Group Title: Quincy NFREC Research report - University of Florida Research and Education Center ; NF-86-4
Title: Insect management on flue-cured tobacco in 1986
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074352/00001
 Material Information
Title: Insect management on flue-cured tobacco in 1986
Series Title: Quincy NFREC Research report
Physical Description: 11 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Tappan, William B., 1928-
Rich, J. R ( Jimmy Ray ), 1950-
North Florida Research and Education Center (Quincy, Fla.)
Publisher: North Florida Research and Education Center
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Publication Date: 1986
 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.
Funding: Research report (North Florida Research and Education Center (Quincy, Fla.)) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074352
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 85483619

Full Text






NORTH FLORIDA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER
SQuincy, Florida

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER
Live Oak, Florida


Quincy NFREC Research Report NF-86-4


Insect Management on Flue-Cured Tobacco in 1986

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


MATER IS AND METHODS

Thirteen 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. Formu-
lations, number of applications, and dosage of active ingredient per acre per
application are presented in Table 1.

The dates treatment applications were made are given in a footnote in
Tables 1 through 6. Spray treatments were applied at 14-day intervals with a
tractor-mounted CO2-pressurized sprayer with 1 hollow-cone nozzle over each
row and 1 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 at
60 p.s.i. and 4 m.p.h. The two treatments of FBC-37903 were withdrawn from
the test after the first application.

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 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 25 to 27 plants set on approxi-
mately 19-inch centers. Alleys between blocks of plots were 20 feet wide.
The test area was located northeast of the barn area of the Center.

All cultural practices in preparing the test area for planting were per-
formed in the usual manner. Beds for planting were prepared and fertilizer
applied in late February. The tobacco was transplanted on March 31, 1986, and
hand topped on June 9 and 17. A sucker control, Royal-Tac 85, was applied at
2 gallons per acre on June 12 and 17, followed by Royal MH at 2 gallons per
acre on June 17.

Green peach aphid counts were made from natural infestations beginning on
May 5 (pretreatment count), and succeeding counts followed at 14-day inter-
vals. 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
infestations on May 5 (pretreatment count), and all succeeding counts were


























....... .. ...




rt 1 d 6 1 o D
r e co c1 1- a= ;6i -run l 0en 15tad "s











-i Atls
2~~~~~~ 1 Mlt)af tmo tlr








RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


The experimental tobacco had to be replanted on March 31 owing to freeze
damage to the original crop planted in early March. This was the first time
in 31 years of experience on tobacco that a freeze has caused any tobacco
research crop to be damaged so severely as to have to be plowed under and
replanted. Insect infestations occurred about the same time as in 1985. The
green peach aphid populations were lighter on untreated tobacco for the entire
season, which may have been related to the extremely cold weather in early
March. The light aphid populations accounted for a decrease in PVY infection
in the field as compared to 1985. Less than 5 percent of the plants exhibited
PVY symptoms on June 4. Some of the reduction in PVY infection may have been
due to the lateness of the crop. Tobacco budworm populations on untreated
tobacco were larger than in 1985, and began declining on June 18 after the
plants had been hand topped on June 9 and 17. The peak in budworm damaged
plants on June 4 was 13 percent larger than the peak on May 1, 1985. The
drought weather that occurred for most of the season had little effect on the
population as the rainfall in February and early March was conducive to ade-
quate adult emergence from the pupal stage. No apparent adverse effect of the
extreme cold weather in March on budworm populations was observed. Popula-
tions of the tobacco hornworm were larger than in 1985. The peak in hornworm
damaged untreated plants occurred on June 18, and was 70 percent larger than
the peak on June 26, 1985. The population declined after the peak in 1986 for
some unknown reason, which was unusual. Generally, hornworm populations
continue increasing as the season progresses, but the reverse was true in
1986. A predacious wasp was observed on the experimental tobacco in large
numbers, which may have caused the decline in hornworm populations. Very few
of the hornworm larvae escaped past the third instar. Neither the drought
season nor cold March weather had any apparent effect on early-season hornworm
populations, since rainfall during February and early March was adequate for
hornworm pupal eclosion, which resulted in sufficient -early season larval
populations. The drought weather may have been responsible for some of the
late season decline in hornworm populations. Rainfall during the growing
season was 6.92 inches below that for the relatively dry year of 1985. The
drought conditions reduced crop yield and value as compared to 1985, even
though supplemental irrigation was applied. Yield of untreated tobacco in
1985 was 3,471 pounds per acre compared to 2,892 in 1986. Thismarks the 18th
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 5
(pretreatment count), which was later than 1985 owing to the late planting
date caused by the March freeze. Populations increased rapidly on untreated
plants until the plants were hand topped on June 9, when populations began
declining. The populations never reached levels as large as in 1985 at any-
time during the season. The cool early spring and drought weather conditions
probably adversely affected the aphid populations. Populations of aphids
during the last two counts on July 2 and 16 were located on new sucker growth,
but never reached the levels in those locations observed in 1985. (See Table
2.) On June 4, when populations were the largest on the untreated checks, all
treatments except Ammo at 0.072 lb. AI/A. and MO-70616-3-6 at 0.028 and 0.045
lb. AI/A. gave significant (P = 0.05) control. The data on May 21 indicated
that FBC-37903 at 0.203 and 0.454 lb. AI/A. were not effective aphicidal
treatments. Those treatments on June 4 that had counts in excess of 1,000









would not be commercially acceptable. The data on June 4 showed that Lannate
at 0.591 and 1.127 lbs. AI/A. gave significant control of the aphid under
moderate population pressure. Capture at 0.052 and 0.070 lb. AI/A. continued
to give significant aphid control, when applied on a bi-weekly schedule. The
yield and dollar return data in Table 6 indicated that the aphid had no signi-
ficant detrimental effect on either parameter.

Budworm populations were not as large as in 1985, which indicated that the
budworm would not be as severe a problem in 1986. However, populations on
untreated tobacco on May 21 and June 4 were larger than the largest population
count in 1985. The cool March temperatures and drought conditions appeared
not to adversely affect budworm populations. (See Table 3.) Using the June 4
count for treatment comparison, all treatments except FBC-37903 at 0.203 and
0.454 lb. AI/A. gave significant control. FBC-37903 at both rates were
applied only once, and the count on May 21 indicated that only the rate of
0.454 lb. AI/A. gave significant control, but was significantly inferior to
Orthene at 0.925 lb AI/A. The data on June 4 indicated for the second year
in succession a significant (P = 0.05) relationship between dosage and control
with Orthene and Lannate (r = -0.939), which may or may not be related to
insect resistance to the insecticides. Repeated applications (2 applications)
of Capture at 0.052 and 0.070 lb. AI/A. improved budworm control, which was
not significantly different from Orthene at 0.925 lb. AI/A. The budworm may
have accounted for some loss in yield and dollar return, but the loss was not
statistically significant (See Table 6.)

The hornworm population began to increase on the tobacco on May 5, which
was the expected norm from observations in past years. Population levels on
untreated tobacco on June 18 exceeded the largest levels recorded for any
count date in 1985. (See Table 4.) On June 18, all treatments, excluding
FBC-37903 at 0.203 and 0.454 lb. AI/A., gave significant control. The one
application of FBC-37903 at both rates gave significant control four weeks
(June 4th count) following the application on May 7. The one application of
FBC-37903 at both rates was numerically inferior to two applications of
Orthene at 0.925 lb. AI/A. on June 4, but neither rate was significantly
different from the 0.925 lb.-rate of Orthene on the same date. Capture at
0.052 and 0.070 lb. AI/A. gave significant hornworm control for the entire
season and ranked, as two of the best treatments on June 18 along with MO-
70616-3-6 at 0.045 lb. AI/A. Loss in yield and dollar return caused by the
hornworm was negligible as reflected in non-significant values between
treatments for both parameters. (See Table 6.)

Only Lannate at 0.591 and 1.127 lbs. AI/A. caused any detectable phytotox-
icity. The injury was evident following the first spray application.
Chlorosis and necrosis of the lamina was prevalent in the middle and top of
the plants and persisted until July 2. As the leaves matured during the
latter part of the 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.)

No data on LD 's and dosage mortality curves for the budworm against
Lannate and Orthene have been received from Dr. Thomas C. Sparks of Louisiana
State University.

Yield in the untreated checks was 579 lbs./A. (16.7%) smaller than in
1985, which indicated that drought weather was probably responsible for the








disparity rather than insect damage, since there were no significant differ-
ences among insecticidal treatments. Dollar return in the untreated checks
decreased $1,456 (25.7%) as compared to that in 1985, indicating that weather
was the limiting factor, since there were no significant differences between
insecticidal treatments. The best yield from treated tobacco ,was 1,103
lbs./A. (24.0%) less than in 1985, and best dollar return per acre was $2,927
(36.7%) less. Dry weather was probably the major contributor to the reduced
yield and dollar return from the best insecticidal treatments. However, a
reduction in prices for comparable grades of tobacco in 1986 contributed to
the loss in dollar return. The quality of the tobacco was generally good, but
the quality was offset by poor weather and reduced prices. The price per pound
of tobacco averaged $0.20 less in 1986 ($1.69 versus $1.49). (See Table 6.)

There was a dosage response by the budworm to Orthene and Lannate, with
the higher doses giving the most effective control. As soon as LDU5 and
dosage mortality data are available from Louisiana State University, a Better
interpretation of the field data can be made. Capture performed well against
all three insects season long and was one of the best treatments at season's
end, and was as effective at 0.052 lb. AI/A. as Orthene at 0.925 lb. AI/A.








NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 1. Foliar Treatments Applied for Insect Control on Flue-Cured Tobacco (K-326) 1986.


Lbs. or Gals. Lbs. AI
b Number per Acre per per Acre per
Treatment Applications Application Application


MO-70616-3-6, 0.0125% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 6 24.8 0.028
MO-70616-3-6, 0.025% S(1.9 ibs./gal. EC) 6 23.4 0.045
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 Ibs./gal. L) 6 24.4 0.591
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 Ibs./gal. L) 6 23.3 1.127
Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 6 23.1 0.052
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 6 23.0 0.070
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 Ibs./gal. EC) 6 23.9 0.072
Orthene, 0.5% S(75 % SP) 6 22.4 0.925
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 6 24.0 1.977
Orthene, 0.18% S(1.0 Ib./gal. EC)+ 6 23.2 0.351
Danitol, 0.018% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC)c 6 23.2 0.035
Orthene, 0.24% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ 6 23.6 0.473
Danitol, 0.024% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC)c 6d 23.6 0.045
FBC-37903, 0.1% S(1.7 Ibs./gal. EC) d 24.4 0.203
FBC-37903, 0.2% S(1.7 ibs./gal. EC) 1 27.2 0.454
Check (Untreated)


bEC = Emulsifiable concentrate, L = Liquid concentrate, S = Spray, and SP = Soluble powder.
Sprays were applied on 5/7, 5/21, 6/4, 6/18, 7/2, and 7/16/86. Tobacco.was transplanted on 3/31/86, and
harvested on 6/16, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/23/86.
A mixture formulation of Orthene and Danitol.
Spray applied on 5/7/86, and then the treatment was withdrawn from the test.






NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 2. Mean Number of Green Peach Aphids per Plot of Flue-Cured Tobacco (K-326) 1986.


Aphid Countsb Mean Rate
5 d Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatmenta 5/5 5/21 6/4 6/18 7/2d 7/16d Application


MO-70616-3-6, 0.0125% S(1.9 Ibs./gal. EC) 13a 1lOab 318ab 105a 37a 23a 0.028
MO-70616-3-6, 0.025% s(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 20a 63ab 417ab 49a 36a 21a 0.045
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 24a 67ab 112a 36a 27a 6a 0.591
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 13a 6a 39a 15a 16a 3a 1.127
Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 16a 35ab 10a 2a la Oa 0.052
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 20a 4a la Oa Oa la 0.070
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) lla 290bc 1,118c 1,043c 814b 338b 0.072
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 16a 4a 3a la la Oa 0.925
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 14a 6a Oa Oa Oa Oa 1.977
Orthene, 0.18% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ 10a 35ab 12a 2a 8a 5a 0.351
Danitol, 0.018% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC)e 0.035
Orthene, 0.24% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ lla 7a lla Da 4a 3a 0.473
Danitol 0.024% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC)f 0.045
FBC-37903, 0.1% S(1.7 ibs./gal. EC)f 12a 409c 1,130c 0.203
FBC-37903, 0.2% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC)f 18a 304bc 1,077c 0.045
Check (Untreated) 14a 255abc 879bc 306b 130a 35a

LSD 5% NS 260 645 106 144 103
LSD 1% NS 351 871 144 196 140


bSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/7, 5/21, 6/4, 6/18,7/2, and 7/16/86.
Counts were made on 10 plants per plot, totaling 30 plants in 3 plots. Means followed by the same letter
are not significantly different at the 5% level.
Pretreatment count. Tobacco transplanted on 3/31/86. Plants were hand topped on 6/9 and 6/17/86. Sucker
control was applied: Royal-Tac 85 on 6/12 and Royal-Tac 85 + Royal MH on 6/17/86. Tobacco was harvested
.on 6/16, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/23/86.
eAphids were on sucker growth.
iA mixture formulation of Orthene and Danitol.
Spray was applied on 5/7/86, and then the treatment was withdrawn fr6m the test.






NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 3. Mean Percent Budworm Damaged Flue-Cured Tobacco Plants per Plot (K-326) 1986.

% Budworm Damaged Plants Mean Rate
Lbs. AI/Acre/
Treatmenta 5/5c 5/21 6/4 6/18 7/2 7/16 Application

MO-70616-3-6, 0.0125% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 35a 55cde 4lcde 20c 14ab 3a 0.028
MO-70616-3-6, 0.025% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 40a 48bcd 29bc 8ab 7ab la 0.045
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 Ibs./gal. L) 47a 57cde 54e 20c 14ab 3a 0.591
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 47a 48bcd 37bcd 19bc 16b 5a 1.127
Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 46a 47bcd 31bc 16abc 12ab 3a 0.052
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 41a 34ab 24ab 12abc 5a 2a 0.070
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 49a 56cde 33bc 18abc 12ab 6a 0.072
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 39a 43bc 38bcd 13abc 7ab 3a 0.925
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 38a 25a 16a 7a 7ab 3a 1.977
Orthene, 0.18% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d 36a 61de 50de 21c 13ab 3a 0.351
Danitol, 0.018% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC) 0.035
Orthene, 0.24% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d 38a 63de 43cde 20c 9ab 3a 0.473
Danitol, 0.024% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC)d 0.045
FBC-37903, 0.1% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC)e 40a 81fg 94f 0.203
FBC-37903, 0.2% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC) 40a 68ef 92f 0.454
Check (Untreated) 43a 96g 99f 44d 34c 18b -

LDS 5% NS 16 13 10 9 5
LSD 1% NS 22 18 14 12 7


aSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/7, 5/21, 6/4, 6/18,
Counts were made on 50 to 55 plants per plot, totaling 151 to 159 plants in
same letter are not significantly different at'the 5% level.
CPretreatment count. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/31/86. Plants were hand


7/2, and 7/16/86.
3 plots. Means followed by the

topped on 6/9 and 6/17/86.


Sucker control was applied: Royal-Tac 85 on 6/12 and Royal-Tac 85 + Royal MH on 6/17/86. Tobacco was
harvested on 6/16, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/23/86.
A mixture formulation of Orthene and Danitol.
eSpray was applied on 5/7/86, and then the treatment was withdrawn from the test.






NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 4. Mean Percent Hornworm Damaged Flue-Cured Tobacco Plants per Plot (K-326) 1986.


% Hornworm Damaged


STreatmenta


Plantsb


6/18 7/2


Mean Rate
Lbs. AI/Acre/
Application


MO-70616-3-6, 0.0125% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC)
MO-70616-3-6, 0.025% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC)
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L)
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L)
Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC)
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC)
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC)
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP)
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP)
Orthene, 0.18% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d
Danitol, 0.018% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC)
Orthene, 0.24% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d
Danitol, 0.024% S(0.1 lb./gal. PC)e
FBC-37903, 0.1% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC)e
FBC-37903, 0.2% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC)
Check (Untreated)


9ab
9ab
33d
33d
5a
4a
10ab
18abc
9ab
19bc


Oa 13ab

7bc 31cd
2ab 31cd
8c 47e


LSD 5% NS 5 12 12 12 12
LSD 1% NS 7 17 .21 17 16


bSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/7, 5/21, 6/4, 6/18, 7/2, and 7/16/86.
Counts were made on 50 to 55 plants per plot, totaling 151 to 159 plants in 3 plots. Means followed by the
same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level.
cPretreatment count. Tobacco was transplanted on 3/31/86. Plants were hand topped on 6/9 and 6/17/86.
Sucker control was applied: Royal-Tac 85 on 6/12 and Royal-Tac 85 + Royal MH on 6/17/86. Tobacco was
harvested on 6/16, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/23/86.
A mixture formulation of Orthene and Danitol.
spray was applied on 5/7/86, and then the treatment was withdrawn from the test.


20bc
14abc
41d
42d
4a
2a
19bc
24c
llabc
23bc

9ab



83e


0.028
0.045
0.591
1.127
0.052
0.070
0.072
0.925
1.977
0.351
0.035
0.473
0.045
0.203
0.454







NFREC, Quincy and AREC, Live Oak, Florida


Table 5. Phytotoxic Effects of Certain Insecticide Formulations on Flue-Cured Tobacco (K-326) 1986.

Mean Phytotoxicity Indicesb Mean Rate
Lbs. AI/Accre/
Treatmenta 5/5c 5/21 6/4 6/18 7/2 7/16 Application

MO-70616-3-6, 0. 0125% S(1.9 Ibs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.028
MO-70616-3-6, 0.025% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.045
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.591
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 0.0 3.3 4.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.127
Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.052
Capture, 0.04% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.070
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.072
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.925
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.977
Orthene, 0.18% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.351
Danitol, 0.018% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC) 0.035
Orthene, 0.24% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.473
Danitol, 0.024% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC) 0.045
FBC-37903, 0.1% S(1.7 Ibs./gal. EC)e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.203
FBC-37903, 0.2% S(1.7 Ibs./gal. EC)e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.454
Check (Untreated) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

aSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/7, 5/21, 6/4, 6/18, 7/2, and 7/16/86.
Rating 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 was transplanted on 3/31/86. Plants were hand topped on 6/9 and 6/17/86.
Sucker control was applied: Royal-Tac 85 on 6/12 and Royal-Tac 85 + Royal MH on 6/17/86. Tobacco was
harvested on 6/16, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/23/86.
A mixture formulation of Orthene and Danitol.
eSpray was applied on 5/7/86, and then the treatment was withdrawn from the test.







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) 1986.

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

MO-70616-3-6, 0.0125% S(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 0.028 2,845a 4,230a
MO-70616-3-6, 0.025% s(1.9 lbs./gal. EC) 0.045 3,329a 5,046a
Lannate, 0.29% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 0.591 2,777a 3,999a
Lannate, 0.58% S(1.8 lbs./gal. L) 1.127 2,930a 4,664a
Capture, 0.027% S(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.052 2,935a 4,339a
Capture, 0.04% 5(2.0 lbs./gal. EC) 0.070 2,673a 3,963a
Ammo, 0.036% S(2.5 lbs./gal. EC) 0.072 3,266a 4,739a
Orthene, 0.5% S(75% SP) 0.925 2,919a 4-,501a
Orthene, 1.0% S(75% SP) 1.977 3,036a 4,520a
Orthene, 0.18% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ d 0.351 2,997a 4,628a
Danitol, 0.018% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC) 0.035
Orthene, 0.24% S(1.0 lb./gal. EC)+ 0.473 3,494a 5,022a
Danitol, 0.024% S(0.1 lb./gal. EC) 0.045
FBC-37903, 0.1% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC) 0.203 2,817a 4,031a
FBC-37903, 0.2% S(1.7 lbs./gal. EC) 0.454 3,187a 4,632a
Check (Untreated) 2,892a 4,208a

LSD 5% NS NS
LSD 1% NS NS


aSee Table 1 for more details. Sprays were applied on 5/7, 5/21, 6/4, 6/18, 7/2, and 7/16/86.
Tobacco was transplanted on 3/31/86, and harvested on 6/16, 6/30, 7/14, and 7/23/86.
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