Effect of Selective Foliar Insecticides on<i>Amblyseius swirskii</i>(Acari: Phytoseiidae), 2014
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Amblyseius swirskii is a generalist predator, widely known for its biocontrol potential against multiple pests (mites, thrips, and whiteflies) of nursery and greenhouse crops. The objective of this study was to evaluate susceptibility of A. swirskii to conventional insecticides known to be effective against various greenhouse pests. The trial was conducted on an ornamental pepper cultivar “Masquerade” at U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, Florida to identify A. swirskii- compatible pesticides. Pepper plants were grown from seed in Fafard Pro-Mix (Canadian Formula; Conrad Fafard, Inc., Agawam, MA 01001-2907) medium in seedling trays and transplanted in 10.1 cm-diameter plastic pots when seedlings were ∼5-wk old. Plants were watered as needed (approximately two times a wk) and fertilized weekly with 50 ml/pot of Peters Professional 20-10-20 (325 ppm) (Scotts Co., Marysville, OH). The greenhouse was maintained at 26 ± 3°C and 75–80% RH. Once host plants reached flowering stage, 10 A. swirskii adults were released on the top leaves of each plant. Two wks after predatory mite release, insecticide applications were made using a small hand held sprayer delivering 65.5 ml/ m 2 at 211 kPa (30.6 psi); treated potted plants were spaced at 1.5 × 1.5 ft. The trial was setup in a RCB design with five replicates. Treatment effects were evaluated by carefully inspecting five top leaves of each pepper plant using a 30× hand held lens. Count data were subjected to square root transformation prior to conducting ANOVA and mean separation procedures. The data presented are the untransformed means. Means separation was performed using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at the P < 0.05 level. A. swirskii populations varied greatly, however significant reduction in mite numbers were observed in all the pesticide treatments compared to the untreated check. Overall Spintor, Epimek and Movento were found to be most lethal on the three life stages (eggs, nymphs, adults) of mites. No significant difference in number of mite eggs was observed 24-h post application of treatments ( Table 1 ). However, significant reduction in number of mite eggs was observed (compared with the untreated check) in Spintor (76–97%), Epimek (78–91%), and Movento (69–83%) on DAT 5, 10, and 15. Similar results were obtained while evaluating different treatments for A. swirskii nymphs and adults, where Spintor, Epimek, and Movento provided significant reduction in the number of compared with the untreated check on all sampling dates, except DAT 1 ( Tables 2 and 3 ). Overture was found to be most benign on three life stages of A. swirskii among all of the insecticide treatments. No significant difference in the number of any of the life stages was observed in Overture treated plants compared with the untreated control on DAT 1 and 15. No phyto-toxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatments. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test) Henderson-Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test) Henderson-Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test) Henderson-Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test) Henderson-Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test) Henderson-Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test) Henderson-Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».