Group Title: Quincy AREC research report - University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; NF-83-3
Title: Management of insects attacking flue-cured tobacco in 1983
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074348/00001
 Material Information
Title: Management of insects attacking flue-cured tobacco in 1983
Series Title: Quincy AREC research report
Physical Description: 10 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Tappan, William B., 1928-
Rich, J. R ( Jimmy Ray ), 1950-
Agricultural Research and Education Center (Quincy, Fla.)
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Publication Date: 1983
 Subjects
Subject: Tobacco -- Diseases and pests -- Control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: William B. Tappan and J.R. Rich.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074348
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 85540414

Full Text




AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER
Quincy, Florida

) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
Live Oak, Florida

Quincy AREC Research Report NF 83-3

Management of Insects Attacking Flue-Cured Tobacco in 1983

William B. Tappan, Entomologist, Quincy, and
J. R. Rich, Associate Nematologist and Acting Center Director, Live Oak

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five baits, 2 mycotoxin (MK-936), and 8 chemical foliar spray treatments
were field tested on NC-79 flue-cured tobacco for insect control, phytotoxicity,
and effect on crop yield and value. Formulations, number of applications, rates
of applications, and dosage of active ingredient per acre per application are pre-
sented in Table 1.

The dates treatment applications were made are given in a footnote in Tables
1 through 6. All Orthene bait treatments were broadcast by hand over the foliage
on the same dates of the foliar spray treatments. An interval of 14 days was al-
lowed between all Orthene bait and foliar spray applications. The spray treat-
ments were made with a tractor-mounted C02-pressurized sprayer with 1 hollow-
cone nozzle over each row and 1 hollow-cone nozzle on each side of the row. The
3 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 3 times in complete randomized blocks. Each plot
was 2 rows wide, and was separated by a 5-foot vacant alley or buffer zone be-
tween plots within a block. The rows were 40 fe t long and 3.67 feet apart within
plots. Both rows served as the experimental plo of' h totoxicity
ratings, crop yield, and crop value determination r sObn d 24 to 27
plants set on approximately 19-inch centers. Aeys between blots were
20 feet wide. The test area was east of the loc tion ifutL9921nepr the b rn area of
the Center.

All cultural practices in preparing the test 'e2 r V I ti cre performed
in the usual manner. Beds for planting were prepare a plied in
late February. The tobacco was transplanted on March 8, 1983, and hand topped
on June 2. A sucker control, Royal Tac 85, was applied at 2 gallons per acre on
June 6 and June 15.

Green peach aphid counts were made from natural infestations beginning on
May 4 (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
4-leaves 3 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 in-
festations on May 4 (pretreatment count), and all succeeding counts were made on
the same dates as aphid counts. Each plant in each plot that had at least 1 larva





-2-


and the characteristic feeding injury was counted as a damaged plant.


Visual phytotoxicity ratings were begun on May 4 (pretreatment
all succeeding counts were made on the same dates as aphid counts.
rated according to severity of phytotoxicity observed. The readings
on the following system:


count), and
Plots were
were based


0 = None
1 = Slight leaf spotting or chlorosis
2 = Moderate leaf spotting or chlorosis
3 = Heavy leaf spotting or chlorosis with some necrosis
4 = Severe leaf spotting or chlorosis with considerable necrosis

Four leaf primings or harvests were made during the crop season for evalu-
ation of crop performance on June 13, June 27, July 11, and July 25. 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 for the various
grades of tobacco.

An analysis of variance was made, and Duncan's multiple range test was ap-
plied to all means analyzed to obtain statistical comparisons for data interpretation.


Rainfall data expressed in inches for the term
follows:


March
11 0.09
16 0.54
17 1.86
18 0.25
19 T
21 0.49
24 0.68
25 0.05
27 0.39
31 0.68
Total 5.03


Total


April
4 0.17
7 0.21
8 1.42
9 2.35
10 0.53
15 0.17
16 0.96
17 T
19 0.10
24 1.10
7.01


Total


May
4 0.61
17 1.52
24 0.06
2.19


T = Trace
Grand Total = 23.34 inches


of the experiment were as


June
4 0.14
5 0.40
6 0.33
7 0.36
8 1.70
12 0.34
13 0.10
14 0.46
21 0.12
22 0.95
25 T
27 0.25
28 0.16
29 T
30 T
Total 5.31


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Insect activity on flue-cured tobacco was excellent during the crop season of
1983. The green peach aphid populations were heavy during the entire season.
The increased aphid activity accounted for an increase in PVY infection in the
field over that observed in 1982. Approximately 15% of the test plants exhibited
PVY symptoms, but the effect on yield was minimal. Populations of tobacco bud-
worm were the largest observed in 28 years of experience with tobacco insects.


July
- 0.07
- T
I 0.53
' T
I 0.13
-T
- 1.31
1 0.36
S- 1.40
- 3.80


Total





-3-


After the tobacco was topped and sprayed for sucker control, the budworm popu-
lation declined. However, the decline was not as dramatic as in past years,
since new sucker growth provided oviposition sites for the budworm, and the popu-
lation naturally increased in late season. The increased sucker growth was prob-
ably related to the variety (NC-79), which resulted in the population aberration of
the budworm. Tobacco hornworm populations occurred about 4 weeks later than in
1982, and were slightly smaller for the entire season. The unseasonally warm
February and early March enhanced transplant growth and early season aphid and
budworm populations. More than adequate rainfall also was a factor in the early
season plant growth and insect population increase. Immediately following trans-
planting, cold wet weather became a factor, which delayed plant growth and insect
infestations in the field for about 3 weeks. The poor weather in early season ad-
versely affected crop yield and value. This marks the 15th 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 4 (pre-
treatment count), which was about 2 weeks later than in 1982. The cool and wet
March and April weather slowed aphid propagation, thus slowing the initial infest-
ation in the field. Aphid populations continued increasing until June 15 on un-
treated tobacco. (See Table 2.) Aphid populations began a natural decline on
June 15, but on July 13 began increasing on new sucker growth near the top of
the plants. On June 1, when populations were the largest on the untreated checks,
all treatments except MK-936 at 0.006 Ib. AI/A. gave significant (P = 0.05) con-
trol. Those treatments with aphid counts on June 1 above 1,000 would not be suit-
able for commercial application even though statistically they were not different from
some of the better treatments. The data confirmed that FMC-54800 at 0.042 and
0.063 Ib. AI/A. gave effective control of the aphid, when applied repeatedly on a
bi-weekly schedule. The Orthene bait treatments performed well except for the CC-
13063 formulation at 1 Ib. AI/A. Yield and dollar return data in Table 6 indicated
that the influence of the green peach had been usurped by the tobacco budworm and
hornworm.

Populations of budworm in the pretreatment count were the largest observed
in the past 28 years. (See Table 3.) The population continued to increase until
the plants were hand topped on June 2. After topping, the population declined
until new sucker growth formed in the top of the plants. The count on June 29
reflected the increased population on new sucker growth, which indicated that the
budworm was still active in large numbers in late season. Using the June 1 count
for treatment comparison, all treatments gave significant control with Orthene bait
(CC-12327) at 1 Ib. Al/A., Orthene bait (CC-12331) at 0.5 and 1 Ib. Al/A., FCR-
1272 at 0.043 Ib. AI/A., and FMC-54800 at 0.042 and 0.063 Ib. AIIA. being the
best treatments. Orthene spray at 1.04 Ibs. AI/A. gave poor control as compared
to past results, and an investigation found that the test formulation was 3 years
old. The Orthene spray formulation was changed to a fresh formulation on the
next spray date, June 15, but succeeding results were inconclusive as to the ef-
ficacy of the material owing to the confounding caused by the new sucker growth.
The budworm definitely reduced yield and dollar return, but the extent of the loss
could not be separated from that caused by. the aphid and hornworm. (See Table 6.)

The hornworm population began to increase on the tobacco on May 18, about 4
weeks later than in 1982, and continued the increase for the remainder of the season.
The population was not as large as in 1982, and damage was not as severe. The
largest population occurred on July 13, when 99% of the plants in the untreated





- 4-


check were damaged. (See Table 4.) All treatments gave significant control.
Numerically, the best treatments were FCR-1272 at 0.043 lb. AI/A., FMC-54800
at 0.022, 0.042, and 0.063 Ib. Al/A., and Ammo at 0.063 Ib. AI/A. Although
MK-936 at 0.006 and 0.017 Ib. AI/A. gave significant control, commercial ac-
ceptance of the results obtained would be doubtful. Damage by the hornworm
was reflected in reduced yield and dollar return. (See Table 6.)

None of the treatments caused any discernible phytotoxicity. (See Table
5.) Lannate is subject to cause phytotoxicity, but none was observed at any-
time during the test period.

Yield in the untreated check was increased 440 Ibs./A. over that of 1982,
which was probably related to the smaller hornworm population that occurred in
1983. Dollar return in the untreated check increased $794/A. over that in 1982,
probably for the same reason. However, the best yield and dollar return from
treated tobacco were reduced by 591 Ibs.A. and $1,481/A., respectively, from
those in 1982. No doubt the adverse spring growing conditions contributed to
the reductions in yield and dollar return. The quality of the tobacco was not
as good as in 1982, which was a direct result of the poor growing weather. (See
Table 6.)

Average maximum and minimum air temperatures during the test period were:
March 69 and 46, April 77 and 51, May 86 and 61, June 88 and 65, and
July 95 and 720F. Temperatures averaged 2.5 degrees, respectively, below the
maximum and minimum for 1982, which indicated that test period temperatures were
cooler than in 1982. The average test period temperature was 710F, 3 degrees be-
low that for 1982. Rainfall was 0.92 inch more than in 1982. The adequate rain-
fall was offset by the cooler than normal temperatures causing the growing season
to be extended by about 4 weeks. The cool weather and longer than usual grow-
ing season resulted in a loss in yield and quality. However, the budworm seemed
to thrive in the cool wet weather, as the population was the largest recorded in
the past 28 years.

Orthene as a 5% bait at 1 Ib. Al/A. applied on a bi-weekly schedule gave ex-
cellent control of the 3 major insect pests, and was slightly superior to the 2.5%
bait at the same dosage. FMC-54800 at 0.042 and 0.063 Ib. AI/A. was effective
against all 3 pests, and was the only synthetic pyrethroid tested that gave aphid
control that would be commercially acceptable. Insect control with MK-936 at 0.006
and 0.017 lb. AI/A., even though in most cases was significantly superior to the
untreated check, lacked the efficacy to warrant acceptance commercially. Appar-
ently, the dosage of MK-936 would have to be increased to improve control of all
3 insects.








AREC, Quincy and ARC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 1. Foliar Treatments Applied for Insect Control on Flue-Cured Tobacco (NC-79)-1983.

Lbs. or Gals. Lbs. Al
b No. per Acre per per Acre per
Treatmenta, Applications Application Application
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 6 20.0 0.50
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 6 40.0 1.00
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 6 10.0 0.50
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 6 20.0 1.00
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-13063) 6 40.0 1.00
Orthene, 0.45% S(75% SP) 6 27.4 1.04
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal L) 6 29.3 0.71
FCR-1272, 0.011% S(2.0 Ibs./gal. EC) 6 29.4 0.022
FCR-1272, 0.022% S(2.0 Ibs./gal. EC) 6 28.2 0.043
MK-936, 0.0025% S(0.15 Ib./gal. EC) 6 29.2 0.006
MK-936, 0.0075% S(0.15 b. /gal. EC) 6 28.8 0.017
FMC-54800, 0.01% S(2.0 Ibs./gal. EC) 6 28.5 0.022
FMC-54800, 0.02% S(2.0 Ibs. /gal. EC) 6 28.0 0.042
FMC-54800, 0.03% S(2.0 Ibs./gal. EC) 6 27.6 0.063
Ammo, 0.029% S(2.5 Ibs./gal. EC) 6 27.8 0.063
Check (Untreated) --- ---


on 3/8/83.


aB = Bait, EC = Emulsifiable concentrate, L = Liquid, S = Spray, and SP = Soluble powder.
bBaits and sprays applied on 5/4, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 6/29, and 7/13/83. Tobacco transplanted
Tobacco harvested on 6/13, 6/27, 7/11, and 7/25/83.





AREC, Quincy and ARC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 2. Mean Number of Green Peach Aphids per Plot of Flue-Cured Tobacco (NC-79)-1983.

Aphid Conb Mean Rate
Aphid Countsb Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatment 5/4c 5/18 6/1 6/15d 6/29 7/13e Application
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 31a 8a 141a 40a 25a 127a 0.50
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) la la 14a Oa 5a 43a 1.00
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 8a Oa 5a la 4a 8a 0.50
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 21a Oa la Oa 3a 3a 1.00
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-13063) 29a 228ab 1,029abc 38a 56a 217a 1.00
Orthene, 0.45% S(SP) 6a 2a la 3a 4a 12a 1.04
Lannate, 0.29% S(L) 15a 19a 358ab 31a 145a 395a 0.71
FCR-1272, 0.011% S(EC) 4a 562de 2,839cd 1,497c 1,342cd 2,972c 0.022
FCR-1272, 0.022% S(EC) 2a 197ab 1,542abc 907b 960bc 1,891b 0.043
MK-936, 0.0025% S(EC) 30a 502cde 3,934de 1,286bc 915b 1,520b 0.006
MK-936, 0.0075% S(EC) 3a 281abc 1,842abc 890b 959bc 1,575b 0.017
FMC-54800, 0.01% S(EC) 8a 72a 487ab 137a 83a 197a 0.022
FMC-54800, 0.02% S(EC) 14a 32a 88a 7a 21a 87a 0'042
FMC-54800, 0.03% S(EC) 29a 32a 36a Oa Oa 17a 0.063
Ammo, 0.029% S(EC) 2a 417bcd 2,214bcd 1,238bc 1,164bcd 1,640b 0.063
Check (Untreated) 5a 732e 4,931e 1,677c 1,419d 1,647b ---

aSee Table 1 for more details. Baits and sprays applied on 5/4, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 6/29, and 7/13/83.


bCounts made on 10 plants per plot, totaling 30 plants in 3
significantly different at the 5% level.
CPretreatment count. Tobacco transplanted on 3/8/83. Pla
Royal Tac 85 was applied on 6/6 and 6/15/83. Tobacco hai


plots. Means followed by the same letter are not

ints were hand topped on 6/2/83. Sucker control
-vested on 6/13, 6/27, 7/11, and 7/25/83.


dNew formulation of Orthene SP was substituted for old formulation on this date.
eSucker growth in tops of plants contributed to increase in aphid populations.







AREC, Quincy and ARC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 3. Mean Percent Budworm Damaged Flue-Cured Tobacco Plants per Plot (NC-79)-1983.


Budworm Countsb Mean Rate
a -d -e f Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatment 5/4c 5/18 6/1 6/15 6/29e 7/13 Application
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 94a 73de 44bcde 27bc 33ab 9a 0.50
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 87a 52b 34ab 21abc 28ab 8a 1.00
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 88a 52b 29ab 27bc 37ab 8a 0.50
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 90a 32a 20a 19abc 27ab 7a 1.00
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-13063) 92a 89fg 68fg 30c 42b 8a 1.00
Orthene, 0.45% S(SP) 94a 41ab 59defg 19abc 38ab 5a 1.04
Lannate, 0.29% S(L) 90a 57bc 73g 26abc 29ab 9a 0.71
FCR-1272, 0.011% S(EC) 90a 83ef 49bcdef 13ab 32ab 6a 0.022
FCR-1272, 0.022% S(EC) 96a 71cde 37abc 12a 30ab 3a 0.043
MK-936, 0.0025% S(EC) 91a 86efg 62efg 28c 32ab 7a 0.006
MK-936, 0.0075% S(EC) 92a 57bc 55cdefg 29c 31ab 7a 0.017
FMC-54800, 0.01% S(EC) 85a 79def 56cdefg 22abc 37ab 7a 0.022
FMC-54800, 0.02% S(EC) 87a 74de 38abc 19abc 23a 7a 0:'042
FMC-54800, 0.03% S(EC) 94a 68cd 35abc 22abc 35ab 2a 0.063
Ammo, 0.029% S(EC) 89a 82def 59efg 20abc 27ab 6a 0.063
Check (Untreated) 93a 99g 99h 53d 68c 8a --


aSee Table 1 for more details.


Baits


bCounts made on 48 to 54 plants per
letter are not significantly different


and sprays applied on 5/4, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 6/29, and 7/13/83.


plot, totaling 150 to 158 plants in
at the 5% level.


3 plots. Means followed by the same


CPretreatment count. Tobacco transplanted on 3/8/83. Plants were hand topped on 6/2/83.
Royal Tac 85 was applied on 6/6 and 6/15/83. Tobacco harvested on 6/13, 6/27, 7/11, and
New formulation of Orthene SP was substituted for old formulation on this date.
eNew sucker growth in tops of plants contributed to increase in budworm populations,


Sucker control
7/25/83.


Discounted budworm populations in sucker growth, and counted only budworm larvae and damage on harvestable
leaves.








AREC, Quincy and ARC, Live Oak, Florida


co Table 4. Mean Percent Hornworm Damaged Flue-Cured Tobacco Plants per Plot (NC-79)-1983.

Hornworm Countsb Mean Rate
-a c d Lbs. Al/Acre/
Treatment 5/4 5/18 611 6/15 6/29 7/13 Application
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) Oa la 2a 20bc 26b 58c 0.50
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) la la 3a 7ab 10ab 26ab 1.00
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) Oa Oa Oa 13abc 12ab 17ab 0.50
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) la la 2a 2a 11ab 19ab 1.00
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-13063) Oa Oa la 19bc 17ab 49c 1.00
Orthene, 0.45% S(SP) Oa Oa 2a 8ab 12ab 21ab 1.04
Lannate, 0.29% S(L) Oa la 2a 13abc 24b 18ab 0.71
FCR-1272, 0.011% S(EC) Oa Oa la 6ab 6a 21ab 0.022
FCR-1272, 0.022% S(EC) Oa Oa la 4a 9ab 11a 0.043
MK-936, 0.0025% S(EC) Oa Oa la 24c 47c 58c 0.006
MK-936, 0.0075% S(EC) Oa Oa 2a 19bc 24b 39bc 0.017
FMC-54800, 0.01% S(EC) Oa Oa Oa 4a 12ab 11a 0.022
FMC-54800, 0.02% S(EC) Oa Oa Oa Oa 5a 7a 0'042
FMC-54800, 0.03% S(EC) Oa Oa Oa Oa 5a 5a 0.063
Ammo, 0.029% S(EC) Oa Oa Oa 7ab 10ab 13a 0.063
Check (Untreated) Oa la 12b 62d 88d 99d --


aSee Table 1 for more details. Baits
Counts made on 48 to 54 plants per
letter are not significantly different


and sprays applied on 5/4, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 6/29, and 7/13/83.


plot, totaling 150 to 158 plants in
at the 5% level.


3 plots. Means followed by the same


CPretreatment count. Tobacco transplanted on 3/8/83. Plants were hand topped on 6/2/83. Sucker control
Royal Tac 85 was applied on 6/6 and 6/15/83. Tobacco harvested on 6/13, 6/27, 7/11, and 7/25/83.
New formulation of Orthene SP was substituted for old formulation on this date.






AREC, Quincy and ARC, Live Oak, Florida


S Table 5. Phytotoxic Effects of Certain Insecticide Formulations on Flue-Cured Tobacco (NC-79)-1983.

Mean Phytoxicity Indicesb Mean Rate
indices Lbs. Al/Acre/
Treatment 5/4c 5/18 6/1 6/15d 6/29 7/13 Application
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.50
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.50
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-13063) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00
Orthene, 0.45% S(SP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.04
Lannate, 0.29% S(L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71
FCR-1272, 0.011% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.022
FCR-1272, 0.022% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.043
MK-936, 0.0025% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006
MK-936, 0.0075% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017
FMC-54800, 0.01% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.022
FMC-54800, 0.02% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6'.042
FMC-54800, 0.03% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.063
Ammo, 0.029% S(EC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.063
Check (Untreated) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---
aSee Table 1 for more details. Baits and sprays applied on 514, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 6/29, and 7/13/83.
bRating System: 0 = 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.
cPretreatment count. Tobacco transplanted on 3/8/83. Plants were hand topped on 6/2/83. Sucker control
Royal Tac 85 was applied on 6/6 and 6/15/83. Tobacco harvested on 6/13, 6/27, 7/11, and 7/25/83.
dNew formulation of Orthene SP was substituted for old formulation on this date.






AREC, Quincy and ARC, Live Oak, Florida


o Table 6. Effects of Certain Insecticidal
Tobacco (NC-79)-1983.


Treatments on Yield and Dollar Return per Acre of Flue-Cured


Mean Rate Yield Dollar
Lbs. Al/Acre/ Lbs./Acre Return/Acre
Treatment Applicationb Mean 3 Reps.c Mean 3 Reps.c
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 0.50 2,168ab 3,362ab
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-12327) 1.00 2,301a 3,522a
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 0.50 2,277ab 3,598a
Orthene, 5% B(CC-12331) 1.00 2,408a 3,610a
Orthene, 2.5% B(CC-13063) 1.00 2,111ab 3,315ab
Orthene, 0.45% S(SP) 1.04 2,372a 3,613a
Lannate, 0.29% S(L) 0.71 2,185ab 3,354ab
FCR-1272, 0.011% S(EC) 0.022 2,190ab 3,444ab
FCR-1272, 0.022% S(EC) 0.043 2,250ab 3,543a
MK-936,; 0.0025% S(EC) 0.006 1,988b 2,935b
MK-936, 0.0075% S(EC) 0.017 2,236ab 3,387ab
FMC-54800, 0.01% S(EC) 0.022 2,222ab 3,417ab
FMC-54800, 0.02% S(EC) 0.042 2,165ab 3,353ab
FMC-54800, 0.03% S(EC) 0.063 2,107ab 3,338ab
Ammo, 0.029% S(EC) 0.063 2,124ab 3,180ab
Check (Untreated) ----- 1,634c 2,408c
aSee Table 1 for more details.


b
Tobacco transplanted on 3/8/83.
Tobacco harvested on 6/13, 6/27,


Baits and sprays applied on 5/4, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 6/29, and 7/13/83.
7/11, and 7/25/83.


CMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.




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