.- --808-01365
Version 1 Page 1 of 28
Final Report
Determination of Efficacy o f _ against Pea and bean weevil in Peas,
2 Sites in UK 2008
Study Code:
Trial Code(s):
808-01365
--
808-01365-01
808-01365-02
Testing Facility:
UK
Sponsor:
Italy
I the undersigned, hereby declare that the work was performed according to the procedures herein described
and that this Report is an accurate and faithful record of the results obtained
PhD (8tudy Director)
This document is an account of work carried out by
on behalf of
made or actions taken on the basis of this Report
-
1_.__~1365
Version 1 Page 2 of 28
Contents
1.
Summary ...... ..... ... ...... .. .. .. ........ .. . ... .... ....... .. ... ..... ... .. ... ... ....... ...... ... ... ... ............... ... .. ..... .. ....... ...... ....... 4
2.
Objectives ............... .. .................. ........... ... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ......... ............ .............. .. ... ........ .. ..................... .... ..... 5
3.
Study Conduct. ............. ............................... ....... ....... .. .. .. .. ........... ... ..... ... ...... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ....... .. ... ...... 5
4.
Test site and plot design information ........ .. ....... .. ...... .. .. .... . .. ... .. .................... .. .. ... ............ .. .. . . .. ..... 6
5.
Treatment details ........................ .. .... ........... .... ... ... ..... .. ......................................................... .................. 7
6.
Evaluations.... ... ...
7.
Statistical Analysis .... ... .. ...... ........ .. .... .. ........ .. .. .. ..... .. ....... ........... .... .. .. .... ... .. .. .. ......... .......... ... ....... . ...... 12
8.
Results ............... .......... .... ... ............... ..... ..................... ....... .. ........................................................ .. ....... 13
8.1
Formulations ........................... .. .. .................................... .. ................................... ... ............................ 13
8.2
ARM Code Descriptions. ......... .. .. .... . .. ...... ................. . ..... ........................ ... ....... .. .. .. ....... 13
8.3
Crop Safety ................... .. ..................................... ....... .. ....... ..... ............................ .............................. 14
8.4
Crop Vigour .............. .. .................... .... .. ................. .. .............. .. .. ............. ............. .. ........... .... ......... ........ 14
8.5
Pea and bean weevil Control ............................... ..................................................................... ....... 14
9.
Discussion ......... .... ........ ... ........... .. ........ .. ......... .. ......... .. .... .. ................................................................. 23
9.1
Formulations ....... ... .. .. .. ................ .. .. .. ... .. ...... .. .. .. ............ .... .... .. ... .................. ... ............... ................... 23
9.2
Crop Safety ...... .. .............. ............... ........ ........................ .... ........ .. ......................... ................................ 23
9.3
Crop Vigour .............. .. ................. .. ...... .. ...................................... .................................................. .. .. .... 23
9.4
Pea and Bean Weevil Control.. . . .. ............. ....... ... .......................... ........... .. ....... .... ... . .... ... .. .... 23
......... ....... ... ............... ..... .............. ...... .. ......... ......................... .. ..................... 10
Tables
Table 1 - Test site and plot design information ........... ... .................. ..... ... ... ...... .. .. .. ........................................... 6
Table 2 - Test Item(s) and Reference Item(s) ........... .. .................................................................................. 7
Table 3 - Application Schedule ........ .. ............................. .. ........ .. ....................................... .................... ... .. ....... 7
Table 4 - Application Description ........... .... ... ... .. .... .. .. .... ....................... ..... .. ............................... .. .................... 8
Table 5 - Crop Stage at Each Application ...................... ........ ...... ................... .. ........ .. .. ...... .. .... .. ... ........... ......... 8
Table 6 - Application Equipment... .. ......... .. .. ...... ............. .. ... .. .. ... .. ..... ... ..... .... ... .. .... ... .. .. .. ........... ... .. ..... ............. 9
Table 7 - Evaluation descriptions ..................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......... .. ................. ....... ........... .. ... .... .. ............... .. ..... 10
Table 8 - Evaluation details .................. .. ................. .. ................. .................................................................... 11
Table 9 - ARM Code Descriptions ........................................................................................................... ... ..... 13
Table 10- Mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot, S08-01365-01 ..... .. ... .................................... .. ..... 15
Table 11 - Mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot, S08-01365-02 ............ ......................... ...... ...... .... 17
Table 12 -
Percent~ge
area of plant with pea and bean weevil damage, S08-01365-01 ....... .......... .. ............ 19
Table 13 - Percentage area of plant with pea and bean weevil damage, S08-01365-02 .. .................. .. ......... 21
-
Version 1 Page 3 of 28
808-01365
Appendices
Appendix A - Meteorological Data ...... ............ .............. . .................... . ..... ...... .. ..................... ........ .. ... .. ... ..... 24
Appendix B - Agronomic Details .......................................................................................... . ............ ........ ... 25
Appendix C - Copy of the Certificate of Official Recognition of Efficacy Testing Fac ...... .. ... ..
Appendix D - OECD trial summary table ....................................... ........ ................... ........... .
. .... .. ..... 26
.. .. ......... 27
-
508-01365
1.
Version 1 Page 4 of 28
Summary
•
Two small plot replicated trials were carried out to evaluate the efficacy of _ _
_
100g/1 C5) when applied at 37.5ml producUha, 62 .5ml producUha and 75.0ml producUha
for the control of pea and bean weevil in peas. The results obtained were compared with _
_
•
(I
100g/1 C5) applied at 750ml producUha.
At Trial 508091365-01 , two sequential applications were made on the 2nd May and 12'h May when
pest activity was noted in the crop. At Trial 508091 365-02, two sequential applications were made on
nd
th
May and 20 May when pest activity was noted in the crop.
the 8
•
No problems were encountered during mixing or application of any of the product formulations under
test.
•
Assessments for product efficacy were made pre application, then 1,4 and 7 days after the first
application and 1 and 4 days after Application 2 at Trial 1 and 1, 6 and 9 days after application 2 at
Trial 2.
•
No phytotoxic symptoms or treatment related crop vigour differences were observed on either of the
trials at any of the assessment timings
•
Weather conditions in May were moderately conducive for pea and bean weevil activity with
temperatures above the long term average, but slightly higher than average rainfall.
Low levels of
damage were found at both trials with between 1 and 2 notches per plant pre application.
•
At trial 508-01365-01 , few differences in control were observed between any of the treatments and the
untreated until 7 days after application A, when all the treatments achieved a significant reduction in
_t
notching. Th~ treatments achieved control comparable to, if not slightly better than that of
No dose response was observed between the three rates o f .
the standard product
any of the assessment timings.
•
At trial 508-01365-02, ali treatments achieved a significant reduction in notching compared to the
untreated. _
applied at the higher rates of 62.5ml productlha and 75.0ml productlha showed
control of pea and weevil comparable to that of
_
A dose response was apparent with
, with the lower rate being significantly less effective than the 62.5mllha and 75mllha rates
at the 1 day after Appl ication B assessment.
-
-.
S08-01365
Version 1 Page 5 of 28
of_
2.
Objectives
2.1
To evaluate the efficacy
2.2
To compare the efficacy in 2_1 with that of
2.3
To monitor treated crop for signs of phytotoxicity_
2.4
To establish minimum effective dose_
3.
Study Conduct
for the control of Pea and bean weevil in peas
are officially recognised as competent to carry out efficacy testing
in accordance with European Commission Directive 93/71/EEC by the following authorities;
•
United Kingdom Pesticides Safety Directorate (certification number ORETO.), in the categories of
agriculture/horticulture, stored crops, biologicals & semiochemicals and vertebrate control
GLP compliance will not be claimed in respect of this study, but certain procedural aspects may be
included within the QA programme_
National regulatory guidelines will also be followed for the countries involved in the study_
SOPs - All work undertaken will follow the test site SOPs_ In case of any conflict between SOPs and
study plan the study plan is superior_
Relevant EPPO guideline(s)
PP 1/152(3)
-----
PP 1/181(3)
Variation from EPPO
Design and analysis of efficacy evaluation trials
-------~----
.. _._-_._._-----_._ ...
Conduct and reporting of efficacy evaluation trials
No
1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No
---------
------lP --------------~---------
PP 1/135(3)
Phytotoxicity assessment
------r-----
-
No
1----------------
PP 1/22~(1-)-TMini~um effective d o s e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No
PP 1/60(3)
Srlona lineatus
-----~----- 1--- - - - - - - - - - - - -
No
-
._'- --
Version 1 Page 6 of 28
S08-01365
4.
Test site and plot design information
Table 1 - Test site and plot design information
S08-01365-01
S08-01365-02
Test location
Swepstone
Measham
Region/county/state
Leicestershire
Leicestershire
Country
UK
UK
Location reference
W -1.5031
W -1.4474
N 52.68908
N 52.6979
Soil texture
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Crop
Peas
Peas
Cultivar
Kahuna
Kahuna
Drilling/Planting date
27 Mar 2008
05 Apr 2008
Planting rate (kg/ha)
250
250
Drilling rate (kg/ha)
250
250
Drilling depth (cm)
2-3
2-3
Trial design
Randomised complete block
Randomised complete block
Number of replicates
Four
Four
Plot size w, I, other
3m x 9m or 27m2
3m x 10m or 30m 2
-
._:--
Version 1 Page 7 of 28
S08-01365
5.
Treatment details
Table 2 - Test Item(s) and Reference Item(s)
Product Name
Active ingredient(s)
Content of a.i
Formulation
nominal
Type
H132
100 gIl
CS
BSN6C2401
100 gIl
CS
Batch number
Table 3 - Application Schedule
Treatment
Product I Formulation
No.
1
2
3
4
5
---
Untreated
Rate of
Dosage rate I ha
productlha
a.i. in g
-
-
-
Application timing
37.5
ml
3.75
AB
62.5
ml
6.25
AB
75.0
ml
7.5
AB
75.0
ml
7.5
AB
Application timing and spray volume
A
B
At first signs of weevil damage
If weevils re-infest treated plots 7-8 days after
Application A
Spray Volume
200
Spray Volume
200
-
.-i
~1365
Version 1 Page 8 of 28
Table 4 - Application Description
S08-01365-01
Application date
S08-01365 -02
02 May 2008
I 12 May 2008
i
09 May 2008
Ii 20 May 2008
15:15
[11:00
12:00
:13:00
1----------------------------- - -
Time of day
1--------------------------
------------ -------------- - ---+-------------------- -
~i~~~:~n:d _______________ _1:RAY
<-.----------------
------------------------- --Application Placement
Applied by
- T~~-~~-;t~~ of
-- - -
~~~~-h~d~-rc)--
--------
~:PRAY
__
--
_
--------- ---1-----------------
:PR~_'C____ I :PRAY____ _
···-----·-----------i - ----------- --------.---------;------------BROFOL
i BROFOL
BROFOL
I BROFOL
--r---- ----------
i --------------------
A McCartney
I A McCartney
A McCartney
I A McCartney
--1 O_;-- --------I~--------- -21_0 -------~;~~-----------
- -----i_-------------------- - - - - ----r----------------
------
Relative humidity (%)
----Wind speed range (m/s)
-
88
i 76
87
I 78
- -- ------------ ----r--------------------f------- ---------r-·----- -- 1_5
! 1.0
1_0
~.5
---.---~---------.-----.-.-.
------- - ---.. --..-+-..------.--..- . .--. ------·------·----1
Dew presence (YIN)
N
; N
N
_________._________.__________________________________.____ .1______.______.____________________
Temperature of soil - 2-5 cm (OC)
!I 8.0
7.0
1
---------
N
i - --
-
---j
- _ _ _ _
!I 7.0
8.0
------r ------------Wetness of soil - 2-5 cm
WET
i DRY
DRY
I DRY
- - - - - - - - - - - -.. ------------.---- -------------·-----------r----------------- -----------+----------------Cloud cover (%)
70
I 60
05
I 62
--~-·----------r-----·-----------
Table 5 - Crop Stage at Each Application
-
S08-01365-01
S08-01365-02
__
~:~l5;:: ~--=-~~-= =~_I-~~=== ~ ~BC~
;BCH
Stage Majority
14
116
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------~
Mi~~~um
Sta_ge
Stage Maximum
____________
15
----
119
-----------~--------------
~_3__________~~-~------------ ~_4 ---.-----W-~-----------
15
i 17
,
16
120
!
-
1Version 1 Page 9 of 28
S08-01365
Table 6 - Application Equipment
508-01365-02
508-01365-01
Application Timing
A
'
Application equipment
!B
A
B
i PLOT
PLOT
PLOT
SPRAYER
SPRAYER
3.8
3.8
LD015F110
. .........--_ ... -...... -........ -.,.. .... ...... ,- ...........- ..................... __ .- ..
~.
PLOT
SPRAYER
I SPRAYER
Nozzle type
LURMARK
! 3.8 BAR
! LURMARK
Nozzle size
LD015F110
: LD015F110
Nozzle pressure
3.8
BAR
..... ·-··1······· ............ -...... .... ... .. .... . ............... -. .........-............
BAR
BAR
.......... - ................................................................- j •........•....................••.....•..... !......................... " .................•• _.
LURMARK
LURMARK
.................................................
........................................................ '......... '.'.' ........... '.. ....... ....... ................................ --..................................................... --·1··· ........................... -. -......... .
LD015F110
i 50 CM
.... _.. _................•...
..~?~~.~. :~.~.~~~.~.:.~~.i.~._ ............._.._.....................~.?._.~~. . . _. _. . . . +..~.?.. . .~.~. . . . . . . . . . __. 50 CM
..~.?~~~.~.~.~.~?":'_.............................._................._......~. . . ---.............---.. . . . t. .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _1 ..6...........................................6...................... . ........
Boom Length, unit
300 CM
! 300
Boom Height, unit
35 CM
: 35 CM
CM
300 CM
300 CM
......................................................... _.................... ...... ........._._ ...........- --......... ~ .........................................j ....... ........ ....•.. ...•. ..... ;........................................ j
35 CM
.................' ..'." ...... --..... ............ ....... ....... .. ......... ....... ....... ........................................f··· .. ·· ................................. f--··· .• ........... .. ............. ...
..~r.?~.~.~. .~.~.~.:~.:.~.~.i.t............. __...................... ... ~..:.?~/.S.......................!. . ~. :.?....~~~.................. . . . . . 1.0 m/s
. ~.~.~i.~r.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . .'~'!~T~~. . . __. . . . ..!.. ~~T~.~. . . . . . . . . . . . f•.W........A....T_..E....R.....................
Application volume
200
LlHA
Propellant
COMP AIR
: 200
LlHA
............................................................................................................................................. --...... +.....................................
I COMP AIR
200
UHA
35 CM
:..........................................
1.0 m/s
W_...A
..T
....E
.....R
..........................l
UHA
!._ ..
200
j ................................................:................................ ··..·· .. ·... ··...... ·1
COMP AIR
COMP AIR
-
S08-01365
6.
Version 1 Page 10 of 28
Evaluations
Observations were made for application problems associated with product formulations and the evaluation
types given below were followed . Details of methodology are included in the Results Section .. Description
and details of evaluation are presented in the tables below
Table 7 - Evaluation descriptions
Evaluation Description
Evaluation
!
No.
1
Phyotoxicity as % of total leaf area affected by chlorosis and necrosis . Record any other
symptom or plot differences observed using a scale appropriate to symptom.
12
3
Crop vigour on a 0-10 linear scale, where 0 = no crop and 10
=the most vigorous plot
within the trial area
Count the total number of semi circular notches cut into the edge of the newest pair of
leaves per plant on 5 lots of 10 previously marked plants per plot Inspect crop and growth
stages prior to assessment and ensure the same number of leaves is counted per plant
4
Assess the
pe~c.entage
area of each plant with pea and bean weevil damage
Special Requirements
•
Record any observed effect on the incidence of other pests or other non-target organisms .
-
-- --S08-01365
Version 1 Page 11 of 28
Table 8 - Evaluation details
Trial no.
S08-01365-01
Evaluation
Evaluation
a
date
Timing
02 May 2008
0 DAM
03 May 2008
1 DAM
Crop growth
Untreated crop
stage (BBCH)
ground cover (%)
· .
•• ••
·· ..
14
40
Evaluation type
--Leaf notching
··06··M-~~··;008····- ··~···DAAA·····-·····
··.············_·-.f·_·······_···· . · ·_· · · -
.................. _.... _.............................................................-.-.
..................................................... ...........................
................ _..
. . ~.~. ~.~y.???..~_ . . . . .!.. .~~. . . . . . . . .II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
. . . . . . _. . _. . . _ _
13 May 2008
...........
S08-01365-02
-~---
1 OMS
...... - ...............-.........................................................................---........... ... _..................... .
16 May 2008
4 OMS
09 May 2008
o DAM
10 May 2008
1 DAM
.........................................................................................................................-_.. _............... -.....................................................--....
13 May 2008
4 DAM.
•
..........................................- .............. _................ _... _............... _.... _... _........ _.. -...............
..........................................................
16 May 2008
7 DAM.
•
......................................... ............................................_.........................................................................................................................
21 May 2008
1 OMS.
•
... _........... _........ _....... _... __ ...... -... -- ..-.......
.. _...... _--_., ......... __ ......................................_................... _.........................
_
......... _-_ .................
_-
--.--~.-.--
. . ~.~. .~~y. ~??..~. . . . . .?. .~~.~...................................._. _............................._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
29 May 2008
a
OM - days after application
9 OMS
•
•
-
-S08-01365
7.
Version 1 Page 12 of 28
Statistical Analysis
For all data, the homogeneity of variance was tested by Bartlett's Test. If this test indicated no homogeneity
of variance the transformed values were used for analysis of variance, If still no homogeneity of variance
was obtained by the transformation the statistical analysis should be treated with caution, If no homogeneity
on a data column is observed this is indicated with a • in the results tables,
Assessment data were then analysed using a two-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) on untransformed and
transformed data,
The probability of no significant differences occurring between treatment means is
calculated as the F probability value (p(F)),
A mean comparison test was only performed when the treatment probability of F that is calculated during
analysis of variance was significant at the observed significance level specified for the mean comparison
test. The mean separation letter "a" is assigned to each treatment mean in an assessment data column
when a non-significant treatment P(F) is detected ,
Student Newman-Keuls' multiple comparison test was applied to separate any treatment differences that
may be implied by the ANOVA TEST and these are indicated by a letter test; treatment means with no letters
in common are significantly different according to the test initiated at the 95% confidence level.
Where data have been transformed, treatment means in the report are presented in their detransformed
state. with the appropriate letter test and mean descriptions (LSD and Standard Deviation; indicated by the
letter "t" ) derived from the transformed ANOV A.
Analysis details included in the result tables of the report are: co-efficient of variation (CV), least significant
difference (LSD). F probability for treatments (p(F)), and data type (indicates transformation type if
appropriate), Where a transformation has been carried out this is indicated in the table as follows; TA ARCSIN(SQR(XJ100)). TS - SQR(X + 0,5). TL - LOG(X + 1).
-
S08-01365
8.
Results
8.1
Formulations
Version 1 Page 13 of 28
Observations were made of ease of mixing of the formulations and for any conspicuous problems associated
with nozzle blockages or uneven spray pattern during mixing and application
No problems were encountered during mixing or application of any of the product formulations under test
8.2
ARM Code Descriptions
Table 9 - ARM Code Descriptions
Rating
Part Rated
Code
Description
HOLE
f---
Hole
- - - - - - - -..-----..- . - --
-
PLANT
Rating Data Type
DAMINS
..
~-.----.-.-------.---
PHYGEN
.-.. _-"--_ ..._-------_._------
-
VIGOUR
ARM Action Code
-.----..----..
Plant / Plant Biomass
---~---.-
...
Damage - Insect
_._---_ ..•. _---------_. __._._--------Phytotoxicity - General
- t-. - . - - . - .Vigour
-..- - - - - -..
APC
Actual Percent Control
TSS[n]
Sum of subsamples per plot
_._-_. __._---------- . _ - - - - - - -- _.
THT[n]
----_._._--.----------_.---C
-_... -.
P
._--
.._ -
--
,--,-
__.j--- _ .__. _ - - - - - - - - _ .__.._ - - - _ . Henderson Tilton Transformation
.._.. _.. _-.-._----------------Rating Scale 0-10
....
_ ----_._._ _._--
Rating Scale 0-100 / Percent
-
S08-01365
8.3
Version 1 Page 14 of 28
Crop Safety
No phytotoxic symptoms were observed on either the trials at any of the assessment timings.
8.4
Crop Vigour
No differences in crop vigour were observed on either of the trials at any of the assessment timings.
8.5
Pea and bean weevil Control
Summaries of the mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot are presented from Table 10
Summaries of the % area of each plant with pea and bean weevil damage are presented from Table 12
-
S08-01365
Version 1 Page 15 of 28
Table 10 - Mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot. 508-01365-01
,
~-
Pest Type
Pest Code
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Description
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After First/Last Applic.
Trt-Evallnterval
Plant-Eva I Interval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals
Trt Treatment
Rate
No. Name
Rate Unit
Untreated
1
II Insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
Pre-app Total
PLANT P
215108
DAMINS
NUMBER
1
14
BBCH
40 PERCENT
0 0
o DA-A
36 DP-1
TSS[1J
2
... _-
- -_.-
: I Insect
I Insect
I SITNLI
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil Pea & bean weev il
PIBSA
PIBSA
BVPU
BVPU
Field pea
Field pea
Kahuna
Kahuna
I Insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevi l
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
HOLE P
3/5/08
DAMINS
NUMBER
1
14
BBCH
40 PERCENT
1 1
1 DA-A
37 DP-1
TSS[7JAPC
2
HOLE P
9/5/08
DAMINS
NUMBER
1
14
BBCH
45 PERCENT
7 7
7 DA-A
43 DP-1
TSS[17)APC
2
HOLE P
6/5/08
DAMINS
NUMBER
1
14
BBCH
40 PERCENT
4 4
4 DA-A
40 DP-1
TSS[11)APC
2
I
I
I
I
I
Appl
Code
69.00
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
59.75
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
65.25
4
75 .0
ML-G/HA A-B
74.25
5
75 .0
ML-G/HA A-B
64 .75
LSD (P=.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
17.248
11.194
16.81
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
19.868
0.0001
0.929
0.4792
a 90 .25
1(O.O%)
a 112.75
(-24 .9%)
a 86.75
1(3 .9%)
a 117.25
(-29.9%)
a 123.25
1(-36.6%)
24 .975
16.209
15.28
a 111.00
(0.0%)
a 97.25
(12.4%)
a 102.00
i 8.W~
a 97 .75
(11 .9%)
a 107.75
(2 .9%)
34 .063
22 .108
21.43
3.881
0.0376
4.142
0.0246
0.512
0.6813
0.303
0.8704
a 139.75
(OO%)
a 88.75
(36.5%)
a 95.00
j32.0%)
a 86.00
(38.5%)
a 88.75
(36.5%)
30.662
19.900
19.97
a
-
b
b
b
b
0.216
0.8837
5.186
0.0116
Means followed by same leiter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
I
808-01365
Version 1 Page 16 of 28
Table 10 - (Continued) Mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot, 508-01365-01
Pest Type
Pest Code
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After First/Last Applic.
Trt-Evallnterval
Plant-Evallnterval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals
Rate
Trt Treatment
No. Name
Rate Unit
1
Untreated
I I nsect
SITNLI
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
PIBSA
BVPU
I BVPU
Field pea
i Field pea
Kahuna
Kahuna
HOLE P
HOLE P
13/5/08
16/5/08
DAMINS
I DAMINS
NUMBER
NUMBER
1
1
16
17
BBCH
BBCH
45 PERCENT
50 PERCENT
11 1
14 4
1 DA-B
4 DA-B
47 DP-1
50 DP-1
TSS[23] APC
TSS[29]APC
.2
2
I
--
Appl
Code
LSD (P-.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
358.50
, (0.0%)
1141.00
(60.7%)
207.00
(423%)
134.75
(62.4%)
225.25
, (37.2%)
' 125.794
81.643
38.28
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
10.2219
4.900
0.0142
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
4
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
5
75.0
- - - -,
11Insect
ML-G/HA A-B
1.690
a
-
196.25
(0.0%)
b
9975
(49.2%)
ab 101.25
(48.4%)
b
99.25
(49.4%)
ab 94.25
(52.0%)
25.902
16.811
14.23
a
b
-~
b
b
0.404
0.7528
27.078
0.0001
Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
Version 1 Page 17 of 28
S08-01365
Table 11 - Mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot, 508-01365-02
r;::------.--.
Pest Type
Pest Code
- --
-. --.
I Insect
SITNLI
Pea and bean
weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT C
9/5/08
DAM INS
NUMBER
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
15
BBCH
45 PERCENT
0 0
o DA-A
TSS[11
2
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Sample Size
Sample Size Unit
Collection Basis
Collection Basis Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After FirsVLast Applic.
Trt-Evallnterval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals
Rate
Trt Treatment
Rate Unit
No. Name
1
Untreated
.- i I Insect
--
SITNLI
! I Insect
ISITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
' Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
HOLE P
1015/08
DAMINS
NUMBER
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
15
BBCH
45 PERCENT
1 1
1 DA-A
TSS[5] APC
2
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
HOLE P
13/5/08
DAMINS
NUMBER
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
16
BBCH
45 PERCENT
4 4
4 DA-A
TSS[11)APC
2
. I Insect
SITNLI
I
I
II
Pea & bean weevil
I
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
HOLE P
16/5/08
DAMINS
NUMBER
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
17
BBCH
50 PERCENT
7 7
7 DA-A
TSS[18]APC
2
Appl
Code
105.75
a
LSD (P=.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
10.293
6.680
6.56
172.50
(0.0%)
175.50
(-1.7%)
157.25
18.8%)
169.75
(1.6%)
161.75
(6.2%)
28.989
18.814
11.24
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
38.332
0.0001
1.329
0.3147
1.238
0.3390
0.656
0.6342
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
97.25
a
3
62 .5
ML-G/HA A-B
102.00
a
4
75.0
ML-G/HA AB
98.75
a
5
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
105.50
a
a 228.50
(0.0%)
a 133.00
(418%)
a 107.00
1(53.2%)
a 121.50
1(468%)
a 110.50
(51.6%)
31.668
20.553
14.67
1.278
0.3262
24.105
0.0001
a 227.25
(0.0%)
b 109.50
(51.8%)
b 97.50
(57 .1%)
b 194 .25
(58.5%)
b 85.25
(62.5%)
25.673
16.663
13.57
a
b
b
b
b
2.318
0.1273
50 .251
0.0001
Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
...
S08-01365
Version 1 Page 18 of 28
Table 11 - (Continued) Mean number of notches on 50 plants per plot, 508-01365-02
- - - - - - -- _
-
Pest Type
Pest Code
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Sample Size
Sample Size Unit
Collection Basis
Collection Basis Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After FirsULast Applic.
Trt-Eval Interval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals
Trt Treatment
Rate
No. Name
Rate Unit
1
Untreated
...
_.
- . -_. -
I Insect
II Insect
SITNLI
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
PIBSA
BVPU
BVPU
Field pea
Field pea
Kahuna
Kahuna
, HOLE P
HOLE P
21/5/08
12615/08
DAMINS
DAMINS
NUMBER
NUMBER
50
50
PLANT
PLANT
1
1
PLOT
PLOT
1
1
19
19
BBCH
BBCH
60 PERCENT
60 PERCENT
12 1
17 6
1 DA-B
6 DA-B
TSS[24]APC
TSS[30]APC
2
2
Appl
Code
LSD (P=.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
233.25
(0.0%)
143.25
(38.6%)
89.75
(61.5%)
97.75
(58.1%)
83.00
(64.4%)
32.812
21.296
16.46
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
3.068
0.0690
34.626
0.0001
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
4
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
5
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
a 204.25
(0.0%)
b 121.25
(40.6%)
c 95.75
(53.1%)
c 107.50
(47.4%)
c 107.00
(47.6%)
28.773
18.674
14.69
a
b
b
b
b
0.322
0.8096
22.245
0.0001
Means fOllowed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
-S08-01365
Version 1 Page 19 of 28
Table 12 - Percentage area of plant with pea and bean weevil damage, 508-01365-01
:-=--
-_
..
_---_._-----
Pest Type
Pest Code
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After First/Last Applic.
Trt-Eval Interval
Plant-Evallnterval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals·
Trt Treatment
Rate
No. Name
Rate Unit
1
Untreated
II Insect
: I Insect
SITNLI
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
PIBSA
BVPU
BVPU
Field pea
Field pea
Kahuna
Kahuna
PLANT P
PLANT P
3/5/08
6/5/08
DAMINS
DAMINS
%
%
1
1
14
14
BBCH
BBCH
40 PERCENT
40 PERCENT
1 1
4 4
1 DA-A
4 DA-A
40 DP-1
37 DP-1
TSS[5] APC
1
APC
2
~SS[13]
I Insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT P
9/5/08
DAMINS
%
1
14
BBCH
45 PERCENT
7 7
7 DA-A
43 DP-1
TSS[19]APC
2
-
--"- .. --I Insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT P
1315/08
DAMINS
%
1
16
BBCH
45 PERCENT
11 1
1 DA-B
47 DP-1
TSS[25] APC
2
Appl
Code
109.00
1.0 .0%1.
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
4
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
5
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
LSD (P=.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
111.25
(-2.1%)
73.50
{32.6%)
94.25
(13.5%)
128.75
(-18.1%)
48.682
31.596
30.57
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
0.013
0.9980
1.716
0.2109
a 73.50
(0.0%)
a ' 57.00
(22.4%)
a 80.00
(-8.8%)
a 66.00
(10.2%)
a 78.75
1(-7.1%)
19.921
12.929
18.2
a 109.50
(0.0%)
a 86.25
(21.2%)
a 93.50
(14.6%)
a 76.75
.(29.9%)
a 75.50
(31.1%)
23.974
15.559
17.62
0.291
0.8314
2 203
.
1
0.1301
0.489
0.6961
3.213
0.0520
a 190.50
(0.0%)
a 123.75
(35.0%)
a 137.50
(27.8%)
a 118.50
(37.8%)
a 123.50
(35.2%)
55.662
36.125
26.04
a.
a
a
a
a
1.312
0.3159
2.718
0.0803
Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
S08-01365
Version 1 Page 20 of 28
Table 12 - (Continued) Percentage area of plant with pea and bean weevil damage, S08-01365-01
Pest Type
Pest Code
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After FirsULast Applic.
Trt-Evallnterval
Plant-Eva I Interval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals
Trt Treatment
Rate
No . Name
Rate Unit
1
Untreated
--
"
.- - ' . -_. - ." , . - ....
I Insect
'
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT P
16/5/08
DAMINS
%
1
17
BBCH
50 PERCENT
14 4
4 DA-B
50 DP-1
TSS[31)APC
2
Appl
Code
LSD (P=.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
123.50
(0.0%)
69.25
(43.9%)
71 .75
(41.9%)
7200
(41.7%)
72.00
(41.7%)
14.456
9.382
11 .48
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
1.122
0.3790
24.873
0.0001
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
4
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
5
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
a
.-
b
b
b
b
Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
._,
S08-01365
Version 1 Page 21 of 28
Table 13 - Percentage area of plant with pea and bean weevil damage, S08-01365-02
. --.-
Pest Type
i Pest Code
Pest Name
Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Sample Size
Sample Size Unit
Collection Basis
Collection Basis Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After FirsULast Applic.
Trt-Evallnterval
ARM Action Codes
Number of DecimalS
Trt Treatment
Rate
Rate Unit
No. Name
1
Untreated
I
-
-
---
Tf-insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT P
10/5/08
DAMINS
%
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
15
BBCH
45 PERCENT
1
1
1 DA-A
APC TSS[7J
2
_.. --_._.-
I Insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT P
13/5/08
DAMINS
%
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
16
BBCH
45 PERCENT
4 4
4 DA-A
APC TSS[13)
2
.- -,
I I InseCtI Insect
I SITNLI
SITNLI
Pea & bean weevil Pea & bean weevil
PIBSA
: PIBSA
BVPU
BVPU
Field pea
Field pea
Kahuna
Kahuna
PLANT P
PLANT P
16/5/08
21/5/08
DAMINS
DAMINS
%
%
50
50
PLANT
PLANT
1
1
PLOT
PLOT
1
1
17
19
BBCH
BBCH
60 PERCENT
50 PERCENT
7
7
12 1
7DA-A
1 DA-B
TSS(26) APC
TSS[20J APC
2
2
!
Appl
Code
LSD (P-.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
207.25
(0.0%)
225.00
(-8.6%)
202.25
(24%)
202.75
(2.2%)
202.25
(24%)
51.345
33.324
16.03
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F}
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F}
0.288
0.8329
0.345
0.8424
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
4
75.0
ML-G/HA AB
5
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
a 169.25
(0.0%)
a 102.75
(39.3%)
a 75.00
(55.7%)
a 88.00
(48.0%)
a 75.50
(554%)
35.155
22.816
22.35
a 154.50
JO.O%)
b 85.00
(45.0%)
b 74.75
(51.6%)
b 68.75
(55.5%)
b 68.00
(56.0%)
21.134
13.716
15.21
0.823
0.5060
11.814
0.0004
0.501
0.6886
28.453
0.0001
a 161.00
(0.0%)
b 105.25
(34.6%)
b 82.25
1(48.9%)
b 89.00
1(44.7%)
b 176.25
1(52.6%)
24.912
16.168
15.74
a
b
b
b
b
1.800
0.2008
18.021
0.0001
Means followed by same leiter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
Version 1 Page 22 of 28
S08-01365
Table 13- (Continued) Percentage area of plant with pea and bean weevil damage, S08-01365-02
-.- - -
IPest
Type
Pest Code
I Insect
SITNLI
Pea & bean' weevil
PIBSA
BVPU
Field pea
Kahuna
PLANT P
26/5/08
DAMINS
%
50
PLANT
1
PLOT
1
19
BBCH
60 PERCENT
17 6
6 DA-B
TSS[32)APC
2
Pest Name
I Crop Code
BBCH Scale
Crop Name
Crop Variety
Part Rated
Rating Date
Rating Data Type
Rating Unit
Sample Size
Sample Size Unit
Collection Basis
Collection Basis Unit
Number of Subsamples
Crop Stage
Crop Stage Scale
Crop Density, Unit
Days After FirsVLast Applic.
Trt-Evallnterval
ARM Action Codes
Number of Decimals
Trt Treatment
Rate
No. Name
Rate Unit
1
Untreated
Appl
Code
LSD (P=.05)
Standard Deviation
CV
119.75
(0.0%)
78.50
(34.4%)
73.50
(38.6%)
76.00
1(36.5%)
73.00
1(39.0%)
16.222
10.529
12.51
Replicate F
Replicate Prob(F)
Treatment F
Treatment Prob(F)
0.621
0.6147
14.465
0.0002
2
37.5
ML-G/HA A-B
3
62.5
ML-G/HA A-B
4
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
5
75.0
ML-G/HA A-B
a
b
b
b
b
Means followed by same letter do not Significantly differ (P=.05, Student-Newman-Keuls)
-
S08-01365
9.
Discussion
9.1
Formulations
Version 1 Page 23 of 28
No problems were encountered during mixing or application of any of the product formulations under test.
9.2
Crop Safety
No phytotoxic symptoms were observed on either of the trials at any of the assessment timings.
9.3
Crop Vigour
No differences in crop vigour were observed on either of the trials at any of the assessment timings.
9.4
Pea and Bean Weevil Control
Weather conditions in May were moderately conducive for pea and bean weevil activity with temperatures
above the long term average, but slightly higher than average rainfall. Low levels of damage were found at
both trials with between 1 and 2 notches per plant pre application .
At trial S08-01365-01, few differences in control were observed between any of the treatments and the
untreated until 7 days after application A, when all the treatments achieved a significant reduction in
notching. The _
treatments achieved control comparable to, if not slightly better than that of the
standard product
No dose response was observed between the three rates of _ a t
any of the assessment timings.
At trial S08-01365-02, all treatments achieved a significant reduction in notching compared to the untreated.
_applied at the higher rates of 62.5ml productlha and 75.0ml productlha showed control of pea and
weevil comparable to that a
A dose response was apparent with _
with the lower
rate being Significantly less effective than the 62 .5mllha and 75ml/ha rates at the 1 day after Application B
assessment.
-
Version 1 Page 24 of 28
S08-01365
Appendix A - Meteorological Data
Trial S08-01365-01
Location of the weather station
Sutton Bonnington
Distance to the trial site
23.2km
Origin of the weather data
The Meteorological Office
Long-term averages from 1971-2000
. Month/period
May
Av temp (0C)
Min temp (0C)
Max temp (0C)
Rainfall (mm)
11.1
6.3
15.8
42.4
Average conditions during the trial
Month/period
Av temp (0C)
Min temp (0C)
Max temp (0C)
Rainfall (mm)
May 08
12.9
8.0
17.8
46.0
Trial S08-01365-02
Location of the weather station
Sutton Bonnington
Distance to the trial site
19.8km
Origin of the weather data
The Meteorological Office
l
Long-term averages from 1971-2000
Month/period
Av temp (0C)
Min temp (0C)
Max temp (0C)
Rainfall (mm)
May
11 .1
6.3
15.8
42 .4
Average conditions during the trial
Month/period
Av temp (0C)
Min temp (0C)
Max temp (0C)
Rainfall (mm)
May 08
12.9
8.0
17.8
46.0
-
S08-01365
Version 1 Page 25 of 28
Appendix B - Agronomic Details
Trial S08-01365-01
I Crop
Peas
Cultivar
Planting/sowing date
Sowing rate or row width (cm)
Kahuna
27 Mar 2008
250 kg/ha
Active ingredient(s) / fertiliser(s) applied to the trial area
betazone, isoxaben + terbuthylazine, azoxystrobin, MCPB, chlorothalonil
Date
Type of irrigation
Volume (mm)
None applied
Soil cultivation
Ploughed, Power harrowed, Drilled, Rolled
I Previous Crops
Year
12007
Crop
Active ingredient(s) I fertiliser(s) applied to the trial area
Not advised
Not advised
Trial S08-01365-02
Crop
Cultivar
Planting/sowing date
Sowing rate or row width (cm)
Peas
Kahuna
05 Apr 2008
250 kg/ha
Active ingredient(s) / fertiliser(s) applied to the trial area
betazone, isoxaben + terbuthylazine, azoxystrobin, MCPB, chlorothalonil
Date
I Type of irrigation
Volume (mm)
None applied
Soil cultivation
Ploughed, Power harrowed, Drilled, Rolled
Previous Crops
Year
Crop
Active ingredient(s) / fertiliser(s) applied to the trial area
2007
Not advised
Not advised
-
Version 1 Page 26 of 28
S08-01365
Appendix C - Copy of the Certificate of Official Recognition of Efficacy Testing
Facilities or Organisations
•
Certificate of
Official Recognition of Efficacy Testing Facilities
or Organisations in the I,Jnited Kingdom
com"plies with the minimum standards laid down in
Commission Directive 93n1IEEC for efficacy testing. "
The above Facility/Organisation has been officially
recognised as being competent to carry out effi~acy trlals/tests
" in the United Kingdom in the following categories:
Biologicals and Semiochemicals
Vertebrate-Control
Stored Crops
Agricu Iture/Horticulture
Da~e of issue:
Effective date:
Expiry date:
" 17 December 2007
1 January 2008
31 December 2012
Certification Number
Signature
an Executive Agency of DEFRA
ORET
Ell
Department of
Agriculture and
Rural Development
ORET 3 (Rev 5107)
-
Version 1 Page 27 of 28
S08-01365
Appendix D - OECD trial summary table
Summary of the data and results of the efficacy trials:
Type of trial:
Efficacy
Product:
Crop:
Combining peas
Insect
Sitona lineatus
Report
GEP [
(1)
Trial Site
Year
Trial design
Cultivar,
(5),
Dates &
F/G (3),
GS (2)
N.replicates,
NlA (4)
EPPO
Mean number of notches on 50
plants/plot (% efficacy)
Application data
Active ingredient
(7)
Commercial name,%a.i.
and
formulation
g ai/hi,
g ailha,
(kg pf/hl) (kg pf/ha)
IIha
water
N.appl.
dd (8)
Control
8080136501
2008
Y
02May
Randomize
Kahuna
16May
d blocks.
F
8wepstone
2008
4 Rep
N
Leics
BBCH
EPPO
UK
14-17
PP1/60,
6.251
62.5
7.51
75.0
7.51
.- .. _- ... _-- - - -
75.0
10MB
70AM
Notes (10)
40MB
139.75
a
358.50
a
196.25 a
200
2appl.
10dd
88.75
(36.5)
b
141.00
(60.7)
b
99.75
(49.2)
b
200
2appl.
10dd
95.00
(32.0)
b
141.00
ab
(60.7)
99.75
(49.2)
b
2appl.
10dd
86.00
(38.5)
b
49.4
b
2appl.
10dd
88.75
(36.5)
b
62.4
b
207.00
a
(42.3)
101.25 b
(48.4)
-
Version 1 Page 28 of 28
S08-01365
Summary of the data and results of the efficacy trials:
Type of trial :
Efficacy
Ijiiiiii====~==========~
Product:
~
-
Crop:
Combining peas
Insect
Sitona lineatus
Report
e--- ---j
GEP
(1)
Year
Tria I Site
------------------------.
--------------
- --
Application data
Trial design
Dates & ~~~iV(~),
(5),
I------------ r.ni;;;m;;;:T:iI:;;;;;nP1v;;;-i--:I I ---"I
T
name,
GS (2)
, N.replicates, I T
g ai/hi,
g ai/ha,
N/A (4)
EPPO
(6)
Product (7)
and
(kg pf/hl) (kg pf/ha)
formulation
-
-- -
Mean number of notches on 50
plants/plot (% efficacy)
S080136502
2008
y
09May Kahuna
F
Measham, 29MAy
2008
N
Leics
BBCH
UK
15-19
N: tes
. .
I/ha
water
N.appl.
dd (8)
7DAAA
227.25
3.751
37.5
- .- ..
a
1DAAB
6DAAB
233.25 a
204.25 a
--_
....
(-1-~)
i
200
2appl.
11dd
200
2appl.
11 dd
97 .50
(57 .1)
b
61 .5
c
200
2appl.
11dd
94 .25
(58.5)
b
89.75
(61 .5)
c : (53.1) b !
200
2appl.
11dd
85 .25
(62 .5)
b
64.4
c : 47.6
109.50
143.25 b 121.25
b
b
(38.6)
(51.8)
(40.6)
Randomize ~+_----------4_----------------~----+_----_+----4_----~--------_+------_+------~--- ----
d bl
k
oc s.
4 Rep
EPPO
PP1/60,
6 .251
62.5
7 .51
75 .0
7 .51
75.0
53.1
b
, 95.75
:,
b
-
I
__ . - II