herbert, 2006

Herbert, 2006

Thrips Control in VA/NC:

Overview, Insights and Options

A. Herbert & S. Malone, Virginia TechA. Herbert & S. Malone, Virginia Tech

andand

Jack Bacheler & D. Mott, NC StateJack Bacheler & D. Mott, NC State

Herbert, 2006

Avg. lint loss potential to thrips in Virginia

• 2001=352• 2003=279• 2004=341• 2005=543• 2006=655

Excellent1112 lb

Moderate888 lb Poor

469 lb

Thrips Control Levels

1254 lb lint

598 lb lint

Herbert, Virginia Tech, 2006

Thrips injury rating scale0 = no injury, 5 = dead plants

4.750.25

Cotton thrips sampling

10 seedlings/plot

The plant coverage issue!

Nozzle study—TAREC, VA, 2006

Herbert, 2006

Spray tip Tip size PSI

TeeJet XR Flat Fan 110015 25

TeeJet XR Flat Fan 11002 17

Turbo Teejet 11001 60



Greenleaf Air-Mix 11001 50



Conejet Hollow Cone TX-6 44

Standard (w/o insecticide) 8002VS 18

CT06THP7

Roundup OriginalMAX @ 22 oz/A tank mixed with Orthene 97 @ 0.36 lb ai/A (= 6 oz/A) @ 1st tl & 2-3 tl (May 22 & 30), 10 gpa. Variety = DP 434 RR.

Nozzle study—adult thrips

Herbert, 2006CT06THP7

0

10

20

30

5/25

/200

6

5/29

/200

6

6/2/

2006

6/6/

2006

TeeJet XR Flat Fan 110015 TeeJet XR Flat Fan 11002 Turbo Teejet 11001

Turbo Teejet 110015 Turbo Teejet 11002 Greenleaf Air-Mix 11001

Greenleaf Air-Mix 110015 Greenleaf Air-Mix 11002 Conejet Hollow Cone TX-6

Standard (w/o insecticide)

Mea

n n

o.

adu

lt t

hri

ps/

10 p

lan

ts

NS=no difference among treatments Significantly different (P=0.05)*

*

NS NS

*

Nozzle study—immature thrips


0255075

100125150175

5/25

/200

6

5/29

/200

6

6/2/

2006

6/6/

2006





Mea

n n

o.

imm

atu

re t

hri

ps/

10 p

lan

ts


*

NS NS

*

*

NS

Nozzle study—thrips injury ratings


0

1

2

3

4

5

5/29

/200

6

6/2/

2006

6/6/

2006

6/10

/200

6

6/14

/200

6






*NS

Mea

n p

lan

t in

jury

rat

ing

NS

NS

**

Nozzle study—lint yield

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

TeeJe

t XR F

lat F

an-1

10015

TeeJe

t XR F

lat F

an-1

1002

Turbo

TeeJe

t-110

01

Turbo

TeeJe

t-110

015

Turbo

TeeJe

t-110

02

Gre

enle

af A

ir-M

ix-1

1001

Gre

enle

af A

ir-M

ix-1

1001

5

Gre

enle

af A

ir-M

ix-1

1002

Coneje

t Hollo

w C

one-

TX6

Standar

d (w/o

inse

ctic

ide)

Lin

t y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

a aaa a a

a

b

a

Herbert, 2006

a

Hilldrop vs. single seed—TAREC, 2006

Herbert, 2006

Product PlateMean thrips

injury1

Stand count per 80 row ft

Yield

lb lint/A

Temik 5 lb Single 0.78 231 b 1268 a

Temik 5 lb Hilldrop 0.74 249 a 1135 a

Gaucho Grande 0.375 mg ai/seed Single 0.58 253 a 1264 a

Gaucho Grande 0.375 mg ai/seed Hilldrop 0.56 255 a 1384 a

Untreated Single 3.25 224 b 849 b

Untreated Hilldrop 3.27 233 b 837 b

CT06THP11

DP 444 BG/RR1 Based on a scale of 0 (no injury) to 5 (dead plants), averaged over 4 sample dates.

Improvements in seed treatment technology

Gaucho 0.23 0.375

Cruiser 0.30 0.34

mg ai/seed

Thiamethoxam 0.34 + Abamectin 0.15(Avicta Complete Pak)

Imidacloprid + Thiodicarb(Aris)

THP 4

Virginia Tech

2006

Thrips counts—adults


0

10

20

30

40

5/16

/200

6

5/23

/200

6

5/30

/200

6

6/6/

2006

6/13

/200

6

Gaucho Grande Cruiser/Avicta Temik Untreated

Mea

n n

o.

adu

lt t

hri

ps/

10 p

lan

ts

Thrips counts—immatures


0

50

100

150

200

250

5/16

/200

6

5/23

/200

6

5/30

/200

6

6/6/

2006

6/13

/200

6


Mea

n n

o.

imm

atu

re t

hri

ps/

10 p

lan

ts


0

1

2

3

4

5

5/26

/200

6

6/2/

2006

6/9/

2006

6/16

/200

6


Mea

n p

lan

t in

jury

rat

ing

* *

*

*

*NS

NS

NS=no difference among treatments Significantly different (P=0.05)*Thrips injury ratings

Lint yields--CT06THP4

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Gaucho

Grand

e

Cruis

er/Avic

ta

Temik

5 lb

Untreat

ed

Lin

t y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

b

a

c

Herbert, 2006

b

THP 6

Virginia Tech

2006

Thrips counts—adults


0

10

20

30

40

5/24

/200

6

5/31

/200

6

6/7/

2006

Gaucho Grande Gaucho Grande + Orthene

Avicta/Cruiser/Dynasty Avicta/Cruiser/Dynasty + Orthene

Temik Temik + Orthene

Untreated

Mea

n n

o.

adu

lt t

hri

ps/

10 p

lan

ts

Thrips counts—immatures


0

100

200

300

400

5/24

/200

6

5/31

/200

6

6/7/

2006




Untreated

Mea

n n

o.

imm

atu

re t

hri

ps/

10 p

lan

ts

Thrips injury ratings


0

1

2

3

4

5

5/29

/200

6

6/2/

2006

6/6/

2006

6/10

/200

6

6/14

/200

6




Untreated

Mea

n p

lan

t in

jury

rat

ing


* * *

Lint yields—CT06THP6

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Untreat

ed

Gau

cho G

rande

Avict

a/Cru

iser

/Dyn

asty

Temik

5 lb

Gau

cho G

rande+

Orth

Avict

a/Cru

iser

/Dyn

asty

+Orth

Temik

5 lb

+Orth

Lin

t y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

b

aa

a a

a

a

Herbert, 2006

Lint yields—CT06THP6

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Gau

cho G

rande

Avict

a/Cru

iser

/Dyn

asty

Temik

5 lb

Gau

cho G

rande+

Orth

Avict

a/Cru

iser

/Dyn

asty

+Orth

Temik

5 lb

+Orth

Lin

t y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

aa

a a

a

a

Herbert, 2006

Lint yield summary—VA, 2005-2006

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Gau

cho 6

00FS

0.3

75 m

g ai/s

eed

Gau

cho 6

00 0

.375

+ O

97 4

oz B

C

Avict

a Com

plete

Pak

ACP + O

97

4 oz B

C

Cruis

er 0

.34

mg a

i/see

d

Cruis

er 0

.34

mg +

O 9

7 4

BC

Temik

5 lb

Temik

5 +

O 9

7 4

oz B

C

Untreat

ed

Lin

t y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

Herbert & Bacheler, 2006

n =

14 8 8 163 3 2 4 16

Lint yield summary—NC, 2005-2006

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Lin

t y

ield

(lb

/acr

e)

Herbert & Bacheler, 2006

n =

3 4 1 3 52 4 5 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Gaucho Cruiser AvictaPak

Temik Temik Gaucho Cruiser AvictaPak

Temik Temik Untrt

Herbert, 2005

Mean thrips injury rating—CT05THP4 M

ean

in

jury

rat

ing

0.375

With Orthene 97 4 oz BC

0.340.340.15 3.5 lb 5 lb 0.375 0.34

0.340.15 3.5 lb 5 lb

Overall yield comparisons—2005 tests

Material Alone + Orthene Orthene Δ

Gaucho Grande 1563 1595 32

Avicta Pak 1564 1639 75

Temik 5.0 1638 1683 45

Overall --- --- 60

Orthene 97 broadcast @ 4.0 oz/A

Herbert, 2005

Cotton aphid treatments may be less with Temik vs. seed trt. + foliar

Bacheler, NC State

NC acreage treated for cotton aphids(2004-2005 Consultants’ Survey)

Usage

pattern

% acres

treated

Odds of treatment

High Temik

(100%)6.75 1/15

Low Temik

(25.5%)15.7 1/6

Difference: 2.3-foldBacheler, NC State

Spider mite treatments may be less with Temik vs. seed trt. + foliar

Bacheler, NC State

NC acreage treated for spider mites(2004-2005 Consultants’ Survey)

Usage

pattern

% acres

treated

Odds of treatment

High Temik

(100%)0.58 1/170

Low Temik

(25.5%)5.3 1/19

Difference: 9.1-foldBacheler, NC State

herbert, 2006

Documents