| |
| Web URL(s): | https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/24/1/G26/204699/COMPARISON-OF-SURFACE-AND-SUBSURFACE-APPLICATION
Last checked: 02/17/2017
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Notes: Guide Page |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Author(s): | Hertl, P. T.;
Brandenburg, R. L.;
Xia, Y. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina |
|---|
| Title: | Comparison of surface and subsurface applications of an experimental insecticide for the control of mole cricket nymphs in turf, 1998 |
|---|
| Section: | Ornamentals
Other records with the "Ornamentals" Section
|
|---|
| Source: | Arthropod Management Tests. Vol. 24, 1999, p. 344-345. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Annapolis, MD: Entomological Society of America |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Pest control; Insect control; Mole crickets; Insecticides; Insecticide evaluation; Application rates; Pest density; Formulations; Comparisons; Cynodon dactylon; Scapteriscus borellii; Scapteriscus vicinus; Subsurface application; Experimental products; Application methods; Chlorpyrifos; Imidacloprid; Golf courses; Golf driving ranges
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "A field efficacy trial was performed to evaluate rate and application placement of an experimental insecticide (CGA-293343) for the control of mole cricket nymphs. Plots 16 ft x 85 ft were established on a heavily infested bermudagrass driving range at Oyster Bay Golf Links near Sunset Beach in Bruswick Co., NC. Treatments were replicated four times and randomly assigned to the plots. The timing of application was targeted to coincide with peak hatch for the control of small nymphs. Two of the treatments (Dursban Pro 2E, subsurface applied- and surface-applied Merit 75 WP) were applied on 25 Jun. All subsurface treatments were applied usign a tractor-drawn ToroR Subsurface Liquid Injector delivering a volume of 150 gpa of liquid insecticide mixture at 150 psi. All broadcast applications were applied using a John Deere Turf Gator-mounted research sprayer delievering 23 gpa. The fairway irrigation system was used to apply 0.25 inch of water to the entire test site immediately after application. All other treatments (CGA-293343 25WG) were applied on 28 Jun. Soapy water flush sampling of the test site indicated that the population was approximately 79% MC and 21% TMC. The first evaluation of the plots on 14 Jul involved flushing three separate one mĀ² previously damaged areas of each plot with soapy water and counting the number of nymphs that came to the surface. The average number of nymphs found in each plot is reported in the Table. Plots were evaluated for fresh damage on 21 Jul, and 5, 20 Aug using a 1 mĀ² grid. The grid, divided into nine subsections, was placed randomly in each plot and a damage rating (0-9) was given depending on the number of subsections in which fresh damage was observed (with 0 = no damage and 9 = severe damage). Ten damage ratings were taken in each plot on each sampling date. Actual damage means are presented in the Table. All data were transformed ā(X + 0.5) prior to ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range Test (HSD). Hot, dry conditions prevailed throughout much of the Jul and early Aug evaluation period. Nymph counts from soapy water flushes on 14 Jul were low due to fairly dry surface conditions. Only the subsurface-applied Dursban Pro treatment had significantly less damage than the untreated check. Nymph counts from all other treatments were not found to be significantly different from those in the Dursban Pro treatment of the untreated check. Statistical analysis of grid sampling fresh surface damage on 21 Jul and 5 Aug give identical results on both dates. All the insecticide treated plots had significantly less damage than the untreated check, but no differences in damage were detected among the treatments on these dates. Final damage evaluations (20 Aug) indicated that damage in both the surface-applied Merit 75 WP and the subsurface-applied Dursban Pro treatment had significantly less damage than the untreated check. Damage observed in all the CGA-293343 treatments were not found to be significantly different from that observed in the Merit 75 WP or Dursban Pro treated plots, or in the untreated check. No phytotoxicity was observed." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | Tables |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Hertl, P. T., R. L. Brandenburg, and Y. Xia. 1999. Comparison of surface and subsurface applications of an experimental insecticide for the control of mole cricket nymphs in turf, 1998. Arthropod Manage. Tests. 24:p. 344-345. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=64067 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 64067. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/24/1/G26/204699/COMPARISON-OF-SURFACE-AND-SUBSURFACE-APPLICATION
Last checked: 02/17/2017
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Notes: Guide Page |
| 
MSU catalog number: SB 951 .A1 I48 |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
