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

Learn More →

EUROPEAN REDMITE CONTROL, 2004

EUROPEAN REDMITE CONTROL, 2004 (B5) PEACH: Prunus persica L. ‘Blake’ Peter W. Shearer Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center 121 Northville Rd Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Phone: (856) 455-3100 Fax: (856) 455-3133 E-mail: shearer@aesop.rutgers.edu Ann Rucker European red mite (ERM): Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Predatory mite (AF): Amblyseius fallacies (Garman) Mite control sprays were applied on 29 July to 8-year-old ‘Blake’ peach trees at Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Bridgeton, NJ using a Rears Airblast sprayer (28-inch fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. The experiment was set up as a RCB design using 4-single tree reps. Blocking was based upon initial motile ERM density. The pH of the spray water was 4.9. The total alkalinity as CaCO was 0 ppm and the total hardness measured 3 gpg. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. Twenty-five leaves were collected from each tree for a total of 100 leaves per treatment per sample date. Mites and eggs were brushed onto sticky glass plates and counted under a stereomicroscope. A pre-treatment sample was collected on 29 July. Post treatment samples were collected on 4, 11,18, and 25 Aug and 1 Sep. Mite abundance was high at the start of the experiment. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. Data were transformed, log(X+1), before analysis with ANOVA. All treatments reduced motile ERM mite density within a week of application. The addition of LI-700 to Acramite did not improve control. Pyramite provided the best initial knockdown. The levels of motile ERM in the two Acramite treatments were not different from Pyramite or the untreated check on 4 Aug but all treatments were different from the untreated check on the 11 and 18 Aug sample dates (Table 1). Reducing motile ERM populations in the treatments resulted in lower ERM egg density (Table 2). All treatments had lower motile AF levels following application, indicating direct effects either on the predator mites and/or their ERM prey (Table 3). Table 1. Average number of motile European red mites/leaf Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 29 Jul 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug 1 Sep Acramite 50W + 1.0 lb 40.1 ns 28.6ab 1.3b 1.2b 0.7ab 0.6ab LI-700 1.0 qt Acramite 50W 1.0 lb 26.6 16.1ab 0.3b 1.4b 0.4b 0.1b Pyramite 60W 4.4 oz 39.7 12.3b 0.4b 0.6b 0.2b 0.1b Untreated check --- 30.2 84.4a 18.1a 45.8a 29.2a 7.9a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA). Table 2. Average number of motile European red mites/leaf Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 29 Jul 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug 1 Sep Acramite 50W + 1.0 lb 179.8 ns 51.8a 14.2ab 2.9b 21.0ab 0.9ab LI-700 1.0 qt Acramite 50W 1.0 lb 100.1 15.2b 9.3b 2.4b 0.7b 0.2b Pyramite 60W 4.4 oz 136.8 32.1ab 12.6ab 3.5ab 1.9ab 0.9b Untreated check --- 140.3 87.1a 40.9a 39.3a 51.7a 21.6a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA). Table 3. Average number of motile Amblyseius fallacis/leaf Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 29 Jul 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug 1 Sep Acramite 50W + 1.0 lb 0.7 ns 0.5ab 0.2 ns 0.4ab 0.4b 0.2b LI-700 1.0 qt Acramite 50W 1.0 lb 0.2 0.1b 0.2 0.5ab 0.2b 0.2b Pyramite 60W 4.4 oz 0.6 0.0b 0.1 0.1b 0.2b 0.1b Untreated check --- 0.2 1.1a 0.7 1.3a 1.9a 0.7a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

EUROPEAN REDMITE CONTROL, 2004

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 30 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/european-redmite-control-2004-DRbUdw3DkZ
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/30.1.B5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(B5) PEACH: Prunus persica L. ‘Blake’ Peter W. Shearer Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center 121 Northville Rd Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Phone: (856) 455-3100 Fax: (856) 455-3133 E-mail: shearer@aesop.rutgers.edu Ann Rucker European red mite (ERM): Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Predatory mite (AF): Amblyseius fallacies (Garman) Mite control sprays were applied on 29 July to 8-year-old ‘Blake’ peach trees at Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Bridgeton, NJ using a Rears Airblast sprayer (28-inch fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. The experiment was set up as a RCB design using 4-single tree reps. Blocking was based upon initial motile ERM density. The pH of the spray water was 4.9. The total alkalinity as CaCO was 0 ppm and the total hardness measured 3 gpg. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. Twenty-five leaves were collected from each tree for a total of 100 leaves per treatment per sample date. Mites and eggs were brushed onto sticky glass plates and counted under a stereomicroscope. A pre-treatment sample was collected on 29 July. Post treatment samples were collected on 4, 11,18, and 25 Aug and 1 Sep. Mite abundance was high at the start of the experiment. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. Data were transformed, log(X+1), before analysis with ANOVA. All treatments reduced motile ERM mite density within a week of application. The addition of LI-700 to Acramite did not improve control. Pyramite provided the best initial knockdown. The levels of motile ERM in the two Acramite treatments were not different from Pyramite or the untreated check on 4 Aug but all treatments were different from the untreated check on the 11 and 18 Aug sample dates (Table 1). Reducing motile ERM populations in the treatments resulted in lower ERM egg density (Table 2). All treatments had lower motile AF levels following application, indicating direct effects either on the predator mites and/or their ERM prey (Table 3). Table 1. Average number of motile European red mites/leaf Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 29 Jul 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug 1 Sep Acramite 50W + 1.0 lb 40.1 ns 28.6ab 1.3b 1.2b 0.7ab 0.6ab LI-700 1.0 qt Acramite 50W 1.0 lb 26.6 16.1ab 0.3b 1.4b 0.4b 0.1b Pyramite 60W 4.4 oz 39.7 12.3b 0.4b 0.6b 0.2b 0.1b Untreated check --- 30.2 84.4a 18.1a 45.8a 29.2a 7.9a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA). Table 2. Average number of motile European red mites/leaf Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 29 Jul 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug 1 Sep Acramite 50W + 1.0 lb 179.8 ns 51.8a 14.2ab 2.9b 21.0ab 0.9ab LI-700 1.0 qt Acramite 50W 1.0 lb 100.1 15.2b 9.3b 2.4b 0.7b 0.2b Pyramite 60W 4.4 oz 136.8 32.1ab 12.6ab 3.5ab 1.9ab 0.9b Untreated check --- 140.3 87.1a 40.9a 39.3a 51.7a 21.6a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA). Table 3. Average number of motile Amblyseius fallacis/leaf Treatment/ Rate formulation amt product/acre 29 Jul 4 Aug 11 Aug 18 Aug 25 Aug 1 Sep Acramite 50W + 1.0 lb 0.7 ns 0.5ab 0.2 ns 0.4ab 0.4b 0.2b LI-700 1.0 qt Acramite 50W 1.0 lb 0.2 0.1b 0.2 0.5ab 0.2b 0.2b Pyramite 60W 4.4 oz 0.6 0.0b 0.1 0.1b 0.2b 0.1b Untreated check --- 0.2 1.1a 0.7 1.3a 1.9a 0.7a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA).

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.