Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/46/1/tsaa122/6103913 by DeepDyve user on 19 January 2021 applyparastyle "fig//caption/p" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" Arthropod Management T ests, 46(1), 2021, 1–2 doi: 10.1093/amt/tsaa122 Section E: Vegetable Crops SWEET CORN: Zea mays L ‘SC1263’ Lepidopteran Pest Control in Sweet Corn With HeadA=HeadB=HeadA=HeadB/HeadA Insecticides, 2020 HeadB=HeadC=HeadB=HeadC/HeadB 1, HeadC=HeadD=HeadC=HeadD/HeadC Riley Suzanne Harding and Brian A. Nault Extract3=HeadA=Extract1=HeadA Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Cornell AgriTech, 15 Castle Creek Dr., Geneva, NY 14456 and Corresponding author, History=Text=History=Text_First e-mail: email@example.com EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadA=EDI_HeadB/HeadA Section Editor: John Palumbo EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadB=EDI_HeadC/HeadB Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) | Zea mays EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD=EDI_HeadC=EDI_HeadD/HeadC Corn earworm (CEW) | Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) EDI_Extract3=EDI_HeadA=EDI_Extract1=EDI_HeadA ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadA=ERR_HeadB/HeadA European corn borer (ECB) | Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadB=ERR_HeadC/HeadB Fall armyworm (FAW) | Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD=ERR_HeadC=ERR_HeadD/HeadC ERR_Extract3=ERR_HeadA=ERR_Extract1=ERR_HeadA The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of com- (ver. 9.4; PROC GLIMMIX) with treatment considered as a fixed monly used conventional insecticides, alone or in sequence, to con- effect and replication as a random factor in the model. Treatment trol Lepidopteran pests, especially CEW, on sweet corn. Sweet corn means were compared using Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test ‘SC1263’ was direct seeded on 6 Jul 2020 at Cornell AgriTech’s Fruit at P < 0.05. and Vegetable Research farm in Geneva, NY (GPS: 42°52′16.9″N A majority of the larvae infesting ears in this trial was CEW 77°01′44.8″W). Seeds were planted 10.5 inches apart within rows, (85%) followed by ECB (11%) and FAW (4%). Densities of and rows were spaced 30 inches apart. Each plot consisted of two CEW larvae per ear were significantly lower in plots treated 30-ft long rows and was flanked by two unplanted rows. Plots with Coragen, Radiant, or a sequence that included Besiege also were separated from each other within rows by 8 ft of bare and Blackhawk compared with densities in the untreated check ground. There were a total of seven insecticides (Table 1) evaluated (Table 2). None of the other treatments significantly reduced in various combinations for a total of eleven treatments (Table 2). CEW densities compared with those in the untreated check. The Five replications of each treatment were arranged in an RCB de- average sum of ECB and FAW per ear in plots treated with at sign. Insecticides were applied using a CO –pressurized backpack least one application of Beseige, Radiant, Coragen, and Lamcap sprayer and boom equipped with two flat-fan nozzles (XR-Teejet II + Heligen was significantly lower than the densities in the un- 8002) calibrated to deliver 31 gallons per acre at 40 psi. Nozzles treated check (Table 2). None of the other treatments significantly were separated by 20 inches and directed horizontally toward the reduced the sum of ECB and FAW densities compared with those primary ear and applied to only one row at a time. All treatments in the untreated check. were co-applied with the surfactant Dyne-Amic, applied at a rate Feeding damage was moderate with 44 and 86% of the ears in of 0.25% v:v. Insecticide applications were initiated on 24 Aug, the untreated check acceptable for fresh market and processing, shortly after most ears had produced green silks, and an additional respectively (Table 2). Sweet corn treated with Coragen, Radiant, application was made on 31 August (two applications total). There Besiege, or a sequence that included Besiege and Blackhawk, was an average of 12 CEW moths captured per trap per night from produced the highest percentage of fresh-market ears, followed 24 Aug until 14 Sep. Silks were brown and dry shortly after 1 Sep. by Lamcap II, Lamcap II + Heligen, and Lannate LV + Lamcap II On 14 and 15 September, up to 30 primary, market-sized ears (Table 2). All treatments except for Lannate LV only and Blackhawk were harvested within each plot. Efficacy of treatments was evaluated only produced a percentage of fresh-market quality ears that was by recording the number of CEW, ECB and FAW larvae within each significantly better than those in the untreated check (Table 2). The ear as well as the location of their collective damage, which was percent of market-sized ears acceptable for processing was high in binned into three categories: 1) no feeding damage (= fresh market); all treatments and none were significantly better than those in the 2) feeding damage to the ear tip only (the top inch or where devel- untreated check (Table 2). The high percentage of ears that were oped kernels had made a complete ring) (=processing); or 3) damage acceptable for processing and not for fresh-market was a reflection from one inch below the ear tip to the ear base (= unmarketable). of CEW being the dominant pest, which typically only feeds in the Data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model in SAS tip of the ear. This research was supported by the New York Vegetable Research Association/ Council and partially supported by industry donations of pesticides. © 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 firstname.lastname@example.org Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/46/1/tsaa122/6103913 by DeepDyve user on 19 January 2021 2 Arthropod Management T ests, 2021, Vol. 46, No. 1 Table 1. Treatment Active ingredient(s) Rate/A Besiege Chlorantraniliprole + lambda-cyhalothrin 10 fl oz Blackhawk Spinosad 3.3 oz Coragen SC Chlorantraniliprole 5 fl oz Heligen H. zea nucleopolyhedrovirus ABA-NPV-U 2.4 fl oz Lamcap II Lambda-cyhalothrin 1.92 fl oz Lannate LV Methomyl 24 fl oz Radiant SC Spinetoram 6 fl oz Table 2. Product Mean number larvae/ear Mean marketable ears (%) Treatment 1st application Treatment 2nd application CEW ECB+FAW Fresh market Processing Untreated check Untreated Check 0.46 ab 0.16a 44g 86 Lamcap II Lamcap II 0.26a–e 0.04ab 67c–f 89 Lamcap II + Heligen Lamcap II + Heligen 0.29a–e 0.03b 68b–f 88 Lannate LV Lannate LV 0.49a 0.07ab 53fg 92 Lannate + Lamcap II Lannate + Lamcap II 0.36a–d 0.05ab 65def 93 Besiege Besiege 0.21b–e 0.01b 77a–e 97 Blackhawk Blackhawk 0.39abc 0.05ab 59efg 94 Blackhawk Besiege 0.15cde 0.03b 81a–d 97 Besiege Blackhawk 0.15cde 0.01b 85abc 98 Coragen Coragen 0.09e 0.01b 89a 98 Radiant Radiant 0.11de 0.02b 87ab 97 P value <0.0001 0.0018 <0.0001 N.S. Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s Studentized Range [HSD] Test; n = 5).
Arthropod Management Tests – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 1, 2021