@article{vasquez_orr_baker_2006, title={Efficacy assessment of Aphidius colemani (Hymenoptera : Braconidae) for suppression of Aphis gossypii (Homoptera : Aphididae) in greenhouse-grown chrysanthemum}, volume={99}, DOI={10.1603/0022-0493-99.4.1104}, abstractNote={Abstract To assess biological control as a management tool for the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae), the efficacy of Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for suppression of A. gossypii in greenhouse-grown chrysanthemums, Dendranthema grandiflora (Tzvelev), was compared with a pesticide standard, imidacloprid (Marathon 1% G) and an untreated check. No significant differences were found between aphid populations in the two treatments. A. colemani and imidacloprid kept aphid numbers very low, with the correspondent aphid populations exhibiting very low intrinsic rates of increase (rm = −0.0369 and rm = 0.0151, respectively), in contrast to the exponential growth of aphid populations (rm = 0.1085) observed on the untreated plants. Parasitism levels in A. colemani plots ranged from 48.93 to 83.38%. Esthetic damage parameters, including exuviae, honeydew, and sooty mold on leaves, were significantly different between treatments and untreated control, and damage levels were minimal with the insecticide treatment and natural enemy releases. The cost of A. colemani releases was 4.7 times greater than the cost of the imidacloprid treatment.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Economic Entomology}, author={Vasquez, G. M. and Orr, D. B. and Baker, J. R.}, year={2006}, pages={1104–1111} }
 @article{vasquez_orr_baker_2004, title={Quality assessment of selected commercially available whitefly and aphid biological control agents in the United States}, volume={97}, ISSN={["1938-291X"]}, DOI={10.1603/0022-0493(2004)097[0781:QAOSCA]2.0.CO;2}, abstractNote={Abstract This study assessed the quality of three commercially available natural enemies used for pest management in greenhouses: the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa Gahan (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), the aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), and the aphid predatory midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Shipment packaging was consistent for all natural enemies. However, there was high variability in delivery punctuality, product cost, and product information provided by each of the six selected companies. Product quantity, percentage of emergence upon arrival, percentage of total emergence, percentage of females, and percentage of flying insects were assessed using International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) recommended procedures. The parameters with greatest variability between companies were percentage of emergence upon arrival (0.9–10.5%) and percentage of flying insects (35.4–85.0%) for E. formosa; product quantity (623.3–833.8 aphid mummies), percentage of emergence upon arrival (6.1–41.2%) and percentage of females (51.1–54.8%) for A. colemani; and percentage of emergence upon arrival (0.0–7.7%) and percentage of females (54.6–76.2%) for A. aphidimyza. Results are discussed in terms of the value to consumers and compared with IOBC standards.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY}, author={Vasquez, GM and Orr, DB and Baker, JR}, year={2004}, month={Jun}, pages={781–788} }
 @article{bell_baker_2000, title={Comparison of greenhouse screening materials for excluding whitefly (Homoptera : Aleyrodidae) and thrips (Thysanoptera : Thripidae)}, volume={93}, ISSN={["1938-291X"]}, DOI={10.1603/0022-0493-93.3.800}, abstractNote={Abstract Twenty-eight greenhouse screening materials, with predetermined airflow resistance values, were evaluated for exclusion of the silverleaf whitefly Bemisia argentifolii Perring & Bellows and thrips from a mixed-species population. Screens differed in exclusion efficacy, expressed as a percentage of the fiberglass window screen control and at an approach velocity of 92 m/min, from −35 to 94% for silverleaf whitefly and from −13 to 95% for thrips. Seventeen screens excluded more silverleaf whitefly than did the window screen control, whereas only seven excluded more thrips. One material differentially excluded whitefly over thrips; many more differentially excluded thrips over whitefly. Airflow resistance, indicative of mesh hole size, did not necessarily correspond with degree of exclusion. Not all materials characterized as highly resistant to airflow provided significant exclusion. Exclusion of both types of pests was attained with several moderate- and one low-resistance screen. Another low-resistance screen excluded silverleaf whitefly only.}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY}, author={Bell, ML and Baker, JR}, year={2000}, month={Jun}, pages={800–804} }
 @article{baker_whipker_1999, title={Pesticides labeled for greenhouse ornamental insect and related pest control}, volume={44}, number={1}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R. and Whipker, B. E.}, year={1999}, pages={2} }
 @article{witt_ranney_warren_baker_1998, title={Biorational plant protectants for controlling adult Japanese beetles}, volume={43}, number={1998}, journal={Proceedings of Southern Nurserymen's Association Research Conference Annual Report}, author={Witt, J. D. and Ranney, T. G. and Warren, S. L. and Baker, J. R.}, year={1998}, pages={175–178} }
 @article{baker_1997, title={Insect control in the greenhouse}, volume={42}, number={1}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R.}, year={1997}, pages={13} }
 @article{baker_bailey_1997, title={Pesticides labeled for greenhouse ornamental insect and related pest control}, volume={42}, number={5}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R. and Bailey, D. A.}, year={1997}, pages={3} }
 @article{baker_bailey_1996, title={Pesticides labeled for greenhouse ornamental insect and related pest control}, volume={41}, number={5}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R. and Bailey, D. A.}, year={1996}, pages={5} }
 @article{baker_bailey_1995, title={Greenhouse ornamental insect and related pest control}, volume={40}, number={5}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R. and Bailey, D. A.}, year={1995}, pages={5} }
 @article{baker_1994, title={Greenhouse ornamental insect and related pest control}, volume={39}, number={5}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R.}, year={1994}, pages={3} }
 @article{baker_1994, title={Insect and mite pests of Camellia}, volume={49}, number={1}, journal={Camellia Journal}, author={Baker, J. R.}, year={1994}, pages={15} }
 @article{baker_crouse_shearin_1993, title={Screening as part of insect and disease management in the greenhouse}, volume={38}, number={4}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R. and Crouse, M. B. and Shearin, E. A.}, year={1993}, pages={12} }
 @article{baker_shearin_1992, title={Fern scale insects}, volume={37}, number={2}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R. and Shearin, E. A.}, year={1992}, pages={1} }
 @article{baker_1992, title={Sticky cards and insect scouting}, volume={36}, number={6}, journal={North Carolina Flower Growers' Bulletin}, author={Baker, J. R.}, year={1992}, pages={1} }