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 Insecticides for Control of Stink Bugs in Central Alabama Cotton, 2020

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Stink Bugs in Central Alabama Cotton, 2020 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsab094 Section F: Field & Cereal Crops COTTON: Gossypium hirsutum (L.). DeltaPine 1646 B2XF HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Stink Bugs in HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Central Alabama Cotton, 2020 History=Text=History=Text_First 1, Scott H. Graham and Ron H. Smith EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 and Corresponding author, e-mail: shg0013@ auburn.edu EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Section Editor: Whitney Crow ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp. ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Southern Green Stink Bug | Nezara viridula (L.) ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC Brown Stink Bug | Euschistus servus (Say) ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Green Stink Bug | Chinavia hilare (Say) Brown Marmorated Stink Bug | Halyomorpha halys (Stal) Selected insecticides were evaluated for control of stink bugs at the after treatment (DAT1) and 7 and 14 DAT2. Data were subjected Prattville Agricultural Research Unit in Prattville, AL. Cotton (DP to ANOVA and an F-Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD, 1646 B2XF) was planted on 7 May 2020. The test was arranged P < 0.10) was used to distinguish treatment mean differences. as a randomized complete block design with four replications. All treatments significantly reduced stink bug injury below the Plots were 25.3 (8 rows) × 30 feet and planted at a seeding rate of untreated check at 7 DAT1 (Table 1). Although not significantly dif- four plants per row foot on 36-inch row spacing. Foliar insecticide ferent from other treatments, Bidrin was the only treatment that did treatments were applied with a high clearance sprayer with a com- not reduce damage below threshold (=10%). Orthene was the only pressed air spray system calibrated to deliver 15 gpa through TX-6 treatment that was significantly different from the UTC at 14 DAT1 hollow cone nozzles on 20 Jul (application 1) and 3 Aug (applica- and the only treatment to keep damage below threshold (=10%) tion 2). Applications were made during the 4th and 6th weeks of (Table 1). No differences in treatments were observed at 7 DAT2, all bloom. Treatments were evaluated by sampling 15 quarter-sized (≈1 treatments, including the UTC were below threshold (=30%). At 14 in diameter) bolls from the center two rows of each plot for signs DAT2, all treatments significantly reduced damage compared to the of internal damage. Bolls were considered damaged if they showed untreated check, with Orthene and Brigade keeping damage below signs of stink bug penetrating the carpel wall (i.e., warts, stained 10% (Table 1). No significant differences or trends were observed lint, or ‘pin-prick’ spots). Samples were made on 7 and 14  days for yield (Table 1). This research was supported by industry gifts of products and the Alabama Cotton Commission. © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 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 T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 Table 1. Treatment/form Rate/acre (oz form.) Numbers per 10 row ft 7 DAT1 14 DAT1 7 DAT2 14 DAT2 % Internal boll damage % Internal boll damage % Internal boll damage % Internal boll damage Untreated check - 20.0a 25.3ab 18.0a 38.7a Brigade 2EC 6.4 5.3bc 28.7a 6.0a 8.7b Delta Gold 2.6 5.3bc 13.3bc 21.3a 13.3b Bidrin 8 6.0 12.0b 32.0a 18.0a 15.3b Orthene 97S 12.0 3.3c 6.7c 14.0a 5.3b P>F 0.007 0.048 0.111 0.017 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.10, FPLSD). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Stink Bugs in Central Alabama Cotton, 2020

Graham, Scott H; Smith, Ron H
Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 46 (1): 1 – May 11, 2021
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-insecticides-for-control-of-stink-bugs-in-central-npTepPdg3A

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsab094
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsab094 Section F: Field & Cereal Crops COTTON: Gossypium hirsutum (L.). DeltaPine 1646 B2XF HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Stink Bugs in HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Central Alabama Cotton, 2020 History=Text=History=Text_First 1, Scott H. Graham and Ron H. Smith EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 and Corresponding author, e-mail: shg0013@ auburn.edu EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Section Editor: Whitney Crow ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp. ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Southern Green Stink Bug | Nezara viridula (L.) ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC Brown Stink Bug | Euschistus servus (Say) ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Green Stink Bug | Chinavia hilare (Say) Brown Marmorated Stink Bug | Halyomorpha halys (Stal) Selected insecticides were evaluated for control of stink bugs at the after treatment (DAT1) and 7 and 14 DAT2. Data were subjected Prattville Agricultural Research Unit in Prattville, AL. Cotton (DP to ANOVA and an F-Protected Least Significant Difference (LSD, 1646 B2XF) was planted on 7 May 2020. The test was arranged P < 0.10) was used to distinguish treatment mean differences. as a randomized complete block design with four replications. All treatments significantly reduced stink bug injury below the Plots were 25.3 (8 rows) × 30 feet and planted at a seeding rate of untreated check at 7 DAT1 (Table 1). Although not significantly dif- four plants per row foot on 36-inch row spacing. Foliar insecticide ferent from other treatments, Bidrin was the only treatment that did treatments were applied with a high clearance sprayer with a com- not reduce damage below threshold (=10%). Orthene was the only pressed air spray system calibrated to deliver 15 gpa through TX-6 treatment that was significantly different from the UTC at 14 DAT1 hollow cone nozzles on 20 Jul (application 1) and 3 Aug (applica- and the only treatment to keep damage below threshold (=10%) tion 2). Applications were made during the 4th and 6th weeks of (Table 1). No differences in treatments were observed at 7 DAT2, all bloom. Treatments were evaluated by sampling 15 quarter-sized (≈1 treatments, including the UTC were below threshold (=30%). At 14 in diameter) bolls from the center two rows of each plot for signs DAT2, all treatments significantly reduced damage compared to the of internal damage. Bolls were considered damaged if they showed untreated check, with Orthene and Brigade keeping damage below signs of stink bug penetrating the carpel wall (i.e., warts, stained 10% (Table 1). No significant differences or trends were observed lint, or ‘pin-prick’ spots). Samples were made on 7 and 14  days for yield (Table 1). This research was supported by industry gifts of products and the Alabama Cotton Commission. © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America. 1 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 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 T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 Table 1. Treatment/form Rate/acre (oz form.) Numbers per 10 row ft 7 DAT1 14 DAT1 7 DAT2 14 DAT2 % Internal boll damage % Internal boll damage % Internal boll damage % Internal boll damage Untreated check - 20.0a 25.3ab 18.0a 38.7a Brigade 2EC 6.4 5.3bc 28.7a 6.0a 8.7b Delta Gold 2.6 5.3bc 13.3bc 21.3a 13.3b Bidrin 8 6.0 12.0b 32.0a 18.0a 15.3b Orthene 97S 12.0 3.3c 6.7c 14.0a 5.3b P>F 0.007 0.048 0.111 0.017 Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.10, FPLSD).

Journal

Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press

Published: May 11, 2021

Keywords: Cotton (cottonseed) | Gossypium spp; Southern Green Stink Bug | Nezara viridula (L.); Brown Stink Bug | Euschistus servus (Say); Green Stink Bug | Chinavia hilare (Say); Brown Marmorated Stink Bug | Halyomorpha halys (Stal); bifenthrin; deltamethrin/decamethrin; dicrotophos; acephate

There are no references for this article.