Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.F62 (F62) FIELD PEA: Pisum sativum L., ‘Majoret’ Daniel E. Waldstein North Dakota State University North Central Research Extension Center 5400 Highway 83 South Minot, ND 58701 Phone: 701-857-7682 Fax: 701-857-7676 Email: daniel.waldstein@ndsu.edu Pea aphid: Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the systemic insecticide spirotetramat (Movento) and compare it with the conventional pyrethroid, beta-cyfluthrin (Baythroid) for the control of pea aphids on field pea. The experiment was conducted at the North Dakota State University North Central Experiment Station south of Minot, ND. Prior to planting, the seed for the entire study was treated with the fungicides trifloxystrobin and metalaxyl (Trilex 2000) at a rate of 1 oz. per 100 lbs seed to protect it from soil borne diseases. ‘Majoret’ field peas were planted on 18 May, at a rate of 150 lbs/acre with a 7.5 inch, 1560 John Deere no-till drill. The herbicides Prowl and Spartan were applied on 19 May at rates of 2 pt/acre and 3 oz/acre, respectively. Plots were 7 ft by 30 ft. Treatments were replicated four times in a RCB design. Insecticides were applied on 10 Jul when approximately half of the plants had young pods. Spirotetramat (Movento) was applied at two different rates, 3.0 fl oz/acre and 5.0 fl oz/acre. Both treatments were applied with a 1% by volume solution of Agri-dex crop oil. Beta-cyfluthrin (Baythroid) was applied at a rate of 2.4 fl oz/acre with Preference non-ionic surfactant. Insecticides were applied using a carbon dioxide propelled backpack sprayer and a hand boom with flat fan nozzles at a volume of approximately 10 gpa. The fungicide, prothioconazole (Proline), was added to each treatment for control of foliar diseases. In addition to an untreated check, a Proline check with no insecticide was included in the treatments to determine the impact of Proline on yield. Pea aphid populations were assessed by taking five sweeps per plot with a 15 inch-diameter sweep net. Pea aphids were counted on 12 Jul, 19 Jul, and 1 Aug (2, 9, and 22 DAT respectively). Field peas were harvested 17 Aug. Yield was determined 19 Aug for each plot after field pea samples were dried for approximately 40 h at 43˚C. Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to analysis when treatment variances were not homogeneous. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and treatment means were separated using the Tukey’s HSD test, P = 0.05. At 2 DAT, the conventional neurotoxin, beta-cyfluthrin (Baythroid), was the most effective insecticide at reducing pea aphid populations (Table 1). At 9 DAT, however, the number of aphids sampled in the Baythroid plots was not significantly different than the untreated check. Conversely, the lipid biosynthesis inhibitor, Movento, did not significantly reduce pea aphids at 2 DAT, but significantly reduced aphids by more than 90% relative to the untreated check 9 DAT. At 22 DAT, pea aphid populations were very low in all plots with no significant differences among treatments. Insecticide treatments significantly improved yield as compared with the untreated check although part of this yield gain may have been achieved from disease control with the fungicide Proline. This research was supported by an industry gift from Bayer Crop Science. Table 1. Pea aphids/5 sweeps Rate, fl Yield Treatment oz/acre 12-Jul 19-Jul 1-Aug bu /acre Baythroid XL 1EC 2.4 75.0c 68.5a 1.8a 55.3a Movento 240 SC 3.0 151.3abc 19.5b 1.8a 52.8a Movento 240 SC 5.0 202.5ab 15.3b 4.3a 54.4a Proline Check 5.7 101.5bc 198.0a 0.3a 47.7ab Untreated Check 217.0a 226.0a 2.0a 40.8b Means within the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Tukey's HSD (P = 0.05). Data was transformed log(x+1) prior to analysis when treatment variances were not homogeneous, untransformed means shown. The fungicide, Proline 480 SC, was tank mixed with the insecticide.
Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2012
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.