| |
|
Mating
Disruption Trials
-- 2000
-- 2001
-- 2002
Insecticide
Trials
-- 2001 & 2002 |
| |
During
these three trials, we have found that Intrepid and Confirm growth
regulators combined with mating disruption provide levels of control
equal to or better than conventional OP insecticides.
|
| |
Mating
Disruption Field Trial - 2000 |
Study
Site |
Treatments |
Evaluation |
- Ten
miles west of Waverly, MO
- 30
acre block of trees isolated from other orchards
- 12-15
foot tall Jonathon, Red Delicious, and Golden Delicious
trees
- Divided
into two 15-acre sub-blocks
- Thanks
to Jack and Dave Peters for experiment site.
|
- Not
treated with OP insecticides (e.g. Guthion)
- Both
blocks received 6 applications of the insect growth regulator
(tebufenozide) Confirm 2 F.
- One
sub-block also received mating disruption (Isomate C Plus
at 400 ties per acre, 1 application).
|
- Sex
pheromone traps for codling moth, oriental fruit moth, and
various leafroller species were checked weekly.
- 50
apples were picked from each of 20 trees per sub-block at
harvest.
- Apples
were examined for codling moth entries and stings.
|
|
| |
Results
Use
of the insect growth regulator trebufenozide (Confirm) by itself
did not provide the level of codling moth control accepted by most
commercial apple producers. However, when trebufenocide was used
as a supplemental control tactic with mating disruption, codling
moth injury was virtually non-existent (0% entries and 0.5% stings). |
| |
Table
1: Mean Percentage Fruit Damage at Harvest, 2000*
Treatment |
Codling
Moths Trapped |
%
Codling Moth Entries |
%
Codling Moth Stings |
Mating
Disruption + Confirm IGR |
0 |
0.0
a |
0.5 |
Confirm
IGR |
125 |
5.9
b |
1.4 |
*
Means in each column followed by the same letter are not significantly
different (P=0.05, Fisher’s Protected LSD) |
| |
| Mating
Disruption Field Trial - 2001 |
Study
Site |
Treatments |
Evaluation |
- Ten
miles west of Waverly, MO
- 8
acre block of trees on the edge of a 200 acre orchard
- 12-15
foot tall Jonathon, Red Delicious, and Golden Delicious
trees
- Divided
into three 2.7-acre sub-blocks
- Thanks
to Jack and Dave Peters for experiment site.
|
- Not
treated with OP insecticides (e.g. Guthion)
- All
blocks received mating disruption (Isomate C Plus at 400
ties per acre, 1 application).
- Sub-block
1: Superior Horticultural Oil: 6 applications
- Sub-block
2: Azinphosmethyl (Guthion): ten alternate row applications
- Sub-block
3: Insect Growth Regulators: 3 sprays of Intrepid 2F (methoxyfenozide)
& 1 spray of Confirm 2F (tebufenozide)
|
- Sex
pheromone traps for codling moth, oriental fruit moth, and
various leafroller species were checked weekly.
- 50
apples were picked from each of 20 trees per sub-block at
harvest .
- Apples
were examined for codling moth entries and stings.
|
|
| |
| Results
244
codling moths were trapped in a nearby block of trees under standard
chemical control. The data shows that, in this particular trial,
the use of the insect growth regulator methoxyfenozide (Intrepid)
with mating disruption provided near commercially-acceptable levels
of damage (= 1%). The use of oil with mating disruption failed to
provide an economically acceptable level of control.
|
| |
Table
2: Mean Percentage Fruit Damage at Harvest, 2001*
Treatment |
Codling
Moths Trapped |
%
Codling Moth Entries |
%
Codling Moth Stings |
Mating
Disruption + Guthion |
5.0 |
0.4
a |
0.2 |
Mating
Disruption + Intrepid |
2.0 |
1.3
a |
0.6 |
Mating
Disruption + Oil |
4.0 |
10.4
b |
0.6 |
*
Means in each column followed by the same letter are not significantly
different (P=0.05, Fisher’s Protected LSD) |
| |
| Mating
Disruption Field Trial - 2002 |
| |
| The
study site, treatments, and evaluation were the same as in 2001. |
| |
Results
In
2002, the cooperating grower found a high and unacceptable level
of moths in the treated blocks during June. To save the crop and
to prevent a build-up of moths in that section of the orchard, he
began scheduled sprays of Guthion. Unfortunately, the experiment
had to be abandoned at this point. |
| |
| Insecticide
Field Trials - 2001 & 2002 |
| |
At
the Iowa State University Horticulture Station (Link)
in 2001, three tree blocks of Chieftain apple trees were treated
with several insecticides in four replications. The sprays began
at petal fall included Guthion 50W (1.8 lb/A) alternated with Imidan
(2.5 lb/A) every two weeks; Guthion for one month, then Intrepid
(8 oz/A) every two weeks; Avaunt (6 oz/A) every two weeks, then
Guthion alternated with Imidan every two weeks; Guthion for first
month, then Spintor (5 oz/A) every two weeks; Sunspray horticultural
oil (0.75% by volume) every two weeks; and a non-sprayed control.
Sprays were applied to both sides of the tree rows with a hydraulic
hand-gun tractor sprayer. At the end of the season, 25 apples per
tree were rating for codling moth stings or exit holes.
Similar experiments planned for Illinois in 2001 were abandoned
early in the season due to a very serious fire blight epidemic.
In
2002, the Iowa experiment was repeated at the same site, however
a new set of insecticides were tested. These included Imidan (2.5
lb/A) every two weeks; Danitol (18 oz/A) every 2 weeks; Diazinon
(4 lb/A) every 2 weeks; Intrepid (8 oz/A) every 2 weeks beginning
150 degree days following biofix; Avaunt (6 oz/A) every 2 weeks
for two months beginning 150 degree days after biofix, then Imidan
every two weeks; Esteem (15 oz/A) applied for one month beginning
100 degree days after biofix, then a midseason rating and Imidan
every two weeks; Sunspray horticultural oil (0.75% by volume) every
two weeks; and a non-sprayed control. Biofix occurred when there
was a weekly average of three moths caught in three traps in the
orchard. Degree days were calculated as ((Maximum Temperature +
50)/ 2) – 50.
Data from both experiments were analyzed in SAS using the GLM procedure,
and mean comparisons were made using Fisher’s protected LSD
at p<0.05.
In
Illinois in 2002, labeled rates of Guthion, Danitol, Avaunt, and
Avaunt plus Guthion (1/2 rate of Guthion) were evaluated in comparison
with a nonsprayed check on ‘Jonathan’ apples at the
University of Illinois “Grein” orchard near Urbana.
Single-tree treatments were used, with 5 replications per treatment
in a randomized complete block design. Sprays were applied using
a backpack sprayer at 30 psi at an equivalent of 100 gallons per
acre. Because trees were young and first-generation flight was too
light to warrant sprays or provide adequate pressure for evaluations,
first applications were made approximately 240 F degree days after
pheromone traps indicated a biofix for second generation flight.
Sprays were applied on 3 July, 9 July (following rains), and 9 August;
an absence of moths in traps during early July led to delaying the
third spray until early August. On 4 September, all apples from
all trees were harvested and examined for codling moth stings and
entries. Data were analyzed in SAS using the GLM procedure and mean
separations were made using Fisher’s protected LSD at P<0.05.
|
| |
Result
In Iowa, horticultural oil and the non-sprayed
treatment failed to provide an acceptable level of control in 2001
and 2002 (Tables 1 and 2). Several of the reduced risk insecticides,
including Spintor, Avaunt, and Intrepid, provided excellent control
when alternated with Guthion and/or Intrepid. Good control was also
achieved with two insecticides that were recently labeled for codling
moth, Diazinon and Danitol. Because the conventional controls (Guthion
and Imidan) may have resistance problems and may endanger human
and environmental health, we will recommend that our growers use
any of the reduced-risk insecticides in their place.
In Illinois, Danitol was the most effective of the insecticides
tested (99 percent more control than the nontreated check); Guthion,
Avaunt, and Guthion plus Avaunt reduced injury by 76 to 88 percent
in comparison with the nontreated check (Table 3). On-farm observations
of the performance of these insecticides generally paralleled the
results of this trial, but where resistance to Guthion has been
documented, Avaunt, Danitol, and Intrepid also failed to give adequate
control.
|
|