Soybean Agronomy and Host Plant Resistance Beaumont, TX 2009

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

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

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

Southern Illinois University Plexus with Fomesafen Herbicides.

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

3. Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN AND DRY BEAN CROPS

University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN LIBERTY AND ROUNDUP RESISTANT SUGAR BEETS

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

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

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

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN ONION AFTER THREE YEARS OF CORN HERBICIDES

GAMINGRE 8/1/ of 7

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

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN VARIOUS CROPS

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

Trial 1: Weed control in established grapes

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

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

MISSISSIPPI SOYBEAN PROMOTION BOARD PROJECT NO FINAL REPORT

IR-4 ORNAMENTAL DATA REPORTING FORM

Alion, Sencor, and Sharpen for Preemergence Kochia Control in an Abandoned Alfalfa Field

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

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Fall 2014

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

Impact of Tobacco Thrips on Cowpea

Location Field 30 at the University of Delaware Research and Education Center Farm, Georgetown, DE.

PEST MANAGEMENT: WEEDS

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

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

PAGE #1 TRIAL # US 127/14/ : UCBAYSYS* AS /19/2014 APPLICATIONS

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

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

Trial Report: Seedless Watermelon Variety Evaluation 2015

New Grass and Broadleaf Weed Management Options in Coastal Bermudagrass Pastures

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

OPTIMIZING NITROGEN USE AND EVALUATING ETHEPHON USE IN WAXY BARLEY

IR-4 Ornamental Horticulture Program Research Report Cover Sheet

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

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

2017 Appling County Cotton Meeting. Weed Control and a few other things

Texas Panhandle Sorghum Hay Trial 2010

EFFECT OF VARIOUS HERBICIDES ON NEWLY ESTABLISHED BERMUDAGRASS

Jackson County 2013 Weather Data

WHEN IS IT EVER GOING TO RAIN? Table of Average Annual Rainfall and Rainfall For Selected Arizona Cities

PAGE #1 TRIAL # US 152/14/ : UCENLSYS* VC-2 11/19/2014 APPLICATIONS

Growth Stages of Wheat: Identification and Understanding Improve Crop Management

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

Imperial County Agricultural Briefs

University of Florida-IFAS

MORPH forecast for carrot flies

EFFECTS OF HEATING AND FREEZING ON TRANSLUCENT SCALE IN ONION BULBS

Jayalath Ekanayake Jonas Tappolet Harald Gall Abraham Bernstein. Time variance and defect prediction in software projects: additional figures

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

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Spring 2014

YACT (Yet Another Climate Tool)? The SPI Explorer

Chapter-3 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, CLIMATE AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SITE

Herbicide Label Changes for Asparagus - Doug

Background and Assumptions

The Climate of Texas County

Pollen beetle - Meligethes aeneus Fabr.

12/3/2018. Grassy Weeds. Broadleaf Weeds. Sedges. Weed Control Update.

CORN, GRAIN SORGHUM &WHEAT 2012 PLANNING BUDGETS

COTTON. Bainbridge, Georgia: Earlier Maturity Cotton Variety Performance, 2013, Irrigated

Dectes Stem Borer: A Summertime Pest of Soybeans

2014 Ryan Lawn and Tree Overseeding Evaluation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln & Kansas State University. Zac Reicher, Jared Hoyle, and Matt Sousek

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

PAGE #1 TRIAL # US 214/13/ : USAUTHOR* AS /30/2014 APPLICATIONS

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DOSES OF GLYCINE BETAINE AND TIME OF SPRAY APPLICATION ON YIELD OF COTTON (GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM L.)

Ethephon in Sugarcane Cultivation

Managing stink bugs through cultural practices

Herbicide Drift: Cause, Effect on Crops, and Management. James L. Griffin School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil

PREDICTING SOIL SUCTION PROFILES USING PREVAILING WEATHER

The Climate of Bryan County

Jackson County 2014 Weather Data

The Climate of Marshall County

AGRONOMIC POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS OF USING PRECIPITATED CALCIUM CARBONATE IN THE HIGH PLAINS

EARLY POST-EMERGENT CONTROL OF SMOOTH CRABGRASS AND THIN PASPALUM WITH TANK-MIXES OF VARIOUS HERBICIDES.

3 c 0.3 b 2 b 1.7 b 2 c 10 c. 0 c 0 b 0.7 b 0.7 b 0.7 c 3.7 c b 34 b 26 b 26.7 b 56.3 b 73.3 b. 5.7 c 7.7 b 9.7 b 8.3 b 16.

BRADSHAW'S RAILWAY GUIDE : accessible copies

Effects of high plant populations on the growth and yield of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus)

First year harvest. AGRONOVA-field trials

Corn Basis Information By Tennessee Crop Reporting District

The Climate of Kiowa County

Strategies to Optimize Thrips Control in the Klamath Basin

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

PAGE #1 TRIAL # US 241/15/ : USPPWVAL* VC-2 11/12/2015 APPLICATIONS

IMPORTANCE OF NATURAL ENEMIES FOR STINK BUG CONTROL. Introduction

Integrated Management Strategies for Perennial Pepperweed

2017 Cotton Weed Control and a few other things

UCCE Winter Grower Meetings 2018 Whitney Brim-DeForest, Rice Advisor

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

Response Of Blueberry To Day Length During Propagation

Mean Comparisons PLANNED F TESTS

% control June 2005 Aminopyralid Aminopyralid Aminopyralid Picloram

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

Physiology of Flowering in Lychee Trees grown in Mountainous Areas of Thailand

Transcription:

Beaumont, TX 2009 North I II III IV V 1 HBK C5941 2 S49 W6 RR 3 8325 4 HBK C5025 5 HBK RR5425 6 HBK C5941 7 S49 W6 RR 8 8325 9 HBK C5025 10 HBK RR5425 11 Vernal 12 HBK RR5425 13 8360 14 8325 15 HBK C5941 16 Vernal 17 HBK RR5425 18 8360 19 8325 20 HBK C5941 21 S49 W6 RR 22 HBK RR5123 23 HBK C5941 24 HBK RR5425 25 8360 26 S49 W6 RR 27 HBK RR5123 28 HBK C5941 29 HBK RR5425 30 8360 31 8360 32 Vernal 33 HBK C5025 34 HBK RR5123 35 8325 36 8360 37 Vernal 38 HBK C5025 39 HBK RR5123 40 8325 41 HBK C5025 42 HBK C5941 43 Vernal 44 S49 W6 RR 45 HBK RR5123 46 HBK C5025 47 HBK C5941 48 Vernal 49 S49 W6 RR 50 HBK RR5123 51 8325 52 HBK C5025 53 HBK RR5123 54 Vernal 55 HBK C5025 56 8325 57 HBK C5025 58 HBK RR5123 59 Vernal 60 HBK C5025 61 HBK RR5123 62 8325 63 HBK RR5425 64 8360 65 S49 W6 RR 66 HBK RR5123 67 8325 68 HBK RR5425 69 8360 70 S49 W6 RR 71 HBK RR5425 72 8360 73 S49 W6 RR 74 HBK C5941 75 Vernal 76 HBK RR5425 77 8360 78 S49 W6 RR 79 HBK C5941 80 Vernal Treated Untreated Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 32 ft long, 5 ft alley 92

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Split-plot with main plots variety and sub plots treated or untreated for stink bugs Planting: Pulled beds in Morey silt loam soil (30 inch row width) on Feb 27. Planted test on Mar 21 (8 entries, treated and untreated, with 5 replications), general emergence on Mar 27 Plot size: Herbicide: 4 rows, 30 inch row width, trimmed to 32 ft after emergence First Rate @ 0.75 oz/a and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5 pts/a applied with 3-nozzle spray boom (110-04S nozzles, 29 gpa) Cultivation: Cultivated pre-plant on Mar 21 Cultivation on May 18 Treatments: Orthene 75S @ 1 lb ai/a applied with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13, No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens 18 gpa) to treated plots on Jun 3, Jun 16, Jul 13, Jul 30 and Sep 14; treated plots were sprayed a total of 5 times Sampling: Harvest: Inspected plots for flowering: no plots more mature than R1 on May 14. All plots short and no stink bugs observed in any plots. Pretreatment sweeps (15 sweeps per variety per rep) and stage of growth for each variety per rep on Jun 1 Stage of growth of each plot in rep 1 and 15 sweeps in each plot on Jun 8, Jun 19, Jul 15, Aug 3 and Sep 16 Plots not harvested due to poor seed yield and quality caused by abnormally high rainfall during and after podfill. Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using means separated by LSD. x + 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and Discussion In general, stink bug populations were low throughout the experiment (Tables 1-14). Current treatment thresholds for stink bugs are about 5 per 15 sweeps. Populations never reached this density in untreated plots on any sampling date. As noted above, plots were not harvested due to abnormally high rainfall during and after podfill. Data suggest planting soybeans in March in SE Texas (east of Houston) is not a viable practice. 93

Table 1. Total (nymphs + adults) stink bugs (redbanded, southern green and brown) per 15 sweeps in soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. Variety Trt a PRE b Jun 8 Jun 19 Jul 15 Aug 3 Sep 16 8325 T 2.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.8 U 0 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.2 8360 T 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.0 0.8 U 0 0.8 0.6 2.6 0.6 1.0 HBK C5025 T 0.2 0.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.2 U 0 1.2 1.6 1.6 3.8 1.2 HBK C5941 T 1.6 0.4 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.0 U 0 0.6 1.0 1.4 2.2 2.4 HBK RR5123 T 1.8 0.2 1.0 2.0 3.6 1.0 U 0 0.2 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.0 HBK RR5425 T 0.8 0.2 2.4 2.0 3.6 1.0 U 0 0.4 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.6 S49 W6 RR T 2.0 0.6 3.2 1.6 1.0 0.8 U 0 2.2 1.0 0.2 2.0 0.4 Vernal T 2.0 0.4 0 0.6 2.8 1.2 U 0 1.4 2.2 2.2 3.2 1.2 b PRE = pretreatment sweeps Table 2. Statistical analysis of data in Table 1. PRE a Jun 8 Jun 19 Jul 15 Aug 3 Sep 16 8325 1.1 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.0 8360 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.7 1.3 0.9 HBK C5025 0.1 0.9 1.7 1.7 2.8 1.2 HBK C5941 0.8 0.5 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.2 HBK RR5123 0.9 0.2 1.0 1.9 2.7 1.0 HBK RR5425 0.4 0.3 2.0 1.5 2.7 1.3 S49 W6 RR 1.0 1.4 2.1 0.9 1.5 0.6 Vernal 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.4 3.0 1.2 Treated b 1.4 a 0.4 b 1.4 1.5 2.3 1.1 Untreated 0 b 1.0 a 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.3 P = 0.2931 0.7865 0416 0.2719 0.4206 0.9816 a PRE = pretreatment sweeps Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 94

Table 3. Mean stink bug data (number per 15 sweeps) on Jun 1 (pretreatment) for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 T 1.6 0 1.6 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.6 8360 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 T 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBK C5941 T 1.0 0 1.0 0.4 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5123 T 0.6 0 0.6 0 0 0 1.2 0 1.2 HBK RR5425 T 0.8 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 S49 W6 RR T 1.6 0 1.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 Vernal T 1.2 0 1.2 0.4 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 Table 4. Statistical analysis of data from Table 3. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 0.8 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 8360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 HBK C5025 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBK C5941 0.5 0 0.5 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 HBK RR5123 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.6 HBK RR5425 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 S49 W6 RR 0.8 0 0.8 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 Vernal 0.6 0 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 Treated b 0.9 a 0 0.9 a 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 a 0 0.4 a Untreated 0 b 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 b P = 0.3075 --- 0.3075 0.5640 --- 0.5640 0.1736 --- 0.1736 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 95

Table 5. Mean stink bug data (number per 15 sweeps) on Jun 8 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.6 0 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 8360 T 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.2 0 0.2 0.6 0 0.6 0 0 0 HBK C5025 T 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.6 0 0.6 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.6 HBK C5941 T 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5123 T 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBK RR5425 T 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 S49 W6 RR T 0.4 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 U 1.6 0 1.6 0.4 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 Vernal T 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0.8 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 Table 6. Statistical analysis of data from Table 5. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 0.3 0 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 8360 0.2 0 0.2 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 0.4 0 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0 0.4 HBK C5941 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5123 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 HBK RR5425 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 S49 W6 RR 1.0 0 1.0 0.3 0 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 Vernal 0.6 0 0.6 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 Treated b 0.2 b 0 0.2 b 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 Untreated 0.6 a 0 0.6 a 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 P = 0.6813 --- 0.6813 0.7084 --- 0.7084 0.5391 --- 0.5391 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 96

Table 7. Mean stink bug data (number per 15 sweeps) on Jun 19 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 T 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 U 0.6 0.2 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8360 T 0.6 0.2 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 HBK C5025 T 1.6 0 1.6 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.8 0 0.8 0.4 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 HBK C5941 T 0.4 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 1.0 0 1.0 U 0.6 0 0.6 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 HBK RR5123 T 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.6 0 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5425 T 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 U 1.0 0 1.0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.6 S49 W6 RR T 2.2 0 2.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 Vernal T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0.8 0 0.8 0.4 0 0.4 1.0 0 1.0 Table 8. Statistical analysis of data from Table 7. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 0.4 0.1 0.5 ab 0.1 0 b 0.1 0 0 0 8360 0.3 0.1 0.4 b 0.1 0 b 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 1.2 0 1.2 a 0.2 0 b 0.2 0.3 0 0.3 HBK C5941 0.5 0 0.5 ab 0.2 0 b 0.2 0.7 0 0.7 HBK RR5123 0.4 0 0.4 b 0.3 0 b 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 HBK RR5425 1.2 0.2 1.4 a 0.1 0 b 0.1 0.5 0 0.5 S49 W6 RR 1.2 0.1 1.3 a 0.3 0.2 a 0.5 0.3 0 0.3 Vernal 0.4 0 0.4 b 0.2 0 b 0.2 0.5 0 0.5 Treated b 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 Untreated 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 P = 0.0486 0.1305 0.0418 0.3455 0.0272 0.1623 0.2525 --- 0.2525 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 97

Table 9. Mean stink bug data (number per 15 sweeps) on Jul 15 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 T 0.8 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 1.4 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8360 T 0.6 0 0.6 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 U 2.4 0 2.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 T 1.6 0 1.6 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 U 1.4 0 1.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5941 T 2.4 0 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 1.2 0 1.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5123 T 1.6 0 1.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 U 1.6 0 1.6 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 HBK RR5425 T 1.6 0 1.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.8 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 S49 W6 RR T 1.2 0 1.2 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernal T 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 U 1.4 0 1.4 0.6 0 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 Table 10. Statistical analysis of data from Table 9. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 1.1 0 1.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8360 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5941 1.8 0 1.8 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 HBK RR5123 1.6 0 1.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 HBK RR5425 1.2 0 1.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 S49 W6 RR 0.7 0 0.7 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 Vernal 0.8 0 0.8 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 Treated b 1.3 0 1.3 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 Untreated 1.3 0 1.3 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 P = 0.3530 --- 0.3530 0.5692 --- 0.5692 0.7827 --- 0.7827 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 98

Table 11. Mean stink bug data (number per 15 sweeps) on Aug 3 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 T 0.4 0.4 0.8 0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.8 0 0.8 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 8360 T 1.0 0.8 1.8 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 U 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 T 0.8 0.4 1.2 0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 U 1.0 1.8 2.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.6 HBK C5941 T 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 U 1.0 0.8 1.8 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 HBK RR5123 T 1.0 1.2 2.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0 0.6 U 1.0 0.4 1.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5425 T 1.2 1.6 2.8 0 0.6 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 U 1.6 0.2 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 S49 W6 RR T 0.6 0.4 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 1.0 0.6 1.6 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 Vernal T 1.2 1.2 2.4 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 U 0.6 1.8 2.4 0.6 0 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 Table 12. Statistical analysis of data from Table 11. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 8360 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 HBK C5025 0.9 1.1 2.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 HBK C5941 1.2 0.6 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 HBK RR5123 1.0 0.8 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0 0.4 HBK RR5425 1.4 0.9 2.3 0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 S49 W6 RR 0.8 0.5 1.3 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 Vernal 0.9 1.5 2.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 0 0.1 Treated b 1.0 0.8 1.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 Untreated 0.9 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0 0.2 P = 0.9158 0.2389 0.7762 0.0757 0.2440 0.7306 0.2444 --- 0.2444 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 99

Table 13. Mean stink bug data (number per 15 sweeps) on Sep 16 for soybean host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 T 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.4 0.4 0.8 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 8360 T 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 U 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 T 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.8 U 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.6 0.6 HBK C5941 T 0.4 1.0 1.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.6 1.0 1.6 0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0 0.6 HBK RR5123 T 0 0.4 0.4 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8 HBK RR5425 T 0.4 0.2 0.6 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 U 0.6 0.2 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8 S49 W6 RR T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.2 0.8 U 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 Vernal T 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 U 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.2 0.2 0.6 0 0.6 Table 14. Statistical analysis of data from Table 13. Beaumont, TX. 2009. 8325 0.3 0.3 b 0.6 b 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0.4 8360 0.1 0.4 b 0.5 b 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 HBK C5025 0.1 0.1 b 0.2 b 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 HBK C5941 0.5 1.0 a 1.5 a 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0 0.5 HBK RR5123 0.1 0.2 b 0.3 b 0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0 0.6 HBK RR5425 0.5 0.2 b 0.7 b 0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0 0.5 S49 W6 RR 0.1 0 b 0.1 b 0 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.5 Vernal 0.5 0 b 0.5 b 0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0 0.5 Treated b 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 Untreated 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 P = 0.9052 0.8810 0.8977 0.6395 0.6983 0.7562 0.4653 0.9708 0.8140 Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) 100