English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Seven-year-old ‘Bartlett’ trees at the Trevor Nichols Research Complex in Fennville, MI (Pear 3 Block) were sprayed with an FMC 1029 airblast sprayed at a rate of 75 gpa. Trees were arranged in a CR design of single trees, replicated 4 times. Test materials were applied on 25 May (petal fall), 7 Jun (1C), and 31 Jul (PP threshold of 0.3 nymphs per leaf). Streptomycin, Benlate, Penncozeb, Rubigan, Funginex, Captan, and Guthion were applied to all treatments separately. Dates of PP and PRM evaluation were 10 Jun, 24 Jun, 8 Jul, 24 Jul and 14 Aug. At each evaluation, 50 leaves per replicate were picked, brushed in a mite brushing machine and examined under a stereomicroscope for PRM adults. Twenty-five leaves per replicate were also evaluated under a stereo microscope for PP nymphs and eggs. Mean data are reported as PRM adults power leaf, and PP nymphs or eggs per 25 leaves. Harvest fruit evaluations were made on 21 Aug by picking 25 fruit randomly from the periphery of the tree from each replicate and examining them for sooty mold from PP and PRM russetting. Sooty mold and russetting evaluations were based on visual inspection, with the scoring criteria listed in the table.

Pear, Control of Pear Psylla and Pear Rust Mite with Sankyo Products, 1996