| |
| Web URL(s): | https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/25/1/G13/110927/EVALUATION-OF-MOLE-CRICKET-CONTROL-FOLLOWING
Last checked: 02/17/2017
Requires: PDF Reader
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, NC |
|---|
| Title: | Evaluation of mole cricket control following nematicide applications to turfgrass, 1999 |
|---|
| Section: | Reports: Ornamentals
Other records with the "Reports: Ornamentals" Section
|
|---|
| Source: | Arthropod Management Tests. Vol. 25, 2000, p. 354. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Annapolis, MD: Entomological Society of America |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Mole cricket control; Insecticide evaluation; Pest density; Application rates; Golf fairways; Cynodon dactylon; Scapteriscus vicinus; Scapteriscus borellii; Nematicides; Insecticides; Insect control; Tridiphane; Fenamiphos
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "The control of turfgrass damage caused by mole cricket nymphs was evaluated as part of a field trial to evaluate the performance of two nematicides. Plots 21. 100 ft were established on a bermudagrass fairway infested by both plant-parasitic nematodes and mole crickets at the Pine Valley Golf Club in Wilmington, NC. Treatments were replicated four times and randomly assigned to the plots in a RCBD. Nematicides were applied on two dates (14, 19 Jul) during the period when the mole cricket population was in the late hatch / early instar phase. The 4-inch soil temp on each date was 79°F and 88°F, respectively. Air temp was 71°F and 84°F, respectively. All subsurface treatments were applied on the morning of 3 Jul to soil moist from recent rains. Subsurface treatments of Curfew nematicide (94% 1, 3-dichloropropene) were applied using a self-propelled subsurface injector (custom built by Tinemasters Industries, Lakeland, FL) which uses injector shanks to slice the turf and inject the liquid fumigant 6 inches deep in the soil. The equipment check treatment was performed in the same manner as the other subsurface treatments, but without the application of nematicides. Equipment speed was approximately 3 mph. Surface applications of the nematicide Nemacur 10G (fenamiphos) were applied on 19 Jul (6 DAT) using a Scotts Easy^D]T^D]M hand-held granualar spreader. The fairway irrigation system was used to apply 0.25 inch of water to the test site following application at each date, and the site received 2.1 inches of rainfall the night following the Curfew application. Soil at the site was classified as a sandy loam with a pH of 6.3 and 0.71% humic matter. Species composition at the site was determined by soapy water flush sampling as 80.9% TMC and 19.1% SMC. Plots were evaluated for fresh damage on 27 Jul and 10, 24, Aug using the damage grid method of Mack and Cobb (1989). A 1m² grid divided into nine subsections was placed in each plot and a damage rating (0-9) was given based on the number of subsections in which fresh damage was observed. Ten damage ratings were taken in each plot on each sampling date. The actual damage rating means for each sampling date are presented in the Table. All data were transformed (square root of X+0.5) prior to ANOVA and mean separation by Tukey's Studentized Range Test (HSD). Analysis of damage rating data taken on 27 Jul revealed no significant differences in damages among the nematicide or equipment check treatments; however, only the 3 gpa and 5 gpa treatments of Curfew had damage ratings significantly lower than the untreated check. Evaluation of the plot on 10 Aug revealed no significant differences among the treatments. Analysis of plot data from the evaluation on 24 Aug indicate that there were no significant differences in damage among the nematicide treatments; however all the nematicide treatments had significantly less damage than that observed in the untreated check. At this date, damage observed in the equipment check treatment was not found to be significantly different from that observed in either the Nemacur treatment or the untreated check plots. Phytotoxicity dur to the Curfew application was observed within a few days after treatment. Turf death, occurring in strips along the injection lines in a pattern 0.5 to 1.0 inch wide, and centered on the injection slits was noted at 6 DAT. At 14 DAT the injector lines were still visible in all the injector treatments, but the dead grass along the injection lines was almost completely replaced by new growth. At this date the injection lines in the equipment check plots and 3 gal/acre rate of Curfew were almost identical. The injection lines in the 5 gal/acre rate plots of Curfew were slightly less healed then those observed in the other treatments. At 28 DAT the injector lines in all treatments were completely healed." |
|---|
| 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. 2000. Evaluation of mole cricket control following nematicide applications to turfgrass, 1999. Arthropod Manage. Tests. 25:p. 354. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=70115 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 70115. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://academic.oup.com/amt/article/25/1/G13/110927/EVALUATION-OF-MOLE-CRICKET-CONTROL-FOLLOWING
Last checked: 02/17/2017
Requires: PDF Reader
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) |
