Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Arthropod Management Tests, 2017, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsx052 Section E: Vegetable Crops TOMATO: Solanum lycopersicum L., ‘Mountain Majesty’ Drip Chemigation of Diamides and Neonicotinoids in Tomato, 2015* James F. Walgenbach and Stephen C. Schoof Department of Entomology, Mountain Horticultural Crops Research & Extension Center, NC State University, 455 Research Drive, Mills River, NC 28759, Phone: (828) 684-3562, Fax: (828) 674-4939 (jim_walgenbach@ncsu.edu; steve_schoof@ncsu.edu) and Corresponding author, e-mail: steve_schoof@ncsu.edu Subject Editor: Mark Abney Thrips (FT): Frankliniella tritici (Fitch) and Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) Potato aphid (PA): Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) Twospotted spider mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae Koch Tomato fruitworm (LEP): Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Armyworm (LEP): Spodoptera spp. Cabbage looper: Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) Stink bugs (SB): Euschistus servus (Say), Acrosternum hilare (Say), and Halyomorpha halys (Stal) Tomato j Lycopersicon esculentum flower thrips j Frankliniella tritici, western flower thrips j Frankliniella occidentalis, potato aphid j Macrosiphum euphorbiae, twospotted spider mite j Tetranychus urticae, bollworm/corn earworm/tomato fruitworm j Helicoverpa zea, armyworms j Spodoptera spp., cabbage looper j Trichoplusia ni, brown stink bug j Euschistus servus, green stink bug j Acrosternum hilare, brown marmorated stink bug j Halyomorpha halys This study was conducted at the Mountain Horticultural Crops recording the number of apterous aphids on 10 terminal trifoliate Research Station in Mills River, NC. Five-week-old ‘Mountain leaflets per plot. TSSM were counted by examining 10 terminal leaf- Majesty’ tomato transplants were set on 27 May on black plastic lets per plot. Season cumulative thrips, aphid, and mite days were mulch with drip irrigation. Plots consisted of 32.5-ft-long double calculated by multiplying the average insect density by sample inter- rows with tomatoes planted in a 25-ft section (i.e., plots were 0.008 val (days) and summing values for each date. On 6 and 20 Aug and acres each). Rows were on 5-ft centers with plants spaced 1.5 ft 3 and 17 Sep, mature fruits were harvested from the 10 middle within rows. Treatments were replicated four times and arranged in plants of each row and assessed for damage. Data were transformed an RCB design. Tomatoes were staked and strung as needed and by square root (x þ 1), subjected to two-way ANOVA, and means sprayed with a standard fungicide program. A CO -powered injec- were separated by LSD (P 0.05). Data presented are back tion system in which insecticide treatments were delivered to the transformations. drip tube of individual plots through 1-inch poly tube was used to FT populations were relatively low and consisted primarily of make treatment applications. Treatments were applied during a 15- Frankliniella tritici (approximately 94% of collected specimens were min injection period, which was equal to the time it took water to F. tritici,1% fusca,<1% occidentalis, and 5% in too poor condition travel from the point of injection to the furthest drip emitter (which to identify). Populations reached their peak densities in flowers on was calibrated by injecting dye into the system). Following the injec- 21 Jul, averaging 10.8 thrips per 10 flowers in the check (Table 1). tion period, the irrigation was run with water-only for a period There were no differences among plots on any sample date. PA pop- equal to the injection time plus 10 min to ensure that all chemical ulations were extremely low until mid-Sep. By 24 Sep, populations was flushed from the drip lines. Treatments, rates, and application had reached a high of 28.5 aphids per 10 trifoliate leaflets in the dates are listed in the tables. Insect populations were counted check. The Coragen/Sivanto, Coragen/AdmirePro/Venom, and 6-wk weekly: FT were monitored by removing 10 flowers per plot, plac- cyclaniliprole treatments (applied on 26 Jun and 7 Aug) significantly ing them in a vial of 50% ETOH, and counting dislodged adults and reduced populations below the check, although there were no signif- immatures under a stereomicroscope. PA were monitored by icant differences among plots when cumulative aphid days were * This research was supported in part by an industry gift of pesticides. V C The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. 1 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 2 Arthropod Management Tests, 2017, Vol. 42, No. 1 Table 1 Treatment/formulation Amount Application dates FT/10 flowers PA/10 leaves TSSM/10 leaves per acre 16 Jul 21 Jul 28 Jul 17 Sep 24 Sep 30 Sep 12 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug Verimark 1.67SC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 7.0a 8.8a 8.8a 17.8a 21.3bc 3.3a 31.0a 130.3b 286.5a Cyclaniliprole 4.6% EC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 6.0a 12.3a 6.3a 9.8a 12.5abc 1.5a 32.3a 28.0a 196.0a Coragen 1.67SC 5 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 6.8a 15.8a 3.8a 13.0a 1.3a 0.0a 34.0a 68.0ab 275.3a Sivanto 200SL 14 fl oz 26 Jun Cyclaniliprole 4.6% EC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 7 Aug 8.8a 11.5a 5.3a 22.3a 8.0ab 1.3a 34.8a 49.3a 205.0a Coragen 1.67SC 5 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 7.3a 7.5a 5.8a 11.8a 1.0a 3.5a 29.8a 107.8b 243.0a Admire Pro 10 fl oz 26 Jun Venom 70SG 6 oz 17 Jul Check – – 6.5a 10.8a 9.5a 16.0a 28.5c 2.5a 49.0a 68.5ab 282.8a Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P ¼ 0.05). calculated (cumulative data not shown). TSSM populations began Sivanto (27%), Verimark (30%), and cyclaniliprole (23 and 32%) to increase in early Aug, reaching a high of almost 30 mites per leaf- treatments. Only the Coragen/AdmirePro/Venom treatment signifi- let in the check on 25 Aug. Cumulative mite days ranged from 1,153 cantly reduced SB damage (7%). Lepidopteran damage, including in the 4-wk cyclaniliprole treatment to 2,314 in the Verimark treat- that from loopers, was fairly low, with only 6.3% of check fruit af- ment, but none of the differences were statistically significant (cu- fected. This was higher than the treated plots, but not significantly. mulative data not shown). The only differences occurred on 28 Jul FT damage was relatively low (5% in the check) and did not differ and 18 Aug when only the cyclaniliprole treatments significantly re- significantly among plots. Damage assigned to the “other” category, duced populations below the check. primarily due to disease or physiological issues, averaged about 9% Total yield from the 4 harvest dates averaged approximately 115 across all plots with no significant differences. lbs of fruit across all treatments with no significant differences There were no differences in the amount of lepidopteran or FT (Table 2). The untreated check had approximately 64% marketable damage among plots on any sample date (Table 3). There were al- fruit. The Coragen/AdmirePro/Venom treatment produced more ways differences in the amount of SB damage, with the treatment re- marketable fruit (76%), though not significantly so, and the other ceiving Venom consistently providing the highest control. Overall treatments produced less (52–61%). Much of the fruit was catego- SB damage was fairly constant throughout the 6-wk harvest period, rized nonmarketable due to SB damage, which was found in 16% of except for 3 Sep, which had at least twice the level of damage as the check fruit but in significantly higher percentages in the Coragen/ other harvest dates. Arthropod Management Tests, 2017, Vol. 42, No. 1 3 Table 2 Treatment/formulation Amount Application dates Total fruits (lbs) % of season total harvested fruit (evaluated by weight) per acre Marketable Culls Jumbo Extra Large Med. (Total) Unders Lep Looper Lep þ Looper Stink bug Thrips Other damage large Verimark 1.67SC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 120.5a 33.2a 13.9ab 4.8a 0.9a (52.9ab) 0.2a 1.6a 3.1a 4.7a 30.2c 2.9a 9.2a Cyclaniliprole 4.6% EC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 110.4a 37.9a 17.8bc 4.3a 1.3a (61.3ab) 0.3a 1.2a 2.4a 3.6a 23.0bc 4.9a 7.0a Coragen 1.67SC 5 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 123.0a 36.0a 13.5ab 3.9a 0.6a (54.1ab) 0.1a 1.2a 4.4a 5.6a 26.5c 1.9a 11.8a Sivanto 200SL 14 fl oz 26 Jun Cyclaniliprole 4.6% EC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 7 Aug 104.8a 38.1a 10.1a 2.9a 1.4a (52.5a) 0.1a 2.0a 3.3a 5.3a 31.7c 4.0a 6.4a Coragen 1.67SC 5 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 110.1a 45.0a 24.5c 4.2a 2.4a (76.2c) 0.5a 2.0a 2.6a 4.6a 7.1a 1.1a 10.6a Admire Pro 10 fl oz 26 Jun Venom 70SG 6 oz 17 Jul Check – – 126.9a 38.0a 22.3c 3.2a 0.8a (64.3bc) 0.0a 3.7a 2.6a 6.3a 15.6b 5.3a 8.4a Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P ¼ 0.05). Table 3 % fruit damage at harvest (evaluated by weight) Treatment/formulation Amount per acre Application dates Lep (including loopers) Stink bug Armyworm/fruitworm 6 Aug 20 Aug 3 Sep 17 Sep S. Tot 6 Aug 20 Aug 3 Sep 17 Sep S. Tot 6 Aug 20 Aug 3 Sep 17 Sep S. Tot Verimark 1.67SC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 2.5a 1.7a 13.7a 14.7a 4.7a 36.1d 26.5c 34.8abc 27.3c 30.2c 1.0a 0.7a 2.8a 5.2a 1.6a Cyclaniliprole 4.6% EC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 1.0a 1.0a 4.1a 21.8a 3.6a 18.4bc 17.5bc 39.7ab 24.2bc 23.0bc 0.0a 0.0a 2.6a 8.0a 1.2a Coragen 1.67SC 5 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 0.4a 0.7a 4.0a 40.5a 5.6a 28.8cd 23.9bc 42.0c 12.3a 26.5c 0.0a 0.0a 3.4a 6.4a 1.2a Sivanto 200SL 14 fl oz 26 Jun Cyclaniliprole 4.6% EC 16.4 fl oz 26 Jun, 7 Aug 3.5a 4.1a 5.6a 23.0a 5.3a 28.2cd 29.3c 49.9c 13.6ab 31.7c 1.5a 1.7a 3.2a 6.4a 2.0a Coragen 1.67SC 5 fl oz 26 Jun, 24 Jul, 21 Aug 0.6a 0.8a 0.0a 23.3a 4.6a 2.3a 2.3a 24.8a 6.2a 7.1a 0.6a 0.8a 0.0a 7.3a 2.0a Admire Pro 10 fl oz 26 Jun Venom 70SG 6 oz 17 Jul Check – – 3.1a 3.7a 5.8a 39.0a 6.3a 12.4b 12.8b 26.1ab 15.1ab 15.6b 2.9a 3.5a 4.9a 15.1a 3.7a Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P ¼ 0.05).
Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press
Published: May 17, 2017
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.