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

Learn More →

PEA APHID CONTROL, 2004

PEA APHID CONTROL, 2004 (F56) FIELD PEA: Pisum sativum L., ‘Joel’ Sanford D. Eigenbrode Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences 242 Agricultural Sciences Bldg. University of Idaho Moscow ID 83844-2339 Phone: (208) 885-2972 Fax: (208) 885-7660 E-mail: sanforde@uidaho.edu Hongjian Ding Pea aphid: Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) Producers rely on dimethoate for control of the pea aphid in field peas. Impending restrictions on its use require assessment of potential alternatives. A field trial was conducted during the summer of 2004 at the Washington State University/USDA Agricultural Research Service Palouse Conservation Farm north of Pullman, WA. Field peas were planted in mid May. On 31 May, 64, 5 m × 1m plots were marked out to support a CRB design with 16 treatments and 4 replications. Plots were separated by 1-m wide mowed alleys. Pea aphids were counted on 10 randomly selected stems in each plot on 1 Jul and test materials were applied on the following day using a CO -powered backpack sprayer. All materials were applied in 1.0 liter of water with Tri-Fol buffer, 16.0 oz/100 gal, and R-11 spreader activator, 12.0 oz/100gal. Rates followed label recommendations where applicable or company representative recommendations for products not registered for use on field peas. The treatments included a control with the buffer and spreader activator in water, (‘buffer’) and a water only control. Aphids were counted on a sample of 10 stems from each plot on 9 Jul (7 DAT) and again on 16 Jul (14 DAT). Plots were harvested from each plot by combine on 10 Aug and the cleaned seed was dried at 30°C for 1 wk before being weighed to estimate yield. ANOVA was used to assess effect of treatment on aphids per stem at 7 and 14 DAT and on yield (calculated as lb/acre). Means comparison was conducted using Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Dimethoate provided the most effective pea aphid control at 7 DAT and 14 DAT. At 7 DAT, Capture and Flonicamid were as effective as Dimethoate; at 14 DAT, only Capture was as effective as Dimethoate. Highest yields were obtained with Dimethoate and Warrior, followed by Capture. No. aphids/stem Treatment/ Rate Yield formulation amt (AI)/acre 7 DAT 15 DAT (lb/acre) Dimethoate 400 0.5 lb 1.2d 5.3e 2,282a Warrior 1EC 0.03 lb 7.9cd 64.7de 2,279a Capture 2EC 0.04 lb 4.2d 15.1e 1,964ab Mustang Max 0.8 EC 0.025 lb 10.7cd 47.6de 1,819abc Flonicamid 50SG 0.07 lb 5.3d 53.8de 1,705abcd Asana 0.66XL 0.03 lb 6.9cd 49.1de 1,360bcd Provado 1.6F 50.0 g 5.3cd 41.3de 1,148bcde Pirimor 50DF 0.5 lb 8.9cd 27.3de 1,118bcde Actara 25WG 0.022 lb 15.4cd 140.6be 1,090bcde Assail 70WP 0.05 lb 16.5cd 167.3acd 933cde Lannate 2.4LV 0.9 lb 6.5cd 70.1cde 928cde Fulfill 50 WG 0.086 lb 7.2cd 157.5bcd 825e Assail 70WP 0.025 lb 30.8b 169.0abc 820e Buffer control --- 44.7ab 239.5a 713e Impede 2% v/v 29.0bc 233.4ab 648e Water control --- 51.5a 185.6ab 544e Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P > 0.05); P values for treatment effects were all < 0.02. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

PEA APHID CONTROL, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/pea-aphid-control-2004-SZiZ4XiLHs
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/30.1.F56
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(F56) FIELD PEA: Pisum sativum L., ‘Joel’ Sanford D. Eigenbrode Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences 242 Agricultural Sciences Bldg. University of Idaho Moscow ID 83844-2339 Phone: (208) 885-2972 Fax: (208) 885-7660 E-mail: sanforde@uidaho.edu Hongjian Ding Pea aphid: Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) Producers rely on dimethoate for control of the pea aphid in field peas. Impending restrictions on its use require assessment of potential alternatives. A field trial was conducted during the summer of 2004 at the Washington State University/USDA Agricultural Research Service Palouse Conservation Farm north of Pullman, WA. Field peas were planted in mid May. On 31 May, 64, 5 m × 1m plots were marked out to support a CRB design with 16 treatments and 4 replications. Plots were separated by 1-m wide mowed alleys. Pea aphids were counted on 10 randomly selected stems in each plot on 1 Jul and test materials were applied on the following day using a CO -powered backpack sprayer. All materials were applied in 1.0 liter of water with Tri-Fol buffer, 16.0 oz/100 gal, and R-11 spreader activator, 12.0 oz/100gal. Rates followed label recommendations where applicable or company representative recommendations for products not registered for use on field peas. The treatments included a control with the buffer and spreader activator in water, (‘buffer’) and a water only control. Aphids were counted on a sample of 10 stems from each plot on 9 Jul (7 DAT) and again on 16 Jul (14 DAT). Plots were harvested from each plot by combine on 10 Aug and the cleaned seed was dried at 30°C for 1 wk before being weighed to estimate yield. ANOVA was used to assess effect of treatment on aphids per stem at 7 and 14 DAT and on yield (calculated as lb/acre). Means comparison was conducted using Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Dimethoate provided the most effective pea aphid control at 7 DAT and 14 DAT. At 7 DAT, Capture and Flonicamid were as effective as Dimethoate; at 14 DAT, only Capture was as effective as Dimethoate. Highest yields were obtained with Dimethoate and Warrior, followed by Capture. No. aphids/stem Treatment/ Rate Yield formulation amt (AI)/acre 7 DAT 15 DAT (lb/acre) Dimethoate 400 0.5 lb 1.2d 5.3e 2,282a Warrior 1EC 0.03 lb 7.9cd 64.7de 2,279a Capture 2EC 0.04 lb 4.2d 15.1e 1,964ab Mustang Max 0.8 EC 0.025 lb 10.7cd 47.6de 1,819abc Flonicamid 50SG 0.07 lb 5.3d 53.8de 1,705abcd Asana 0.66XL 0.03 lb 6.9cd 49.1de 1,360bcd Provado 1.6F 50.0 g 5.3cd 41.3de 1,148bcde Pirimor 50DF 0.5 lb 8.9cd 27.3de 1,118bcde Actara 25WG 0.022 lb 15.4cd 140.6be 1,090bcde Assail 70WP 0.05 lb 16.5cd 167.3acd 933cde Lannate 2.4LV 0.9 lb 6.5cd 70.1cde 928cde Fulfill 50 WG 0.086 lb 7.2cd 157.5bcd 825e Assail 70WP 0.025 lb 30.8b 169.0abc 820e Buffer control --- 44.7ab 239.5a 713e Impede 2% v/v 29.0bc 233.4ab 648e Water control --- 51.5a 185.6ab 544e Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s protected LSD, P > 0.05); P values for treatment effects were all < 0.02.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2005

There are no references for this article.