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 GRAPE BERRY MOTH WITH TEBUFENOZIDE AND RH-2485

CONTROL OF GRAPE BERRY MOTH WITH TEBUFENOZIDE AND RH-2485 (C9) GRAPE: Vitis x labruscana Bailey, 'Concord' Michael C. Saunders Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802-3508 Tel: (814) 863-2979 Fax: (814) 865-3048 mcs5@psu.edu Sudha Nagarkatti Lake Erie Regional Grape Research and Extension Center Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University 662 North Cemetery Road North East, PA 16428 Tel: (814) 725-4601 Fax: (814) 725-8531 snk1@psu.edu Patrick C. Tobin Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802-3508 Tel: (814) 863-7657 Fax: (814) 865-3048 pct106@psu.edu Grape berry moth (GBM): Endopiza viteana (Clemens) We evaluated the insect growth regulators Tebufenozide (Confirm 2F) and RH-2485 (80 WP) for grape berry moth (GBM) control in a commercial 'Concord' vineyard in North East, PA, in 1999. This vineyard has a wooded edge, where wild grape serves as refuge for grape berry moth; hence, the vineyard had a history of high levels of infestation particularly along the wooded edge. Treatment plots consisted of a row of six grape vines oriented perpendicularly from the wooded edge, and included (1) an untreated check, (2) the standard grape berry moth control tactic of Sevin applied once per grape berry moth generation, (3) 16 oz of Confirm applied once or twice per generation, (4) 8 oz of Confirm applied once or twice per generation, and (5) RH-2485 applied once or twice per generation. Treatments applied once per generation were applied on 16 Jun, 6 Jul, and 10 Aug, and second doses were applied 2 wk later. Applications were made with a FMC vineyard boom sprayer operated at 100 psi with an application rate of 100 gal/acre. Treatments were evaluated by non-destructively counting the number of infested berries on 10 grape clusters per vine in each plot 2 wk after the first application. We also removed 10 clusters per vine in each plot and counted the number of infested berries at the September harvest. Prior to the harvest sampling interval, grape berry moth damage in all plots was <3%. At harvest, however, there were differences in the level of economic injury by grape berry moth among the treatments (Table 1.). One application per grape berry moth generation of 16 oz of Confirm was as effective as two applications per generation of 8 oz of Confirm. RH-2485 was the best control tactic, whether applied once or twice per generation with the latter providing better control than the former. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

CONTROL OF GRAPE BERRY MOTH WITH TEBUFENOZIDE AND RH-2485

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-grape-berry-moth-with-tebufenozide-and-rh-2485-4OYBPwxWqm
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/28.1.C9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(C9) GRAPE: Vitis x labruscana Bailey, 'Concord' Michael C. Saunders Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802-3508 Tel: (814) 863-2979 Fax: (814) 865-3048 mcs5@psu.edu Sudha Nagarkatti Lake Erie Regional Grape Research and Extension Center Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University 662 North Cemetery Road North East, PA 16428 Tel: (814) 725-4601 Fax: (814) 725-8531 snk1@psu.edu Patrick C. Tobin Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802-3508 Tel: (814) 863-7657 Fax: (814) 865-3048 pct106@psu.edu Grape berry moth (GBM): Endopiza viteana (Clemens) We evaluated the insect growth regulators Tebufenozide (Confirm 2F) and RH-2485 (80 WP) for grape berry moth (GBM) control in a commercial 'Concord' vineyard in North East, PA, in 1999. This vineyard has a wooded edge, where wild grape serves as refuge for grape berry moth; hence, the vineyard had a history of high levels of infestation particularly along the wooded edge. Treatment plots consisted of a row of six grape vines oriented perpendicularly from the wooded edge, and included (1) an untreated check, (2) the standard grape berry moth control tactic of Sevin applied once per grape berry moth generation, (3) 16 oz of Confirm applied once or twice per generation, (4) 8 oz of Confirm applied once or twice per generation, and (5) RH-2485 applied once or twice per generation. Treatments applied once per generation were applied on 16 Jun, 6 Jul, and 10 Aug, and second doses were applied 2 wk later. Applications were made with a FMC vineyard boom sprayer operated at 100 psi with an application rate of 100 gal/acre. Treatments were evaluated by non-destructively counting the number of infested berries on 10 grape clusters per vine in each plot 2 wk after the first application. We also removed 10 clusters per vine in each plot and counted the number of infested berries at the September harvest. Prior to the harvest sampling interval, grape berry moth damage in all plots was <3%. At harvest, however, there were differences in the level of economic injury by grape berry moth among the treatments (Table 1.). One application per grape berry moth generation of 16 oz of Confirm was as effective as two applications per generation of 8 oz of Confirm. RH-2485 was the best control tactic, whether applied once or twice per generation with the latter providing better control than the former.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2003

There are no references for this article.