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

Learn More →

Apple, Early Season Mite and Insect Control, 1996

Apple, Early Season Mite and Insect Control, 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/18/4639722 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 18 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 A: POME FRUITS 8. RH-2485 80WP + 85.0 g (0.15) LatronB-195 6 473.0 ml (0.125%) 3233 0.00a 0.09ab 0.06a 0.79a 0.93a 1.72a 98.14a 9. Dipel 2X 454.0 g 3461 0.24a 0.52cd 0.46bc 2.98b 2.38bc 5.36bcd 93.54bcd 10. Penncap M 2 F + 946.0 ml (0.5) + Lannate 90SP 170.0 g (0.3375) 3114 0.00a 0.06a 0.45bc 2.88b 5.19d 8.07de 91.65de 11. Agri-Mek0.15EC 296.0 ml (0.0117) Penncap-M 2FM 1420.0 ml (0.75) Penncap-M 2FM + 946.0 ml (0.5) + Lannate 90SP 227.0 g (0.45) 3314 0.14a 0.12abc 1.34d 6.15c 4.51d 10.66e 88.14e 12. Untreated check 3494 0.21a 1.15d 2.46e 10.34d 16.38e 26.7 If 70.79f Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P <0.05). APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhauser 'Delicious' Larry A. Hull (11A) European red mite (ERM); Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Penn State Univ. Fruit Res. & Ext. Center Mite predator (AF); Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) Biglerville, PA 17307-0309 Mite predator (ZM); Zetzellia mali (Ewing) (717)677-611 6 Spotted tentiform leafminer (STLM); Phyllonorycter blancardella (Fabr.) Twospotted spider mite (TSSM); Tetranychus urticae Koch White apple leafhopper (WALH); Typhlocyba pomaria McAtee APPLE, EARLY SEASON MITE AND INSECT CONTROL, 1996: Various acaricide and insecticide treatments were applied to single-tree plots in a randomized block design consisting of 4 replicates of spur-type 'Delicious' trees. The trees were planted at a spacing of 20 x 30 ft and were 12 years old. All treatments were applied with a Myers Mity Mist sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa driven at 2 mph. All plots received a regular mainte­ nance schedule of fungicides (Nova 40WP, Penncozeb 80WP, Topsin 85DF and Ziram 76WP) and nutrients (CaCl). Post-bloom insecticides (Imidan 70WP) were applied as needed at 1- to 2-week intervals beginning at petal fall in early May. The effect of the sprays on WALH was evaluated by count­ ing the number of nymphs/25 injured leaves/tree. Effects of the treatments on ERM, TSSM, A F and ZM was evaluated by counting the mites at approxi­ mately weekly intervals during the season on samples of 25 leaves/tree, 100 leaves/treatment. STLM were evaluated by a 5-min count of tissue-feeding mines around the periphery of the trees at the end of each generation but before peak emergence of the next generation adults. Only mines on spur leaves were counted on 7 Jun, while only mines in shoot leaves were counted on 17 Jul and 12 Sep. Pest pressure was moderate. Both treatments containing Provado and the Agri-Mek plus SunSpray Ultra Find Oil treatment provided excellent initial knockdown of WALH 5 DAT. Although there was a large amount of variability in STLM populations between treatments, the Agri-Mek treatment gave the best control of both 2nd and 3rd broods of STLM with a single application at 10 days after petal fall. Agri-Mek plus oil also provided the longest residual control of ERM. ERM populations started to increase at approximately the same time in July on the 2 prebloom treatments, Apollo and Savey. The Agri-Mek treatment al­ lowed the fewest number of mite days to accumulate. Rate/100 gals Application (lbs AI) dates 15 May 22 May 28 May 16 Aug Treatment 118.0 ml (0.125) 22 Apr 1. Apollo SC Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 23 May 1.4a 1.7ab 0.1a 0.1a 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) 25 Apr Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 23 Apr 1.6a 2.7c 0.2a 0.7a 3. Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 23 May 1.5a 1.4a 0.2a 0.3b 4. Untreated check 1.2a 2.7bc 1.9b 0.4b Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P £ 0.05). Mean no. mites/leaf ER M Rate/100 gals Treatment (lbs AI) 15 May 22 May 3 Jun 17 Jun 28 Jun 5 Jul 11 Jul 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.08a 0.00a 0.20a 1.35bc 0.10a 1.95bc 1.30b 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.08a 0.15a 0.00a 0.20ab 0.85ab 0.95ab 0.95ab 3. Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.42a 0.15a 0.15a 0.00a 0.10a 0.15a 0.05a 4. Untreated check 0.42a 0.10a 0.75a 1.25c 2.15b 3.15c 1.85b Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P s 0.05). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/18/4639722 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 A: POME FRUITS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 19 Accumulated ERM no. mite days Rate/100 gals (lbs AI) 18 Jul (15May- 9 Aug) Treatment 26 Jul 2 Aug 9 Aug 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 4.4b 6.4b 5.8b 11.8b 204b 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 2.6b 4.8b 4.5b 7.4b 136b 3. Agri-Mek0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.3a 0.7a 1.2a 2.7a 32a 4. Untreated check 3.3b 5.2b 7.0b 5.9ab 212b Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P £ 0.05). Mean no. mites/leaf TSSM A F Mean no. STLM/5 min Rate/100 gals Treatment (lbs AI) 2 Aug 2 Aug 7 Jun 17 Jul 12 Sep 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.3a 0.0a 100.5a 63.5a 267.8c 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.5a 0.4a 107.0a 59.8a 205.0b 3. Agri-Mek0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.2a 0.2a 69.0a 11.5a 136.3a 4. Untreated check 0.3a 0.4a 116.5a 91.3a 254.8c Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P s, 0.05). Mean no. mites/leaf Z. mali Rate/100 gals (lbs AI) 28 Jun 11 Jul 18 Jul 26 Jul 2 Aug Treatment 17 Jun 5 Jul 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.1b 0.0b 0.1b 0.3a 0.2a 0.2a 0.2a 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.7a 1.4a 0.1b 0.7a 0.5a 1.0a 0.3a 3. Agri-Mek0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.0a 0.1a 0.1a 0.0a 4. Untreated check 0.3b 0.9ab 0.5a 0.4a 0.6a 0.4a 0.4a Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P ^£ 0.05). APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhauser 'Yorking' Larry A. Hull (12A) European red mite (ERM); Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Penn State Fruit Res. & Ext. Center Mite predator; Stethorus punctum (LeConte) Biglerville, PA 17307-0309 Spirea aphid (SA); Aphis spiraecola Patch (717)677-6116 Spotted tentiform leafminer (STLM); Phyllonorycter blancardella (F.) White apple leafhopper (WALH); Typhlocyba pomaria McAtee APPLE, EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES ON INDIRECT PESTS, 1996: Experimental sprays were applied to single-tree plots in a ran­ domized block design consisting of 4 replicates of 'Yorking'. Treated single trees were separated by others not sprayed with insecticides. The trees were 8 years old and planted at a spacing of 20 x 30 ft. All treatments were applied with a Myers Mity Mist sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa driven at 2.4 mph. All plots recieved a regular fungicide maintenance schedule of Benlate 50DF, Dithane 75DF, Nova 40WP and Ziram 76WP and the insecticide Im- idan 70WP. All maintenance materials were applied using the alternate row middle method of application. The effect of the sprays on WALH was evalu­ ated by counting the number of nymphs/25 injured leaves/tree. Effectiveness on the spirea aphid was evaluated by counting the number of aphid-infested leaves/10 top terminals, and by rating the density of aphids/most infested leaf on 0- 4 scale as explained in the table footnotes. The number of natural en­ emies of aphids was determined by counting the number observed on 10 growing shoots per tree. Effectiveness of the test chemicals on ERM was evalu­ ated by counting the mites several times during the season on samples of 25 random leaves/tree, 100 leaves/treatment. The predator, S. punctum, was ob­ served by making 3-min counts of adults and larvae around the periphery of the trees. STLM was evaluated by a 5-min count of tissue-feeding mines around the periphery of the trees at the end of the 1st and 2nd generations. Also, STLM parasitism was evaluated at the end of the second generation by collecting 25 random leaves/tree and dissecting the mines found. Pest pressure was moderate throughout the season. The higher rate of both CM-006 and CM-007 provided outstanding control of WALH at 9 DAT. The lower rate of each compound and both rates of the BAS 300 treatment showed good control of WALH at 9 DAT. No rapid knockdown activity was found with any treatment at 2 DAT. For spirea aphid control, the high rate of CM-007 gave the best control among the treatments tested. The higher rate of CM-006 gave the same level of aphid control as the lower rate of CM-007. There was a reduction in SA populations with both treatments of BAS 300 and CGA-215944, but there was no rate effect with either treatment after the 1st application. After the 2nd application of CGA-215944, the higher rate showed a significant reduction in the aphid pop- http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Apple, Early Season Mite and Insect Control, 1996

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 22 (1) – Jan 1, 1997

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/apple-early-season-mite-and-insect-control-1996-DrdydSwhZJ
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.18
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/18/4639722 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 18 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 A: POME FRUITS 8. RH-2485 80WP + 85.0 g (0.15) LatronB-195 6 473.0 ml (0.125%) 3233 0.00a 0.09ab 0.06a 0.79a 0.93a 1.72a 98.14a 9. Dipel 2X 454.0 g 3461 0.24a 0.52cd 0.46bc 2.98b 2.38bc 5.36bcd 93.54bcd 10. Penncap M 2 F + 946.0 ml (0.5) + Lannate 90SP 170.0 g (0.3375) 3114 0.00a 0.06a 0.45bc 2.88b 5.19d 8.07de 91.65de 11. Agri-Mek0.15EC 296.0 ml (0.0117) Penncap-M 2FM 1420.0 ml (0.75) Penncap-M 2FM + 946.0 ml (0.5) + Lannate 90SP 227.0 g (0.45) 3314 0.14a 0.12abc 1.34d 6.15c 4.51d 10.66e 88.14e 12. Untreated check 3494 0.21a 1.15d 2.46e 10.34d 16.38e 26.7 If 70.79f Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P <0.05). APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhauser 'Delicious' Larry A. Hull (11A) European red mite (ERM); Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Penn State Univ. Fruit Res. & Ext. Center Mite predator (AF); Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) Biglerville, PA 17307-0309 Mite predator (ZM); Zetzellia mali (Ewing) (717)677-611 6 Spotted tentiform leafminer (STLM); Phyllonorycter blancardella (Fabr.) Twospotted spider mite (TSSM); Tetranychus urticae Koch White apple leafhopper (WALH); Typhlocyba pomaria McAtee APPLE, EARLY SEASON MITE AND INSECT CONTROL, 1996: Various acaricide and insecticide treatments were applied to single-tree plots in a randomized block design consisting of 4 replicates of spur-type 'Delicious' trees. The trees were planted at a spacing of 20 x 30 ft and were 12 years old. All treatments were applied with a Myers Mity Mist sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa driven at 2 mph. All plots received a regular mainte­ nance schedule of fungicides (Nova 40WP, Penncozeb 80WP, Topsin 85DF and Ziram 76WP) and nutrients (CaCl). Post-bloom insecticides (Imidan 70WP) were applied as needed at 1- to 2-week intervals beginning at petal fall in early May. The effect of the sprays on WALH was evaluated by count­ ing the number of nymphs/25 injured leaves/tree. Effects of the treatments on ERM, TSSM, A F and ZM was evaluated by counting the mites at approxi­ mately weekly intervals during the season on samples of 25 leaves/tree, 100 leaves/treatment. STLM were evaluated by a 5-min count of tissue-feeding mines around the periphery of the trees at the end of each generation but before peak emergence of the next generation adults. Only mines on spur leaves were counted on 7 Jun, while only mines in shoot leaves were counted on 17 Jul and 12 Sep. Pest pressure was moderate. Both treatments containing Provado and the Agri-Mek plus SunSpray Ultra Find Oil treatment provided excellent initial knockdown of WALH 5 DAT. Although there was a large amount of variability in STLM populations between treatments, the Agri-Mek treatment gave the best control of both 2nd and 3rd broods of STLM with a single application at 10 days after petal fall. Agri-Mek plus oil also provided the longest residual control of ERM. ERM populations started to increase at approximately the same time in July on the 2 prebloom treatments, Apollo and Savey. The Agri-Mek treatment al­ lowed the fewest number of mite days to accumulate. Rate/100 gals Application (lbs AI) dates 15 May 22 May 28 May 16 Aug Treatment 118.0 ml (0.125) 22 Apr 1. Apollo SC Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 23 May 1.4a 1.7ab 0.1a 0.1a 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) 25 Apr Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 23 Apr 1.6a 2.7c 0.2a 0.7a 3. Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 23 May 1.5a 1.4a 0.2a 0.3b 4. Untreated check 1.2a 2.7bc 1.9b 0.4b Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P £ 0.05). Mean no. mites/leaf ER M Rate/100 gals Treatment (lbs AI) 15 May 22 May 3 Jun 17 Jun 28 Jun 5 Jul 11 Jul 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.08a 0.00a 0.20a 1.35bc 0.10a 1.95bc 1.30b 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.08a 0.15a 0.00a 0.20ab 0.85ab 0.95ab 0.95ab 3. Agri-Mek 0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.42a 0.15a 0.15a 0.00a 0.10a 0.15a 0.05a 4. Untreated check 0.42a 0.10a 0.75a 1.25c 2.15b 3.15c 1.85b Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P s 0.05). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/18/4639722 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 A: POME FRUITS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 19 Accumulated ERM no. mite days Rate/100 gals (lbs AI) 18 Jul (15May- 9 Aug) Treatment 26 Jul 2 Aug 9 Aug 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 4.4b 6.4b 5.8b 11.8b 204b 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 2.6b 4.8b 4.5b 7.4b 136b 3. Agri-Mek0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.3a 0.7a 1.2a 2.7a 32a 4. Untreated check 3.3b 5.2b 7.0b 5.9ab 212b Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P £ 0.05). Mean no. mites/leaf TSSM A F Mean no. STLM/5 min Rate/100 gals Treatment (lbs AI) 2 Aug 2 Aug 7 Jun 17 Jul 12 Sep 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.3a 0.0a 100.5a 63.5a 267.8c 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.5a 0.4a 107.0a 59.8a 205.0b 3. Agri-Mek0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.2a 0.2a 69.0a 11.5a 136.3a 4. Untreated check 0.3a 0.4a 116.5a 91.3a 254.8c Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P s, 0.05). Mean no. mites/leaf Z. mali Rate/100 gals (lbs AI) 28 Jun 11 Jul 18 Jul 26 Jul 2 Aug Treatment 17 Jun 5 Jul 1. Apollo SC 118.0 ml (0.125) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.1b 0.0b 0.1b 0.3a 0.2a 0.2a 0.2a 2. Savey 50WP 85.0 g (0.09375) Provado 1.6F 118.0 ml (0.05) 0.7a 1.4a 0.1b 0.7a 0.5a 1.0a 0.3a 3. Agri-Mek0.15EC + 295.0 ml (0.0117) SunSpray Ultra Fine Oil 3785.0 ml (1.0%) 0.0b 0.0b 0.0b 0.0a 0.1a 0.1a 0.0a 4. Untreated check 0.3b 0.9ab 0.5a 0.4a 0.6a 0.4a 0.4a Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P ^£ 0.05). APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhauser 'Yorking' Larry A. Hull (12A) European red mite (ERM); Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Penn State Fruit Res. & Ext. Center Mite predator; Stethorus punctum (LeConte) Biglerville, PA 17307-0309 Spirea aphid (SA); Aphis spiraecola Patch (717)677-6116 Spotted tentiform leafminer (STLM); Phyllonorycter blancardella (F.) White apple leafhopper (WALH); Typhlocyba pomaria McAtee APPLE, EVALUATION OF INSECTICIDES ON INDIRECT PESTS, 1996: Experimental sprays were applied to single-tree plots in a ran­ domized block design consisting of 4 replicates of 'Yorking'. Treated single trees were separated by others not sprayed with insecticides. The trees were 8 years old and planted at a spacing of 20 x 30 ft. All treatments were applied with a Myers Mity Mist sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa driven at 2.4 mph. All plots recieved a regular fungicide maintenance schedule of Benlate 50DF, Dithane 75DF, Nova 40WP and Ziram 76WP and the insecticide Im- idan 70WP. All maintenance materials were applied using the alternate row middle method of application. The effect of the sprays on WALH was evalu­ ated by counting the number of nymphs/25 injured leaves/tree. Effectiveness on the spirea aphid was evaluated by counting the number of aphid-infested leaves/10 top terminals, and by rating the density of aphids/most infested leaf on 0- 4 scale as explained in the table footnotes. The number of natural en­ emies of aphids was determined by counting the number observed on 10 growing shoots per tree. Effectiveness of the test chemicals on ERM was evalu­ ated by counting the mites several times during the season on samples of 25 random leaves/tree, 100 leaves/treatment. The predator, S. punctum, was ob­ served by making 3-min counts of adults and larvae around the periphery of the trees. STLM was evaluated by a 5-min count of tissue-feeding mines around the periphery of the trees at the end of the 1st and 2nd generations. Also, STLM parasitism was evaluated at the end of the second generation by collecting 25 random leaves/tree and dissecting the mines found. Pest pressure was moderate throughout the season. The higher rate of both CM-006 and CM-007 provided outstanding control of WALH at 9 DAT. The lower rate of each compound and both rates of the BAS 300 treatment showed good control of WALH at 9 DAT. No rapid knockdown activity was found with any treatment at 2 DAT. For spirea aphid control, the high rate of CM-007 gave the best control among the treatments tested. The higher rate of CM-006 gave the same level of aphid control as the lower rate of CM-007. There was a reduction in SA populations with both treatments of BAS 300 and CGA-215944, but there was no rate effect with either treatment after the 1st application. After the 2nd application of CGA-215944, the higher rate showed a significant reduction in the aphid pop-

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.