Antonelli, Arthur L.

Brauen, S. E.

Stahnke, G. K.

Stark, J. D.

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

Section 3Root-Feeding Maggots, Soil Arthropods and Other ProblemsALTERNATIVE CONTROLS FOREUROPEAN CRANEFLY IN TURFGRASSG.K. Stahnke, A.L. Antonelli, J. Stark, and S.E. BrauenExperiments discussed in this paper were conducted largely in the spring of 1992 and set up as arandomized complete block design with 6 replications per treatment. Plot sizes were 1.5 m X 3 m. Five 10cm cores were pulled from each plot in all six replications. Larval numbers were estimated by destroyingeach core sample for larval retrieval.In 1992, three formulations of chlorpyrifos (Dursban Turf Insecticide, FN-5354, Dursban 50WP), twoformulations of carbaryl (Sevin and Sevimol), isazofos, bendiocarb, ethoprop, Bacillus thuringiensis var.israelensis, and two rates and three timings of application combinations of nematodes, (Steinernemacarpocapsae "All" strain) were applied on 27 March. The standard application rate was 74.75 nematodescm"2. Nematodes were applied to the center of the plots as a drench with a watering can. Since thenematodes had split rates and split timings, they were applied either as an early treatment on 7 March, alate treatment on 27 Apr., or Yz rate on both dates.The standard method of detecting cranefly populations has been to pull a 10 cm core and count the larvaeas you tear apart the core. The number of larvae counted in the core is then multiplied by 11.5 toapproximate the number of larvae per0.0929 m2 (ft2). Popular journals have recommended using a drenchof soapy water to make the larvae emerge and then count them. This has not been scientificallydocumented for cranefly. The standard core, a drench of 2% Lemon Joy soap, Safer's soap, 2% bleach,2% ammonia and a 1.12 kg a.i. ha"1 rate of chlorpyrifos were compared over six plots. The drenchesremained on the area for 30 minutes before counting larvae present. The soil type on the site was aPuyallup fine sandy loam.Evaluation of a Margosan-0 was undertaken in the spring of 1991 utilizing similar methods as describedabove. In addition to efficacy comparisons, investigations into the impact of Margosan-0 on non-targetorganisms were also made. Organisms were collected via use of pitfall traps and berlese samples fromcores.ResultsMost control data provided herein is given in larvae/m2. For convenience of interpretation, the currenteconomic threshold is 25 larvae/ft2. This is equal to 269 larvae/m2.The results of the 1992 control trials are demonstrated in table one and two. With the exception of Sevimoland possibly Isazophos, all conventional materials did quite well. Bacillusthuringiensisperformed poorly andthe nematode gave a control profile that might be acceptable at currently accepted threshold levels or lower(this was, incidentally consistent with 1991 test performance).Soil drenches were evaluated against the coring technique (Table 3) for estimating cranefly populations.None of the drench methods was as consistent or detected the true amounts of cranefly present as thecoring technique.The 1991 trial comparing Margosan-0 against a number of materials demonstrated poor control (Margosan-0 =516.5 larvae/m2; control=413.3 larvae/m2). The non-target organism impact by Margosan-0 gave avaried profile when compared with a standard (Chlorpyrifos) and a check. Margosan-0 had little impact onthe Araneae as a whole, non-Oribatid Acari, and non-sminthurid Collembolans. However, this material hadsignificant impact on Oribatid Acari and sminthurid Coilembola. In most cases, these organisms returnedto "check" levels in about six weeks.35Table 1. Effect of formulations of Chlorpyrifos, Carbaryl, and Ethoprop, control of European craneflyin spring 1992. •Name Formulation Ratem-2tLarvaeDursban Turf Insecticide 4.0 EC 1.12 12.9 c*FN-5354 FL2.0 1.12 42.6 cDursban 50% WP 1.12 38.8 c .Sevimol FL 4.0 8.97 206.7 aSevin 7G 8.97 81.4 beMocap 10G 5.61 9.0 cNo treatment- 272.6 at Larvae estimated by destruction of five 10 cm cores per plot. Treatments were replicated six times.* Means within a column, followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 confidence levelby Duncan's multiple range test.Table 2. Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis, Isazofos, Bendiocarb and nematodes on control of cranefly larvaeon colonial bentgrass in spring 1992.Formulation LarvaeProduct Rate (kg ai ha'1) m"2No treatment - Early t - 816.4 a*% rate nematode - Early* 37.38 cm"2 653.6 abFull rate nematode - Early 74.75 cm"2 482.3 bNo treatment - Late§ - 585.7 b% rate nematode - Late 37.38 cm"2 490.9 be•Full rate nematode - Late 74.75 cm"2 374.6 cV2 rate Early/% rate Late 37.38 cm"2/37.38 cm"2 469.4 beIsazofos 0.42 469.4 beBendiocarb 5.02 172.3 dBacilus thuringiensis var israelensis 51 ml m"2 632.9 abt Larvae estimated by destruction of five 10 cm cores per plot in six replications.* Means within the same column followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.05confidence level by Duncan's multiple range test.t Early application on 7 March 1991.§ Late application on 27 April 1992.Chemicals applied on 27 March 1992.Table 3. Monitoring for ECF larvae.Method Larvae/Ft2Core destruction 25.9 aSafer's Soap 5.18 b •Lemon Joy 5.06 b2% bleach 2.65 b2% ammonia 4.37 b -Chlorpyrifos solution (1.12 kg ai ha"1) 9.89 bDMRT 0.5.#36

Alternative Controls for European Cranefly in Turfgrass

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/xg94hv95p

Alternative Controls for European Cranefly in Turfgrass

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU