Richard L. Coviello, Mark Freeman, Richard E. rice, William H. Krueger, Phil Phillips

Similar documents
R. A. Van Steenwyk,L. W. Barclay, W. W. Barnett, P. S. McNally, W. H. Olson, W. R. Schreader, G. S. Sibbett and C. V. Weakley

EFFECT OF ESTEEM ON SAN JOSE SCALE

San Jose Scale Management in North Carolina Peaches. Jim Walgenbach Dept. Entomology NC State University Mt Hort Crop Res & Ext Ctr Mills River, NC

Review of the 2014 Pest Management Season in ENY

Control of Codling Moth and Other Pear Arthropods with Novaluron Evaluation of Novaluron for Phytotoxicity to Pear and Apple 2004

CONTROL OF SPIDER MITES IN APPLE AND TART CHERRY WITH ACARICIDES. Diane G. Alston Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT

DESCRIPTION: Control of Codling Moth in Organic Pear Orchards. PROJECT LEADER: Rachel Elkins, UCCE Lake County

INVESTIGATIONS ON NAVEL ORANGEWORM CONTROL IN WALNUTS

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

PHEROMONE-BASED CODLING MOTH AND NAVEL ORANGEWORM MANAGEMENT IN WALNUTS

CODLING MOTH CONTROL THROUGH MATING DISRUPTION

Foothill Farm and Orchard News Issue #2 October, 2001

Insecticide Efficacy for Pecan Aphids. Larry Blackwell 1 Brad Lewis 1,2 Tiffany Johnson 1 1 New Mexico State University 2 New Mexico Dept.

Biological Control of Two Avocado Pests Amorbia cuneana and omnivorous looper on avocado can be controlled by parasite

USING AEROSOL PHEROMONE PUFFERS FOR AREA-WIDE SUPPRESSION OF CODLING MOTH IN WALNUTS: YEAR FOUR

WALNUT BLIGHT CONTROL INVESTIGATIONS TEHAMA 2008

2009 REPORT OF INSECTICIDE EVALUATION

Apple Pest Management in the West: Strategies to Deal with Inevitable Change

Stephen Welter, Daniel Casado and Frances Cave, Rachel Elkins, Joe Grant, and Carolyn Pickel ABSTRACT

SELECTIVE PESTICIDES AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IN WALNUT PEST MANAGEMENT

Objective: Procedures:

2010 REPORT OF INSECTICIDE EVALUATION

2010 REPORT OF INSECTICIDE EVALUATION

I. Optimizing Pheromone Release Rates of Aerosol Emitters to Manage Codling Moth in Walnuts

Olive Fruit Fly Management

EFFICACY OF NEW PESTICIDES AGAINST SIXSPOTTED MITE EOTETRANYCHUS SEXMACULATUS (RILEY) (ACARI: TETRANYCHIDAE) ON AVOCADOS

2012 Evaluation of Insecticides for Lygus Bug Control in Blackeye Cowpeas

Why aren t more growers using codling moth mating disruption?

D. Flaherty, S. Sibbett, K. Kelley, J. Dibble, and R. Rice

Predicting Pest Activity with Degree-Day Models

Reduced rates of pheromone applications for control of codling moth (Cydia pomonella) in pear and walnut orchards

Tree Fruit Pest & Insecticide Update. Celeste Welty January 2009

Jay Brunner & Mike Doerr Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center

Management of apple pests: codling moth, leafrollers, lacanobia, and stink bugs

CHEMICAL CONTROL OF WALNUT HUSK FLY

USING AEROSOL PHEROMONE PUFFERS FOR AREA-WIDE SUPPRESSION AND SPRAYABLE PHEROMONE IN MANAGEMENT OF CODLING MOTH IN WALNUTS

The Benefits of Insecticide Use: Walnuts

2018 Peach Insect Management Update. Jim Walgenbach Dept Entomology & Plant Pathology MHCREC, Mills River, NC

Objective: How it Was Done:

EVALUATION OF NEW AND EXISTING INSECTICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF WALNUT HUSK FLY 2012

LYGUS BUG MANAGEMENT IN SEED ALFALFA. Eric T. Natwick and M. Lopez 1 ABSTRACT

HULL SPLIT STRATEGIES

Codling moth (CM) is becoming an increasing problem

Tree Fruit IPM Advisory: June 20 th, 2006

USING AEROSOL PHEROMONE PUFFERS FOR AREA-WIDE SUPPRESSION OF CODLING MOTH IN WALNUTS: YEAR SIX

Entomology: A Perspective on Insecticide Efficacy Research

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PHEROMONE DISPENSING TECHNOLOGIES FOR CODLING MOTH

2006- Foliar insecticide effects on soybean aphid and soybean yield. Summary Background Objective Site and application description

2011 Lygus Bug Management Trial in Blackeyes Kearney Research and Extension Center, Parlier, CA C.A. Frate 1, S.C. Mueller and P.B.

Enhancing Biological Control to Stabilize Western Orchard IPM Systems

Sugarbeet Root Maggot

How to keep apple fruit worm-free Celeste Welty, Extension Entomologist, Ohio State University January 2009

Determining Impact of Third Generation Codling Moth, and Emergence Pattern of Overwintered Moths

Efficacy of Additional Insecticides for Insect Pests in a MGVII Soybean Beaumont, TX 2005

TIMELY INFORMATION Agriculture & Natural Resources

PLUM CURCULIO: MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS

Management Considerations: Squaring to First Flower

Codling Moth Management: Yesterday and Today

Advanced IPM for UT Tree Fruit

Insect Management in Mississippi Pecans

Tree Fruit IPM Advisory

Efficacy of Selected Acaricides on Spider Mites in Corn 2011

Evaluation of Assail for the Control of Early Season Cotton Aphids in Upland Cotton COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT 2001

Fruit & Nut Notes Serving Solano & Yolo Counties! June Issue 5

ONGOING PROJECT REPORT YEAR 1/3 WTFRC Project # CH

Mating disruption to control codling moth and torticid moths TF223 (Project lead, Rob Saville)

The codling moth (Cydia pomonella

APPLE / CONTROL OF APPLE FRUIT MOTH AND CODLING MOTH ON APPLE

Cydia pomonella. Do You Know? Hosts. Orchard IPM Series HG/Orchard/08 Codling Moth. by Diane G. Alston and Michael E. Reding Adult Codling Moth

Onion Weed Control Trial, 2004 Objective: Materials and Methods: Results:

MOTH. Codling. Codling moth (CM) is the "key" pest. THE increase in codling moth (CM) problems on a regional scale may be.

Arkansas Fruit and Nut News Volume 5, Issue 6, 13 July 2015

Management Strategies for the Cotton Aphid. Jeff Gore USDA-ARS, Stoneville

TOXICITY OF INSECTICIDES ON TRIOXYS PALLIDUS, THE WALNUT APHID AND THE CODLING MOTH. Mary Purcell and Jeffrey Granett

Management of Organophosphate Resistant Codling Moth

Attract and Kill: A New Management tool to control orchard pests?

New Insecticide Options for Integrated Pest Management: Keith Granger, Jay Brunner, John Dunley and Mike Doerr

A Study of Codling Moth.Abundance As Influenced by Crop Failures

2010 Survey of Apple Orchard Owners/Managers: Summary Report

Result Demonstration Report

A 2015 multi-site field study on the effects of seed treatment on soybean yield and Soybean Cyst Nematode reproduction

AUGMENTATION IN ORCHARDS: IMPROVING THE EFFICACY OF TRICHOGRAMMA INUNDATION

Seed treatments for control of onion and seed corn maggots. Mary Ruth McDonald Dennis VanDyk, Alan G. Taylor

Making codling moth mating disruption work in Michigan: Adopting an area-wide approach to managing codling moth in Michigan apple production

FRUIT IPM UPDATE #11

Importance of Good Spray Coverage. Diane Alston and Shawn Steffan Utah State University Northern Utah Fruit Growers Meeting February 8, 2006

Integrated Pest Management Successes

Rice Stink Bug Control with Selected Insecticides

Two decades of berry moth research: what have we learned?

Integrated Pest Management Successes

Powdery Mildew, Scab, and Other Disease Control on Almond

Developing a Management Strategy for Little Cherry Disease

B. Required Codling Moth Damage Pre-Packing Fruit Evaluation: On-Tree Sequential Field Sampling Protocol:

Hervé Quénin, Pierre Laur Calliope SAS Arysta Lifescience Corporation

Tree Fruit IPM Advisory

Tree Fruit IPM Advisory

Plant Disease and Insect Advisory

Navel Orangeworm Control: Looking Back, Looking Forward. David Doll UCCE Merced County

TF223. Dr Robert Saville East Malling Research

Insecticides Labeled for Control of Bean Leaf Beetle, Mexican Bean Beetle, and Green Cloverworm. Amount product per acre

Transcription:

WALNUT SCALE - DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE MONITORING METHOD AND PHENOLOGY MODEL Richard L. Coviello, Mark Freeman, Richard E. rice, William H. Krueger, Phil Phillips ABSTRACT Results from sampling in Fresno Coutny during 1983 indicated a developmental threshold of 50 F. with an upper limit of approximately 90 F. 1984 data from Fresno County and Glenn County show that 48 F. fits the data better, with an upper limit between 80 and 84 F. The lowered upper limit may be the result of the much warmer weather this year in which the deleterious effects of heat on insect growth would be expressed more clearly. Samples of a timing trial applied in 1983 show that the treatment applied at first generation crawler emergence reduced the population of scale through two seasons, while the dormant and delayed dormant treatments were the same as the untreated check by the end of 1984. A screening trial was applied at the delayed dormant and crawler emergence periods in 1984. Supracide@ and Lorsban@ applied at crawler emergence showed somewhat better performance through the season than Supracide at delayed dormancy. Zolone@, when applied at either crawler emergence or at codling moth timing, had no effect on scale. However, Zolone and Supracide at crawler emergence significantly reduced predator mites while Lorsban did not. OBJECTIVES Resul ts from last year I s research on walnut scale indicated that both adult scale and the immature crawler stages could be readily trapped on double-sided cellophane tape. These trap counts could then be used to ascertain when adults and crawlers were active and vulnerable to insecticides. Temperatures were also observed near the sampling site and these along with the trap data were used to construct a preliminary day-degree model of the scale phenology. An insecticide timing trial was during the scale life cycle, a Treatment at crawler emergence Our objectives this year were as also conducted to determine when, treatment would be most effective. reduced the population the most. follows: 1. To validate the preliminary phenology model that was developed last year by continued sampling in Fresno County and by sampling in Glenn County and Ventura County to give a broad temperature range for the scale activity. 2. To continue to sample the timing trial to see how long the treatments remain effective. 3. To evaluate selected insecticides for control at delayed dormant or crawler emergence. -67-

PROCEDURE Trapping was done as described in the Walnut Research Reports, 1983, p. 56. The phenology sampling, timing trial and the screening trial were all sampled in a similar manner. The timing trial is described in the Walnut Research Reports, 1983, p. 56. The screening trial included Supracide@ 2E at two rates plus one, including oil at the delayed dormant and crawler emergence, Lorsban@ 50W at crawler emergence and Zolone @ 3E at crawler emergence and at the codling moth treatment timing. See Table 3 for treatment dates and rates. Treatments were applied vlith a handgun sprayer at 400 gallons per acre. There were untreated trees between each of five single tree replications. RESULTS Data for the phenology model are still being analyzed; however, preliminary analysis indicates that the lower threshold is about 48 degrees F. while the upper threshold is between 80 and 85 degrees F. An accumulation of between 2000 and 2200 day-degrees appears to be required per generation. Last year's data showed a higher upper threshold of 90 degrees F.; however, temperatures were much warmer this year and the deleterious effects of the heat may have shown up more clearly. Data from Ven'tura Co. show a much lower population than in Fresno or Glenn Counties (Table 1). The pattern of emergence for the first generation was similar, but the scale numbers were apparently too low for the second generation to show up on the tapes. Scale counts at the end of last season's sampling in the timing trial indicated that the crawler treatment was still holding, while the dormant and delayed dormant 'treatmentswere losing effectiveness. 1984 data show that the crawler treatment is still significantly better 'than the others throughout the year, (Table 2). Results of the screening trial are shown in Table 3. All treatments of Supracide appear to give statistically equivalent control at the end of the year, but nwnerically the delayed dormant treatment is considerably higher than the crawler treatment. Lorsban is as effective as Supracide. Both Zolone treatments statistically had higher crawler counts than the untreated check; however, this should not be taken to suggest that Zolone actually stimulates scale production. Scale parasites stuck to the tapes were counted throughout the season to determine 'treatment effects on them ('I'able4). There were no differences in cumulative numbers at the time the first treatment went on. At the end of the season, however, differences were apparent with the crawler treatment being significantly lower than the check and somewhat lower than the delayed dormant treatment. It is difficult to determine whether the effects are directly on the parasites or if their lower numbers resulted from the reduction in the scale population. Predator 4 ). The mi tes were mi tes had also monitored in the screening trial, (Table two definite peaks in population during the -68-

season, one occuring on September 13, at an average of 3.7 per tape. Mite counts fell to zero on July 19. Data analysis of the cumulative predators in each population peak showed a definite impact of the delayed dormant treatment in the first peak, which was reversed by the second peak. The crawler treatment had significantly lower numbers of predators in the latter half of the season. The Zolone treatments had very few predators, even when applied at the codling moth timing. The results of the timing trial and screening trial suggest a reasonable approach to scale control may be to treat alternate rows every other year after the beginning of spring crawler emergence. The crmvler treatment appears to last at least two years and by leaving alternate untreated rows, the population of scale and aphid parasites would be maintained within the orchard. -69- ---

Table 1 Walnut Scale Phenology Preliminary Results -Location Thresholds Lower: Upper Day-Degrees Population Peak~1 1st Generation 2nd Generation Males Crawlers Males Crawlers Fresno Co. 48:84 2234 36.6 243.0 5.40 139.5 Glenn Co. 48:80 2018 5.78 393.25.20 53.93 - Jj Jj Ventura Co. 0.17 3.98 Number of scale per tape per day. Insufficient data for calculating. Table 2 Walnut Scale Tinling Trial Cumulative Number of Scale for Each Generation 1st Generation 2nd Generation Treatment and Date Males Crawlers Males Crawlers Dormant 505.0ab 7973.4 b l28.0ab 4628.8 b 2//83 Male Flight 233.0a 3956.2ab 154.0 b 4677.6 b 3/23/83 Crawler Emergence l08.0a 107.8a.8a 327.0a 6/1/83 Control 760.6 b 8422.0 b 199.8 b 4060.4 b Means followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (DMRT=0.05). -70- -- - - --- - -

Walnut Scale Screening Trial Table 3 Cumulative Scale in Each Generation 1st Generation 2nd Gener.ation Treatment. Males Crawlers Males Crawlers " 1..1!i../ Supracide 2E 295.6a 576.6a 38.8a 688.0a 2 lbs a.i./a 1/ Supracide 2E 324.6a 985.6ab 33.8a 1322.4ab 1 lb a.i./a 1..1 Supracide 2E + oil 239.8a l573.6ab 40.2a 946.2a 1 lb a.i. + l%/a 2/ Supracide2E 746.6 b 3925.4ab l6.6a 296.0a 2 lbs a.i./a Supracide 2E 640.8 b 2791.8ab 35.6a 390.0a 1 lb a.i./a Supracide 2E + oil 817.4 b 3668.8ab 27.4a l40.2a 1 lb a.i. + l%/a Zolone 3E 735.6 b 14301.2 c 310.6 c 6358.8 c 2 lbs a.i./a Lorsban 50W 664.6 b 2583.8ab l5.8a 104.8a 1 lb a. i. /A?) Zolone 3E 736.6 b 13340.0 c 189.6 b 4902.4 c 2 lbs a. i. /A Control 582.8 b 6292.6 b 100.Oab 3060.2 b 1/ -Treatments applied 3/8/84 during delayed dormant period. 2/ -Treatments applied 5/22/84 during crawler emergence. 3/ -Treatment applied 5/4/84 at codling moth timing. 4/ -Numbers followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (DMRT=0.05). -71- --~.:.....

Table 4. Walnut Scale Screening Trial Parasite and Predator Counts.I.I Parasites Predators Treatment Pretreat End of Season 1st Half 2nd Half -- ---.------ 1.1!il Supracide 2E 0.9 21.7ab 4.2 cd 37.0a 2 1bs a. LI A 1.1 Supracide 2E 1.1 15.1abc 3.2 d 17.7 bcd 1 1b a.i./a Supracide 2E + 1.1 oil 0.9 12.9 bc 1.6 d 7.6 cd 1 1b a.l + l%ia 21 Supracide 2E 1.8 7.4 c 19.5 b 3.5 d 2 1bs a.l/a ]j Supracide 2E 1.2 6.7 c 14.6 b 4.2 d 1 1b a.l/a Supracide 2E + oil 1.4 10.5 c 16.2 b 3.6 d 1 1b a.l + l%ia Zolone 3E 1.1 10.5 c 12.5 bc 3.4 d 2 1bs a.l/a Lorsban 50W 1.7 608 c 18.8 b 29.7ab 1 lb a. LI A Zolone 3E 1.6 15.5abc 15.1 b 3.7 d 2 1bs a. i.1a Control 2.5 24.4a 28.3a 19.3 bc -Treatments applied 3/8/84 during delayed dormant period. 21 -Treatments applied 5/22/84 during crawler emergence. 31. -Treatment applied 5/4184 at codling moth timing.!il Numbers followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (DMRT=0.05). ~I Cumulative number per tape. -72-.,