https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2854-6896
-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Pragya Chalise, Douglas G Pfeiffer, Performance of selected insecticides against mealybugs, 2022, Arthropod Management Tests, Volume 49, Issue 1, 2024, tsae104, https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsae104
Close - Share Icon Share
The efficacy of 3 different insecticides—Applaud, Brigade and Movento—for mealybug control were evaluated at 2 commercial vineyards in Orange County and Nelson County in Virginia. The study was conducted by using spot spray applications with 12 single-vine replicates of each of the 4 treatments, i.e., 3 insecticides and an untreated check in CRD design. Each replicate of single-vine treatment was randomly selected, and a distance of at least a 2-vine buffer was maintained between the treatments and the replicates. Prior to the applications, plots were evaluated for the presence of mealybugs on the vines and were flagged. Foliar, trunk, and cordon application of insecticides were applied with a SOLO 11.4 L (3-gallon) backpack sprayer. Mealybug numbers were recorded using a 5-min sampling on each of the treatments, 20 days before the treatment (DBT) and multiple days after the first and second treatment (DAT). The evaluation was conducted on 10 random vines per treatment and the average value was used for analysis. Tables 1 and 2 represent field trial carried out in 2 different field sites located in Orange County and Nelson County in Virginia. The treatments were applied 2 times per growing season in site 1 and 1 time in site 2 using the recommended application rate and spray volume per growing season. The first application was scheduled on 31 May 2022, and second on 11 July 2022. Analysis of the mean number of mealybugs on different treatments was carried out using nonparametric comparisons for each pair using the Wilcoxon test of each pair at P ≤ 0.05. For the statistical analysis, the JMP Pro software was used.
| . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment/Form. (Trade name)s . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . | 1 DA2Td . | 10 DA2Td . | 18 DA2Td . | 31 DA2Td . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.1 ± 0.567a | 2.6 ± 0.62a | 3.9 ± 0.97a | 4.6 ± 1.37a | 2.8 ± 0.84a | 3.4 ± 1.12a | 5.5 ± 1.31a | 8.3 ± 1.97a | 4.2 ± 0.97a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.423a (P = 0.317)* | 0.9 ± 0.406b (P = 0.041) | 4.6 ± 2.27a (P = 486) | 2.9 ± 0.706a (P = 0.513) | 1.9 ± 0.52a (P = 0.53) | 2.4 ± 0.54a (P = 0.61) | 2.8 ± 0.69a (P = 0.155) | 7.2 ± 0.91a (P = 0.647) | 3.9 ± 0.97a (P = 0.78) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.7 ± 0.45a (P = 0.631) | 1.3 ± 0.0.495a (P = 0.129) | 3.6 ± 0.945a (P = 0.848) | 2.9 ± 0.74a (P = 0.488) | 7.1 ± 3.39a (P = 0.615) | 1.6 ± 0.47a (P = 0.206) | 4.5 ± 1.83a (P = 0.402) | 5.2 ± 1.16a (P = 0.194) | 5 ± 0.92a P = 0.56) |
| Movento | 4 | 1.4 ± 0.45a (P = 0.433) | 1.3 ± 0.335a (P = 0.112) | 1.2 ± 0.36b (P = 0.046) | 1.2 ± 0.554b (P = 0.044) | 2.3 ± 0.68a (P = 0.755) | 3 ± 1.45a (P = 0.46) | 1.6 ± 0.76b (P = 0.0284) | 5.6 ± 1.10a (P = 0.38) | 2.4 ± 0.84b (P = 0.0442) |
| . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment/Form. (Trade name)s . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . | 1 DA2Td . | 10 DA2Td . | 18 DA2Td . | 31 DA2Td . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.1 ± 0.567a | 2.6 ± 0.62a | 3.9 ± 0.97a | 4.6 ± 1.37a | 2.8 ± 0.84a | 3.4 ± 1.12a | 5.5 ± 1.31a | 8.3 ± 1.97a | 4.2 ± 0.97a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.423a (P = 0.317)* | 0.9 ± 0.406b (P = 0.041) | 4.6 ± 2.27a (P = 486) | 2.9 ± 0.706a (P = 0.513) | 1.9 ± 0.52a (P = 0.53) | 2.4 ± 0.54a (P = 0.61) | 2.8 ± 0.69a (P = 0.155) | 7.2 ± 0.91a (P = 0.647) | 3.9 ± 0.97a (P = 0.78) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.7 ± 0.45a (P = 0.631) | 1.3 ± 0.0.495a (P = 0.129) | 3.6 ± 0.945a (P = 0.848) | 2.9 ± 0.74a (P = 0.488) | 7.1 ± 3.39a (P = 0.615) | 1.6 ± 0.47a (P = 0.206) | 4.5 ± 1.83a (P = 0.402) | 5.2 ± 1.16a (P = 0.194) | 5 ± 0.92a P = 0.56) |
| Movento | 4 | 1.4 ± 0.45a (P = 0.433) | 1.3 ± 0.335a (P = 0.112) | 1.2 ± 0.36b (P = 0.046) | 1.2 ± 0.554b (P = 0.044) | 2.3 ± 0.68a (P = 0.755) | 3 ± 1.45a (P = 0.46) | 1.6 ± 0.76b (P = 0.0284) | 5.6 ± 1.10a (P = 0.38) | 2.4 ± 0.84b (P = 0.0442) |
Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Wilcoxon test of each pair at P ≤ 0.05).
aRate expressed in fl oz per acre.
bMealybug densities days before the treatment (DBT).
cMealybug densities days after the first treatment (DAT).
dMealybug densities days after the second treatment (DA2T).
eMealybug densities determined by a 5-min count on each vine treatment.
*P-values in parentheses indicate when densities in different chemical treatments are compared against the untreated check.
| . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment/Form. (Trade name)s . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . | 1 DA2Td . | 10 DA2Td . | 18 DA2Td . | 31 DA2Td . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.1 ± 0.567a | 2.6 ± 0.62a | 3.9 ± 0.97a | 4.6 ± 1.37a | 2.8 ± 0.84a | 3.4 ± 1.12a | 5.5 ± 1.31a | 8.3 ± 1.97a | 4.2 ± 0.97a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.423a (P = 0.317)* | 0.9 ± 0.406b (P = 0.041) | 4.6 ± 2.27a (P = 486) | 2.9 ± 0.706a (P = 0.513) | 1.9 ± 0.52a (P = 0.53) | 2.4 ± 0.54a (P = 0.61) | 2.8 ± 0.69a (P = 0.155) | 7.2 ± 0.91a (P = 0.647) | 3.9 ± 0.97a (P = 0.78) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.7 ± 0.45a (P = 0.631) | 1.3 ± 0.0.495a (P = 0.129) | 3.6 ± 0.945a (P = 0.848) | 2.9 ± 0.74a (P = 0.488) | 7.1 ± 3.39a (P = 0.615) | 1.6 ± 0.47a (P = 0.206) | 4.5 ± 1.83a (P = 0.402) | 5.2 ± 1.16a (P = 0.194) | 5 ± 0.92a P = 0.56) |
| Movento | 4 | 1.4 ± 0.45a (P = 0.433) | 1.3 ± 0.335a (P = 0.112) | 1.2 ± 0.36b (P = 0.046) | 1.2 ± 0.554b (P = 0.044) | 2.3 ± 0.68a (P = 0.755) | 3 ± 1.45a (P = 0.46) | 1.6 ± 0.76b (P = 0.0284) | 5.6 ± 1.10a (P = 0.38) | 2.4 ± 0.84b (P = 0.0442) |
| . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment/Form. (Trade name)s . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . | 1 DA2Td . | 10 DA2Td . | 18 DA2Td . | 31 DA2Td . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.1 ± 0.567a | 2.6 ± 0.62a | 3.9 ± 0.97a | 4.6 ± 1.37a | 2.8 ± 0.84a | 3.4 ± 1.12a | 5.5 ± 1.31a | 8.3 ± 1.97a | 4.2 ± 0.97a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.423a (P = 0.317)* | 0.9 ± 0.406b (P = 0.041) | 4.6 ± 2.27a (P = 486) | 2.9 ± 0.706a (P = 0.513) | 1.9 ± 0.52a (P = 0.53) | 2.4 ± 0.54a (P = 0.61) | 2.8 ± 0.69a (P = 0.155) | 7.2 ± 0.91a (P = 0.647) | 3.9 ± 0.97a (P = 0.78) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.7 ± 0.45a (P = 0.631) | 1.3 ± 0.0.495a (P = 0.129) | 3.6 ± 0.945a (P = 0.848) | 2.9 ± 0.74a (P = 0.488) | 7.1 ± 3.39a (P = 0.615) | 1.6 ± 0.47a (P = 0.206) | 4.5 ± 1.83a (P = 0.402) | 5.2 ± 1.16a (P = 0.194) | 5 ± 0.92a P = 0.56) |
| Movento | 4 | 1.4 ± 0.45a (P = 0.433) | 1.3 ± 0.335a (P = 0.112) | 1.2 ± 0.36b (P = 0.046) | 1.2 ± 0.554b (P = 0.044) | 2.3 ± 0.68a (P = 0.755) | 3 ± 1.45a (P = 0.46) | 1.6 ± 0.76b (P = 0.0284) | 5.6 ± 1.10a (P = 0.38) | 2.4 ± 0.84b (P = 0.0442) |
Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Wilcoxon test of each pair at P ≤ 0.05).
aRate expressed in fl oz per acre.
bMealybug densities days before the treatment (DBT).
cMealybug densities days after the first treatment (DAT).
dMealybug densities days after the second treatment (DA2T).
eMealybug densities determined by a 5-min count on each vine treatment.
*P-values in parentheses indicate when densities in different chemical treatments are compared against the untreated check.
| . | . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment (Trade name) . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.3 + 0.93a | 3.8 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.67a | 3.9 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.99a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.26a (P = 0.50)* | 1.3 ± 0.45a (P = 0.095) | 1.1 ± 0.27b (P = 0.0094) | 5.3 ± 3.54a (P = 0.316) | 2.2 ± 0.81a (P = 0.399) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.3 ± 0.21a (P = 0.50) | 1.5 ± 0.34a (P = 0.18) | 1.1 ± 0.40bc (P = 0.019) | 3.5 ± 1.13a (P = 0.73) | 4.9 ± 2.97a (P = 0.755) |
| Movento | 4 | 0.8 ± 0.25a (P = 0.146) | 0.7 ± 0.26b (P = 041) | 1.5 ± 0.86bcd (0.049) | 1.1 ± 0.40b (P = 0.0206) | 1.5 ± 0.63a (P = 0.306) |
| . | . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment (Trade name) . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.3 + 0.93a | 3.8 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.67a | 3.9 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.99a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.26a (P = 0.50)* | 1.3 ± 0.45a (P = 0.095) | 1.1 ± 0.27b (P = 0.0094) | 5.3 ± 3.54a (P = 0.316) | 2.2 ± 0.81a (P = 0.399) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.3 ± 0.21a (P = 0.50) | 1.5 ± 0.34a (P = 0.18) | 1.1 ± 0.40bc (P = 0.019) | 3.5 ± 1.13a (P = 0.73) | 4.9 ± 2.97a (P = 0.755) |
| Movento | 4 | 0.8 ± 0.25a (P = 0.146) | 0.7 ± 0.26b (P = 041) | 1.5 ± 0.86bcd (0.049) | 1.1 ± 0.40b (P = 0.0206) | 1.5 ± 0.63a (P = 0.306) |
Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Wilcoxon test of each pair at P ≤ 0.05).
aRate expressed in fl oz per acre.
bMealybug densities days before the treatment (DBT).
cMealybug densities days after the first treatment (DAT).
eMealybug densities determined by a 5-min count on each vine treatment.
*P-values in parentheses indicate when densities in different chemical treatments are compared against the untreated check.
| . | . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment (Trade name) . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.3 + 0.93a | 3.8 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.67a | 3.9 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.99a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.26a (P = 0.50)* | 1.3 ± 0.45a (P = 0.095) | 1.1 ± 0.27b (P = 0.0094) | 5.3 ± 3.54a (P = 0.316) | 2.2 ± 0.81a (P = 0.399) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.3 ± 0.21a (P = 0.50) | 1.5 ± 0.34a (P = 0.18) | 1.1 ± 0.40bc (P = 0.019) | 3.5 ± 1.13a (P = 0.73) | 4.9 ± 2.97a (P = 0.755) |
| Movento | 4 | 0.8 ± 0.25a (P = 0.146) | 0.7 ± 0.26b (P = 041) | 1.5 ± 0.86bcd (0.049) | 1.1 ± 0.40b (P = 0.0206) | 1.5 ± 0.63a (P = 0.306) |
| . | . | Mean number of mealybugs/vinee (Mean ± SEM) . | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment (Trade name) . | Rate/acre (fl oz)a . | 20 DBTb . | 1 DATc . | 10 DATc . | 17 DATc . | 29 DATc . |
| Untreated check | – | 2.3 + 0.93a | 3.8 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.67a | 3.9 ± 1.01a | 3.4 ± 0.99a |
| Applaud | 12 | 1.3 ± 0.26a (P = 0.50)* | 1.3 ± 0.45a (P = 0.095) | 1.1 ± 0.27b (P = 0.0094) | 5.3 ± 3.54a (P = 0.316) | 2.2 ± 0.81a (P = 0.399) |
| Brigade | 3.2 | 1.3 ± 0.21a (P = 0.50) | 1.5 ± 0.34a (P = 0.18) | 1.1 ± 0.40bc (P = 0.019) | 3.5 ± 1.13a (P = 0.73) | 4.9 ± 2.97a (P = 0.755) |
| Movento | 4 | 0.8 ± 0.25a (P = 0.146) | 0.7 ± 0.26b (P = 041) | 1.5 ± 0.86bcd (0.049) | 1.1 ± 0.40b (P = 0.0206) | 1.5 ± 0.63a (P = 0.306) |
Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Wilcoxon test of each pair at P ≤ 0.05).
aRate expressed in fl oz per acre.
bMealybug densities days before the treatment (DBT).
cMealybug densities days after the first treatment (DAT).
eMealybug densities determined by a 5-min count on each vine treatment.
*P-values in parentheses indicate when densities in different chemical treatments are compared against the untreated check.
There was no significant difference in the mealybug densities between different treatment plots prior to the spray application. In both first and second trials of 2022, mealybug densities remained significantly lower in comparison to the control in Movento treatment up to 31 days after the spray trial. The mealybug densities remained significantly lower in comparison to the control in Applaud and Brigade treatment up to 10 days after the spray trial.1
Author contributions
Pragya Chalise (Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing—original draft [lead]) and Douglas Pfeiffer (Funding acquisition [lead], Resources, Supervision, Writing—review & editing [equal])
Footnotes
This research was supported by a grant from the Virginia Wine Board.
