Field evaluation of insect

exclusion netting for the

management of pests on
cabbage (Brassica
oleracea var. capitata) in
the Solomon Islands
Neave, S.M.
AVRDC-THE WORLD VEGETABLE CENTER. 3 4 SIDT BLD,
P.O BOX 147, HONIARA, SOLOMON ISLANDS
suzanne.neave@worldveg.org

Kelly, G.
INDUSTRY & INVESTMENT, NSW. P.O BOX 62, DARETON,
NSW 2717, AUSTRALIA
Gerard.kelly@industry.nsw.gov.au

Furlong, M.J.
SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF
QUEENSLAND, ST LUCIA 4072, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA.
m.furlong@uq.edu.au

ABSTRACT
This research evaluated the efficacy and financial
feasibility of using exclusion row cover netting to
exclude insect pests from cabbage crops as part of a
management strategy. Two net materials, Evolution
Row Cover and MikroKlima GrowCover were
compared with the local practice (where insects are
picked by hand or no control), at three locations in the
Solomon Islands. The use of Evolution Row Cover and
MikroKlima GrowCover resulted in 72% and 38% less
pest damage compared to the local practice. There was
little difference in size and weight of the heads harvested
between treatments but there was an average increase of
40% in market price due to better quality heads grown
under the MikroKlima GrowCover. Although the
Evolution Row Cover provided the better protection, it
was less durable and more easily damaged than the
MikroKlima GrowCover and needed regular repairs.
Based on a predicted use of the MikroKlima
GrowCover for six crop cycles and the nature of the
market at the time, the net present value for the
Mikroklima net treatment in Busarata was SBD
1,387.68 From the results of this study, there is a
justification, both from production and financial
perspectives, for using insect exclusion netting on high
value crops in Solomon Islands, particularly if a cheaper
source of durable netting can be found.

Keywords
Plutella xylostella, floating row covers, economic
evaluation, pest control

INTRODUCTION
Vegetable growing in the Solomon Islands is
predominantly small-scale production, either in home
gardens or in small plots, and local, readily available
inputs are used. Ball (=head) cabbage is a high value,
144

AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

cash crop for many farmers. The main consumers of ball

cabbage are expatriates and the food service sector,
where they are mainly used in salads. The crop is in high
demand but there are many production constraints and
crop quality (and hence market prices) are poor;
production is restricted to a small number of farmers in
the highlands of Malaita province, where production is
still profitable.
Income generated from the sale of vegetables is
important to rural households. In a baseline survey
conducted in two provinces in 2008, 53% of the total
income was through vegetable sales (Siliota et.al. 2008).
Ball cabbage is a valuable income generator for farmers,
as it is easily transportable, and has a relatively long
shelf-life, compared to other vegetable crops. In addition,
direct markets, such as hotels, restaurants and resorts, are
showing increased interest in buying locally produced
vegetable crops. However, these markets demand
consistent and high quality supplies, but neither of these
requirements is easily met. Consequently, significant
quantities of cabbage are imported from Australia and
New Zealand.
In Solomon Islands, the vast majority of vegetable
production is organic, with the few farmers that use
pesticides mainly targeting Lepidopteran pests. It is,
therefore, important to find alternative solutions to
managing pest populations, without developing a reliance
on the use of synthetic insecticides.
Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) and other
Brassica pests, including Cabbage cluster caterpillar
(Crocidolomia pavonana) and common armyworm
(Spodoptera litura) are major pests of ball cabbage
(Brassica oleracea var. capitata) in the Solomon Islands.
The population levels of species such as P. xylostella are
significant enough to limit the production of ball cabbage
to a few locations, mainly in the highlands. However,
with the increase in production of watercress (Rorippa
nasturtium-aquatica) in these areas, population levels of
Brassica pests are becoming an increasing restricting
factor for producers. Watercress is also an important food
crop to the Solomon Islands, but is only grown for
market in West Honiara and peri-urban areas of Auki. It
is mainly grown in the streams in the mountains where
stretches are dammed using logs or rocks.
The production of watercress crops is limited by insect
pests, mainly P. xylostella, that cause damage to the
harvested leaves. One management strategy that is
currently being tested is to grow the watercress on
floating rafts, which are sunk periodically to drown the
pests. In ball cabbage production, P.xylostella damages
the developing leaves in early growth stages. Other
insects such as C. pavonana and S. litura burrow into the
young growing tips, damaging the developing head and
making them unmarketable. The use of synthetic
insecticides as a management strategy is neither
appropriate or to be encouraged in the Solomon Islands.
The farming practices presently utilize many natural
resources such as mulch and compost. Pesticide supplies
are limited and farmers have limited or no knowledge
and skills about how to use them appropriately. The use

of exclusion row covers is an effective pest management

practice that has been used to reduce caterpillar, whitefly,
thrips and aphid numbers and crop damage in a variety of
high value vegetable crops.
In this research, the approach to managing pests in these
Brassica crops is centred on methods that are appropriate
for farmers in the Solomon Islands. Practical methods
that utilized inexpensive, locally available materials that
could be applied with little technical supervision were
important. The purpose of the study was to determine the
efficacy and cost effectiveness of an easy to use
technology that could help farmers manage troublesome
pests on a high value crop. To this end, the research
focused on methods that could exclude the insect pests
for periods long enough for crops to develop and set
marketable heads. Exclusion treatments that included a
floating row cover and an insect net that could be placed
over the growing crop were chosen for comparison. The
use of floating row covers to regulate crop growth is a
well established technology which is practiced in many
countries, particularly in temperate climates where it
promotes the retention of heat, which enhances plant
growth and earlier yields. Floating row covers (Reemay
and Vispore) provided effective frost protection and
extended the growing season of tomatoes and cucumbers
in Oregon, USA (Nelson et al. 1985). In field studies, the
row covers increased the transplant success rate and
increased soil temperatures which helped stimulate
fruiting and increased yields (Nelson et al. 1985).
The use of floating row covers and pyriproxfen were
shown to reduce fruit damage caused by silverleaf
whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) on zucchini, resulting in an
increased percentage of marketable fruit in Queensland
(Qureshi et al. 2007). In that study, the floating row
cover alone produced the highest marketable fruit for
most of the sampling dates (Qureshi et al. 2007). Floating
row covers combined with plastic mulch also helped
control virus transmitting insect vectors on zucchini in
Florida (Webb and Linda 1992). The row covers
produced zucchini plants that were larger and more
vigorous in size than uncovered plants which were
infected with virus and stunted (Webb and Linda 1992).
Virus disease incidence in cantaloupes was delayed due
to row covers (Agribon-17) completely excluding insect
vectors in Mexico (Orozco-Santos et al. 1995).
The financial aspects of utilizing these techniques have
also been investigated. The economic benefits to growers
and consumers of using insect netting in greenhouse
tomato production to exclude whitefly vectors causing
tomato yellow leaf curl (TYLC) was proved (Taylor et
al. 2001).
This paper evaluates two types of row covers used in the
management of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var.
capitata) in the Solomon Islands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The exclusion row covers and insect net, which are not
locally available, were sourced from Australian suppliers
and delivered to the Solomon Islands. Materials used to

make hoops to support the netting over the plots were

sourced locally. Trials were conducted in three locations
in the Solomon Islands - Busarata (Malaita), Henderson
(Guadalcanal) and Tetere (Guadalcanal). Two of the
locations (Henderson and Tetere) are in the lowlands,
where ball cabbage can no longer be grown economically
due to the constraint posed by insect pests, and a third
location (Busarata) was in the highlands, where
production exists. Two exclusion treatments (row covers)
were compared with no exclusion (control) in field
evaluations. The two exclusion treatments were;
MikroKlima GrowCover (Veggie net) (Supplier:
Veggie Patch, Australia) is woven polyethylene netting
of uniform weave, with a density of 35g/m2, 85% light
penetration and 2 m width.
Evolution Row Cover [Supplier: Gundaroo Tillers,
Australia; Manufacturer: Kimberly Clark (Australia &
New Zealand)] is made from lightweight High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) fleece fabric, with a density of
20g/m2 and 2 m width.

Installation of exclusion treatments

Immediately after seedling transplanting, the exclusion
nets were placed over the cabbage plots. The nets were
supported by 20 mm polypipe hoops (each 1.8 m long).
Lengths (50cm) of 16 mm iron bars were pushed into
each end of the polypipe, and were then pushed into the
ground to secure the hoops. Hoops spaced 1 m apart were
placed over the beds to support the nets. The nets were
cut to length with an extra 1 m for tying each end. The
nets were placed over the hoops and secured with jumbo
clips. The ends of the net were tied and one edge was
weighed down and buried. Exclusion net treatments that
remained over the plots until harvest were periodically
lifted on one side to weed, water, collect plant
measurements and make observations.
Trial Plot details
All three trials had the same arrangement, using a latin
square design with three replications. Plot sizes were
approximately 1.5 m wide and 6 m long. The total size of
each trial was also similar; 6.5 m wide (3 beds with a 1 m
spacing between beds) and 20 m long (6 m plot lengths
with a 1 m spacing between plots). Beds were hand
cultivated and prepared with compost and manure
approximately two weeks prior to transplanting cabbage
seedlings which had been raised on farm nurseries.

Trial locations
Location 1: Busarata
The trial at Busarata, Malaita was established on 22nd
April 2010. Busarata is located in the highlands 800 m
above sea level and consists mainly of steep land that is
loosely terraced. The soils are sandy loam (no soil
analysis completed) with pH 7. In this location, carrots
and onions had been grown previously on the site.
Twenty seedlings were transplanted into each bed, in two
rows (30 cm apart), 60cm spacing, after the nets had
been put in place. Harvest was conducted on 9th August
2010.

The 6th International Workshop on Management of the Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Insect Pests

145

Location 2: Henderson
The trial at Henderson, Guadalcanal was established on
the 6th May 2010. Henderson is located 11 km east of
Honiara, on the edge of the Guadalcanal plains. The land
is low lying and periodically flooded by storm water
runoff from the airport. The soils are clay loams and are
quite low in nitrates (14 nitrate-N/ha) and have a pH of
6.5. In this location, rock melon had been previously
grown on the site. Twenty seedlings were transplanted
into each bed, in two rows (30 cm apart), 60 cm spacing,
before the nets were placed over the hoops. Harvest was
conducted on 19th July 2010.

was similar (in terms of plant growth). There was a

significant difference in the number of leaves produced
between sites at growth stage 1 (F2,15=12.21, p<0.001)
but not at growth stage 2 (F2,15=0.15, p=0.862).
However, the plants growing at Busarata under Evolution
film row covers developed heads later than the other
two treatments.

Location 3: Tetere
The trial at Tetere, Guadalcanal was set up on the 9th
August 2010 at Don Bosco Rural Training centre farm,
70 km from Honiara. The land is generally flat, with soils
that are heavy clays, with a pH of 5.5 and very low
nitrate levels (5.87 nitrate-N/ha). In this location,
eggplant had been previously grown on the site. Twenty
seedlings, sown on 6th July, were transplanted, in two
rows (30 cm apart), 60 cm spacing. The seedlings were
transplanted before the nets were placed over the hoops.
No Evolution Film row cover was included in this trial
due to limited space available and its poor durability in
the other trials.

Henderson was the only location where a complete set of

data was collected. Heads did not develop under
Evolution Film row covers (F) at Busarata and Tetere
so pair-wise comparisons were conducted. Differences
between Mikroklima net (V) and no-net treatments for
head size at harvest was not significant for means
averaged over the three locations (F1,15=0.10, p=0.758).

Data collection
Different types of data were collected at three different
stages of growth.
Growth stage 1 (0 10 weeks after transplanting) was
prior to head formation. The data collected at this stage
was: average number of leaves per plant, percentage leaf
damaged by caterpillars, number of pests (physical
counting of each species). This data was collected 2-3
times.
Growth stage 2 (11 weeks after transplanting) was at
head formation stage. The data collected were the
number of insects present and the head size (diameter in
cm). This data was only collected once.
The number of leaves and size of head at stage 1 and 2
were used to determine the effect of the exclusion
treatments on the plant growth characteristics.
Growth stage 3 (17.5 weeks) was at harvesting. The total
numbers of harvestable heads were recorded, along with
size of the head (cm), weight of head (g), quality of head
(graded by participating farmer) and market price (SBD).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Plant growth characteristics
Plant vgor - Number of leaves
There was no significant differences in the number of
leaves produced under different nets at growth stage 1
(F2,15=0.32, p=0.732) and growth stage 2 (F2,15=0.08,
p=0.926). Interaction between trial sites and exclusion
net treatment was also not significant, which indicates
that the effect of exclusion row covers across the trial
146

AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Head Size
For practical reasons, head size at growth stage 2 was
collected only at Henderson. The results indicated no
significant difference between the treatments.

For Henderson, the head size from Mikroklima net (V)

is comparable to both Evolution Film row cover (F)
and no-net (N), but Evolution Film row cover had a
smaller head size than no-net.
There was however, a significant difference between
head size across sites, with those under Mikroklima net
at Busarata significantly larger than at Tetere (F2,13=8.31,
p=0.005), but comparable with that at Henderson.
Without net, Tetere had significantly smaller head size at
harvest than the other two sites.
Crop Maturity
The harvest dates for treatments at each trial site, with
the same planting date, were the same, so no differences
in crop maturity were measured. Although head size of
treatments was measured (above) there was no attribution
to/with treatment.

Plant damage and pest presence

The level of pest presence was determined by the
percentage (%) of damaged leaves (prior to head
formation) and total number of pests observed (on the
plants at Growth Stage 1 and 2). Damage to leaves was
characterized by holes chewed by caterpillars. Observing
and counting the number of caterpillars and other insects
present determined pest presence.
Plant damage
The percentage of damaged leaves on plants in exclusion
row cover treatments was significantly lower than plants
in the control plots at all locations (F2,15=4.04, p=0.039).
At Tetere, the mean percent damage in the plots without
net reached 96% compared to 47.5% under exclusion
row cover / net (Fig 1). The extent of pest damage in one
replication resulted in plants being completely destroyed
during early growth stages. There was no significant
difference between the two types of exclusion row cover
/ net for pest presence and the percentage of damaged
leaves.

Three main Lepidoptera pests were observed. At

Henderson, P. xylostella had the highest populations in
all three treatments (Fig. 3). Although S. litura had the
lowest populations, the damage they caused had a bigger
impact on yield. This was mainly due to their feeding
behavior, targeting the heart of the cabbage, resulting in
the head being destroyed.
90

Table 1. Percentage leaf damage at Plant

Growth Stages 1 and 2 (growth prior to head
formation).
Plant Growth
Stage

Net

Row
Cover

No net
cover

39.3

39.1

63.8

44.4

24.45

87.9

Pest presence
Exclusion row cover treatments were effective in
preventing pest infestation at Growth Stages 1 and 2 in
plants in Busarata and Tetere, but not in Henderson (Fig
2).

60
50
40
30
20
0

P.xylostell
a

10
S.litura

When damage at early stage (Plant Growth Stage 1) of

development was compared with later stage (Plant
Growth Stage 2), there was a slight increase in
percentage of leaf damage under the exclusion row cover
treatments, compared with no net, which increased by
24% (Table 1).

70

C.pavona
ma

Figure 1. Percentage leaf damage observed

prior to head formation (V=Mikroklima net,
F=Evolution Film row cover, N= no exclusion
row cover).

number insects counted

80

Figure 3. Henderson site - Total number of the

three main Lepidoptera species observed in
each treatment
Crocidolomia pavonana was present throughout all plant
growth stages, and mainly fed on the leaves. S. litura
started to appear at the head formation stage and caused
the most damage, particularly in the no-net treatment. P.
xylostella didnt appear on plants until later in the crop
cycle.
A similar pattern was observed for C. pavonana and P.
xylostella in Busarata, although the latter appeared earlier
in the crop development. This may have been due to the
close proximity of watercress acting as a host of Brassica
pests.
At Tetere, the population of Lepidoptera species was
much higher than the other two locations. S litura was
the predominant species present, with only low numbers
of P. xylostella observed. Thus, exclusion row cover
treatments did not seem to provide any superior level of
exclusion to particular types of pests.
Factors contributing to pest presence - Field
operations & mechanical damage
The presence of insects under the row covers is attributed
to farmers lifting the nets to weed and water, as well as
during data collection. At Tetere, students regularly
inspected the trial treatments, which resulted in the nets
being disturbed more frequently than at the other trial
sites. It was also possible that at all locations, insects laid
eggs on the netting and some neonates then dropped onto
the plants.

Figure 2. Mean number of pests observed 7

weeks after transplanting (V=Mikroklima net,
F=Evolution Film row cover, N= no exclusion
row cover).

Insect presence under the Evolution Film row cover net

was also due to the net being damaged in the early stages
of the trials, leaving small tears and holes in the cover. In
Busarata, the row cover was snagged when setting up
and in Henderson, the row cover in one plot was ripped.

The 6th International Workshop on Management of the Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Insect Pests

147

Another contributing factor to the presence of pests

inside the net was that all beds were prepared by hand
and therefore the terrain was rough, making it difficult to
seal securely.

In Solomon Islands markets, marketability is not always

directly related to high quality (i.e., no pest damage), but
purely based on the farmers opinion on what s/he can
sell. Consumers are often content to buy heads with
insect damage as there is rarely an alternative.

Yield
Yield evaluations were determined by the average weight
of heads at harvest, total number of heads harvested and
number of heads marketable. In addition to weight, size
was also considered as a yield factor as head size is the
most important determinant of market price. The
Henderson trial site was the only location where reliable
actual market sales data was collected.

Economic evaluation of exclusion row

covers

Figure 4 presents the mean cabbage head weight (g) at

the three trial locations. The difference between
Mikroklima net (V) and no net (N) was significant for
mean head weight across the three locations. i.e., head
weight in plots under Mikroklima (V) (6.19) was
significantly bigger than those from no-net (N) (5.92).
Under both Mikroklima (V) and no-net (N), Busarata
yielded significantly higher head weight at harvest
(columnwise comparison (x, y). Analysis was performed
based on values transformed to log scale.

The net present value

There was a significant difference in the percent

marketable heads between sites, ignoring treatments
(F2,13=13.10, p<0.001) and mildly significant between
treatments (F2,13=3.39, p=0.065). Percentage marketable
yield was significantly lower in the no-net treatment (N)
in Tetere than the other sites (F2,5=9.76, p=0.019) while
there was no significant difference in the marketable
heads grown under Mikroklima (F2,6=2.45, p=0.167).
At Henderson, 97% of the heads harvested from under
the Evolution Film row cover were considered
marketable, compared to 57% for the Mikroklima net
and 30% for the no-net treatments. In Tetere, only 9.17%
of the heads harvested from the no-net treatment were
marketable. The quality of the seedlings at Busarata was
far superior than the other two trials, which could have
contributed to the higher yields in that location.

The cost evaluation was only calculated for the

Mikroklima net as the durability of the floating net was
not acceptable.

Overall economical benefit

The net present value of the insect netting is the present
value of the benefit minus the present value of the cost of
investment. The annual benefit is the cost saving, being
the yield multiplied by the change in price due to the
netting (Taylor et.al. 2001).
The cost of setting up Mikroklima net for 6 beds of 10
m would in total cost SBD 1,610.92. On the assumption
that the net will last for three years, the annual cost of net
would be SBD 536.97.
There are many factors that affect the change in price in
the market, which influence the approach to analyzing
the data. Produce is generally sold in the wet markets by
volume and prices are rarely influenced by the quality of
the product. It would not be uncommon in the market for
ball cabbage heads that are heavily damaged by pests
such as P. xylostella to sell for the same price as clean
heads.
The main effect that will directly influence price is the
reduced size of heads due to damage whilst growing. The
main reason for this is the perception that if produce has
insect damage, the farmer would not have used pesticides
and therefore it is safer for consumption. The real value
of a product in relation to quality is only realized through
direct markets, which were not accessed by farmers in
this trial, except for Henderson. Fig. 5 shows the
correlation between price and weight.
For the analysis of the net present value, the yield was
calculated as marketable percentage based on a total
expected yield of 150 heads. The price was calculated on
the average expected price from actual yield for each
treatment.

Figure 4. Yield (mean harvested head weight g)

of ball cabbage

148

AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Size range for average weight

noticeable in Busarata, where the air temperature is

generally much lower than the other two locations.

4 9 cm = 184g

30.00

8.5 11cm = 325g

price (SBD)

25.00

The methods of placement of the exclusion nets over the

plants and beds provided access for various tasks. It was
possible to lift the row cover and insect netting (on one
or two sides) to carry out weeding, general observation
of plants, inspection of plants for pest and disease
incidence and check for maturity.

10 14 cm = 737.5g
13.5 18 cm = 1,144g

20.00

18 cm > = 1,450g
15.00
10.00

CONCLUSION

5.00
0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

average weight (g)

Figure 5. Price structure in relation to size and

weight of ball cabbage head during trial period
Table 2 shows the data used to calculate the present
value of benefit based on 2 crops per year
Table 2 Calculation of present value of benefit
Location

Yield Price/h
2
100m (SBD)

Henderson V
N
Busarata
V
N
Tetere
V
N

85.50
57
45.00
30
136.50
91
126.00
84
51.9 77.85
9.17 13.76

14.56
6.38
15.98
8.93
6.23
5.00
Mean

Price Benefit
diff. per an
8.19

1,400.49

7.05

1,924.65

1.23

191.5

5.49

1,172.2

The results of this trial have demonstrated that exclusion

row covers have the potential to improve the quality of
ball cabbage production. It would be cost effective for
farmers to invest in row cover technology as cost
recovery would be possible even after two years. Farmers
would also potentially have access to high-value, direct
markets that would further increase their income. This
will also subsequently, reduce the need for high-value
markets to import to meet their demand for high quality
heads. In addition, production can extend into previous
areas abandoned due to high insect pressure with this
technology. The materials used in the trial however,
could be substituted with lower cost alternatives and
evaluated for other crops that could be incorporated into
a crop rotation reducing the need to remove the structures
between crops.

Acknowledgements

Based on the prices of cabbages at the time of the trial,

the net present value for the three sites is 863.52,
1,387.68 and -345.46 for Henderson, Busarata and
Tetere, respectively.

The author would like to thank the staff at AVRDC-The

World Vegetable Center - Solomon Islands office,
Doreen Suimae and Medlyn Dick; Ministry of
Agriculture and Livestock, Don Bosco Rural training
Center and the farmers in Busarata and Henderson for
assisting with setting and conducting the trials; Dolores
R. Ledesma from AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center
HQ for conducting the statistical analysis on the data;
Michael Day from DEEDI, Australia for assisting with
the statistical analysis interpretation and editing.

General observations

References

Exclusion net characteristics and properties

Nelson JL, Brevig R, Young M. 1985. Response of vegetables to

floating row covers and plant protectors in central Oregon.
Oregon State University Agricultural Experimental Station
Special Report. No 747. P. 82-86.
Orozco-Santos M, Perez-Zamora O, Lopez-Arriaga O. 1995.
Floating Row Cover and Transparent Mulch to Reduce Insect
Populations, Virus Disease and Increase Yield in Canteloupe.
Florida Entomologist 78(3): 493-501.
Qureshi MS, Midmore DJ, Syeda SS, Playford CL. 2007.
Floating row covers and pyriproxyfen help control silverleaf
whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Biotype B (Homoptera:
Aleyrodidae) in zucchini. Australian Journal of Entomology 46:
313-319.
Siliota C, Weinberger K, Wu M. 2008. Baseline Report,
Vegetable Production in Guadalcanal and Malaita, Solomon
Islands. AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center.
Taylor RAJ, Shalhevet S, Spharim I, Berlinger MJ, LebiushMordechi S, 2001. Economic evaluation of insect-proof
screens for preventing tomato yellow leaf curl virus of
tomatoes in Israel. Crop Protection 20: 561-569.
Webb SE, Linda SB. 1992. Evaluation of Spunbonded
Polyethylene Row Covers as a Method of Excluding Insects
and Viruses Affecting Fall-Grown Squash in Florida. Journal of
Economic Entomology 85(6): 2344-2352.

The floating row cover, although highly effective at

excluding pests, was not very durable in the environment
where it was tested. During the trial, the floating row
covers at both Henderson and Busarata were damaged,
resulting in the decision to exclude it from the final trial
in Tetere. Deterioration of row cover materials due to
tearing was also reported by Webb and Linda (1992).
This aspect potentially limits this row cover to one use
and may affect the capacity to exclude insects. Lower
costs for this type of material may be a compensating
factor.
Both types of nets resulted in an increase in ambient
temperature under the netting treatment, which was
noticeably higher in the floating net. During the trial it
was observed that both nets had an effect on the microclimate around the plants - this included air temperature
and relative humidity. The effect was particularly

The 6th International Workshop on Management of the Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Insect Pests

149