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

Learn More →

BUDWORM AND HORNWORM CONTROL ON FLUE-CURED TOBACCO WITH FOLIAR SPRAYS, 2007

BUDWORM AND HORNWORM CONTROL ON FLUE-CURED TOBACCO WITH FOLIAR SPRAYS, 2007 (F48) TOBACCO: Nicotiana tabacum L. Flue-cured ‘NC 297’ Paul J. Semtner Virginia Tech Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center 2375 Darvills Road Blackstone, VA 23824 Telephone: (434) 292-5331 Fax (434) 292 5623 E-mail: psemtner@vt.edu Lakshmipathi Srigiriraju E-mail: pathi@vt.edu Ned Jones E-mail: edjones@vt.edu Tobacco budworm (TBW): Heliothis virescens (F.) Tobacco hornworm (THW): Manduca sexta L. This experiment was conducted at the Virginia Tech Southern Piedmont AREC, Blackstone, VA to evaluate the performance of various insecticides applied as foliar sprays for TBW and THW control on flue-cured tobacco. Five treatments and an untreated check were established in a RCB design with four replications. One day before transplanting, the tobacco transplants were treated with a tray drench application of Admire Pro at 0.6 fl oz/1,000 plants for aphid and flea beetle control. On 2 May, the test tobacco was transplanted into experimental plots, 4 x 40 ft (2 rows x 22 plants). Test plots were separated by single untreated guard rows and 5-ft fallow alleys separated the blocks. On 18 Jun, Test 1 was artificially infested with 20, 2- day-old TBW larvae per plot and 20 plants per plot in Test 2 were infested with 6 to 8 day-old TBW on 24 Jun. A CO -pressurized backpack sprayer that delivered 26 gpa at 50 psi through TX-12 nozzles (three per row) was used to apply the foliar treatments on 19 (row 1) and 26 Jun (row 2) and on ratooned tobacco on 9 Aug. The treatments for the tests were the same except that the Warrior in Tests 1 and 2 (Table 1) was replaced with Denim in Test 3 (Table 2). There was no rainfall for 6 d after the 19 Jun application. After the 26 Jun application, 0.53 inches of rain fell on 28-29 Jun. After the third application on 9 Aug, 0.30 inches of rain fell at 2 DAT. TBW and THW were counted on 20 plants/plot at 3, 7, and 14 d after the 19 and 26 Jun applications and at 4, 7, and 14 d after the 9 Aug application. In Test 3, leaves destroyed by THW were counted on 10 plants per plot on 5 Sep. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and significantly different means were separated WD (k-ratio=100). Before analysis, insect count data were transformed to the square root (x +0.5). Actual means are presented in the tables. At 7 DAT, Capture was the only treatment that gave significant TBW control (Table 1, Test 1). In Test 2, all treatments gave good to very good control of the TBW on 29 Jun and 3 Jul, 4 and 7 DAT. Tracer, Warrior, and NNI-0001 generally provided the best control on each date and populations remained low through 18 Jul, 22 DAT (Table 1). In Test 3, all treatments gave greater than 85% control of THW at 4, 7, and 14 DAT (Table 2). Residual control at 14 DAT was significantly more effective with Capture, Denim, and NNI-0001 than with Tracer and Orthene. On 30 Aug, Capture and NNI-0001 continued to provide over 80% control of THW, but there was only 50% control in the plots treated with Denim. At 27 DAT, the least leaf loss attributed to THW feeding occurred in plots treated with NNI-0001 (81% reduction), and Capture and Denim (67-69% reduction) (Table 2). Intermediate amounts of leaf loss occurred in plots treated with Tracer and Orthene. The results in Test 1 may have been affected by the high level of parasitism in the TBW larvae. Table 1. TBW/20 plants Test 1 Test 2 Treatment/ Rate 22 Jun 26 Jun 29 Jun 29 Jun 3 Jul 11 Jul 18 Jul formulation oz/acre 3 DAT 7 DAT 9 DAT 3 DAT 7 DAT 15 DAT 22 DAT Capture 2EC 4.0 2.0ab 0.5b 0.5a 2.3b 2.0b 2.3a 1.8b Tracer 4F 1.5 0.5b 1.5ab 3.3a 1.8b 1.0b 1.1a 0.0c Orthene 97WG 12.4 3.8a 2.8ab 3.3a 3.0b 2.5b 3.1a 2.0b Warrior 1F 3.8 2.0ab 1.8ab 0.5a 1.5b 1.0b 2.8a 0.5bc NNI-0001 480SC 3 fl 2.3ab 2.3ab 1.3a 2.0b 0.8b 1.5a 0.5bc Check 2.5ab 4.0a 4.0a 8.3a 5.8a 3.3a 4.0a Means within a column not followed by the same letter(s) are significantly different (WD, k-ratio=100). Treatments for Test 1 were applied on 19 Jun and those for Test 2 were applied on 26 Jun. Table 2. TBW/10 plants Leaves lost/20 plants Treatment/ Rate-amt 8 Aug 13 Aug 16 Aug 23 Aug 30 Aug 5 Sep formulation form/acre Pretreat 4 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT 27 DAT Capture 2EC 4 oz 14.3ab 0.0b 0.0b 0.25c 4.3e 8.1cd Tracer 4F 1.5 oz 11.0b 1.5b 1.3b 8.5b 33.3ab 17.0b Orthene 97WG 0.773 lb 19.0a 0.25b 0.0b 8.0b 24.0bc 12.9bc Denim 0.16EC 8 fl oz 18.8a 1.0b 0.5b 2.5c 17.0c 7.9cd NNI-0001 480SC 3 fl oz 15.0ab 0.0b 0.3b 0.5c 6.8d 4.5d Check --- 12.8b 10.3a 9.5a 17.0a 34.5a 25.1a Means within a column not followed by the same letter(s) are significantly different (WD, k-ratio = 100). Treatments were applied on 9 Aug. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

BUDWORM AND HORNWORM CONTROL ON FLUE-CURED TOBACCO WITH FOLIAR SPRAYS, 2007

Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/budworm-and-hornworm-control-on-flue-cured-tobacco-with-foliar-sprays-c2JzAhl5ho

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
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/33.1.F48
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(F48) TOBACCO: Nicotiana tabacum L. Flue-cured ‘NC 297’ Paul J. Semtner Virginia Tech Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center 2375 Darvills Road Blackstone, VA 23824 Telephone: (434) 292-5331 Fax (434) 292 5623 E-mail: psemtner@vt.edu Lakshmipathi Srigiriraju E-mail: pathi@vt.edu Ned Jones E-mail: edjones@vt.edu Tobacco budworm (TBW): Heliothis virescens (F.) Tobacco hornworm (THW): Manduca sexta L. This experiment was conducted at the Virginia Tech Southern Piedmont AREC, Blackstone, VA to evaluate the performance of various insecticides applied as foliar sprays for TBW and THW control on flue-cured tobacco. Five treatments and an untreated check were established in a RCB design with four replications. One day before transplanting, the tobacco transplants were treated with a tray drench application of Admire Pro at 0.6 fl oz/1,000 plants for aphid and flea beetle control. On 2 May, the test tobacco was transplanted into experimental plots, 4 x 40 ft (2 rows x 22 plants). Test plots were separated by single untreated guard rows and 5-ft fallow alleys separated the blocks. On 18 Jun, Test 1 was artificially infested with 20, 2- day-old TBW larvae per plot and 20 plants per plot in Test 2 were infested with 6 to 8 day-old TBW on 24 Jun. A CO -pressurized backpack sprayer that delivered 26 gpa at 50 psi through TX-12 nozzles (three per row) was used to apply the foliar treatments on 19 (row 1) and 26 Jun (row 2) and on ratooned tobacco on 9 Aug. The treatments for the tests were the same except that the Warrior in Tests 1 and 2 (Table 1) was replaced with Denim in Test 3 (Table 2). There was no rainfall for 6 d after the 19 Jun application. After the 26 Jun application, 0.53 inches of rain fell on 28-29 Jun. After the third application on 9 Aug, 0.30 inches of rain fell at 2 DAT. TBW and THW were counted on 20 plants/plot at 3, 7, and 14 d after the 19 and 26 Jun applications and at 4, 7, and 14 d after the 9 Aug application. In Test 3, leaves destroyed by THW were counted on 10 plants per plot on 5 Sep. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and significantly different means were separated WD (k-ratio=100). Before analysis, insect count data were transformed to the square root (x +0.5). Actual means are presented in the tables. At 7 DAT, Capture was the only treatment that gave significant TBW control (Table 1, Test 1). In Test 2, all treatments gave good to very good control of the TBW on 29 Jun and 3 Jul, 4 and 7 DAT. Tracer, Warrior, and NNI-0001 generally provided the best control on each date and populations remained low through 18 Jul, 22 DAT (Table 1). In Test 3, all treatments gave greater than 85% control of THW at 4, 7, and 14 DAT (Table 2). Residual control at 14 DAT was significantly more effective with Capture, Denim, and NNI-0001 than with Tracer and Orthene. On 30 Aug, Capture and NNI-0001 continued to provide over 80% control of THW, but there was only 50% control in the plots treated with Denim. At 27 DAT, the least leaf loss attributed to THW feeding occurred in plots treated with NNI-0001 (81% reduction), and Capture and Denim (67-69% reduction) (Table 2). Intermediate amounts of leaf loss occurred in plots treated with Tracer and Orthene. The results in Test 1 may have been affected by the high level of parasitism in the TBW larvae. Table 1. TBW/20 plants Test 1 Test 2 Treatment/ Rate 22 Jun 26 Jun 29 Jun 29 Jun 3 Jul 11 Jul 18 Jul formulation oz/acre 3 DAT 7 DAT 9 DAT 3 DAT 7 DAT 15 DAT 22 DAT Capture 2EC 4.0 2.0ab 0.5b 0.5a 2.3b 2.0b 2.3a 1.8b Tracer 4F 1.5 0.5b 1.5ab 3.3a 1.8b 1.0b 1.1a 0.0c Orthene 97WG 12.4 3.8a 2.8ab 3.3a 3.0b 2.5b 3.1a 2.0b Warrior 1F 3.8 2.0ab 1.8ab 0.5a 1.5b 1.0b 2.8a 0.5bc NNI-0001 480SC 3 fl 2.3ab 2.3ab 1.3a 2.0b 0.8b 1.5a 0.5bc Check 2.5ab 4.0a 4.0a 8.3a 5.8a 3.3a 4.0a Means within a column not followed by the same letter(s) are significantly different (WD, k-ratio=100). Treatments for Test 1 were applied on 19 Jun and those for Test 2 were applied on 26 Jun. Table 2. TBW/10 plants Leaves lost/20 plants Treatment/ Rate-amt 8 Aug 13 Aug 16 Aug 23 Aug 30 Aug 5 Sep formulation form/acre Pretreat 4 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT 27 DAT Capture 2EC 4 oz 14.3ab 0.0b 0.0b 0.25c 4.3e 8.1cd Tracer 4F 1.5 oz 11.0b 1.5b 1.3b 8.5b 33.3ab 17.0b Orthene 97WG 0.773 lb 19.0a 0.25b 0.0b 8.0b 24.0bc 12.9bc Denim 0.16EC 8 fl oz 18.8a 1.0b 0.5b 2.5c 17.0c 7.9cd NNI-0001 480SC 3 fl oz 15.0ab 0.0b 0.3b 0.5c 6.8d 4.5d Check --- 12.8b 10.3a 9.5a 17.0a 34.5a 25.1a Means within a column not followed by the same letter(s) are significantly different (WD, k-ratio = 100). Treatments were applied on 9 Aug.

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.