Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 3 Western Australia, Series 3
Volume 6
Number 3 May-June, 1957 Article 7
5-1957
Insect pests and their control - Tobacco pests - Experiments in Insect pests and their control - Tobacco pests - Experiments in their control in Western Australia
their control in Western Australia
B.A. B. Edwards
Follow this and additional works at: https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture3
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Edwards, B.A. B. (1957) "Insect pests and their control - Tobacco pests - Experiments in their control in Western Australia," Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 3: Vol. 6: No. 3, Article 7.
Available at: https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture3/vol6/iss3/7
This article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agriculture at Digital Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, Series 3 by an authorized administrator of Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected].
TOBACCO PESTS
Experiments In Their Control In Western Australia
T7XPERIMENTS have been conducted at Manjimup, Western Australia, for the con-
*-* trol of insects attacking tobacco. The insects concerned include the leaf miner, stem borer, cutworms, looper caterpillars and grass hoppers.* The insecticides used were lead arsenate, DDT, dieldrin, aldrin and endrin. As applied, i.e., at equal intervals during the growing season and at the strengths used, DDT proved superior to all other treatments.
Of the insects which attack tobacco after planting out, t h e present article deals with two particular types, the leaf miner and leaf chewing insects. The latter includes cutworms, looper caterpillars and, to a lesser degree, grasshoppers.
Until t h e advent of DDT, control meas- ures were carried out with arsenical dusts and baits (Newman 1931) but in recent years DDT h a s been found more effective either as a spray or as a dust (Cannon, 1946). Interest also arose in the chlorin- ated hydrocarbons, aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin, for tobacco pest control.
EXPERIMENT, 1952-53
This experiment was designed to com- pare the effectiveness of lead arsenate dust, DDT dust and DDT spray both on t h e leaf miner and on those chewing in- sects causing leaf damage.
* The scientific names of pests are listed at the end or the paper.
I. Treatments.
The following t r e a t m e n t s were decided on after a survey of t h e literature:—
(i) Control—no t r e a t m e n t .
(ii) 50 per cent, lead arsenate dust—
5 applications.
(hi) 50 per cent, lead arsenate dust—
3 applications.
(iv) 2 per cent. DDT dust—5 applica- tions.
(v) 2 per cent. DDT dust—3 applica- tions.
(vi) 0.1 per cent. DDT spray—5 a p - plications.
(vii) 0.1 per cent. DDT spray—3 a p - plications.
II. Site.
The site selected was on the Depart- ment of Agriculture's Tobacco Research Station located six miles west of Manji- mup, Western Australia.
297
III. Design.
A randomised block design with five replications of the seven treatments was used. Each plot consisted of five rows of tobacco plants each one chain long and containing approximately 33 plants in every row.
The variety used in all experiments in the present paper was Hickory.
IV. Application.
The seedlings were planted out on November 4, 1952, and the interval be- tween this date and the end of February, 1953 (approximately the end of harvest- ing) was divided into five or three periods as required for each treatment.
Dusts were applied by means of a hand rotary duster and sprays with a knap- sack spray pump.
The amounts of both dusts and sprays used varied considerably, according to the age of the plants. The amounts of 50 per cent, lead arsenate dust varied between i to 2 lb. per treatment, 2 per cent. DDT dust from i to 3i lb. per treatment and 0.1 per cent. DDT spray from 3 to 5 gals.
per treatment.
V. Sampling.
This was carried out by examining all the leaves picked from the middle 20 plants of the middle row in each plot.
Leaf miner damage was assessed by count-
ing the number of leaf mines in each leaf. At the same time, chewing damage was estimated by placing the leaf into one of two classes—undamaged or slightly damaged and badly damaged.
VI. Results.
(i) Leaf miner damage (Table I).
The tabulated figures are the total number of leaf mines found in all the leaves from the 20 plants in each plot.
An analysis of variance was performed on the data. Since different numbers of leaves were taken from each plot, the variate used was the number of mines per leaf on a plot basis.
Examination of the results allows the following conclusions: —
(a) All the treatments were signific- antly better than the control.
(b) Treatment 4 (five applications of 2 per cent. DDT dust) was signi- ficantly better than both Treat- ments 2 and 3 (three and five applications of 50 per cent, lead arsenate dust), but Treatment 5 (three applications of 2 per cent.
DDT dust) did not show signi- ficance from these treatments.
(c) Treatments 6 and 7 (0.1 per cent.
DDT spray) were significantly better than Treatments 2 and 3 (lead arsenate dusts).
TABLE I.—LEAF MINES.
Block A Block B Block C Block D Block E Total all Blocks Leaf mines per leaf
Treatment Totals Leaf mines/leaf ....
Treatments.
1.
Control.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
202 338 136 150 130 403 267 705 300 682 1,035 2,278
2-2010 10-7899
2.
50% Lead Arsenate, 5 applica- tions.
3.
50% Lead Arsenate, 3 applica- tions.
4.
2% DDT.
Dust, 5 applica-
tions.
Leaves. Leaf Leaves. Leaf Leaves. Leaf Mines. Mines. Mines 186 261
169 243 217 222 201 105 254 362 1,027 1,193
1-1616 5-8177
242 326 274 219 213 247 182 303 240 390 1,151 1,485
1-2902 6-5958
148 102 329 114 321 202 348 56 287 133 1,433 607
0-4236 2-2893
5.
2% DDT.
Dust, 3 applica-
tions.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
249 294 237 327 432 91 131 77 187 237 1,236 1,026
0-8301 4-6262
6.
0 1 % DDT.
Spray, 5 applica-
tions.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
298 76 270 61 272 45 535 216 263 52 1,638 450
0-2747 1-2477
7.
0 1 % DDT.
Sprav.
3 applica- tions.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
282 180 337 195 330 47 190 98 291 87 1,430 607
0-4245 2-1741 Least significant differences between 2 treatment totals.
At 5% level—2-9056 1% level—3-9494 0-1% level—5-2894
298
Journal of agriculture Vol. 6 1957
oeseeeseeooeeeeeeeseeeeseeeoeeseeoeeoeeeeeoeeeoeeoeeeeoeeoooeeeoeeooee o o
o o o o o o o o o o
PRIMARY PRODUCERS!
Railway wagons are YOUR ASSETS
DON'T WASTE THEM
PROMPT LOADING and UNLOADING means quicker turnround of wagons.
QUICKER TURNROUND means
effective wagon loading capacity. increased
KEEP,
M;ivweoi!5
Western Australian Government Railvvjus
o o o o o o o
s
8
INCREASED CAPACITY means faster and better railway service for all.
BETTER SERVICE is our aim and your need.
YOU CAN HELP yourself by helping Railways to keep the wagons moving.
• USE Government Railways Insured Parcels and Cash on Delivery Parcels systems
• ALSO, consign your goods at "Commission's Risk" and safeguard yourself
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o 'Oseeesseoooeoeeeseoeesossssossosoeosssseseseoeesosossesoseoeesessosoo?
INVEST IN THE WEST
20% DDT | Emulsion sprays for 50% Malathion )orchard and farm.
DIMAL Standard control for lucerne flea and red
(DDT with Malathion) m i t e .
24D Hormone weedkiller for ^~-~- .,~-~>^
control of radish, turnip, y/C\\ \ ™ A A/*\
cape tulip, etc. / v ^ v y \ 245T for blackberry treatment. / / tgM MffiW\ \ Syndet Synthetic detergent. IC^I ,y,- / \Z\
Cetanol Evaporation controller. I-**! ^ J^j
IP.O. BOX 49TKALAMlJNDAi \ J C ^ -/Os
\^4 V/
Please mention the "Journal of Agriculture, W.A.," when writing to advertisers
Its a pleasure to
Yose your woo/'wUh
Cuclone
SHEARING SHED EQUIPMENT
R O L L I N G TABLES Specially constructed — with folding legs — for the laying out of wool quickly and easily, at a convenient height.
Size 8 ft. long by 4 ft. 6 ins.
wide, by 3 ft. high.
STRETCHERS
Designed to give comfortable rest, yet last a lifetime. Especially suitable for station or farm sleeping quarters. Size 6 ft. 6 ins.long by 2 ft. 6 ins. wide, and 1 ft. 6 ins. high. Legs can be folded for easy storing.
PARTITIONS
Strong, with a durability that will last almost forever. Protects your wool, whilst giving good visibility for working. For use in shearing sheds, factories and warehouses.
W O O L BASKETS Ideal when classing wool into different grades in shearing sheds or warehouses. Avail- able in various sizes, with or without casters or skids.
CYCLONE COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA LTD.
C / r . Brown and Lime Sts., East Perth. Phone BF 1 4 5 4 and at Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Townsville
MAKERS OF THE FAMOUS '•CYCLONE' GATES AND "RINGLOCK" FENCES
Please mention the "Journal of Agriculture. W.A.," when writing to advertisers Journal of agriculture Vol. 6 1957
P1B- 1-—Tobacco b u d s h o w i n g serious b u d w o r m i n j u r y
(d) Treatment 6 (five applications of 0.1 per cent. DDT spray) was significantly better than Treat- ment 5 (three applications of 2 per cent. DDT dust). No signi- ficant difference was shown be- ween the other DDT treatments.
(ii) Chewing damage (Table II).
These results give the percentage of undamaged or slightly damaged leaves for each treatment. The treatments are tabulated in order of merit.
(b) The DDT treatments (Treatments 4, 5, 6, and 7) were all signific- antly better than the lead arsen- ate treatments (Treatments 2 and 3).
(c) Treatment 6 (five applications of 0.1 per cent. DDT spray) was the best treatment followed by Treat- ment 4 (five applications of 2 per cent. DDT dust).
TABLE II.—CHEWING DAMAGE.
Treatment.
6 4 7 5 2 3 1
Total Number of
Leaves.
1,638 1,433 1,430 1,236 1,027 1,151 1,032
Undamaged or Slightly
Damaged.
1,542 1,323 1,290 1,085 867 943 766
Per cent.
Undamaged or Slightly Damaged.
94-1 92-3 90-2 87-8 84-4 81-9 74-2
TABLE
Treatments.
1 3 2
0
7 4 6
1
I I I . — C H E W I N G DAMAGE Significant Levels.
3 1 XXX
_ 2
XXX
n.s.
5 7
XXX XXX XXX
X XXX XXX X
4
XXX XXX XXX XXX X
I '
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX X
The differences in these percentages were tested firstly as a whole and then as individual comparisons using a chi-square analysis. The separate comparisons re- vealed a marked heterogeneity (see signi- ficant levels given in Table III).
n - s no significance.
x significant at 5% level.
x x x significant at 0 - 1 % level.
VII. Discussion.
(i) Leaf miner damage.
From the results of this experiment it can be seen that damage due to the leaf
belter than the control. trol, namely the nse ot lead arsenate S t .
301
(ii) Chewing damage.
DDT was also proved to be superior for t h e control of chewing insects on tobacco in t h i s experiment. T h e larger number of applications (5) of either DDT dust or 0.1 per cent. DDT spray was superior to t h e applications in each case.
(iii) The experiment as a whole.
The results from this experiment indi- cate t h a t a t the concentrations used, DDT either as a spray or as a dust is superior to lead a r s e n a t e dust to control insects d a m a g i n g tobacco leaves in the field.
Thorough application of all t r e a t m e n t s is most i m p o r t a n t and 3 to 5 gals, of spray were used to cover approximately 650 p l a n t s (19-32. gals./acre). With dusts, \ to
3i lb. were used (3-22 lb./acre), t h e a m o u n t s with either formulation varying with t h e size a n d development of the p l a n t s in each individual t r e a t m e n t .
Fig, 2.—A cutworm feeding on a young tobacco plant
EXPERIMENT 1953-54
Due to reports of t h e effectiveness of dieldrin against looper caterpillars on
tobacco (Smith, 1953), and its known toxicity to grasshoppers, a n experiment was begun during this season to compare dieldrin and the related compound aldrin with DDT. All t h r e e compounds were used in t h e form of sprays. Unfortunately, half way through t h e season, the site was converted to a d a m and the experiment was abandoned.
EXPERIMENT 1954-55
The preceding season's experiment was repeated and, in addition, t h e promising new insecticide, endrin, was used. This material had been reported as effective against most tobacco pests (Smith, 1954).
All three insecticides were compared with DDT against both t h e leaf miner and against leaf chewing insects.
I. Treatments,
From a survey of t h e literature, the fol- lowing t r e a t m e n t s were decided upon:—
(i) Control—no t r e a t m e n t . (ii) 0.1 per cent. DDT.
(iii) 0.5 per cent, aldrin.
(iv) 0.1 per cent, aldrin.
(v) 0.05 per cent, dieldrin.
(vi) 0.1 per cent, dieldrin.
(vii) 0.05 per cent, endrin.
(viii) 0.1 per cent, endrin.
Experimental samples of aldrin, dieldrin and endrin were obtained from Shell Chemicals (Aust.).
All t r e a t m e n t s were applied four times during t h e growing season—the first a week after planting out and t h e remainder a t approximately monthly intervals.
II. Site.
As in t h e previous experiments, t h e site was a t the Tobacco Research Station, Manjimup.
III. Design.
A randomised block design with four replications of eight t r e a t m e n t s was used with plot sizes similar to those used in previous work.
IV. Application.
All t r e a t m e n t s were applied with a knapsack spray p u m p . The amount of spray used varied from 2 to 4 gals, per t r e a t m e n t (16 to 48 gals, per acre).
of agriculture Vol. 6 1957
TABLE IV.—LEAF MINES.
Block A Block B Block C Block D T o t a l all Blocks Leaf mines per leaf T r e a t m e n t Totals Leaf
m i n e s / l e a f
T r e a t m e n t s . 1.
Control.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
189 771 323 632 182 476 226 353 920 2,232
2-4261 10-2134
2.
0 - 1 % D D T . Leaves. Leaf
Mines.
300 114 301 134 333 83 260 255 1,194 586
0-4908 2-0552
3 . 0 - 0 5 % Aldrin.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
163 404 318 180 232 136 224 358 937 1,078
1-1505 5-2289
4.
0 - 1 % Aldrin.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
153 212 251 159 237 106 234 316 875 793
0-9063 3-8168
5.
0 - 0 5 % Dieldrin.
Leaves. Leaf Mines.
228 294 294 171 255 165 223 453 1,000 1,083
1-0830 4-5496
6.
0 - 1 % Dieldrin.
Leaves Leaf.
Mines.
273 173 238 229 235 125 221 120 967 647
0-6691 2•6708
7.
0 - 0 5 % E n d r i n . Leaves. Leaf
Mines.
161 137 256 124 225 90 260 286 902 637
0-7062 2-8353
8.
0 1 % E n d r i n . Leaves. Leaf
Mines.
231 101 188 159 173 30 222 151 814 441
0-5148 2-1365 Least significant differences between 2 treatment totals,
At 5% level—3-2437 1% level—4-4134 0 1% level—5-9573
V. Sampling.
Sampling and the assessment of re- sults were carried out in a similar manner to the previous experiments.
VI. Results.
(i) Leaf miner damage—Table IV.
While all treatments were significantly better than the control, there was no significant difference between individual treatments.
(ii) Chewing damage—Table V.
The results of individual comparisons between the treatments using a chi-square analysis are shown in Table VI.
TABLE V.—CHEWING DAMAGE.
(c) 0.1 per cent, dieldrin (treatment 6) was superior to every treat- ment except DDT.
(d) Treatments 4 (0.1 per cent.
aldrin), 5 (0.05 per cent, dieldrin), 8 (0.1 per cent, endrin) and 3 (0.05 per cent, aldrin) were not significantly different from one another.
TABLE VI.—CHEWING DAMAGE.
Significant Levels.
T r e a t m e n t .
2
6 4 5 8 3 7 1
T o t a l N u m b e r of
L e a v e s .
1,194 9 6 7 8 7 5 1,000 8 1 4 9 3 7 9 0 2 9 2 0
U n d a m a g e d or Slightly
D a m a g e d .
1,076 8 1 9 6 7 6 7 7 1 6 2 9 7 0 5 6 3 8 3 6 9
P e r cent.
U n d a m a g e d or Slightly
D a m a g e d . 9 0 - 4 8 4 - 9 7 7 - 4 7 7 - 2 7 7 - 0 7 5 - 6 7 0 - 2 3 9 - 1
Treat- ments. 1
1 7 3 8 5 4 6 2
7 XXX
3
XXX X
8
XXX XX
n.s.
5
XXX XX
n.s.
n.s.
4
XXX XX
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
6
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
2
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
XX XXX
not significant.
significant at 5% level.
significant at 1% level.
significant at 0 - 1 % level.
VII.
The following conclusions can be made from the analysis:—
(a) All treatments were significantly better than the control.
(b) The best treatment was 0.1 per cent. DDT (treatment 2).
Discussion.
The experiment has indicated clearly that good control of tobacco leaf miner in the field in Western Australia can be obtained with aldrin, dieldrin, endrin and DDT.
Fig. 3.—Looper caterpillar on leaf
F u r t h e r , they all gave effective control of the chewing insects which damage tobacco a t Manimup, Western Australia, but DDT spray a t 0.1 per cent, strength a n d four applications throughout the growing season was t h e best t r e a t m e n t .
E n d r i n did not prove to be superior to DDT in Western Australia.
T h e relative importance of t h e chewing insects listed as attacking tobacco was n o t ascertained, but all were present at some stage of the experiment.
SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Leaf miner—Gnorimoschema oper- culella (Zell).
Cutworm, Budworm—Heliothis punc- tigera Wallengr.
Looper caterpillars—Plusia spp.
Grasshoppers—Phaulacridium vittatum (Sjost.). Gastrimargus musicus (F.).
Austroicetes vulgaris (Sjost.).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to t h a n k t h e Gov- e r n m e n t Entomologist (Mr. C. F. H.
Jenkins) for his interest and suggestions while this work was being carried out.
The help of t h e members of the Tobacco Section who carried out the planting, harvesting and curing of t h e experimental crop a n d also t h e help of other members of t h e Entomology Branch is gratefully acknowledged.
The author also wishes to t h a n k Mr. N.
Stenhouse, Biometrician, C.S.I.R.O., Ned- lands, Western Australia, who freely gave helpful advice and carried out the major p a r t of the statistical analyses.
Cannon, R. C. (1946).—Control of t h e leaf miner in tobacco. J. Dep. Agric, Qd., 63: 204-207.
Edwards, B. A. B. (1954).—The control of tobacco pests in Western Australia.
J. Dep. Agric, W. Aust., 3 (3): 449-450.
Newman, L. J. (1931).—The Principal I n - sect Pests of Tobacco. J. Dep. Agric, W. Aust., Vol. 8 (Second Series), No.
4, p. 520.
Smith, W. A. (1952).—Tobacco pests in Queensland. J. Dep. Agric, Qd., 75:
85-104.
Smith, W. A. (1953).—Tobacco pest control schedule for 1953-4 season. J. Dep.
Agric. Qd., 77: 91-92.
Smith, W. A. (1954).—Tobacco pest control schedule for 1954-5 season. J. Dep.
Agric, Qd., 79: 71-73.
I
!
v
•
FARMERS !
This is YOUR Journal, and it has been written, edited and presented * in a sincere endeavour to give you helpful information in an interesting *
manner. £ We would like to have your views on the Journal—to know whether
you like it or whether you don't. Drop a line to the editor and tell him the features you like and don't like in this issue—or the features you hope to see in future issues.
•
• * • : • • * • : • • : • • - • • • * * * • • • * * * • : : • • • : • • • • • : • • • • • ? • • > • : • • • • • : • • • • > . : •:••••:•••:•<•••<
Journal of agriculture Vol. 6 1957
Greater sfaer&fA.. .greater clearance ftf/6 Mfc
^ S U N S H I N E MASSEY HARRIS 502 SUNDUKE SCARIFIER
• Full 18-inch clearance beneath, front to rear.
• Ample freeway with 21 inches between rows and scattered tine setting.
• Readily adjustable t o m o s t t r a c t o r drawbars.
• Hydraulic lift (stan- dard) or lesser-cost m e c h a n i c a l S u n - winch.
• Even cutting . . . s p e c i a l b r e a k e r points 12 inches apart, share centres.
• Heavy-duty, one-piece tines;
half jump simultaneously . . . full range of points.
. 6-inch
This new, practical scarifier does more cultivat- ing jobs than ever! It gives fast, clean weeding, stubble mulching and general tillage; deep penetration in toughest conditions. Overhead bridle draught; easy control and adjustment.
Ruggedly constructed in angle spring steel.
STREAMLINED DESIGN IS OUTSTANDING FEATURE Best and fastest scarifier ever! Pull goes through vertical draught bar and pressure pipe to rear swings, then to tines. Pressure spring puts bridles always under draught or tension.
14-tine 16-tine 18-tine 20-tine
7-feet cut 8-feet cut 9-feet cut 10-feet cut
H. V. McKAY MASSEY HARRIS PTY. LTD.
Maylands, Western Australia
Manufacturers of farm-tested, quality-proven machinery for over 70 years.
T14/3
Piease mention the ''Journal ot Agriculture. W.A.," when writing to advertisers
Ate ifcu uaMing faehch ?
To help you save . . .
here's what C.S.I.R.O. says!
To be effective, Phenothiazine drenches should consist of particles smaller than 25 microns in diameter, (a micron is 1/25,000 oj an inch), oversize particles pass uselessly through the sheep.
How can you tell which is an "effective" phenothiazine drench . . . which contains the least oversize particles?
You should make sure that the particles less than 25 microns are stated=
in percentage of weight. If the percentage is based on the number (count) of particles — not the weight — a false inference may be drawn, leading you to believe wrongly that the C.S.I.R.O. standard is being observed.
This chart shows that the percentage by number can be the same ( 9 0 % ) in both a "poor" or a "good" drench — BUT — only 50% by weight of the "poor" is effective compared with 90% of the "good"
drench, with its finely divided particles.
Explanatory Diagrams only — NOT illustrative of Micro® fine* particles
SAME TOTAL WEJGHT
MEASURED OVER. |CORRECT| MEASURED | OVER- CORRECT SIZE | SIZE I I SIZE SIZE IN NUMBER 10%
IN WEIGHT 50% 90%
50%
IN NUMBER I IN WEIGHT | 10%
10%
90%
90%
Microfgnne * Microphene drench is guaranteed to have as much as 99%
of its weight ground to the recommended fineness, and I.iquaphene 9 7 % . When you use either Sickle brand mix-it-yourself Microphene or ready- to-use Liquaphene drench you can be certain that you are using the most effective and economical drench. Practically no Phenothiazine is wasted.
SICKLE {2} BRAND
— - l ' • H I C R O © F I N E,• * P H E N O T H I A Z I N E P O W D E R ,
%\ M I C R O P H E N E
In packs to make 195 fluid ozs.. or 390 fluid 02s.
CDr/la P H E N O T H I A Z I N E L I Q U I D
L I Q U A P H E N E
I quart bottles and I gallon cans
Order now from your local agent or WESTRALIAN FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
569 Wellington St., Perth. B A 0 1 9 1
» Registered Trade Mark applied for. Indicates a true mlcrontsed product.
*notl«r S I C K L E ® B R « K 0 product Manufactured by Commonwealth Fertilisers i Chemicals l t d .
Please mention the "Journal of Agriculture, W.A.," when writing to advertisers
Journal of agriculture Vol. 6 1957
