Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Apple | Malus domestica European red mite (ERM) | Panonychus ulmi (Koch) spirodiclofen, fenazaquin, fenpyroximate This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of various miticides and rates against ERM populations on apple. Single-tree plots were set up in a 34-yr-old planting of ‘Red Chief’ (row spacing of 18 × 20 ft), located at the Trevor Nichols Research Center in Fennville, Michigan (Brown Block). Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized block design. Treatments were applied on 16 Jul with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. Regular maintenance foliar applications were applied to all treatments including Captan 80WDG, Centaur WDG, Admire 2F, Battalion EC, Sevin XLR, Inspire Super 2.82EW, Manzate Pro-stik 75WDG, and Merivon 4.17SC. In addition, Alion 1.67SC and glyphosate were banded below the trees for weed control. Mite populations were evaluated with 50-leaf samples, collected randomly across plots. Leaves were brushed onto plates using a mite-brushing machine. ERM motile forms and eggs were counted under a stereo microscope. Data are presented as mean eggs or motile forms per leaf (Tables 1 and 2). Although non-transformed means are presented, ANOVA was run on log-transformed data. Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05. Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM eggs/leaf . . . . . . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 8.2a 6.1a 6.7a 3.6a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 1.7a 2.2a 4.0ab 2.0a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 3.5a 1.0a 0.8b 0.5a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 4.3a 2.1a 0.9b 1.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 5.6a 1.6a 1.1ab 0.8a Portal XLO 2 pt 5.7a 2.7a 1.5ab 0.5a Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM eggs/leaf . . . . . . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 8.2a 6.1a 6.7a 3.6a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 1.7a 2.2a 4.0ab 2.0a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 3.5a 1.0a 0.8b 0.5a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 4.3a 2.1a 0.9b 1.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 5.6a 1.6a 1.1ab 0.8a Portal XLO 2 pt 5.7a 2.7a 1.5ab 0.5a Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; non-transformed means are presented in the table. All treatments applied on 16 Jul (ERM present and increasing). Open in new tab Table 1. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM eggs/leaf . . . . . . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 8.2a 6.1a 6.7a 3.6a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 1.7a 2.2a 4.0ab 2.0a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 3.5a 1.0a 0.8b 0.5a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 4.3a 2.1a 0.9b 1.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 5.6a 1.6a 1.1ab 0.8a Portal XLO 2 pt 5.7a 2.7a 1.5ab 0.5a Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM eggs/leaf . . . . . . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 8.2a 6.1a 6.7a 3.6a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 1.7a 2.2a 4.0ab 2.0a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 3.5a 1.0a 0.8b 0.5a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 4.3a 2.1a 0.9b 1.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 5.6a 1.6a 1.1ab 0.8a Portal XLO 2 pt 5.7a 2.7a 1.5ab 0.5a Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; non-transformed means are presented in the table. All treatments applied on 16 Jul (ERM present and increasing). Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM motile forms/leaf . . . . . . . . 15 Jula . 19 Jul . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 2.6a 1.1a 2.6a 2.9a 1.7a 0.8a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 2.4a 0.8ab 0.6b 1.0ab 1.5a 0.5a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 2.2a 0.3b 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 1.9a 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 2.3a 0.5ab 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Portal XLO 2 pt 2.3a 0.5ab 0.3b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM motile forms/leaf . . . . . . . . 15 Jula . 19 Jul . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 2.6a 1.1a 2.6a 2.9a 1.7a 0.8a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 2.4a 0.8ab 0.6b 1.0ab 1.5a 0.5a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 2.2a 0.3b 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 1.9a 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 2.3a 0.5ab 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Portal XLO 2 pt 2.3a 0.5ab 0.3b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; non-transformed means are presented in the table. All treatments applied on 16 Jul (ERM present and increasing). aPre-treatment count. Open in new tab Table 2. Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM motile forms/leaf . . . . . . . . 15 Jula . 19 Jul . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 2.6a 1.1a 2.6a 2.9a 1.7a 0.8a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 2.4a 0.8ab 0.6b 1.0ab 1.5a 0.5a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 2.2a 0.3b 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 1.9a 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 2.3a 0.5ab 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Portal XLO 2 pt 2.3a 0.5ab 0.3b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Treatment/formulation . Rate product/acre . ERM motile forms/leaf . . . . . . . . 15 Jula . 19 Jul . 22 Jul . 30 Jul . 5 Aug . 12 Aug . Untreated check 2.6a 1.1a 2.6a 2.9a 1.7a 0.8a GWN-10409 1.8SC 8 fl oz 2.4a 0.8ab 0.6b 1.0ab 1.5a 0.5a Envidor 2SC 18 fl oz 2.2a 0.3b 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Magister 1.7SC 32 fl oz 1.9a 0.2b 0.1b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Magister 1.7SC 36 fl oz 2.3a 0.5ab 0.2b 0.1b 0.1a 0.1a Portal XLO 2 pt 2.3a 0.5ab 0.3b 0.1b 0.1a 0.0a Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; non-transformed means are presented in the table. All treatments applied on 16 Jul (ERM present and increasing). aPre-treatment count. Open in new tab Envidor and Magister (32 oz rate) significantly reduced the numbers of motile ERM by 3 DAT (19 Jul) of the treatment applications, whereas all treatments did the same by 7 DAT (Table 2). Envidor and Magister (32 oz rate) significantly reduced ERM eggs by 5 Aug, compared to the untreated check (Table 1).1 Footnotes 1 This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://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
Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2022
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.