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

Learn More →

Evaluation of an Igr Insecticide, Rh-2485, for Control of Dbm and other Caterpillars on Head Cabbage, 1996

Evaluation of an Igr Insecticide, Rh-2485, for Control of Dbm and other Caterpillars on Head... Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/104/4639996 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 104 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 E: VEGETABLE CROPS at 100 psi at a rate of 150 gpa. Applications were made at 3- to 4-day intervals according to DBM larval egg densities observed during the prior bi-weekl\ insect survey. Applications were made on 6, 10, 13, 17, 20, 27, 31 Oct; 3, 7. 10, 14, 17, 24 Nov; 1 and 5 Dec for a total of 15 applications. Post-treatment evaluations were conducted on bi-weekly intervals. Ten plants were randomly selected from each treatment plot and carefully examined for immatures. Significant differences in the number of larvae were observed between the untreated check and all treatments beginning from the second post-treatmen r survey date. This trend continued throughout the trial. DBM larval densities were rather low during the field evaluation. Nonetheless, there were visible differences in the amount of feeding injury in the different treatment plots. Mattch-treated plots exhibited significantly less insect feeding damage and re suited in a higher percentage of marketable cabbage than the untreated check. The higher rate of Mattch provided superior protection against DBM feed ing damage. MV P provided moderate levels of marketable yield. Poor marketable yields were obtained in the Agree and Xentari treated plots. Mean no. DBM/10 plants Pre-treatment (5 Oct) 2 DA T 4 (19 Oct) 2 DA T 7 (2 Nov) 2 DAT 11 (16 Nov) Treatment Rate/acre Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Mattch 2.0 qt. 0 0 0.23b 0 0.48c 0.03a 0.33b 0.05b Mattch 1.0 qt. 0 0 0.28b 0 0.78bc 0.30a 0.15b 0.18b Xentari 0.5 lb. 0 0 0.28b 0 0.65bc 0.18a 0.20b 0.03b MVP 2.0 qt. 0 0 0.60b 0 0.95bc 0.05a 0.30b 0.20b Agree 1.01b. 0 0 0.28b 0 1.13b 0.15a 0.38b 0.25b Untreated Check 0 0 1.00a 0 2.45a 0.25a 1.28a 0.95a Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. Mean no. DBM/10 plants 13 (30 Nov) 6 DAT 2 DAT 15 (7 Dec) Rate/acre Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae % Marketable heads at harvest Treatment Mattch 2.0 qt. 0.10c 0.00b 0.25b 0.00c 92.0a Mattch 1.0 qt. 0.25c 0.03b 0.15b 0.03bc 80.0a 0.05b 1.15b 0.25bc Xentari 0.5 lb. 0.33c 50.0c MVP 2.0 qt. 0.73bc 0.03b 0.68b 0.28bc 70.0abc 0.18b Agree 1.0 1b. 1.43b 1.23b 0.45ab 40.0c Untreated Check 5.58a 1.13a 5.903a 0.98a 2.5d Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001 SAS Institute, version (6.04). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) (insect counts) and arcsine (percent marketable) prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea capitata L. 'Tastie' R.F.L. Mau and (24E' Diamondback moth (DBM); Plutella xylostella (L.) L. R. Gusukuma-Minuto Cabbage looper (CL); Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) University of Hawaii Imported cabbageworm (ICW); Artogeia rapae (L.) Dept. of Entomology Imported cabbage webworm (ICWW); 3050 Maile Way, Rm. 310 Hellula undalis (F.) Honolulu, HI 96822 (808) 956-7063 R. S. Shimabuku Cooperative Extension Service 310 Kaahumanu Ave. Bldg. 214 Kahului, HI 96732 EVALUATION OF AN IGR INSECTICIDE, RH-2485, FOR CONTROL OF DBM AND OTHER CATERPILLARS ON HEAD CAB­ BAGE, 1996: The insecticides were evaluated at the Kula Research Station, Maui Agricultural Park, from April to June. The field was set up in a RCB design with five treatments and four replications (blocks). Each treatment plot consisted of a single row of cabbage planted at 18 in. between plant spac­ ing. Treatments were applied using a C0 backpack sprayer set at 60 psi with an output of 100 gpa. One hollow cone nozzle (TX-26) was used per row The first treatment was applied five days after transplanting into the field on 23 Apr. Subsequently, six weekly applications were made until the week be fore harvest on the following dates: 30 Apr, 7, 14, 21 , 28 May, 4 Jun. The treated check involved application of Bacillus thuringiensis aizawai (BTA) or Proclaim, using the University of Hawaii DBM resistance management protocol. The BTA product used was Mattach which was applied at 2.0 qt/acre on 23, 30 Apr, 7, 14 May. Proclaim 0.15EC was applied at 6.0 oz/acre on 21 and 28 May. A pre-treatment census for larvae was made the day before the first field spray application. Subsequent evaluations were conducted on a bi-weekl v schedule for a total of five surveys. Ten plants were randomly selected from each treatment plot and carefully examined for larvae. For the pretreatmert and 6 May surveys, plants were assessed for larvae in the field. Plants were removed for the 20 May survey and at harvest. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/104/4639996 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 105 RH-2485 was not effective in controlling DBM despite its low population density. A few larvae on the RH-2485 treated plants penetrated the cab­ bage heads and caused damage below the wrapper leaves rendering the harvested heads un-marketable. RH-2485 was effective in controlling ICW, which was the dominant lepidopteran species observed throughout most of the experiment. ICWW and CL larvae occurred at trace levels. However, it appeared the RH-2485 was effective in controlling these pests. Seasonal mean no./10 plants DMB CL ICW Treatment Rate/acre Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae RH-2485 80 WP 0.20 lb (AI) 0.84a 0.16ab 0.00b 0 0.39b 0.00b RH-2485 80 WP 0.30 lb (AI) 0.86a 0.24a 0.00b 0 0.21b 0.00b RH-2485 80 WP 0.40 lb (AI) 1.14a 0.1 la b 0.00b 0 0.16b 0.00b Treated Check 0.18b 0.01b 0.05a 0 0.42b 0.00b 0.98a 0.18a 0.07a 0 2.49a 0.08a Untreated Check Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001 SAS for Windows, version 6.11). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. Seasonal mean no./lO plants ICW W Rate/acre Larvae % Marketable heads Pupa rn RH-2485 80 W P 0.20 lb (AI) 0.00b 0 55.0b RH-2485 80 WP 0.30 lb (AI) 0.00b 0 57.5b RH-2485 80 WP 0.40 lb (AI) 0.00b 0 60.0b Treated Check 0.00b 0 95.0a Untreated Check 0.26 0 0.0c Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001 SAS for Windows, version i. 11). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) prior to analysis. Percent marketable datum was transformed by arcsin prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea capitata L. E. McEnhill, E. Grafius (25E) Imported cabbageworm: Artogeia rapae (L.) Department of Entomology Michigan State University Cabbage looper: Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) East Lansing, MI 48824 Diamondback moth: Plutella xylostella (L.) (517)353-869 5 CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS ON CABBAGE WITH SPINOSAD, 1996: Two rates of Spinosad were tested in Michigan State University Entomology Research Farm, in East Lansing, MI, for the control of imported cabbageworm, cabbage looper, and diamondback moth and their effect on beneficial insects. Seedlings were transplanted on 18 July at 2-ft spacing into four row plots 40 feet long. There was a 10-ft untreated zone between each plot within each row and an untreated row (3-ft spacing) on either side of the plots. Treatments were replicated three times and assigned to plots in a RCB design. Insecticides were applied using a C0 backpack sprayer with a single boom (40 psi, 20 gal/A), on 12 and 23 Aug. and 4 Sep. All insects on 10 ran­ domly selected plants were sampled in each plot on 7, and 16 Aug, and 2 and 10 Sep. The percent defoliation of outer leaves was assessed on 17 Sep, when 8-10 heads per plot were harvested. These were then rated for marketability: no damage, slight damage (damage to outer leaves of head only), or unmar­ ketable (damage to head beyond outer couple of leaves). Spinosad showed some control of lepidopterous pests on cabbage but the standard Pounce treatment was superior in most cases. The most notice­ able difference was in the head marketability ratings. The low rate of Spinosad was not significantly different from the untreated plots. Seasonal mean number of pests/plant Imported cabbageworm Diamondback moth Small larvae Large larvae Pupa Treatment Rate/acre 7 Aug 19 Aug 2 Sep 10 Sep 7 Aug 19 Aug 2 Sep 10 Sep 7 Aug 19 Aug 2 Sep 10 Sep Spinosad 0.044 lb (AI) 0.40 0.00 1.20b 0.27 0.00 0.00 1.06b 0.13 0.00 0.00b 0.00c 0.07 Spinosad 0.089 lb (AI) 0.60 0.00 0.79c 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.61c 0.17 0.13 0.00b 0.03b 0.17 Pounce 4.0 oz 0.30 0.00 O.OOd 0.60 0.04 0.00 0.03d 0.00 0.07 0.00b 0.00c 0.63 Untreated Check 0.30 0.07 1.50a 0.23 0.03 0.00 1.87a 0.23 0.10 0.07a 0.37a 0.50 Means within a column followed by the different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05, Tukey' s HSD, a 0.05) Data transformed for analysis with log(x + 1) 'All treatments except for the Confirm/Latron treatment also contained Silwet L-77 at a rate of 0.14% v/v. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of an Igr Insecticide, Rh-2485, for Control of Dbm and other Caterpillars on Head Cabbage, 1996

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-an-igr-insecticide-rh-2485-for-control-of-dbm-and-other-hWyHBksMdQ
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.104
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/104/4639996 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 104 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 E: VEGETABLE CROPS at 100 psi at a rate of 150 gpa. Applications were made at 3- to 4-day intervals according to DBM larval egg densities observed during the prior bi-weekl\ insect survey. Applications were made on 6, 10, 13, 17, 20, 27, 31 Oct; 3, 7. 10, 14, 17, 24 Nov; 1 and 5 Dec for a total of 15 applications. Post-treatment evaluations were conducted on bi-weekly intervals. Ten plants were randomly selected from each treatment plot and carefully examined for immatures. Significant differences in the number of larvae were observed between the untreated check and all treatments beginning from the second post-treatmen r survey date. This trend continued throughout the trial. DBM larval densities were rather low during the field evaluation. Nonetheless, there were visible differences in the amount of feeding injury in the different treatment plots. Mattch-treated plots exhibited significantly less insect feeding damage and re suited in a higher percentage of marketable cabbage than the untreated check. The higher rate of Mattch provided superior protection against DBM feed ing damage. MV P provided moderate levels of marketable yield. Poor marketable yields were obtained in the Agree and Xentari treated plots. Mean no. DBM/10 plants Pre-treatment (5 Oct) 2 DA T 4 (19 Oct) 2 DA T 7 (2 Nov) 2 DAT 11 (16 Nov) Treatment Rate/acre Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Mattch 2.0 qt. 0 0 0.23b 0 0.48c 0.03a 0.33b 0.05b Mattch 1.0 qt. 0 0 0.28b 0 0.78bc 0.30a 0.15b 0.18b Xentari 0.5 lb. 0 0 0.28b 0 0.65bc 0.18a 0.20b 0.03b MVP 2.0 qt. 0 0 0.60b 0 0.95bc 0.05a 0.30b 0.20b Agree 1.01b. 0 0 0.28b 0 1.13b 0.15a 0.38b 0.25b Untreated Check 0 0 1.00a 0 2.45a 0.25a 1.28a 0.95a Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. Mean no. DBM/10 plants 13 (30 Nov) 6 DAT 2 DAT 15 (7 Dec) Rate/acre Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae % Marketable heads at harvest Treatment Mattch 2.0 qt. 0.10c 0.00b 0.25b 0.00c 92.0a Mattch 1.0 qt. 0.25c 0.03b 0.15b 0.03bc 80.0a 0.05b 1.15b 0.25bc Xentari 0.5 lb. 0.33c 50.0c MVP 2.0 qt. 0.73bc 0.03b 0.68b 0.28bc 70.0abc 0.18b Agree 1.0 1b. 1.43b 1.23b 0.45ab 40.0c Untreated Check 5.58a 1.13a 5.903a 0.98a 2.5d Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001 SAS Institute, version (6.04). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) (insect counts) and arcsine (percent marketable) prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea capitata L. 'Tastie' R.F.L. Mau and (24E' Diamondback moth (DBM); Plutella xylostella (L.) L. R. Gusukuma-Minuto Cabbage looper (CL); Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) University of Hawaii Imported cabbageworm (ICW); Artogeia rapae (L.) Dept. of Entomology Imported cabbage webworm (ICWW); 3050 Maile Way, Rm. 310 Hellula undalis (F.) Honolulu, HI 96822 (808) 956-7063 R. S. Shimabuku Cooperative Extension Service 310 Kaahumanu Ave. Bldg. 214 Kahului, HI 96732 EVALUATION OF AN IGR INSECTICIDE, RH-2485, FOR CONTROL OF DBM AND OTHER CATERPILLARS ON HEAD CAB­ BAGE, 1996: The insecticides were evaluated at the Kula Research Station, Maui Agricultural Park, from April to June. The field was set up in a RCB design with five treatments and four replications (blocks). Each treatment plot consisted of a single row of cabbage planted at 18 in. between plant spac­ ing. Treatments were applied using a C0 backpack sprayer set at 60 psi with an output of 100 gpa. One hollow cone nozzle (TX-26) was used per row The first treatment was applied five days after transplanting into the field on 23 Apr. Subsequently, six weekly applications were made until the week be fore harvest on the following dates: 30 Apr, 7, 14, 21 , 28 May, 4 Jun. The treated check involved application of Bacillus thuringiensis aizawai (BTA) or Proclaim, using the University of Hawaii DBM resistance management protocol. The BTA product used was Mattach which was applied at 2.0 qt/acre on 23, 30 Apr, 7, 14 May. Proclaim 0.15EC was applied at 6.0 oz/acre on 21 and 28 May. A pre-treatment census for larvae was made the day before the first field spray application. Subsequent evaluations were conducted on a bi-weekl v schedule for a total of five surveys. Ten plants were randomly selected from each treatment plot and carefully examined for larvae. For the pretreatmert and 6 May surveys, plants were assessed for larvae in the field. Plants were removed for the 20 May survey and at harvest. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/104/4639996 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 E: VEGETABLE CROPS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 105 RH-2485 was not effective in controlling DBM despite its low population density. A few larvae on the RH-2485 treated plants penetrated the cab­ bage heads and caused damage below the wrapper leaves rendering the harvested heads un-marketable. RH-2485 was effective in controlling ICW, which was the dominant lepidopteran species observed throughout most of the experiment. ICWW and CL larvae occurred at trace levels. However, it appeared the RH-2485 was effective in controlling these pests. Seasonal mean no./10 plants DMB CL ICW Treatment Rate/acre Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae Larvae Pupae RH-2485 80 WP 0.20 lb (AI) 0.84a 0.16ab 0.00b 0 0.39b 0.00b RH-2485 80 WP 0.30 lb (AI) 0.86a 0.24a 0.00b 0 0.21b 0.00b RH-2485 80 WP 0.40 lb (AI) 1.14a 0.1 la b 0.00b 0 0.16b 0.00b Treated Check 0.18b 0.01b 0.05a 0 0.42b 0.00b 0.98a 0.18a 0.07a 0 2.49a 0.08a Untreated Check Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001 SAS for Windows, version 6.11). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. Seasonal mean no./lO plants ICW W Rate/acre Larvae % Marketable heads Pupa rn RH-2485 80 W P 0.20 lb (AI) 0.00b 0 55.0b RH-2485 80 WP 0.30 lb (AI) 0.00b 0 57.5b RH-2485 80 WP 0.40 lb (AI) 0.00b 0 60.0b Treated Check 0.00b 0 95.0a Untreated Check 0.26 0 0.0c Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different (Tukey's studentized range test P < 0.001 SAS for Windows, version i. 11). Data were transformed by square root (X + 0.5) prior to analysis. Percent marketable datum was transformed by arcsin prior to analysis. Untransformed means are presented. CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea capitata L. E. McEnhill, E. Grafius (25E) Imported cabbageworm: Artogeia rapae (L.) Department of Entomology Michigan State University Cabbage looper: Trichoplusia ni (Hiibner) East Lansing, MI 48824 Diamondback moth: Plutella xylostella (L.) (517)353-869 5 CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS ON CABBAGE WITH SPINOSAD, 1996: Two rates of Spinosad were tested in Michigan State University Entomology Research Farm, in East Lansing, MI, for the control of imported cabbageworm, cabbage looper, and diamondback moth and their effect on beneficial insects. Seedlings were transplanted on 18 July at 2-ft spacing into four row plots 40 feet long. There was a 10-ft untreated zone between each plot within each row and an untreated row (3-ft spacing) on either side of the plots. Treatments were replicated three times and assigned to plots in a RCB design. Insecticides were applied using a C0 backpack sprayer with a single boom (40 psi, 20 gal/A), on 12 and 23 Aug. and 4 Sep. All insects on 10 ran­ domly selected plants were sampled in each plot on 7, and 16 Aug, and 2 and 10 Sep. The percent defoliation of outer leaves was assessed on 17 Sep, when 8-10 heads per plot were harvested. These were then rated for marketability: no damage, slight damage (damage to outer leaves of head only), or unmar­ ketable (damage to head beyond outer couple of leaves). Spinosad showed some control of lepidopterous pests on cabbage but the standard Pounce treatment was superior in most cases. The most notice­ able difference was in the head marketability ratings. The low rate of Spinosad was not significantly different from the untreated plots. Seasonal mean number of pests/plant Imported cabbageworm Diamondback moth Small larvae Large larvae Pupa Treatment Rate/acre 7 Aug 19 Aug 2 Sep 10 Sep 7 Aug 19 Aug 2 Sep 10 Sep 7 Aug 19 Aug 2 Sep 10 Sep Spinosad 0.044 lb (AI) 0.40 0.00 1.20b 0.27 0.00 0.00 1.06b 0.13 0.00 0.00b 0.00c 0.07 Spinosad 0.089 lb (AI) 0.60 0.00 0.79c 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.61c 0.17 0.13 0.00b 0.03b 0.17 Pounce 4.0 oz 0.30 0.00 O.OOd 0.60 0.04 0.00 0.03d 0.00 0.07 0.00b 0.00c 0.63 Untreated Check 0.30 0.07 1.50a 0.23 0.03 0.00 1.87a 0.23 0.10 0.07a 0.37a 0.50 Means within a column followed by the different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05, Tukey' s HSD, a 0.05) Data transformed for analysis with log(x + 1) 'All treatments except for the Confirm/Latron treatment also contained Silwet L-77 at a rate of 0.14% v/v.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.