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

Learn More →

PLUM CURCULIO CONTROL, 2005

PLUM CURCULIO CONTROL, 2005 (B5) NECTARINE: Prunus persica L., ‘Fantasia’ Peter W. Shearer Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center 121 Northville Rd Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Phone: (856) 455-3100 Fax: (856) 455-3133 E-mail: shearer@aesop.rutgers.edu Atanas Atanassov Ann Rucker Plum curculio (PC): Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) The experiment was conducted to compare different treatments to control plum curculio at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. All treatments were applied to 8-yr-old ‘Fantasia’ nectarine trees using a Rears Airblast sprayer (28-inch fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. The experimental treatments were applied to single tree plots replicated four times in a RCB design. Blocking was based upon distance from adjacent woods. Trees were spaced 20 × 20 ft. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. All treatments were applied 4, 13, and 23 May. Fruit damage was assessed on 6 Jun by evaluating 25 fruit/tree (100 fruit/treatment). Damage was then categorized by amount (% infested) and severity (abundance of PC scars/fruit). PC pressure was extreme. Fruit damage data were transformed (arcsin(sqrt(X))) as was average number of scars/fruit (log(X+1)) before analysis with ANOVA. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. The two rates of Calypso, Guthion, and Imidan had the least amount of percent damaged fruit in terms of PC egg and feeding scars. Levels of damage in the Assail treatment were not statically different from the untreated check but the amount of damaged fruit was less than the Aza-Direct treatment. Calypso, Guthion, and Imidan had fewer egg scars per fruit than both the Aza-Direct treatments and untreated check. The number of egg scars per fruit in the Assail treatment was intermediate and not different than any of the other treatments or the untreated check. % Damaged fruit Treatment/ Rate amt formulation product/acre Avg no. egg scars/fruit Egg scars Feeding Calypso 480SC 4.0 fl oz 0.1b 10.0c 0.0c Calypso 480SC 6.0 fl oz 0.0b 4.0c 0.0c Assail 30SG 8.0 oz 1.2ab 56.0b 10.0ab Aza-Direct 32.0 fl oz 3.5a 91.0a 14.0a Imidan 70WP 3.0 lbs 0.2b 12.0c 0.0c Guthion 50W 1.5 lbs 0.1b 6.0c 1.0bc Untreated check -- 4.3a 78.0ab 21.0a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/plum-curculio-control-2005-ji24anM7Ys

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/31.1.B5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(B5) NECTARINE: Prunus persica L., ‘Fantasia’ Peter W. Shearer Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center 121 Northville Rd Bridgeton, NJ 08302 Phone: (856) 455-3100 Fax: (856) 455-3133 E-mail: shearer@aesop.rutgers.edu Atanas Atanassov Ann Rucker Plum curculio (PC): Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) The experiment was conducted to compare different treatments to control plum curculio at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. All treatments were applied to 8-yr-old ‘Fantasia’ nectarine trees using a Rears Airblast sprayer (28-inch fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. The experimental treatments were applied to single tree plots replicated four times in a RCB design. Blocking was based upon distance from adjacent woods. Trees were spaced 20 × 20 ft. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. All treatments were applied 4, 13, and 23 May. Fruit damage was assessed on 6 Jun by evaluating 25 fruit/tree (100 fruit/treatment). Damage was then categorized by amount (% infested) and severity (abundance of PC scars/fruit). PC pressure was extreme. Fruit damage data were transformed (arcsin(sqrt(X))) as was average number of scars/fruit (log(X+1)) before analysis with ANOVA. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. The two rates of Calypso, Guthion, and Imidan had the least amount of percent damaged fruit in terms of PC egg and feeding scars. Levels of damage in the Assail treatment were not statically different from the untreated check but the amount of damaged fruit was less than the Aza-Direct treatment. Calypso, Guthion, and Imidan had fewer egg scars per fruit than both the Aza-Direct treatments and untreated check. The number of egg scars per fruit in the Assail treatment was intermediate and not different than any of the other treatments or the untreated check. % Damaged fruit Treatment/ Rate amt formulation product/acre Avg no. egg scars/fruit Egg scars Feeding Calypso 480SC 4.0 fl oz 0.1b 10.0c 0.0c Calypso 480SC 6.0 fl oz 0.0b 4.0c 0.0c Assail 30SG 8.0 oz 1.2ab 56.0b 10.0ab Aza-Direct 32.0 fl oz 3.5a 91.0a 14.0a Imidan 70WP 3.0 lbs 0.2b 12.0c 0.0c Guthion 50W 1.5 lbs 0.1b 6.0c 1.0bc Untreated check -- 4.3a 78.0ab 21.0a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P > 0.05).

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.