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

Learn More →

Grape Berry Moth Control in Concord Grape, 2021

Grape Berry Moth Control in Concord Grape, 2021 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" Arthropod Management T ests, 47(1), 2022, 1–3 applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsac038 Section C: Small Fruits Grape: Vitis labrusca L. ‘Concord’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA C. E. Wheeler, A. K. Bosch, A. H. VanWoerkom, J. C. Wise, and R. Isaacs History=Text=History=Text_First Trevor Nichols Research Center, Michigan State University, Fennville, MI 49408, USA and Corresponding author, e-mail: EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA wheel243@msu.edu EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: Elizabeth Beers EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Grape | Vitis vinifera EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Grape berry moth | Paralobesia viteana, eastern grape leafhopper | Erythroneura comes, western grape leafhopper | Erythroneura elegantula ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC This trial was set up to evaluate different programs against evaluated at harvest on 5 October for damage and presence of ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA GBM in grapes. Insecticides were applied to 16-yr-old ‘Concord’ GBM (Table 4). grape vines (Vineyard 1) at the Trevor Nichols Research Center GBM data are presented as mean percent incidence of GBM near Fennville, MI, with a tractor-mounted FMC 1029 airblast damage (Table 1). GLH data are presented as mean percent inci- sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 gpa at 2.5 mph. Plots consisted dence of GLH (Table 2) and mean percent incidence of leaf damage of one 42-ft-long row of vines spaced 6 × 10 ft arranged in an by GLH (Table 3). Harvest GBM data are presented as mean number RCB design with four replications. Maintenance applications of grapes with GBM damage per cluster, mean percent of grape including Rally 40 WSB, PyGanic 5.0 EC, Gramoxone, Imidan cluster damaged by GBM, and mean percent incidence of GBM dam- 70SB, Princep, Solicam, and Glyphosate were applied to the en- aged clusters (Table 4). ANOVA was performed on log-transformed tire vineyard. data. Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA Evaluations for GBM occurred on 29 July, 16 Aug., and 16 and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.05. Sep. by inspecting 50 grape clusters per plot for GBM larvae in- The Tombstone treatment and Intrepid/Altacor/Verdepryn/ festation (Table 1). GLH (presence or absence) was evaluated on Delegate treatment program both significantly reduced the inci - 29 July and 16 August by inspecting 50 leaves per plot (Table dence of GBM infestation in the 16 September evaluation (Table 1). 2). GLH leaf damage was evaluated on 29 July, 16 August, and The Tombstone treatment and Baythroid/Imidan/Danitol/Mustang 16 September by inspecting 50 leaves/plot (Table 3). Fruit were Maxx treatment program both significantly reduced the incidence Table 1. Treatment/form. Rate product/acre Appl. code Mean % incidence GBM (50 grape clusters per plot) 29 July 16 Aug. 16 Sep. Untreated check 0a 0a 52a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 0a 0a 30b Altacor 35WG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 0a 0a 37ab Imidan 70WP + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 0a 0a 30b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are presented in the table. A = 20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E+14 d), H = 3 Sept. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sept. (H + 14 d). © The Author(s) 2022. 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 (https://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, 2022, Vol. 47, No. 1 Table 2. Treatment/form. Rate product/acre Appl. code Mean % Incidence GLH (50 grape leaves per plot) 29 July 16 Aug. Untreated check 51a 11a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 34a 15a Altacor 35WG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 0b 0b Imidan 70P + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 1b 0b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are pre- sented in the table. A =20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1,720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E + 14 d), H = 3 Sep. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sep. (H + 14 d). Table 3. Treatment/form. Rate product/acre Appl. code Mean % incidence leaf damage by GLH (50 leaves per plot) 29 July 16 Aug. 16 Sept. Untreated check 90.5a 82ab 81a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 90a 92a 78.5a Altacor 35WG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 72b 76.5ab 72.5a Imidan 70P + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 71b 65b 61.5b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are pre- sented in the table. A = 20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1,720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E + 14 d), H = 3 Sep. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sep. (H + 14 d). Table 4. Treatment/form. Rate Appl. Mean no. GBM damaged Mean % grape cluster Mean % incidence product/acre code grapes per cluster damaged by GBM GBM damaged clusters Harvest 5 Oct. Harvest 5 Oct. Harvest 5 Oct. Untreated check 3.8a 21a 71a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 3.8a 21a 48a Altacor WDG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 1.0a 5a 31.5a Imidan 70WP + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 1.4a 7a 36a Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ ( P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are pre- sented in the table. A = 20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1,720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E + 14 d), H = 3 Sep. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sep. (H + 14 d). Arthropod Management T ests, 2022, Vol. 47, No. 1 3 of GLH in the 16 August evaluation (Table 2). The Tombstone treat- one or more of the evaluations (Table 3). There were no significant ment and Baythroid/Imidan/Danitol/Mustang Maxx treatment pro- differences between the treatments and the untreated check in the 5 gram both significantly reduced the incidence of GBM leaf injury in October harvest evaluation (Table 4). This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Grape Berry Moth Control in Concord Grape, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/grape-berry-moth-control-in-concord-grape-2021-Gk7oicNTHC
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsac038
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" Arthropod Management T ests, 47(1), 2022, 1–3 applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsac038 Section C: Small Fruits Grape: Vitis labrusca L. ‘Concord’ HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA C. E. Wheeler, A. K. Bosch, A. H. VanWoerkom, J. C. Wise, and R. Isaacs History=Text=History=Text_First Trevor Nichols Research Center, Michigan State University, Fennville, MI 49408, USA and Corresponding author, e-mail: EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA wheel243@msu.edu EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: Elizabeth Beers EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Grape | Vitis vinifera EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA Grape berry moth | Paralobesia viteana, eastern grape leafhopper | Erythroneura comes, western grape leafhopper | Erythroneura elegantula ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC This trial was set up to evaluate different programs against evaluated at harvest on 5 October for damage and presence of ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA GBM in grapes. Insecticides were applied to 16-yr-old ‘Concord’ GBM (Table 4). grape vines (Vineyard 1) at the Trevor Nichols Research Center GBM data are presented as mean percent incidence of GBM near Fennville, MI, with a tractor-mounted FMC 1029 airblast damage (Table 1). GLH data are presented as mean percent inci- sprayer calibrated to deliver 50 gpa at 2.5 mph. Plots consisted dence of GLH (Table 2) and mean percent incidence of leaf damage of one 42-ft-long row of vines spaced 6 × 10 ft arranged in an by GLH (Table 3). Harvest GBM data are presented as mean number RCB design with four replications. Maintenance applications of grapes with GBM damage per cluster, mean percent of grape including Rally 40 WSB, PyGanic 5.0 EC, Gramoxone, Imidan cluster damaged by GBM, and mean percent incidence of GBM dam- 70SB, Princep, Solicam, and Glyphosate were applied to the en- aged clusters (Table 4). ANOVA was performed on log-transformed tire vineyard. data. Transformed treatment means were analyzed using ANOVA Evaluations for GBM occurred on 29 July, 16 Aug., and 16 and means separation by Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.05. Sep. by inspecting 50 grape clusters per plot for GBM larvae in- The Tombstone treatment and Intrepid/Altacor/Verdepryn/ festation (Table 1). GLH (presence or absence) was evaluated on Delegate treatment program both significantly reduced the inci - 29 July and 16 August by inspecting 50 leaves per plot (Table dence of GBM infestation in the 16 September evaluation (Table 1). 2). GLH leaf damage was evaluated on 29 July, 16 August, and The Tombstone treatment and Baythroid/Imidan/Danitol/Mustang 16 September by inspecting 50 leaves/plot (Table 3). Fruit were Maxx treatment program both significantly reduced the incidence Table 1. Treatment/form. Rate product/acre Appl. code Mean % incidence GBM (50 grape clusters per plot) 29 July 16 Aug. 16 Sep. Untreated check 0a 0a 52a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 0a 0a 30b Altacor 35WG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 0a 0a 37ab Imidan 70WP + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 0a 0a 30b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are presented in the table. A = 20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E+14 d), H = 3 Sept. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sept. (H + 14 d). © The Author(s) 2022. 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 (https://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, 2022, Vol. 47, No. 1 Table 2. Treatment/form. Rate product/acre Appl. code Mean % Incidence GLH (50 grape leaves per plot) 29 July 16 Aug. Untreated check 51a 11a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 34a 15a Altacor 35WG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 0b 0b Imidan 70P + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 1b 0b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are pre- sented in the table. A =20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1,720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E + 14 d), H = 3 Sep. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sep. (H + 14 d). Table 3. Treatment/form. Rate product/acre Appl. code Mean % incidence leaf damage by GLH (50 leaves per plot) 29 July 16 Aug. 16 Sept. Untreated check 90.5a 82ab 81a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 90a 92a 78.5a Altacor 35WG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 72b 76.5ab 72.5a Imidan 70P + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 71b 65b 61.5b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are pre- sented in the table. A = 20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1,720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E + 14 d), H = 3 Sep. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sep. (H + 14 d). Table 4. Treatment/form. Rate Appl. Mean no. GBM damaged Mean % grape cluster Mean % incidence product/acre code grapes per cluster damaged by GBM GBM damaged clusters Harvest 5 Oct. Harvest 5 Oct. Harvest 5 Oct. Untreated check 3.8a 21a 71a Intrepid 2F + 12 fl oz A 3.8a 21a 48a Altacor WDG + 4 oz C Verdepryn 100SL + 11 fl oz E Delegate 25WG 5 oz GI Baythroid XL + 3.2 fl oz B 1.0a 5a 31.5a Imidan 70WP + 2 lb D Danitol 2.4EC + 10.6 fl oz F Mustang Maxx 0.8EC 4 fl oz HI Tombstone Helios 2.0EC 3.2 fl oz BDFHI 1.4a 7a 36a Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ ( P ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD). ANOVA performed on log-transformed data; nontransformed means are pre- sented in the table. A = 20 July (810 GDD), B = 20 July (910 GDD), C = 30 July (A + 10 d), D = 30 July (B + 10 d), E = 17 Aug. (1,620 GDD), F = 20 Aug. (1,720 GDD), G = 31 Aug. (E + 14 d), H = 3 Sep. (F + 14 d), I = 17 Sep. (H + 14 d). Arthropod Management T ests, 2022, Vol. 47, No. 1 3 of GLH in the 16 August evaluation (Table 2). The Tombstone treat- one or more of the evaluations (Table 3). There were no significant ment and Baythroid/Imidan/Danitol/Mustang Maxx treatment pro- differences between the treatments and the untreated check in the 5 gram both significantly reduced the incidence of GBM leaf injury in October harvest evaluation (Table 4). This research was supported by industry gifts of pesticides and research funding.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Mar 15, 2022

Keywords: Grape | Vitis vinifera; Grape berry moth | Paralobesia viteana , eastern grape leafhopper | Erythroneura comes , western grape leafhopper | Erythroneura elegantula; methoxyfenozide; chlorantraniliprole; cyclaniliprole; spinetoram; phosmet; fenpropathrin; zeta-cypermethrin; cyfluthrin

There are no references for this article.