Foliar Bio

Foliar Bio-fungicides for Control of Insect Pests on Peppers 2002

N. B. Shamiyeh , A. B. Smith, and C. W. Meister

Interpretive Summary

All treated plots had significantly lower disease ratings and less % Culls than the untreated check. Powdery Mildew was the predominant diseases.

Introduction

Bell peppers for fresh market are grown across Tennessee, but not in large acreage. Processing pepper is not produced in the state at present. There is a great variety of fungal pathogens and insects that attack the foliage and fruit. One common problem is the attack of insect pests such as the European corn borer, fall armyworms, and sucking insects such as aphids. Efficacy of bio-pesticides for control of Insect pests would be very advantageous since they are very safe and environmentally friendly.

Materials and Methods

Ten foliar insecticide treatments were compared to an untreated check for control of the Corn Earworm that was the predominant insect pest. Fertilization consisted of 400 lb of 15-15-15 applied broadcast and disc incorporated on 3 May. Transplants of ‘California Wonder’ were transplanted on 21 May. Plot size was 2 rows, 15ft long and 6ft wide. Treatments were replicated 4 times in a randomized complete block design. Weed and disease control were maintained in the conventional manner during the growing season. Five weekly foliar fungicide applications were made starting on Jul 11 and ending on 8 Aug using a 2.5 gallon CO2 hand sprayer at 60 gallons per acre. Insect damage ratings and number of worms/row were taken on 24 Jul, 1 , 8, and 15 Aug. Plots were hand harvested on 24 Jul, 8, and 15 Aug. and added together for total number of marketable peppers. All data were analyzed by ANOVA.

Results and Discussion

All Plots treated with insecticides had less worms than plots in the untreated check. There was no significant differences among treatments for insect control. Plots treated with the new numbered bio-pesticides were as effective as the standard pyrethroids for insect control. More marketable peppers, and less damaged fruit were produced in these plots ( Table 1 ).

Table 1. Powdery mildew ratings of peppers receiving various fungicide treatments at The University of Tennessee Plateau Experiment Station, Crossville, 2002.

Treatment/ Formulation	Rate Lbs AI/A	Worms / 10 Plants 7/24 8/1 8/8 8/15				#Market	%Damaged
Orthene 97 SG	0.630	0.00	0.25	0.25	0.00	68.00	3.70
S - 1812 35 WP	0.100	1.00	1.25	0.25	0.00	76.25	9.50
S - 1812 35 WP	0.150	0.00	0.25	0.75	0.00	64.00	7.80
Orthene 97 SG	0.200	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	81.75	5.50
S - 1812 35 WP Orthene 97 SG	0.100 0.630	0.00	0.25	0.00	0.00	61.50	11.40
S - 1812 35 WP Asana XL o.66	0.100 0.020	0.00	0.25	0.50	0.00	59.00	11.86
S - 1812 35 WP Dipel 10.3 DF	0.100 0.052	1.00	0.50	0.00	0.00	41.50	6.02
Asana XL 0.66 EC	0.020	1.00	0.75	1.25	0.00	91.50	10.11
Dipel 10.3 DF	0.052	1.00	1.00	0.50	0.25	97.25	8.22
Spintor 2 SC	0.100	1.00	1.00	0.50	0.00	82.50	11.04
UTC		4.00	4.00	14.25	0.75	40.25	49.00
LSD ( 0.05 )		1.00	0.85	1.03	0.47	16.92	16.05

Email all comments and suggestions to ghonea@utk.edu
Copyright © 1999 by The University of Tennessee. All rights reserved.

This research represents one season's data and does not constitute recommendations. After sufficient data is collected over the appropriate number of seasons, final recommendations will be made through research and extension publications.