Group Title: Research report - Bradenton Agricultural Research & Education Center - GC1977-6
Title: Leafminer and tomato pinworm chemical control research update
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067710/00001
 Material Information
Title: Leafminer and tomato pinworm chemical control research update
Series Title: Bradenton AREC research report
Physical Description: 6 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Schuster, David J
Everett, P. H ( Paul Harrison ), 1927-
Agricultural Research & Education Center (Bradenton, Fla.)
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Bradenton Fla
Publication Date: 1977
Subject: Leafminers -- Control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomato pinworm -- Control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Diseases and pests -- Control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Insecticides -- Testing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Statement of Responsibility: D.J. Schuster and P.H. Everett.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "August 1977."
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067710
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 72457948

Table of Contents
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
Full Text


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.

Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida

IFAS, University of Florida
Bradenton, Florida


D. J. Schuster and P. H. Jv rf E LI ''"
Bradenton AREC Research Report GC1977-6 Aug t 1977

S SEp C 1977
The vegetable leafminer, Liriomyza sativae Blanchard and the tomato *nworm,
Keiferia lycopersicella (Ualsingham) remain the i tpch, ests of major con ern to
tomato producers in Florida. Leafminers develop ib meUijh f* Mf-i sue produc-
ing characteristic serpentine mines. Eggs are ovipositeftd" reetL-adkntbe leaves,
thus protecting hatching larvae from the action of contact insecticides"." After tun-
neling the leaves, the mature, yellow larvae emerge from the leaves and form orange
puparia on leaves, mulch or soil. Adults emerge to renew the life cycle, completing
development in about 7 to 14 days, depending upon temperature.

/ Tomato pinworm eggs are pale yellow when first oviposited on leaves or stem and
turn red-orange upon maturation. Newly hatched larvae also feed in the mesophyll tis-
sue of leaves but produce characteristic blotch mines easily distinguished from leaf-
miner mines. Early larval developmental stages are light brown but mature larvae
appear purple to green. After completing two instars the larvae leave their mines
and may tie adjacent leaves together, form protective leaf rolls, or bore into stems
or fruit (usually under the calyx). Mature larvae drop from the folds, stems, or
fruit and pupate in the soil or, in the case of mulched tomatoes, on the mulch under
leaves, or in the soil on the mulch, or in stake or plant holes. The development time
varies considerably depending upon temperature but has been reported to average 67
days from egg to adult.

Current information indicates the host range of the pinworm is rather narrow.
As a result, infestations in the field may be reduced by two cultural methods:
1) planting uninfested seedlings, and 2) destroying crop residue and volunteers. In
consideration of reducing infestations on seedlings, insecticides were applied in 2
tests on greenhouse-grown Walter tomato plants. After six weeks of once weekly spray
treatments, several compounds appeared very effective (Table 1). Although 15 of he
treatments in Test 1 produced pest-free plants, only Guthion(R), Fundaln), Cygon ,
Thiodan(R) and lindane treated plants were also free of larval damage. Of these,
Thiodan was less phytotoxic. Granular treatments were ineffective. All treatments
in Test 2 produced plants with significantly less tomato pinworm damage and fewer
larvae relative to the untreated check plants (Table 1). No larvae were found on
plants sprayed with FMC 33297, Bay NTN 9306 and lindane. The latter was severely
phytotoxic. Plants treated with Guthion and Thiodan also had few larvae.

In laboratory tests, tomato leaflets were dipped in insecticide solutions. Some
leaflets contained tomato pinworm eggs while first instar larvae were placed on others
after air-drying. The percent hatch was lowest for eggs treated with SD 43775,
Thiodan, FMC 33297, PP 557, diazinon and Lannate(R) (Table 2).

FMC 33297, PP 557, SD 43775, Lannate, Thiodan, Bay NTN 9306, Trithion(R), and
diazinon produced 100% mortality of first instar larvae (Table 2). In unpublished
laboratory studies, Plictran(R) reduced survival and development of larvae. This is
apparently due to inhibition of feeding rather than insecticidal effects.


Table 1. Control of the tomato pinworm on 50 tomato seedlings after insecticide

Tomato pinwormI No. plants
Lb ai/acre or No. damaged No. damaged by
Treatment 100 gal. plants larvae insecticide


Guthion 50WP 1.00 O.Oa O.Oa 26.7
Fundal 4EC 0.25 O.Oa O.Oa 31.3
Cygon 2.67EC 0.50 0.Oa 0.Oa 50.0
Thiodan 50WP 1.00 O.Oa O.Oa 6.1
Lindane 25WP 0.75 O.Oa O.Oa 21.2
Marlate 50WP 1.00 0.2a O.Oa 19.0
Phosphamidon CEC 0.50 0.2a O.Oa 41.9
Phosvel 45WP 1.00 0.3ab O.Oa 12.5
Dylox 80JP 1.00 0.6abc O.Oa 11.1
Bay NTN 9306 6EC 1.00 0.6abc 0.2ab 11.8
FMC 33297 3.2EC 0.10 l.Oabc O.Oa 8.1
Nudrin 1.8L 0.45 1.6abc 0.Oa 17.7
Diazinon 50WP 1.00 1.9abc 0.Oa 6.2
Imidan 50WP 0.75 2.1abc O.Oa 27.6
Orthene 2.5EC 0.50 3.0abc 0.Oa 30.9
Orthene 75SP 0.50 3.1abc O.Oa 37.1
Monitor 4EC 0.50 3.3bc 0.7ab 32.6
Systox 2EC 0.25 3.8bc 0.7ab 35.1
Azodrin 5EC 1.00 4.7c 1.4bc 33.0

Furadan 10G 10.00 17.7de 4.2e 50.0
Thimet 10G 10.00 26.0e 3.3de 0.0
Disyston 15G 10.00 26.6e 7.6f 0.0
Untreated -- 16.2d 1.9cd 0.0


FMC 33297 3.2EC 0.05 0.Oa 0.Oa 0.5
Bay NTI 9306 6EC 0.75 0.2a O.Oa 11.7
Lindane 25WP 0.75 1.2a O.Oa 37.5
Guthion 501P 0.75 1.2a 0.2ab 7.5
Thiodan 50WP 1.00 1.5a 0.2ab 0.0
Phosvel 45WP 0.45 3.0ab l.Oabc 0.0
Lannate 1.8L 0.45 7.2ab 4.7cd 37.7
Marlate 501P 1.50 12.5bc 4.2bcd 0.0
Fundal 4EC 0.12 16.2bc 7.7d 12.2
Vydate 2L 0.50 28.5e 13.Oe 36.5
Untreated -- 42.7d 50.2f 0.0

1Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at
the 0.05 level, Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

Table 2. Hatch and survival of tomato pinworms from eggs and first instar larvae
on tomato leaflets dipped in insecticidal solutions.

% egg % mortality of
Treatment Rate hatch larvae after 1 day

SD 43775 2.4EC 0.1 9.4al 98.2a
Thiodan 2EC 1.0 11.8ab 100.Oa
FMC 33297 3.2EC 0.1 12.9ab 100.Oa
PP 557 2EC 0.1 16.5ab 100.Oa
Diazinon 50WP 1.0 21.8ab 100.0a
Lannate 1.8L 1.0 21.8ab 100.0a
Bay NTN 9306 6EC 1.0 26.5b 100.0a
Trithion 4EC 1.0 45.3c 100.Oa
Vydate 2L 1.0 70.Od 83.9b
Marlate 501P 1.5 74.7de 73.2b
Cygon 2.67EC 0.5 77.5def
Dibrom 8EC 1.0 77.6def ---
Monitor 4EC 1.0 81.8def ---
Orthene 75SP 1.0 85.3ef ---
Azodrin 5EC 1.0 85.3ef ---
Plictran 50WP 0.5 --- 60.7c
Check (Hi20 only) -- 90.Of 17.9d

Means within columns followed by the same letter
the 0.05 level, Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

are not significantly different at

In a field trial on fruiting Walter tomato plants, insecticides were sprayed
once and the number of living tomato pinworm larvae counted on 10 trifoliates (3
terminal leaflets) 1, 3, and 7 days later. Only PP 557, FMC 33297, and Guthion gave
acceptable control after 1 day (Table 3). However, after 7 days Lannate, Duter(,
SD 43775 and Bay NTU 9306 gave at least 80% control compared to plants sprayed with
water only. Orthene(R) gave 87.4% control after 5 days but not after 7 days. Duter
is a fungicide registered for specific uses on sugar beets, potatoes, peanuts, car-
rots, tobacco, and pecans. It is similar to Plictran in structure and has also
indicated antifeedant properties in laboratory studies. However, at the rate tested,
it is extremely phytotoxic, producing distorted new growth.

During two spring 1976 field tests, insecticides were applied weekly to Walter
tomato plants front about 2 weeks following plant set to harvest. In the first, no
insecticides were applied in addition to the test treatments. The second test was
sprayed weekly with Fundal and Dipel(R) to control lepidoptera larvae. This would
permit a better evaluation of leafminer control. In the first test, PP 557, PP 383,
F1C 33297, and Bay NTN 9306 gave the best control of the vegetable leafminer. These
materials plus Plictran, UC 51762, and Lannate also gave the greatest reduction of
tomato pinworm damage on foliage. Plictran was first applied at 1.50 lb ai/100 gal.
This rate was phytotoxic so the dosage was changed to 0.50 Ib, but not until after
the plants had become severely distorted or killed. PP 557, PP 383, and FMC 33297
treated plots yielded more than other plots (Table 4).

Table 3. Percent control (relative to untreated plants)
following a single application of insecticide.

of tomato pinworm larvae

Material lb ai/100 gal 1 day 3 days 7 days

PP 557 2.0EC 0.1 95.0 94.3 99.0
FMC 33297 3.2EC 0.1 94.2 99.0 98.4
Guthion 50WP 1.0 85.3 81.1 94.1
Lannate 1.8L 1.0 77.0 88.7 95.1
Azodrin 5EC 1.0 76.9 74.6 56.4
Vydate 2L 1.0 76.2 75.4 67.2
Monitor 4EC 1.0 74.4 75.7 63.0
Orthene 75SP 1.0 73.6 87.4 71.1
Duter 19JP 1.5 71.4 92.3 92.5
Thiodan 2EC 1.0 69.4 79.5 69.5
Cygon 2.67EC 0.5 64.7 55.9 77.0
Trithion 4EC 1.0 64.7 70.2 79.3
Bay UITN 9306 6EC 1.0 63.2 70.9 83.6
Plictran 501P 0.5 63.0 59.2 77.0
SD 43775 2.4EC 0.1 61.2 82.4 86.9
Diazinon 50-P 1.0 58.2 69.8 55.7
Vendex 50JP 1.5 57.1 74.6 52.5
Dibrom 8EC 1.0 52.1 76.4 45.9
Marlate 50WP 1.0 34.7 22.0 66.2
Dylox 80SP 1.0 32.7 73.2 70.5

Table 4. Control of tomato pinworm and vegetable leafminer
with insecticides (ARC-Immokalee).

on tomato plants treated

Lb ai/ No. damages/10 trifoliates Undamaged fruit/
Material 100 gal Leafmines Pinworms plot (Ibs)

PP 557 2EC 0.20 137.0al 0.6a 100.Od
PP 383 2EC 0.05 151.8ab 0.7a 94.9cd
FMC 33297 3.2EC 0.10 158.6abc 0.2a 85.2bcd
Bay NTN 9306 6EC 1.00 185.9bcd 1.3ab 64.9abc
FMC 33297 3.2EC 0.05 193.5cd 0.5a 88.2cd
Azodrin 5EC 1.00 213.4de 2.7b 63.9abc
UC 51762 50JP 0.50 253.2ef 1.7ab 73.6bcd
Plictran 50WP 0.50 256.6ef 0.9a 38.Oa
Lannate 1.8L 0.45 262.1f 1.6ab 77.5bcd
Check (1120 only) --- 317.1g 4.4c 54.7ab

Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at
the 0.05 level, Duncan's Multiple Range Test.


In the second test, Monitor(R), Azodrin and Cygon(R) gave the best season-long
control of the vegetable leafminer (Table 5). However, yield was not significantly
affected and was greatest from untreated plants.

Table 5. Control of the vegetable leafminer on tomato plants treated with insecti-
cides (ARC-Immokalee).

Lbs ai/ No. mines/10 No. Wt. Ut. (Ibs)
Material 100 gal trifoliates fruit (Ibs) fruit

Monitor 4EC 0.5 149.7a1 339.0 99.6 .293
Azodrin 5EC 1.0 164.1a 331.5 91.3 .276
Cygon 2.67EC 0.5 169.7a 334.0 95.6 .287
Diazinon 4EC 0.5 198.2b 322.7 93.7 .290
Check (H20 only) --- 232.4c 345.7 105.4 .311

IMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at
the 0.05 level, Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

In the Spring 6f 1977, insecticides were applied weekly in a grower's field to
Walter tomato plants beginning about 10 days before the first harvest. Leafminer
damage was severe at that time averaging about 25% defoliation. Nevertheless, a
significant reduction in the number of leafmines and percent defoliation was obtained
on plants treated with PP 557 and Bay NTN 9306.(Table 6). Control (defoliation) was
not good with Vydate and SD 43775. No significant differences of marketable yield
were obtained, but plants treated with PP 557 and Bay NTN 9306 yielded about 200 and
250 more 30 lb boxes per acre, respectively, than did untreated plants.

Table 6. Control of the vegetable leafminer and yield of tomatoes treated with
insecticides (Hillsborough County).

Lb ai/ No. leafmines/ % defol- Marketable yield/acre
Material 100 gal 10 trifoliates iation No. fruit Wt (Ibs)

PP 557 2.0EC 0.1 28.5al 43.8a 165596.2a 43287.8a
Bay NTN 9306 6EC 1.0 31.Oa 52.6b 168726.9a 44649.0a
Vydate 2.0L 1.0 36.8ab 89.0d 142318.3a 38115.0a
SD 43775 2.4EC 0.1 69.0b 66.1c 137962.7a 37026.0a
Check --- 106.8c 90.2d 144973.2a 37026.0a

1Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at
the 0.05 level, Duncan's Multiple Range Test.


Guthion and methomyl (Lannate or Nudrin) are both registered for control of the
tomato pinworm on tomato. Both insecticides demonstrated a relatively high degree
of control of this insect on tomato seedlings in the greenhouse and field tomatoes.
However, they were both phytotoxic to seedlings. Thiodan, Bay NTN 9306, PP 557, and
FMC 33297 also gave good control on seedlings and were less harmful to the plants.
The latter two materials reduced larval numbers on field plants by over 90% after
only one day following a single spray application. SD 43775, Thiodan, FMC 33297,
PP 557, diazinon, Lannate, and Bay NTN 9306 were effective in reducing egg hatch
and first instar larval survival. These materials may have potential in a pest
management program for use when egg-laying adult tomato pinworms first invade a
tomato field. PP 557, PP 383, FMC 33297, Bay NTN 9306, and Monitor also effectively
reduced the number of leafmines in field tests.

Much work is also being devoted to non-insecticide controls of the tomato pin-
worm. Chemicals which inhibit feeding (antifeedants) have been investigated in the
laboratory and shown effective in reducing survival of tomato pinworm larvae. Field
testing is underway and underscores their potential. However, they will probably not
be available soon because of the registration process and the phytotoxicity produced
at higher rates.

Many cultivars of tomato have been evaluated for resistance to the tomato pin-
worm and vegetable leafminer. However, none have indicated high levels of resis-
tance. As a result, wild species of Lycopersicon have been screened for resistance
to the tomato pinworm. L. hirsutum and L. hirsutum f. glabratum have demonstrated
high levels of resistance in greenhouse, laboratory and field experiments. These
species have also been reported resistant to the vegetable leafminer. Field test-
ing at AREC-Bradenton has also indicated this to be true. Initial crosses with
adapted tomato breeding material have been made but a horticulturally acceptable
tomato cultivar is not in the very near future.

Two parasite species, Parahormius pallidipes (Ashmead) and Sympiesis stigmatipennis
Girault, present on the tomato pinworm in California but not sampled in Florida, are
being released in Florida. At present they have not been recovered in field samples
near release sites but efforts are continuing.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs