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

Learn More →

Impact of Red Imported Fire Ant Control on Crapemyrtle Bark Scale (Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae) Populations on Crapemyrtles, 2020

Impact of Red Imported Fire Ant Control on Crapemyrtle Bark Scale (Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae)... Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/46/1/tsab120/6301370 by DeepDyve user on 22 June 2021 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsab120 Section G: Ornamentals & Turf CRAPEMYRTLE: Lagerstroemia indica (L.) HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Impact of Red Imported Fire Ant Control on Crapemyrtle HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Bark Scale (Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae) Populations History=Text=History=Text_First on Crapemyrtles, 2020 EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 1,4, 2 2 3 EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Erfan K. Vafaie, Chase M. Martin, Mike Merchant, and Mengmeng Gu EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC 1 2 Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, 1710 N. FM 3053, Overton, TX 75684-2322, USA, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 17360 Coit Road, EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA 3 Dallas, TX 75252, USA, Department of Horticultural Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, HFSB 223, TAMU 2134, College Station, TX 77843, USA, and Corresponding author, e-mail: erfan.vafaie@ag.tamu.edu ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: Carlos Bogran ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC Crapemyrtle | Lagerstroemia indica ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Crapemyrtle bark scale │ Acanthococcus (=Eriococcus) lagerstroemiae Red imported fire ant | Solenopsis invicta The purpose of this study was to determine how suppression of a section of PVC pipe buried in the ground positioning the tops of red imported fire ant colonies would affect crapemyrtle bark scale the tubes flush with the ground. The contents of the tubes were then populations on crapemyrtles. Crapemyrtles were located on medians examined under a stereoscopic microscope (30–40× magnification), of El Dorado Parkway in Little Elm (TX). All trees had visibly sim- and numbers of fire ants in each tube recorded. The mean number of ilar signs of crapemyrtle bark scale infestation and fire ant mounds crapemyrtle bark scale on branches and number of red imported fire in close proximity. Trees (experimental units) were in medians ants in pitfall traps were compared between treated and untreated (block) that were either untreated (UTC) or treated for fire ants, plots using a generalized linear mixed model and Tukey’s post hoc with two trees in each block, and six replications (n = 12 per treat- analysis within each WAT. Data were log-transformed (log(x + 1)) in ment). Trees in treated blocks were sprayed with Talstar Pro using the final analyses to normalize residuals. a hand sprayer (Scotts 190567 2 gal. Lithium-Ion Battery Powered The number of live crapemyrtle bark scale was significantly Pump; Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Marysville, OH) every 2  wk, different between treatments (F   =  43.62, P  <  0.001), WAT 1,22 from the base of the trunk to 3 ft up the trunk on all sides to reduce (F   =  25.04, P  <  0.001), and interaction between treatment and 4,88 foraging by ants (Table 1). Additionally, Top Choice at a rate of WAT (F   =  3.55, P  <  0.001). Although there were no significant 4,88 2.75 lbs/1,000 sq ft via drop spreader was also applied in treated differences in live crapemyrtle bark scale at 0 and 4 WAT, by 8 WAT blocks to prohibit fire ant mounds and discourage foraging by fire until the end of the trial (16 WAT), the number of crapemyrtle bark ants (Table 1). No pesticides were applied in the untreated control scale in fire ant-treated plots was significantly higher than untreated blocks. Three branch samples per tree were collected from the first plots (Table 2). This is consistent with the amount of time needed to day of insecticidal treatment (21 April; 0 wk after treatment [WAT]) control fire ants with broadcast application of fipronil. The increase and subsequently every 4 wk until the last collection on 13 August in crapemyrtle bark scale in the fire ant-treated plots was associ- (16 WAT). All life stages of crapemyrtle bark scale (nymphs, egg ated with decreased fire ant populations as determined by the pitfall sacs, and male pupae) were quantified collectively for each sampled traps (Table 3; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.034 for treatment, 35-cm branch under a stereoscopic microscope and averaged for WAT, and treatment × WAT interaction, respectively). Future studies each tree. Three pitfall traps were also installed at the base of the are needed to confirm whether results from this trial were due to trees in each block to confirm the efficacy of fire ant treatments. The increased foraging on crapemyrtle bark scale by red imported fire pitfalls consisted of centrifuge tubes filled with antifreeze placed in ants in untreated plots. This work is partially supported by Specialty Crop Research Initiative  project ‘Systematic Strategies to Manage Crapemyrtle Bark Scale, An Emerging Exotic Pest’ (grant no. 2017-51181-26831/project accession no. 1013059) from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and industry gifts of pesticides. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the USDA. © 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 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/46/1/tsab120/6301370 by DeepDyve user on 22 June 2021 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 Table 1. Trade name Active ingredient Application rate Application method Application date Talstar Pro Bifenthrin 1.0 fl. oz./gallon Hand pump sprayer 21 Apr., 5 May, 20 May, 3 June, 18 June, 2 July, 15 July, 29 July TopChoice Fipronil 2.75 lbs/1,000 sq. ft. Drop spreader 12 Mar. Table 2. Treatment Mean no. live scale on three 35-cm branches Date (WAT) 21 Apr. (0) 20 May (4) 18 June (8) 15 July (12) 15 Aug. (16) Treated 4.5 153.7 36.2 54.0 6.3 UTC 3.3 130.5 5.1 27.1 0.3 P-value 0.745 0.667 0.005* 0.015* <0.001* *Significantly different estimated marginal means of log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column using Tukey’s post hoc analysis. Table 3. Treatment Mean number of red imported fire ants in pitfall traps Date (WAT) 14 May 20 May 28 May 4 June 11 June 18 June 25 June 1 July 8 July 15 July 22 July 5 Aug. 12 Aug. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Treated 16.8 7.2 10.2 5.3 3 3 9.7 1.5 3.5 3.5 8.7 2 5 UTC 18.3 26.2 12.7 5.5 23.2 8.5 19.5 10.5 7.5 32.5 20.2 5.5 18.2 † † † P-value 0.558 0.051 0.567 0.523 0.006* 0.052 0.005* 0.035* 0.147 0.001* 0.075 0.142 0.025* *Significantly different (P = 0.05) or nearly significant ( P = 0.10) estimated marginal means of log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column using Tukey’s post hoc analysis. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Impact of Red Imported Fire Ant Control on Crapemyrtle Bark Scale (Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae) Populations on Crapemyrtles, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/impact-of-red-imported-fire-ant-control-on-crapemyrtle-bark-scale-FzX7D7AOf0
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Entomological Society of America
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/tsab120
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/46/1/tsab120/6301370 by DeepDyve user on 22 June 2021 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsab120 Section G: Ornamentals & Turf CRAPEMYRTLE: Lagerstroemia indica (L.) HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB Impact of Red Imported Fire Ant Control on Crapemyrtle HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Bark Scale (Acanthococcus lagerstroemiae) Populations History=Text=History=Text_First on Crapemyrtles, 2020 EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA 1,4, 2 2 3 EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Erfan K. Vafaie, Chase M. Martin, Mike Merchant, and Mengmeng Gu EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC 1 2 Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, 1710 N. FM 3053, Overton, TX 75684-2322, USA, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 17360 Coit Road, EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA 3 Dallas, TX 75252, USA, Department of Horticultural Science, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, HFSB 223, TAMU 2134, College Station, TX 77843, USA, and Corresponding author, e-mail: erfan.vafaie@ag.tamu.edu ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Section Editor: Carlos Bogran ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC Crapemyrtle | Lagerstroemia indica ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA Crapemyrtle bark scale │ Acanthococcus (=Eriococcus) lagerstroemiae Red imported fire ant | Solenopsis invicta The purpose of this study was to determine how suppression of a section of PVC pipe buried in the ground positioning the tops of red imported fire ant colonies would affect crapemyrtle bark scale the tubes flush with the ground. The contents of the tubes were then populations on crapemyrtles. Crapemyrtles were located on medians examined under a stereoscopic microscope (30–40× magnification), of El Dorado Parkway in Little Elm (TX). All trees had visibly sim- and numbers of fire ants in each tube recorded. The mean number of ilar signs of crapemyrtle bark scale infestation and fire ant mounds crapemyrtle bark scale on branches and number of red imported fire in close proximity. Trees (experimental units) were in medians ants in pitfall traps were compared between treated and untreated (block) that were either untreated (UTC) or treated for fire ants, plots using a generalized linear mixed model and Tukey’s post hoc with two trees in each block, and six replications (n = 12 per treat- analysis within each WAT. Data were log-transformed (log(x + 1)) in ment). Trees in treated blocks were sprayed with Talstar Pro using the final analyses to normalize residuals. a hand sprayer (Scotts 190567 2 gal. Lithium-Ion Battery Powered The number of live crapemyrtle bark scale was significantly Pump; Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Marysville, OH) every 2  wk, different between treatments (F   =  43.62, P  <  0.001), WAT 1,22 from the base of the trunk to 3 ft up the trunk on all sides to reduce (F   =  25.04, P  <  0.001), and interaction between treatment and 4,88 foraging by ants (Table 1). Additionally, Top Choice at a rate of WAT (F   =  3.55, P  <  0.001). Although there were no significant 4,88 2.75 lbs/1,000 sq ft via drop spreader was also applied in treated differences in live crapemyrtle bark scale at 0 and 4 WAT, by 8 WAT blocks to prohibit fire ant mounds and discourage foraging by fire until the end of the trial (16 WAT), the number of crapemyrtle bark ants (Table 1). No pesticides were applied in the untreated control scale in fire ant-treated plots was significantly higher than untreated blocks. Three branch samples per tree were collected from the first plots (Table 2). This is consistent with the amount of time needed to day of insecticidal treatment (21 April; 0 wk after treatment [WAT]) control fire ants with broadcast application of fipronil. The increase and subsequently every 4 wk until the last collection on 13 August in crapemyrtle bark scale in the fire ant-treated plots was associ- (16 WAT). All life stages of crapemyrtle bark scale (nymphs, egg ated with decreased fire ant populations as determined by the pitfall sacs, and male pupae) were quantified collectively for each sampled traps (Table 3; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.034 for treatment, 35-cm branch under a stereoscopic microscope and averaged for WAT, and treatment × WAT interaction, respectively). Future studies each tree. Three pitfall traps were also installed at the base of the are needed to confirm whether results from this trial were due to trees in each block to confirm the efficacy of fire ant treatments. The increased foraging on crapemyrtle bark scale by red imported fire pitfalls consisted of centrifuge tubes filled with antifreeze placed in ants in untreated plots. This work is partially supported by Specialty Crop Research Initiative  project ‘Systematic Strategies to Manage Crapemyrtle Bark Scale, An Emerging Exotic Pest’ (grant no. 2017-51181-26831/project accession no. 1013059) from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and industry gifts of pesticides. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the USDA. © 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 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/46/1/tsab120/6301370 by DeepDyve user on 22 June 2021 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 Table 1. Trade name Active ingredient Application rate Application method Application date Talstar Pro Bifenthrin 1.0 fl. oz./gallon Hand pump sprayer 21 Apr., 5 May, 20 May, 3 June, 18 June, 2 July, 15 July, 29 July TopChoice Fipronil 2.75 lbs/1,000 sq. ft. Drop spreader 12 Mar. Table 2. Treatment Mean no. live scale on three 35-cm branches Date (WAT) 21 Apr. (0) 20 May (4) 18 June (8) 15 July (12) 15 Aug. (16) Treated 4.5 153.7 36.2 54.0 6.3 UTC 3.3 130.5 5.1 27.1 0.3 P-value 0.745 0.667 0.005* 0.015* <0.001* *Significantly different estimated marginal means of log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column using Tukey’s post hoc analysis. Table 3. Treatment Mean number of red imported fire ants in pitfall traps Date (WAT) 14 May 20 May 28 May 4 June 11 June 18 June 25 June 1 July 8 July 15 July 22 July 5 Aug. 12 Aug. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Treated 16.8 7.2 10.2 5.3 3 3 9.7 1.5 3.5 3.5 8.7 2 5 UTC 18.3 26.2 12.7 5.5 23.2 8.5 19.5 10.5 7.5 32.5 20.2 5.5 18.2 † † † P-value 0.558 0.051 0.567 0.523 0.006* 0.052 0.005* 0.035* 0.147 0.001* 0.075 0.142 0.025* *Significantly different (P = 0.05) or nearly significant ( P = 0.10) estimated marginal means of log-transformed (log(x + 1)) data within a column using Tukey’s post hoc analysis.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.