Abstract Eleven Vi acre test plots were installed in a Christmas tree stand in section 8 of Inverness township in Cheboygan County, MI. Each plot contained approximately 100 Scots pine trees ranging from 4 to 8 feet tall. Midge damage from the previous growing season was prevalent in all test plots and distributed evenly across the field. Experimental treatments were applied with a Solo 423 back pack mistblower calibrated in 15 gal/a. Sprays were applied once at the time of initial adult emergence as indicated by emergence trap catch (21 Jun). Winds were slight at the time of spray (<5mph) and the ambient air temperature was approximately 22°C. Meta-Systox R, the current industry standard, was applied by the cooperating grower twice with the first treatment applied 2 days after all other experimental treatments. The second treatment of Meta-Systox R was applied 1 wk after the first at recommended label rates. At that time all stages of larvae were present and damage was just beginning to show up in the area. Approximately 2 wk later the spray block was surveyed for infested fasicles. On 75 randomly selected Scots pine trees the number of infested fasicles were estimated on the top whorl and leader (Test 1). Total midge impact was measured at the end of the growing season using a rating system devised to rank trees ordinally according to the severity of damage. The system is as follows: 0, no discernable midge damage; 1, slight damage contributing to degrade slightly; 2, damage moderate causing noticible degrade and 3, damage severe, tree may be unmarketable for 1-3 years. During late October, just prior to harvest, fifty systematically selected trees were rated from each treatment plot (Test 2). Damage ratings were analysed using a Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance. Individual treatment comparisons were made with a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. This non parametric approach is analogous to a standard ANOVA and t tests although more appropriate for ordinal ratings that do not usually meet the assumptions of an ANOVA. Individual comparisons were made between the standard, Meta-systox R and each treatment. Comparisons marked with a “s –” performed significantly worse than the standard. Treatments marked with a “s + ” performed significantly better. Those treatments marked with a “ns” do not show a significantly different damage rating than the industry standard, Meta-systox R.
Read full abstract