Historic note

Group Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage.
Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage. Spring 1986
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075821/00005
 Material Information
Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage. Spring 1986
Series Title: Caterpillar control on cabbage.
Translated Title: Research report - University of Florida Central Florida Research & Education Center ; 87-02 ( 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: VID00005
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
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
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

T Central Science


'7-oZ University of Florida OCT 23 987
Sanford, Florida nivesty of Florida
Research Report SAN 87-02 September 1986


Gary L. Leibee

'Rio Verde' cabbage was transplanted March 5, 1986, in Myakka fine
sand on the University of Florida's Central Florida Research and
Education Center in Sanford. A plot consisted of one 30' row with 12"
plant spacing. Each plot was separated by two unplanted rows; row
spacing was 30". Nemacur 15G, 2 lb ai/acre, was applied pretransplant
in 15" band for nematode control. Randox 4EC and Vegedex 4EC, both at 3
lb ai/acre, were applied for weed control two days after transplant.
Treatments were replicated in five randomized complete blocks separated
by 25' weed-free alleys. Sprays were applied with a tractor mounted,
compressed air sprayer. Three nozzles (D3-45) were used per row; one
overhead and one drop on each side. The delivery rate was 75 gpa with a
boom pressure of about 55 psi and a speed of 2 mph. Spray dates for the
weekly treatments were April 3, 10, 17, 24, May 1, 8, and 15.
Additional spray dates for twice-weekly treatments were April 7, 14, 21,
28, May 5, 12, and 19. The soil treatments were applied on April 4, May
2, and 14. Two-inch deep furrows were made 4-6" from the stems of the
plants on each side of the row with a push cultivator. A drench was
prepared by diluting 60 ml of formulation with 5677.50 ml of water for
each plot. The drench was distributed evenly between both furrows of
each plot with a watering can and the furrows closed with a push
cultivator. Caterpillar counts were taken on April 30. Counts
consisted of the total number of caterpillars on two composite heads
composed of half-heads from four heads chosen randomly from the middle
of each plot. The heads were harvested by carefully folding the outer
leaves against the head to contain the caterpillars and cutting the
plant off at the base. The heads were placed carefully into a bucket
and transported to the processing area. Each head was placed on a
cafeteria tray and carefully halved vertically and one-half discarded.
The remaining half-head was halved again to facilitate handling and then
placed into a pail containing 1.5 gallons of water and agitated
vigorously under water for 5 seconds to dislodge the caterpillars from
the plant material. The few larvae that were dislodged from the head
during the cutting process were retained as part of the sample. The
plant material was removed and the water poured through a U.S. standard
No. 80 sieve to collect the caterpillars. The caterpillars were washed
from the sieve into labeled containers with 70% ethanol solution and
stored for counting later in the laboratory. Plots were rated for
damage on May 22 using a scale of 1-6 as in Greene et al., Jour. of
Econ. Entomol. 62(4):798-800. Individual plants were not rated in each
plot due to an unexplainable extreme variation in plant size and head
formation. Instead, the whole plot was given a rating based on the
general appearance of the majority of the heads in each plot. Plots
with damage ratings of 3 or less were considered to have marketable

The infestation was considered heavy and consisted of essentially
all diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus). Treatments AC
290,230 1.25EC at 1.00 and AC 290,678 1.25EC at 0.50 and 1.00 ai/acre
were not sprayed on May 8 due to lack of material. This did not pose a
problem because AC 290,230 and AC 290,678 were obviously not effective.
The following treatments did not produce marketable cabbage: all the AC
290,230 and AC 290,678 treatments, Lannate 1.8L weekly at 0.45, Biobit
at 0.5 weekly and twice-weekly, Biobit at 1.00 weekly, the untreated
check, and the water + X-77 check. Applying Lannate 1.8L twice-weekly
improved efficacy at both 0.45 and 0.90 over weekly applications.
Applying Lannate 1.8L at 0.45 twice-weekly achieved essentially the same
level of control as applying it at 0.90 weekly. Applying Biobit
twice-weekly improved efficacy at the 1.0 level over weekly application.
No phytotoxicity was observed.

Insecticide and Diamondback moth
rate (lb ai/acre) larvae/2 heads* Damage rating*

Untreated check 10.50 a-d 5.8 a
water +X -77 14.15 a 5.8 a
UC 84572 2.1F 0.03 no X-77 1.00 hi 2.0 j
UC 84572 2.1F 0.03 0.50 i 2.0 j
UC 84572 2.1F 0.06 1.25 ghi 1.5 j
UC 84572 2.1F 0.10 1.00 hi 1.6 j
MO 070616 1.9EC 0.025 1.25 ghi 3.0 hij
SD 043775 (Pydrin) 2.4EC 0.1 2.00 ghi 2.4 ij
AC 290,230 1.25EC 0.22 9.50 a-d 4.2 d-g
AC 290,230 1.25EC 0.45 8.00 a-d 4.3 c-g
AC 290,230 1.25EC 0.89 9.50 a-d 4.3 c-g
AC 290,678 1.25EC 0.22 14.75 a 4.8 b-e
AC 290,678 1.25EC 0.45 17.25 a 5.1 be
AC 290,678 1.25EC 0.89 13.00 ab 5.2 ab
AC 801,352 0.42EC 0.03 3.50 gh 2.0 j
AC 801,352 0.42EC 0.07 1.25 ghi 1.6 j
AC 801,352 0.42EC 0.09 0.75 hi 1.4 j
Pounce 3.2EC 0.1 3.25 efg 2.2 j
Larvin 3.2F 0.75 5.75 b-e 2.8 hij
Monitor 4E 1.0 1.50 hi 2.4 ij
Lannate 1.8L 0.45 5.75 def 3.5 ghi
Lannate 1.8L 0.45 twice/wk 3.50 fg 2.0 j
Lannate 1.8L 0.90 3.50 efg 2.6 ij
Lannate 1.8L 0.90 twice/wk 0.75 hi 1.8 j
Biobit 0.5 13.00 abc 4.4 c-f
Biobit 0.5 twice/wk 5.75 c-f 3.8 fgh
Biobit 1.0 1.50 ghi 3.5 ghi
Biobit 1.0 twice/wk 4.00 efg 2.8 hij
AC 290,230 1.25EC 7.1
soil application 8.75 a-d 4.2 efg
AC 290,678 1.25EC 7.1
soil application 12.50 ab 5.0 bed

Means within each column followed by the same letter are not
significantly different at the 0.05 level by DMRT. Analyses
of variance were performed on transformed data (ln(x+1) and
x-squared for DBM counts and damage ratings, respectively).


AC 290,230
AC 290,678
AC 801,352


Source and Composition

American Cyanamid Company,
composition unavailable

Microbial Resources, a wettable
powder formulation of Bacillus
thuringiensis Kurstaki 7.2 BIU/lb

Union Carbide Agricultural Products
Company, a 3.2F formulation of

Shell Development Company, a 1.9EC
formulation of a synthetic

Union Carbide Agricultural Products
Company, composition unavailable


MO 070616

UC 84572

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