scholarly journals Evaluation of Application Method for Aphid Control by Imidacloprid on Connecticut Broadleaf Tobacco, 1997

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 289-290
Author(s):  
James A. LaMondia ◽  
Thomas M. Rathier
Keyword(s):  
Cottonseed Meal ◽  
Application Method ◽  
Soil Drench ◽  
Aphid Control ◽  
Bonferroni Test ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

Abstract Preplant broadcast, transplant, or band application at cultivation of Admire 2°F (imidacloprid) treatments were evaluated for tobacco aphid control at the CT Agricultural Expt. Station Valley Laboratory in Windsor CT. Admire 2°F was applied at 0.11 lb (AI)/acre (1 oz per 1000 plants based on 6,800 plants/acre) for all treatments. The soil was an Entic Haplorthod (71.8% sand, 23.0% silt, 5.2% clay, pH = 6.0 and OM = 4.0%). On 29 May, plots were fertilized with 145 lb N/acre of cottonseed meal-based 10-8-10. On 2 Jun, plots were treated with Lorsban 4 E at 1.5 lb (AI)/acre and Ridomil 2 E at 1 lb (AI)/acre and spiked. On 9 Jun, preplant Admire was broadcast to appropriate plots in a 39-inch swath using a TeeJet 8004 E nozzle at 18 to 20 psi and spiked to incorporate. Tobacco was transplanted on 10 Jun to rows 39 in apart with a 2-ft spacing within rows. There were 6 replicates of 2-row plots for each treatment (10 by 20-ft). Plots were separated by an umplanted border row. Plots were irrigated 10 Jun and 15 Jun with 0.5 and 0.4 inches water. Admire 2°F was applied on 11 Jun as a soil drench using a backpack sprayer with a TeeJet TG-3 nozzle at 15 psi to apply 20 ml/plant in 2 10-ml applications 2 cm to either side of plants. Admire 2°F was band applied at sidedress at 70 gpa to appropriate plots on 20 Jun (with 59 lb N/acre) or 30 Jun (with 69 lb N/acre) to 6 inches on either side of rows using a backpack sprayer with a TeeJet 8004-E nozzle and incorporated by mechanical cultivation. One leaf each from 10 plants per row was rated for apterous tobacco aphids on 23 Jul, 29 Jul, 7 Aug, and 14 Aug (scale: 0 = no aphids or winged only; 1 = 1 aphid per leaf; 2 = 2-10 aphids 3 = 11-100 aphids and 4 = more than 100 aphids per leaf). Treatments were compared within dates by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Bonferroni Test. Ten plants per plot were stalk cut and weighed on 19 Aug.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Application Method for Aphid Control by Imidacloprid on Connecticut Shade ToBacco, 1997

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 290-291
Author(s):  
James A. LaMondia ◽  
Thomas M. Rathier
Keyword(s):  
Cottonseed Meal ◽  
Application Method ◽  
Soil Drench ◽  
Aphid Control ◽  
Bonferroni Test ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

Abstract Preplant broadcast, transplant drench, or band application treatments of Admire 2°F (imidacloprid) were evaluated for tobacco aphid control in a cloth-covered shade tent at the CT Agricultural Expt. Station Valley Laboratory in Windsor, CT. Admire 2°F was applied at 0.17 lb (AI)/acre (1.0 oz per 1000 plants based on 10,800 plants/acre) for all treatments. The soil was an Entic Haplorthod (71.8% sand, 23.0% silt, 5.2% clay, pH = 6.0 and OM = 4.0%). On 29 May, plots were fertilized with 145 lb N/acre of cottonseed meal-based 10-8-10. On 2 Jun, plots were broadcast with Lorsban 4 E at 1.5 lb (AI)/acre and Ridomil 2 E at 1 lb (AI)/acre and spiked to incorporate. On 3 Jun, preplant Admire 2°F in 100 gal/acre water was broadcast to appropriate plots in a 39-inch swath using a TeeJet 8004E nozzle at 18 to 20 psi and spiked. Tobacco was transplanted on 4 Jun to rows 39 in apart with a 1-ft spacing within rows. There were 5 replicates of 4-row plots each per treatment (total 20 plots, 15 X 15 ft each). Plots were separated by an untreated border row. Plots were irrigated 5 Jun with 0.4 inches water. Admire 2°F was applied on 6 Jun as a soil drench using a backpack sprayer with a TeeJet TG-3 nozzle at 15 psi to deliver 20 ml/plant in two 10-ml applications 2 cm to each side of every plant. Admire 2°F was band applied at sidedress in 70 gal water/acre to appropriate plots on 20 Jun (with 59 lb N/acre) or 30 Jun (with 69 lb N/acre) to 6 inches on either side of rows using a backpack sprayer with a TeeJet 8004-E nozzle and incorporated by mechanical cultivation and hoeing. One leaf each from 10 plants per row was removed on 29 Jul, 7 Aug, 14 Aug, and 22 Aug and rated for apterous tobacco aphids (scale: 0 = no aphids or winged only; 1 = 1 aphid per leaf; 2 = 2-10 aphids 3 = 11-100 aphids and 4 = more than 100 aphids per leaf). Treatments were compared within dates by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Bonferroni Test.

scholarly journals Tobacco Aphid Control in Flue-Cured Tobacco, 1996

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 325-326
Author(s):  
Bert D. Crowe ◽  
J. Delano Taylor ◽  
Robert M. McPherson ◽  
M. Leonard Wells
Keyword(s):  
Aphid Control ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

scholarly journals Tobacco Aphid Control on Flue-Cured Tobacco with Foliar Insecticides, 1994

1995 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 263-263
Author(s):  
Paul J. Semtner ◽  
Surendra K. Dara ◽  
William B. Wilkinson III
Keyword(s):  
Aphid Control ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

scholarly journals Tobacco Aphid Control on Flue-Cured Tobacco with Foliar Insecticides, 1993

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Author(s):  
Paul J. Semtner ◽  
William B. Wilkinson III
Keyword(s):  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Cooperative Extension Service ◽  
Market Prices ◽  
Production Methods ◽  
Tobacco Production ◽  
Aphid Control ◽  
Extension Center ◽  
Experimental Plots ◽  
Aphid Populations ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

Abstract This experiment was conducted at the VPI and SU Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackstone, VA, to evaluate various insecticides applied as foliar treatments for tobacco aphid control on flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco was transplanted into experimental plots on 12 May. Fourteen treatments and an untreated control were established in a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots, 4 × 40 ft (1 row × 24 plants), were separated by single untreated guard rows. Foliar treatments were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer that delivered 26 gpa at 60 psi through 3 TX-lO nozzles/row on 9 Jul and 16 Aug. Tobacco aphid populations were estimated on the upper 4 leaves of 10 plants per plot before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, and 20 DAT. Except for insect control, flue-cured tobacco production methods followed recommendations by the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Tobacco was harvested as it ripened. It was cured, weighed, and graded by a USDA/AMS inspector, and yield and price were calculated. Price was based on 1993 market prices for the assigned grades. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and significantly different means were separated using DMRT. Aphid counts were transformed to Log10 (x + 1) before ANOVA. Actual means are presented in the table.

scholarly journals Management of Phytophthora Crown Rot in Pumpkin and Zucchini Seedlings with Phosphonates

Plant Disease ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 91 (12) ◽  
pp. 1651-1656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla B. Yandoc-Ables ◽  
Erin N. Rosskopf ◽  
Elizabeth M. Lamb
Keyword(s):  
Management Strategies ◽  
Foliar Spray ◽  
Crown Rot ◽  
Application Method ◽  
Soil Drench ◽  
Cultivar Selection ◽  
Treatment Type ◽  
Copper Manganese ◽  
Foliar Fungicide ◽  
Affect Disease Severity

Experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to determine the efficacy of two phosphonate-containing fungicides (FNX-100 and FNX-2500) against Phytophthora crown rot of pumpkin. The experiments were designed to determine the effects of crop cultivar, application method (soil drench versus foliar spray), and phosphonate concentration on the level of effectiveness of a crown rot management strategy using phosphonates. Pumpkin cultivar, treatment (type of fungicide product), phosphonate concentration, and application method significantly influenced the level of Phytophthora crown rot control. Between the two fungicides, only FNX-100 suppressed Phytophthora crown rot in pumpkin. For cv. Phantom, the highest level of control was achieved with the drench application of 3.0% FNX-100 whereas, for cv. Spooktacular, all three concentrations of FNX-100 (1.0, 2.0, and 3.0%, vol/vol) applied as a soil drench suppressed or significantly reduced the severity of crown rot. Additional experiments using zucchini as test plants demonstrated that, at the concentrations tested, FNX-100 was more efficacious than FNX-2500 in controlling Phytophthora crown rot and that zucchini cultivar or FNX-100 concentration did not significantly influence crown rot control with phosphonates. In this study, FNX-100, which is not currently labeled for use in vegetables, provided satisfactory disease control in both pumpkin and zucchini whereas FNX-2500, a foliar fungicide comprised of the phosphate/phosphonates and copper, manganese, and zinc, did not significantly affect disease severity. This study, albeit limited in scope, showed that cultivar selection may play an important role in the successful management of Phytophthora crown rot on cucurbits with phosphonates, information which may be useful in designing additional tests and developing management strategies for pumpkin and zucchini that are grown in the field.

scholarly journals Painted Containers: A New Method for Paclobutrazol Application

HortScience ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 655e-655
Author(s):  
Claudio C. Pasian ◽  
Daniel K. Struve
Keyword(s):  
Growth Regulator ◽  
Growth And Development ◽  
New Method ◽  
Latex Paint ◽  
Application Method ◽  
Soil Drench ◽  
Application Methods ◽  
Effect On Growth

The effectiveness of two application methods of the growth regulator paclobutrazol on the growth of Chrysanthemum plants, Dendranthema ×grandiflora (Ramat) (cv. `Fina' and `Cream Dana') were compared. Plants were grown in containers with their interior covered by a mixture of flat latex paint and several concentrations of paclobutrazol (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 100, 150, 160, and 200 mg·L–1) or were treated with a soil drench of the growth regulator according to label recommendations (59 ml/container of paclobutrazol solution at 4 mg·L–1). Plants grown in containers with the paint–paclobutrazol mix at concentrations >80 mg·L–1 were shorter than plants given the control and paint only treatments but taller than plants given the drench treatment. Increasing paclobutrazol concentrations in paint from 100 to 150 and 200 mg·L–1 did not produce proportionately shorter plants. Paint alone had no effect on growth and development. Plants subject to growth regulator treatments appeared greener than the control plants. None of the plants given treatments with paint with or without paclobutrazol showed any sign of phytotoxicity. These results suggest the possibility of a new application method for systemic chemicals with the potential of reducing or eliminating worker protection standard restricted entry intervals and reducing the release of chemicals to the environment. Chemical name used: beta-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl]-α-(1,1-dimethyl)-1H-1,2,4,-triazole-1-ethanol (paclobutrazol).

scholarly journals Response of Established Landscape Plants to Uniconazole

1992 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary J. Keever ◽  
Mark S. West
Keyword(s):  
Foliar Application ◽  
Foliar Spray ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Growth Indices ◽  
Application Method ◽  
Soil Drench ◽  
Growing Seasons ◽  
Landscape Plants

Uniconazole was applied once as a soil drench (15, 30, or 45 mg a.i./plant) or foliar spray (500, 1000, or 1500 mg liter-1, about 175 ml/plant) to established, field-grown thorny elaeagnus (Elaeagnus pungens Thunb. Fruitlandii) and leyland cypress [× Cupressocyparis leylandii (A.B. Jacks. & Dallim.) Dallim. & A.B. Jacks]. At the end of the second growing season following treatment, shoot dry weights (SDW) of thorny elaeagnus decreased with increasing rates of drench-applied uniconazole, while SDW of plants receiving the foliar application were not affected by increasing rates. Growth indices of leyland cypress, determined twice during the first growing season and at the end of the second growing season, were not influenced by application method or rate. Uniconazole applied as a soil drench at 15 to 45 mg a.i./plant suppressed growth of established thorny elaeagnus for at least two growing seasons, but leyland cypress was not affected by uniconazole drench or foliar spray at tested rates. No phytotoxicity was observed on either species in any treatment during the experiment.

scholarly journals Tobacco Aphid Control on Burley Tobacco with Transplant Water and Foliar Treatments, 1995

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 312-312
Author(s):  
Paul J. Semtner ◽  
Surendra K. Dara ◽  
William B. Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Burley Tobacco ◽  
Aphid Control ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

scholarly journals Evaluation of Admire for Tobacco Aphid Control on Connecticut Broadleaf Tobacco, 1994

1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 304-305
Author(s):  
James A. LaMondia ◽  
Thomas M. Rathier
Keyword(s):  
Aphid Control ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

scholarly journals Tobacco Aphid Control on Flue-Cured Tobacco with Foliar Insecticides, 1996

1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 329-329
Author(s):  
P. Sterling Southern ◽  
Micou M. Browne
Keyword(s):  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Air Temperature ◽  
Quality Index ◽  
T Test ◽  
Square Root ◽  
Hollow Cone ◽  
Roller Pump ◽  
Aphid Infestation ◽  
Aphid Control ◽  
Tobacco Aphid

Abstract Flue-cured tobacco was planted on the Casey farm in Johnston Co., NC on 3 May. Plots of 0.02 acre (4 rows X 57 ft) were separated laterally by a vacant 5th row and on each end by turn alleys of 16 ft. Treatments were established in a RCB design with 4 replications. Treatments were applied 21 Jun using a tractor mounted sprayer pressurized by a PTO-powered roller pump. Spray was delivered through 3 hollow-cone nozzles (TX-12) per row at 60 psi and 36.5 gpa. Treatments were applied between 9:30 am and 11:30 am EDT. Air temperature was 80-84° F and winds were light (3-5 mph). All plants (excluding the first and last) in rows 1 and 3 were checked for aphid infestation on the day of treatment and 5 and 12 DAT. Individual plants were rated for degree of aphid infestation as follows: 0 = no aphids on plant; 1 = 1-10 aphids on most infested leaf (MIL); 2 = 11-50 aphids MIL; 3 = 51-200 aphids MIL; 4 = 201-500 aphids MIL; 5 = 500+ aphids MIL. Average infestation ratings were calculated by plot. The proportion of plants infested (rated 3 or above) was also calculated. After harvest and curing, tobacco from each plot was weighed and graded by a government grader. Grades were converted to a quality index (1-100, 100 high). All variables were subjected to analysis of variance and treatment means were compared (where appropriate) using the LSD t-test. Before analysis, the proportion of plants infested was transformed to the arcsine of the square root of the proportion. Data shown in the tables are not transformed and proportion of plants infested is presented as the percentage of plants infested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document