Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/oxford-university-press/codling-moth-control-in-pears-1997-0zJYn07waA
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
- © Entomological Society of America.
- eISSN
- 2155-9856
- DOI
- 10.1093/amt/23.1.40
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/23/1/40/4639684 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 40 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 23 A: POM E FRUITS No. pear psylla adults/2 min Rate Treatment lbs (AI)/acre formulation 29 May 4 Jun 9 Jun 16 Jun 23 Jun 10 Jul Comply 40 WP 142.0 g (0.125) Compound Z + Silwet L-77 118.0 ml (0.03%) 34.0bc 29.8ab 25.! 8.3a 17.8b 12.3a Comply 40 WP 142.0 g (0.125) Compound Z + Silwet L-77 118.0 ml (0.03%) 40. le d 30.5b 46.5a 12.0ab 19.5b 9.0a Asana XL 0.66 + 287.0 ml (0.05) Sun 6E Oil 7.57 1 (2.0%) Pyramite 60 WP 250.0 g (0.33) 31.8bc 23.0ab 47.3a 6.5a 6.8a 13.3a Asana XL 0.66 + 287.0 ml (0.05) Sun 6E Oil 7.571 (2.0%) Mitac 50 WP 681.0 g (0.75) 39.6cd 31.5b 55.3a 27.0cd 20.0b 13.0a Asana XL 0.66 + 287.0 ml (0.05) Sun 6E Oil 7.57 1 (2.0%) Provado 1.6 F 473.0 ml (0.2) 23.0ab 18.8ab 40.3a 9.0ab 18.5b 9.8a Asana X L 0.66 + 287.0 ml (0.05) Sun 6E Oil 7.571 (2.0%) Agri-Mek0.15E C + 590.0 ml (0.0234) Silwet L-77 118.0 ml (0.03%) 33.1bc 18.8ab 54.0a 3.5ab 13.3b 12.3a Asana XL 0.66 + 287.0 ml (0.05) Sun 6E Oil 7.57 1 (2.0%) M-96-018 51.8 d 36.0 b 55.6a 30.5cd 21.0b 24.8a Asana XL 0.66 + 287.0 ml (0.05) Sun 6E Oil 7.57 1 (2.0%) Amt/100 gals-Dilute M-96-018 13.0 a 14.8a 33.3a 19.3bc 13.3b 16.0a Untreated check 91.5e 77.0c 124.0b 59.5d 31.5b 9.3a Means followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (Fisher's Protected LSD, P £ 0.05). PEAR: Pyrus communis (L.) 'Bartlett' R. A. Van Steenwyk and (27A) Codling moth (CM); R. M. Nomoto Cydia pomonella (L.) Department of E.S.P.M. Pear psylla (PP); 201 Wellman Hall Cacopsylla pyricola Foerster University of California European red mite (ERM); Berkeley, CA 94720-3112 Panonychus ulmi (Koch) (510)643-515 9 Twospotted spider mite (TSSM); Tetranychus urticae Koch CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN PEARS, 1997: The study was conducted on mature 'Bartlett' pear trees in a commercial orchard near Fair field, CA. Eight treatments were replicated four times in a RC B design. Each replicate consisted of an individual tree. Treatments were applied with a hand held orchard sprayer operating at 200 psi and delivering 200 gpa of finished spray (2.87 gal/tree). Application timings were based on degree days (DD). DD were calculated with a 25 Mar biofix for the first generation and 1 Jun for the second generation using a single sine horizontal cutoff model with a lower threshold of 50°F and an upper threshold of 88 F and with air temperature data from the IMPACT weather station in Cordelia. Target DD applica tion timings (with actual D D timings and dates in parentheses) were: Knack and Comply with or without Volck oil at 100 D D (137 DD- 8 Apr) followed by Azinphos-M at 650 DD (678 DD-1 6 May) from 1st biofix and 250 D D (311 DD-1 7 Jun) from 2nd biofix; Comply with Volck oil at 100 D D (137 DD-8 Apr) and 500 DD (521 DD- 8 May) from 1st biofix followed by Azinphos-M at 250 DD (311 DD-1 7 Jun) from 2nd biofix; Danitol, Brigade, and Azinphos- M (industry standard) at 250 (294 DD-2 1 Apr) and 650 DD (678 DD-1 6 May) from 1st biofix and 250 DD (311 DD-1 7 Jun) from 2nd biofix. Control of the first CM generation was evaluated on 4 Jun by inspecting 50 fruit from the bottom of the tree canopy and 50 fruit from the top of the tree canopy/repli cate. Control of the second CM generation was evaluated at commercial harvest on 21 Jul by inspecting a maximum of 125 fruit from the bottom of the tree canopy and 125 fruit from the top of the tree canopy per replicate. Control of motile TSSM, ERM, and PP nymphs was evaluated weekly from 4 Jun through 21 Jul by sampling 10 exterior and 10 interior leaves/replicate. The leaves were brushed and the motile TSSM , ERM , and PP nymphs were counted under magnification (20X). This study was conducted against a high C M population. All insecticide treatments had significantly lower C M infestation than the untreated check. In the first-generation evaluation, Comply without Volck oil had significantly higher CM infestation than Comply with Volck oil, Brigade, and Azinphos- M (industry standard). At commercial harvest, all insecticide treatments except Danitol had CM infestation levels comparable to Azinphos-M (industry standard). Two Comply applications with Volck oil followed by one Azinphos-M application provide excellent TSSM, ERM, and PP control, in addition to acceptable C M control. N o phytotoxicity was observed with any treatment. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/23/1/40/4639684 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 A: POME FRUITS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 23 41 Rate % infested fruit lb (AI)/ No. Treatment/formulation acre applications 1st gen 2nd gen 1. Danitol2.4EC 0.2 3 2.0ab 41.8b 2. Brigade 10 W P 0.08 3 0.0a 6.4a 3. Comply 40 WP 0.1 1 Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 3.3b 3.9a 4. Comply 40 WP 0.1 1 + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 0.3a 2.2a 5. Comply 40 W P 0.1 2 + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 1 0.5ab 5.5a 0.11 1 6. Knack 0.86 EC + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% 4.9a Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 l.Oab 7. Azinphos-M 50 WP 0.0a 3.1a 1.5 3 (Industry Standard) 0 73.7c 8. Untreated check 9.1c Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different, (Fisher's protected LSD, P : '•• 0.05). Data analyzed using arcsin transformation. Treatment/ Rate No. i^aiv i a. m formulation lb (AI)/acre applicatio ns 4 Jun 9 Jun 16 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 7 Jul 14 Jul 21 Jul Total 1. Danitol 2.4 EC 0.2 3 0.0a 0.0a 1.3a 2.5a 2.8a 3.8ab 26.5ab 15.3a 52.0ab 2. Brigade 10 W P 3 0.8a 1.8ab 2.0a 2.5ab 6.5a 0.08 2.5a 1.0a 13.5ab 30.5ab 3. Comply 40 WP 0.1 1 Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 4.5ab 2.3ab 4.3a 7.5a 8.5a 13.3ab 25.8ab 15.0a 8 l.Oab 4. Comply 40 WP 0.1 1 + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 0.3a l.Oab 1.3a 1.5a 5.3a 4.0ab 18.5ab 9.3a 4 l.Oab 5. Comply 40 WP 0.1 2 + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% 1 0.5a 0.0a 1.3a 2.0a Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 0.3a 0.0a 0.5a 3.5a 8.0a 6. Knack 0.86 EC 0.11 1 + Volck oil vol. 2.0% 2 8.0a Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 3.5ab 0.8ab 7.3a 8.8ab 26.3b 22.8ab 16.3a 93.5ab 7. Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 3 3.5ab 4.5b 8.0a 26.0b 20.5b 11.8ab 27.8b 14.8a 116.8b (Industry Standard) 8. Untreated check 0 7.0b 2.3ab 1.5a 3.5a 2.8a 1.3a 5.0ab 5.0a 28.3a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher's protected LSD, P £ 0.05). No. PP/20 leaves \ Treatment/ Rate No. ; formulation lb (AI)/acre applicatio ns 4 Jun 9 Jun 16 Jun 23 Jun 30 Jun 7 Jul 14 Jul 21 Jul Total 1. Danitol 2.4 EC 0.2 3 1.8a 0.8ab 1.3a 0.5a 3.0a 3.5a 5.8ab 5.3ab 21.8ab 2. Brigade 10 W P 0.08 3 2.8a 5.5b 6.3b 3.5b 8.0a 14.8b 11.8bc 13.5b 66.0c 3. Comply 40 WP 0.1 1 Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 2.0a 0.5ab 0.3a 0.5a 3.0a 1.3a 2.3a 3.3a 13.0a 4. Comply 40 WP 0.1 1 + Volck oil b y vol. 2.0% Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 1.0a 1.5ab 0.8a l.Oab 3.5a 1.3a 4.0ab 4.0a 17.0ab 5. Comply 40 WP 2 0.1 + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 1 0.0a 0.0a 0.3a 0.0a 1.0a 0.3a 0.8a 2.0a 4.3a 6. Knack 0.86 EC 0.11 1 + Volck oil by vol. 2.0% Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 2 2.8a l.Oab 1.5a 1.5ab 1.8a 7.0ab 4.3ab 7.5ab 27.3abc 7. Azinphos-M 50 WP 1.5 9.0b 3.5ab 1.8a 2.0ab 7.5a 6.0ab 17.8c 7.3ab 54.8bc (Industry Standard) 8. Untreated check 0 2.5a 3.3ab 0.0a 0.5a 2.0a 2.3a 6.0ab 4.0a 20.3ab Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher's protected LSD, P •& 0.05). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/23/1/40/4639684 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 B:STO V PEAC H Oi B i sure d ]I X 3 tre_-> (6row ^ " whic h t r; first m<•[ fall] , 4 Ji al s app i o r asse trolo f ii plin g ! in i n the •.'•• jury) . - contro ' v i n a 5 - n jur y th ii Treatr v formu ! ii A s ii I m d I m J 2. A s u Pe i i R L La r< . As >i P e ii Rl ! Lf.: r . A s ;•• P e i Rl ' Li'.T 5 . . Asu P t Ri i SU M .. A-.i 6 . Pe : R •'. L . ii '. A-.ii Pt si
Journal
Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 1998