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 Lepidopterous Insects on Cabbage, 1996

Control of Lepidopterous Insects on Cabbage, 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/113/4640040 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 113 CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea capitata L. 'Rio Verde' J. F. Walgenbach, C. R. Palmer (33E) Cabbage looper (CL); Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) Mtn. Hort. Crops Res. & Ext. Ctr. Imported cabbageworm (ICW): Artogeia rapae (L.) 2016 Fanning Bridge Road Diamondback moth (DMB); Plutella xylostella (L.) Fletcher, NC 28732 CONTROL OF LEPIDOPTEROUS INSECTS ON CABBAGE, 1996: Six-week-old field-grown cabbage transplants (cv. 'Rio Verde') were planted on 20 May at the Mountain Horticultural Crops Research Station (Fletcher, NC). Plots consisted of two 25-ft-long rows on 3.5 ft. centers, with 7 ft. of cultivated soil between treatment rows. Plants were spaced 12 in. within rows. Each treatment was replicated four times and arranged in a RCBD. Treatments consisted of an untreated control and approximately 7-d interval applications of the following materials (see table for rates): Asana XL, Baythroid, Karate, Able, Agree, Biobit, Dipel, Xentari; and unregistered materials TD-2344-02, Confirm, Spinosad, Proclaim and MYX 833. All materi­ als were applied on 14 and 24 Jun, 1, 9, 18, and 25 Jul. Applications were made with a tractor-mounted PTO-sprayer delivering 50 gpa through 3 hollow cone nozzles per row (1 overhead and 2 drop nozzles). Latron B-1956 (0.06%) was added to the spray solution of all treatments. Lepidopterous larval pop­ ulations were counted on 10 heads/treatment on 20 and 27 Jun and 3, 11, 17 and 24 Jul. Crop quality was assessed on 30 Jul, by rating 10 heads/treatment on a scale of 0-5 (0 = no damage, 1 = frame leaf damage, 2 = minimal wrapper leaf damage, 3 = significant wrapper leaf damage, 4 = some head dam­ age, and 5 = severe head damage). All heads receiving a rating of £ 2 were considered marketable. All data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, and means were separated by LSD (P = 0.05). CL populations in the untreated check were high with a season-long total average of 200.0 larvae/10 plants. ICW populations were moderate in the untreated check with a season-long total average of 36.8 larvae/10 plants. DBM populations were too low in this trial to assess accurately the relative ef­ fectiveness of the treatments. The intense CL pressure was reflected in the poor quality ratings and the absence of marketable heads in the untreated check. With the exception of MYX 833 and Agree, all insecticide treatments provided satisfactory control of lepidopterous pests. Although Asana, Karate and Spinosad at 0.067 lb/acre had the best quality ratings, there were no significant differences among the remaining treatments in percent marketability. Rate Quality % heads mean season-i ung loiai no. la i vac/ j u ncaus ICW DBM Insecticide lb[AI]/acre Rating" marketable* CL Asana XL 0.025 0.68a 97.5a 12.5abcd 2.8bcde 1.0a TD-2344-02 0.83EC 0.035 1.08bcd 100.0c 17.0cde l.Oab 0.5a 0.034 Baythroid 1.15bcd 97.5c 16.0bcd 1.8abc 0.3a Karate 0.025 0.83ab 100.0c 4.5a 0.3a 0.5a Confirm 70WP 0.125 1.20cde 95.0c 10.3abc 0.8ab 0.3a Spinosad 4SC 0.045 1.20cde 95.0c 12.8abcd 5.8e 0.3a Spinosad 4SC 0.067 0.93abc 100.0c 14.8abcd 1.8abcd 0.3a Proclaim 5SG 0.0075 1.43def 95.0c 21.5cd 4.5de 1.3a Proclaim 0.16EC 0.0075 1.55ef 100.0c 28.3d 4.5cde 0.3a MYX 833 2.0 qt (form.) 2.13g 72.5b 10.3abc 4.3bcde 0.0a Able 1.0 lb (form.) 1.68f 97.5c 16.5bcd 2.5bcde 0.8a Dipel 2X 1.0 lb (form.) 1.43def 95.0c 6.3ab 1.5ab 0.0a Agree 50W 1.0 lb (form.) 2.05g 80.0b 27.0d 2.3abcd 0.0a Biobit HP 1.0 lb (form.) 1.68f 97.5c 18.0bcd 1.8ab 0.8a Xentari 1.0 lb (form.) 1.30de 100.0c 8.3abc 1.5abc 0.5a Untreated Check 3.98h 0.0a 200.0e 36.8f 5.5b Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05) "Quality ratings were based on a scale of 0-5 : 0 = no damage; 1 = frame leaf damage only; 2 = minimal wrapper leaf damage; 3 = significant wrapper leaf damage, 4 = some head damage, 5 = severe head damage. ''Data transformed using arcsin(/x) prior to ANOVA. Data shown are back transformations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Control of Lepidopterous Insects on Cabbage, 1996

Free
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/control-of-lepidopterous-insects-on-cabbage-1996-mMVoQ3i82Y
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.113
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/113/4640040 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 113 CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea capitata L. 'Rio Verde' J. F. Walgenbach, C. R. Palmer (33E) Cabbage looper (CL); Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) Mtn. Hort. Crops Res. & Ext. Ctr. Imported cabbageworm (ICW): Artogeia rapae (L.) 2016 Fanning Bridge Road Diamondback moth (DMB); Plutella xylostella (L.) Fletcher, NC 28732 CONTROL OF LEPIDOPTEROUS INSECTS ON CABBAGE, 1996: Six-week-old field-grown cabbage transplants (cv. 'Rio Verde') were planted on 20 May at the Mountain Horticultural Crops Research Station (Fletcher, NC). Plots consisted of two 25-ft-long rows on 3.5 ft. centers, with 7 ft. of cultivated soil between treatment rows. Plants were spaced 12 in. within rows. Each treatment was replicated four times and arranged in a RCBD. Treatments consisted of an untreated control and approximately 7-d interval applications of the following materials (see table for rates): Asana XL, Baythroid, Karate, Able, Agree, Biobit, Dipel, Xentari; and unregistered materials TD-2344-02, Confirm, Spinosad, Proclaim and MYX 833. All materi­ als were applied on 14 and 24 Jun, 1, 9, 18, and 25 Jul. Applications were made with a tractor-mounted PTO-sprayer delivering 50 gpa through 3 hollow cone nozzles per row (1 overhead and 2 drop nozzles). Latron B-1956 (0.06%) was added to the spray solution of all treatments. Lepidopterous larval pop­ ulations were counted on 10 heads/treatment on 20 and 27 Jun and 3, 11, 17 and 24 Jul. Crop quality was assessed on 30 Jul, by rating 10 heads/treatment on a scale of 0-5 (0 = no damage, 1 = frame leaf damage, 2 = minimal wrapper leaf damage, 3 = significant wrapper leaf damage, 4 = some head dam­ age, and 5 = severe head damage). All heads receiving a rating of £ 2 were considered marketable. All data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, and means were separated by LSD (P = 0.05). CL populations in the untreated check were high with a season-long total average of 200.0 larvae/10 plants. ICW populations were moderate in the untreated check with a season-long total average of 36.8 larvae/10 plants. DBM populations were too low in this trial to assess accurately the relative ef­ fectiveness of the treatments. The intense CL pressure was reflected in the poor quality ratings and the absence of marketable heads in the untreated check. With the exception of MYX 833 and Agree, all insecticide treatments provided satisfactory control of lepidopterous pests. Although Asana, Karate and Spinosad at 0.067 lb/acre had the best quality ratings, there were no significant differences among the remaining treatments in percent marketability. Rate Quality % heads mean season-i ung loiai no. la i vac/ j u ncaus ICW DBM Insecticide lb[AI]/acre Rating" marketable* CL Asana XL 0.025 0.68a 97.5a 12.5abcd 2.8bcde 1.0a TD-2344-02 0.83EC 0.035 1.08bcd 100.0c 17.0cde l.Oab 0.5a 0.034 Baythroid 1.15bcd 97.5c 16.0bcd 1.8abc 0.3a Karate 0.025 0.83ab 100.0c 4.5a 0.3a 0.5a Confirm 70WP 0.125 1.20cde 95.0c 10.3abc 0.8ab 0.3a Spinosad 4SC 0.045 1.20cde 95.0c 12.8abcd 5.8e 0.3a Spinosad 4SC 0.067 0.93abc 100.0c 14.8abcd 1.8abcd 0.3a Proclaim 5SG 0.0075 1.43def 95.0c 21.5cd 4.5de 1.3a Proclaim 0.16EC 0.0075 1.55ef 100.0c 28.3d 4.5cde 0.3a MYX 833 2.0 qt (form.) 2.13g 72.5b 10.3abc 4.3bcde 0.0a Able 1.0 lb (form.) 1.68f 97.5c 16.5bcd 2.5bcde 0.8a Dipel 2X 1.0 lb (form.) 1.43def 95.0c 6.3ab 1.5ab 0.0a Agree 50W 1.0 lb (form.) 2.05g 80.0b 27.0d 2.3abcd 0.0a Biobit HP 1.0 lb (form.) 1.68f 97.5c 18.0bcd 1.8ab 0.8a Xentari 1.0 lb (form.) 1.30de 100.0c 8.3abc 1.5abc 0.5a Untreated Check 3.98h 0.0a 200.0e 36.8f 5.5b Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (P = 0.05) "Quality ratings were based on a scale of 0-5 : 0 = no damage; 1 = frame leaf damage only; 2 = minimal wrapper leaf damage; 3 = significant wrapper leaf damage, 4 = some head damage, 5 = severe head damage. ''Data transformed using arcsin(/x) prior to ANOVA. Data shown are back transformations.

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.