Browsing Citrus Reports by Subjects
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
Mite Control and Damage to Arizona CitrusLemons were left untreated or treated for mites with Danitol (fenpropathrin). Mite populations were estimated and yield and fruit damage was accessed. Yuma spider mite, Eotetranychus yumensis, was the predominate mite species present during the high fruit susceptibility period. Although there was no apparent impact of mites on yield in this study, there was significant fruit damage that could be attributed to Yuma spider mite. The damage appeared as bronzed colored pitting of the fruit peel. Based on damage ratings, the treated plots produced 56% fancy, 34% choice, and 10% fruit grade based on mite damage, whereas the untreated plots produced 47%, 31% and 22% fancy, choice and juice grade fruit respectively. Statistically, the treated plots produce more fancy and less juice fruit, but did not differ in choice fruit. Although the treated areas produced better quality fruit, the amount of damage suffered in those plots was higher than desired. Fruit in the treated plots likely suffered some mite damage before treatments were initiated. In addition to the fruit damage test, a miticide efficacy test targeting Yuma spider mite on lemon was conducted comparing Agri-Mek, Danitol, Kelthane, Microthiol, and Nexter to an untreated check. Agri-Mek, Nexter, and Microthiol offered 14 days of control; although at 6 DAT Agri-Mek and Nexter did not differ from the untreated. Danitol and Kelthane contained fewer mite that the untreated for at least 35 DAT.
Particle Film Technologies: Pest Management and Yield Enhancement Qualities in LemonsSurround WP and Snow were evaluated for their ability to manage citrus thrips populations in lemons on the Yuma Mesa, and their impact on lemon yield, fruit quality, and packout. Both Surround and Snow effectively controlled citrus thrips and prevented fruit scarring. Surround produced higher yields than either Snow or the commercial standard at the first harvest (#9 ring). There were no differences in yield among treatments for the second (strip) harvest, nor were their any differences in total yield. These data suggest that Surround may increase fruit earliness or sizing. There were no statistical differences among any of the treatments in fruit size frequency or quality for any of the harvests, and there was no apparent benefit from applying an additional application of Surround or Snow post thrips season solely for quality, fruit size, or yield enhancement. The activity of Surround does not appear to be adversely affected by the inclusion of the insecticides Danitol, Baythroid, Carzol, or Success, nor do these insecticides appear to be adversely affected by Surround. Foliar fertilizers did not appear to adversely affect the activity of Surround when tank mixed. However, there is some evidence that Surround may negatively affect the absorption of Fe and Mn when tank mixed with Zn, Fe, Mn lignosulfonate, but this data is not conclusive. The addition of a non-ionic surfactant appears to enhance the on-leaf distribution of Surround over light petroleum and paraffin based oils, but long term efficacy is not affected.
Population Dynamics of the Citrus Leafminer in ArizonaCitrus leafminer (CLM) was monitored in a five year old block of lemons on the Yuma Mesa for one year. Unlike 2001, no CLM were found in the spring or early fall. From mid-November through mid-December CLM populations were very light ranging from 1 to 4% infested flush. In early January 2003, the CLM population began to increase peaking on 23 January at 68% infested flush. Although 68% appears to be a large infestation, the CLM population was not numerically high since there was not a great deal of fresh flush growth in the grove at that time. Thus, the CLM were concentrated on what little flush was present. Additionally, CLM larvae were tagged and monitored in January and February 2003. Of the 25 CLM larvae tagged, within five weeks only 9 had survived. Most of those killed appeared to have been killed by predators; most likely Yuma spider mite, Eotetranychus yumensis, and to a lesser extent Tydeus spp. Six of the larvae were killed by parasitoids, comprising two species; Cirrophilus coachellae and an unknown species that was damaged and could not be identified.