UTTERWORTH

EINEMANN

CropI'rornrr,,~~
\01 IJ.No.

0261-2194(95)00032-l

8, pp 6X34,x7. ,YY5

Fkev1er Sciencel.ld
Printed m Great Bnram
O?hl-2lYJiY5 $10 (ICI+ I) 00

Treatment decisions based on egg scouting for

tomato fruitworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie),
reduce insecticide use in tomato
G. W. Zehnder,*+ E. J. Sikora* and W. R. Goodman
*Deparfment
Economics

of Entomology,
and Rural Sociology,

Department

of Plant

Pathology,

and Depatiment

of Agricuiturat

Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA

Field experiments
were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness
of a tomato fruitworm,
Helicoverpa zea
(Boddie), management
program where insecticide application was made only when fruitworm eggs were
detected
on tomato foliage. Fruit damage and number of insecticide
applications
were compared
between the egg scouting program and a standard fruitworm management
program where insecticides
wcrc applied on a weekly schedule.
On average,
59 and 43% fewer insecticide
applications
(for
csfenvalerate
and Bacillus thuringiensis,
respectively)
were required
in the egg scouting program,
compared
with the weekly spray program,
without any reduction
in marketable
yield. The average
seasonal insecticide cost savings associated with the use of the egg scouting program were $US109.33 and
$US93.33 per ha for esfenvaleratc
and B. thuringiensis,
respectively.
When scouting was used, average
net returns, considering
machinery and labor costs, were $USl46.45 and $US164.33 per ha higher for
esfenvalcrate
and R. thuringiensis,
respectively.

Keywords:

Helicoverpa

zea; tomato fruitworm; tomato; scouting; insecticide treatment; cost

The tomato
fruitworm,
Helicoverpa
zea (Boddie)
is
the most serious insect pest of fresh-market
tomatoes
grown in Alabama.
Fruitworm
larvae feed directly on
developing
fruit, thereby reducing
marketable
yields.
To prevent
fruitworm
damage,
Alabama
tomato
growers spray insecticides
at 4-7 day intervals beginning
at flowering
and continuing
through
harvest.
This
preventive
approach
to fruitworm
control is generally
effective, but has several drawbacks,
including reduced
profits
from high insecticide
costs, destruction
of
natural
enemy
populations
(Campbell,
Walgenbach
of insecticide
and Kennedy,
1991), and build-up
residues
on tomato
fruit (Spittler,
Argauer,
Lisk,
Mumma, Winnett and Ferro, 1984) and in the environment. Therefore,
a practical, decision-based
fruitworm
management
program
is needed as an alternative
to
preventative,
calendar-based
sprays. Integrated
pest
management
(IPM) programs have been developed for
processing tomatoes in California and Mexico (Goode11
and Zalom,
1993; Bolkan and Reinert,
1994) and in
Florida
for
fresh-market
tomatoes
(Pohronezny,
Waddill,
Schuster
and
Sonada,
1986).
In these
scouting
of tomato
foliage
is done to
programs,
estimate the population
density of various insect pests
and to determine
when insecticide
sprays are needed.
Because tomato fruitworm
larvae enter fruit shortly
after hatching, insecticides
applied to coincide with egg
hatch are most effective (Hoffman,
Wilson, Zalom and
Hilton,
1990). Therefore,
treatment
thresholds
for
fruitworm
are based on the presence of eggs, with the
actual threshold
varying
by location.
In California
Author

to whom correspondcncc

should be addressed

processing tomatoes, a treatment

threshold of four eggs
per 30 tomato leaves is used, although thresholds
may
be adjusted
based on the percentage
of parasitized
(black) eggs found (Hoffman et al., 1990). The Mexican
processing tomato industry uses a threshold of 16 viable
fruitworm eggs per 100 randomly picked leaves (Bolkan
and Reinert,
1994). Fruitworm
egg scouting is done in
Florida fresh-market
tomatoes,
but the tolerance
for
fruitworm
damage is extremely low and a treatment
is
recommended
if any fruitworm eggs are detected in the
field (Pohronezny
et af., 1986). Although
various
tomato fruitworm
treatment
thresholds
are being used
in fresh-market
tomatoes,
to our knowledge
replicated
trials have not been conducted
to quantify fruitworm
damage
when insecticides
are applied
only when
fruitworm
eggs are detected
by scouting,
and to
compare the scouting program with a calendar-based
spray program.
This study addresses
the above, in
addition to estimating
the insecticide costs and production profits associated with both programs.

Materials

and methods

Experimental

plan and cultural

practices

Tomato plantings were established in 1992 and 1993 at

the North Alabama Horticulture
Substation in Cullman,
Alabama.
In 1992, Colonial
tomatoes
were transplanted
on 18 May as a spring crop, and Olympic
tomatoes
were transplanted
on 22 July as a summer
crop. Colonial
transplants
were used in both spring
and summer trials in 1993; transplant
dates were 10
May and 14 June for the spring and summer trials,

Crop Protection 1995 Volume 14 Number 8

683

Reduction of insecticide use

in tomato: G.W. Zehnder et al.

respectively. In both years, tomatoes were grown on

raised beds with plastic mulch (black in spring and
white in summer) and drip irrigation using standard
cultural practices for staked tomato production in
Alabama (Kovach, Dangler, Sikora, Zehnder, Patterson
and Williams, 1992). Treatment plots consisted of one
9.1 m treatment
row borderd on both sides by
untreated buffer rows. Plants were spaced 60 cm apart
with 2.23 cm between rows.
Experimental
design was a randomized complete
block with four replications. Treatments, described in
Table I, consisted of foliar sprays of esfenvalerate
(Asana XL, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Wilmington,
DE) and Bacillus thuringiensis ssp.
kurstaki (Javelin WG, Sandoz Crop Protection,
Des
Plaines, IL), alone or in combination, applied either on
schedule (to simulate conventional treatment) or based
on scouting for fruitworm eggs. Dimethoate (Cygon
400, American Cyanamid Company, Wayne, NJ) was
applied as needed to all plots, including the control, at
the rate of 0.56 kg/ha for thrips control until the
flowering stage when dimethoate sprays were discontinued.
Insect scouting, application
harvest and data analysis

of treatments,

tomato

Untreated control plots and plots receiving treatments

based on scouting were sampled twice weekly by
examining the first fully expanded leaf below the
highest open flower on 10 plants per plot (Zalom,
Wilson and Smith, 1983; University of California, 1990;
Campbell et al., 1991). Sprays in scouting treatments
were applied when one or more white fruitworm eggs
were detected on any of the plants sampled. Tomato
fruitworm eggs turn black when parasitized, and black
eggs were not considered in the treatment decision
process. However, the eggs do not turn black until
about 4 days after parasitization (Graham, 1970), and
some of the white eggs detected on the foliage may
actually have been parasitized. The treatment threshold of al.0 fruitworm egg per treatment was used
because of the low tolerance for insect damage in the
fresh-market tomato industry, and for ease of use
(sampling can be discontinued if one egg is found).
Insecticide sprays were applied with a tractormounted sprayer equipped with vertical drop spray
booms containing two to six nozzles per row (one to
three nozzles per side); nozzles were added as plants
grew. Spray volume (280-935 l/ha) increased as nozzle
number increased but spray pressure remained constant

Table 1. Insecticide

treatment

Treatment

I.
2.
3
4:
5.
6.
7.

programs

for control of fruitworm

Rate (Al)/ha

Esfenvalerate
Esfenvalerate
Esfenvalerate

+ 3.t k

B.t k
B.t k
13.t. k
Untreated

56.0
56.0
0.80
1.12
1.12
I .26

g
g
kg
kg
kg
kg

damage

at 4.2 kg/cm2. Sprays were usually applied within 24 h

of detection of fruitworm eggs, but some sprays were
unavoidably delayed up to 3 days after egg detection
because of inclement weather. However, neonate
tomato fruitworm larvae feed on foliage before entering
fruit (Campbell et al., 1991). Therefore, it is likely that
neonates were exposed to insecticides even if applied
3 days after hatching.
Harvesting was done at 4-7 day intervals by picking
fruit at the breaker stage of maturity or later from each
treatment and recording the total numbers of fruit and
the numbers with fruitworm feeding damage. Fruit with
entry holes were considered damaged by fruitworm
whereas a low percentage of fruit with surface feeding
damage characteristic of Spodoptera exigua (Hiibner)
and Trichopfusia ni (Hiibner) were not considered in
the analyses. The weight of undamaged (marketable)
fruit produced in each plot was also determined.
Percentage damaged fruit values(p) were transformed
to arcsine Vp/lOO before analysis. Fruit weights and
transformed damaged fruit values were subjected to
analysis of variance (SAS Institute, 1990), and treatment means were compared using the Ryan-EinotGabriel-Welsch multiple F test.
A fresh-market tomato production budget (Goodman, 1992) was used to estimate production costs and
returns associated with use of the various fruitworm
control programs. The budget was entered into a
computer spreadsheet program to facilitate the calculation of cost and return values.

Results
In 1992, the percentage of fruitworm-damaged tomato
fruit was lower in the spring than in the summer trial
(Table 2). In the spring, a seasonal average of only
8.0% damaged fruit was recorded in the untreated
control with a range of 0.5-2.3% damage among the
insecticide treatments.
Fruitworm egg counts were
correspondingly low, not exceeding 1 .O egg per treatment sample date from 17 July through the harvest
period (Table 3). Because of low egg counts in the 1992
spring trial, only two to three sprays were applied in the
scouting treatments (2, 3 and 6), whereas seven to 10
sprays were made in the scheduled treatments (1,4 and
5) (Table 4).
Fruit damage was more severe in the 1992 summer
trial, with 74.1% peak fruit damage on 19 October
(first harvest date) in the untreated control plots and
average damage over the season above 50% (Table 2).

in tomato,

1992

Spray application

Every 4 days beginning when fruitworm

Every 7 days beginning when fruitworm
Only when fruitworm eggs detected

control

Crop Protection 1995 Volume 14 Number 8

timing

Weekly beginning at flowering

Only when fruitworm eggs detected

iTreatment 3 not included in 1993 experiments

Bacillus thunngiensisssp. kursfaki rate values are amounts of formulated material (Javelin WGrM)

684

and 1993*

eggs detected
eggs detected

Reduction
Table 2. Mean percentage

(I

SEM) of tomato

fruit with fruitworm

damage,

of insecticide

I.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

Esfen.
Esfen.
E&n.

t?.t k
R.t k
h.t k

Spring (4)*
weekly
based on scouting
+ M.t k hased on scouting

I YY3
Spring (5)

cvcry 4 days
every 7 day\
based on scouting

Untreated

Summer (3).

0.1 f O.Ic
0.6 * 0.3bc
I .O -c 0.4bc

13.3
6.3
2.7
5.3

0.5 * 0.2bc
2.3 ? 0.7b
1.4 f 0.4bc
X.0 f l.Ja

control

G.W. Zehnder

et a/.

1992 and 1993*

1902
Treatment

use in tomato:

i+
k
f

Summer

3.6 k 0.7b

7.6b
2.Sb
1.2b
2.7b

X.3 !I 2.Obc
3.7 +- l.Sc
NA
7.Y f 1.7bc
x.0 f 2.Yc
6.2 i 1.4,
26.1 i 3.4a

I.0 + 0.6b
NA
2.0 t 0.7b
3.6 -c I.lb
5.8 f I.4b
25.9 + 3.oa

10.7 + -t.Yb
13.Y i 3.Yb
52.7 -t 6.la

(4)

Mean\ wnhln coium~~~ \hnring a letter iI1 common arc not signifxantly different (P > 0.05: Ryan-Einot-C;abrieI-Welsch
multiple F test). NA, not applicable
Data comhmcd for all harvest dates (number of harvests
in parentheses). Sprmg. IYY2 harvest dates: IO. 17.24 and 31 August. Summer, lYY2 harvest dates: IS and 26
Octohcr and I November. Spring. IYYi harvat dates: 28 July. and 3. Y. 12 and 16 August. Summer, 1493 harvest data: 27 and 31 August and 7 and I3 September.
~l\lcnvaleratc
H~c~i//,c\rhrt,_r~r,qrrrrr/\\pp. h~,v\r<rXi(Jnvclm WC-i)

Table 3. Total number

1992 and 1993*

of tomato

fruitworm

eggs detected

on tomato

foliage

samples

in scouting

and control

(unsprayed)

treatments,

I YY3

IO02
Date

Date
(Spring)

Treat

Treat

Treat

6b

6 June
17 Jul
21 Jul
2) Jul
7 Aup

Control.
3
0

I
I

(Spring)

Treat 2

22
20
2
8

June
Jun
Jul
Jul
13Jul
16Jul
20 Jul

Treat 6

Control

3
0
I
0
0
0

0
0
2
0

7
4
1

I
3

(Summer)

(Summer)
31 Aug

IO Sep

21 Sep
?I scp
5 Ott

3
0

1
I

i
6

0
13

4
I2

20 Jul
27 Jul
3 Aug
Y Aug
17 Aug
20 Aug

2
3
0
0

0
2
I
0

5
3
2

Only d;ltc\ on which eggs ~ctt found are represented. Values represent the total number of eggs detected on IO Icaves per plot. four plots per treatment (XX text for
\amplmg method\)
Treatment\ are devzylhed In 7Nhlc I

Table 4. Comparison

of number of insecticide

applications

in scouting

and calendar-based

tomato fruitworm

I YY2

I.
2.
i.

Eden.
Esfen.
Esfcn.

3.
5.
6.

R. t k

weekly
based on scouting

+ 8.t X Imcd

every 3 days
8.t k every 7 day
B.t k based on scouting

on

scouting

1093
Spring

Summer

IO
7

x
3
4
13
X

6
3
NA
II
h

Y
4
NAl
II

Spring

Treatment

Y
2
2

Fruitworm
egg counts were also higher in the summer
trial, with peak egg counts on 21 September,
27 days
before the first summer harvest on 19 October (Table
3). Eggs were not observed
on foliage once tomato
harvests began (both trials in 1992 and 1993) probably
because fruit were mature (or maturing)
and plants had
few new flowers
to attract
fruitworm
moths
for
oviposition.
Fruit damage over all summer harvest dates in 1992

control programs

Summer

1.

7
5

Mean no. sprays

per season
8.0
3.3
3.0
I I.3
7.0

3.0

was significantly
(P < 0.05) lower in the insecticide
treatment
plots than in the control, with no significant
differences
between
insecticide
treatments
(Table 2).
Average cumulative
fruit damage ranged from 5.3 to
13.9% in the B. thuringiensis
treatments,
where an
inverse relationship
between fruit damage and numbers
of sprays was demonstrated
(Table 4). Although
not
significantly
(P > 0.05) different from other insecticide
treatments,
the least fruit damage
occurred
in the

Crop Protection

1995 Volume

14 Number

685

Reduction of insecticide use

in tomato: G.W. Zehnder et al.

and five sprays in the spring and summer plantings,
respectively) of all the B. thuringiensis treatments
(Table 4).
There were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in
average total marketable tomato fruit weight values
among insecticide treatments in both years of the study,
and fruit weights in the insecticide-treated
plots were
not significantly different from the untreated control
(Table 5). Lack of significance is due, in part, to high
variability in fruit weight values among plots, and also
to the relatively low number of observations used to
calculate the means (four replicates times the number
of harvest dates). In addition, the low percentage of
fruit damage in insecticide-treated plots contributed to
similar yields among these treatments.
However,
marketable fruit weight in the best insecticide treatments ranged from 18.8 to 59.4% higher than in the
untreated control over the four experiment trials (Table
5).
On average, the per-season insecticide cost savings
associated with use of the scouting programs were
$US109.23 and $US93.33 per ha for esfenvalerate and
B. thuringiensis, respectively, compared with the weekly
spray programs (Table 6). Average net returns, considering machinery and labor (including scouting)
costs, were $US146.45 and $US164.33 per ha higher for
esfenvalerate and B. thuringiensis, respectively, when
scouting was used. Returns were greater than average

esfenvalerate
+ B. thuringiensis treatment that was
based on scouting (treatment
3) (Table 2). This
treatment received only four sprays, compared with
eight to 13 sprays made in the treatments applied on
schedule (Table 4). Campbell et al. (1991) also found
the combination of esfenvalerate + B. thuringiensis to
be superior to other registered tomato insecticides for
protection against fruitworm damage.
The percentge of tomato fruit with fruitworm feeding
damage averaged approximately 26% in each of the
1993 trials (Table 2), with peak damage (46.9 and
47.1% damaged fruit) occurring on the first harvest
dates. Fruitworm egg counts were low in 1993 but eggs
were detected throughout the spring and summer egg
sampling periods until just before first harvest (Table
3). As in 1992, fruit damage was significantly (P < 0.05)
reduced in all 1993 insecticide treatments (both trials)
compared with the untreated control (Table 2). In both
1993 trials, fruit damage was generally lower in the
esfenvalerate scouting treatment (treatment 2) than in
the weekly esfenvalerate treatment (treatment l), yet
the frequency of insecticide application was reduced by
at least half in the esfenvalerate scouting treatment
(Table 4). Average fruit damage in the B. thuringiensis
treatments (3,4 and 5) ranged from 2.0 to 8.0% with no
significant differences among fruit damage means
(Table 2). The B. thuringiensis treatment based on
scouting (treatment 6) required the fewest sprays (four

Table 5. Mean weight per harvest of marketable tomato fruit (in thousands of kg/ha + SEM) in scouting and calendar-based
fruitworm control programs*
1992

tomato

1993

Treatment

Summer
trial (3)

Spring
trial (5)

Summer
trial (4)

I.
2.

Esfen. j weekly
Esfen.> based on scouting

20.5 f 1.9
22.7 * 2.2

19.4 I 7.2
18.8 t 7.0

16.0 * 7.6
15.) + 4.5

12.8 f 8.1
14.8 * 4.3

4:
3
5.
6.
7.

Esfen(.l
Bs k,\ every
+ R.t4 k,
diys
based on scouting
B.t k* every 7 days
B.f ks based on scouting
Untreated control

22.7
21.5
20.4
21.9
18.5

25.3
18.6
21.9
17.8
12.7

15.3NAII
? 10.0
14.4 2 7.8
14.1 + 4.1
6.5 * I.9

14.4NAII
2 4.1
13.2 i 8.6
13.7 rfr 3.9
9.2 f 2.6

Means

within

columns

are not significantly

Valuesextrapolated
Numbcrs

to amounts/ha

in parentheses

different

(P

based on weight

are the number

of harvest

> 0.05;

+
f
f
*

2.3
1.7
2.3
1.6
1.7

Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch

of harvested

fruit

dates per season;

+
t
i
+
+

9.)
6.8
8.2
6.7
4.6

multiple

F test)

in each plot
means calculated

based on four

replicates

per treatment

times

the number

of harvest

dates

Esfenvalerate
8.1
IINot

k is 8ocillrr.v /hrrringio~A
applicable:

treatment

Table 6. Comparison
programs

spp.

klrrsroki (Javelin

3 not included

in lYY3

of insecticide

WG)

experiments

costs and net production

Esfcn.$ weekly
Esfen. based on scouting
B.1 kll every 4 days
R.t k) every 7 days
R.f kll based on scouting
Season

with

season

,.Per season
fresh-market
33fealerate
IBacillu~

666

scouting

and

Spring, IYY2I
Insecticide cost
Net return
($/ha)
($/ha)

Treatment

Per

returns for

lowest

fruitworm

cost of insecticide
net return
tomato

thuringicnsia

(profit)

20h.Yh
45.99
321.10
224.17
96.33
population

above all tomato

program

fruitworm

control

Average over four seasons

Insecticide cost
Net return
($/ha)
($/ha)l

3,001.44
3.177.30
2&X36
2.970.40
3.113.66

183.Y7
74.74
361.24
224.17
128.44

3,008.56
3,154.91
2.784.41
2.021.37
3.085.70

treatment

production

expenses,

productmn
(Javelin

tomato

density

used in the spray

\pp, ku~uukj

calendar-based

WC;)

Crop Protection 1995 Volume 14 Number

including

machinery

and labor

costs.

Calculated

based on a budget

developed

for

Alabama

deduction
in the spring
1992 trial because
the egg scouting
program determined
that fruitworm
populations
were
low (based
on finding
few eggs) and, therefore,
insecticide
sprays were rarely recommended.

use in tomato: G.W. Zehnder et a/.

of insecticide

Agricultural
944916.

Experiment

Station

Journal

Series

#17-

References
Discussion

Bolkan, H. A. and Reinert, W. A. (1994) Developing

ing IPM strategies to assist farmers:

The low number

of esfenvalerate
applications
in the
scouting treatment
(Table 4) may have contributed
to
higher natural enemy populations
than in the weekly
esfenvalerate
treatment,
and this may be one explanation for the lower fruitworm
damage values in the
scouting treatment
(Table 2). Although natural enemy
populations
were not quantified
in this study, previous
studies have demonstrated
that reducing the frequency
of insecticide
applications
enhances
the survival
of
beneficial
arthropods
in tomato
cropping
systems.
Pyrethroid
insecticides,
like esfenvalerate
used in our
study, have long residual activity on foliage (Walgenbath, Leidy and Sheets, 1991) and have been shown to
inhibit
parasitization
of fruitworm
eggs by Trichogrammu (Hymenoptera:
Trichogrammatidae)
species
up to 21 days after application
(Jacobs, Kouskolekas
and Gross. 1984). A North Carolina study also demonstrated that the incidence
of fruitworm
egg parasitization by Trichogramma was lower in tomatoes
treated
with esfenvalerate
than when other insecticides
were
applied (Campbell
et al., 1991).
Our results demonstrate
that implementation
of a
fruitworm
scouting
program
can result in increased
returns for tomato growers, compared
with calendarbased spray programs.
with no reduction in marketable
yield.
On average,
59 and 43% fewer insecticide
applications
(for esfenvalerate
and B. thuringiensis,
respectively)
were required in the egg scouting program,
compared
with the weekly spray program
(Table 4).
The cost/return
analysis (Table 6) also shows that the
cost of scouting
(approximately
$US14.00 per ha) is
more than returned
by the savings in insecticide
costs.
In a calendar-based
program where growers may have
no knowledge
of pest density,
insecticide
sprays are
applied on schedule as a precaution
to prevent insect
damage. even if the actual pest population
density is
low or nonexistent.
Scouting provides the farmer with
knowledge
of pest density
that is essential
for a
transition
from calendar-based
spray programs
to a
more
sustainable
approach
where
insecticides
are
applied only when necessary.

and implemcntan industry approach. P/ant LG.

78, s45-5.50
Campbell,

C. D.,

Walgenbach,

J. F. and Kennedy,

G. G. ( IYY1)

Effect of parasitoids on lepidopterous pests in insecticide-treated

untrcatcd tomatoes in western North Carolina. 1. Ewn. Entomol.
1662-I667

Goodell,

P. B. and Zalom,

pest management

Impkmentation

vegetable

production.

W. R.

production. Alabama
January. I092

and G. W.

Cuperus)

84,

for integrated
In: S~rccessfitl

of Integrated Pest Manugement for Agriculturul

(Ed. by A. R. Leslie
Boca Raton. Florida

Goodman,

F. G. (1993) The potential

in California

and

pp. 75-04.

CRC

(IYYZ)
Entcrprisc
budgets for vcgetablc
Cooperative Extension Service. AECBlJD

Crops
Press.

crop
l-4.

Graham, H. M. (lY70)
budworms and loopers
optera: Chalcididae)
Entomol. 63, 6X6-688

Parasitism of eggs of bollworms,

tobacco
by Trichogramma
.sem@matum
(Hymcnin the lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. J. Econ.

Hoffman, M. P., Wilson, L. T., Zalom, F. G. and Hildon, R. J. ( 1900)

Parasitism of He/&this zea (Lcpidoptcra:
Noctuidac) eggs: effect on
pest managcmcnt
decision rules for processing tomatoes in the
Sacramento Valley of California.
62~. Entomol.
19, 753-763
Jacobs, R. J., Kouskolekas,
of Tric~hogrammu pretiosum

C. A. and Gross, H. R. (lY84) Response

(Hymenoptera:
Trichogrammatidae)
to
and cndosulfan. Env. Entomol.
18. 355-358

rcsiducs of pcrmethrin

Kovach, S., Dangler, J., Sikora, E. J., Zehnder, G. W., Patterson, M.

and Williams, J. 1,. (lYY2) Commrrcial
Tomato Production. Alabama
Cooperative

Extension

Service

Pohronezny, K., Waddill, V. H., Schuster, D. J. and Sonoda, R. M.

(lY86) Integrated pest management for Florida tomatoes. fkmt Dir.
70, Yf%lO2

( IYYO) SASISTAT
Uxrs Guide.
SAS Institute, Gary. North Carolina

SAS Institute
edition.

Vcxsion

h, Fourth

Spittler, T. D., Argauer,

R. J., Lisk, D. J., Mumma, R. O., Winnett,

G. and Ferro, D. N. (1984) Gas chromatographic
determination
of
fcnvalcratc insecticide rcsiducs in processed tomato products and byproducts. J. Aswc.
Ojf. Anal. Chum. 67. 824-826
(IYYO) Insects and related pests. In: fntqyzted
third edition (Ed. by M. L. Flint)
pp. 33-59.
University
of California
Division of Agriculture
and
Natural Resources, Publication 3274
University

of California

Pest Manugement

for

Tomatocj.

Walgenbach, J. F., Leidy, R. B. and Sheets, T. J. (IYY I) Pcrsistcncc

of insecticides on tomato foliage and implications for control of tomato
fruitworm (Lcpidoptcra:
Noctuidac).
J. Econ Entomol. 84. Y78-986
Zalom, F. G., Wilson, L. T. and Smith, R. (lY83) Oviposition patterns
h) several lepidopterous pests on processing tomatoes in California.
EWt,. Entomoi.
12. I 133-I I.37

Acknowledgements
This project
was supported
operative
Extension
Service.

by the Alabama
CoThis paper is Alabama

Received 2Y September
lYY4
Revised 4 January 1905
Accepted 6 January 1905

Crop Protection

1995 Volume

14 Number

687