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

Learn More →

CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA WITH PROCLAIM AND FUJIMITE, 2004

CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA WITH PROCLAIM AND FUJIMITE, 2004 (A31) PEAR: Pyrus communis (L.), ‘Bartlett’ John E. Dunley Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center 1100 N. Western Avenue Wenatchee, WA 98801 Phone: (509)-663-8181 Fax: (509)-662-8714 E-mail: dunleyj@wsu.edu Bruce M. Greenfield Tara M. Madsen Keith Granger Pear psylla (PP): Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster) The test was conducted in a block of mature ‘Bartlett’ pear at the WSU Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center’s Smith Tract plots located near Orondo, WA. Treatments were applied to single trees and replicated four times in a RCB design, and were applied to drip with a handgun sprayer at 200 psi, simulating a dilute spray of 400 gpa. All treatments were made at petal fall (22 Apr). A pre-treatment count of PP density was performed on all treatments 19 Apr. Weekly samples were taken beginning on 23 Apr, and sampling continued through the seventh week after the application. Adults were monitored using four beating tray samples per replicate (16 per treatment). Egg and nymph densities were initially monitored on leaves collected from lower-canopy fruit spurs (25 leaves per replicate, 100 per treatment). Insects were brushed from leaves onto plates using a leaf brushing machine. Each plate was then placed over a grid, and PP eggs and nymphs on one-half of the plate surface were counted under a binocular dissecting microscope. Beginning 27 May, samples were collected from summer shoots at the rate of five leaves per shoot and five shoots per replicate. One sample was collected from the lower canopy of each replicate (100 leaves per treatment), and one from upper canopy summer shoots (100 per treatment). Data were analyzed using the ANOVA option of PRM, and means separations were determined with SNK Least Significant Difference test (P ≤ 0.05). Proclaim with oil, Fujimite, and Agri-Mek with oil were equally effective at control of PP adults (Table 1). With a few exceptions, PP densities in treatments of Proclaim alone were no different from the untreated check. PP nymph densities were best controlled with Fujimite and Agri-Mek, and Proclaim with oil did slightly better than Proclaim alone (Table 2). Efficacy of Proclaim with oil could be due to the effect of oil. Egg densities were very low throughout the trial (Table 3). Table 1. Adult PP/tray Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 19 Apr 23 Apr 29 Apr 7 May 13 May 21 May 25 May 7 Jun 14 Jun Proclaim 5SC 4.8 oz 4.38a 2.56a 0.69a 3.38a 9.00a 15.31b 44.56a 32.75a 37.69a Proclaim 5SC + 4.8 oz 3.50a 2.00a 0.50a 2.25ab 2.31b 3.88c 13.38b 16.25b 22.81b Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Fujimite 5EC 32.0 fl oz 3.94a 0.56b 0.31a 0.56b 1.69b 2.75c 13.50b 14.94b 15.81b Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 16.0 fl oz 2.75a 0.63b 0.38a 0.63b 0.81b 2.38c 6.06b 8.44b 10.88b Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Untreated check --- 3.13a 3.13a 1.13a 2.88ab 9.88a 30.44a 43.75a 42.00a 25.56b Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, SNK). Table 2. PP nymphs/leaf in lower canopy PP nymphs/leaf in upper Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 19 Apr 23 Apr 29 Apr 7 May 13 May 21 May 25 May 14 Jun 25 May 7 Jun 14 Jun Proclaim 5SC 4.8 oz 14.26a 8.92a 6.22b 3.20a 4.06a 2.12ab 0.50a 2.00a 32.75a 1.60a 3.28a Proclaim 5SC + 4.8 oz 8.84a 4.92a 4.04b 6.10a 1.62b 1.74ab 0.30a 1.16a 16.25b 1.60a 2.24a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Fujimite 5EC 32 fl oz 10.68a 7.36a 3.14b 3.88a 0.44b 1.02ab 0.18a 1.84a 14.94b 1.80a 2.46a Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 16 fl oz 13.66a 5.22a 5.78b 1.82a 0.16b 0.26b 0.10a 1.70a 8.44b 1.28a 1.32a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Untreated check --- 14.90a 8.84a 12.62a 8.08a 3.96a 2.88a 0.68a 1.48a 42.00a 2.76a 2.34a Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, SNK). Table 3. PP eggs/leaf in lower canopy Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 19 Apr 23 Apr 29 Apr 13 May 14 Jun Proclaim 5SC 4.8 oz 5.88a 2.10a 0.68a 0.10a 0.60a Proclaim 5SC + 4.8 oz 4.94a 2.02a 0.74a 0.02a 0.66a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Fujimite 5EC 32.0 fl oz 5.46a 2.80a 0.48a 0.04a 0.72a Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 16.0 fl oz 5.52a 1.16a 0.56a 0.02a 0.70a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Untreated check --- 6.54a 1.36a 0.72a 0.02a 1.02a Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, SNK). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA WITH PROCLAIM AND FUJIMITE, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-pear-psylla-with-proclaim-and-fujimite-2004-DEh0EeXBue
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/30.1.A31
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(A31) PEAR: Pyrus communis (L.), ‘Bartlett’ John E. Dunley Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center 1100 N. Western Avenue Wenatchee, WA 98801 Phone: (509)-663-8181 Fax: (509)-662-8714 E-mail: dunleyj@wsu.edu Bruce M. Greenfield Tara M. Madsen Keith Granger Pear psylla (PP): Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster) The test was conducted in a block of mature ‘Bartlett’ pear at the WSU Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center’s Smith Tract plots located near Orondo, WA. Treatments were applied to single trees and replicated four times in a RCB design, and were applied to drip with a handgun sprayer at 200 psi, simulating a dilute spray of 400 gpa. All treatments were made at petal fall (22 Apr). A pre-treatment count of PP density was performed on all treatments 19 Apr. Weekly samples were taken beginning on 23 Apr, and sampling continued through the seventh week after the application. Adults were monitored using four beating tray samples per replicate (16 per treatment). Egg and nymph densities were initially monitored on leaves collected from lower-canopy fruit spurs (25 leaves per replicate, 100 per treatment). Insects were brushed from leaves onto plates using a leaf brushing machine. Each plate was then placed over a grid, and PP eggs and nymphs on one-half of the plate surface were counted under a binocular dissecting microscope. Beginning 27 May, samples were collected from summer shoots at the rate of five leaves per shoot and five shoots per replicate. One sample was collected from the lower canopy of each replicate (100 leaves per treatment), and one from upper canopy summer shoots (100 per treatment). Data were analyzed using the ANOVA option of PRM, and means separations were determined with SNK Least Significant Difference test (P ≤ 0.05). Proclaim with oil, Fujimite, and Agri-Mek with oil were equally effective at control of PP adults (Table 1). With a few exceptions, PP densities in treatments of Proclaim alone were no different from the untreated check. PP nymph densities were best controlled with Fujimite and Agri-Mek, and Proclaim with oil did slightly better than Proclaim alone (Table 2). Efficacy of Proclaim with oil could be due to the effect of oil. Egg densities were very low throughout the trial (Table 3). Table 1. Adult PP/tray Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 19 Apr 23 Apr 29 Apr 7 May 13 May 21 May 25 May 7 Jun 14 Jun Proclaim 5SC 4.8 oz 4.38a 2.56a 0.69a 3.38a 9.00a 15.31b 44.56a 32.75a 37.69a Proclaim 5SC + 4.8 oz 3.50a 2.00a 0.50a 2.25ab 2.31b 3.88c 13.38b 16.25b 22.81b Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Fujimite 5EC 32.0 fl oz 3.94a 0.56b 0.31a 0.56b 1.69b 2.75c 13.50b 14.94b 15.81b Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 16.0 fl oz 2.75a 0.63b 0.38a 0.63b 0.81b 2.38c 6.06b 8.44b 10.88b Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Untreated check --- 3.13a 3.13a 1.13a 2.88ab 9.88a 30.44a 43.75a 42.00a 25.56b Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, SNK). Table 2. PP nymphs/leaf in lower canopy PP nymphs/leaf in upper Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 19 Apr 23 Apr 29 Apr 7 May 13 May 21 May 25 May 14 Jun 25 May 7 Jun 14 Jun Proclaim 5SC 4.8 oz 14.26a 8.92a 6.22b 3.20a 4.06a 2.12ab 0.50a 2.00a 32.75a 1.60a 3.28a Proclaim 5SC + 4.8 oz 8.84a 4.92a 4.04b 6.10a 1.62b 1.74ab 0.30a 1.16a 16.25b 1.60a 2.24a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Fujimite 5EC 32 fl oz 10.68a 7.36a 3.14b 3.88a 0.44b 1.02ab 0.18a 1.84a 14.94b 1.80a 2.46a Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 16 fl oz 13.66a 5.22a 5.78b 1.82a 0.16b 0.26b 0.10a 1.70a 8.44b 1.28a 1.32a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Untreated check --- 14.90a 8.84a 12.62a 8.08a 3.96a 2.88a 0.68a 1.48a 42.00a 2.76a 2.34a Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, SNK). Table 3. PP eggs/leaf in lower canopy Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 19 Apr 23 Apr 29 Apr 13 May 14 Jun Proclaim 5SC 4.8 oz 5.88a 2.10a 0.68a 0.10a 0.60a Proclaim 5SC + 4.8 oz 4.94a 2.02a 0.74a 0.02a 0.66a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Fujimite 5EC 32.0 fl oz 5.46a 2.80a 0.48a 0.04a 0.72a Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 16.0 fl oz 5.52a 1.16a 0.56a 0.02a 0.70a Saf-T-Side oil 0.25% v/v Untreated check --- 6.54a 1.36a 0.72a 0.02a 1.02a Means within columns followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P > 0.05, SNK).

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.