for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help

Publisher: Oxford University Press   (Total: 370 journals)

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Showing 1 - 200 of 370 Journals sorted alphabetically
Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.881, h-index: 38)
Adaptation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.111, h-index: 4)
Aesthetic Surgery J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 1.538, h-index: 35)
African Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 57, SJR: 1.512, h-index: 46)
Age and Ageing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 82, SJR: 1.611, h-index: 107)
Alcohol and Alcoholism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.935, h-index: 80)
American Entomologist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
American Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 130, SJR: 0.652, h-index: 43)
American J. of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41, SJR: 1.441, h-index: 77)
American J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 158, SJR: 3.047, h-index: 201)
American J. of Hypertension     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 1.397, h-index: 111)
American J. of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
American J. of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.151, h-index: 7)
American Law and Economics Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.824, h-index: 23)
American Literary History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.185, h-index: 22)
Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
Annals of Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35, SJR: 1.912, h-index: 124)
Annals of Occupational Hygiene     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.837, h-index: 57)
Annals of Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 4.362, h-index: 173)
Annals of the Entomological Society of America     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.642, h-index: 53)
Annals of Work Exposures and Health     Hybrid Journal  
AoB Plants     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.78, h-index: 10)
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.884, h-index: 31)
Applied Linguistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 51, SJR: 1.749, h-index: 63)
Applied Mathematics Research eXpress     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.779, h-index: 11)
Arbitration Intl.     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 21)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.96, h-index: 71)
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.102, h-index: 20)
Arthropod Management Tests     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Astronomy & Geophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 0.144, h-index: 15)
Behavioral Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 1.698, h-index: 92)
Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 238, SJR: 4.643, h-index: 271)
Biology Methods and Protocols     Hybrid Journal  
Biology of Reproduction     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.646, h-index: 149)
Biometrika     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 2.801, h-index: 90)
BioScience     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 2.374, h-index: 154)
Bioscience Horizons : The National Undergraduate Research J.     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.213, h-index: 9)
Biostatistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.955, h-index: 55)
BJA : British J. of Anaesthesia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 142, SJR: 2.314, h-index: 133)
BJA Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 66, SJR: 0.272, h-index: 20)
Brain     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 61, SJR: 6.097, h-index: 264)
Briefings in Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45, SJR: 4.086, h-index: 73)
Briefings in Functional Genomics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.771, h-index: 50)
British J. for the Philosophy of Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33, SJR: 1.267, h-index: 38)
British J. of Aesthetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.217, h-index: 18)
British J. of Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 511, SJR: 1.373, h-index: 62)
British J. of Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 79, SJR: 0.771, h-index: 53)
British Medical Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.391, h-index: 84)
British Yearbook of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.474, h-index: 31)
Cambridge J. of Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56, SJR: 0.957, h-index: 59)
Cambridge J. of Regions, Economy and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.067, h-index: 22)
Cambridge Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.1, h-index: 7)
Capital Markets Law J.     Hybrid Journal  
Carcinogenesis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.439, h-index: 167)
Cardiovascular Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 2.897, h-index: 175)
Cerebral Cortex     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 4.827, h-index: 192)
CESifo Economic Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.501, h-index: 19)
Chemical Senses     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.436, h-index: 76)
Children and Schools     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.211, h-index: 18)
Chinese J. of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Chinese J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.737, h-index: 11)
Chinese J. of Intl. Politics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.238, h-index: 15)
Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.191, h-index: 8)
Classical Receptions J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.1, h-index: 3)
Clinical Infectious Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58, SJR: 4.742, h-index: 261)
Clinical Kidney J.     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.338, h-index: 19)
Community Development J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 0.47, h-index: 28)
Computer J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.371, h-index: 47)
Conservation Physiology     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Contemporary Women's Writing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.111, h-index: 3)
Contributions to Political Economy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.313, h-index: 10)
Critical Values     Full-text available via subscription  
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Current Zoology     Full-text available via subscription   (SJR: 0.999, h-index: 20)
Database : The J. of Biological Databases and Curation     Open Access   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.068, h-index: 24)
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Diplomatic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.296, h-index: 22)
DNA Research     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 2.42, h-index: 77)
Dynamics and Statistics of the Climate System     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Early Music     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.124, h-index: 11)
Economic Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 2.052, h-index: 52)
ELT J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 1.26, h-index: 23)
English Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 0.311, h-index: 10)
English: J. of the English Association     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.144, h-index: 3)
Environmental Entomology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.791, h-index: 66)
Environmental Epigenetics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Environmental History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.197, h-index: 25)
EP-Europace     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.201, h-index: 71)
Epidemiologic Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 3.917, h-index: 81)
ESHRE Monographs     Hybrid Journal  
Essays in Criticism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.1, h-index: 6)
European Heart J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 47, SJR: 6.997, h-index: 227)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Imaging     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 2.044, h-index: 58)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
European Heart J. - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes     Hybrid Journal  
European Heart J. Supplements     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.152, h-index: 31)
European J. of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.568, h-index: 104)
European J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 151, SJR: 0.722, h-index: 38)
European J. of Orthodontics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.09, h-index: 60)
European J. of Public Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 1.284, h-index: 64)
European Review of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.549, h-index: 42)
European Review of Economic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.628, h-index: 24)
European Sociological Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 2.061, h-index: 53)
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Family Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.048, h-index: 77)
Fems Microbiology Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.687, h-index: 115)
Fems Microbiology Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 1.126, h-index: 118)
Fems Microbiology Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 7.587, h-index: 150)
Fems Yeast Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.213, h-index: 66)
Foreign Policy Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 0.859, h-index: 10)
Forestry: An Intl. J. of Forest Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.903, h-index: 44)
Forum for Modern Language Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.108, h-index: 6)
French History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 0.123, h-index: 10)
French Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 0.119, h-index: 7)
French Studies Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.102, h-index: 3)
Gastroenterology Report     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Genome Biology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 10, SJR: 3.22, h-index: 39)
Geophysical J. Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31, SJR: 1.839, h-index: 119)
German History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.437, h-index: 13)
GigaScience     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Global Summitry     Hybrid Journal  
Glycobiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.692, h-index: 101)
Health and Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 0.505, h-index: 40)
Health Education Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.814, h-index: 80)
Health Policy and Planning     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.628, h-index: 66)
Health Promotion Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.664, h-index: 60)
History Workshop J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.313, h-index: 20)
Holocaust and Genocide Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.115, h-index: 13)
Human Molecular Genetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 4.288, h-index: 233)
Human Reproduction     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 78, SJR: 2.271, h-index: 179)
Human Reproduction Update     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 4.678, h-index: 128)
Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 58, SJR: 0.7, h-index: 21)
ICES J. of Marine Science: J. du Conseil     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 1.233, h-index: 88)
ICSID Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
ILAR J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.099, h-index: 51)
IMA J. of Applied Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.329, h-index: 26)
IMA J. of Management Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.351, h-index: 20)
IMA J. of Mathematical Control and Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.661, h-index: 28)
IMA J. of Numerical Analysis - advance access     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 2.032, h-index: 44)
Industrial and Corporate Change     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.37, h-index: 81)
Industrial Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.184, h-index: 15)
Information and Inference     Free  
Integrative and Comparative Biology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.911, h-index: 90)
Interacting with Computers     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.529, h-index: 59)
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.743, h-index: 35)
Intl. Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 51, SJR: 1.264, h-index: 53)
Intl. Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
Intl. Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.835, h-index: 15)
Intl. Immunology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.613, h-index: 111)
Intl. J. for Quality in Health Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32, SJR: 1.593, h-index: 69)
Intl. J. of Constitutional Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 59, SJR: 0.613, h-index: 19)
Intl. J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 128, SJR: 4.381, h-index: 145)
Intl. J. of Law and Information Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.247, h-index: 8)
Intl. J. of Law, Policy and the Family     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 0.307, h-index: 15)
Intl. J. of Lexicography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.404, h-index: 18)
Intl. J. of Low-Carbon Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.457, h-index: 12)
Intl. J. of Neuropsychopharmacology     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.69, h-index: 79)
Intl. J. of Public Opinion Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.906, h-index: 33)
Intl. J. of Refugee Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32, SJR: 0.231, h-index: 21)
Intl. J. of Transitional Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 0.833, h-index: 12)
Intl. Mathematics Research Notices     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 2.052, h-index: 42)
Intl. Political Sociology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 1.339, h-index: 19)
Intl. Relations of the Asia-Pacific     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.539, h-index: 17)
Intl. Studies Perspectives     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.998, h-index: 28)
Intl. Studies Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 36, SJR: 2.184, h-index: 68)
Intl. Studies Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.783, h-index: 38)
ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.155, h-index: 4)
ITNOW     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.102, h-index: 4)
J. of African Economies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.647, h-index: 30)
J. of American History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 0.286, h-index: 34)
J. of Analytical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13, SJR: 1.038, h-index: 60)
J. of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 2.157, h-index: 149)
J. of Antitrust Enforcement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
J. of Applied Poultry Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 0.563, h-index: 43)
J. of Biochemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 43, SJR: 1.341, h-index: 96)
J. of Chromatographic Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 0.448, h-index: 42)
J. of Church and State     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.167, h-index: 11)
J. of Competition Law and Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 0.442, h-index: 16)
J. of Complex Networks     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.165, h-index: 5)
J. of Conflict and Security Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.196, h-index: 15)
J. of Consumer Research     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 41, SJR: 4.896, h-index: 121)
J. of Crohn's and Colitis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.543, h-index: 37)
J. of Cybersecurity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
J. of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.69, h-index: 36)
J. of Design History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.166, h-index: 14)
J. of Economic Entomology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.894, h-index: 76)
J. of Economic Geography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 34, SJR: 2.909, h-index: 69)
J. of Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.457, h-index: 20)
J. of European Competition Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
J. of Experimental Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 2.798, h-index: 163)
J. of Financial Econometrics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.314, h-index: 27)
J. of Global Security Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
J. of Heredity     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.024, h-index: 76)
J. of Hindu Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.186, h-index: 3)
J. of Hip Preservation Surgery     Open Access  
J. of Human Rights Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.399, h-index: 10)
J. of Infectious Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40, SJR: 4, h-index: 209)
J. of Insect Science     Open Access   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.388, h-index: 31)

        1 2 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Journal Cover Arthropod Management Tests
  [2 followers]  Follow
    
   Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
   ISSN (Online) 2155-9856
   Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [370 journals]
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Western Bean Cutworm
           in Field Corn, 2016 *
    • Authors: Montezano DG; Mollet KA, Hirzel GE, et al.
      Abstract: Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) Zea mays
      PubDate: 2017-06-17
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Western Bean Cutworm
           in Field Corn, 2015 *
    • Authors: Montezano DG; Mollet KA, Hirzel GE, et al.
      Abstract: Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) Zea mays
      PubDate: 2017-06-15
       
  • Insecticide Evaluation for Grasshopper Control in Bermudagrass Pasture,
           2015 *
    • Authors: Zarrabi AA; Royer TA, Kelly Seuhs SS, et al.
      Abstract: Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon
      PubDate: 2017-06-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx078
       
  • Plum Curculio Control on Nectarine, 2015 *
    • Authors: Nielsen AL; Rucker A.
      Abstract: Nectarine Prunus persica var. nectarina
      PubDate: 2017-06-07
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx029
       
  • Erratum
    • Abstract: Correction of “Efficacy of Indoxacarb Insecticide on Lygus Bug 5 in Strawberry, 2015. 2017. Arthropod Manag. Tests. 42(1): Section C: Small Fruits.”
      PubDate: 2017-06-03
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx073
       
  • Effect of Foliar Application of Xxpire on Bemisia tabaci (MED Whitefly)
           and Amblyseius swirskii , 2016 *
    • Authors: Kumar V; Kakkar G, McKenzie CL, et al.
      Abstract: Salvia sp. Salvia nemorosa
      PubDate: 2017-06-01
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx077
       
  • Acaricidal Control of Twospotted Spider Mites in Peanut, 2016
    • Authors: Gay WH; Abney MR.
      Abstract: TwoSpotted Spider Mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae (Koch)
      PubDate: 2017-05-29
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx080
       
  • Thrips Managment on Dry Bulb Onions With the Use of Foliar Insecticide
           Applications, 2016 *
    • Authors: Waters TD; Darner JK.
      Abstract: Onion Allium cepa
      PubDate: 2017-05-29
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx081
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Sugarcane Aphid, 2015 *
    • Authors: Studebaker G; Jackson C.
      Abstract: Sorghum (broom, durra, Guinea corn, jowar) Sorghum bicolor
      PubDate: 2017-05-19
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx079
       
  • Apple Insecticide Trial, 2016 *
    • Authors: Walgenbach JF; Schoof SC.
      Abstract: Green apple aphid (GAA): Aphis pomi (De Geer) and A. spiraecola (Patch)Potato leafhopper (PLH): Empoasca fabae (Harris)Internal-feeding Lepidopterans (LEP): Oriental fruit moth (OFM), Grapholita molesta (Busck) Codling moth (CM): Cydia pomonella (L.)Plum curculio (PC): Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst)Plant bugs (PB): Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois)Apple maggot (AM): Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh)Green fruitworm (GFW): Lithophane antennata (Walker)Leafrolling Lepidopterans (LR): Tufted apple bud moth (TABM): Platynota idaeusalis (Walker) Redbanded leafroller (RBLR): Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker)Brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB): Halyomorpha halys (Stål)San José scale (SJS): Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock)European red mite (ERM): Panonychus ulmi (Koch)
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx050
       
  • Cabbage Flea Beetle Insecticide Trial, 2016 *
    • Authors: Walgenbach JF; Schoof SC.
      Abstract: Flea beetles (FB): Cabbage flea beetle: Phyllotreta albionica (LeConte)
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx049
       
  • Citrus Thrips Insecticide Trial, 2016 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ, Reger JE.
      Abstract: Orange Citrus sinensis
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx046
       
  • Drip Chemigation of Diamides and Neonicotinoids in Tomato, 2015 *
    • Authors: Walgenbach JF; Schoof SC.
      Abstract: Thrips (FT): Frankliniella tritici (Fitch) and Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)Potato aphid (PA): Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas)Twospotted spider mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae KochTomato fruitworm (LEP): Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)Armyworm (LEP): Spodoptera spp.Cabbage looper: Trichoplusia ni (Hubner)Stink bugs (SB): Euschistus servus (Say), Acrosternum hilare (Say), and Halyomorpha halys (Stal)
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx052
       
  • Evaluation of Acaricides for Control of Twospotted Spider Mite on Tomato,
           2015 *
    • Authors: Walgenbach JF; Schoof SC.
      Abstract: Twospotted spider mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae KochPredatory mite (PM): Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx051
       
  • Evaluation of Cyclaniliprole for Control of Plum Curculio on Apples, 2015
           *
    • Authors: Walgenbach JF; Schoof SC.
      Abstract: Apple Malus domestica
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx053
       
  • Evaluation of Near Isoline Smartstax Traited and Refuge Corn Hybrids in
           Combination With Soil Insecticides at Planting for Larval Corn Rootworm
           Control, 2016 *
    • Authors: DeVries TA; Wright RJ.
      Abstract: Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) Zea mays
      PubDate: 2017-05-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx076
       
  • Control of Pear Psylla in Pear, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom AH, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: Pear psylla (PP): Cacopsylla pyricola (Förster)
      PubDate: 2017-05-15
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx061
       
  • Plum Curculio Control in Sweet Cherry, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom AH, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: Cherry (all varieties) Prunus spp.
      PubDate: 2017-05-15
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx059
       
  • Drosophila Suzukii Control in Tart Cherries, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom AH, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx065
       
  • Control of Rosy Apple Aphid, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom AH, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: Rosy apple aphid (RAA): Dysaphis plantaginea (Passerini), Green apple aphid (GAA): Aphis pomi (DeGeer)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx062
       
  • Control of San Jose Scale in Apple, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom AH, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: San José scale (SJS): Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comstock)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx058
       
  • Control of Spotted Wing Drosophila in Blueberries, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom A, Isaacs R.
      Abstract: Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD), Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx064
       
  • Control of Woolly Apple Aphid, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom AH, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: Woolly apple aphid (WAA): Erisoma lanigerum (Hausmann)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx066
       
  • European Red Mite Control on Apple, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom A, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: European red mite (ERM): Panonychus ulmi (Koch)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx060
       
  • Two-Spotted Spider Mite Control on Tart Cherry, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wise JC; VanWoerkom A, Gut LJ.
      Abstract: Two-Spotted Spider Mite (TSSM): Tetranychus urticae (Koch)
      PubDate: 2017-05-12
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx063
       
  • Assessment of Insecticides Against the West Indian Canefly in Sugarcane,
           2016 *
    • Authors: Wilson BE; Beuzelin JM, Reagan TE.
      Abstract: Sugarcane Saccharum spp. (interspecific hybrid)
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx072
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticides to Control Flower Thrips on Valencia
           Oranges: 2016 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: Orange Citrus sinensis
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx020
       
  • Field Efficacy of Insecticides Against the West Indian Canefly in
           Sugarcane, 2016 *
    • Authors: Wilson BE; Beuzelin JM, Reagan TE.
      Abstract: West Indian canefly (WIC): Saccharosydne saccharivora (Westwood)
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx071
       
  • Foliar Applications of Insecticides for Control of Sweetpotato Whitefly on
           Zucchini Squash, 2016 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: Sweetpotato whitefly (SWF): Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx017
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Pepper Weevil on Jalapeño Pepper, 2016 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk B.
      Abstract: Pepper Capsicum annuum
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx018
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Thrips on ‘Bell’ Pepper, 2016 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk B.
      Abstract: Pepper Capsicum annuum
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx016
       
  • Registered and Experimental Foliar Insecticides for Control of Colorado
           Potato Beetle and Potato Leafhopper in Potato, 2016 *
    • Authors: Groves RL; Chapman S, Crubaugh LK, et al.
      Abstract: Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB): Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say)
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx057
       
  • The Use of Reflective Mulch Plus Insecticidal Control of Pepper Weevil on
           JalapeƱo Pepper, 2015 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: Pepper Capsicum annuum Cano
      PubDate: 2017-05-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx019
       
  • Control of Broad Mite on ‘Bell’ Pepper With Labelled and
           Experimental Miticides, 2014
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk B.
      Abstract: Broad mite: Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks)
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx023
       
  • Control of Diamondback Moth on Broccoli With Labeled and Experimental
           Insecticides, 2016 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk B.
      Abstract: Broccoli Brassica oleacea
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx022
       
  • Evaluation of Liquid and Granular Insecticide Formulations at Planting for
           Larval Corn Rootworm Control, 2016 *
    • Authors: DeVries TA; Wright RJ.
      Abstract: Western corn rootworm (WCR): Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx070
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Fall Armyworm on Sweet Corn, 2015 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: Corn (hybrid, maize, sweet) Zea mays
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx021
       
  • Lygus Control in Potato, 2016 *
    • Authors: Rondon SI; Thompson DI.
      Abstract: Lygus spp.
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx067
       
  • Control of Broad Mite on ‘Bell’ Pepper With Labelled
           Miticides, 2015
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk B.
      Abstract: Pepper Capsicum annuum
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx024
       
  • Effect of Foliar Application of Pymetrozine on Bemisia tabaci (MED
           Whitefly) and Amblyseius swirskii , 2016 *
    • Authors: Kumar V; Kakkar G, McKenzie CL, et al.
      Abstract: MED (Q) whitefly: Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx054
       
  • Evaluation of Liquid and Granular Insecticide Formulations Compared to
           
    • Authors: DeVries TA; Wright RJ.
      Abstract: Western corn rootworm (WCR): Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx069
       
  • Evaluation of Traited Corn Rootworm and Refuge Corn Hybrids in Combination
           with Aztec HC Insecticide at Planting for Larval Corn Rootworm Control,
           2016 *
    • Authors: DeVries TA; Wright RJ.
      Abstract: Western corn rootworm (WCR): Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx068
       
  • Impact of Drench Application of Cyantraniliprole on Bemisia Tabaci (MED
           Whitefly) and Amblyseius Swirskii , 2016 *
    • Authors: Kumar V; Kakkar G, McKenzie CL, et al.
      Abstract: MED (Q) whitefly: Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius)
      PubDate: 2017-05-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx056
       
  • Grape Berry Moth on Grape, 2015 *
    • Authors: Nielsen AL; Rucker A.
      Abstract: Grape berry moth (GBM): Paralobesia viteana
      PubDate: 2017-05-04
       
  • Control of Sweetpotato Whitefly on Staked Tomatoes in Florida, Fall 2015 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">sweetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci</span>
      PubDate: 2017-05-04
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx014
       
  • Control of Sweetpotato Whitefly With Insecticides on TYLCV Tolerant and
           Susceptible Staked Tomatoes, 2016 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Tomatoj Lycopersicon esculentum</span>
      PubDate: 2017-05-04
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx015
       
  • Citricola Scale Insecticide Trial, 2015 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Citricola scale: Coccus pseudomagnoliarum (Kuwana)</span>
      PubDate: 2017-05-02
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx042
       
  • California Red Scale Insecticide Efficacy Trial, 2016 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ, Reger JE.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">California red scale <span style="font-style:italic;">Aonidiella aurantii</span></span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx044
       
  • California Red Scale Insecticide Trial, 2015 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">California red scale <span style="font-style:italic;">Aonidiella aurantii</span></span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx043
       
  • Citrus Red Mite Insecticide Trial and Effects on Predaceous Mites, 2016 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ, Reger JE.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Citrus red mite <span style="font-style:italic;">Panonychus citri</span>Euseius sp. <span style="font-style:italic;">Euseius tularensis</span></span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx048
       
  • Citrus Thrips Insecticide Trial and Effects on Predacious Mites, 2015 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ, Nemecek JN.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">citrus thrips <span style="font-style:italic;">Scirtothrips citri</span><span style="font-style:italic;">Euseius</span> sp. <span style="font-style:italic;">Euseius tularensis</span></span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx047
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Citrus Leafminer, 2016 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ, Reger JE.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Citrus leafminer <span style="font-style:italic;">Phyllocnistis citrella</span></span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx041
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Cotton Aphid in Citrus, 2016 *
    • Authors: Grafton-Cardwell EE; Scott SJ.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Cotton aphid/melon aphid <span style="font-style:italic;">Aphis gossypii</span></span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx040
       
  • Soybean Aphid Efficacy Screening Program, 2016 *
    • Authors: Hodgson EW; VanNostrand G.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Soybean aphid, <span style="font-style:italic;">Aphis glycines</span> Matsumura, has drastically changed soybean pest management in the North Central region. To date, SBA can be successfully managed by timely scouting and foliar insecticides. Host plant resistance is the newest soybean aphid management tool and is complementary to existing chemical control. </span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-28
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx045
       
  • Evaluation of an Omri-Approved Spinosad Insecticide for Control of Cabbage
           Root Maggot in Direct-Seeded Root Crops, 2016*
    • Authors: Scheufele SB; Higgins G.
      Abstract: <span class="paragraphSection">Feeding by cabbage root maggot (CRM) larvae causes stunting and collapse of plants, and tunneling damage on root crops renders them unsaleable. We evaluated the OMRI-approved spinosad product, Entrust SC, as an in-furrow drench treatment at the time of seedling emergence alone or with a follow-up application one week following. These treatments were compared to an untreated check and to a furrow drench with the industry standard, chlorpyrifos, at the time of seeding. The experiment was conducted May–Jun 2016 at the University of Massachusetts Research and Education Farm in Deerfield, MA in a field with soil classified as Hadley silt loam. Soil was amended with 50 lb/acre urea (46-0-0) (N-P-K) and 20 tons/acre manure-based compost to increase attractiveness of the site to CRM flies for oviposition. Soil was harrowed twice and a roller was used to make a fine seedbed. An RCB design with four replications of each of the three treatments and an untreated check was used, with plots measuring 10 ft of bed length with three rows per bed. Weeds were controlled by hand and, due to very high pressure, flea beetles were controlled using a single application of Wrangler at 1.5 fl oz/acre on 23 Jun. ‘Hakurei’ turnips (Johnny’s Selected Seeds, ME) were direct-seeded on 10 May using a Jang TP1 precision seeder equipped with a Y-12 seed roller and a 9/14 gear setting to achieve 0.5-inch in-row and 12-inch between-row spacing. A border of untreated turnip plants was seeded around the perimeter of the experiment and between plots within the bed, to attract CRM flies. At-plant treatments were applied on 11 May using a CO<sub>2</sub> pressurized backpack sprayer delivering 200 gpa at 30 psi through one TeeJet TP8002E nozzle to soak the soil in the seeding band, simulating an in-furrow application. The Entrust treatments were applied on 27 May and 8 Jun in the same manner, over the sprouted turnip plants. The total number of plants per plot was recorded weekly, on 26 May, and 3, 8, 15, and 22 Jun, and provided a measure of plant stand. Marketable yield was assessed on 15 and 26 Jun by harvesting 10 plants per plot at random and making visual estimations of root damage using the following criteria: a turnip root with >25% of the surface covered with shallow tunnels or with more than one deep tunnel or other deformation was considered unmarketable. All data were analyzed with SAS 9.4 using PROC GLM and means were separated using Fisher’s LSD (α = 0.05). </span>
      PubDate: 2017-04-18
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx037
       
  • Yellowmargined Leaf Beetle Control With Organic Insecticides in Turnip
    • Authors: Majumdar A; Pitts J.
      Abstract: The objective of this study was to evaluated the effectiveness of organic insecticides as foliar sprays for controlling the YMLB on late season turnips. Turnip ‘Purple Top’ was direct seeded in soil. Turnips were planted in 30-ft-long plots 42 inches apart on 12 Oct 2016 and irrigated with a drip tape system. A good plant stand was established before initiating the spray program. Foliar spray treatments that were started after the YMLB economic threshold was reached (one adult or larva per plant). Six replications of five treatments were arranged in RCB design. Insecticidal treatments were applied on 2 Dec and 9 Dec using a CO2 operated boom sprayer at 44 gpa at 28 psi. Leaf feeding damage on turnip plants was assessed on 16 Dec using a 1 to 6 rating scale as follows: 1 = very light defoliation (<10%); 2 = light defoliation (10–30%); 3 = moderate defoliation (30–50%); 4 = heavy defoliation (50–70%); 5 = very heavy defoliation (70–90%); and 6 = complete defoliation (>90%). Damage rating data was analysed using ANOVA and LSD to compare treatment means.
      PubDate: 2017-04-17
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx038
       
  • Corn Rootworm Management Using Combinations of Agrisure RW Hybrid and
           Insecticidal Materials, 2014
    • Authors: McManus BL; Fuller BW.
      Abstract: Corn rootworm management efficacy trials were conducted to evaluate transgenic insect-resistant hybrids and granular insecticide combination treatments near Brookings, Cavour and Milbank in South Dakota. Granular applications were made by using four rows (∼50-ft length; 30-inch row spacing) treatment plots at planting-time. Experimental plots were arranged in an RCBD with four replications. Granular insecticides were applied with Noble metering units or computer-assisted SmartBox insecticide delivery system. All metering units were calibrated on the planter before treatment applications and mounted on a four-row Kinze corn planter. In-furrow treatments were placed directly between double-disk openers and into the open seed furrow. The Agrisure3122- E-Z refuge and Agrisure Avicta (N29T3122), Agrisure Viptera (N29T-3111), and Agrisure CB (N92T43-3220) corn hybrids seeds were all treated with CruiserMaxx at 0.25 mg (AI)/seed for secondary pest control. This seed was planted at ∼30,000 kernels per acre. Six roots were dug randomly from the two outer rows of each rep and treatment, then washed and rated using the Oleson 0–3 root injury rating scale. Yield assessments were taken from the outer two rows of each plot. Yield and root rating data were analyzed by using SAS version 9.2 PROC MIXED/PDIFF option with Saxton’s lettering macro.
      PubDate: 2017-04-11
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx036
       
  • Arthropod Management Tests - Front Cover
    • Authors: Bernon G.
      PubDate: 2017-03-31
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx039
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Mexican Bean Beetle
           on Snap Beans, 2015 *
    • Authors: Nottingham LB; Kuhar TP.
      Abstract: The objective of this experiment was to assess the efficacy of conventional and organic insecticides for the control of MBB. Seven synthetic insecticides, four organic insecticides and one untreated check were tested in field plots. The experiment was conducted at Virginia Tech’s Kentland Research Farm in Whitethorne, VA (37.2013° N, −80.5656° W), and consisted of 12 treatments arranged in an RCB design with four replicates. “Caprice” snap beans were planted on 21 May 2015. Plots were 1-row wide and 6.1 m long. Eight rows were planted by hand, at a rate of 40 seeds per meter, with treatments only occurring in the center six rows, creating eight tiers (two tiers per block). Each row was separated by 45 cm of bare soil, and tiers were separated 2 m of bare soil. Foliar treatments were applied on 6, and 14 Jul, with a three-nozzle boom equipped with 8003VS spray tips spaced 20” apart and powered by a CO2 backpack sprayer at 40 psi delivering 30 gpa. All plots were maintained according to standard commercial practices. On 8 (2 DAT1) and 16 (2 DAT2) Jul, five random plants were visually inspected, counting all MBB 3rd and 4th instar larvae. Insect count data did not fit a normal distribution, and therefore, were analyzed using Wilcoxon Test, followed by means separation using Wilcoxon each pair test; significance was accepted at P 
      PubDate: 2017-03-29
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx035
       
  • Efficacy of Karate Z Timing on Aphids in Wheat, 2013 (Test 2) *
    • Authors: Bateman NR; Catchot AL, Bao D, et al.
      Abstract: On 3 March 2013, a foliar insecticide efficacy over time study was conducted in wheat in Brooksville, MS, at the Black Belt Experiment Station. Wheat was approximately at tiller. Plots were in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plot size was 8 rows by 850-ft long on 38-inch centers. Two treatments were applied, Karate Z and untreated check for control of green bug aphids. Insecticides were applied with a tractor-mounted sprayer calibrated to deliver 10.0 gpa at 60 psi through TX-6 Hollow Cone nozzles (2 per row). There are four sample dates following the application of treatments: 11, 24, 36 , 50 DAT. Plots were sampled by counting 5-row feet and counting all aphids present. All means were log10 transformed. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, and means were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05).
      PubDate: 2017-03-29
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx030
       
  • Chemical Control of Grape Mealybug, 2016 *
    • Authors: Bixby-Brosi AJ; Beers EH.
      Abstract: The purpose of this test was to determine the effects of various pesticides on GMB, a vector of little cherry virus 2, a causal pathogen of little cherry disease in sweet cherry. This test was conducted on 1-yr-old potted (1.5 gal pots), ‘Bing’ cherry trees on Mazzard root stock, housed in the Washington State University, Tree Fruit Research Extension Center greenhouse. Replicates consisted of individual trees. A randomized complete block design was used to assign four replications of each of the four treatments and an untreated check. Treatments were blocked based on mealybug pretreatment count numbers. The GMB colonies were started from field collections and were reared in vented plastic containers on sprouted potatoes in a growth room (83 °F, 14:10 (L:D), and 34% RH). Mealybugs were removed from potatoes by using a razor blade to cut out a GMB-infested eye and then transferred to greenhouse trees. The removed potato eye was attached to the bark of the tree using a push pin. Mealybugs were given 7 days to become established on trees before a pretreatment count, followed by treatment. A plastic tube, large enough to contain the entire plant, with a mesh lid over the top, was place on each potted tree to keep mealybugs from crawling away. Pesticides were applied on 6 May. It was determined that 480 ml of water was required to reach soil saturation in the 1.5-gal pots. Admire Pro and Aza-Direct were applied as soil drenches in 480 ml of water/tree; other treatments received 480 ml of water. A foliar-systemic compound, Ultor, was applied at a concentration of 14 fl oz/100 gal, and an insect growth regular, Centaur, was applied at a rate of 46 oz/100 gal. Leaves were sprayed to drip using a 5-gal backpack sprayer. A paper plate, with a hole cut out for the tree trunk, was placed over the soil to avoid soil contact of foliar-applied materials. Counts of GMB crawlers (0.1–0.5 mm in length), nymphs (0.6–2 mm in length), and adults (>2 mm in length) were completed 1 day before (pretreatment count); and 19, 27, 35, and 56 days after treatments were applied. The average number of crawlers, nymphs, adults, and total GMB was calculated for each treatment for each sampling date. Statistical analysis was done by using the difference between the pre- and the posttreatment means for a given date. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 2016). PROC MIXED was used to conduct an ANOVA, and treatment means were separated using the lsmeans/pdiff option.
      PubDate: 2017-03-24
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx031
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Applications for Western Flower Thrips
           Control in Cotton, 2016 *
    • Authors: Vyavhare SS.
      Abstract: This test was conducted in field at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension center in Lubbock, TX. The field was planted on 27 May on 40-inch row spacing. The field was irrigated using furrow irrigation. The experiment was designed as an RCB with three treatments and four replications. The plots were 4-row wide × 30 ft in length. Treatments were applied on 24 Jun. Insecticide applications were made with a CO2 pressurized hand-boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 gpa through hollow cone TeeJet TXVS6 spray tip nozzles (2 per row) at 30 psi. Sampling was conducted at 4 and 13 DAT. Ten randomly selected plants from each plot on each sampling date were taken to the laboratory in glass mason jars containing 75% ethyl alcohol. Samples were processed using a washing technique, and the number of thrips adults and immatures in each sample were counted using a dissecting microscope. Data were analyzed by ANOVA, and means were separated by LSD.
      PubDate: 2017-03-24
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx033
       
  • Efficacy of Indoxacarb Insecticide on Lygus Bug in Strawberry, 2015
    • Authors: Brantley RC; Holmes GJ.
      Abstract: The efficacy of indoxacarb (Avaunt) on Western tarnished plant bug (WTPB) was compared to a grower standard (Danitol + Actara) and a non-treated check in late-season strawberries. WTPB feeds on strawberry achenes and results in deformation of the fruit, known as cat-facing. Annual losses in the California strawberry industry are estimated at $200 million. There is great need for improved control of WTPB in strawberry as many products have been rendered ineffective through resistance. While indoxacarb is registered for use against WTPB in other crops, efficacy data is lacking for strawberry.
      PubDate: 2017-03-23
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw143
       
  • Rootworm Larval Management Using Insecticidal Materials on Herculex
           Traited Corn, 2014
    • Authors: McManus BL; Fuller BW.
      Abstract: Corn rootworm (CRW) management efficacy trials were conducted to evaluate transgenic insect-resistant hybrids and granular insecticide combination treatments near Bryant, Cavour, and Colman in South Dakota. Granular applications to plots at planting-time were made in four rows (∼ 50 ft. long; spaced 30 inches apart). Experimental plots were arranged in an RCBD with four replications. Granular insecticides were applied with Noble metering units or SmartBox delivery system. All metering units were calibrated on the planter before treatment applications and mounted on a 4-row Kinze corn planter. In-furrow treatments were placed directly between double-disk openers and into the open seed furrow. Hybrids evaluated included: Herculex CB (HX1/AM) '38H08 and Herculex XTRA (HXX/AM1) P675HXX, planted at ∼30,000 kernels per acre. Six roots per replication were dug randomly from the two outer rows, washed and rated using the Oleson 0–3 root injury rating scale. The center two rows were harvested for yield assessments using a combine with a weight system. Yield and root rating data were analyzed by using SAS version 9.2 PROC MIXED/PDIFF option with Saxton’s lettering macro.
      PubDate: 2017-03-22
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw142
       
  • Performance of Seed Treatments and in-Furrow at-Plant Insecticides for
           Protection Against Cry3Bb1-Resistant Western Corn Rootworm, 2015 *
    • Authors: Victor de Macedo J; Mollet KA, Peterson JA.
      Abstract: The western corn rootworm is an important pest of corn that can compromise yield by feeding on plant roots during its larval stage. WCRW management has been complicated by the development of resistance in some regions, including Nebraska, to transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) traits, particularly the protein Cry3Bb1, which confers cross-resistance to mCry3A. A field trial was established to evaluate the efficacy of neonicotinoid seed treatments in combination with in-furrow insecticides on a corn hybrid expressing mCry3A Bt proteins against corn rootworm in an area with a history of rootworm resistance. The trial was conducted in a farmer’s field in Keith County near Ogallala, Nebraska, USA (41.116736° N, -101.652410° W), between 8 Jun and 6 Oct 2015. Damage from WCRW to corn expressing Cry3Bb1 proteins was documented in the field during the previous season.
      PubDate: 2017-03-22
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx001
       
  • Laboratory Bioassay of Insecticide Efficacy for Soybean Aphid ( Aphis
           glycines Matsumura), 2015 *
    • Authors: Zarrabi AA; Royer TA, Giles KL, et al.
      Abstract: Five insecticides were evaluated for residual control of soybean aphid (SA) on soybean in a laboratory bioassay (greenhouse and growth chamber) at Oklahoma State University in 2015. A SA stock colony was started with aphids obtained from Dr. Matt O'Neal, Associate Professor of Entomology, Iowa State University and maintained on untreated soybean plants at 24 ± 2°C; 25–65%rh; 16:8 (L:D) h. Ten seeds of susceptible soybean variety “Asgrow 4934” were sown in plastic pots (15 cm diameter) and held in mesh cages. Soybean plants were infested with SA when they reached 6–8 inches. For the experiments, four untreated soybean seeds were planted in soil media and thinned to one per pot 2 d after the first seedling emerged. All treatments were applied using a pressurized hand held single nozzle unit at the rate of 25 gpa. Six treatments (SkyRaider 2, 3, 4, and 6 fl. oz/acre; Brigadier 3.8 oz/acre; and untreated check) were evaluated for residual activity against SA placed on treated plants at 1, 3, 22, 29, 36 and 42 DAT. (DAT = days after treatment; these are the six infestation dates when aphids were placed on treated plants).
      PubDate: 2017-03-19
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx005
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Applications for Grasshopper Control in
           Cotton, 2016 *
    • Authors: Vyavhare SS; Reed BB.
      Abstract: This test was conducted in a commercial cotton field near Plainview, TX. The field was planted on 4 Jun on 40-inch row spacing. The field was irrigated using a drip irrigation system. The experiment was designed as an RCB with six treatments and four replications. The plots were 4-row wide × 40 ft. in length. Treatments were applied on 12 Aug. Insecticide applications were made with a CO2 pressurized hand-boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 gpa through hollow cone TeeJet TXVS6 spray tip nozzles (two per row) at 30 psi. Wind speed was well below 10 mph during spray applications. Insect sampling was done by swinging the sweep net through the top of the canopy. Each sample consisted of DG nymphs and adults collected in 25 consecutive sweeps taken in a row while walking forward. Sweep net contents (foliage + insects) were placed in plastic ziplock bags and brought to the laboratory. Plastic bags containing insects were stored at 3°C for further processing. Laboratory processing included counting of DG nymphs and adults found per sample. Sampling was conducted at 3, 7, and 21 DAT. Data were analyzed by ANOVA, and means were separated by LSD.
      PubDate: 2017-03-16
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx028
       
  • Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of San Jose Scale in Alabama
           Peaches, 2015 *
    • Authors: Balusu RR; Palmer KR, Cofer T, et al.
      Abstract: San Jose scale (SJS) attacks the tree (limbs and trunk) as well as the fruit of peach trees, causing poor fruit quality and potential tree death if left untreated. Recently, SJS infestations have increased in Alabama due to restriction of organophosphate (OP) insecticides, increased reliance on Pyrethroids, and a string of warm falls and mild winters. This study was conducted at the Chilton Research and Extension Center in Clanton, Alabama, on a 2-acre mature stand of “Flameprince” peach trees, planted at 20×15 ft spacing with 12 total rows and 20 trees per row. Three insecticide treatments and an untreated check were evaluated. Each plot consisted of three rows of four trees each (12 trees total), and replicated 5 times giving a total of 60 trees per treatment. A completely randomized design (CRD) was used, as the field crew did not follow directions given prior to the researcher’s arrival at the test site. All treatments were applied on 14 Apr 2015, with an air-blast sprayer mounted on a tractor and calibrated to deliver 150 gallons per acre. To assess the treatment performance, two trees in the innermost rows in each plot were randomly selected and tagged, from which two twigs of ∼3 cm diameter were randomly selected on opposite sides of the tree canopy as sampling sites. The relative abundance of crawlers in the various treatments was measured by using electric black sticky-tape traps. Post-treatment evaluations were made every week starting from 3 Jun 2015 until harvest (3, 10, 17, 24 Jun; 1, 8, 15, 22, 30 Jul). At harvest, 125 (25 fruits per tree) were randomly harvested from the tagged trees and assessed for scale insect damage. Percent fruit damage was calculated using a simple ratio of number of fruits showing damage to the total number of fruit evaluated. Data were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA and mean values were separated with Tukey–Kramer HSD (P 
      PubDate: 2017-03-16
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx027
       
  • Insecticide Evaluations in Soybean for Control of Twospotted Spider Mite,
           2015
    • Authors: Zarrabi AA; Royer TA, Seuhs S, et al.
      Abstract: The objective of this test was to compare efficacy of two rates of Zeal miticide applied at two volumes of carrier (5 and 15 gpa) against three standard insecticide/acaricides applied at 15 gpa for the control of twospotted spider mite (TSM). The test was conducted in a soybean field at Hinton, OK at the Roger Musick farm. Soybean variety ‘HBK RY 4620’ was planted on 22 Jun into a sandy loam soil with 30-inch centers and planting rate of 125,000 seeds/acre. Plots measuring three rows by 25 ft with 5-ft alleys were arranged in a RCB design with four replications and six treatments. In each plot, only the center row was treated and the outer two rows served as a buffer. Plots were sprayed with a hand held CO2-charged sprayer with two nozzles spaced 12 inches apart. Flat fan nozzles XR Tee Jet 8004VS were used for the 15-gpa sprays and flat fan nozzles Tee Jet 8001VS were used for the 5-gpa sprays. The plots received 6.55 inches of irrigation water in addition to 4.6 inches rainfall from planting to termination of the test. Pre-treatment counts were taken on 22 Aug and treatments were applied on 24 Aug. Samples were collected at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after treatment (DAT) by collecting one trifoliate from the middle portion of the canopy from ten randomly selected plants per plot. Data were analyzed using a 2-way ANOVA and means separated by protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05).
      PubDate: 2017-03-16
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx004
       
  • Comparison of Neonicotinoid Foliar and Seed Treatments for Management of
           Rice Water Weevil in Three Commercial Rice Varieties, 2016
    • Authors: Kraus EC; Stout MJ.
      Abstract: The rice water weevil (RWW) is the most damaging insect pest in Louisiana rice. The objective of this experiment was to compare the efficacy of a neonicotinoid seed treatment and a neonicotinoid foliar treatment against RWW in a hybrid and two conventional varieties of rice. Field plots, 4.1 by 18 ft, 7 rows at 7 in spacing, were drill seeded at the LSU AgCenter H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station on 9 May. Each variety was seeded at its recommended rate, Gemini at 25 lbs/acre, CL161 at 50 lbs/acre, and Cheniere at 75 lbs/acre. Plots were fertilized with 120 lbs N per acre on 2 Jun, and flooded immediately after fertilization. Seeds were treated with CruiserMaxx at a rate of 7 fl oz per 100 lbs seed before seeding. Foliar applications of Belay were made on 1 Jun, one day before flooding. Belay was applied with a backpack sprayer at 15 GPA and 20 psi, with 8002 Teejet nozzle, and a 3.2-ft boom. There were nine total treatments. Treatments were factorial combinations of the three varieties and three insecticide treatments (CruiserMaxx seed treatment, Belay foliar treatment, and untreated). There were four replicates of each treatment arranged in a RCBD. Weather and soil conditions were normal for the test location. The procedure for counting RWW involves taking soil core samples using a soil coring tool, diameter 9.2 cm depth 7.6 cm, which allows equally sized samples of soil and rice roots to be collected. Subsequently the roots are rinsed through a mesh screen bucket. The screen bucket is placed in salt water and floating larvae and pupae are counted. Soil core samples were taken on two dates, 24 Jun and 6 Jul, 22 and 34 days after flooding respectively. On 24 Jun, three cores per plot were taken, and on 6 Jul, two cores per plot were taken. Yields from whole plots were collected. The average number of RWW larvae per plot, and the total yield per plot were used in analysis. Treatment differences were analyzed using SAS software PROC GLIMMIX, with block used as a random effect. Fixed effects were variety, insecticide, and the variety by insecticide interaction. Means were compared by Fisher’s LSD (P ≤ 0.05).
      PubDate: 2017-03-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx010
       
  • Greenhouse Evaluation of Two Different Formulations of Azadirachtin on Egg
           Mortality of Virginia Creeper Leafhopper, 2016
    • Authors: Wilson H; Daane KM.
      Abstract: The Virginia creeper leafhopper (VCLH) is an important pest of grape in North America. VCLH feeding on the mesophyll of grape leaves leads to leaf stippling which can reduce vine productivity and ultimately impact fruit yield and quality. Large populations of VCLH adults in the fall can also be a nuisance to workers manually harvesting grapes. Azadirachtin is a recommended product for use against VCLH nymphs. Early season applications (May–Jun) are best since VCLH generations and life-stages are still relatively distinct. Spray timing can become more problematic later in the growing season (Jul-Sept) when overlapping VCLH generations lead to the simultaneous presence of eggs, nymphs and adults in the vineyard. If late season chemical controls are required, then chemical controls that are effective against multiple life stages of VCLH may be more effective. This study was designed to test the impact of two different formulations of azadirachtin (DeBug Turbo and DeBug Trés) on egg mortality of VCLH.
      PubDate: 2017-03-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx012
       
  • Toxicity of Rimon and Dimilin to Spotted Wing Drosophila by Three Routes
           of Exposure, 2016 *
    • Authors: Whitener AB; Beers EH.
      Abstract: SWD is an important pest of sweet cherry due to the deposition of eggs in the skin of ripening fruit. The resulting damage caused by larval feeding render the fruit unmarketable. This test was conducted in July/August 2016 at the Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center in Wenatchee, Washington. The flies used in this test came from a laboratory-reared colony of SWD established in 2015 with adult flies captured in an organic cherry orchard. In all treatments, five 7-day-old female SWD per arena were used. A replicate consisted of an arena made from a 1-liter plastic container with previously untreated “Sweetheart” cherry fruit and leaves. Five cherries were suspended from the lids by their stems, and three leaves were stapled to the inside surfaces of the arenas. A 30-ml plastic container was secured with hot-melt glue to the bottom of the arena to secure a small portion of Drosophila medium. We tested three routes of exposure (topical, residual, and per os) for two insecticides, Rimon and Dimilin and an untreated check. The experimental design was a CRD with seven treatments and five replicate arenas per treatment. In the topical treatments, the flies were sprayed with a laboratory sprayer (Potter Spray Tower, Burkard Scientific, Rickmansworth, UK) with 2 ml of insecticide mixture at 6.5 psi before being transferred to an untreated arena. In the residue treatments, cherries were treated two ways before untreated flies were added. Cherries were sprayed with a calibrated handheld mister (MISTO, LifetimeBrands, Inc., Garden City, NY), and rotated to cover all surfaces of the fruit. Leaves were sprayed with the laboratory sprayer before being stapled to the inside of the arena. For per os exposure, the insecticides were mixed with corn syrup (Karo Dark Syrup, ACH Food Companies, Inc., Memphis, TN) and applied in 25-µl droplets to the leaves (20 droplets per arena) after they were secured in the arenas. The check consisted of untreated leaves, fruit, and flies. Flies were allowed to oviposit for 16 h before fruits were removed and the number of eggs per fruit counted. Lids with fruit attached were moved to a new arena, and new lids were placed on the arenas containing flies. A 30-ml plastic container with Drosophila medium was placed into the glued-in container in the arena containing flies. Adult female SWD mortality was evaluated at 48 h after exposure. Fruit were held for 14 days at 21 °C and evaluated for successful adult emergence. All data were subjected to ANOVA for treatment effects with means separated by LSMEANS/PDIFF (P = 0.05).
      PubDate: 2017-03-09
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx025
       
  • Control of Insects on Potato, 2016 *
    • Authors: Buzza AM; Alyokhin A.
      Abstract: Testing new chemistries and monitoring the efficacy of existing compounds is extremely important because the CPB has the ability to build up resistance to chemicals. The experiments were conducted in Presque Isle, ME in 2016 and replicated four times (unless otherwise noted). The experimental design was RCB. Plots for experiments reported in Tables 1 and 2 were eight rows wide (24 ft) and 50-ft long. Plots for experiments reported in Tables 3 and 4 were four rows wide (12 ft) and 50-ft long. A 10-ft space was left fallow between blocks and a 6-ft space was left fallow between the plots within the blocks. Table 1Transformed mean number of CPB larvae and adults/10 plantsProduct/formulationRate amt/acreAppliedFoliar application5-Jul18-Jul22-Jul1-Aug8-Aug1Untreated check––0.8a10.2a14.8a3.5a12.9a2Vertisan 20.6 EC1.6 fl oz/1000 row-ft26-May0.2a0.3b0.2b0.0b0.2cVerimark 20 SC13.5 fl oz26-May3Exirel 10 SE10.5 fl oz18-Jul, 1-Aug0.9a7.3a1.0b0.3b0.3c4Elatus 30 WG0.5 oz/1000 row-ft26-May0.5a10.6a0.5b2.1a2.8bBlackhawk 36 WG2.5 oz18-Jul, 1-AugMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05).Table 2Transformed mean number, % defoliationProduct/formulationRate amt/acreAppliedFoliar applicationCWT/Acreaa5-Jul22-Jul1-Aug8-Aug10-Aug17-Aug16-Sep1Untreated check––10.8a19.0a25.4a63.5a79.0a90.1a174.2b2Vertisan 20.6 EC1.6 fl oz/1000 row-ft26-May0.0a0.0b0.6b2.2b7.8b16.2b312.2aVerimark 20 SC13.5 fl oz26-May3Exirel 10 SE10.5 fl oz18-Jul, 1-Aug2.4a2.2b1.1b5.0b2.2b13.0b300.1a4Elatus 30 WG0.5 oz/1000 row-ft26-May10.0a3.3b2.2b5.0b3.3b17.9b296.5aBlackhawk 36WG2.5 oz18-Jul, 1-AugMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05).aTotal field weights.Table 3Transformed mean number of CPB larvae and adults/20 plantsProduct/formulationRate amt/acreAppliedFoliar application5-Jul12-Jul18-Jul22-Jul1-Aug1Untreated check––0.6a1.3a14.6a11.3a5.4a2Exirel 10 SE5.0 fl oz18-Jul, 25-Jul0.5a2.5a11.0a0.9bc0.6b3Exirel 10 SE5.0 fl oz18-Jul0.5a1.1a10.1a0.5c0.6b4Besiege 1.25 ZC6.0 fl oz18-Jul, 25-Jul0.4a1.9a12.1a1.5b0.7b5Besiege 1.25ZC6.0 fl oz18-Jul0.4a1.4a9.9a2.0b1.4b6Blackhawk 36 WG3.0 oz18-Jul, 25-Jul0.5a1.4a7.6a0.2c1.0bMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05).Table 4Transformed mean number, % defoliationProduct/formulationRate amt/acreAppliedFoliar applicationCWT/acreaa12-Jul18-Jul22-Jul1-Aug10-Aug17-Aug16-Sep1Untreated check––3.8a16.5a16.9a22.9a80.0a92.9a182.6a2Exirel 10 SE5.0 fl oz18-Jul, 25-Jul9.4a8.3a6.6a3.2b9.5b15.7b140.7a3Exirel 10 SE5.0 fl oz18-Jul0.6a8.6a2.8a2.4b8.6b20.7b208.7a4Besiege 1.25 ZC6.0 fl oz18-Jul, 25-Jul2.6a13.5a4.6a1.9b4.4b9.4b233.2a5Besiege 1.25 ZC6.0 fl oz18-Jul0.6a10.0a5.0a6.1b9.4b26.4b217.8a6Blackhawk 36 WG3.0 oz18-Jul, 25-Jul7.5a6.3a7.5a1.9b11.9b22.9b233.2aMeans in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P > 0.05).aTotal field weights.
      PubDate: 2017-03-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx011
       
  • Effect of Eretmocerus eremicus and Soil Application of Cyantraniliprole on
           Bemisia tabaci (MED Whitefly), 2016 *
    • Authors: Kumar V; Houben K, McKenzie CL, et al.
      Abstract: *This research was supported by the Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative & USDA Farm Bill.With the overall goal to find effective alternates to neonicotinoid insecticides for the MED whitefly management program, the specific objective of this study was to evaluate whitefly parasitoid Eretmocerus eremicus and a diamide insecticide cyantraniliprole, for whitefly control, when applied alone or in combination. The trial was conducted on mint under greenhouse conditions at Mid-Florida Research & Education Center, University of Florida (MREC-UF). Mint cuttings (5-6 inches) were taken from stock plants and placed into 6 inch pots with Professional Growing Mix (Sun Gro Horticulture). Potted plants were irrigated as needed and fertilized with Peters Professional® 20-20-20 (1 tablespoon per gal) (Scotts Co., Marysville, Ohio) every 2 weeks. Four treatments were arranged in a RCB design with six replicates, where each replicate consisted of four plants per cage. Mint plants in each cage (replicate) were infested with 100 MED whitefly adults (3×) at weekly intervals (25 whitefly/plant), and treatment cages with E. eremicus were inoculated with ~100 parasitoids (2×) per cage starting two weeks after first whitefly infestations and prior to the insecticide application. Pretreat sampling to determine an initial count of arthropods and whitefly biotype confirmation was made prior to the drench application (4fl oz solution/ pot) of cyantraniliprole. Treatment evaluations were made at weekly intervals for a period of 7 wk by randomly sampling five leaves per replicate and recording the number of MED whitefly, eggs, nymphs and adults per leaf. Counts of whitefly life stages observed in different treatments were analyzed independently using a generalized linear mixed model with the SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) procedure GLIMMIX. The model was used to determine the effect of insecticide treatments, sampling period and their interaction on the arthropod counts. Since the response variable was count data with no upper bound, in model statement distribution was specified as Poisson. The autoregressive correlation structure was applied to account for the correlation in data generated by re-sampling the same experimental unit over time. Differences among treatment means were separated using Fisher’s LSD test (α = 0.05) in the repeated measures model. As the number of whitefly life stages in the efficacy trial was not uniform, Henderson–Tilton’s formula was used to calculate corrected mortality Table 1TreatmentsRate amt/100 galMean number of whitefly life-stages per leafWk 0Wk 1Wk 2Wk 3Wk 4Wk 5Wk 6Wk 7Whitefly eggsControl–1.07a1.70a8.13a6.20a5.77a4.57a4.73a19.20aCyantraniliprole12 fl oz1.30ab0.30b0.07b0.10b0.00b0.00b0.00b0.03bE. eretmocerus–0.17c0.00b0.07b0.10b0.10b0.00b0.10b0.27bCyantraniliprole + E. eretmocerus12 fl oz0.30bc0.03b0.07b0.03b0.07b0.00b0.03b0.00bWhitefly nymphsControl–3.63ab1.97a5.33a8.97a6.70a11.20a15.33a10.37aCyantraniliprole12 fl oz3.97a1.13ab0.33b0.40b0.03b0.03b0.10b0.07bE. eretmocerus–0.57bc0.07c0.23b0.17bc0.43b0.40b0.30b0.17bCyantraniliprole + E. eretmocerus12 fl oz0.53c0.40bc0.00b0.00c0.00b0.03b0.10b0.00bWhitefly adultsControl–0.03a0.00a0.37a0.20a0.17a0.30a1.13a1.03aCyantraniliprole12 fl oz0.10a0.07a0.33a0.13a0.03a0.03a0.03b0.00bE. eretmocerus–0.00a0.00a0.00a0.03a0.00a0.07a0.03b0.03bCyantraniliprole + E. eretmocerus12 fl oz0.00a0.00a0.00a0.00a0.00a0.00a0.00b0.00bMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, LSD test).
      PubDate: 2017-03-08
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw145
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Applications for Control of Sri Lanka
           Weevils on Cocoplum, 2013
    • Authors: Larsen NA; Barerra C, Owens D, et al.
      Abstract: The Sri Lanka weevil (SLW), Myllocerus undecimpustulatus undatus Marshall, is an invasive species not previously known from the new world until its discovery in 2000, in Broward County, Florida. Since its introduction, is has spread throughout most of peninsular Florida. Adults cause excessive leaf damage to over 100 species of plants, including many important commercial tropical fruits and ornamental plants. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of three commonly used active ingredients against SLW.
      PubDate: 2017-03-03
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx003
       
  • Standardized Evaluation of Carbine for Control of Sugarcane Aphid in Early
           and Late-Planted Sorghum, 2016 *
    • Authors: Zarrabi AA; Royer TA, Giles KL, et al.
      Abstract: Two insecticide efficacy trials representing an early and late planting of sorghum were conducted in 2016 to evaluate selected rates of Carbine insecticide for control of sugarcane aphid in grain sorghum. Trial 1 (early planting) was conducted at the Pretz farm, Stillwater, OK and trial 2 (late planting) was conducted at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Lane, OK. ‘DKS 3707’ was planted 3 May for trial 1, and ‘KS 215’ was planted on 1 Aug in Lane for trial 2. All plots were planted in 36-inch rows and individual plots measured four rows by 25 ft and were arranged in a RCB with four replications. A cover spray of Prevathon 0.43 SC was applied @ 14 fl oz/A on all plots in trial 2 on 24 Aug using a tractor-mounted boom sprayer at 30 psi calibrated to deliver 25 gpa to control fall armyworm in the whorl. All treatments were initiated when average pre-treatment counts in the test reached 100 aphids per leaf. Post treatment SA counts were recorded at 3, 7, 14 in trial 1 and 7, 14 and 21 DAT in trial 2 in each plot. Aphids were counted on 2 leaves (one selected from the lower 1/3 and one selected from the upper 1/3) from each of 10 randomly selected plants per treatment and reported as the mean number of aphids per leaf. Data were analyzed using a 2-way ANOVA and means separated using a protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). No yield was obtained in trial 1; in trial 2, yield was estimated by harvesting the one middle row of each plot with hand and yield was adjusted to 14% moisture.
      PubDate: 2017-03-03
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx006
       
  • Standardized Evaluation of Sivanto Prime for Control of Sugarcane Aphid,
           2016 *
    • Authors: Zarrabi AA; Royer TA, Giles KL, et al.
      Abstract: An insecticide efficacy trial was conducted in 2016 to evaluate Sivanto Prime for control of sugarcane aphid in grain sorghum at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Lane, OK. “KS 585” sorghum was planted on 26 Apr in 36-inch rows. Treatments were arranged in a RCB in four rows by 25 ft plots with four replications. A cover spray of Prevathon 0.43 SC was applied @ 14 fl oz/A on all plots on 27 Jun using a tractor-mounted boom sprayer at 30 psi calibrated to deliver 25 gpa to control fall armyworm in the whorl. A nonionic surfactant was added to all treatment spray solutions at 0.25% (v/v). Treatments were initiated when pre-treatment counts reached 100 aphids per leaf and applied as a broadcast spray with a CO2 handheld sprayer using Tee Jet AIXR110025 flat fan nozzles mounted on a 6 ft. boom at 50 psi and total volume of 20 gpa. Post treatment counts were recorded at 7, 14, 21 and 28-DAT in each plot. Aphids were counted on two leaves (one selected from the lower 1/3 and one selected from the upper 1/3) from each of 10 randomly selected plants per treatment and reported as the mean number of aphids per leaf. Data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and means separated using a protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05). Yield was estimated by harvesting the two middle rows of each plot with a plot combine adjusted to 14% moisture.
      PubDate: 2017-03-03
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx007
       
  • Standardized Evaluation of Strafer for Control of Sugarcane Aphid, 2016 *
    • Authors: Zarrabi AA; Royer TA, Giles KL, et al.
      Abstract: An insecticide efficacy trial was conducted in 2016 to evaluate Strafer for control of SA in grain sorghum at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Lane, OK. “KS 585” sorghum was planted on 26 Apr in 36-inch rows. Treatments were arranged in an RCB in 4 row by 25 ft plots with four replications. A cover spray of Prevathon 0.46 SC was applied @ 14 fl oz/A on all plots on 27 Jun using a tractor-mounted boom sprayer at 30 psi calibrated to deliver 25 gpa to control fall armyworm in the whorl. Treatments were initiated when pre-treatment counts reached 100 aphids per leaf and applied as a broadcast spray with a CO2 handheld sprayer using Tee Jet AIXR110025 flat fan nozzles mounted on a 6 ft. boom at 50 psi and total volume of 20 gpa. Post-treatment counts were taken at 3-, 7-, 14-, 21-, and 28-DAT in each plot. Aphids were counted on 2 leaves from each of 10 randomly selected plants per treatment; 1 leaf on the lower one-third and one leaf on the upper one-third of the plant and reported as the mean number of aphids per leaf. Data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and means separated by a protected LSD (P ≤ 0.05).
      PubDate: 2017-03-03
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx008
       
  • Blueberry Spanworm Control, 2016
    • Authors: Collins JA; Drummond FA.
      Abstract: This experiment was conducted on lowbush blueberry to evaluate the effectiveness of two insecticides against blueberry spanworm (SW). Two rates of Belt 400SC (flubendiamide) and one rate of Assail 30SG (acetamiprid) were applied on 20 May to 20 by 20-ft plots in a fruit-bearing blueberry field at Centerville, Maine. There were four treated plots for each material plus four untreated check plots. Treatments were blocked according to pre-spray population levels. Insecticides were applied in 25 gallons of water-mixture per acre using a CO2-propelled, 80-inch boom sprayer (76-inch swath) equipped with four, flat spray 8002VS TeeJet nozzles operating at 35 psi. Speed was regulated using a metronome. SW larvae were third to fifth instar and blueberry plants were at ca. 20% bloom. On sample dates indicated in table 1, 10 sweeps with a standard 12-inch diameter sweep net were taken systematically through the center area of each plot avoiding plot boundaries. Any SW larvae were counted and then distributed back into the same plot. No phytotoxicity was observed to the plants. Data were analyzed using ANOVA (RCB) and means were separated using Tukey’s HSD (P ≤ 0.05). Data were transformed by the square root to stabilize variance prior to analysis. Table 1RateMean percent survivalTreatment/formulationProduct/acre19 Mayaa21 May23 May25 May26 MayAssail 30SG5.3 oz5.5 a0.3 c0.8 c0.8 b0.3 bBelt 400SC1.5 oz7.5 a2.3 b2.3 bc3.8 ab1.5 abBelt 400SC2.4 oz6.3 a0.5 bc2.5 b3.3 ab1.8 abUntreated check–5.8 a6.8 a7.5 a7.5 a2.0 aMeans within columns followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (LSD, P ≤ 0.05).aPre-spray counts.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx002
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Applications for Conchuela Stink Bug
           Control in Cotton, 2016 *
    • Authors: Vyavhare SS; Kowles KA, Kesheimer JJ.
      Abstract: This test was conducted in a commercial cotton field near McAdoo, TX. The field was planted on 3 Jun on 40-inch rows (2:1 skip-row). The field was irrigated using a drip irrigation system. The experiment was designed as a RCB with six treatments and four replications. The plots were 2-rows wide × 40 ft in length. Treatments were applied on 28 Oct at beginning of boll opening stage of cotton. Insecticide applications were made with a CO2 pressurized hand-boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 gpa through hollow cone TeeJet TXVS6 spray tip nozzles (two per row) at 30 psi. Wind speed was well below 10 mph during spray applications. Two drop cloth samples were taken from each plot 7 days after application of treatments. Numbers of CSTs were counted in each drop cloth sample. Data collection was terminated 14 DAT due to low numbers of CSTs.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw146
       
  • Evaluation of Foliar Insecticide Applications for Cotton Fleahopper
           Control in Cotton, 2016
    • Authors: Vyavhare SS; Reed BB, Reynolds DD.
      Abstract: This test was conducted in a commercial cotton field near Tulia, TX. The field was planted in late May on 30-inch row spacing. The field was irrigated using center-pivot irrigation method. The experiment was designed as a RCB with seven treatments and four replications. The plots were 4 rows wide × 40 ft in length. Treatments were applied on 15 Jul during the bloom stage of cotton. Insecticide applications were made with a CO2 pressurized hand-boom sprayer calibrated to deliver 10 GPA through hollow cone TeeJet TXVS6 spray tip nozzles (two per row) at 30 psi. Wind speed was well below 10 mph during spray applications. Three drop cloth samples (3-row ft/sample) were taken from middle two rows of each plot at 3 DAT, 7 DAT, 10 DAT, 14 DAT, and 21 DAT. Numbers of CFH adults and nymphs were counted in each drop cloth sample, and the mean of the three drop cloth samples per plot are reported. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and means were separated by LSD.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx026
       
  • San Jose Scale Management on Peach, 2016
    • Authors: Nielsen AL; Rucker A.
      Abstract: The experiment was conducted to evaluate San Jose scale control treatments at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Bridgeton, NJ. The experiment was blocked according to over-wintering scale density and was replicated four times, in a RCB. Trees were spaced 20 × 20 ft. The first San Jose scale crawler was observed on 2 Jun. Treatments were applied to 19-year-old “Blushing Star” peach trees using a Rears airblast sprayer (28 inch fan, 180 psi) delivering 100 gpa and pulled through the orchard at 2.6 mph. All trees received regular sprays for disease management. The Damoil treatment was applied at delayed dormant on March 7. Movento (9.0 oz) + LI 700 (1qt), Sivanto (10.5 oz, 14.0 oz), Closer (5.75 oz) + Induce (1 qt) were applied on 7 Jun (5 days after first crawler), Venerate (64.0 oz) and Grandevo (32.o oz) were applied on 7 Jun (5 days after first crawler) and again on 14 Jun (plus 7 days). Crawler stage scale was monitored with a piece of double-sided sticky tape positioned over a strip of black electrical tape and wrapped around an infested branch. Two monitoring tapes were placed per test tree. SJS were monitored weekly. Tape was removed from each branch, returned to the laboratory, and the number of SJS crawlers on a 5 cm section of tape were counted using a stereomicroscope. The first monitoring tapes were applied 2 Jun. SJS fruit damage at harvest was evaluated on 29 Jul by examining total amount of fruit on the tree (up to 25 fruit/tree). When data did not meet assumptions of normality, data were transformed or log(x + 1) before analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means separation with Tukey’s LSD test among treatment means. Damage was determined by examining each fruit for aggregate scale densities and total injury. Data did not meet assumptions of normality and percent scale density category and totally injury were transformed using arcsin squareroot.
      PubDate: 2017-03-01
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx009
       
  • Greenhouse Evaluation of Azadirachtin and White Mineral Oil on Egg
           Mortality of Virginia Creeper Leafhopper, 2015 *
    • Authors: Wilson H; Daane KM.
      Abstract: Grape Vitis viniferaVirginia creeper leafhopper (VCLH): Erythroneura ziczac Walsh
      PubDate: 2017-01-31
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw138
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Southern Armyworm on Staked Tomato in Southwest
           Florida, 2015 *
    • Authors: Stansly PA; Kostyk BC.
      Abstract: Tomato Lycopersicon esculentumSouthern armyworm (SAW): Spodoptera eridania (Cramer)
      PubDate: 2017-01-31
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw131
       
  • Attractancy of Two Pyriproxifen Ant Baits to Control the Little Fire Ant,
           2014 *
    • Authors: Hara AH; Niino-DuPonte R.
      Abstract: little fire ant Wasmannia auropunctata
      PubDate: 2017-01-31
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw144
       
  • Efficacy of Soil and Trunk Applied Systemic Insecticides for Three Years
           After Application for Control of Emerald Ash Borer (Coleoptera:
           Buprestidae) on Green Ash *
    • Authors: Bick EN; Haugen C, Bernick S, et al.
      Abstract: Emerald ash borer (EAB): Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire)
      PubDate: 2017-01-31
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw134
       
  • Insecticidal Control of Corn Earworm and European Corn Borer in Minnesota
           Sweet Corn, 2016 *
    • Authors: Burkness EC; Wold-Burkness SJ, Hutchison WD.
      Abstract: European corn borer (ECB): Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)
      PubDate: 2017-01-31
      DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsw139
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.81.235.55
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016