Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

CODLING MOTH CONTROL ON APPLES, 2002

CODLING MOTH CONTROL ON APPLES, 2002 (A15) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, 'Newtown' Allison T. Walston Oregon State University Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center 3005 Experiment Station Drive Hood River, OR 97031 Tel: (541) 386-2030 Fax: (541) 386-1905 allison.walston@oregonstate.edu Deborah J. Brooks Audrey Farnsworth Joanna Farnsworth Joe Smith Helmut Riedl Apple rust mite (ARM): Aculus schlechtendali (Nalepa) Codling moth (CM): Cydia pomonella (L.) European red mite (ERM): Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR): Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) San Jose scale (SJS): Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) Twospotted spider mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae (Koch) Western predatory mite (WPM): Typhlodromus occidentalis (Nesbitt) Western tentiform leafminer (WTLM): Phyllonorycter elmaella (Doganlar & Mutuura) White apple leafhopper (WALH): Typhlocyba pomaria (McAtee) Eight different insecticide programs were evaluated for codling moth control in a 35-yr-old planting of 'Newtown' trees (Gibson Block; tree spacing 20 x 20 ft) at the Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Hood River, Oregon. The 'Newtown' trees used for the test were bordered on two sides by unsprayed 'Red Delicious' trees. Insecticide programs consisted of Imidan (phosmet), Danitol (fenpropathrin), Assail (acetamiprid), and/or Intrepid (methoxyfenozide). The objective was to evaluate the effect of Assail on target and non-target pests by itself or in alternation with both Imidan and Intrepid. Danitol was evaluated as a fourth cover after three previous Imidan applications. Sprays were timed to codling moth degree-days (DD) after Biofix (beginning of moth emergence in spring). Two sprays were applied against the first generation at the beginning of egg hatch (250 DD from Biofix) and again 3 wk later (see Tables). Second generation sprays were applied at 1,250 DD and 3 wk later. The timing sequence for the Intrepid sprays was similar but was initiated earlier at 200 DD or 1,200 DD from Biofix against the first and second generation, respectively. Rates were calculated based on a spray volume of 400 gpa. Assail was applied with 0.25% horticultural mineral oil (HMO). The anionic surfactant Latron-B 1956 was added to the Intrepid sprays. Treatments were applied to single-tree plots in a RCB design with four replicates. Trees were sprayed to runoff using a hydraulic handgun sprayer operating at 200 psi. Leaf samples (25 leaves per replicate) were taken 10 Sep. Leaves were scanned under magnification for WALH nymphs and casts skins, TLM mines (sap feeding and tissue feeding) and SJS crawlers. Leaves were then brushed with a leaf- brushing machine to remove eggs and motile mite stages onto a glass plate where they were counted under a stereomicroscope. Fruit (50 from each replicate; 200 per treatment) was collected from all treatments on 16 Sep and examined for CM stings and entries, OBLR damage (early and late season feeding), WALH tarspotting, true bug stings, and SJS marks. CM pressure was heavy with 67% infested fruit at harvest in the untreated check. Four sprays of Assail or Assail alternated with Imidan provided better CM control than the Imidan standard or any of the other programs (Table 1). In programs where Assail was alternated with other insecticides such as Imidan or Intrepid it provided better control when used against the second generation instead of the first. In contrast to previous years, control with Imidan alone, the standard program, was poor (Table 1). The effectiveness of treatment programs to prevent fruit damage from OBLR feeding and true bug stings could not be properly evaluated due to low populations. Light to moderate tarspotting from WALH was highest in the standard Imidan treatment (Table 1), which correlated with higher numbers of nymphs and cast skins on leaves (Table 3). Elevated levels of WALH in the standard Imidan treatment were probably related to disruption of natural enemies. Programs with Assail and Danitol suppressed WALH and prevented tarspotting of fruit (Table 1). Fruit was free of SJS marks, even in the untreated check in spite of the presence of crawlers on leaves (Table 3). Spider mite levels, both TSSM and ERM, were low in all treatments (Table 2). No build- up was noticed in any of the Assail programs. ARM reached moderate levels in late season in some treatments but not high enough to justify control. WPM was present in all treatments but were absent in the treatment where the pyrethroid Danitol was applied as a fourth cover spray (Table 2). WALH was generally low in all treatments except in the standard Imidan treatment with slightly elevated levels (Table 3). TLM was too low in this test for a meaningful evaluation of treatments. SJS crawlers on leaves were suppressed in all treatments compared with the untreated check (Table 3). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

CODLING MOTH CONTROL ON APPLES, 2002

Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/codling-moth-control-on-apples-2002-0qs4KZP9om
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/28.1.A15
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(A15) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, 'Newtown' Allison T. Walston Oregon State University Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center 3005 Experiment Station Drive Hood River, OR 97031 Tel: (541) 386-2030 Fax: (541) 386-1905 allison.walston@oregonstate.edu Deborah J. Brooks Audrey Farnsworth Joanna Farnsworth Joe Smith Helmut Riedl Apple rust mite (ARM): Aculus schlechtendali (Nalepa) Codling moth (CM): Cydia pomonella (L.) European red mite (ERM): Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR): Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) San Jose scale (SJS): Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) Twospotted spider mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae (Koch) Western predatory mite (WPM): Typhlodromus occidentalis (Nesbitt) Western tentiform leafminer (WTLM): Phyllonorycter elmaella (Doganlar & Mutuura) White apple leafhopper (WALH): Typhlocyba pomaria (McAtee) Eight different insecticide programs were evaluated for codling moth control in a 35-yr-old planting of 'Newtown' trees (Gibson Block; tree spacing 20 x 20 ft) at the Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Hood River, Oregon. The 'Newtown' trees used for the test were bordered on two sides by unsprayed 'Red Delicious' trees. Insecticide programs consisted of Imidan (phosmet), Danitol (fenpropathrin), Assail (acetamiprid), and/or Intrepid (methoxyfenozide). The objective was to evaluate the effect of Assail on target and non-target pests by itself or in alternation with both Imidan and Intrepid. Danitol was evaluated as a fourth cover after three previous Imidan applications. Sprays were timed to codling moth degree-days (DD) after Biofix (beginning of moth emergence in spring). Two sprays were applied against the first generation at the beginning of egg hatch (250 DD from Biofix) and again 3 wk later (see Tables). Second generation sprays were applied at 1,250 DD and 3 wk later. The timing sequence for the Intrepid sprays was similar but was initiated earlier at 200 DD or 1,200 DD from Biofix against the first and second generation, respectively. Rates were calculated based on a spray volume of 400 gpa. Assail was applied with 0.25% horticultural mineral oil (HMO). The anionic surfactant Latron-B 1956 was added to the Intrepid sprays. Treatments were applied to single-tree plots in a RCB design with four replicates. Trees were sprayed to runoff using a hydraulic handgun sprayer operating at 200 psi. Leaf samples (25 leaves per replicate) were taken 10 Sep. Leaves were scanned under magnification for WALH nymphs and casts skins, TLM mines (sap feeding and tissue feeding) and SJS crawlers. Leaves were then brushed with a leaf- brushing machine to remove eggs and motile mite stages onto a glass plate where they were counted under a stereomicroscope. Fruit (50 from each replicate; 200 per treatment) was collected from all treatments on 16 Sep and examined for CM stings and entries, OBLR damage (early and late season feeding), WALH tarspotting, true bug stings, and SJS marks. CM pressure was heavy with 67% infested fruit at harvest in the untreated check. Four sprays of Assail or Assail alternated with Imidan provided better CM control than the Imidan standard or any of the other programs (Table 1). In programs where Assail was alternated with other insecticides such as Imidan or Intrepid it provided better control when used against the second generation instead of the first. In contrast to previous years, control with Imidan alone, the standard program, was poor (Table 1). The effectiveness of treatment programs to prevent fruit damage from OBLR feeding and true bug stings could not be properly evaluated due to low populations. Light to moderate tarspotting from WALH was highest in the standard Imidan treatment (Table 1), which correlated with higher numbers of nymphs and cast skins on leaves (Table 3). Elevated levels of WALH in the standard Imidan treatment were probably related to disruption of natural enemies. Programs with Assail and Danitol suppressed WALH and prevented tarspotting of fruit (Table 1). Fruit was free of SJS marks, even in the untreated check in spite of the presence of crawlers on leaves (Table 3). Spider mite levels, both TSSM and ERM, were low in all treatments (Table 2). No build- up was noticed in any of the Assail programs. ARM reached moderate levels in late season in some treatments but not high enough to justify control. WPM was present in all treatments but were absent in the treatment where the pyrethroid Danitol was applied as a fourth cover spray (Table 2). WALH was generally low in all treatments except in the standard Imidan treatment with slightly elevated levels (Table 3). TLM was too low in this test for a meaningful evaluation of treatments. SJS crawlers on leaves were suppressed in all treatments compared with the untreated check (Table 3).

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.