2016 entomology research report - texas a&m university · this report is a compilation of...

2016 ENTOMOLOGY

RESEARCH REPORT

Editor: M. O. Way

Co-editor: R. A. Pearson

Texas A & M AgriLife Research Center at Beaumont

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

Texas A & M 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 21, 2017 Dear stakeholder, cooperator and/or colleague: This report is a compilation of results of Entomology Project experiments conducted in 2016. Financial support for these experiments was provided by Texas A & M AgriLife Research, Texas Rice Research Foundation (rice check-off monies), Texas Soybean Board, United Sorghum 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 2016: Rebecca Pearson ................ Research Assistant Augustine Castro ................ Agricultural Research Technician II Carra Curtice ...................... Technician II Katie Ruth .......................... Lamar University Student Intern Cecelia Swiere ................... Lamar University Student Intern Alissa Carre ........................ Student Assistant Lara Tarpley ....................... Student Assistant Colton Austin ..................... Student Assistant Patrick Pemberton .............. Student Assistant Sasa Song ........................... Intern Finally, I thank Jack Vawter and his staff at the David R. Wintermann Rice Research Station at Eagle Lake for excellent work. 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 A & M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont ⋅ 1509 Aggie Dr. ⋅ Beaumont, TX 77713 ⋅ http://beaumont.tamu.edu

Table of Contents1.

Rice Rice Water Weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus) Syngenta Seed Treatments ...................................................................................................1 Antonio Seed Treatment Overwintering Study....................................................................6 XL753 Seed Treatment Overwintering Study ...................................................................10 Organic Rice Variety Test .................................................................................................14 Syngenta Palisade Study ....................................................................................................15 Botanical Insecticides for Rice Water Weevil Control – Ducksalad .................................19 Stalk Borers Antonio Seed Treatments for Stalk Borer Control ............................................................20 XL753 Seed Treatments for Stalk Borer Control ..............................................................24 Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer ......................................................................................28 Sheath Blight Dr. Jo’s Foliar and Seed Treatments* ................................................................................29 Soybean Soybean Non-Replicated Host Plant Resistance Study ...........................................................33 Soybean Integrated Pest Management Study ...........................................................................47 Sorghum Syngenta Sorghum Seed Treatments Trial 1 ...........................................................................55 Syngenta Sorghum Seed Treatments Trial 2 ...........................................................................60 Hybrid Grain Sorghum Seed Treatments Trial 1 .....................................................................64 Hybrid Grain Sorghum Seed Treatments Trial 2 .....................................................................68 Sorghum Insecticide Screening Trial 1 ....................................................................................72 Sorghum Insecticide Screening Trial 2 ....................................................................................75

Sorghum Insect Pest Management Systems ............................................................................78 Sugarcane and Energy Cane

Sugarcane Alion Herbicide Test ..............................................................................................83 Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Test ......................................................................................86 Mosquito Research*.....................................................................................................................89 1. All reports are authored by M. O. Way, R. A. Pearson and C. Curtice except those with an *.

1


Syngenta Seed Treatments Blocks 4N & 5N Beaumont, TX

2016

⇐ North PLOT PLAN Block 4N

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

Block 5N III IV

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

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with no barriers Variety: Seed provided by Syngenta

Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS Treatment

no. Description Rate

(mg ai/seed)

1 A9382 + A9459 + A12050 0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 2 A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A17960 0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 + 0.025 3 A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A17960 0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 + 0.03 4 A17469 0.034 5 A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.015 6 A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.025 7 A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.03 8 A21335 0.043 9 A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A20563 0.0017 + 0.00014 + 0.0002 + 2.5 fl oz/cwt

10 A21618 + A22010 + A21020 0.0018 + 0.0005 + 0.0162

Syngenta Seed Treatments

2


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 10 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test @ 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 9 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Emergence on May 16 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 10 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 7 (22 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34 lb N/A on May 10 at planting 85 lb N/A on Jun 7 at PF 51 lb N/A on Jun 28 at panicle differentiation Herbicide: Command 3ME @ 1.0 pt/A and Halomax @ 1 oz/A applied with a 2-person

hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 10 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Syngenta Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 26 Plant hts on 10 plants/plot on Jun 6 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 29 and Jul 11. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 middle rows per plot on Aug 8; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.

Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Aug 18 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Count data transformed using

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

Discussion

The experiment was planted too late (May 9) due to persistent rainfall during the spring

and early summer. For instance at the Beaumont Center in 2016, rainfall for March, April, May and June was 7.98, 9.59, 9.1 and 8.48 inches, respectively. We wanted to plant this experiment in late March to mid-April when subsequent RWW populations are typically highest. But, heavy and continued precipitation prevented planting at the optimum time. Given the above situation,


3


the data generated by this experiment are not ideal. Nevertheless, below is my interpretation of the data.

Plant stands were highest in A17469 + A17960 treatments, regardless of rate of A17960 (Table 1). Perhaps this combination of active ingredients enhances rice plant stand? Plant height was not significantly different among treatments. In addition, I did not visually observe any clear differences in plant growth or vigor among the treatments, so we did not observe any negative phytotoxic effects of the seed treatments.

On the 1st RWW sample date, populations of RWW were barely above treatment threshold (15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores) in the untreated (Table 2). Nevertheless, all other treatments significantly reduced RWW populations compared to the untreated. Data suggest all treatments containing A17960 performed the best in terms of RWW control. In fact, the lowest rate of A17960 performed as well as higher rates. A17469 alone significantly reduced RWW populations, but in combination with A17960 performed better. A21335 also performed well compared to the untreated. On the 2nd RWW sample date, populations of RWW in the untreated were well below treatment threshold levels, so these data are not very meaningful.

In general, WH densities were similar in all treatments except the treatment containing A20563 which provided best control of stalk borers in terms of reduction in WH numbers. Virtually all stalk borers were Mexican rice borer.

Yields were not high and not significantly different across treatments; however, lowest yields (numerically) were produced in the untreated. I think lack of treatment differences in yield are due to the late planting and low RWW populations.


4


Table 1. Mean plant stand, plant height and yield for Syngenta seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(mg ai/seed)

Stand (plants/ft of

row) Plant ht

(cm) Yield (lb/A)

A9382 + A9459 + A12050 0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 14.9 bc 23.6 5974

A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A17960

0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 + 0.025 15.5 bc 23.9 6011

A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A17960

0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 + 0.03 15.0 bc 23.7 6599

A17469 0.034 16.4 ab 21.5 6045

A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.015 18.7 a 23.9 6302

A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.025 16.9 ab 24.1 6249

A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.03 17.0 ab 22.9 6389

A21335 0.043 15.7 abc 24.6 6333 A9382 + A9459 + A12050

+ A20563 0.0017 + 0.00014 +

0.0002 + 2.5 fl oz/cwt 16.0 abc 24.4 6206

A21618 + A22010 + A21020

0.0018 + 0.0005 + 0.0162 13.0 c 22.4 6384

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


5


Table 2. Mean insect data for Syngenta seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(mg ai/seed) RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Jun 29 Jul 11

A9382 + A9459 + A12050 0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 16.0 a 5.5 a 7.0 ab

A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A17960

0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 + 0.025 0 c 0.5 c 6.0 ab

A9382 + A9459 + A12050 + A17960

0.0019 + 0.0003 + 0.0015 + 0.03 0 c 0.5 c 4.8 bc

A17469 0.034 3.8 b 2.8 ab 10.3 a A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.015 0.3 c 1.3 bc 5.0 bc A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.025 0 c 1.3 bc 6.3 abc A17469 + A17960 0.034 + 0.03 0 c 1.0 bc 8.8 ab

A21335 0.043 1.3 bc 0.5 c 8.8 ab A9382 + A9459 + A12050

+ A20563 0.0017 + 0.00014 +

0.0002 + 2.5 fl oz/cwt 0.5 c 0.8 bc 2.8 c

A21618 + A22010 + A21020

0.0018 + 0.0005 + 0.0162 3.0 b 4.5 a 9.5 a

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

6


Antonio Seed Treatment Overwintering Study Block 2S

Beaumont, TX 2015 – 2016

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

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

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with no barriers Variety: Antonio (seed provided by TRIA)


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS

Treatment no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timinga

1 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Fall 2 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Spring 3 Dermacor X-100 1.5 Fall 4 Dermacor X-100 1.5 Spring 5 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Fall 6 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Spring 7 Untreated --- Fall 8 Untreated --- Spring

a Fall = treated in the fall; Spring = treated in the spring

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted Antonio @ 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 Mar 29, 2016 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long

Antonio Seed Treatment Overwintering Study

7


Emergence on Apr 12, 2016 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Mar 29, 2016 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 5, 2016 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34.0 lb N/A on Mar 29, 2016 at planting 85.0 lb N/A on May 5, 2016 at PF 51.0 lb N/A on May 26, 2016 Total N = 170 lb/A Herbicide: Halomax @ 1 oz/A and Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A applied with a 2-person hand-

held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Mar 29, 2016 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treated on Sep 28-29, 2015 by the Entomology Project. Treated and

untreated seed placed in TRIA seed barn (not refrigerated) on Sep 29, 2015 and left until planting.

Sampling: Germ counted on Oct 7, 2015 (untreated 80% germ) Germ counted for treated seed on Nov 13 (trt 1 = 77.6%, trt 3 = 76% and trt 5 =

57.7%) Seed removed from storage on Mar 21, 2016 Germ counted on treatments 1 (56%), 3 (53.7%), 5 (37.3%) and 7 (65.3) on Apr

7 Germ counted on treatments 2 (84.7%), 4 (84.3%), 6 (80%) and 8 (82%) on Apr

20 Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Apr 26, 2016 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, 2016 and Jun 6, 2016. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH – sign of stalk borer damage) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 in each plot on Jul 18, 2016

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 5, 2016 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using


Discussion

The objective of this study was to determine if treating (3 different insecticidal seed

treatments) rice seed in the fall vs the spring affects insecticidal efficacy of the seed treatments.


8


If seed treated in the fall (then stored during the winter) provided control equal to seed treated in the spring, then commercial seed treaters could treat their seed in the fall well in advance of the busy planting season. This would help commercial seed treaters better manage their operations.

Antonio seed was treated September 28-29, 2015 with each of the labeled insecticidal seed treatments at the recommended rates based on a seeding rate of 80 lb seed /A (Table 1). After treating, seed was placed in paper bags which were stapled and stored in the Texas Rice Improvement Association (TRIA) Seed Barn. This Barn is not heated or cooled, so the above rice was exposed to ambient temperatures and humidity until planting the following spring. The TRIA Seed Barn serves as a storage facility for rice produced by TRIA and sold to farmers for planting foundation, registered and certified rice seed. Seed treated in the spring came from a different seed lot than seed treated in the fall. Germination of seed just prior to storage in the fall was 72.9%. Germination of this same seed just prior to planting in the spring declined to 53.1%, so storage conditions adversely affected germination of this seed. Germination of seed treated in the spring was 82.8%.

Plots were planted relatively early (Mar 29). Emergence was slow (14 days after planting). From planting to application of the flood (23 days after emergence), 12.8 inches of rain fell and temperatures were unseasonably cool. So, plots were water-saturated for much of this period. Regardless of treatment, numerically higher rice plant stands were produced by seed treated in the spring which is probably due to the higher germination for this seed lot compared to the seed lot stored after treating in the fall (Table 1).

RWW populations were very low on both sample dates (the economic injury level is about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores), so data are not as meaningful as desired. However, data suggest RWW control is about equal for fall or spring seed treatment applications.

WH counts in the untreated were relatively high. As expected, NipsIt INSIDE and CruiserMaxx Rice seed treatments did not affect stem borer damage, but Dermacor X-100 provided good control of stem borers, regardless of time of application (fall or spring). Virtually all WHs were produced by Mexican rice borers.

A few Angoumois grain moths were found in fall-treated rice seed, but there were no significant differences among treatments (Table 2). However, numerically, all 3 seed treatments reduced the number of moths in the samples compared to the untreated.

Yields were significantly lower in plots planted with untreated seed taken from the seed lot with lower germination compared to the seed lot with higher germination which suggests yields were affected by rice plant stand


9


Table 1. Mean data for Antonio overwinter study. Beaumont, TX. 2015 – 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timinga

Stand (plants/ft of row)

RWW/5 cores WHs/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) May 25 Jun 6

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Fall 7.3 abc 0.5 b 0.8 b 14.3 a 5810 ab NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Spring 7.6 abc 0 b 6.0 ab 9.5 a 5509 b

Dermacor X-100 1.5 Fall 6.0 bc 0 b 0.5 b 1.0 b 5616 b Dermacor X-100 1.5 Spring 8.4 ab 0 b 1.3 b 1.0 b 6654 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Fall 6.4 bc 1.0 b 6.0 ab 9.5 a 5683 b CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Spring 9.2 a 0.5 b 4.3 b 17.5 a 6145 ab

Untreated --- Fall 5.4 c 4.3 a 13.3 a 9.5 a 5368 b Untreated --- Spring 7.9 abc 6.3 a 6.5 ab 13.5 a 6673 a

a Fall = treated in the fall; Spring = treated in the spring Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Table 2. Mean stored insect data for Antonio overwinter study. Beaumont, TX. 2015 – 2016.

Treatment

Rate (fl

oz/cwt) Timinga Moths/100 g

seed

Bored grains/100

seeds Weight (g) 100 grains

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Fall 3.5 0.3 2.4

Dermacor X-100 1.5 Fall 3.8 0.8 2.4

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Fall 3.0 0.5 2.5

Untreated --- Fall 6.5 1.0 2.5 a Fall = treated in the fall; inspected for stored product insects during the following spring Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

10


XL753 Seed Treatment Overwintering Study Block 3S

Beaumont, TX 2015 – 2016

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

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

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with no barriers Variety: XL753 (seed provided by RiceTec)




(fl oz/cwt) Timinga

1 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Fall 2 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Spring 3 Dermacor X-100 5 Fall 4 Dermacor X-100 5 Spring 5 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Fall 6 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Spring 7 Untreated --- Fall 8 Untreated --- Spring

a Fall = treated in the fall; Spring = treated in the spring

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted XL753 @ 20 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 29, 2016 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long

XL753 Seed Treatment Overwintering Study

11


Emergence on Apr 12, 2016 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Mar 29, 2016 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 5, 2016 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 120 lb N/A on May 5, 2016 at PF 60 lb N/A on Jun 27, 2016 at late boot/early heading Total N = 180 lb/A Herbicide: Halomax @ 1 oz/A and Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A applied with a 2-person hand-

held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Mar 29, 2016 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treated on Sep 28-29, 2015 by the Entomology Project. Treated and

untreated seed placed in TRIA seed barn (not refrigerated) on Sep 29, 2015 and left until planting.

Sampling: Germ counted on Oct 7, 2015 (untreated 82% germ) Germ counted for treated seed on Nov 13 (trt 1 = 81.7%, trt 3 = 77% and trt 5 =

75.7%) Seed removed from storage on Mar 21, 2016 Germ counted on Mar 28 (trt 1 = 85.7%; trt 2 = 93.3%; trt 3 = 81%; trt 4 =

88.7%; trt 5 = 83.3%; trt 6 = 80.7%; trt 7 = 71.3%; trt 8 = 84.3%) Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Apr 26, 2016 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 26, 2016 and Jun 6, 2016. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH – sign of stalk borer damage) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 in each plot on Jul 18, 2016

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Sep 2, 2016 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using


Discussion

The objective of this study was to determine if treating (3 different insecticidal seed

treatments) rice seed in the fall vs the spring affects insecticidal efficacy of the seed treatments. If seed treated in the fall (then stored during the winter) provided control equal to seed treated in the spring, then commercial seed treaters could treat their seed in the fall well in advance of the busy planting season. This would help commercial seed treaters better manage their operations.


12


XL753 seed was treated September 28-29, 2015 with each of the labeled insecticidal seed treatments at the recommended rates based on a seeding rate of 20 lb seed /A (Table 1). After treating, seed was placed in paper bags which were stapled and stored in the Texas Rice Improvement Association (TRIA) Seed Barn. This Barn is not heated or cooled, so the above rice was exposed to ambient temperatures and humidity until planting the following spring. The TRIA Seed Barn serves as a storage facility for rice produced by TRIA and sold to farmers for planting foundation, registered and certified rice seed. Seed treated in the spring came from the same seed lot as seed treated in the fall. Germination of untreated seed just prior to storage in the fall was 82%. Germination of this same seed just prior to planting in the spring declined to 71.3%. However, for seed treated in the fall, germination did not decrease during storage (81.7 to 85.7% for NipsIt INSIDE, 77-81% for Dermacor X-100 and 75.7 to 83.3% for CruiserMaxx Rice). This suggests the seed treatments helped maintain germination of this hybrid rice during storage over winter.

Plots were planted relatively early (Mar 29). Emergence was slow (14 days after planting). From planting to application of the flood (23 days after emergence), 12.8 inches of rain fell and temperatures were unseasonably cool. So, plots were frequently water-saturated during this period. Although blocks where plots were planted were precision leveled, so much rain fell that plots did not drain quickly resulting in standing water for unacceptable periods of time. This was reflected in relatively low rice plant stands (Table 1). But, stands were not significantly different among treatments.

On the 1st RWW sample date, densities were below the economic injury level (15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores) in untreated plots, so data are not very meaningful. However, data suggest Dermacor X-100 applied to seed in the fall provided similar control to a spring application (Table 1). The same applies to NipsIt INSIDE treatments. On the 2nd RWW sample date, populations were higher in untreated plots compared to the 1st RWW sample date which is probably due to the predominance of cool, wet weather during this time slowing the normal development rate of RWWs. Data show Dermacor X-100 applied in the fall or spring provided effective control. However, this was not true for NipsIt INSIDE or CruiserMaxx Rice. WH counts were low across treatments (typical for hybrid rice) (Table 1). Virtually all WHs were due to Mexican rice borer infestations.

All the Dermacor X-100 and CruiserMaxx Rice treatments significantly outyielded untreated plots---not so for the NipsIt INSIDE treatments (Table 1). In fact, the fall application of Dermacor X-100 outyielded corresponding untreated plots by about 1300 lb/A.

In the spring, we sampled stored rice for stored product pests. We did not find any pests in this stored rice (Table 2). Based on prior studies and this experiment, I believe hybrid rice may exhibit some resistance to stored product pests. We need to research this possibility further.


13


Table 1. Mean data for XL753 overwinter study. Beaumont, TX. 2015 – 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timinga


RWW/5 cores WHs/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) May 25 Jun 6

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Fall 2.0 1.5 c 28.8 a 1.3 7195 bc

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Spring 3.1 3.5 bc 28.5 a 4.5 6689 c

Dermacor X-100 1.5 Fall 3.1 0.3 c 5.0 b 0 8221 a

Dermacor X-100 1.5 Spring 3.2 1.3 c 5.5 b 0.8 8022 ab

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Fall 3.9 6.3 ab 31.8 a 2.0 7797 ab

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Spring 4.2 3.8 bc 30.8 a 1.3 8149 a

Untreated --- Fall 3.1 11.3 a 31.8 a 3.3 6917 c

Untreated --- Spring 2.4 9.0 ab 35.3 a 4.0 6552 c

NS NS a Fall = treated in the fall; Spring = treated in the spring Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Table 2. Mean stored insect data for XL753 overwinter study. Beaumont, TX. 2015 – 2016.

Treatment

Rate (fl

oz/cwt) Timinga Moths/100 g

seed

Bored grains/100

seeds Weight (g) 100 grains

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Fall 0 0 2.4

Dermacor X-100 1.5 Fall 0 0.3 2.3

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Fall 0 0 2.3

Untreated --- Fall 0 0 2.3 a Fall = treated in the fall; inspected for stored product insects during the following spring Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

14


Organic Rice Variety Test Blocks S6 and S7

Beaumont, TX 2016

Discussion

The experiment was planted by Dr. Zhou’s crew on July 11. The planting date was very

late because of persistent, abundant rainfall throughout the spring and summer. This is why the immature RWW populations were so low (Table 1). RWW cores (1 per plot) were taken from August 29-31. Thus, the data are not very meaningful. Coring and processing cores were done according to Way’s standard techniques. Table 1. Mean data for organic rice variety study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Variety No. immature RWWa/1 core XL753 0

PI312777 0.8

Rondo 0

Wells 0

Cocodrie 0.8

Presidio 0.5

XL723 0.5

Ark 061 0.3

Lakast 0.8

Mermentau 0

Rex 0.3

Roy J 0.3

Jasmine 85 1.0

Charleston Gold 1.3

Sierra 0.5

Jazzman 0.5

Jazzman 2 0

Delrose 1.5

Tesanai 2 1.0

Jupiter 0.5

15


Syngenta Palisade Study Block 7S

Beaumont, TX 2016

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

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

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, no barriers Variety: Charleston Gold (seed provided by TRIA) Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



(fl oz/A) Timing

1 Untreated --- --- 2 Palisade 120 EC + COC 3.42 Green ring 3 Palisade 120 EC + COC 4.56 Green ring 4 Palisade 120 EC + COC 3.42 Panicle initiation 5 Palisade 120 EC + COC 4.56 Panicle initiation 6 Karate Z 2.0 Preflood

Agronomic and Cultural Information

Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test @ 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 11 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Emergence on May 20 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 12 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 10 (21 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand.

Syngenta Palisade Study

16


34 lb N/A on May 11 at planting 85 lb N/A on Jun 10 at PF 100 lb N/A on Jun 28 Total = 219 lb N/A Herbicide: Command 3ME @ 1.0 pt/A and Halomax @ 1 oz/A applied with a 2-person

hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 12 for early season weed control

Treatments: Treatment 6 applied with a hand-held, CO2-powered, 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 31 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 10 Treatments 2 and 3 applied as above on Jun 28; 30% main stem tillers @

internode elongation (IE)/green ring Treatments 4 and 5 applied as above on Jul 7 [50% main stem tillers @ panicle

differentiation (PD)] Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 1 30% main stem tillers @ IE/green ring on Jun 28 Plant heights on 10 plants/plot on Jul 22 and Aug 22 Panicle emergence notes on Aug 8 No lodging noted on Aug 19 and Aug 31 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 30 and Jul 12. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Sep 7-8; no lodging observed at harvest Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Count data transformed using


Discussion

The objective of this experiment is to determine if Palisade applied at specific times of

rice plant development can reduce rice plant height to prevent or minimize lodging. We selected for planting the heirloom variety Charleston Gold which is a relatively tall stature variety and we applied more nitrogen (219 lb/A) than recommended (about 150-180 lb/A) to increase the chance of lodging. This experiment also was planted late (May 11) due to inclement weather. In addition, the late planting probably increased the chance for the occurrence of conditions conducive to lodging (winds and rain).

As expected, rice plant stands were not significantly different among treatments (Table 1). About 30% of main stem tillers were at IE/green ring on June 28. Plants at this time were developing fast, so a few days later, all main stem tillers could be at IE or past IE. Treatments 2 and 3 were applied at this time. Nine days later, about 50% of main stem tillers were at PD. Likewise, a few days later, all main stem tillers could be at PD or past PD. We decided to add a


17


Karate Z treatment to the experiment---application timing was just before flood. We added this treatment to see the effect of RWW on the experiment.

Throughout the duration of the experiment, I did not observe any phytotoxic effects of the treatments. On July 22, canopy height was reduced significantly, compared to the untreated, in plots where Palisade was applied at the highest rate (4.56 fl oz/A) at about PD (which is basically the same as panicle initiation) (Table 1). Similar results were obtained on August 22. There were no significant differences in time of panicle emergence.

RWW populations in all treatments were below treatment thresholds (15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores) on both sample dates (Table 2). Populations were probably low due to the late planting date. However, Karate Z significantly reduced populations compared to the other treatments.

No lodging was observed in any plots and yields were not significantly different among treatments (Table 2).

In summary, Palisade applied at 4.56 fl oz/A at about PD/panicle initiation shows some potential to reduce plant height in an effort to decrease the chance of lodging. Table 1. Mean plant stand, plant height and panicle emergence data for Syngenta Palisade study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timing


Canopy ht (cm) Panicle

emergence (%) on Aug 8 Jul 22 Aug 22

Untreated --- --- 12.1 95.2 b 105.9 b 100.0

Palisade 120 EC + COC 3.42 Green ring 11.0 92.6 bc 105.8 b 100.0

Palisade 120 EC + COC 4.56 Green ring 11.5 92.1 bc 106.2 b 97.5

Palisade 120 EC + COC 3.42 Panicle initiation

11.2 93.8 b 101.3 c 98.8


11.2 88.8 c 97.8 c 100.0

Karate Z Preflood 11.1 100.5 a 110.8 a 100.0 NS NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


18


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil and yield data for Syngenta Palisade study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timing RWWa/5 cores Yield

(lb/A) Jun 30 Jul 12 Untreated --- --- 14.5 a 8.5 ab 5958

Palisade 120 EC + COC 3.42 Green ring 18.3 a 10.5 a 6077

Palisade 120 EC + COC 4.56 Green ring 17.0 a 5.5 b 6202


14.3 a 11.5 a 5739


13.5 a 8.3 ab 5748

Karate Z Preflood 5.0 b 5.0 b 5748 NS

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

19


Botanical Insecticides for Rice Water Weevil Control – Ducksalad Greenhouse

Beaumont, TX 2016


Experimental design: randomized complete block with 2 treatments and 8 replications Plot size = 6” pots Treatments: Blended 100 ducksalad leaves with 300 ml water and 3 ml AgriDex. Applied

solution to plants in 8 pots and infested all pots with 4 RWW/pot on Jun 1. All plants were covered with plastic cages after infestation.

Dead RWW were replaced on Jun 6 All RWW were removed on Jun 8 Sampling: Counted number of RWW feeding scars and number of leaves/plant on Jun 6 Washed pot contents through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW

counted on Jun 22

Discussion

The objective of the experiment was to evaluate a water-based extract of ducksalad applied to rice foliage to determine if the extract (from a non-host of the RWW) affects RWW feeding/development. The experiment was conducted too late; it should have been initiated in early May when RWWs are more fecund.

Results are not significant, but numerically, more RWW adult scars were found on untreated rice than rice sprayed with ducksalad extract (Table 1). We will continue investigations in 2017. Table 1. Mean data for ducksalad for rice water weevil control. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment No. RWW feeding

scars/plant No. leaves/plant No. immature

RWW/pot Ducksalad 79.9 8.6 0.5 Untreated 104.9 7.6 1.0 Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

20


RO

AD

Antonio Seed Treatments Eagle Lake, TX

2016

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

Ant

onio

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

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long Seed source: Antonio (TRIA) seeded at 71 lb/A Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING

Trt no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreated --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za 7 + 2 fl oz/A 3 Dermacor X-100 1.75 4 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 2 fl oz/A

a Applied at late heading/milk

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (Antonio @ 80 lb/A) into Nada soil on Apr 5 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Emergence on Apr 17 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 5 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 25 on main crop (38 days after emergence) Ratoon crop PF on Aug 10 Fertilization: 0-45-45 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 4 preplant 45-0-0 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 4 preplant 80 lb N/A (urea) on May 26 before permanent flood 60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 7 at panicle initiation/differentiation

Antonio Seed Treatments

21


90 lb N/A on Aug 9 for ratoon crop Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 3 lb ai/A, Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A, and Permit @ 0.05 lb

ai/A applied on Apr 22 PermitPlus @ 0.05 lb ai/A applied on May 13 Treatments: Treatments 2 and 4 (Karate Z @ 2 fl oz/A) applied with a 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 5 (late heading/milk)

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 15. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Panicle counts (1, 1 ft counts/plot) on Jul 28 Whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 28 (main) and Oct 20 (ratoon); WHs are

a measure of stalk borer damage Harvest: Harvested main crop plots on Aug 8 Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Harvested ratoon crop plots on Oct 25 Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Ratoon harvest mistake resulted in missing ratoon yield data. 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

The 1st objective of this experiment was to evaluate RWW and stem borer control by 3

insecticidal seed treatments [CruiserMaxx Rice (CMR), Dermacor X-100 (D) and NipsIt INSIDE (NI)] combined with Karate Z applied for stem borer control in plots planted with CMR and NI. D-treated seed usually controls stem borers on both main and ratoon crop rice whereas the other 2 seed treatments do not give control of stem borers on either main or ratoon crop rice. All 3 seed treatments normally provide good control of RWW. Thus, we applied Karate Z to heading/milk stage rice for stem borer control in plots planted with CMR and NI-treated seed.

The 2016 costs of the following pesticides were: CMR = $524.43/gal D = $1540/gal NI = $1105.33/gal Karate Z = $280/gal + $10/A for application cost

The seeding rate across all treatments was 71 lb/A (typical of a conventional inbred variety). Thus, given the rates of application in Table 1, the costs were:

CMR = $20.36/A D = $14.95/A NI = $11.77/A


22


Karate Z = $4.38 + $10 = $14.38/A The 2nd objective of this experiment was to monitor plots for the rice planthopper,

Tagosodes orizicolus, throughout the season. On approximately a biweekly basis from emergence of rice in plots to harvest of the ratoon crop, we swept plots for this insect while observing for any signs of damage caused by this invasive pest.

The number of panicles per foot of row was significantly greater for the NI and CMR treatments compared to the D treatment (Table 1). Perhaps Karate Z (which was applied to plots planted with CMR and NI-treated seed) enhanced panicle production? However, this is unlikely since Karate Z was applied after rice was heading.

RWW populations were extremely low, probably due to late application of the PF (38 days after emergence). Late application of the PF relative to time of emergence typically results in low RWW populations developing on the roots. This is 1 way farmers can minimize RWW damage---delay application of the PF. But, delay can exacerbate other yield-robbing problems. Although RWW populations were very low, data show all seed treatments significantly reduced populations compared to the untreated.

WH densities were not significantly different among treatments on both the main and ratoon crops (Table 1). WH densities were high across treatments on the ratoon crop. This is surprising, because usually D seed treatment provides good control of stem borers attacking both main and ratoon crops. One explanation is abnormally high rainfall occurred in 2016 at the David R Wintermann Rice Research Station at Eagle Lake. Perhaps the heavy precipitation adversely impacted the D activity against stem borers? Virtually all WHs were caused by the Mexican rice borer.

Main crop yields were significantly higher in CMR and NI treatments (Table 2). Ratoon crop treatments and total yields were not significantly different among treatments.

We did not find a single specimen of T. orizicolus during the year in this experiment. Table 1. Mean insect and panicle count data for Antonio seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

No. RWWa/5 cores on Jun 15

Panicles/ft of row

No. WHsa/4 rows

Main Ratoon Untreated --- 8.0 a 30.5 ab 8.5 45.8

CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Zb 7 + 2 fl oz/A 1.8 b 32.0 a 8.0 27.8

Dermacor X-100 1.75 2.0 b 25.8 b 5.0 33.0 NipsIt INSIDE +

Karate Zb 1.92 +

2 fl oz/ A 2.0 b 33.8 a 6.3 33.8

NS NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Applied at late heading/milk to main crop Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


23


Table 2. Mean yield data for Antonio seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

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

Main Ratoon Total Untreated --- 7016 b 4584 11609

CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za 7 + 2 fl oz/A 7523 a 2781 9901

Dermacor X-100 1.75 6978 b 3715 10692

NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 2 fl oz/A 7611 a 3931 11542

NS NS a Applied at late heading/milk to main crop Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

24


RO

AD

XL753 Seed Treatments Eagle Lake, TX

2016

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

XL7

53

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

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long Seed source: XL753 (RiceTec) seeded at 22 lb/A Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING

Trt no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreated --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za 7 + 2 fl oz/A 3 Dermacor X-100 4.0 4 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 2 fl oz/A

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (XL753 @ 22 lb/A) into Nada soil on Apr 5 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Emergence on Apr 17 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 5 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 25 on main crop (38 days after emergence) Ratoon crop PF on Aug 10 Fertilization: 0-45-45 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 4 preplant 45-0-0 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 4 preplant 120 lb N/A on May 26 before permanent flood 60 lb N/A on Jun 7 at panicle initiation/differentiation

XL753 Seed Treatments

25


90 lb N/A on Aug 9 for ratoon crop Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 3 lb ai/A, Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A, and Permit @ 0.05 lb

ai/A applied on Apr 22 PermitPlus @ 0.05 lb ai/A applied on May 13 Treatments: Treatments 2 and 4 (Karate Z @ 2 fl oz/A) applied with a 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 5 (late heading/milk)

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 15. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Panicle counts (1, 1 ft counts/plot) on Jul 28 Whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 28 (main) and Oct 20 (ratoon); WHs are

a measure of stalk borer damage Harvest: Harvested main crop plots on Aug 8 Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Harvested ratoon crop plots on Oct 25 Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Ratoon harvest mistake resulted in missing ratoon yield data. 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

The 1st objective of this experiment was to evaluate RWW and stem borer control by 3

insecticidal seed treatments [CruiserMaxx Rice (CMR), Dermacor X-100 (D) and NipsIt INSIDE (NI)] combined with Karate Z applied for stem borer control in plots planted with CMR and NI. D-treated seed usually controls stem borers on both main and ratoon crop rice whereas the other 2 seed treatments do not give control of stem borers on either main or ratoon crop rice. All 3 seed treatments normally provide good control of RWW. Thus, we applied Karate Z to heading/milk stage rice for stem borer control in plots planted with CMR and NI-treated seed.

The 2016 costs of the following pesticides were: CMR = $524.43/gal D = $1540/gal NI = $1105.33/gal Karate Z = $280/gal + $10/A for application cost

The seeding rate across all treatments was 22 lb/A (typical of a hybrid variety). Thus, given the rates of application in Table 1, the costs were:

CMR = $6.31/A D = $10.59/A NI = $3.65/A


26


Karate Z = $4.38 + $10 = $14.38/A The 2nd objective of this experiment was to monitor plots for the rice planthopper,

Tagosodes orizicolus, throughout the season. On approximately a biweekly basis from emergence of rice in plots to harvest of the ratoon crop, we swept plots for this insect while observing for any signs of damage caused by this invasive pest.

The number of panicles per foot of row was not significantly different among treatments (Table 1).

RWW populations were extremely low, probably due to late application of the PF (38 days after emergence). Late application of the PF relative to time of emergence typically results in low RWW populations developing on the roots. This is 1 way farmers can minimize RWW damage---delay application of the PF. But, delay can exacerbate other yield-robbing problems. Although RWW populations were very low, data show only the Dermacor X-100 treatment significantly reduced RWW populations compared to the untreated. WH densities were not significantly different among treatments on both the main and ratoon crops (Table 1). This is surprising, because usually D seed treatment provides good control of stem borers attacking both main and ratoon crops. One explanation is abnormally high rainfall occurred in 2016 at the David R Wintermann Rice Research Station at Eagle Lake. Perhaps the heavy precipitation adversely impacted the D activity against stem borers? Virtually all WHs were caused by the Mexican rice borer.

Main crop yields were lowest in the untreated, but ratoon crop yields were highest in the untreated (Table 2). I have heard farmers say if main crop yields are low, then ratoon crop yields are often high. Total yields for all treatments were more than 12,600 lb/A.

We did not find/collect a single specimen of T. orizicolus during the year in this experiment. Table 1. Mean insect and panicle count data for XL753 seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

No. RWWa/5 cores on Jun 15

Panicles/ft of row

No. WHsa/4 rows

Main Ratoon Untreated --- 5.8 ab 27.5 4.0 7.0

CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Zb 7 + 2 fl oz/A 3.3 ab 28.5 3.8 10.3

Dermacor X-100 4.0 1.8 b 29.0 2.0 6.0 NipsIt INSIDE +

Karate Zb 1.92 +

2 fl oz/ A 7.8 a 29.5 3.0 8.5

NS NS NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Applied at late heading/milk to main crop Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


27


Table 2. Mean yield data for XL753 seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

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

Main Ratoon Total Untreated --- 9609 c 4578 13996 a

CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za 7 + 2 fl oz/A 10208 ab 3733 13942 a

Dermacor X-100 4.0 9701 bc 4123 12646 b

NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 2 fl oz/A 10311 a 4312 14686 a

NS a Applied at late heading/milk to main crop Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

28


Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer Texas Rice Belt

2016 PI: Mo Way (Texas A & M AgriLife Research) Co-PIs and trap operators: Becky Pearson and Carra Curtice (Chambers and Jefferson Cos.),

Jack Vawter (Colorado Co.), Noelle Jordan and Ellen Rondomanski (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. In December 2012, an MRB moth was found in a light trap in Florida. 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 2016.

Month Chambers Co. Colorado Co. Jefferson Co. Orange Co. January 0 1 0 0 February 0 18 12 0 March 347 158 51 0 April 436 564 33 0 May 110 111 63 0 June 93 112 135 0 July 133 166 105 0

August 51 82 38 0 September 102 141 84 2

October 137 202 226 3 November 116 107 134 2 December 22 24 15 0

29


Dr. Jo’s Foliar and Seed Treatment Study JO & WAY

Beaumont, TX

Blocks 6N & 7N 2016

⇐ North PLOT PLAN Block 6N

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

Block 7N III IV

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

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

Variety: CL151 (50 lbs/A seeding rate) Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

Dr. Jo’s Foliar and Seed Treatment Study

30



Treatment no. Description

Rhizoctonia inoculation

Foliar fungicide application

1 A9765 At planting (5/11)


3 A17469, A16148 (low) At planting (5/11)

4 A17469, A16148 (medium) At planting (5/11)

5 A17469, A16148 (high) At planting (5/11)

6 A9382, A9759, A12050, A16148, A9765 At planting (5/11)


8 A21618, A22010, A21020 At planting (5/11)

9 A9382, A9759, A12050, A20563 At planting (5/11)

10 A9765

11 Qult Xcel 7/14 PD + 10 d (7/14)

12 Quadris TOP SB 7/14 PD + 10 d (7/14)

13 Quadris TOP SBX 7/14 PD + 10 d (7/14)

14 Sercadis 7/14 PD + 10 d (7/14)


31


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental Randomized complete block with 4 replications. Design Planting: Drill-planted test (Antonio @ 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 11 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long. Emergence of main crop on May 20 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 12 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood. Permanent flood (PF) on main crop on Jun 10 (21 days after emergence). Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on May 11 at planting on all plots. 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on Jun 10 at PF. 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jun 28 at panicle differentiation (PD). Herbicide: Command 3ME @ 1.0 pt/A and Halomax @ 1 oz/A applied with a 2-person

hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 12 for early season weed control.

Sheath blight Inoculation:

Introduced sheath blight grain inoculum on May 11 before planting for the seed treatment. Introduced sheath blight grain inoculum on July 4 for foliar fungicide evaluation

Fungicide: Foliar fungicide application on July 14 at 10 days after PD. Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 1 Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Sep 9 (6N) and Sep 14 (7N). Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long.


32


Summary

1. Foliar fungicide evaluation (FDI380A4-2016US) Treatment Stand count (per

feet of row) Main crop disease severity (0-9 scale)

Main crop disease incidence (%)

Main crop yield

1 8.8 3.3 A 38.8 A 7180.7 10 8.6 1.8 B 7.4 B 6690.8 11 8.7 1.6 B 9.5 B 7001.3 12 8.5 1.8 B 6.5 B 6907.1 13 7.3 1.4 B 3.6 B 6842.3 14 9.3 1.5 B 10.4 B 6602.1 Fisher’s Protected LSD (α = 0.05)

1.316 21.304

P value 0.643 0.076 0.028 0.776 Foliar fungicide applications reduced sheath blight severity and incidence. However, yields were not significantly different among treatments.

2. Seed treatment (TSX380A4-2016US) Treatment Stand count (per

feet of row) Main crop disease severity (0-9 scale)

Main crop disease incidence (%)

Main crop yield

1 8.8 AB 3.3 38.8 7180.7 2 8.8 AB 2.5 34.5 6898.8 3 9.2 AB 2.5 24.4 6986.4 4 8.7 AB 2.1 22.8 6636.7 5 7.3 AB 2.6 26.5 6764.9 6 7.0 B 1.8 21.5 6251.4 7 7.4 AB 1.9 20.3 7072.8 8 9.6 A 2.3 22.6 6905.3 9 8.3 AB 2.5 34.4 6774.2 10 8.6 AB 1.8 7.4 6690.8 Fisher’s Protected LSD (α = 0.05)

2.399

P value 0.417 0.642 0.788 0.647 Seed treatments seemed to have limited effect on sheath blight development in the later growth stages. There was no difference in yields among treatments.

33


Non-Replicated Soybean Host Plant Resistance – Scott/Grover Beaumont, TX

2016

⇑ North PLOT PLAN 21 S14-9973 1 S14-4655 22 S14-9866 2 S14-1702 23 S14-10555 3 S14-1861 24 S14-12404 4 S14-2039 25 S14-12396 5 S14-3140 26 S14-13506 6 S14-3862 27 S14-15216 7 S14-6559 28 S14-9999 8 S14-17707 29 S14-15023 9 S14-17701 30 S14-18056 10 S14-17627 31 S13-12433 11 S14-17597 32 S13-14728 12 S14-17574 33 S13-13306 13 S14-17234 34 S13-13896 14 S12-5127 35 S09-6262 15 S12-1362 36 S12-7386 16 S12-1403 37 S12-8180 17 VERNAL 38 S12-9019 18 OTONO 39 S12-6829 19 CM 422 40 Blank 20 DS 46-1

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 25 ft long Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers


Planting: Planted test on Aug 9 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 25 ft long Poor emergence due to excessive rainfall over an extended period of time

starting on Aug 13 Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-

emergence with a tractor-pulled spray rig on Aug 9. Sampling: Plots were rated for percent stand and growth stage on Oct 7 Rated pod set on Oct 10

Non-Replicated Soybean Host Plant Resistance

34


Insect sweeps (10 sweeps/plot) on Oct 28 Collected 10 leaves per plot for defoliation ratings (%) on Nov 3 Collected 3 plants per plot for defoliation ratings (from 10 leaves total),

counted pods (mature and immature), measured pod ht and pod length (10 pods/plant) on Nov 15 – Nov 16

Discussion

Last year (2016) was challenging for conducting soybean research because of persistent,

abundant rainfall. We did not plant this experiment until August 9; it should have been planted about May 15, but I thought we may still get some useable data from this late planted experiment. Seed of varieties was obtained from James Grichar. I requested later MG varieties which are more adapted to SE Texas. We evaluated 39 varieties (a single replication of each) drill planted in a field in which we had the ability to irrigate and drain, if needed.

Due to very wet conditions after planting, soybean stands were less than ideal. We recorded stands by visually estimating % canopy closure along each row of each plot. The following varieties exhibited the best stands (90% or greater): S14-1861, S14-2039, S14-3862, S14-10555 and S14-17707 (Tables 1 and 2).

Number of immature pods (these are small pods that may or may not have filled out given an earlier planting date) was greatest (100 or more) for S12-5127, S12-1362, S12-1403, Vernal, CM 422, DS 46-1, S14-12404, S14-18056, S13-12433, S13-14728, S12-8180 and S12-9019 (Tables 3 and 4).

Lepidoptera defoliator populations ranged from zero to 10 (Tables 5 and 6). Stink bug populations (mainly redbanded stink bugs) ranged from zero to 16 (Tables 7

and 8) Because of the lack of replications and generally less than ideal stands, not much can be

concluded about insect resistance relative to varieties evaluated.


35


Table 1. Stand, growth stage and defoliation data for varieties 1-20 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Stand (%) on Sep 29 –

Oct 5 Growth stage on Sep 29 – Oct 5

Defoliationb (%)

Nov 3 Nov 15 – Nov 6 1 S14-4655 66.3 3.5 20.7 23.0

2 S14-1702 61.3 4.0 13.2 31.5

3 S14-1861 93.8 4.0 16.8 18.0

4 S14-2039 92.5 5.0 24.5 28.5

5 S14-3140 65.0 4.0 17.5 23.5

6 S14-3862 100.0 4.0 15.5 13.5

7 S14-6559 16.3 4.0 13.0 11.5

8 S14-17707 92.5 4.0 9.3 20.9

9 S14-17701 58.8 4.0 10.9 14.0

10 S14-17627 85.0 4.0 19.3 32.0

11 S14-17597 87.5 3.0 14.5 32.0

12 S14-17574 45.0 4.0 13.9 36.0

13 S14-17234 55.0 4.0 15.8 28.5

14 S12-5127 12.5 2.0 9.6 18.0

15 S12-1362 27.5 2.5 8.5 20.3

16 S12-1403 38.8 2.0 18.3 30.0

17 VERNAL 30.0 2.0 21.0 32.0

18 OTONO 0.0 N/A N/A N/A

19 CM 422 20.0 4.0 13.0 27.0

20 DS 46-1 1.3 3.0 10.0 30.0 a G = good, F = fair, P = poor b Defoliation ratings are mean of 10 leaves per plot


36


Table 2. Stand, growth stage and defoliation data for varieties 21-39 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Stand (%) on Oct 7

Growth stage on Oct 7

Defoliationb (%)

Nov 3 Nov 15 – Nov 6 21 S14-9973 45.0 5.0 14.0 9.0 22 S14-9866 48.8 5.0 15.5 21.0 23 S14-10555 95.0 5.0 17.0 16.5 24 S14-12404 36.3 5.0 17.5 18.0 25 S14-12396 53.8 5.0 25.0 14.5 26 S14-13506 78.8 4.0 21.0 24.5 27 S14-15216 8.8 4.5 20.5 18.5 28 S14-9999 78.8 5.0 21.5 29.0 29 S14-15023 81.3 5.0 23.5 28.0 30 S14-18056 46.3 4.5 29.0 24.0 31 S13-12433 22.5 3.5 16.5 26.0 32 S13-14728 1.3 5.0 20.5 29.0 33 S13-13306 30.0 4.5 27.0 20.5 34 S13-13896 17.5 4.5 23.3 26.5 35 S09-6262 0.0 N/A N/A N/A 36 S12-7386 7.5 4.0 24.0 38.0 37 S12-8180 31.3 4.0 37.0 17.5 38 S12-9019 51.3 4.0 28.5 15.7 39 S12-6829 0.0 N/A N/A N/A

a G = good, F = fair, P = poor b Defoliation ratings are mean of 10 leaves per plot


37


Table 3. Mean pod data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 1-20 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment No. Variety Pod ht (cm)

No. immature pods

Pod length (mm)

1 S14-4655 8.2 55.0 24.3 2 S14-1702 4.2 67.7 27.6 3 S14-1861 6.0 52.0 32.1 4 S14-2039 6.7 37.3 25.9 5 S14-3140 6.7 76.0 26.1 6 S14-3862 5.3 30.7 26.8 7 S14-6559 5.5 93.3 30.1 8 S14-17707 6.0 95.3 30.8 9 S14-17701 7.0 90.3 27.0 10 S14-17627 8.4 74.3 28.9 11 S14-17597 5.7 76.7 26.2 12 S14-17574 3.3 61.0 21.1 13 S14-17234 2.2 81.7 26.3 14 S12-5127 3.3 132.3 28.3 15 S12-1362 2.4 126.7 25.4 16 S12-1403 5.0 134.0 23.1 17 VERNAL 7.8 130.0 21.0 18 OTONO N/A N/A N/A 19 CM 422 3.0 138.3 25.0 20 DS 46-1 4.0 134.7 30.1


38


Table 4. Mean pod data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 21-39 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment No. Variety Pod ht (cm)

No. immature pods

Pod length (mm)

21 S14-9973 6.2 63.0 24.4 22 S14-9866 6.9 59.3 29.6 23 S14-10555 3.1 32.0 22.8 24 S14-12404 2.9 168.7 28.5 25 S14-12396 4.0 54.0 25.9 26 S14-13506 3.6 93.0 33.9 27 S14-15216 2.8 73.0 32.8 28 S14-9999 4.3 86.0 32.4 29 S14-15023 4.9 93.3 31.1 30 S14-18056 2.2 102.3 34.2 31 S13-12433 6.6 101.0 19.9 32 S13-14728 2.3 147.3 25.7 33 S13-13306 2.3 83.3 24.1 34 S13-13896 2.7 93.3 28.6 35 S09-6262 N/A N/A N/A 36 S12-7386 1.8 68.0 31.7 37 S12-8180 4.0 184.7 31.0 38 S12-9019 3.7 115.3 23.5 39 S12-6829 N/A N/A N/A


39


Table 5. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 1-20 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment No. Variety

Soybean looper

Green cloverworm

Velvetbean caterpillar Total leps

1 S14-4655 1 0 3 4 2 S14-1702 1 0 7 8 3 S14-1861 0 0 2 2 4 S14-2039 0 0 3 3 5 S14-3140 0 0 6 6 6 S14-3862 0 0 1 1 7 S14-6559 0 0 2 2 8 S14-17707 0 0 0 0 9 S14-17701 0 1 1 2 10 S14-17627 0 0 10 10 11 S14-17597 0 2 7 9 12 S14-17574 0 1 0 1 13 S14-17234 0 0 1 1 14 S12-5127 0 0 0 0 15 S12-1362 0 0 0 0 16 S12-1403 0 0 1 1 17 VERNAL 1 0 3 4 18 OTONO 0 0 0 0 19 CM 422 0 0 2 2 20 DS 46-1 0 0 0 0


40


Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 21-39 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.


Soybean looper

Green cloverworm


21 S14-9973 0 0 2 2 22 S14-9866 1 0 1 2 23 S14-10555 0 0 2 2 24 S14-12404 0 0 1 1 25 S14-12396 0 0 0 0 26 S14-13506 0 0 1 1 27 S14-15216 0 0 0 0 28 S14-9999 0 0 0 0 29 S14-15023 0 0 4 4 30 S14-18056 0 0 4 4 31 S13-12433 0 0 2 2 32 S13-14728 0 0 0 0 33 S13-13306 1 0 1 2 34 S13-13896 0 0 1 1 35 S09-6262 0 0 1 1 36 S12-7386 0 0 0 0 37 S12-8180 0 0 3 3 38 S12-9019 0 1 5 6 39 S12-6829 0 0 0 0


41


Table 7. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 1-20 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Southern green Green Redbanded Total stink bugs Aa Na Ta N A N T

1 S14-4655 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 4 2 S14-1702 0 0 0 0 11 1 12 12 3 S14-1861 0 0 0 1 15 0 15 16 4 S14-2039 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 6 5 S14-3140 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 6 S14-3862 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 7 S14-6559 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 3 8 S14-17707 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 9 S14-17701 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 4 10 S14-17627 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 11 S14-17597 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 12 S14-17574 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 S14-17234 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 14 S12-5127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 S12-1362 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 16 S12-1403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 VERNAL 1 0 1 0 4 0 4 5 18 OTONO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 CM 422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 DS 46-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total


42


Table 8. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 21-39 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Southern green Green Redbanded Total stink bugs Aa Na Ta N A N T

21 S14-9973 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 22 S14-9866 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 23 S14-10555 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 24 S14-12404 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 S14-12396 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 S14-13506 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 27 S14-15216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 S14-9999 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 29 S14-15023 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 30 S14-18056 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 31 S13-12433 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 32 S13-14728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 S13-13306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 S13-13896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 S09-6262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 S12-7386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 S12-8180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 S12-9019 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 39 S12-6829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total


43


Table 9. Threecornered alfalfa hopper and grasshopper data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 1-20 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.


Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Grasshoppers

Banded cucumber

beetle Adults Nymphs Total 1 S14-4655 5 1 6 0 2 2 S14-1702 13 1 14 0 1 3 S14-1861 3 0 3 1 0 4 S14-2039 6 0 6 0 2 5 S14-3140 6 0 6 0 2 6 S14-3862 2 0 2 0 0 7 S14-6559 6 0 6 1 3 8 S14-17707 10 0 10 1 1 9 S14-17701 4 0 4 0 0 10 S14-17627 8 0 8 1 2 11 S14-17597 11 0 11 0 2 12 S14-17574 3 0 3 0 5 13 S14-17234 2 0 2 0 3 14 S12-5127 0 0 0 0 3 15 S12-1362 1 0 1 0 2 16 S12-1403 0 0 0 0 1 17 VERNAL 0 0 0 0 2 18 OTONO 0 0 0 0 0 19 CM 422 2 0 2 0 6 20 DS 46-1 0 0 0 0 1


44


Table 10. Threecornered alfalfa hopper and grasshopper data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 21-39 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.


Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Grasshoppers

Banded cucumber

beetle Adults Nymphs Total 21 S14-9973 10 3 13 0 4 22 S14-9866 6 0 6 0 1 23 S14-10555 5 0 5 0 1 24 S14-12404 3 0 3 0 4 25 S14-12396 2 0 2 0 1 26 S14-13506 1 0 1 0 2 27 S14-15216 0 0 0 0 0 28 S14-9999 10 0 10 0 0 9 S14-15023 5 0 5 0 0 30 S14-18056 0 0 0 0 2 31 S13-12433 4 0 4 0 1 32 S13-14728 0 0 0 0 0 33 S13-13306 0 0 0 0 0 34 S13-13896 0 0 0 0 0 35 S09-6262 0 0 0 0 0 36 S12-7386 0 0 0 0 0 37 S12-8180 0 0 0 0 0 38 S12-9019 1 0 1 0 8 39 S12-6829 0 0 0 0 4


45


Table 11. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 1-20 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Big-eyed bug

Leaf-hoppers Spiders

Assassin bugs

Spotted cucumber

beetle Moths Lace wing 1 S14-4655 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 S14-1702 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 S14-1861 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 S14-2039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 S14-3140 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 S14-3862 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 S14-6559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 S14-17707 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 S14-17701 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 S14-17627 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 11 S14-17597 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 S14-17574 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 S14-17234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 S12-5127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 S12-1362 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 S12-1403 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 17 VERNAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 OTONO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 CM 422 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 20 DS 46-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 05, ANOVA and LSD).


46


Table 12. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 10 sweeps on Oct 28 for varieties 21-39 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Big-eyed bug

Leaf-hoppers Spiders

Assassin bugs

Spotted cucumber

beetle Moths Lace wing 21 S14-9973 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 22 S14-9866 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 23 S14-10555 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 S14-12404 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 S14-12396 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 26 S14-13506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 S14-15216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 S14-9999 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 S14-15023 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 S14-18056 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 31 S13-12433 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 32 S13-14728 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 33 S13-13306 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 34 S13-13896 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35 S09-6262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 S12-7386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 S12-8180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 S12-9019 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 39 S12-6829 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 05, ANOVA and LSD).

47


Soybean Host Plant Resistance - Grichar Beaumont, TX

2016

⇑ North PLOT PLAN III II I

41 4 (CZ 4898) 21 7 (P 4799) 1 1 (CM422)

42 13 (S 53C5) 22 18 (S 52RY75) 2 2 (Pioneer 5752)

43 17 (P 5555) 23 5 (P 4944) 3 3 (S 48D9)

44 2 (Pioneer 5752) 24 14 (P5289) 4 4 (CZ 4898)

45 11 (AG 49X6) 25 19 (S 5226) 5 5 (P 4944)

46 20 (S 56M8) 26 15 (CZ 5515) 6 6 (HBK 4950)

47 18 (S 52RY75) 27 9 (HBK 5221) 7 7 (P 4799)

48 10 (S 52Y2) 28 1 (CM 422) 8 8 (AG 54X6)

49 7 (P 4799) 29 12 (S 47K5) 9 9 (HBK 5221)

50 3 (S 48D9) 30 20 (S 56M8) 10 10 (S 52Y2)

51 19 (S 5226) 31 4 (CZ 4898) 11 11 (AG 49X6)

52 6 (HBK 4950) 32 16 (S 52RS86) 12 12 (S 47K5)

53 15 (CZ 5515) 33 11 (AG 49X6) 13 13 (S 53C5)

54 9 (HBK 5221) 34 8 (AG 54X6) 14 14 (P5289)

55 14 (P5289) 35 2 (Pioneer 5752) 15 15 (CZ 5515)

56 5 (P 4944) 36 10 (S 52Y2) 16 16 (S 52RS86)

57 1 (CM 422) 37 6 (HBK 4950) 17 17 (P 5555)

58 8 (AG 54X6) 38 13 (S 53C5) 18 18 (S 52RY75)

59 16 (S 52RS86) 39 3 (S 48D9) 19 19 (S 5226)

60 12 (S 47K5) 40 17 (P 5555) 20 20 (S 56M8) Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 25 ft long Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 20 treatments and 3 replications Planting: Planted test on Aug 9 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 25 ft long Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-

emergence with a tractor-pulled spray rig on Aug 9.

Soybean Host Plant Resistance Study

48


Sampling: Plots were rated for percent stand and growth stage on Sep 29 – Oct 5 Rated podset on Oct 10 Insect sweeps (10 sweeps/plot) and percent defoliation in plot recorded on

Oct 27 Collected 10 leaves per plot for defoliation ratings (%) on Nov 3 Collected 3 plants per plot for defoliation ratings (from 10 leaves total),

counted pods (mature and immature), measured pod ht and pod length (10 pods/plant) on Nov 17 – Nov 21

Discussion

Last year (2016) was challenging for conducting soybean research because of persistent,

abundant rainfall. We did not plant this experiment until August 9; it should have been planted about May 15, but I thought we may still get some useable data from this late planted experiment. Seed of varieties was obtained from James Grichar. I requested later MG varieties which are more adapted to SE Texas. We evaluated 20 varieties (replicated 3 times) drill planted in a field in which we had the ability to irrigate and drain, if needed.

We estimated soybean stand September 29-October 5 by recording the % canopy cover for each row of each plot (Table 1). Best stands were produced by S 48D9, S 52Y2, S 53CY, P 5555 and S 56M8. These varieties also were most mature (R4.7-5) during this rating window. Stand density was probably a function of the ability of a particular variety to do well in wet conditions.

Lepidoptera defoliators (mainly velvetbean caterpillar, green cloverworm and soybean looper) were common in the experiment. Per cent defoliation was not significantly different among varieties and ranged from 19.3 to 42 on the last rating dates (November 17-21) (Table 1). Number of Lepidoptera defoliators was not significantly different among varieties (Table 3). This suggests none of the varieties exhibited resistance to these defoliator pests.

Stink bugs, primarily redbanded stink bugs, were also common in the experiment, but no differences among varieties were detected; thus, data suggest none of the varieties exhibited resistance to stink bugs (Table 4).

Threecornered alfalfa hopper populations were similar among varieties (Table 5). Beneficial arthropod populations, except for spiders, were similar among varieties (Table 6). Although varietal differences in spider populations were not detected, these populations were very low across varieties.

Because of the late planting date, I believed harvest of plots would be questionable, so we counted pods produced by each variety in each plot. Basically, the varieties with the most pods were: CM422, Pioneer 5752, P 4944, HBK 4950, HBK 5221, AG 49X6 and P 5289 (Table 2). I presume these varieties would be the highest yielding in the experiment (if insect pests were controlled), but my presumption may be wrong.

Of special note, we found moths of an unknown species collected from soybeans in some of the plots, especially those plots on the margins of the experiment. We sent specimens to James McDermott, Lepidoptera Systematist in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University. He identified them as Spoladea recurvalis. Here is a link to some information on this species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoladea_recurvalis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoladea_recurvalis�


49


Table 1. Mean stand, growth stage and defoliation data for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Stand (%) on Sep 29 –

Oct 5 Growth stage on Sep 29 – Oct 5

Defoliationa (%)

Oct 27 Nov 3 Nov 17 – Nov

21 1 CM422 37.5 c-f 3.5 bc 8.3 12.9 36.5

2 Pioneer 5752 46.3 b-e 5.0 a 9.0 9.3 29.5

3 S 48D9 78.8 a 5.0 a 5.0 10.0 27.5

4 CZ 4898 21.3 def 4.2 abc 6.7 17.9 32.0

5 P 4944 43.8 b-e 4.5 abc 6.7 18.8 25.0

6 HBK 4950 27.5 def 4.0 abc 5.0 10.6 21.8

7 P 4799 19.2 ef 4.2 abc 5.3 13.2 26.7

8 AG 54X6 42.9 b-e 5.0 a 5.0 10.9 31.5

9 HBK 5221 10.0 f 4.0 abc 6.3 16.2 23.3

10 S 52Y2 63.8 abc 5.0 a 5.0 12.1 24.8

11 AG 49X6 48.3 b-e 4.2 abc 5.0 14.1 26.2

12 S 47K5 23.8 def 4.3 abc 5.3 8.5 26.5

13 S 53C5 50.4 a-d 5.0 a 6.3 13.2 26.5

14 P5289 31.7 c-f 3.5 bc 7.3 14.5 27.8

15 CZ 5515 17.5 ef 4.0 abc 9.0 20.4 42.0

16 S 52RS86 33.3 c-f 3.7 bc 5.0 10.8 24.0

17 P 5555 63.3 abc 4.7 ab 7.3 15.3 29.2

18 S 52RY75 28.3 def 4.7 ab 7.7 16.5 29.7

19 S 5226 19.2 def 3.4 c 5.7 17.2 25.0

20 S 56M8 71.7 ab 4.5 abc 6.0 12.4 19.3 a Defoliation ratings on entire plot on Oct 27, defoliation ratings on other dates are mean of 10 leaves per plot Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


50


Table 2. Mean pod data on Oct 27 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016. Treatment

No. Variety Pod ht (cm)

No. mature pods

No. immature pods

Pod length (mm)

1 CM422 3.9 16.0 179.9 a 29.5

2 Pioneer 5752 5.9 4.0 119.8 a-e 31.4

3 S 48D9 3.6 10.7 58.9 e 34.3

4 CZ 4898 4.9 2.4 65.2 de 30.9

5 P 4944 5.5 7.3 123.5 a-e 30.3

6 HBK 4950 4.7 0.1 142.6 abc 28.7

7 P 4799 3.1 5.6 92.1 b-e 29.8

8 AG 54X6 4.0 8.0 72.9 cde 31.3

9 HBK 5221 3.7 3.4 135.2 a-d 28.2

10 S 52Y2 4.5 2.3 85.0 b-e 33.5

11 AG 49X6 3.5 1.0 111.5 a-e 31.2

12 S 47K5 3.2 3.8 94.9 b-e 33.2

13 S 53C5 4.1 2.0 83.7 b-e 33.2

14 P5289 4.2 0.7 153.5 ab 25.3

15 CZ 5515 3.2 0.3 100.8 b-e 30.4

16 S 52RS86 3.5 1.4 93.8 b-e 29.7

17 P 5555 5.5 2.2 69.2 cde 32.0

18 S 52RY75 3.5 7.8 67.6 de 32.0

19 S 5226 3.4 2.3 92.0 b-e 31.8

20 S 56M8 4.6 0.8 74.5 cde 32.6

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).


51


Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps on Oct 27 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.


Soybean looper

Green cloverworm


1 CM422 0 0 6.3 6.3

2 Pioneer 5752 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.3

3 S 48D9 1.3 0.7 0 2.0

4 CZ 4898 0 0.3 0.3 0.7

5 P 4944 0.3 1.0 1.0 2.3

6 HBK 4950 0 0 1.3 1.3

7 P 4799 0 0.3 0 0.3

8 AG 54X6 0 0 0.3 0.3

9 HBK 5221 0.3 0 0.3 0.7

10 S 52Y2 0 0 2.7 2.7

11 AG 49X6 0.7 1.7 1.3 3.7

12 S 47K5 0 0.3 0.3 0.7

13 S 53C5 0.7 0.3 0 1.0

14 P5289 0.3 0 1.0 1.3

15 CZ 5515 0 0 0 0

16 S 52RS86 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.3

17 P 5555 0.3 1.0 1.7 3.0

18 S 52RY75 0 0 1.0 1.0

19 S 5226 0.7 0 1.0 1.7

20 S 56M8 0 0 1.0 1.0 Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


52


Table 4. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps on Oct 27 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Southern green Redbanded Brown Total stink bugs Aa Na Ta A N T A

1 CM422 0 0 0 4.3 0 4.3 0 4.3

2 Pioneer 5752 0 0 0 2.0 0 2.0 0 2.0

3 S 48D9 0 0 0 2.0 0.7 2.7 0 2.7

4 CZ 4898 0.3 0.7 1.0 4.0 0.3 4.3 0 5.3

5 P 4944 0 0 0 4.3 0.7 5.0 0 5.0

6 HBK 4950 0 0.3 0.3 4.0 0.3 4.3 0 4.7

7 P 4799 0 0 0 7.7 0 7.7 0 7.7

8 AG 54X6 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0.7

9 HBK 5221 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 1.3 0 2.0

10 S 52Y2 0 0.3 0.3 5.0 0 5.0 0 5.3

11 AG 49X6 0 0.3 0.3 2.3 0 2.3 0 2.7

12 S 47K5 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3

13 S 53C5 0 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.7 0 4.0

14 P5289 0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0 0.7 0 1.0

15 CZ 5515 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 1.3 0 2.0

16 S 52RS86 0.3 0 0.3 3.0 0.3 3.3 0.3 4.0

17 P 5555 0 0.7 0.7 2.0 0.3 2.3 0 3.0

18 S 52RY75 0 0.3 0.3 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.3

19 S 5226 0 0.3 0.3 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.3

20 S 56M8 0 0 0 1.0 0.7 1.7 0 1.7 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 05, ANOVA and LSD).


53


Table 5. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 10 sweeps on Oct 27 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment No. Variety Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Grasshoppers Adults Nymphs Total 1 CM422 1.7 0 1.7 0

2 Pioneer 5752 3.7 0.3 4.0 0.3

3 S 48D9 0.7 0.3 1.0 0

4 CZ 4898 3.3 0.3 3.7 0

5 P 4944 1.3 0 1.3 0

6 HBK 4950 0.3 0 0.3 0

7 P 4799 2.0 0 2.0 0

8 AG 54X6 2.7 0 2.7 0

9 HBK 5221 1.3 0.3 1.7 0.3

10 S 52Y2 2.0 0 2.0 0

11 AG 49X6 4.3 0.3 4.7 0

12 S 47K5 1.3 0 1.3 0

13 S 53C5 2.3 0 2.3 0.3

14 P5289 2.0 0 2.0 0

15 CZ 5515 0.7 0 0.7 0

16 S 52RS86 2.7 0 2.7 0

17 P 5555 3.0 0 3.0 0

18 S 52RY75 3.7 0 3.7 0.3

19 S 5226 1.0 0 1.0 0

20 S 56M8 3.0 0 3.0 0 Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 05, ANOVA and LSD).


54


Table 6. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 10 sweeps on Oct 27 for soybean host plant resistance study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Trt. No. Variety

Banded cucumber

beetle Big-eyed

bug Leaf-

hoppers Spiders Assassin

bugs Moths Lace wing 1 CM422 3.3 cd 0.3 0 0.3 cd 1.0 0 0

2 Pioneer 5752 7.7 abc 0 0.3 1.3 a-d 0 0 0

3 S 48D9 7.7 abc 0 0 3.3 a 0 0.3 0

4 CZ 4898 8.0 abc 0 0 0.3 cd 0.3 0 0

5 P 4944 3.7 bcd 0 0.3 0.3 cd 0 0 0

6 HBK 4950 4.3 bcd 0.3 0 1.3 a-d 1.0 0 0

7 P 4799 3.3 cd 0 0 0.7cd 1.0 0 0

8 AG 54X6 7.0 abc 0.3 0.7 2.0 abc 0.3 0 0

9 HBK 5221 4.0 bcd 0 1.3 0.7 bcd 0 0 0

10 S 52Y2 1.7 d 0 0.3 3.0 ab 1.0 0.3 0.3

11 AG 49X6 8.3 abc 0 0.7 0 d 0.3 0.3 1.0

12 S 47K5 2.7 cd 0 1.0 1.0 a-d 0.3 0 0

13 S 53C5 9.7 ab 0 1.0 0.3 cd 0 0 1.0

14 P5289 6.7 abc 0 0.3 1.0 bcd 0.3 0 0

15 CZ 5515 14.7 a 0 0 0.3 cd 2.0 0 0

16 S 52RS86 5.3 bcd 0 2.3 2.0 abc 0.3 0.3 1.3

17 P 5555 7.0 abc 0 0 1.0 bcd 0.7 0.3 0

18 S 52RY75 7.3 abc 0 0.7 1.7 a-d 0.3 0 0.3

19 S 5226 6.7 bc 0 0 0 d 0.3 0.3 0

20 S 56M8 4.7 bcd 0 1.3 0.3 cd 0 0.3 0.3

NS NS NS NS NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 05, ANOVA and LSD).

55


Syngenta Sorghum Seed Treatments – Trial 1 Block 1N

Beaumont, TX 2016

PLOT PLAN

← North I II III IV

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

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety: KS585 (provided by Syngenta)




(g ai/ha)

1 Untreated --- 2 Transform 50 WG 35 3 Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG 0.062 mg ai/seed + 35 4 Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 5 Poncho 600FS + Transform 50WG 0.078 mg ai/seed + 35 6 A21065 + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35

All seed treated with A8468 @ 0.013 mg ai/seed, Maxim 4FS @ 0.001mg ai/seed, Apron XL3LS @ 0.009 mg ai/seed and A16148 @ 0.002 mg ai/seed

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (KS585 @ about 1 seed/inch) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand

3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 12 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Emergence on Apr 17 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Apr 12 Note: Plots were flushed as needed

Syngenta Sorghum Seed Treatments – Trial 1

56


Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 38 lb N/A on Apr 12 at planting 77 lb N/A on May 13 at 5-leaf stage Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-

held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 12 for weed control

Treatments: All seed treated by Syngenta Applied foliar treatments 2-6 (Transform 50 WG) with a 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 22 Sampling: No phyto noted and no differences in plant vigor on Apr 26 Measured plant ht and counted number of leaves on 10 plants per plot on May

13, Jun 10, Jun 16 and Jun 27 Stand counts – 1 m counts in 2 rows on May 12 Counted number of sugarcane aphid (SCA) on 10 upper leaves and 10 lower

leaves per plot on Jul 21 and Jul 25 Heading notes on Jun 17 (just starting) and Jun 24 (100% headed) Harvested and counted seed heads in 2 middle rows per plot on Jul 27; harvest =

hand cut heads, air dried and threshed using a vogel Data analysis: Count data transformed using

x + 0.5 ; percent data transformed with arcsin; yields converted to lb/A @ 13% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

This year was very challenging due to an extremely wet spring and early summer. For

instance at the Beaumont Center in 2016, rainfall for March, April, May and June was 7.98, 9.59, 9.1 and 8.48 inches, respectively. Thus, research blocks were frequently flooded even though blocks were precision leveled to flood (flush) or drain quickly. All of the rain played havoc with planting, emergence and agronomic practices including applying treatments. In my 34 years working at the Beaumont Center, I have never experienced such a challenging growing season.

With that said, we tried to work around the weather to collect useable data. For this experiment in hindsight we planted too early (April 12) because SCA populations never reached treatable levels. I was concerned if we did not plant at this time, we would not have an opportunity later (because of projected rainfall) to plant the experiment.

We did not observe any phytotoxic effects of the seed treatments. Plant height and number of green, fully expanded leaves per plant did not significantly differ among treatments throughout the experiment (Tables 1and 2). We did find a few thrips, but populations were very low (Table 3). SCA populations were very low up to July 21 when they were beginning to increase (Table 4). Given 50 SCA per leaf as the treatment threshold, populations of SCA on this date were below or barely above the threshold for all treatments, including the untreated. I think populations declined between July 21 and July 25 because plants were naturally senescing---


57


plots were harvested 2 days later. Plant stands, percent heading on June 17, number of heads and yield were not significantly different among treatments (Table 5). Yields were extremely low due to persistent wet, cool weather during the season. Also, I don’t think KS585 is well adapted to Southeast Texas. Table 1. Mean plant height data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatments – 1. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha) Plant ht (cm)

May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Untreated --- 23.3 62.5 65.9 67.4

Transform 50 WG 35 26.0 62.7 67.5 63.6

Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG 0.062 mg ai/seed + 35 25.9 61.5 66.7 64.9


Poncho 600FS + Transform 50WG 0.078 mg ai/seed + 35 26.0 66.1 65.4 63.4

A21065 + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 26.9 63.0 69.2 62.9

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 2. Mean leaf data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatments – 1. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha) No. of green, fully expanded leaves

May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Untreated --- 4.3 4.8 4.3 4.4

Transform 50 WG 35 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.3



Poncho 600FS + Transform 50WG 0.078 mg ai/seed + 35 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.3

A21065 + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 4.4 4.6 3.8 3.9

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


58


Table 3. Mean thrips data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatments – 1. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha) No. thrips on 10 plants

May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Untreated --- 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transform 50 WG 35 0.0 0.0 0.3

Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG 0.062 mg ai/seed + 35 0.3 0.0 0.0

Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 0.5 0.3 0.0

Poncho 600FS + Transform 50WG 0.078 mg ai/seed + 35 0.0 0.0 0.0

A21065 + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 0.0 0.0 0.0

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 4. Mean aphid data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatment – 1. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha) No. aphids on 10 plants

No. aphids on 10 leaves

Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Jul 21 Jul 25

Untreated --- 3.0 0.3 5.5 34.3 2.0

Transform 50 WG 35 0.0 0.3 0.0 140.3 7.3 Cruiser 5FS

+ Transform 50WG 0.062 mg ai/seed

+ 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 220.3 0.3

Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG

0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 0.0 0.0 0.8 548.3 10.3

Poncho 600FS + Transform 50WG

0.078 mg ai/seed + 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 177.3 1.5

A21065 + Transform 50WG

0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 0.0 0.0 0.5 219.8 7.8



59


Table 5. Mean stand and yield data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatments – 1. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha)

Stand (plants/m of row)

% heading on Jun 17

No. seed heads in 2 rows

Yield (lb/A)

Untreated --- 9.0 6.5 345.5 605.3

Transform 50 WG 35 8.9 9.8 338.3 728.2 Cruiser 5FS + Transform

50WG 0.062 mg ai/seed

+ 35 9.6 14.0 376.3 619.4

Cruiser 5FS + Transform 50WG

0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 11.6 14.0 356.3 716.5

Poncho 600FS + Transform 50WG

0.078 mg ai/seed + 35 9.5 12.0 349.0 703.6

A21065 + Transform 50WG

0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 10.5 12.3 345.0 815.8


60


Syngenta Sorghum Seed Treatments – Trial 2 Block 9N

Beaumont, TX 2016

PLOT PLAN


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

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety: KS585 (provided by Syngenta)




(g ai/ha)

1 Untreated --- 2 Transform 50 WG 35 3 Cruiser 5FS 0.062 mg ai/seed 4 Cruiser 5FS 0.0938 mg ai/seed 5 Poncho 600FS 0.078 mg ai/seed 6 A21065 + Transform 50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35

All seed treated with A8468 @ 0.013 mg ai/seed, Maxim 4FS @ 0.001mg ai/seed, Apron XL3LS @ 0.009 mg ai/seed and A16148 @ 0.002 mg ai/seed


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (KS585 @ about 1 seed/inch) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand

3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun 28 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Emergence on Jul 6 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Jun 29 Note: Plots were flushed as needed


61


Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 38 lb N/A on Jun 29 at planting 77 lb N/A on Jul 25 at 5-leaf stage Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-

held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 28 for weed control

Treatments: All seed treated by Syngenta Applied foliar treatments 2 and 6 with a hand-held, 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Aug 12 (plants at 9 leaf stage)

Sampling: No phyto noted and no differences in plant vigor on Jul 25 and Aug 1 (some fall

armyworm damage) Stand counts – 1 m counts in 2 rows on Aug 11 Counted number of sugarcane aphid (SCA) on 10 upper leaves and 10 lower

leaves per plot on Aug 11 and Aug 24 (mostly dead plants in untreated plots) Heading notes on Aug 29 Counted stalks and seed heads in 2 middle rows per plot on Sep 16; plots were

not harvested because of poor grain development across all treatments. Data analysis: Count data transformed using

x + 0.5 ; percent data transformed with arcsin; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

This is a repeat of the experiment we conducted in block 1N. I think we planted the

experiment in block 1N too early, so this experiment was planted later on June 28 in hopes of encountering higher populations of the SCA. Again, persistent wet weather hampered the results of this experiment.

No SCAs were observed in this experiment until August 1---26 days after emergence of sorghum. Transform 50WG was applied to treatments 2 and 6 on August 12 prior to booting when plants averaged about 9 leaves. Forty to about 50 percent heading occurred in these treatments in mid-September, about 1 month after application of Transform 50WG to treatments 2 and 6 (Table 2). Just prior to application of Transform 50WG, SCA populations were beginning to increase. However, Cruiser 5FS and Poncho 600FS seed treatments significantly reduced the number of SCAs compared to the other treatments (Table 1). So, the Cruiser 5FS and Poncho 600FS appeared to protect the sorghum against SCA for at least 36 days after emergence. Across treatments, lower leaves harbored higher SCA populations than upper leaves which may be due to lower leaves being larger than upper leaves. No SCA counts were taken between August 11 and August 24 during which 7.5 inches of rain fell. By August 24, none of the treatments provided control of SCA. However, populations across treatments were relatively low (all below the treatment threshold of 50 SCA per leaf). Also, we observed on August 24, most plants in untreated plots were dead---probably due to a combination of SCA pressure and water-


62


saturated soil. I wish we had taken more SCA counts during the season---before August 11, and between August 11 and August 24.

Sorghum plant stands were not significantly different among treatments which suggests the seed treatments did not affect stands (Table 2). Of particular note is untreated plots did not produce any heads. Yields were not taken due to poor development of existing heads. These data clearly show uncontrolled populations of SCA can drastically reduce sorghum yield and prevent seed heads from developing. Not much can be concluded about seed treatment A21065 since the subsequent application of Transform 50WG masked the effects of this seed treatment. Table 1. Mean aphid data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatment – 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha)

No. aphids in 10 upper leaves

No. aphids on 10 lower leaves

Aug 11 Aug 24a Aug 11 Aug 24a

Untreated --- 46.8 a 24.7 b 293.1 a 30.9 b

Transform 50 WG 35 90.9 a 219.7 a 328.0 a 355.0 a

Cruiser 5FS 0.062 mg ai/seed 6.5 b 317.1 a 23.1 b 340.3 a

Cruiser 5FS 0.0938 mg ai/seed 2.2 b 284.8 a 3.0 b 470.5 a

Poncho 600FS 0.078 mg ai/seed 1.9 b 322.5 a 3.1 b 368.0 a A21065 + Transform

50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed + 35 110.0 a 245.5 a 404.5 a 343.3 a a Mostly dead plants in untreated plots on Aug 24 sample date Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


63


Table 2. Mean stand and yield data for Syngenta sorghum seed treatments – 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(g ai/ha)

Stand (plants/m of row) on

Aug 11

% heading on Sep

16

No. plants in 2 middle

rows

No. seed heads in 2

rows Untreated --- 10.5 0.3 c 72.0 0 c

Transform 50 WG 35 13.0 53.8 ab 66.3 27.3 b

Cruiser 5FS 0.062 mg ai/seed 9.0 62.5 ab 79.8 30.3 ab

Cruiser 5FS 0.0938 mg ai/seed 10.5 82.5 a 97.5 51.3 a

Poncho 600FS 0.078 mg ai/seed 9.8 76.3 a 85.0 48.8 a A21065 + Transform

50WG 0.0938 mg ai/seed +

35 10.3 40.0 b 78.0 23.3 b

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

64


Hybrid Grain Sorghum Seed Treatments – Trial 1 Block 1S

Beaumont, TX 2016

PLOT PLAN


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

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety: M37GB39 (provided by David Kerns)




(fl oz/cwt) 1 Poncho 600 6.4 2 Cruiser 5FS 7.6 3 Gaucho 600 6.4 4 Untreated ---

All seed treated with Concep

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications 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 Apr 12 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Emergence on Apr 17 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Apr 12 Note: Plots were flushed as needed Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 38 lb N/A on Apr 12 at planting 77 lb N/A on May 13 at 5-leaf stage

Hybrid Grain Sorghum Seed Treatments – Trial 1

65


Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 12 for weed control

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by David Kerns Applied Transform 50WG @ 0.75 oz/A to trts 1-3 with a 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 26 Sampling: Plants at 3 leaf stage, no phyto noted and no differences in plant vigor on Apr

26; some thrips observed on Apr 26 Measured plant ht and counted number of green, fully expanded leaves on 10

plants per plot on May 5, May 13, Jun 10, Jun 16, and Jun 27 Stand counts – 1 m counts in 2 rows on May 5 Counted number of thrips and sugarcane aphid (SCA) on 10 plants on May 13,

Jun 10, Jun 16, and Jun 27 Counted number of SCA on 10 upper leaves and 10 lower leaves per plot on Jul

21, Aug 2, and Aug 9 Heading notes on Jun 24 (just starting) and Jun 27 (100% headed) Sorghum @ soft dough on Aug 1 Harvested and counted seed heads in 2 middle rows per plot on Aug 10; harvest

= hand cut heads from 2 middle rows, air dried and threshed with Vogel Counted aphids and castings in seed heads in 10 plants on Aug 11 Data analysis: Count data transformed using


Discussion

In hindsight, the experiment was planted too early based on the low populations of SCA

encountered. However, the spring and early summer of 2016 were extremely wet--- for instance at the Beaumont Center in 2016, rainfall for March, April, May and June was 7.98, 9.59, 9.1 and 8.48 inches, respectively. Thus, when we had the opportunity to plant in mid-April, we planted the experiment. We reasoned we may not get another chance, based on projected weather patterns. In addition, we had other experiments to plant and we were concerned we may be unable to plant these experiments if the rain and cool weather persisted.

I did not observe any pyhtotoxic effects of the seed treatments for the duration of the experiment. Plant height and number of green, fully expanded leaves over the course of the experiment were not affected by the treatments (Tables 1 and 2). We found a few thrips in the plots, but populations were too low for meaningful analysis (Table 3).

SCA densities were nil or very low up to July 21 when populations began to appear (Tables 4 and 5). After July 21, populations were highly variable and relatively low. We sprayed all plots with Transform WG at 0.75 oz/A, except untreated plots, on July 26, because I was concerned populations may increase dramatically during a near-future rainy period. In general, more SCAs were found on the lower than upper leaves which probably means infestations began on older leaves and progressed to younger leaves as these leaves developed (which is not


66


surprising). No significant differences in SCA numbers across treatments and dates were detected, although populations in untreated plots were numerically higher than in plots planted with treated-seed.

Sorghum plant stands and date of heading were not significantly different among treatments (Table 6). Number of heads per 2 rows was not significantly different among treatments. Finally, yields were low (due to poor growing conditions during the 2016 growing season) and not significantly different among treatments. Table 1. Mean plant height data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Plant ht (cm)

May 5 May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Poncho 600 6.4 16.4 25.7 77.6 94.2 99.7

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 16.1 25.8 76.2 91.9 100.5

Gaucho 600 6.4 16.4 26.9 78.0 89.5 97.5

Untreated --- 15.7 24.8 75.9 93.2 99.2

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 2. Mean green, fully expanded leaf data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. leaves/plant

May 5 May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Poncho 600 6.4 3.1 4.6 4.6 5.3 5.3

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 3.0 4.5 4.8 4.9 4.9

Gaucho 600 6.4 3.2 4.5 4.6 5.2 5.2

Untreated --- 3.0 4.2 4.7 5.1 5.0

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 3. Mean thrips data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. thrips/plant

May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Poncho 600 6.4 0 0 0 0

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 0.03 0 0.03 0

Gaucho 600 6.4 0.03 0 0 0

Untreated --- 0 0 0 0



67


Table 4. Mean early season aphid data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. aphids/plant

May 13 Jun 10 Jun 16 Jun 27 Poncho 600 6.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gaucho 600 6.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Untreated --- 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 5. Mean late season aphid data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

No. aphids/upper leaf No. aphids/lower leaf No.

aphids/seed head on Aug 11 Jul 21 Aug 2 Aug 9 Jul 21 Aug 2 Aug 9

Poncho 600 6.4 0.3 3.1 15.1 0.4 1.6 11.4 0.8

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 7.4 0.3 3.5 25.2 0.9 3.0 1.8

Gaucho 600 6.4 5.4 1.4 2.0 4.4 1.5 1.1 0.5

Untreated --- 0.3 63.6 41.8 8.5 103.5 69.8 0.5

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 6. Mean stand and yield data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)


% heading on Jun 17

No. seed heads in 2 rows

Yield (lb/A)

Poncho 600 6.4 8.3 2.2 262.5 1317

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 8.3 3.0 265.8 1498

Gaucho 600 6.4 8.5 2.2 259.3 1363

Untreated --- 8.5 0.0 266.8 1260 Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

68


Hybrid Grain Sorghum Seed Treatments – Trial 2 Tarpley’s Block S1

Beaumont, TX 2016

PLOT PLAN


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

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety: M37GB39 (provided by David Kerns)




(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreated --- 2 Poncho 600 6.4 3 Cruiser 5FS 7.6 4 Gaucho 600 6.4

All seed treated with Concep


and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jul 15 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Emergence on Jul 21 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Jul 15 Note: Plots were flushed as needed Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 38 lb N/A on Jul 15 at planting 77 lb N/A on Aug 4 at 5-leaf stage


69


Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 15 for weed control

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by David Kerns Transform 50WG @ 1 oz/A applied to trts 2-4 with a 3-nozzle spray boom

(800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 7 Sampling: No aphids present on Jul 25 No aphids present on Aug 4; plants @ 5-leaf stage Noted heavily damaged untreated plots on Sep 7 No live untreated plants found on Sep 13; live plants @ 10-11 leaf stage Counted number of SCA on 10 upper leaves and 10 lower leaves per plot on

Aug 12, Aug 22, Sep 7, and Sep 13 Harvested and counted seed heads in 2 middle rows per plot on Nov 14; harvest

= hand cut heads from 2 middle rows, air dried and threshed with Vogel Counted number of plants in 2 middle rows on Nov 22 Data analysis: Count data transformed using

x + 0.5 ; yields converted to lb/A @ 14% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

This experiment was planted very late (July 15) because of the failure of a similar

experiment planted earlier (April 12). So, this experiment was basically a repeat of the earlier planted experiment. Rainfall at the Beaumont Center in 2016 was far above normal. For instance, during the months of June, July, August and September, 24.8 inches of precipitation fell. Thus, we were unable to plant this experiment until mid-July when we had a narrow window of dry weather and soil in which to plant. I did observe SCAs in other sorghum experiments at time of planting; thus, sorghum in this experiment was exposed to local and established SCA populations as soon as sorghum emerged (July 21). Also, because of continued rainfall during July, August and September, application of fertilizer and insecticide, sampling for SCA and other agronomic practices were difficult to perform. Although plots were planted in precision leveled blocks which could be flushed and drained quickly, heavy and persistent rainfall caused the clay soil to remain water-saturated for long periods of time. These conditions are not conducive to normal sorghum growth and development.

I did not observe any phytotoxic effects of the seed treatments during the entire experiment.

I did not observe any SCAs in the plots on July 25 or August 4 when sorghum was in the 5-leaf stage. On August 12, we began observing SCA in plots, including the untreated (Tables 1 and 2). Thus, SCAs began infesting untreated plots about 22 days after emergence, although SCAs were in the area at the time of planting which leads me to believe young untreated sorghum was not attractive to SCA. More research should be performed to better understand this observation. On August 22 (32 days after emergence), SCA populations were significantly higher on the lower leaves in the untreated than in the seed treatments (Table 2). By September 7, untreated plots were damaged severely by SCA (evidenced by copious honeydew and


70


dead/dying leaves). Clearly, we should have sampled once or twice between August 22 and September 7 (16 day period). On September 7, SCA counts in untreated plots were relatively low because of lack of suitable host food. On this same date, we sprayed all plots, excluding untreated plots, with Transform WG at 1 oz/A. By September 13, virtually all plants in untreated plots were dead. I think a combination of SCA infestation and water-saturated soil killed sorghum in untreated plots.

Yields were extremely low across treatments (Table 3). In conclusion, the seed treatments protected sorghum against SCA for at least about 32

days after emergence (July 21-August 22). However, SCA did not begin infesting plots until about August 12, so the actual length of protection (beginning when SCA began infesting untreated plots) was a minimum of about 10 days in this experiment. Perhaps greenhouse experiments artificially infesting sorghum at various times after emergence could shed more light on the above results.

Table 1. Mean upper leaf aphid data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments - 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. aphids/upper leaf

Aug 12 Aug 22 Sep 7 (PREa) Sep 13 Untreated --- 1.0 26.2 41.5 N/Ab

Poncho 600 6.4 0.6 8.6 20.0 1.8

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 0.1 11.4 39.0 4.9

Gaucho 600 6.4 0.8 16.1 23.0 4.7 a PRE = pre-treatment b All plants dead Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 2. Mean lower leaf aphid data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments - 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. aphids/lower leaf

Aug 12 Aug 22 Sep 7 (PREa) Sep 13 Untreated --- 8.4 a 128.0 a 22.7 N/Ab

Poncho 600 6.4 2.7 b 14.1 b 138.4 0.5

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 1.4 b 14.1 b 134.2 0.6

Gaucho 600 6.4 3.3 b 31.1 b 147.9 1.1

NS NS a PRE = pre-treatment b All plants dead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


71


Table 3. Mean stand and yield data for hybrid grain sorghum seed treatments - 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) No. plants in

2 middle rows

No. seed heads in 2

middle rows Yield (lb/A)

Untreated --- 0 b 0 b 0 b

Poncho 600 6.4 121.5 a 103.8 a 570.6 a

Cruiser 5FS 7.6 131.0 a 90.0 a 565.4 a

Gaucho 600 6.4 120.0 a 94.8 a 628.9 a Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

72


Sorghum Insecticide Screening – Trial 1 Blocks 6S, 8N & 8S

Beaumont, TX 2016

← North PLOT PLAN

Block 6S I

1 1 (red) 6 6 (brown) 2 2 (blue) 7 5 (purple) 3 3 (green) 8 2 (blue) 4 4 (yellow) 9 3 (green) 5 5 (purple) 10 4 (yellow)

Block 8S II III

1 1 (red) 6 1 (red) 2 6 (brown) 7 5 (purple) 3 3 (green) 8 4 (yellow) 4 2 (blue) 9 3 (green) 5 6 (brown) 10 2 (blue)

Block 8N IV

1 5 1 (red) 2 6 6 (brown) 3 7 5 (purple) 4 8 4 (yellow)

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Variety: 3888


Sorghum Insecticide Screening – Trial 1

73




(oz/A)

1 Untreated --- 2 Endigo ZCX 5 fl oz/A 3 Centric 40WDG 2.5 4 Fulfill 50WDG 5 5 Transform 50WG 0.75 6 Carbine 50WG 4.28


and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jul 8 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Emergence on Jul 15 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Jul 9 Note: Plots were flushed as needed Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 38 lb N/A on Jul 9 at planting 77 lb N/A on Aug 1 at 5-leaf stage Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-

held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 9 for weed control

Treatments: Treatments 2-6 applied with a 3-nozzle spray boom (800067 nozzles, 50 mesh

screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 6; heavy rain 1.5 hours later Sampling: Plants at 4 leaf stage and no aphids observed on Aug 1 Aphids observed on bottom leaves on Aug 10 Counted number of aphids on 10 leaves per plot on Sep 2 and Sep 8; almost all

plants dead Data analysis: Count data transformed using

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


74


Discussion

The experiment was planted late (July 8) because of continued rainy weather in the spring and early summer of 2016. Also, late plantings are thought to coincide with high populations of the SCA. We wanted to plant a bit earlier, but were unable due to water-saturated soil. For instance, the Beaumont Center received 7.98, 9.59, 9.1, 8.48, 3.23, 10.31 and 2.8 inches of precipitation during, March, April, May, June, July, August and September, respectively---a total of 51.5 inches which approaches our average annual rainfall.

Soil in plots was water-logged when SCA began infesting. I decided not to apply treatments until soil dried and chance of rain was minimal. However, many plants died in all the plots due to persistent water-logged soils (even though plots were planted in normal rice blocks which are precision leveled and have good drainage) and SCA infestations. I finally decided to proceed and apply the treatments in muddy soil and high chance of rain (in fact, about 1 inch of rain fell 1.5 hours after treatment applications). Nevertheless, we took pre-treatment and 2DAT SCA counts. Although SCA populations were relatively low in the untreated 2DAT, all treatments significantly reduced SCA populations (Table 1). The Carbine treatment did not provide as good control as the other treatments. We did not take later SCA counts because the vast majority of plants in all the plots were dead.

We did not harvest plots because of poor plant stand. Table 1. Mean aphid data for sorghum insecticide screening study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(oz/A) Sugarcane aphid/leafa

PRE 2 DAT Untreated --- 298 45.4 a

Endigo ZCX 5 fl oz/A 240 2.4 c

Centric 40WDG 2.5 270 3.0 c

Fulfill 50WDG 5 291 1.9 c

Transform 50WG 0.75 247 0.2 c

Carbine 50WG 4.28 282 9.5 b

NS a PRE = pretreatment counts; DAT = days after treatment Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

75


Sorghum Insecticide Screening Study Block S4 - Tarpley

Beaumont, TX 2016

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

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

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 27 ft long Variety:



Treatment no. Flag color Description Rate

(fl oz/A)

1 blue Untreated --- 2 pink Endigo ZCX 5 fl oz/A 3 black Centric 40WDG 2.5 4 red Fulfill 50WDG 5 5 yellow Transform 50WG 0.75 6 green Carbine 50WG 4.28


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 7 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (Sep 22 @ about 1 seed/inch) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand

3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Sep 22 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 27 ft long Emergence on Sep 26 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Sep 23


76


Note: Plots were flushed as needed Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 38 lb N/A on Sep 23 (at planting) Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-

held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 23 for weed control

Treatments: Treatments 2 – 6 applied with a hand-held, 3-nozzle spray boom (800067

nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 21.3 gpa final spray volume) on Jan 4, 2017 Sampling: Sugarcane aphid (SCA) counts on middle and lower leaf of 6 plants on Dec 19 SCA counts on upper and lower leaf of 5 plants on Jan 3 (pretreatment), Jan 5 (1

DAT), Jan 9 (5 DAT) and Jan 12 (8 DAT-all plants dead) Data analysis: Count data transformed using

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

Discussion

This was the 2nd insecticide screening sorghum experiment [target pest = sugarcane aphid

(SCA)] we conducted in 2016/January 2017. The earlier planted experiment did not generate very good data because of the persistent, heavy rainfall during the experiment. So, we planted the 2nd experiment very, very late (September 22, 2016) in hopes of obtaining some better data. Surprisingly, the sorghum grew relatively normally up until a freeze January 7-9, 2017. Treatments were applied January 4, 2017 when sorghum was heading. We took 1, 5 and 8 DAT SCA counts. Once the freeze occurred, sorghum plants died and SCAs disappeared. Thus, only pretreatment and 1DAT counts are valid in this experiment.

SCA populations began showing up in plots just prior to sorghum heading. Pretreatment counts for upper leaves taken January 3, 2017 were above treatment

thresholds and not significantly different among treatments (Table 1). However, 1 DAT, SCA populations were significantly lower and similar in Endigo ZCX, Centric 40WDG and Transform 50WG treatments. Unfortunately, later counts were taken after the killing freeze, so only counts taken 1 DAT are valid.

Pretreatment counts for lower leaves taken on January 3, 2017 were above treatment thresholds and not significantly different among treatments (Table 2). One DAT, SCA populations were not significantly different among treatments, but numerically lower in Endigo ZCX, Centric 40WDG and Transform 50WG treatments compared to the other treatments, including the untreated. Five DAT, again, lowest numbers of SCA were collected from the above 3 treatments (but counts were not significantly different among treatments).

We could not harvest plots because plants were dead after the freeze. Although the experiment was terminated early due to the freeze, data show Endigo ZCX

at 5 fl oz/A, Centric 40WDG at 2.5 oz/A and Transform 50WG at 0.75 oz/A gave best control of SCA. Data also suggest better control was obtained on upper than lower leaves which seems logical given spray coverage was probably greater on upper than lower leaves. If we did not have


77


a freeze, maybe SCA control would have increased with time for treatments with systemic activity. Table 1. Mean upper leaf aphid data for sorghum insecticide screening test 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) SCA/upper leaf

PRETa 1 DATa 5 DAT 8 DAT Untreated --- 219.7 187.5 a 6.3 0

Endigo ZCX 5 fl oz/A 214.2 22.4 b 0.4 0

Centric 40WDG 2.5 203.3 29.9 b 4.8 0

Fulfill 50WDG 5 244.5 169.3 a 4.9 0

Transform 50WG 0.75 238.3 25.0 b 0.6 0

Carbine 50WG 4.28 297.5 172.8 a 3.9 0

NS NS NS a PRET = pretreatment, DAT = days after treatment Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

Table 2. Mean lower leaf aphid data for sorghum insecticide screening test 2. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) SCA/lower leaf

PRETa 1 DATa 5 DAT 8 DAT Untreated --- 360.0 302.8 38.3 0

Endigo ZCX 5 fl oz/A 294.3 101.3 0.8 0

Centric 40WDG 2.5 313.5 184.8 3.1 0

Fulfill 50WDG 5 311.8 284.5 26.7 0

Transform 50WG 0.75 353.8 73.0 0.1 0

Carbine 50WG 4.28 277.8 289.1 17.1 0

NS NS NS NS a PRET = pretreatment, DAT = days after treatment Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

78


Sorghum IPM Systems Block 9S

Beaumont, TX 2016

PLOT PLAN


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

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Variety: (provided by David Buntin?)


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS Treatment no. Description Post-emergence spray

1 3888 (susceptible) yes 2 3888 + STa (susceptible) yes 3 3707 (resistant) yes 4 3707 + ST (resistant) yes 5 3888 (susceptible) no 6 3888 + ST (susceptible) no

a ST = insecticidal treatment applied to seed Agronomic and Cultural Information

Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test @ about 1 seed/inch into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun 28 Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long Emergence on Jul 6 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Jun 29 Note: Plots were flushed as needed Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand.

Sorghum IPM Systems

79


38 lb N/A on Jun 29 at planting 77 lb N/A on Jul 25 at 5-leaf stage Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-

held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 28 for weed control

Treatments: All seed treated by David Buntin Applied foliar treatments 1 & 3 (Sivanto @ 4 fl oz/A) with a 3-nozzle spray

boom (800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Aug 12 Applied foliar treatments 1 & 2 (Transform 50WG @ 1.5 oz/A) as above on Sep

14, plot 1 dead Sampling: Plants @ 5-6 leaf stage and no sugarcane aphids (SCA) observed on Jul 25 Observed a few small aphid colonies and some fall armyworm damage on Aug

1; plants @ 8 leaf stage Stand counts – 1 m counts in 2 rows on Aug 2 Counted number of SCA on 5 upper leaves and 5 lower leaves per plot on Aug 2

and Aug 11 Plants at 9-leaf stage with some fall armyworm damage on Aug 12 Counted number of SCA on 10 upper leaves and 10 lower leaves per plot on

Aug 24, Sep 8 and Sep 16 Rated plots for honey dew, sooty mold fungus and rated plots for leaf injury on

Sep 13; headed plants @ flowering Heading notes on Sep 16 Hand-harvested, counted, and weighed (wet) seed heads in 2 middle rows per

plot on Oct 24; harvest = hand cut heads Threshed using a vogel Data analysis: Count data transformed using


Discussion

The experiment was planted late (June 28) in hopes of exposing sorghum to high populations of SCA developing on surrounding hosts. Also, rainfall at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center (Beaumont Center) was abnormally high in 2016. For instance, during the months of March, April, May, June, July, August and September, 51.5 inches of precipitation fell at the Beaumont Center. So, soils (clay) in the experimental block were often too wet to plant, fertilize, sample and spray in a timely manner. The experiment was planted in a precision-leveled block which can be quickly flush irrigated and drained. However, because of heavy and frequent rainfall, we had difficulty draining the block. Even after successful draining, the soil remained water-saturated for long periods of time.

The objective of the experiment was to compare/evaluate (in terms of SCA damage/ control and sorghum yield) several different SCA pest management scenarios. Treatments were

Sorghum IPM Systems

80


SCA-susceptible or resistant cultivars whose seed was untreated or treated for SCA followed by not spraying or spraying sorghum for SCA when populations reached threshold levels.

As mentioned before, the experiment was planted late (June 28). We observed plenty of SCAs in earlier planted plots, so at time of emergence (July 6), SCAs had built up populations on nearby older sorghum. I first observed a few small SCA colonies in untreated plots in the experiment on August 1 when sorghum was at the 8-leaf stage. Thus, SCAs did not infest untreated sorghum until about 26 days after emergence. I wonder why SCAs do not infest sorghum earlier. By August 11, SCA populations had built up to above threshold levels in susceptible and resistant sorghum without the seed treatment---treatments 1 and 3 (Tables 1 and 2). But, SCA populations were significantly lower in the resistant than the susceptible sorghum. At this time, sorghum was in the 9-leaf stage. We sprayed treatments 1 and 3 the next day (Aug 12). Twelve days later (Aug 24), SCAs increased to above threshold levels in susceptible and resistant sorghum with the seed treatment (treatments 2 and 4). I observed at this time that plants in plots 1, 5 and 24 (all planted with susceptible, untreated seed) were dead from SCA attack and probably persistent, water-saturated soil. We sampled the experiment for SCA on September 8, but we should have sampled earlier around the end of August. Anyway, on September 8, SCA populations were above threshold levels in all treatments, except treatments 3 and 4 (resistant with and without the seed treatment). On September 13, surviving plants in the experiment were in the flowering to milk stage of development. On September 14, we sprayed treatments 1 and 2 (susceptible with and without the seed treatment), but we should have sprayed these treatments earlier. By September 16, virtually no live SCAs were found in plots---due to SCA attack, senescing/dying plants and persistent water-saturated soils which I think hastened death of the surviving sorghum plants.

Plant stand densities were not significantly different among treatments (Table 3). On September 13, I rated plots for sooty mold production. Treatments planted with the resistant variety exhibited the least amount of honeydew, sooty mold fungus and leaf injury.

Number of seed heads per row again was greatest for plots planted with the resistant cultivar (Table 4). Not surprisingly, plots planted with untreated seed of the susceptible cultivar followed by no foliar spray, produced virtually no seed heads (Table 4). Yields were extremely low throughout the experiment, so data are not very meaningful; however, highest yields were produced by the resistant cultivar, regardless of addition of the seed treatment.

Due to adverse environmental conditions throughout the growing season, conclusions should be viewed with caution. However, I think farmers should try to plant SCA-resistant cultivars (as long as yields are comparable to susceptible cultivars in the absence of SCA), apply a SCA insecticide to seed and follow up with a foliar insecticide when SCA populations approach treatment thresholds. I think farmers should take a conservative approach to SCA management which entails frequent, thorough scouting. At the minimum, the results of this experiment show uncontrolled populations of SCA can produce a crop with virtually no grain.

Sorghum IPM Systems

81


Table 1. Mean sugarcane aphid (SCA) data on uppermost leaf in sorghum IPM systems study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Variety

Post-emergence

spray

No. SCA/upper leaf

Aug 2 Aug 11 Aug 24 Sep 8 Sep 16 3888 (susceptible) yes 2.1 50.1 a 28.6 29.4 b 0

3888 + ST (susceptible) yes 1.9 0.4 b 93.0 146.6 a 0

3707 (resistant) yes 2.2 3.9 b 22.3 8.4 b 0.2

3707 + ST (resistant) yes 2.3 3.2 b 27.3 6.7 b 0.6

3888 (susceptible) no 4.3 26.4 a 68.1 23.0 b N/Aa

3888 + ST (susceptible) no 0.7 0.0 b 53.4 193.3 a 6.5 NS NS NS a Plants in these plots were dead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Table 2. Mean sugarcane aphid (SCA) data on lowermost leaf in sorghum IPM systems study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Variety

Post-emergence

spray

No. SCA/lower leaf

Aug 2 Aug 11 Aug 24 Sep 8 Sep 16 3888 (susceptible) yes 14.0 336.1 a 35.4 c 27.3 b 0

3888 + ST (susceptible) yes 3.5 4.3 d 264.6 ab 232.1 a 0

3707 (resistant) yes 10.3 53.7 c 61.0 c 0.1 b 0

3707 + ST (resistant) yes 1.8 2.7 d 124.4 bc 0.1 b 0

3888 (susceptible) no 38.8 212.4 b 82.9 c 38.3 b N/Aa

3888 + ST (susceptible) no 3.0 20.8 d 332.9 a 293.9 a 13.2 NS NS a Plants in these plots were dead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

Sorghum IPM Systems

82


Table 3. Mean stand and aphid damage data for sorghum IPM systems study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Variety

Post-emergence

spray


Leaves with sooty mold fungus (%)

on Sep 13

Leaves with honeydew (%)

on Sep 13

Leaf injury rating (1-9)a on Sep 13

3888 (susceptible) yes 8.1 20.0 b 20.0 b 4.3 bc

3888 + ST (susceptible) yes 7.3 66.3 a 66.3 a 6.5 ab

3707 (resistant) yes 15.9 12.5 b 12.5 c 1.8 c

3707 + ST (resistant) yes 11.3 15.0 b 15.0 b 3.0 c

3888 (susceptible) no 8.9 N/Ab N/Ab 8.8 a

3888 + ST (susceptible) no 9.1 70.0 a 70.0 a 6.8 ab a 1 = healthy; 2 = 1-5% leaves spotted; 3 = 6-20% leaves spotted/chlorotic; 4 = 21-35% leaves spotted/chlorotic; 5 = 36-50% leaves spotted/chlorotic; 6 = 51-65% leaves spotted/chlorotic; 7 = 66-80% leaves spotted/chlorotic; 8 = 81-95% leaves spotted/chlorotic; 9 = 96-100% leaves spotted/chlorotic or dead b Plants were mainly dead Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD). Table 4. Mean stand, heading and yield data for sorghum IPM systems study. Beaumont, TX. 2016.

Variety

Post-emergence

spray Stand

(plants/row) No. seed

heads/row

Wet wt of harvested seed heads

(g)

No. seed heads

harvested Yield (lb/A)

3888 (susceptible) yes 31.1 11.3 b 842.5 b 27.0 b 503.7 b

3888 + ST (susceptible) yes 27.4 7.5 bc 420.1 bc 23.5 b 241.1 bc

3707 (resistant) yes 46.3 40.4 a 2638.1 a 103.0 a 1625.5 a

3707 + ST (resistant) yes 50.9 47.8 a 2735.6 a 98.3 a 1753.4 a

3888 (susceptible) no 36.5 0.4 c 28.1 c 1.3 b 13.3 c

3888 + ST (susceptible) no 33.6 7.5 bc 328.0 bc 21.0 b 184.8 bc NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

83


Sugarcane Alion Test Beaumont, TX 2015 – 2016

Mo Way, Rebecca Pearson, Carra Curtice and Randall Terry (Department of Biology, Lamar University)

↓ North PLOT PLAN

1 1 (white) 8 3 (red) 15 6 (pink) 2 2 (light green) 9 5 (orange) 16 4 (purple) 3 3 (red) 10 7 (blue) 17 1 (white) 4 4 (purple) 11 1 (white) 18 3 (red) 5 5 (orange) 12 4 (purple) 19 2 (light green) 6 6 (pink) 13 2 (light green) 20 7 (blue) 7 7 (blue) 14 6 (pink) 21 5 (orange)

Plot size: 1 rows, 5.5 ft. row spacing, 25 ft long Variety: 95-988


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS Trt no. Treatment Flag color

Rate (oz/A) Timing

1 Untreated White --- --- 2 Alion SC Light green 1.25 Early 3 Alion SC Red 2.5 Early 4 Alion SC Purple 3.75 Early 5 Alion SC Orange 1.25 Early + Layby 6 Alion SC Pink 2.5 Early + Layby 7 Alion SC Blue 3.75 Early + Layby

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 7 treatments and 3 replications Planting: Planted test (95-988 cut from Sun Grant – Yang Project) into LaBelle

clay/loam soil on Sep 22, 2015; beds/rows 5.5 ft apart Plot size = 1 row, 25 ft long Layby cultivation on Feb 3, 2016

Sugarcane Alion Test

84


Figure 2. April 4, 2016: untreated (left) and highest rate of Alion applied early and layby (right)

Figure 1. November 9, 2015: untreated (left) and highest rate of Alion applied early (right)

Treatments: Treatments 2 – 7 applied with a hand-held spray boom (3 nozzle boom – 800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 19.2 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 23, 2015

Treatments 5 – 7 applied as above on Feb 5, 2016 after layby Sampling: Plots rated for percent weed coverage (average of 3 observations) on Nov 9,

2015; weeds present were: barnyard grass, sedge, broadleaf signalgrass, pigweed, chickweed, Bermuda grass, and Virginia buttonweed; no phyto noted on cane

Plots rated for percent weed coverage (average of 2 observations) on Dec 21, 2015; plant ht 30 inches

Plots rated for percent weed coverage on Jan 19, 2016; recorded weed species present on Jan 19, 2016

Plots rated for percent weed coverage on Apr 4, 2016 (average of 2 observations); recorded weed species present on Apr 4, 2016

Plots rated for percent weed coverage on Jun 9, 2016 (average of 2 observations); recorded weed species present

Discussion

Plots were not irrigated---only received

rainfall. We rated weed control by % of plot surface area covered by weeds. Early treatments were applied 1 day after planting and were rated the first time 47 days later. On the 1st rating date, untreated plots were covered with almost 90% weeds (Fig. 1). All other treatments significantly reduced weed coverage (Table 1). A rate response trend was observed (higher the rate, better the control). Weeds observed were barnyardgrass, sedge, broadleaf signalgrass, pigweed, chickweed, Bermuda grass and Virginia buttonweed. However, monocots, which included sedges, grasses and Sisyrinchium sp., were the most

prevalent in untreated plots. Thus, Alion controlled both monocots and dicots. Sugarcane was about 18 inches tall. No phyto was observed on the sugarcane. On the 2nd rating date (Dec 21, 2015), results were similar to the 1st rating date, but, in general, weed coverage was less in untreated plots than on the 1st rating date – probably due to mortality of some weeds because of cold weather. Sugarcane was about 30 inches tall. On the 3rd rating date (Jan 19, 2016), weed

coverage was 100% in the untreated and a

Sugarcane Alion Test

85


definite rate response was noted. Prevalent weeds in untreated plots were annual bluegrass, curly dock, cut-leaf primrose, crabgrass, chickweed, scarlet pimpernel, Sisyrinchium sp., and Geranium sp. Plots were cultivated Feb 3, 2016 followed by layby treatments applied 2 days later. On the 4th rating date (Apr 4, 2016) weed coverage was 85% in untreated plots. A rate response was noted (but differences among rates were not significant). The main weeds remaining in untreated plots were curly dock, cut-leaf primrose and scarlet pimpernel (Fig. 2). On the 5th rating date (Jun 9, 2016), surface of untreated plots was virtually 100% covered by weeds. The dominant weeds were broadleaf signalgrass, oxalis, eclipta, barnyardgrass and bermudagrass. Best control was provided by the highest rate of Alion applied early and at layby, but % weed cover was not significantly different for the highest rate applied only once---early.

In summary, as of the last rating date Apr 4, 2016, regardless of rate, 1 early application of Alion provided similar weed control as 2 applied early and at layby. The highest rate of Alion performed better than the lower rates. Alion provided good control of an array of weeds, both monocots and dicots. Table 1. Mean weed coverage data for sugarcane Alion test. Beaumont, TX. 2015 – 2016.

Treatment Rate

(oz/A) Timing Weed coverage (%)

Nov 9 Dec 21 Jan 19 Apr 4 Jun 9 Untreated --- --- 88.3 a 64.3 a 100.0 a 85.0 a 96.7 a Alion SC 1.25 Early 2.8 bc 6.7 b 16.7 bc 24.0 b 56.7 b Alion SC 2.5 Early 2.8 bc 3.7 b 11.7 cd 11.7 b 55.0 b Alion SC 3.75 Early 0.8 c 0.8 b 5.0 d 9.0 b 24.3 c Alion SC 1.25 Early + Layby 6.5 b 8.3 b 25.0 b 17.3 b 27.7 bc Alion SC 2.5 Early + Layby 3.3 bc 6.7 b 15.0 bc 9.0 b 29.0 bc Alion SC 3.75 Early + Layby 0.8 c 2.8 b 6.7 d 4.3 b 13.3 c Means followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

86


Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Study Beaumont, TX 2015 – 2016

⇑ North PLOT PLAN

10 I-5

19 III-2

24 IV-1

4 I-4 5 II-1 9 II-3 14 II-2 18 III-6 23 IV-6 28 IV-7 3 I-3

8 II-6 13 II-4 17 III-3 22 IV-3 27 IV-4

2 I-2 7 I-7 12 II-7 16 III-7 21 III-5 26 IV-2 1 I-1 6 I-6 11 II-5 15 III-4 20 III-1 25 IV-5

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

Plot size: 1 rows, 30 ft long Shaded areas are blank

Variety: 95-988 Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers; Roman numerals = replication number; and

Arabic numerals = treatment numbers


Treatment no. Flag color Description Rate

(fl oz/A)

1 Black Untreated --- 2 Yellow Besiege 8 3 Red Besiege 10 4 Green Warrior II 2.56 5 Pink Belt SC 4 6 Blue Baythroid 2.8 7 Purple Diamond 0.83EC 12


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 7 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Planted test (95-988 cut from SunGrant Yang Project) into LaBelle

clay/loam soil on Sep 22, 2015; beds/rows 5.5 ft apart Plot size = 1 row, 30 ft long Fertilization: 80 lb N/A applied by hand on Apr 29, 2016

Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Study

87


Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2 qt/A and Tricor DF @ 2 lb/A applied with a 2-person hand-held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 25, 2015 for early season weed control.

AAtrex 4L @ 2 qt/A, Tricor DF @ 2 lb/A and Halomax @ 1 oz/A applied with a 2-person hand-held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Apr 29, 2016 for weed control.

Treatments: Treatments 2 – 6 (trt 7 not available, will apply later) applied with a hand-

held 3-nozzle spray boom (11004 VS nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 38.7 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 1, 2016

Treatment 7 applied as above on Jul 7, 2016 Treatments 2 – 4 applied as above (2nd application) on Aug 9 Treatments 5 – 7 applied as above (2nd application) on Aug 10 Sampling: Removed 10 stalks/plot and determined wet weight, number of internodes

and number of bored internodes on Sep 27 Stand counts in 3 plots: plot 1 = 122, plot 7 = 84, plot 28 = 114.

Discussion

Stalks of 95-988 were cut from a nearby ratoon research field at the Beaumont Center. We then planted these cut stalks in the experiment described in this report. I selected this variety because stalks were relatively thick and healthy which I thought would lead to a good stand for this experiment. Many of the other varieties in this ratoon research field were damaged and stalks were thin. So, the experiment in this report was performed on plant cane cut from the nearby ratoon research field.

We applied all the treatments 2 times---in July and August. Damage by borers was low in the untreated (Table 1) and virtually all borers found were Mexican rice borer. Although borer populations were low across treatments (including the untreated), all treatments significantly reduced damage (bored internodes). Best control was provided by the high rate of Besiege. Probably due to the low degree of borer damage, wet weight of stalks was not significantly different among treatments, including the untreated.

In the future, we will apply a fire ant bait to the soil of all plots in the experiment. Fire ants are good predators of borer larvae/pupae. This may encourage greater borer populations and damage in next year’s experiment.

Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Study

88


Table 1. Mean data for Sugarcane insecticide screening test. Beaumont, TX. 2015 – 2016.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Wet wt/stalk

(g) No. internodes No. bored

internodes/stalk Untreated --- 843.6 14.3 1.7 a

Besiege 8 816.3 14.2 0.2 bc

Besiege 10 812.0 13.7 0 c

Warrior II 2.56 848.2 14.1 0.3 bc

Belt SC 4 797.3 13.9 0.2 bc

Baythroid 2.8 836.1 13.3 0.5 b

Diamond 0.83EC 12 844.5 14.9 0.4 b

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

89


Project Summary for Mosquito Larvicide Trials Performed at the Texas A&M Agriculture Experiment Station, Beaumont, TX By Tom Janousek Ph.D., Pest Consulting Services Objectives: The primary objective of this project was to test a mosquito larvicide product utilizing test plots at the Texas A&M Agricultural Experiment Station in Beaumont, TX. A secondary objective is to develop methods to enable future testing of mosquito larviciding products at the Ag Station. Methods:

Location: These trials were conducted at the Texas A&M Agriculture Experiment Station in Beaumont, TX.

Test Plots: We utilized experimental rice plots being used by Dr. MO Way for his research on insect pests of rice. Our plots were located in unused corners of his plots and separated from the main plot by an 8in. tin fencing pushed 1in. into the mud. Within the corner sections we constructed 15ft. by 30ft. plots separated by the 8in tin barriers for use as our test plots. Dr. Way’s technicians maintained water levels at 4in. and performed levee maintenance as needed. Rice was not planted in our plots but the natural vegetation was allowed to grow. Larvicide Test Product: The test product (Central Life, Dallas, TX) was a combination product containing the bacterial mosquito larvicide Bacillus thurengiensis israelensis and the Insect Growth Regulator Methoprene. They were formulated on 1/8 in. granules. Two different test products, and a Methoprene standard formulation were used. Target Mosquitoes: Commonly found rice-field mosquitoes of Culex salinarius and Psorophora columbiae were the primary target for these field trials. These mosquitoes will lay their eggs on the rice field water surface or levee mud. Additionally, container-breeding Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes were added to the test plots. These mosquitoes were produced in 2ft. by 3ft. by 6in. deep pans containing water stagnated with alfalfa pellets. The mosquitoes laid eggs on the water surface and subsequent larvae were carefully poured into the test plots. The pans were placed throughout the Ag Station and in the City of Port Arthur. Test methods: The container-produced mosquito larvae were poured and evenly distributed in the test plots, allowed to acclimate for a few hours and a pre-treatment surveillance was conducted. Surveillance was conducted by taking samples with a dipping technique. Larval stages and abundance were determined. The test products were pre-weighed and evenly applied to the plots by hand. Larval mortality checks were undertaken at 24 and 96hr post-treatment to determine efficacy of the Bacillus. At weeks 1, 2, 3 & 4 post-treatment pupae were collected to determine if adult emergence was affected by the Methoprene. Untreated plots were established and surveyed in a similar manner. Results: The first trial was set up on May 27. At the 24hr post-mortality check, few larvae were found in the treated and untreated plots. At 96hrs only a couple of larvae were found throughout all plots.

Mosquito Larvicide Research

90


A second trial was set up on June 23 and similar results were observed. Few larvae survived past the 96hr post-treatment check in both treated and untreated plots. On August 17, a pan of the container-breeding Culex was placed in the sun. Within 1hr. the water temperature in the pan reached 105OF and all larvae in the pan were dead. The water in the plots reached 108OF on that day. Therefore, water temperatures were probably causing mosquito larvae mortality before the test products were effective. It was decided to resume the trials later in the Fall in order to allow the vegetation growing in the test plots to grow taller to provide shade for the plot water. It was also observed that the container-breeding Culex quinquefasciatus were less mobile and were easily consumed by the abundant predators in the fresh water plots. When the trials resumed in September it was observed the container-breeding mosquito abundance was reduced. Therefore, it was decided to use only naturally occurring mosquito larvae for the remaining tests. Through October, an average of 2.0 larvae per dip from all plots was observed, which is below the desired 5.0 per dip. In November 7, it was decided to run the final trial since incoming cool weather would slow down mosquito activity. The following chart summarizes this trial:

Pre-treatment

larvae/dip 96 hour

larvae/dip Treatment

Untreated 0.23 0.48 Treatment A 1.65 0.55 Treatment B 0.95 0.05 Methoprene 0.65 0.18

Although we observed a reduction in larval abundance in the treated plots, the larvae per dip was too low to generate meaningful conclusions. Conclusions: The mosquito larvicide trials at the TAMU Ag Experimental Station were inconclusive. The trials were inconclusive because of elevated mosquito mortality in the plots due to high water temperatures and excessive predation. The secondary objective to develop methods enabling future testing of mosquito larviciding products at the Ag Station showed potential. Future Trials: It does not appear the test plots imbedded within the rice plots will be suitable for mosquito larvicide trials. The water gets too hot for mosquito larvae and too few mosquitoes were produced later in the Fall. Flooded pastures with thicker vegetation may be suitable for future mosquito larvicide trials.

2016 entomology research report - texas a&m university · this report is a compilation of...

Documents