Back One Page
Table 1. Effect of neonicotinyl insecticdes applied at a codling moth timing on tetranychid and predatory mites in field trials, 2000-2004.
Insecticide
Rate (g AI/ha)
Horticultural mineral oil (vol:vol)
Year
Loaction block no. a
Application method and volumeb
No. applications season
% ERM in NNc
Total tetranychid mites
Total predatory mites
Mites/leaf
Comparison of means
Mites/leaf
Comparison of means
NN
Std
Ck
NN-Std
NN-Ck
Std-Ck
NN
Std
Ck
NN-Std
NN-Ck
Std-Ck
Acetamiprid 70WP
118
2000
CV 18
A 935
4
6
5.76
0.96
1.04
---
---
---
6.24
4.52
4.44
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
118
2000
CV 18
A 935
4
47
4.56
1.36
1.40
---
---
---
2.92
3.44
1.68
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
78
2000
TF 24
H dilute
4
77
5.84
1.08
0.28
---
---
---
1.28
0.84
1.08
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
118
2000
TF 24
H dilute
4
33
9.44
1.08
0.28
---
---
---
3.76
0.84
1.08
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
78
0.25%
2000
TF 24
H dilute
4
59
3.52
1.08
0.28
---
---
---
3.60
0.84
1.08
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
118
0.25%
2000
TF 24
H dilute
4
61
6.00
1.08
0.28
---
---
---
2.00
0.84
1.08
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
2001
TF 24
A 935
4
17
82.75
2.83
4.41
*
*
ns
0.16
3.10
2.56
*
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
2001
TF 24
H dilute
4
80
34.10
3.90
7.50
---
---
---
0.20
2.60
7.70
---
---
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
84
0.25%
2002
TF 24
H dilute
6
77
3.05
3.25
4.75
ns
ns
ns
0.05
0.10
0.70
ns
*
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
84
0.25%
2002
TF 24
H dilute
4
55
0.55
3.25
4.75
*
*
ns
0.05
0.10
0.70
ns
*
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
84
1.0%
2002
TF 24
H dilute
4
74
4.95
3.25
4.75
ns
ns
ns
0.35
0.10
0.70
ns
ns
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
2002
TF 24
H dilute
4
83
0.60
3.25
4.75
*
*
ns
0.15
0.10
0.70
ns
*
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2002
TF 24
H dilute
4
83
1.80
3.25
4.75
ns
*
ns
0.00
0.10
0.70
ns
*
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
1.0%
2002
TF 24
H dilute
4
98
22.25
3.25
4.75
*
*
ns
0.30
0.10
0.70
ns
*
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
84
2002
TF 24
H dilute
4
40
0.55
3.25
4.75
*
*
ns
0.05
0.10
0.70
ns
*
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2002
CV 18
H dilute
4
2
12.70
1.05
2.10
ns
ns
ns
0.50
0.70
2.05
ns
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
235
0.25%
2002
TF 26
H dilute
4
49
7.20
5.40
5.30
ns
ns
ns
0.25
0.15
0.75
ns
ns
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
1.15
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
0.15
0.60
0.90
ns
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
15
2.85
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
1.12
1.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
TF 26
H dilute
4
67
0.30
2.65
0.65
*
ns
*
0.20
2.15
0.20
*
ns
*
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
CV 18
H dilute
4
81
1.85
---
2.70
---
ns
---
1.35
---
2.25
---
ns
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
90
0.55
0.20
0.40
ns
ns
ns
2.95
1.60
1.35
ns
ns
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
100
0.05
0.20
0.40
ns
ns
ns
0.15
1.60
1.35
*
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
1.0%
2003
CV 19
H dilute
4
0
0.00
0.70
0.25
ns
ns
*
0.05
1.05
2.00
*
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
CV 18
A 935
4
69
16.67
---
2.56
---
*
---
1.00
---
0.39
---
*
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2003
TF 16
A 935
4
1
3.00
---
1.13
---
ns
---
0.08
---
0.25
---
ns
---
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
7.00
0.80
0.80
* d
* d
ns
0.10
0.80
0.50
*
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
118
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
42.90
3.40
1.00
*
*
ns
0.00
0.60
0.40
*
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
6
0
23.40
3.40
1.00
*
*
ns
0.00
0.60
0.40
*
*
ns
Acetamiprid 70WP
167
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
84.90
20.40
4.30
*
*
ns
1.30
1.70
1.90
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
211
2000
TF 24
H dilute
4
90
0.76
0.20
0.28
---
---
---
0.20
0.12
0.16
---
---
---
Thiacloprid 480SC
211
2001
TF 24
H dilute
8
72
19.80
3.90
7.50
---
---
---
0.60
2.60
7.70
---
---
---
Thiacloprid 480SC
281
2001
TF 24
H dilute
8
74
24.10
3.90
7.50
---
---
---
1.90
2.60
7.70
---
---
---
Thiacloprid 480SC
136
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
69
1.60
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
1.00
0.60
0.90
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
136
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
0.75
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
0.15
0.60
0.90
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
203
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
42
0.60
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
1.35
0.60
0.90
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
203
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
0.65
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
0.15
0.60
0.90
ns
*
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
269
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
62
1.85
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
0.90
0.60
0.90
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
269
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
4
2.55
0.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
0.35
0.60
0.90
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
168
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
0.30
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
0.20
1.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
168
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
1.55
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
0.55
1.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
203
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
17
0.30
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
0.35
1.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
269
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
0.50
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
0.60
1.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
200
0.25%
2003
TF 26
H dilute
4
92
2.60
2.65
0.65
ns
ns
*
1.50
2.15
0.20
ns
ns
*
Thiacloprid 480SC
203
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
0.00
0.20
0.40
ns
ns
ns
0.10
1.60
1.35
*
*
ns
Thiacloprid 480SC
203
0.25%
2003
CV 18
A 935
4
94
3.44
---
2.56
---
ns
---
0.39
---
0.39
---
ns
---
Thiacloprid 480SC
269
0.25%
2003
CV 18
A 935
4
94
2.89
---
2.56
---
ns
---
0.44
---
0.39
---
ns
---
Thiacloprid 480SC
210
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
4.10
3.40
1.00
ns
ns
ns
0.10
0.60
0.40
*
ns
ns
Clothianidin 50WDG
70/105 e
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
6
0
0.85
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
0.05
1.55
0.25
*
ns
ns
Clothianidin 50WDG
105/214 e
0.25%
2003
TF 24
H dilute
4
17
3.00
0.85
0.30
ns
ns
ns
0.45
1.55
0.25
ns
ns
ns
Clothianidin 50WDG
105
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
6
0
28.50
0.80
0.80
*
*
ns
1.00
0.80
0.50
ns
*
ns
Clothianidin 50WDG
105
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
6
0
3.70
0.80
0.80
ns
ns
ns
0.30
0.80
0.50
*
ns
ns
Clothianidin 50WDG
210
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
6
0
3.60
0.80
0.80
ns
ns
ns
0.20
0.80
0.50
*
ns
ns
Clothianidin 50WDG
210
0.25%
2004
TF 24
H dilute
4
0
0.50
0.80
0.80
ns
ns
ns
0.10
0.80
0.50
*
*
ns
* Treatment means were significantly different: NN (neonicotinyl) vs. std (standard), NN vs. ck (check), or std vs. ck.
--- Indicates data not available to make statistical comparison; 2000-2001 composite samples without replication; 2002-2003 standard treatment not included in test.
ns, not significantly different
a Locations: TF, Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center (home farm); CV, WSU Columbia View Farm.
b Method: H, Handgun, A, Airblast (liters/ha).
c Species composition; figure in column is percentage European red mite, remainder was twospotted spider mite.
d Mean comparison statistically different at P = 0.10 but not at P=0.05.
e Rates for the 1st and 2nd generation of codling moth, respectively.
Back One Page