reports of soybean research conducted in 2011 by the

Reports of Soybean Research Conducted in 2011 by the Entomology

Project

Mo Way, Suhas Vyavhare, Becky Pearson and Mark Nunez

Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center, 1509 Aggie Dr.,

Beaumont, TX 77713

[email protected]

409-658-2186

mailto:[email protected]

Introduction

In 2011, the Entomology Project (EP) conducted research on soybean seed treatments,

host plant resistance, chemical control and basic biology of selected insect pests. Much of the

research was aimed at the redbanded stink bug (RBSB), Piezodorus guildinii, which has become

a serious pest of soybeans in Texas, particularly along the Upper Gulf Coast. In response to

questions about the RBSB, the EP obtained a PhD graduate student, Suhas Vyavhare, who began

his research last year. Suhas lived at the Beaumont Center during the soybean field season; thus,

he spent much time on a daily basis conducting research on this exotic pest. Most of the Texas

Soybean Board (TSB) funding the EP received in 2011 went to support Suhas’ research, but

some of the funding also helped pay for other experiments, including labor. During the summer,

the EP hires high school and college students to help with the heavy work load. A good portion

of this labor was paid by TSB funds. In short, TSB funding was instrumental in providing the

research results contained in the following reports which the EP believes will help Texas

soybean farmers produce a more profitable and sustainable soybean crop. The EP is very

appreciative of TSB support.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Redbanded Stink Bug Research 2011 ..............................................1

Soybean Host Plant Resistance ........................................................6

MG V Soybean Insecticide Screening ...........................................22

MG VI Soybean Insecticide Screening ..........................................37

MG VII Soybean Insecticide Screening ........................................44

Syngenta Soybean Seed Treatment ................................................53

Valent Soybean Seed Treatment ....................................................55

1

Redbanded Stink Bug Research 2011

Suhas Vyavhare, Mo Way and Raul Medina

Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center

1509 Aggie Drive

Beaumont, TX 77713

The redbanded stink bug (RBSB), Piezodorus guildinii Westwood, (Hemiptera:

Pentatomidae), is an emerging pest of soybeans in the southern states of the US. Since the 1960s,

P. guildinii has spread across the US southern region and currently is found in South Carolina,

Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri. The geographic expansion of this

exotic pest has dramatically increased in recent years. For example, since 2000, the RBSB

rapidly spread across Louisiana, reaching all soybean growing areas in the state by 2006 (Davis

et al. 2011). The RBSB has now emerged as the dominant stink bug species in Louisiana and

Texas soybeans.

The research was conducted at the Beaumont Center and outlying commercial soybean fields

with the following objectives,

1) To quantify density/damage relationship(s) of RBSB in soybeans considering soybean

plant response at particular growth stages to varying densities of stink bugs.

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

syndrome in soybeans

3) To determine relative abundance and composition of stink bug species attacking soybean

fields along the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas

Objective 1: To quantify density/damage relationship(s) of RBSB in soybeans considering

soybean plant response at particular growth stages to varying densities of stink bugs.

Materials and methods: Experiments were conducted at the Beaumont Center in the field and in

pots.

Pot study:

MG VI soybeans (AG 6730) were planted on May 27, 2011 in 25 gal buckets (16 inch diameter)

filled with sandy loam soil found at the Beaumont Center. Buckets were placed outside and

watered regularly, so soil moisture was not a limiting factor. Soybeans were thinned to 3 plants

per bucket during the seedling stage. Weeds were controlled by hand and with glyphosate (1%

concentration by volume). Plants were sprayed with Karate Z at 0.03 lb ai/A and Methyl

Parathion 4E at 20 gm/gal of water in order to protect soybean plants from any kind of insect

damage prior to infesting with RBSB. When soybeans approached R3, cylindrical, wire mesh

cages were placed over plants in selected buckets. Zero, 4 and 8 RBSB adults (collected from the

field on the same day of infestation) were placed in selected cages and kept for 3 days. Plants

were inspected daily and dead RBSBs replaced. There were four replications for each treatment

(each bucket served as a replication for a particular treatment). After 3 days of infestation, cages

2

and insects were removed and plants were sprayed repeatedly with Orthene 90S to insure no

further insect activity/damage. These materials and methods were repeated for growth stages R4

and R5. Controls were not infested at any of the plant growth stages. At maturity, plants were

hand-harvetsed, threshed and seeds weighed and inspected for damage. In addition, filled and

unfilled pods were counted and weighed.

Field study:

Similar materials and methods were employed for the field experiment, except plants were

grown directly in the field under irrigation. From different rows of soybeans, 3 plants were

selected randomly (3 plants/foot of row) at R5, R6, and R7 stages. Similar cages and stink bug

densities were employed as in the pot study. A single cage enclosing 3 plants represented a

single replication of a particular treatment. There were 4 replications of each treatment. RBSB

densities were 0, 4, and 8 adults/cage.

Results---pot study

Numbers of fully developed pods varied significantly among treatments. Numbers of fully

developed pods were significantly reduced when plants at the R4 stage were infested with 4

RBSB/cage. Percentage of fully developed pods was significantly higher in control plants and

also in R5 stage plants at a density of 8 RBSB/cage (Fig. 1). Though the number of flat pods was

highest when plants were infested at the R4 stage, the differences were not statistically

significant among any of the treatments (Fig. 2).

For example: R5-8 = R5 infested with 8 RBSB; R3-4 = R3 infested with 4 RBSB

Bars showing same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 (LSD)

Figure 1: Percent fully developed pods

AB

AB

A A

AB

AB

B

3

For example: R3-8 = R3 infested with 8 RBSB; R5-4 = R5 infested with 4 RBSB

Bars showing same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 (LSD)

Figure 2: Percent flat pods

Objective 2: To determine the association between RBSB feeding and occurrence of flat pod

syndrome in soybeans

Materials and methods: MG VI soybeans (AG 6730) were planted in the field under irrigation at

the Beaumont Center on May 27, 2011. Weeds were controlled by hand and with glyphosate

(1%.concentration by volume). Plants were sprayed with Karate Z at 0.03 lb ai/A and Methyl

Parathion 4E at 20 gm/gal in order to protect the plants from any kind of insect damage prior to

infesting with RBSB. About 10 days before infestation, plants were kept free of any insecticide

application to avoid any residual effect. When soybeans approached R4-5, plants of uniform

height were selected and field-collected RBSB were confined to certain portions of the plants

(bottom, top, or both) using specially designed cages isolating these portions of the plants. We

wanted to determine if a substance or agent associated with RBSB feeding is translocated

through the plant to cause flat pod syndrome. The top 2 internodes of the plant were considered

as the top portion and the rest of the plant as the bottom portion. RBSB were restricted to

specific portions of the plant with the help of cages. Overall, there were 4 treatments: infestation

of only the top portion, infestation of only the bottom portion, infestation of both top and bottom

portions, and a control without any infestation. Two field-collected RBSB adults were placed in

each cage. Infestation was maintained for 3 days after which cages were removed; plants were

then repeatedly sprayed with Orthene 90S to avoid further insect damage/activity. At maturity,

pods were harvested separately from each plant portion and flat and fully developed pods were

counted.

A A

A A

A

A A

4

Results---field study: This experiment produced very interesting results about RBSB feeding and

occurrence of flat pod syndrome. There was a relationship between feeding by RBSB at an early

stage of pod development and production of flat pods. Flat pods are a result of direct feeding by

RBSB and the damage was localized to the area of feeding. When only the top portion of the

plant was infested, flat pods were present only in that particular portion (Fig. 3). When the

bottom portion of the plant was infested, the number of flat pods was significantly higher in the

bottom portion only. Similarly, when both portions of the plant were infested, no significant

difference was observed in numbers of flat pods between the top and bottom portions of the

plant. On the other hand, total numbers of flat pods were least in the control treatment

(uninfested). In the control treatment, no significant difference was observed between the top and

bottom portions of the plant in terms of number of flat pods. The presence of a few flat pods in

the control treatment shows there may be other factor(s) involved in the production of flat pods

(in addition to RBSB feeding). However, RBSB feeding, especially during early pod

development, was associated with the production of flat pods in soybeans. Since flat pods were

largely restricted to areas of feeding by RBSB, production of flat pods was not associated with

an agent or substance introduced by RBSB and translocated through the plant.

*indicates significant difference at 0.05

NS indicates no significant difference at 0.05

Figure 3: Number of flat pods in response to infestation of RBSB on particular plant portions.

5

Objective 3: To determine relative abundance and composition of stink bug species attacking

soybeans in Texas

Materials and methods: Densities of stink bug species were monitored during 2011 in

commercial soybean fields along the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas. Soybean fields were sampled at

weekly intervals throughout the reproductive stages of the crop. Study fields were located in

Jefferson, Matagorda, Colorado, and Liberty Counties. Sampling began in mid-June and

continued weekly through early October with 5 sets of 25 sweeps (15 inch diameter sweep net)

taken at random locations in each soybean field on each sample date. After collecting, stink bugs

were placed in zip-lock bags and brought to the lab where they were separated by species and

counted. Only adults were counted.

Results: As noted previously, the geographic distribution of this exotic pest has dramatically

increased in recent years. Results of our soybean field survey revealed the RBSB and the green

stink bug were the most abundant stink bug species (Fig.4). Out of total number of captured

major stink bug species, RBSB and green stink bug accounted for 30% each while southern

green and brown stink bugs accounted for 22 and 18%, respectively. Before 2000, RBSB was not

present in numbers to be considered a pest, but in recent years, it has increased significantly.

Historically, dominant stink bug species were southern green stink bug and green stink bug, but

now there is a shift in composition and abundance of stink bug species in soybeans on the Upper

Gulf Coast of Texas.

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

6

Soybean Host Plant Resistance Beaumont, TX

2011

↑ North PLOT PLAN

I

37 S61-Q2 25 S61-Q2 13 Jake 1 Jake

38 97M50 26 97M50 14 C5941 2 C5941

39 S78-G6 27 S78-G6 15 HBK 7028 3 HBK 7028

40 AG6730 28 AG6730 16 DP7870RR 4 DP7870RR

II

41 C5941 29 C5941 17 97M50 5 97M50

42 Jake 30 Jake 18 S61-Q2 6 S61-Q2

43 DP7870RR 31 DP7870RR 19 AG6730 7 AG6730

44 S78-G6 32 S78-G6 20 HBK 7028 8 HBK 7028

III

45 C5941 33 C5941 21 97M50 9 97M50

46 AG6730 34 AG6730 22 HBK 7028 10 HBK 7028

47 DP7870RR 35 DP7870RR 23 S61-Q2 11 S61-Q2

48 Jake 36 Jake 24 S78-G6 12 S78-G6 Plot size = 4 rows x 30 ft

Shaded plots treated

Agronomic and Cultural Information

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

DP 7870 RR, HBK C5941, HBK R7028, Jake, S61-Q2 and S78-G6); sub

plot = untreated or treated

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

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

nitrogen fixation

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

Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5

pt/A were applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray

tank and boom at 33 gpa final spray volume.

Irrigation: None

Fertilizer: None

7

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

hand-held spray boom (13- No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 15 gpa

final spray volume) on Aug 19 and Aug 30

Treated plots sprayed with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23

Sampling: Stink bugs and Lepidoptera caterpillars (a few) observed on Aug 19

Sampled soybeans for insects (12 sweeps/plot) on Aug 26; C5491,

DP7870RR, HBK 7028, S78-G6 and 97M50 @ R2/3; AG6730 @ R3; Jake

and S61-Q2 @ R3/4 (stage of growth from rep 1)

Sampled soybeans for insects (12 sweeps/plot) on Aug 31; AG6730, S78-G6

and 97M50 @ R3; DP7870RR @ R3/4; C5491, HBK 7028, Jake and S61-

Q2 @ R4/5 (stage of growth from rep 2)

Sampled soybeans for insects (12 sweeps/plot) on Sep 30 @ R6, row 3

Took pictures on Oct 11

Harvest: Plots harvested as they matured (Oct 13 – Nov 4)

Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long

Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using

x 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and

means separated by LSD.

Discussion

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

stink bugs and threecornered alfalfa hoppers. These applications effectively controlled these

pests (Tables 4, 8, 10, 12 and 14). Highest populations of pest insets were collected in untreated

plots on Sep 30 (Tables 11 – 14) when soybeans in all T plots were R6. Populations of

Lepidoptera defoliators were relatively low Sep 30, but RBSB populations were moderate to

high (as many as 10.7 per 12 sweeps in untreated plots of HBK C5941). On this date, untreated

plots of 97M50, DP 7870 RR, HBK R7028 and Jake had the fewest RBSB (3 or less per 12

sweeps). However, no significant interaction was detected which means all varieties responded

similarly to the treatments. Thus, results suggest all varieties in the experiment exhibited the

same level of susceptibility to RBSB. S78-G6 produced the highest yields in both treated and

untreated plots (31.1 and 19.1 bu/A, respectively) (Table 1). However, the difference in yield

between treated and untreated plots was great (12 bu/A). AG6730 was most affected by insect

pressure (17.1 bu/A difference between treated and untreated plots). Across varieties, treated

plots outyielded untreated plots 11.2 bu/A (Table 2). This shows the value of controlling insect

pests. If cost of spraying is $15/A per application (3 applications = $45) and the price of

soybeans is $13/bu ($13 x 11.2 = $145.60), then net profit is $100.60, if results of this

experiment are extrapolated. Across varieties, seed quality and test weight were significantly

improved by controlling insects. Note, this experiment was not irrigated. Also note, all untreated

plots, regardless of variety, exhibited delayed maturity due to stink bug damage. DP 7870 RR

exhibited the least yield reduction (6.6 bu/A) between treated and untreated plots. In addition,

untreated plots of DP 7870 RR produced high quality seed (1.7 rating), so, DP 7870 RR warrants

further study, as does S78-G6.

8

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

Variety Treatmenta

Yield

(bu/A)

T – U

(bu/A)

Seed qualityb

(1 – 5)

Test wt.

(lb/bu)

97M50 T 23.7 8.1

1.5 57.8

97M50 U 15.6 2.3 54.4

AG6730 T 25.4 17.1

1.2 57.5

AG6730 U 8.3 3.3 52.8

DP 7870 RR T 24.6 6.6

1.2 56.4

DP 7870 RR U 18.0 1.7 55.8

HBK C5941 T 24.5 14.5

2.7 55.3

HBK C5941 U 10.0 4.3 47.5

HBK R7028 T 26.9 11.0

1.7 56.5

HBK R7028 U 15.9 2.8 54.2

Jake T 25.4 13.1

2.0 56.6

Jake U 12.3 3.5 51.4

S61-Q2 T 22.6 7.7

1.8 57.0

S61-Q2 U 14.9 3.0 53.4

S78-G6 T 31.1 12.0

1.8 56.5

S78-G6 U 19.1 3.0 52.6 a T = treated 3 times (Aug 19, 30 and Sep 23); U = untreated

b Seed quality: 1 = excellent; 5 = very poor

9

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

Yield

(bu/A)

Seed qualitya

(1 – 5)

Test weight

(lb/bu)

Main plot:

97M50 19.6 1.9 bc 56.1

AG6730 16.9 2.3 bc 55.2

DP 7870 RR 21.3 1.4 c 56.1

HBK C5941 17.2 3.5 a 51.4

HBK R7028 21.4 2.3 bc 55.4

Jake 18.9 2.8 ab 54.0

S61-Q2 18.8 2.4 abc 55.2

S78-G6 25.1 2.4 abc 54.5

Sub plot:

Treatedb

25.5 a 1.7 b 56.7 a

Untreated 14.3 b 3.0 a 52.8 b

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.5340 0.7492 0.7346

a Seed quality: 1 = excellent; 5 = very poor

b T = treated 3 times (Aug 19, 30 and Sep 23); U = untreated

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

ANOVA, LSD)

10

Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data per 12 sweeps on Aug 26 for soybean host

plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a

Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs

SLb

GCWb

VBCb

Total SGSBb

RBSBb

BSBsb

Total

97M50 T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 1.7 1.7

97M50 U 0.3 0 0.7 1.0 0 0 0.3 0.3

AG6730 T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 1.3 1.3

AG6730 U 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR T 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.7 0.7

DP 7870 RR U 1.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0.3 0.3

HBK C5941 T 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0

HBK C5941 U 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.3

HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HBK R7028 U 0 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.0

Jake T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jake U 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.7 0.3 1.0

S61-Q2 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S61-Q2 U 0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.0

S78-G6 T 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3

S78-G6 U 0.7 0 0.7 1.3 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 19; U = untreated

b SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB =

southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs

11

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

Variety


SLa

GCWa VBC

a Total SGSB

a RBSB

a BSBs

a Total

Main plot:

97M50 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 0 1.0 1.0

AG6730 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 0 0 0.7 0.7

DP 7870 RR 0.5 0 0.2 0.7 0 0 0.5 0.5

HBK C5941 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7

HBK R7028 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.0

Jake 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.2 0.5

S61-Q2 0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0

S78-G6 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 0.5 0.3 0.8

Sub plot:

Treatedb

0.1 0.0 0.0 b 0.2 b 0 0.0 b 0.5 0.5 b

Untreated 0.3 0.3 0.3 a 0.9 a 0.2 0.3 a 0.5 1.0 a

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.6242 0.6357 0.3562 0.9839 0.5681 0.6231 0.1540 0.0139

a SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB =

southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs b Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 19


ANOVA, LSD)

12

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

Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a

Threecornered

alfalfa hopper Big-eyed bug Spiders

97M50 T 2.0 0 0.3

97M50 U 3.3 0.3 0.7

AG6730 T 1.7 0 0

AG6730 U 1.0 0 0

DP 7870 RR T 1.3 0 0.3

DP 7870 RR U 4.0 0 2.3

HBK C5941 T 2.0 0.7 0.3

HBK C5941 U 2.7 0.3 1.3

HBK R7028 T 1.3 0 0

HBK R7028 U 1.3 0 2.0

Jake T 2.3 0 0.7

Jake U 4.3 0 0

S61-Q2 T 1.3 0 0.3

S61-Q2 U 0.7 0 0

S78-G6 T 1.3 0 0.7

S78-G6 U 1.0 0 0.7 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 19; U = untreated

13


Variety

Threecornered alfalfa

hopper Big-eyed bug Spiders

Main plot:

97M50 2.7 0.2 b 0.5

AG6730 1.3 0 b 0

DP 7870 RR 2.7 0 b 1.3

HBK C5941 2.3 0.5 a 0.8

HBK R7028 1.3 0 b 1.0

Jake 3.3 0 b 0.3

S61-Q2 1.0 0 b 0.2

S78-G6 1.2 0 b 0.7

Sub plot:

Treateda

1.7 0.1 0.3 b

Untreated 2.3 0.1 0.9 a

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.2394 0.6264 0.0279

a Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 19


ANOVA, LSD)

14

Table 7. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data per 12 sweeps on Aug 31 for soybean host

plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a


SLb

GCWb

VBCb

Total SGSBb

RBSBb

BSBsb

Total

97M50 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3

97M50 U 0 0.7 1.0 1.7 0 0 0.3 0.3

AG6730 T 0.7 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0

AG6730 U 0.7 0 1.7 2.3 0 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR U 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.7 0.3 0 0.3 0.7

HBK C5941 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HBK C5941 U 0.3 0.3 0 0.7 0.3 1.3 0.7 2.3

HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3

HBK R7028 U 0 0 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 1.0

Jake T 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0

Jake U 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0.7 0.3 1.0

S61-Q2 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

S61-Q2 U 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 1.3 0 1.3

S78-G6 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3

S78-G6 U 0.3 1.0 0.7 2.0 0 1.3 0.7 2.0 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 30; U = untreated

b SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB =

southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs

15


Variety


SLa

GCWa VBC

a Total SGSB

a RBSB

a BSBs

a Total

Main plot:

97M50 0 0.3 0.5 0.8 0 0 0.3 0.3

AG6730 0.7 0 0.8 1.5 0 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.2 0 0.2 0.3

HBK C5941 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.2

HBK R7028 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 0.7

Jake 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.2 0.5

S61-Q2 0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7

S78-G6 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.0 0 0.7 0.5 1.2

Sub plot:

Treatedb

0.1 0.0 b 0 b 0.2 b 0 0 b 0.1 0.1 b

Untreated 0.3 0.4 a 0.7 a 1.3 a 0.1 0.7 a 0.3 1.1 a

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.9140 0.2863 0.6406 0.5515 0.5177 0.2207 0.8881 0.4228

a SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; SGSB =

southern green stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs b Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 30


ANOVA, LSD)

16

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

Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a

Threecornered

alfalfa hopper Grasshoppers Leafhoppers Spiders

97M50 T 0.7 0.3 0 0.3

97M50 U 2.3 0.3 0.7 0

AG6730 T 0 0 0 0

AG6730 U 5.3 0.3 0.3 1.3

DP 7870 RR T 0 0.3 0.3 0

DP 7870 RR U 6.3 1.0 1.0 0.7

HBK C5941 T 0 0 0.7 0

HBK C5941 U 3.0 0 0.3 1.0

HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0

HBK R7028 U 2.7 0.3 2.3 3.0

Jake T 0.7 0 0.7 0

Jake U 2.7 0.3 0.7 0

S61-Q2 T 0.3 0 0.3 0

S61-Q2 U 3.3 1.3 1.0 3.3

S78-G6 T 0 0 0.3 0

S78-G6 U 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 a T = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb/A on Aug 30; U = untreated

17


Variety

Threecornered

alfalfa hopper Grasshoppers Leafhoppers Spiders

Main plot:

97M50 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.2

AG6730 2.7 0.2 0.2 0.7

DP 7870 RR 3.2 0.7 0.7 0.3

HBK C5941 1.5 0 0.5 0.5

HBK R7028 1.3 0.2 1.2 1.5

Jake 1.7 0.2 0.7 0

S61-Q2 1.8 0.7 0.7 1.7

S78-G6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3

Sub plot:

Treateda

0.2 b 0.1 b 0.3 b 0.0 b

Untreated 3.4 a 0.5 a 0.8 a 1.3 a

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.3430 0.1699 0.1926 0.0283

a Treated = treated with Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A on Aug 30


ANOVA, LSD)

18

Table 11. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data per 12 sweeps on Sep 30 for soybean

host plant resistance. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a


SLb

GCWb

VBCb

Total GSBb

RBSBb

BSBsb

Total

97M50 T 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0 0 0

97M50 U 0 2.3 2.3 4.7 0 2.0 0 2.0

AG6730 T 0.7 0 0 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7

AG6730 U 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.0 0 6.7 0 6.7

DP 7870 RR T 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3

DP 7870 RR U 0 1.7 1.0 2.7 1.7 2.3 0.3 4.3

HBK C5941 T 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0 0.7 0.3 1.0

HBK C5941 U 0.3 0.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 10.7 0 13.3

HBK R7028 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3

HBK R7028 U 0 1.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 3.0 1.3 4.7

Jake T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3

Jake U 0.3 1.3 1.0 2.7 0 3.0 0 3.0

S61-Q2 T 0.3 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.3 0.3

S61-Q2 U 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 0 5.0 0.7 5.7

S78-G6 T 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 1.0

S78-G6 U 0.7 1.7 0.3 2.7 0 4.7 0.3 5.0 a T = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23; U = untreated

b SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; GSB = green

stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs

19


Variety


SLa

GCWa VBC

a Total GSB

a RBSB

a BSBs

a Total

Main plot:

97M50 0 1.3 1.2 2.5 0 1.0 0 1.0

AG6730 0.5 0.2 0.7 1.3 0 3.7 0 3.7

DP 7870 RR 0 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.3 0.2 2.3

HBK C5941 0.3 0.3 1.2 1.8 1.3 5.7 0.2 7.2

HBK R7028 0 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.2 1.5 0.8 2.5

Jake 0.3 0.7 0.5 1.5 0 1.7 0 1.7

S61-Q2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0 2.5 0.5 3.0

S78-G6 0.3 0.8 0.3 1.5 0 2.5 0.5 3.0

Sub plot:

Treatedb

0.2 0.0 b 0.1 b 0.3 b 0 0.3 b 0.2 0.5 b

Untreated 0.2 1.3 a 1.1 a 2.6 a 0.6 4.7 a 0.3 5.6 a

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.8743 0.9657 0.2707 0.8812 0.5759 0.7165 0.3089 0.4999

a SL = soybean looper; GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; GSB = green

stink bug; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSBs = brown stink bugs b Treated = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23


ANOVA, LSD)

20

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

Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Variety Trt.a

Threecornered

alfalfa hopper

Banded

cucumber

beetle

Big-eyed

bug Spiders

Assassin

bugs

97M50 T 0.7 0 0 0 0

97M50 U 5.7 0.7 0 1.0 0

AG6730 T 0 0 0 0 0

AG6730 U 7.7 0.3 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR T 0.7 0 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR U 12.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0

HBK C5941 T 0 0 0 0 0

HBK C5941 U 5.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.0

HBK R7028 T 1.0 0 0 0 0.3

HBK R7028 U 6.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.0

Jake T 0.7 0 0 0 0

Jake U 5.0 0 0 0.7 0

S61-Q2 T 0.3 0 0 0 0

S61-Q2 U 6.3 0 0 0 0.3

S78-G6 T 0.3 0 0 0 0

S78-G6 U 8.3 1.3 0 1.0 0.7 a T = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23; U = untreated

21


Variety

Threecornered

alfalfa hopper

Banded

cucumber

beetle Big-eyed bug Spiders

Assassin

bugs

Main plot:

97M50 3.2 0.3 0 0.5 0

AG6730 3.8 0.2 0 0 0

DP 7870 RR 6.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0

HBK C5941 2.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0

HBK R7028 3.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7

Jake 2.8 0 0 0.3 0

S61-Q2 3.3 0 0 0 0.2

S78-G6 4.3 0.7 0 0.5 0.3

Sub plot:

Treateda

0.5 b 0 b 0 b 0 b 0.0 b

Untreated 7.2 a 0.6 a 0.2 a 0.5 a 0.5 a

Interactions:

Variety x

treatment P = 0.8951 0.5557 0.3562 0.5308 0.3710

a Treated = treated with Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A on Sep 23


ANOVA, LSD)

22

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

Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

North

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

III 6 7 13 11 20 4 27 9 34 2 41 8 48 10 55 NA 62 12

5 2 12 5 19 6 26 1 33 8 40 9 47 3 54 10 61 NA

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

I

3 10 10 11 17 2 24 3 31 1 38 6 45 NA 52 NA 59 12

2 4 9 5 16 6 23 7 30 NA 37 8 44 9 51 NA 58 NA

1 1 8 2 15 3 22 NA 29 NA 36 NA 43 NA 50 NA 57 NA

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

Variety = Jake

TREATMENTS AND RATES

Treatment no. Description

Rate

(fl oz/A)

1 HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v

2 HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v

3 HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v

4 HGW86 + Steward + MSO 6.75 + 6.7 + 0.25% v/v

5 Steward 6.7

6 Leverage 360 + NISa

2.8 + 0.25% v/v

7 Leverage + COCb

2.8 + 1% v/v

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

9 Baythroid XL 2.3

10 Karate Z 1.7

11 Endigo ZC 4

12 Untreated --- a NIS = non-ionic surfactant

b COC = crop oil concentrate

23


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 12 treatments and 4 replications

Planting: Planted Jake (MG V) on Jun 12; seed coated with bacterial inoculant to

promote nitrogen fixation

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row width, trimmed to 40 ft after emergence

Herbicide: 0.75 oz/A First Rate, 1.5 qt Glyfos Xtra and 2.5 pt/A Dual II Magnum were

applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and

boom at 33 gpa (final spray volume).

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

cone nozzles on 30 inch centers, 20 gpa) on Sep 20.

Sampling: Soybeans @ R6 and on Sep 20

15 sweeps/plot on row 1 on Sep 21 (1 day after treatment, DAT) @ R6

15 sweeps/plot on row 2 on Sep 23 (3 DAT) @ R6

15 sweeps/plot on row 3 on Sep 27 (7 DAT) @ R6/7

15 sweeps/plot on row 4 on Oct 4 (14 DAT) @ R7




Discussion

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

September. Thus, treatments were applied September 20 when soybean plants were R6.

At 1 DAT, low/moderate levels of redbanded stink bug (RBSB) were collected from

untreated plots (Table 1). None of the HGW86 treatments controlled RBSB. No RBSB were

collected from Leverage 360 + COC, Baythroid XL + Orthene 90S and Karate Z treatments. All

treatments provided control of green cloverworm (GCW) (Table 2). Steward, Leverage 360 +

NIS and Leverage 360 + COC treatments provided 100% control of GCW. HGW86 + MSO

treatments did not control threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH), but the addition of Steward to

this tank-mix appeared to increase control (Table 3). Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments

provided 100% control of TCAH.

At 3 DAT, again, low/moderate levels of RBSB were collected from untreated plots

(Table 4). Best control was provided by Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene

90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments. Also, the tank-mix of HGW86 + Steward + MSO also

appeared to provide control. All treatments gave good control of low populations of soybean

looper (SL), moderate populations of GCW and low populations of velvetbean caterpillar (VBC)

(Table 5). Best control of TCAH was provided by Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with

Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments (Table 6).

At 7 DAT, best control of moderate populations of RBSB was provided by the same

treatments as listed in the above paragraph---Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with

24

Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments (Table 7). Results were similar to those in the

above paragraph for control of Lepidoptera pests (Table 8). Best control of TCAH was provided

by Leverage 360, Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S and Endigo ZC treatments (Table

9).

At 14 DAT, data were highly variable and/or populations of RBSB and Lepidoptera were

low, so significant differences in control among treatments were not detected (Tables 10 and 11).

Soybeans at this time were nearing maturity (R7). For TCAH, Leverage 360, Baythroid XL

alone and with Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC treatments controlled TCAH.

Since this experiment was not irrigated, the severe drought at the Beaumont Center (as

well as all of SE Texas) resulted in the decision not to harvest plots. Estimated yields of all plots

were less than 5 bu/A . The variety planted in this experiment was Jake which performed well in

2010 at the Beaumont Center. Jake may be very susceptible to drought.

In conclusion, the best treatments for RBSB control were Leverage 360 (regardless of the

addition of COC or NIS), Baythroid XL alone and with Orthene 90S, Karate Z and Endigo ZC

treatments. All of the insecticidal treatments provided good control of Lepidoptera. The addition

of Steward to the lowest rate of HGW86 did not appear to increase Lepidoptera efficacy

compared to the same rate of HGW86 alone. Differences in levels of Lepidoptera control as a

function of HGW86 rate were not detected (lowest rate gave similar control as highest rate).

Treatments containing pyrethroids gave best control of TCAH.

25

Table 1. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG V

soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern

green

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 +

0.25% v/v 0.25 1.0 2.25 ab 3.25 a 0.25 0.25 0.5 4.0 a

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 +

0.25% v/v 0 0.25 2.5 ab 2.75 ab 0 0.5 0.5 3.25 a

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 4.0 a 4.0 a 0 0 0 4.0 a

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 2.0 abc 2.0 abc 0 0 0 2.0 abc

Steward 6.7 0 0.25 0.75 bcd 1.0 bcd 0 0 0 1.0 bcd

Leverage 360 +

NISa

2.8 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

Orthene 90S

2.0 +

0.33 lb/A 0 0 0 d 0 d 0 0 0 0 d

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0.25 0.25 d 0.5 cd 0.25 0 0.25 0.75 bcd

Karate Z 1.7 0 0 0 d 0 d 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 cd

Endigo ZC 4 0 0 0.5 cd 0.5 cd 0 0 0 0.5 cd

Untreated --- 0 0 2.25 ab 2.25 abc 0.25 0 0.25 2.5 ab

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

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

0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

26

Table 2. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG V


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 bc 1.25 bc 1.0 abc 2.75 bc

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 2.0 a 2.0 b 0.75 bcd 4.75 b

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0.5 bc 1.5 bc 1.75 a 3.75 b

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0.5 bc 0.25 bc 0.25 cd 1.0 d

Steward 6.7 0 c 0 c 0 d 0 d

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 c 1.0 bc 0 d 1.0 d

Karate Z 1.7 0.5 bc 0.5 bc 0 d 1.0 d

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 c 0.5 bc 0.5 cd 1.25 cd

Untreated --- 1.5 ab 8.0 a 1.5 ab 11.0 a

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

and LSD)

27

Table 3. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG V soybean

insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Threecornered alfalfa hopper Banded

cucumber

beetle Adults Nymphs Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 2.5 ab 0 2.5 abc 1.0 a

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 1.0 a-d 0.25 1.25 a-d 0.25 b

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 3.25 ab 0.25 3.5 abc 0.5 ab

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0.75 bcd 0 0.75 bcd 0 b

Steward 6.7 2.25 abc 1.0 3.25 ab 0.25 b

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 d 0.25 0.25 d 0 b

Karate Z 1.7 0 d 0 0 d 0 b

Endigo ZC 4 0 d 0 0 d 0 b

Untreated --- 3.25 a 0.25 3.5 a 1.0 a

NS



28

Table 4. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 3 days after treatment for MG V soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern

green

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 +

0.25% v/v 0 0.75 abc 2.0 abc 2.75 ab 0 0 0 2.75 abc

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 +

0.25% v/v 0.25 1.75 a 0.75 cde 2.5 bc 0 0.25 0.25 3.0 abc

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 +

0.25% v/v 0 1.25 ab 4.0 a 5.25 a 0 0 0 5.25 a

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 c 0.75 cde 0.75 de 0 0 0 0.75 de

Steward 6.7 0.25 0 c 1.5 bcd 1.5 bcd 0.25 0 0.25 2.0 bcd

Leverage 360 +

NISa

2.8 +

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

Leverage 360 +

COCb

2.8 +

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

Baythroid XL +

Orthene 90S

2.0 +

0.33 lb/A 0 0 c 0 e 0 e 0 0 0 0 e

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0 c 0.25 de 0.25 de 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 e

Karate Z 1.7 0 0.5 bc 0.5 de 1.0 cde 0.25 0 0.25 1.25 cde

Endigo ZC 4 0 0 c 0 e 0 e 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 e

Untreated --- 0 0.25 bc 3.25 ab 3.5 ab 0 0 0 3.5 ab

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



29

Table 5. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 3 days after treatment for MG V


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 bc

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

Steward 6.7 0.25 b 0 b 0 b 0.25 bc

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 c

Karate Z 1.7 0.5 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.75 b

Endigo ZC 4 0 b 0.5 b 0 b 0.5 bc

Untreated --- 2.5 a 10.25 a 3.5 a 16.25 a


and LSD)

30

Table 6. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 15 sweeps per plot 3 days after treatment for

MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Adults Nymphs Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 4.5 a 1.25 5.75 a

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 3.5 ab 0.25 3.75 abc

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 4.5 a 0.25 4.75 a

HGW86 + Steward + MSO 6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 1.0 bc 0.75 1.75 bcd

Steward 6.7 3.5 a 0.5 4.0 ab

Leverage 360 + NISa

2.8 + 0.25% v/v 0.25 c 0 0.25 de

Leverage 360 + COCb

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

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0.25 c 0.5 0.75 cde

Karate Z 1.7 0.5 c 0.25 0.75 cde

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 c 0.5 0.75 cde

Untreated --- 2.75 ab 0.25 3.0 abc

NS



31



Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

HGW86 +

MSO

6.75 +

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

HGW86 +

MSO

10.1 +

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

HGW86 +

MSO

13.5 +

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

HGW86 +

Steward +

MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

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

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

Leverage 360

+ NISa

2.8 +

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

Leverage 360

+ COCb

2.8 +

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

Baythroid XL

+ Orthene 90S

2.0 +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0 b 0 d 0 0 0 0 d

Karate Z 1.7 0 0.75 b 0.75 bcd 0 0 0 0.75 bcd

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 0 b 0.25 cd 0 0 0 0.25 cd

Untreated --- 0.5 3.75 a 4.25 a 0 0.25 0.25 4.5 a

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



32

Table 8. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 7 days after treatment for MG V


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 0 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 bc

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 b 0 c

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 b 0 c

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 b 0 b 0 c

Steward 6.7 0 0 b 0 b 0 c

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0.5 0 b 0 b 0.5 bc

Karate Z 1.7 1.0 0 b 0 b 1.0 bc

Endigo ZC 4 0 0.25 b 0.25 b 0.5 bc

Untreated --- 1.0 5.25 a 3.75 a 10.0 a

NS



33

Table 9. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 7 days after treatment for MG V soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Grasshoppers Adults Nymphs Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 4.25 ab 1.25 5.5 a 0 b

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 3.75 ab 0.5 4.25 ab 0 b

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 6.25 a 0.75 7.0 a 0 b

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 1.5 b-e 0 1.5 bcd 0 b

Steward 6.7 3.75 ab 0.25 4.0 ab 0 b

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0.25 de 0 0.25 d 0 b

Karate Z 1.7 2.25 bcd 0.75 3.0 abc 0 b

Endigo ZC 4 0.25 de 0 0.25 d 0.5 ab

Untreated --- 2.5 abc 0.5 3.0 abc 0.75 a

NS



34



Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

HGW86 +

MSO

6.75 +

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

HGW86 +

MSO

10.1 +

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

HGW86 +

MSO

13.5 +

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

HGW86 +

Steward +

MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 1.5 0.25 b 1.75 0.25 0 0.25 2.0

Steward 6.7 0.75 0.25 b 1.0 0.5 0 0.5 1.5

Leverage 360

+ NISa

2.8 +

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

Leverage 360

+ COCb

2.8 +

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

Baythroid XL

+ Orthene 90S

2.0 +

0.33 lb/A 0 0.25 b 0.25 0 0 0 0.25

Baythroid XL 2.3 1.25 0 b 1.25 0 0 0 1.25

Karate Z 1.7 1.25 0.5 b 1.75 0 0 0 1.75

Endigo ZC 4 2.75 0 b 2.75 0 0 0 2.75

Untreated --- 1.25 2.0 a 3.25 0.25 5.25 5.5 8.75

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



35

Table 11. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 14 days after treatment for MG

V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

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

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

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

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 0 0 0 0

Steward 6.7 0 0 0.25 0.25

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 0 0 0 0

Karate Z 1.7 0.25 0 0 0.25

Endigo ZC 4 0.5 0 0 0.5

Untreated --- 0 0.5 0.75 1.25

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

36

Table 12. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 15 sweeps per plot 14 days after treatment

for MG V soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total

HGW86 + MSO 6.75 + 0.25% v/v 11.25 a 0.25 11.5 a

HGW86 + MSO 10.1 + 0.25% v/v 9.75 a 0 9.75 a

HGW86 + MSO 13.5 + 0.25% v/v 8.25 abc 0 8.25 abc

HGW86 +

Steward + MSO

6.75 + 6.7 +

0.25% v/v 11.75 a 0 11.75 a

Steward 6.7 9.0 ab 0.25 9.25 ab

Leverage 360 +

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

Leverage 360 +

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

Baythroid XL +

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

Baythroid XL 2.3 2.75 bcd 0.25 3.0 bcd

Karate Z 1.7 3.0 bcd 0 3.0 cd

Endigo ZC 4 2.0 d 0 2.0 d

Untreated --- 10.75 a 0.25 11.0 a

NS



37

MG VI Soybean Insecticide Screening Block 9N

Beaumont, TX

2011

← North PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

1 3 2 1 3 2 4 1

5 2 6 3 7 1 8 3

9 1 10 2 11 3 12 2

13 4 14 4 15 4 16 4 Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long

Variety: AG6730

Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



Rate

(fl oz/A)

1 Belt SC 2

2 Belt SC 3

3 Cobalt Advanced 25

4 Untreated ---


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

viable seeds/ft)

Emergence on Jun 3


Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-

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

gpa.

Irrigation: Plots were flush irrigated as needed

Fertilizer: None

38

Treatments: Treatments 1 – 3 applied with a 2-nozzle hand-held spray boom (no. 2 cone

nozzles on 30 inch centers, 20 gpa) on Sep 15 when insect populations began

to increase.

Sampling: Soybeans @ V5 on Jun 27

10 sweeps/plot on Sep 16 (1 DAT), Sep 20 (5 DAT), Sep 23 (8 DAT), Sep

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

Discussion

At 1 day after treatment (DAT), Belt SC and Cobalt Advanced treatments provided good

control of green cloverworm (GCW) and velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) (Table 3). Populations of

stink bugs were too low for meaningful evaluation 2, 5, 8 and 15 DAT (Tables 2, 5, 8 and 11). At

5 and 8 DAT, all treatments provided good control of all 3 Lepidoptera species (Tables 6 and 9).

At 5 and 8 DAT, Cobalt Advanced significantly reduced threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH)

populations (84 and 77% fewer TCAH, respectively, compared to the untreated) (Tables 7 and

10). Cobalt Advanced also gave excellent control of banded cucumber beetle (Table 10). At 15

DAT all treatments provided good control of low populations of GCW and VBC (Table 12). At

26 DAT populations of Lepidoptera had decreased to very low levels due to the late maturity

(R7) of the soybeans. However, moderate populations of redbanded and brown stink bugs were

found in untreated plots at this late date (Table 14). Data show all insecticide treatments reduced

these stink bug populations. Data were highly variable because one untreated plot had very high

populations of brown stink bug nymphs which had recently hatched from an egg mass. Yields

were high and seed quality was good across all treatments (Table 1). The high yields were in

large part due to irrigations. The average yield of the 3 insecticide treatments was 9.9 bu/A more

than the untreated which is a significant difference statistically and economically. In conclusion,

the higher rate of Belt SC appeared to provide slightly better control of soybean looper than the

lower rate, but both rates were satisfactory. The Cobalt Advanced treatment provided the best

control of all pest insects encountered in the experiment.

Table 1. Mean yield data for MG VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX.

2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Seed qualitya

(1 – 5)

Yieldb

(bu/A)

Belt SC 2 1.8 53.9 a

Belt SC 3 1.6 53.2 a

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.8 52.8 a

Untreated --- 1.9 43.4 b

NS a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor

b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture



39

Table 2. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Redbanded

adults

Brown

Total Adults Nymphs Total

Belt SC 2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5

Belt SC 3 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75

Untreated --- 0.5 0 0 0 0.5


Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

Belt SC 2 4.0 5.25 b 0.5 b 9.75 b

Belt SC 3 1.75 3.25 b 1.5 b 6.5 c

Cobalt Advanced 25 2.0 0.25 c 0 b 2.25 d

Untreated --- 6.5 33.0 a 4.5 a 44.0 a

NS



Table 4. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


cucumber


Belt SC 2 8.0 1.5 9.5 2.0 ab

Belt SC 3 8.25 1.75 10.0 0.75 bc

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.0 1.0 2.0 0 c

Untreated --- 5.0 0.5 5.5 2.5 a

NS NS NS



40

Table 5. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern

green

nymphs

Redbanded

adults

Brown

Total Adults Nymphs Total

Belt SC 2 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 1.5

Belt SC 3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.75

Untreated --- 0 0 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.5


Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI


Treatment

Rate


Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

Belt SC 2 2.0 b 0 b 0 b 2.0 b

Belt SC 3 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.5 b 0 b 0.25 b 1.75 b

Untreated --- 8.5 a 23.0 a 11.75 a 43.25 a


and LSD)

Table 7. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Assassin bug Adults Nymphs Total

Belt SC 2 19.5 a 0.75 20.25 a 0.25 ab

Belt SC 3 17.0 a 1.0 18.0 a 0 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 2.75 b 0.25 3.0 b 0 b

Untreated --- 17.25 a 1.0 18.25 a 0.75 a

NS



41



Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

Belt SC 2 0.25 0.75 1.0 0 0.5 0.5 1.5

Belt SC 3 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75 0 0.75 1.25

Untreated --- 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total


Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI


Treatment

Rate


Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

Belt SC 2 1.25 b 0 b 0.5 b 1.75 b

Belt SC 3 0.5 b 0 b 0 b 0.5 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 1.75 b 0.25 b 0 b 2.0 b

Untreated --- 8.0 a 49.75 a 9.0 a 66.75 a


and LSD)

Table 10. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


cucumber


Belt SC 2 21.0 a 0.75 21.75 a 2.5 a

Belt SC 3 20.75 a 0.75 21.5 a 3.25 a

Cobalt Advanced 25 5.0 b 0.25 5.25 b 0 b

Untreated --- 22.25 a 0.25 22.5 a 4.5 a

NS



42



Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

Belt SC 2 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.0 1.75

Belt SC 3 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Cobalt Advanced 25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.5

Untreated --- 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0 0.25 1.0 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total



VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate


Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

Belt SC 2 0 0 b 0 b 0 b

Belt SC 3 0 0.75 b 0 b 0.75 b

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.5 1.0 b 0 b 1.5 b

Untreated --- 1.0 5.25 a 1.75 a 8.0 a

NS



Table 13. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VI


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total

Belt SC 2 9.25 0 9.25

Belt SC 3 10.25 0.25 10.5

Cobalt Advanced 25 15.25 0.25 15.5

Untreated --- 17.0 0.25 17.25


43



Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern

green

nymphs

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

Belt SC 2 0.25 0 0.75 0.75 2.5 0.75 3.25 4.25

Belt SC 3 2.25 0.25 1.0 1.25 0.75 0.5 1.25 4.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 0 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 4.75

Untreated --- 0.25 0.25 2.25 2.5 0.75 7.25 8.0 10.75 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total



VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.

Treatment

Rate


Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

Belt SC 2 0 0 0.25 0.25

Belt SC 3 0 0.25 0 0.25

Cobalt Advanced 25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Untreated --- 0 0.25 0.25 0.5


Table 16. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 26 days after treatment for MG VI


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total

Belt SC 2 14.5 0.25 14.75

Belt SC 3 16.5 0.25 16.75

Cobalt Advanced 25 10.5 0.25 10.75

Untreated --- 15.0 0.25 15.25


44

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

Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

North

IV 9 8 18 7 27 4 36 3 45 NA 54 NA 63 NA 72 6

8 NA 17 2 26 NA 35 NA 44 NA 53 NA 62 NA 71 5

III 7 8 16 3 25 NA 34 NA 43 NA 52 NA 61 NA 70 1

II 6 8 15 6 24 4 33 NA 42 1 51 NA 60 NA 69 7

I

5 8 14 7 23 6 32 3 41 5 50 NA 59 NA 68 2

4 NA 13 NA 22 NA 31 NA 40 NA 49 2 58 5 67 NA

3 NA 12 NA 21 NA 30 NA 39 4 48 1 57 NA 66 NA

2 NA 11 NA 20 NA 29 6 38 7 47 NA 56 NA 65 NA

1 NA 10 NA 19 1 28 2 37 3 46 4 55 5 64 NA

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

Variety = HBK R7028



Rate

(fl oz/A)

1 GWN-9857 2.0

2 GWN-9857 2.5

3 GWN-9857 3.0

4 GWN-9857 3.5

5 GWN-9857 4.0

6 GWN-9857 5.0

7 Endigo ZC 5.0

8 Untreated ---

45


Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications

Planting: Planted HBK R7028 (MG VII) on Jun 13; seed coated with bacterial

inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row width, trimmed to 40 ft after emergence

Herbicide: 0.75 oz/A First Rate, 1.5 qt Glyfos Xtra and 2.5 pt/A Dual Magnum were

applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray tank and

boom at 33 gpa, final spray volume.

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

cone nozzles on 30 inch centers, 15 gpa, final spray volume) on Sep 22.

Sampling: 15 sweeps/plot on row 1 on Sep 23 (1 DAT) @ R6



15 sweeps/plot on row 4 on Oct 7 (15 DAT) @ R7

Harvest: Plots harvested on Oct 21





Discussion

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

increasing in numbers in mid-September. Consequently, treatments were applied September 22.

At 1 DAT, stink bug populations were too low for meaningful evaluation (Table 2).

However, green cloverworm (GCW) and velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) were controlled by all

spray treatments (Table 3). Endigo ZC significantly reduced threecornered alfalfa hopper

(TCAH) populations while all spray treatments significantly reduced low populations of banded

cucumber beetle (BCB) (Table 4).

At 4 DAT, all GWN-9857 treatments reduced low populations of redbanded stink bug

(RBSB) compared to the untreated (Table 5). The Endigo ZC treatment provided excellent

control of RBSB. All spray treatments provided excellent control of low populations of soybean

looper (SL) and moderate populations of GCW and VBC (Table 6). All spray treatments

significantly reduced populations of TCAH (Table 7). Data suggest the lowest rate of Gowan-

9857 did not perform as well as the higher rates.

At 8 DAT, all spray treatments reduced low populations of RBSB (Table 8). Populations

of Lepidoptera in the untreated were too low for meaningful evaluation (Table 9).

At 15 DAT, all spray treatments continued to provide control of low populations of RBSB and

brown stink bug (Table 11).

46

Yields were low due to the extreme drought (soybeans were not irrigated) (Table 1). In

addition, some of the plots were located in areas with poor soil (excessive salt) which affected

yields---this is why many plots were not used (see “NAs” on the plot plan). These areas could

not be identified before planting. Also, untreated plots were intentionally located on the west

margin of the soybean field to minimize drift---this turned out to be an agronomic and statistical

mistake. Therefore, for all the above reasons, yield data are not reliable. However, data show all

spray treatments siginificantly improved seed quality.

In conclusion, all GWN-9857 treatments effectively controlled SL, GCW and VBC. Data

also indicate GWN-9857 has activity against RBSB and TCAH. Finally, data suggest rates lower

than 2.0 fl oz/A of Gowan-9857 should be evaluated in the future.

Table 1. Mean yield data for MG VII soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX.

2011.

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Seed quality

(1 – 5)

Yield

(bu/A)

GWN-9857 2.0 2.1 b 10.2 c

GWN-9857 2.5 2.0 b 13.7 abc

GWN-9857 3.0 1.9 b 18.0 a

GWN-9857 3.5 1.9 b 15.1 ab

GWN-9857 4.0 1.8 b 11.9 bc

GWN-9857 5.0 2.1 b 16.7 a

Endigo ZC 5.0 1.8 b 15.6 ab

Untreated --- 2.8 a 18.3 a a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor




47

Table 2. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

GWN-9857 2.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5

GWN-9857 2.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.25

GWN-9857 3.0 0.25 1.0 1.25 0.25 0 0.25 1.5

GWN-9857 3.5 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.25

GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5

GWN-9857 5.0 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.5 0.75

Endigo ZC 5.0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Untreated --- 0.5 1.25 1.75 0.25 0 0.25 2.0 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total


Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

GWN-9857 2.0 0.5 0.25 b 0 b 0.75 b

GWN-9857 2.5 1.0 0.25 b 0 b 1.25 b

GWN-9857 3.0 0.5 0.5 b 0 b 1.0 b

GWN-9857 3.5 0.25 0 b 0 b 0.25 b

GWN-9857 4.0 0.75 0 b 0 b 0.75 b

GWN-9857 5.0 1.5 0 b 0 b 1.5 b

Endigo ZC 5.0 0.5 0.5 b 0 b 1.0 b

Untreated --- 1.5 6.0 a 1.75 a 9.25 a

NS



48

Table 4. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


cucumber


GWN-9857 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 a 0 b

GWN-9857 2.5 0.75 1.25 2.0 a 0 b

GWN-9857 3.0 1.0 1.25 2.25 a 0 b

GWN-9857 3.5 0.5 0.25 0.75 ab 0 b

GWN-9857 4.0 0 0.25 0.25 b 0.25 b

GWN-9857 5.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 ab 0 b

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0 0 b 0 b

Untreated --- 1.5 1.0 2.5 a 1.0 a

NS NS



Table 5. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Green

nymph

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

GWN-9857 2.0 0 0.5 0.75 b 1.25 ab 0 0 0 1.25 ab

GWN-9857 2.5 0 0.25 0.25 b 0.5 b 0 0 0 0.5 b

GWN-9857 3.0 0.75 0 0.25 b 0.25 b 0 0 0 1.0 b

GWN-9857 3.5 0 1.25 0.25 b 1.5 ab 0 0 0 1.5 ab

GWN-9857 4.0 0 0.5 0.25 b 0.75 b 0 0 0 0.75 b

GWN-9857 5.0 0 0.5 1.0 b 1.5 ab 0.25 0 0.25 1.75 ab

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 b

Untreated --- 0.25 0.75 2.25 a 3.0 a 0 0.25 0.25 3.5 a

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


0.06 for redbanded total and total stink bugs, all others P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

49

Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

GWN-9857 2.0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 2.5 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 3.0 0 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 b

GWN-9857 3.5 0.5 b 0 b 0 b 0.5 b

GWN-9857 4.0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 5.0 0 b 0 b 0 b 0 b

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 b 0.25 b 0 b 0.25 b

Untreated --- 1.5 a 6.75 a 3.25 a 11.5 a


and LSD)

Table 7. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total

GWN-9857 2.0 1.75 b 0.75 2.5 b

GWN-9857 2.5 0.5 bc 0.25 0.75 c

GWN-9857 3.0 1.25 bc 0.25 1.5 bc

GWN-9857 3.5 1.0 bc 0 1.0 bc

GWN-9857 4.0 0 c 0.25 0.25 c

GWN-9857 5.0 1.25 bc 0.25 1.5 bc

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 c 0 0 c

Untreated --- 5.75 a 1.0 6.75 a

NS



50



Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Southern

green

nymph

Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T

GWN-9857 2.0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.0

GWN-9857 2.5 0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.25 0 0.25 1.25

GWN-9857 3.0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75

GWN-9857 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25

GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GWN-9857 5.0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.5

Untreated --- 4.0 0.75 1.5 2.25 0 0 0 6.25 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total


Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Soybean

looper

Green

cloverworm

Velvetbean

caterpillar Total

GWN-9857 2.0 0 0 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 2.5 0 0 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 3.0 0 0 0.25 b 0.25 b

GWN-9857 3.5 0 0 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 b 0 b

GWN-9857 5.0 0 0 0 b 0 b

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0.25 0 b 0.25 b

Untreated --- 0.25 0.5 1.0 a 1.75 a



51

Table 10. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total

GWN-9857 2.0 2.25 0 2.25

GWN-9857 2.5 3.5 0.25 3.75

GWN-9857 3.0 3.25 0 3.25

GWN-9857 3.5 3.75 0 3.75

GWN-9857 4.0 1.5 0.25 1.75

GWN-9857 5.0 1.75 0 1.75

Endigo ZC 5.0 1.0 0 1.0

Untreated --- 5.25 1.0 6.25




Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)

Green Redbanded Brown

Total Aa

Na

Ta

A N T A

GWN-9857 2.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 1.0

GWN-9857 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25

GWN-9857 3.0 0 0 0 0.25 0.75 1.0 0 1.0

GWN-9857 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GWN-9857 4.0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.5

GWN-9857 5.0 0 0 0 0.25 1.0 1.25 0.5 1.75

Endigo ZC 5.0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0.75 0 0.75

Untreated --- 0.75 0.75 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 0 4.5 a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total

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

52

Table 12. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VII


Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total

GWN-9857 2.0 19.0 1.75 a 20.75 a

GWN-9857 2.5 11.0 0.5 b 11.5 ab

GWN-9857 3.0 8.25 0.25 b 8.5 abc

GWN-9857 3.5 7.5 0.75 ab 8.25 abc

GWN-9857 4.0 8.5 0 b 8.5 abc

GWN-9857 5.0 12.0 0.25 b 12.25 ab

Endigo ZC 5.0 3.0 0 b 3.0 c

Untreated --- 4.25 0 b 4.25 bc

NS


0.06 for total, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD)

53

Syngenta Soybean Seed Treatments Block 9S

Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

← North

I II III IV

1 4 5 3 9 2 13 1

2 1 6 4 10 3 14 2

3 3 7 2 11 1 15 4


Test located on east end of block

Variety: S68-D4 (seed provided by Syngenta)


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS


Contents

1 Untreated

---

2 ApronMaxx RFCa 2 fungicides (mefenoxam and

fludioxonil)

3 CruiserMaxxa

2 fungicides (mefenoxam and

fludioxonil) + 1 insecticide

(thiamethoxam)

4 Avicta Complete Beansa

1 nematicide (abamectin) + 2 fungicides

(mefenoxam and fludioxonil) + 1

insecticide (thiamethoxam) a Seed treatment


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

seeds/ft); seed coated with bacterial inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation


Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5


tank and boom at 33 gpa.


54

Fertilizer: None

Treatments: Seed treatment applied by Syngenta.

Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A applied to all plots on Sep 7

Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A applied to all plots on Sep 23


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

pests observed

Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 2


Discussion

The objective of this experiment is to determine if the Syngenta seed treatments produce

a yield increase when early season insect pressure is low or nil. Observations detected no early

season insect damage or pressure among treatments. Once insect pest populations (primarily

Lepidoptera defoliators and stink bugs) began to increase (early September, soybeans R5/6), all

plots were sprayed twice with broad spectrum insecticides. Data show all treatments, including

the untreated, produced good quality seed (Table 1). Although differences were not significant,

Avicta Complete Beans outyielded the untreated 2.6 bu/A. More research should be conducted to

determine if these seed treatments, particularly Avicta Complete Beans, consistently produce

yield boosts under low or nil early season insect pressure. Another explanation for the numerical

increase in yield for Avicta Complete Beans is control of nematodes by this seed treatment

which possesses abamectin, a nematicide. Time permitting, the Entomology Project will sample

the soil from the experimental site for nematodes. Finally, keep in mind the experiment was

irrigated periodically.

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

Treatment Contents

Seed qualitya

(1 – 5)

Yieldb

(bu/A)

Untreated

--- 1.0 41.9

ApronMaxx RFC 2 fungicides (mefenoxam and

fludioxonil) 1.0 40.9

CruiserMaxx

2 fungicides (mefenoxam and

fludioxonil) + 1 insecticide

(thiamethoxam)

1.0 40.2

Avicta Complete Beans

1 nematicide (abamectin) + 2 fungicides

(mefenoxam and fludioxonil) + 1

insecticide (thiamethoxam)

1.3 44.5

a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor



55

Valent Soybean Seed Treatment Study Block 9S

Beaumont, TX

2011

PLOT PLAN

← North

I II III IV

1 1 3 2 5 2 7 2


Test located on west end of block

Variety: HBK 7028


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS


Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

1 Untreated

---

2a

Rancona Xxtra + NipsIt INSIDE 3.5 + 1.28 a Seed treatment


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

seeds/ft); seed coated with bacterial inoculant to promote nitrogen fixation


Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5


tank and boom at 33 gpa.


Fertilizer: None

Treatments: Seed treatment applied by Valent.

Orthene 90S @ 1.0 lb ai/A applied to all plots on Sep 7

Endigo ZC @ 5 fl oz/A applied to all plots on Sep 23


56

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

pests observed

Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 2


Discussion

The objective of this experiment is to determine if Rancona Xxtra + NipsIt INSIDE seed

treatment produces a yield increase when early season insect pressure is low or nil. Observations

detected no differences in early season insect damage between plots planted with treated and

untreated seed. Once insect pest populations (primarily Lepidoptera defoliators and stink bugs)

began to increase (early September, soybeans at R5/6), all plots were sprayed twice with broad

spectrum insecticides. Data show a slight seed quality improvement and yield increase (1.2

bu/A) for plots planted with treated compared to untreated seed (Table 1). These differences

were not significant. If soybean price is $13/bu, this yield increase represents about $16/A

increase in revenue. If the cost of the seed treatment is $5.25/A, then the net return on investment

is about $10-11/A. Of course, these results should be viewed with caution, since the yield

differences were not significant. Also note this experiment was irrigated as needed.

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

Treatment

Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

Seed qualitya

(1 – 5)

Yieldb

(bu/A)

Untreated

--- 1.3 34.6

Rancona Xxtrac + NipsIt INSIDE

c 3.5 + 1.28 1.0 35.8

NS NS a Seed quality: 1 = excellent, 5 = poor


c Seed treatment

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

reports of soybean research conducted in 2011 by the

Documents