Abstract
Corn earworm (CEW) is the primary pest of sweet corn in the Mid-Atlantic region. Pyrethroid resistance is well documented, but there are few other effective modes of action available for CEW control in sweet corn. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn. Treatments were applied to ‘American Dream’ sweet corn planted on 17 Jun and 5 Jul 2022 at the University of Delaware Carvel Research Center, Georgetown, DE. Plots were 2 rows by 20 ft with a 1-row buffer between treatments. Treatments were replicated 4 times in a randomized complete block design. Insecticides were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer with single-row boom directed to ear spray equipped with 2 D2 tips and #25 cores delivering 40 GPA at 38 PSI. All treatments, except the untreated check, received Induce (0.25% v/v). In the 17 June planting, treatments were initiated 2 days after the first silk. Treatments were initiated 4–5 days after the first silk in the 5 July planting. Treatments were applied at 3-day intervals, with 6 applications made between silking and harvest. Treatment efficacy was assessed from 25 random ears from each plot. The presence and location of corn earworm damage and the size of larvae present were recorded from each ear. The first planting was harvested on 22 August. The second planting was harvested on 6 September. All data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey–Kramer HSD means separation using JMP. All treatments from plots planted on 17 Jun had significantly fewer number of medium and large corn earworm larva than the untreated check (Table 1). Ears treated with Hero at 10.3 fl oz/acre had significantly fewer total CEW than ears treated with Warrior II. All treatments had a significantly higher percent of clean (fresh market) and processing ears than the untreated check. Hero at 10.3 fl oz/acre had a significantly higher percent of clean ears than Warrior II and Brigade. Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey–Kramer HSD means separation). Treatment applications occurred on 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 Aug. aCEW instars 1−2. bCEW instars 3−4. cCEW instars 5−6. dPercent of ears with no CEW damage or larva present. ePercent of ears with no CEW damage or only a small amount of damage to the tip of the ear. The delay in treatment initiation in the 5 Jul planting contributed to a lower percentage of clean ears and greater variability in protection in treatments that historically provide better protection. All treatments from plots planted on 5 Jul had significantly fewer total CEW than the untreated check except for Brigade and Mustang Maxx (Table 2). Of the pyrethroids applied alone, only Baythroid XL had a significantly greater percentage of clean ears than the untreated check. The addition of Intrepid Edge improved upon Warrior II’s performance only at a high rate. Vantacor at its higher rate resulted in a greater percentage of clean ears than Mustang Maxx and similar to all of the other pyrethroids. Elevest rotated with Baythroid XL and the high rate of Intrepid Edge + Warrior II provided the best earworm control. Pyrethroids alone resulted in a significantly less percentage of processing ears with the exception of Mustang Maxx, although Mustang Max had a very low percentage of clean ears.1 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Tukey–Kramer HSD means separation). Application A = 19 Aug, B = 22 Aug, C = 25 Aug, D = 28 Aug, E = 31 Aug, and F = 3 Sept. aCEW instars 1–2. bCEW instars 3–4. cCEW instars 5–6. dPercent of ears with no CEW damage or larva present. ePercent of ears with no CEW damage or only a small amount of damage to the tip of the ear. *Total meant Includes exits where a CEW completed development and worms which had died in the ear.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar insecticide treatments significantly reduce the number of medium and large corn earworm larvae compared with the untreated check in the 17 June planting.
- Taxon
- sweet corne0
- Treatment
- foliar insecticide treatmentse0
- Interactor
- corn earworm
.jpg?width=60)
Helicoverpa zeae3pest - Outcome
- number of medium and large corn earworm larvae1
- Direction
- fewere1
- Qualifier
- planted on 17 June1
- Comparator
- untreated checke1
- Setting
- Georgetown, DEe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e1“All treatments from plots planted on 17 Jun had significantly fewer number of medium and large corn earworm larva than the untreated check”
e2“University of Delaware Carvel Research Center, Georgetown, DE”
e3“Corn earworm (CEW) is the primary pest of sweet corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Hero at 10.3 fl oz/acre yields significantly fewer total corn earworm than Warrior II.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e3“Ears treated with Hero at 10.3 fl oz/acre had significantly fewer total CEW than ears treated with Warrior II”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments significantly increase the percent of clean and processing ears compared with the untreated check.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e4“All treatments had a significantly higher percent of clean (fresh market) and processing ears than the untreated check”
Claim · model-written summary
Hero at 10.3 fl oz/acre gives a significantly higher percent of clean ears than Warrior II and Brigade.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e5“Hero at 10.3 fl oz/acre had a significantly higher percent of clean ears than Warrior II and Brigade”
Claim · model-written summary
In the 5 July planting, all treatments have significantly fewer total corn earworm than the untreated check, except Brigade and Mustang Maxx.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e6“All treatments from plots planted on 5 Jul had significantly fewer total CEW than the untreated check except for Brigade and Mustang Maxx”
Claim · model-written summary
Baythroid XL alone gives a significantly greater percentage of clean ears than the untreated check.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e7“only Baythroid XL had a significantly greater percentage of clean ears than the untreated check”
Claim · model-written summary
Vantacor at its higher rate gives a greater percentage of clean ears than Mustang Maxx.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e1“Vantacor at its higher rate resulted in a greater percentage of clean ears than Mustang Maxx”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevest rotated with Baythroid XL gives the best earworm control.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e1“Elevest rotated with Baythroid XL and the high rate of Intrepid Edge + Warrior II provided the best earworm control”
Claim · model-written summary
Pyrethroids applied alone give a significantly less percentage of processing ears, except Mustang Maxx.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e1“Pyrethroids alone resulted in a significantly less percentage of processing ears with the exception of Mustang Maxx”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding Intrepid Edge improves on Warrior II performance only at a high rate.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e1“The addition of Intrepid Edge improved upon Warrior II’s performance only at a high rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustang Max gives a very low percentage of clean ears.
Verbatim
e0“foliar insecticide treatments on the control of CEW in sweet corn”
e1“Mustang Max had a very low percentage of clean ears”
The same questions in other papers
application · Helicoverpa zea · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →insecticide · Helicoverpa zea · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.