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

Learn More →

Control of Cabbage Looper, Diamondback Moth and Imported Cabbageworm on Cabbage, 1993

Control of Cabbage Looper, Diamondback Moth and Imported Cabbageworm on Cabbage, 1993 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/19/1/65/4639246 by DeepDyve user on 02 August 2020 E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 19 65 V U I^ttUJ I (, 1 1 I " B" Rate ^"s ; Market­ 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 Treatment/ (lb AI or Total Small Medium Large Total' Total % w/ Total Total Total % w/ ability formulation P/acre) CL CL CL CL ICW DBM aphids CL ICW DBM aphids rating AC 303630 2SC 0.10 23.00 d-g 2.25 14.25 cd 6.50 a 3.50 1.25 a 70.0 a 1.75 1.00 0.25 2.5 3.05 ab AC 303630 2SC 0.15 19.00 b-f 3.25 9.75 b-d 6.00 a 2.00 1.25 a 70.0 a 1.00 0.75 0.0 0.0 2.50 ab AC 303630 2SC 0.20 6.00 a-c 0.50 4.00 ab 1.25 a 0.50 0.0 a 22.5 b 0.25 1.00 0.25 2.5 2.25 ab AC 303630 2SC 0.05 5.25 ab 0.50 4.00 ab 0.75 a 5.25 0.0 a 22.5 b 0.50 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.75 a -i- Pounce 3.2E 0.05 Pounce 3.2E (Sprays 1 and 2) 0.10 5.00 a 0.75 2.50 a 1.75 a 3.00 1.00 a 77.5 a 0.0 0.75 0.75 2.5 2.00 a (Sprays 3 and 4) 0.15 TD-2341-1 1.84L 0.23 12.75 a-e 0.50 6.50 a-c 5.75 a 1.00 0.75 a 37.5 b 3.25 0.75 0.0 2.5 3.00 ab TD-2341-1 1.84L 0.46 7.75 a-d 1.75 3.50 ab 2.50 a 1.25 1.50 a 30.0 b 1.50 0.25 0.0 0.0 2.75 ab Xentari 1.5 lb P 11.75 a-e 0.0 8.75 a-c 3.00 a 0.25 1.25 a 37.5 b 1.75 0.25 0.0 0.0 2.55 ab Dipel 2X 1.0 lb P 26.25 e-g 7.25 a 1.50 0.25 2.20 ab 2.75 16.00d 0.50 6.25 be 95.0 a 2.25 12.5 Javelin WG 1.0 lb P 21.00 d-g 1.25 9.00 a-c 10.50 ab 1.00 2.00 ab 85.0 a 3.50 1.75 0.25 0.0 2.95 ab Javelin WG 1.5 lb P 16.50a- f 8.50 ab 1.25 1.25 a 2.25 0.25 0.0 2.75 ab 2.00 6.00 ab 80.0 a 2.25 MVP 2.0 qt P 19.75 c-g 2.00 7.50 a-c 10.25 ab 2.25 1.50 a 80.0 a 2.50 0.00 5.0 3.00 ab 4.00 Sevin XLR Plus 2.0 qt P 30.75 fg 2.00 8.25 a-c 20.50 be 3.00 3.50 a-c 80.0 a 3.50 0.25 0.25 2.5 3.60 be Untreated check 33.50 g 1.75 5.00 ab 26.5 c 5.50 7.50 c 80.0 a 12.00 0.75 0.0 4.45 c 4.25 NS NS NS NS NS NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05); Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple F test. NS nonsignificant ANOVA. 'Total includes all larval instars and pupae. 2 X Small £V4 inch; medium = A inch to Vi inch; large aVi inch. 'Aphids were measured presence/absence of one or more aphids per head. Green's rating system; see text. CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea L. 'Bravo' James J. Linduska and Marylee Ross (14E) Cabbage looper (CL); Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) University of Maryland Imported cabbageworm (ICW); Artogeia rapae (L.) LESREC/Salibury Facilty Diamondback moth (DM); Plutetella xylostella (L.) 27664 Nanticoke Road Salisbury, MD 21801 CONTROL OF CABBAGE LOOPER, DIAMONDBACK MOTH AND IMPORTED CABBAGEWORM ON CABBAGE, 1993: Bravo' cabbage were planted in 1 row plots 35 ft. long on 11 Aug. Plants were spaced 22 inches apart in the row with 72 inches between rows. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. The soil was a Norfolk A loamy sand. All spray treatments were mixed in 2.0 gal of water and applied with a custom-built row crop sprayer. Each row was covered by 6 drop nozzles delivering 50 gal/acre at 28 psi. Treatments were applied on 31 Aug; 7, 14, 20, 30 Sep; 6 and 14 Oct. Foliage injury ratings ranged from 1-6 and were indexed as follows: 1) no apparent insect feeding; 2) minor insect feeding on wrapper or outer leaves, 0-1 % leaf area eaten; 3) moderate insect feeding on wrapper or outer leaves with no head damage, 2-5% leaf area eaten; 4) moderate insect feeding on wrapper or outer leaves with minor feeding on head, 6-10% leaf area eaten, head unmarketable during normal marketing conditions; 5) moderate to heavy feeding on wrapper and head leaves and moderate number of feeding scars on head, 11-30% of leaf area eaten; 6) considerable insect feeding on wrapper and head leaves with head having numerous feeding scars, over 30% of leaf area eaten. None of the products were phytotoxic. Insect pressure was light. All treatments gave significantly better control than the untreated check. Mean no. larvae/5 plants Injury Rate Large CL Large ICW index lb AI/ larvae larvae rating Treatment acre 25 Sep 19 Sep 25 Sep Untreated 8.25 a 8.25 a 6.00 a Ambush 2.0EC 0.15 0.00 b 0.00 b 1.25 d-e Karate 1.0EC 0.02 0.00 b 0.00 b 1.00 e TD-2321 40WP 0.45 0.25 b 0.25 b 2.25 b-c TD-2321 40WP 0.9 0.00 b 0.00 b 1.75 c-e CGA-2699 100WP 0.25 0.00 b 0.00 b 2.75 b CGA-2699 100WP 0.5 0.25 b 0.25 b 2.00 b-d CGA-2699 100WP 1.0 0.00 b 0.00 b 2.00 b-d Continued http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Control of Cabbage Looper, Diamondback Moth and Imported Cabbageworm on Cabbage, 1993

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-cabbage-looper-diamondback-moth-and-imported-cabbageworm-on-09JYdORd3h
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1994, Entomological Society of America
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/19.1.65
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/19/1/65/4639246 by DeepDyve user on 02 August 2020 E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 19 65 V U I^ttUJ I (, 1 1 I " B" Rate ^"s ; Market­ 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 Treatment/ (lb AI or Total Small Medium Large Total' Total % w/ Total Total Total % w/ ability formulation P/acre) CL CL CL CL ICW DBM aphids CL ICW DBM aphids rating AC 303630 2SC 0.10 23.00 d-g 2.25 14.25 cd 6.50 a 3.50 1.25 a 70.0 a 1.75 1.00 0.25 2.5 3.05 ab AC 303630 2SC 0.15 19.00 b-f 3.25 9.75 b-d 6.00 a 2.00 1.25 a 70.0 a 1.00 0.75 0.0 0.0 2.50 ab AC 303630 2SC 0.20 6.00 a-c 0.50 4.00 ab 1.25 a 0.50 0.0 a 22.5 b 0.25 1.00 0.25 2.5 2.25 ab AC 303630 2SC 0.05 5.25 ab 0.50 4.00 ab 0.75 a 5.25 0.0 a 22.5 b 0.50 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.75 a -i- Pounce 3.2E 0.05 Pounce 3.2E (Sprays 1 and 2) 0.10 5.00 a 0.75 2.50 a 1.75 a 3.00 1.00 a 77.5 a 0.0 0.75 0.75 2.5 2.00 a (Sprays 3 and 4) 0.15 TD-2341-1 1.84L 0.23 12.75 a-e 0.50 6.50 a-c 5.75 a 1.00 0.75 a 37.5 b 3.25 0.75 0.0 2.5 3.00 ab TD-2341-1 1.84L 0.46 7.75 a-d 1.75 3.50 ab 2.50 a 1.25 1.50 a 30.0 b 1.50 0.25 0.0 0.0 2.75 ab Xentari 1.5 lb P 11.75 a-e 0.0 8.75 a-c 3.00 a 0.25 1.25 a 37.5 b 1.75 0.25 0.0 0.0 2.55 ab Dipel 2X 1.0 lb P 26.25 e-g 7.25 a 1.50 0.25 2.20 ab 2.75 16.00d 0.50 6.25 be 95.0 a 2.25 12.5 Javelin WG 1.0 lb P 21.00 d-g 1.25 9.00 a-c 10.50 ab 1.00 2.00 ab 85.0 a 3.50 1.75 0.25 0.0 2.95 ab Javelin WG 1.5 lb P 16.50a- f 8.50 ab 1.25 1.25 a 2.25 0.25 0.0 2.75 ab 2.00 6.00 ab 80.0 a 2.25 MVP 2.0 qt P 19.75 c-g 2.00 7.50 a-c 10.25 ab 2.25 1.50 a 80.0 a 2.50 0.00 5.0 3.00 ab 4.00 Sevin XLR Plus 2.0 qt P 30.75 fg 2.00 8.25 a-c 20.50 be 3.00 3.50 a-c 80.0 a 3.50 0.25 0.25 2.5 3.60 be Untreated check 33.50 g 1.75 5.00 ab 26.5 c 5.50 7.50 c 80.0 a 12.00 0.75 0.0 4.45 c 4.25 NS NS NS NS NS NS Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05); Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple F test. NS nonsignificant ANOVA. 'Total includes all larval instars and pupae. 2 X Small £V4 inch; medium = A inch to Vi inch; large aVi inch. 'Aphids were measured presence/absence of one or more aphids per head. Green's rating system; see text. CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea L. 'Bravo' James J. Linduska and Marylee Ross (14E) Cabbage looper (CL); Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) University of Maryland Imported cabbageworm (ICW); Artogeia rapae (L.) LESREC/Salibury Facilty Diamondback moth (DM); Plutetella xylostella (L.) 27664 Nanticoke Road Salisbury, MD 21801 CONTROL OF CABBAGE LOOPER, DIAMONDBACK MOTH AND IMPORTED CABBAGEWORM ON CABBAGE, 1993: Bravo' cabbage were planted in 1 row plots 35 ft. long on 11 Aug. Plants were spaced 22 inches apart in the row with 72 inches between rows. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. The soil was a Norfolk A loamy sand. All spray treatments were mixed in 2.0 gal of water and applied with a custom-built row crop sprayer. Each row was covered by 6 drop nozzles delivering 50 gal/acre at 28 psi. Treatments were applied on 31 Aug; 7, 14, 20, 30 Sep; 6 and 14 Oct. Foliage injury ratings ranged from 1-6 and were indexed as follows: 1) no apparent insect feeding; 2) minor insect feeding on wrapper or outer leaves, 0-1 % leaf area eaten; 3) moderate insect feeding on wrapper or outer leaves with no head damage, 2-5% leaf area eaten; 4) moderate insect feeding on wrapper or outer leaves with minor feeding on head, 6-10% leaf area eaten, head unmarketable during normal marketing conditions; 5) moderate to heavy feeding on wrapper and head leaves and moderate number of feeding scars on head, 11-30% of leaf area eaten; 6) considerable insect feeding on wrapper and head leaves with head having numerous feeding scars, over 30% of leaf area eaten. None of the products were phytotoxic. Insect pressure was light. All treatments gave significantly better control than the untreated check. Mean no. larvae/5 plants Injury Rate Large CL Large ICW index lb AI/ larvae larvae rating Treatment acre 25 Sep 19 Sep 25 Sep Untreated 8.25 a 8.25 a 6.00 a Ambush 2.0EC 0.15 0.00 b 0.00 b 1.25 d-e Karate 1.0EC 0.02 0.00 b 0.00 b 1.00 e TD-2321 40WP 0.45 0.25 b 0.25 b 2.25 b-c TD-2321 40WP 0.9 0.00 b 0.00 b 1.75 c-e CGA-2699 100WP 0.25 0.00 b 0.00 b 2.75 b CGA-2699 100WP 0.5 0.25 b 0.25 b 2.00 b-d CGA-2699 100WP 1.0 0.00 b 0.00 b 2.00 b-d Continued

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1994

There are no references for this article.