Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

EFFICACY OF SELECTED INSECTICIDES AGAINST DIAMONDBACK MOTH IN MUSTARD GREENS, 2003

EFFICACY OF SELECTED INSECTICIDES AGAINST DIAMONDBACK MOTH IN MUSTARD GREENS, 2003 (E43) MUSTARD: Brassica campestris L. EFFICACY OF SELECTED INSECTICIDES AGAINST DIAMONDBACK MOTH IN MUSTARD GREENS, 2003 Edd Harrison Georgia Cooperative Extension P.O. Box 73 Camilla, GA 31730 Phone: (229) 336-2066 Fax: (229) 336-2068 E-mail: weharris@uga.edu Alton N. Sparks, Jr. Georgia Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 1209 Tifton, GA 31793 Phone: (229) 386-3424 Fax: (229) 386-7133 E-mail: asparks@uga.edu Diamondback moth (DBM): Plutella xylostella (L.) This trial was conducted in a commercial field of mustard greens in an area with suspected DBM resistance to spinosad (field failures had been reported with SpinTor). Plants were near harvest maturity when the trial was initiated. Plots were two rows (6 ft) wide and 20 ft long. The experiment was established as a RCB design with four replications. All insecticide treatments were tank mixed with Nu- Film 17 at 4 fl oz product/acre. Insecticide applications were made on 1 and 5 Oct. Treatments were applied with a CO -pressurized backpack sprayer, with three TX10 hollow cone nozzles per row. Applications made on 1 Oct were applied in 40 gpa, and applications on 5 Oct were applied in 34 gpa. Five leaves were randomly selected from each plot on each sample date and all DBM larvae were counted on each leaf. Each plot was visually rated for defoliation on each sample date, with percent defoliation visually estimated. Data were subjected to ANOVA and means were separated using DMRT (P ≤ 0.05). SpinTor failed to reduce DBM populations after the first application, and although it suppressed populations after the second application, it failed to reduce the foliage damage ratings. This strongly supports the assumption that the DBM population in the area had become resistant to spinosad. Avaunt, Proclaim and Diamond provided improved efficacy, but did not reduce populations to sub-threshold levels until after the second application. The control obtained with these products supports reports of no cross-resistance among these chemistries. DBM larvae per leaf Percent foliage damaged Treatment/ Rate formulation lb (AI)/acre 5 Oct 10 Oct 14 Oct 5 Oct 10 Oct 14 Oct Untreated check -- 6.83a 5.90a 0.00a 37.5a 58.8a 66.3a SpinTor 2SC 0.023 9.25a 3.10b 0.00a 26.3a 51.3a 61.3a SpinTor 2SC 0.047 7.17a 1.10bc 0.00a 22.5a 45.0a 50.0a Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 3.00b 0.05c 0.00a 26.3a 20.0b 18.8b Proclaim 5SG 0.0075 3.25b 0.05c 0.00a 20.0a 18.8b 16.3b Diamond 0.83EC 0.078 2.75b 0.05c 0.00a 27.5a 25.0b 22.5b Numbers within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, DMRT). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

EFFICACY OF SELECTED INSECTICIDES AGAINST DIAMONDBACK MOTH IN MUSTARD GREENS, 2003

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 30 (1) – Jan 1, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/efficacy-of-selected-insecticides-against-diamondback-moth-in-mustard-HSy9ErzJmt
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/30.1.E43
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(E43) MUSTARD: Brassica campestris L. EFFICACY OF SELECTED INSECTICIDES AGAINST DIAMONDBACK MOTH IN MUSTARD GREENS, 2003 Edd Harrison Georgia Cooperative Extension P.O. Box 73 Camilla, GA 31730 Phone: (229) 336-2066 Fax: (229) 336-2068 E-mail: weharris@uga.edu Alton N. Sparks, Jr. Georgia Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 1209 Tifton, GA 31793 Phone: (229) 386-3424 Fax: (229) 386-7133 E-mail: asparks@uga.edu Diamondback moth (DBM): Plutella xylostella (L.) This trial was conducted in a commercial field of mustard greens in an area with suspected DBM resistance to spinosad (field failures had been reported with SpinTor). Plants were near harvest maturity when the trial was initiated. Plots were two rows (6 ft) wide and 20 ft long. The experiment was established as a RCB design with four replications. All insecticide treatments were tank mixed with Nu- Film 17 at 4 fl oz product/acre. Insecticide applications were made on 1 and 5 Oct. Treatments were applied with a CO -pressurized backpack sprayer, with three TX10 hollow cone nozzles per row. Applications made on 1 Oct were applied in 40 gpa, and applications on 5 Oct were applied in 34 gpa. Five leaves were randomly selected from each plot on each sample date and all DBM larvae were counted on each leaf. Each plot was visually rated for defoliation on each sample date, with percent defoliation visually estimated. Data were subjected to ANOVA and means were separated using DMRT (P ≤ 0.05). SpinTor failed to reduce DBM populations after the first application, and although it suppressed populations after the second application, it failed to reduce the foliage damage ratings. This strongly supports the assumption that the DBM population in the area had become resistant to spinosad. Avaunt, Proclaim and Diamond provided improved efficacy, but did not reduce populations to sub-threshold levels until after the second application. The control obtained with these products supports reports of no cross-resistance among these chemistries. DBM larvae per leaf Percent foliage damaged Treatment/ Rate formulation lb (AI)/acre 5 Oct 10 Oct 14 Oct 5 Oct 10 Oct 14 Oct Untreated check -- 6.83a 5.90a 0.00a 37.5a 58.8a 66.3a SpinTor 2SC 0.023 9.25a 3.10b 0.00a 26.3a 51.3a 61.3a SpinTor 2SC 0.047 7.17a 1.10bc 0.00a 22.5a 45.0a 50.0a Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 3.00b 0.05c 0.00a 26.3a 20.0b 18.8b Proclaim 5SG 0.0075 3.25b 0.05c 0.00a 20.0a 18.8b 16.3b Diamond 0.83EC 0.078 2.75b 0.05c 0.00a 27.5a 25.0b 22.5b Numbers within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, DMRT).

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.