Arthropod Management Tests 2009, Vol. 34
doi: 10.4182/amt.2009.E47
(E47)
BELL PEPPER: Capsicum annuum L. ‘Aristotle’
PEPPER WEEVIL CONTROL ON BELL PEPPER, SPRING 2008
David J. Schuster
Gulf Coast Res. & Educ. Ctr.
14625 CR 672
Wimauma, FL 33598
Phone: 813-633-4124
Fax: 813-634-0001
E-mail: [email protected]
Steve Kalb
E-mail: [email protected]
Aaron Shurtleff
E-mail: [email protected]
Pepper Weevil (PW): Anthonomus eugenii Cano
The report summarizes ongoing research to screen new materials for control of the PW. Transplants were set 24 Mar, 12
inches apart on 8-inch-high and 32-inch-wide beds of Myakka fine sand covered with white polyethylene mulch. Each plot
consisted of three rows of 20 plants each with plots spaced 12 ft end to end and with rows spaced 5 ft apart. Treatments
were replicated four times in a RCB block design. Drip applications were made through a single drip tube per row with
0.25gal/h (10 psi) emitters spaced 12 inches apart. Applications were made at 10 psi at a rate of 520 gpa, and the drip
system was then flushed with another 1360 gpa. Foliar treatments were applied with a high clearance, self-propelled sprayer
operated at 200 psi and 3.4 mph. The sprayer was fitted with four Albuz orange nozzles per row and delivered 60 gpa. Fruit
were harvested from 10 plants in the middle row of each plot on 27 May and 9 June and the number of non-infested fruit
and the number of fruit infested by the PW were determined. Fruit that had dropped from the same 10 plants were
recovered from the plastic under the plants. Damaged and dropped fruit were totaled for each plot. Percentage data were
transformed arcsine of the square root of the proportion prior to analyses. All data were analyzed with ANOVA and the
LSD was used for comparisons of means.
The PW population was heavy for a spring crop, with about 61% of the fruit infested (damaged plus dropped) in the nonsprayed control (Table 4). No treatment resulted in more non-infested fruit compared to the check for either harvest (Tables
2 & 3) or for when the harvests were combined (Table 4). No treatment resulted in fewer damaged fruit compared to the
check on 27 May (Table 2). On 9 Jun the Actara, Cobalt, Leverage and Lorsban treatments resulted in fewer damaged fruit
compared to the check, although the percentage of damaged fruit was not significantly reduced (Table 3). These same
treatments plus Radiant alone also resulted in fewer damaged fruit when the harvests were combined (Table 4). These same
treatments, with the exception of Leverage, also yielded a lower percentage of damaged fruit compared to the check (Table
4). No foliar symptoms of phytotoxicity were observed in the treatments.
1
Arthropod Management Tests 2009, Vol. 34
doi: 10.4182/amt.2009.E47
Table 1
Date of Drip Application
Treatment/
Formulation
Actara 25WG
Alverde 240SC +
Penetrator Plus
Cobalt EC
Coragen 200SC
Leverage 2.7EC +
Induce
Lorsban 75WG
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
alt. Baythroid XL +
Induce
Radiant 120SC
Radiant 120SC +
Dyne-Amic
Rimon 0.83EC
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
Vydate 2L
Rate
(Amount/acre)
8 Apr
3.67 oz
16.0 oz +
0.5% v/v
1.0 qt
5.1 oz
5.1 oz +
0.25% v/v
1.3 lb
5.1 oz +
0.25%
5.1 oz +
0.25%
2.8 oz +
0.25% v/v
10.0 oz
10.0 oz +
0.25% v/v
12.0 oz
2 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt
23 Apr
X
Date of Foliar Application
1 May
7 May
12 May
19 May
2 Jun
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 2
Fruit/10 plants – 27 May
Non-damaged fruit
Treatment/
Formulation
Rate
(Amount/acre)
Actara 25WG
Alverde 240SC +
Penetrator Plus
Cobalt EC
Coragen 200SC
Leverage 2.7EC +
Induce
Lorsban 75WG
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
alt. Baythroid XL +
Induce
Radiant 120SC
Radiant 120SC +
Dyne-Amic
Rimon 0.83EC
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
Vydate 2L
Check
LSD P=0.05
3.67 oz
16.0 oz +
0.5% v/v
1.0 qt
5.1 oz
5.1 oz +
0.25% v/v
1.3 lb
5.1 oz +
0.25%
5.1 oz +
0.25%
2.8 oz +
0.25% v/v
10.0 oz
10.0 oz +
0.25% v/v
12.0 oz
2 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt
-----
F14,42
P-value
-----
Damaged fruit
Wt. (lb)
No.
42
11.1
7
15.8 (0.36)
34
35
26
11
10.3
7.6
5
3
14
12.8 (0.31)
7.2 (0.27)
39.8 (0.66)
33
37
9.9
12
10
3
21.8 (0.48)
7.6 (0.27)
37
10.4
10
22.2 (0.48)
32
43
9.2
11.9
5
8
13.9 (0.36)
17.5 (0.40)
33
41
10
11.8
11
5
23.6 (0.46)
9.2 (0.26)
25
7.6
14
34.0 (0.59)
25
21
31
14
7.4
6.6
8.2
4.3
27
13
13
11
52.1 (0.81)
40.4 (0.67)
30.0 (0.51)
25.3 (0.33)
1.42
0.19
2.54
0.01
1.75
0.08
%
a
No.
2.31 (2.02)
0.018 (0.04)
a
Means and statistical values in parentheses are from ANOVAs using data
transformed by the arcsine square root of the proportion of damaged fruit.
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Arthropod Management Tests 2009, Vol. 34
doi: 10.4182/amt.2009.E47
Table 3
Fruit/10 plants – 9 Jun
Non-damaged fruit
Treatment/
Formulation
Rate
(Amount/acre)
Actara 25WG
Alverde 240SC +
Penetrator Plus
Cobalt EC
Coragen 200SC
Leverage 2.7EC +
Induce
Lorsban 75WG
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
alt. Baythroid XL +
Induce
Radiant 120SC
Radiant 120SC +
Dyne-Amic
Rimon 0.83EC
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
Vydate 2L
Check
LSD P=0.05
3.67 oz
16.0 oz +
0.5% v/v
1.0 qt
5.1 oz
5.1 oz +
0.25% v/v
1.3 lb
5.1 oz +
0.25%
5.1 oz +
0.25%
2.8 oz +
0.25% v/v
10.0 oz
10.0 oz +
0.25% v/v
12.0 oz
2 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt
-----
F14,42
P-value
-----
Damaged fruit
No.
%
a
No.
Wt. (lb)
9
3.6
25
69.7 (1.00)
10
9
6
3.6
2.6
2.7
48
20
33
82.5 (1.15)
68.2 (0.98)
84.3 (1.18)
4
5
1.1
1.7
27
22
87.3 (1.21)
80.5 (1.12)
6
2.2
29
81.2 (1.13)
7
6
1.6
2.2
34
28
83.2 (1.17)
82.8 (1.15)
13
8
5.4
2.9
36
48
73.7 (1.05)
81.6 (1.16)
5
2.2
43
90.2 (1.30)
0
5
9
7
0
2
2.7
2.8
41
40
50
23
100.0 (1.57)
91.9 (1.33)
83.4 (1.18)
16.1 (0.21)
1.6
0.12
1.54
0.14
1.47
0.17
2.09 (3.82)
.034 (0.0004)
a
Means and statistical values in parentheses are from ANOVAs using data transformed
by the arcsine square root of the proportion of damaged fruit.
3
Arthropod Management Tests 2009, Vol. 34
doi: 10.4182/amt.2009.E47
Table 4
Fruit/10 plants – Total
Non-damaged fruit
Treatment/
Formulation
Rate
(Amount/acre)
Actara 25WG
Alverde 240SC +
Penetrator Plus
Cobalt EC
Coragen 200SC
Leverage 2.7EC +
Induce
Lorsban 75WG
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
Provado 1.6F +
Induce
alt. Baythroid XL +
Induce
Radiant 120SC
Radiant 120SC +
Dyne-Amic
Rimon 0.83EC
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
QRD 416 +
Dyne-Amic
Vydate 2L
Check
LSD P=0.05
3.67 oz
16.0 oz +
0.5% v/v
1.0 qt
5.1 oz
5.1 oz +
0.25% v/v
1.3 lb
5.1 oz +
0.25%
5.1 oz +
0.25%
2.8 oz +
0.25% v/v
10.0 oz
10.0 oz +
0.25% v/v
12.0 oz
2 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt +
0.25% v/v
1 qt
-----
F14,42
P-value
-----
Damaged fruit
Wt. (lb)
51
14.6
32
38.8 (0.66)
44
44
32
14.6
12.9
10.2
53
23
47
54.5 (0.83)
33.9 (0.62)
61.6 (0.93)
37
42
10.2
13.7
37
25
48.3 (0.77)
35.8 (0.64)
43
12.6
39
47.5 (0.76)
39
50
10.8
14.1
39
36
49.3 (0.78)
42.1 (0.70)
46
49
15.4
14.7
46
52
49.2 (0.78)
45.4 (0.74)
30
9.8
57
64.8 (0.95)
25
26
40
18
7.4
8.5
10.9
5.8
69
53
63
25
71.3 (1.01)
70.3 (1.00)
60.9 (0.90)
18.4 (0.20)
1.85
0.063
1.49
0.156
No.
%
a
No.
2.4
3.46 (3.26)
0.014 0.0009 (0.0015)
a
Means and statistical values in parentheses are from ANOVAs using data transformed
by the arcsine square root of the proportion of damaged fruit.
4