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

Learn More →

SUMMER SCARAB CONTROL ON NECTARINE, 2006

SUMMER SCARAB CONTROL ON NECTARINE, 2006 (B5) NECTARINE: Prunus persica L., ‘Artic Sweet’ 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 Japanese beetle (JB): Popilla japonica Newman Green June Beetle (GJB): Cotinus nitida (L.) This study was conducted on 4-year-old ‘Artic Sweet’ nectarine trees at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. Treatments included Provado 1.6F (6 and 8 oz), Sevin XLR + and an untreated check. The experimental treatments were applied to single tree plots replicated six times in a RCBD. 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. All damaged fruit were removed prior to the first spray application on 6 Jul. A second spray application followed on 10 Jul. Fruit damage was evaluated on 10 Jul and 14 Jul. All damaged fruit were scored and removed after each evaluation. Fruit damage data were transformed [asin(sqrt(X)] before analysis with ANOVA. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. The three treatments provided equivalent protection against JB and GJB feeding damage as they were not statistically different from each other both in terms of the amount of damaged fruit observed on either sampling date or total damage (Table 1). Only the amount of damaged fruit in the 6 oz rate of Provado treatment was not different from the untreated check on the 10 Jul sample date. Collectively, two applications of each of the treatments provided statistically comparable control and all had less scarab feeding damage than the untreated check. % damaged fruit Treatment/ Rate formulation amt/acre 10 Jul 14 Jul Total damage Provado 1.6F 8.0 oz 5.3b 5.3b 10.6b Provado 1.6F 6.0 oz 8.7ab 4.7b 13.4b Sevin XLR + 1.5 qt 4.7b 4.7b 9.4b Untreated check 17.3a 23.3a 40.6a 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

SUMMER SCARAB CONTROL ON NECTARINE, 2006

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

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/summer-scarab-control-on-nectarine-2006-XO4hfYPzdq
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.1093/amt/32.1.B5
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

(B5) NECTARINE: Prunus persica L., ‘Artic Sweet’ 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 Japanese beetle (JB): Popilla japonica Newman Green June Beetle (GJB): Cotinus nitida (L.) This study was conducted on 4-year-old ‘Artic Sweet’ nectarine trees at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. Treatments included Provado 1.6F (6 and 8 oz), Sevin XLR + and an untreated check. The experimental treatments were applied to single tree plots replicated six times in a RCBD. 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. All damaged fruit were removed prior to the first spray application on 6 Jul. A second spray application followed on 10 Jul. Fruit damage was evaluated on 10 Jul and 14 Jul. All damaged fruit were scored and removed after each evaluation. Fruit damage data were transformed [asin(sqrt(X)] before analysis with ANOVA. Treatments means were separated using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference, at P ≤ 0.05 level. The three treatments provided equivalent protection against JB and GJB feeding damage as they were not statistically different from each other both in terms of the amount of damaged fruit observed on either sampling date or total damage (Table 1). Only the amount of damaged fruit in the 6 oz rate of Provado treatment was not different from the untreated check on the 10 Jul sample date. Collectively, two applications of each of the treatments provided statistically comparable control and all had less scarab feeding damage than the untreated check. % damaged fruit Treatment/ Rate formulation amt/acre 10 Jul 14 Jul Total damage Provado 1.6F 8.0 oz 5.3b 5.3b 10.6b Provado 1.6F 6.0 oz 8.7ab 4.7b 13.4b Sevin XLR + 1.5 qt 4.7b 4.7b 9.4b Untreated check 17.3a 23.3a 40.6a 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.