COMPATIBILITY OF INSECTICIDES, FUNGICIDES, ANDfshs.org/proceedings-o/1962-vol-75/209-112 (SCHENCK).pdf · COMPATIBILITY OF INSECTICIDES, FUNGICIDES, AND ... pesticides are commonly

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • SCHENCK AND ADLERZ: WATERMELON FERTILIZERS 209

    COMPATIBILITY OF INSECTICIDES, FUNGICIDES, AND

    FOLIAR FERTILIZERS ON WATERMELON

    N. C. SCHENCK AND W. C. ADLERZ1

    Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

    Leesburg

    Insecticides, fungicides, and foliar fertilizers

    are all used in the production of watermelon

    (Citrullus vulgaris L.) in Florida. In certain

    areas of the state, particularly in south Florida,

    pesticides are commonly applied at 5-7 day in

    tervals to maintain disease and insect control.

    Growers with large acreages combine insecticides

    and fungicides so that both can be applied at the

    required short interval. In addition, materials

    are combined simply to save the time and labor

    required to make separate applications.

    Several pesticide-nutritional spray mixtures

    have been suspected of causing physical damage

    to watermelon plants, but no recommendations

    have been made regarding the phytotoxicity of

    these spray mixtures because of the lack of ex

    perimental evidence. In addition, little was known

    about the pesticidal effectiveness of these mix

    tures.

    In 1952, Kelsheimer et al. (3) compared 20

    different pesticide-nutrient mixtures for their

    compatibility on several vegetable crops. Al

    though many of the materials tested in that study

    are still in use, several new pesticides and nu

    trients have since become available.

    Several references report fungicide-insecticide

    compatibilities on crops other than vegetables (4)

    (5) (6), but no nutrients were included in these

    tests, and results are not entirely applicable to

    vegetable crops. In addition, pesticide mixtures

    have been compared for compatibility in seed

    treatment of cucurbits (7), peas (8), and corn

    (1), but these results have little application to

    the compatibility of pesticide mixtures as foliar

    sprays.

    The purpose of this paper is to preliminarily

    report the progress of an evaluation of several

    pesticide-nutrient combinations for their effect

    on watermelons. Perhaps this report will stimu

    late the interest of other researchers to perform

    similar experiments on other crops and also act

    as a deterrent to indiscriminate mixing of ma

    terials in the spray tank.

    lAssistant Plant Pathologist and Assistant Entomologist, respectively, Watermelon and Grape Investigations Labora

    tory, Leesburg, Florida. T Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series,

    No. 1579.

    Materials and Methods

    Pesticide and pesticide-nutrient mixtures were

    evaluated in the field on variety Charleston Gray

    watermelon arranged in plots of 10 hills in 2

    paired rows. The experimental design was a ran

    domized block of 3 replicates, and the entire ex

    periment was bordered with a row of Fairfax

    watermelons. In addition, in 1962, separator rows

    of variety Summit were planted between plots.

    In 1961 there were 24 treatments consisting

    of all possible combinations using 1 each of 4

    insecticides, 3 fungicides, and 2 foliar fertilizers.

    Materials and rates (for 100 gallons of water)

    were as follows: fungicidesDithane Z-78 (75%

    zineb w.p., Rohm and Haas Co.) at 1 lb. plus

    Manzate (80% maneb w.p., E. I. duPont de Ne-

    mours and Co.) at 0.75 lb.; Captan 50 (50%

    captan w.p., California Chemical Co.) at 2 lb.;

    Tribasic Copper Sulfate (53% metallic copper

    as basic copper sulfate) at 3 lb.; insecticides

    Dibrom 8E (100% naled emulsifiable liquid, Cali

    fornia Chemical Co.) at 1 lb.; Diazinon 25W

    (25% diazinon w.p., Geigy Chemical Co.) at 2

    lb.; Phosdrin 25W (25% phosdrin w.p., Shell

    Chemical Co.) at 1 lb.; Thiodan 50W (50% en-

    dosulfan w.p., Niagara Chemical Division) at 1

    lb.; fertilizersNugreen (45% urea jntrogen,

    E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co.) at 4 lb.; ni

    trate of soda-potash (15-0-14, Chilean Nitrate

    Sales) at 5 lb.

    In 1962 there were 48 treatments consisting

    of all possible combinations using 1 each of 4

    insecticides, 4 fungicides, and 3 foliar fertilizer

    treatments. Materials and rates were as follows:

    fungicidesDithane Z-78 at 2 lb.; Manzate at

    1.5 lb.; Phaltan (50% folpet w.p., California

    Chemical Co.) at 2 lb.; Dithane M-45 (16%

    manganese, 2% zinc, 62% ethylenebisdithiocar-

    bamate, Rohm and Haas Co.) at 2 lb.; insecti

    cidesDibrom 8E at 1 lb.; Diazinon 25W, at 2

    lb.; Thiodan 50W at 1 lb.; Guthion 25W (25%

    guthion w.p., Chemagro Corp.) at 2 lb.; ferti

    lizersNugreen at 4 lb.; nitrate of soda-potash

    at 5 lb.; none.

    Treatments were applied at approximately

    125 psi from a Meyers 25-gallon Research Sprayer

    with a 12-foot boom bearing 11 nozzles. Treat

    ments were applied at 10-14 day intervals 4 times

    in 1961 and 6 times in 1962. In both years disease

    ratings were made at weekly intervals, using a

  • 210 FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, 1962

    Table 1. Effectiveness of various fungicides in the control of watermelon diseases^ 1961 and 1962,

    Mean disease ratings^ 190I 19o2

    Zineb-maneb

    Copper

    Captan

    3.7 a<

    4.5 b

    5.1 c

    Maneb

    M-45

    Folpet

    Zineb

    3.9 a2

    5.2 b

    6.0 c

    6.4 c

    1 Rating system scale 0-11.0; 1.0 = trace of disease, 11.0 = 100$ infection.

    2 Values followed by the same letter nonsignificantly different according to analysis of variance.

    Table 2. Effect of insecticides on the fungicidal

    control of watermelon diseases, 1961.

    Insecticide Mean

    Phosdrin

    Dibrom

    Diazinon

    Thiodan

    disease rating

    4.1 a

    4.3 a

    4.3 a

    4.8 b

    Table 3. Effect of fertilizers on disease and

    insect control.

    1961

    Disease rating

    15-0-14 4.2 a

    Nugreen 4.6 b

    None

    1962 Percent rindworm

    damaged melons

    53.4 a

    52.9 a

    60.6 b

    Table 4. Control of rindworm of watermelon by

    insecticides, 1962

    Insecticide

    Guthion

    Thiodan

    Diazinon

    Dibrom

    Mean percent

    damaged melons

    41.4 a

    57.2 b"

    59.7 b

    62.9 b

    modification of HorsfalFs method (2). Melon

    numbers and weights were recorded twice in

    1961 and 3 times in 1962. Melons damaged by

    rindworm were counted at the time of picking

    in 1962. Other insect infestations did not develop

    during either test.

    Results and Discussion

    Differences in disease control in 1961 resulted

    principally from the major effects of fungicides,

    insecticides, and foliar fertilizers rather than

    from their interactions. In 1961 zineb-maneb

    was significantly better than copper, which was

    significantly better than captan. In 1962 maneb

    and Dithane M-45 were significantly better than

    folpet and zineb; maneb was also significantly

    better than M-45 (Table 1). Disease control with

    mixtures containing thiodan was significantly

    less than control with those containing other

    insecticides (Table 2). Combinations with Nu

    green were significantly poorer in disease control

    than those with 15-0-14 (Table 3).

    A rindworm infestation in 1962 was the only

    insect problem encountered during these tests.

    Rindworm damage was significantly less in plots

    sprayed with guthion than in those sprayed

    with other insecticides (Table 4). Rindworm

    damage also was significantly less in plots

    sprayed with mixtures containing fertilizers than

    in those sprayed with mixtures not containing

    fertilizers (Table 3). Rindworm control was re

    duced when insecticides were combined with di-

    thiocarbamate fungicides in the absence of fer

    tilizers (Fig. 1). However, control was not re-

  • SCHENCK AND ADLERZ: WATERMELON FERTILIZERS 211

    5

    o

    i o

    |

    66 r

    62

    56

    54

    o: 50

    46 FOLPET ZINEB

    MANEB

    FERTILIZER

    FOLPET ZINEB

    MANEB

    NO FERTIUZER

    Figure 1.Effect of fungicides and fertilizer combinations on insecticide control of rindworm of watermelons, 1962.

    duced in similar combinations with folpet.

    There were no significant differences in yield

    due to the major effects of fungicides, insecti

    cides, or foliar fertilizers.

    Certain combinations were involved in sig

    nificant interactions indicating apparent incom

    patibility (Table 5). These interactions were not

    supported statistically by significant major effects

    or lower order interactions or both, which con

    siderably lessens their importance. However,

    these combinations are worthy of note and fur

    ther evaluation.

    Summary

    In a 2-year study (1961-1962) 72 combina

    tions of insecticides, fungicides, and foliar fer

    tilizers were compared for their compatibility

    on watermelon. In these tests disease control

    was best with zineb-maneb and maneb alone.

    Disease control with mixtures containing Thiodan

    or Nugreen was significantly less than with mix

    tures not containing them. Rindworm control

    was best with guthion and mixtures containing

    foliar fertilizers. Insecticidal control was re

    duced by mixtures containing dithiocarbamate

    fungicides without fertilizers. Other combina

    tions showing apparent incompatibility will be

    tested further.

    LITERATURE CITED

    1. Arnold, E. W. and J. W. Apple. 1957. Compatibility of insecticides and fungicides used for the treatment of corn seed. J. Econ. Entomol. 50:43-45.

    2. Horsfall, James G. 1945. Fungicides and their action. Chronica Botanica Co. Waltham, Mass. p. 38-41.

    3. Kelsheimer, E. G., James M. Walter, J. R. Becken-bach. 1952. Compatibility of insecticides, fungicides and nutrients for vegetable crops. Florida Agr. Expt. Sta. Circ.

    S-47. 6p. 4. Kelsheimer, E. G. 1958. Compatibility of insecticides

    Table 5. Pesticide-fertilizer combinations involved in interactions

    indicating apparent incompatibility in 196l or 1962,

    Combinations

    Disease Percent rindworm Yield

    ratings damaged melons (pounds per acre)

    Thiodan/zineb-maneb/Nugreen 7.0

    Thiodan/15-0-14

    Diazinon/zineb-maneb/Nugreen

    Phosdrin/captan/Nugreen

    Dibrom/zineb-maneb/Nugreen

    Diazinon/M-45/15-0-l4

    Diazinon/zineb

    Experiment mean 3.5

    -

    -

    -

    -

    83^7

    86.7

    55.3

    17,932

    9,655

    15,100

    15,560

    -

    0

    20,839

    .2

    .8

    .8

    .6

    .2

  • 212 FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, 1962

    and fungicides for chrysanthemums. Proc. Florida State

    Hort. Soc. 71:392-394. 5. Madsen, H. F. and Stanley C. Hoyt. 1962. Compati

    bility chart of spray chemicals. Western Fruit Grower

    16(2):26-29. 6. McBride, J. J., Jr. 1958. Reaction of zineb with

    copper compounds, oil deposits when applied with zineb and deposits of zineb when applied with a variety of ma

    terials. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 71: 118-122. 7. Natti, J. J., W. T. Schroeder, G. E. R. Hervey, and

    F. L. McEwen. 1958. Value of insecticide-fungicide combi nation treatments as protectants for seed of cucumber and winter squash. Plant Disease Reptr. 42:127-133.

    8. Richardson, Lloyd T. 1960. Effect of insecticide-fungicide combinations on emergence of peas and growth of damping-off fungi. Plant Disease Reptr. 44:104-108.

    PROGRESS REPORT ON POLE BEAN BREEDING AT THE

    SUB-TROPICAL EXPERIMENT STATION

    Robert A. Conover

    Sub-Tropical Experiment Station

    Homestead

    Pole bean acreage in Dade County has in

    creased steadily during the past decade so that

    pole beans are now the second most important

    vegetable crop grown in the county. About

    7,000 acres were planted during the 1960-61 sea

    son with production valued at $4,000,000. Dade's

    crop accounts for about 85% of Florida's pole

    bean acreage and 20% of the value of all green

    beans produced in Florida.

    The principal hazard to successful pole bean

    production is bean rust caused by the fungu-3

    Uromyces phaseoli typica Arth. Rust makes its

    appearance in the fall, gradually builds up dur

    ing the winter, and reaches a peak of destruc-

    tiveness during the spring. Sulfur dust provides

    adequate control during the fall and early winter,

    but is inadequate when rust is severe. Dusts con

    taining sulfur plus 3.5% maneb will control rust

    under severe conditions but twice weekly appli

    cations may be required. These dusts are expen

    sive and close attention must be paid to details,

    especially timing of applications, if satisfactory

    control is to be obtained.

    There are several other diseases and disorders

    which may affect certain pole bf^an varieties.

    The common bean mosaic and the Southern bean

    mosaic viruses are sometimes devastating in sus

    ceptible varieties. Resistances to both viruses are

    available in present day varieties. Yellow bean

    mosaic is sometimes a problem in Dade County,

    particularly in small plantings near groves and

    residences. Resistance to this virus is not known

    in beans. Intumescence and black suture, two

    physiological disorders thought to be induced by

    environmental factors, are occasionally severe

    in pole beans.

    McCaslan is the only pole bean variety grown

    to any extent in Dade County. It is well adapted

    to the winter-growing conditions and to the cal

    careous soils of Dade County, is resistant to the

    common bean mosaic virus, black suture and in

    tumescence, but it is very susceptible to rust.

    The pods of McCaslan are too light in color,

    and are also criticized for being flat and rough.

    Other varieties, such as U.S. No. 4 (No. 191)

    and Florigreen, have not found favor with

    Dade County growers, although the latter is

    rust resistant, and both have features which are

    desirable in pole beans. Both Florigreen and

    U.S. No. 4 are susceptible to black suture and

    intumescence. Florigreen is resistant to the com

    mon and Southern bean mosaic viruses.

    The Florida Agricultural Experiment Sta

    tions initiated a state-wide pole bean breeding

    project* in 1957 to coordinate work being done

    at several locations in the state. The main ob

    jective of this project, as it applies to the Sub-

    Tropical Experiment Station, has been to de

    velop a high yielding, rust resistant pole bean

    adapted to Dade County conditions, and produc

    ing good quality pods able to withstand the rigors

    of marketing. The immediate and primary aim

    has been to develop a high yielding pole bean

    combining the vigor and adaptability of McCaslan

    with the rust resistance and pod color of Flori

    green. Uniformity in length, straightness, and

    smoothness of pod was sought in every selection.

    This paper is a report of the progress made

    toward developing a pole bean variety with these

    features.

    Most of the work at the SES has been pri

    marily concerned with selections from a cross

    of McCaslan and Florigreen made by Dr. A. P.

    Lorz of the Main Station, Gainesville. Selec

    tions from this cross have proved to be highly

    resistant to rust, and to produce yields that

    equal or exceed the yields of either parent. In

    addition these stocks possess, in varying degree,

    most of the features considered desirable in a

    ^Project 887: Breeding of Improved Pole Bean Varieties

    for Commercial Production in Florida.