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 Soil-Applied Systemic Insecticides Against Tobacco Pests, 2014*

Efficacy of Soil-Applied Systemic Insecticides Against Tobacco Pests, 2014* Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsv195 (F45) TOBACCO: Nicotiana tobacum, ‘N196’ Efficacy of Soil-Applied Systemic Insecticides Against Tobacco Pests, 2014* Aurora Toennisson, Clyde Sorenson, and Hannah Burrack Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7634, Raleigh, NC 27695, Phone: 919-513- 4344 (tatoenni@ncsu.edu; clyde_sorenson@ncsu.edu; hannah_burrack@ncsu.edu) and Corresponding author, e-mail: tatoenni@ncsu.edu Subject Editor: Jawwad Qureshi Tobacco | Nicotiana tabacum green peach aphid | Myzus persicae tobacco flea beetle | Epitrix hirtipennis tobacco budworm | Heliothis virescens tobacco hornworm | Manduca sexta tomato hornworm | Manduca quinquemaculata tobacco thrips | Frankliniella fusca 3-Bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-(methylcarbamoyl)phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide; 3-Bromo-N- [4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methlamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide; 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyri- dinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine Efficacy of several soil-applied insecticides (Table 1) was tested two rows. Beginning three weeks after transplant, the number of against key tobacco pests: TFB, TBW, GPA, and tobacco/tomato TFB on ten plants in two rows, and the number of TFB feeding holes hornworms (HW). Two identical experiments were conducted at the on the largest leaf of each of these plants was counted weekly for Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (UCPRS) in Rocky Mount, three weeks. Plants in these rows exhibiting tomato spotted wilt vi- NC, and the Lower Coastal Plain Research Station (LCPRS) in rus (TSWV) symptoms, a disease vectored by tobacco thrips, were Kinston, NC. In each experiment, four replicates of the six treat- counted weekly from three weeks after transplant until nine weeks ments, including an untreated check, were arranged an RCB design. after transplant. Additionally, the number of TBW infested plants in Each 0.018-acre plot consisted of four, ca. 25 plant, rows. At two rows of each plot was counted weekly from three weeks after LCPRS, pre-transplant greenhouse tray drench (GTD) insecticide ap- transplant until topping. At five weeks after transplant, the number plications were made on 7 May 2014 in 1 L water using a CO -pres- of GPA infested plants (plants with more than 50 GPA on a single surized sprayer fitted a single flat-fan nozzle. Twice the application upper stalk leaf, including nymphs) and the number of HW in two volume was used to wash the material into the root zone immediately rows of each plot were also counted. To see if any of the treatments following treatment. GTD treatments were applied as above at delayed plant maturity, the number of plants flowering in both rows UCPRS on 28 Apr. The plants were transplanted on 5 May at was counted from first bloom until topping. Plants were topped on UCPRS and 8 May at LCPRS, and in-furrow transplant water (TPW) 15 Jul at LCPRS and 29 Jul at UCPRS. To look for yield differences treatments were applied in ca. 160 gal/A of water using four 5-gal among the untreated check, Admire, and Verimark treatments, mini-tanks affixed to the planter. Plants received no additional insec- leaves from five plants in two rows of each plot were hand-harvested ticide treatments for the remainder of the experiment, and standard and weighed before each priming of the field. At LCPRS, “A” stalk fertility, disease, and sucker management practices were followed. positions were hand-harvested on 14 Aug, and “B” and “C” stalk Data were collected from middle two rows of each plot. To in- positions were hand-harvested on 10 Sep. At UCPRS, “A” stalk po- vestigate potential phytotoxicity due to insecticide treatments, the sitions were hand-harvested on 18 Aug, “B” on 1 Sep, and “C” and width of the largest leaf on 10 plants in two rows of each plot were “D” on 19 Sep. All data were analyzed via repeated measures measured three and four weeks after transplant, and plant height ANOVA (Proc MIXED; SAS v. 9.3.1) with treatment, date, and the was measured six and seven weeks after transplant on 10 plants in treatment x date interaction as independent variables and replicate * This research was supported by industry gifts of product and funding. V C The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://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 Tests, 2015, Vol. 40, No. 1 nested within treatment as a random effect. If a significant the small amount of damage they did (< 1 FH/L for any treatment) (a¼ 0.05) treatment x date interaction occurred, data for each week was not significantly different between treatments (data not shown). were analyzed in separate ANOVAs (Proc MIXED; SAS v. 9.3.1) No difference in TSWV incidence between treatments was observed with treatment as the independent variable and replicate nested at either station (UCPRS: F ¼ 0.24, P¼ 0.93; LCPRS: 5,18 within treatment as a random effect. Means were separated by F ¼ 1.19, P¼ 0.35), and GPA were not abundant enough at ei- 5,18 Fisher’s Protected LSD (a¼ 0.05). ther station for analysis. For TBW infestations, significant differ- At both locations, leaf widths, plant heights, and proportion ences between treatments were observed at both sites but the data flowering were not significantly different between treatments (data were highly variable (Table 2 and 3), and at LCPRS, these differ- not shown). However, there was a trend (F ¼ 2.75, P¼ 0.051) to- ences were only seen 37 and 46 DAT. Hornworm (HW) infestation 5,18 ward untreated check plants having fewer flowers than treated was not different between treatments at LCPRS (F ¼ 1.24, 5,18 plants the week before topping at UCPRS. TFB feeding holes per P¼ 0.32). However, at UCPRS, significant differences in non-para- leaf (FH/L) at UCPRS were significantly lower than the untreated sitized HW (Table 4) and parasitized HW (Table 5) infestation rates check for all insecticide treatments on all days after treatment were observed between treatments. No differences in yield were seen (DAT) measured (Table 1). Live flea beetle counts were similar for any priming among the untreated check, Admire, and Verimark (Table 1), but the FB population was too small to analyze 36 DAT. treatments (UCPRS: F ¼ 2.70, P¼ 0.12; LCPRS: F ¼ 0.43, 2,9 2,9 At LCPRS, live flea beetle populations were consistently low, and P¼ 0.66). Table 1 Tobacco flea beetles, UCPRS 1 1 1 22 DAT 29 DAT 36 DAT Product Rate and application method Mean TFB Mean FH/L Mean TFB Mean FH/L Mean FH/L Untreated Check n/a 0.88 b 9.59 b 0.55 b 7.06 b 2.65 b Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.08 a 0.21 a 0.08 a 0.29 a 0.28 a Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.13 a 0.09 a 0.00 a 0.06 a 0.23 a Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.03 a 0.04 a 0.01 a 0.10 a 0.11 a Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.08 a 0.05 a 0.08 a 0.14 a 0.15 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.13 a 0.14 a 0.08 a 0.20 a 0.31 a Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. Table 2 Proportion TBW infested plants, UCPRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 Product Rate and application method 43 DAT 51 DAT 57 DAT 65 DAT 70 DAT 78 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.000 a 0.054 ab 0.091 a 0.076 a 0.039 a 0.005 a Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.019 ab 0.055 b 0.089 a 0.157 a 0.067 a 0.037 b Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.030 b 0.039 ab 0.108 a 0.140 a 0.062 a 0.029 ab Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.010 ab 0.038 ab 0.051 a 0.106 a 0.034 a 0.048 b Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.004 ab 0.067 b 0.071 a 0.095 a 0.046 a 0.014 ab 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.004 ab 0.022 a 0.095 a 0.078 a 0.053 a 0.013 ab Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. Table 3 Proportion TBW infested plants, LCPRS 1 1 Product Rate and application method 37 DAT 46 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.05 bc 0.63 bc Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.06 c 0.68 c Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.03 abc 0.49 ab Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.01 a 0.74 c Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.03 abc 0.37 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.02 ab 0.62 bc Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 1 day prior. Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, Vol. 40, No. 1 3 Table 4 Proportion non-parasitized HW, UCPRS 1 1 1 1 Product Rate and application method 94 DAT 103 DAT 109 DAT 114 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.18 b 0.33 c 0.14 b 0.04 a Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.08 ab 0.08 ab 0.07 ab 0.02 a Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.06 a 0.07 ab 0.04 ab 0.01 a Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.06 a 0.18 b 0.05 a 0.01 a Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.06 a 0.04 a 0.04 a 0.01 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.06 a 0.06 a 0.04 a 0.02 a Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. Table 5 Proportion parasitized HW, UCPRS 1 1 1 1 Product Rate and application method 94 DAT 103 DAT 109 DAT 114 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.13 a 0.14 b 0.27 b 0.19 b Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.10 a 0.12 b 0.08 a 0.05 a Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.09 a 0.05 a 0.10 a 0.06 a Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.07 a 0.11 b 0.09 a 0.08 a Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.04 a 0.03 a 0.06 a 0.03 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.03 a 0.03 a 0.04 a 0.05 a Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Efficacy of Soil-Applied Systemic Insecticides Against Tobacco Pests, 2014*

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/efficacy-of-soil-applied-systemic-insecticides-against-tobacco-pests-jJsqV4c0kB
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsv195
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, 1–3 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsv195 (F45) TOBACCO: Nicotiana tobacum, ‘N196’ Efficacy of Soil-Applied Systemic Insecticides Against Tobacco Pests, 2014* Aurora Toennisson, Clyde Sorenson, and Hannah Burrack Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7634, Raleigh, NC 27695, Phone: 919-513- 4344 (tatoenni@ncsu.edu; clyde_sorenson@ncsu.edu; hannah_burrack@ncsu.edu) and Corresponding author, e-mail: tatoenni@ncsu.edu Subject Editor: Jawwad Qureshi Tobacco | Nicotiana tabacum green peach aphid | Myzus persicae tobacco flea beetle | Epitrix hirtipennis tobacco budworm | Heliothis virescens tobacco hornworm | Manduca sexta tomato hornworm | Manduca quinquemaculata tobacco thrips | Frankliniella fusca 3-Bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-(methylcarbamoyl)phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide; 3-Bromo-N- [4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methlamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide; 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyri- dinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine Efficacy of several soil-applied insecticides (Table 1) was tested two rows. Beginning three weeks after transplant, the number of against key tobacco pests: TFB, TBW, GPA, and tobacco/tomato TFB on ten plants in two rows, and the number of TFB feeding holes hornworms (HW). Two identical experiments were conducted at the on the largest leaf of each of these plants was counted weekly for Upper Coastal Plain Research Station (UCPRS) in Rocky Mount, three weeks. Plants in these rows exhibiting tomato spotted wilt vi- NC, and the Lower Coastal Plain Research Station (LCPRS) in rus (TSWV) symptoms, a disease vectored by tobacco thrips, were Kinston, NC. In each experiment, four replicates of the six treat- counted weekly from three weeks after transplant until nine weeks ments, including an untreated check, were arranged an RCB design. after transplant. Additionally, the number of TBW infested plants in Each 0.018-acre plot consisted of four, ca. 25 plant, rows. At two rows of each plot was counted weekly from three weeks after LCPRS, pre-transplant greenhouse tray drench (GTD) insecticide ap- transplant until topping. At five weeks after transplant, the number plications were made on 7 May 2014 in 1 L water using a CO -pres- of GPA infested plants (plants with more than 50 GPA on a single surized sprayer fitted a single flat-fan nozzle. Twice the application upper stalk leaf, including nymphs) and the number of HW in two volume was used to wash the material into the root zone immediately rows of each plot were also counted. To see if any of the treatments following treatment. GTD treatments were applied as above at delayed plant maturity, the number of plants flowering in both rows UCPRS on 28 Apr. The plants were transplanted on 5 May at was counted from first bloom until topping. Plants were topped on UCPRS and 8 May at LCPRS, and in-furrow transplant water (TPW) 15 Jul at LCPRS and 29 Jul at UCPRS. To look for yield differences treatments were applied in ca. 160 gal/A of water using four 5-gal among the untreated check, Admire, and Verimark treatments, mini-tanks affixed to the planter. Plants received no additional insec- leaves from five plants in two rows of each plot were hand-harvested ticide treatments for the remainder of the experiment, and standard and weighed before each priming of the field. At LCPRS, “A” stalk fertility, disease, and sucker management practices were followed. positions were hand-harvested on 14 Aug, and “B” and “C” stalk Data were collected from middle two rows of each plot. To in- positions were hand-harvested on 10 Sep. At UCPRS, “A” stalk po- vestigate potential phytotoxicity due to insecticide treatments, the sitions were hand-harvested on 18 Aug, “B” on 1 Sep, and “C” and width of the largest leaf on 10 plants in two rows of each plot were “D” on 19 Sep. All data were analyzed via repeated measures measured three and four weeks after transplant, and plant height ANOVA (Proc MIXED; SAS v. 9.3.1) with treatment, date, and the was measured six and seven weeks after transplant on 10 plants in treatment x date interaction as independent variables and replicate * This research was supported by industry gifts of product and funding. V C The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://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 Tests, 2015, Vol. 40, No. 1 nested within treatment as a random effect. If a significant the small amount of damage they did (< 1 FH/L for any treatment) (a¼ 0.05) treatment x date interaction occurred, data for each week was not significantly different between treatments (data not shown). were analyzed in separate ANOVAs (Proc MIXED; SAS v. 9.3.1) No difference in TSWV incidence between treatments was observed with treatment as the independent variable and replicate nested at either station (UCPRS: F ¼ 0.24, P¼ 0.93; LCPRS: 5,18 within treatment as a random effect. Means were separated by F ¼ 1.19, P¼ 0.35), and GPA were not abundant enough at ei- 5,18 Fisher’s Protected LSD (a¼ 0.05). ther station for analysis. For TBW infestations, significant differ- At both locations, leaf widths, plant heights, and proportion ences between treatments were observed at both sites but the data flowering were not significantly different between treatments (data were highly variable (Table 2 and 3), and at LCPRS, these differ- not shown). However, there was a trend (F ¼ 2.75, P¼ 0.051) to- ences were only seen 37 and 46 DAT. Hornworm (HW) infestation 5,18 ward untreated check plants having fewer flowers than treated was not different between treatments at LCPRS (F ¼ 1.24, 5,18 plants the week before topping at UCPRS. TFB feeding holes per P¼ 0.32). However, at UCPRS, significant differences in non-para- leaf (FH/L) at UCPRS were significantly lower than the untreated sitized HW (Table 4) and parasitized HW (Table 5) infestation rates check for all insecticide treatments on all days after treatment were observed between treatments. No differences in yield were seen (DAT) measured (Table 1). Live flea beetle counts were similar for any priming among the untreated check, Admire, and Verimark (Table 1), but the FB population was too small to analyze 36 DAT. treatments (UCPRS: F ¼ 2.70, P¼ 0.12; LCPRS: F ¼ 0.43, 2,9 2,9 At LCPRS, live flea beetle populations were consistently low, and P¼ 0.66). Table 1 Tobacco flea beetles, UCPRS 1 1 1 22 DAT 29 DAT 36 DAT Product Rate and application method Mean TFB Mean FH/L Mean TFB Mean FH/L Mean FH/L Untreated Check n/a 0.88 b 9.59 b 0.55 b 7.06 b 2.65 b Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.08 a 0.21 a 0.08 a 0.29 a 0.28 a Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.13 a 0.09 a 0.00 a 0.06 a 0.23 a Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.03 a 0.04 a 0.01 a 0.10 a 0.11 a Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.08 a 0.05 a 0.08 a 0.14 a 0.15 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.13 a 0.14 a 0.08 a 0.20 a 0.31 a Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. Table 2 Proportion TBW infested plants, UCPRS 1 1 1 1 1 1 Product Rate and application method 43 DAT 51 DAT 57 DAT 65 DAT 70 DAT 78 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.000 a 0.054 ab 0.091 a 0.076 a 0.039 a 0.005 a Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.019 ab 0.055 b 0.089 a 0.157 a 0.067 a 0.037 b Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.030 b 0.039 ab 0.108 a 0.140 a 0.062 a 0.029 ab Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.010 ab 0.038 ab 0.051 a 0.106 a 0.034 a 0.048 b Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.004 ab 0.067 b 0.071 a 0.095 a 0.046 a 0.014 ab 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.004 ab 0.022 a 0.095 a 0.078 a 0.053 a 0.013 ab Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. Table 3 Proportion TBW infested plants, LCPRS 1 1 Product Rate and application method 37 DAT 46 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.05 bc 0.63 bc Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.06 c 0.68 c Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.03 abc 0.49 ab Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.01 a 0.74 c Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.03 abc 0.37 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.02 ab 0.62 bc Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 1 day prior. Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, Vol. 40, No. 1 3 Table 4 Proportion non-parasitized HW, UCPRS 1 1 1 1 Product Rate and application method 94 DAT 103 DAT 109 DAT 114 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.18 b 0.33 c 0.14 b 0.04 a Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.08 ab 0.08 ab 0.07 ab 0.02 a Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.06 a 0.07 ab 0.04 ab 0.01 a Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.06 a 0.18 b 0.05 a 0.01 a Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.06 a 0.04 a 0.04 a 0.01 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.06 a 0.06 a 0.04 a 0.02 a Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior. Table 5 Proportion parasitized HW, UCPRS 1 1 1 1 Product Rate and application method 94 DAT 103 DAT 109 DAT 114 DAT Untreated Check n/a 0.13 a 0.14 b 0.27 b 0.19 b Admire Pro 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.10 a 0.12 b 0.08 a 0.05 a Verimark 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD) 0.09 a 0.05 a 0.10 a 0.06 a Verimark, Admire Pro 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD) 0.07 a 0.11 b 0.09 a 0.08 a Verimark, Admire Pro, Coragen 13.5 fl oz/acre (GTD), 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 0.04 a 0.03 a 0.06 a 0.03 a 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) Admire Pro, Coragen 0.6 fl oz/1000plants (GTD), 7 fl oz/acre (TPW) 0.03 a 0.03 a 0.04 a 0.05 a Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (a> 0.05) via Fisher’s Protected LSD. DAT for TPW treatment, GTD treatment applied 6 days prior.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Dec 31, 2015

There are no references for this article.