untreated check - - 30,202a 29,621a 25,410a 1.70a 1.3a 194a Capture LFR 1.5SC IFSAPa 0.98d 31,363a 31,363a 27,280a 0.24c 0.0a 203a Force 2.1CS IFSAPa 0.57d 31,944a 31,944a 26,620a 0.31bc 0.7a 226a Aztec 4.67G IFGAPb 3.0e 32,815a 32,235a 26,823a 0.33bc 0.0a 213a Poncho 5FS STc 1.25f 33,686a 32235a 27,060a 0.59b 3.9a 203a Poncho 5FS STc 0.5f 31,944a 31,073a 25,476a 1.34a 3.3a 197a Ampex 1.73SC IFSAPa 0.69d 32,815a 32,235a 26,400a 0.33bc 1.5a 222a P > F 0.99 0.99 0.96 <0.01 0.45 0.53 Treatment/formulation . Application method . Application rate . Plant density per acre . NIS ratingg . Percent lodged plantsh . Yield (bu/acre) . . . . 23 May . 6 Jun . 8 Oct . 23 Jul . . . Untreated check - - 30,202a 29,621a 25,410a 1.70a 1.3a 194a Capture LFR 1.5SC IFSAPa 0.98d 31,363a 31,363a 27,280a 0.24c 0.0a 203a Force 2.1CS IFSAPa 0.57d 31,944a 31,944a 26,620a 0.31bc 0.7a 226a Aztec 4.67G IFGAPb 3.0e 32,815a 32,235a 26,823a 0.33bc 0.0a 213a Poncho 5FS STc 1.25f 33,686a 32235a 27,060a 0.59b 3.9a 203a Poncho 5FS STc 0.5f 31,944a 31,073a 25,476a 1.34a 3.3a 197a Ampex 1.73SC IFSAPa 0.69d 32,815a 32,235a 26,400a 0.33bc 1.5a 222a P > F 0.99 0.99 0.96 <0.01 0.45 0.53 Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, P>0.05). aIFSAP = In-Furrow Spray At-Planting. bIFGAP = In-Furrow Granule At-Planting. cST = Seed Treatment. dfl oz/1,000 row-ft. eoz wt/1,000 row-ft. fmg ai/seed. gNode injury score rating. hMean percent of plants leaning at ≥45° angle from vertical per 66 row-ft, 8 Oct 2019. Open in new tab Plant populations were similar among treatments throughout the duration of the trial as plant stand means were not significantly different among treatments on 23 May 2019, 6 Jun 2019, or 8 Oct 2019. No phytotoxicity was observed in any plot. Significant differences in NIS ratings were documented among treatments, with the greatest root injury observed in the untreated plots and plots that received the Poncho (0.5 mg ai/seed) seed treatment. Very few plants lodged during the trial; therefore, there was not a significant difference in the mean proportion of lodged plants at harvest among treatments. Mean yield was not significantly different among treatments.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported in part by industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Beuzelin, Julien, M;Larsen, Donna, J

Insecticidal Control of Citrus Mealybugs on Containerized Hibiscus, Summer 2020

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa054

Green peach aphid (GPA): Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Uroleucon pseudambrosiae (Olive) Lettuce | Lactuca sativa var. capitata tolfenpyrad, flupyradifurone, spirotetramat A field experiment was conducted at the UF/IFAS Everglades Research and Education Center in Belle Glade, FL, to evaluate the efficacy of foliar insecticides for management of aphids infesting lettuce. Four insecticide treatments and a nontreated check were evaluated in an RCBD with four blocks and one replicate per block. Romaine lettuce ‘Manatee’ was planted on 6 Feb on raised beds (36-inch center) with two rows 1 ft apart on each bed. Plots were 4 beds wide and 24 ft long. All insecticide treatments were initiated when aphid infestation levels attained 3.9 GPA and 1.8 Uroleucon pseudambrosiae per plant as determined by observation of 25 randomly selected plants per block. Torac and Sivanto Prime treatments were applied four times (Mar 10, Mar 21, Mar 28, Apr 5) whereas the Movento treatment was applied twice (Mar 10, Mar 21). Insecticides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 gpa at 30 psi. A boom equipped with four Teejet TP8001VS spaced 18 inches apart was used (broadcast application). Belt at 2.0 fl oz/acre was applied to the experimental field with commercial equipment on Mar 8 for early season lepidopteran pest management. In addition, a weekly application of Manzate Pro-Stick at 2.0 lb/acre tank-mixed with Nutri-Phite Magnum at 4.0 pt/acre rotated with Orondis Ultra at 8.0 fl oz/acre was made to control foliar diseases starting on Mar 16. Treatment efficacy was evaluated 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after the first insecticide application (DAT1). For each plot, four plants were randomly selected on each of the two center beds. The number of GPA and U. pseudambrosiae were counted for each plant. The number of GPA and U. pseudambrosiae were compared separately using linear mixed models (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS Institute). The SPLICE and SPLICEDIFF options were used to compare aphid counts as affected by treatment on each sampling date. Means were separated using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05). GPA data 28 and 35 DAT1 were not included in the analyses because GPA populations collapsed, with a total of 1 and 0 GPA observed, respectively, throughout the experiment. Differences in aphid infestation levels were detected among treatments across sampling dates for GPA (F = 13.8; df = 4,12; P < 0.001) and U. pseudambrosiae (F = 8.3; df = 4,72; P < 0.001), with lower infestation levels in insecticide-treated plots than in nontreated plots. However, the treatment by sampling date interactions were significant (P < 0.05) for the two aphid species. For GPA, infestation levels for all insecticide treatments were lower than for the nontreated check 7, 14, and 21 DAT1 (P < 0.05, Table 1). The greatest difference was observed 14 DAT1 when insecticide-treated plots had 97.9 to 99.6% less GPA than nontreated plots. However, there were no differences in GPA infestation levels among insecticide treatments regardless of sampling date. For U. pseudambrosiae, infestation levels were 82.7 to 99.4% lower in insecticide-treated plots than in nontreated plots 21 DAT1 (P < 0.05, Table 2), but infestation levels did not differ among insecticide treatments. Differences among treatments were not detected 7, 14, 28, and 35 DAT1.1 Table 1. . . No. GPA per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Nontreated check – 6.5a 14.8a 7.2a Torac 21.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Torac + NISb 21.0 0.6b 0.1b 0.3b Sivanto Prime + NISb 7.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Movento + NISb 5.0 0.3b 0.3b 0.2b F 5.1 28.9 6.6 P > F 0.007 < 0.001 0.002 . . No. GPA per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Nontreated check – 6.5a 14.8a 7.2a Torac 21.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Torac + NISb 21.0 0.6b 0.1b 0.3b Sivanto Prime + NISb 7.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Movento + NISb 5.0 0.3b 0.3b 0.2b F 5.1 28.9 6.6 P > F 0.007 < 0.001 0.002 aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). bNIS: non-ionic surfactant Induce at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Table 1. . . No. GPA per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Nontreated check – 6.5a 14.8a 7.2a Torac 21.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Torac + NISb 21.0 0.6b 0.1b 0.3b Sivanto Prime + NISb 7.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Movento + NISb 5.0 0.3b 0.3b 0.2b F 5.1 28.9 6.6 P > F 0.007 < 0.001 0.002 . . No. GPA per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Rate (fl oz/acre) . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Nontreated check – 6.5a 14.8a 7.2a Torac 21.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Torac + NISb 21.0 0.6b 0.1b 0.3b Sivanto Prime + NISb 7.0 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b Movento + NISb 5.0 0.3b 0.3b 0.2b F 5.1 28.9 6.6 P > F 0.007 < 0.001 0.002 aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). bNIS: non-ionic surfactant Induce at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Table 2. . No. U. pseudambrosiae per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Apr 7 (28 DAT1) . Apr 14 (35 DAT1) . Nontreated check 4.2 19.7 57.7a 5.0 5.8 Torac 0.8 7.3 10.0b 2.3 0.9 Torac + NISb 1.3 7.8 8.4b 2.9 1.4 Sivanto Prime + NISb 4.0 2.3 0.4b 0.5 0.1 Movento + NISb 3.9 4.1 3.0b 1.8 1.4 F 0.1 1.6 19.4 0.1 0.2 P > F 0.984 0.185 <0.001 0.984 0.950 . No. U. pseudambrosiae per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Apr 7 (28 DAT1) . Apr 14 (35 DAT1) . Nontreated check 4.2 19.7 57.7a 5.0 5.8 Torac 0.8 7.3 10.0b 2.3 0.9 Torac + NISb 1.3 7.8 8.4b 2.9 1.4 Sivanto Prime + NISb 4.0 2.3 0.4b 0.5 0.1 Movento + NISb 3.9 4.1 3.0b 1.8 1.4 F 0.1 1.6 19.4 0.1 0.2 P > F 0.984 0.185 <0.001 0.984 0.950 aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). bNIS: non-ionic surfactant Induce at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Table 2. . No. U. pseudambrosiae per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Apr 7 (28 DAT1) . Apr 14 (35 DAT1) . Nontreated check 4.2 19.7 57.7a 5.0 5.8 Torac 0.8 7.3 10.0b 2.3 0.9 Torac + NISb 1.3 7.8 8.4b 2.9 1.4 Sivanto Prime + NISb 4.0 2.3 0.4b 0.5 0.1 Movento + NISb 3.9 4.1 3.0b 1.8 1.4 F 0.1 1.6 19.4 0.1 0.2 P > F 0.984 0.185 <0.001 0.984 0.950 . No. U. pseudambrosiae per planta . Treatment/Formulation . Mar 17 (7 DAT1) . Mar 24 (14 DAT1) . Mar 31 (21 DAT1) . Apr 7 (28 DAT1) . Apr 14 (35 DAT1) . Nontreated check 4.2 19.7 57.7a 5.0 5.8 Torac 0.8 7.3 10.0b 2.3 0.9 Torac + NISb 1.3 7.8 8.4b 2.9 1.4 Sivanto Prime + NISb 4.0 2.3 0.4b 0.5 0.1 Movento + NISb 3.9 4.1 3.0b 1.8 1.4 F 0.1 1.6 19.4 0.1 0.2 P > F 0.984 0.185 <0.001 0.984 0.950 aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). bNIS: non-ionic surfactant Induce at 0.25% v/v. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was partially supported by industry gifts including products. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Vafaie,, Erfan;Pawlik,, Christine

Evaluation of Biological Insecticides to Control Corn Earworm in Hemp, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa107

Hibiscus | sp Mealybug | Phenacoccus citris (Risso) afidopyropen, Beauveria bassina, cyclaniliprole, flonicamid, dinotefuran The purpose of this trial was to determine the efficacy of several insecticides (Table 1) to suppress citrus mealybugs on greenhouse 6-in potted hibiscus. The trial was conducted between Jun 2 and Jul 14 (2020) in the IPM greenhouse at the AgriLife Research & Extension Center in Overton, TX. Hibiscus plants were infested haphazardly by placing pruned mealybug-infested plant material on the potted hibiscus plants. On Jun 2, mealybugs were counted on the hibiscus plants non-destructively using a 2.5× head lens, treated (Table 1), and arranged in a CRD with eight replications per treatment on a greenhouse bench, with a single replicate constituting one potted hibiscus plant. Plants were not caged but spaced sufficiently to prevent adjacent plants from touching. All foliar treatments were applied as sprays with an R&D CO2 sprayer (Model D-203S) fitted with a 601FA single nozzle spray boom (Bellspray, Inc., Opelousas, LA) for even coverage. Number of mealybug egg sacs, immatures, and matures were quantified and averaged for three individual buds per hibiscus using a 2.5× head magnifying lens at 0, 7, 14, 28, and 42 DAT. Phytotoxicity was also rated from 0 (no phytotoxicity) to 10 (high phytotoxicity) for all assessment DAT. Differences in log-transformed means between treatments were compared using generalized linear mixed model with treatment and DAT as fixed interacting factors and plant ID as random factor (P < 0.05). Due to high variability in the data, multiple comparisons of all treatment means using Tukey’s HSD lacked statistical power to detect any significant differences between any treatments and we subsequently used Dunnet’s post hoc test with water check as the control group for each DAT. Table 1. Treatment/formulation, treatment name, active ingredient, rate, and application dates for all treatments # . Treatment/formulation . Treatment name . Active ingredient . Rate / 100 gal . Application date(s) . Method . 1 UTC UTC N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Ventigra CapSil Ventigra Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 3 Velifer Velifer Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2010, Jun 2017, Jun 2024 Foliar 4 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil UPO-Ven Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Afidopyropen 77 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 5 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil Velifer UPO-Ven-Vel Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003 Foliar Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2017, Jun 2024 6 Pradia Pradia-fol-low Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 10 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 7 Pradia Pradia-fol-med Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 13 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 8 Pradia Pradia-fol-high Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 9 Pradia Pradia-drench Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. 8.5 fl. oz. / pot Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Drench 10 Safari CapSil Safari Dinoterufan Non-ionic Surfactant 8 oz. 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar # . Treatment/formulation . Treatment name . Active ingredient . Rate / 100 gal . Application date(s) . Method . 1 UTC UTC N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Ventigra CapSil Ventigra Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 3 Velifer Velifer Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2010, Jun 2017, Jun 2024 Foliar 4 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil UPO-Ven Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Afidopyropen 77 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 5 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil Velifer UPO-Ven-Vel Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003 Foliar Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2017, Jun 2024 6 Pradia Pradia-fol-low Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 10 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 7 Pradia Pradia-fol-med Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 13 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 8 Pradia Pradia-fol-high Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 9 Pradia Pradia-drench Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. 8.5 fl. oz. / pot Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Drench 10 Safari CapSil Safari Dinoterufan Non-ionic Surfactant 8 oz. 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation, treatment name, active ingredient, rate, and application dates for all treatments # . Treatment/formulation . Treatment name . Active ingredient . Rate / 100 gal . Application date(s) . Method . 1 UTC UTC N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Ventigra CapSil Ventigra Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 3 Velifer Velifer Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2010, Jun 2017, Jun 2024 Foliar 4 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil UPO-Ven Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Afidopyropen 77 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 5 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil Velifer UPO-Ven-Vel Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003 Foliar Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2017, Jun 2024 6 Pradia Pradia-fol-low Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 10 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 7 Pradia Pradia-fol-med Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 13 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 8 Pradia Pradia-fol-high Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 9 Pradia Pradia-drench Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. 8.5 fl. oz. / pot Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Drench 10 Safari CapSil Safari Dinoterufan Non-ionic Surfactant 8 oz. 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar # . Treatment/formulation . Treatment name . Active ingredient . Rate / 100 gal . Application date(s) . Method . 1 UTC UTC N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Ventigra CapSil Ventigra Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 3 Velifer Velifer Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2010, Jun 2017, Jun 2024 Foliar 4 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil UPO-Ven Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Afidopyropen 77 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010, Jun 2024 5 UltraPure Oil Ventigra CapSil Velifer UPO-Ven-Vel Mineral Oil 2 gal. Jun 2003 Foliar Afidopyropen 7 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Non-ionic Surfactant 6 fl. oz. Jun 2010 Beauveria bassiana 13 oz. Jun 2017, Jun 2024 6 Pradia Pradia-fol-low Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 10 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 7 Pradia Pradia-fol-med Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 13 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 8 Pradia Pradia-fol-high Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar 9 Pradia Pradia-drench Cyclaniliprole + Flonicamid 17.5 fl. oz. 8.5 fl. oz. / pot Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Drench 10 Safari CapSil Safari Dinoterufan Non-ionic Surfactant 8 oz. 6 fl. oz. Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Jun 2003, Jun 2017 Foliar Open in new tab Number of immature and mature mealybugs, and egg sacs was highly variable in all treatments. The number of egg sacs in the buds was relatively scarce and was subsequently excluded from the analysis. By 7 DAT, Pradia (foliar; 13 fl. oz. / 100 gal.) significantly decreased immature mealybugs compared to the untreated check (Table 2). By 14 DAT, the number of mature mealybugs was significantly decreased compared to the untreated check in Safari, UPO-Ventigra, UPO-Ven-Vel, and Pradia drench (Table 3). By 28 DAT, Safari, UPO-Ventigra, and UPO-Ven-Vel significantly decreased the number of immature and mature mealybugs compared to the untreated check, and Pradia-fol-med had significantly decreased the number of immatures (Tables 2 and 3). No treatments were significantly different compared to the untreated check by 42 DAT; however, the lack of significance could be attributed to very low mealybug numbers in the untreated check by 42 DAT, resulting in a loss in statistical power. Velifer alone, Pradia-fol-low, and Pradia-fol-high failed to provide significantly different immature or mature mealybug numbers compared to the untreated check for the duration of the trial (Tables 2 and 3). No phytotoxicity was observed for the duration of the trial.1 Table 2. Mean mealybug immatures per plant 0, 7, 14, 28, and 42 DAT . . Mean mealybug immatures per plant . # . Treatment name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 9.00 8.17 5.25 12.29 0.21 2 Ventigra 8.29 3.65 9.17 1.96 1.67 3 Velifer 7.42 11.38 6.29 7.17 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 6.96 3.65 1.52 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 7.88 2.23 3.75 0.21 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 7.33 8.75 3.88 2.29 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 6.42 1.21* 4.00 0.08* 0.06 8 Pradia-fol-high 6.17 5.17 2.12 0.29 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 5.92 1.54 1.83 0.54 0.25 10 Safari 6.08 2.76 0.96 0.17* 0.05 . . Mean mealybug immatures per plant . # . Treatment name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 9.00 8.17 5.25 12.29 0.21 2 Ventigra 8.29 3.65 9.17 1.96 1.67 3 Velifer 7.42 11.38 6.29 7.17 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 6.96 3.65 1.52 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 7.88 2.23 3.75 0.21 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 7.33 8.75 3.88 2.29 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 6.42 1.21* 4.00 0.08* 0.06 8 Pradia-fol-high 6.17 5.17 2.12 0.29 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 5.92 1.54 1.83 0.54 0.25 10 Safari 6.08 2.76 0.96 0.17* 0.05 *Significantly different from untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean mealybug immatures per plant 0, 7, 14, 28, and 42 DAT . . Mean mealybug immatures per plant . # . Treatment name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 9.00 8.17 5.25 12.29 0.21 2 Ventigra 8.29 3.65 9.17 1.96 1.67 3 Velifer 7.42 11.38 6.29 7.17 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 6.96 3.65 1.52 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 7.88 2.23 3.75 0.21 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 7.33 8.75 3.88 2.29 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 6.42 1.21* 4.00 0.08* 0.06 8 Pradia-fol-high 6.17 5.17 2.12 0.29 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 5.92 1.54 1.83 0.54 0.25 10 Safari 6.08 2.76 0.96 0.17* 0.05 . . Mean mealybug immatures per plant . # . Treatment name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 9.00 8.17 5.25 12.29 0.21 2 Ventigra 8.29 3.65 9.17 1.96 1.67 3 Velifer 7.42 11.38 6.29 7.17 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 6.96 3.65 1.52 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 7.88 2.23 3.75 0.21 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 7.33 8.75 3.88 2.29 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 6.42 1.21* 4.00 0.08* 0.06 8 Pradia-fol-high 6.17 5.17 2.12 0.29 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 5.92 1.54 1.83 0.54 0.25 10 Safari 6.08 2.76 0.96 0.17* 0.05 *Significantly different from untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. Open in new tab Table 3. Mean mealybug matures per plant 0, 7, 14, 28, and 42 DAT . . Mean mealybug matures per plant . # . Treatment Name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 0.33 0.54 2.00 0.88 0.21 2 Ventigra 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.21 1.67 3 Velifer 0.12 0.50 0.95 1.62 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 0.29 0.56 0.48* 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 0.25 0.25 0.21* 0.00* 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 0.75 0.25 0.67 0.54 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 0.29 0.12 0.79 0.33 0.11 8 Pradia-fol-high 0.33 0.29 1.00 0.17 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 0.17 0.12 0.08* 0.21 0.12 10 Safari 0.12 0.21 0.33* 0.04* 0.00 . . Mean mealybug matures per plant . # . Treatment Name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 0.33 0.54 2.00 0.88 0.21 2 Ventigra 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.21 1.67 3 Velifer 0.12 0.50 0.95 1.62 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 0.29 0.56 0.48* 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 0.25 0.25 0.21* 0.00* 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 0.75 0.25 0.67 0.54 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 0.29 0.12 0.79 0.33 0.11 8 Pradia-fol-high 0.33 0.29 1.00 0.17 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 0.17 0.12 0.08* 0.21 0.12 10 Safari 0.12 0.21 0.33* 0.04* 0.00 *Significantly different from untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. Open in new tab Table 3. Mean mealybug matures per plant 0, 7, 14, 28, and 42 DAT . . Mean mealybug matures per plant . # . Treatment Name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 0.33 0.54 2.00 0.88 0.21 2 Ventigra 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.21 1.67 3 Velifer 0.12 0.50 0.95 1.62 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 0.29 0.56 0.48* 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 0.25 0.25 0.21* 0.00* 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 0.75 0.25 0.67 0.54 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 0.29 0.12 0.79 0.33 0.11 8 Pradia-fol-high 0.33 0.29 1.00 0.17 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 0.17 0.12 0.08* 0.21 0.12 10 Safari 0.12 0.21 0.33* 0.04* 0.00 . . Mean mealybug matures per plant . # . Treatment Name . 0 DAT . 7 DAT . 14 DAT . 28 DAT . 42 DAT . 1 UTC 0.33 0.54 2.00 0.88 0.21 2 Ventigra 0.46 0.46 0.92 0.21 1.67 3 Velifer 0.12 0.50 0.95 1.62 0.79 4 UPO-Ventigra 0.29 0.56 0.48* 0.04* 0.00 5 UPO-Ven-Vel 0.25 0.25 0.21* 0.00* 0.14 6 Pradia-fol-low 0.75 0.25 0.67 0.54 0.12 7 Pradia-fol-med 0.29 0.12 0.79 0.33 0.11 8 Pradia-fol-high 0.33 0.29 1.00 0.17 0.17 9 Pradia-drench 0.17 0.12 0.08* 0.21 0.12 10 Safari 0.12 0.21 0.33* 0.04* 0.00 *Significantly different from untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry funds and gifts of pesticides. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Doughty, Hélène, B;Britt, Kadie, E;Kuhar, Thomas, P

Control of Spotted Wing Drosophila in Tart Cherry, 2018

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa081

Industrial hemp | Cannabis sativa Corn earworm (CEW) | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), Yellowstriped armyworm (YSAW) | Spodoptera ornithogalli (Guenée), Saltmarsh caterpillar (SMC) | Estigmene acrea (Drury) Bacillus thuringiensis, Beauveria bassina, spinosad, HzSNPV (nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Helicoverpa zea), Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki, Beauveria bassiana strain GHA The objective of this experiment was to assess the efficacy of several biological insecticide products for control of corn earworm (CEW) on grain hemp in Virginia. A field experiment was conducted on planting of ‘Felina 32’ hemp direct seeded with a grain drill at 30 lb. seed per acre on 24 Jun 2019 at the Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Painter, VA. The experiment had six treatments: Gemstar (Helicoverpa zea nuclear polyhedrosis virus [HzNPV]), Javelin (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki), BoteGHA (Beauveria bassiana strain GHA), Entrust (Spinosad), DiPel (Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki), and an untreated check arranged in an RCBD with four replicates. Individual plots were 3 × 10 ft (0.91 × 3.05 m). Hemp plants were sprayed with insecticides in the field using a single-nozzle boom equipped with D3 spray tips powered by a CO2 backpack sprayer at 40 psi. For each treatment, 40.6 fl. oz (1200 ml) was applied to all four replicates, which equates to 58 gallons per acre. All treatments were applied twice with a 7-d interval, except for Gemstar, which was applied three times at 3-d intervals. Treatments were applied on 13 Aug (all treatments), 16 Aug (Gemstar only), 19 Aug (Gemstar only), and 20 Aug (all treatments except Gemstar). On 12 (pre-count), 20, 27 Aug, and 3 Sep, the number of lepidopteran larvae were recorded per inspection of 10 randomly selected plants per plot. On 3 Sep, 10 plants were examined for feeding damage by CEW according to the following rating scale: 0 = no feeding, 1 = some browning/damage, 2 = advanced browning and feeding damage/holes in seeds, 3 = advanced feeding damage/clipped bud (Table 1). All data were analyzed using ANOVA procedures. Means were separated using Fisher’s LSD at the 0.05 level of significance. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz) . Mean no. of CEW per 10 plants . . . CEW damage rating (0–3 scale) . . . 20 Aug . 27 Aug . 3 Sep . 3 Sep . Untreated check - 6.3a 3.0 0.8 2.2ab Gemstar LC 5.0 5.8a 1.8 1.5 1.7b Javelin WG 8.0a 6.8a 1.3 1.0 2.4a BoteGHA ES 32.0 6.0a 2.0 0.3 2.0ab Entrust 2SC 5.0 0.3b 0.3 0.3 0.5c DiPel DF 16.0 7.5a 3.0 2.3 2.0ab P>F 0.04 0.23 0.20 <0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz) . Mean no. of CEW per 10 plants . . . CEW damage rating (0–3 scale) . . . 20 Aug . 27 Aug . 3 Sep . 3 Sep . Untreated check - 6.3a 3.0 0.8 2.2ab Gemstar LC 5.0 5.8a 1.8 1.5 1.7b Javelin WG 8.0a 6.8a 1.3 1.0 2.4a BoteGHA ES 32.0 6.0a 2.0 0.3 2.0ab Entrust 2SC 5.0 0.3b 0.3 0.3 0.5c DiPel DF 16.0 7.5a 3.0 2.3 2.0ab P>F 0.04 0.23 0.20 <0.01 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P < 0.05). aoz wt per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz) . Mean no. of CEW per 10 plants . . . CEW damage rating (0–3 scale) . . . 20 Aug . 27 Aug . 3 Sep . 3 Sep . Untreated check - 6.3a 3.0 0.8 2.2ab Gemstar LC 5.0 5.8a 1.8 1.5 1.7b Javelin WG 8.0a 6.8a 1.3 1.0 2.4a BoteGHA ES 32.0 6.0a 2.0 0.3 2.0ab Entrust 2SC 5.0 0.3b 0.3 0.3 0.5c DiPel DF 16.0 7.5a 3.0 2.3 2.0ab P>F 0.04 0.23 0.20 <0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate/acre (fl oz) . Mean no. of CEW per 10 plants . . . CEW damage rating (0–3 scale) . . . 20 Aug . 27 Aug . 3 Sep . 3 Sep . Untreated check - 6.3a 3.0 0.8 2.2ab Gemstar LC 5.0 5.8a 1.8 1.5 1.7b Javelin WG 8.0a 6.8a 1.3 1.0 2.4a BoteGHA ES 32.0 6.0a 2.0 0.3 2.0ab Entrust 2SC 5.0 0.3b 0.3 0.3 0.5c DiPel DF 16.0 7.5a 3.0 2.3 2.0ab P>F 0.04 0.23 0.20 <0.01 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (FPLSD, P < 0.05). aoz wt per acre. Open in new tab CEW was the dominant lepidopteran species observed with an average of 4.2 larvae per 10 plants on 12 Aug (Table 1). Most CEW larvae observed were either second or third instar. Other recorded larvae included yellowstriped armyworm (YSAW) and SMC, but these represented <5% of the total population of lepidopteran larvae. There was a significant treatment effect on CEW counts on 20 Aug with only Entrust resulting in significantly fewer CEW than the untreated check. Although plots treated with Gemstar did not have significantly lower CEW counts, approximately 3–5% of the larvae were diseased with characteristic virus symptoms on 20 and 27 Aug compared with virtually no diseased larvae in the other plots. There was also a significant treatment effect on CEW damage rating, with Entrust resulting in significantly less damage than the untreated check and all other treatments. This is also reflected in the larval count data.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by product testing funding from Certis USA. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Wise, John, C;Wheeler, Celeste, E;VanWoerkom,, Anthony;Gut, Larry, J

Efficacy of Aerially Applied Chlorantraniliprole for Control of Two Sweetpotato Weevil Species, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa062

Cherry (all varieties) | Prunus spp Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD): Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) pyrifluquinazon, tolfenpyrad, cyclaniliprole, zeta-cypermethrin, spinetoram, phosmet, methomyl, bifenthrin, acetamiprid, novaluron, Chromobacterium subtsugae, spirotetramat, beta-cyfluthrin, GS-omega/kappa-Hxtx-HV1a We evaluated the effects of three to five applications of individual insecticides, or insecticides used in rotation, against Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) in Tart Cherry. Single-tree plots were established in a 24-yr-old ‘Montmorency’ cherry planting (15 × 20 ft spacing) at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville, MI (Tart Cherry 4). The trial was organized as an RCB with four replications. Applications began 20 June at initial infestation with ripe fruit and were reapplied on 7-day intervals until 19 July (Table 1). Test materials were applied with a FMC 1029 airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 GPA at 2.5 mph. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean SWD per pound of fruit . . . . 10 Jul . 17 Jul . 24 Jul . Untreated 43.8a 166a 73.3a Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 29.3ab 43.5ab 47.3ab Apta 15 SC 27 fl oz/a AB 1.3b 42.5ab 49.3ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CD Mustang Maxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz/a E Delegate 25 WG 7 oz/a ABCDE 22ab 50.5ab 17.5ab Imidan 70 WP + 1.33 lb/a A 5ab 36.3ab 61.5ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal A Lannate L 3 pt/a B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz/a C Cormoran L 20 oz/a D Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a E NuFilm P L 0.125% E Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a ABCD 16.3ab 25ab 60.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% ABCD Movento SC + 7.6 oz/a AB 2.3b 67.8ab 51ab R-11 90 EC 0.5% AB Baythroid XL 120 EC 2.8 oz/a CDE Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb/a ABCDE 2.5b 33ab 11.8ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal ABCDE IKI-3131 SL 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 1.8b 54.8ab 20.5ab Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 0b 12.5b 31.3ab Preference L 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7.8ab 33b 8.8b AG16134 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 2.5b 25b 27.3ab Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7ab 31ab 29.3ab AG16134 + 0.25% ABCDE Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 5.8ab 13.8b 41ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a BCDE 4.3ab 28.5b 9.5b Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CDE 3.8b 28.5ab 51.8ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a DE 3.8ab 53.3ab 32.8ab Spider Venom LC 1472.94 fl oz/a ABCDE 4ab 51ab 69.5a JetAg L 1% ABCDE 0b 84.5ab 33.8ab JetAg L 1% ABCDE 2.5b 10.8b 46.8ab Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ 7ab 17b 25.3ab Treatment/formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean SWD per pound of fruit . . . . 10 Jul . 17 Jul . 24 Jul . Untreated 43.8a 166a 73.3a Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 29.3ab 43.5ab 47.3ab Apta 15 SC 27 fl oz/a AB 1.3b 42.5ab 49.3ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CD Mustang Maxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz/a E Delegate 25 WG 7 oz/a ABCDE 22ab 50.5ab 17.5ab Imidan 70 WP + 1.33 lb/a A 5ab 36.3ab 61.5ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal A Lannate L 3 pt/a B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz/a C Cormoran L 20 oz/a D Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a E NuFilm P L 0.125% E Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a ABCD 16.3ab 25ab 60.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% ABCD Movento SC + 7.6 oz/a AB 2.3b 67.8ab 51ab R-11 90 EC 0.5% AB Baythroid XL 120 EC 2.8 oz/a CDE Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb/a ABCDE 2.5b 33ab 11.8ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal ABCDE IKI-3131 SL 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 1.8b 54.8ab 20.5ab Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 0b 12.5b 31.3ab Preference L 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7.8ab 33b 8.8b AG16134 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 2.5b 25b 27.3ab Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7ab 31ab 29.3ab AG16134 + 0.25% ABCDE Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 5.8ab 13.8b 41ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a BCDE 4.3ab 28.5b 9.5b Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CDE 3.8b 28.5ab 51.8ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a DE 3.8ab 53.3ab 32.8ab Spider Venom LC 1472.94 fl oz/a ABCDE 4ab 51ab 69.5a JetAg L 1% ABCDE 0b 84.5ab 33.8ab JetAg L 1% ABCDE 2.5b 10.8b 46.8ab Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ 7ab 17b 25.3ab Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; original means are shown. aA = 20 Jun (First trap catch with ripe fruit), B = 28 Jun (A + 7 days), C = 4 Jul (B + 7 days), D = 11 Jul (C + 7 days), E = 18 Jul (D + 7 days), F = 21 Jun (1 day after A), G = 29 Jun (1 day after B), H = 5 Jul (1 day after C), I = 12 Jul (1 day after D), J = 19 Jul (1 day after E). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean SWD per pound of fruit . . . . 10 Jul . 17 Jul . 24 Jul . Untreated 43.8a 166a 73.3a Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 29.3ab 43.5ab 47.3ab Apta 15 SC 27 fl oz/a AB 1.3b 42.5ab 49.3ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CD Mustang Maxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz/a E Delegate 25 WG 7 oz/a ABCDE 22ab 50.5ab 17.5ab Imidan 70 WP + 1.33 lb/a A 5ab 36.3ab 61.5ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal A Lannate L 3 pt/a B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz/a C Cormoran L 20 oz/a D Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a E NuFilm P L 0.125% E Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a ABCD 16.3ab 25ab 60.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% ABCD Movento SC + 7.6 oz/a AB 2.3b 67.8ab 51ab R-11 90 EC 0.5% AB Baythroid XL 120 EC 2.8 oz/a CDE Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb/a ABCDE 2.5b 33ab 11.8ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal ABCDE IKI-3131 SL 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 1.8b 54.8ab 20.5ab Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 0b 12.5b 31.3ab Preference L 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7.8ab 33b 8.8b AG16134 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 2.5b 25b 27.3ab Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7ab 31ab 29.3ab AG16134 + 0.25% ABCDE Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 5.8ab 13.8b 41ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a BCDE 4.3ab 28.5b 9.5b Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CDE 3.8b 28.5ab 51.8ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a DE 3.8ab 53.3ab 32.8ab Spider Venom LC 1472.94 fl oz/a ABCDE 4ab 51ab 69.5a JetAg L 1% ABCDE 0b 84.5ab 33.8ab JetAg L 1% ABCDE 2.5b 10.8b 46.8ab Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ 7ab 17b 25.3ab Treatment/formulation . Rate form product/acre or v:v . Application timinga . Mean SWD per pound of fruit . . . . 10 Jul . 17 Jul . 24 Jul . Untreated 43.8a 166a 73.3a Pyrifluquinazon L 3.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 29.3ab 43.5ab 47.3ab Apta 15 SC 27 fl oz/a AB 1.3b 42.5ab 49.3ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CD Mustang Maxx 0.8 EC 4 fl oz/a E Delegate 25 WG 7 oz/a ABCDE 22ab 50.5ab 17.5ab Imidan 70 WP + 1.33 lb/a A 5ab 36.3ab 61.5ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal A Lannate L 3 pt/a B Hero 1.24 EC 10.3 oz/a C Cormoran L 20 oz/a D Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a E NuFilm P L 0.125% E Grandevo WDG + 3 lb/a ABCD 16.3ab 25ab 60.5ab NuFilm P L 0.125% ABCD Movento SC + 7.6 oz/a AB 2.3b 67.8ab 51ab R-11 90 EC 0.5% AB Baythroid XL 120 EC 2.8 oz/a CDE Imidan 70 WP + 2.125 lb/a ABCDE 2.5b 33ab 11.8ab TriFol L 0.5 pt/100 gal ABCDE IKI-3131 SL 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 1.8b 54.8ab 20.5ab Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 0b 12.5b 31.3ab Preference L 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7.8ab 33b 8.8b AG16134 0.25% ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 2.5b 25b 27.3ab Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Delegate 25 WG + 7 oz/a ABCDE 7ab 31ab 29.3ab AG16134 + 0.25% ABCDE Accudrop L 3 fl oz/a ABCDE Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a ABCDE 5.8ab 13.8b 41ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a BCDE 4.3ab 28.5b 9.5b Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a CDE 3.8b 28.5ab 51.8ab Verdepryn L 8.2 fl oz/a DE 3.8ab 53.3ab 32.8ab Spider Venom LC 1472.94 fl oz/a ABCDE 4ab 51ab 69.5a JetAg L 1% ABCDE 0b 84.5ab 33.8ab JetAg L 1% ABCDE 2.5b 10.8b 46.8ab Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ Delegate 25 WG 5.2 oz/a FGHIJ 7ab 17b 25.3ab Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on sqrt transformed data; original means are shown. aA = 20 Jun (First trap catch with ripe fruit), B = 28 Jun (A + 7 days), C = 4 Jul (B + 7 days), D = 11 Jul (C + 7 days), E = 18 Jul (D + 7 days), F = 21 Jun (1 day after A), G = 29 Jun (1 day after B), H = 5 Jul (1 day after C), I = 12 Jul (1 day after D), J = 19 Jul (1 day after E). Open in new tab Two-pound samples of random ripe fruit were hand-picked from each plot on 10 July, 17 July, and 24 July. The fruit were evaluated using the Washington State Department of Agriculture brown sugar method by crushing them in a sugar solution (7 pounds brown sugar to 5 gallons water). The larvae were allowed to float and were subsequently counted. Counts of the total larvae per pound of fruit were analyzed using ANOVA with means separation by Tukey’s HSD (P = 0.05) after square root transformation of the data. In the 10 July evaluation, after most plots had received the first three insecticide applications, nine treatments reduced SWD compared to the untreated check. These included Apta followed by Verdepryn, Movento followed by Baythroid, Imidan, IKI-3131, Delegate with Preference, Delegate with Accudrop, one application of Verdepryn on 4 July, JetAg, and JetAg followed by Delegate (Table 1). However, it should be noted that none of the treatments were statistically improved compared to Verdepryn (application timings DE) that had still not received its first treatment, and therefore served as a second untreated check through the 10 July evaluation date. In the 17 July evaluation, seven treatments reduced SWD to 10.8–33 SWD per pound of fruit compared to the untreated check (166 per pound). These plots received three applications of Verdepryn (starting at 28 June), or four applications of Delegate with Preference, Delegate with AG16134, Delegate with Accudrop, Verdepryn (beginning on 20 June), JetAg followed by Delegate, or Delegate (Table 1). In the 24 July evaluation, two treatments reduced SWD to <10 per pound of fruit compared to 73.3 in the untreated check. These treatments include five applications of Delegate with AG16134 and four applications of Verdepryn (starting 28 June) (Table 1). Across all evaluation dates there were no significant differences among plots receiving two to five applications of Verdepryn.1 Footnotes 1 " This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Ichinose,, Katsuya;Fukami,, Koichiro

Management of Sweetpotato Whiteflies on Poinsettias With VentigraTM and VeliferTM Insecticides as a Rotation or Solo Application

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa076

Potato (sweet) | Ipomoea batatas Sweetpotato weevils (SWC) | Cylas formicarius F, West Indian sweetpotato weevil (SWE) | Euscepes postfasciatus (Fairmaire) chlorantraniliprole, chlorpyrifos This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of aerial-applied chlorantraniliprole with a drone for the control of serious sweetpotato weevil pests, sweetpotato weevils (SWC) and West Indian sweetpotato weevil (SWE), in a farm of a sweetpotato grower in Yaese on the Okinawa Island, southern Japan in 2019. A total of 18 plots were established and consisted of a ridge of 20.0 m and 0.8 m wide. Three treatments were replicated six times. About 70 slips of sweetpotato ‘Churakoibeni’, which had been collected from sweetpotato farms, were planted on each ridge with 0.3 m spacing by the grower of the farm on 9 May. Chlorantraniliprole of 5.0% (FMC Chemicals, Tokyo, Japan) applied with a drone (Agras MG-1, DJI Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, China) was compared for its efficacy on the reduction of infesting weevils and their damage on plants both with the application of this insecticide applied with a sprayer (WJ423, Honda Co. Ltd., Kumamoto, Japan) as a conventional insecticide application and with the untreated check. The insecticide was applied on 14 Aug, equivalent to 250 ml/ha diluted 16 times for the drone application and 250 ml/ha diluted 4,000 times for the sprayer application. The drone flew at 2.0 m high from the plant crown at a velocity of 2 m/s. When the insecticide was applied, all plants of the untreated check were covered with plastic sheets for the avoidance of insecticide-drifting. The root system of three plants randomly selected in each plot were harvested on 5 Oct, and tubers ≥ 100 g and the rest of the root system of each plant were weighted at a precision to 0.1 g individually. The roots were dissected, and infesting weevils were counted for each weevil species. Holes made by weevils on the root surface when they had emerged were also counted, although the species that made the hole could not be identified. Thus, the total number of weevils in some plants could be larger than the sum of SWC and SWE found in the plant. The efficacy of insecticide treatments was evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests (P = 0.05) on the number of weevils infesting the root and on the proportion of the weight weevil-injured roots to that of the entire root system of the plant. In these analyses, the weevil numbers, root weight, and injury proportion were passed through square-root, natural logarithmic, and the root-square arcsine transformed, respectively. All means in this report were calculated on non-transformed data. Insecticide compounds, formulations, and application rates are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 3.78 1.00a 6.83a 759.8a 19.7 18.7a 29.8a Sprayera 250.0 0.22 0.06b 0.39b 472.4b 4.5 0.4b 4.8b Droneb 250.0 0.44 0.00b 0.72b 651.6ab 4.3 0.0b 6.1b P > F 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 3.78 1.00a 6.83a 759.8a 19.7 18.7a 29.8a Sprayera 250.0 0.22 0.06b 0.39b 472.4b 4.5 0.4b 4.8b Droneb 250.0 0.44 0.00b 0.72b 651.6ab 4.3 0.0b 6.1b P > F 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test. aml per hectare, diluted by 4,000 times. bml per hectare, diluted by 16 times. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 3.78 1.00a 6.83a 759.8a 19.7 18.7a 29.8a Sprayera 250.0 0.22 0.06b 0.39b 472.4b 4.5 0.4b 4.8b Droneb 250.0 0.44 0.00b 0.72b 651.6ab 4.3 0.0b 6.1b P > F 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 Treatment/formulation . Rate/ha . Weevils/plant . . . Yield . Root injury (%) . . . . . SWC . SWE . All . g/plant . SWC . SWE . All . Untreated check --- 3.78 1.00a 6.83a 759.8a 19.7 18.7a 29.8a Sprayera 250.0 0.22 0.06b 0.39b 472.4b 4.5 0.4b 4.8b Droneb 250.0 0.44 0.00b 0.72b 651.6ab 4.3 0.0b 6.1b P > F 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test. aml per hectare, diluted by 4,000 times. bml per hectare, diluted by 16 times. Open in new tab Fewer SWE were detected than SWC in all treatments, and no SWE in the drone application. The occurrences of SWC were more in the untreated check, showing no significant differences from the insecticide treatments, although the difference was marginally significant at P = 0.07. In contrast, both SWE and the sum of both weevils were significantly lower in the insecticide treatments than in the untreated check, and no significant differences were detected between the two application modes. Root yield was significantly less in the sprayer treatment. Mean root injury in the untreated check was 19.7, 18.7, and 29.8% by SWC, SWE, and both weevils, respectively. Both insecticides significantly reduced mean root injury compared to the untreated check.1 Footnotes 1 This study was supported by Kyushu Agricultural Research Center. The grower, Mr. N. Nagai, kindly supported the management of sweetpotato plants in the field. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Vafaie,, Erfan;Newburn,, David

Evaluation of Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Onion Thrips in Dry-Bulb Onion in Wisconsin, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa108

Poinsettia | Euphorbia pulcherrima Sweetpotato whitefly | Bemisia tabaci Gennadius MEAM1 afidopyropen, Beauveria bassiana strain GHA, Beauveria bassina The purpose of this study was to assess relative efficacy of Ventigra and Velifer insecticides in managing whiteflies on greenhouse-grown poinsettias, as part of an insecticide rotation or as a solo application. The trial was conducted between Sep 3 and Oct 15 (2019) in the IPM greenhouse at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center in Overton, TX. Poinsettias were artificially infested with whitefly by covering all the potted plants under row cover (Row Cover Deluxe; Greenhouse Megastore, Danville, IL) and releasing 2 adults (average) per plant per week on two consecutive weeks (Aug 19 and Aug 26) into the plant enclosure. On Sep 3, counts of the number of whitefly nymphs and pupae per leaf were made non-destructively by visual inspection using a 3.5× head magnifying lens. All leaves on each plant were inspected and adults removed from plants. Treatments were assigned to experimental units in a CRD with seven replications per treatment, with one replicate constituting of one poinsettia plant inside a 47.5 × 47.5 × 47.5 cm netted observation cage (44545F; MegaView Science Co., Ltd., Talchung, Taiwan). All insecticide treatments were made as foliar sprays using an R&D CO2 sprayer (Model D-203S) fitted with a 601FA single nozzle spray boom (Bellspray, Inc., Opelousas, LA) and sprayed until runoff (Table 1). Table 1. Treatments, application rates, and application dates . . . . . . Applications . # . Label . Insecticide(s) . Active ingredient . Rate (/100 gal) . Rate (/liter) . 9/3/19 . 9/10/19 . 9/17/19 . 1 UTC - - - - - - - 2 Botanigard BotaniGard 22WP Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 16 oz. 1.2 g X X X 3 Ventigra (4) Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X X X 4 Velifer (13) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X X X 5 Velifer (21) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 21 fl. oz. 1.64 ml X X X 6 Vel-Ven Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X - X Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml - X - 7 Ven-Vel Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X - X Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml - X - . . . . . . Applications . # . Label . Insecticide(s) . Active ingredient . Rate (/100 gal) . Rate (/liter) . 9/3/19 . 9/10/19 . 9/17/19 . 1 UTC - - - - - - - 2 Botanigard BotaniGard 22WP Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 16 oz. 1.2 g X X X 3 Ventigra (4) Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X X X 4 Velifer (13) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X X X 5 Velifer (21) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 21 fl. oz. 1.64 ml X X X 6 Vel-Ven Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X - X Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml - X - 7 Ven-Vel Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X - X Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml - X - Open in new tab Table 1. Treatments, application rates, and application dates . . . . . . Applications . # . Label . Insecticide(s) . Active ingredient . Rate (/100 gal) . Rate (/liter) . 9/3/19 . 9/10/19 . 9/17/19 . 1 UTC - - - - - - - 2 Botanigard BotaniGard 22WP Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 16 oz. 1.2 g X X X 3 Ventigra (4) Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X X X 4 Velifer (13) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X X X 5 Velifer (21) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 21 fl. oz. 1.64 ml X X X 6 Vel-Ven Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X - X Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml - X - 7 Ven-Vel Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X - X Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml - X - . . . . . . Applications . # . Label . Insecticide(s) . Active ingredient . Rate (/100 gal) . Rate (/liter) . 9/3/19 . 9/10/19 . 9/17/19 . 1 UTC - - - - - - - 2 Botanigard BotaniGard 22WP Beauveria bassiana strain GHA 16 oz. 1.2 g X X X 3 Ventigra (4) Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X X X 4 Velifer (13) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X X X 5 Velifer (21) Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 21 fl. oz. 1.64 ml X X X 6 Vel-Ven Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml X - X Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml - X - 7 Ven-Vel Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl. oz. 0.37 ml X - X Velifer Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339 13 fl. oz. 1.02 ml - X - Open in new tab The number of whitefly immatures (nymphs and pupae), adults, and dead immatures were sampled from a single tagged leaf per plant using visual counts at 0, 7, 14, 28, and 42 days after the first spray application. Phytotoxicity and pesticide residue were also rated from 0 (no phytotoxicity/no residue) to 10 (high phytotoxicity/highly visible residue) during each sampling date. Differences between treatment means were compared separately for each DAT using ANOVA on log-transformed data and Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) for multiple comparisons. All Velifer and Ventigra treatments (individually or in a rotation) provided significant suppression of whitefly immatures and adults by 28 DAT compared to the untreated check (Tables 2 and 3), with up to 100% suppression in some treatments, such as Velifer 13 fl. oz. / 100 gal. Botanigard 22WP provided significant suppression of immatures by 28 DAT (Table 2) and whitefly adults by 14 DAT (Table 3) compared to the untreated control. Further inspection of poinsettias at 42 DAT provided additional support for excellent control of whitefly immatures on Ventigra treatments alone or in rotation with Velifer (data not shown). Applications of Velifer were at least equivalent to Botanigard 22WP in suppression of immatures and adults on poinsettias when applied weekly for three times. No signs of phytotoxicity or insecticide residue were observed for the duration of the trial.1 Table 2. Average number of whitefly immatures (nymphs and pupae) per tagged poinsettia leaf on each sampling . . Mean whitefly immatures per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 0 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 20.7 27.0 35.4 257.4a 197.0a 2 Botanigard 18.6 17.3 14.9 60.3b 43.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 20.6 11.9 5.3 0.0bc 0.0bc 4 Velifer (13) 20.0 17.4 41.7 13.7bc 27.0bc 5 Velifer (21) 18.6 12.6 17.7 9.7bc 13.0bc 6 Vel-Ven 20.1 31.4 16.6 3.1c 1.0c 7 Ven-Vel 18.9 10.9 4.4 0.7c 2.6c P-value 1.00 0.36 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 . . Mean whitefly immatures per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 0 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 20.7 27.0 35.4 257.4a 197.0a 2 Botanigard 18.6 17.3 14.9 60.3b 43.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 20.6 11.9 5.3 0.0bc 0.0bc 4 Velifer (13) 20.0 17.4 41.7 13.7bc 27.0bc 5 Velifer (21) 18.6 12.6 17.7 9.7bc 13.0bc 6 Vel-Ven 20.1 31.4 16.6 3.1c 1.0c 7 Ven-Vel 18.9 10.9 4.4 0.7c 2.6c P-value 1.00 0.36 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different (Tukey’s HSD, P < 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Average number of whitefly immatures (nymphs and pupae) per tagged poinsettia leaf on each sampling . . Mean whitefly immatures per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 0 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 20.7 27.0 35.4 257.4a 197.0a 2 Botanigard 18.6 17.3 14.9 60.3b 43.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 20.6 11.9 5.3 0.0bc 0.0bc 4 Velifer (13) 20.0 17.4 41.7 13.7bc 27.0bc 5 Velifer (21) 18.6 12.6 17.7 9.7bc 13.0bc 6 Vel-Ven 20.1 31.4 16.6 3.1c 1.0c 7 Ven-Vel 18.9 10.9 4.4 0.7c 2.6c P-value 1.00 0.36 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 . . Mean whitefly immatures per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 0 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 20.7 27.0 35.4 257.4a 197.0a 2 Botanigard 18.6 17.3 14.9 60.3b 43.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 20.6 11.9 5.3 0.0bc 0.0bc 4 Velifer (13) 20.0 17.4 41.7 13.7bc 27.0bc 5 Velifer (21) 18.6 12.6 17.7 9.7bc 13.0bc 6 Vel-Ven 20.1 31.4 16.6 3.1c 1.0c 7 Ven-Vel 18.9 10.9 4.4 0.7c 2.6c P-value 1.00 0.36 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different (Tukey’s HSD, P < 0.05). Open in new tab Table 3. Average number of whitefly adults per tagged poinsettia leaf on each sampling date . . Mean whitefly adults per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 1 11.1a 13.6a 52.7a 2 Botanigard 1.6 1.4b 0.1b 10.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 0.6 0b 0b 0b 4 Velifer (13) 3.9 1.1b 0.7b 2.6b 5 Velifer (21) 2.3 2.1ab 0.6b 0.9b 6 Vel-Ven 1.3 1.4b 0.1b 0b 7 Ven-Vel 0.6 0.1b 0b 0b P-value 0.86 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 . . Mean whitefly adults per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 1 11.1a 13.6a 52.7a 2 Botanigard 1.6 1.4b 0.1b 10.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 0.6 0b 0b 0b 4 Velifer (13) 3.9 1.1b 0.7b 2.6b 5 Velifer (21) 2.3 2.1ab 0.6b 0.9b 6 Vel-Ven 1.3 1.4b 0.1b 0b 7 Ven-Vel 0.6 0.1b 0b 0b P-value 0.86 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different (Tukey’s HSD, P < 0.05). Open in new tab Table 3. Average number of whitefly adults per tagged poinsettia leaf on each sampling date . . Mean whitefly adults per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 1 11.1a 13.6a 52.7a 2 Botanigard 1.6 1.4b 0.1b 10.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 0.6 0b 0b 0b 4 Velifer (13) 3.9 1.1b 0.7b 2.6b 5 Velifer (21) 2.3 2.1ab 0.6b 0.9b 6 Vel-Ven 1.3 1.4b 0.1b 0b 7 Ven-Vel 0.6 0.1b 0b 0b P-value 0.86 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 . . Mean whitefly adults per leaf . . . DAT . # Label 7 14 28 42 1 UTC 1 11.1a 13.6a 52.7a 2 Botanigard 1.6 1.4b 0.1b 10.1b 3 Ventigra (4) 0.6 0b 0b 0b 4 Velifer (13) 3.9 1.1b 0.7b 2.6b 5 Velifer (21) 2.3 2.1ab 0.6b 0.9b 6 Vel-Ven 1.3 1.4b 0.1b 0b 7 Ven-Vel 0.6 0.1b 0b 0b P-value 0.86 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different (Tukey’s HSD, P < 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry funds and gifts of pesticides. © The Author(s) 2020. 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-NonCommercial 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 journals.permissions@oup.com.

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bradford, Benjamin, Z;Chapman, Scott, A;Groves, Russell, L

Insecticidal Control of Cotton Aphid in Citrus, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa010

Onion thrips: Thrips tabaci Lindeman Onion | Allium cepa Burkholderia spp, azadirachtin, pyrethrin, Isaria fumosorosea, spinosad, Beta-Pinene polymer, neem oil, potassium salts of fatty esters This trial was conducted as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), to evaluate several organic foliar insecticide treatment programs for controlling damaging thrips populations in onion. Plots were established on a community farm 4.5 miles south of Cross Plains, Wisconsin (43.048740°N, −89.654712°W), on a silt loam soil in 2019. Onion, Allium cepa cv. ‘Cortland’ transplants were established on 21 Apr at a 10 in. within-row spacing on a 60 in. bed, comprised of three rows spaced 15 in. apart. Four replicate blocks of 16 plots were arranged in an RCBD. Plots measured 6 ft. wide by 12 ft. long. The entire trial measured 18 ft. wide by 264 ft. long. All foliar treatment mixes included one or two insecticide products and one adjuvant. Initial foliar applications were performed on 11 Jul reapplied 8 days later on 19 Jul. Applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi, equipped with a 6 ft. boom with 4 flat-fan nozzles (Tee Jet XR 8002VS) spaced 18 in. apart, and delivering 20 gal/ac while traveling at 3.5 ft./sec. Onion thrips, Thrips tabaci, adult and immature life stages were counted on all leaves from 10 randomly selected onions per plot. Counts were performed on 17, 23, and 29 Jul (6, 12, and 18 days after initial foliar applications). The average number of leaves per plant for each plot was recorded on each count date and used to compute the average number of adult and immature thrips per leaf per plot. Thrips counts per leaf were square root transformed prior to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Treatment main effects were determined using ANOVA. Means separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = 0.05). No significant differences in adult or immature thrips counts were observed between any of the treatment or control plots on any of the three count dates (Table 1). Lack of statistical significance of treatment main effects can be attributed, in part, to high variance between replicate blocks, generally low insect numbers present in the 2019 season, and a significant block effect (P < 0.05) observed for adult thrips counts on 29 Jul and on all three dates for immature thrips counts. The average number of leaves per onion was 8.9 on 17 Jul, 8.8 on 23 Jul, and 8.0 on 29 Jul.1 Table 1. Results TrtNo. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adult thrips/leaf Immature thrips/leaf 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 1 UNTREATED 0.33a 0.40a 0.00a 0.28a 5.19a 0.39a 2 Venerate XP 94.5 EC M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 2 % v/v 0.26a 0.14a 0.16a 0.45a 2.17a 0.28a 3 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.29a 0.03a 0.35a 1.25a 1.19a 0.37a 4 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.33a 0.32a 0.42a 2.73a 2.44a 1.22a 5 Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.41a 0.03a 0.04a 0.56a 1.39a 1.02a 6 Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.20a 0.10a 0.07a 0.19a 1.22a 0.41a 7 Neemix 4.5 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 16 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.20a 0.11a 0.09a 0.20a 0.86a 0.56a 8 Azera 0.21 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3.5 pt 8 fl oz 0.28a 0.14a 0.19a 2.08a 0.73a 0.87a 9 Azera 0.21 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3.5 pt 2 % v/v 0.28a 0.31a 0.50a 0.61a 1.72a 0.75a 10 Azera 0.21 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 3.5 pt 1 % v/v 0.24a 0.04a 0.17a 0.74a 0.75a 0.71a 11 Entrust 2 SC NuFilm P 100 SL 8 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.40a 0.23a 0.12a 0.52a 3.57a 0.53a 12 Entrust 2 SC M-Pede 3.8 SL 8 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.12a 0.03a 0.12a 0.50a 0.94a 0.20a 13 Entrust 2 SC Trilogy 5.46 SL 8 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.22a 0.14a 0.27a 0.28a 1.31a 1.44a 14 PFR-97 20 WDG NuFilm P 100 SL 2 lb 8 fl oz 0.35a 0.24a 0.06a 0.69a 1.53a 1.28a 15 PFR-97 20 WDG M-Pede 3.8 SL 2 lb 2 % v/v 0.25a 0.19a 0.55a 0.06a 2.93a 0.69a 16 PFR-97 20 WDG Trilogy 5.46 SL 2 lb 1 % v/v 0.28a 0.68a 0.28a 0.51a 1.77a 1.06a P > F 0.96 0.08 0.27a 0.26a 0.09a 0.94a TrtNo. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adult thrips/leaf Immature thrips/leaf 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 1 UNTREATED 0.33a 0.40a 0.00a 0.28a 5.19a 0.39a 2 Venerate XP 94.5 EC M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 2 % v/v 0.26a 0.14a 0.16a 0.45a 2.17a 0.28a 3 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.29a 0.03a 0.35a 1.25a 1.19a 0.37a 4 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.33a 0.32a 0.42a 2.73a 2.44a 1.22a 5 Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.41a 0.03a 0.04a 0.56a 1.39a 1.02a 6 Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.20a 0.10a 0.07a 0.19a 1.22a 0.41a 7 Neemix 4.5 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 16 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.20a 0.11a 0.09a 0.20a 0.86a 0.56a 8 Azera 0.21 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3.5 pt 8 fl oz 0.28a 0.14a 0.19a 2.08a 0.73a 0.87a 9 Azera 0.21 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3.5 pt 2 % v/v 0.28a 0.31a 0.50a 0.61a 1.72a 0.75a 10 Azera 0.21 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 3.5 pt 1 % v/v 0.24a 0.04a 0.17a 0.74a 0.75a 0.71a 11 Entrust 2 SC NuFilm P 100 SL 8 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.40a 0.23a 0.12a 0.52a 3.57a 0.53a 12 Entrust 2 SC M-Pede 3.8 SL 8 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.12a 0.03a 0.12a 0.50a 0.94a 0.20a 13 Entrust 2 SC Trilogy 5.46 SL 8 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.22a 0.14a 0.27a 0.28a 1.31a 1.44a 14 PFR-97 20 WDG NuFilm P 100 SL 2 lb 8 fl oz 0.35a 0.24a 0.06a 0.69a 1.53a 1.28a 15 PFR-97 20 WDG M-Pede 3.8 SL 2 lb 2 % v/v 0.25a 0.19a 0.55a 0.06a 2.93a 0.69a 16 PFR-97 20 WDG Trilogy 5.46 SL 2 lb 1 % v/v 0.28a 0.68a 0.28a 0.51a 1.77a 1.06a P > F 0.96 0.08 0.27a 0.26a 0.09a 0.94a Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aA significant block effect was observed (P < 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Results TrtNo. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adult thrips/leaf Immature thrips/leaf 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 1 UNTREATED 0.33a 0.40a 0.00a 0.28a 5.19a 0.39a 2 Venerate XP 94.5 EC M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 2 % v/v 0.26a 0.14a 0.16a 0.45a 2.17a 0.28a 3 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.29a 0.03a 0.35a 1.25a 1.19a 0.37a 4 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.33a 0.32a 0.42a 2.73a 2.44a 1.22a 5 Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.41a 0.03a 0.04a 0.56a 1.39a 1.02a 6 Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.20a 0.10a 0.07a 0.19a 1.22a 0.41a 7 Neemix 4.5 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 16 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.20a 0.11a 0.09a 0.20a 0.86a 0.56a 8 Azera 0.21 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3.5 pt 8 fl oz 0.28a 0.14a 0.19a 2.08a 0.73a 0.87a 9 Azera 0.21 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3.5 pt 2 % v/v 0.28a 0.31a 0.50a 0.61a 1.72a 0.75a 10 Azera 0.21 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 3.5 pt 1 % v/v 0.24a 0.04a 0.17a 0.74a 0.75a 0.71a 11 Entrust 2 SC NuFilm P 100 SL 8 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.40a 0.23a 0.12a 0.52a 3.57a 0.53a 12 Entrust 2 SC M-Pede 3.8 SL 8 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.12a 0.03a 0.12a 0.50a 0.94a 0.20a 13 Entrust 2 SC Trilogy 5.46 SL 8 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.22a 0.14a 0.27a 0.28a 1.31a 1.44a 14 PFR-97 20 WDG NuFilm P 100 SL 2 lb 8 fl oz 0.35a 0.24a 0.06a 0.69a 1.53a 1.28a 15 PFR-97 20 WDG M-Pede 3.8 SL 2 lb 2 % v/v 0.25a 0.19a 0.55a 0.06a 2.93a 0.69a 16 PFR-97 20 WDG Trilogy 5.46 SL 2 lb 1 % v/v 0.28a 0.68a 0.28a 0.51a 1.77a 1.06a P > F 0.96 0.08 0.27a 0.26a 0.09a 0.94a TrtNo. Product(s) Rate (amt/ac) Adult thrips/leaf Immature thrips/leaf 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 17 Jul 23 Jul 29 Jul 1 UNTREATED 0.33a 0.40a 0.00a 0.28a 5.19a 0.39a 2 Venerate XP 94.5 EC M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 2 % v/v 0.26a 0.14a 0.16a 0.45a 2.17a 0.28a 3 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.29a 0.03a 0.35a 1.25a 1.19a 0.37a 4 Venerate XP 94.5 EC Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3 qt 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.33a 0.32a 0.42a 2.73a 2.44a 1.22a 5 Neemix 4.5 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 16 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.41a 0.03a 0.04a 0.56a 1.39a 1.02a 6 Neemix 4.5 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 16 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.20a 0.10a 0.07a 0.19a 1.22a 0.41a 7 Neemix 4.5 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 16 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.20a 0.11a 0.09a 0.20a 0.86a 0.56a 8 Azera 0.21 SL NuFilm P 100 SL 3.5 pt 8 fl oz 0.28a 0.14a 0.19a 2.08a 0.73a 0.87a 9 Azera 0.21 SL M-Pede 3.8 SL 3.5 pt 2 % v/v 0.28a 0.31a 0.50a 0.61a 1.72a 0.75a 10 Azera 0.21 SL Trilogy 5.46 SL 3.5 pt 1 % v/v 0.24a 0.04a 0.17a 0.74a 0.75a 0.71a 11 Entrust 2 SC NuFilm P 100 SL 8 fl oz 8 fl oz 0.40a 0.23a 0.12a 0.52a 3.57a 0.53a 12 Entrust 2 SC M-Pede 3.8 SL 8 fl oz 2 % v/v 0.12a 0.03a 0.12a 0.50a 0.94a 0.20a 13 Entrust 2 SC Trilogy 5.46 SL 8 fl oz 1 % v/v 0.22a 0.14a 0.27a 0.28a 1.31a 1.44a 14 PFR-97 20 WDG NuFilm P 100 SL 2 lb 8 fl oz 0.35a 0.24a 0.06a 0.69a 1.53a 1.28a 15 PFR-97 20 WDG M-Pede 3.8 SL 2 lb 2 % v/v 0.25a 0.19a 0.55a 0.06a 2.93a 0.69a 16 PFR-97 20 WDG Trilogy 5.46 SL 2 lb 1 % v/v 0.28a 0.68a 0.28a 0.51a 1.77a 1.06a P > F 0.96 0.08 0.27a 0.26a 0.09a 0.94a Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aA significant block effect was observed (P < 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Greenhouse Test on Repellents of Winterform Pear Psylla

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa015

Cotton aphid/melon aphid | Aphis gossypii Satsuma (clementine, mandarin, tangerine) | Citrus reticulata A field trial was conducted in a 5-yr-old ‘Tango’ mandarin block at the Lindcove Research and Extension Center, Exeter, California. Treatments were assigned to in 10 individual trees per treatment in an RCB design on 11 Mar 2019 based on pretreatment aphid counts and sampling was conducted for 3 wk. Insecticides were applied in 100 gpa at 250 psi on 25 Mar 2019 using a 100-gal high-pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation with a D6 nozzle on a hand wand. All treatments were applied with 0.25% Dyne-Amic. For precount samples, the number of aphid-infested terminals out of 20 terminals randomly selected from around the tree were counted. On all other sampling dates, the number of aphid-infested terminals out of 25 terminals were counted. The mean numbers of infested terminals were compared between treatments using one-way ANOVA after testing for an NS block effect. Means were separated according to Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (P = 0.05) after asin(sqrt(x)) transformation of the data. Movento and Sefina treatments significantly reduced the percentage of aphid-infested terminals in the three post treatment samples and Beleaf reduced aphids significantly in one post-treatment sample (Table 1).1 Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean percentage of aphid-infested terminals 11 Mar 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr Untreated Check 26.0a 20.0a 31.0a 5.0a Beleaf 50 SG + Dyne-Amic 3.5a + 0.25% 25 Mar 38.0a 13.0ab 20.0ab 0.0b Movento MPC + Dyne-Amic 2.8b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 6.0bc 11.0bc 0.0b Sefina 50 DC + Dyne-Amic 3.0b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 4.0c 6.0c 0.0b F3,36 0.91 3.8 8.13 6.03 P 0.370 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean percentage of aphid-infested terminals 11 Mar 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr Untreated Check 26.0a 20.0a 31.0a 5.0a Beleaf 50 SG + Dyne-Amic 3.5a + 0.25% 25 Mar 38.0a 13.0ab 20.0ab 0.0b Movento MPC + Dyne-Amic 2.8b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 6.0bc 11.0bc 0.0b Sefina 50 DC + Dyne-Amic 3.0b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 4.0c 6.0c 0.0b F3,36 0.91 3.8 8.13 6.03 P 0.370 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different after asin(sqrt(x)) transformation of the data (LSD, P > 0.05). Untransformed means are listed. aoz (wt) product per acre. boz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean percentage of aphid-infested terminals 11 Mar 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr Untreated Check 26.0a 20.0a 31.0a 5.0a Beleaf 50 SG + Dyne-Amic 3.5a + 0.25% 25 Mar 38.0a 13.0ab 20.0ab 0.0b Movento MPC + Dyne-Amic 2.8b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 6.0bc 11.0bc 0.0b Sefina 50 DC + Dyne-Amic 3.0b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 4.0c 6.0c 0.0b F3,36 0.91 3.8 8.13 6.03 P 0.370 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 Treatment/formulation Rate-amt form/acre or vol Mean percentage of aphid-infested terminals 11 Mar 1 Apr 8 Apr 15 Apr Untreated Check 26.0a 20.0a 31.0a 5.0a Beleaf 50 SG + Dyne-Amic 3.5a + 0.25% 25 Mar 38.0a 13.0ab 20.0ab 0.0b Movento MPC + Dyne-Amic 2.8b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 6.0bc 11.0bc 0.0b Sefina 50 DC + Dyne-Amic 3.0b + 0.25% 25 Mar 28.0a 4.0c 6.0c 0.0b F3,36 0.91 3.8 8.13 6.03 P 0.370 0.0034 <0.001 <0.001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different after asin(sqrt(x)) transformation of the data (LSD, P > 0.05). Untransformed means are listed. aoz (wt) product per acre. boz (fl) product per acre. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported by the California Citrus Research Board and industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Nottingham,, Louis;Orpet,, Robert;Beers,, Elizabeth

Foliar Insecticide Efficacy Against Potato Aphid in Staked Tomato, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa079

Pear | Pyrus communis Pear psylla | Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster) The objective of this study was to compare repellency effects of various materials to pear psylla (PP). Repelling adults PP from entering pear orchards and creating a barrier against oviposition is important during prebloom colonization. Kaolin clay (Surround) and/or horticultural oils are most often used for this purpose, but growers also apply other materials for tree nutrition or disease management, and it is of interest to know if these treatments also influence PP colonization and oviposition. Experimental units in this trial were individual potted ‘Anjou’ pear trees on Old Home × Farmingdale 87 rootstocks, ca. 76 cm tall and 1.3 cm caliper. The experiment was conducted in a large mesh cage in a greenhouse at the Washington State University’s Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center in Wenatchee, WA. Forty-five trees were placed in the cage, and 14 materials and a water check allocated in randomized complete block design (one treatment per tree). The experiment was conducted in two runs, each with three replications of each treatment. The first run was on 20 Mar and evaluated on 27 Mar, and the second was on 29 Mar and evaluated on 4 Apr. One block of replicates from the first run of the experiment was excluded from analysis (N = 5) because adults aggregated at the south end of the cage due to greater sunlight. This issue was corrected in the second run by adding shade netting to that end of the greenhouse. For each run, treatments were applied using 1-liter plastic hand-pump spray bottles to spray ca. 100 ml of test solution per tree. Trees were left to dry for at least 1 h before being placed in the cage. The next day, 1,200 adult PP were collected from the field using an aspirator and then released inside the edges of the cage. After 6 d, in the morning when PP are less active, adult PP were counted on each tree with the unaided eye and eggs were counted under 5× magnification glasses (OptiVISOR DA-10, Donefan Optical Inc., Lenexa, KS). Response variables (numbers of PP adults and PP eggs) were pooled across runs and analyzed with R using the ‘anova’ function for two-way ANOVA with explanatory variables of treatment and block, followed by mean separation with Fisher’s least significant difference using the ‘LSD.test’ function of the ‘agricolae’ package. Nine of the fourteen products significantly reduced PP oviposition, and only Surround WP had significantly fewer PP adults compared with the check (Table 1). The products that reduced oviposition included particle films (Surround WP, Microna AG), mineral oils (IAP 470 dormant oil, IAP 440 summer oil, and CNI paraffin oil), essential oils (cedar oil and pine oil), an organic insecticide derived from cinnamon aldehyde (Cinnerate) and sulfur (Microthiol Disperss), whereas products that did not significantly reduce oviposition included one organic insecticide derived from rosemary oil (Ecotrol EC), Rex lime sulfur, and calcium particle film nutrient (Diamond K gypsum) or fruit sunburn protectants (PurShade and Raynox) that leave white powdery residues on leaves. The discrepancy between most products significantly reducing counts of eggs but not adults suggest that their main suppressive effect on PP is deterring oviposition rather than killing or repelling adults. Furthermore, although no tested product was superior to Surround WP, this study suggests mineral oils, essential oils, and sulfur can reduce PP oviposition when provided an alternate ovipositional choice.1 Table 1. Formulation . Rate – amt form/liter . Amt form per tree . Mean PP count . . . . . Eggs . Adults . Surround WP (kaolin) 100 g 10 g 1.0e 0.4c IAP 470 oil (heavy horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 2.0de 2.6abc Cedar Oil (cedar essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 6.6cde 1.8abc Microna AG (calcium carbonate) 100 g 10 g 9.8bcde 1.6bc Cinnerate (cinnamon aldehyde) 20 ml 2.0 ml 11.0bcde 3.0abc IAP 440 oil (light horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 12.6bcde 4.6ab CNI oil (paraffin oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 12.8bcde 2.8abc Microthiol Disperss (wettable sulfur) 68 g 6.8 g 13.4bcde 1.8abc Pine Oil (pine essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 14.4bcde 2.0abc Ecotrol EC (rosemary and peppermint oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 18.2abcde 5.2a Diamond K Gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) 100 g 10 g 20.4abcd 4.8ab PurShade (calcium carbonate) 25 ml 2.5 ml 22.4abc 5.0ab Raynox (carnauba wax) 60 ml 6.0 ml 23.6abc 4.4ab Rex lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide) 70 ml 7.0 ml 26.6ab 3.8abc Check (H2O) n/a n/a 35.6a 4.4ab Formulation . Rate – amt form/liter . Amt form per tree . Mean PP count . . . . . Eggs . Adults . Surround WP (kaolin) 100 g 10 g 1.0e 0.4c IAP 470 oil (heavy horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 2.0de 2.6abc Cedar Oil (cedar essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 6.6cde 1.8abc Microna AG (calcium carbonate) 100 g 10 g 9.8bcde 1.6bc Cinnerate (cinnamon aldehyde) 20 ml 2.0 ml 11.0bcde 3.0abc IAP 440 oil (light horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 12.6bcde 4.6ab CNI oil (paraffin oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 12.8bcde 2.8abc Microthiol Disperss (wettable sulfur) 68 g 6.8 g 13.4bcde 1.8abc Pine Oil (pine essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 14.4bcde 2.0abc Ecotrol EC (rosemary and peppermint oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 18.2abcde 5.2a Diamond K Gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) 100 g 10 g 20.4abcd 4.8ab PurShade (calcium carbonate) 25 ml 2.5 ml 22.4abc 5.0ab Raynox (carnauba wax) 60 ml 6.0 ml 23.6abc 4.4ab Rex lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide) 70 ml 7.0 ml 26.6ab 3.8abc Check (H2O) n/a n/a 35.6a 4.4ab Means followed by same letters within the same column were not significantly different according to Fisher’s least significant difference (P > 0.05). Open in new tab Table 1. Formulation . Rate – amt form/liter . Amt form per tree . Mean PP count . . . . . Eggs . Adults . Surround WP (kaolin) 100 g 10 g 1.0e 0.4c IAP 470 oil (heavy horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 2.0de 2.6abc Cedar Oil (cedar essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 6.6cde 1.8abc Microna AG (calcium carbonate) 100 g 10 g 9.8bcde 1.6bc Cinnerate (cinnamon aldehyde) 20 ml 2.0 ml 11.0bcde 3.0abc IAP 440 oil (light horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 12.6bcde 4.6ab CNI oil (paraffin oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 12.8bcde 2.8abc Microthiol Disperss (wettable sulfur) 68 g 6.8 g 13.4bcde 1.8abc Pine Oil (pine essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 14.4bcde 2.0abc Ecotrol EC (rosemary and peppermint oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 18.2abcde 5.2a Diamond K Gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) 100 g 10 g 20.4abcd 4.8ab PurShade (calcium carbonate) 25 ml 2.5 ml 22.4abc 5.0ab Raynox (carnauba wax) 60 ml 6.0 ml 23.6abc 4.4ab Rex lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide) 70 ml 7.0 ml 26.6ab 3.8abc Check (H2O) n/a n/a 35.6a 4.4ab Formulation . Rate – amt form/liter . Amt form per tree . Mean PP count . . . . . Eggs . Adults . Surround WP (kaolin) 100 g 10 g 1.0e 0.4c IAP 470 oil (heavy horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 2.0de 2.6abc Cedar Oil (cedar essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 6.6cde 1.8abc Microna AG (calcium carbonate) 100 g 10 g 9.8bcde 1.6bc Cinnerate (cinnamon aldehyde) 20 ml 2.0 ml 11.0bcde 3.0abc IAP 440 oil (light horticultural oil) 40 ml 4.0 ml 12.6bcde 4.6ab CNI oil (paraffin oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 12.8bcde 2.8abc Microthiol Disperss (wettable sulfur) 68 g 6.8 g 13.4bcde 1.8abc Pine Oil (pine essential oil) 20 ml 2.0 ml 14.4bcde 2.0abc Ecotrol EC (rosemary and peppermint oil) 10 ml 1.0 ml 18.2abcde 5.2a Diamond K Gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) 100 g 10 g 20.4abcd 4.8ab PurShade (calcium carbonate) 25 ml 2.5 ml 22.4abc 5.0ab Raynox (carnauba wax) 60 ml 6.0 ml 23.6abc 4.4ab Rex lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide) 70 ml 7.0 ml 26.6ab 3.8abc Check (H2O) n/a n/a 35.6a 4.4ab Means followed by same letters within the same column were not significantly different according to Fisher’s least significant difference (P > 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was supported in part by the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission and by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bilbo, Tom, R;Schoof, Steven, C;Walgenbach, James, F

Evaluation of Selected Insecticides for Control of Sugarcane Aphid in Grain Sorghum, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa065

Tomato | Lycopersicon esculentum Potato Aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) flupyradifurone, thiamethoxam, afidopyropen The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of various foliar insecticides against aphids on tomatoes. The trial was conducted from 2 Oct to 24 Oct 2019 at the North Carolina State University Mountain Horticultural Crops Research Station located in Mills River, NC. Tomato ‘Plum Regal’ transplants were set into black plastic mulched beds on 11 Jun, staked and strung as needed, and sprayed with a standard fungicide program. The entire trial plot consisted of 8 rows, 100 ft long, with 10 ft between rows. Each treatment consisted of a 20-ft-long section of tomato plants, spaced 1.5 ft apart, replicated four times, and arranged in an RCB design. Treatments on the same row were separated by 2–3 untreated tomato plants. Prior to the start of the trial, all plots were sprayed with the miticides Acramite on 13 Sep and Agri-Mek on 27 Sep to suppress populations of the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (Koch). Insecticide treatments were applied on 2 Oct when potato aphids infested 56% of leaves (~15 aphids per leaf). Potato aphids were the only aphid species detected on tomatoes throughout the trial. Treatments were applied with a CO2 backpack sprayer delivering 62 GPA through four hollow cone nozzles (D4/25) at 40 psi. Each side of the row was sprayed with a two-nozzle wand. Plots were evaluated 2, 7, 9, 14, and 22 DAT by recording the number of living, apterous aphids on each of 10 leaves from the upper portion of the plant per plot. Season cumulative aphid days were calculated by multiplying the average mite density on successive sample dates by the sample interval (days) and summing values over all dates. If necessary, data on aphids per 10 leaves were log10(x+1)-transformed prior to statistical analysis using a two-way ANOVA. Means from significant ANOVA tests were separated by LSD (P = 0.5). At 2 DAT, none of the treatments significantly reduced aphid counts below the check, but by 7 DAT all treatments provided excellent suppression (Table 1). Excellent suppression continued through the last sample date 22 DAT. Based on season-long cumulative aphid days, the most effective treatments were the 11.2 oz rate of Actara, and Sivanto HL400SL + LI700. Expressing aphid densities based on the percentage of leaves infested with apterous aphids, results mirrored those of mean aphid counts (Table 2), and illustrate the utility of using percentage-infested leaves as a basis for evaluating insecticides against potato aphids.1 Table 1. Mean number of potato aphids and seasonal cumulative aphid days (CAD) on tomatoes following application of various foliar insecticides on 2 Oct—Mills River, NC, 2019 . . Aphids per 10 leaves . . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . CAD . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 14.0a 2.5a 2.3a 1.3ab 0.5a 75.8ab LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 29.3a 1.5a 1.0a 1.5ab 1.5a 126.9ab Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 33.3a 2.0a 1.0a 0.3a 0.5a 130.5ab Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 12.0a 5.5a 2.5a 0a 0a 70.0ab LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 29.8a 7.8a 10.8a 17.0b 14.8b 338.4b Check — 61.3a 132.3a 194.0 248.8c 240.8c 3936.1c . . Aphids per 10 leaves . . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . CAD . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 14.0a 2.5a 2.3a 1.3ab 0.5a 75.8ab LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 29.3a 1.5a 1.0a 1.5ab 1.5a 126.9ab Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 33.3a 2.0a 1.0a 0.3a 0.5a 130.5ab Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 12.0a 5.5a 2.5a 0a 0a 70.0ab LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 29.8a 7.8a 10.8a 17.0b 14.8b 338.4b Check — 61.3a 132.3a 194.0 248.8c 240.8c 3936.1c Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05). Data on all dates except 2 DAT were log10(x+1)-transformed prior to ANOVA. Open in new tab Table 1. Mean number of potato aphids and seasonal cumulative aphid days (CAD) on tomatoes following application of various foliar insecticides on 2 Oct—Mills River, NC, 2019 . . Aphids per 10 leaves . . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . CAD . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 14.0a 2.5a 2.3a 1.3ab 0.5a 75.8ab LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 29.3a 1.5a 1.0a 1.5ab 1.5a 126.9ab Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 33.3a 2.0a 1.0a 0.3a 0.5a 130.5ab Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 12.0a 5.5a 2.5a 0a 0a 70.0ab LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 29.8a 7.8a 10.8a 17.0b 14.8b 338.4b Check — 61.3a 132.3a 194.0 248.8c 240.8c 3936.1c . . Aphids per 10 leaves . . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . CAD . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 14.0a 2.5a 2.3a 1.3ab 0.5a 75.8ab LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 29.3a 1.5a 1.0a 1.5ab 1.5a 126.9ab Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 33.3a 2.0a 1.0a 0.3a 0.5a 130.5ab Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 12.0a 5.5a 2.5a 0a 0a 70.0ab LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 29.8a 7.8a 10.8a 17.0b 14.8b 338.4b Check — 61.3a 132.3a 194.0 248.8c 240.8c 3936.1c Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05). Data on all dates except 2 DAT were log10(x+1)-transformed prior to ANOVA. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean percentage of tomato leaves infested by potato aphids following application of various insecticides on 2 Oct—Mills River, NC, 2019 . . % infested leaves . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 40.0a 15.0a 10.0a 7.5ab 5.0a LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 62.5a 7.5a 5.0a 5.0ab 2.5a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 65.0a 7.5a 5.0a 2.5ab 5.0a Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 37.5a 12.5a 5.0a 0.0a 0.0a LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 67.5a 22.5a 17.5a 30.0b 25.0b Check — 72.5a 82.5a 77.5b 90.0c 87.5c . . % infested leaves . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 40.0a 15.0a 10.0a 7.5ab 5.0a LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 62.5a 7.5a 5.0a 5.0ab 2.5a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 65.0a 7.5a 5.0a 2.5ab 5.0a Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 37.5a 12.5a 5.0a 0.0a 0.0a LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 67.5a 22.5a 17.5a 30.0b 25.0b Check — 72.5a 82.5a 77.5b 90.0c 87.5c Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Mean percentage of tomato leaves infested by potato aphids following application of various insecticides on 2 Oct—Mills River, NC, 2019 . . % infested leaves . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 40.0a 15.0a 10.0a 7.5ab 5.0a LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 62.5a 7.5a 5.0a 5.0ab 2.5a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 65.0a 7.5a 5.0a 2.5ab 5.0a Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 37.5a 12.5a 5.0a 0.0a 0.0a LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 67.5a 22.5a 17.5a 30.0b 25.0b Check — 72.5a 82.5a 77.5b 90.0c 87.5c . . % infested leaves . Treatment/formulation . Rate/area . 2 DAT . 7 DAT . 9 DAT . 14 DAT . 22 DAT . Sivanto HL400SL + 7.0 oz 40.0a 15.0a 10.0a 7.5ab 5.0a LI 700 0.25% Sivanto Prime 200SL 14.0 oz 62.5a 7.5a 5.0a 5.0ab 2.5a Sivanto HL 400 SL + 7.0 oz 65.0a 7.5a 5.0a 2.5ab 5.0a Silwet 0.25% Actara 25WD + 3.0 oz 37.5a 12.5a 5.0a 0.0a 0.0a LI 700 0.25% Sefina 0.42DC 3.0 oz 67.5a 22.5a 17.5a 30.0b 25.0b Check — 72.5a 82.5a 77.5b 90.0c 87.5c Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05). Open in new tab Footnotes 1 " This research was supported in part by industry gifts. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Steckel,, Sandy;Williams,, Matthew;Stewart,, Scott

Evaluation of Full-Season Colorado Potato Beetle Management Programs in Wisconsin, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa032

Sugarcane aphid | Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner), Anthracnose | Colletotrichum sublineolum, Target Spot | Bipolaris sorgicola Sorghum (broom, durra, Guinea corn, jowar) | Sorghum bicolor flupyradifurone, sulfoxaflor, pyraclostrobin Two insecticides were evaluated for control of sugarcane aphid in grain sorghum at the Research and Education Center at Milan, TN. One treatment included an insecticide tank mixed with a fungicide. Grain sorghum was planted on 3 Jun. The test was arranged in an RCB design with four replicates. Individual plots were 12.5 × 30 ft. Foliar application was made on 1 Aug during early flowering with a high clearance sprayer calibrated to deliver 9.3 GPA at 40 PSI with 8001 flat fan nozzles. The plots were sampled by visually counting the number of aphids on the underside of randomly selected sorghum leaves from the center rows of plots. Insect control was evaluated 6 Aug, 5 days after treatment (5 DAT), 12 Aug (11 DAT), 16 Aug (15 DAT), and 19 Aug (18 DAT). Aphids on ten flag leaves were counted 5, 11, and 15 DAT. Five flag leaves and five leaves in the middle portion of the canopy were sampled 18 DAT and the average, total number of aphids from flag and middle-canopy leaves are presented below. Fungicide efficacy was rated on 30 Aug by visually estimating the percent area of leaves with symptomology of disease, primarily consisting of target spot and anthracnose. Yield data were collected 20 Nov by harvesting two center rows of each plot with a plot combine. Data were subjected to ANOVA, and means were separated using a protected least significant difference (LSD). No differences were detected in aphid numbers at the initial evaluation timing (5 DAT, Table 1). All of the insecticides reduced aphid numbers at 11 DAT compared to the untreated check, and treatments containing Sivanto Prime resulted in fewer aphids than Transform. At 15 DAT, all insecticides similarly reduced the number of aphids compared with the untreated check. Sivanto Prime-treated plots had fewer sugarcane aphids than those treated with Transform WG at 18 DAT. The treatment containing Headline resulted in much less disease symptomology (7.6%) compared with other treatments, which had identical ratings and collectively averaged 66.6% diseased leaf area (P < 0.001). Both treatments containing Sivanto Prime resulted in higher yields than the untreated check. However, the plots treated with Sivanto Prime plus Headline yielded considerably higher than plots that received any of the other treatments. No phytotoxicity was observed with any treatment.1 Table 1. Number sugarcane aphids per 10 leaves Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (oz form.) 5 DATa 11 DATab 15 DATa 18 DATbc Yield (bu/acre) Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC + 2.5 + 0.1 0.7c 3.1b 1.5c 137.9a Headline 2.09 SC 6.0 Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC 5.0 0.0 0.7c 2.0b 1.0c 89.3b Transform 50 WG 0.75 0.2 7.9b 15.5b 67.8b 75.2bc Transform 50 WG 1.5 0.0 8.7b 14.8b 32.3b 73.0bc Untreated check 18.1 108.7a 60.0a 2,603.8a 55.8c P > F 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (oz form.) 5 DATa 11 DATab 15 DATa 18 DATbc Yield (bu/acre) Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC + 2.5 + 0.1 0.7c 3.1b 1.5c 137.9a Headline 2.09 SC 6.0 Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC 5.0 0.0 0.7c 2.0b 1.0c 89.3b Transform 50 WG 0.75 0.2 7.9b 15.5b 67.8b 75.2bc Transform 50 WG 1.5 0.0 8.7b 14.8b 32.3b 73.0bc Untreated check 18.1 108.7a 60.0a 2,603.8a 55.8c P > F 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05, F-protected LSD). aTen flag leaves. bData transformed due to unequal variances (log(x + 1)); nontransformed means presented. cFive flag leaves plus five mid-canopy leaves. Open in new tab Table 1. Number sugarcane aphids per 10 leaves Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (oz form.) 5 DATa 11 DATab 15 DATa 18 DATbc Yield (bu/acre) Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC + 2.5 + 0.1 0.7c 3.1b 1.5c 137.9a Headline 2.09 SC 6.0 Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC 5.0 0.0 0.7c 2.0b 1.0c 89.3b Transform 50 WG 0.75 0.2 7.9b 15.5b 67.8b 75.2bc Transform 50 WG 1.5 0.0 8.7b 14.8b 32.3b 73.0bc Untreated check 18.1 108.7a 60.0a 2,603.8a 55.8c P > F 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre (oz form.) 5 DATa 11 DATab 15 DATa 18 DATbc Yield (bu/acre) Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC + 2.5 + 0.1 0.7c 3.1b 1.5c 137.9a Headline 2.09 SC 6.0 Sivanto Prime 1.67 SC 5.0 0.0 0.7c 2.0b 1.0c 89.3b Transform 50 WG 0.75 0.2 7.9b 15.5b 67.8b 75.2bc Transform 50 WG 1.5 0.0 8.7b 14.8b 32.3b 73.0bc Untreated check 18.1 108.7a 60.0a 2,603.8a 55.8c P > F 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05, F-protected LSD). aTen flag leaves. bData transformed due to unequal variances (log(x + 1)); nontransformed means presented. cFive flag leaves plus five mid-canopy leaves. Open in new tab Footnotes 1 This research was partially supported by industry gifts of pesticide and seed. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bradford, Benjamin, Z;Chapman, Scott, A;Groves, Russell, L

Efficacy of Soil-Applied Insecticides Against Carrot Weevil in Fresh Parsley, 2017

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa019

Colorado potato beetle (CPB) | Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say Potato | Solanum tuberosum spinosad, bifenthrin, chlorantraniliprole, lambda-cyhalothrin, thiamethoxam, tolfenpyrad, abamectin/avermectin B1, cyantraniliprole This trial is conducted annually to demonstrate unique, full-season Colorado potato beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say, management strategies for Wisconsin growers that illustrate effective chemical mode of action rotations designed to reduce the risk of long-term insecticide resistance development in commercial potato production. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Russet Burbank’ treated and untreated B-size tubers were hand-planted May 1, 2019, on a loamy sand soil at the University of Wisconsin’s Hancock Agricultural Research Station, located 1.1 miles west of Hancock, Wisconsin (44.118880 N, −89.552985 W). Four replicate blocks of six experimental plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Plots measured four rows (12 f.) wide by 20 ft long. Plots were separated by one untreated guard row and 8 ft of tilled ground. The entire trial measured 48 ft wide by 216 ft long. Six full-season CPB management programs were implemented that included materials targeting both first- and second-generation beetles (Table 1). All treatment programs were designed to include registered materials available to commercial potato growers and are intended to provide similar levels of season-long control. Treatment programs are referred to in this text as first-generation materials and second-generation materials. Seed treatments were applied by tumbling tubers in a concrete mixer and delivering the product with a spray boom the day prior to planting (1 May). First-generation foliar treatments were applied 12 Jun for all programs after 50% egg hatch was observed and reapplied on 19 Jun for programs that did not include a seed treatment. Foliar rescue treatments were applied on 9 Jul or 17 Jul, when incremental weekly defoliation in plots rose above an acceptable 2–5% tolerance. Neither of the programs that included a Cruiser seed treatment (programs 2 and 4) required a first-generation, foliar rescue application. Foliar applications targeting second-generation beetles were made on 26 Jul and 2 Aug. Applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi, equipped with a 6 ft boom tipped by 4 flat-fan nozzles (Tee Jet XR8002VS) spaced 18 inches apart, and delivering 20 gal/ac while travelling at 3.5 ft/s. CPB populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the center of each plot for the following life stages: adults, small larvae (first and seconf instars), and large larvae (third and fourth instars). Ten total weekly insect counts were performed, starting Jun 21 and ending Aug 19. Some count dates before and after peak activity for small and large larvae are omitted from the results tables for clarity. Table 1. Treatment program details Trt no. Product Rate/acre Delivery Appl. date Target 1 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Besiege 1.25 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Besiege 1.25 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 2 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 10 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 8.5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 3 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Coragen 1.67 SC 5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 4 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 3.5 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Actara 25 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Actara 25 WDG 2.5 oz wt Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 6 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen Trt no. Product Rate/acre Delivery Appl. date Target 1 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Besiege 1.25 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Besiege 1.25 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 2 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 10 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 8.5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 3 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Coragen 1.67 SC 5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 4 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 3.5 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Actara 25 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Actara 25 WDG 2.5 oz wt Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 6 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen aRescue treatments were applied when incremental weekly defoliation rose above the 2–5% acceptable threshold. Programs without a listed rescue treatment did not require one. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment program details Trt no. Product Rate/acre Delivery Appl. date Target 1 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Besiege 1.25 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Besiege 1.25 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 2 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 10 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 8.5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 3 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Coragen 1.67 SC 5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 4 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 3.5 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Actara 25 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Actara 25 WDG 2.5 oz wt Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 6 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen Trt no. Product Rate/acre Delivery Appl. date Target 1 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Besiege 1.25 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Besiege 1.25 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 2 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 10 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 8.5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 3 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Coragen 1.67 SC 7.5 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Coragen 1.67 SC 5 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 4 Cruiser 5 FS 0.6 fl oz/cwt Seed 1 May 1st gen Agri-Mek 0.7 SC 3.5 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 5 Torac 1.29 EC 21 fl oz Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Torac 1.29 EC 17 fl oz Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 17 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Actara 25 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Actara 25 WDG 2.5 oz wt Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen 6 Blackhawk 36 WDG 3.3 oz wt Foliar 12 Jun 1st gen Blackhawk 36 WDG 3 oz wt Foliar 19 Jun 1st gen Brigade 2 EC 3 fl oz Foliar 9 Jul 1st gen (rescue)a Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 9 fl oz Foliar 26 Jul 2nd gen Minecto Pro 1.37 SC 7 fl oz Foliar 2 Aug 2nd gen aRescue treatments were applied when incremental weekly defoliation rose above the 2–5% acceptable threshold. Programs without a listed rescue treatment did not require one. Open in new tab A single 20 ft long row (60 sq. ft., 0.001377 acre) from each plot was harvested on Sep 12 to determine yield and tuber quality. Tubers were graded using an AgRay Vision X-Ray grading machine which generated electronic measurements of tuber size and weight. The second largest value of a tuber’s dimension in the X, Y, and Z directions was considered its ‘diameter’ and compared against the following USDA classification scheme: A-size tubers are larger than or equal to 1.875 inches diameter, B-size tubers fall between 1.875 in. and 1.5 inches, and C-size tubers fall below 1.5 inches diameter. Total plot weights for each size grade were converted from ounces per plot to the industry standard units of 100 lbs. per acre (cwt/ac) for analysis and reporting. Insect counts were log(x + 1) transformed and percent defoliation ratings were arcsine square root transformed prior to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Yields were normally distributed and required no transformation. Treatment main effects were determined using ANOVA. Means separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = 0.05). All treatment programs performed well enough to protect the plots to maturity. However, statistically significant differences in CPB life stage counts were observed at several dates throughout the season. First-generation adult counts differed significantly on 21 Jun (Table 2), where plots treated with Blackhawk (Trts 1 and 6) performed significantly better than the other programs. Second generation adult performance was more mixed, with Trt 4 (Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen) performing significantly better than all other programs on 22 Jul, and Trt 3 (Torac | Coragen) outperforming the other programs on 5 Aug. No significant differences in adult counts were observed on any of the other count dates. Small larvae (first and second instar) activity began on 21 Jun and ran through approximately 22 Jul (Table 3). On 21 Jun, small larvae counts were lowest in the Blackhawk (Trts 1 and 6) and Cruiser (Trts 2 and 4) programs programs, and higher in two of the three Torac programs (Trt 3 and 5). On 25 Jun, small larvae counts remained significantly lower in both of the Cruiser programs (Trts 2 and 4), with control slipping with Blackhawk (Trts 1 and 6). Large larvae (third and fourth instar) activity ran from approximately 25 Jun through 29 Jul (Table 4). No differences in large larvae counts were observed on 25 Jun and 2 Jul, but by 8 Jul, the Cruiser/Agri-Mek (Trt 2) and Cruiser/Torac (Trt 4) first-generation treatments were maintaining better control of large larvae than the other treatment programs. The following week (16 Jul), no significant differences in large larvae counts were observed between treatments. On 22 Jul, large larvae counts were lowest in Trt 3 (Torac | Coragen) and Trt 5 (Torac/Actara | Actara), although these treatments had previously had among the highest large larvae counts, and second-generation adults had begun emerging this week, so these lower counts are likely not due to superior larval control. Table 2. Adult counts Trt no. Treatment program 1st gen adults/10 plants 2nd gen adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.25a 3.50a 5.00a 0.50a 1.25a 16.50ab 21.25a 15.75b 8.25a 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 8.25b 6.00a 5.00a 0.75a 1.75a 10.75ab 28.25a 23.25b 13.50a 2.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 4.75ab 5.75a 3.50a 0.25a 3.50a 26.25b 40.50a 3.75a 4.50a 1.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 7.75b 5.00a 10.75a 0.25a 1.50a 4.00a 15.25a 37.00b 21.00a 3.00a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 4.25ab 4.75a 4.25a 0.00a 2.25a 18.00b 48.25a 19.00b 7.00a 1.50a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.50a 7.75a 2.75a 0.25a 2.75a 31.00b 21.75a 16.25b 11.00a 1.50a P < F 0.004 ns ns ns ns 0.001 ns 0.0003 ns ns Trt no. Treatment program 1st gen adults/10 plants 2nd gen adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.25a 3.50a 5.00a 0.50a 1.25a 16.50ab 21.25a 15.75b 8.25a 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 8.25b 6.00a 5.00a 0.75a 1.75a 10.75ab 28.25a 23.25b 13.50a 2.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 4.75ab 5.75a 3.50a 0.25a 3.50a 26.25b 40.50a 3.75a 4.50a 1.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 7.75b 5.00a 10.75a 0.25a 1.50a 4.00a 15.25a 37.00b 21.00a 3.00a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 4.25ab 4.75a 4.25a 0.00a 2.25a 18.00b 48.25a 19.00b 7.00a 1.50a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.50a 7.75a 2.75a 0.25a 2.75a 31.00b 21.75a 16.25b 11.00a 1.50a P < F 0.004 ns ns ns ns 0.001 ns 0.0003 ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 2. Adult counts Trt no. Treatment program 1st gen adults/10 plants 2nd gen adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.25a 3.50a 5.00a 0.50a 1.25a 16.50ab 21.25a 15.75b 8.25a 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 8.25b 6.00a 5.00a 0.75a 1.75a 10.75ab 28.25a 23.25b 13.50a 2.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 4.75ab 5.75a 3.50a 0.25a 3.50a 26.25b 40.50a 3.75a 4.50a 1.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 7.75b 5.00a 10.75a 0.25a 1.50a 4.00a 15.25a 37.00b 21.00a 3.00a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 4.25ab 4.75a 4.25a 0.00a 2.25a 18.00b 48.25a 19.00b 7.00a 1.50a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.50a 7.75a 2.75a 0.25a 2.75a 31.00b 21.75a 16.25b 11.00a 1.50a P < F 0.004 ns ns ns ns 0.001 ns 0.0003 ns ns Trt no. Treatment program 1st gen adults/10 plants 2nd gen adults/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.25a 3.50a 5.00a 0.50a 1.25a 16.50ab 21.25a 15.75b 8.25a 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 8.25b 6.00a 5.00a 0.75a 1.75a 10.75ab 28.25a 23.25b 13.50a 2.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 4.75ab 5.75a 3.50a 0.25a 3.50a 26.25b 40.50a 3.75a 4.50a 1.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 7.75b 5.00a 10.75a 0.25a 1.50a 4.00a 15.25a 37.00b 21.00a 3.00a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 4.25ab 4.75a 4.25a 0.00a 2.25a 18.00b 48.25a 19.00b 7.00a 1.50a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.50a 7.75a 2.75a 0.25a 2.75a 31.00b 21.75a 16.25b 11.00a 1.50a P < F 0.004 ns ns ns ns 0.001 ns 0.0003 ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 3. Small larvae counts Trt No. Treatment program Small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.75a 18.00b 11.00a 17.25a 9.25a 6.25a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.75a 0.50a 27.50a 3.25a 3.25a 4.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 7.00ab 21.75b 25.25a 1.25a 6.00a 5.75a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 1.50a 1.25a 18.00a 1.25a 1.25a 7.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 12.75b 34.50b 18.75a 1.50a 8.50a 0.00a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 3.50ab 15.00b 46.50a 7.50a 9.50a 1.50a P < F 0.005 P<.0001 ns ns ns ns Trt No. Treatment program Small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.75a 18.00b 11.00a 17.25a 9.25a 6.25a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.75a 0.50a 27.50a 3.25a 3.25a 4.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 7.00ab 21.75b 25.25a 1.25a 6.00a 5.75a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 1.50a 1.25a 18.00a 1.25a 1.25a 7.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 12.75b 34.50b 18.75a 1.50a 8.50a 0.00a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 3.50ab 15.00b 46.50a 7.50a 9.50a 1.50a P < F 0.005 P<.0001 ns ns ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 3. Small larvae counts Trt No. Treatment program Small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.75a 18.00b 11.00a 17.25a 9.25a 6.25a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.75a 0.50a 27.50a 3.25a 3.25a 4.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 7.00ab 21.75b 25.25a 1.25a 6.00a 5.75a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 1.50a 1.25a 18.00a 1.25a 1.25a 7.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 12.75b 34.50b 18.75a 1.50a 8.50a 0.00a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 3.50ab 15.00b 46.50a 7.50a 9.50a 1.50a P < F 0.005 P<.0001 ns ns ns ns Trt No. Treatment program Small larvae/10 plants 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1.75a 18.00b 11.00a 17.25a 9.25a 6.25a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.75a 0.50a 27.50a 3.25a 3.25a 4.75a 3 Torac | Coragen 7.00ab 21.75b 25.25a 1.25a 6.00a 5.75a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 1.50a 1.25a 18.00a 1.25a 1.25a 7.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 12.75b 34.50b 18.75a 1.50a 8.50a 0.00a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 3.50ab 15.00b 46.50a 7.50a 9.50a 1.50a P < F 0.005 P<.0001 ns ns ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 4. Large larvae counts Large larvae/10 plants Trt No. Treatment program 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 0.50a 7.00a 63.50bc 10.50a 37.75b 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.00a 2.25a 12.25ab 20.50a 13.25ab 0.50a 3 Torac | Coragen 1.75a 13.75a 19.75bc 27.75a 3.50a 0.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 0.00a 4.75a 2.75a 15.00a 31.00b 3.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 0.75a 21.25a 24.00bc 29.25a 0.25a 0.25a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.00a 3.75a 70.75c 9.25a 30.00b 1.00a P < F ns ns 0.0003 ns 0.0001 0.04 Large larvae/10 plants Trt No. Treatment program 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 0.50a 7.00a 63.50bc 10.50a 37.75b 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.00a 2.25a 12.25ab 20.50a 13.25ab 0.50a 3 Torac | Coragen 1.75a 13.75a 19.75bc 27.75a 3.50a 0.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 0.00a 4.75a 2.75a 15.00a 31.00b 3.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 0.75a 21.25a 24.00bc 29.25a 0.25a 0.25a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.00a 3.75a 70.75c 9.25a 30.00b 1.00a P < F ns ns 0.0003 ns 0.0001 0.04 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 4. Large larvae counts Large larvae/10 plants Trt No. Treatment program 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 0.50a 7.00a 63.50bc 10.50a 37.75b 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.00a 2.25a 12.25ab 20.50a 13.25ab 0.50a 3 Torac | Coragen 1.75a 13.75a 19.75bc 27.75a 3.50a 0.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 0.00a 4.75a 2.75a 15.00a 31.00b 3.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 0.75a 21.25a 24.00bc 29.25a 0.25a 0.25a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.00a 3.75a 70.75c 9.25a 30.00b 1.00a P < F ns ns 0.0003 ns 0.0001 0.04 Large larvae/10 plants Trt No. Treatment program 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 0.50a 7.00a 63.50bc 10.50a 37.75b 2.00a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 0.00a 2.25a 12.25ab 20.50a 13.25ab 0.50a 3 Torac | Coragen 1.75a 13.75a 19.75bc 27.75a 3.50a 0.25a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 0.00a 4.75a 2.75a 15.00a 31.00b 3.75a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 0.75a 21.25a 24.00bc 29.25a 0.25a 0.25a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 1.00a 3.75a 70.75c 9.25a 30.00b 1.00a P < F ns ns 0.0003 ns 0.0001 0.04 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Defoliation remained well below the acceptable thresholds in all treatment programs through 22 Jul (Table 5). Beginning 29 Jul, with second-generation adult activity increasing, defoliation rates also increased, but no significant differences among treatment programs were observed. By 5 Aug, mean defoliation was highest in Trt 5 (Torac/Actara | Actara) at 46%, followed by Trt 3 (Torac | Coragen) at 24%. Defoliation increased for all treatment programs through 12 Aug and reached >50% on 19 Aug. Differential treatment performance was borne out in the yields recovered from each plot (Table 6), with the highest total yields recovered from Trt 2 (Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro) and Trt 4 (Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen), followed by the Trt 6 (Blackhawk | Minecto Pro), and the lowest total yields from Trt 5 (Torac/Actara | Actara). Cruiser (thiamethoxam) seed treatments are known to increase plant growth rates and provide a small yield enhancement, so this result is not unexpected. A-size tuber yields were highest for Trt 4 (Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen), followed by the Trt 2 (Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro), and lowest in the Trt 5 (Torac/Actara | Actara). No significant differences in B-size yield, culls, or proportion defect tubers between any programs were observed.1 Table 5. Defoliation ratings Trt No. Treatment program Percent defoliated 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1a 1a 2a 2b 2a 4a 7a 8a 18a 83a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 1a 1a 1a 1ab 2a 4a 5a 5a 18a 66a 3 Torac | Coragen 2a 2a 1a 1ab 3a 4a 13a 24ab 41a 77a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 2a 1a 1a 0a 2a 3a 4a 8a 20a 61a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 2a 1a 2a 1ab 3a 4a 18a 46b 46a 93a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 2a 1a 1a 2b 5a 11b 12a 12a 35a 71a P < F ns ns ns 0.01 0.04 0.008 ns 0.0002 ns ns Trt No. Treatment program Percent defoliated 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1a 1a 2a 2b 2a 4a 7a 8a 18a 83a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 1a 1a 1a 1ab 2a 4a 5a 5a 18a 66a 3 Torac | Coragen 2a 2a 1a 1ab 3a 4a 13a 24ab 41a 77a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 2a 1a 1a 0a 2a 3a 4a 8a 20a 61a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 2a 1a 2a 1ab 3a 4a 18a 46b 46a 93a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 2a 1a 1a 2b 5a 11b 12a 12a 35a 71a P < F ns ns ns 0.01 0.04 0.008 ns 0.0002 ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 5. Defoliation ratings Trt No. Treatment program Percent defoliated 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1a 1a 2a 2b 2a 4a 7a 8a 18a 83a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 1a 1a 1a 1ab 2a 4a 5a 5a 18a 66a 3 Torac | Coragen 2a 2a 1a 1ab 3a 4a 13a 24ab 41a 77a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 2a 1a 1a 0a 2a 3a 4a 8a 20a 61a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 2a 1a 2a 1ab 3a 4a 18a 46b 46a 93a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 2a 1a 1a 2b 5a 11b 12a 12a 35a 71a P < F ns ns ns 0.01 0.04 0.008 ns 0.0002 ns ns Trt No. Treatment program Percent defoliated 21 Jun 25 Jun 2 Jul 8 Jul 16 Jul 22 Jul 29 Jul 5 Aug 12 Aug 19 Aug 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 1a 1a 2a 2b 2a 4a 7a 8a 18a 83a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 1a 1a 1a 1ab 2a 4a 5a 5a 18a 66a 3 Torac | Coragen 2a 2a 1a 1ab 3a 4a 13a 24ab 41a 77a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 2a 1a 1a 0a 2a 3a 4a 8a 20a 61a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 2a 1a 2a 1ab 3a 4a 18a 46b 46a 93a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 2a 1a 1a 2b 5a 11b 12a 12a 35a 71a P < F ns ns ns 0.01 0.04 0.008 ns 0.0002 ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). Open in new tab Table 6. Yield Trt no. Treatment program Yielda total Yielda A-size Yielda B-size Yielda culled Prp defectb 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 397.94ab 301.88ab 83.01a 1.73a 0.08a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 446.32a 319.22ab 105.69a 0.91a 0.08a 3 Torac | Coragen 386.40ab 257.49ab 108.24a 2.36a 0.08a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 439.10a 339.12a 86.11a 1.64a 0.09a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 351.40b 235.62b 96.23a 1.36a 0.06a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 406.81ab 294.87ab 93.98a 1.63a 0.09a P < F 0.02 0.01 ns ns ns Trt no. Treatment program Yielda total Yielda A-size Yielda B-size Yielda culled Prp defectb 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 397.94ab 301.88ab 83.01a 1.73a 0.08a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 446.32a 319.22ab 105.69a 0.91a 0.08a 3 Torac | Coragen 386.40ab 257.49ab 108.24a 2.36a 0.08a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 439.10a 339.12a 86.11a 1.64a 0.09a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 351.40b 235.62b 96.23a 1.36a 0.06a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 406.81ab 294.87ab 93.98a 1.63a 0.09a P < F 0.02 0.01 ns ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aYields reported in units of 100 lbs/ac, calculated from an actual harvested area of 60 sq ft (one 20 ft row). bDefect tubers were flagged as knobbed, hollow, or double by the AgRay Vision grading software. Open in new tab Table 6. Yield Trt no. Treatment program Yielda total Yielda A-size Yielda B-size Yielda culled Prp defectb 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 397.94ab 301.88ab 83.01a 1.73a 0.08a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 446.32a 319.22ab 105.69a 0.91a 0.08a 3 Torac | Coragen 386.40ab 257.49ab 108.24a 2.36a 0.08a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 439.10a 339.12a 86.11a 1.64a 0.09a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 351.40b 235.62b 96.23a 1.36a 0.06a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 406.81ab 294.87ab 93.98a 1.63a 0.09a P < F 0.02 0.01 ns ns ns Trt no. Treatment program Yielda total Yielda A-size Yielda B-size Yielda culled Prp defectb 1 Blackhawk | Besiege 397.94ab 301.88ab 83.01a 1.73a 0.08a 2 Cruiser/Torac | Minecto Pro 446.32a 319.22ab 105.69a 0.91a 0.08a 3 Torac | Coragen 386.40ab 257.49ab 108.24a 2.36a 0.08a 4 Cruiser/Agri-Mek | Coragen 439.10a 339.12a 86.11a 1.64a 0.09a 5 Torac/Actara | Actara 351.40b 235.62b 96.23a 1.36a 0.06a 6 Blackhawk | Minecto Pro 406.81ab 294.87ab 93.98a 1.63a 0.09a P < F 0.02 0.01 ns ns ns Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). aYields reported in units of 100 lbs/ac, calculated from an actual harvested area of 60 sq ft (one 20 ft row). bDefect tubers were flagged as knobbed, hollow, or double by the AgRay Vision grading software. Open in new tab Footnotes This research was supported in part by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Long, Elizabeth, Y;Justus, Emily, J

Miticide Efficacy Against Twospotted Spider Mite in Staked Tomato, 2019

doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa091

Parsley | Petroselinum crispum Carrot weevil (CW) | Listronotus oregonensis (LeConte) imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, oxamyl, beta-cyfluthrin The carrot weevil (CW) is a serious pest of fresh parsley grown in muck soil regions of Ohio. The larval stage of this insect feeds internally within the crown and taproot of plants, leading to significant damage and the death of young plants. The efficacy of one foliar and three soil-applied insecticides were evaluated against CW in fresh parsley grown in muck soil during the summer of 2017 at The Ohio State University Muck Crops Research Station in Willard, Ohio. Parsley ‘Dark Green Italian’ was direct seeded on 26 Apr 2017 into eight triple-row beds, each 128 ft long × 5 ft wide and spaced 6 ft apart. Experimental units were 20 ft long × 5 ft wide plots containing three rows of parsley, each 18 inches apart. Three replications of each treatment were arranged in an RCB design. Insecticide compounds, formulations, and application rates are shown below in Table 1. Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Application type . Application dates . Rate/ acre . Severity of root damage (1–7 scale) . Proportion of roots with severe damage (≥ 5 cm below crown) . Fresh weight at harvest (grams) . . . . . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . Untreated check --- --- --- 4.90a 0.70a 130.0a Baythroid XL Foliar 16 Jun; 19 Jul 3.0a 3.97b 0.37b 151.9a Admire Pro 4.6F (×1) Soil 12 Jun 10.5a 5.27a 0.67a 143.5a Admire Pro 4.6F (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 5.25a 4.37ab 0.60ab 153.0a Platinum 75SG (×1) Soil 12 Jun 3.67a 4.80a 0.67a 148.0a Platinum 75SG (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 1.84a 5.27a 0.67a 141.3a Vydate L (×1) Soil 12 Jun 4.0b 5.20a 0.63a 143.1a Vydate L (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 2.0b 5.10a 0.67a 151.2a P > F 0.36 0.23 0.97 Treatment/ formulation . Application type . Application dates . Rate/ acre . Severity of root damage (1–7 scale) . Proportion of roots with severe damage (≥ 5 cm below crown) . Fresh weight at harvest (grams) . . . . . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . Untreated check --- --- --- 4.90a 0.70a 130.0a Baythroid XL Foliar 16 Jun; 19 Jul 3.0a 3.97b 0.37b 151.9a Admire Pro 4.6F (×1) Soil 12 Jun 10.5a 5.27a 0.67a 143.5a Admire Pro 4.6F (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 5.25a 4.37ab 0.60ab 153.0a Platinum 75SG (×1) Soil 12 Jun 3.67a 4.80a 0.67a 148.0a Platinum 75SG (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 1.84a 5.27a 0.67a 141.3a Vydate L (×1) Soil 12 Jun 4.0b 5.20a 0.63a 143.1a Vydate L (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 2.0b 5.10a 0.67a 151.2a P > F 0.36 0.23 0.97 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, FLSD. aoz product per acre. bpt product per acre. Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/ formulation . Application type . Application dates . Rate/ acre . Severity of root damage (1–7 scale) . Proportion of roots with severe damage (≥ 5 cm below crown) . Fresh weight at harvest (grams) . . . . . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . Untreated check --- --- --- 4.90a 0.70a 130.0a Baythroid XL Foliar 16 Jun; 19 Jul 3.0a 3.97b 0.37b 151.9a Admire Pro 4.6F (×1) Soil 12 Jun 10.5a 5.27a 0.67a 143.5a Admire Pro 4.6F (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 5.25a 4.37ab 0.60ab 153.0a Platinum 75SG (×1) Soil 12 Jun 3.67a 4.80a 0.67a 148.0a Platinum 75SG (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 1.84a 5.27a 0.67a 141.3a Vydate L (×1) Soil 12 Jun 4.0b 5.20a 0.63a 143.1a Vydate L (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 2.0b 5.10a 0.67a 151.2a P > F 0.36 0.23 0.97 Treatment/ formulation . Application type . Application dates . Rate/ acre . Severity of root damage (1–7 scale) . Proportion of roots with severe damage (≥ 5 cm below crown) . Fresh weight at harvest (grams) . . . . . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . 29 Aug . Untreated check --- --- --- 4.90a 0.70a 130.0a Baythroid XL Foliar 16 Jun; 19 Jul 3.0a 3.97b 0.37b 151.9a Admire Pro 4.6F (×1) Soil 12 Jun 10.5a 5.27a 0.67a 143.5a Admire Pro 4.6F (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 5.25a 4.37ab 0.60ab 153.0a Platinum 75SG (×1) Soil 12 Jun 3.67a 4.80a 0.67a 148.0a Platinum 75SG (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 1.84a 5.27a 0.67a 141.3a Vydate L (×1) Soil 12 Jun 4.0b 5.20a 0.63a 143.1a Vydate L (×2) Soil 12 Jun; 19 Jul 2.0b 5.10a 0.67a 151.2a P > F 0.36 0.23 0.97 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different; P > 0.05, FLSD. aoz product per acre. bpt product per acre. Open in new tab The foliar insecticide was applied using a conventional low-pressure boom sprayer equipped with AITTJ60-11004VP nozzles at 30 psi, 36.4 gpa, and 20-inch nozzle spacing on 16 Jun 2017 and 19 Jul 2017. Soil insecticides were applied using a modified pull-type liquid nitrogen applicator equipped with three soil shanks, TJ 8002VS nozzles at 22 psi, 48.13 gpa, and 18-inch shank spacing on 12 Jun 2017 and 19 Jul 2017. Soil insecticides were applied either once at the maximum rate, when plants were at the three-leaf stage, or twice with half the maximum rate applied each time. Soil applicator shanks were set to incorporate products 1 inch into the soil and within 2 inches of each row base, following the recommendations of product labels. One inch of follow-up irrigation was applied within 24 h of soil insecticide application, following label recommendations. Root damage was assessed at harvest (29 Aug 2017) on 10 plants per plot in each replicate. Root damage was assessed on a scale of 1 to 7, with ‘1’ representing tunneling damage 1 cm below the crown (least damage) and ‘7’ representing tunneling damage 7 cm below the crown (most severe damage). The fresh weight of aboveground biomass harvested from three, 1 m sections of parsley was also assessed at harvest. Data were analyzed using ANOVA. Differences among means were determined using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference test (P ≤ 0.05). CW pressure was moderately high in parsley plots during the experiment. There were no differences in fresh weights of parsley foliage among treatments at harvest on 29 Aug 2017. Single versus two applications of soil insecticides had no effect on the severity of parsley root damage. Contrasting foliar and soil insecticide treatments indicated that parsley plots receiving foliar applications of Baythroid XL had significantly less root damage on average (t = −2.21, P = 0.04), as well as significantly lower proportions of roots with severe damage (tunneling more than 5 cm below root crown) (t = −3.03, P < 0.01). No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by funding from The Ohio State University, Department of Entomology. © The Author(s) 2020. 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 journals.permissions@oup.com

journal article

Open Access Collection

Bilbo, Tom, R;Schoof, Steven, C;Walgenbach, James, F