2011 entomology research report - texas a&m university annual report_wa… · 2011 . entomology...

2011

ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH

REPORT

Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont

OFFICE OF M. O. (Mo) Way, Professor of Entomology

Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont 1509 Aggie Drive

Beaumont, Texas 77713

Tel. 409-752-2741, Extension 2231 Cell. 409-658-2186 Fax. 409-752-5560

Email. [email protected] WWW – http://beaumont.tamu.edu

February 10, 2012 Dear stakeholder, cooperator and/or colleague: This report is a compilation of results of Entomology Project experiments conducted in 2011. Financial support for these experiments was provided by Texas AgriLife Research, Texas Rice Research Foundation (rice check-off monies), Texas Soybean Board, USDA and various private agricultural companies. I thank these donors for their generous contributions. I am confident the results contained in this booklet will provide useful pest management information to clientele. I also wish to thank my support staff for an outstanding, productive year in 2011: Mark Nunez ....................... Research Associate Rebecca Pearson ................ Research Assistant Jannie Castillo .................... Student Assistant Caitlin Austin ..................... Student Assistant Casan Scott......................... Student Assistant Rhett Williamson ............... Student Assistant Cara Austin ........................ Student Assistant Lacie Cammack ................. Student Assistant Suhas Vyavhare ................. Graduate Student Daun Humphrey ................. Office Associate Finally, I thank Jack Vawter and his staff at the David R. Wintermann Rice Research Station at Eagle Lake for excellent work at Eagle Lake and Ganado. This annual report is also available online at the Beaumont Center website: http://Beaumont.tamu.edu/eLibrary/Reports_default.htm If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Sincerely, M.O. Way Professor Entomology

http://beaumont.tamu.edu/eLibrary/Reports_default.htm�

i

M.O. Way ⋅ [email protected] ⋅ (409)752-2741 ext.2231 Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont ⋅ 1509 Aggie Dr. ⋅ Beaumont, TX 77713 ⋅ http://beaumont.tamu.edu

Table of Contents Rice Rice Water Weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus) Hybrid Seeding Rate Study ..................................................................................................1 Cocodrie Seed Treatment Large Plot Study.........................................................................5 XP753 Seed Treatment Large Plot Study ............................................................................9 Seed Treatment Replant Study ...........................................................................................12 Seed Treatment Water-Seeded Study ................................................................................15 Syngenta Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control ..............................................18 Valent Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control ...................................................23 Belay Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control ..................................................27 Dinotefuran Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control ...................................................32 Host Plant Resistance to Rice Water Weevil .....................................................................35 Sheath Blight (Rhizoctonia solani) Foliar Fungicide Study .......................................................................................................41 Rice Stink Bug (Oebalus pugnax) Rice Stink Bug Resistance to Pyrethroids .........................................................................48 Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control ....................................................49 Stalk Borers Cocodrie Seed Treatments .................................................................................................51 XP753 Seed Treatments .....................................................................................................54 Dermacor X-100 Ratoon Crop Study ................................................................................57 Host Plant Resistance to Stalk Borers ................................................................................60 Economic Injury Levels for Stalk Borers ..........................................................................63 Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer ......................................................................................65 Soybean Redbanded Stink Bug Research ...............................................................................................66 Soybean Host Plant Resistance ................................................................................................71 Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG V Soybean ..........................87 Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VI Soybean .......................102 Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VII Soybean .....................109 DuPont Soybean Seed Treatment Study ................................................................................118 Syngenta Soybean Seed Treatment Study .............................................................................121 Valent Soybean Seed Treatment Study..................................................................................123 Soybean Fungicide Evaluations .............................................................................................125 Sugarcane Red Imported Fire Ant Predation on Mexican Rice borer in Sugarcane at Beaumont ..........128 Evaluation of Commercial and Experimental Sugarcane Cultivars for Resistance to the

Mexican Rice Borer 2010 - 2011 .....................................................................................129 Comparison of Mexican Rice Borer Pest Pressure in Bioenergy and Conventional Sugarcane .........................................................................................................................132

1


Hybrid Seeding Rate Study Block 5S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN

⇐ North I II III IV

1 D 13 U 25 C 37 N 2 C 14 N 26 D 38 U 3 U 15 D 27 U 39 C 4 N 16 C 28 N 40 D 5 U 17 D 29 N 41 C 6 C 18 C 30 U 42 U 7 D 19 N 31 D 43 N 8 N 20 U 32 C 44 D 9 C 21 N 33 U 45 C 10 U 22 D 34 D 46 N 11 N 23 C 35 N 47 U 12 D 24 U 36 C 48 D

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Variety: XP753 (seed provided by RiceTec)

D = Dermacor X-100; C = CruiserMaxx Rice; N = NipsIt INSIDE; U = untreated Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

15 lb/A 25 lb/A 35 lb/A

Hybrid Seeding Rate Study

2


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS

Seeding Rate (lb/A) Treatment

Rate fl oz/cwt lb ai/A

15 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 15 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.021 15 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.011 15 Untreated --- --- 25 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 25 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.035 25 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.019 25 Untreated --- --- 35 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 35 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.049 35 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.026 35 Untreated --- ---

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Split plot with 4 replications; main plot = seeding rate (15, 25 and 35

lb/A); sub plot = treatment (Dermacor X-100, CruiserMaxx Rice, NipsIt INSIDE and untreated)

Planting: Drill-planted @ 15, 25 and 35 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 21 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on May 2 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 22 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 25 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 120 lb N/A on May 25 at PF 60 lb N/A on Jul 18 at late boot/5% heading Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram

@ 2.0 lb (AI)/A and Agri-Dex @ 1.0 pt/acre with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 16 for early season weed control


3


Treatments: NipsIt INSIDE applied by Valent CruiserMaxx Rice and Dermacor X-100 seed treatments applied by the

Entomology Project Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 12 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 15 and Jun 27. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH) counts in 4 rows/plot on Aug 16; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 24 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

Data show rice plant stand varied with seeding rate, as expected (Tables 1 and 2). The seed treatments did not affect plant stand. Populations of RWW were well above treatment thresholds in the untreated, so experimental results are valid for this insect. All seed treatments effectively controlled RWW on both sample dates. WH counts were too low to draw conclusions; however, WH densities typically are low for hybrids. Across suplots, yields were significantly lower at the lowest seeding rate (15 lb/A)---an average of 867 lb/A lower than the 2 higher seeding rates. Across main plots, yields of all 3 seed treatments were similar---over 9000 lb/A. When yields of the 3 seed treatments are averaged (9098 lb/A), the difference compared to the untreated is 1131 lb/A which clearly shows the value of the 3 seed treatments.


4


Table 1. Mean data for hybrid seeding rate study. Beaumont, TX. 2011. Seeding

rate (lb/A) Treatment

Rate (fl oz/cwt)

Stand (plants/3 ft

of row)

RWW/5 cores WHs/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) Jun 15 Jun 27

15 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 8 5 9 0 8877 15 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 8 14 14 1 8289 15 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 8 12 13 1 8478 15 Untreated --- 5 51 16 1 7308 25 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 13 2 2 0 9507 25 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 12 9 7 0 9484 25 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 12 11 7 1 9139 25 Untreated --- 11 75 13 0 8228 35 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 14 10 4 0 9223 35 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 16 8 3 2 9268 35 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 15 5 7 1 9620 35 Untreated --- 14 53 18 0 8366

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Table 2. Statistical analysis of data in Table 1. Beaumont, TX. 2011. Stand

(plants/3 ft of row)

RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) Jun 15 Jun 27

Main plot

15 7 c 21 13 a 1 8238 b 25 12 b 24 7 b 0 9090 a 35 15 a 19 8 b 1 9119 a

Subplot Dermacor X-100b 12 6 b 5 b 0 9202 a CruiserMaxx Riceb 12 10 b 8 b 1 9014 a NipsIt INSIDEb 11 9 b 9 b 1 9079 a Untreated 10 60 a 16 a 0 7967 b

Interaction

Seeding rate vs. treatment P = 0.9419 P = 0.1997 P = 0.4603 P = 0.2043 P = 0.5722 a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Dermacor X-100 @ 1.75 fl oz/A; CruiserMaxx Rice @ 7 fl oz/cwt; NipsIt INSIDE @ 1.92 fl oz/cwt Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

5


Cocodrie Seed Treatment Large Plot Study Block 1N

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN

⇐ North

Untreated

Karate Z

CruiserMaxx Rice

NipsIt INSIDE

Dermacor X-100

Plot size: 21 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 88 ft long Variety: Cocodrie (seed provided by LSU Foundation Seed)


Description Rate

fl oz/cwt lb ai/Aa

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.06 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.112 Karate Zb --- 0.03 Untreated --- ---

a Based on 80 lb/A seeding rate b Foliar treatment applied before permanent flood

Cocodrie Seed Treatment Large Plot Study

6


Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Drill-planted @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay

64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 13 Plot size = 21 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 88 ft long, no barriers around plots; 5 ft

separated plots Emergence on Apr 22 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 14 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 13 (21 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) applied on Apr 14, at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) applied on May 12, at PF 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) applied on Jun 1, at panicle differentiation Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb ai, Permit @ 1.0 oz prod, and Command 3ME @ 1.0 pt

prod/A with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 29 for early season weed control

Treatments: NipsIt INSIDE applied to seed by Valent CruiserMaxx Rice and Dermacor X-100 seed treatments applied by the

Entomology Project Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle

(800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa) spray rig on May 12 Sampling: Stand counts (8, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) per plot on May 12 Vigor ratings, plant characteristics (plant height, number of leaves and number

of tillers) on 15 plants per plot, rice water weevil (RWW) adult feeding scars on 30 plants, number of plants with thrips damage out of 20 plants on May 12

RWW cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inch diameter, 4 inch deep containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 3 and Jun 13, later washed through 40-mesh buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH) counts in 4 rows/plot on Jul 20; 10 WHs collected for dissection for stalk borers (2 Mexican rice borer and 1 sugarcane borer). WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 14 Size harvested plot = 14 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 88 ft long Data analysis: Yields converted to 12% moisture; non-replicated experiment, so only averages

presented


7


Discussion

This large plot study was non-replicated, so conclusions are based on averages---not more complex statistics. Also, barriers were not installed around plots which may have affected results. Rice plant stands appeared to be unaffected by the seed treatments (Table 1). Stands were good across treatments. However, no. of tillers per plant was lowest in the untreated. Plant vigor ratings (a visual comparison among treatments) favored the seed treatments over the untreated. Adult RWW feeding scars were definitely lower in the NipsIt INSIDE and CruiserMaxx Rice treatments (Table 2). This suggests Dermacor X-100 does not kill or repel adult RWW while NipsIt INSIDE and CruiserMaxx Rice do. Other early insect damage appeared negligible. Populations of RWW were high in the untreated on both sample dates (Table 2). All seed treatments performed well against immature RWW on both sample dates, particularly the 2nd sample date. Dermacor X-100 reduced WH counts by 80%, compared to the untreated. NipsIt INSIDE also appeared to reduce WH counts (36%), but this possibility needs to be further investigated in the future. All seed treatments outyielded the untreated, but given relatively high RWW populations in the experiment, greater differences were expected. A possible explanation is the very cool, windy spring in 2011 at the Beaumont Center which may have slowed or delayed RWW flight and oviposition relative to plant growth. Table 1. Mean plant data for Cocodrie seed treatment large plot study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate Stand (plants/ft of row)

No. of tillersa

No. of leavesa

Plant ht.a (cm)

Plant vigorb

(1 – 5) fl oz/cwt lb ai/A NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.06 11.5 3.7 8.3 21.0 5

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 11.0 3.5 10.5 21.7 5 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.112c 9.8 2.8 8.6 21.5 5

Karate Zd --- 0.03 9.5 2.9 8.4 20.5 3 Untreated --- --- 11.2 2.5 8.5 21.6 3

a Plant characteristics from 15 plants/plot b Plant vigor (visual comparison) from north and south ends of plots as compared to untreated plot (1 = visually inferior; 2 = slightly worse; 3 = untreated; 4 = slightly better; 5 = visually superior) c 0.112 lb ai insecticide/A d Foliar treatment applied before permanent flood


8


Table 2. Mean insect data for Cocodrie seed treatment large plot study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate RWWa feeding scars/30 plants

Plants with

insect damageb

RWW/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) fl oz/cwt lb ai/A Jun 3 Jun 13

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.06 5 11 8 8 56 7601 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 34 14 8 6 17 7514

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.112c 8 13 18 2 102 7661 Karate Zd --- 0.03 41 15 17 16 121 7110 Untreated --- --- 29 9 74 66 87 7361

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b From 20 inspected plants (primarily thrips injury, but difficult to separate from non-insect injury) c 0.112 lb ai insecticide/A d Foliar treatment applied before permanent flood

9


XP753 Seed Treatment Large Plot Study Block 1S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN

⇐ North

Untreated

Karate Z

CruiserMaxx Rice

NipsIt INSIDE

Dermacor X-100

Plot size: 21 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 88 ft long Variety: XP753 (seed provided by RiceTec)


Description Rate

fl oz/cwt lb ai/Aa

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.019 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.035 Karate Zb --- 0.03 Untreated --- ---

a Based on 25 lb/A seeding rate b Foliar treatment applied before permanent flood

Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Drill-planted @ 25 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay

64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 13 Plot size = 21 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 88 ft long, no barriers around plots; 5 ft

separated plots Emergence on Apr 24

XP753 Seed Treatment Large Plot Study

10


Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 13 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 17 (23 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 120 lb N/A applied on May 17, at PF 60 lb N/A applied on Jul 5, at late boot Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb ai, Permit @ 1.0 oz prod, and Command 3ME @ 1.0 pt

prod/A with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 29 for early season weed control


Entomology Project Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle

(800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa) spray rig on May 17 Sampling: Stand counts (8- 3 ft counts on rows 3 and 19) on May 12. Plant characteristics (plant height, number of tillers and number of leaves) on 15

plants and number of RWW feeding scars on 30 plants on May 12 Vigor ratings and thrips damage on 20 plants on May 17 RWW cores (20 cores per plot, each core 4 inch diameter, 4 inch deep

containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 6 and Jun 16, later washed through 40-mesh buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH) counts in 4 rows/plot on Jul 26; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 14 – 16 Size harvested plot = 14 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 88 ft long Data analysis: Yields converted to 12% moisture; non-replicated experiment, so only averages

presented

Discussion

This experiment was a large plot, non-replicated study, so only averages of data are presented. Also, no barriers separated the plots which could affect results. Thus, plant and insect samples were taken towards the middle of the plots which should minimize the effects of having no barriers. Without barriers, there remains the possibility of “dilution” and movement outside the plots of the chemicals applied to the seed.

Results show plant stands and plant characteristics among the seed treatments were similar. However, the Dermacor X-100 plot appeared more “vigorous” (taller and more robust) than the other plots when observations were made just before application of the permanent flood (Table 1). Adult RWW feeding scars were lowest in the CruiserMaxx Rice plot, but all seed treatments reduced the number of scars compared to the untreated (Table 2). This suggests RWW adults die when they feed on the foliage produced from treated rice seeds and/or are

XP753 Seed Treatment Large Plot Study

11


repelled by the insecticides sequestered in the plants. Thrips and other insect damage to seedling rice were minimal and probably not important. In general, RWW populations were low in the experiment. In fact, populations in the untreated plot were below treatment thresholds on the 1st sample date and barely above on the 2nd sample date. However, on the 2nd sample date, all seed treatments harbored fewer larvae than the untreated. In 2011 at the Beaumont Center, spring was very cool and windy. Winds persisted through the night. RWW adults become very active at dusk when temperatures are warm and conditions are calm. Thus, when rice was vulnerable to RWW attack, environmental conditions were not conducive to population build-up. WHs were not numerous in the plots, which is typical of hybrids, but fewest numbers were found in the Dermacor X-100 plot. Yields were high, but somewhat similar among treatments, which is most likely a result of low RWW populations. Nevertheless, the Dermacor X-100 treatment produced the highest yield. Table 1. Mean plant data for Dermacor X-100 large plot study – XP753. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate Stand (plants/ft of row)

No. of tillersa

No. of leavesa

Plant ht.a (cm)

Plant vigorb

(1 – 5) fl oz/cwt lb ai/A NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.019 6.7 2.5 7.1 14.8 3

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 5.9 2.7 8.2 15.8 4 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.035c 6.3 2.1 6.8 14.5 3

Karate Zd --- 0.03 6.7 2.6 6.2 14.5 3 Untreated --- --- 6.1 2.3 7.9 15.7 3

a Plant characteristics from 15 plants/plot b Plant vigor (visual comparison) from north and south ends of plots as compared to untreated plot (1 = visually inferior; 2 = slightly worse; 3 = untreated; 4 = slightly better; 5 = visually superior) c 0.035 lb ai insecticide/A d Foliar treatment applied before permanent flood Table 2. Mean insect data for Dermacor X-100 large plot study – XP753. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate RWWa feeding scars/30 plants

Plants with

insect damageb

RWW/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) fl oz/cwt lb ai/A Jun 6 Jun 16

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.019 14 8 0.8 5.8 5 9340 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 18 7 1.3 7.8 1 9495

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.035c 4 6 1.0 8.3 8 8952 Karate Zd --- 0.03 30 8 5.8 8.0 5 8986 Untreated --- --- 26 9 8.8 23.3 8 9123

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b From 20 inspected plants c 0.035 lb ai insecticide/A d Foliar treatment applied before permanent flood

12


Seed Treatment Replant Study Block 7S

Beaumont, TX 2011

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 5 8 4 15 7 22 2 2 1 9 6 16 3 23 7 3 6 10 2 17 1 24 3 4 4 11 5 18 2 25 5 5 7 12 3 19 5 26 1 6 2 13 7 20 6 27 4 7 3 14 1 21 4 28 6

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers Variety: Cocodrie (seed provided by LSU Foundation Seed)

Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers


Treatment no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timing

1st planting 2nd planting 1 Untreated --- --- --- 2 CrusierMaxx Rice 7 Ta Ua

3 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 T T 4 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A T U 5 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A T T 6 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T U 7 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T T

a T = treated; U = untreated Agronomic and Cultural Information

Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 7 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted (1st planting) Cocodrie @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand

3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 6 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence of 1st planting on May 13 Removed barriers on May 24

Seed Treatment Replant Study

13


Drill-planted (2nd planting) Cocodrie @ 80 lb/A as above and erected barriers on May 27

Emergence of 2nd planting on Jun 4 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 6 (1st

planting) Flushed blocks on May 27 (2nd planting) Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 28 (24 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 113.3 lb N/A (2/3 of 170) on May 6 at planting (1st planting) 113.3 lb N/A (2/3 of 170) on May 27 at planting (2nd planting) 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Jul 20 at panicle differentiation Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram

@ 2.0 lb (AI)/A and Agri-Dex @ 1.0 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 8 for early weed control


Entomology Project All plots sprayed with glyphosate on May 22 to kill emerged rice from 1st

planting Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 foot counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 15 (2nd planting)

Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4 inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected from 2nd planting on Jul 19 and Jul 29. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted. Whitehead (WH) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 in each plot in 2nd planting on Sep 1; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Sep 12 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using


Discussion

The object of this experiment is to determine if a farmer who treats seed with 1 of the

insecticidal seed treatments needs to treat seed for replanting (2nd planting) following loss of stand of the 1st planting. This stand loss can be due to many factors including seedling diseases, blackbirds, poor seedbed, poor drainage, poor germination, poor planting practices, etc.

Seed Treatment Replant Study

14


Nine days after emergence of the 1st planting, rice was killed in all plots with glyphosate. Barriers were removed and the 2nd planting was conducted followed by re-installation of barriers. Rice seed for the 2nd planting was drilled in or close to the rows of the 1st planting. See Table 1 for treatment descriptions. Rice plant stands for the 2nd planting were not significantly different among treatments, so the seed treatments did not affect stand (Table 1). Populations of RWW in the 2nd planting were relatively high in the untreated on both sample dates which means the results are meaningful in terms of RWW control. All seed treatments significantly reduced RWW numbers on both sample dates compared to the untreated, even if 2nd planted seed was untreated. This indicates all treatments applied to 1st planted seed persisted in the rhizosphere to control RWW attacking the 2nd planting. WH counts were high in the untreated for the 2nd planting. Dermacor X-100 applied to 1st, but not 2nd planted seed, provided excellent control of stalk borers (100% reduction of WHs compared to the untreated). This indicates Dermacor X-100 applied to 1st planted seed persisted in the rhizosphere to protect plants from stalk borer damage in the 2nd planting. The time from 1st planting to PD (when stalk borers begin to infest rice) in the 2nd planting was about 67 days. All seed treatments produced higher yields than the untreated. CruiserMaxx Rice applied to only 1st planted seed outyielded the untreated 591 lb/A. Dermacor X-100 applied to only 1st planted seed outyielded the untreated 662 lb/A. NipsIt INSIDE applied to only 1st planted seed outyielded the untreated 495 lb/A.

In conclusion, results suggest farmers can expect control of RWW with untreated, replant seed if originally planted seed was treated with CruiserMaxx Rice, Dermacor X-100 or NipsIt INSIDE. In addition, the above farmers can expect control of stalk borers if originally planted seed was treated with Dermacor X-100. Table 1. Mean data for second planting of seed treatment replant study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

Timing Stand (plants/ft of row)

RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4 rows

Yield (lb/A)

1st planting

2nd planting Jul 19 Jul 29

Untreated --- --- --- 11 48 a 26 a 23 a 7783 d CrusierMaxx Rice 7 Tb Ub 10 8 bcd 9 b 16 ab 8374 bc CruiserMaxx Rice 7 T T 12 3 d 8 b 17 ab 8089 cd Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A T U 11 15 b 8 b 0 c 8445 abc Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A T T 11 3 cd 3 c 1 c 8944 a NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T U 10 9 bc 7 bc 14 ab 8278 bcd NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T T 5 cd 11 8 bc 12 b 8645 ab

NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b T = treated; U = untreated Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

15


Seed Treatment Water-Seeded Continuous Flood Study Block 8S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN

⇐ North I II III IV

1 2 6 4 11 5 16 1 2 1 7 2 12 3 17 5 3 5 8 3 13 1 18 4 4 4 9 5 14 2 19 3 5 3 10 1 15 4 20 2

Plot size: 49 in. x 18 ft long, with barriers Variety: Cocodrie @ 100 lb/A (seed provided by LSU Foundation Seed)



Treatment no. Descriptiona Rate

fl oz/cwt lb ai/A 1 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 0.14 2 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071 3 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.075 4 Karate Z 2.56 fl oz/A 0.03 5 Untreated --- ---

a All treatments are seed treatments except Karate Z (applied before flood)

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 5 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Water-seeded Cocodrie @ 100 lb/A; soil was League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 13 Plot size = 49 in. x 18 ft with metal barriers Emergence through water on May 21 Irrigation: Flooded on May 12 (water-seeded 1 day later) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 113.3 lb N/A (2/3 of 170) on May 12 at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Jun 21 at panicle differentiation

Seed Treatment Water Seeded Continuous Flood Study

16


40 lb N/A on Jul 26 Total nitrogen = 210 lb N/A Herbicide: Ordram 15G @ 20 lb/A applied before flooding on May 11 Treatments: Dermacor X-100 treatment applied to seed by Way’s project; all other seed

treatments provided by Syngenta and Valent Treatment 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb AI/A) applied using a hand-held, CO2

pressurized, 3 nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on May 11 (just before flood)

Sampling: Floaters removed from all plots and counted on May 26 (5 days after emergence) Stands counted (3, 8 inch diam. samples/plot) on Jun 3. Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 14 and Jun 24. Core samples were stored in a cold-room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH) counts in entire plots on Aug 12; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 25 Size harvested plot = 49 in. by 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.

Discussion

Water-seeding is common for organic rice production in the US and for conventional rice

production in California and Louisiana. This experiment employed a continuous flood which means plots are flooded, then broadcast-seeded at a relatively high seeding rate. The flood is maintained until drainage prior to harvest.

Significantly more floaters were recovered from untreated plots than other plots (Table 1). These floaters are caused by an aquatic beetle, Tropisternus lateralis. The adult of this beetle forages underwater along the mud surface uprooting rice seedlings. In addition, female beetles can grasp seedlings and uproot them during egg laying activities. Another cause of floaters is wind which also can uproot seedlings. Beetle activity and wind can interact to increase floater production. These data suggest all insecticidal treatments affected T. lateralis behavior and/or killed these beetles which resulted in reduced floater numbers. However, rice plant stand was unaffected by the treatments. The size and/or number of samples to determine plant stand may be too low/few. If this experiment is repeated in 2012, more and larger plant stand samples will be taken. RWW populations were relatively low on both sample dates in the untreated. Dermacor X-100 was the only treatment to reduce RWW numbers significantly on the 1st sample date compared to the untreated. WH counts were similar among all the treatments. All insecticidal treatments outyielded the untreated with Dermacor X-100, NipsIt INSIDE and Karate Z treatments producing significantly higher yields than the untreated. The average yield increase

Seed Treatment Water Seeded Continuous Flood Study

17


compared to the untreated of all insecticidal treatments was 1,147 lb/A---a very large yield response. These yield results are rather surprising given the low RWW pressure. The mean number of floaters in the untreated was 425 which represents about 13% of the total number of seeds planted per plot. Assume 75% of planted seed germinates to produce a viable seedling (this assumption may be too low), then 425 floaters represents about 18% of the number of seedlings. Floaters were collected only once; perhaps some floaters were not included in the counts. Also, the treatments may not have killed RWW, but may have affected their feeding ability.

In conclusion, the seed treatments reduced floater numbers in water-seeded rice and dramatically increased yield. More research is needed to identify more specifically and quantitatively the factors responsible for producing these large yield responses. Table 1. Mean data for seed treatment water-seeded study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatmenta Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Stand

(plants/ft2)

Floating seedlingsb

/plot

RWWc/5 cores WHsc

/plot Yield (lb/A) Jun 14 Jun 24

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 35 63 b 19 a 9 10 5897 ab Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 35 40 b 7 b 9 7 6244 a NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 33 39 b 25 a 16 16 6289 a

Karate Z 2.56 fl oz/A 35 41 b 22 a 13 6 6104 a Untreated --- 33 425 a 25 a 15 11 4987 b

a All treatments are seed treatments except Karate Z (foliar treatment applied before flood) b Floating seedlings probably caused by aquatic beetles (Tropisternus lateralis) which dislodge seedlings through foraging activity and possibly reproductive behavior. c RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead

18


Syngenta Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Block 4N

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN

← North I II III IV

1 1 9 5 17 4 25 8 2 6 10 2 18 7 26 3 3 5 11 3 19 5 27 1 4 4 12 6 20 1 28 5 5 3 13 8 21 6 29 7 6 7 14 1 22 2 30 4 7 8 15 4 23 8 31 2 8 2 16 7 24 3 32 6

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers Variety: CLXL745 (seed provided by Syngenta) Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



(g ai/hkg seed)

1 Untreateda --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice Blue 2.87FS 155 3 A17469 200 4 Cruiser 5FSb 135 5 EXC3925a 391.19 ml prod/hkg seed 6 STP15201a 80

7 CruiserMaxx Rice Blue 2.87FS + Karate Z 155 + 0.03 lb ai/Ac

8 Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/Ac

a Also treated with Apron XL 3LS @ 5.7 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed. b Also treated with Apron XL 3LS @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed. c Karate Z foliar treatment applied at permanent flood

Syngenta Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

19


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted @ 25 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay

64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Mar 28 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on Apr 9 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Mar 28 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 2 (23 days after emergence, DAE) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand 120 lb N/A on May 2 at PF 60 lb N/A on Jun 21 at late boot Total lb N/A = 180 Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram

@ 2.0 lb (AI)/A and Agri-Dex @ 1.0 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 22 for early season weed control

Treatments: All seed treatments provided by Syngenta Trts 7 and 8 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A) applied using a hand-held, CO2

pressurized, 3 nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa) spray rig on May 2

Sampling: Visually inspected plots for general vigor, color and plant stand – no difference

among treatments, but did observe thrips damage in untreated plot on Apr 19 Rated plots visually for vigor per protocol instructions; photographed thrips

damage and fecal pellets. Stand counts (3, 3 foot counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Apr 20

Counted number of plants with thrips damage in 20 plants and number of thrips and aphids in 20 plants on Apr 20 (11 DAE) Rated plant vigor on Apr 21 (12 DAE) Rated plant vigor on May 3 (1 day after flood), no differences noted. Plants tillering (1 – 3 tillers, 7 – 11 leaves, 9 – 10 inches) Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4 inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on May 25 and Jun 6. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted. Plants at ½ inch panicle on Jun 6 Whitehead (WH) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 on Jul 20; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 14


20


Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Thrips, aphids, RWW and WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; percent data transformed using arcsine; yields converted to 12% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

Plant stand was similar among treatments; thus, none of the seed treatments affected plant

stand (Table 1). Plant height also was unaffected. Thrips presence and damage are characterized by small, black, pepper-like fecal pellets, stunted new foliage and chlorotic striping and/or spotting of young leaf tissue. Often thrips are found near the junction of the sheath and blade of young culms. Thrips damage is difficult to distinguish from other physical or environmental injury when populations are low. Thus, % of young plants with thrips damage, as presented in Table 1, should not be considered reliable. Basically, thrips damage was minimal in this experiment. Vigor ratings taken 10 DAE were similar among treatments (Table 2).

RWW populations were very low throughout the experiment. RWWs become very active in the spring when conditions are warm and calm, particularly at dusk. However, in 2011, spring conditions at the Beaumont Center were atypically cool and windy. Windy conditions frequently persisted through the day and night during the spring of 2011; thus, RWW populations were very low on rice planted in March and April. In light of the above, populations of immature RWW were very low on the 1st sample date. Even on the 2nd sample date, populations were barely above treatment thresholds (about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores). However, all seed treatments significantly reduced RWW numbers compared to the untreated on the 2nd sample date. EXC3925 and A17469 treatments had the fewest WHs (significantly different from the untreated at the 7% level of probability) among the treatments. Due to the relatively low populations of pest insects in the experiment, yields were not significantly different among treatments.


21


Table 1. Mean data for Syngenta seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/hkg seed)

Stand (plants/ft of

row)

Plant ht. Apr 20 (cm)

% plants with thrips

damagea

No. thrips/20

plants

No. aphids/20

plants Untreatedb --- 4.1 13.5 78.8 0.5 0.0

CruiserMaxx Rice Blue 2.87FS 155 4.4 12.5 80.0 0.3 0.0 A17469 200 4.9 12.8 68.8 0.3 0.5

Cruiser 5FSc 135 4.5 12.8 70.0 0.3 0.0

EXC3925b 391.19 ml pr/hkg seed 4.3 12.9 81.3 0.0 0.0

STP15201b 80 3.8 12.8 72.5 0.0 0.3 CruiserMaxx Rice Blue 2.87FS

+ Karate Z 155

+ 0.03 lb ai/Ad 4.5 12.6 70.0 0.0 0.3

Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/Ad 4.7 12.8 71.3 0.8 0.0 a Thrips damage difficult to distinguish from damage caused by other biotic and/or abiotic fators b Also treated with Apron XL 3LS @ 5.7 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed. c Also treated with Apron XL 3LS @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed. d Karate Z foliar treatment applied at permanent flood Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


22


Table 2. Mean plant vigor, rice water weevil (RWW), stalk borer and yield data for Syngenta seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate (g ai/hkg

seed)

Vigor ratingsa

(%)

RWW/5 cores WHsb/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) May 25 Jun 6

Untreatedc --- 93 10 24 a 8 a 9000 CruiserMaxx Rice

Blue 2.87FS 155 95 0 10 b 6 ab 9080

A17469 200 95 2 5 bcd 2 b 9061 Cruiser 5FSd 135 98 4 7 bc 5 ab 8791

EXC3925c 391.19 ml pr/hkg seed 98 1 4 cd 1 b 9413

STP15201c 80 93 3 8 bc 5 ab 9102 CruiserMaxx Rice

Blue 2.87FS + Karate Z

155 + 0.03 lb ai/Ae 93 1 2 d 5 ab 8883

Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/Ae 3 93 5 bcd 11 a

8789 NS NS NS

a Vigor ratings based on percent scale where 100% is the best of the rep b WH = whiteheads c Also treated with Apron XL 3LS @ 5.7 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed. d Also treated with Apron XL 3LS @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed. e Karate Z foliar treatment applied at permanent flood Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.07 for WHs, all others P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

23


Valent Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Block 6S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN


1 6 9 7 17 3 25 1 2 4 10 1 18 5 26 2 3 3 11 4 19 8 27 3 4 5 12 2 20 6 28 8 5 2 13 6 21 7 29 6 6 1 14 8 22 4 30 7 7 7 15 3 23 1 31 5 8 8 16 5 24 2 32 4





(fl oz/cwt)

1 Untreateda --- 2 Dermacor X-100a 2.5 3 Cruiser 5FSa 3.3 4 Cruiser 5FSa + Dynasty 3.6 5 NipsIt INSIDEa 1.92 6 NipsIt INSIDEa + Dynasty 1.92 + 1.1

7 NipsIt INSIDE + Trilex 2000 + Release 1.92 + 2.0 + 0.44 oz prod/cwt

8 NipsIt INSIDE + Maxim 4FS + Trilex 2000 + Release 1.92 + 0.047 + 2.0 + 0.44 oz prod/cwt

a Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt, Apron XL @ 0.372 fl oz/cwt and Release @ 0.44 oz prod/cwt

Valent Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

24


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay

64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 6 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on Apr 18 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 8 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 10 (22 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Apr 8 at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on May 10 at PF 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Jun 3 at panicle differentiation (PD) Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram


Treatments: All seed treatments provided by Valent Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Apr 29 Vigor ratings and recorded plant ht. and presence/absence of thrips/chinch bug

damage on 10 plants/plot on May 9. Herbicide injury and insect injury difficult to differentiate.

Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4 inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 2 and Jun 13. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Jul 20; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 6 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Percent data transformed using arcsine; RWW and WH counts transformed

using


Discussion

Rice stand counts were good and similar among treatments (Table 1). This suggests

seedling diseases were not a problem in this experiment. Plant height observed on May 9 (21


25


days after emergence) was also similar among treatments. Separating thrips injury from environmental or herbicide damage was difficult. Thus, data show little thrips or other seedling insect pest damage. RWW pressure was high in the untreated, so the data are meaningful relative to RWW control (Table 2). All seed treatments performed very well. NipsIt INSIDE treatments averaged 96% control of RWW on the 1st sample date. WH counts were lowest in the Dermacor X-100 treatment which was expected. Yields were not significantly different among treatments, but the NipsIt INSIDE treatments averaged 601 lb/A more than the untreated.

In summary, NipsIt INSIDE treatments provided excellent control of the RWW. The addition of fungicides and/or Release (gibberellic acid), as identified in table footnotes, did not increase rice plant stand, vigor or control of RWW compared to the untreated, the seed of which was treated as noted in table footnotes. Table 1. Mean plant data for Valent seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

Stand (plants/3 ft

of row) Plant ht.a

(cm)

%b plants with insect

damagec

Untreatedd --- 33 19 25 Dermacor X-100d 2.5 33 19 18

Cruiser 5FSd 3.3 36 19 35 Cruiser 5FSd + Dynasty 3.6 34 19 48

NipsIt INSIDEd 1.92 30 19 30 NipsIt INSIDEd + Dynasty 1.92 + 1.1 35 19 40

NipsIt INSIDE + Trilex 2000 + Release

1.92 + 2.0 + 0.44 oz prod/cwt 31 19 23

NipsIt INSIDE + Maxim 4FS + Trilex 2000 + Release

1.92 + 0.047 + 2.0 + 0.44 oz prod/cwt 32 19 23

a Mean of 1 plant/plot b Percent based on 10 plants inspected/plot c Insect damage difficult to separate from herbicide or environmental injury; thrips were observed and the majority of insect damage believed to be caused by thrips d Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt, Apron XL @ 0.372 fl oz/cwt and Release @ 0.44 oz prod/cwt Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


26


Table 2. Mean insect and yield data for Valent seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) Jun 3 Jun 13

Untreatedb --- 66 a 19 a 29 8458 Dermacor X-100b 2.5 3 b 1 b 6 9371

Cruiser 5FSb 3.3 3 b 3 b 30 8937 Cruiser 5FSb + Dynasty 3.6 1 b 5 b 29 8934

NipsIt INSIDEb 1.92 3 b 3 b 31 9078 NipsIt INSIDEb + Dynasty 1.92 + 1.1 3 b 3 b 32 9011

NipsIt INSIDE + Trilex 2000 + Release

1.92 + 2.0 + 0.44 oz prod/cwt 1 b 2 b 25 9112

NipsIt INSIDE + Maxim 4FS + Trilex 2000 + Release

1.92 + 0.047 + 2.0 + 0.44 oz prod/cwt 3 b 2 b 21

9035

NS NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whiteheads b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt, Apron XL @ 0.372 fl oz/cwt and Release @ 0.44 oz prod/cwt Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

27


Belay Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Block 5N

Beaumont, TX 2011

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 8 13 1 25 3 37 12 2 3 14 10 26 5 38 9 3 2 15 4 27 2 39 5 4 11 16 9 28 7 40 10 5 1 17 7 29 12 41 4 6 12 18 11 30 4 42 7 7 7 19 8 31 8 43 3 8 10 20 2 32 9 44 8 9 6 21 6 33 1 45 11 10 9 22 3 34 6 46 2 11 5 23 12 35 11 47 1 12 4 24 5 36 10 48 6



Belay Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

28




(fl oz/A) Timinga

1 Untreated --- ---

2 Karate Z + NISb 0.03 lb ai/A + 0.15% v/v BF

3 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v BF

4 Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A BF

5 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v BF


3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A 3 DAF

7 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v 3 DAF 8 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 3 DAF


3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A 10 DAF

10 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v 10 DAF 11 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 10 DAF 12 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 14 DAF

a BF = before flood; DAF = days after flood b NIS = non-ionic surfactant (Induce)

Agronomic and Cultural Information

Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 12 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted Cocodrie @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 25 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on May 7 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 26 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 31 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Apr 26 at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on May 31 before PF 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Jun 21 at panicle differentiation Total N = 170 lb/A Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram

@ 2.0 lb (AI)/A and Agri-Dex @ 1.0 pt/acre with a 2-person hand-held spray


29


boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 16 for early season weed control

Treatments: Applied treatments 2, 3, 4 and 5 (before PF) using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized,

3 nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on May 31

Treatments 6, 7 and 8 applied as above on Jun 3 Treatments 9, 10 and 11 applied as above on Jun 10 Treatment 12 applied as above on Jun 14 Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 12 Some RoundUp damage on south ends of plots noted on Jun 10; treatments 4

and 6 (containing Progibb) slightly taller than other treatments on Jun 10 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 21 and Jul 1. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Plant ht (1 plant/plot) on Jul 1: treatment 9 had some longer leaves with brown tips and a more yellow appearance than other treatments.

Whitehead (WH – sign of stalk borer damage) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 in each plot on Aug 4



Discussion

As expected, rice plant stand was unaffected by the foliar treatments in this experiment

(Table 1). However, rice plant height, measured Jul 1 (30 DAF), was greater in all treatments compared to the untreated. The tallest rice plants were in plots treated with Progibb applied 10 DAF (7.5 inches taller than plants in the untreated). Populations of RWW were very high in the untreated on both sample dates, particularly the 1st sample date (Table 2). Thus, the experiment was a good test of RWW efficacy of Belay 2.13SC applied to rice foliage before and after flood. The Karate Z treatment applied BF was not as effective as expected. Similar results were obtained in 1 or more other experiments conducted in 2011. Belay 2.13SC applied BF provided good control of RWW at both rates. The addition of Progibb did not affect efficacy. Belay 2.13SC applied 3 DAF provided less control than when applied BF or 10 DAF. The addition of Progibb did not affect control. Compared to the untreated, the 3 Belay 2.13SC treatments applied 3 DAF provided an average of 71 and 32% control of RWW on the 1st and 2nd sample dates, respectively. The high rate of Belay 2.13SC may have increased control of RWW compared to the low rate on the 1st sample date. Belay 2.13SC applied 10 DAF performed better than when applied 3 DAF, particularly on the 2nd sample date. Perhaps RWW adults invaded rice later than “normal” in this experiment. Most of the spring in 2011 at the Beaumont Center was very windy


30


both day and night which is abnormal. RWW adults fly and invade rice fields when conditions at dusk are calm and warm, so possibly flights were delayed leading to later infestations relative to time of flood resulting in better RWW control at 10 versus 3 DAF. Belay 2.13SC applied 14 DAF only provided 33% control of RWW compared to the untreated. Data suggest none of the Belay 2.13SC treatments controlled stalk borers. All of the Belay 2.13SC treatments produced higher yields than the untreated. The addition of Progibb applied BF and 3 DAF appeared to increase yields. In fact, highest yields were produced by these treatments (1355 and 1464 lb/A more than the untreated for applications made BF and 3 DAF, respectively). Average increase in yields compared to the untreated for Belay 2.13SC applications made BF, 3 DAF, 10 DAF and 14 DAF were 1264, 1275, 1041 and 782 lb/A, respectively.

In conclusion, for best control of RWW, Belay 2.13SC should be applied BF to no later than 10 DAF. Also, the low rate (3.5 fl oz/A) was as effective as the high rate (4.5 fl oz/A). The addition of Progibb applied BF and 3 DAF appeared to increase yields. Table 1. Mean stand and plant height data for Belay foliar treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate (fl oz/A) Timinga

Stand (plants/3 ft of row)

Plant ht.b

(in.) Untreated --- --- 31 24.0 d

Karate Z + NISc 0.03 lb ai/A + 0.15% v/v BF 28 28.8 bc

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v BF 29 26.3 cd Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A BF 29 27.5 c

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v BF 29 28.0 bc Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A 3 DAF 27 28.0 bc

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v 3 DAF 30 27.8 bc Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 3 DAF 29 28.3 bc Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A 10 DAF 29 31.5 a

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v 10 DAF 30 30.3 ab Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 10 DAF 31 28.3 bc Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 14 DAF 29 28.0 bc a BF = before flood; DAF = days after flood b From one plant/plot on Jul 1 c NIS = non-ionic surfactant (Induce) Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


31


Table 2. Mean insect and yield data for Belay foliar treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga RWWb/5 cores WHsb/4

rows Yield (lb/A) Jun 21 Jul 1

Untreated --- --- 94 a 34 a 7 6091 c

Karate Z + NISc 0.03 lb ai/A + 0.15% v/v BF 21 b 28 a 8 6887 b

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v BF 5 cd 7 cd 12 7247 ab Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A BF 3 d 3 d 9 7446 ab

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v BF 2 d 4 d 7 7372 ab Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A 3 DAF 30 b 20 abc 5 7555 a

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v 3 DAF 32 b 25 ab 9 7183 ab Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 3 DAF 21 b 24 ab 6 7359 ab Belay 2.13SC + NIS + Progibb 40%

3.5 + 0.15 % v/v + 1.0 g ai/A 10 DAF 24 b 5 d 7 7135 ab

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.15 % v/v 10 DAF 14 bc 6 d 6 7122 ab Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 10 DAF 17 bc 6 d 7 7138 ab

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.15 % v/v 14 DAF 63 a 11 bcd NS 5 6873 b

a BF = before flood; DAF = days after flood b RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead c NIS = non-ionic surfactant (Induce) Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

32


Dinotefuran Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Block 8N

Beaumont, TX 2011

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 1 6 4 11 5 16 3 2 4 7 3 12 2 17 1 3 5 8 2 13 1 18 4 4 2 9 1 14 3 19 5 5 3 10 5 15 4 20 2





(g ai/A) Timing

1 Untreated --- --- 2 Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/A BF 3 Dinotefuran 3G 180 BF 4 Dinotefuran 3G 180 10 DAF 5 Dinotefuran 3G 180 14 DAF


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 5 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted Cocodrie @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 19 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on May 27 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 19 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 21 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 113.3 lb N/A (2/3 of 170) on May 19 at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Jul 5 at panicle differentiation

Dintefuran Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

33


Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram

8E @ 2.0 lb (AI)/A and Penetrator Plus @ 1.0 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 12 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 8 for early season weed control

Treatments: Treatments 2 and 3 applied to moist soil on Jun 20; treatment 2 applied using a

hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig; treatment 3 applied by hand

Treatment 4 applied by hand on Jul 1 Treatment 5 applied by hand on Jul 5 Sampling: Stand counts (3- 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 3

Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4 inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 13 and Jul 25. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH) counts in 4 rows per plot on Aug 12; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.



Discussion

Rice plant stands were good and similar among treatments (Table 1). RWW populations

were high on both sample dates in the untreated (approximately 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores is the economic injury level), so the experiment was a good test of the efficacy of the treatments. Surprisingly, Karate Z applied before flood was not effective against RWW. Normally, Karate Z applied at this time is very effective. Perusal of field notes revealed no reason for this lack of efficacy. Soil was moist at time of application of Karate Z, but based on past experience, this should not affect the efficacy of the product. Nevertheless, Dinotefuran 3G applied before flood reduced RWW populations on the 1st sample date by more than 50%. Applications of Dinotefuran 3G at 10 and 14 DAF significantly reduced RWW immature populations on both sample dates. At 10 DAF, Dinotefuran 3G reduced RWW populations 91 and 72% on the 1st and 2nd sample dates, respectively. WH numbers were unaffected by the treatments. Yields among treatments were not significantly different, but all Dinotefuran 3G treatments numerically outyielded the untreated. Dinotefuran 3G applied 10 DAF produced 315 lb/A more grain than the untreated.

Data show Dinotefuran 3G applied within 14 DAF can provide good control of RWW. Postflood applications of Dinotefuran 3G could serve as “rescue” treatments for the RWW.

Dintefuran Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

34


Table 1. Mean data for Dinotefuran timing study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/A) Timinga

Stand (plants/3 ft of row)

RWWb/5 cores WHsb/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) Jul 13 Jul 25

Untreated --- --- 33 68 a 32 ab 9 6640 Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/A BF 30 57 a 41 a 10 6662

Dinotefuran 3G 180 BF 30 33 b 20 b 10 6731 Dinotefuran 3G 180 10 DAF 27 6 c 9 c 6 6955 Dinotefuran 3G 180 14 DAF 12 c 30 4 c 7

6676

NS NS NS a BF = before permanent flood; DAF = days after flood b RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

35


Host Plant Resistance to Rice Water Weevil Blocks 2N, 2S, 3N and 3S

Beaumont, TX 2011

⇐ North

Blo

ck 2

N –

Rep

I

1 22RU0703144 9 Catahoula 17 CLXP729 25 Presidio 2 22RU0703144 10 Catahoula 18 CLXP729 26 Presidio 3 CLXP756 11 Neptune 19 XP753 27 CL111 4 CLXP756 12 Neptune 20 XP753 28 CL111 5 Cocodrie 13 Cheniere 21 Rondo 29 CL151 6 Cocodrie 14 Cheniere 22 Rondo 30 CL151 7 Jazzman 15 Caffey 23 38RU0703190 31 XL723 8 Jazzman 16 Caffey 24 38RU0703190 32 XL723

Blo

ck 3

N –

Rep

II 1 Neptune 9 Cocodrie 17 38RU0703190 25 Cheniere

2 Neptune 10 Cocodrie 18 38RU0703190 26 Cheniere 3 XP753 11 Catahoula 19 CL111 27 Jazzman 4 XP753 12 Catahoula 20 CL111 28 Jazzman 5 Caffey 13 CLXP729 21 XL723 29 22RU0703144 6 Caffey 14 CLXP729 22 XL723 30 22RU0703144 7 Presidio 15 Rondo 23 CL151 31 CLXP756 8 Presidio 16 Rondo 24 CL151 32 CLXP756

Blo

ck 2

S –

Rep

III

1 Caffey 9 22RU0703144 17 Cocodrie 25 Neptune 2 Caffey 10 22RU0703144 18 Cocodrie 26 Neptune 3 Rondo 11 XL723 19 XP753 27 Catahoula 4 Rondo 12 XL723 20 XP753 28 Catahoula 5 CLXP729 13 CL111 21 CLXP756 29 38RU0703190 6 CLXP729 14 CL111 22 CLXP756 30 38RU0703190 7 Jazzman 15 CL151 23 Cheniere 31 Presidio 8 Jazzman 16 CL151 24 Cheniere 32 Presidio

Blo

ck 3

S –

Rep

IV 1 XP753 9 Catahoula 17 38RU0703190 25 Neptune

2 XP753 10 Catahoula 18 38RU0703190 26 Neptune 3 CL111 11 CLXP729 19 Caffey 27 Cocodrie 4 CL111 12 CLXP729 20 Caffey 28 Cocodrie 5 Presidio 13 CL151 21 22RU0703144 29 Rondo 6 Presidio 14 CL151 22 22RU0703144 30 Rondo 7 XL723 15 CLXP756 23 Jazzman 31 Cheniere 8 XL723 16 CLXP756 24 Jazzman 32 Cheniere

Treated with Dermacor X-100 Untreated

Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, no barriers

Host Plant Resistance to Rice Water Weevil

36


Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Drill-planted test into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and

organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Mar 24 Experimental design: Split plot with 4 replications; main plot = genotype (22RU0703144, 38RU0703190, Caffey, Catahoula, Cheniere, CL111, CL151, Cocodrie, Jazzman, Neptune, Presidio, Rondo, CLXP729, CLXP556, XL723, XP753); sub plot = untreated or treated for rice water weevil (RWW and stalk borers) with Dermacor X-100 at 0.1 lb ai/A (2.5 fl oz/A). Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long (no barriers) Inbred entries (22RU0703144, 38RU0703190, Caffey, Catahoula, Cheniere, CL111, CL151, Cocodrie, Jazzman, Neptune, Presidio, Rondo) seeded @ 80 lb/A, hybrid lines (CLXP729, CLXP556, XL723, XP753) seeded @ 25 lb/A. Emergence on Apr 4

Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Mar 25 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Apr 27 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 22RU0703144, 38RU0703190, Catahoula, Cheniere, CL111, CL151, Cocodrie,

Jazzman, Presidio, Rondo: 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on Mar 25, at planting 68.0 lb N/A (40% of 170) on Apr 27, at PF 68.0 lb N/A (40% of 170) on May 12, at panicle differentiation Caffey and Neptune: 30.0 lb N/A (20% of 150) on Mar 25, at planting 60.0 lb N/A (40% of 150) on Apr 27, at PF 60.0 lb N/A (40% of 150) on May 12, at panicle differentiation

CLXP729, CLXP556, XL723, XP753: 120 lb N/A on Apr 27, at PF 60 lb N/A on Jun 21, at 5% heading Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram

8E @ 2.0 lb (AI)/A and Penetrator Plus @ 1.0 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 12 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 15 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treated with Dermacor X-100 @ 0.1 lb ai/A on Mar 24 Sampling: Did not observe any visual difference in plant vigor/height/color between T and U

plots across the entire experiment on Apr 14 Stand counts (2- 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Apr 13.

RWW cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inch diameter, 4 inch deep containing at least one rice plant) were collected on May 18 (reps 1 and 2), May 19 (reps 3


37


and 4), May 31 (reps 1 and 2) and Jun 1 (reps 3 and 4), later washed through 40-mesh buckets and immature RWW counted. None of the varieties heading on Jun 1: Jazzman tallest; Rondo has a very wide (somewhat yellow) leaf; Cheniere also has wide leaf; Caffey rather tall; Presidio has a wide leaf; XP753 taller than CLXP756; in general hybrids are greener than inbreds. Heading notes taken on Jun 20: Caffey, Cheniere, Neptune, Rondo and CLXP756 0% heading; Jazzman <5% heading; 22RU0703144, CL151, XL723 5% heading; Cocodrie 5-10% heading; CLXP729 and XP753 10% heading; Catahoula 50% heading; Presidio 75% heading; CL111 80% heading; 38RU0703190 90% heading. Heading notes on Jul 7: Rondo flowering; CLXP756 milk stage; Caffey, Cheniere and Neptune milk to soft dough; 22RU0703144 and CLXP729 soft dough; Catahoula, Cocodrie, Jazzman and XP753 soft dough to hard dough; CL151 and XL723 hard dough; 38RU0703190, CL111 and Presidio mature. Whitehead (WH) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 on Jul 11; WHs measure of stalk borer damage



Discussion

Rice plant stands reflected seeding rates (80 lb/A for inbreds and 25 lb/A for hybrids)

(Tables 1 and 2). The hybrids averaged about 5 plants/ft of row while the inbreds averaged about 11 plants/ft of row. This equals 8.7 and 19.5 plants/sq ft, respectively. Perhaps the cool, windy conditions following rice planting influenced stand. CL111 and CL151 had the highest stands. Across main plots, protected and unprotected plots had similar plant stands. Populations of immature RWW were very low throughout the experiment. Again, these low populations probably were due to cool, windy conditions during the time rice is vulnerable to RWW migration into fields which is quickly followed by oviposition. RWW adults become very active at dusk when conditions are warm and calm. However, in the spring of 2011, days and nights were unusually cool and windy at the Beaumont Center. Relatively few adult RWW feeding scars were observed on rice at the time of the PF. However, WH counts were relatively high in most unprotected plots (Tables 1 and 2). Note Dermacor X-100 controls RWW and stalk borers. Most of these WHs were caused by the Mexican rice borer. In descending order of WH density (greater to lesser susceptibility to stalk borers) in inbred unprotected plots are: 22RU0703144, Caffey, CL111, 38RU0703190 (tied with CL111), Neptune, CL151, Cocodrie (tied with CL151), Catahoula, Cheniere (tied with Catahoula), Jazzman, Presidio (tied with Jazzman) and Rondo. Of special note is Rondo which exhibited no WHs in unprotected plots. Since RWW populations were so low, yield losses are attributed mainly to stalk borer damage. Rondo yields in unprotected plots were similar to those in protected plots. This shows a high level of resistance, tolerance and/or non-preference to stalk borers in Rondo. WH counts in hybrid plots were low


38


which is typical of hybrids. Across subplots, the highest yielding varieties were the hybrids followed by Rondo. The 2 highest yielding inbreds were CL151 and Caffey. Across varieties, protected plots outyielded unprotected plots 443 lb/A which shows the importance of controlling stalk borers. Rondo, Presidio and XL723 suffered the least yield loss between protected and unprotected plots. The highest yield losses were suffered by Neptune, Jazzman and Cocodrie which suggest these varieties are very susceptible to stalk borer damage. Therefore, farmers who plan to plant these varieties in 2012 should consider applying a seed treatment or a pyrethroid for stalk borer control.


39


Table 1. Mean data for host plant resistance to rice water weevil. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Treatmenta

Stand (plants/ft of row)

No. RWWb/5 cores WHsb/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) T – U May 19 Jun 1

22RU0703144 T 11 1 1 1 6660 510

U 11 7 9 25 6150 38RU0703190 T 11 0 1 1 5203

272 U 8 6 8 17 4931 Caffey T 12 1 1 0 7888

871 U 11 7 10 18 7017 Catahoula T 12 0 2 0 5643

176 U 11 5 9 10 5467 Cheniere T 9 1 3 1 6174

296 U 8 6 9 10 5878 CL111 T 15 1 2 1 5827

619 U 14 6 7 17 5208 CL151 T 14 1 6 1 7787

269 U 13 6 9 14 7518 Cocodrie T 13 0 1 1 6889

783 U 12 7 14 14 6106 Jazzman T 11 0 1 0 7046

819 U 12 7 6 7 6227 Neptune T 6 0 4 0 6587

993 U 8 6 10 15 5594 Presidio T 13 1 1 0 5804

157 U 12 8 7 7 5647 Rondo T 12 1 2 0 9025

-153 U 11 6 6 0 9178 CL XP729 T 5 1 1 2 10307

472 U 5 5 18 1 9835 CL XP756 T 5 1 2 0 11070

472 U 5 7 13 3 10598 XL723 T 5 1 2 0 9570

202 U 5 4 12 5 9368 XP753 T 5 0 1 1 10290

330 U 5 8 14 4 9960 a T = treated with Dermacor X-100 @ 0.1 lb ai/A; U = untreated b RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead


40


Table 2. Statistical analysis of data from Table 1. Stand

(plants/ft of row)

No. RWWa/5 cores

WHsa/4 rows Yield (lb/A) May 19 Jun 1

Main plot effects: 22RU0703144 11 c 4 5 13 a 6405 ef 38RU0703190 9 d 3 4 9 abc 5067 i Caffey 12 c 4 5 9 abc 7452 d Catahoula 11 c 2 6 5 def 5555 hi Cheniere 9 de 3 6 5 cde 6026 fgh CL111 15 a 4 4 9 ab 5517 hi CL151 14 ab 3 7 7 bcd 7652 d Cocodrie 13 bc 4 7 8 abc 6498 ef Jazzman 12 c 3 4 3 e-h 6636 e Neptune 7 e 3 7 7 bcd 6090 fg Presidio 13 bc 4 4 4 efg 5725 gh Rondo 11 c 3 4 0 i 9102 c CL XP729 5 f 3 10 2 gh 10071 b CL XP756 5 f 4 7 1 hi 10834 a XL723 5 f 2 7 2 fgh 9469 c XP753 5 f 4 7 3 e-h 10125 b

Subplot effects: NS NS Treatedb 10 0 b 2 b 1 b 7610 a Untreated 6 a 10 10 a 10 a 7167 b

Interactions: NS Variety x treatment P = 0.1108 P = 0.8466 P = 0.1399 P < 0.0001 P = 0.0952 a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Treated with Dermacor X-100 @ 0.1 lb ai/A Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

41


Foliar Fungicide Treatments Texas AgriLife Extension and Research

PLOT PLAN Beaumont, TX

2011

Field Block 6N

I II III IV 1 1 10 8 19 9 28 4 2 2 11 9 20 7 29 1 3 3 12 2 21 6 30 5 4 4 13 4 22 3 31 8 5 5 14 7 23 1 32 2 6 6 15 1 24 4 33 3 7 7 16 5 25 2 34 6 8 8 17 3 26 8 35 9 9 9 18 6 27 5 36 7

Field Block 4S

I II III IV

1 1 10 8 19 9 28 4 2 2 11 9 20 7 29 1 3 3 12 2 21 6 30 5 4 4 13 4 22 3 31 8 5 5 14 7 23 1 32 2 6 6 15 1 24 4 33 3 7 7 16 5 25 2 34 6 8 8 17 3 26 8 35 9 9 9 18 6 27 5 36 7

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long

Variety: Cocodrie (seed provided by LSU Foundation Seed?)

Foliar Fungicide Treatments

42



Treatment no. Description

Rate (fl oz prod/A)

1 Quilt Xcel 2.2 SE + surfactant 17 + 1% v/v 2 Quilt Xcel 2.2 SE + surfactant 21 + 1% v/v 3 Stratego 19 4 Stratego yld 6.3 5 Gem 4.7 6 Convoy + surfactant 16.8 + 1% v/v 7 Convoy + surfactant 23.6 + 1% v/v 8 Convoy + Tilt + surfactant 16.8 + 4 + 1% v/v 9 Untreated ---


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 9 treatments and 4 replications for each

of two field blocks (6N and 4S) Planting: Drill-planted Cocodrie treated with Dermacor X-100 (@ 1/.75 fl oz/A) @ 80 lb/A

into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 3

Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on Apr 11 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 3 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 5 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Apr 3 at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on May 5 at PF 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on May 23 at panicle differentiation Total main crop = 170 lb N/A 100 lb N/A on Aug 9 on ratoon Herbicide: Stam 80EDF @ 2.0 lb, Basagran @ 0.75 lb, Facet 75DF @ 0.25 lb and Ordram



43


Treatments: Inoculated with sheath blight (SB) inoculum (Rhizoctonia solani) on May 24 The inoculum was prepared using 5 parts rice hulls and 1 part whole rice substrate colonized with R.solani

Fungicide treatments 1 – 9 were applied by Dr. Jo on Jun 14 for Plot 6N; Jul 1

for Plot 4S Fungicide treatments 1 – 9 were reapplied to ratoon crop by Dr. Jo on Aug 25

for Plot 6N; but not Plot 4S Sampling: Main stand counts (3, 3 ft counts/plot on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Apr 20 Sheath blight ratings for the main crop by Dr. Jo on Jul 14 Ratoon stand counts on Sep 8 Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Aug 6 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Harvested all ratoon crop plots on Oct 17


44


RESULTS & DISCUSSION Table 1. Efficacy of fungicide treatments on Field Block 6N at 14 days after PD for the main crop and 19 days after the main crop harvest for the ratoon crop

Treatment

Main crop stand

(# plants per ft of

row)

Sheath blight

severity*

Sheath blight incidence

(%)** Ratoon crop

stand (%)

Main crop yield (lb/A)

Ratoon crop yield

(lb/A) Total crop

yield (lb/A) 1 11.6 2.3 16.3 Bc*** 94.7 a 8123.2 a 4316.1 ab 12439.3 ab 2 11.9 3.0 15.0 bc 94.2 a 8010.2 a 4588.9 a 12599.1 a 3 11.3 3.0 12.5 bc 88.4 b 8032.1 a 4288.7 ab 12320.8 ab 4 12.8 1.8 6.3 c 96.4 a 7893.5 a 4409.5 ab 12303.0 ab 5 11.0 3.0 17.5 bc 92.4 ab 7784.9 a 4054.3 b 11839.2 ab 6 12.2 4.0 40.0 ab 91.5 ab 7819.2 a 3946.6 b 11765.8 ab 7 11.0 3.0 26.3 abc 92.9 ab 7659.2 a 3992.7 b 11651.8 b 8 12.4 4.0 28.8 abc 92.0 ab 7627.9 a 4112.9 ab 11740.7 ab 9 11.8 5.3 51.3 a 79.5 c 7074.9 b 3463.8 c 10538.7 c

P value NS NS 0.061 <0.0001 0.0241 0.0038 0.0031 LSD value at α = 0.05 28.19 4.91 549.69 481.72 901.91 *Sheath blight severity: 0-9 scales with 0 = no symptoms and 9 = lower leaves mostly dead, and plant collapsing. **Sheath blight incidence: percentage of plants showing disease symptoms. ***Treatments with the same letter indicate no significant difference among them. NS = not significant • Most treatments did not significantly reduced disease severity but did reduce incidence (P =

0.061) compared to the non-treated control. • There was significant treatment effect on increasing the main crop yield compared with the

non-treated control. • Healthy ratoon crop stands were protected by the fungicide treatments applied for the main

crop. • Most fungicide treatment increased the yields of main and ratoon crops.


45


A. Stands of the main crop B. Sheath blight incidence (%) C. Sheath blight severity (0-8 scale) D. Stands of the ratoon crop E. Main crop yields F. Ratoon crop yields G. Total yield

A B

C

D

E F

G

Fungicide efficacy on Field Block 6N


46


Table 1. Efficacy of fungicide treatments on Field Block 4S at 28 days after PD for the main crop and no fungicide application for the ratoon crop

Treatment

Main crop stand

(# plants/ft of row)

Sheath blight

severity*

Sheath blight

incidence (%)*

Ratoon crop stand

(%)

Main crop yield (lb/A)

Ratoon crop yield

(lb/A)

Total crop yield (lb/A)

1 13.1 4.0 50.0 93.8 a*** 7240.9 3950.2 11191.1 2 13.4 4.0 45.0 94.2 a 7545.5 3775.3 11320.8 3 14.0 4.3 50.0 90.2 ab 7488.5 3890.5 11379.0 4 13.3 3.5 40.0 93.8 a 7681.5 3911.7 11593.2 5 14.4 3.0 42.5 91.5 ab 7521.2 3678.9 11200.1 6 14.2 5.5 62.5 89.3 ab 7394.3 3718.9 11113.2 7 13.3 5.3 50.0 90.7 ab 7281.9 3781.5 11063.4 8 13.7 4.5 45.0 93.7 a 7523.3 3764.2 11287.5 9 13.7 6.0 70.0 86.6 b 7289.9 3542.7 10832.6

P value NS NS NS 0.0921 NS NS NS LSD value at α = 0.05 5.35 *Sheath blight severity: 0-9 scales with 0 = no symptoms and 9 = lower leaves mostly dead, and plant collapsing. **Sheath blight incidence: percentage of plants showing disease symptoms. ***Treatments with the same letter indicate no significant difference among them. NS = not significant • Most treatments did not significantly reduced disease severity and incidence compared to the

non-treated control, although there was a trend of greater disease on the control plots. • Healthy ratoon crop stands were protected by the fungicide treatments applied for the main

crop at the level of P = 0.0921. • There was no treatment effect on increasing the yield of the main and ratoon crops. • Higher disease and lower yield were detected on the plots applied at 28 days after PD

compared with those at 14 days after PD.


47


A. Stands of the main crop B. Sheath blight incidence (%) C. Sheath blight severity (0-8 scale) D. Stands of the ratoon crop E. Main crop yields F. Ratoon crop yields G. Total yield

Fungicide efficacy on Field Block 4S

A B

C

D

E

F

G

48


Rice Stink Bug Resistance to Pyrethroids 2011

In cooperation with Dr. Kelly Tindall at the University of Missouri, pyrethroid resistance

in the rice stink bug (RSB)---Oebalus pugnax---was documented in Texas in 2011. RSB adults were collected by sweep net in the summer of 2011 from rice fields and surrounding field margins in Beaumont (Jefferson County: N 30 degrees 3.944 minutes; W 94 degrees 17.687 minutes), East Bernard (Fort Bend County: N 29 degrees 30.583 minutes; W 95 degrees 9.617 minutes), Round Mott (Wharton County: N 29 degrees 12.870 minutes; W 96 degrees 26.727 minutes), Matagorda (N 28 degrees 42.847 minutes; W 96 degrees 5.872 minutes) and Ganado (Jackson County: N 29 degrees 1.597 minutes; W 96 degrees 26.406 minutes). Adult RSBs were placed in glass scintillation vials (1 adult per vial) coated on the inside with various concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin (the active ingredient in Karate Z). The active ingredient was dissolved in acetone before treatment of the inside of the vials. For the Ganado and Matagorda locations, 25 adult RSBs per concentration were collected; for all other Texas locations, 50 adult RSBs were collected per concentration. Mortality was recorded after 4 hours exposure.

0

50

100

0 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 2 2.5 3 4 5 7.5 10 15 20

% m

orta

lity

µg lambda cyhalothrin/vial

RSB Resistance

Beaumont Round Mott Matagorda Ganado East Bernard

49


Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN ⇐ North

I II III IV 1 1 7 1 13 3 19 1 2 2 8 5 14 2 20 4 3 3 9 2 15 5 21 5 4 4 10 3 16 1 22 3 5 5 11 4 17 4 23 2 6 6 12 6 18 6 24 6

Plot size: 30 ft x 21 ft Variety: Sierra




(fl oz/A) 1 Endigo 2.06ZC 5 2 Endigo ZCX 5 3 Karate Z 2.56 4 Centric 40WG 3.5 5 Tenchu 20SG 9 oz/A 6 Untreated ---

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Treatments: Treatments applied with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles,

50 mesh screens, 12 gpa final spray volume) on Aug 2; rice @ milk/soft dough Sampling: 20 sweeps on Aug 3 (1 DAT), Aug 5 (3 DAT), Aug 9 (7 DAT) and Aug 16 (14

DAT) Data Analysis: Rice stink bug (RSB) counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.

Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control

50


Discussion Although populations of RSB were relatively low during the experiment, all treatments controlled this pest 1, 3 and 7 DAT (Tables 1 and 2). At 14 DAT, Endigo 2.06ZC and Karate Z treatments performed the best. These results indicate Endigo 2.06ZC, Endigo ZCX and Centric 40WG have potential as new rice stink bug insecticides. Providing more tools for rice stink bug control is essential to avoiding or delaying resistance to currently registered rice stink bug insecticides. Table 1. Mean number of rice stink bug (RSB) adults, nymphs and total (nymphs + adults) per 20 sweeps 1 and 3 days after treatment (DAT) from Syngenta RSB residual activity study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) 1 DAT 3 DAT

Na Aa Ta N A T Endigo 2.06ZC 5 0 b 0.25 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.5 b 0.5 b

Endigo ZCX 5 0.5 b 0.25 b 0.75 b 0 b 1.0 b 1.0 b Karate Z 2.56 0.25 b 0.75 b 1.0 b 0.75 b 0.25 b 1.0 b

Centric 40WG 3.5 0 b 0.5 b 0.5 b 0 b 0.5 b 0.5 b Tenchu 20SG 9 oz/A 0.25 b 0.5 b 0.75 b 1.25 b 1.0 b 2.25 b

Untreated --- 7.5 a 2.75 a 10.25 a 5.5 a 4.75 a 10.25 a a N = nymphs; A = adults; T = total Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Table 2. Mean number of rice stink bug (RSB) adults, nymphs and total (nymphs and adults) per 20 sweeps 7 and 14 days after treatment (DAT) from Syngenta RSB residual activity study. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) 7 DAT 14 DAT

Na Aa Ta N A T Endigo 2.06ZC 5 0.5 b 0.75 b 1.25 b 0.25 0.75 1.0 c

Endigo ZCX 5 0.25 b 0.25 b 0.5 b 0.25 3.0 3.25 b Karate Z 2.56 0.25 b 0.75 b 1.0 b 0.25 0.75 1.0 c

Centric 40WG 3.5 0 b 0.25 b 0.25 b 1.25 3.0 4.25 ab Tenchu 20SG 9 oz/A 0 b 1.5 ab 1.5 b 0.5 2.5 3.0 bc

Untreated --- 3.5 a 4.25 a 7.75 a 2.5 6.75 a 4.25 NS NS

a N = nymphs; A = adults; T = total Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

51


RO

AD

Cocodrie Seed Treatments Ganado, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

Coc

odrie

1 1 5 4 9 2 13 4 2 4 6 2 10 1 14 3 3 2 7 3 11 4 15 1 4 3 8 1 12 3 16 2

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long, with barriers Seed source: Cocodrie (LSU Foundation Seed Rice) seeded at 100 lb/A

TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING

Trt no. Description Rate

fl oz/cwt lb ai/Aa

1 Untreated --- --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice 7.0 0.139 3 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.075 4 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071

a Based on 100 lb/A seeding rate

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (Cocodrie @ 100 lb/A) into Edna soil on Apr 6 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long; barriers Emergence on Apr 21 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 8 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 18 Ratoon crop PF on Aug 11 Fertilization: 47.5-47.5-47.5 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 5 at preplant 0-50-50 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 5 at preplant 80 lb N/A (urea) on May 11 before permanent flood (BF) 60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 9 at panicle differentiation

Cocodrie Seed Treatments

52


Total lb N/A for main crop = 187.5 100 lb N/A (urea) on Aug 10 on ratoon crop Herbicide: Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A and Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A applied on Apr 18 Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A, Facet @ 0.35 lb ai/A and Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A on Apr 29 Treatments: CruiserMaxx Rice and Dermacor X-100 seed treatments applied by the

Entomology Project. NipsIt INSIDE seed treatment applied by Valent. Sampling: Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4


Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts) and whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 12; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage

Collected 20 WHs and dissected for stem borers (9 Mexican rice borer and 1 sugarcane borer) on Jul 12

Harvest: Harvested main crop on Aug 10 Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Harvested ratoon crop on Nov 7 Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Data Analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using


Discussion

Panicle counts were similar among treatments, so rice plant stands were probably

unaffected by the seed treatments (Table 1). Populations of RWW were very low---below threshold levels (15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores)---throughout the experiment. Because of the drought, plots may not have remained flooded following application of the flood. This could affect RWW population development. However, on the 1st sample date, all seed treatments significantly reduced RWW numbers. WHs in the main and ratoon crops were significantly fewer in the Dermacor X-100 treatment. About 90% of the stalk borers in this experiment were Mexican rice borer; the remainder were sugarcane borer. Results clearly show Dermacor X-100 controlled stalk borers in both main and ratoon crops (84 and 85% fewer WHs compared to the untreated in the main and ratoon crop, respectively). This suggests Dermacor X-100 seed treatment persists into the ratoon crop and/or fewer stalk borers carry-over to the ratoon crop from main crop stubble. Because RWW populations were very low, no yield responses due to RWW control were expected. Although no significant differences in ratoon crop yields were detected, for main crop yield, all seed treatments numerically were greater than the untreated (Table 2). Dermacor X-100 produced the highest yields for both main and ratoon crops. For total yields, all seed treatments outyielded the untreated (335, 440 and 1240 lb/A more for CruiserMaxx Rice, NipsIt INSIDE and Dermacor X-100, respectively). For Dermacor X-100 treatment, the excellent and significant yield response was most likely due primarily to good

Cocodrie Seed Treatments

53


stalk borer control which shows the importance of controlling these pests when populations are high, as in this experiment. CruiserMaxx Rice and NipsIt INSIDE may have partially controlled stalk borers because numerically fewer WHs compared to the untreated were observed in both main and ratoon crops in plots of these 2 seed treatments. So, a combination of control of low populations of RWW and partial control of stalk borers may be responsible for the positive total yield responses to CruiserMaxx Rice and NipsIt INSIDE seed treatments. Dermacor X-100 seed treatment produced the highest yield responses because of control of low populations of RWW and good control of stalk borers. In addition, other unknown minor insects may have been controlled by the seed treatments. Data show all 3 seed treatments, particularly Dermacor X-100, produced sufficiently high total yields to achieve economical returns. Table 1. Mean insect/damage data for Cocodrie seed treatments. Ganado, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Panicles/ft

of row RWWa/5 cores in main crop WHsa/4 rows

Jun 7 Jun 17 Main Ratoon Untreated --- 29 9 a 5 31 a 39 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 7.0 27 4 b 8 23 a 35 a NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 28 3 b 4 20 a 33 a

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 1 c 31 3 5 b 6 b NS NS

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD) Table 2. Mean yield data for Cocodrie seed treatments. Ganado, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Yield (lb/A)

Main Ratoon Total Untreated --- 7903 b 1879 9781 b

CruiserMaxx Rice 7.0 8427 ab 1689 10116 b NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 8261 ab 1960 10221 b

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 8815 a 11021 a 2206 NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.07 for main crop yield, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD)

54


RO

AD

XP753 Seed Treatments Ganado, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

XP7

53

1 1 5 4 9 2 13 4 2 4 6 2 10 1 14 3 3 2 7 3 11 4 15 1 4 3 8 1 12 3 16 2

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long, with barriers Seed source: XP753 (RiceTec) seeded at 30 lb/A



fl oz/cwt lb ai/Aa

1 Untreated --- --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice 7.0 0.042 3 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 0.023 4 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 0.071

a Based on 30 lb/A seeding rate

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (XP753 @ 30 lb/A) into Edna soil on Apr 6 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long; with barriers Emergence on Apr 21 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 8 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 18 for main crop Ratoon crop PF on Aug 11 Fertilization: 47.5-47.5-47.5 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 5 at preplant 120 lb N/A (urea) on May 11 at preflood 30 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 21 at boot/heading Total lb N/A for main crop = 197.5 100 lb N/A (urea) on Aug 10 on ratoon crop

XP753 Seed Treatments

55


Herbicide: Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A and Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A applied on Apr 18 Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A, Facet @ 0.35 lb ai/A and Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A on Apr 29 Treatments: CruiserMaxx Rice and Dermacor X-100 seed treatments applied by the

Entomology Project. NipsIt INSIDE seed treatment applied by Valent. Sampling: Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4


Panicle counts (3, 1 ft. counts) and whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 12; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage

Collected 20 WHs and dissected for stem borers (9 Mexican rice borer and 1 sugarcane borer) on Jul 12

Harvest: Harvested main crop on Aug 10 Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Harvested ratoon crop on Nov 7 Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Data Analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using


Discussion

Panicle counts were similar among treatments; thus, seed treatments probably did not

affect rice plant stands (Table 1). RWW populations were extremely low throughout the experiment on both sample dates. Perhaps the drought caused plots to dry after application of the flood. This situation would have a large negative effect on RWW population build-up and development. At any rate, RWW populations were too low to obtain meaningful data. However, WHs were significantly fewer in Dermacor X-100 plots compared to all other plots in both main and ratoon crops. As expected, WH counts were relatively low throughout the experiment which is indicative of hybrid varieties---XP753 is a hybrid variety. About 90% of the stalk borers in this experiment were Mexican rice borer and the remainder were sugarcane borer. Compare WH counts in this experiment with those in an identical experiment using Cocodrie. Both experiments were conducted adjacent to one another in the same block at Ganado. Average number of WHs in untreated plots in this Cocodrie experiment was 31 and 39 for the main and ratoon crop, respectively---more than twice as many WHs in both untreated crops of the XP753 experiment. Dermacor X-100 treatment yield in the main crop was significantly greater than in the untreated (651 lb/A more) (Table 2). Ratoon yields were similar among treatments, but, numerically, Dermacor X-100 plots outyielded untreated plots 200 lb/A. For total yields, the Dermacor X-100 treatment was 850 lb/A more than the untreated. This difference was significant. Data show the importance of controlling stalk borers in hybrid rice.

XP753 Seed Treatments

56


Table 1. Mean insect/damage data for XP753 seed treatments. Ganado, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Panicles/ft

of row RWWa/5 cores in main crop WHsa/4 rows

Jun 7 Jun 17 Main Ratoon Untreated --- 25 6 3 12 a 12 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 7.0 28 6 3 13 a 9 ab NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 21 6 5 15 a 13 a

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 1 26 2 2 b 4 b NS NS NS

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.08 for ratoon WHs, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA, LSD) Table 2. Mean yield data for XP753 seed treatments. Ganado, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Yield (lb/A)

Main Ratoon Total Untreated --- 9303 b 2309 11613 b

CruiserMaxx Rice 7.0 9303 b 2203 11506 b NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 9551 ab 2062 11614 b

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 9954 a 12463 a 2509 NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

57


RO

AD

Dermacor X-100 Ratoon Study Ganado, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 3 5 2 9 4 13 2 2 4 6 1 10 1 14 3 3 1 7 3 11 2 15 4 4 2 8 4 12 3 16 1

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long, with barriers on treatments 2 and 4 Seed source: Cocodrie (LSU Foundation Seed Rice) seeded at 100 lb/A



(lb ai/A) Timinga

RWW SB 1 Untreated --- --- --- 2 Karate Z 0.03 BF --- 3 Karate Z 0.03 --- LB/H 4 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A ST ST

a RWW = treated for rice water weevil before permanent flood (BF); LB/H = late boot/heading; ST = seed treatment


Experimental design: randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted Cocodrie @ 100 lb/A into Edna soil on Apr 6 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long; barriers on treatments 2 and

4 Emergence on Apr 21 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 8

Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 18

Fertilization: 47.5-47.5-47.5 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 5 at preplant 80 lb N/A (urea) on May 11 before permanent flood (BF) 60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 9 at panicle initiation/differentiation

Dermacor X-100 Ratoon Study

58


Total lb N/A for main crop = 187.5 100 lb N/A (urea) for ratoon crop on Aug 10 Herbicide: Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A and Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A applied on Apr 18

Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A Facet @ 0.35 lb ai/A and Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A on Apr 29 Treatments: Treatment 2 (before flood) applied on May 11 Treatment 3 (early heading) applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3

nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on Jul 7 – should have applied this treatment earlier, whiteheads already present

Sampling: Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 7 and Jun 17. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts) in each plot on Jul 12 Whitehead (WH) counts on rows 2, 3, 7 & 8 on Jul 12 (main crop) and Sep 30

(ratoon crop); WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity 20 WHs dissected for stalk borer composition on Jul 12: 9 Mexican rice borer

and 1 sugarcane borer Harvest: Harvested main crop on Aug 10 Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Harvested ratoon crop on Nov 7 Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long

Data analysis: WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12% moisture and all data analyzed by ANOVA; means separated by LSD

Discussion

Main crop panicle counts were similar among treatments; thus, the Dermacor X-100 seed

treatment did not affect this plant characteristic (Table 1). RWW populations were extremely low throughout the experiment; nevertheless, larval/pupal numbers were significantly lower in Dermacor X-100 plots compared to untreated plots on both sample dates. WH counts in both main and ratoon crops were significantly lower in Dermacor X-100 plots compared to untreated plots (91 and 71% lower in main and ratoon crops, respectively). About 90% of stalk borer populations were Mexican rice borer and 10% sugarcane borer. These data show significant stalk borer control on both main and ratoon rice can be achieved with Dermacor X-100 seed treatment. In Dermacor X-100 treated plots, the lower number of WHs in the ratoon crop may be due to lower numbers of stalk borers in the main crop or mortality of stalk borers initiating infestations in the ratoon crop. Yield of the main crop was much higher in Dermacor X-100 plots than untreated plots (974 lb/A more) (Table 2). This increase was mainly due to stalk borer control because the low populations of RWW were expected to have little effect on yield. Although the Karate Z treatment was applied late for stalk borer control, main crop yields associated with this late treatment were significantly higher than the untreated (669 lb/A more).

Dermacor X-100 Ratoon Study

59


Thus, even this late treatment helped control stalk borers (32% fewer WHs than the untreated, but this difference was not significant). Ratoon yields among treatments were relatively low and not significantly different, although the highest yield was produced by the Dermacor X-100 treatment. For total yield, Dermacor X-100 seed treatment and Karate Z treatment applied at heading, produced 1046 and 668 lb/A more than the untreated, respectively. Table 1. Mean panicle and insect data for Dermacor X-100 ratoon study. Ganado, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(lb ai/A)

Timinga Panicles/ft of row

Main crop RWWb/5 cores WHsb/4 rows

RWW SB Jun 7 Jun 17 Main Ratoon Untreated --- --- --- 28 12 ab 12 a 34 a 24 a Karate Z 0.03 BF --- 30 4 bc 3 b 35 a 28 a Karate Z 0.03 --- LB/H 28 18 a 10 a 23 a 23 a

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A ST ST 2 c 29 0 b 3 b 7 b

NS a RWW = treated for rice water weevil before permanent flood (BF); SB = treated for stalk borers; LB/H = late boot/heading; ST = seed treatment b RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.07 for ratoon WHs, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD) Table 2. Mean yield data for Dermacor X-100 ratoon study. Ganado, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(lb ai/A) Timinga Yield (lb/A)

RWW SB Main Ratoon Total Untreated --- --- --- 7270 b 1253 8523 b Karate Z 0.03 BF --- 7247 b 1190 8438 b Karate Z 0.03 --- LB/H 7939 a 1252 9191 ab

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A ST ST 8244 a 9569 a 1325 NS a RWW = treated for rice water weevil before permanent flood (BF); SB = treated for stalk borers; LB/H = late boot/heading; ST = seed treatment Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

60


RO

AD

Host Plant Resistance to Stalk Borers Eagle Lake, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 3 7 1 13 2 19 4 2 4 8 2 14 3 20 1 3 1 9 4 15 1 21 2 4 2 10 3 16 4 22 3 5 6 11 5 17 5 23 6 6 5 12 6 18 6 24 5

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Variety: CL151 and Cocodrie seeded at 100 lb/A (seed source is LSU Foundation Seed Rice);

XL723 seeded at 30 lb/A (seed source is RiceTec) Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE, AND TIMING

Treatment No. Variety Treatmenta Rate

(lb ai/A)

1 CL151 Untreated ---

2 CL151 Karate Z 0.03

3 Cocodrie Untreated ---

4 Cocodrie Karate Z 0.03

5 XL723 Untreated ---

6 XL723 Karate Z 0.03 a Treatment applications at panicle differentiation and late boot


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications. Planting: Drill-planted test (CL151 and Cocodrie @ 100 lb/A, XL723 @ 30 lb/A) into

Edna soil on Apr 8 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Emergence on Apr 21

Host Plant Resistance to Stalk Borers

61


Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 12 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Main crop permanent flood (PF) on May 27 Ratoon crop PF on Aug 19 Fertilization: 47.5-97.5-97.5 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 6 at preplant 80 lb N/A (urea) for inbred varieties and 120 lb N/A (urea) for hybrid variety on

May 26 before permanent flood (BF) 60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) for inbred varieties on Jun 14 at panicle

initiation/differentiation 30 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) for hybrid variety on Jul 6 at boot/heading Total lb N/A for inbred varieties main crop = 187.5 Total lb N/A for hybrid variety main crop = 197.5 100 lb N/A (urea) for ratoon crop, regardless of variety, on Aug 18 Total lb N/A for ratoon crop = 100 Herbicide: Propanil @ 3 lb ai/A, Facet @ 0.35 lb ai/A, Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A and

Command 3ME @ 0.35 lb ai/A applied on Apr 25 Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A on May 26 Treatments: Mustang Max @ 0.025 lb ai/A applied to all plots for rice water weevil control

on May 26 Treatments 2, 4 and 6 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A) applied on Jun 21 (panicle differentiation) and Jul 7 (late boot/early heading)

Sampling: Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts) and whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 19;

WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage Harvest: Main crop harvested on Aug 15 Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Ratoon crop harvested on Nov 9 Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Data analysis: WH counts transformed using


Discussion

As noted in the agronomic and cultural information, all plots in the experiment were

sprayed with Mustang Max just prior to flood to control rice water weevil. Thus, damage by rice water weevil was eliminated, so yield losses and responses to insecticidal treatments were due solely or primarily to stalk borer damage. Unfortunately, stalk borer damage, as indicated by whitehead counts in the main crop, was very low (Table 1). Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from the data regarding varietal susceptibility to stalk borers. Main crop panicle density was not significantly different among treatments which suggests XL723, which was seeded at

Host Plant Resistance to Stalk Borers

62


only 35 lb/A, produced as many panicle-bearing tillers as the inbred varieties CL151 and Cocodrie, which were seeded at 100 lb/A. Main crop yields were high across varieties. However, average main crop yield of XL723 plots was 10605 lb/A---1543 and 2147 lb/A more than Cocodrie and CL151 plots, respectively. Average ratoon yield for XL723 plots was 2916 lb/A while average ratoon yields for Cocodrie and CL151 plots were 1153 and 913 lb/A, respectively. In conclusion, XL723 plots produced an average of 13521 lb/A total yield---3306 and 4150 lb/A more than Cocodrie and CL151 plots, respectively. The reason(s) for this large difference in yield in favor of the hybrid XL723 are unknown; however, Cocodrie and CL151 may have been more susceptible to panicle blight which was problematic in 2011 due to exceptionally hot, dry conditions. Table 1. Mean data for host plant resistance to stalk borers. Eagle Lake, TX. 2011.

Variety Treatmenta

Panicles/1 ft of row

(main crop)

WHsb/4 rows

(main crop)

Yield (lb/A)

Main Ratoon Total CL151 Untreated 32 3 a 8437 d 1178 b 9615 cd CL151 Karate Z 30 0 b 8480 d 648 b 9128 d

Cocodrie Untreated 26 1 b 9004 c 1202 b 10206 c Cocodrie Karate Z 27 1 b 9121 c 1103 b 10224 c XL723 Untreated 33 1 b 10417 b 2729 a 13146 b XL723 Karate Z 0 b 32 10792 a 3103 a 13895 a

NS a Karate Z applied @ 0.03 lb ai/A at late boot/early heading b WH = whiteheads Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

63


RO

AD

Economic Injury Levels for Stalk Borers Eagle Lake, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 4 5 1 9 3 13 4 2 1 6 3 10 2 14 3 3 2 7 4 11 4 15 1 4 3 8 2 12 1 16 2

Plot size: 6 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Variety: Cocodrie seeded at 100 lb/A (seed source is LSU Foundation Seed Rice)


TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE, AND TIMING

Treatment No. Description Rate

(lb ai/A) Timinga

1 Untreated --- ---

2 Karate Z 0.030 1-2" P

3 Karate Z 0.030 LB

4 Karate Z 0.030 + 0.030 1-2" P + LB a P = panicle, LB = late boot


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (Cocodrie @ 100 lb/A) into Edna soil on Apr 8 Plot size = 6 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Emergence on Apr 21 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 12 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 27 Fertilization: 47.5-47.5-47.5 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 11 at preplant 80 lb N/A (urea) on May 26 before permanent flood (BF) 60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 14 at panicle initiation/differentiation

Economic Injury Levels for Stalk Borers

64


Total N/A for main crop = 187.5 Herbicide: Propanil @ 3 lb ai/A, Command 3ME @ 0.35 lb ai/A, Facet @ 0.35 lb ai/A and

Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A applied on Apr 25 Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A on May 26 Treatments: Mustang Max @ 0.025 lb ai/A applied to all plots for rice water weevil control

on May 26 (BF) Treatments 2 and 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb AI/A) applied on Jun 21 (½ inch

panicle) Treatments 3 and 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb AI/A) applied on Jul 7 (late boot/early

heading Sampling: Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts/plot) and whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul

19; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage Harvest: Harvested on Aug 15 Size harvested plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Data analysis: WH counts transformed using


Discussion

As noted in the agronomic and cultural information, all plots in the experiment were

sprayed with Mustang Max just prior to flood to control rice water weevil. Thus, damage by rice water weevil was eliminated, so yield losses and responses to insecticidal treatments were due solely or primarily to stalk borer damage. Unfortunately, stalk borer damage, as indicated by whitehead counts in the plots, was very low. Untreated plots averaged only 4 whiteheads per plot (Table 1). Yields were high, but not significantly different among treatments, so no meaningful data regarding stalk borer injury was generated by this experiment. Table 1. Mean data for stalk borer economic injury level study. Eagle Lake, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(lb ai/A) Timinga Panicles/1 ft

of row WHsb/4 rows Yield (lb/A)

Untreated --- --- 31 4 a 8709 Karate Z 0.030 1-2" P 28 1 ab 8799 Karate Z 0.030 LB 29 1 b 8676 Karate Z 0.030 + 0.030 1-2" P + LB 0 b 28

8701

NS NS a P = panicle; LB = late boot b

WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.07, ANOVA and LSD)

65


Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer Texas Rice Belt

2011 PIs: Mo Way (Texas AgriLife), Gene Reagan (LSU AgCenter) and J. Beuzelin (LSU AgCenter) Co-PIs and trap operators: Becky Pearson (Chambers and Jefferson Cos.), Jack Vawter

(Colorado Co.), Mike Hiller (Jackson Co.) and Noelle Jordan (Orange Co.) Mexican rice borer (MRB) pheromone traps were set up in selected counties of the Texas Rice Belt (TRB). MRB was detected for the first time in Louisiana in November 2008. MRB was collected for the first time in Orange Co. in September 2010. Data are being used to follow the progress of MRB population densities over time in the TRB. Table 1. Monthly totals of Mexican rice borer adults from pheromone traps (2 traps/county) located next to rice on the Texas Upper Gulf Coast in 2011.

Month Chambers

Co. Colorado

Co. Jefferson

Co. Jackson Co. Orange

Co.b Ricea Fallowa

January 27 47 0 68 34 0 February 2 12 96 130 52 0

March 350 802 34 539 103 4 April 445 366 25 189 44 1 May 224 388 36 261 108 3 June 338 448 41 784 171 1 July 289 302 35 543 124 0

August 382 158 70 187 109 0 September 935 1364 88 533 366 2

October 726 1516 45 297 374 1 November 245 1578 131 277 236 3 December 47 131 48 81 98 1

a Trap catches from one trap b Traps located next to fallow field

66


Redbanded Stink Bug Research

Suhas Vyavhare, Mo Way and Raul Medina

Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center 1509 Aggie Drive

Beaumont, TX 77713

The redbanded stink bug (RBSB), Piezodorus guildinii Westwood, (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), is an emerging pest of soybeans in the southern states of the US. Since the 1960s, P. guildinii has spread across the US southern region and currently is found in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri. The geographic expansion of this exotic pest has dramatically increased in recent years. For example, since 2000, the RBSB rapidly spread across Louisiana, reaching all soybean growing areas in the state by 2006 (Davis et al. 2011). The RBSB has now emerged as the dominant stink bug species in Louisiana and Texas soybeans. The research was conducted at the Beaumont Center and outlying commercial soybean fields with the following objectives,

1) To quantify density/damage relationship(s) of RBSB in soybeans considering soybean plant response at particular growth stages to varying densities of stink bugs.

2) To determine the association between RBSB feeding and occurrence of flat pod syndrome in soybeans

3) To determine relative abundance and composition of stink bug species attacking soybean fields along the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas

Objective 1: To quantify density/damage relationship(s) of RBSB in soybeans considering soybean plant response at particular growth stages to varying densities of stink bugs. Materials and methods: Experiments were conducted at the Beaumont Center in the field and in pots. Pot study: MG VI soybeans (AG 6730) were planted on May 27, 2011 in 25 gal buckets (16 inch diameter) filled with sandy loam soil found at the Beaumont Center. Buckets were placed outside and watered regularly, so soil moisture was not a limiting factor. Soybeans were thinned to 3 plants per bucket during the seedling stage. Weeds were controlled by hand and with glyphosate (1% concentration by volume). Plants were sprayed with Karate Z at 0.03 lb ai/A and Methyl Parathion 4E at 20 gm/gal of water in order to protect soybean plants from any kind of insect damage prior to infesting with RBSB. When soybeans approached R3, cylindrical, wire mesh cages were placed over plants in selected buckets. Zero, 4 and 8 RBSB adults (collected from the field on the same day of infestation) were placed in selected cages and kept for 3 days. Plants were inspected daily and dead RBSBs replaced. There were four replications for each treatment (each bucket served as a replication for a particular treatment). After 3 days of infestation, cages and insects were removed and plants were sprayed repeatedly with Orthene 90S to insure no further insect activity/damage. These materials and methods were repeated for growth stages R4 and R5. Controls were not infested at any of the plant growth stages. At maturity, plants were


67


hand-harvetsed, threshed and seeds weighed and inspected for damage. In addition, filled and unfilled pods were counted and weighed. Field study: Similar materials and methods were employed for the field experiment, except plants were grown directly in the field under irrigation. From different rows of soybeans, 3 plants were selected randomly (3 plants/foot of row) at R5, R6, and R7 stages. Similar cages and stink bug densities were employed as in the pot study. A single cage enclosing 3 plants represented a single replication of a particular treatment. There were 4 replications of each treatment. RBSB densities were 0, 4, and 8 adults/cage. Results---pot study Numbers of fully developed pods varied significantly among treatments. Numbers of fully developed pods were significantly reduced when plants at the R4 stage were infested with 4 RBSB/cage. Percentage of fully developed pods was significantly higher in control plants and also in R5 stage plants at a density of 8 RBSB/cage (Fig. 1). Though the number of flat pods was highest when plants were infested at the R4 stage, the differences were not statistically significant among any of the treatments (Fig. 2).

For example: R5-8 = R5 infested with 8 RBSB; R3-4 = R3 infested with 4 RBSB Bars showing same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 (LSD) Figure 1: Percent fully developed pods

0

5

10

15

20

25

% F

ully

dev

elop

ed p

ods

Treatments

AB

AB

A A

AB

AB

B


68


For example: R3-8 = R3 infested with 8 RBSB; R5-4 = R5 infested with 4 RBSB Bars showing same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 (LSD) Figure 2: Percent flat pods Objective 2: To determine the association between RBSB feeding and occurrence of flat pod syndrome in soybeans Materials and methods: MG VI soybeans (AG 6730) were planted in the field under irrigation at the Beaumont Center on May 27, 2011. Weeds were controlled by hand and with glyphosate (1%.concentration by volume). Plants were sprayed with Karate Z at 0.03 lb ai/A and Methyl Parathion 4E at 20 gm/gal in order to protect the plants from any kind of insect damage prior to infesting with RBSB. About 10 days before infestation, plants were kept free of any insecticide application to avoid any residual effect. When soybeans approached R4-5, plants of uniform height were selected and field-collected RBSB were confined to certain portions of the plants (bottom, top, or both) using specially designed cages isolating these portions of the plants. We wanted to determine if a substance or agent associated with RBSB feeding is translocated through the plant to cause flat pod syndrome. The top 2 internodes of the plant were considered as the top portion and the rest of the plant as the bottom portion. RBSB were restricted to specific portions of the plant with the help of cages. Overall, there were 4 treatments: infestation of only the top portion, infestation of only the bottom portion, infestation of both top and bottom portions, and a control without any infestation. Two field-collected RBSB adults were placed in each cage. Infestation was maintained for 3 days after which cages were removed; plants were then repeatedly sprayed with Orthene 90S to avoid further insect damage/activity. At maturity, pods were harvested separately from each plant portion and flat and fully developed pods were counted.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 %

Fla

t pod

s

Treatments

A A

A A

A A A


69


Results---field study: This experiment produced very interesting results about RBSB feeding and occurrence of flat pod syndrome. There was a relationship between feeding by RBSB at an early stage of pod development and production of flat pods. Flat pods are a result of direct feeding by RBSB and the damage was localized to the area of feeding. When only the top portion of the plant was infested, flat pods were present only in that particular portion (Fig. 3). When the bottom portion of the plant was infested, the number of flat pods was significantly higher in the bottom portion only. Similarly, when both portions of the plant were infested, no significant difference was observed in numbers of flat pods between the top and bottom portions of the plant. On the other hand, total numbers of flat pods were least in the control treatment (uninfested). In the control treatment, no significant difference was observed between the top and bottom portions of the plant in terms of number of flat pods. The presence of a few flat pods in the control treatment shows there may be other factor(s) involved in the production of flat pods (in addition to RBSB feeding). However, RBSB feeding, especially during early pod development, was associated with the production of flat pods in soybeans. Since flat pods were largely restricted to areas of feeding by RBSB, production of flat pods was not associated with an agent or substance introduced by RBSB and translocated through the plant.

*indicates significant difference at 0.05 NS indicates no significant difference at 0.05 Figure 3: Number of flat pods in response to infestation of RBSB on particular plant portions.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Top portion Bottom portion

Top and bottom

Control

No.

of f

lat p

ods/

plan

t

Infestation of

* *

NS

NS


70


Objective 3: To determine relative abundance and composition of stink bug species attacking soybeans in Texas Materials and methods: Densities of stink bug species were monitored during 2011 in commercial soybean fields along the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas. Soybean fields were sampled at weekly intervals throughout the reproductive stages of the crop. Study fields were located in Jefferson, Matagorda, Colorado, and Liberty Counties. Sampling began in mid-June and continued weekly through early October with 5 sets of 25 sweeps (15 inch diameter sweep net) taken at random locations in each soybean field on each sample date. After collecting, stink bugs were placed in zip-lock bags and brought to the lab where they were separated by species and counted. Only adults were counted. Results: As noted previously, the geographic distribution of this exotic pest has dramatically increased in recent years. Results of our soybean field survey revealed the RBSB and the green stink bug were the most abundant stink bug species (Fig.4). Out of total number of captured major stink bug species, RBSB and green stink bug accounted for 30% each while southern green and brown stink bugs accounted for 22 and 18%, respectively. Before 2000, RBSB was not present in numbers to be considered a pest, but in recent years, it has increased significantly. Historically, dominant stink bug species were southern green stink bug and green stink bug, but now there is a shift in composition and abundance of stink bug species in soybeans on the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas.

Figure 4: Stink bug species composition in Texas soybeans (Upper Gulf Coast) during 2011

SOUTHERN GREEN

22%

GREEN 30%

RBSB 30%

BROWN 18%

71


Soybean Host Plant Resistance Beaumont, TX

2011

↑ North PLOT PLAN

I

37 S61-Q2 25 S61-Q2 13 Jake 1 Jake 38 97M50 26 97M50 14 C5941 2 C5941 39 S78-G6 27 S78-G6 15 HBK 7028 3 HBK 7028 40 AG6730 28 AG6730 16 DP7870RR 4 DP7870RR

II

41 C5941 29 C5941 17 97M50 5 97M50 42 Jake 30 Jake 18 S61-Q2 6 S61-Q2 43 DP7870RR 31 DP7870RR 19 AG6730 7 AG6730 44 S78-G6 32 S78-G6 20 HBK 7028 8 HBK 7028

III

45 C5941 33 C5941 21 97M50 9 97M50 46 AG6730 34 AG6730 22 HBK 7028 10 HBK 7028 47 DP7870RR 35 DP7870RR 23 S61-Q2 11 S61-Q2 48 Jake 36 Jake 24 S78-G6 12 S78-G6

Plot size = 4 rows x 30 ft Shaded plots treated


Experimental design: Split plot with 4 replications; main plot = genotype (97M50, AG6730,

DP 7870 RR, HBK C5941, HBK R7028, Jake, S61-Q2 and S78-G6); sub plot = untreated or treated

Planting: Planted test (8 varieties, treated and untreated for insects, with 3 replications)

on Jun 12 (8 viable seeds/ft); seed coated with bacterial inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation

Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5

pt/A were applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and boom at 33 gpa final spray volume.

Irrigation: None Fertilizer: None

Soybean Host Plant Resistance

72


Treatments: Treated plots sprayed with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A applied with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 15 gpa final spray volume) on Aug 19 and Aug 30

Treated plots sprayed with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23 Sampling: Stink bugs and Lepidoptera caterpillars (a few) observed on Aug 19 Sampled soybeans for insects (12 sweeps/plot) on Aug 26; C5491,

DP7870RR, HBK 7028, S78-G6 and 97M50 @ R2/3; AG6730 @ R3; Jake and S61-Q2 @ R3/4 (stage of growth from rep 1)

Sampled soybeans for insects (12 sweeps/plot) on Aug 31; AG6730, S78-G6 and 97M50 @ R3; DP7870RR @ R3/4; C5491, HBK 7028, Jake and S61-Q2 @ R4/5 (stage of growth from rep 2)

Sampled soybeans for insects (12 sweeps/plot) on Sep 30 @ R6, row 3 Took pictures on Oct 11 Harvest: Plots harvested as they matured (Oct 13 – Nov 4) Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using


Discussion

Insect-protected (T) plots were sprayed three times to control Lepidoptera defoliators,

stink bugs and threecornered alfalfa hoppers. These applications effectively controlled these pests (Tables 4, 8, 10, 12 and 14). Highest populations of pest insets were collected in untreated plots on Sep 30 (Tables 11 – 14) when soybeans in all T plots were R6. Populations of Lepidoptera defoliators were relatively low Sep 30, but RBSB populations were moderate to high (as many as 10.7 per 12 sweeps in untreated plots of HBK C5941). On this date, untreated plots of 97M50, DP 7870 RR, HBK R7028 and Jake had the fewest RBSB (3 or less per 12 sweeps). However, no significant interaction was detected which means all varieties responded similarly to the treatments. Thus, results suggest all varieties in the experiment exhibited the same level of susceptibility to RBSB. S78-G6 produced the highest yields in both treated and untreated plots (31.1 and 19.1 bu/A, respectively) (Table 1). However, the difference in yield between treated and untreated plots was great (12 bu/A). AG6730 was most affected by insect pressure (17.1 bu/A difference between treated and untreated plots). Across varieties, treated plots outyielded untreated plots 11.2 bu/A (Table 2). This shows the value of controlling insect pests. If cost of spraying is $15/A per application (3 applications = $45) and the price of soybeans is $13/bu ($13 x 11.2 = $145.60), then net profit is $100.60, if results of this experiment are extrapolated. Across varieties, seed quality and test weight were significantly improved by controlling insects. Note, this experiment was not irrigated. Also note, all untreated plots, regardless of variety, exhibited delayed maturity due to stink bug damage. DP 7870 RR exhibited the least yield reduction (6.6 bu/A) between treated and untreated plots. In addition, untreated plots of DP 7870 RR produced high quality seed (1.7 rating), so, DP 7870 RR warrants further study, as does S78-G6.


73


Table 1. Mean yield data for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Treatmenta Yield (bu/A)

T – U (bu/A)

Seed qualityb

(1 – 5) Test wt. (lb/bu)

97M50 T 23.7 8.1

1.5 57.8 97M50 U 15.6 2.3 54.4 AG6730 T 25.4

17.1 1.2 57.5

AG6730 U 8.3 3.3 52.8 DP 7870 RR T 24.6

6.6 1.2 56.4

DP 7870 RR U 18.0 1.7 55.8 HBK C5941 T 24.5

14.5 2.7 55.3

HBK C5941 U 10.0 4.3 47.5 HBK R7028 T 26.9

11.0 1.7 56.5

HBK R7028 U 15.9 2.8 54.2 Jake T 25.4

13.1 2.0 56.6

Jake U 12.3 3.5 51.4 S61-Q2 T 22.6

7.7 1.8 57.0

S61-Q2 U 14.9 3.0 53.4 S78-G6 T 31.1

12.0 1.8 56.5

S78-G6 U 19.1 3.0 52.6 a T = treated 3 times (Aug 19, 30 and Sep 23); U = untreated b Seed quality: 1 = excellent; 5 = very poor


74


Table 2. Statistical analysis of data in Table 1. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Yield (bu/A)

Seed qualitya

(1 – 5) Test weight

(lb/bu) Main plot:

97M50 19.6 1.9 bc 56.1 AG6730 16.9 2.3 bc 55.2 DP 7870 RR 21.3 1.4 c 56.1 HBK C5941 17.2 3.5 a 51.4 HBK R7028 21.4 2.3 bc 55.4 Jake 18.9 2.8 ab 54.0 S61-Q2 18.8 2.4 abc 55.2 S78-G6 25.1 2.4 abc 54.5

Sub plot:

Treatedb 25.5 a 1.7 b 56.7 a Untreated 14.3 b 3.0 a 52.8 b

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.5340 0.7492 0.7346 a Seed quality: 1 = excellent; 5 = very poor b T = treated 3 times (Aug 19, 30 and Sep 23); U = untreated Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)


75


Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data per 12 sweeps on Aug 26 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs

SLb GCWb VBCb Total SGSBb RBSBb BSBsb Total 97M50 T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 1.7 1.7 97M50 U 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 AG6730 T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 1.3 1.3 AG6730 U 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR T 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.7 0.7 DP 7870 RR U 1.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0.3 0.3 HBK C5941 T 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 HBK C5941 U 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.3 HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBK R7028 U 0 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.0 Jake T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jake U 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.7 0.3 1.0 S61-Q2 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S61-Q2 U 0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.0 S78-G6 T 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 S78-G6 U 0.7 0 0.7 1.3 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 19; U = untreated b SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB = southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs


76


Table 4. Statistical analysis of data from Table 3. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs

SLa GCWa VBCa Total SGSBa RBSBa BSBsa Total Main plot:

97M50 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 0 1.0 1.0 AG6730 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 0 0 0.7 0.7 DP 7870 RR 0.5 0 0.2 0.7 0 0 0.5 0.5 HBK C5941 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 HBK R7028 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.0 Jake 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.2 0.5 S61-Q2 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 S78-G6 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 0.5 0.3 0.8

Sub plot:

Treatedb 0.1 0.0 0.0 b 0.2 b 0 0.0 b 0.5 0.5 b Untreated 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.9 a 0.2 0.3 a 0.5 1.0 a

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.6242 0.6357 0.3562 0.9839 0.5681 0.6231 0.1540 0.0139 a SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB = southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs b Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 19 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)


77


Table 5. Mean misc. insect data data per 12 sweeps on Aug 26 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a Threecornered alfalfa hopper Big-eyed bug Spiders

97M50 T 2.0 0 0.3 97M50 U 3.3 0.3 0.7 AG6730 T 1.7 0 0 AG6730 U 1.0 0 0 DP 7870 RR T 1.3 0 0.3 DP 7870 RR U 4.0 0 2.3 HBK C5941 T 2.0 0.7 0.3 HBK C5941 U 2.7 0.3 1.3 HBK R7028 T 1.3 0 0 HBK R7028 U 1.3 0 2.0 Jake T 2.3 0 0.7 Jake U 4.3 0 0 S61-Q2 T 1.3 0 0.3 S61-Q2 U 0.7 0 0 S78-G6 T 1.3 0 0.7 S78-G6 U 1.0 0 0.7 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 19; U = untreated


78



Variety Threecornered alfalfa

hopper Big-eyed bug Spiders Main plot:

97M50 2.7 0.2 b 0.5 AG6730 1.3 0 b 0 DP 7870 RR 2.7 0 b 1.3 HBK C5941 2.3 0.5 a 0.8 HBK R7028 1.3 0 b 1.0 Jake 3.3 0 b 0.3 S61-Q2 1.0 0 b 0.2 S78-G6 1.2 0 b 0.7

Sub plot:

Treateda 1.7 0.1 0.3 b Untreated 2.3 0.1 0.9 a

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.2394 0.6264 0.0279 a Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 19 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)


79


Table 7. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data per 12 sweeps on Aug 31 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.


SLb GCWb VBCb Total SGSBb RBSBb BSBsb Total 97M50 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 97M50 U 0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0 0 0.3 0.3 AG6730 T 0.7 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 AG6730 U 0.7 0 1.7 2.3 0 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR U 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.7 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 HBK C5941 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBK C5941 U 0.3 0.3 0 0.7 0.3 1.3 0.7 2.3 HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 HBK R7028 U 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 1.0 Jake T 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 Jake U 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0.7 0.3 1.0 S61-Q2 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S61-Q2 U 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 1.3 0 1.3 S78-G6 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 S78-G6 U 0.3 1.0 0.7 2.0 0 1.3 0.7 2.0 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 30; U = untreated b SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB = southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs


80




SLa GCWa VBCa Total SGSBa RBSBa BSBsa Total Main plot:

97M50 0 0.3 0.5 0.8 0 0 0.3 0.3 AG6730 0.7 0 0.8 1.5 0 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.3 HBK C5941 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.2 HBK R7028 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 0.7 Jake 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.5 S61-Q2 0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7 S78-G6 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.0 0 0.7 0.5 1.2

Sub plot:

Treatedb 0.1 0.0 b 0 b 0.2 b 0 0 b 0.1 0.1 b Untreated 0.3 0.4 a 0.7 a 1.3 a 0.1 0.7 a 0.3 1.1 a

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.9140 0.2863 0.6406 0.5515 0.5177 0.2207 0.8881 0.4228 a SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB = southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs b Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 30 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)


81


Table 9. Mean misc. insect data data per 12 sweeps on Aug 31 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a Threecornered alfalfa hopper Grasshoppers Leafhoppers Spiders

97M50 T 0.7 0.3 0 0.3 97M50 U 2.3 0.3 0.7 0 AG6730 T 0 0 0 0 AG6730 U 5.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 DP 7870 RR T 0 0.3 0.3 0 DP 7870 RR U 6.3 1.0 1.0 0.7 HBK C5941 T 0 0 0.7 0 HBK C5941 U 3.0 0 0.3 1.0 HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 HBK R7028 U 2.7 0.3 2.3 3.0 Jake T 0.7 0 0.7 0 Jake U 2.7 0.3 0.7 0 S61-Q2 T 0.3 0 0.3 0 S61-Q2 U 3.3 1.3 1.0 3.3 S78-G6 T 0 0 0.3 0 S78-G6 U 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 30; U = untreated


82



Variety Threecornered alfalfa hopper Grasshoppers Leafhoppers Spiders

Main plot:

97M50 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 AG6730 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.7 DP 7870 RR 3.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 HBK C5941 1.5 0 0.5 0.5 HBK R7028 1.3 0.2 1.2 1.5 Jake 1.7 0.2 0.7 0 S61-Q2 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.7 S78-G6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3

Sub plot:

Treateda 0.2 b 0.1 b 0.3 b 0.0 b Untreated 3.4 a 0.5 a 0.8 a 1.3 a

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.3430 0.1699 0.1926 0.0283 a Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 30 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)


83


Table 11. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data per 12 sweeps on Sep 30 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.


SLb GCWb VBCb Total GSBb RBSBb BSBsb Total 97M50 T 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 97M50 U 0 2.3 2.3 4.7 0 2.0 0 2.0 AG6730 T 0.7 0 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7 AG6730 U 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.0 0 6.7 0 6.7 DP 7870 RR T 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 DP 7870 RR U 0 1.7 1.0 2.7 1.7 2.3 0.3 4.3 HBK C5941 T 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 1.0 HBK C5941 U 0.3 0.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 10.7 0 13.3 HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 HBK R7028 U 0 1.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 3.0 1.3 4.7 Jake T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 Jake U 0.3 1.3 1.0 2.7 0 3.0 0 3.0 S61-Q2 T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3 S61-Q2 U 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 5.0 0.7 5.7 S78-G6 T 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 1.0 S78-G6 U 0.7 1.7 0.3 2.7 0 4.7 0.3 5.0 a T = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23; U = untreated b SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; GSB = green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs


84




SLa GCWa VBCa Total GSBa RBSBa BSBsa Total Main plot:

97M50 0 1.3 1.2 2.5 0 1.0 0 1.0 AG6730 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.3 0 3.7 0 3.7 DP 7870 RR 0 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.3 0.2 2.3 HBK C5941 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.8 1.3 5.7 0.2 7.2 HBK R7028 0 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.5 0.8 2.5 Jake 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.5 0 1.7 0 1.7 S61-Q2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0 2.5 0.5 3.0 S78-G6 0.3 0.8 0.3 1.5 0 2.5 0.5 3.0

Sub plot:

Treatedb 0.2 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.3 b 0 0.3 b 0.2 0.5 b Untreated 0.2 1.3 a 1.1 a 2.6 a 0.6 4.7 a 0.3 5.6 a

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.8743 0.9657 0.2707 0.8812 0.5759 0.7165 0.3089 0.4999 a SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; GSB = green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs b Treated = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)


85


Table 13. Mean misc. insect data data per 12 sweeps on Sep 30 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Banded cucumber

beetle Big-eyed

bug Spiders Assassin

bugs 97M50 T 0.7 0 0 0 0 97M50 U 5.7 0.7 0 1.0 0 AG6730 T 0 0 0 0 0 AG6730 U 7.7 0.3 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR T 0.7 0 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR U 12.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0 HBK C5941 T 0 0 0 0 0 HBK C5941 U 5.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.0 HBK R7028 T 1.0 0 0 0 0.3 HBK R7028 U 6.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.0 Jake T 0.7 0 0 0 0 Jake U 5.0 0 0 0.7 0 S61-Q2 T 0.3 0 0 0 0 S61-Q2 U 6.3 0 0 0 0.3 S78-G6 T 0.3 0 0 0 0 S78-G6 U 8.3 1.3 0 1.0 0.7 a T = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23; U = untreated


86



Variety Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Banded cucumber

beetle Big-eyed bug Spiders Assassin

bugs Main plot:

97M50 3.2 0.3 0 0.5 0 AG6730 3.8 0.2 0 0 0 DP 7870 RR 6.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0 HBK C5941 2.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 HBK R7028 3.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 Jake 2.8 0 0 0.3 0 S61-Q2 3.3 0 0 0 0.2 S78-G6 4.3 0.7 0 0.5 0.3

Sub plot:

Treateda 0.5 b 0 b 0 b 0 b 0.0 b Untreated 7.2 a 0.6 a 0.2 a 0.5 a 0.5 a

Interactions: Variety x treatment P = 0.8951 0.5557 0.3562 0.5308 0.3710 a Treated = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA, LSD)

87


Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG V Soybean Insect Nursery Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN ⇓ North IV 7 6 14 1 21 7 28 5 35 3 42 4 49 11 56 NA 63 12

III 6 7 13 11 20 4 27 9 34 2 41 8 48 10 55 NA 62 12 5 2 12 5 19 6 26 1 33 8 40 9 47 3 54 10 61 NA

II 4 10 11 8 18 7 25 4 32 5 39 11 46 9 53 NA 60 12

I

3 10 10 11 17 2 24 3 31 1 38 6 45 NA 52 NA 59 12 2 4 9 5 16 6 23 7 30 NA 37 8 44 9 51 NA 58 NA 1 1 8 2 15 3 22 NA 29 NA 36 NA 43 NA 50 NA 57 NA

Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, trimmed to 40 ft long, with 1 buffer row between plots Variety = Jake

TREATMENTS AND RATES


(fl oz/A) 1 HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 2 HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 3 HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 4 HGW86 + Steward + MSO 6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 5 Steward 6.7 6 Leverage 360 + NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 7 Leverage + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 8 Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 9 Baythroid XL 2.3

10 Karate Z 1.7 11 Endigo ZC 4 12 Untreated ---

a NIS = non-ionic surfactant b COC = crop oil concentrate

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG V Soybean

88


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 12 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Planted Jake (MG V) on Jun 12; seed coated with bacterial inoculant to

promote nitrogen fixation Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row width, trimmed to 40 ft after emergence Herbicide: 0.75 oz/A First Rate, 1.5 qt Glyfos Xtra and 2.5 pt/A Dual II Magnum were

applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and boom at 33 gpa (final spray volume).

Treatments: Treatments 1-11 were applied with a 2-nozzle hand-held spray boom (no. 2

cone nozzles on 30 inch centers, 20 gpa) on Sep 20. Sampling: Soybeans @ R6 and on Sep 20 15 sweeps/plot on row 1 on Sep 21 (1 day after treatment, DAT) @ R6 15 sweeps/plot on row 2 on Sep 23 (3 DAT) @ R6 15 sweeps/plot on row 3 on Sep 27 (7 DAT) @ R6/7 15 sweeps/plot on row 4 on Oct 4 (14 DAT) @ R7 Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using


Discussion

Populations of pest insects did not begin increasing to “treatable” numbers until mid-

September. Thus, treatments were applied September 20 when soybean plants were R6. At 1 DAT, low/moderate levels of redbanded stink bug (RBSB) were collected from

untreated plots (Table 1). None of the HGW86 treatments controlled RBSB. No RBSB were collected from Leverage 360 + COC, Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S and Karate Z treatments. All treatments provided control of green cloverworm (GCW) (Table 2). Steward, Leverage 360 + NIS and Leverage 360 + COC treatments provided 100% control of GCW. HGW86 + MSO treatments did not control threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH), but the addition of Steward to this tank-mix appeared to increase control (Table 3). Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments provided 100% control of TCAH.

At 3 DAT, again, low/moderate levels of RBSB were collected from untreated plots (Table 4). Best control was provided by Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments. Also, the tank-mix of HGW86 + Steward + MSO also appeared to provide control. All treatments gave good control of low populations of soybean looper (SL), moderate populations of GCW and low populations of velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) (Table 5). Best control of TCAH was provided by Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments (Table 6).

At 7 DAT, best control of moderate populations of RBSB was provided by the same treatments as listed in the above paragraph---Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with


89


Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments (Table 7). Results were similar to those in the above paragraph for control of Lepidoptera pests (Table 8). Best control of TCAH was provided by Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S and Endigo ZC treatments (Table 9).

At 14 DAT, data were highly variable and/or populations of RBSB and Lepidoptera were low, so significant differences in control among treatments were not detected (Tables 10 and 11). Soybeans at this time were nearing maturity (R7). For TCAH, Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments controlled TCAH.

Since this experiment was not irrigated, the severe drought at the Beaumont Center (as well as all of SE Texas) resulted in the decision not to harvest plots. Estimated yields of all plots were less than 5 bu/A . The variety planted in this experiment was Jake which performed well in 2010 at the Beaumont Center. Jake may be very susceptible to drought.

In conclusion, the best treatments for RBSB control were Leverage 360 (regardless of the addition of COC or NIS), Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments. All of the insecticidal treatments provided good control of Lepidoptera. The addition of Steward to the lowest rate of HGW86 did not appear to increase Lepidoptera efficacy compared to the same rate of HGW86 alone. Differences in levels of Lepidoptera control as a function of HGW86 rate were not detected (lowest rate gave similar control as highest rate). Treatments containing pyrethroids gave best control of TCAH.


90


Table 1. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Southern

green Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0.25 1.0 2.25 ab 3.25 a 0.25 0.25 0.5 4.0 a

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0 0.25 2.5 ab 2.75 ab 0 0.5 0.5 3.25 a

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 4.0 a 4.0 a 0 0 0 4.0 a

HGW86 + Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 2.0 abc 2.0 abc 0 0 0 2.0 abc

Steward 6.7 0 0.25 0.75 bcd 1.0 bcd 0 0 0 1.0 bcd Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 0.75 bcd 0.75 cd 0 0 0 0.75 bcd

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0 0 0 d 0 d 0 0 0 0 d

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S

2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 0 0 d 0 d 0 0 0 0 d

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0.25 0.25 d 0.5 cd 0.25 0 0.25 0.75 bcd Karate Z 1.7 0 0 0 d 0 d 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 cd

Endigo ZC 4 0 0 0.5 cd 0.5 cd 0 0 0 0.5 cd Untreated --- 0 0 2.25 ab 2.25 abc 0 0.25 2.5 ab 0.25

NS NS NS NS NS a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


91


Table 2. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper

Green cloverworm

Velvetbean caterpillar Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 bc 1.25 bc 1.0 abc 2.75 bc HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 2.0 a 2.0 b 0.75 bcd 4.75 b HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 bc 1.5 bc 1.75 a 3.75 b


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 bc 0.25 bc 0.25 cd 1.0 d

Steward 6.7 0 c 0 c 0 d 0 d Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0 c 0 c 0 d 0 d

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0.75 bc 0 c 0 d 0.75 d

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 c 0.5 bc 0 d 0.5 d

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 c 1.0 bc 0 d 1.0 d Karate Z 1.7 0.5 bc 0.5 bc 0 d 1.0 d

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 c 0.5 bc 0.5 cd 1.25 cd Untreated --- 1.5 ab 8.0 a 1.5 ab 11.0 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


92


Table 3. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Threecornered alfalfa hopper Banded cucumber

beetle Adults Nymphs Total HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 2.5 ab 0 2.5 abc 1.0 a HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 1.0 a-d 0.25 1.25 a-d 0.25 b HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 3.25 ab 0.25 3.5 abc 0.5 ab


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0.75 bcd 0 0.75 bcd 0 b

Steward 6.7 2.25 abc 1.0 3.25 ab 0.25 b Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 cd 0.75 1.25 a-d 0 b

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0.5 cd 0.25 0.75 bcd 0 b

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 d 0.5 0.5 cd 0 b

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 d 0.25 0.25 d 0 b Karate Z 1.7 0 d 0 0 d 0 b

Endigo ZC 4 0 d 0 0 d 0 b Untreated --- 3.25 a 3.5 a 0.25 1.0 a

NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


93


Table 4. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 3 days after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Southern

green Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0 0.75 abc 2.0 abc 2.75 ab 0 0 0 2.75 abc

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0.25 1.75 a 0.75 cde 2.5 bc 0 0.25 0.25 3.0 abc

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 1.25 ab 4.0 a 5.25 a 0 0 0 5.25 a


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 c 0.75 cde 0.75 de 0 0 0 0.75 de

Steward 6.7 0.25 0 c 1.5 bcd 1.5 bcd 0.25 0 0.25 2.0 bcd Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 +

0.25% v/v 0 0.25 bc 0 e 0.25 de 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 e

Leverage 360 + COCb

2.8 + 1% v/v 0 0 c 0 e 0 e 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 e


2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 0 c 0 e 0 e 0 0 0 0 e

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0 c 0.25 de 0.25 de 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 e Karate Z 1.7 0 0.5 bc 0.5 de 1.0 cde 0.25 0 0.25 1.25 cde

Endigo ZC 4 0 0 c 0 e 0 e 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 e Untreated --- 0 0.25 bc 3.25 ab 3.5 ab 0 0 0 3.5 ab

NS NS NS NS a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


94


Table 5. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 3 days after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate


Green cloverworm


HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 bc HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

Steward 6.7 0.25 b 0 b 0 b 0.25 bc Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0.25 b 0 b 0 b 0.25 bc

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c Karate Z 1.7 0.5 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.75 b

Endigo ZC 4 0 b 0.5 b 0 b 0.5 bc Untreated --- 2.5 a 10.25 a 3.5 a 16.25 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


95


Table 6. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 15 sweeps per plot 3 days after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Adults Nymphs Total HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 4.5 a 1.25 5.75 a HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 3.5 ab 0.25 3.75 abc HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 4.5 a 0.25 4.75 a

HGW86 + Steward + MSO 6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 1.0 bc 0.75 1.75 bcd

Steward 6.7 3.5 a 0.5 4.0 ab Leverage 360 + NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0.25 c 0 0.25 de Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0 c 0.25 0.25 de

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 c 0 0 e Baythroid XL 2.3 0.25 c 0.5 0.75 cde

Karate Z 1.7 0.5 c 0.25 0.75 cde Endigo ZC 4 0.25 c 0.5 0.75 cde Untreated --- 2.75 ab 3.0 abc 0.25



96



Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T HGW86 +

MSO 6.75 +

0.25% v/v 1.0 0.5 b 1.5 bcd 0 0 0 1.5 bcd

HGW86 + MSO

10.1 + 0.25% v/v 1.0 0.5 b 1.5 abc 0.25 0 0.25 1.75 abc

HGW86 + MSO

13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0.75 1.5 ab 2.25 ab 0 0 0 2.25 ab

HGW86 + Steward +

MSO

6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 0.75 b 1.25 bcd 0.25 0 0.25 1.5 bcd

Steward 6.7 0 1.25 b 1.25 bcd 0 0.25 0.25 1.5 bcd Leverage 360

+ NISa 2.8 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 d 0 0 0 0 d

Leverage 360 + COCb

2.8 + 1% v/v 0.25 0.25 b 0.5 bcd 0.25 0 0.25 0.75 bcd


2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 0.25 b 0.25 cd 0 0 0 0.25 cd

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0 b 0 d 0 0 0 0 d Karate Z 1.7 0 0.75 b 0.75 bcd 0 0 0 0.75 bcd

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 0 b 0.25 cd 0 0 0 0.25 cd Untreated --- 3.75 a 0.5 4.25 a 0 0.25 4.5 a 0.25

NS NS NS NS a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


97



Treatment Rate


Green cloverworm


HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 bc HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 b 0 c HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 b 0 c


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 b 0 c

Steward 6.7 0 0 b 0 b 0 c Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0.25 0 b 0 b 0.25 bc

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 1.0 0.25 b 0 b 1.25 b

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 0 b 0 b 0 c

Baythroid XL 2.3 0.5 0 b 0 b 0.5 bc Karate Z 1.7 1.0 0 b 0 b 1.0 bc

Endigo ZC 4 0 0.25 b 0.25 b 0.5 bc Untreated --- 5.25 a 1.0 3.75 a 10.0 a



98


Table 9. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 7 days after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Grasshoppers Adults Nymphs Total HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 4.25 ab 1.25 5.5 a 0 b HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 3.75 ab 0.5 4.25 ab 0 b HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 6.25 a 0.75 7.0 a 0 b


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 1.5 b-e 0 1.5 bcd 0 b

Steward 6.7 3.75 ab 0.25 4.0 ab 0 b Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0 e 0 0 d 0 b

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0.75 cde 0 0.75 cd 0 b

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0.25 de 0.25 0.5 cd 0.25 b

Baythroid XL 2.3 0.25 de 0 0.25 d 0 b Karate Z 1.7 2.25 bcd 0.75 3.0 abc 0 b

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 de 0 0.25 d 0.5 ab Untreated --- 2.5 abc 3.0 abc 0.5 0.75 a



99



Treatment Rate


Total Aa Na Ta A N T HGW86 +

MSO 6.75 +

0.25% v/v 1.0 0.75 b 1.75 0 0 0 1.75

HGW86 + MSO

10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0.75 0.25 b 1.0 0.25 0 0.25 1.25

HGW86 + MSO

13.5 + 0.25% v/v 1.75 0.25 b 2.0 0 0 0 2.0

HGW86 + Steward +

MSO

6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 1.5 0.25 b 1.75 0.25 0 0.25 2.0

Steward 6.7 0.75 0.25 b 1.0 0.5 0 0.5 1.5 Leverage 360

+ NISa 2.8 +

0.25% v/v 0.75 0.5 b 1.25 0 0.25 0.25 1.5

Leverage 360 + COCb

2.8 + 1% v/v 1.5 0 b 1.5 0.25 0 0.25 1.75


2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 0.25 b 0.25 0 0 0 0.25

Baythroid XL 2.3 1.25 0 b 1.25 0 0 0 1.25 Karate Z 1.7 1.25 0.5 b 1.75 0 0 0 1.75

Endigo ZC 4 2.75 0 b 2.75 0 0 0 2.75 Untreated --- 2.0 a 1.25 3.25 0.25 5.25 5.5

8.75

NS NS NS NS NS NS a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


100



Treatment Rate


Green cloverworm


HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 0 0 HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0.25 0 0 0.25 HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 0 0


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 0 0

Steward 6.7 0 0 0.25 0.25 Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 0 0

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 0 0.25 0 0.25

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 0 0 0 0

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0 0 0 Karate Z 1.7 0.25 0 0 0.25

Endigo ZC 4 0.5 0 0 0.5 Untreated --- 0 0.5 0.75 1.25

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


101


Table 12. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 15 sweeps per plot 14 days after treatment for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 11.25 a 0.25 11.5 a HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 9.75 a 0 9.75 a HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 8.25 abc 0 8.25 abc


6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v 11.75 a 0 11.75 a

Steward 6.7 9.0 ab 0.25 9.25 ab Leverage 360 +

NISa 2.8 + 0.25% v/v 3.0 cd 0 3.0 cd

Leverage 360 + COCb 2.8 + 1% v/v 1.0 d 0 1.0 d

Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S 2.0 + 0.33 lb/A 1.75 d 0 1.75 d

Baythroid XL 2.3 2.75 bcd 0.25 3.0 bcd Karate Z 1.7 3.0 bcd 0 3.0 cd

Endigo ZC 4 2.0 d 0 2.0 d Untreated --- 10.75 a 11.0 a 0.25


102


Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VI Soybean Block 9N

Beaumont, TX 2011

← North PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 3 2 1 3 2 4 1 5 2 6 3 7 1 8 3 9 1 10 2 11 3 12 2 13 4 14 4 15 4 16 4

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety: AG6730




(fl oz/A) 1 Belt SC 2 2 Belt SC 3 3 Cobalt Advanced 25 4 Untreated ---

Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Planted AG6730 (4 treatments with 4 replications = 16 plots) on May 27 (8

viable seeds/ft) Emergence on Jun 3 Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-

emergence on May 27 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and boom at 33 gpa.

Irrigation: Plots were flush irrigated as needed Fertilizer: None

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VI Soybean

103


Treatments: Treatments 1 – 3 applied with a 2-nozzle hand-held spray boom (no. 2 cone nozzles on 30 inch centers, 20 gpa) on Sep 15 when insect populations began to increase.

Sampling: Soybeans @ V5 on Jun 27 10 sweeps/plot on Sep 16 (1 DAT), Sep 20 (5 DAT), Sep 23 (8 DAT), Sep

30 (@ R6, 15 DAT) and Oct 11 (@ R7, 26 DAT)

Discussion

At 1 day after treatment (DAT), Belt SC and Cobalt Advanced treatments provided good control of green cloverworm (GCW) and velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) (Table 3). Populations of stink bugs were too low for meaningful evaluation 2, 5, 8 and 15 DAT (Tables 2, 5, 8 and 11). At 5 and 8 DAT, all treatments provided good control of all 3 Lepidoptera species (Tables 6 and 9). At 5 and 8 DAT, Cobalt Advanced significantly reduced threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH) populations (84 and 77% fewer TCAH, respectively, compared to the untreated) (Tables 7 and 10). Cobalt Advanced also gave excellent control of banded cucumber beetle (Table 10). At 15 DAT all treatments provided good control of low populations of GCW and VBC (Table 12). At 26 DAT populations of Lepidoptera had decreased to very low levels due to the late maturity (R7) of the soybeans. However, moderate populations of redbanded and brown stink bugs were found in untreated plots at this late date (Table 14). Data show all insecticide treatments reduced these stink bug populations. Data were highly variable because one untreated plot had very high populations of brown stink bug nymphs which had recently hatched from an egg mass. Yields were high and seed quality was good across all treatments (Table 1). The high yields were in large part due to irrigations. The average yield of the 3 insecticide treatments was 9.9 bu/A more than the untreated which is a significant difference statistically and economically. In conclusion, the higher rate of Belt SC appeared to provide slightly better control of soybean looper than the lower rate, but both rates were satisfactory. The Cobalt Advanced treatment provided the best control of all pest insects encountered in the experiment. Table 1. Mean yield data for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Seed qualitya

(1 – 5) Yieldb

(bu/A) Belt SC 2 1.8 53.9 a Belt SC 3 1.6 53.2 a

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.8 52.8 a Untreated --- 43.4 b 1.9

NS a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


104


Table 2. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Redbanded

adults Brown

Total Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Belt SC 3 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75 Untreated --- 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper Green

cloverworm Velvetbean caterpillar Total

Belt SC 2 4.0 5.25 b 0.5 b 9.75 b Belt SC 3 1.75 3.25 b 1.5 b 6.5 c

Cobalt Advanced 25 2.0 0.25 c 0 b 2.25 d Untreated --- 33.0 a 6.5 4.5 a 44.0 a

NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 4. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


beetle Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 8.0 1.5 9.5 2.0 ab Belt SC 3 8.25 1.75 10.0 0.75 bc

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.0 1.0 2.0 0 c Untreated --- 5.0 0.5 2.5 a 5.5

NS NS NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


105


Table 5. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern green

nymphs Redbanded

adults

Brown

Total Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5 Belt SC 3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.75 Untreated --- 0 0 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.5

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate



Belt SC 2 2.0 b 0 b 0 b 2.0 b Belt SC 3 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.5 b 0 b 0.25 b 1.75 b Untreated --- 8.5 a 23.0 a 11.75 a 43.25 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 7. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Assassin bug Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 19.5 a 0.75 20.25 a 0.25 ab Belt SC 3 17.0 a 1.0 18.0 a 0 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 2.75 b 0.25 3.0 b 0 b Untreated --- 17.25 a 18.25 a 1.0 0.75 a



106



Treatment Rate


Total Aa Na Ta A N T Belt SC 2 0.25 0.75 1.0 0 0.5 0.5 1.5 Belt SC 3 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75 0 0.75 1.25 Untreated --- 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate



Belt SC 2 1.25 b 0 b 0.5 b 1.75 b Belt SC 3 0.5 b 0 b 0 b 0.5 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.75 b 0.25 b 0 b 2.0 b Untreated --- 8.0 a 49.75 a 9.0 a 66.75 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 10. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


beetle Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 21.0 a 0.75 21.75 a 2.5 a Belt SC 3 20.75 a 0.75 21.5 a 3.25 a

Cobalt Advanced 25 5.0 b 0.25 5.25 b 0 b Untreated --- 22.25 a 22.5 a 0.25 4.5 a



107



Treatment Rate


Total Aa Na Ta A N T Belt SC 2 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.0 1.75 Belt SC 3 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Cobalt Advanced 25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 Untreated --- 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0 0.25 1.0


Treatment Rate



Belt SC 2 0 0 b 0 b 0 b Belt SC 3 0 0.75 b 0 b 0.75 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.5 1.0 b 0 b 1.5 b Untreated --- 5.25 a 1.0 1.75 a 8.0 a

NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 13. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 9.25 0 9.25 Belt SC 3 10.25 0.25 10.5

Cobalt Advanced 25 15.25 0.25 15.5 Untreated --- 17.0 0.25 17.25



108



Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern green

nymphs

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T Belt SC 2 0.25 0 0.75 0.75 2.5 0.75 3.25 4.25 Belt SC 3 2.25 0.25 1.0 1.25 0.75 0.5 1.25 4.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 0 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 4.75 Untreated --- 0.25 0.25 2.25 2.5 0.75 7.25 8.0 10.75


Treatment Rate



Belt SC 2 0 0 0.25 0.25 Belt SC 3 0 0.25 0 0.25

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 Untreated --- 0 0.25 0.25 0.5

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 16. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 26 days after treatment for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total Belt SC 2 14.5 0.25 14.75 Belt SC 3 16.5 0.25 16.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 10.5 0.25 10.75 Untreated --- 15.0 0.25 15.25


109


Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VII Soybean Insect Nursery Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN ⇓ North

IV 9 8 18 7 27 4 36 3 45 NA 54 NA 63 NA 72 6 8 NA 17 2 26 NA 35 NA 44 NA 53 NA 62 NA 71 5

III 7 8 16 3 25 NA 34 NA 43 NA 52 NA 61 NA 70 1 II 6 8 15 6 24 4 33 NA 42 1 51 NA 60 NA 69 7

I

5 8 14 7 23 6 32 3 41 5 50 NA 59 NA 68 2 4 NA 13 NA 22 NA 31 NA 40 NA 49 2 58 5 67 NA 3 NA 12 NA 21 NA 30 NA 39 4 48 1 57 NA 66 NA 2 NA 11 NA 20 NA 29 6 38 7 47 NA 56 NA 65 NA 1 NA 10 NA 19 1 28 2 37 3 46 4 55 5 64 NA

Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, trimmed to 40 ft long, with 1 buffer row between plots Variety = HBK R7028



(fl oz/A) 1 GWN-9857 2.0 2 GWN-9857 2.5 3 GWN-9857 3.0 4 GWN-9857 3.5 5 GWN-9857 4.0 6 GWN-9857 5.0 7 Endigo ZC 5.0 8 Untreated ---

Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VII Soybean

110


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Planted HBK R7028 (MG VII) on Jun 13; seed coated with bacterial

inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row width, trimmed to 40 ft after emergence Herbicide: 0.75 oz/A First Rate, 1.5 qt Glyfos Xtra and 2.5 pt/A Dual Magnum were

applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and boom at 33 gpa, final spray volume.

Treatments: Treatments 1-7 were applied with a 2-nozzle hand-held spray boom (no. 2

cone nozzles on 30 inch centers, 15 gpa, final spray volume) on Sep 22. Sampling: 15 sweeps/plot on row 1 on Sep 23 (1 DAT) @ R6 15 sweeps/plot on row 2 on Sep 26 (4 DAT) @ R6 15 sweeps/plot on row 3 on Sep 30 (8 DAT) @ R6 15 sweeps/plot on row 4 on Oct 7 (15 DAT) @ R7 Harvest: Plots harvested on Oct 21 Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 40 ft long Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using


Discussion

Plots were monitored throughout the season for insect pests which were discovered

increasing in numbers in mid-September. Consequently, treatments were applied September 22. At 1 DAT, stink bug populations were too low for meaningful evaluation (Table 2).

However, green cloverworm (GCW) and velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) were controlled by all spray treatments (Table 3). Endigo ZC significantly reduced threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH) populations while all spray treatments significantly reduced low populations of banded cucumber beetle (BCB) (Table 4).

At 4 DAT, all GWN-9857 treatments reduced low populations of redbanded stink bug (RBSB) compared to the untreated (Table 5). The Endigo ZC treatment provided excellent control of RBSB. All spray treatments provided excellent control of low populations of soybean looper (SL) and moderate populations of GCW and VBC (Table 6). All spray treatments significantly reduced populations of TCAH (Table 7). Data suggest the lowest rate of Gowan-9857 did not perform as well as the higher rates.

At 8 DAT, all spray treatments reduced low populations of RBSB (Table 8). Populations of Lepidoptera in the untreated were too low for meaningful evaluation (Table 9). At 15 DAT, all spray treatments continued to provide control of low populations of RBSB and brown stink bug (Table 11).


111


Yields were low due to the extreme drought (soybeans were not irrigated) (Table 1). In addition, some of the plots were located in areas with poor soil (excessive salt) which affected yields---this is why many plots were not used (see “NAs” on the plot plan). These areas could not be identified before planting. Also, untreated plots were intentionally located on the west margin of the soybean field to minimize drift---this turned out to be an agronomic and statistical mistake. Therefore, for all the above reasons, yield data are not reliable. However, data show all spray treatments siginificantly improved seed quality.

In conclusion, all GWN-9857 treatments effectively controlled SL, GCW and VBC. Data also indicate GWN-9857 has activity against RBSB and TCAH. Finally, data suggest rates lower than 2.0 fl oz/A of Gowan-9857 should be evaluated in the future. Table 1. Mean yield data for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Seed quality

(1 – 5) Yield (bu/A)

GWN-9857 2.0 2.1 b 10.2 c GWN-9857 2.5 2.0 b 13.7 abc GWN-9857 3.0 1.9 b 18.0 a GWN-9857 3.5 1.9 b 15.1 ab GWN-9857 4.0 1.8 b 11.9 bc GWN-9857 5.0 2.1 b 16.7 a Endigo ZC 5.0 1.8 b 15.6 ab Untreated --- 2.8 a 18.3 a

a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


112


Table 2. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate


Total Aa Na Ta A N T GWN-9857 2.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 GWN-9857 2.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.25 GWN-9857 3.0 0.25 1.0 1.25 0.25 0 0.25 1.5 GWN-9857 3.5 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 GWN-9857 5.0 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75 Endigo ZC 5.0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 Untreated --- 0.5 1.25 1.75 0.25 0 0.25 2.0

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate


Green cloverworm


GWN-9857 2.0 0.5 0.25 b 0 b 0.75 b GWN-9857 2.5 1.0 0.25 b 0 b 1.25 b GWN-9857 3.0 0.5 0.5 b 0 b 1.0 b GWN-9857 3.5 0.25 0 b 0 b 0.25 b GWN-9857 4.0 0.75 0 b 0 b 0.75 b GWN-9857 5.0 1.5 0 b 0 b 1.5 b Endigo ZC 5.0 0.5 0.5 b 0 b 1.0 b Untreated --- 6.0 a 1.5 1.75 a 9.25 a



113


Table 4. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


beetle Adults Nymphs Total GWN-9857 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 a 0 b GWN-9857 2.5 0.75 1.25 2.0 a 0 b GWN-9857 3.0 1.0 1.25 2.25 a 0 b GWN-9857 3.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 ab 0 b GWN-9857 4.0 0 0.25 0.25 b 0.25 b GWN-9857 5.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 ab 0 b Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0 0 b 0 b Untreated --- 1.5 2.5 a 1.0 1.0 a

NS NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

Table 5. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Green nymph

Redbanded Brown Total Aa Na Ta A N T

GWN-9857 2.0 0 0.5 0.75 b 1.25 ab 0 0 0 1.25 ab GWN-9857 2.5 0 0.25 0.25 b 0.5 b 0 0 0 0.5 b GWN-9857 3.0 0.75 0 0.25 b 0.25 b 0 0 0 1.0 b GWN-9857 3.5 0 1.25 0.25 b 1.5 ab 0 0 0 1.5 ab GWN-9857 4.0 0 0.5 0.25 b 0.75 b 0 0 0 0.75 b GWN-9857 5.0 0 0.5 1.0 b 1.5 ab 0.25 0 0.25 1.75 ab Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 b Untreated --- 0.25 2.25 a 0.75 3.0 a 0 0.25 3.5 a 0.25

NS NS NS NS NS a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.06 for redbanded total and total stink bugs, all others P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


114


Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate


Green cloverworm


GWN-9857 2.0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 2.5 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 3.0 0 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 b GWN-9857 3.5 0.5 b 0 b 0 b 0.5 b GWN-9857 4.0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 5.0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b Endigo ZC 5.0 0 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 b Untreated --- 1.5 a 6.75 a 3.25 a 11.5 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 7. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total GWN-9857 2.0 1.75 b 0.75 2.5 b GWN-9857 2.5 0.5 bc 0.25 0.75 c GWN-9857 3.0 1.25 bc 0.25 1.5 bc GWN-9857 3.5 1.0 bc 0 1.0 bc GWN-9857 4.0 0 c 0.25 0.25 c GWN-9857 5.0 1.25 bc 0.25 1.5 bc Endigo ZC 5.0 0 c 0 0 c Untreated --- 5.75 a 6.75 a 1.0



115


Table 8. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern green

nymph

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T GWN-9857 2.0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.0 GWN-9857 2.5 0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.25 0 0.25 1.25 GWN-9857 3.0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 GWN-9857 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GWN-9857 5.0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 Untreated --- 4.0 0.75 1.5 2.25 0 0 0 6.25

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate


Green cloverworm


GWN-9857 2.0 0 0 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 2.5 0 0 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 3.0 0 0 0.25 b 0.25 b GWN-9857 3.5 0 0 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 b 0 b GWN-9857 5.0 0 0 0 b 0 b Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0.25 0 b 0.25 b Untreated --- 0.25 0.5 1.0 a 1.75 a

Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


116


Table 10. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total GWN-9857 2.0 2.25 0 2.25 GWN-9857 2.5 3.5 0.25 3.75 GWN-9857 3.0 3.25 0 3.25 GWN-9857 3.5 3.75 0 3.75 GWN-9857 4.0 1.5 0.25 1.75 GWN-9857 5.0 1.75 0 1.75 Endigo ZC 5.0 1.0 0 1.0 Untreated --- 5.25 1.0 6.25

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 11. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Green Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T A GWN-9857 2.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 1.0 GWN-9857 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 GWN-9857 3.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.75 1.0 0 1.0 GWN-9857 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.5 GWN-9857 5.0 0 0 0 0.25 1.0 1.25 0.5 1.75 Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0.75 0 0.75 Untreated --- 0.75 0.75 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 0 4.5

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


117


Table 12. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total GWN-9857 2.0 19.0 1.75 a 20.75 a GWN-9857 2.5 11.0 0.5 b 11.5 ab GWN-9857 3.0 8.25 0.25 b 8.5 abc GWN-9857 3.5 7.5 0.75 ab 8.25 abc GWN-9857 4.0 8.5 0 b 8.5 abc GWN-9857 5.0 12.0 0.25 b 12.25 ab Endigo ZC 5.0 3.0 0 b 3.0 c Untreated --- 0 b 4.25 4.25 bc

NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.06 for total, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD)

118


DuPont Soybean Seed Treatment Study Beaumont, TX

2011

← North PLOT PLAN I II III IV

1 10 2 6 3 9 4 1 5 1 6 11 7 10 8 6 9 4 10 3 11 8 12 2

13 8 14 5 15 2 16 11 17 2 18 4 19 3 20 5 21 9 22 10 23 7 24 10 25 5 26 7 27 6 28 8 29 7 30 2 31 1 32 3 33 6 34 9 35 11 36 4 37 11 38 1 39 5 40 9 41 3 42 8 43 4 44 7

Plot size = 4 rows x 20 ft Shaded plots treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb ai/A



(µg ai/seed)

1 DPX-HGW86 75 2 DPX-HGW86 100 3 DPX-HGW86 125 4 DPX-HGW86 150 5 DPX-HGW86 + DPX-YG771 75 + 95 6 DPX-HGW86 + DPX-YX860 75 + 75 7 DPX-HGW86 + DPX-YX860 125 + 75 8 DPX-YX860 75 9 DPX-YG771 95 10 DPX-VA780 75 11 Untreated ---

DuPont Soybean Seed Treatment Study

119


Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Planted test (11 treatments, with 4 replications) on Jun 12 (8 viable seeds/ft);

all seed treated with Nitrastik-S (inoculants for soybeans, ‘S’ culture, Bradyrhizobium japonicum

Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Emergence on Jun 17 Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5

pt/A were applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and boom at 33 gpa.

Treatments: All plots sprayed with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb ai/A applied with a 2-person

hand-held spray boom (13- No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 15 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 7

All plots sprayed with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A as above on Sep 23 Sampling: Stand counts (plants in 3 ft of row) on Jul 13 Collected 10 plants: measured average plant ht and number of thrips and

grape colaspis on Jul 13 Harvest: Harvested plots on Oct 21 Plot size = 2 middle rows, 30 row spacing, 20 ft long Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using


Discussion

None of the seed treatments adversely affected plant stand or affected plant height (Table

1). Very few thrips and adult grape colaspis (or any other seedling insect pests) were found during inspections of soybean seedlings. However, data suggest DPX-VA780 seed treatment controlled thrips. All plots, including untreated plots, were sprayed twice for late season insect pests, such as Lepidoptera defoliators and stink bugs, which can have significant negative impacts on seed quality and yield. Seed quality was relatively good throughout the experiment. In general, yields were relatively low throughout the experiment due to a severe drought (soybeans were not irrigated, but rainfed). However, yields of all seed treatments, except DPX-HGW86 at 125 micrograms ai per seed, were higher than the untreated. The average yield of all seed treatments was 16.7 bu/A which was 2.8 bu/A more than the untreated. This suggests seed treatments, in general, increased yields under very low seedling insect pest pressure. DPX-VA780 seed treatment outyielded the untreated 3.8 bu/A. The highest yielding seed treatment, DPX-HGW86 at 100 micrograms ai per seed, outyielded the untreated 6.2 bu/A.

DuPont Soybean Seed Treatment Study

120


Table 1. Mean data for DuPont soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(µg ai/seed)

Stand (plants/3

ft) Plant ht.

(cm) Thrips/10

plants

Grape collaspis/10

plants

Seed qualitya

(1 -5) Yieldb

(bu/A) DPX-HGW86 75 25 22 6 ab 0 cd 2.3 15.9 cde DPX-HGW86 100 25 21 6 ab 1 bcd 2.3 20.1 a DPX-HGW86 125 25 20 5 b 1 a-d 2.3 12.9 f DPX-HGW86 150 27 22 5 b 1 bcd 2.2 17.4 bc

DPX-HGW86 + DPX-YG771 75 + 95 25 21 8 ab 2 abc 2.2 18.7 ab

DPX-HGW86 + DPX-YX860 75 + 75 25 21 7 ab 3 a 2.1 15.1 de

DPX-HGW86 + DPX-YX860 125 + 75 24 22 6 ab 1 bcd 2.1 14.8 def

DPX-YX860 75 22 20 11 a 2 ab 2.0 16.5 cd DPX-YG771 95 23 22 4 bc 2 a 2.3 17.7 bc DPX-VA780 75 25 21 1 c 0 d 2.2 17.7 bc

Untreated --- 25 10 ab 21 1 bcd 13.9 ef 2.4 NS NS NS

a Seed Quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

121


Syngenta Soybean Seed Treatment Study Block 9S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN


1 4 5 3 9 2 13 1 2 1 6 4 10 3 14 2 3 3 7 2 11 1 15 4 4 2 8 1 12 4 16 3

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Test located on east end of block

Variety: S68-D4 (seed provided by Syngenta) Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers


Treatment no. Description Contents

1 Untreated ---

2 ApronMaxx RFCa 2 fungicides (mefenoxam and fludioxonil)

3 CruiserMaxxa 2 fungicides (mefenoxam and

fludioxonil) + 1 insecticide (thiamethoxam)

4 Avicta Complete Beansa 1 nematicide (abamectin) + 2 fungicides

(mefenoxam and fludioxonil) + 1 insecticide (thiamethoxam)

a Seed treatment

Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Planted test (4 treatments with 4 replications = 16 plots) on Jun 15 (8 viable

seeds/ft); seed coated with bacterial inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5


Irrigation: Plots were flush irrigated as needed

Syngenta Soybean Seed Treatment Study

122


Fertilizer: None Treatments: Seed treatment applied by Syngenta. Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A applied to all plots on Sep 7 Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A applied to all plots on Sep 23 Sampling: Soybeans @ V1 on Jun 27 No visual differences in treatments noted on Jun 27; no early season insect

pests observed Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 2 Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long

Discussion

The objective of this experiment is to determine if the Syngenta seed treatments produce a yield increase when early season insect pressure is low or nil. Observations detected no early season insect damage or pressure among treatments. Once insect pest populations (primarily Lepidoptera defoliators and stink bugs) began to increase (early September, soybeans R5/6), all plots were sprayed twice with broad spectrum insecticides. Data show all treatments, including the untreated, produced good quality seed (Table 1). Although differences were not significant, Avicta Complete Beans outyielded the untreated 2.6 bu/A. More research should be conducted to determine if these seed treatments, particularly Avicta Complete Beans, consistently produce yield boosts under low or nil early season insect pressure. Another explanation for the numerical increase in yield for Avicta Complete Beans is control of nematodes by this seed treatment which possesses abamectin, a nematicide. Time permitting, the Entomology Project will sample the soil from the experimental site for nematodes. Finally, keep in mind the experiment was irrigated periodically. Table 1. Mean yield data for Syngenta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Contents Seed qualitya

(1 – 5) Yieldb

(bu/A) Untreated --- 1.0 41.9

ApronMaxx RFC 2 fungicides (mefenoxam and fludioxonil) 1.0 40.9

CruiserMaxx 2 fungicides (mefenoxam and

fludioxonil) + 1 insecticide (thiamethoxam)

1.0 40.2

Avicta Complete Beans 1 nematicide (abamectin) + 2 fungicides

(mefenoxam and fludioxonil) + 1 insecticide (thiamethoxam)

1.3 44.5

a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

123


Valent Soybean Seed Treatment Study Block 9S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN


1 1 3 2 5 2 7 2 2 2 4 1 6 1 8 1

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Test located on west end of block

Variety: HBK 7028 Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreated --- 2a Rancona Xxtra + NipsIt INSIDE 3.5 + 1.28

a Seed treatment

Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Planted test (2 treatments with 4 replications = 8 plots) on Jun 15 (8 viable

seeds/ft); seed coated with bacterial inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5


Irrigation: Plots were flush irrigated as needed Fertilizer: None Treatments: Seed treatment applied by Valent. Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A applied to all plots on Sep 7 Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A applied to all plots on Sep 23 Sampling: Soybeans @ V1 on Jun 27

Valent Soybean Seed Treatment Study

124


No visual differences in treatments noted on Jun 27; no early season insect pests observed

Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 2 Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long

Discussion

The objective of this experiment is to determine if Rancona Xxtra + NipsIt INSIDE seed treatment produces a yield increase when early season insect pressure is low or nil. Observations detected no differences in early season insect damage between plots planted with treated and untreated seed. Once insect pest populations (primarily Lepidoptera defoliators and stink bugs) began to increase (early September, soybeans at R5/6), all plots were sprayed twice with broad spectrum insecticides. Data show a slight seed quality improvement and yield increase (1.2 bu/A) for plots planted with treated compared to untreated seed (Table 1). These differences were not significant. If soybean price is $13/bu, this yield increase represents about $16/A increase in revenue. If the cost of the seed treatment is $5.25/A, then the net return on investment is about $10-11/A. Of course, these results should be viewed with caution, since the yield differences were not significant. Also note this experiment was irrigated as needed. Table 1. Mean yield data for Valent soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Seed qualitya

(1 – 5) Yieldb

(bu/A) Untreated --- 1.3 34.6

Rancona Xxtrac + NipsIt INSIDEc 3.5 + 1.28 1.0

35.8 NS NS

a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture c Seed treatment Means in a column are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

125


Soybean Fungicide Evaluations Block 9S

Beaumont, TX 2011

PLOT PLAN ← North

Rep I 101 1 102 2 103 3 104 4

Buffer strip

Rep II 201 1 202 4 203 2 204 3

Buffer strip

Rep III 301 4 302 3 303 2 304 1

Buffer strip

Rep IV 401 3 402 4 403 1 404 2

Plot number is italicized Treatment number is bolded Plot size = 1 row, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety = HBK R7028



(fl oz/A) 1 Untreated 2 Topguard 7 3 Topguard 14 4 Domark 5

Soybean Fungicide Evaluations

126


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill planted with HBK R7028 (MG VII) on Jun 15. Plot size: 1 row, 30 inch row width, trimmed to 20 ft after emergence Herbicide: 0.75 oz/A First Rate, 1.5 qt/A Glyphos Xtra and 2.5 pt/A Dual Magnum

were applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a hand-held 3-nozzle (110-04) boom at 33 gpa.

Irrigations: As needed Fertilizer: None, seed was inoculated with Nitrastik-S. Treatments: Fungicide treatment on Sept 8 when the soybean was at the R3/4 stage. Rating: Foliar disease severity was measured on Oct 6. Harvest: Harvested plots on Nov 2 Size harvested plot = 1 row, 30 inch row spacing 20 ft long Yield adjusted to bu/A @ 13% moisture

Soybean Fungicide Evaluations

127


Results & Discussion We did detect no treatment effect on foliar disease, seed quality or yield.


(fl oz/A) Foliar disease

(%)* Seed

quality** Yield (bu/A)

1 Untreated 0.8 1.1 41.5 2 Topguard 7 1.8 1.0 39.9 3 Topguard 14 2.3 1.1 40.6 4 Domark 5 1.0 1.0 41.7

Statistics (P = 0.05) Not significant

Not significant

Not significant

*Percentage of diseased foliage by Cercospora leaf spot; no Asian soybean rust was detected **1-5 scale: 1= excellent and 5 = very poor

A. % foliar disease

B. Seed quality (1-5 scale, 1 = excellent)

C. Yield (bu/A)

A

B

C

128


RED IMPORTED FIRE ANT PREDATION ON MEXICAN RICE BORER IN SUGARCANE AT BEAUMONT, TX IN 20111

M.T. VanWeelden1, J.M. Beuzelin1, B.E. Wilson1, T.E. Reagan1, and M. O. Way2 1Department of Entomology, LSU AgCenter

2Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont, Texas

A study was initiated in the summer of 2011 at the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont, TX to assess the effect of predation by the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) on Mexican rice borer (MRB) injury to sugarcane. The experiment was conducted in plots of the 2010 and 2011 sugarcane variety tests by establishing ant-suppressed and unsuppressed areas. Ant populations were suppressed using a granule bait formulation of hydramethylnon and S-methoprene applied to the rows and bases of plants.

In each area of the variety tests, MRB injury was assessed in four sugarcane cultivars of interest; two conventional cultivars and two energy cultivars (Table 1). Bored internodes and emergence holes from MRB were counted on 10 randomly selected stalks from each plot using destructive sampling and a stalk-splitter machine borrowed from the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Weslaco. The percentage of bored internodes and number of emergence holes were analyzed using generalized linear models (Proc Glimmix, SAS Institute) with binomial and Poisson distributions, respectively.

A 50% increase in the percentage of bored internodes was observed across all ant-suppressed areas. However, statistical analysis did not detect differences (F=1.48, P=0.284) supporting the numerical trend (Table 1). A difference in emergence holes per stalk was associated with ant suppression (F=2.43, P=0.023). The mean number of emergence holes per stalk across all unsuppressed areas was 0.16, and increased to 0.36 in areas where ants were suppressed. These data suggest predation of the MRB by the red imported fire ant decreases both injury and build-up of pest populations in sugarcane. Additional data collected from pitfall traps implemented throughout the summer to detect relative abundance of the red imported fire ant may help to better quantify the role of ant predation. MRB infestations in leaf sheaths recorded bi-weekly still need to be analyzed.

Table 1. Mean percentage of bored internodes and emergence per stalk by sugarcane cultivar with ants suppressed and unsuppressed in Beaumont, TX, 2011

Variety

Ants Suppressed Ants Not Suppressed % Bored

internodes Emergence/stalk % Bored

internodes Emergence/stalk HoCP 85-845 (plant and ratoon) 6.28 0.1 3.36 0.07 HoCP 04-838 (plant and ratoon) 11.67 0.4 9.61 0.15

Ho 02-113 (plant) 6.51 0.14 7.79 0.06 L 79-1002 (plant) 6.62 0.23 9.76 0.22

Ho 08-9001 (ratoon) 17.48 0.4 9.19 0.15 Ho 08-9003 (ratoon) 33.88 0.99 13.04 0.3

1 This research is part of the Ph.D. dissertation program of Matt VanWeelden

129


Evaluation of Commercial and Experimental Sugarcane Cultivars for Resistance to the Mexican Rice Borer, Beaumont, TX, 2010 and 2011

T.E. Reagan1, B.E. Wilson1, J.M. Beuzelin1, W.H. White2, M.O. Way3, and M. VanWeelden1 1Department of Entomology, LSU AgCenter

2USDA Sugarcane Research Unit at Houma, Louisiana 3Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont

Because of the limitations of chemical and biological control against the Mexican rice borer

(MRB), Eoreuma loftini, host plant resistance is an important part of management. As a control tactic, host plant resistance can not only aid in reducing stalk borer injury, but can also reduce area-wide populations and potentially slow the spread of the MRB. The effect of cultivars on reducing area-wide populations is examined by comparing the number of adult emergence holes. In addition, recent research suggests resistant cultivars which impede stalk entry and prolong larval exposure on plant surfaces may enhance the efficacy of insecticide applications. Continued evaluation of stalk borer resistance is necessary as host plant resistance remains a valuable tool in stalk borer IPM.

A 2-year field study was conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont to assess cultivar resistance to the MRB among commercial and experimental sugarcane cultivars. Over both years, 38 cultivars were evaluated. The tests included a wide variety of cultivars developed from breeding programs in St. Gabriel, LA; Houma, LA; Canal Point, FL; and Natal, South Africa. In addition, the tests examined resistance in 4 biomass energy cultivars. In both years, the tests had 1-row, 12-foot plots arranged in a randomized block design with 5 replications.

2010 Evaluation

The 25 varieties evaluated in 2010 include: 5 in commercial use (HoCP 85-845, HoCP 96-540, HoCP 00-950, L 01-299, and L 03-371), 11 experimental clones (HoCP 05-902, HoCP 05-961, HoCP 04-838, Ho 06-563, Ho 07-613, Ho 07-604, Ho 07-617, Ho 07-612, Ho 06-537, L 07-68, and L 07-57), 3 clones bred for high fiber content (Ho 06-9610, US 93-15, and US 01-40), 2 energy canes (US 08-9001 and US 08-9003), and 4 South African cultivars (N-17, N-21, N-24 and N-27). The cultivars from the South African Sugar Research Institute in KwaZulu-Natal (N-cultivars) have potential resistance to MRB because they have demonstrated varying levels of resistance to African stalk borers, especially Eldana spp., which shares many characteristics with MRB.

Differences were detected in percentages of bored internodes among cultivars (F=3.56, P<0.001). Results showed infestations ranging from 1.0% bored internodes (N-21 and HoCP 85-845) to 20.4% (Ho 06-563). See Table 1. Of the commercial varieties HoCP 85-845 and L 01-299 were the most resistant, while L 03-371 and HoCP 96-540 were the most susceptible. HoCP 96-540, currently the most widely planted cultivar in Louisiana, experienced nearly 8-fold more injury than the most resistant varieties. All of the South African cultivars showed some level of resistance with N-21 being the most resistant. Adult emergence data followed the same trend as percent bored internodes with moth production ranging from < 0.01 to 0.38 emergence holes/stalk (Table 1); however, differences in emergence among cultivars were not detected (F=1.57, P=0.065).

Comparison of Commercial and Experimental Sugarcane Cultivars for Resistance to MRB

130


Table 1: Borer Injury and Moth Production Beaumont Variety Test 2010

Variety % Bored Internodes Emergence per

Stalk Ho 06-563 20.4 0.38

HoCP 05-902 14.5 0.32 HoCP 04-838 11.0 2.0

Ho 07-612 10.1 0.18 L 03-371 9.6 0.14

HoCP 96-540 7.9 0.08 L 07-57 7.2 0.31

Ho 07-604 6.4 0.04 US 01-40 5.9 0.06

N-27 5.8 0.12 Ho 06-537 5.8 0.18 Ho 07-613 5.5 0.02

N-17 5.4 0.08 HoCP 05-961 5.3 0.12 US 08-9001 5.3 0.04 Ho 06-9610 5.0 0.04

HoCP 00-950 4.6 0.04 L 07-68 4.1 0.12

Ho 07-617 3.9 0.06 US 08-9003 2.7 0.06

N-24 2.4 <0.01 L 01-299 2.3 0.04 US 93-15 1.2 0.011

HoCP 85-845 1.0 <0.01 N-21 1.0 <0.01

*Means which share a line are not significantly different (LSD, α=0.05)

Comparison of Commercial and Experimental Sugarcane Cultivars for Resistance to MRB

131


2011 The 2011 test evaluated resistance in 19 cultivars. Cultivars from the 2010 test which

were reevaluated include: HoCP 85-845, HoCP 00-950, Ho 07-613, L 07-57, HoCP 05-961, and HoCP 04-838. HoCP 85-845 has been a resistant standard for many years. HoCP 04-838, which appears to have little resistance to the MRB, has recently been released to commercial growers. Experimental cultivars in the early stages of varietal development which were evaluated include: HoCP 08-726, Ho 08-706, L 08-090, L 08-088, Ho 08-711, Ho 08-717, HoL 08-723, L 08-075, L 08-092, Ho 08-709. Two energy cane varieties, L 79-1002 and Ho 02-113, were also evaluated. Results showed significant differences (F=2.71, P= 0.0017) in injury which ranged from 1.9-17.2% bored internodes (Table 2). The most resistant cultivars examined were HoCP 85-845 and L 08-075. Experimental cultivar, L 08-075, is potentially highly resistant as it demonstrated >8-fold reductions in MRB injury compared to susceptible cultivars. The most susceptible cultivars were HoCP 08-726, L 08-090, and HoCP 04-838. Differences in adult emergence (F= 1.99, P =0.0187) followed the same trend as injury data ranging from 0.02- 0.46 emergence holes per stalk (Table 2). Results from the cultivars which were reevaluated were consistent with findings from 2010. Energy cane varieties showed intermediate levels of resistance. Table 2: Borer Injury and Moth Production, Beaumont Variety Test 2011

Variety % Bored Emergence/stalk HoCP 08-726 17.2 0.45

L 08-090 13.7 0.35 HoCP 04-838 13.4 0.28 HoL 08-723 13.1 0.10 Ho 08-711 13.1 0.46 Ho 08-717 12.4 0.20 Ho 08-706 9.5 0.18 Ho 07-613 9.0 0.27 L 79-1002 8.5 0.21 L 07-57 8.5 0.21

Ho 08-709 8.0 0.07 L 08-088 8.0 0.23

HoCP 00-950 7.9 0.08 Ho 02-113 7.7 0.08 L 08-092 7.7 0.08

Ho 05-961 7.6 0.24 HoCP 91-552 7.6 0.23 HoCP 85-845 3.9 0.10

L 08-075 1.9 0.02 *Means which share a line are not significantly different (LSD α=0.05).

132


COMPARISON OF MEXICAN RICE BORER PEST PRESSURE IN BIOENERGY AND CONVENTIONAL SUGARCANE2

T.E. Reagan1, B.E. Wilson1, M.T. VanWeelden1, J.M. Beuzelin1, W.H. White2, and M.O. Way3

1Department of Entomology, LSU AgCenter; 2USDA Sugarcane Research Unit at Houma 3Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont

A study conducted at the Texas AgriLife Research and Center at Beaumont, compared

the effects of Mexican rice borer (MRB), Eoreuma loftini, infestations in energycane cultivar L 79-1002 and two conventional sugarcane cultivars, HoCP 85-845 (resistant) and HoCP 04-838 (susceptible). The experiment was set up in a randomized block design arrangement with 4 replications. Each 1-row, 12-ft-long plot was split into two 6-ft sub-plots. Sub-plots were either protected from MRB infestations or left unprotected. Protected sub-plots received 2 applications of tebufenozide (Confirm) applied at 15.0 oz/A in Jul and Aug with a back-pack sprayer containing 2 gal of water. From late Jun to late Aug, MRB larval feeding signs in leaf sheaths were monitored every other week. In early Sep, stand counts were taken from each sub-plot and10 stalk samples were collected and weighed. For each stalk, the numbers of bored internodes, total internodes, and emergence holes were recorded. Total juice volume and Brix value were recorded from 4 stalks. Juice volume/6 row-ft was calculated multiplying volume/stalk by the no. stalks/sub-plot.

Untreated MRB larval feeding injury in leaf sheaths of energycane L 79-1002 ranged between 60 and 90% of injured stalks during the initial sampling periods, and averaged 20.8 and 12.5% in HoCP 04-838 and HoCP 85-845, respectively (Table 1). Insecticide applications reduced the percentage of bored internodes (F=23.8, P<0.001) and emergence per stalk (F=5.7, P=0.024), with unprotected HoCP 04-838 and protected HoCP 85-845 sustaining the greatest and lowest levels of injury, respectively (Table 2). Energycane L 79-1002 sustained intermediate levels of injury. Differences among cultivars were detected for weight of 10 stalks (F=3.8, P= 0.0366), juice volume (F=13.1, P<0.001), and Brix (F=273.6, P<0.001). Although insecticidal protection decreased MRB injury for all cultivars, increases in yield parameters were only detected for susceptible sugarcane HoCP 04-838 (Table 3). These data suggest that HoCP 85-845 and L 79-1002 are more tolerant to MRB injury. Future quantification of the impact of MRB infestations and associated injury on yield components will be critical to determine the need for management actions in energycane.

2 A portion of this study is anticipated to be part of the Ph.D. dissertation program of Matt VanWeelden

Comparison of Mexican Rice Borer Pest Pressure in Bioenergy and Conventional Sugarcane

133


Table 1. MRB injury in leaf sheaths of sugarcane and energycane, Beaumont, TX, 2011

Cultivar Treatment* % Injured stalks

8 Jul (pre-treatment) 22 Jul 3 Aug

HoCP 85-845 (resistant)

Protected NA 0 5 Unprotected 12.5 10 15

HoCP 04-838 (susceptible)


L 79-1002 (energycane)


*Protected = Confirm® applied on July 10 and August 3

Table 2. MRB injury and emergence in sugarcane and energycane, Beaumont, TX, 2011

Cultivar Treatment % Bored internodes Emergence/Stalk HoCP 04-838 Unprotected 13.2 0.24 L 79-1002 Unprotected 8.1 0.19 HoCP 85-845 Unprotected 3.8 0.09 L 79-1002 Protected 2.5 0.06 HoCP 04-838 Protected 1.0 0.06 HoCP 85-845 Protected 0.5 0.02 *Means sharing a line are not significantly different (LSD, α=0.05); Protected = Confirm®

applied on July 10 and August 3 Table 3. Yield parameters as affected by cultivar and insecticide applications

Cultivar Treatment # Stalks/ 6 row ft

Weight of 10 stalks (Kg)

Juice volume (L / 6 row ft) Brix

HoCP 04-838 Protected 20.8 4.96 3.91 15.5 Unprotected 17.2 4.96 3.10 14.4

HoCP 85-845 Protected 23.4 4.46 5.05 13.3 Unprotected 20.8 4.50 4.83 13.0

L 79-1002 Protected 50.2 3.53 5.92 9.9 Unprotected 45.2 3.23 4.61 9.7

*Means sharing a line are not significantly different (LSD, α=0.05)

2011 entomology research report - texas a&m university annual report_wa… · 2011 . entomology...

Documents