-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
G S Kund, J T Trumble, Effect of Insecticides on Pepper Insects, 2016, Arthropod Management Tests, Volume 42, Issue 1, January 2017, tsx118, https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsx118
Close - Share Icon Share
To determine the effect of insecticides on pepper insect control, seedlings were transplanted in a sandy loam type soil on 6 Jun at the University of California’s South Coast Research and Extension Center. Experimental plots were 3 rows wide (5-ft centers) by 20 ft long and separated by a 3-ft buffer. The pepper transplants were drip irrigated (water pH 7.2–7.5). Treatments were replicated 4 times in an RCB block design. A treatment list is shown in Table 1. The Minecto Pro SC, Radiant SC, Radiant SC and Sequoia 2SC, VST-06330 EP and BeetleGone! Bt, and Asana XL EC treatments were applied as weekly foliar sprays on (1, 8, 17, 24 Aug, and 2, 9 Sep). Verimark SC was applied once as a soil drench on 8 Aug as part of the rotation, which included Radiant SC (1, 24 Aug, and 9 Sep) and Sequoia 2SC (8 Aug and 2 Sep). Pyganic 5EC was applied (24 Aug) as part of the foliar spray rotations with Trilogy EC (1 and 24 Aug), Mycotrol O (8, 17 Aug, and 2 Sep), and Entrust SC (8, 17 Aug, and 2, 9 Sep). All applications were made at twilight. A tractor-mounted boom sprayer with 6 nozzles per row incorporated D-3 orifice disks, #25 cores, and 50 mesh screens. Operating pressure was 110 psi delivering 100 gpa. The treatment, which consisted of Pyrellin 5EC, Trilogy EC, Mycotrol O, and Entrust SC, did not use an adjuvant. The VST-06330 EP plus BeetleGone! Bt treatment used LI-700 at 0.125% vol/vol as an adjuvant. All other treatments included Dyne-amic as an adjuvant at 0.25% vol/vol. On 14 Sep, 50 mature-green to ripe fruit were harvested from the center row of each replicate (200 per treatment) and examined for Lepidopterous internal damage TFW, external damage BAW, hemipterous pests (lygus and SB), and PW. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Fisher’s protected LSD analysis to detect differences among treatment means (P < 0.05 level, Fisher’s protected LSD test).
| Treatment/formulation . | Rate amt Product/acre . | Mean Number of Fruit Damaged/Replicate . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Internala TFW . | Externalb BAW . | All Lepsc . | PW internal . | Calyx damaged . | TP . | ||
| 1 | Untreated Control | – | 0.75 | 4.75 a | 5.5 a | 0.25 | 12.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.50 | 0.50 b | 1.00 b | 0.00 | 8.25 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 10.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.50 b | 1.75 b | 0.00 | 4.50 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Radiant SC Dyne-amic | 7.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Radiant SC + Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 4.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.00 | 1.25 b | 1.25 b | 0.00 | 5.50 | 0.00 |
| 6 | VST-06330 EP + Bt BeetleGone! LI-700 | 0.25 lb 0.5 lb 0.125% | 0.50 | 1.50 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 11.00 | 0.00 |
| 7 | IPM a-Verimark SC a b-Radiant SC c-Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 13.5 oz 7.5 oz 4.5 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 8 | Organic IPM a-Pyganic 5 EC b-Trilogy EC c-Mycotrol O d-Entrust SC | 17.0 oz 64.0 oz 32.0 oz 8.0 oz | 0.00 | 2.25 b | 2.25 b | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| 9 | Chem Standard: Asana XL EC Dyne-amic | 9 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 2.25 b | 2.50 b | 0.00 | 7.50 | 0.00 |
| ANOVA F value (by column) | 1.109 | 3.027 | 2.776 | – | 1.457 | – | ||
| ANOVA P value (by column) | 0.388 | 0.015 | 0.022 | – | 0.219 | – | ||
| Treatment/formulation . | Rate amt Product/acre . | Mean Number of Fruit Damaged/Replicate . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Internala TFW . | Externalb BAW . | All Lepsc . | PW internal . | Calyx damaged . | TP . | ||
| 1 | Untreated Control | – | 0.75 | 4.75 a | 5.5 a | 0.25 | 12.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.50 | 0.50 b | 1.00 b | 0.00 | 8.25 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 10.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.50 b | 1.75 b | 0.00 | 4.50 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Radiant SC Dyne-amic | 7.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Radiant SC + Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 4.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.00 | 1.25 b | 1.25 b | 0.00 | 5.50 | 0.00 |
| 6 | VST-06330 EP + Bt BeetleGone! LI-700 | 0.25 lb 0.5 lb 0.125% | 0.50 | 1.50 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 11.00 | 0.00 |
| 7 | IPM a-Verimark SC a b-Radiant SC c-Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 13.5 oz 7.5 oz 4.5 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 8 | Organic IPM a-Pyganic 5 EC b-Trilogy EC c-Mycotrol O d-Entrust SC | 17.0 oz 64.0 oz 32.0 oz 8.0 oz | 0.00 | 2.25 b | 2.25 b | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| 9 | Chem Standard: Asana XL EC Dyne-amic | 9 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 2.25 b | 2.50 b | 0.00 | 7.50 | 0.00 |
| ANOVA F value (by column) | 1.109 | 3.027 | 2.776 | – | 1.457 | – | ||
| ANOVA P value (by column) | 0.388 | 0.015 | 0.022 | – | 0.219 | – | ||
Means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05 level, Fisher’s protected LSD test).
aInternal damage due primarily to TFW.
bExternal damage due primarily to BAW.
cAll Leps can be attributed to primarily TFW and BAW feeding.
dCalyx damage can be attributed to TFW, BAW, and PW feeding.
| Treatment/formulation . | Rate amt Product/acre . | Mean Number of Fruit Damaged/Replicate . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Internala TFW . | Externalb BAW . | All Lepsc . | PW internal . | Calyx damaged . | TP . | ||
| 1 | Untreated Control | – | 0.75 | 4.75 a | 5.5 a | 0.25 | 12.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.50 | 0.50 b | 1.00 b | 0.00 | 8.25 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 10.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.50 b | 1.75 b | 0.00 | 4.50 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Radiant SC Dyne-amic | 7.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Radiant SC + Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 4.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.00 | 1.25 b | 1.25 b | 0.00 | 5.50 | 0.00 |
| 6 | VST-06330 EP + Bt BeetleGone! LI-700 | 0.25 lb 0.5 lb 0.125% | 0.50 | 1.50 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 11.00 | 0.00 |
| 7 | IPM a-Verimark SC a b-Radiant SC c-Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 13.5 oz 7.5 oz 4.5 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 8 | Organic IPM a-Pyganic 5 EC b-Trilogy EC c-Mycotrol O d-Entrust SC | 17.0 oz 64.0 oz 32.0 oz 8.0 oz | 0.00 | 2.25 b | 2.25 b | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| 9 | Chem Standard: Asana XL EC Dyne-amic | 9 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 2.25 b | 2.50 b | 0.00 | 7.50 | 0.00 |
| ANOVA F value (by column) | 1.109 | 3.027 | 2.776 | – | 1.457 | – | ||
| ANOVA P value (by column) | 0.388 | 0.015 | 0.022 | – | 0.219 | – | ||
| Treatment/formulation . | Rate amt Product/acre . | Mean Number of Fruit Damaged/Replicate . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Internala TFW . | Externalb BAW . | All Lepsc . | PW internal . | Calyx damaged . | TP . | ||
| 1 | Untreated Control | – | 0.75 | 4.75 a | 5.5 a | 0.25 | 12.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.50 | 0.50 b | 1.00 b | 0.00 | 8.25 | 0.00 |
| 3 | Minecto Pro SC Dyne-amic | 10.0 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.50 b | 1.75 b | 0.00 | 4.50 | 0.00 |
| 4 | Radiant SC Dyne-amic | 7.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 5 | Radiant SC + Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 7.0 Fl oz 4.5 Fl oz 0.25% | 0.00 | 1.25 b | 1.25 b | 0.00 | 5.50 | 0.00 |
| 6 | VST-06330 EP + Bt BeetleGone! LI-700 | 0.25 lb 0.5 lb 0.125% | 0.50 | 1.50 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 11.00 | 0.00 |
| 7 | IPM a-Verimark SC a b-Radiant SC c-Sequoia 2 SC Dyne-amic | 13.5 oz 7.5 oz 4.5 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 1.75 b | 2.00 b | 0.00 | 8.75 | 0.00 |
| 8 | Organic IPM a-Pyganic 5 EC b-Trilogy EC c-Mycotrol O d-Entrust SC | 17.0 oz 64.0 oz 32.0 oz 8.0 oz | 0.00 | 2.25 b | 2.25 b | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 |
| 9 | Chem Standard: Asana XL EC Dyne-amic | 9 oz 0.25% | 0.25 | 2.25 b | 2.50 b | 0.00 | 7.50 | 0.00 |
| ANOVA F value (by column) | 1.109 | 3.027 | 2.776 | – | 1.457 | – | ||
| ANOVA P value (by column) | 0.388 | 0.015 | 0.022 | – | 0.219 | – | ||
Means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05 level, Fisher’s protected LSD test).
aInternal damage due primarily to TFW.
bExternal damage due primarily to BAW.
cAll Leps can be attributed to primarily TFW and BAW feeding.
dCalyx damage can be attributed to TFW, BAW, and PW feeding.
Lepidopteran pressure was estimated to be moderate in the categories of external damage by BAW, and there were significant differences between the treatments for Lepidopterous insect damage. Internal damage by PW was very low this year. We did not see differences between treatments for TP numbers. Damage to the calyx by TFW, BAW, and PW feeding showed no differences between treatments. No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the treatments. This research was supported by industry gift(s) of pesticide and/or research funding and a grant from the California Pepper Commission.
