Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Control of Armyworm and Cutworms, 1987

Authors: Stephen W. Bullington; James E. Roberts;

Control of Armyworm and Cutworms, 1987

Abstract

Abstract Five insecticides were evaluated at 2 sites in southwestern Virginia (Montgomery and Giles Counties) for control of larvae of armyworm and of various cutworms in no-till field corn after a pre-emergence tank mix of recommended herbicides and liquid nitrogen had been applied. Plots were established in a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates. Each plot was 4 rows wide and 50 ft long. For each of 4 of the treatments, the insecticides were impregnated on 25 lb of fertilizer (Green Grass general purpose lawn and garden fertilizer, 0-17-35, with boron) and spread by hand evenly throughout the plot. For each of these 4 treatments, the requisite amount of insecticide was first dissolved in 500 ml water, then sprayed onto the fertilizer with a hand-held mister as the fertilizer turned in a cement mixer. The damp fertilizer was then spread out on plastic sheets to dry for 1 d in the sun. The control for this group of impregnated treatments consisted of 25 lb of the fertilizer, also spread by hand. A compressed-air sprayer with 2 fan nozzles (Teejet 80034) delivering 16 gal/acre at 30 psi was used to make the foliar insecticide treatments. To ensure uniform coverage by the spray, 4 adjacent swaths of the insecticide, each approximately 3 ft wide, were applied over each plot. The control of this latter group of sprayed treatments was left untouched. The corn plants in the center 30 ft of the 2 center rows of each plot were counted about a month after planting, and the plants damaged by larvae caterpillars in the same area were counted in mid-summer. Ensilage yields were determined at harvest by cutting all the stalks from the same 60 row-ft for which plants were counted and damage was surveyed, then weighing these stalks using a sling swung from milk scales attached to a portable tripod. Damage and yield data were subjected to ANOVA. In Montgomery ‘3233 Pioneer’ field corn was planted in 38-inch-wide rows 11 May to corn stubble without cover, and the tank mix (paraquat, citrazine, simazine, and metachlor) was applied the same day. Insecticides were applied 13 May. Plants were counted 15 Jun, damaged plants were counted 18 Jun, and yields were determined 9-12 Sep. In Giles, ‘789 DeKalb’ field corn was planted in 36-inch-wide rows 15 May over a winter cover crop of rye, and the tank mix (paraquat, atrazine, and bicep) was applied the same day. Insecticides were applied 20 May. Total plants and damaged plants were counted 11 Jun, and yields were determined 16-17 Sep.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    1
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
1
Average
Average
Average
gold
Upload OA version
Are you the author? Do you have the OA version of this publication?