Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.A6 (A6) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, ‘Red Delicious’ Daniel L. Frank West Virginia University S. Agricultural Sciences Bldg. P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506 Telephone: (304) 293-8835 Fax: (304) 293-6954 E-mail: dlfrank@mail.wvu.edu Alan R. Biggs E-mail: Alan.Biggs@mail.wvu.edu Codling moth (CM): Cydia pomonella (L.) Oriental fruit moth (OFM): Grapholita molesta (Busck) Obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR): Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) Redbanded leafroller: Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker) Tufted apple bud moth(TABM): Platynota idaeusalis (Walker) European Apple Sawfly (EAS): Hoplocampa testudinea (Klug) Tarnished plant bug (TPB): Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) Plum curculio (PC): Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) San Jose scale (SJS): Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock) The objective of this trial was to evaluate seasonal programs of various insecticides for the control of IL as well as other insect pests present. The experiment was conducted in a 2.5 acre block of 32-yr-old ‘Red Delicious’ apple trees planted on M.111 rootstock at the West Virginia University Tree Fruit Research and Education Center in Kearneysville, WV. Treatments were applied to single-tree plots replicated four times in a RCB design with untreated buffer trees between plots. Trees measured approximately 12 ft. in height and width and were planted at a spacing of 16 x 24 ft. All insecticides were applied as complete sprays (both sides of the tree) with a Swanson DA-500A airblast sprayer, which traveled at 2.6 mph and delivered a spray volume of 100 gpa. Application dates were: 26 Apr = PF, 18 May = 1C, 31 May = 2C, 14 Jun = 3C, 28 Jun = 4C, 11 Jul = 5C, 25 Jul = 6C, and 7 Aug = 7C. Other materials applied to the entire block included Assail (prebloom), calcium chloride, Inspire Super, Manzate Prostick, Solubor, Captan, Ziram, and Topsin-M. Damage from first and second generation IL was assessed by examining 100 apples/plot on 23 May and 23 Jul, respectively. Harvest damage from IL, LR, EAS, TPB, PC, and SJS was evaluated by picking and inspecting 100 apples/plot on 10 Sep. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, and means were separated using Fisher’s LSD test (P ≤ 0.05). Pressure from first and second generation IL was low in the research block. Fruit damage from IL was not observed in any of the insecticide treated plots after the first generation. Similarly, fruit damage from IL was not observed in any of the insecticide treated plots after the second generation, with the exception of the Altacor treatment, which was not significantly different from the untreated check. Fruit damage at harvest from IL in all plots increased, with the exception of the Altacor treatment, which was the only treatment to provide significantly greater fruit protection than the untreated check. There were no significant differences in fruit damage from LR and EAS among all treatments. The Avaunt treatment (low rate) had less fruit damage from EAS, TPB, and PC than all other treatments, but was not statistically different from the untreated check. Fruit damage from SJS was significantly higher in the KN128 (high rate) treatment than all other treatments. The Altacor treatment had the highest percentage of clean fruit in the study and was the only insecticide treatment to provide significantly greater fruit protection than the untreated check. Of the insecticide treatments, KN128 (high rate) and Avaunt (high rate) resulted in the lowest percentage of clean fruit. 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2013, Vol. 38 doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.A6 Table 1. Trt Product Rate/acre Timing 1 KN128 30WG 4.8 oz PF-7C 2 KN128 30WG 5.9 oz PF-7C 3 Avaunt 30WG 4.8 oz PF-7C 4 Avaunt 30WG 5.9 oz PF-7C 5 Altacor 35WG 4.0 oz PF-7C 6 Assail 70WP 8.5 gm PF Rimon 0.83EC 20 oz 1C, 2C, 3C Calypso 4F 4 oz 4C Lannate LV 24 oz 5C, 6C Tombstone 2L 2 oz 7C 7 Untreated Check --- --- Table 2. % IL Harvest st nd Trt 1 gen 2 gen Harvest % LR % EAS % TPB % PC % SJS % Clean Fruit 1 0.0b 0.0b 4.0ab 2.5a 0.8a 3.0ab 2.3ab 0.3b 88.0ab 2 0.0b 0.0b 6.5ab 2.8a 0.8a 1.0b 0.5ab 3.0a 85.5ab 3 0.0b 0.0b 6.0ab 2.8a 0.0a 0.8b 0.0b 1.0b 88.5ab 4 0.0b 0.0b 2.8ab 1.0a 1.0a 5.5a 4.0ab 0.8b 85.8ab 5 0.0b 0.5ab 0.0b 1.0a 0.5a 2.0ab 4.5a 0.8b 92.3a 6 0.0b 0.0b 5.3ab 2.5a 0.3a 1.5b 0.8ab 0.3b 90.3ab 7 0.8a 0.8a 11.0a 3.5a 0.8a 3.0ab 2.5ab 0.3b 80.5b Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Fisher’s LSD test.
Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2013
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
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.