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

Learn More →

INSECT CONTROL ON CABBAGE, 2007

INSECT CONTROL ON CABBAGE, 2007 (E54) CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea var. capitata L. ‘Bravo’ J. F. Walgenbach Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center 455 Research Drive Fletcher, NC 28732 (828) 684-3562 Fax: (828) 684-8715 E-mail: jimwalgenbach@ncsu.edu S. C. Schoof Cabbage looper (CL): Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) Imported cabbageworm (ICW): Pieris rapae (Linnaeus) Diamondback moth (DBM): Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) Cross-striped cabbageworm (CSCW): Evergestis rimosalis (Guenée) Harlequin bug (HB): Murgantia histrionica (Hahn) Six-week-old cabbage transplants (cv. ‘Bravo’) were planted on 5 Jun. Each plot consisted of two 25-ft long rows planted on 3.5-ft centers, with plants spaced 15 inches within rows. Treatment rows were separated by 10 ft of bare ground, and replicates were separated by 30 ft of bare ground. Each treatment was replicated four times in a RCB design, and treatments are listed in the table. Eight applications of each insecticide treatment were made at weekly intervals (28 Jun; 5, 11, 18, and 25 Jul; and 1, 8 and 20 Aug) using a tractor-mounted boom sprayer (2 drop and one overhead nozzle per row) delivering 62 GPA. Larval populations of CL, ICW, DBM, and CSCW, as well as HB larvae and adults, were counted on 10 heads / treatment on 3, 10, 17, 24, and 31 Jul, and 7 Aug. Crop quality assessment was conducted on 31 Aug, when 20 heads per treatment were examined and rated on a scale of 0-5. All heads with a rating of ≤ 2 were considered marketable, while ratings of > 2 were non-marketable. All data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, and means were separated by LSD (P = 0.05). Lepidopterous larval populations were relatively low in this trial, with season total CL, ICW, DBM, and CSCW larval populations across all six sample dates in the untreated check averaging 5.3, 33.0, 4.0 and 10.3 larvae per 10 heads, respectively. All treatments provided excellent control of lepidopterous larvae. HB were relatively high, with a season total of 83 adults + nymphs per 10 heads in the check. While all treatments had a suppressive effect against HB, season total populations were lowest in the Warrior and the S-1812 (0.1 lb[ai]/acre) + SpinTor (0.093 lb[ai]/acre) treatments. Quality ratings reflected the excellent lepidopterous control provided by all insecticide treatments. All treatments had quality ratings < 1 and exceeded 95% marketability. Table 1. Larvae/10 heads Quality assessment Rate Treatment lb (AI)/acre CL ICW DBM CSCW HB 10 heads Rating % Marketable S-1812 4EC 0.1 0.0a 1.5a 0.0a 0.0a 5.8a 0.4a 100.0c SpinTor 2SC 0.093 S-1812 4EC 0.1 0.8ab 1.3a 0.3a 0.0a 12.8a 0.5ab 100.0c SpinTor 2SC 0.05 S-1812 4EC 0.075 0.3ab 1.8a 0.0a 0.0a 17.5a 0.6ab 98.8bc SpinTor 2SC 0.093 S-1812 4EC 0.1 0.5ab 2.0a 0.3a 0.0a 64.3bc 0.7b 96.3b SpinTor 2SC 0.083 1.3b 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 14.3a 0.5ab 98.8bc SpinTor 2SC 0.05 0.0a 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 38.5abc 0.4a 100.0c SpinTor2SC 0.125 0.5ab 0.5a 0.3a 0.0a 18.0a 0.6ab 100.0c S-1812 4EC 0.2 0.0a 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 24.5ab 0.6ab 98.8bc S-1812 4EC 0.075 0.8ab 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 10.3a 0.4a 100.0c Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 0.5ab 1.3a 0.3a 0.0a 33.5ab 0.4ab 100.0c Coragen 1.67SC 0.044 SpinTor 2SC 0.0625 Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 0.0a 1.5a 0.0a 0.0a 50.3abc 0.4a 100.0c Coragen 1.67SC 0.066 SpinTor 2SC 0.0625 Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 0.0a 1.8a 0.0a 0.0a 8.3a 0.4a 98.8bc Proclaim 5WDG 0.01 0.8ab 0.8a 0.3a 0.3a 13.3a 0.5ab 100.0c Warrior 1EC 0.02 0.8ab 1.3a 0.0a 0.0a 4.3a 0.5ab 98.8bc Control --- 5.3c 33.0b 4.0b 10.3b 83.0c 3.6c 2.5a Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (p = 0.05). Insecticide applications were alternated with the first two being Avaunt, the middle four being Coragen, and the last two being SpinTor. Damage ratings were based on a scale of 0-5, where 0=no feeding damage, 1=frame leaf damage, 2=minor wrapper leaf damage, 3=major wrapper leaf damage, 4=head damage, and 5=major damage. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

INSECT CONTROL ON CABBAGE, 2007

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/insect-control-on-cabbage-2007-BgvXI6HqGz
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/33.1.E54
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(E54) CABBAGE: Brassica oleracea var. capitata L. ‘Bravo’ J. F. Walgenbach Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center 455 Research Drive Fletcher, NC 28732 (828) 684-3562 Fax: (828) 684-8715 E-mail: jimwalgenbach@ncsu.edu S. C. Schoof Cabbage looper (CL): Trichoplusia ni (Hubner) Imported cabbageworm (ICW): Pieris rapae (Linnaeus) Diamondback moth (DBM): Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) Cross-striped cabbageworm (CSCW): Evergestis rimosalis (Guenée) Harlequin bug (HB): Murgantia histrionica (Hahn) Six-week-old cabbage transplants (cv. ‘Bravo’) were planted on 5 Jun. Each plot consisted of two 25-ft long rows planted on 3.5-ft centers, with plants spaced 15 inches within rows. Treatment rows were separated by 10 ft of bare ground, and replicates were separated by 30 ft of bare ground. Each treatment was replicated four times in a RCB design, and treatments are listed in the table. Eight applications of each insecticide treatment were made at weekly intervals (28 Jun; 5, 11, 18, and 25 Jul; and 1, 8 and 20 Aug) using a tractor-mounted boom sprayer (2 drop and one overhead nozzle per row) delivering 62 GPA. Larval populations of CL, ICW, DBM, and CSCW, as well as HB larvae and adults, were counted on 10 heads / treatment on 3, 10, 17, 24, and 31 Jul, and 7 Aug. Crop quality assessment was conducted on 31 Aug, when 20 heads per treatment were examined and rated on a scale of 0-5. All heads with a rating of ≤ 2 were considered marketable, while ratings of > 2 were non-marketable. All data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, and means were separated by LSD (P = 0.05). Lepidopterous larval populations were relatively low in this trial, with season total CL, ICW, DBM, and CSCW larval populations across all six sample dates in the untreated check averaging 5.3, 33.0, 4.0 and 10.3 larvae per 10 heads, respectively. All treatments provided excellent control of lepidopterous larvae. HB were relatively high, with a season total of 83 adults + nymphs per 10 heads in the check. While all treatments had a suppressive effect against HB, season total populations were lowest in the Warrior and the S-1812 (0.1 lb[ai]/acre) + SpinTor (0.093 lb[ai]/acre) treatments. Quality ratings reflected the excellent lepidopterous control provided by all insecticide treatments. All treatments had quality ratings < 1 and exceeded 95% marketability. Table 1. Larvae/10 heads Quality assessment Rate Treatment lb (AI)/acre CL ICW DBM CSCW HB 10 heads Rating % Marketable S-1812 4EC 0.1 0.0a 1.5a 0.0a 0.0a 5.8a 0.4a 100.0c SpinTor 2SC 0.093 S-1812 4EC 0.1 0.8ab 1.3a 0.3a 0.0a 12.8a 0.5ab 100.0c SpinTor 2SC 0.05 S-1812 4EC 0.075 0.3ab 1.8a 0.0a 0.0a 17.5a 0.6ab 98.8bc SpinTor 2SC 0.093 S-1812 4EC 0.1 0.5ab 2.0a 0.3a 0.0a 64.3bc 0.7b 96.3b SpinTor 2SC 0.083 1.3b 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 14.3a 0.5ab 98.8bc SpinTor 2SC 0.05 0.0a 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 38.5abc 0.4a 100.0c SpinTor2SC 0.125 0.5ab 0.5a 0.3a 0.0a 18.0a 0.6ab 100.0c S-1812 4EC 0.2 0.0a 1.0a 0.0a 0.0a 24.5ab 0.6ab 98.8bc S-1812 4EC 0.075 0.8ab 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a 10.3a 0.4a 100.0c Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 0.5ab 1.3a 0.3a 0.0a 33.5ab 0.4ab 100.0c Coragen 1.67SC 0.044 SpinTor 2SC 0.0625 Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 0.0a 1.5a 0.0a 0.0a 50.3abc 0.4a 100.0c Coragen 1.67SC 0.066 SpinTor 2SC 0.0625 Avaunt 30WDG 0.065 0.0a 1.8a 0.0a 0.0a 8.3a 0.4a 98.8bc Proclaim 5WDG 0.01 0.8ab 0.8a 0.3a 0.3a 13.3a 0.5ab 100.0c Warrior 1EC 0.02 0.8ab 1.3a 0.0a 0.0a 4.3a 0.5ab 98.8bc Control --- 5.3c 33.0b 4.0b 10.3b 83.0c 3.6c 2.5a Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different by LSD (p = 0.05). Insecticide applications were alternated with the first two being Avaunt, the middle four being Coragen, and the last two being SpinTor. Damage ratings were based on a scale of 0-5, where 0=no feeding damage, 1=frame leaf damage, 2=minor wrapper leaf damage, 3=major wrapper leaf damage, 4=head damage, and 5=major damage.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.