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

Learn More →

SEASONAL ORIENTAL FRUIT MOTH CONTROL WITH DPX-E2Y45 35WG ON PEACH, 2006

SEASONAL ORIENTAL FRUIT MOTH CONTROL WITH DPX-E2Y45 35WG ON PEACH, 2006 (B9) PEACH: Prunus persica L., ‘Blushing Star’ 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 Ann Rucker Oriental fruit moth (OFM): Grapholita molesta (Busck) Leafroller species (LR): Tortricidae spp. Plum curculio (PC): Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) Stink Bug (SB): Euschistus servus (Say), E. tristigmus (Say), Acrosternum hilare (Say) Tarnished plant bug (TPB): Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) This study was conducted on 9-year-old ‘Blushing Star’ peach trees at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. Treatments included DPX-E2Y45 35WG, Imidan 70WP and an untreated check. Imidan 70WP at a 3 lb rate and E2Y45 at 2 and 3 oz rates were sprayed 2X per generation. Application dates and corresponding degree days (DD-base 45°F) from OFM biofix (2 Apr) were 20 Apr (506), 4 May (686), 13 Jun (1537), 29 Jun (2047), and 17 Jul (2647). E2Y45 at 1 and 2 oz rates were sprayed 3X per generation. Application dates and corresponding degree days (DD-base 45°F) from OFM biofix (2 Apr) were 20 Apr (506), 27Apr (595), 4 May (686), 13 Jun (1537), 21 Jun (1781), 29 Jun (2047), 17 Jul (2647) and 24 Jul (2943). The experimental treatments were applied to single tree plots replicated four times in a RCBD. Trees were spaced 20 x 20 ft. All applications were made with a Rears Airblast sprayer (28” fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. OFM damage to peach shoots was evaluated on 1 Jun, 10 Jul, and 2 Aug by counting the number of damaged shoots (shoot strikes) per tree. Fruit damage at harvest was evaluated on 31 Jul by assessing 25 fruit/tree (100 fruit/treatment). Fruit were scored for various kinds of insect damage. Live larvae in fruit were termed OFM Live. Fruit with either entry holes or frass in the absence of larvae were termed OFM Damage. Feeding damage from TPB and SB were combined and the resulting classification was termed catfacing damage (CF). Pest pressure was high. Fruit damage data were transformed [asin(sqrt(X))] as was shoot strikes [log(X + 1)] before analysis with ANOVA. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. There were no differences between treatments and the untreated check in the amount of live OFM larvae found in fruit at harvest, however, all treatments had less OFM damage relative to the untreated check but there were no differences between treatments (Table 1). No treatment effects were observed for PC egg scars or feeding damage and none of the treatments prevented catfacing insect damage. All treatments had similar levels of LR damage to fruit but only the standard Imidan had less LR damage than the untreated check. There were no statistical differences between treatments in the amount of OFM shoot strikes per tree observed on the three sample dates, however, only the Imidan-treated trees had statistically fewer shoot strikes than the untreated check on the first two sample dates. No detrimental effects on predatory mites were observed. % damaged fruit OFM PC Avg. no. OFM strikes/tree Treatment/ Rate formulation amt/acre X/gen. Live Damage Egg Feed CF LR 1 Jun 10 Jul 2 Aug DPX-E2Y45 35WG 2.0 oz 2 9.0ns 5.0b 15.0ns 8.0ns 37.0ns 8.0ab 2.8ab 28.3ab 53.8b DPX-E2Y45 35WG 3.0 oz 2 6.0 5.0b 20.0 9.0 41.0 15.0ab 1.3ab 23.0ab 36.8b DPX-E2Y45 35WG 1.0 oz 3 4.0 6.0b 35.0 10.0 39.0 10.0ab 2.3ab 33.5ab 52.5b DPX-E2Y45 35WG 2.0 oz 3 3.0 4.0b 17.0 9.0 41.0 8.0ab 0.3ab 18.5ab 27.0b Imidan 70WP 3.0 lb 2 2.0 9.0b 9.0 4.0 35.0 5.0b 0.0b 11.8b 32.3b Untreated check 9.0 29.0a 23.0 14.0 42.0 20.0a 6.0a 53.8a 152.3a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P ≤ 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

SEASONAL ORIENTAL FRUIT MOTH CONTROL WITH DPX-E2Y45 35WG ON PEACH, 2006

Arthropod Management Tests , Volume 32 (1) – Jan 1, 2007

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/seasonal-oriental-fruit-moth-control-with-dpx-e2y45-35wg-on-peach-2006-t0KB1kHBng
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/32.1.B9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(B9) PEACH: Prunus persica L., ‘Blushing Star’ 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 Ann Rucker Oriental fruit moth (OFM): Grapholita molesta (Busck) Leafroller species (LR): Tortricidae spp. Plum curculio (PC): Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) Stink Bug (SB): Euschistus servus (Say), E. tristigmus (Say), Acrosternum hilare (Say) Tarnished plant bug (TPB): Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) This study was conducted on 9-year-old ‘Blushing Star’ peach trees at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. Treatments included DPX-E2Y45 35WG, Imidan 70WP and an untreated check. Imidan 70WP at a 3 lb rate and E2Y45 at 2 and 3 oz rates were sprayed 2X per generation. Application dates and corresponding degree days (DD-base 45°F) from OFM biofix (2 Apr) were 20 Apr (506), 4 May (686), 13 Jun (1537), 29 Jun (2047), and 17 Jul (2647). E2Y45 at 1 and 2 oz rates were sprayed 3X per generation. Application dates and corresponding degree days (DD-base 45°F) from OFM biofix (2 Apr) were 20 Apr (506), 27Apr (595), 4 May (686), 13 Jun (1537), 21 Jun (1781), 29 Jun (2047), 17 Jul (2647) and 24 Jul (2943). The experimental treatments were applied to single tree plots replicated four times in a RCBD. Trees were spaced 20 x 20 ft. All applications were made with a Rears Airblast sprayer (28” fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. OFM damage to peach shoots was evaluated on 1 Jun, 10 Jul, and 2 Aug by counting the number of damaged shoots (shoot strikes) per tree. Fruit damage at harvest was evaluated on 31 Jul by assessing 25 fruit/tree (100 fruit/treatment). Fruit were scored for various kinds of insect damage. Live larvae in fruit were termed OFM Live. Fruit with either entry holes or frass in the absence of larvae were termed OFM Damage. Feeding damage from TPB and SB were combined and the resulting classification was termed catfacing damage (CF). Pest pressure was high. Fruit damage data were transformed [asin(sqrt(X))] as was shoot strikes [log(X + 1)] before analysis with ANOVA. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. There were no differences between treatments and the untreated check in the amount of live OFM larvae found in fruit at harvest, however, all treatments had less OFM damage relative to the untreated check but there were no differences between treatments (Table 1). No treatment effects were observed for PC egg scars or feeding damage and none of the treatments prevented catfacing insect damage. All treatments had similar levels of LR damage to fruit but only the standard Imidan had less LR damage than the untreated check. There were no statistical differences between treatments in the amount of OFM shoot strikes per tree observed on the three sample dates, however, only the Imidan-treated trees had statistically fewer shoot strikes than the untreated check on the first two sample dates. No detrimental effects on predatory mites were observed. % damaged fruit OFM PC Avg. no. OFM strikes/tree Treatment/ Rate formulation amt/acre X/gen. Live Damage Egg Feed CF LR 1 Jun 10 Jul 2 Aug DPX-E2Y45 35WG 2.0 oz 2 9.0ns 5.0b 15.0ns 8.0ns 37.0ns 8.0ab 2.8ab 28.3ab 53.8b DPX-E2Y45 35WG 3.0 oz 2 6.0 5.0b 20.0 9.0 41.0 15.0ab 1.3ab 23.0ab 36.8b DPX-E2Y45 35WG 1.0 oz 3 4.0 6.0b 35.0 10.0 39.0 10.0ab 2.3ab 33.5ab 52.5b DPX-E2Y45 35WG 2.0 oz 3 3.0 4.0b 17.0 9.0 41.0 8.0ab 0.3ab 18.5ab 27.0b Imidan 70WP 3.0 lb 2 2.0 9.0b 9.0 4.0 35.0 5.0b 0.0b 11.8b 32.3b Untreated check 9.0 29.0a 23.0 14.0 42.0 20.0a 6.0a 53.8a 152.3a Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, P ≤ 0.05), ns = not significant (ANOVA).

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.