scholarly journals CONTROL OF CORN EARWORM AND EUROPEAN CORN BORER ON SWEET CORN, 1998

1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. K. O'Rourke ◽  
E. C. Burkness ◽  
W. D. Hutchison
Keyword(s):  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Corn Borer

scholarly journals Evaluation of Efficacy of Selected Conventional and Experimental Insecticides and Bt Hybrids for Control of Corn Earworm and European Corn Borer on Sweet Corn, 1997

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-100
Author(s):  
J. T. Shaw ◽  
R. Weinzierl ◽  
J. W. Finger
Keyword(s):  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Compressed Air ◽  
Hollow Cone ◽  
Corn Hybrids ◽  
Corn Borer ◽  
Chemical Treatments ◽  
Untreated Check ◽  
High Clearance

Abstract The tests were arranged in a RCB design with four replications. Each plot consisted of four rows, each being 30 inches wide and 50 ft long. Thirty-foot-wide alleys were established between the four replications. Insecticides were applied to the middle two rows of each plot, leaving two untreated rows between adjoining plots. Twelve insecticide treatments were compared with two Br-sweet corn hybrids (Heritage Bt and Bonus Bt) and their non-Bt isolines to two untreated controls. The 12 chemical treatments and the two untreated checks were planted with the Silver King variety sweet corn. Two untreated check plots were included in each replication and were averaged for the ANOVA. Treatments were applied very four to five days beginning on 8 Aug at 8% silk. All insecticide treatments were applied with a modified John Deere 6000 high-clearance vehicle (HCV) with a rear-mounted boom. Six Conejet (TX VS-8) hollow-cone nozzles (three per row) were calibrated to deliver 30.1 gpa at 40 psi and a speed of 2.5 mph, utilizing a compressed air system. Four nozzles (two per row) were attached to drops and directed the spray towards the ear zone area, a third nozzle (one per row) was mounted directly over the row with the spray being directed into the whorl (tassel) area.

Ear Pests and Damage to Organic, Conventional and Bt-Protected Sweet Corn Grown in Central Kentucky

2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-390
Author(s):  
John D. Sedlacek ◽  
Karen L. Friley ◽  
Steve L. Hillman
Keyword(s):  
Helicoverpa Zea ◽  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Crop Protection ◽  
Fall Armyworm ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Corn Borer ◽  
Sap Beetles ◽  
Southwestern Corn Borer

Sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. rugosa) was grown in replicated plots in 2004 and 2006 using organic, conventional, and genetically-engineered (Bt) production practices. Organic plots were treated with Entrust® (Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN) whereas conventional and Bt sweet corn plots were treated with Warrior® (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC). All plots were treated once at silk emergence. Organic and conventional plots were treated again 1 wk later. Twenty-five ears were harvested from row centers in each treatment subplot to quantify ear pests and assess ear damage. The highest number of corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), larvae were found on organically-grown sweet corn. European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner); southwestern corn borer, Diatraea grandiosella Dyar; and fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), larvae were not found as frequently. Neither corn earworm nor European corn borer larvae were found on Bt sweet corn ears. Sap beetles, Carpophilus lugubris Murray, were found on all 3 types of sweet corn. Organically and conventionally-grown sweet corn had a greater number of tip-damaged ears and numbers of damaged kernels per ear than Bt sweet corn. Ear length and weight were the same for all 3 types of sweet corn. Based on the information generated in this study, growing late-planted sweet corn organically or conventionally on a large commercial scale with a limited spray program and without using other types of ear pest management does not appear to be a practical or profitable option in central Kentucky.

scholarly journals Control of European Corn Borer and Corn Earworm on Sweet Corn, 1997

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
E. C. Burkness ◽  
P. K. O'Rourke ◽  
W. D. Hutchison
Keyword(s):  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Corn Borer

scholarly journals Corn Earworm and European Corn Borer Control with Insecticides, 1997

1998 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-102
Author(s):  
K. A. Sorensen ◽  
C. Wade Holloway
Keyword(s):  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Hollow Cone ◽  
Corn Borer ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Untreated Area

Abstract ‘Golden Queen’ sweet corn was seeded on 22 I Apr near Calabash, NC in Brunswick Co. Single-row plots, 10 ft long on 42-inch centers, were replicated 4 times in a RCB design. Alleys of 5 ft were used I between replicates. Treatments were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer using a single hollow-cone nozzle (18X) operating at 60 psi to deliver 54.5 gpa. Test 1 and Test 2 were in the same field with a 75 ft spacing of untreated area between the two test sites. Applications were made to both Test 1 and Test 2 twice a week on 27 and 30 Jun, and 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 Jul. Insect-damaged ears were assayed on 21 Jul when all ears were harvested from both tests.

scholarly journals TIMING OF PYRETHROIDS FOR CONTROL OF EUROPEAN CORN BORER AND CORN EARWORM ON SWEET CORN, 2001

2002 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Wold ◽  
E. C. Burkness ◽  
R. L. Koch ◽  
W. D. Hutchison
Keyword(s):  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Corn Borer

scholarly journals BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE TO EUROPEAN CORN BORER IN SWEET CORN

HortScience ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1178c-1178
Author(s):  
David W. Davis ◽  
Elizabeth M. Lamb ◽  
Mary S. Joyce
Keyword(s):  
Insect Resistance ◽  
European Corn Borer ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Channel Length ◽  
Corn Earworm ◽  
Vegetable Crops ◽  
Gene Modification ◽  
Corn Borer ◽  
Stalk Borer ◽  
Breeding For Resistance

Insect resistance in vegetable crops carries a new urgency as insecticide availability and usage become more restricted. The European corn borer (ECB) long has been the most costly sweet corn pest in the northern states, with corn earworm (CEW) and southwestern stalk borer most serious farther south. Resistance to ECB and CEW, as developed by classical methods, will be discussed. Newer methods (such as RFLPs) should speed transfer of this resistance to commercial stocks, and also facilitate transfer of resistance from other species. Gene modification and endophyte exploitation are longer-term possibilities. Resistance must be free from association with undesirable traits, such as long silk channel length (r = 0.3 to 0.4), unless consumer and processor specifications change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document