The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new and old insecticidal compounds used against BAA on alfalfa grown for hay production under desert growing conditions. A field study was conducted during the spring 2014 at the UC Desert Research and Extension Center. A stand of alfalfa, VAR. ‘CUF-101,’ was used for the experiment. The experimental design was an RCB using four replicates with 10 insecticidal treatments and an untreated check. Plots measured 13.33 ft by 50 ft and insecticide treatments were applied on 7 Feb 2014, using a ground broadcast application with a handheld CO 2 backpack sprayer with a boom covering a 13.33-ft swath operated at 30 psi, delivering 20 gpa through 10 (TJ-80015) nozzles. The BAA population was measured in each plot with a standard 15-inch-diameter insect net consisting of ten 180° sweeps; means reported in the tables are per sweep. Pretreatment samples were collected on 4 Feb, and indicated as 3 DPT in the table. Posttreatment samples were collected on 10 Feb or 3DAT, 14 Feb (7 DAT), 21 Feb (14 DAT), and 28 Feb (21 DAT). Sweep samples were bagged, labeled, and frozen for later counting of BAA in the laboratory. Data sets were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and means separated by Tukey’s Honestly Significant difference Test; ( P  ≤ 0.05).

The 2014 BAA levels were typical of what is found in Imperial Valley alfalfa during early-Feb to mid-Feb, but increasing. There were no differences among plots for BAA on 4 Feb 3 DPT ( Table 1 ). All insecticide treatments, except Grandevo, reduced BAA numbers compared with the untreated check at 3 DAT. All insecticide treatments, except Fulfill, Grandevo, and Mustang 1.5EW, resulted in fewer BAA than the untreated check at 7 DAT. Only the insecticide treatments Warrior II, Endigo ZCX, Stallion 3.025EC, and Stallion 3.025EC + Dimethoate 2.67E resulted in fewer BAA than the untreated check at 14 DAT. None of the insecticide treatments resulted in fewer BAA compared with the untreated check at 21 DAT. All insecticide treatments, except Fulfill and Grandevo, resulted in PTAs for BAA that were significantly lower than the untreated check.

Treatment/formulationRateamt/acre BAA per sweep
3 DPT w 3 DAT x7 DAT 14 DAT z21 DAT PTA y
Untreated check−-------50.75 a159.38 a98.85 a71.35 a51.80 ab97.31 a
Warrior II 2.08CS1.92 fl oz44.53 a34.03 c30.73 b13.93 c52.43 ab47.46 bc
Endigo ZCX 2.71ZC3.9 fl oz42.48 a21.55 c26.28 b23.34 bc37.03 ab39.91 bc
Besiege 1.25ZC9.0 fl oz43.93 a39.45 bc34.68 b32.48 abc54.15 ab52.44 bc
Cobalt Advanced24.0 fl oz35.38 a27.30 c28.33 b28.02 abc41.63 ab49.97 bc
Fulfill 50WDG5.5 fl oz40.53 a78.20 bc61.08 ab54.35 ab39.68 ab58.93 abc
Grandevo DF23 lb39.63 a98.88 ab69.05 ab61.70 ab88.08 a81.11 ab
Beleaf 50SG2.8 oz42.90 a51.78 bc32.60 b29.01 abc17.80 b36.98 c
Mustang 1.5EW4.3 fl oz44.35 a42.28 bc44.25 ab38.54 ab41.95 ab53.17 bc
Stallion 3.025EC11.75 fl oz38.05 a28.58 c24.73 b23.83 bc51.70 ab49.07 bc
Stallion 3.025EC +11.75 fl oz57.53 a23.25 c27.18 b25.13 bc35.73 ab41.29 bc
Dimethoate 2.67E16 fl oz
Treatment/formulationRateamt/acre BAA per sweep
3 DPT w 3 DAT x7 DAT 14 DAT z21 DAT PTA y
Untreated check−-------50.75 a159.38 a98.85 a71.35 a51.80 ab97.31 a
Warrior II 2.08CS1.92 fl oz44.53 a34.03 c30.73 b13.93 c52.43 ab47.46 bc
Endigo ZCX 2.71ZC3.9 fl oz42.48 a21.55 c26.28 b23.34 bc37.03 ab39.91 bc
Besiege 1.25ZC9.0 fl oz43.93 a39.45 bc34.68 b32.48 abc54.15 ab52.44 bc
Cobalt Advanced24.0 fl oz35.38 a27.30 c28.33 b28.02 abc41.63 ab49.97 bc
Fulfill 50WDG5.5 fl oz40.53 a78.20 bc61.08 ab54.35 ab39.68 ab58.93 abc
Grandevo DF23 lb39.63 a98.88 ab69.05 ab61.70 ab88.08 a81.11 ab
Beleaf 50SG2.8 oz42.90 a51.78 bc32.60 b29.01 abc17.80 b36.98 c
Mustang 1.5EW4.3 fl oz44.35 a42.28 bc44.25 ab38.54 ab41.95 ab53.17 bc
Stallion 3.025EC11.75 fl oz38.05 a28.58 c24.73 b23.83 bc51.70 ab49.07 bc
Stallion 3.025EC +11.75 fl oz57.53 a23.25 c27.18 b25.13 bc35.73 ab41.29 bc
Dimethoate 2.67E16 fl oz

Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Tukey’s honestly significant difference test; P >  0.05.

w Days pretreatment.

x Days after treatment.

y Posttreatment average.

z Log 10 (X + 1) transformed data used for analysis, back transformed means shown in the table.

Treatment/formulationRateamt/acre BAA per sweep
3 DPT w 3 DAT x7 DAT 14 DAT z21 DAT PTA y
Untreated check−-------50.75 a159.38 a98.85 a71.35 a51.80 ab97.31 a
Warrior II 2.08CS1.92 fl oz44.53 a34.03 c30.73 b13.93 c52.43 ab47.46 bc
Endigo ZCX 2.71ZC3.9 fl oz42.48 a21.55 c26.28 b23.34 bc37.03 ab39.91 bc
Besiege 1.25ZC9.0 fl oz43.93 a39.45 bc34.68 b32.48 abc54.15 ab52.44 bc
Cobalt Advanced24.0 fl oz35.38 a27.30 c28.33 b28.02 abc41.63 ab49.97 bc
Fulfill 50WDG5.5 fl oz40.53 a78.20 bc61.08 ab54.35 ab39.68 ab58.93 abc
Grandevo DF23 lb39.63 a98.88 ab69.05 ab61.70 ab88.08 a81.11 ab
Beleaf 50SG2.8 oz42.90 a51.78 bc32.60 b29.01 abc17.80 b36.98 c
Mustang 1.5EW4.3 fl oz44.35 a42.28 bc44.25 ab38.54 ab41.95 ab53.17 bc
Stallion 3.025EC11.75 fl oz38.05 a28.58 c24.73 b23.83 bc51.70 ab49.07 bc
Stallion 3.025EC +11.75 fl oz57.53 a23.25 c27.18 b25.13 bc35.73 ab41.29 bc
Dimethoate 2.67E16 fl oz
Treatment/formulationRateamt/acre BAA per sweep
3 DPT w 3 DAT x7 DAT 14 DAT z21 DAT PTA y
Untreated check−-------50.75 a159.38 a98.85 a71.35 a51.80 ab97.31 a
Warrior II 2.08CS1.92 fl oz44.53 a34.03 c30.73 b13.93 c52.43 ab47.46 bc
Endigo ZCX 2.71ZC3.9 fl oz42.48 a21.55 c26.28 b23.34 bc37.03 ab39.91 bc
Besiege 1.25ZC9.0 fl oz43.93 a39.45 bc34.68 b32.48 abc54.15 ab52.44 bc
Cobalt Advanced24.0 fl oz35.38 a27.30 c28.33 b28.02 abc41.63 ab49.97 bc
Fulfill 50WDG5.5 fl oz40.53 a78.20 bc61.08 ab54.35 ab39.68 ab58.93 abc
Grandevo DF23 lb39.63 a98.88 ab69.05 ab61.70 ab88.08 a81.11 ab
Beleaf 50SG2.8 oz42.90 a51.78 bc32.60 b29.01 abc17.80 b36.98 c
Mustang 1.5EW4.3 fl oz44.35 a42.28 bc44.25 ab38.54 ab41.95 ab53.17 bc
Stallion 3.025EC11.75 fl oz38.05 a28.58 c24.73 b23.83 bc51.70 ab49.07 bc
Stallion 3.025EC +11.75 fl oz57.53 a23.25 c27.18 b25.13 bc35.73 ab41.29 bc
Dimethoate 2.67E16 fl oz

Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Tukey’s honestly significant difference test; P >  0.05.

w Days pretreatment.

x Days after treatment.

y Posttreatment average.

z Log 10 (X + 1) transformed data used for analysis, back transformed means shown in the table.

None of the insecticide treatments resulted in any injury to the alfalfa plants.

* This research was supported by industry gifts of products and research funding.

Author notes

Subject Editor: Donald Cook

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]