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 Cm-006 for Citrus Red Mite Control, 1996

Evaluation of Cm-006 for Citrus Red Mite Control, 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/60/4639818 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 60 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 21 D: CITRUS, NUTS, AND AVOCAD % Mortality of lst-^th stage CLM DAT: Treatment Rate lb Al/acre Pre-spray + 10 + 21 Post -spray mean + 3 Micromite 25 W 0.32 2.0a 48.1c 77.8c 87.7b 71.3c Micromite 25 W 0.32 8.8a 81.4ab 86.3bc 100.0a 89.2ab + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Alert 2 SC 0.20 3.1a 80.9b 89.8ab 92.9ab 87.9ab + NR 435 Oil (0.05%) Alert 2 SC 0.30 6.8a 81.4ab 85.4bc 89.3ab 85.4b + NR 435 Oil (0.05%) Provado 1.6 F 0.05 4.0a 85.5ab 89.8ab 93.la b 89.4ab + Silwet adjuvant (0.0125%) Agri-Mek 0.15 EC 0.01 2.4a 91.3a 96.3a 86.4b 91.3a + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Untreated Check 9.9a 6.6d 2.5d 6.8c 5.3d Treatment means within a column not showing a common letter are significantly different as separated by Waller-Duncan Af-Ratio Test (P < 0.001). 1/2 Data was transformed by arcsin y for analysis. GRAPEFRUIT: Citrus paradisi Macfaden 'Rio Red' J. Victor French and Santiago Villarreal (3D) Citrus rust mite (CRM): Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead) Texas A&M-Kingsville Citrus Center P.O.Bo x 1150 Weslaco, TX 78599-1150 (210)968-213 2 CITRUS RUST MITE CONTROL ON CITRUS, 1996: Different rates of Experimental CM-006, alone and tank-mixed with NR 435 Oil, were. compared with the standard acaricide Agri-Mek + NR 435 oil. Treatments were randomized and replicated 4 times on plots of 6 trees each in a block of 11 -yr-old grapefruit trees planted on 18 X 24 ft. spacing. Treatment sprays were applied 20 May using a FMC 1229 single volute commercial air blast sprayer operating at 1 mph , with nozzling and pressure calibrated to apply 200 gpa. At weekly intervals post treatment, 25 fruit per replicate (100/treat- ment) were randomly selected and examined for CRM in situ with a 10 X handlens. All live CRM were counted in two, 1 cm lens fields on the shaded side of each fruit. The two counts per fruit were averaged and recorded as one observation. CRM populations were building in all test plots at spray trial initiation. All CM-006 treatments, alone or tank-mixed with NR 435 Oil, gave excel­ lent CRM knockdown comparable to the Agri-Mek + NR 435 Oil standard. However, only the CM-006 high rate (16 gm Al/acre) treatments provided residual CRM control comparable to Agri-Mek. CRM populations were beginning to rebuild in all treatments by 49 DAT. Heavy rainfall ( = 4 inches) at mid-trial undoubtedly contributed to shortened residual effectiveness of all treatments. No phytotoxicity was observed after any of the spray treatments. Mean no. CRM/cm (fruit surface) DAT: Post- Rate gm All spray Treatment acre Pre-spray + 7 + 14 +2 1 + 28 + 35 +4 2 +4 9 mean CM-006 1.0 EC 8.0 9.74a 0.00b 0.03b 0.38b 0.19bc 0.28b 4.19b 6.73bc 1.69bc CM-006 1.0 EC 8.0 9.54a 0.07b 0.18b 0.88b 1.45b 0.67b 2.12bc 8.29b 1.95b + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) CM-006 1.0 EC 16.0 9.91a 0.00b 0.00b 0.00b 0.19bc 0.88b 0.66c 2.13cd 0.55d CM-006 1.0 EC 16.0 9.17a 0.03b 0.03b 0.02b 0.21bc 0.67b 1.10c 2.70cd 0.68cd + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Agri-Mek 0.15 EC 5.5 9.59a 0.00b 0.05b 0.59b 0.01c 0.90b 0.45c 0.96d 0.42d + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Untreated Check 8.08a 13.64a 9.98a 7.64a 8.70a 11.37a 16.21a 35.61a 14.74a Treatment means within a column not showing a common letter are significantly different as separated by Waller-Duncan A"-Ratio Test (P s 0.001). GRAPEFRUIT: Citrus paradisi Macfaden 'Ruby Red' J. Victor French and Santiago Villarreal (4D) Citrus red mite (RdM); Panonychus citri (McGregor) Texas A&M-Kingsville Citrus Center P.O.Bo x 1150 Weslaco, TX 78599-1150 (210)968-213 2 EVALUATION OF CM-006 FOR CITRUS RED MITE CONTROL, 1996: Experimental CM-006, alone and tank-mixed with NR 435 Oil or Ki­ netic adjuvant, were compared with Agri-Mek + NR 435 Oil for efficacy against RdM on nursery citrus. Treatments were randomized and each replicated on 4 potted grapefruit trees (each ca. 2 ft high). Sprays were applied to foliar run-off using a TQ-40 Koke Kap C0 handgun sprayer nozzled with a 8002 Tee-Jet 2 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/60/4639818 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 D: CITRUS, NUTS, AN D AVOCADOS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 61 tip and pressure set at 30 psi. At each count date 3 leaves per replicate tree (12/treatment) were randomly sampled and processed in the laboratory through a Lee- dom Mite Brushing Machine. RdM from each replicate were collected on a detergent-coated glass disc and counted under a binocular microscope at 20X. At spray trial initiation all nursery citrus trees were heavily infested with damaging populations of RdM. All CM-006 treatments provided RdM knock­ down and residual control superior to the Agri-Mek + NR 435 Oil treatment. None of the acaricide spray treatments totally eliminated RdM infestations, but the CM-006 + NR 435 Oil treatment had the lowest RdM mean per leaf through 35 DAT. No phytotoxicity was observed following any of the spray treatments. Mean no. RdM/leaf DAT: Rate gm AI/ Post-spray Treatment 100 gal Pre-spray + 7 + 14 +2 1 + 28 + 35 mean CM-006 1.0 EC 5.0 39.6a 8.7c 5.7c 3.3c 1.7b 2.2bc 4.3c CM-006 1.0 EC 5.0 42.1a 9.7c 4.2c 0.7c 0.3b 0.3c 3.0c + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) CM-006 1.0 EC 5.0 45.9a 5.0c 6.2c 5.0c 1.7b 3.2bc 4.2c + Kinetic adjuvant (0.0125%) Agri-Mek 0.15 EC 2.2 44.5a 21.2b 28.2b 12.5b 8.0a 4.2b 14.8b + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Untreated Check 39.5a 70.2a 73.8a 43.0a 6.5a 18.0a 42.3a Treatment means within a column not showing a common letter are significantly different as separated by Waller-Duncan A"-Ratio Test (P s 0.001). GRAPEFRUIT Citrus paradisi Macfaden 'Rio Red' P. A. Stansly & G. L. Fulcher (5D) Citrus Leafminer (CLM), Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton University of Florida/IFAS SW Florida Res. & Ed. Ctr. P.O. Box 5127 Immokalee, FL 33934 CONTRO L OF CITRUS LEAFMINER ON RED GRAPEFRUIT WITH SPINOSAD AND OTHER BIORATIONAL INSECTICIDES, 1995: The trial was conducted in a nursery block of 1.5 year old 'Rio Red' grapefruit on Swingle citrumelo rootstock planted in single rows, 6 inches be­ tween trees. Treatments, all of which included 1.5% Sunspray 7E oil, were applied on 2 Oct using a hand held boom fitted with 5 Albuz ceramic hollow cone nozzles (two on each side and one over top) supplied by a CO backpack sprayer operating at 40 psi to deliver a spray volume of 25 gpa. A random­ ized complete block design was used with 4 replications and 11 treatments. Blocks were single rows and plots consisted of 30 trees each. Evaluations on 10 new leaf flushes per plot at 4, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT) included total mines on the five smallest leaves per flush starting with a one inch leaf, number of live larvae on the entire flush, and a foliage damage index (percent leaf surface damaged). All treatments gave fewer new mines 4 DAT than the untreated check, with least response from Neemix. Fewest live larvae were observed from trees sprayed with Agri-Mek and Spinosad at the high (0.134 lb AI) rate, though not significantly different from either formulation at the 0.089 rate nor Provado or Sunspray applied alone. Responses among rates of Spinosad were consistent. Fewest new mines were again seen 7 DAT with Agri-Mek and Spinosad although not significantly fewer than Provado, and incidence of live CL M larvae grouped all Spinosad treatments with Agri-Mek and Provado. Fewest new mines were still seen 14 DA T with Spinosad (WP formulation at the 0.089 rate), but not significantly less than with Eclipse or Neemix. More new mines were observed on trees sprayed with Provado than the untreated check. More new mines were still seen 21 DAT on untreated leaves than on all other treatments with few other clear separations between treatments. Fewest live larvae were seen in the field with Agri-Mek, though not significantly less than with the high rate of Spinosad WP, the low rate of Spinosad WDG, Eclipse or Neemix. Lowest damage index on all dates was seen with the high rate of Spinosad and Agri-Mek, though not significantly different from the 0.089 lb AI rates of both Spinosad formulations, the 0.045 rate of Spinosad WDG or Provado. By this criteria, the effect of Sunspray oil was not significantly enhanced by the addition of any of the products tested except AgriMek, Spinosad WDG at 0.134 lb AI and Spinosad WP at 0.089 lb AI. Mortality caused by Sunspray oil alone was seen early in the trial but overall impact on damage was maintained through the end, perhaps due to effects on oviposition. The effects of Neemix and Eclipse were delayed compared to other treat­ ments. 4 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT Damage Rate Treatment/ (lb AI/ Mines CL M Mines CL M Mines CLM Mines CLM Formulation acre) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) %) Agri-Mek. 15 E C 0.0094 0.8c 0.15e 0.5e 0.18d 26.0d 9.75e 12.8d 7.00d 15.4e 0.15d 15.6de 2.40e 8.20cd Spinosad WP 0.134 0.5c 0.20e 0.3e 13.0d 16.0e 16.5cde 6.35de Spinosad WDG 0.089 1.1c 0.85de 0.2e 10.05d 15.0bcd 10.40c 18.9de 0.47d 5.6f 9.45cd 9.70c Spinosad WP 0.089 1.6c 1.55de 0.4e 13.2d 21.4cde 19.4bcd 9.10cd 9.35cd Spinosad WDG 0.045 1.3c 1.60cde 0.7de 20.60d 13.4d 21.5cde Spinosad WP 0.15d 13.4de 12.00cd 10.35c 0.045 1.1c 2.50cd 0.6e 17.3bc 24.2cd Provado 1.6F 0.40d 39.0a 9.50cd 9.80c 0.044 0.7c 0.60de 1.3cde 15.2bcd 21.4cde Eclipse 25WP 6.10b 11.5ef 14.95bc 8.75cd 0.5 1.5c 3.50c 1.9bcd 15.1bcd 26.4cd Neemix 4.5FC 12.7def 19.55b 8.00cd 0.9 2.8b 7.30b 3.0b 13.50c 14.8cd 40.1b 18.9bcd 36.05a Sunspray 7E 1.5c 4.05c 1.5% 1.40de 2.0bc 17.9b 14.25b 28.0c 22.9bc 37.90a Untreated Check 4.3a 0.90a 5.5a 39.65a 21.6a 17.95a 64.6a Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different (P < 0.5, Fisher's protected LSD). Sunspray 7E petroleum oil at 1.5% included with all treatments. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of Cm-006 for Citrus Red Mite Control, 1996

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-cm-006-for-citrus-red-mite-control-1996-ovOlrn76OL
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.60a
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/60/4639818 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 60 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 21 D: CITRUS, NUTS, AND AVOCAD % Mortality of lst-^th stage CLM DAT: Treatment Rate lb Al/acre Pre-spray + 10 + 21 Post -spray mean + 3 Micromite 25 W 0.32 2.0a 48.1c 77.8c 87.7b 71.3c Micromite 25 W 0.32 8.8a 81.4ab 86.3bc 100.0a 89.2ab + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Alert 2 SC 0.20 3.1a 80.9b 89.8ab 92.9ab 87.9ab + NR 435 Oil (0.05%) Alert 2 SC 0.30 6.8a 81.4ab 85.4bc 89.3ab 85.4b + NR 435 Oil (0.05%) Provado 1.6 F 0.05 4.0a 85.5ab 89.8ab 93.la b 89.4ab + Silwet adjuvant (0.0125%) Agri-Mek 0.15 EC 0.01 2.4a 91.3a 96.3a 86.4b 91.3a + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Untreated Check 9.9a 6.6d 2.5d 6.8c 5.3d Treatment means within a column not showing a common letter are significantly different as separated by Waller-Duncan Af-Ratio Test (P < 0.001). 1/2 Data was transformed by arcsin y for analysis. GRAPEFRUIT: Citrus paradisi Macfaden 'Rio Red' J. Victor French and Santiago Villarreal (3D) Citrus rust mite (CRM): Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead) Texas A&M-Kingsville Citrus Center P.O.Bo x 1150 Weslaco, TX 78599-1150 (210)968-213 2 CITRUS RUST MITE CONTROL ON CITRUS, 1996: Different rates of Experimental CM-006, alone and tank-mixed with NR 435 Oil, were. compared with the standard acaricide Agri-Mek + NR 435 oil. Treatments were randomized and replicated 4 times on plots of 6 trees each in a block of 11 -yr-old grapefruit trees planted on 18 X 24 ft. spacing. Treatment sprays were applied 20 May using a FMC 1229 single volute commercial air blast sprayer operating at 1 mph , with nozzling and pressure calibrated to apply 200 gpa. At weekly intervals post treatment, 25 fruit per replicate (100/treat- ment) were randomly selected and examined for CRM in situ with a 10 X handlens. All live CRM were counted in two, 1 cm lens fields on the shaded side of each fruit. The two counts per fruit were averaged and recorded as one observation. CRM populations were building in all test plots at spray trial initiation. All CM-006 treatments, alone or tank-mixed with NR 435 Oil, gave excel­ lent CRM knockdown comparable to the Agri-Mek + NR 435 Oil standard. However, only the CM-006 high rate (16 gm Al/acre) treatments provided residual CRM control comparable to Agri-Mek. CRM populations were beginning to rebuild in all treatments by 49 DAT. Heavy rainfall ( = 4 inches) at mid-trial undoubtedly contributed to shortened residual effectiveness of all treatments. No phytotoxicity was observed after any of the spray treatments. Mean no. CRM/cm (fruit surface) DAT: Post- Rate gm All spray Treatment acre Pre-spray + 7 + 14 +2 1 + 28 + 35 +4 2 +4 9 mean CM-006 1.0 EC 8.0 9.74a 0.00b 0.03b 0.38b 0.19bc 0.28b 4.19b 6.73bc 1.69bc CM-006 1.0 EC 8.0 9.54a 0.07b 0.18b 0.88b 1.45b 0.67b 2.12bc 8.29b 1.95b + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) CM-006 1.0 EC 16.0 9.91a 0.00b 0.00b 0.00b 0.19bc 0.88b 0.66c 2.13cd 0.55d CM-006 1.0 EC 16.0 9.17a 0.03b 0.03b 0.02b 0.21bc 0.67b 1.10c 2.70cd 0.68cd + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Agri-Mek 0.15 EC 5.5 9.59a 0.00b 0.05b 0.59b 0.01c 0.90b 0.45c 0.96d 0.42d + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Untreated Check 8.08a 13.64a 9.98a 7.64a 8.70a 11.37a 16.21a 35.61a 14.74a Treatment means within a column not showing a common letter are significantly different as separated by Waller-Duncan A"-Ratio Test (P s 0.001). GRAPEFRUIT: Citrus paradisi Macfaden 'Ruby Red' J. Victor French and Santiago Villarreal (4D) Citrus red mite (RdM); Panonychus citri (McGregor) Texas A&M-Kingsville Citrus Center P.O.Bo x 1150 Weslaco, TX 78599-1150 (210)968-213 2 EVALUATION OF CM-006 FOR CITRUS RED MITE CONTROL, 1996: Experimental CM-006, alone and tank-mixed with NR 435 Oil or Ki­ netic adjuvant, were compared with Agri-Mek + NR 435 Oil for efficacy against RdM on nursery citrus. Treatments were randomized and each replicated on 4 potted grapefruit trees (each ca. 2 ft high). Sprays were applied to foliar run-off using a TQ-40 Koke Kap C0 handgun sprayer nozzled with a 8002 Tee-Jet 2 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/60/4639818 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 D: CITRUS, NUTS, AN D AVOCADOS Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 61 tip and pressure set at 30 psi. At each count date 3 leaves per replicate tree (12/treatment) were randomly sampled and processed in the laboratory through a Lee- dom Mite Brushing Machine. RdM from each replicate were collected on a detergent-coated glass disc and counted under a binocular microscope at 20X. At spray trial initiation all nursery citrus trees were heavily infested with damaging populations of RdM. All CM-006 treatments provided RdM knock­ down and residual control superior to the Agri-Mek + NR 435 Oil treatment. None of the acaricide spray treatments totally eliminated RdM infestations, but the CM-006 + NR 435 Oil treatment had the lowest RdM mean per leaf through 35 DAT. No phytotoxicity was observed following any of the spray treatments. Mean no. RdM/leaf DAT: Rate gm AI/ Post-spray Treatment 100 gal Pre-spray + 7 + 14 +2 1 + 28 + 35 mean CM-006 1.0 EC 5.0 39.6a 8.7c 5.7c 3.3c 1.7b 2.2bc 4.3c CM-006 1.0 EC 5.0 42.1a 9.7c 4.2c 0.7c 0.3b 0.3c 3.0c + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) CM-006 1.0 EC 5.0 45.9a 5.0c 6.2c 5.0c 1.7b 3.2bc 4.2c + Kinetic adjuvant (0.0125%) Agri-Mek 0.15 EC 2.2 44.5a 21.2b 28.2b 12.5b 8.0a 4.2b 14.8b + NR 435 Oil (0.5%) Untreated Check 39.5a 70.2a 73.8a 43.0a 6.5a 18.0a 42.3a Treatment means within a column not showing a common letter are significantly different as separated by Waller-Duncan A"-Ratio Test (P s 0.001). GRAPEFRUIT Citrus paradisi Macfaden 'Rio Red' P. A. Stansly & G. L. Fulcher (5D) Citrus Leafminer (CLM), Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton University of Florida/IFAS SW Florida Res. & Ed. Ctr. P.O. Box 5127 Immokalee, FL 33934 CONTRO L OF CITRUS LEAFMINER ON RED GRAPEFRUIT WITH SPINOSAD AND OTHER BIORATIONAL INSECTICIDES, 1995: The trial was conducted in a nursery block of 1.5 year old 'Rio Red' grapefruit on Swingle citrumelo rootstock planted in single rows, 6 inches be­ tween trees. Treatments, all of which included 1.5% Sunspray 7E oil, were applied on 2 Oct using a hand held boom fitted with 5 Albuz ceramic hollow cone nozzles (two on each side and one over top) supplied by a CO backpack sprayer operating at 40 psi to deliver a spray volume of 25 gpa. A random­ ized complete block design was used with 4 replications and 11 treatments. Blocks were single rows and plots consisted of 30 trees each. Evaluations on 10 new leaf flushes per plot at 4, 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT) included total mines on the five smallest leaves per flush starting with a one inch leaf, number of live larvae on the entire flush, and a foliage damage index (percent leaf surface damaged). All treatments gave fewer new mines 4 DAT than the untreated check, with least response from Neemix. Fewest live larvae were observed from trees sprayed with Agri-Mek and Spinosad at the high (0.134 lb AI) rate, though not significantly different from either formulation at the 0.089 rate nor Provado or Sunspray applied alone. Responses among rates of Spinosad were consistent. Fewest new mines were again seen 7 DAT with Agri-Mek and Spinosad although not significantly fewer than Provado, and incidence of live CL M larvae grouped all Spinosad treatments with Agri-Mek and Provado. Fewest new mines were still seen 14 DA T with Spinosad (WP formulation at the 0.089 rate), but not significantly less than with Eclipse or Neemix. More new mines were observed on trees sprayed with Provado than the untreated check. More new mines were still seen 21 DAT on untreated leaves than on all other treatments with few other clear separations between treatments. Fewest live larvae were seen in the field with Agri-Mek, though not significantly less than with the high rate of Spinosad WP, the low rate of Spinosad WDG, Eclipse or Neemix. Lowest damage index on all dates was seen with the high rate of Spinosad and Agri-Mek, though not significantly different from the 0.089 lb AI rates of both Spinosad formulations, the 0.045 rate of Spinosad WDG or Provado. By this criteria, the effect of Sunspray oil was not significantly enhanced by the addition of any of the products tested except AgriMek, Spinosad WDG at 0.134 lb AI and Spinosad WP at 0.089 lb AI. Mortality caused by Sunspray oil alone was seen early in the trial but overall impact on damage was maintained through the end, perhaps due to effects on oviposition. The effects of Neemix and Eclipse were delayed compared to other treat­ ments. 4 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT 21 DAT Damage Rate Treatment/ (lb AI/ Mines CL M Mines CL M Mines CLM Mines CLM Formulation acre) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) (No.) %) Agri-Mek. 15 E C 0.0094 0.8c 0.15e 0.5e 0.18d 26.0d 9.75e 12.8d 7.00d 15.4e 0.15d 15.6de 2.40e 8.20cd Spinosad WP 0.134 0.5c 0.20e 0.3e 13.0d 16.0e 16.5cde 6.35de Spinosad WDG 0.089 1.1c 0.85de 0.2e 10.05d 15.0bcd 10.40c 18.9de 0.47d 5.6f 9.45cd 9.70c Spinosad WP 0.089 1.6c 1.55de 0.4e 13.2d 21.4cde 19.4bcd 9.10cd 9.35cd Spinosad WDG 0.045 1.3c 1.60cde 0.7de 20.60d 13.4d 21.5cde Spinosad WP 0.15d 13.4de 12.00cd 10.35c 0.045 1.1c 2.50cd 0.6e 17.3bc 24.2cd Provado 1.6F 0.40d 39.0a 9.50cd 9.80c 0.044 0.7c 0.60de 1.3cde 15.2bcd 21.4cde Eclipse 25WP 6.10b 11.5ef 14.95bc 8.75cd 0.5 1.5c 3.50c 1.9bcd 15.1bcd 26.4cd Neemix 4.5FC 12.7def 19.55b 8.00cd 0.9 2.8b 7.30b 3.0b 13.50c 14.8cd 40.1b 18.9bcd 36.05a Sunspray 7E 1.5c 4.05c 1.5% 1.40de 2.0bc 17.9b 14.25b 28.0c 22.9bc 37.90a Untreated Check 4.3a 0.90a 5.5a 39.65a 21.6a 17.95a 64.6a Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different (P < 0.5, Fisher's protected LSD). Sunspray 7E petroleum oil at 1.5% included with all treatments.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.