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

Learn More →

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST APPLE MAGGOT, 2011

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST APPLE MAGGOT, 2011 Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.A8 (A8) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen W. H. Reissig, Cornell University New York State Agriculture Experiment Station 630 West North Street Geneva, NY 14456 Ph (315) 787-2336 Fax: (315) 788-2326 E-mail: whr1@cornell.edu David Combs E-mail: dbc10@cornell.edu Apple maggot (AM): Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) A second year of field trials of newer insecticides against the apple maggot (AM) was conducted in a Wayne Co., NY commercial orchard with a history of AM pressure. Plots were arranged in a RCB design and replicated three times in a 12-tree block of ‘Jonagold’ apples. Applications were made every 7 d from 19 Jul to 23 Aug (Table 1). Materials were applied with a conventional air- blast sprayer manufactured by Rears Manufacturing at 100 gpa. Three sticky red sphere AM traps baited with apple volatile lures were placed along the edge of the test orchard to determine the level of pressure from an adjacent abandoned orchard. Traps were checked weekly. AM damage was evaluated before harvest on 30 Aug, and at harvest on 23 Sep by destructively sampling 100 apples from each replicate. Apples were inspected for stings (surface punctures with tunnels <5 mm deep) and a tunnels (internal breakdown of the flesh with brown tunnels underneath the skin of the apple greater than 5mm deep). Data was subjected to an ANOVA, and means were separated using the Student’s t test. The trap catches (109.3 adults/wk) confirm the AM pressure in the test orchard was extremely high throughout the season and consequently, none of the treatments completely eliminated AM damage even though relatively high insecticide rates were applied weekly. In the pre-harvest sample, the percentages of fruit with stings are statistically similar among all treatments including the check plot. All of the insecticide treatments before harvest and at harvest significantly reduced the amount of AM tunneling below that in the check plots, except Altacor, but differences among the treatments were not significantly different. The percentages of fruit with tunneling remained relatively constant in all of the treatments from pre-harvest until harvest except for the Guthion treatment. This suggests that Assail, Calypso, and Altacor may have longer residual effectiveness in preventing internal tunneling damage than Guthion. Calypso was the only material that had a significantly higher percentage of stings at harvest than the check plots, but Assail also had a relatively high number of stings. However, Calypso and Assail were the two most effective materials in preventing internal tunneling. This suggests that these two insecticides could have some ovicidal activity, or are killing young larvae just beneath the surface of the apple before they can tunnel into the fruit. Assail was the only insecticide that had a higher percentage of clean fruit at harvest than the untreated check plots only because it was slightly more effective in preventing stings than Calypso. This research was supported in part by industry gift(s) of pesticides and/or research funding. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.A8 Table 1. Apple Maggot Damage Pre-Harvest 30 Aug Harvest 23 Sep Treatment Rate/acre % Sting % Tunnels % Clean Fruit % Sting % Tunnels % Clean Fruit Calypso 4F 8.0 fl oz 17.7a 7.0bc 75.3a 24.3a 2.7b 73.0ab Assail 30SG 8.0 oz 18.0a 2.0c 80.0a 16.0ab 2.0b 82.0a Delegate 25W 7.0 oz 7.3a 11.0bc 81.7a 14.3ab 12.3b 73.3ab Altacor 35W 4.5 oz 7.0a 24.7b 68.7ab 10.3b 25.3ab 64.3ab Guthion 50WSB 3.0 lb 9.3a 4.7bc 86.0a 16.0ab 10.0b 74.0ab Untreated Check 6.7a 47.3a 46.0b 4.7b 51.3a 44.0b Applications in all treatments were made weekly on the following dates: 19 Jul, 26 Jul, 1 Aug, 8 Aug, 16 Aug and 23 Aug. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Students t Test. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST APPLE MAGGOT, 2011

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 37 (1) – Jan 1, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-insecticides-against-apple-maggot-2011-MC9eHmPq1Y
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.4182/amt.2012.A8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.A8 (A8) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen W. H. Reissig, Cornell University New York State Agriculture Experiment Station 630 West North Street Geneva, NY 14456 Ph (315) 787-2336 Fax: (315) 788-2326 E-mail: whr1@cornell.edu David Combs E-mail: dbc10@cornell.edu Apple maggot (AM): Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) A second year of field trials of newer insecticides against the apple maggot (AM) was conducted in a Wayne Co., NY commercial orchard with a history of AM pressure. Plots were arranged in a RCB design and replicated three times in a 12-tree block of ‘Jonagold’ apples. Applications were made every 7 d from 19 Jul to 23 Aug (Table 1). Materials were applied with a conventional air- blast sprayer manufactured by Rears Manufacturing at 100 gpa. Three sticky red sphere AM traps baited with apple volatile lures were placed along the edge of the test orchard to determine the level of pressure from an adjacent abandoned orchard. Traps were checked weekly. AM damage was evaluated before harvest on 30 Aug, and at harvest on 23 Sep by destructively sampling 100 apples from each replicate. Apples were inspected for stings (surface punctures with tunnels <5 mm deep) and a tunnels (internal breakdown of the flesh with brown tunnels underneath the skin of the apple greater than 5mm deep). Data was subjected to an ANOVA, and means were separated using the Student’s t test. The trap catches (109.3 adults/wk) confirm the AM pressure in the test orchard was extremely high throughout the season and consequently, none of the treatments completely eliminated AM damage even though relatively high insecticide rates were applied weekly. In the pre-harvest sample, the percentages of fruit with stings are statistically similar among all treatments including the check plot. All of the insecticide treatments before harvest and at harvest significantly reduced the amount of AM tunneling below that in the check plots, except Altacor, but differences among the treatments were not significantly different. The percentages of fruit with tunneling remained relatively constant in all of the treatments from pre-harvest until harvest except for the Guthion treatment. This suggests that Assail, Calypso, and Altacor may have longer residual effectiveness in preventing internal tunneling damage than Guthion. Calypso was the only material that had a significantly higher percentage of stings at harvest than the check plots, but Assail also had a relatively high number of stings. However, Calypso and Assail were the two most effective materials in preventing internal tunneling. This suggests that these two insecticides could have some ovicidal activity, or are killing young larvae just beneath the surface of the apple before they can tunnel into the fruit. Assail was the only insecticide that had a higher percentage of clean fruit at harvest than the untreated check plots only because it was slightly more effective in preventing stings than Calypso. This research was supported in part by industry gift(s) of pesticides and/or research funding. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.A8 Table 1. Apple Maggot Damage Pre-Harvest 30 Aug Harvest 23 Sep Treatment Rate/acre % Sting % Tunnels % Clean Fruit % Sting % Tunnels % Clean Fruit Calypso 4F 8.0 fl oz 17.7a 7.0bc 75.3a 24.3a 2.7b 73.0ab Assail 30SG 8.0 oz 18.0a 2.0c 80.0a 16.0ab 2.0b 82.0a Delegate 25W 7.0 oz 7.3a 11.0bc 81.7a 14.3ab 12.3b 73.3ab Altacor 35W 4.5 oz 7.0a 24.7b 68.7ab 10.3b 25.3ab 64.3ab Guthion 50WSB 3.0 lb 9.3a 4.7bc 86.0a 16.0ab 10.0b 74.0ab Untreated Check 6.7a 47.3a 46.0b 4.7b 51.3a 44.0b Applications in all treatments were made weekly on the following dates: 19 Jul, 26 Jul, 1 Aug, 8 Aug, 16 Aug and 23 Aug. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Students t Test.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.