This project evaluated the effectiveness of insecticides for Gill’s mealybug control in pistachio. The trial was conducted near Blackwell’s Corner, Kern Co., CA in a 0.5 acre portion of an orchard with tree spacing of 18 × 20 ft. On 2 July 2014, we surveyed ∼120 trees to determine the average number of mealybugs per cluster within each tree. Trees were assigned randomly to one of eight insecticide treatments or the untreated check in an RCB design with nine treatments and four blocks with blocking based on pretreatment mealybug densities. Treatments were applied to individual trees on 15 July 2014 using a hand gun at 150 psi with a water volume of 200 gpa with the surfactant Dyne-Amic at 4 fl oz/100 gal. Mealybug densities were evaluated in each plot on 30 July, 13 August and 27 August. On each sample date, we counted the total number of mealybugs in each of 20 random nut clusters per tree. Data were combined to determine the average number of mealybugs per nut cluster for each plot. Average mealybugs per cluster were analyzed by analysis of varianceusing transformed data (square root(x + 0.5)) with means separated by Fisher’s Protected LSD ( P  = 0.05).

Precounts were not significantly different compared with the untreated check at the start of the trial on 2 July. On 30 July, Assail, Movento, and Sequoia significantly reduced the mealybug density compared with the untreated check ( Table 1 ). On 13 August, Assail, Belay, Centaur, Movento, and Sequoia significantly reduced mealybug densities compared with the untreated check. Assail, Belay, Bexar, Centaur, Movento, and Sequoia resulted in significant reductions in mealybug density compared with the untreated check on 27 August. Pyrifluquinazon and Sivanto were not significantly different compared with the untreated check on any evaluation date.

Mean F. gilli per cluster
Treatment/formulationRate amt product/acre2 July Precounts30 July 2 WAT13 Aug. 4 WAT27 Aug. 6 WAT
Assail 30SG8 oz0.3a1.5ab1.0ab0.5a
Belay 2.13SC6 fl oz0.2a2.4abc1.0ab0.0a
Bexar 15SC27 fl oz0.2a2.7abc2.8bc5.2ab
Centaur WDG46 oz0.2a2.3abc0.8ab0.8a
Sequoia 2SC5.67 fl oz0.3a1.0a0.1a3.5a
Movento 2SC9 fl oz0.2a0.7a0.1a0.4a
Pyrifluquinazon 20SC6.4 fl oz0.2a5.6c2.8bc11.0bc
Sivanto 200SL12 fl oz0.3a5.4bc5.3c22.6c
Untreated check0.2a6.2c5.6c13.9c
Mean F. gilli per cluster
Treatment/formulationRate amt product/acre2 July Precounts30 July 2 WAT13 Aug. 4 WAT27 Aug. 6 WAT
Assail 30SG8 oz0.3a1.5ab1.0ab0.5a
Belay 2.13SC6 fl oz0.2a2.4abc1.0ab0.0a
Bexar 15SC27 fl oz0.2a2.7abc2.8bc5.2ab
Centaur WDG46 oz0.2a2.3abc0.8ab0.8a
Sequoia 2SC5.67 fl oz0.3a1.0a0.1a3.5a
Movento 2SC9 fl oz0.2a0.7a0.1a0.4a
Pyrifluquinazon 20SC6.4 fl oz0.2a5.6c2.8bc11.0bc
Sivanto 200SL12 fl oz0.3a5.4bc5.3c22.6c
Untreated check0.2a6.2c5.6c13.9c

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P  > 0.05, Fisher’s protected LSD) with square root (x + 0.5) transformation of the data. Untransformed means are shown.

Mean F. gilli per cluster
Treatment/formulationRate amt product/acre2 July Precounts30 July 2 WAT13 Aug. 4 WAT27 Aug. 6 WAT
Assail 30SG8 oz0.3a1.5ab1.0ab0.5a
Belay 2.13SC6 fl oz0.2a2.4abc1.0ab0.0a
Bexar 15SC27 fl oz0.2a2.7abc2.8bc5.2ab
Centaur WDG46 oz0.2a2.3abc0.8ab0.8a
Sequoia 2SC5.67 fl oz0.3a1.0a0.1a3.5a
Movento 2SC9 fl oz0.2a0.7a0.1a0.4a
Pyrifluquinazon 20SC6.4 fl oz0.2a5.6c2.8bc11.0bc
Sivanto 200SL12 fl oz0.3a5.4bc5.3c22.6c
Untreated check0.2a6.2c5.6c13.9c
Mean F. gilli per cluster
Treatment/formulationRate amt product/acre2 July Precounts30 July 2 WAT13 Aug. 4 WAT27 Aug. 6 WAT
Assail 30SG8 oz0.3a1.5ab1.0ab0.5a
Belay 2.13SC6 fl oz0.2a2.4abc1.0ab0.0a
Bexar 15SC27 fl oz0.2a2.7abc2.8bc5.2ab
Centaur WDG46 oz0.2a2.3abc0.8ab0.8a
Sequoia 2SC5.67 fl oz0.3a1.0a0.1a3.5a
Movento 2SC9 fl oz0.2a0.7a0.1a0.4a
Pyrifluquinazon 20SC6.4 fl oz0.2a5.6c2.8bc11.0bc
Sivanto 200SL12 fl oz0.3a5.4bc5.3c22.6c
Untreated check0.2a6.2c5.6c13.9c

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P  > 0.05, Fisher’s protected LSD) with square root (x + 0.5) transformation of the data. Untransformed means are shown.

* This research was supported by the California Pistachio Research Board and industry gifts of pesticides and funds.

Author notes

Subject Editor: Elizabeth Grafton-Cardwell

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]