Translator Disclaimer
1 October 2009 Reducing Fertilization for Cut Roses: Effect on Crop Productivity and Twospotted Spider Mite Abundance, Distribution, and Management
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Fertilization reduction could be a useful pest management tactic for floriculture crops if it reduced pest populations with little loss in crop yield and quality. We evaluated the response of the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae), to different fertilization levels for cut roses, Rosa hybrida L. ‘Tropicana’ and quantified fertilization effects on 1 ) management of T. urticae on roses, 2) abundance and distribution of T. urticae on roses, and 3) yield and quality of the cut rose crop. We tested two fertilization levels, 10% (15 ppm N) and 100% (150 ppm N) of the recommended level for commercial production, and three control methods: no control measure; a predatory mite, Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot; and a miticide, bifenazate. Combinations of both bottom up (fertilization) and top down (biological or chemical control) tactics provided a greater degree of T. urticae control than either tactic alone. Rose productivity was reduced with fertilization at 10% of the recommended level; therefore, we conducted studies with T. urticae on roses fertilized with 33% (50 ppm N), 50% (75 ppm N), and 100% (150 ppm N) of the recommended level. Mean numbers of T. urticae and T. urticae eggs per flower shoot were twice as high on roses fertilized with 100 versus 33% or 50% of the recommended level. Number of rose leaves and total leaf area infested by T. urticae were similar at all fertilization levels. Cut rose yield and marketability were not compromised on plants fertilized with 50% of the recommended level.

2009 Entomological Society of America
Andrew Chow, Amanda Chau, and Kevin M. Heinz "Reducing Fertilization for Cut Roses: Effect on Crop Productivity and Twospotted Spider Mite Abundance, Distribution, and Management," Journal of Economic Entomology 102(5), (1 October 2009). https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0521
Received: 15 February 2009; Accepted: 1 August 2009; Published: 1 October 2009
JOURNAL ARTICLE
12 PAGES

This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
+ SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top