ARTICLES

Effect of Barren Soil Borders and Weed Border Treatments on Movement of the Twospotted Spider Mite into Peanut Fields1,2,3

Authors: L. S. Boykin , W. V. Campbell , L. A. Nelson

  • Effect of Barren Soil Borders and Weed Border Treatments on Movement of the Twospotted Spider Mite into Peanut Fields1,2,3

    ARTICLES

    Effect of Barren Soil Borders and Weed Border Treatments on Movement of the Twospotted Spider Mite into Peanut Fields1,2,3

    Authors: , ,

Abstract

Barren soil borders, weed border treatments, and caged barren soil were evaluated for their effect on movement of the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch, into peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) fields. In field cage tests when a 3, 4.5, or 6 m strip of barren soil separated a source of mite-infestation from initially mite-free peanut, mite damage to peanut was inversely related to the distance of barren soil crossed. In uncaged field tests, similar barren soil borders did not prevent mite movement into peanut fields, however, the number of mites were inversely related to the distance from the field border. There were no significant differences among weed border treatments and total numbers of mites entering peanut fields over time. There were, however, differences among weed border treatments on early mite movement and establishment trends into peanut fields. Mowing weed borders significantly increased the number of aerially dispersing twospotted spider mites within the adjacent peanut field.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch, peanut, Arachis hypogaea L, Groundnut, Cultural control, Movement, Dispersal, Wind dispersal

How to Cite:

Boykin, L. & Campbell, W. & Nelson, L., (1984) “Effect of Barren Soil Borders and Weed Border Treatments on Movement of the Twospotted Spider Mite into Peanut Fields1,2,3”, Peanut Science 11(1), p.52-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-11-1-16

55 Views

40 Downloads

Published on
31 Dec 1983
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Paper No. 8709 of the Journal series of the N.C. Agric. Res. Serv. Research supported by the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association.

2Portion of a thesis submitted for partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, North Carolina State University.

3The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement of the products named or criticisms of similar ones not mentioned.