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

Learn More →

Insecticidal and Biological Control of Silverleaf Whiteflies, Fall 2018

Insecticidal and Biological Control of Silverleaf Whiteflies, Fall 2018 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz047/5480184 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2019 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management Tests, 44(1), 2019, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz047 Section G: Ornamentals & Turf POINSETTIA: Euphorbia pulchurrima Klotzsch, ‘Premium Red’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Insecticidal and Biological Control of Silverleaf Whiteflies, HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Fall 2018 HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC 1,3 2 Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Erfan Vafaie and Kevin M. Heinz History=Text=History=Text_First Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, 1710 N. FM 3053, Overton, TX 75684-2322, Phone: (903) 834-6191, Fax: (903) 834-6257 (erfan.vafaie@ EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 2 ag.tamu.edu), Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, 370 Olsen Blvd., College Station, TX 77843-2475, Phone: 979-862- 3407 ([email protected]), and  Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Subject Editor: Carlos Bogran EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Poinsettia | Euphorbia pulchurrima Klotzsch ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Silverleaf whitefly | Bemisia tabaci Gennadius ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of several bottom) on each plant using a 3.5× head magnifying lens. Counts ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA insecticides and commercially available biological control agents included nymphs, pupae, exuviae, and whitefly adults and phytotox- to manage silverleaf whiteflies on greenhouse grown, 6-inch potted icity ratings (0–10) at 0, 6, 13, 27, and 41 DAT. Only whitefly nymph poinsettias. The trial was conducted between Apr 6 and May 18, and pupae data are included in this report. Log-transformed count 2018 in a research greenhouse located at the AgriLife Research & data were compared using ANOVA (P  <  0.05) and Dunnett’s post Extension Center in Overton, TX. Poinsettia plants were infested hoc test with untreated check as the control group. after covering the group of plants with row cover material (Row At 27 DAT, Pycana (1, 1.5, and 2%), Fulcrum, Ventigra (7.0 fl Cover Deluxe; Greenhouse Megastore, Danville, IL) and then re- oz/100 gal applied twice), and the combination of E.  eremicus + leasing two adult whiteflies per plant per week for two consec- A. swirskii were significantly different from the untreated check for utive weeks. After the infestation, individual plants were moved number of whitefly nymphs (Table 2). At 41 DAT, Pycana (1 and inside 47.5- × 47.5- × 47.5-cm netted observation cages (44545F; 1.5%), Ventigra (4.8 fl oz/100 gal applied once and 7.0 fl oz/100 gal MegaView Science Co., Ltd., Talchung, Taiwan). Treatments were applied twice), E.  eremicus, and the combination of E.  eremicus + assigned to individual caged poinsettia plants under a CRD, with A. swirskii were significantly different from the untreated check for five replicates. Treatments were applied as either as foliar sprays number of whitefly nymphs (Table 2). or broadcast natural enemy releases (Table 1). Broadcast releases At 27 DAT, Pycana (1%), Ventigra (7.0 fl oz/100 gal applied were made by placing 3 ml of bulk Eretmocerus eremicus Rose and once), and combination of E.  eremicus + A.  swirskii were signifi- Zolnerowich (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) pupae or 1 teaspoon of cantly different from the untreated check for number of whitefly Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot (Acari: Phytoseiidae) plus the pupae. At 41 DAT, Pycana (1 and 1.5%), Fulcrum, and Ventigra (7.0 carrier material on the soil surface. Natural enemy release rates were fl oz/100 gal applied twice) were significantly different from the un- purposefully high and used for proof-of-concept to assess whitefly treated check for number of whitefly pupae (Table 3). No treatments control in East Texas greenhouses. All foliar sprays were made with produced any signs of phytotoxicity. an R&D CO2 sprayer (Model D-203S) fitted with a 601FA single nozzle spray boom (Bellspray, Inc., Opelousas, LA), until runoff. This research was supported by industry funds and gifts in kind of Assessments included inspection of all poinsettia leaves (top and pesticides and natural enemies. © 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/tsz047/5480184 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2019 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. 44, No. 1 Table 1. No. Treatment/formulation Active ingredient Application rate Application Date (days after initial treatment) method 04/07 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 (0) (6) (13) (20) (28) 1 Pycana Pyrethrins + 1% v/v Foliar X X Canola oil 2 Pycana Pyrethrins + 1.5% v/v Foliar X X Canola oil 3 Pycana Pyrethrins + 2% v/v Foliar X X Canola oil 4 Pyganic Pyrethrins 2 fl oz/gal Foliar X X 5 Fulcrum Pyriproxifen 8 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X X 6 Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X X 7 Ventigra Afidopyropen 7.0 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X 8 Ventigra Afidopyropen 7.0 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X X 9 Endeavor Pymetrozine 5 oz/100 gal Foliar X X 10 E. eremicus – 215 pupae per plant Broadcast X X X X X 11 A. swirskii – 250 mites per plant Broadcast X X 12 E. eremicus + A. swirskii – ~215 pupae + ~250 Broadcast X X* X* X* X mites per plant 13 UTC – – – *Sampling weeks in which only E. eremicus was released in the ‘E. eremicus + A. swirskii’ treatment. Table 2. No. Treatment Mean whitefly nymphs per pot 1 DAT 6 DAT 13 DAT 27 DAT 41 DAT 6 Apr 13 Apr 20 Apr 4 May 18 May 1 Pycana 42 39 30 10.2* 119.2* 2 Pycana 40.4 16 13 55.4* 41.2* 3 Pycana 40 67.25 27.4 11.2* 129.8 4 Pyganic 40.6 46.2 28.8 61.4 105.2 5 Fulcrum 40.2 47.8 27.6 7.4* 0* 6 Ventigra 40.6 47.2 56.6 21.6 26* 7 Ventigra 42 44.2 35.6 34.2 86.4 8 Ventigra 43.2 63.4 70.2 24.4* 59.6* 9 Endeavor 44 64.4 73.2 69 438 10 E. eremicus 44.2 25.5 65 82.6 25.2* 11 A. swirskii 42.6 56.4 72.4 68 246 12 E. eremicus + A. swirskii 44 15.4 26 13.6* 8.2* 13 UTC 41.6 50.6 75.8 199.6 554.8 P 1.00 0.40 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 *Significantly different compared with untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz047/5480184 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2019 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. 44, No. 1 3 Table 3. No. Treatment Mean whitefly pupae per pot 1 DAT 6 DAT 13 DAT 27 DAT 41 DAT 6 Apr 13 Apr 20 Apr 4 May 18 May 1 Pycana 4.6 8.5 8.6 7.4* 17.6* 2 Pycana 3.2 17 8.4 25 43.2* 3 Pycana 4.2 7 3.2 17.8 17.4 4 Pyganic 3.2 8.5 4.8 32.6 32.8 5 Fulcrum 0.4 11.25 13.8 23 1.2* 6 Ventigra 1.6 8.25 11.8 17 8 7 Ventigra 4.2 9.2 8.6 7* 30.8 8 Ventigra 4.4 12.25 13.6 17.6 3.6* 9 Endeavor 6.6 18.8 21.2 60 125.8 10 E. eremicus 2 6 5 24.4 31.4 11 A. swirskii 6 18 15.4 26.4 90.4 12 E. eremicus + A. swirskii 3.4 8 4.2 5.4* 9.2 13 UTC 6.8 15.75 20.8 55 123.6 P 0.64 0.87 0.09 0.02 <0.001 *Significantly different compared with untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Insecticidal and Biological Control of Silverleaf Whiteflies, Fall 2018

Vafaie,, Erfan; Heinz, Kevin, M
Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 44 (1) – Jan 1, 2019
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/insecticidal-and-biological-control-of-silverleaf-whiteflies-fall-2018-6x9mP9iims

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/tsz047
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz047/5480184 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2019 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management Tests, 44(1), 2019, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsz047 Section G: Ornamentals & Turf POINSETTIA: Euphorbia pulchurrima Klotzsch, ‘Premium Red’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Insecticidal and Biological Control of Silverleaf Whiteflies, HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Fall 2018 HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC 1,3 2 Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Erfan Vafaie and Kevin M. Heinz History=Text=History=Text_First Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, 1710 N. FM 3053, Overton, TX 75684-2322, Phone: (903) 834-6191, Fax: (903) 834-6257 (erfan.vafaie@ EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 2 ag.tamu.edu), Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, 370 Olsen Blvd., College Station, TX 77843-2475, Phone: 979-862- 3407 ([email protected]), and  Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Subject Editor: Carlos Bogran EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Poinsettia | Euphorbia pulchurrima Klotzsch ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Silverleaf whitefly | Bemisia tabaci Gennadius ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of several bottom) on each plant using a 3.5× head magnifying lens. Counts ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA insecticides and commercially available biological control agents included nymphs, pupae, exuviae, and whitefly adults and phytotox- to manage silverleaf whiteflies on greenhouse grown, 6-inch potted icity ratings (0–10) at 0, 6, 13, 27, and 41 DAT. Only whitefly nymph poinsettias. The trial was conducted between Apr 6 and May 18, and pupae data are included in this report. Log-transformed count 2018 in a research greenhouse located at the AgriLife Research & data were compared using ANOVA (P  <  0.05) and Dunnett’s post Extension Center in Overton, TX. Poinsettia plants were infested hoc test with untreated check as the control group. after covering the group of plants with row cover material (Row At 27 DAT, Pycana (1, 1.5, and 2%), Fulcrum, Ventigra (7.0 fl Cover Deluxe; Greenhouse Megastore, Danville, IL) and then re- oz/100 gal applied twice), and the combination of E.  eremicus + leasing two adult whiteflies per plant per week for two consec- A. swirskii were significantly different from the untreated check for utive weeks. After the infestation, individual plants were moved number of whitefly nymphs (Table 2). At 41 DAT, Pycana (1 and inside 47.5- × 47.5- × 47.5-cm netted observation cages (44545F; 1.5%), Ventigra (4.8 fl oz/100 gal applied once and 7.0 fl oz/100 gal MegaView Science Co., Ltd., Talchung, Taiwan). Treatments were applied twice), E.  eremicus, and the combination of E.  eremicus + assigned to individual caged poinsettia plants under a CRD, with A. swirskii were significantly different from the untreated check for five replicates. Treatments were applied as either as foliar sprays number of whitefly nymphs (Table 2). or broadcast natural enemy releases (Table 1). Broadcast releases At 27 DAT, Pycana (1%), Ventigra (7.0 fl oz/100 gal applied were made by placing 3 ml of bulk Eretmocerus eremicus Rose and once), and combination of E.  eremicus + A.  swirskii were signifi- Zolnerowich (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) pupae or 1 teaspoon of cantly different from the untreated check for number of whitefly Amblyseius swirskii Athias-Henriot (Acari: Phytoseiidae) plus the pupae. At 41 DAT, Pycana (1 and 1.5%), Fulcrum, and Ventigra (7.0 carrier material on the soil surface. Natural enemy release rates were fl oz/100 gal applied twice) were significantly different from the un- purposefully high and used for proof-of-concept to assess whitefly treated check for number of whitefly pupae (Table 3). No treatments control in East Texas greenhouses. All foliar sprays were made with produced any signs of phytotoxicity. an R&D CO2 sprayer (Model D-203S) fitted with a 601FA single nozzle spray boom (Bellspray, Inc., Opelousas, LA), until runoff. This research was supported by industry funds and gifts in kind of Assessments included inspection of all poinsettia leaves (top and pesticides and natural enemies. © 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/tsz047/5480184 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2019 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. 44, No. 1 Table 1. No. Treatment/formulation Active ingredient Application rate Application Date (days after initial treatment) method 04/07 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 (0) (6) (13) (20) (28) 1 Pycana Pyrethrins + 1% v/v Foliar X X Canola oil 2 Pycana Pyrethrins + 1.5% v/v Foliar X X Canola oil 3 Pycana Pyrethrins + 2% v/v Foliar X X Canola oil 4 Pyganic Pyrethrins 2 fl oz/gal Foliar X X 5 Fulcrum Pyriproxifen 8 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X X 6 Ventigra Afidopyropen 4.8 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X X 7 Ventigra Afidopyropen 7.0 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X 8 Ventigra Afidopyropen 7.0 fl oz/100 gal Foliar X X 9 Endeavor Pymetrozine 5 oz/100 gal Foliar X X 10 E. eremicus – 215 pupae per plant Broadcast X X X X X 11 A. swirskii – 250 mites per plant Broadcast X X 12 E. eremicus + A. swirskii – ~215 pupae + ~250 Broadcast X X* X* X* X mites per plant 13 UTC – – – *Sampling weeks in which only E. eremicus was released in the ‘E. eremicus + A. swirskii’ treatment. Table 2. No. Treatment Mean whitefly nymphs per pot 1 DAT 6 DAT 13 DAT 27 DAT 41 DAT 6 Apr 13 Apr 20 Apr 4 May 18 May 1 Pycana 42 39 30 10.2* 119.2* 2 Pycana 40.4 16 13 55.4* 41.2* 3 Pycana 40 67.25 27.4 11.2* 129.8 4 Pyganic 40.6 46.2 28.8 61.4 105.2 5 Fulcrum 40.2 47.8 27.6 7.4* 0* 6 Ventigra 40.6 47.2 56.6 21.6 26* 7 Ventigra 42 44.2 35.6 34.2 86.4 8 Ventigra 43.2 63.4 70.2 24.4* 59.6* 9 Endeavor 44 64.4 73.2 69 438 10 E. eremicus 44.2 25.5 65 82.6 25.2* 11 A. swirskii 42.6 56.4 72.4 68 246 12 E. eremicus + A. swirskii 44 15.4 26 13.6* 8.2* 13 UTC 41.6 50.6 75.8 199.6 554.8 P 1.00 0.40 0.11 <0.001 <0.001 *Significantly different compared with untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/44/1/tsz047/5480184 by Ed 'DeepDyve' Gillespie user on 16 October 2019 Arthropod Management T ests, 2019, Vol. 44, No. 1 3 Table 3. No. Treatment Mean whitefly pupae per pot 1 DAT 6 DAT 13 DAT 27 DAT 41 DAT 6 Apr 13 Apr 20 Apr 4 May 18 May 1 Pycana 4.6 8.5 8.6 7.4* 17.6* 2 Pycana 3.2 17 8.4 25 43.2* 3 Pycana 4.2 7 3.2 17.8 17.4 4 Pyganic 3.2 8.5 4.8 32.6 32.8 5 Fulcrum 0.4 11.25 13.8 23 1.2* 6 Ventigra 1.6 8.25 11.8 17 8 7 Ventigra 4.2 9.2 8.6 7* 30.8 8 Ventigra 4.4 12.25 13.6 17.6 3.6* 9 Endeavor 6.6 18.8 21.2 60 125.8 10 E. eremicus 2 6 5 24.4 31.4 11 A. swirskii 6 18 15.4 26.4 90.4 12 E. eremicus + A. swirskii 3.4 8 4.2 5.4* 9.2 13 UTC 6.8 15.75 20.8 55 123.6 P 0.64 0.87 0.09 0.02 <0.001 *Significantly different compared with untreated check (UTC) (P < 0.05) using Dunnett’s Method on log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column.

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2019

There are no references for this article.