Arthropod Management Tests 2014, Vol. 39
doi: 10.4182/amt.2014.G5
(G5)
ROSE: Rosa ‘Belinda’s Dream’ and ‘Caldwell Pink’
FRANKLINIELLA TRITICI (FITCH) CONTROL WITH SEVERAL BIOINSECTICIDES, 2012
O. Milo Lewis
Department of Entomology
Texas A&M University
412 Minnie Belle Heep
TAMU 2475
College Station, TX 77843-2475
Phone: 979-845-6305
Fax: 979.845.6305
Email: [email protected]
Peter C. Krauter
Email: [email protected]
Kevin M. Heinz
Email: [email protected]
Eastern Flower Thrips (EFT): Frankliniella tritici (Fitch)
The objective of the study was to determine the efficacy of bioinsecticide formulations to control EFT infestations of potted
commercial roses. Tests were conducted in the Antique Rose Emporium’s outdoor potted rose nursery in Independence,
TX. There were a total of 12 treatments, defined by trade name and application rate (Tables 1 and 2). There were thirty-six
roses per plot, arranged six roses by six roses placed side by side, each in two gallon liners. Treatments were replicated six
times with four replications in cv. ‘Belinda’s Dream’ and two replications in cv. ‘Caldwell Pink’. Data from the two
cultivars were pooled. To sample for EFT, three fully expanded rose flowers from each plot were arbitrarily removed,
inserted into plastic containers, and placed into cooler for transport to the laboratory. Since plots were side-by-side, rose
flowers that were near the edge of the plot were not selected. Within two days of sample collection, the petals from the
three flowers from each plot were pulled apart and inserted into another plastic container. The plastic container was
vigorously shaken four separate times, after each vigorous shaking, EFT were extracted (via aspiration) into glass alcohol
vials from the container walls until no EFT were found. Immature (larvae and pupae) and adult EFT were counted
separately under a stereomicroscope. A pretreatment census was completed 8 days before making the initial treatment
applications, and treatments designations were assigned using a stratified random process resulting in no statistical
differences in mean thrips densities among treatments. Insecticides were applied using a two-gallon hand pump sprayer
with a flat jet nozzle. Foliage and flowers were sprayed until runoff was achieved. When sampling and spray applications
were made on the same day, sampling preceded spray applications. The minimum, maximum and average daily temperature
sampled at thirty minute intervals during the trial was 5.40, 31.52, and 16.98°C (n=48), respectively, with no unusual
weather events. Application and sampling dates are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. Since raw data were non-normally
distributed (Shapiro-Wilk Test, P < 0.05) and the square root(x) nor the log(x) data transformation resulted in a normalized
distribution of data, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine significance.
The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated no significant differences in mean number of immature and adult EFT per plot when
comparing treatments within sample dates and the overall mean across sample dates, excluding precounts. All funding
receives for the project was provided by the IR-4 Program.
1
Arthropod Management Tests 2014, Vol. 39
doi: 10.4182/amt.2014.G5
Table 1.
Mean number of immature EFT per plot
Name
Rate
A16901B
A16901B
Azaguard
MBI203
1
MBI203
1
MBI206
1
MBI206
1
Proud 3
Avid
Conserve
2
Water
Untreated
6.7 oz/100
gal solution
13.4 oz/100
gal solution
16 fl oz/100
gal solution
2 lb/100 gal
solution
4 lb/100 gal
solution
1 gal/100
gal solution
2 gal/100
gal solution
1 gal/100
gal solution
16 fl oz/100
gal solution
8 fl oz/100
gal solution
-----
Application date
26 Oct, 8 Nov,
26 Nov
26 Oct, 8 Nov,
26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov
26 Oct, 8 Nov,
26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
---
18 Oct
3
4
2 Nov 8 Nov 16 Nov 28 Nov 5 Dec Mean
1.67
6.50
2.33
3.00 10.67
3.00
5.10
2.33
3.67
3.33
2.17
3.67
1.83
2.93
0.50
4.00
1.83
5.00 12.33
3.80
5.45
0.67
3.67
3.17
4.50
8.67
3.67
4.73
0.17
6.17
3.67
3.67
8.83
2.00
4.87
0.17
5.50
5.00
4.67
7.00
5.00
5.45
1.00
5.67
10.00
7.83
4.83
2.83
6.23
1.67
4.67
2.83
2.50
8.50
1.17
3.93
0.83
3.67
3.50
3.33
5.50
3.83
3.97
0.33
1.67
2.83
2.83
7.17
3.50
3.60
0.50 10.50
5.17
3.67
3.17
2.33
4.97
0.83
3.33
4.33 12.17
3.80
5.34
2.83
1
2
3
4
Hyper-Active spray adjuvant used at 2 pt/100 gal solution. Grower’s tap water. Precount. Mean
across weeks, excluding 18 Oct. No significant differences were found within columns (Kruskal-Wallis
Test, P < 0.05).
Table 2.
Mean number of adult EFT per plot
Name
Rate
A16901B 6.7 oz/100 gal
solution
A16901B 13.4 oz/100
gal solution
Azaguard 16 fl oz/100
gal solution
1
2 lb/100
MBI203
gal solution
1
4 lb/100
MBI203
gal solution
1
1 gal/100
MBI206
gal solution
1
2 gal/100
MBI206
gal solution
Proud 3
1 gal/100
gal solution
Avid
16 fl oz/100
gal solution
Conserve
8 fl oz/100
gal solution
2
Water
Untreated
1
Application date
26 Oct, 8 Nov,
26 Nov
26 Oct, 8 Nov,
26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov,
16 Nov, 26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov
18 Oct
3
4
2 Nov 8 Nov 16 Nov 28 Nov 5 Dec Mean
19.17 31.50 34.50
47.67
78.83
51.17 46.60
18.17 40.50 37.67
44.83
61.50
44.33 45.03
16.50 23.50 17.17
56.50
64.17
44.20 41.00
17.50 29.17 32.67
66.33
87.67
71.50 55.73
16.83 34.83 43.33
63.67
88.50
55.17 55.33
19.17 31.17 25.50
64.67
54.50
50.00 43.55
16.17 28.67 58.17
59.83
49.67
49.50 48.20
16.50 42.00 35.33
78.33
62.17
46.33 51.13
15.67 27.17 30.83
31.83
58.33
56.67 39.87
26 Oct, 8 Nov,
15.83 40.17 21.50
26 Nov
26 Oct, 2 Nov, 8 Nov, 16.17 45.17 28.67
16 Nov, 26 Nov
--15.67 34.50 35.83
39.17
63.50
85.17 48.47
37.67
74.00
87.33 53.93
38.33
79.83
65.20 47.72
2
3
4
Hyper-Active spray adjuvant used at 2 pt/100 gal solution. Grower's tap water. Precount. Mean across
weeks, excluding 18 Oct. No significant differences were found within columns (Kruskal-Wallis
Test, P < 0.05).
2