1998 Pest Management Research Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
- 1 FILE: 98insect_pmrr.wpd TITLE: 1998 PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH REPORT SECTIONS: A - H REPORT #s: 1 - 62 PAGES: 1 - 173 ENTOMOLOGY/ENTOMOLOGIE - SECTION A - G A FRUIT - Insect Pests of Tree Fruits Insectes des arbres fruitiers - Insect Pests of Berry Crops Insectes des petits fruits B VEGETABLES and SPECIAL CROPS Légumes et cultures spéciales C POTATO INSECTS Pommes de terre D MEDICAL and VETERINARY Médical et vétérinaire E CEREALS, FORAGE CROPS and OILSEEDS Céréales, cultures fourragères et oléagineux F ORNAMENTALS and GREENHOUSE Plantes ornementales et de serre G BASIC STUDIES (Entomology) Études de base (entomologie) PEST MANAGEMENT METHODS - Section H (a-c) Ha BIOLOGICAL CONTROL - Weeds Lutte biologiques - mauvaises herbes Hb BIOLOGICAL CONTROL Lutte biologiques - Insects, Mites, Nematodes - insectes, acariens, nématodes Hc SEMIOCHEMICALS Sémiochimiques - Insect Pheromones and Natural Products - Phéromones des insectes and prodruits naturelles SECTION A: TREE FRUIT AND BERRY CROPS /ARBRES FRUITIERES ET PETITS FRUITS - REPORTS /RAPPORTS # 1 - 16 - PAGES 1 - 37 EDITORS A. Tree Fruits J. Mike Hardman Email:[email protected] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Tel: (902) 679-5730 Atlantic Food & Horticulture Research Centre Fax: (902) 679-2311 32 Main Street, Kentville, Nova Scotia B4N 1J5 A Berry Crops Dr. Bruce Neill Email: [email protected] PFRA Shelterbelt Centre Tel: 306) 695-2284 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Fax: (306) 695-2568 - 2 Indian Head, Saskatchewan S0G 2K0 - 3 1998 PMR REPORT # 1 SECTION A: INSECT PESTS OF FRUIT STUDY DATA BASE: 9207 CROP: Apple cv. Jonagold PEST: Fruittree leafroller, Archips argyrospilus European leafroller, Archips rosanus Eyespotted budmoth, Spilonota ocellana Apple-and-thorn skeletonizer, Choreutis pariana NAME and AGENCY: COSSENTINE JE, AND JENSEN LBM Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0 E-mail:[email protected], [email protected] Tel:250-494-7711 Fax:250-494-0755 TITLE: EFFICACY OF SPINOSAD TO CONTROL SPRING LEAFROLLERS AT FULL BLOOM AND PETAL FALL MATERIALS: SPINOSAD (NAF85), DIPEL (16 000 BIU/kg Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki) METHODS: Treatments were applied to groups of 24-28 Jonagold apple trees laid out in a randomized block design, replicated twice. Two treatments, 125 g ai SPINOSAD /ha and 3.3 kg DIPEL/ha, were applied at full bloom (May 5). Treatments of 125 and 175 g ai SPINOSAD /ha and 3.3 kg DIPEL/ha were applied at petalfall (May 12). Ten cluster samples from each of 10 central trees from each treatment were collected one day prior to each treatment as well as three and 10 days post-application. All samples were inspected under a dissecting microscope and the number of leafrollers, eyespotted budmoth and apple-and-thorn skeletonizers determined. All apples were removed from each of the 10 central trees of each treatment on June 23rd and leafroller damage was assessed visually. RESULTS: The SPINOSAD treatment at full bloom significantly (P<0.05) reduced the mean number of leafrollers and eyespotted budmoth found per cluster three days after treatment, however at 10 days post- treatment these reductions were not significantly (P>0.05) less than the numbers found in the control treatments (Table 1). Both SPINOSAD treatment levels and the DIPEL reduced the number of leafroller found per cluster three and 10 days post-treatment at petal fall, however the means were not significantly less than those found in the control (Table 1). The mean numbers of apple-and-thorn skeletonizer per cluster were significantly (P<0.05) reduced by all three treatments assessed three and 10 days after the petal fall treatments (Table 1). All treatments significantly (P<0.05) reduced the mean percentage of leafroller damaged apples (Table 2). CONCLUSION: Both doses of SPINOSAD and the DIPEL reduced leafroller damage to apples. The Spinosad treatment at full bloom reduced eyespotted budmoth larvae in the blossom clusters. All three treatments applied at petal fall reduced the number of apple-and-thorn skeletonizer larvae. - 4 Table 1. Mean number of leafroller, eyespotted budmoth and apple-and-thorn leaf skeletonizer larvae per cluster (sd). Treatment leafrollers eyespotted budmoth apple-and-thorn leaf skeletonizer May 4: Pre-full bloom treatments SPINOSAD 125 g ai/ha 0.38 (0.08) a* 0.11 (0.09) a 0.00 (0.00) a DIPEL 0.52 (0.42) a 0.09 (0.13) a 0.01 (0.01) a Control 0.34 (0.26) a 0.10 (0.06) a 0.00 (0.00) a 3-days post-full bloom treatments SPINOSAD 125 g ai/ha 0.02 (0.01) a 0.01 (0.01) a 0.00 (0.00) a DIPEL 0.17 (0.04) ab 0.06 (0.04) ab 0.03 (0.00) a Control 0.61 (0.15) b 0.14 (0.14) b 0.04 (0.01) a 10-days post-full bloom treatments SPINOSAD 125 g ai/ha 0.00 (0.00) a 0.01 (0.01) a 0.00 (0.00) a DIPEL 0.07 (0.02) a 0.03 (0.03) a 0.07 (0.01) a Control 0.27 (0.14) a 0.11 (0.02) a 0.60 (0.21) a May 10: Pre-petal fall treatments SPINOSAD 125 g ai/ha 0.23 (0.01) a 0.08 (0.01) a 0.29 (0.06) a SPINOSAD 175 g ai/ha 0.39 (0.18) a 0.06 (0.05) a 0.32 (0.19) a DIPEL 0.25 (0.10) a 0.09 (0.06) a 0.62 (0.41) a Control 0.43 (0.04) a 0.14 (0.08) a 0.24 (0.13) a 3-days post-petal fall treatments SPINOSAD 125 g ai/ha 0.01 (0.00) a 0.03 (0.01) a 0.00 (0.00) a SPINOSAD 175 g ai/ha 0.01 (0.01) a 0.05 (004) a 0.02 (0.01) a DIPEL 0.06 (0.03) a 0.08 (0.02) a 0.04 (0.01) a Control 0.27 (0.14) a 0.11 (0.02) a 0.60 (0.21) b 10-days post-petal fall treatments SPINOSAD 125 g ai/ha 0.00 (0.00) a 0.05 (0.03) a 0.00 (0.00) a SPINOSAD 175 g ai/ha 0.01 (0.01) a 0.02 (0.00) a 0.00 (0.00) a DIPEL 0.05 (0.04) a 0.03 (0.01) a 0.03 (0.01) a Control 0.24 (0.11) a 0.06 (0.03) a 0.50 (0.11) b * means within dates and columns followed by the same letter are not significantly (P>0.05) different as determined by Tukey’s studentized range test. - 5 Table 2. Percent of total apples damaged by spring leafrollers. Treatment Mean percent leafroller damaged apples (sd) Total apples SPINOSAD - 125 g ai/ha at full bloom 2.18 (0.88) a* 3,666 SPINOSAD - 125 g ai/ha at petal fall 1.30 (0.90) a 4,465 SPINOSAD - 175 g ai/ha at petal fall 2.49 (0.85) ab 6,022 DIPEL - at full bloom 4.73 (1.84) c 4,890 DIPEL - at petal fall 4.29 (2.87) bc 4,422 Control 8.78 (4.58) d 5,841 * means followed by the same letter are not significantly (P>0.05) different as determined by Tukey’s studentized range test after arcsine transformation. - 6 1998 PMR REPORT # 2 SECTION A: INSECT PESTS OF FRUIT STUDY DATA BASE: 9207 CROP: Apples cv. Liberty/M9 PEST: Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) NAME and AGENCY: COSSENTINE JE, AND JENSEN LBM Agriculture and Agri-food Canada Pacific Agri-food Research Centre, Summerland, B.C. V0H 1Z0 E-mail:[email protected], [email protected] Tel:250-494-7711 Fax:250-494-0755 TITLE: CONTROL OF WESTERN FLOWER THRIPS IN APPLE ORCHARDS BY SPINOSAD MATERIALS: SPINOSAD (NAF85) METHODS: The trial was conducted in a randomized block design, replicated twice in an orchard of 5 to 6 year-old Liberty M9 slender spindle apple trees. Three limbtap samples for western flower thrips on each of five trees per treatment were conducted immediately before treatments were applied and five days post-treatment. SPINOSAD was applied at 125 g ai/ha at full bloom on May 1. All fruit was harvested in late June from 10 trees in each treatment. The fruit was visually evaluated for the presence of western flower thrips induced pansy spots. To determine if the SPINOSAD treatment interfered with blossom pollination one limb on each of ten central trees per treatment was tagged and the total number of blossoms recorded. The number of set apples per tagged branch were counted during the June harvest. RESULTS: Significantly (P<0.05) fewer western flower thrips were found in SPINOSAD-treated trees compared with the control trees five days after treatment (Table 1). A lower percentage of apples were damaged by the western flower thrips in the SPINOSAD versus the control treatments at the time of the June harvest (Table 2). There were no significant differences, between treatment and control blocks, in the total number of blossoms per tree prior to insecticide treatments (SPINOSAD Gx=40.55 sd. 19.95; CONTROL Gx=31.00 sd 20.29). Although a lower percentage of the blossoms set in the SPINOSAD (Gx=17.61 sd 12.21) versus the control trees (Gx=28.67 sd. 25.21), in June there was no significant (P>0.05) difference in the blossom set per total blossom ratio between the treatment and the control trees. CONCLUSION: A single application of SPINOSAD in an apple orchard at 80 to 100% full bloom caused significant reductions in western flower thrips populations and the SPINOSAD application reduced pansy spot damage to the apples.