ontario sugar beet growers - Atrium - University of Guelph

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CROP: Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cv. El 7 PEST: Imported cabbageworm, Artogeia rapae (L.) Tarnished plant bug NAME AND AGENCY: PITBLADO, R E Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, NOP 2C0 Tel: (5 19) 674- 1605 Fax: (5 19) 674- 1600 E-mail: rpitblad@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca TITLE: INSECTICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF PLANT BUGS ON SUGARBEETS- 2005 MATERIALS: BAS 320001 240 SC (experimental), MERGE (surfactant), AMBUSH 500EC (permethnn), PREV AM (experimental) METHODS: Sugarbeets were planted at the research station in Ridgetown on May 9,2005. Three row plots were established, 7m in length with rows spaced 0.75m apart, replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. The foliar applications were applied using a specialized small plot research CO, sprayer with a three nozzled hand-held boom applying 200Lha of spray mixture. Two rows per treatment were sprayed with one unsprayed row between plots. Spray applications were applied on June 22, July 1 1 and July 22. Foliar insect feeding damage assessments were made on July 15 by counting the number of insect feeding sites over two rows per replicate and the number of leaf feeding holes counted on August 3. Results were analysed using the Duncan's multiple range test (PI 0.05). RESULTS: Data are presented in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: There were few plant bug feeding stings noted in this trial however there was considerable leaf feeding damage caused by imported cabbageworm. AMBUSH 500 and the experimental insecticide BAS 320001 240 SC with the surfactant MERGE effectively reduced the amount of leaf damage caused by insects in this trial. It appeared that early in the season the PREV AM product worked effectively however in the later assessments in August there was considerably less effectiveness using PREV AM when compared to the untreated control.
Table 1. Foliar insect damage ratings in sugarbeets. Foliar Disease Ratings Treatments Rate # of insect # leaves with insect Productha feeding sites feeding damage BAS 320001240 SC + 1167 ml 9.8 ab* MERGE 0.5%v/v PREV AM 0.8 % 6.5 b AMBUSH 500EC 140.0 ml 5.8 b July 15 August 3 CONTROL 15.0 a ANOVA Ps0.05 s s Coefficient of Variation (%) 43.7 41.9 *These values are the means of four replications. Numbers within a column followed by the same small letter are not significantly different according to a Duncan's Multiple Range Test (P50.05).
Page 1 and 2: Submitted to the ONTARIO SUGAR BEET
Page 3 and 4: SPECIAL ACKNOWLDEGMENTS I wish to p
Page 5 and 6: REPORTS IRRIGATION STRATEGIES FOR S
Page 7 and 8: Research Results and Milestone Stat
Page 9 and 10: applications, severely costing the
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. Foliar disease control rat
Page 13 and 14: CROP: Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
Page 15 and 16: Table la. Cercospora Foliar disease
Page 17: BeetCast Evaluation for the Control
Page 23 and 24: CROP: PEST: Sugar beet (Beta vulgar
Page 25 and 26: CONTROL OF RHlZOCTONlA CROWN ROT IN
Page 27: Table 1. Effect of fungicides appli
Page 33 and 34: effective in combating the crown ro
Page 35 and 36: Table 1. Field assessments of sugar
Page 37 and 38: Table 1. Common leaf rust ratings i
Page 39 and 40: IRRIGATION STRATEGIES FOR SUGAR BEE
Page 41 and 42: Fig. 1. Irrigation test sites, Mich
Page 43: Fig. 5. Commercial Pivot Irrigation
Page 50 and 51: Irr 1-7: dates where grower applied
Page 52 and 53: Fig. 8b. Location A Pivot Irrigatio
Page 54 and 55: COMMENTS: Location A CONTROL lOcm T
Page 56 and 57: Fig. 9a Location B Control 10cm Dep
Page 58 and 59: 1Ocm Depth Hand lrrigated (Reif) -
Page 60 and 61: SUGAR BEET MELD AND SUGAR CONTENT O
Page 62 and 63: COMMENTS The reference ETo at each
Page 64 and 65: graphs indicated that too much wate
Page 66 and 67: 1. PRODUCTION BENEFITS OF IRRIGATIO
Page 68 and 69: of 10 (Fig. 6). Plant growth charac
Page 70 and 71: Table 1: Seed corn irrigation analy
Page 72 and 73: Fig. 8. Irrigation plot layout show
Page 74 and 75: Cob Length Irrigation significantly
Page 76 and 77: Seed Corn Yields Irrigation signifi
Page 78 and 79:
BENEFITS OF IRRIGATING SEED CORN IN
Page 80 and 81:
C-probe Scaled Frequency Unit V I +
Page 82 and 83:
CONCLUSIONS: The initial intent was
Page 84 and 85:
Fig. >rip tape along side of seed c
Page 86 and 87:
Table 8b: Drip Irrigation - Seed co
Page 88 and 89:
Fig. 18. Drip Irrigation - Non-irri
Page 90 and 91:
Fig. 20. Rainfall accumulations in
Page 92 and 93:
Fig. 22. Soil moisture profile in f
show all

ontario sugar beet growers - Atrium - University of Guelph

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?