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 European Red Mites in Apple, 2021

Control of European Red Mites in Apple, 2021 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" Arthropod Management T ests, 47(1), 2022, 1–2 applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsac032 Section A: Pome Fruits APPLE: Malus domestica (Borkhausen), ‘Red Chief’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA C. E. Wheeler, A. K. Bosch, A. H. VanWoerkom, and J. C. Wise History=Text=History=Text_First Trevor Nichols Research Center, Michigan State University, Fennville, MI 49408, USA and Corresponding author, e-mail: EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA wheel243@msu.edu EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: Elizabeth Beers EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Apple | Malus domestica EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA European red mite (ERM) | Panonychus ulmi (Koch) ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of various Mite populations were evaluated with 50-leaf samples, collected ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC miticides and rates against ERM populations on apple. Single- randomly across plots. Leaves were brushed onto plates using a ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA tree plots were set up in a 34-yr-old planting of ‘Red Chief’ (row mite-brushing machine. ERM motile forms and eggs were counted spacing of 18  ×  20 ft), located at the Trevor Nichols Research under a stereo microscope. Data are presented as mean eggs or Center in Fennville, Michigan (Brown Block). Treatments were motile forms per leaf (Tables 1 and 2). Although non-transformed replicated four times in a randomized block design. Treatments means are presented, ANOVA was run on log-transformed data. were applied on 16 Jul with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. Regular maintenance means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05. foliar applications were applied to all treatments including Captan Envidor and Magister (32 oz rate) significantly reduced the num - 80WDG, Centaur WDG, Admire 2F, Battalion EC, Sevin XLR, bers of motile ERM by 3 DAT (19 Jul) of the treatment applications, Inspire Super 2.82EW, Manzate Pro-stik 75WDG, and Merivon whereas all treatments did the same by 7 DAT (Table 2). Envidor 4.17SC. In addition, Alion 1.67SC and glyphosate were banded and Magister (32 oz rate) significantly reduced ERM eggs by 5 Aug, below the trees for weed control. compared to the untreated check (Table 1). - 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 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). 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. 1 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 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2022, Vol. 47, No. 1 Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate product/acre ERM motile forms/leaf 15 Jul 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). Pre-treatment count. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Control of European Red Mites in Apple, 2021

Free
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-european-red-mites-in-apple-2021-1irKQAJSWx
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsac032
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" Arthropod Management T ests, 47(1), 2022, 1–2 applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsac032 Section A: Pome Fruits APPLE: Malus domestica (Borkhausen), ‘Red Chief’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA C. E. Wheeler, A. K. Bosch, A. H. VanWoerkom, and J. C. Wise History=Text=History=Text_First Trevor Nichols Research Center, Michigan State University, Fennville, MI 49408, USA and Corresponding author, e-mail: EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA wheel243@msu.edu EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: Elizabeth Beers EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Apple | Malus domestica EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA European red mite (ERM) | Panonychus ulmi (Koch) ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of various Mite populations were evaluated with 50-leaf samples, collected ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC miticides and rates against ERM populations on apple. Single- randomly across plots. Leaves were brushed onto plates using a ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA tree plots were set up in a 34-yr-old planting of ‘Red Chief’ (row mite-brushing machine. ERM motile forms and eggs were counted spacing of 18  ×  20 ft), located at the Trevor Nichols Research under a stereo microscope. Data are presented as mean eggs or Center in Fennville, Michigan (Brown Block). Treatments were motile forms per leaf (Tables 1 and 2). Although non-transformed replicated four times in a randomized block design. Treatments means are presented, ANOVA was run on log-transformed data. were applied on 16 Jul with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA and calibrated to deliver 100 gpa at 2.5 mph. Regular maintenance means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05. foliar applications were applied to all treatments including Captan Envidor and Magister (32 oz rate) significantly reduced the num - 80WDG, Centaur WDG, Admire 2F, Battalion EC, Sevin XLR, bers of motile ERM by 3 DAT (19 Jul) of the treatment applications, Inspire Super 2.82EW, Manzate Pro-stik 75WDG, and Merivon whereas all treatments did the same by 7 DAT (Table 2). Envidor 4.17SC. In addition, Alion 1.67SC and glyphosate were banded and Magister (32 oz rate) significantly reduced ERM eggs by 5 Aug, below the trees for weed control. compared to the untreated check (Table 1). - 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 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). 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. 1 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 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2022, Vol. 47, No. 1 Table 2. Treatment/formulation Rate product/acre ERM motile forms/leaf 15 Jul 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). Pre-treatment count.

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Mar 13, 2022

Keywords: Apple | Malus domestica; European red mite (ERM) | Panonychus ulmi (Koch); spirodiclofen; fenazaquin; fenpyroximate

There are no references for this article.