• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Main














Group Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage.
Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage. Spring 1985
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075821/00004
 Material Information
Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage. Spring 1985
Series Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage.
Translated Title: Research Report - University of Florida Central Florida Research and Education Center ; 86-10 ( English )
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Leibee, Gary L.
Publisher: University of Florida, Central Florida Research & Education Center.
Publication Date: 1986
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00075821
Volume ID: VID00004
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 144607785

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
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




) 00




University of Florida

CENTRAL FLORIDA RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER

Sanford, Florida

Research Report SAN 86-10 February 1986

CATERPILLAR CONTROL ON CABBAGE, SPRING 1985

G. L. Lelbee


'Rio Verde' cabbage was transplanted on March 25, 1985, Into Myakka
fine-sand on-the University of F-lorlda's Central Florida Research and
Education Center In Sanford. A plot consisted of one 30-ft row with
12-inch-plant spacing. -Each plot was separated by two unplanted rows;
row spacing was 30-inches. Nemacur 15G at-2 Ib al/acre was applied and
Incorporated pretransplant in a 15-inch band for nematode control.
Randox 4E-and Vegedex 4E were-both applied at 3 Ib al/acre immediately
after transplanting for weed control. Treatments were replicated in
four randomized complete blocks separated by 25-ft weed-free alleys.
Sprays were applied with a CO -pressurized sprayer mounted on an
Allis-Chalmers, Model G, tractor. Three nozzles (D3-25) were used per
row; one overhead and one drop on each side. The delivery rate was 50
gpa with a boom pressure of about 40 psi and a speed of 2 mph. A
wetting agent (X-77 at 2.4 ml/gal) was added to the insecticide
treatments. Sprays were applied April 19 and 23,-May 1, 8, 15, and 23,
1985. Ten plants were rated for damage on the head and first four
wrapper leaves In each plot on May 29, 1985, using a scale of 1-6 as in
Greene et al., Jour. of Econ. Entomol. 62(4):798-800. The percentage of
heads that were marketable was based on the frequency of heads with
damage ratings of 3 or less.

The Infestation level was considered very heavy. The pestiferous
species present were the Imported cabbageworm, cabbage looper, and
diamondback moth. The treatments that gave acceptable control were:
Orthene 75 SP at 1.0, UC 84572 0.85 EC at 0.05 and 0.1, and UC 86874
0.42 EC at 0.1. Significant (P<0.05) rate responses were exhibited by
Lannate 1.8 L, Monitor 4 E, and Orthene 75 SP. Pydrin 2.4 EC and the
Bacillus thuringlensis formulations, which are heavily used In central
Florida-for cabbage insect control, were the least effective. No
phytotoxicity was observed.

Central Science
Library

OCT 23 1987

University of Florida










Insecticide Damage
Ib al/acre rating* % Marketability*


Untreated check 6.00 a 0.0 e

Water only 6.00 a 0.0 e

Water + X-77 (2.4 ml/gal) 6.00 a 0.0 e

Lannate 1.8 L, 0.25 5.00 b 5.0 de

Lannate 1.8 L, 0.45 3.85 de 25.0 c

Lannate 1.8 L, 0.90 2.53 fg 52.5 a

Monitor 4 E, 0.50 4.08 cd 22.5 cd

Monitor 4 E, 1.0 3.03 f 55.0 b

Pydrin, 2.4 EC, 0.05 4.28 cd 7.5 cde

Pydrin, 2.4 EC, 0.10 4.48 bc 10.0 cde

Orthene 75 SP, 0.50 3.28 ef 50.0 b

Orthene 75 SP, 1.0 1.85 g 87.5 a

Dipel 2X, 0.25 4.25 cd 15.0 cd

Dipel 2X, 0.50 4.43 c 20.0 cd

Biobit, 0.50 4.48 bc 15.0 cd

Biobit, 1.0 4.48 c 5.0 de

UC 84572, 0.85 EC, 0.05 2.03 g 85.0 a

UC 84572, 0.85 EC, 0.10 1.80 g 90.0 a

UC 84572, 0.85 EC, 0.05
+ Lannate 1.8 L, 0.25 1.90 g 90.0 a

UC 86874, 0.42 EC, 0.10 1.88 g 87.5 a


Means within each column followed by the same letter are not signifi-

cantly different at the 5% level by DMRT. Damage ratings and

percentages were transformed (X2 and sine-1 respectively) prior

to analysis.




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