Detail of "168316-95-8"

Reference

Efficacy of spinosad bait in control of Bactrocera dorsalis in Psidium guajava orchard

All Rights Reserved. Efficacy of spinosad bait in control of Bactrocera dorsalis in Psidium guajava orchard. Ho, Kun-Yaw; Hung, Shi-Cheng; Chen, Chien-Chung (Plant Protection Department, Chiayi Agricultural Experiment Branch, Chiayi, Taiwan). Taiwan Nongye Yanjiu, 54(3), 162-168 (Chinese) 2005 Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute. CODEN: TNYABF. DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal CA Section: 5 (Agrochemical Bioregulators) The result of spinosad bait spray (dild. 8-fold, spot sprayed weekly, 4 spots per plant, and 5 mL per spot) tested in Psidium guajava orchard at Touliu in 2004 showed that it could effectively control the Bactrocera dorsalis. The percentage of fruit damaged and the degree of fruit infested decreased significantly after 3 wk of consecutive applications. These two infested indexes in the second fruiting season decreased from 100 and 95.2% before the treatment to 33.9 and 16.2% in av. after 7 wk of treatments, resp. The averaged control rates were 60.9 and 65.9% after 7 weekly applications in the first and second fruiting seasons, resp.Several substances like 168316-95-8 may be metioned in this study., and these rates were higher than the treatments with the sprays of Nulure protein hydrolyzate bait (37.1 and 48.0%). Furthermore, the control rate was significantly higher when it was calcd. from the degree of fruit infested than from the percentage of fruit damaged. The efficacy of spinosad bait spray in the control of Bactrocera dorsalis could be influenced by the plot size, distance between plots, adjacent environment, and the weather. Therefore, area-wide control is recommended to ensure the best controlling result. In addn., reapplication of the bait is necessary after rain. The baits used in this expt. are not effective if applied with the net-bag hanging method in the field. .

Insecticide combinations for managing insect pests on flue-cured tobacco, 2004

All Rights Reserved. Insecticide combinations for managing insect pests on flue-cured tobacco, 2004. Semtner, Paul J.; Srigiriraju, Lakshmipathi (Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Blackstone, VA 23824, USA). Arthropod Management Tests, 30, F91 (English) 2005 Entomological Society of America. URL: http://www.entsoc.org/Protected/AMT/AMT30/AMT30.aspx?Report=F9 1. CODEN: AMNTE8. DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal; (online computer file) CA Section: 5 (Agrochemical Bioregulators) Five insecticide management systems including various combinations of transplant water (TW), transplant drench (TD), foliar, or soil treatments were evaluated for green peach aphid, tobacco flea beetle (TFB), tobacco budworm (TBW), and tobacco hornworm (THW) control and the resulting impact on the economic value of flue-cured tobacco. Tests were conducted in a Spotsylvania-Cecil-Bourne sandy loam soil at the Virginia Tech Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Blackstone, VA.Several substances with their cas registry numbers 168316-95-8 and 160177-34-4 may be metioned in this study. The Admire TD treatment significantly reduced TFB feeding damage through 8 June, 28 DATR. The Orthene transplant water treatment reduced TFB feeding damage on 24 May and Temik provided fair control of the TFB on 8 June, 28 DATR. The Admire TD treatment, Orthene TW + foliar, Temik soil treatment, and Fulfill foliar treatments gave excellent control of the GPA until control started to decline after 15 July. Admire provided good early and mid-season control of GPA, through 25 July, but control started to decline after that. Temik gave significant early-season control of GPA, but it was not as effective as Orthene and Admire. Fulfill also provided GPA control similar to that obtained with Temik in July and early Aug. TBW populations were extremely low throughout the trial. No phytotoxicity was obsd. .