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

Treatments were replicated 5 times on 3 x 3 (9-tree) plots in a randomized complete block design. Only the center tree was sampled. Unsprayed buffer trees separated treatments within and between rows. Treatments were applied on 26-27 May with an FMC 4000 CP airblast sprayer at 160 psi delivering 125 gal/acre of finished spray at 1.5 mph. Water pH was 7.8. Ten (precount only on 23 May) or 20 leaves from the hardened spring flush were picked at random from the perimeter of each sample tree at various intervals before and after spraying. Each 10- or 20-leaf sample was placed in a separate labeled paper bag and returned to the laboratory. A stereomicroscope was used to examine the entire upper and lower leaf surfaces for living motile mites. A 1-cm2 area was examined on the upper and lower leaf surfaces for CRM on 23 May. The spider mite or CRM count on each leaf was recorded as one observation. Twenty fruit were examined from the canopy of each sample tree at various times after spraying. A 1-cm2 area was examined on each of 2 shaded sides per fruit using a 10 X hand lens. The 2 counts/fruit were combined and recorded as one observation. Cumulative mite-day totals were calculated.

Acaricide Efficacy Against Citrus Mites, 1988