<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Historic note
 Main














Management of insects attacking flue-cured tobacco in ..
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073373/00002
 Material Information
Title: Management of insects attacking flue-cured tobacco in ..
Series Title: Quincy NFREC research report
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Agricultural Research and Education Center (Quincy, Fla.)
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center.
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Creation Date: 1987
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Tobacco -- Diseases and pests -- Control -- Field experiments -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
Numbering Peculiarities: <1982-> issued as Quincy AREC research report, <-1987> issued as Quincy NFREC research report
General Note: Description based on: 1982; title from caption.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: 1987.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 76789153
lccn - 2006229447
System ID: UF00073373:00002

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Unnumbered ( 1 )
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


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
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






100
U- .-- / i)r/



7' NORTH FLORIDA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER
Quincy, Florida
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER
Live Oak, Florida

Quincy NFREC Research Report NF-87-11


Management of Insects Attacking Flue-Cured Tobacco in 1987


William B. Tappan, Entomologist, Quincy, and
J. R. Rich, Nematologist, Live Oak


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nine chemical foliar spray treatments were field tested on Northrup King
K-326 flue-cured tobacco for insect control, phytotoxicity, effect on crop
yield and value, and insect resistance to certain treatments. Formulations,
number of applications, and dosage of active ingredient per acre per appli-
cation are presented in Table 1.

The dates treatment applications were made are given in a footnote in
Table 1 through 6. Spray treatments were applied at 14-day intervals with a
tractor-mounted CO -pressurized sprayer with one hollow-cone nozzle over each
row and one hollow-cone nozzle on each side of the row. The three Tee-Jet
D3-25 nozzles per row were designed to deliver approximately 26 gallons of
spray per acre at 60 p.s.i. and 4 m.p.h.

Treatments were replicated three times in complete randomized blocks.
Each plot was two rows wide, and was separated by a 5-foot vacant alley or
buffer zone between plots within a block. The rows were 40 feet long and 3.67
feet apart within plots. Both rows served as the experimental plot for insect
counts, phytotoxicity ratings, crop yield, crop value, and insect resistance
to certain treatments. Each row contained 24 to 25 plants set on approxi-
mately 20-inch centers. Alleys between blocks of plots were 20 feet wide.
The test was located northeast of the barn area of the Center.

All cultural practices in preparing the test area for planting were
performed in the usual manner. Beds for planting were prepared and fertilizer
applied in late February. The tobacco was transplanted on March 26, 1987, and
hand topped on June 11. A sucker control, Royal-Tac M, was applied at 2
gallons per acre on June 15, followed by hand suckering on June 22, and an
additional application of MH-30 at 2 gallons per acre on June 24.

Green peach aphid counts were made from natural infestations beginning on
May 6 (pretreatment count), and succeeding counts followed at 14-day
intervals. All counts were made by counting the number of live alate and
apterous aphids on four leaves three inches or longer down from the bud. Five
marked plants equidistant from each other in each of the experimental rows
were counted.








Counts of tobacco budworm and tobacco hornworm were made from natural
infestations on May 5 (pretreatment count), and all succeeding counts were
made on the same dates as aphid counts. Each plant in each plot that had at
least one larva and the characteristic feeding injury of the species was
counted as a damaged plant.

Visual phytotoxicity ratings were begun on May 5 (pretreatment count), and
all succeeding counts were made on the same dates as aphid counts. Plots were
rated according to severity of phytotoxicity observed. The readings were
based on the following rating system:


None
Slight leaf spotting or chlorosis
Moderate leaf spotting or chlorosis
Heavy leaf spotting or chlorosis with some necrosis
Severe leaf spotting or chlorosis with considerable necrosis


Four leaf primings or harvests were made during the crop season for
evaluation of crop performance on June 15, 30, July 14, and 27. Yield was
calculated in pounds per acre from the total weight of cured leaves from each
treatment replication. The crop value or dollar return per acre was obtained
by multiplying the yield in pounds per acre by the return in cents per pound
of cured leaf. The value per pound was based upon the price of the various
grades of tobacco.

The treatment data was subjected to an analysis of variance, and the least
significant difference (LSD) and Duncan's multiple range tests were applied to
all means to obtain statistical comparisons for data interpretation.


Rainfall
follows:

March


25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Total


T
0.03
0.72
1.25
0.19
0.83
0.61
3.63


data expressed in inches for the term of the experiment were as


April


4
15
17
18
Total


0.47
0.10
0.30
0.60
1.47


May


12
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
24
28
Total


0.61
T
0.05
0.72
0.15
T
0.05
0.80
0.17
0.10
2.65


5
6
13
14
15
16
19
21
22
23
24
27
28
Total


June


July


- 0.08
- T
- 0.15
- 0.30
- 0.88
- 0.25
- 0.25
- T
- 0.11
- 0.23
- 0.05
- 0.25
- 0.86
- 3.-41


1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
15
16
21
22
24
Total


2.62
0.94
0.70
0.53
0.13
0.30
0.36
0.08
0.20
0.92
0.86
0.10
0.60
8.34


Grand Total = 19.50 inches


T = Trace






RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


The experimental tobacco was planted late in March due to freezing weather
earlier in the month. This was the second year in succession that March
freezes have influenced the planting date. Insect infestations appeared about
the same time as in 1986, but were generally more numerous initially. The
green peach aphid populations were larger on untreated tobacco for the entire
season, which may have been related to mild weather during the winter,
particularly January and February. The large aphid populations accounted for
an increase in PVY infection in the field as compared to 1986. On June 4,
1986 less than 5 percent of the plants were infected with PVY, whereas on May
6, 1987, 29.4 percent of the plants exhibited symptoms. Tobacco budworm
populations on untreated tobacco were initially larger than in 1986, but never
reached as large a level during the growing season. The budworm population
began declining prior to hand topping on June 11 for some unknown reason, and
continued the decline for the remainder of the growing season. The peak in
budworm damaged plants on May 20 was 13 percent less than that on June 4,
1986. The drought weather that occurred in April may have adversely affected
emergence of budworm adults from the pupal stage, which could explain the
early decline in populations on the plants prior to hand topping. No apparent
adverse effect of the cold weather in early March on budworm populations was
observed. Populations of the tobacco hornworm were smaller than in 1986. The
peak in hornworm damaged untreated plants occurred on July 15, and was 11
percent smaller than the peak on June 18, 1986. The smaller population in
1987 could have been related to the drought April much as the budworm
population was affected. The predacious wasp that was observed in large
numbers in 1986 was present in smaller numbers in 1987, and may have
contributed to the smaller populations of hornworms. As was the case in 1986,
few hornworm larvae escaped past the third instar, which may contribute to
smaller populations in 1988. Rainfall during the growing season was 9.14
inches above that for the drought year of 1986. Yield of untreated tobacco
in 1986 was 2,892 pounds per acre compared to 2,255 in 1987, which indicated
that the larger aphid population and increased incidence of PVY in 1987 may
have contributed to the reduction in yield. This marks the 19th year in
succession that no control data have been obtained on the cabbage looper
because populations on the crop have been almost nonexistent.

Green peach aphids began building populations on field plants on May 6
(pretreatment count), which were larger than in 1986 owing to the mild winter
weather conditions. Populations increased rapidly on untreated plants until
the plants were hand topped on June 11, when populations began declining. The
populations at the peak level on June 3 were 11.3 times larger than the peak
level on June 4, 1986, and remained larger for the entire growing season. The
favorable weather conditions in 1987 enhanced aphid reproduction, which
resulted in the large populations. Populations of aphids during the last two
counts on July 1 and 15 were located on new sucker growth, and reached larger
levels in those locations than observed in 1986. (See Table 2.) On June 3,
when populations were the largest on the untreated tobacco checks, all
treatments gave significant (P = 0.05) control, but the control obtained with
Lannate at 0.659 lb. AI/A., and Ammo at 0.052 and 0.082 lb. AI/A. would not be
commercially acceptable. Any treatment on June 3 that had counts in excess of
1,000 would not be acceptable to the grower. The large aphid counts on May 20
on Capture, Orthene, and Lannate treated tobacco resulted from poor applica-
tion technique on the first experimental replication. The spray operator








failed to allow sufficient sprayer operation time for the insecticidal
material to reach the spray boom before beginning the spray application. The
data on June 3 indicated that under heavy population pressure that the Lannate
dosage has to be increased to effect commercially acceptable control. In
addition, the data suggested that the aphid may have developed resistance to
Lannate. Capture and Orthene at all rates of application continued to give
significant season-long aphid control. The yield and dollar return data in
Table 6 indicated that the aphid contributed to a reduction in both
parameters, especially in Ammo treated tobacco.

Budworm populations were larger initially than in 1986, but never attained
as large a level at the peak on May 20, 1987. The population peaked about two
weeks earlier in 1987, and began declining prior to topping, which was an
unusual phenomenon. The population decline in past observations has been
consistently associated with topping, which was related to removal of the
inflorescence and seed heads the preferred feeding sites of the budworm.
Weather conditions were not a factor in the decline. (See Table 3.) Using the
May 20 count for treatment comparison, all treatments gave significant
control. Orthene at 2.263 lbs. AI/A. was significantly superior to all other
treatments except Capture at 0.113 lb. AI/A. Capture at lower rates continued
to be slightly less effective than the high rate of 0.113 lb. AI/A. as has
been observed in past experiments. The count on June 3 confirmed those
observations, which were affected somewhat by the natural decline in budworm
populations. There was no doubt that the poor initial application of
treatments on May 6 had some effect on the results. However, efficacy of all
treatments showed improvement on June 3 as compared to the count on May 20.
Repeated applications (2 applications) of Capture at 0.085 and 0.113 lb. AI/A.
improved budworm control, which was not significantly different from Orthene
at 1.131 and 2.263 lbs. AI/A. on June 3. The budworm may have accounted for
some loss in yield and dollar return. (See Table 6.)

The hornworm population began to increase on the tobacco on May 6, and was
slightly larger than at the same time in 1986. Population levels on the
untreated tobacco checks never reached as high a level as in 1986 at any time
during the growing season. No adverse weather conditions occurred during the
growing season that would have accounted for the reduction in populations.
(See Table 4.) On June 17, all treatments gave significant control. However,
the effect of the poor insecticidal treatment application on May 6 was evident
particularly in the case of Orthene at 1.131 and 2.263 lbs. AI/A., which were
not as efficacious as in past experimental observations. Capture at 0.060,
0.085, and 0.113 lb. AI/A. gave significant control for the entire growing
season and ranked as three of the best treatments on June 17 along with Ammo
at 0.082 lb. AI/A. Some yield and dollar return loss was probably caused by
the hornworm as was reflected in the significant values between treatments for
both parameters. (See Table 6.)

Only Lannate at 1.315 Ibs. AI/A. caused any detectable phytotoxicity. The
injury was evident following the first spray application. Chlorosis of the
lamina was present in the middle and top of the plants and persisted until
July 1. As the leaves matured during the latter part of the growing season
and were removed by harvesting, the phytotoxicity disappeared. (See Table 5.)
The phytotoxicity had no apparent adverse effect on yield or dollar return.
(See Table 6.)









Yield in the untreated tobacco checks was 637 lbs./A. (22.0%) smaller than
in 1986, which could not be attributed entirely to insects or weather condi-
tions even though there were significant differences among insecticidal treat-
ments. Dollar return in the untreated tobacco checks decreased $1,220 (29.0%)
as compared to that in 1986, indicating that a combination of factors was re-
sponsible for the reduction, and not insects alone. Some of the loss in yield
and dollar return may have been caused by the increase in the incidence of PVY
during the growing season. Infestations of the green peach aphid were the
primary cause of yield and dollar return reductions, but effects of insecti-
cidal treatments on the other factors could not be ascertained from the sta-
tistical analyses. The best yield from treated tobacco was 310 lbs./A. (8.9%)
less than in 1986, and best dollar return was $486 (9.6%) less. The combin-
ation of factors; i.e., insects and disease, was responsible for the reduction
in yield and dollar return from the best insecticidal treatments. However, a
reduction in prices for comparable grades of tobacco in 1987 contributed to
the loss in dollar return. The quality of the tobacco was generally good, but
the quality was offset by reduced prices. The price per pound of tobacco
averaged $0.11 less in 1987 ($1.49 versus $1.38). See Table 6.)

Capture is an efficacious broad-spectrum tobacco insecticide even though
repeated applications (at least two at 0.06 lb. AI/A.) are necessary for
budworm control. If the compound ever receives a registration for use on
flue-cured tobacco, it will immediately replace Lannate as that compound has
lost efficacy against all three major flue-cured tobacco insect pests; i.e.,
the green peach aphid, tobacco budworm, and tobacco hornworm.






NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida
Table 1. Foliar Treatments Applied for Insect Control on Flue-Cured Tobacco (K-326) 1987.


Gals. Lbs. AI
ab Number per Acre per per Acre per
Treatmenta' Applications Application Application

Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 6 26.4 0.060
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 6 27.7 0.085
Capture, 0.05% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 6 27.2 0.113
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 6 27.4 1.131
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 6 27.4 2.263
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 6 27.2 0.659
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 6 27.1 1.315
Ammo, 0.025% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 6 27.7 0.052
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 6 26.9 0.082
Check (Untreated)

bEC = Emulsifiable concentrate, L = Liquid concentrate, S = Spray, and SP = Soluble powder.
Sprays were applied on 5/6, 5/20, 6/3, 6/17, 7/1, and 7/15/87. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/26/87, and
harvested on 6/15, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/27/87.









NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 2. Mean Number of Green Peach Aphids per Plot of Flue-Cured Tobacco (K-326) 1987.

Aphid Countsb Mean
T na /c d e Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatmenta 5/6 5/20d 6/3d 6/17 7/1e 7/15e Application

Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 282a 730a 819a 118a Oa Oa 0.060
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 Ibs./gal. EC) 295a 200a 21a la Oa Oa 0.085
Capture, 0.05% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 296a 26a la la la la 0.113
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 259a 296a 16a 2a 2a 3a 1.131
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 293a 222a 27a 16a Oa Oa 2.263
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 207a 319a 1,734a 517a 125a 9a 0.659
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 158a 431a 231a 178a 22a 39a 1.315
Ammo, 0.025% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 204a 1,096a 5,239b 5,946b 5,292bc 2,379b 0.052
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 343a 2,121b 7,873c 7,193bc 5,817c 2,294b 0.082
Check (Untreated) 279a 3,061b 9,955d 8,111c 4,080b 340a

LSD 5% NS 989 1,920 1,860 1,638 780
LSD 1% NS 1,357 2,633 2,551 2,247 1,070


bSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/6, 5/20, 6/3, 6/17, 7/1, and 7/15/87.
Counts were made on 10 plants per plot, totaling 30 plants in three plots. Means followed by the same
letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
cPretreatment count. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/26/87. Plants were hand topped on 6/11/87. Sucker
control was applied: Royal Tac M on 6/15 and MH-30 on 6/24/87. Plants were hand suckered on 6/22/87.
dTobacco was harvested on 6/15, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/27/87.
Poor control in some plots resulted from poor application in first replication on 5/6/87.
eAphids were on sucker growth.









NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida
Table 3. Mean Percent Budworm Damaged Flue-Cured Tobacco Plants per Plot (K-326) 1987.


% Budworm Damaged Plantsb Mean Rate
Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatment 5/6c 5/20d 6/3d 6/17 7/1 7/15 Application

Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 58a 31bc 22bc 18bcd 16a 10ab 0.060
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 55a 31bc 14ab 17bcd lla 8ab 0.085
Capture, 0.05% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 67a 25ab 6a 12ab lla 7a 0.113
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 63a 32bc 18abc 27cd 13a 13ab 1.131
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 65a lla 5a 19bcd lla 5a 2.263
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 Ibs./gal. L) 58a 38bc 29c 29d 13a 19abc 0.659
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 65a 46c 19abc 21bcd 21a 22bc 1.315
Ammo, 0.025% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 62a 39bc 15ab 16bc lla 10ab 0.052
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 65a 46c 7a 4a lla 9ab 0.082
Check (Untreated) 60a 86d 56d 46e 32b 29c

LSD 5% NS 16 13 11 10 13
LSD 1% NS 21 17 19 14 18

aSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/6, 5/20, 6/3, 6/17, 7/1, and 7/15/87.
Counts were made on 48 to 50 plants per plot, totaling 144 to 150 plants in three plots. Means followed by
the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
cPretreatment count. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/26/87. Plants were hand topped on 6/11/87. Sucker
control was applied: Royal Tac M on 6/15 and MH-30 on 6/24/87. Plants were hand suckered on 6/22/87.
Tobacco was harvested on 6/15, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/27/87.
Poor control in some plots resulted from poor application in first replication on 5/6/87.







NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 4. Mean Percent Hornworm Damaged Flue-Cured Tobacco Plants per Plot (K-326) 1987.


% Hornworm Damaged Plants Mean Rate
c dLbs. AI/Acre/
Treatment 5/6c 5/20 6/3d 6/17 7/1 7/15 Application

Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 2a 2ab la 7ab 2ab 2a 0.060
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 3a la 2a 2a lab la 0.085
Capture, 0.05% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 3a la 2a 2a Oa la 0.113
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 4a 3ab llabc 23c llb 13a 1.131
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 3a 3ab 6ab 18bc 8ab 9a 2.263
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 3a 13c 21d 52d 44d 66b 0.659
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 3a 13c 19cd 55d 32c 63b 1.315
Ammo, 0.025% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 3a 9bc 14bcd 15bc 5ab 15a 0.052
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 3a 6abc 3a 7ab 3ab 3a 0.082
Check (Untreated) 4a 26d 35e 75e 65e 78b

LSD 5% NS 7 9 11 9 37
LSD 1% NS 10 12 15 13 51


bSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/6, 5/20, 6/3, 6/17, 7/1, and 7/15,
Counts were made on 48 to 50 plants per plot, totaling 144 to 150 plants in three plots.
the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
cPretreatment count. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/26/87. Plants were hand topped on 6/1
control was applied: Royal Tac M on 6/15 and MH-30 on 6/24/87. Plants were hand suckere
Tobacco was harvested on 6/15, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/27/87.
door control in some plots resulted from poor application in first replication on 5/6/87.


/87.
Means followed by


1/87. Sucker
d on 6/22/87.









NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 5. Phytotoxic Effects of Certain Insecticide Formulations on Flue-Cured Tobacco (K-326) 1987.

Mean Phytotoxicity Indicesb Mean Rate
Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatmenta 5/6c 5/20 6/3 6/17 7/1 7/15 Application

Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0.0 0.060
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.085
Capture, 0.05% S(2.0 Ibs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.113
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.131
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.263
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.659
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 0.0 1.0 1.3 1.7 0.7 0.0 1.315
Ammo, 0.025% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.052
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.082
Check (Untreated) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

aSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/6, 5/20, 6/3, 6/17, 7/1, and 7/15/87.
Rating System: 1 = None, 1 = Slight leaf spotting or chlorosis, 2 = Moderate leaf spotting or chlorosis, 3
= Heavy leaf spotting or chlorosis with some necrosis, and 4 = Severe leaf spotting or chlorosis with
considerable necrosis.
Pretreatment count. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/26/87. Plants were hand topped on 6/11/87. Sucker
control was applied: Royal Tac M on 6/15 and MH-30 on 6/24/87. Plants were hand suckered on 6/22/87.
Tobacco was harvested on 6/15, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/27/87.









NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 6. Effects of Certain Insecticidal Treatments on Yield and Dollar Return per Acre of Flue-Cured
Tobacco (K-326) 1987.


Mean Rate Yield Dollar
b Lbs. AI/Acre Lbs./Acre Return/Acre
Treatmenta' Application Mean 3 Repsc Mean 3 Reps.

Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.060 2,720b 3,880abc
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.085 2,664b 3,549bcd
Capture, 0.05% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.113 2,875ab 4,252ab
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 1.131 2,865ab 3,792abc
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 2.263 3,184a 4,560a
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 0.659 2,731b 3,930abc
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 1.315 2,705b 3,957abc
Ammo, 0.025% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 0.052 2,592bc 3,202cd
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 Ibs./gal. EC) 0.082 2,560bc 3,338cd
Check (Untreated) --- 2,255c 2,988d


LSD 5% 357 719
LSD 1% 490 985


7/1, and 7/15/87.
7/27/87.
level.


aSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/6, 5/20, 6/3, 6/17,
bTobacco was transplanted on 3/26/87, and harvested on 6/15, 6/30, 7/14, and
CMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5%