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

Learn More →

Low-Risk Miticides for Control of Southern Red Mite on Cranberry, 1996

Low-Risk Miticides for Control of Southern Red Mite on Cranberry, 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/54/4639786 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 C: SMALL FRUITS 54 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 CRANBERRY: Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton 'Stevens' Donald C. Weber and Robert Skinner, Ocean Spray Cranberries (8C) Southern red mite (SRM); Oligonychus ilicis (McGregor) Agricultural Research Group, Lakeville, M A 02349 (508-946-7802), and Monika Weldon, Clean Sweep Cranberry Consulting, Lakeville, MA 02347 LOW-RISK MITICIDES FOR CONTROL OF SOUTHERN RED MITE ON CRANBERRY, 1996: An established commercial cranberry bog in Taunton, MA, was treated with 4 materials under investigation as alternatives to propargite for Southern red mite control. Plots were 1 by lm in size, separated by 20-cm buffer strips, and arranged with five replicates per treatment in a Latin-square design. All treatments were made at 100 gallons per acre and 40 psi with a stainless steel backpack C0 pressurized sprayer. All plots were treated on 20 Aug, following pre-treatment sample collections. All plots except pyridaben were retreated on 29 Aug. Check plots were sprayed with water only. Evaluations involved examination of 25 uprights per plot for all mite stages under a dissecting microscope, on 20 (pretreatment), 21 , 29 (before 2nd treatment), and 30 Aug, 5 and 10 Sep, and on 16 and 30 Sep for untreated check and pyridaben plots only. The bog was flooded for harvest between 21 and 28 Sep. Egg numbers were not affected by treatment. This probably reflected accumulation of eggs over the season, many of which did not immediately hatch, but rather made up an overwintering egg cohort. Total motile mite number including larvae, nymphs and adults, was most strikingly reduced by a single treatment of pyridaben. On all post-treatment dates, mean numbers were reduced by more than half. The effect was most pronounced between 29 Aug and 5 Sep, indicating at least 2 to 3 weeks suppression of SRM by pyridaben in the field. The numbers on 16 and 30 Sep showed the same trend, but increased variability made these differences statistically not significant. Variability amongst individual plots on the later dates was likely to be due to im­ migration of mites from untreated buffer strips. Trends in all three of the other treatments, Silwet, Breakthru, and M-Pede, showed significant suppression of total motile mite numbers following the second treatment (on 30 Aug). The trend in motile mite suppression was most apparent in nymphal and adult numbers, because at no time did larval numbers of the non-pyridaben treatments differ significantly from the check. This would be expected from the fact that larvae are recruited from the egg stage which is not affected by the treatments, and larvae are presumably not killed by residue from these three treat­ ments. rate Mean no. motile mites per upright (AI)/ 20 Aug 21 Aug 29 Aug 30 Aug 5 Sep 16 Sep 30 Sep Treatment acre Nexter 3.6 oz 4.33a 2.02a 0.77b 1.02c 1.94b 2.63a 0.08a (60.0% pyridaben) M-Pede 192.0 oz 4.71a 2.60a 3.50a 3.70b 4.82ab — — Silwet L-77 12.8 oz 4.66a 3.53a 4.03a 3.10bc 4.26ab — — Breakthru 12.8 oz 6.39a 3.82a 4.21a 3.82b 5.68ab — — Check (water only) 4.79a 4.60a 4.19a 6.74a 6.99a 5.86a 0.28a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple comparison procedure). GRAPE: Vitus labrusca L. 'Catawba' Howard G. Townsend (9C) Grape berry moth (GBM); Department of Fruit Science Endopiza viteana Clemens Southwest Missouri State University Research Campus Mountain Grove, M O 65711 (417)926-4105 EVALUATION OF CONFIRM 2F FOR GRAPE BERRY MOTH CONTROL, 1996: Plots consisted of 10 mature catawba' vines, with 5 replications in a RCB design. Treatments were applied as foliar sprays at a rate of 100 gpa (935 liter/ha) with a FM C DP15 airblast sprayer on 28 Jun and 31 Jul when pheromone trap catch indicated adult male GBM flight activity was at a peak. The percentage by wt of GB M damaged berries was determined from a harvest sample of 20 clusters taken at random from each plot on 18 Sep. Two applications of Confirm 2F gave commercially acceptable control of GB M in this test. No phytotoxicity was observed and no significant sec­ ondary pest infestations occured in any of the treatments. Mean % GMB Form/ Treatment Acre damaged berries (by wt) Untreated Check 3.15a 2.5 1b Sevin 80W 2.85a Confirm 2F 8.0 oz 0.81b Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by DMRT (P = 0.01) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Low-Risk Miticides for Control of Southern Red Mite on Cranberry, 1996

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/low-risk-miticides-for-control-of-southern-red-mite-on-cranberry-1996-zDuhpRbb0D
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.54
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/54/4639786 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 C: SMALL FRUITS 54 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 CRANBERRY: Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton 'Stevens' Donald C. Weber and Robert Skinner, Ocean Spray Cranberries (8C) Southern red mite (SRM); Oligonychus ilicis (McGregor) Agricultural Research Group, Lakeville, M A 02349 (508-946-7802), and Monika Weldon, Clean Sweep Cranberry Consulting, Lakeville, MA 02347 LOW-RISK MITICIDES FOR CONTROL OF SOUTHERN RED MITE ON CRANBERRY, 1996: An established commercial cranberry bog in Taunton, MA, was treated with 4 materials under investigation as alternatives to propargite for Southern red mite control. Plots were 1 by lm in size, separated by 20-cm buffer strips, and arranged with five replicates per treatment in a Latin-square design. All treatments were made at 100 gallons per acre and 40 psi with a stainless steel backpack C0 pressurized sprayer. All plots were treated on 20 Aug, following pre-treatment sample collections. All plots except pyridaben were retreated on 29 Aug. Check plots were sprayed with water only. Evaluations involved examination of 25 uprights per plot for all mite stages under a dissecting microscope, on 20 (pretreatment), 21 , 29 (before 2nd treatment), and 30 Aug, 5 and 10 Sep, and on 16 and 30 Sep for untreated check and pyridaben plots only. The bog was flooded for harvest between 21 and 28 Sep. Egg numbers were not affected by treatment. This probably reflected accumulation of eggs over the season, many of which did not immediately hatch, but rather made up an overwintering egg cohort. Total motile mite number including larvae, nymphs and adults, was most strikingly reduced by a single treatment of pyridaben. On all post-treatment dates, mean numbers were reduced by more than half. The effect was most pronounced between 29 Aug and 5 Sep, indicating at least 2 to 3 weeks suppression of SRM by pyridaben in the field. The numbers on 16 and 30 Sep showed the same trend, but increased variability made these differences statistically not significant. Variability amongst individual plots on the later dates was likely to be due to im­ migration of mites from untreated buffer strips. Trends in all three of the other treatments, Silwet, Breakthru, and M-Pede, showed significant suppression of total motile mite numbers following the second treatment (on 30 Aug). The trend in motile mite suppression was most apparent in nymphal and adult numbers, because at no time did larval numbers of the non-pyridaben treatments differ significantly from the check. This would be expected from the fact that larvae are recruited from the egg stage which is not affected by the treatments, and larvae are presumably not killed by residue from these three treat­ ments. rate Mean no. motile mites per upright (AI)/ 20 Aug 21 Aug 29 Aug 30 Aug 5 Sep 16 Sep 30 Sep Treatment acre Nexter 3.6 oz 4.33a 2.02a 0.77b 1.02c 1.94b 2.63a 0.08a (60.0% pyridaben) M-Pede 192.0 oz 4.71a 2.60a 3.50a 3.70b 4.82ab — — Silwet L-77 12.8 oz 4.66a 3.53a 4.03a 3.10bc 4.26ab — — Breakthru 12.8 oz 6.39a 3.82a 4.21a 3.82b 5.68ab — — Check (water only) 4.79a 4.60a 4.19a 6.74a 6.99a 5.86a 0.28a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch multiple comparison procedure). GRAPE: Vitus labrusca L. 'Catawba' Howard G. Townsend (9C) Grape berry moth (GBM); Department of Fruit Science Endopiza viteana Clemens Southwest Missouri State University Research Campus Mountain Grove, M O 65711 (417)926-4105 EVALUATION OF CONFIRM 2F FOR GRAPE BERRY MOTH CONTROL, 1996: Plots consisted of 10 mature catawba' vines, with 5 replications in a RCB design. Treatments were applied as foliar sprays at a rate of 100 gpa (935 liter/ha) with a FM C DP15 airblast sprayer on 28 Jun and 31 Jul when pheromone trap catch indicated adult male GBM flight activity was at a peak. The percentage by wt of GB M damaged berries was determined from a harvest sample of 20 clusters taken at random from each plot on 18 Sep. Two applications of Confirm 2F gave commercially acceptable control of GB M in this test. No phytotoxicity was observed and no significant sec­ ondary pest infestations occured in any of the treatments. Mean % GMB Form/ Treatment Acre damaged berries (by wt) Untreated Check 3.15a 2.5 1b Sevin 80W 2.85a Confirm 2F 8.0 oz 0.81b Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different as determined by DMRT (P = 0.01)

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.