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

Learn More →

Pear, Degree Day Timing for the Control of Codling Moth, 1996

Pear, Degree Day Timing for the Control of Codling Moth, 1996 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/38/4639756 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 38 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 A: POME FRUITS PEAR, Pyrus communis (L.), 'Bartlett' John C. Wise (25A) Codling moth (CM); Cydia pomonella (L.) Department of Entomology Obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR); Choristoneuru rosaceana (Harris) Michigan State University Speckled green fruitworm (GFW); Orthosia hibisci (Guenee) East Lansing, MI 48824-1115 (517)432-349 4 PEAR, DEGREE DAY TIMING FOR THE CONTROL OF CODLING MOTH, 1996; Mature Bartlett trees at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex in Fennville, MI (Pear 1 Block) were sprayed at a rate of 100 GP A with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer. Trees were arranged in a CRB design of single trees replicated 4 times. Application of treatment materials based on covers were made on 16 May (white bud), 23 May (petal fall), and 4 Jun (1C), 19 Jun (2C), 3 Jul (4C), 17 Jul (5C), 31 Jul (6C), and 16 Aug (7C). Degree day timed applications were made for treatment 7 on 19 Jun (200-250 DD), 3 Jul (550-600 DD), 31 Jul (1250 DD), and 16 Aug (1560 DD). CM degree-days were calculated using a base of 50°F and accumulated from first sustained moth flight in the spring. Streptomycin, Benlate, Penncozeb, Rubigan, Captan, and Funginex were applied to all treatments separately. Green fruitworm evaluations were made on 21 May and 29 May by randomly selecting 50 leaves per replicate, 200 leaves per treatment, and examining them for the pres­ ence of GFW larvae. Harvest fruit evaluations were made on 27 Aug by picking 50 fruit randomly from the periphery of the tree from each replicate (200 fruit per treatment) and evaluating them for damage by CM and OBLR. The harvest fruit evaluations showed that full cover treatments of Guthion provided the best CM control whereas the untreated check showed ap­ proximately 50% fruit damage at harvest. Confirm applications timed for CM egg hatch did not provide season long control of internal feeders. This can be partially explained by the prolonged emergence of codling moth through Jul that resulted in a period of CM egg hatch that was not covered by the pre­ determined degree-day timing for the Confirm applications. The Guthion and Confirm treatments both provided excellent OBLR control. Early in the sea­ son, GFW was controlled by Confirm relative to the untreated check but not to as high a level as by the Asana standard. At harvest, so significant differ­ ences were observed. GFW damage per 50 leaves Damage per 50 fruit (27 Aug) Treatment Amt form/Acre Growth Stage 21 May 29 May OBLR GFW % Clean CM 1. Untreated check 0.3a 5.0a 23.8a 3.5a 2.0a 44.50c 2. Agri-Mek 0.15EC+ 20 oz 1C Sunspray UFO lga l and Asana XL 0.66EC 8o z White Bud, Petal Fall and Guthion 3F 2p t White Bud, Petal Fall, Full Cover 0.8a 0.8b 1.0c 0.0b 0.0a 98.00a 3. Guthion 3F 2p t White Bud, Petal Fall and Confirm 70W+ 7 oz White Bud, Petal Fall, CM+250DD50, LatronB-1956 .12 gal CM+550DD, 1250DD50, 1560DD 2.5ab 0.0a 10.8b 0.0b 0.3a 78.50b Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=.05, Duncan's MRT) PEAR Pyrus communis (L.), 'Bartlett' John C. Wise (26A) Pear psylla (PP), Cacopsylla pyricola Forster Department of Entomology Pear rust mite (PRM), Epitrimerus pyri (Nalepa) Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1115 (517)432-349 4 PEAR, CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA AND PEAR RUST MITE WITH SANKYO PRODUCTS, 1996: Seven-year-old Bartlett' trees at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex in Fennville, MI (Pear 3 Block) were sprayed with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayed at a rate of 75 gpa. Trees were arranged in a CR design of single trees, replicated 4 times. Test materials were applied on 25 May (petal fall), 7 Jun (1C), and 31 Jul (PP threshold of 0.3 nymphs per leaf). Streptomycin, Benlate, Penncozeb, Rubigan, Funginex, Captan, and Guthion were applied to all treatments separately. Dates of PP and PRM evaluation were 10 Jun, 24 Jun, 8 Jul, 24 Jul and 14 Aug. At each evaluation, 50 leaves per replicate were picked, brushed in a mite brushing ma­ chine and examined under a stereomicroscope for PRM adults. Twenty-five leaves per replicate were also evaluated under a stereo microscope for PP nymphs and eggs. Mean data are reported as PRM adults power leaf, and PP nymphs or eggs per 25 leaves. Harvest fruit evaluations were made on 21 Aug by picking 25 fruit randomly from the periphery of the tree from each replicate and examining them for sooty mold from PP and PRM russetting. Sooty mold and russetting evaluations were based on visual inspection, with the scoring criteria listed in the table. The Agri-Mek standard as well as the Sankyo products CM-006 and CM-007 provided season long control of PP nymphs, where as the CM-002X required a 2nd application when a PP threshold of 0.33 nymphs per leaf was reached in Jul. CM-006 and CM-007 applied at 1C were the only treatments that showed statistically lower PP nymph numbers than the untreated check at the 14 Aug rating. PRM populations were relatively low because of the 12 May and 29 May freezes, although differences from the check could be seen for all treatments at the 20 Aug rating. Agri-Mek provided the highest per­ centage of clean fruit free from PRM russetting damage at harvest, although not significantly better than the Sankyo products. The low occurrence of sooty mold from PP was probably the result of excessively dry weather conditions in Jul and Aug. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Pear, Degree Day Timing for the Control of Codling Moth, 1996

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 22 (1) – Jan 1, 1997

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/pear-degree-day-timing-for-the-control-of-codling-moth-1996-Xw8UIj07tq
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 1997 Entomological Society of America.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/22.1.38
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/amt/article-abstract/22/1/38/4639756 by DeepDyve user on 21 July 2020 38 Arthropod Management Tests, Vol. 22 A: POME FRUITS PEAR, Pyrus communis (L.), 'Bartlett' John C. Wise (25A) Codling moth (CM); Cydia pomonella (L.) Department of Entomology Obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR); Choristoneuru rosaceana (Harris) Michigan State University Speckled green fruitworm (GFW); Orthosia hibisci (Guenee) East Lansing, MI 48824-1115 (517)432-349 4 PEAR, DEGREE DAY TIMING FOR THE CONTROL OF CODLING MOTH, 1996; Mature Bartlett trees at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex in Fennville, MI (Pear 1 Block) were sprayed at a rate of 100 GP A with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayer. Trees were arranged in a CRB design of single trees replicated 4 times. Application of treatment materials based on covers were made on 16 May (white bud), 23 May (petal fall), and 4 Jun (1C), 19 Jun (2C), 3 Jul (4C), 17 Jul (5C), 31 Jul (6C), and 16 Aug (7C). Degree day timed applications were made for treatment 7 on 19 Jun (200-250 DD), 3 Jul (550-600 DD), 31 Jul (1250 DD), and 16 Aug (1560 DD). CM degree-days were calculated using a base of 50°F and accumulated from first sustained moth flight in the spring. Streptomycin, Benlate, Penncozeb, Rubigan, Captan, and Funginex were applied to all treatments separately. Green fruitworm evaluations were made on 21 May and 29 May by randomly selecting 50 leaves per replicate, 200 leaves per treatment, and examining them for the pres­ ence of GFW larvae. Harvest fruit evaluations were made on 27 Aug by picking 50 fruit randomly from the periphery of the tree from each replicate (200 fruit per treatment) and evaluating them for damage by CM and OBLR. The harvest fruit evaluations showed that full cover treatments of Guthion provided the best CM control whereas the untreated check showed ap­ proximately 50% fruit damage at harvest. Confirm applications timed for CM egg hatch did not provide season long control of internal feeders. This can be partially explained by the prolonged emergence of codling moth through Jul that resulted in a period of CM egg hatch that was not covered by the pre­ determined degree-day timing for the Confirm applications. The Guthion and Confirm treatments both provided excellent OBLR control. Early in the sea­ son, GFW was controlled by Confirm relative to the untreated check but not to as high a level as by the Asana standard. At harvest, so significant differ­ ences were observed. GFW damage per 50 leaves Damage per 50 fruit (27 Aug) Treatment Amt form/Acre Growth Stage 21 May 29 May OBLR GFW % Clean CM 1. Untreated check 0.3a 5.0a 23.8a 3.5a 2.0a 44.50c 2. Agri-Mek 0.15EC+ 20 oz 1C Sunspray UFO lga l and Asana XL 0.66EC 8o z White Bud, Petal Fall and Guthion 3F 2p t White Bud, Petal Fall, Full Cover 0.8a 0.8b 1.0c 0.0b 0.0a 98.00a 3. Guthion 3F 2p t White Bud, Petal Fall and Confirm 70W+ 7 oz White Bud, Petal Fall, CM+250DD50, LatronB-1956 .12 gal CM+550DD, 1250DD50, 1560DD 2.5ab 0.0a 10.8b 0.0b 0.3a 78.50b Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=.05, Duncan's MRT) PEAR Pyrus communis (L.), 'Bartlett' John C. Wise (26A) Pear psylla (PP), Cacopsylla pyricola Forster Department of Entomology Pear rust mite (PRM), Epitrimerus pyri (Nalepa) Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1115 (517)432-349 4 PEAR, CONTROL OF PEAR PSYLLA AND PEAR RUST MITE WITH SANKYO PRODUCTS, 1996: Seven-year-old Bartlett' trees at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex in Fennville, MI (Pear 3 Block) were sprayed with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayed at a rate of 75 gpa. Trees were arranged in a CR design of single trees, replicated 4 times. Test materials were applied on 25 May (petal fall), 7 Jun (1C), and 31 Jul (PP threshold of 0.3 nymphs per leaf). Streptomycin, Benlate, Penncozeb, Rubigan, Funginex, Captan, and Guthion were applied to all treatments separately. Dates of PP and PRM evaluation were 10 Jun, 24 Jun, 8 Jul, 24 Jul and 14 Aug. At each evaluation, 50 leaves per replicate were picked, brushed in a mite brushing ma­ chine and examined under a stereomicroscope for PRM adults. Twenty-five leaves per replicate were also evaluated under a stereo microscope for PP nymphs and eggs. Mean data are reported as PRM adults power leaf, and PP nymphs or eggs per 25 leaves. Harvest fruit evaluations were made on 21 Aug by picking 25 fruit randomly from the periphery of the tree from each replicate and examining them for sooty mold from PP and PRM russetting. Sooty mold and russetting evaluations were based on visual inspection, with the scoring criteria listed in the table. The Agri-Mek standard as well as the Sankyo products CM-006 and CM-007 provided season long control of PP nymphs, where as the CM-002X required a 2nd application when a PP threshold of 0.33 nymphs per leaf was reached in Jul. CM-006 and CM-007 applied at 1C were the only treatments that showed statistically lower PP nymph numbers than the untreated check at the 14 Aug rating. PRM populations were relatively low because of the 12 May and 29 May freezes, although differences from the check could be seen for all treatments at the 20 Aug rating. Agri-Mek provided the highest per­ centage of clean fruit free from PRM russetting damage at harvest, although not significantly better than the Sankyo products. The low occurrence of sooty mold from PP was probably the result of excessively dry weather conditions in Jul and Aug.

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.