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

Learn More →

CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN APPLES, 2006

CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN APPLES, 2006 (A20) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, ‘Gala’ R. A. Van Steenwyk Department of E.S.P.M. 137 Mulford Hall-3114 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-3114 Telephone: (510) 643-5159 Fax: (510) 642-7428 Email: bobvanst@nature.berkeley.edu Janet Caprile University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa Country 75 Santa Barbara Road, 2nd Floor Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4488 Telephone: (925) 646-6129 Email: jlcaprile@ucdavis.edu Codling moth (CM): Cydia pomonella (L.) This trial was designed to evaluate reduced-risk insecticides as possible replacements for the grower standard organophosphate insecticides. This trial was conducted on 'Gala' apple trees in a commercial orchard near Brentwood, CA. Fourteen treatments were replicated three times in a CRB design. Each replicate was a group of 15 trees (3 rows by 5 trees each) with a one buffer tree and row between each replicate. The trees were about 9 ft tall. Treatments were applied with a hand-held orchard sprayer operating at 200 psi and delivering 150 gpa of finished spray (5.0 gal/replicate). Application timings were based on degree-days (DD). DD were calculated with a 19 Apr biofix for moths from the overwintering generation and a 21 Jun biofix for moths from the first generation using a single-sine horizontal cutoff model with a lower threshold of 50˚F and an upper threshold of 88˚F. Maximum and minimum air temperatures were obtained from the IMPACT weather station at Brentwood, CA. Control of CM was evaluated at the end of the first generation on 15 Jun by inspecting 360 fruit per replicate. CM infestation and russetting damage were evaluated on 7 Aug at commercial harvest timing by inspecting 333 fruit per replicate. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher's protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). This study was conducted against a high CM population with the untreated check having over 65% damage at the first generation evaluation (Table 1). All experimental treatments had significantly lower CM infestation compared to the untreated check except the PureSpray Green horticultural oil treatment. None of the other experimental treatments had significantly greater infestation compared to the grower standard with a number of treatments having numerically lower infestations at the end of the first CM generation. At commercial harvest, the CM infestation in the untreated check had increased to over 93%. CM infestations in all treatments were significantly lower than the untreated check except for the Altacor and the PureSpray Green horticultural oil treatments. All other treatments were not significantly different from the grower standard with the Battalion followed by Guthion and the Warrior followed by Guthion treatments having numerically lower CM infestation. There was a significant increase in fruit russetting in the Altacor, the Delegate with oil and the Calypso followed by Delegate treatments compared to the untreated check and in the Altacor, and the Calypso followed by Delegate treatments compared to the grower standard. No phytotoxicity was observed with any of the experimental treatments. Table 1. DD % damaged fruit from 1st % CM at harvest Treatment/ Rate lb Appl or 2nd damaged fruit formulation (AI)./acre dates biofix first generation CM Russetting st Delegate 25WG 0.109 8 May 255 1 6.7a 44.2ab 9.8abcd st 1 Jun 668 1 nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Delegate 25WG 0.109 8 May 255 1 6.9a 43.2ab 12.9bcd 1 Jun 668 1st nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Delegate 25WG 0.109 8 May 255 1 9.2ab 42.3ab 10.5abcd st 1 Jun 668 1 a nd Calypso 4F 0.25 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Calypso 4F 0.25 8 May 255 1 14.3ab 36.7a 15.5cd st 1 Jun 668 1 a nd Delegate 25WG 0.109 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st Calypso 4F 0.25 8 May 255 1 17.8abc 40.2ab 5.8ab st 1 Jun 668 1 nd Assail 30WG 0.15 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st PurseSpray Green 1.0% 8 May 255 1 51.5d 96.9d 1.2a st 1 Jun 668 1 nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st Altacor 35WG 0.066 8 May 255 1 29.2c 66.9bc 17.4d st 1 Jun 668 1 nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st Calypso 4F 0.25 8 May 255 1 23.0 bc 38.2ab 9.8abcd st 1 Jun 668 1 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Rimon 0.83 EC 0.208 25 Apr 65 1 12.7ab 44.3ab 8.8abcd st Rimon 0.83 EC+ 0.208 8 May 255 1 Calypso 4F 0.25 a st Intrepid 2F 0.25 1 Jun 668 1 nd Rimon 0.83EC+ 0.208 29 Jun 236 2 Calypso 2F 0.25 a nd Intrepid 2F 0.25 19 Jul 711 2 st Battalion 0.2EC 0.022 9 May 275 1 8.3ab 18.5a 6.7abc st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 nd Battalion 0.2EC 0.022 30 Jun 257 2 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 20 Jul 739 2 a st Warrior 1CS + 0.04 9 May 275 1 8.9ab 28.8a 9.1abcd Agri-Mek 0.15EC 0.019 st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 a nd Warrior 1CS + 0.04 30 Jun 257 2 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 20 Jul 739 2 a st Baythroid 2E 0.044 9 May 275 1 17.0abc 36.0a 10.5abcd st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 a nd Baythroid 2E 0.044 30 Jun 257 2 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 20 Jul 739 2 b st Imidan 70WP + 3.71 9 May 275 1 15.8abc 31.8a 3.8ab Agri-Mek 0.15EC 0.019 st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 nd 30 Jun 257 2 nd 20 Jul 739 2 Untreated check 65.6 d 93.1 cd 1.3a Treatments contained 1.0% PureSpray Green horticultural oil by volume. Treatment pH was adjusted to less than 5.5. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN APPLES, 2006

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/codling-moth-control-in-apples-2006-vRscNHDZFO
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/32.1.A20
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(A20) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, ‘Gala’ R. A. Van Steenwyk Department of E.S.P.M. 137 Mulford Hall-3114 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720-3114 Telephone: (510) 643-5159 Fax: (510) 642-7428 Email: bobvanst@nature.berkeley.edu Janet Caprile University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa Country 75 Santa Barbara Road, 2nd Floor Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4488 Telephone: (925) 646-6129 Email: jlcaprile@ucdavis.edu Codling moth (CM): Cydia pomonella (L.) This trial was designed to evaluate reduced-risk insecticides as possible replacements for the grower standard organophosphate insecticides. This trial was conducted on 'Gala' apple trees in a commercial orchard near Brentwood, CA. Fourteen treatments were replicated three times in a CRB design. Each replicate was a group of 15 trees (3 rows by 5 trees each) with a one buffer tree and row between each replicate. The trees were about 9 ft tall. Treatments were applied with a hand-held orchard sprayer operating at 200 psi and delivering 150 gpa of finished spray (5.0 gal/replicate). Application timings were based on degree-days (DD). DD were calculated with a 19 Apr biofix for moths from the overwintering generation and a 21 Jun biofix for moths from the first generation using a single-sine horizontal cutoff model with a lower threshold of 50˚F and an upper threshold of 88˚F. Maximum and minimum air temperatures were obtained from the IMPACT weather station at Brentwood, CA. Control of CM was evaluated at the end of the first generation on 15 Jun by inspecting 360 fruit per replicate. CM infestation and russetting damage were evaluated on 7 Aug at commercial harvest timing by inspecting 333 fruit per replicate. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher's protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). This study was conducted against a high CM population with the untreated check having over 65% damage at the first generation evaluation (Table 1). All experimental treatments had significantly lower CM infestation compared to the untreated check except the PureSpray Green horticultural oil treatment. None of the other experimental treatments had significantly greater infestation compared to the grower standard with a number of treatments having numerically lower infestations at the end of the first CM generation. At commercial harvest, the CM infestation in the untreated check had increased to over 93%. CM infestations in all treatments were significantly lower than the untreated check except for the Altacor and the PureSpray Green horticultural oil treatments. All other treatments were not significantly different from the grower standard with the Battalion followed by Guthion and the Warrior followed by Guthion treatments having numerically lower CM infestation. There was a significant increase in fruit russetting in the Altacor, the Delegate with oil and the Calypso followed by Delegate treatments compared to the untreated check and in the Altacor, and the Calypso followed by Delegate treatments compared to the grower standard. No phytotoxicity was observed with any of the experimental treatments. Table 1. DD % damaged fruit from 1st % CM at harvest Treatment/ Rate lb Appl or 2nd damaged fruit formulation (AI)./acre dates biofix first generation CM Russetting st Delegate 25WG 0.109 8 May 255 1 6.7a 44.2ab 9.8abcd st 1 Jun 668 1 nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Delegate 25WG 0.109 8 May 255 1 6.9a 43.2ab 12.9bcd 1 Jun 668 1st nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Delegate 25WG 0.109 8 May 255 1 9.2ab 42.3ab 10.5abcd st 1 Jun 668 1 a nd Calypso 4F 0.25 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Calypso 4F 0.25 8 May 255 1 14.3ab 36.7a 15.5cd st 1 Jun 668 1 a nd Delegate 25WG 0.109 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st Calypso 4F 0.25 8 May 255 1 17.8abc 40.2ab 5.8ab st 1 Jun 668 1 nd Assail 30WG 0.15 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st PurseSpray Green 1.0% 8 May 255 1 51.5d 96.9d 1.2a st 1 Jun 668 1 nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st Altacor 35WG 0.066 8 May 255 1 29.2c 66.9bc 17.4d st 1 Jun 668 1 nd 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 st Calypso 4F 0.25 8 May 255 1 23.0 bc 38.2ab 9.8abcd st 1 Jun 668 1 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 29 Jun 236 2 nd 19 Jul 711 2 a st Rimon 0.83 EC 0.208 25 Apr 65 1 12.7ab 44.3ab 8.8abcd st Rimon 0.83 EC+ 0.208 8 May 255 1 Calypso 4F 0.25 a st Intrepid 2F 0.25 1 Jun 668 1 nd Rimon 0.83EC+ 0.208 29 Jun 236 2 Calypso 2F 0.25 a nd Intrepid 2F 0.25 19 Jul 711 2 st Battalion 0.2EC 0.022 9 May 275 1 8.3ab 18.5a 6.7abc st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 nd Battalion 0.2EC 0.022 30 Jun 257 2 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 20 Jul 739 2 a st Warrior 1CS + 0.04 9 May 275 1 8.9ab 28.8a 9.1abcd Agri-Mek 0.15EC 0.019 st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 a nd Warrior 1CS + 0.04 30 Jun 257 2 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 20 Jul 739 2 a st Baythroid 2E 0.044 9 May 275 1 17.0abc 36.0a 10.5abcd st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 a nd Baythroid 2E 0.044 30 Jun 257 2 nd Guthion 50WP 1.50 20 Jul 739 2 b st Imidan 70WP + 3.71 9 May 275 1 15.8abc 31.8a 3.8ab Agri-Mek 0.15EC 0.019 st Guthion 50WP 1.50 2 Jun 690 1 nd 30 Jun 257 2 nd 20 Jul 739 2 Untreated check 65.6 d 93.1 cd 1.3a Treatments contained 1.0% PureSpray Green horticultural oil by volume. Treatment pH was adjusted to less than 5.5.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.