• Title/Summary/Keyword: Netting Effects

Search Result 13, Processing Time 0.018 seconds

Control of the Fruit-Piercing moths (과실 흡수나방의 방제효과)

  • Yoon Ju-Kyung;Kim Kwang-Soo
    • Korean journal of applied entomology
    • /
    • v.16 no.2 s.31
    • /
    • pp.127-131
    • /
    • 1977
  • This experiment was conducted to evaluate the insect-proof netting, chemical sprays, application of attractants, fruit bagging and light trapping as the control methods of the fruit piercing moths in the orchards on reclaimed land in Sugyeri, Goksung, Chonnam Province, during June to October in 1976. The results are summarized as follows; 1. Insect-proof. netting effectively decreased fruit damage, compared as to the control, down to $9.4\%$ from $38.3\%$ in plum, $2.5\%$ from $53.0\%$ in peaches and $10.0\%$ from $29.0\%$ in grapes. 2. The control effects of chemicals varied significantly among the 7 insecticides tested: Deoclean, Naphthalene, and Thiometon were more effective to the fruit damages as low as $2.0\%,\; 3.6\%,\;and\;5.9\%$ respectively. while the fruit damage was rather high, $9.8\%$ for Demeton, $10.1\%$, for Takju +lead arsenate and $14.2\%$ for Padan. ,3. In the test with 7 attractants, the largest number of moths attracted and killed was 416.by Takju+brown sugar and the next was 307 by Takju+venegor while this number was 141 by mixed solution (see text) which is rather lower than expectation The fruit damage was lowest in Takju+honey and$5.2\%$, the next was $5.60\%$ for Takju+venegor and the highest was $12.0\%$, Takju alone. 4. Fruit bagging with polyethylene film effectively decreased the fruit damage from the inserts but brought about severe fruit rot and delay ripening. Meanwhile, paper bagging was less effective in preventing insects, resulting in $17.5\%$ fruit damage, however, gave no adverse effect other than slight Belay in ripening. 5. Light trapping was hardly expected to be a method of controlling these fruit piercing moths. However, the number of collected moths swarmed by electric light was 10.8 for can-descence, 0.95 for blue, and 0.22 for yellow light.

  • PDF

Development of Passive Nutrient Supplying System and Its Effects on the Growth of Muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) (수동방식 양액공급 시스템 개발과 멜론 재배 효과)

  • Nam, Sang-Sik;Oh, Yong-Bee;Kim, Yong-Bum;Choi, In-Hu
    • Horticultural Science & Technology
    • /
    • v.19 no.3
    • /
    • pp.338-341
    • /
    • 2001
  • A new passive nutrient supplying system (PNS) was designed. The experiment was conducted to compare PNS with automatic hydroponic system (AHS) by investigating the growth characteristics of muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.) in spring and summer. No significant differences in growth characteristics of leaf area and shoot dry weight were observed between PNS and AHS. However, better netting of melon fruit was shown in PNS. Sugar content of melon fruit was also $1.0-2.0Brix^{\circ}$ higher in PNS than in AHS. The suitable substrate for melon culture with PNS was the mixture of perlite 70% and rice hull 30%. These results suggested that new PNS could be introduced to growers without any loss of fruit yield and quality of muskmelon.

  • PDF

Comparison of sampling method of phytoplankton for type approval of ballast water management system (선박평형수처리장치 형식승인을 위한 식물플랑크톤 샘플링 방법 비교)

  • Jang, Pung-Guk;Hyun, Bonggil;Lee, Woo-Jin;Choi, Keun-Hyung
    • Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
    • /
    • v.21 no.12
    • /
    • pp.426-433
    • /
    • 2020
  • This study aimed to compare the pretreatment methods of phytoplankton for type approval of the Ballast Water Treatment System (BWMS). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the United States Maritime Police (USCG) use two different test methods for this purpose. To compare the two methods, a test for concentration and non-concentration was performed with cultured and natural phytoplankton, and samples from the land-based BWMS test. The extent of damages caused by the process of concentration varied between cultured and natural species, indicating differences depending on the physiological and morphological characteristics of the species. In the land-based test, in the control water with a high biological population, the number of non-concentrated samples was about twice as high as that of the concentrated samples. There was no distinct difference between the two methods in the treated water with a low biological population. Thus, although there is a difference between concentration and non-concentration for phytoplankton sampling, the concentration method can be applied as a method of evaluating BWMS performance. However, a method for evaluating whether live species in treated water may be lost or damaged during the concentration process of sampling should be developed and validated.