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 Noninsecticidal Controls for Citrus Leafminer, 2020

Evaluation of Noninsecticidal Controls for Citrus Leafminer, 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/tsab114 Section D: Citrus, Nuts, and Other Tree Fruits CITRUS: Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Evaluation of Noninsecticidal Controls for Citrus HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Leafminer, 2020 History=Text=History=Text_First 1 1,2 Angela Chuang and Lauren M. Diepenbrock EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 1 2 EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Citrus Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA and Corresponding author, e-mail: ldiepenbrock@ufl.edu EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Section Editor: David Haviland ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Orange | Citrus sinensis ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Citrus leafminer | Phyllocnistis citrella ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Given the increasing costs of insecticides and risks of insecticide re- on leaves through five applications of Surround WP mixed with red sistance in citrus agroecosystems, we evaluated the efficacy of sev- mulch dye (Colorback, Pylam Products Company Inc., Tempe, AZ) eral noninsecticidal tools on citrus leafminer, Phyllocnistis citrella, from Mar through Sep. Applications were made using a motorized in young citrus trees. Citrus leafminer larvae develop and feed on handheld sprayer (Model MS-401, Loweel, MI) to spray kaolin di- flush, oftentimes damaging leaves and causing malformities which rectly onto leaf surfaces. can stunt young tree growth and increase susceptibility to citrus We randomly assigned the four treatment groups to plots canker. Our management tools of interest included insect exclusion consisting of three rows of six adjacent trees (18 trees per plot), bags which act as a physical barrier to the tree, foliar sprays of ka- with five replicates for each treatment organized into a completely olin clay particle film, and sheets of reflective metallicized ground randomized design. Plots had a one-tree buffer within the same row cover (‘reflective mulch’). Both kaolin clay and reflective mulch deter but not between plots across rows. Phyllocnistis citrella were scouted pests by masking visual cues insects use to orient toward and colo- monthly from 5 May 2020 to 7 Oct 2020 by counting the number nize vegetation. of mines per tree by carefully examining all flush present. Since flush We planted 1-yr-old nursery grown Valencia variety citrus trees describes new, tender foliage, our counts represent current or recent on Kuharske rootstock on 17 Mar 2020. They were planted 1.8 m P. citrella activity with no recounts from month to month. apart in an experimental grove at the Citrus Research and Education Data on the average number of mines per tree were analyzed by Center in Lake Alfred, Polk County, FL, United States. They had not ANOVA after square root transformation of the data, with means encountered citrus leafminer prior to this experiment. All trees were separated by Tukey’s HSD (0.05). treated with imidacloprid (Admire Pro) at 0.057 fl oz per tree (14 fl When data were pooled across all sampling dates, we found oz per acre) on 18 Mar 2020 as is standard for newly planted trees. differences in average P.  citrella mine counts between our treatments We evaluated citrus leafminer abundance on trees managed for (F  = 18.347, P < 0.001) (Table 2). The main differences occurred 3, 816 common citrus pests using traditional insecticide programs compared between 8 Jul and 31 Aug since mine counts remained similar across to three noninsecticidal alternatives (Table 1). The insecticide control treatments before and after these dates. Mine counts were higher in received three applications of insecticides in Jul, Aug, and Oct using trees treated with kaolin clay and reflective mulch on 8 Jul (P  = 0.002). a hand-gun applicator (PCO Skid Sprayer MCCI100K43HR1M) By 4 Aug and 31 Aug, trees in the insecticide control had similarly with a water volume of 935 liters per hectare. Trees in the bag treat- high P. citrella counts as those in the kaolin clay and reflective mulch ment were covered using a 1.5-m bag (Tree Defender, Dundee, FL) treatments (P  <  0.001, P  <  0.001). Phyllocnistis citrella mines only with a standard mesh size of 50 (0.297 mm) and 130 g/inch thick- remained low across our sampling period in bagged trees, although ness. In the reflective mulch treatment, we covered the area of the mite proliferation in those trees required abamectin (Agri-Mek) plot (23 m × 2.03 m) with a 0.0762-mm-thick metallicized poly- miticide application in May and Sep (Table 1). This treatment had the ethylene ground cover (Imaflex Shine N’ Ripe XL 2.032 m width), fewest P. citrella mine counts overall and while trees treated with ka- with a circular opening (approximately 15.24 cm diameter) for each olin clay had significantly fewer mines than those with reflective mulch, tree. In the final treatment, a kaolin clay particle film was sprayed neither of them differed significantly from the insecticide control. This research was funded under USDA APHIS HLM MAC Agreement AP19PPQS&T00C158, U.S. Department of Agriculture Current Research Information System (USDA CRIS) FLA-CRC-005788. © 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 Date Action Insecticide control 28 Jul 2020 General pest management application: tolfenpyrad (Apta), 16 fl oz per acre + NIS at 0.1% v/v, foliar 31 Aug 2020 General pest management application: imidacloprid (Admire Pro) 4.6, 14 fl oz per acre, soil drench 7 Oct 2020 General pest management application: sulfoxaflor (Closer), 5.75 fl oz per acre, + NIS at 0.1% v/v, foliar Bag 17 Mar 2020 Exclusion netting bag applied 20 May 2020 Miticide application: abamectin (Agri-Mek), 4.25 fl oz per acre, + 435 oil at 1% v/v 16 Sep 2020 Miticide application: abamectin (Agri-Mek), 4.25 fl oz per acre, + 435 oil at 1% v/v Reflective mulch 22 Nov 2019 Mulch installed Kaolin 23 Mar 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 15 May 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 18 Jun 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 30 Jul 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 30 Sep 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye Prior to the initiation of the trial, all trees were treated with imidacloprid (Admire Pro) on 18 Mar 2020 at a rate of 14 fl oz per acre as a soil drench. Table 2. Treatment Mean citrus leafminer mine count/flush Means by treatment 5 May 9 Jun 8 Jul 4 Aug 31 Aug 7 Oct Insecticide control 0.77a 0.17a 2.03a 16.17a 46.47a 0.53a 9.63ab Bag 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.40b 0.00b 0.00a 0.06c Kaolin clay 0.97a 0.10a 8.73b 4.00a 26.00a 0.00a 5.54b Reflective mulch 0.17a 0.00a 16.23b 28.43a 41.07a 0.63a 12.61a P-value 0.724 0.914 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.998 <0.001 Means within columns followed by a common letter were not significantly different using ANOVA with means separation using Tukey’s HSD, P ≤ 0.05. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Evaluation of Noninsecticidal Controls for Citrus Leafminer, 2020

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 46 (1): 1 – Jun 18, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/evaluation-of-noninsecticidal-controls-for-citrus-leafminer-2020-idhooSyGOx
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/tsab114
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/tsab114 Section D: Citrus, Nuts, and Other Tree Fruits CITRUS: Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Evaluation of Noninsecticidal Controls for Citrus HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Leafminer, 2020 History=Text=History=Text_First 1 1,2 Angela Chuang and Lauren M. Diepenbrock EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 1 2 EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Citrus Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA and Corresponding author, e-mail: ldiepenbrock@ufl.edu EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA Section Editor: David Haviland ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Orange | Citrus sinensis ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Citrus leafminer | Phyllocnistis citrella ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Given the increasing costs of insecticides and risks of insecticide re- on leaves through five applications of Surround WP mixed with red sistance in citrus agroecosystems, we evaluated the efficacy of sev- mulch dye (Colorback, Pylam Products Company Inc., Tempe, AZ) eral noninsecticidal tools on citrus leafminer, Phyllocnistis citrella, from Mar through Sep. Applications were made using a motorized in young citrus trees. Citrus leafminer larvae develop and feed on handheld sprayer (Model MS-401, Loweel, MI) to spray kaolin di- flush, oftentimes damaging leaves and causing malformities which rectly onto leaf surfaces. can stunt young tree growth and increase susceptibility to citrus We randomly assigned the four treatment groups to plots canker. Our management tools of interest included insect exclusion consisting of three rows of six adjacent trees (18 trees per plot), bags which act as a physical barrier to the tree, foliar sprays of ka- with five replicates for each treatment organized into a completely olin clay particle film, and sheets of reflective metallicized ground randomized design. Plots had a one-tree buffer within the same row cover (‘reflective mulch’). Both kaolin clay and reflective mulch deter but not between plots across rows. Phyllocnistis citrella were scouted pests by masking visual cues insects use to orient toward and colo- monthly from 5 May 2020 to 7 Oct 2020 by counting the number nize vegetation. of mines per tree by carefully examining all flush present. Since flush We planted 1-yr-old nursery grown Valencia variety citrus trees describes new, tender foliage, our counts represent current or recent on Kuharske rootstock on 17 Mar 2020. They were planted 1.8 m P. citrella activity with no recounts from month to month. apart in an experimental grove at the Citrus Research and Education Data on the average number of mines per tree were analyzed by Center in Lake Alfred, Polk County, FL, United States. They had not ANOVA after square root transformation of the data, with means encountered citrus leafminer prior to this experiment. All trees were separated by Tukey’s HSD (0.05). treated with imidacloprid (Admire Pro) at 0.057 fl oz per tree (14 fl When data were pooled across all sampling dates, we found oz per acre) on 18 Mar 2020 as is standard for newly planted trees. differences in average P.  citrella mine counts between our treatments We evaluated citrus leafminer abundance on trees managed for (F  = 18.347, P < 0.001) (Table 2). The main differences occurred 3, 816 common citrus pests using traditional insecticide programs compared between 8 Jul and 31 Aug since mine counts remained similar across to three noninsecticidal alternatives (Table 1). The insecticide control treatments before and after these dates. Mine counts were higher in received three applications of insecticides in Jul, Aug, and Oct using trees treated with kaolin clay and reflective mulch on 8 Jul (P  = 0.002). a hand-gun applicator (PCO Skid Sprayer MCCI100K43HR1M) By 4 Aug and 31 Aug, trees in the insecticide control had similarly with a water volume of 935 liters per hectare. Trees in the bag treat- high P. citrella counts as those in the kaolin clay and reflective mulch ment were covered using a 1.5-m bag (Tree Defender, Dundee, FL) treatments (P  <  0.001, P  <  0.001). Phyllocnistis citrella mines only with a standard mesh size of 50 (0.297 mm) and 130 g/inch thick- remained low across our sampling period in bagged trees, although ness. In the reflective mulch treatment, we covered the area of the mite proliferation in those trees required abamectin (Agri-Mek) plot (23 m × 2.03 m) with a 0.0762-mm-thick metallicized poly- miticide application in May and Sep (Table 1). This treatment had the ethylene ground cover (Imaflex Shine N’ Ripe XL 2.032 m width), fewest P. citrella mine counts overall and while trees treated with ka- with a circular opening (approximately 15.24 cm diameter) for each olin clay had significantly fewer mines than those with reflective mulch, tree. In the final treatment, a kaolin clay particle film was sprayed neither of them differed significantly from the insecticide control. This research was funded under USDA APHIS HLM MAC Agreement AP19PPQS&T00C158, U.S. Department of Agriculture Current Research Information System (USDA CRIS) FLA-CRC-005788. © 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 Date Action Insecticide control 28 Jul 2020 General pest management application: tolfenpyrad (Apta), 16 fl oz per acre + NIS at 0.1% v/v, foliar 31 Aug 2020 General pest management application: imidacloprid (Admire Pro) 4.6, 14 fl oz per acre, soil drench 7 Oct 2020 General pest management application: sulfoxaflor (Closer), 5.75 fl oz per acre, + NIS at 0.1% v/v, foliar Bag 17 Mar 2020 Exclusion netting bag applied 20 May 2020 Miticide application: abamectin (Agri-Mek), 4.25 fl oz per acre, + 435 oil at 1% v/v 16 Sep 2020 Miticide application: abamectin (Agri-Mek), 4.25 fl oz per acre, + 435 oil at 1% v/v Reflective mulch 22 Nov 2019 Mulch installed Kaolin 23 Mar 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 15 May 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 18 Jun 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 30 Jul 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye 30 Sep 2020 Application: 480 g kaolin in 8.0 l water + 78 ml dye Prior to the initiation of the trial, all trees were treated with imidacloprid (Admire Pro) on 18 Mar 2020 at a rate of 14 fl oz per acre as a soil drench. Table 2. Treatment Mean citrus leafminer mine count/flush Means by treatment 5 May 9 Jun 8 Jul 4 Aug 31 Aug 7 Oct Insecticide control 0.77a 0.17a 2.03a 16.17a 46.47a 0.53a 9.63ab Bag 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.40b 0.00b 0.00a 0.06c Kaolin clay 0.97a 0.10a 8.73b 4.00a 26.00a 0.00a 5.54b Reflective mulch 0.17a 0.00a 16.23b 28.43a 41.07a 0.63a 12.61a P-value 0.724 0.914 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.998 <0.001 Means within columns followed by a common letter were not significantly different using ANOVA with means separation using Tukey’s HSD, P ≤ 0.05.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jun 18, 2021

Keywords: Orange | Citrus sinensis; Citrus leafminer | Phyllocnistis citrella; imidacloprid; abamectin/avermectin B1; tolfenpyrad; sulfoxaflor

There are no references for this article.