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 Ear-Infesting Insects on Sweet Corn 1996

Control of Ear-Infesting Insects on Sweet Corn 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/125/4640097 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 ' E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 125 CORN (SWEET): Zea mays L., 'Primetime' S. M. Spangler, T. Grove, P. Rebarchak and D. Calvin (47E) European corn borer (ECB); Ostrinia nubilalis (Hiibner) Department of Entomology Fall armyworm (FAW); Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) The Pennsylvania State University 501 Ag. Sci. Bldg. University Park, PA 16802 (814)863-7791 CONTROL OF EAR-INFESTING INSECTS ON SWEET CORN 1996. One acre of sweet corn was planted on 27 Jun near University Park (Centre Co.), with rows 2.5 ft apart. The design was a RCB with 5 blocks per treatment. Plots (treatments within blocks) were two rows wide by 34 ft long, with three untreated rows between each treated pair of rows. Blocks were separated lengthwise by 10-ft alleyways. Sprays were delivered with a high- clearance sprayer with two nozzles/row, set at tassel height, at a 45° downward angle. Sprays were applied at 72 gpa, with nozzle pressure at 64 psi, a trac­ tor speed of 1.8 mph, and using TX-SS 10 nozzles from the Tee Jet company. Infestation of the planks in the "pre-tassel" stage (tassel visible but prior to anthesis) with ECB was 8% and with FA W larvae 44% . Anthesis was first observed on 20 Aug , and the first silks were observed on 22 Aug . Th e first spray was applied on 18 Aug. Additional sprays were applied on 22, 26, 29 Aug and 3 Sep. At harvest (11 Sep), 20 ears were picked randomly from each plot. For each ear, the numbers of ECB, FAW , and CEW were noted. For each 20-ear sample/plot, the proportions of the sample with insect damage at the tip, side, and shank were calculated. Populations of ECB and FAW were moderate to heavy, whereas populations of CEW were non-existent. No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the plots. All treatments showed significantly lower insect densities and damage than the untreated checks. Considering both insect presence and feeding damage, the Pounce treatments were slightly better and the low rate of Mustang was slightly worse than other treatments. All other treatments were ap­ proximately equal in effectiveness, although various specific differences occurred. Dyne-Amic did not appear to increase effectiveness of Warrior. Mean no. Proportion ears „ larvae ear with insects Rate Treatment Formulation lb (AI)/acre ECB FAW ECB FAW 0.01 be 0.00 d 0.01 b Pounce 3.2 EC 0.1500 0.00 d Pounce 3.2 EC 0.2000 0.01 cd 0.01 be 0.01 cd 0.01 b Mustang 1.5 EW 0.0375 0.10 b 0.06 b 0.10 b 0.05 b Mustang 1.5 EW 0.0500 0.07 bed 0.03 be 0.07 be 0.02 b Capture 2.0 EC 0.0250 0.05 bed 0.04 be 0.05 bed 0.04 b Capture 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.03 bed 0.03 be 0.03 cd 0.03 b Capture 2.0 EC 0.0400 0.01 cd 0.02 be 0.01 cd 0.02 b Talstar + Bond" 0.67 F 0.0300 0.02 cd 0.00 c 0.02 cd 0.00 b Larvin 3.2 EC 0.5000 0.03 bed 0.06 b 0.03 cd 0.06 b Larvin 3.2 EC 0.7500 0.05 be 0.00 be 0.05 bed 0.00 b Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.03 bed 0.01 be 0.02 cd 0.01 b Warrior + Dyne-Amic" 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.03 bed 0.02 be 0.03 cd 0.02 b Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0250 0.05 bed 0.01 be 0.04 bed 0.01 b TD 2344 0.83 EC 0.0330 0.03 bed 0.02 be 0.03 cd 0.02 b Baythroid 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.07 bed 0.02 be 0.06 bed 0.02 b Untreated Check 0.48 a 0.15 a 0.33 a 0.14 a — — Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different using the Waller Duncan test (P < 0.05). "Bond used at 0.125%, Dyne-Amic at 1 % concentrations. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/125/4640097 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 126 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 E: VEGETABLE CROPS nag c Rate Treatment Formulation Tip Side Shank Any lb (AI)/acre 0.05 cd 0.00 a Pounce 3.2 EC 0.1500 0.05 cd 0.10 d Pounce 3.2 EC 0.2000 0.07 cd 0.01 cd 0.00 a 0.07 d Mustang 0.35 b 0.40 b 0.03 a 1.5 EW 0.0375 0.28 b Mustang 1.5 EW 0.0500 0.13 be 0.05 cd 0.01 a 0.16 cd Capture 0.10 be 0.11 be 0.00 a 2.0 EC 0.0250 0.20 be Capture 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.12 be 0.09 bed 0.02 a 0.20 be 0.13 be 0.03 a Capture 2.0 EC 0.0400 0.08 cd 0.18 bed Talstar 0.67 F 0.0300 0.10 be 0.08 bed 0.00 a 0.17 bed +Bon d Larvin 3.2 EC 0.5000 0.15 be 0.04 cd 0.01 a 0.18 bed Larvin 3.2 EC 0.7500 0.07 cd 0.06 bed 0.00 a 0.11 cd Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.06 cd 0.07 bed 0.00 a 0.10 cd Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.10 be 0.08 bed 0.01 a 0.15 cd + Dyne-Amic Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0250 0.05 d 0.08 bed 0.01 a 0.13 cd TD 2344 0.83 EC 0.0330 0.06 cd 0.04 cd 0.01 a 0.10 cd Baythroid 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.14 be 0.07 bed 0.01 a 0.19 be Untreated Check 0.42 a 0.32 a 0.00 a 0.58 a _ — Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different using the Waller Duncan test (P < 0.05). CORN (SWEET): Zea mays L. 'Seneca Horizon' John Speese III (48E) Corn earworm (CEW); Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Eastern Shore Agricultural European corn borer (ECB); Ostrina nubilalis (Htibner) Research and Extension Center Fall armyworm (FAW); Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) 33446 Research Drive Painter, VA 23420 (757)442-6411 FOLIAR SPRAYS TO CONTROL LEPIDOPTERANS ON SWEET CORN, 1996: Sweet corn was planted on 17 Jun at the Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA. Each plot consisted of a 25-ft row with 3 ft spacing between rows. Plots were separated from each other by untreated guard rows, and each treatment was replicated 3 times in a RCB . Sprays were applied with a single hollow cone nozzle boom backpack sprayer delivering 61 gal water/acre at 40 psi. The sprays were directed ai the developing ears. Application dates were 29 Jul (50% silking) and 2, 6, and 8 Aug. On 12 Aug, 12 ripe ears were randomly picked from each plot and rated as follows: fresh market (no damage), processing (no damage plus ears with no more than 1.5 in tip damage), and cull (ears with more than 1.5 in tip damage and/or damage elsewhere on the ear). The numbers of live larvat found in each 12-ear sample were counted by species. Due to the late planting date and rainy weather during the first week of sprays, pressure from CEW and FAW was heavy. All treatments except Lan nate produced significantly more processing ears and significantly fewer cull ears than the check. All treatments resulted in significantly fewer CEW anci FAW per 12-ear samples than the check. Although there were more live ECB in the check than in any of the treatments, the differences were not signifi cant. Pounce, Mustang, Warrior and the highest rate of Capture produced significantly more fresh market ears than the check. Mean no. ears/ 12-ear sample Mean no. larvae/12 ears Treatment Rate lb (AI)/acre Fresh market Processing Cull CEW ECB FAW TD-2344-02 .83EC 0.035 3.33a-c 7.33a 4.67b 1.67b 0.00a 3.33b Pounce 3.2EC 0.200 5.67a 9.67a 2.33b 1.67b 0.00a 2.33b Mustang 1.5EC 5.00ab 8.33a 3.67b 0.67b 1.00a 2.33b 0.038 Mustang 1.5EC 0.050 4.00ab 7.00a 5.00b 2.00b 0.33a 1.67b Capture 2EC 0.025 2.33a-c 6.00a 6.00b 2.33b 1.33a 3.00b Capture 2EC 0.030 3.00a-c 8.00a 4.00b 1.67b 0.67a 4.67b 4.00ab 7.67a 4.33b 3.00b 0.33a 2.33b Capture 2EC 0.040 Baythroid 2 0.025 3.33a-c 8.00a 4.00b 2.00b 1.00a 3.67b Baythroid 2 0.044 2.67a-c 6.00a 6.00b 2.67b 0.33a 4.67b Warrior 1EC 0.025 5.33a 8.67a 3.33b 1.33b 0.00a 0.67b Lannate LV 1.33bc 5.33ab 6.67ab 7.00b 1.33a 5.00b 0.450 Untreated Check 0.00c 1.67b 10.33a 13.67a 1.67a 12.00a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P • 0.05, Ryan's Q test). Latron B-1956 added to each treatment at 8oz/100 gal water. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Control of Ear-Infesting Insects on Sweet Corn 1996

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-ear-infesting-insects-on-sweet-corn-1996-WZGYfiNRpF
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.125
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/125/4640097 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 ' E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 125 CORN (SWEET): Zea mays L., 'Primetime' S. M. Spangler, T. Grove, P. Rebarchak and D. Calvin (47E) European corn borer (ECB); Ostrinia nubilalis (Hiibner) Department of Entomology Fall armyworm (FAW); Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) The Pennsylvania State University 501 Ag. Sci. Bldg. University Park, PA 16802 (814)863-7791 CONTROL OF EAR-INFESTING INSECTS ON SWEET CORN 1996. One acre of sweet corn was planted on 27 Jun near University Park (Centre Co.), with rows 2.5 ft apart. The design was a RCB with 5 blocks per treatment. Plots (treatments within blocks) were two rows wide by 34 ft long, with three untreated rows between each treated pair of rows. Blocks were separated lengthwise by 10-ft alleyways. Sprays were delivered with a high- clearance sprayer with two nozzles/row, set at tassel height, at a 45° downward angle. Sprays were applied at 72 gpa, with nozzle pressure at 64 psi, a trac­ tor speed of 1.8 mph, and using TX-SS 10 nozzles from the Tee Jet company. Infestation of the planks in the "pre-tassel" stage (tassel visible but prior to anthesis) with ECB was 8% and with FA W larvae 44% . Anthesis was first observed on 20 Aug , and the first silks were observed on 22 Aug . Th e first spray was applied on 18 Aug. Additional sprays were applied on 22, 26, 29 Aug and 3 Sep. At harvest (11 Sep), 20 ears were picked randomly from each plot. For each ear, the numbers of ECB, FAW , and CEW were noted. For each 20-ear sample/plot, the proportions of the sample with insect damage at the tip, side, and shank were calculated. Populations of ECB and FAW were moderate to heavy, whereas populations of CEW were non-existent. No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the plots. All treatments showed significantly lower insect densities and damage than the untreated checks. Considering both insect presence and feeding damage, the Pounce treatments were slightly better and the low rate of Mustang was slightly worse than other treatments. All other treatments were ap­ proximately equal in effectiveness, although various specific differences occurred. Dyne-Amic did not appear to increase effectiveness of Warrior. Mean no. Proportion ears „ larvae ear with insects Rate Treatment Formulation lb (AI)/acre ECB FAW ECB FAW 0.01 be 0.00 d 0.01 b Pounce 3.2 EC 0.1500 0.00 d Pounce 3.2 EC 0.2000 0.01 cd 0.01 be 0.01 cd 0.01 b Mustang 1.5 EW 0.0375 0.10 b 0.06 b 0.10 b 0.05 b Mustang 1.5 EW 0.0500 0.07 bed 0.03 be 0.07 be 0.02 b Capture 2.0 EC 0.0250 0.05 bed 0.04 be 0.05 bed 0.04 b Capture 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.03 bed 0.03 be 0.03 cd 0.03 b Capture 2.0 EC 0.0400 0.01 cd 0.02 be 0.01 cd 0.02 b Talstar + Bond" 0.67 F 0.0300 0.02 cd 0.00 c 0.02 cd 0.00 b Larvin 3.2 EC 0.5000 0.03 bed 0.06 b 0.03 cd 0.06 b Larvin 3.2 EC 0.7500 0.05 be 0.00 be 0.05 bed 0.00 b Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.03 bed 0.01 be 0.02 cd 0.01 b Warrior + Dyne-Amic" 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.03 bed 0.02 be 0.03 cd 0.02 b Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0250 0.05 bed 0.01 be 0.04 bed 0.01 b TD 2344 0.83 EC 0.0330 0.03 bed 0.02 be 0.03 cd 0.02 b Baythroid 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.07 bed 0.02 be 0.06 bed 0.02 b Untreated Check 0.48 a 0.15 a 0.33 a 0.14 a — — Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different using the Waller Duncan test (P < 0.05). "Bond used at 0.125%, Dyne-Amic at 1 % concentrations. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/125/4640097 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 126 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 E: VEGETABLE CROPS nag c Rate Treatment Formulation Tip Side Shank Any lb (AI)/acre 0.05 cd 0.00 a Pounce 3.2 EC 0.1500 0.05 cd 0.10 d Pounce 3.2 EC 0.2000 0.07 cd 0.01 cd 0.00 a 0.07 d Mustang 0.35 b 0.40 b 0.03 a 1.5 EW 0.0375 0.28 b Mustang 1.5 EW 0.0500 0.13 be 0.05 cd 0.01 a 0.16 cd Capture 0.10 be 0.11 be 0.00 a 2.0 EC 0.0250 0.20 be Capture 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.12 be 0.09 bed 0.02 a 0.20 be 0.13 be 0.03 a Capture 2.0 EC 0.0400 0.08 cd 0.18 bed Talstar 0.67 F 0.0300 0.10 be 0.08 bed 0.00 a 0.17 bed +Bon d Larvin 3.2 EC 0.5000 0.15 be 0.04 cd 0.01 a 0.18 bed Larvin 3.2 EC 0.7500 0.07 cd 0.06 bed 0.00 a 0.11 cd Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.06 cd 0.07 bed 0.00 a 0.10 cd Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0200 0.10 be 0.08 bed 0.01 a 0.15 cd + Dyne-Amic Warrior 1.0 EC 0.0250 0.05 d 0.08 bed 0.01 a 0.13 cd TD 2344 0.83 EC 0.0330 0.06 cd 0.04 cd 0.01 a 0.10 cd Baythroid 2.0 EC 0.0300 0.14 be 0.07 bed 0.01 a 0.19 be Untreated Check 0.42 a 0.32 a 0.00 a 0.58 a _ — Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different using the Waller Duncan test (P < 0.05). CORN (SWEET): Zea mays L. 'Seneca Horizon' John Speese III (48E) Corn earworm (CEW); Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Eastern Shore Agricultural European corn borer (ECB); Ostrina nubilalis (Htibner) Research and Extension Center Fall armyworm (FAW); Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) 33446 Research Drive Painter, VA 23420 (757)442-6411 FOLIAR SPRAYS TO CONTROL LEPIDOPTERANS ON SWEET CORN, 1996: Sweet corn was planted on 17 Jun at the Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA. Each plot consisted of a 25-ft row with 3 ft spacing between rows. Plots were separated from each other by untreated guard rows, and each treatment was replicated 3 times in a RCB . Sprays were applied with a single hollow cone nozzle boom backpack sprayer delivering 61 gal water/acre at 40 psi. The sprays were directed ai the developing ears. Application dates were 29 Jul (50% silking) and 2, 6, and 8 Aug. On 12 Aug, 12 ripe ears were randomly picked from each plot and rated as follows: fresh market (no damage), processing (no damage plus ears with no more than 1.5 in tip damage), and cull (ears with more than 1.5 in tip damage and/or damage elsewhere on the ear). The numbers of live larvat found in each 12-ear sample were counted by species. Due to the late planting date and rainy weather during the first week of sprays, pressure from CEW and FAW was heavy. All treatments except Lan nate produced significantly more processing ears and significantly fewer cull ears than the check. All treatments resulted in significantly fewer CEW anci FAW per 12-ear samples than the check. Although there were more live ECB in the check than in any of the treatments, the differences were not signifi cant. Pounce, Mustang, Warrior and the highest rate of Capture produced significantly more fresh market ears than the check. Mean no. ears/ 12-ear sample Mean no. larvae/12 ears Treatment Rate lb (AI)/acre Fresh market Processing Cull CEW ECB FAW TD-2344-02 .83EC 0.035 3.33a-c 7.33a 4.67b 1.67b 0.00a 3.33b Pounce 3.2EC 0.200 5.67a 9.67a 2.33b 1.67b 0.00a 2.33b Mustang 1.5EC 5.00ab 8.33a 3.67b 0.67b 1.00a 2.33b 0.038 Mustang 1.5EC 0.050 4.00ab 7.00a 5.00b 2.00b 0.33a 1.67b Capture 2EC 0.025 2.33a-c 6.00a 6.00b 2.33b 1.33a 3.00b Capture 2EC 0.030 3.00a-c 8.00a 4.00b 1.67b 0.67a 4.67b 4.00ab 7.67a 4.33b 3.00b 0.33a 2.33b Capture 2EC 0.040 Baythroid 2 0.025 3.33a-c 8.00a 4.00b 2.00b 1.00a 3.67b Baythroid 2 0.044 2.67a-c 6.00a 6.00b 2.67b 0.33a 4.67b Warrior 1EC 0.025 5.33a 8.67a 3.33b 1.33b 0.00a 0.67b Lannate LV 1.33bc 5.33ab 6.67ab 7.00b 1.33a 5.00b 0.450 Untreated Check 0.00c 1.67b 10.33a 13.67a 1.67a 12.00a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P • 0.05, Ryan's Q test). Latron B-1956 added to each treatment at 8oz/100 gal water.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.