Avoiding Stink Bug Damage and Flat Pod Syndrome in Soybean with a MGVI Cultivar and Planting Date Beaumont, TX 2005

Similar documents
Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Insect Pests in an MG VII Soybean Beaumont, TX 2009 Soybean Nursery North No. 4

Soybean Agronomy and Host Plant Resistance Beaumont, TX 2009

Soybean Insecticide Screening Test 1 Field north of TRIA house Beaumont, TX 2014 I II III IV

Evaluation of Contact and Residual Activity of Selected Insecticides for Control of Rice Stink Bug. Beaumont, TX

Project Title: Developing Stink Bug Thresholds for the Early Soybean Production System on the Upper Gulf Coast. 3 rd Year of Study.

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN AND DRY BEAN CROPS

Effect of Organic Soil Fertility and Fungicide Treatments on Yield and Pest Management, Neely-Kinyon Farm-2015

2018 // Potato // HARS // CPB Systemic Trial Pg. 1

3. Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN VARIOUS CROPS

Southern Illinois University. General Trial Information. Trial Location. Personnel. Pest Description. Maintenance.

Title Sorghum/Cotton Rotation under Extreme Deficit Irrigation Conditions. Location Texas Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Halfway, TX

OPTIMIZING NITROGEN USE AND EVALUATING ETHEPHON USE IN WAXY BARLEY

Table of Contents. Evaluation of Southern Regional MGVI, MGVII and MGVIII Soybean Lines in Cooperation with Dr. Jim Heitholt...16

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN ONION AFTER THREE YEARS OF CORN HERBICIDES

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN LIBERTY AND ROUNDUP RESISTANT SUGAR BEETS

Southern Illinois University Plexus with Fomesafen Herbicides.

ACCURACY OF MODELS FOR PREDICTING PHENOLOGY OF BLACKHEADED FIREWORM AND IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVED PEST MANAGEMENT

2008 Lygus Small Plot Efficacy Trial University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Center Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D. 24 November 2008

Impact of Tobacco Thrips on Cowpea

MORPH forecast for carrot flies

Flower Species as a Supplemental Source of Pollen for Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) in Late Summer Cropping Systems

over the next three weeks could lower this estimate significantly. Near perfect conditions are needed to realize this projected yield.

EVALUATiON OF YUKON HERBICIDE RATES FOR YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN GROWN IN ROTATIONS FOLLOWED BY ONION

Evaluation of Fall Application of Dual Magnum for Control of Yellow Nutsedge in Onions Grown on Muck Soils

Did Severe Rains and Flooding in May 2015 Affect Texas Poison Center Call Patterns?

Evaluation of Herbicide Carryover Sub-Surface Drip Irrigated Tomato. Kurt Hembree and Tom Turini Farm Advisors, UCCE Fresno County

PEST MANAGEMENT: WEEDS

ALS-Resistant Kochia Management in a Corn - Sugarbeet Rotation 2005 to 2006 and 2007 to Robert Wilson

MISSISSIPPI SOYBEAN PROMOTION BOARD PROJECT NO FINAL REPORT

History INVASIVE INSECTS THREATENING YOUR BACKYARD: BROWN MARMORATED STINK BUG & VIBURNUM LEAF BEETLE. Identification. Common Look-A-Likes 1/12/2015

University of Florida-IFAS

Imperial County Agricultural Briefs

2015 Summer Readiness. Bulk Power Operations

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Fall 2014

What is insect forecasting, and why do it

IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL ENEMIES FOR STINK BUG CONTROL. Introduction

U.S. Outlook For October and Winter Thursday, September 19, 2013

VEGETABLE CULTIVAR AND CULTURAL TRIALS 2009

Jackson County 2013 Weather Data

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Spring 2014

Proposal to limit Namakan Lake to 1970 Upper Rule Curve for remainder of summer

Site Information William H. Daniel Research and Diagnostic Center Starks-Fincastle silt loam Soil ph: 7.2. Preemergent and 1 to 2 tiller

Intermountain Thrips Story:

Soybean Aphid: WEBWORMS, WEBWORMS AND MORE WEBWORMS: July 23, 2004, No. 20

Cultural practices improve color, size of Crimson Seedless. Nick Dokoozlian o Don Luvisi o Mike Moriyama o Peggy Schrader

The Climate of Kiowa County

2008 Growing Season. Niagara Region

Trial 1: Weed control in established grapes

Dectes Stem Borer: A Summertime Pest of Soybeans

Communicating Climate Change Consequences for Land Use

2014 Evaluation of Non Irrigated Mid to Full Season Maturing Cotton Varieties, Jay, Florida

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE. Botany. Department of. and. Plant Sciences.

EFFECTS OF HEATING AND FREEZING ON TRANSLUCENT SCALE IN ONION BULBS

Click to edit Master title style Effect of seed and foliar treatments on vigor of soybean plants Jerseyville, IL

Local Precipitation Variability

The Climate of Bryan County

Creeping Bentgrass Phytotoxicity and Control Evaluation of Lawn Height Midnight Kentucky Bluegrass

US Drought Status. Droughts 1/17/2013. Percent land area affected by Drought across US ( ) Dev Niyogi Associate Professor Dept of Agronomy

2014 Evaluation of Non Irrigated Early Maturing Cotton Varieties, Jay, Florida

Weeds, Weed Control and PGRs Ronald N. Calhoun and Aaron D. Hathaway Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Michigan State University

Weather and Climate Risks and Effects on Agriculture

PREDICTING SOIL SUCTION PROFILES USING PREVAILING WEATHER

January 25, Summary

Monthly Long Range Weather Commentary Issued: APRIL 1, 2015 Steven A. Root, CCM, President/CEO

Saudi Arabia. July present. Desert Locust Information Service FAO, Rome Red Sea coast outbreak

Fall Pest Management Meeting University of Arizona. Yuma Civic and Convention Center. Title: Sponsor: Date: Location:

How to Maximize Preemergence Herbicide Performance for Summer Annual Weeds

Drought. Jeffrey Lindner Meteorologist Harris County Flood Control District September 20, 2011

Three main areas of work:

temperature. March ended unseasonably warm but was followed by an extended cold

Short-Term Job Growth Impacts of Hurricane Harvey on the Gulf Coast and Texas

Foliar Application of 2,4-D Reduces Damage to Potato Tubers by Common Scab

University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service

The Climate of Texas County

Landscape Effects on Pest Management Clint Allen Ryan Jackson USDA-ARS-SIMRU

Climate Change, Texas, and the Limits of Confidence. John Nielsen-Gammon Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences Texas A&M University

Crop / Weather Update

Jackson County 2018 Weather Data 67 Years of Weather Data Recorded at the UF/IFAS Marianna North Florida Research and Education Center

Table 1. August average temperatures and departures from normal ( F) for selected cities.

GAMINGRE 8/1/ of 7

Background and Assumptions

Variability of Reference Evapotranspiration Across Nebraska

The Climate of Marshall County

Assembly of plant-pollinator relationships and measurement of pollination service using seed set phytometry on regenerating lands

ENGINE SERIAL NUMBERS

Background and Assumptions

Performance of Soybean Cultivars In Alabama, Charles Potter 1925 Source: Ala. Coop. Ext. Service Photo Collection

National Wildland Significant Fire Potential Outlook

LAB 3: THE SUN AND CLIMATE NAME: LAB PARTNER(S):

Tree and Shrub Insects

Orange - Planted October 23, Preplant fertilization was 23- June 26. Warsaw no-till - Planted October 19, 2006.

A Report on a Statistical Model to Forecast Seasonal Inflows to Cowichan Lake

The Climate of Pontotoc County

Soybean stem fly outbreak in soybean crops

Climate Variability and El Niño

Volume XVII, Number July Chasing Petioles

Growth Stages of Wheat: Identification and Understanding Improve Crop Management

Project No India Basin Shadow Study San Francisco, California, USA

The Climate of Payne County

Transcription:

Avoiding Stink Bug Damage and Flat Pod Syndrome in Soybean with a MGVI Cultivar and Planting Date Beaumont, TX 2005 Agronomic and Cultural Information Land Preparation: Disked test area (Morey silt loam) on Mar 17 and pulled beds on Mar 21 Cultivated beds prior to planting for all planting dates Planting Dates: Herbicide: Insecticide: Sampling: Harvest: RA 452 (MGIV) planted on Apr 7 (one planting date) NC ROY (MGVI) planted on Apr 27, May 13, Jun 8 and Jul 11 Both cultivars planted at a rate of 8 viable seed per foot of row Plot size = 8 rows, 30 in. row width, 47 ft long Experimental design: split plot with 4 replications each of treated (T) and untreated (U) plots Applied First Rate @ 0.75 oz/acre and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5 pt/acre (PRE)to all planting dates with a 2-nozzle hand-held spray boom (110-04 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 25 gpa) Plots designated as ATreated@ were sprayed multiple times with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre (Table 1) as stink bugs appeared in plots in an effort to achieve complete control of stink bugs and also lepidopterous larvae. Plots were sprayed with a 2-person hand-held boom [13- No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 20 ft spray swath (8 rows), 21 gpa]. Insects were collected from each plot at approximately 2 wk intervals (Table 1) with a 15 in. muslin sweep net. Twenty sweeps were made down the length of a 47 ft row in each plot. The adjacent row was sampled on the next sweep date. Contents of the net were placed in a plastic bag, frozen in the lab, and insects later identified and counted as time permitted. Prior to analysis, insect data were transformed using square root (x + 0.5). Focus was on these species: Southern green stink bug ( SGSB) Red-banded stink bug, Piezodorus guildinii, (PG) Brown stink bugs, phytophagous species (BSB) Velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) Soybean looper (SL ) Green cloverworm (GCW) Threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH) The 4 middle rows (47 ft long) of each plot were harvested for yield and seed quality with an Almaco SPC20 plot combine. Yields were adjusted to 13% moisture and 60 lb/bu. 57

Table 1. Orthene 75S application dates and soybean growth stage at time of insect samplings across planting dates. Beaumont, TX. 2005 20 sweeps NC ROY sampling date RA 452 (Apr 7) (Apr 27) (May 13) (Jun 8) (Jul 11) Jun 9: Applied Orthene 75S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre to RA 452 and NC ROY (Apr 27) Jun 10 R2 R1 V5 na na Jun 28: Applied Orthene 75S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre to RA 452 and NC ROY (Apr 27 and May 13) Jun 30 R3/4 R2 V12 V4 na Jul 13 R4 R3 R1 V11 na Jul 27 R4/5 R4 R2/3 R2 V3 Aug 5: Applied Orthene 75S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre to RA 452 and NC ROY (Apr 27 and May 13) Aug 10 R5 R4/5 R4 R2 V7 Aug 22: Applied Orthene 75S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre to RA 452 and NC ROY (Apr 27, May 13, Jun 8) Aug 23 R5/6 R5 R4 R3/4 R2 Sep 2: Applied Orthene 75S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre to RA 452 and NC ROY (all planting dates) Sep 4 R6 R5/6 R5 R5 R4 Sep 14: Applied Orthene 75S @ 1.0 lb (AI)/acre to RA 452 and NC ROY (all planting dates) Sep 19 R7 R6 R5/6 R5/6 R5 Discussion The data for RA 452 planted in early April show that stink bugs, particularly Piezodorus guildinii (PG), were problematic, even in treated plots (Table 2). PG numbers began to increase after July 27 when soybeans were at R4/5, peaked during mid to late August at R5/6 and dramatically decreased in September at R7. Even in treated plots, we did not satisfactorily control PG which suggests this species is more difficult to control than other stink bug species. Also, our insecticide spray timings on Atreated@ plots may have been Aoff a little@. We sprayed on August 5 and 22 but we probably should have sprayed an additional time between these dates. However, the data for RA 452 confirm previous research results which show that in Beaumont MGIV soybeans planted in April can be attacked by high populations of stink bugs during pod formation and pod fill. The period of vulnerability lasts about 3 wks depending on environmental parameters and soybean response to these variable conditions. Lepidoptera were not a problem which also confirms previous research. Yields in both treated and untreated plots of RA 452 were extremely low due to stink bug damage. Delayed maturity was observed in both treated and untreated plots which is a response to stink bug damage and possibly drought conditions during most of the summer. The drought also may have affected yields. For NC ROY planted April 27, stink bugs were not as abundant as they were on RA 452 planted in early April, but they did appear during R5 (Table 3). We did not obtain good control of stink bugs and only partial control of Lepidoptera. Yields were higher for NC ROY planted April 27 compared to RA 452 planted April 7. We think the higher yields are primarily due to less stink bug pressure. 58

Discussion (continued) For NC ROY planted May 13, June 8 and July 11, stink bug pressure was minimal and yields in the treated plots ranged from 24 to 31 bu/acre (Tables 4, 5 and 6). Best yields were produced by the June 8 planting date treated with Orthene 90S. Untreated plots in these three planting dates suffered considerable defoliation damage by Lepidoptera, predominantly velvetbean caterpillar (VBC). We believe significant yield losses in the untreated plots of the May 13 and June 8 planting dates were due to Lepidoptera and not stink bugs (Table 7). In conclusion, results show that stink bug populations were highest and were very damaging on RA 452 planted the first week of April (Table 8). Stink bugs (mainly PG) were present in lower numbers on NC ROY planted April 27, but damage was still significant. In both cases, stink bugs (predominantly PG) attacked during pod fill (R5/6). We believe the later planting dates of NC ROY avoided the stink bug pressure, but were exposed to higher Lepidoptera (predominantly VBC) populations. However, Lepidoptera are generally easier to control than stink bugs, particularly PG. We did not observe a Aherding effect@ of stink bugs from earlier to later planted soybeans. Data suggest that in Beaumont stink bug populations peak during pod fill of MGIV soybeans planted in April. Thus, planting a later MG cultivar in May or June, such as a MGVI with good yield potential, can avoid excessive stink bug pressure (as opposed to a MGIV cultivar) and be harvested early to avoid inclement weather (as opposed to a later maturing MGVII or VIII soybean). We believe each soybean growing area on the Texas Upper Gulf Coast (e.g. Wharton, Victoria, Calhoun, Fort Bend, Matagorda and Jackson Counties) has a unique climatic and environmental profile which influences stink bug populations and soybean development. We also believe stink bug population dynamics may be somewhat stable across years in each soybean growing area. Consequently, determining stink bug population dynamics for each area and selecting cultivars and planting dates to avoid damaging populations when soybeans enter critical pod fill are important research needs for the immediate future. Hurricane Rita made landfall in Southeast Texas on Sep 23. Although lodging across rows was minimal the entire plot area was nearly prostrate. Foliage was stripped and partial pod loss occurred. Soybeans generally matured abnormally after the hurricane resulting in yield loss and seed quality reduction throughout the test. See Tables 2-8 below. 59

Table 2. Insect data for RA 452 (MGIV) planted on Apr 7. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Treatment a @ R2 @ R3/4 @ R4 @ R4/5 @ R5 @ R5/6 @ R6 @ R7 Jun 10 Jun 30 Jul 13 Jul 27 Aug 10 Aug 23 Sep 4 Sep 19 T 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 U 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 1 T 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 1 7 16 0 0 T 3 1 2 4 1 12 0 0 U 3 1 1 1 28 24 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 T 3 1 3 4 1 12 0 0 U 3 1 1 2 36 41 0 0 T 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 U 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 Table 3. Insect data for NC ROY (MGVI) planted on Apr 27. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Treatment a Jun 10 Jun 30 Jul 13 Jul 27 Aug 10 Aug 23 @ R1 @ R2 @ R3 @ R4 @ R4/5 @ R5 Sep 4 @ R5/6 T 0 0 0 1 3 9 1 0 U 0 0 0 1 4 13 1 1 T 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 U 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 T 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 U 2 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 T 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 U 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 T 1 0 0 0 1 12 3 2 U 2 0 0 0 1 14 3 2 T 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 U 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 Sep 19 @ R6 60

Table 4. Insect data for NC ROY (MGVI) planted on May 13. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Treatment a @ V12 @ R1 @ R2/3 @ R4 @ R4 @ R5 @ R5/6 Jun 30 Jul 13 Jul 27 Aug 10 Aug 23 Sep 4 Sep 19 T 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 U 0 0 0 3 20 6 4 T 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 T 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 U 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 U 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 T 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 U 1 0 1 0 4 3 5 T 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 U 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Table 5. Insect data for NC ROY (MGVI) planted on Jun 8. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Treatment a @ R2 @ R3/4 @ R5 @ R5/6 Aug 10 Aug 23 Sep 4 Sep 19 T 1 8 3 0 U 2 28 9 6 T 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 1 2 T 0 0 0 2 U 0 0 1 4 T 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 2 1 T 0 0 0 2 U 0 0 4 7 T 0 1 0 0 U 1 2 0 0 61

Table 6. Insect data for NC ROY (MGVI) planted on Jul 11. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Treatment a @ R2 @ R4 @ R5 Aug 23 Sep 4 Sep 19 T 3 1 0 U 23 11 4 T 0 0 0 U 0 0 2 T 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 T 0 0 1 U 0 1 1 T 0 0 1 U 0 1 3 T 0 1 0 U 1 0 1 See Tables 7-8 below. 62

Table 7. Yield and seed quality of the five planting dates. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Cultivar (planting date) Treatment a Yield (bu/acre) Seed quality (1-5) b RA 452 (Apr 7) T 4.0 5.0 U 3.3 5.0 NC ROY (Apr 27) T 18.3 3.5 U 13.8 3.5 NC ROY (May 13) T 25.4 3.5 U 11.4 4.0 NC ROY (Jun 8) T 30.9 3.0 U 18.8 3.5 NC ROY (Jul 11) T 23.8 3.0 U 20.4 3.0 Statistical analysis (split plot) of yield and seed quality for the five planting dates: Main plot: Cultivar (planting date) Yield (bu/acre) Seed quality (1-5) RA 452 (Apr 7) 3.7 c 5.0 a NC ROY (Apr 27) 16.0 b 3.5 b NC ROY (May 13) 18.4 b 3.8 b NC ROY (Jun 8) 24.8 a 3.3 b NC ROY (Jul 11) 22.1 a 3.0 c Sub plot: Treatment (Treated or untreated for soybean insect pests) Treated 20.5 a 3.6 a Untreated 13.5 b 3.8 b Interactions: Main plot x sub plot Cultivar (planting date) x treatment SIG NS a Treatment: treated (T) or untreated (U) for soybean insect pests b Seed quality: visual estimate (1 = excellent, 5 = very poor) Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (NS) at the 5% level (ANOVA, LSD). 63

Table 8. Statistical comparison (split plot) of stink bug populations in the five planting dates. Beaumont, TX. 2005 Sampling date Cultivar (planting date) 0 no. stink bugs a Growth stage Jun 10 RA 452 (Apr 7) 3.0 a R2 NC ROY (Apr 27) 1.5 b R1 Jun 30 RA 452 (Apr 7) 1.0 a R3/4 NC ROY (Apr 27) 0.0 b R2 NC ROY (May 13) 0.5 ab V12 Jul 13 RA 452 (Apr 7) 2.0 a R4 NC ROY (Apr 27) 0.0 b R3 NC ROY (May 13) 0.0 b R1 Jul 27 RA 452 (Apr 7) 3.0 a R4/5 NC ROY (Apr 27) 0.0 b R4 NC ROY (May 13) 0.5 b R2/3 Aug 10 RA 452 (Apr 7) 18.5 a R5 NC ROY (Apr 27) 1.0 b R4/5 NC ROY (May 13) 0.0 b R4 NC ROY (Jun 8) 0.0 b R2 Aug 23 RA 452 (Apr 7) 26.5 a R5/6 NC ROY (Apr 27) 13.0 b R5 NC ROY (May 13) 3.0 c R4 NC ROY (Jun 8) 0.0 c R3/4 NC ROY (Jul 11) 0.0 c R2 Sep 4 RA 452 (Apr 7) 0.0 c R6 NC ROY (Apr 27) 3.0 a R5/6 NC ROY (May 13) 1.5 a R5 NC ROY (Jun 8) 2.0 ab R5 NC ROY (Jul 11) 0.5 bc R4 Sep 19 RA 452 (Apr 7) 0.0 c R7 NC ROY (Apr 27) 2.0 bc R6 NC ROY (May 13) 2.0 bc R5/6 NC ROY (Jun 8) 4.5 a R5/6 NC ROY (Jul 11) 2.0 bc R5 a Sum of SGSB, PG and BSB (nymphs + adults) Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level. 64