Foliar Bio

Foliar Bio-insecticides for Control of Insect Pests on Tomatoes

N. B. Shamiyeh , A. B. Smith, and J. Cranmer

Interpretive Summary

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

Introduction

Commercial and experimental biological control agents are available for use against several insect pests and pathogens of tomatoes. However, their commercial use suffers from a lack of understanding about their efficacy, and the possibility of their integration with other forms of insect and disease control. There is a great variety of insect pests that feed on the foliage and fruit. An efficacy trial was conducted at the plateau Experiment Station at Crossville to evaluate new biological control of the corn earworm.

Materials and Methods

Twelve foliar applied insecticide treatments were compared to an untreated check for control of the Corn Earworm that was the predominant insect pest on tomato. Fertilization consisted of 400 lb of 15-15-15 applied broadcast and disc incorporated on 3 May. Transplants of ‘Mountain Pride’ were planted on 22 May. Plot size was 1 row, 15ft long and 12 ft 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. Three foliar insecticide applications were made starting on 21 Jun, 12 , and 23 Jul. using a 2.5 gallon CO2 hand sprayer at 60 gallons per acre and 40 psi. Insect damage ratings and number of worms/row were taken on 28 Jun, 19 Jul, and 1 Aug. Plots were hand harvested three times with the last harvest on 27 Aug. All harvest data were added together for the final yield. All data were analyzed by ANOVA.

Results and Discussion

All Plots treated with insecticides had less worms, more # 1 tomatoes and less damaged tomatoes than plots in the untreated check. Plots treated with the numbered compound S-1812, Danitol with S-1812, and Danitol produced more # 1 tomatoes than the other treated plots. There were no significant differences among treatments for the number of Marketable tomatoes ( 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 / Row 6/28 7/19 8/1			# 1 Tomato /Row	# Market Tomatoe	% Damaged Tomatoes
S - 1812 35 WP	0.100	1.25	0.25	0.00	13.50	64.00	18.55
S - 1812 35 WP	0.150	0.50	0.00	0.00	4.75	90.75	6.66
S - 1812 35 WP	0.200	0.00	0.00	0.50	10.50	76.25	13.20
^{S - 1812 4 EC} Asana XL .66EC	^0.100 0.630	0.25	0.75	0.50	10.50	74.75	12.16
^{Danitol 2.4 EC} S - 1812 4 EC	^0.100 0.100	0.00	0.00	0.25	8.75	88.25	6.15
^{Danitol 2.4 EC} S-1812 4 EC	^0.200 0.100	0.00	0.00	0.50	17.50	68.75	7.52
Danitol 2.4 EC	0.100	0.00	0.00	1.00	13.00	112.75	8.20
Danitol 2.4 EC	0.200	0.00	0.00	0.75	7.00	80.25	4.59
Asana XL 0.66 EC	0.020	1.00	1.00	0.50	0.00	82.00	17.37
^{S-1812 35 WP} Dipel 10.3 DF	^0.100 0.052	1.00	0.50	0.50	0.25	76.50	15.95
Dipel 10.3 DF	0.052	1.25	0.75	0.00	7.50	43.50	15.77
Spintor 2 SC	0.063	1.00	1.00	0.25	6.50	64.50	11.99
UTC	--------	12.25	14.00	4.75	3.25	23.50	57.18
LSD ( 0.05 )	--------	1.14	0.78	0.85	4.90	40.49	7.36

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.