California Pepper Commission Research Report 2005–2006
- Identification
- California Pepper Commission
- Insect Pest Management on Peppers
- Proposal for period beginning March 2005, ending February 2006.
- Principal Investigator:
Dr. John T. Trumble
Department of Entomology
University of California, Riverside - Cooperating Personnel:
William Carson, Greg Kund and Deguang Liu
Department of Entomology
Univ. of California, Riverside - Location of Work:
U.C. Riverside,
U. C. South Coast Res. & Ext. Center
Ventura Co. - Field Screening Trials for Effective Pesticides
- IPM strategies in Peppers
- Sprayed Confirm on 7/21/05 @ 12 oz/Ac.
- Sprayed Intrepid on 7/27/05 @ 8.5 oz/Ac.
- Sprayed Success on 8/4/05 @ 5 oz/Ac.
- Sprayed 2% oil 8/13/05
- Sprayed Intrepid on 8/18/05 @ 8.5 oz/Ac.
- Sprayed 2% oil and Success @ 5 oz/Ac on 8/25/05
- Sprayed 2% oil on 9/1/05
- Sprayed Xentari on 9/8/05 @ 1 lb/Ac.
The following chemicals were included in our 2005 field trials for peper insect control.
| Treatment # | Compound | Rate-Product | Company |
| 1 | Control | - | - |
| 2 | Currior 40 SC | 12.5 oz/Ac | Lab Services |
| 3 | NNI 2302 150g ai/L EC | 14 oz/Ac | Lab Services |
| 4 | Agrimek 0.15 EC | 12 oz/Ac | Syngenta |
| 5 | Actara 25% WG | 4 oz/Ac | Syngenta |
| 6 | DPX-E2Y45 SC 200g/L | 30 g/Ac | Dupont |
| 7 | DPX-E2Y45 (18.5%) | 40 g/Ac | Dupont |
| 8 a | Belay 16 WFG | 16 oz/Ac | Arvesta |
| 9 a | Belay 16 WFG | 24 oz/Ac | Arvesta |
| 10 b | Oberon 2 SC | 8.5 oz/Ac | Bayer |
| 11 b | Knack | 8 oz/Ac | Dupont |
| 12 c | Admire | 12 oz/Ac | Bayer |
a Treatment chemigated on: 6/17/05
b Treatment sprayed on: 7/27/05, 8/11/05, 8/25/05
c Treatment chemigated on 6/17/05 and 7/25/05
The transplant date was 6/14-6/15/05. On July 7 all transplants were sprayed with Xentari at 1 lb/Ac to control early season lepidopteran insect pressure. Foliar spray dates for the chemical trials 7/21, 7/27, 8/4, 8/11, 8/18, 8/25, 9/1, and 9/8 for all treatments. Harvest dates were 9/20/05, 9/21/05. Harvest included 200 fruit per replicate (800 per chemical treatment) that were examined for insect damage.
Data were collected on August 16 for total psyllid counts on leaves. Pepper weevil damage to the calyx (external damage) and internal damage were recorded at harvest. Lepidoptera damage (mostly the beet armyworm and cutworms) was also measured at harvest. Pepper weevil damage was high throughout the test. All data were analyzed with ANOVA and a Fisherís Protected LSD test with (P<0.05). No phytotoxicity was observed in any of the treatments.
Figure #1. Total psyllid populations.
The best suppression was with AgriMek (#4), Actara (#5), NNI 2302 (#3) and Oberon (#10). The poorest control was with the low rate of Belay (#9) and with Admire (#12). The untreated control is treatment #1.
Figure 2. Calyx feeding damage by the pepper weevil.
Figure 3. Calyx feeding damage by treatment. The best adult weevil control was seen with Actara (treatment #5). Some control was seen with Admire (#12) and Belay (#9). The untreated control is treatment #1.
Figure 4. Internal feeding damage by the pepper weevil. The best control was seen with Actara (#5) and Admire (# 12). The untreated control is treatment #1.
Figure 5. Damage by beet armyworm and cutworms. All materials provided significantly better suppression as compared to the control treatment (#1).
A comprehensive insect pest management program was evaluated in an experimental planting of a commercial variety of peppers at the UC South Coast Research and Extension Center in Orange County, CA. Plants were scouted on a weekly basis to determine if pesticide applications were needed. Plants were sprayed with a tractor mounted boom sprayer at commercial rates. Nine strategies were used for controlling thrips, whiteflies, and tomato psyllid. These rotational strategies were comprised of materials that are currently in use or likely to be registered in the near future. Sticky cards were placed at the edge of the field above the plant canopy to monitor pest pressure. This study generates the type of information preferred by EPA and CDFA when deciding on the merits of registration of new products.
All field treatments were replicated at least four times in a randomized complete block design, with replicates 30 ft long by four rows wide. Applications were made with a commercial tractor-mounted boom sprayer. At the conclusion of the trial the fruit (400/treatment) were examined for insect damage.
The following treatments were included in our 2005 IPM field trials for pepper insect control.
| Treatment # | Compound | Rate-Product | Company |
| 1 | Control | - | - |
| 2 | Admire 2F a Oberon 2 SC b | 24 oz/Ac 8.5 oz/Ac | Bayer |
| 3 | Admire Pro a Oberon 2 SC b | 10.5 oz/Ac 8.5 oz/Ac | Bayer |
| 4 | Xentari DF c S-1812 4EC d | 1 lb/Ac 4.8 oz/Ac | Valent |
| 5 | Venom 20 SG * | 21 oz/Ac | Valent |
| 6 | Purespray Oil 1 e No Admire | 1% & 2% | Petro-Canada |
| 7 | Purespray Oil 2 f Admire 2F (6/17/05) (7/25/05) | 2% 12 oz/Ac 12 oz/Ac | Petro-Canada |
| 8 | Purespray Oil 3 g Admire 2F (6/17/05) | 2% 12 oz/Ac | Petro-Canada |
| 9 | Purespray Oil 4 h Admire 2F (6/17/05) Admire 2F (7/25/04) Admire 2F (8/25/05) | 2% 12 oz/Ac 6 oz/Ac 6 oz/Ac | Petro-Canada |
a Treatment chemigated on: 6/17/05
b Treatment sprayed on: 7/27/05, 8/11/05, 8/25/05
c Xentari sprayed on 7/27/05, 8/13/05, 8/25/05
d S-1812 sprayed on 7/21/05, 8/4/05, 8/18/05, and 9/1/05
e Purespray Oil 1&8212;Sprayed 1% on 7/21/05, 7/27/05, and 8/4/05.
- Sprayed 2% on 8/13, 8/18, 8/25, and 9/1/05
f Purespray Oil 2&8212;Sprayed 2% on 7/21/05, 8/4/05, 8/18/05, and 9/1/05
g Purespray Oil 3&8212;Sprayed 2% on 7/21/05, 8/4/05, 8/18/05, and 9/1/05
Continued from previous table.
h Purespray Oil 4:
*Venom chemigated on 6/17/05 and 7/25/05
Figure 6. Total psyllid populations in IPM Trials. The best suppression was seen in with PureSpray Oil #3 plus Admire (treatment #8), PureSpray Oil #2 plus Admire ( #7), PureSpray Oil #1 (treatment #6), and Oberon plus Admire Pro (treatment # 3).
Figure 7. Calyx feeding damage in the IPM treatments. The best adult weevil control was seen with Admire plus Oberon (treatment #2), PureSpray Oil #2 plus Admire (treatment #7), Admire Pro plus Oberon (treatment #3), and PureSpray Oil #4 plus Admire (treatment #9). The untreated control is treatment #1.
Figure 8. Internal feeding damage by the pepper weevil. The best control was seen with PureSpray Oil #4 plus Admire (treatment #9). However, none of the treatments was particularly effective. The untreated control is treatment #1.
Figure 9. Damage by beet armyworm and cutworms. No treatments provided significantly better suppression than the control treatment (#1).
Figure 10. Harvest weights of the IPM trials showing weights of marketable fruit. There were no differences between trteatments.
Figure 11. Movement of psyllids into the pepper trials. The psyllids moved into our pepper planting from all directons. This year, the psyllids were most common in the mid and late season. In other years, the pattern has been different. However, the sticky traps did indicate when we should start intensive field sampling.
