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 Codling Moth with Intrepid Edge and Altacor in Walnuts, 2014*

Control of Codling Moth with Intrepid Edge and Altacor in Walnuts, 2014* Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsv051 (D24) WALNUT: Juglans regia (L.), “Vina” Control of Codling Moth with Intrepid Edge and Altacor in Walnuts, 2014* R. A. Van Steenwyk, A. Hernandez, R. Poliakon, A. Taylor, and C. Wise Department of E.S.P.M., 130 Mulford Hall – 3114, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114, Phone: (510) 643- 5159, Fax: (510) 643-5438 (bobvanst@berkeley.edu; amh95@berkeley.edu; poliakon@berkeley.edu; audreytaylor68@ berkeley.edu; caroline.r.wise@gmail.com) and Corresponding author, e-mail: bobvanst@berkeley.edu Subject Editor: Elizabeth Grafton-Cardwell Walnut | Juglans spp. codling moth | Cydia pomonella walnut aphid | Chromaphis juglandicola walnut aphid parasitoid | Trioxys pallidus Chlorantraniliprole; 3-Bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5- carboxamide; methoxyfenozide; spinetoram; 3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- hydrazide; (2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13- [[(2R,5S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b- hexadecahydro-14-methyl-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione; (2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS)-2- [(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl- 2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]- oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione; modified phthalic gylcerol alkyd resin 77% (SS) This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of Intrepid Edge for 3.2 kph with a finished spray volume of 935.4 liters/ha. CM- first generation control of CM in walnuts. The study was conducted infested dropped nuts were monitored from the center 5 trees in in two orchards: a “Payne” walnut orchard (A) near Tracy, CA, and each replicate from 13 May to 18 June in orchard A and from an “Ashley” walnut orchard (B) near Butte City, CA. Application 6 May to 17 June in orchard B. For each replicate, 250 nut pairs timings were determined by degree-days (DD). DD were calculated were examined for presence of CM on the tree on 14 June in orchard using a single sine horizontal cutoff model with a lower threshold of A and 25 June in orchard B. WA populations were monitored on 10 C and an upper threshold of 31.1 C. Temperatures were ob- 6 June in orchard A and 10 and 17 June in orchard B by inspecting tained from the UCIPM weather station at Tracy. A (CIMIS No. five leaflets in the center of each replicate for WA and 167) in San Joaquin County, CA, for orchard A and Durham. A in WAP-parasitized aphid mummies. Data were analyzed using Butte County, CA, for orchard B. The first application was made on ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD 16 April at 286 DD from the first biofix in orchard A and 19 April (P ¼ 0.05). at 190 DD from the first biofix for orchard B. The second applica- In orchard A (Table 1), the mean percentage cumulative CM- tion was made on 12/13 May at 638/659 DD from the first biofix in infested dropped nuts was significantly reduced by Intrepid Edge orchard A and 16 May 630 DD from the first biofix for orchard B. when compared with Altacor and the untreated check. Altacor had In each orchard, three treatments were replicated four times in an significantly lower mean percentage cumulative CM-infested RCB design. The treatments in both orchards were Altacor 35WDG dropped nuts compared with the untreated check. Both Intrepid at 245.2 g/ha and Intrepid Edge at 730.7 fl oz/ha. Latron B-1956 Edge and Altacor had significantly lower percent infested nut pairs was applied with all treatments at 0.015% v/v. Replicates were when compared with the untreated check. There were significantly 1.5–1.9 ha in orchard A and 0.49 ha in size in orchard B. Insecticides more WA in the Intrepid Edge treatment compared with the Altacor were applied with grower-operated speed sprayers operating at and untreated check on 6 June. No significant difference in the WAP * This research was support by the following companies: Dow AgroScience LLC, and Dupont E.I. de Nemours. V C The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com 2 Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, Vol. 40, No. 1 Table 1 No. aphid per leaflet 6 June Treatment/ Rate form/ha Appl. date Appl. Cumulative CM Percentage WA WAP formulation degree days dropped nuts per tree infested nut pair Intrepid edge 730.8 ml 16 Apr 286 DD 3.6c 0.0b 11.3a 0.3a 12/13 May 638/659 DD Altacor 35WDG 245.2 g 16 Apr 286 DD 10.8b 0.0b 0.2b 0.1a 12/3 May 638/659 DD Untreated check — 23.6a 2.7a 0.2b 0.0a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P> 0.05). Table 2 No. aphid per leaflet 10 June 17 June Treatment/ Rate form/ha Appl. date Appl. Cumulative CM Percentage WA WAP WA WAP formulation degree days dropped nuts per tree infested nut pair Intrepid edge 730.8 ml 19 April 190 DD 18.7a 0.0a 4.7a 0.3a 6.4a 0.3a 16 May 630 DD Altacor 35WDG 245.2 g 19 April 190 DD 23.3a 0.0a 3.0a 0.4a 2.4b 0.3a 16 May 630 DD Untreated check — 49.6a 0.2a 1.5a 0.4a 0.9b 0.1a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P> 0.05). was observed among the treatments. In orchard B (Table 2), the numerical trend as in orchard A. There were significantly more WA mean percent cumulative CM-infested dropped nuts or CM-infested in the Intrepid Edge treatment compared with the Altacor and nut pairs were not significantly reduced by Intrepid Edge or Altacor untreated check on 17 June. No significant difference in the WAP compared with the untreated check. However, there was the same was observed among the treatments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Control of Codling Moth with Intrepid Edge and Altacor in Walnuts, 2014*

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-codling-moth-with-intrepid-edge-and-altacor-in-walnuts-2014-CtBayK1piG
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsv051
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsv051 (D24) WALNUT: Juglans regia (L.), “Vina” Control of Codling Moth with Intrepid Edge and Altacor in Walnuts, 2014* R. A. Van Steenwyk, A. Hernandez, R. Poliakon, A. Taylor, and C. Wise Department of E.S.P.M., 130 Mulford Hall – 3114, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114, Phone: (510) 643- 5159, Fax: (510) 643-5438 (bobvanst@berkeley.edu; amh95@berkeley.edu; poliakon@berkeley.edu; audreytaylor68@ berkeley.edu; caroline.r.wise@gmail.com) and Corresponding author, e-mail: bobvanst@berkeley.edu Subject Editor: Elizabeth Grafton-Cardwell Walnut | Juglans spp. codling moth | Cydia pomonella walnut aphid | Chromaphis juglandicola walnut aphid parasitoid | Trioxys pallidus Chlorantraniliprole; 3-Bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5- carboxamide; methoxyfenozide; spinetoram; 3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- hydrazide; (2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13- [[(2R,5S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b- hexadecahydro-14-methyl-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione; (2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS)-2- [(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl- 2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]- oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione; modified phthalic gylcerol alkyd resin 77% (SS) This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of Intrepid Edge for 3.2 kph with a finished spray volume of 935.4 liters/ha. CM- first generation control of CM in walnuts. The study was conducted infested dropped nuts were monitored from the center 5 trees in in two orchards: a “Payne” walnut orchard (A) near Tracy, CA, and each replicate from 13 May to 18 June in orchard A and from an “Ashley” walnut orchard (B) near Butte City, CA. Application 6 May to 17 June in orchard B. For each replicate, 250 nut pairs timings were determined by degree-days (DD). DD were calculated were examined for presence of CM on the tree on 14 June in orchard using a single sine horizontal cutoff model with a lower threshold of A and 25 June in orchard B. WA populations were monitored on 10 C and an upper threshold of 31.1 C. Temperatures were ob- 6 June in orchard A and 10 and 17 June in orchard B by inspecting tained from the UCIPM weather station at Tracy. A (CIMIS No. five leaflets in the center of each replicate for WA and 167) in San Joaquin County, CA, for orchard A and Durham. A in WAP-parasitized aphid mummies. Data were analyzed using Butte County, CA, for orchard B. The first application was made on ANOVA and means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD 16 April at 286 DD from the first biofix in orchard A and 19 April (P ¼ 0.05). at 190 DD from the first biofix for orchard B. The second applica- In orchard A (Table 1), the mean percentage cumulative CM- tion was made on 12/13 May at 638/659 DD from the first biofix in infested dropped nuts was significantly reduced by Intrepid Edge orchard A and 16 May 630 DD from the first biofix for orchard B. when compared with Altacor and the untreated check. Altacor had In each orchard, three treatments were replicated four times in an significantly lower mean percentage cumulative CM-infested RCB design. The treatments in both orchards were Altacor 35WDG dropped nuts compared with the untreated check. Both Intrepid at 245.2 g/ha and Intrepid Edge at 730.7 fl oz/ha. Latron B-1956 Edge and Altacor had significantly lower percent infested nut pairs was applied with all treatments at 0.015% v/v. Replicates were when compared with the untreated check. There were significantly 1.5–1.9 ha in orchard A and 0.49 ha in size in orchard B. Insecticides more WA in the Intrepid Edge treatment compared with the Altacor were applied with grower-operated speed sprayers operating at and untreated check on 6 June. No significant difference in the WAP * This research was support by the following companies: Dow AgroScience LLC, and Dupont E.I. de Nemours. V C The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com 2 Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, Vol. 40, No. 1 Table 1 No. aphid per leaflet 6 June Treatment/ Rate form/ha Appl. date Appl. Cumulative CM Percentage WA WAP formulation degree days dropped nuts per tree infested nut pair Intrepid edge 730.8 ml 16 Apr 286 DD 3.6c 0.0b 11.3a 0.3a 12/13 May 638/659 DD Altacor 35WDG 245.2 g 16 Apr 286 DD 10.8b 0.0b 0.2b 0.1a 12/3 May 638/659 DD Untreated check — 23.6a 2.7a 0.2b 0.0a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P> 0.05). Table 2 No. aphid per leaflet 10 June 17 June Treatment/ Rate form/ha Appl. date Appl. Cumulative CM Percentage WA WAP WA WAP formulation degree days dropped nuts per tree infested nut pair Intrepid edge 730.8 ml 19 April 190 DD 18.7a 0.0a 4.7a 0.3a 6.4a 0.3a 16 May 630 DD Altacor 35WDG 245.2 g 19 April 190 DD 23.3a 0.0a 3.0a 0.4a 2.4b 0.3a 16 May 630 DD Untreated check — 49.6a 0.2a 1.5a 0.4a 0.9b 0.1a Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P> 0.05). was observed among the treatments. In orchard B (Table 2), the numerical trend as in orchard A. There were significantly more WA mean percent cumulative CM-infested dropped nuts or CM-infested in the Intrepid Edge treatment compared with the Altacor and nut pairs were not significantly reduced by Intrepid Edge or Altacor untreated check on 17 June. No significant difference in the WAP compared with the untreated check. However, there was the same was observed among the treatments.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Dec 31, 2015

There are no references for this article.