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

Learn More →

CHEMICAL CONTROL OF TWOSPOTTED SPIDER MITE ON GREENHOUSE MARIGOLD, 2012

CHEMICAL CONTROL OF TWOSPOTTED SPIDER MITE ON GREENHOUSE MARIGOLD, 2012 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.G12 (G12) MARIGOLD: Tagetes patula L., ‘Petite’ James F. Price University of Florida-IFAS Gulf Coast Research and Education Center 14625 CR 672 Wimauma, FL 33598 Phone: (813) 633-4123 Fax: (813) 634-0001 Email: jfprice@ufl.edu Curtis A. Nagle Email: cnagle@ufl.edu Twospotted spider mite (TSM): Tetranychus urticae Koch The efficacy of five miticides, used alone and in combinations, for twospotted spider mite control on greenhouse ornamentals was evaluated compared to a non-treated check at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Wimauma, Fla. in Apr-May 2012. Two seeds of ‘Petite’, mixed colors marigold, per 2-inch cell, were planted into polystyrene trays on 17 Feb. The resulting seedlings were transplanted, one each, to 6-inch pots on 21 Mar. Each plant was pinched to four nodes (26 Mar) and infested with about 25 motile TSM from a laboratory colony (28 Mar). Plots consisted of three pots. Treatments were replicated six times in a RCB design. The plants were spaced so that those from different plots would not touch. Pre-treatment samples were taken on 2 Apr and treatments were applied 1 day later using a hand-held sprayer with a spray wand outfitted with a nozzle containing a 45° core and a no. 4 disc. The sprayer was pressurized by CO to 40 psi and calibrated to wet the leaf surfaces thoroughly without excessive run off. Sampling continued periodically from 1 through 42 DAT. Samples consisted of three leaves per plot (one from each plant) and were transported to the laboratory where the numbers of motile and egg forms of TSM on the lower leaf surfaces were recorded with the aid of a dissecting microscope. Distinctions could not be made between viable and non-viable eggs, thus total eggs were recorded. Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to ANOVA and means were separated by Fisher’s Protected LSD test (P≤0.05). Non-transformed means were reported. Average motile TSM densities ranged from 8.7 to 63.3 per three leaves 1 day before treatments were applied (Table 1). At 1 DAT, plots treated with Pylon, Ultiflora and Hexygon + Ultiflora possessed significantly lower motile TSM densities than those in the non-treated checks. By 3 DAT, all chemical treatments resulted in motile densities lower than those in the non-treated check. At 8 DAT, the lowest motile densities occurred with treatments of Avid, Hexygon + Avid, Pylon, Ultiflora, Hexygon + Ultiflora, and Hexygon + M-Pede. Densities remained very low in all of the chemically treated plots and increased moderately in the check plots over the next two sampling times. By 28 DAT, least motile densities occurred with treatments of Pylon, Ultiflora, Hexygon + Avid and Hexygon + Ultiflora (Table 1). There were no significant differences in TSM egg densities among any treatments until 3 DAT (Table 2). At that time, treatments of Avid, M-Pede, Pylon, Hexygon + Avid and Hexygon + M-pede resulted in egg densities significantly lower than those in the checks. Egg densities were lower among all chemically treated plots compared to the non-treated plots from 8 through 28 DAT. At 42 DAT, least egg densities occurred only with treatments of Avid alone or combined with Hexygon (Table 2). No phytotoxicity was observed. This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticide and/or research funding. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.G12 Table 1. No. motile TSM per three leaves Treatment/ Rate Pre- Formulation amt/100 gal treatment 1 DAT 3 DAT 8 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT 28 DAT 35 DAT 42 DAT Non-treated --- 43.8a 43.0a 111.8a 72.7a 84.0a 57.3a 145.5a 300.0a 237.3a Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 28.5a 7.2a-c 4.2cd 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 15.0bc 35.5cd 18.0c M-Pede 256 fl oz 34.2a 14.2ab 10.5bc 3.3c 2.0bc 3.7b 11.3b 59.3b 157.7a Pylon 5.2 fl oz 17.3a 8.2bc 3.8cd 0.3d 0.0d 0.2bc 2.0c-e 8.7cd 39.3b Ultiflora 12 fl oz 63.3a 9.8c 4.3bc 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 0.0 e 5.8cd 46.7bc Hexygon DF 2 oz 51.3a 27.8a 30.7b 9.0b 9.5b 3.5bc 12.3b 37.5bc 45.0bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 31.5a 9.2a-c 4.5cd 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 0.2 de 0.2d 23.8bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + M-Pede 256 fl oz 8.7a 10.7a-c 0.3d 0.0d 0.5cd 0.0c 6.7b-d 7.0cd 32.3bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + Ultiflora 12 fl oz 20.8a 3.0c 8.5bc 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 0.3c-e 8.3c 18.7bc F 1.11 2.45 9.10 26.74 29.14 13.84 12.89 9.15 6.45 8,40 P-value 0.3787 0.0295 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Fisher’s Protected LSD (P≤0.05). Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to ANOVA; non-transformed means were presented. A ‘+’ sign indicates the products were combined. Table 2. No. motile TSM per three leaves Treatment/ Rate Pre- Formulation amt/100 gal treatment 1 DAT 3 DAT 8 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT 28 DAT 35 DAT 42 DAT Non-treated --- 135.5a 74.0a 174.3a 296.5a 266.5a 111.2a 188.2a 548.7a 294.7a Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 122.3a 81.5a 28.8bc 0.7d 0.0d 0.0c 38.5bc 62.0b 21.0e M-Pede 256 fl oz 140.5a 64.8a 45.3bc 3.3cd 6.8c 5.8bc 17.3b 240.8a 235.7ab Pylon 5.2 fl oz 101.5a 60.7a 24.7bc 4.5cd 0.0 d 1.3bc 6.0bc 46.0b 77.8cd Ultiflora 12 fl oz 126.3a 65.3a 60.3ab 4.3cd 0.0 d 0.0c 0.0c 18.0b 67.5cd Hexygon DF 2 oz 97.0a 70.2a 128.8a-c 90.3b 48.7b 21.3b 22.2b 79.2b 96.2bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 121.8a 58.8a 43.0bc 12.0c 0.0d 0.0c 0.2c 15.7b 36.2de Hexygon DF 2 oz + M-Pede 256 fl oz 78.2a 69.3a 19.0c 10.5c 1.3d 0.7bc 27.2bc 48.7b 78.0cd Hexygon DF 2 oz + Ultiflora 12 fl oz 126.7a 80.0a 74.3ab 8.2cd 0.0d 0.0c 0.0c 39.5b 74.0bc F 0.41 0.67 2.62 14.58 31.08 14.96 8.32 5.97 6.29 8,40 P-value 0.9088 0.7152 0.0211 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Fisher’s Protected LSD (P≤0.05). Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to ANOVA; non-transformed means were presented. A ‘+’ sign indicates the products were combined. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

CHEMICAL CONTROL OF TWOSPOTTED SPIDER MITE ON GREENHOUSE MARIGOLD, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/chemical-control-of-twospotted-spider-mite-on-greenhouse-marigold-2012-vzyw9n8w20
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.4182/amt.2013.G12
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.G12 (G12) MARIGOLD: Tagetes patula L., ‘Petite’ James F. Price University of Florida-IFAS Gulf Coast Research and Education Center 14625 CR 672 Wimauma, FL 33598 Phone: (813) 633-4123 Fax: (813) 634-0001 Email: jfprice@ufl.edu Curtis A. Nagle Email: cnagle@ufl.edu Twospotted spider mite (TSM): Tetranychus urticae Koch The efficacy of five miticides, used alone and in combinations, for twospotted spider mite control on greenhouse ornamentals was evaluated compared to a non-treated check at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Wimauma, Fla. in Apr-May 2012. Two seeds of ‘Petite’, mixed colors marigold, per 2-inch cell, were planted into polystyrene trays on 17 Feb. The resulting seedlings were transplanted, one each, to 6-inch pots on 21 Mar. Each plant was pinched to four nodes (26 Mar) and infested with about 25 motile TSM from a laboratory colony (28 Mar). Plots consisted of three pots. Treatments were replicated six times in a RCB design. The plants were spaced so that those from different plots would not touch. Pre-treatment samples were taken on 2 Apr and treatments were applied 1 day later using a hand-held sprayer with a spray wand outfitted with a nozzle containing a 45° core and a no. 4 disc. The sprayer was pressurized by CO to 40 psi and calibrated to wet the leaf surfaces thoroughly without excessive run off. Sampling continued periodically from 1 through 42 DAT. Samples consisted of three leaves per plot (one from each plant) and were transported to the laboratory where the numbers of motile and egg forms of TSM on the lower leaf surfaces were recorded with the aid of a dissecting microscope. Distinctions could not be made between viable and non-viable eggs, thus total eggs were recorded. Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to ANOVA and means were separated by Fisher’s Protected LSD test (P≤0.05). Non-transformed means were reported. Average motile TSM densities ranged from 8.7 to 63.3 per three leaves 1 day before treatments were applied (Table 1). At 1 DAT, plots treated with Pylon, Ultiflora and Hexygon + Ultiflora possessed significantly lower motile TSM densities than those in the non-treated checks. By 3 DAT, all chemical treatments resulted in motile densities lower than those in the non-treated check. At 8 DAT, the lowest motile densities occurred with treatments of Avid, Hexygon + Avid, Pylon, Ultiflora, Hexygon + Ultiflora, and Hexygon + M-Pede. Densities remained very low in all of the chemically treated plots and increased moderately in the check plots over the next two sampling times. By 28 DAT, least motile densities occurred with treatments of Pylon, Ultiflora, Hexygon + Avid and Hexygon + Ultiflora (Table 1). There were no significant differences in TSM egg densities among any treatments until 3 DAT (Table 2). At that time, treatments of Avid, M-Pede, Pylon, Hexygon + Avid and Hexygon + M-pede resulted in egg densities significantly lower than those in the checks. Egg densities were lower among all chemically treated plots compared to the non-treated plots from 8 through 28 DAT. At 42 DAT, least egg densities occurred only with treatments of Avid alone or combined with Hexygon (Table 2). No phytotoxicity was observed. This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticide and/or research funding. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.G12 Table 1. No. motile TSM per three leaves Treatment/ Rate Pre- Formulation amt/100 gal treatment 1 DAT 3 DAT 8 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT 28 DAT 35 DAT 42 DAT Non-treated --- 43.8a 43.0a 111.8a 72.7a 84.0a 57.3a 145.5a 300.0a 237.3a Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 28.5a 7.2a-c 4.2cd 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 15.0bc 35.5cd 18.0c M-Pede 256 fl oz 34.2a 14.2ab 10.5bc 3.3c 2.0bc 3.7b 11.3b 59.3b 157.7a Pylon 5.2 fl oz 17.3a 8.2bc 3.8cd 0.3d 0.0d 0.2bc 2.0c-e 8.7cd 39.3b Ultiflora 12 fl oz 63.3a 9.8c 4.3bc 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 0.0 e 5.8cd 46.7bc Hexygon DF 2 oz 51.3a 27.8a 30.7b 9.0b 9.5b 3.5bc 12.3b 37.5bc 45.0bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 31.5a 9.2a-c 4.5cd 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 0.2 de 0.2d 23.8bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + M-Pede 256 fl oz 8.7a 10.7a-c 0.3d 0.0d 0.5cd 0.0c 6.7b-d 7.0cd 32.3bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + Ultiflora 12 fl oz 20.8a 3.0c 8.5bc 0.0d 0.0d 0.0c 0.3c-e 8.3c 18.7bc F 1.11 2.45 9.10 26.74 29.14 13.84 12.89 9.15 6.45 8,40 P-value 0.3787 0.0295 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Fisher’s Protected LSD (P≤0.05). Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to ANOVA; non-transformed means were presented. A ‘+’ sign indicates the products were combined. Table 2. No. motile TSM per three leaves Treatment/ Rate Pre- Formulation amt/100 gal treatment 1 DAT 3 DAT 8 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT 28 DAT 35 DAT 42 DAT Non-treated --- 135.5a 74.0a 174.3a 296.5a 266.5a 111.2a 188.2a 548.7a 294.7a Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 122.3a 81.5a 28.8bc 0.7d 0.0d 0.0c 38.5bc 62.0b 21.0e M-Pede 256 fl oz 140.5a 64.8a 45.3bc 3.3cd 6.8c 5.8bc 17.3b 240.8a 235.7ab Pylon 5.2 fl oz 101.5a 60.7a 24.7bc 4.5cd 0.0 d 1.3bc 6.0bc 46.0b 77.8cd Ultiflora 12 fl oz 126.3a 65.3a 60.3ab 4.3cd 0.0 d 0.0c 0.0c 18.0b 67.5cd Hexygon DF 2 oz 97.0a 70.2a 128.8a-c 90.3b 48.7b 21.3b 22.2b 79.2b 96.2bc Hexygon DF 2 oz + Avid 0.15EC 4 fl oz 121.8a 58.8a 43.0bc 12.0c 0.0d 0.0c 0.2c 15.7b 36.2de Hexygon DF 2 oz + M-Pede 256 fl oz 78.2a 69.3a 19.0c 10.5c 1.3d 0.7bc 27.2bc 48.7b 78.0cd Hexygon DF 2 oz + Ultiflora 12 fl oz 126.7a 80.0a 74.3ab 8.2cd 0.0d 0.0c 0.0c 39.5b 74.0bc F 0.41 0.67 2.62 14.58 31.08 14.96 8.32 5.97 6.29 8,40 P-value 0.9088 0.7152 0.0211 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Fisher’s Protected LSD (P≤0.05). Data were transformed log (x+1) prior to ANOVA; non-transformed means were presented. A ‘+’ sign indicates the products were combined.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.