Mark A. Muegge
Texas A&M University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mark A. Muegge.
Journal of Economic Entomology | 2010
Allen E. Knutson; Mark A. Muegge
ABSTRACT Field observations from pecan, Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) Koch, orchards in Texas were used to develop and validate a degree-day model of cumulative proportional adult flight and oviposition and date of first observed nut entry by larvae of the first summer generation of the pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella Nuenzig (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). The model was initiated on the date of first sustained capture of adults in pheromone traps. Mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures were used to determine the sum of degree-days from onset to 99% moth flight and oviposition and the date on which first summer generation larvae were first observed penetrating pecan nuts. Cumulative proportional oviposition (y) was described by a modified Gompertz equation, y = 106.05 × exp(-(exp(3.11 - 0.00669 × (x - 1)))), with x = cumulative degree-days at a base temperature of 3.33°C. Cumulative proportional moth flight (y) was modeled as y = 102.62 × exp(-(exp(l.49 - 0.00571 × (x - 1)))). Model prediction error for dates of 10, 25, 50, 75, and 90% cumulative oviposition was 1.3 d and 83% of the predicted dates were within ± 2 d of the observed event. Prediction error for date of first observed nut entry was 2.2 d and 77% of model predictions were within ± 2 d of the observed event. The model provides ample lead time for producers to implement orchard scouting to assess pecan nut casebearer infestations and to apply an insecticide if needed to prevent economic loss.
Journal of Economic Entomology | 2008
Allen E. Knutson; Mark A. Muegge; L. T. Wilson; Steve E. Naranjo
Abstract The cost-reliability of five sampling methods (visual search, drop cloth, beat bucket, shake bucket, and sweep net) was determined for four groups of predatory arthropods on cotton plants in Texas. The beat bucket sample method was the most cost-reliable sampling method for Orius adults, and the beat bucket and drop cloth were the most cost-reliable methods for Orius nymphs. The drop cloth and beat bucket were the most cost-reliable methods for sampling spiders. For sampling adult Coccinellidae, the sweep net and the beat bucket were the most cost-reliable. The visual sample method was the least cost-reliable method for Orius adults and nymphs and spiders. No one sampling method was identified as the optimum method for all four predator groups. However, the relative cost-reliability of the beat bucket method ranked first or second among the five sampling methods and this method was chosen for further evaluation in field studies in Texas and Arizona. The relative cost-reliability of 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-plants per beat bucket sample varied with predator group, but multiple plant sample units were equal to or more cost-reliable than the one plant sample unit. Fixed sample plans for the beat bucket method were developed for Orius adults, Orius nymphs, spiders, and adult Coccinellidae, and the sum of these groups using the 3-, 5-, and 10-plant sample unit sizes. The greater cost-reliability of the beat bucket sampling method and its ease of use is of particular advantage in assessing predator densities in a commercial cotton field monitoring program.
Southwestern Entomologist | 2012
Mark A. Muegge; Allen E. Knutson
Abstract. Mating disruption of pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella Neuzig, was evaluated using the single component sex pheromone, (9E,11Z)-hexadecadienal in four field experiments in commercial orchards of pecan, Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch. The sex pheromone was formulated as either: 1) Microbead: a 5% microencapsulated sprayable or 2) Paintball: a latex sphere containing the sex pheromone formulation and designed for application with a paintball gun. Evidence of mating disruption was measured by comparing the number of pecan nut casebearer moths captured in sex pheromone-baited traps; numbers of viable, non-viable, and eclosed eggs; and nut damage by larvae in the sex pheromone treatment relative to the numbers in the nontreated check. In all four experiments, the sex pheromone treatment significantly reduced by 89.6% or more the number of captured pecan nut casebearer moths relative to the nontreated check. However, in three experiments, there was no significant reduction in the mean numbers of viable, non-viable, and eclosed eggs, or nut damage in the sex pheromone treatment compared to the nontreated check. In another experiment, the mean numbers of viable and eclosed eggs, percentage of infested nut clusters, and nuts damaged by pecan nut casebearer larvae were significantly less in the sex pheromone treatment than in the nontreated check. Based on the results of this experiment, application of sex pheromone before capture of the first pecan nut casebearer moth and two or three applications of sex pheromone at a rate of 6–10 g per hectare per application were necessary to disrupt mating. These experiments are the first to demonstrate the reduction of pecan nut damage resulting from the use of pecan nut casebearer sex pheromone to disrupt mating. However, the lack of control observed in three of the four experiments suggests further studies are needed to better understand and enhance the efficacy of pecan nut casebearer mating disruption.
Arthropod Management Tests | 2011
Mark A. Muegge; Joshua Cobos
Several insecticides were tested for their effect on Cotton fleahopper (CFH) adults and nymphs in a research cotton field at the Texas Agrilife Research Station in Reeves County, TX. Plots, 4 rows × 40 ft, were arranged in an RCB design with four blocks and eight treatments. Entire plots were treated, but only the center two rows were sampled, leaving the outside rows of each experimental unit as buffers to help maintain treatment integrity. Pesticide applications …
Archive | 2003
Allen E. Knutson; C. Jack DeLoach; Mark A. Muegge
Arthropod Management Tests | 2016
Mark A. Muegge
Arthropod Management Tests | 2016
Mark A. Muegge
Arthropod Management Tests | 2016
Mark A. Muegge
Arthropod Management Tests | 2015
Mark A. Muegge; Salvador Vitanza
Arthropod Management Tests | 2013
Mark A. Muegge