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 Registered and Experimental Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Potato Aphid in Potato, 2018

Evaluation of Registered and Experimental Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Potato Aphid in... Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz045/5485477 by guest on 16 October 2019 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management Tests, 44(1), 2019, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz045 Section E: Vegetable Crops POTATO: Solanum tuberosum L., cv. ‘Atlantic’ Evaluation of Registered and Experimental Foliar HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Insecticides for the Control of Potato Aphid in Potato, HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA 1, Benjamin Z. Bradford, Scott A. Chapman, Linda K. Crubaugh, and Russell L. Groves History=Text=History=Text_First Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, Phone: 608-262-3229 EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA and  Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Subject Editor: Vonny Barlow EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Potato | Solanum tuberosum L. EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance Populations of potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, were ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC of several experimental foliar treatments for the control of aphids assessed by counting the number of adults and nymphs on 25 ran- ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA on potato relative to commercial standards and an untreated check. domly selected leaves in each plot. Insect counts occurred on 10 Aug Experimental plots were established on a commercial potato field and 13 Aug (4 and 7  days after application, respectively). Insect near Coloma, Wisconsin (44.027462, −89.605643) on a loamy sand count data were log transformed prior to analysis. Treatment main soil in 2018. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Atlantic’ was machine effects were determined using analysis of variance. Means separation planted on 25 Apr with a 1-ft seed spacing and 3-ft row spacing. In letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = .05). early August, a portion of this field was divided into four replicates of Aphid counts in the Actara and Transform treatments were sig- 13 treatment plots and one untreated check plot arranged in an RCB nificantly lower than the untreated check on 10 Aug, 4  days after design. Two-row plots measured 6 ft by 20 ft and were separated treatment (Table 1). On 13 Aug (7 DAT), all of the registered com- by either one untreated guard row or 5 ft of untreated plants along mercial products outperformed the untreated check, with Actara and rows. The field received standard commercial fungicide and insecti- Transform continuing to perform better than the other treatments. cide programs prior to plot initiation. One factor affecting the performance of the experimental treatments Foliar treatments were applied on 6 Aug (Table 1). Treatments is the application of fungicide to the field in the weeks proceeding the were applied with a CO -pressurized backpack sprayer with a initiation of the experiment, as these experimental compounds were 6-ft boom operating at 30 psi delivering 20 gpa through 4 flat-fan biologics susceptible to fungicide residues. nozzles (Tee Jet XR8002XR) spaced 18 apart while travelling at 3.5 ft/s. No signs of phototoxicity were observed. This research was supported by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2019. 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 [email protected] Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz045/5485477 by guest on 16 October 2019 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. 44, No. 1 Table 1. a b Trt no. Product Rate (amt/acre) Mean aphid count 10 Aug (4 DAT) 13 Aug (7 DAT) 1 Untreated check 174.25 c 286.00 cd 2 EXP-1 Low 271.00 c 229.50 cd 3 EXP-1 Med 236.00 c 108.50 bcd 4 EXP-1 High 149.50 bc 47.00 abc 5 Movento 240SC 3.99 fl oz 178.50 bc 53.50 abc 6 Movento 240SC 5 fl oz 82.00 abc 55.75 abc 7 Actara 25WG 3 oz wt 19.75 a 12.25 a 8 Fulfill 50SC 2.74 oz wt 110.50 bc 47.75 abc 9 EXP-2 304.50 c 416.50 d 10 EXP-3 253.50 c 188.75 cd 11 Exirel 100OD 20 fl oz 102.25 abc 58.00 abc 12 Sivanto 200SL 10.5 fl oz 59.25 abc 46.25 abc 13 Transform 240SC 1.5 fl oz 26.25 ab 25.25 ab 14 BeLeaf 50SG 2.8 oz wt 61.75 abc 20.75 ab P <0.0001 <0.0001 All treatments include 0.25% Dyne-Amic added except untreated check. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of Registered and Experimental Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Potato Aphid in Potato, 2018

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-registered-and-experimental-foliar-insecticides-for-the-Zm64z61d2Q

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsz045
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz045/5485477 by guest on 16 October 2019 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management Tests, 44(1), 2019, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz045 Section E: Vegetable Crops POTATO: Solanum tuberosum L., cv. ‘Atlantic’ Evaluation of Registered and Experimental Foliar HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Insecticides for the Control of Potato Aphid in Potato, HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA 1, Benjamin Z. Bradford, Scott A. Chapman, Linda K. Crubaugh, and Russell L. Groves History=Text=History=Text_First Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin – Madison, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, Phone: 608-262-3229 EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA and  Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Subject Editor: Vonny Barlow EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Potato | Solanum tuberosum L. EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Potato aphid | Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance Populations of potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, were ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC of several experimental foliar treatments for the control of aphids assessed by counting the number of adults and nymphs on 25 ran- ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA on potato relative to commercial standards and an untreated check. domly selected leaves in each plot. Insect counts occurred on 10 Aug Experimental plots were established on a commercial potato field and 13 Aug (4 and 7  days after application, respectively). Insect near Coloma, Wisconsin (44.027462, −89.605643) on a loamy sand count data were log transformed prior to analysis. Treatment main soil in 2018. Potato, Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Atlantic’ was machine effects were determined using analysis of variance. Means separation planted on 25 Apr with a 1-ft seed spacing and 3-ft row spacing. In letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = .05). early August, a portion of this field was divided into four replicates of Aphid counts in the Actara and Transform treatments were sig- 13 treatment plots and one untreated check plot arranged in an RCB nificantly lower than the untreated check on 10 Aug, 4  days after design. Two-row plots measured 6 ft by 20 ft and were separated treatment (Table 1). On 13 Aug (7 DAT), all of the registered com- by either one untreated guard row or 5 ft of untreated plants along mercial products outperformed the untreated check, with Actara and rows. The field received standard commercial fungicide and insecti- Transform continuing to perform better than the other treatments. cide programs prior to plot initiation. One factor affecting the performance of the experimental treatments Foliar treatments were applied on 6 Aug (Table 1). Treatments is the application of fungicide to the field in the weeks proceeding the were applied with a CO -pressurized backpack sprayer with a initiation of the experiment, as these experimental compounds were 6-ft boom operating at 30 psi delivering 20 gpa through 4 flat-fan biologics susceptible to fungicide residues. nozzles (Tee Jet XR8002XR) spaced 18 apart while travelling at 3.5 ft/s. No signs of phototoxicity were observed. This research was supported by direct industry funding. © The Author(s) 2019. 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 [email protected] Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz045/5485477 by guest on 16 October 2019 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. 44, No. 1 Table 1. a b Trt no. Product Rate (amt/acre) Mean aphid count 10 Aug (4 DAT) 13 Aug (7 DAT) 1 Untreated check 174.25 c 286.00 cd 2 EXP-1 Low 271.00 c 229.50 cd 3 EXP-1 Med 236.00 c 108.50 bcd 4 EXP-1 High 149.50 bc 47.00 abc 5 Movento 240SC 3.99 fl oz 178.50 bc 53.50 abc 6 Movento 240SC 5 fl oz 82.00 abc 55.75 abc 7 Actara 25WG 3 oz wt 19.75 a 12.25 a 8 Fulfill 50SC 2.74 oz wt 110.50 bc 47.75 abc 9 EXP-2 304.50 c 416.50 d 10 EXP-3 253.50 c 188.75 cd 11 Exirel 100OD 20 fl oz 102.25 abc 58.00 abc 12 Sivanto 200SL 10.5 fl oz 59.25 abc 46.25 abc 13 Transform 240SC 1.5 fl oz 26.25 ab 25.25 ab 14 BeLeaf 50SG 2.8 oz wt 61.75 abc 20.75 ab P <0.0001 <0.0001 All treatments include 0.25% Dyne-Amic added except untreated check. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = .05).

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2019

There are no references for this article.