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 Miticides for Control of European Red Mite, 2014*

Evaluation of Miticides for Control of European Red Mite, 2014* Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsv001 (A1) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, “Delicious” Evaluation of Miticides for Control of European Red Mite, 2014* A. Agnello and D. Combs Department of Entomology, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, 630 West North Street, Geneva, NY 14456, Phone: (315) 787-2341, Fax: (315) 788-2326 (ama4@cornell.edu; dbc10@cornell.edu) and Corresponding author, e-mail: ama4@cornell.edu Subject Editor: Elizabeth H. Beers Apple | Malus domestica European red mite | Panonychus ulmi predaceous mite | Typhlodromus pyri etoxazole; cyflumetofen; synthetic latex; 1,2-propanediol; alcohol ethoxylate; silicone polyether copolymer The purpose of this test was to evaluate miticides for control of phytoseiids were counted. Data were transformed and subjected ERM. Several blocks in a research orchard containing “Delicious” to analysis of variance, and means were separated with the Student’s trees were managed to flare ERM. Lannate LV was applied once (17 t-test. June) for this purpose. Treatments, including an untreated check, ERM numbers rose quickly once Lannate LV was applied to re- were replicated three times with four-trees/plot and arranged in an search plots. ERM populations declined in all of the treatments six RCB design. Miticides were applied when threshold was reached DAT, and continued to decline on each sample date. By 17 July, (avg. 5.0 mites/leaf, 2014 Cornell Pest Management Guidelines for these numbers remained statistically lower than the check plots for Commercial Tree Fruit Production) with a Durand–Wayland air- the remainder of the season (Table 2). ERM eggs also decreased in blast sprayer at 100 gpa on 2 July (Table 1). Samples were taken 1 the treated plots, while they continued to climb in the untreated plot wk prior and 1 wk following the Lannate LV treatment and weekly for the remainder of the season. Phytoseiid numbers were very low following the miticide treatment (Table 2). On each sampling date, throughout the entire field trial, most likely due to the early season 25 leaves were sampled and brushed with a mite brushing machine Lannate LV applications. Phytotoxicity was not observed in any of and then counted under a microscope. ERM motiles, ERM eggs and the treated plots. Table 1 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Date applied Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2 July Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2 July HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 2 July Check – – Lannate LV applied to all treatments on 17 June. * This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticide and research funding from BASF Co. 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 Table 2 ERM/leaf Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre 11 June 24 June 2 July 8 July 17 July 25 July 30 July Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.8a 2.9a 9.6a 2.3b 1.1b 2.5b 1.4b Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.5a 1.9a 9.3a 1.7b 0.9b 1.1b 1.1b HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 1.2a 2.2a 9.2a 3.1ab 0.4b 1.3b 0.8b Check – 1.1a 1.2a 5.0a 8.0a 20.6a 31.8a 21.9a ERM eggs/leaf Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre 11 June 24 June 2 July 8 July 17 July 25 July 30 July Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2.3a 30.7a 8.3a 22.1a 9.9b 15.1ab 13.6b Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2.1a 14.1a 11.2a 11.8a 6.9b 8.1b 10.2b HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 2.8a 22.3a 14.7a 35.3a 25.5ab 25.4ab 27.2b Check – 3.3a 9.1a 9.7a 42.3a 39.9a 44.3a 63.4a TP/leaf Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre 11 June 24 June 2 July 8 July 17 July 25 July 30 July Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.2a 0.0a 0.0a 0.01a 0.03a 0.05a 0.1a Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.1a 0.01a 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.05a 0.05a HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 0.7a 0.01a 0.02a 0.0a 0.0a 0.01a 0.0b Check – 0.4a 0.01a 0.01a 0.01a 0.04a 0.05a 0.1a Lannate LV applied to all treatments 17 June; miticide treatments applied 2 July 2014. Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Student’s t-test, P 0.05). Data transformed arcsine (Sqrt x) prior to analysis. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of Miticides for Control of European Red Mite, 2014*

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 40 (1) – Dec 31, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-miticides-for-control-of-european-red-mite-2014-v55kZ0HoNw
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/tsv001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests, 2015, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsv001 (A1) APPLE: Malus domestica Borkhausen, “Delicious” Evaluation of Miticides for Control of European Red Mite, 2014* A. Agnello and D. Combs Department of Entomology, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, 630 West North Street, Geneva, NY 14456, Phone: (315) 787-2341, Fax: (315) 788-2326 (ama4@cornell.edu; dbc10@cornell.edu) and Corresponding author, e-mail: ama4@cornell.edu Subject Editor: Elizabeth H. Beers Apple | Malus domestica European red mite | Panonychus ulmi predaceous mite | Typhlodromus pyri etoxazole; cyflumetofen; synthetic latex; 1,2-propanediol; alcohol ethoxylate; silicone polyether copolymer The purpose of this test was to evaluate miticides for control of phytoseiids were counted. Data were transformed and subjected ERM. Several blocks in a research orchard containing “Delicious” to analysis of variance, and means were separated with the Student’s trees were managed to flare ERM. Lannate LV was applied once (17 t-test. June) for this purpose. Treatments, including an untreated check, ERM numbers rose quickly once Lannate LV was applied to re- were replicated three times with four-trees/plot and arranged in an search plots. ERM populations declined in all of the treatments six RCB design. Miticides were applied when threshold was reached DAT, and continued to decline on each sample date. By 17 July, (avg. 5.0 mites/leaf, 2014 Cornell Pest Management Guidelines for these numbers remained statistically lower than the check plots for Commercial Tree Fruit Production) with a Durand–Wayland air- the remainder of the season (Table 2). ERM eggs also decreased in blast sprayer at 100 gpa on 2 July (Table 1). Samples were taken 1 the treated plots, while they continued to climb in the untreated plot wk prior and 1 wk following the Lannate LV treatment and weekly for the remainder of the season. Phytoseiid numbers were very low following the miticide treatment (Table 2). On each sampling date, throughout the entire field trial, most likely due to the early season 25 leaves were sampled and brushed with a mite brushing machine Lannate LV applications. Phytotoxicity was not observed in any of and then counted under a microscope. ERM motiles, ERM eggs and the treated plots. Table 1 Treatment/formulation Rate/acre Date applied Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2 July Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2 July HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 2 July Check – – Lannate LV applied to all treatments on 17 June. * This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticide and research funding from BASF Co. 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 Table 2 ERM/leaf Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre 11 June 24 June 2 July 8 July 17 July 25 July 30 July Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.8a 2.9a 9.6a 2.3b 1.1b 2.5b 1.4b Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.5a 1.9a 9.3a 1.7b 0.9b 1.1b 1.1b HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 1.2a 2.2a 9.2a 3.1ab 0.4b 1.3b 0.8b Check – 1.1a 1.2a 5.0a 8.0a 20.6a 31.8a 21.9a ERM eggs/leaf Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre 11 June 24 June 2 July 8 July 17 July 25 July 30 July Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2.3a 30.7a 8.3a 22.1a 9.9b 15.1ab 13.6b Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 2.1a 14.1a 11.2a 11.8a 6.9b 8.1b 10.2b HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 2.8a 22.3a 14.7a 35.3a 25.5ab 25.4ab 27.2b Check – 3.3a 9.1a 9.7a 42.3a 39.9a 44.3a 63.4a TP/leaf Treatment/formulation Rate amt/acre 11 June 24 June 2 July 8 July 17 July 25 July 30 July Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.2a 0.0a 0.0a 0.01a 0.03a 0.05a 0.1a Tactic 32 fl oz Nealta 200SC þ 13.5 fl oz 0.1a 0.01a 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.05a 0.05a HM9425C 32 fl oz Zeal 72WDG 3 oz 0.7a 0.01a 0.02a 0.0a 0.0a 0.01a 0.0b Check – 0.4a 0.01a 0.01a 0.01a 0.04a 0.05a 0.1a Lannate LV applied to all treatments 17 June; miticide treatments applied 2 July 2014. Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Student’s t-test, P 0.05). Data transformed arcsine (Sqrt x) prior to analysis.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Dec 31, 2015

There are no references for this article.