what is ipm? cotton insect management · 2010. 7. 13. · ellsworth, ipm, irm & selective...

Desert Ag Conference

Ellsworth, IPM, IRM & Selective Insecticide Use 11

Ellsworth/UA

Cotton Insect

Management

Peter C. Ellsworth

Arizona Pest Management Center /Department of Entomology

University of Arizona

2010 Desert Ag Conference

I would like to explore the diversity of chemistry werely on in cotton insect management and provide arationale for you as to why Cotton IPM depends soheavily on the wise professional choices made by ourpest management industry.



Ellsworth/UA

What is IPM?…3 basic keys.

After seeing me present this model for IPM manytimes before, it may seem odd for me to pose thequestion “What is IPM?” But I think perspective isimportant when addressing this question. To me, itcan be represented this way, shown as a stablestructure rooted in avoidance and preventionpractices but very much dependent on effectiveremedial actions being taken using our chemistrywisely and always guide by eyes on the field andformal sampling programs.



Ellsworth/UA

What is IPM?…depends on perspective,

said a wise PCA!

But recently I heard something on this question thatstopped and made me think, and conclude that itreally is a matter of perspective. And in thisperspective, one of a well-respected and experiencedPest Control Advisor (PCA), IPM is “resistancemanagement”.



Ellsworth/UA

What is ResistanceManagement?

In my model for IPM, “resistance management” is butone building block in the Effective Chemical Use layerof management. Important, to be sure, but still abuilding block of IPM.



Ellsworth/UA

Only 3 things a PCA can do…

Limit

Diversify

Partition

Short of new technology bailing us all out in the nickof time, a practitioner, a PCA, can only manageresistance in one or more of three ways:

Limit his/her use of the chemistry to the lowestpractical level,

Diversify the modes of action used, and

Partition chemistry through space or time so as toprovide relief from resistance selection in certaincrops or at certain times.

That’s it. Practically speaking, these are the onlytactics of resistance management available.



Ellsworth/UA

Only 3 things a PCA can do…

Limit

Diversify

Partition

So let’s focus on the first one, Limit chemistry. Howdoes one do that? I would say you do that bypracticing good IPM! If you are, you are alreadyemploying a suite of avoidance and prevention tacticsand observing action thresholds that help limit thenumber of sprays made.

Thus, it is quite clear, when considering thisperspective, why a PCA might see that IPM =Resistance Management.

I would suggest that we are saying the same thinghere.



Ellsworth/UA

IPM

IRM

Escher

Borrowing from a famous Escher drawing, we can ask“Which hand is making the drawing?” Much like theIPM / IRM conundrum, the two are inextricablylinked and each could be considered nested withinthe other. Both perspectives are right!



Ellsworth/UA

A PartnershipGrower = G

PCA = P

1

2

3

Returning to my formal model, this IPM system is anexplicit partnership between grower and PCA. Someelements are clearly under the control of the PCA, whileothers the grower, and still others may be sharedresponsibilities of the PCA and grower. The difficultytherefore is making sure both parties have a clearunderstanding of their role in the efficient managementof this pest. Sampling, timing, choice, and managementof chemistry tend to be activities the PCA is engage in.Growers, on the other hand, make strategic decisionsabout crop placement, variety, and on a wide array ofcrop management inputs. Furthermore, and in the end,growers control the purse strings and can veto virtuallyany other decision made by the PCA or others in thissystem. So it is important that the grower wield thispower carefully as he/she can undermine the system ifthey are not prepared to make the investments that needto be made in management



Ellsworth/UA

Missing elements in crop

management, biological

&/or cultural controls

Unstable

We should also acknowledge the structureof this management system. It is based incrop management, biological and culturalcontrol as well as other preventionpractices.

As such, if we are missing key elements incrop management, biological and/orcultural control, the system is inherentlyunstable and unsustainable.



Ellsworth/UA

Missing elements in crop

management, biological

&/or cultural controls

Unstable



Ellsworth/UA

All Insecticide MOAs

Furthermore, no matter how replete our chemicalaresenal is, efficient management of our target pestcan be threatened by resistance.

Worldwide, here are all known Modes of Action forinsecticides. Each box contains a different mode ofaction and insecticidal structures within. While wemay have hundreds of products, there are just 26 orso different modes of action to combat all insectsworldwide.

This may seem to be a rich diversity, but bear in mindthis includes some rather old MOAs like O.P.’s andpyrethroids for example, plus…



Ellsworth/UA

All Insecticide MOAs

…if we were to limit this just to whiteflies, the listgets much shorter, perhaps just 10 MOA, and not allof these are equally effective or useful. One is notregistered in the U.S. and never will be (difenthiuron)and another will be lost in the next few years(endosulfan). That leaves 8 MOAs. O.P.’s andcarbamates, as well as pyrethroids, are no longereffective against whiteflies when used alone. Theyneed to be mixed. So that reduces this to a singleMOA, for a total of just 7 MOAs. And we’re lucky tohave them! 20 years ago, we had just the one!



Ellsworth/UAEllsworth/UA

We started with just synergized pyrethroids. That ismixtures of O.P.’s, carbamates or endosulfan withpyrethroids.




IGRs

In 1996, we brought on two more MOAs to cottonwith the two IGRs, Knack and Applaud (now Courier).




Neonicotinoids

The neonicotinoid era began in 1993. But we did notget our first effective cotton product until 2002 withIntruder. This has been a rich and effective class ofchemistry.




Ketoenols

More recently in 2005, we got the ketoenols withOberon.

So right now, we depend on just 4 MOAs. But there ismore to come. We are very fortunate to have anactive industry that has developed novel MOA withgreat safety and selectivity.

But we also need to recognize that these chemistriesare being registered widely with access given to allcrops including melons, vegetables and cotton.



Ellsworth/UA

Whitefly X-IPM……depends on cooperation

among grower’s of cotton, spring &

fall melons, & vegetables.

Singular attempts to deploy recommendations in onecrop especially for a mobile, polyphagous pest seemsfutile, when registrations of key chemistries arebroad across multiple crops. Thus, our cross-commodity effort concentrates on elements where wecan integrate our practices across multiple crops.Resistance management is a shared responsibilitythat extends across commodity borders. Cross-commodity cooperation can be key to thesustainability of a resistance management plan, andin Arizona, we achieved some remarkable agreementsamong growers of several key whitefly crop hosts,2000–2005.



Ellsworth/UA

IPM & IRM guidelines

forged in partnership

These neonicotinoid guidelines, which were publishedand disseminated in 2003, were the result of a year-long, stakeholder-engaged process spear-headed andled by Dr. John Palumbo. And while we did not andnever do have perfect data or information, byengaging clientele directly in the development ofthese guidelines, we were able to forge a very simpleset of rules for neonicotinoid usage. Yet throughunderstanding of our system spatially, we also haveecologically-relevant guidelines as a result.


Ellsworth, IPM, IRM & Selective Insecticide Use 19!"

Ellsworth/UA

!"#$%&'()*#$+,-*.(*"%/&-

!/+0(""-*&#%'+1*(&&('#

2%*3-+45")6+7-/8#9-8

:(;*&-<++!"#$%&'()$*+$&#,

'98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '080

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Re

du

cti

on

fro

m C

he

ck

(%

)

Y = -4.95x + 1.03

R = 0.922

Cooperatoroversprays

Did they work? The answer to this is complicated, buttoday (2010), neonicotinoids are still used heavily inthis state against whiteflies.

However, John Palumbo has been doing systematicexaminations of imidacloprid efficacy (soil uses) inbroccoli for the past 10 seasons. Charting efficacyrelative to a control shows rather marked reductionsin efficacy in these studies. While users don’t widelyreport problems with this use pattern and soil uses,especially in fall crops, are still almost universallypracticed, this is a warning sign that we must re-consider our management program and decidewhether further steps are needed to stabilize thecontrol system. A dialog is currently underway withclientele through our Cross-Commodity Research andOutreach Program working group.



Ellsworth/UA

Resistance: Theory & Practice

No ChangeNo ChangeNo ChangeNo ChangeReducedReducedpyriproxyfen

Yes?Yes?ReducedReducedNo Change?No Change?imidacloprid

YesYesReducedReducedReducedReducedCompound X

Change inManagement

ReducedPerformance

ReducedSusceptibility

Genetic Basis

A problem of rhetoric

Resistance would seem to be a rather cut and driedsubject. Reduced susceptibilities can be measured onfield collected insects brought into the lab. Aconcomitant reduction of performance is alsomeasured in the field (think careful tracking as JohnPalumbo has done). And all this leads to theinevitable and simultaneous changes in managementby growers. If only it was this well-behaved, thingswould be simple to understand.



Ellsworth/UA

Resistance: Theory & Practice

No ChangeNo ChangeNo ChangeNo ChangeReducedReducedpyriproxyfen

Yes?Yes?ReducedReducedNo Change?No Change?imidacloprid

YesYesReducedReducedReducedReducedCompound X

Change inManagement

ReducedPerformance

ReducedSusceptibility

Genetic Basis

A problem of rhetoric

However, things are rarely this simple. With Knack, therehave been reduced susceptibilities measured in labassays for years. Yet precise measurements of fieldperformance have showed no reductions in performanceand furthermore growers have not changed theirmanagement practices as a result. In contrast, throughmuch of this period, statewide resistance monitoring datashowed no appreciable change in susceptibility of ourwhiteflies to imidacloprid. Yet, the detailed fieldperformance data from John Palumbo’s studies areunequivocal and dramatically document a progressivedecline in performance of imidacloprid especially in thelongest control intervals. At first, this change did notresult in changes in practitioner practice. However, in thelast 2–3 years, some PCAs have in fact changed practicesby overspraying with foliar and doing so sooner, orsubstituting a foliar control program for the soilimidacloprid altogether.



Ellsworth/UA

IPM Today

So here we are today with our IPM plan for cotton. Itis a well-developed management plan firmly rooted ina broad foundation of avoidance tactics. I would liketo focus on some of these avoidance tactics especiallyin how this relates to resistance management and theuse of selective chemistry.



Ellsworth/UA

Chemical Control & Natural EnemiesChemical Control & Natural Enemies

Central to remedial tactics is an effective chemicalarsenal. In AZ, we have shown that when selectiveoptions are available and effective, huge gains in bothtarget and collateral control can be achieved due tomuch better natural enemy conservation and othernatural mortalities. This ecosystem service is afoundational element of “Avoidance,” and one madecompatible with the these specific and selectivechemical controls in our system.



Ellsworth/UA

-0.8

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

8-Aug 22-Aug 5-Sep

P

B

C

U

** *

*

*

Community of 20 Natural Enemies

Naranjo, Ellsworth, Hagler, Bio. Control 2004

Courier

Knack

Broad

Without dwelling on the data for each year, let mesay that we can show convincingly that sparing usageof IGRs (often just one spray) provided equivalentcontrol as multiple sprays of broad spectruminsecticides, but also conserved a whole suite ofnatural enemies important in the control of whitefliesand other pests. Conventional chemistry, the purpleline, significantly lowered densities of all predators.

Because we are working in a very dynamic system, insome years 1 set of species may drive the controldynamic, while in other years another set of speciesdrives the relationship.

These are our opportunities with selective Stage Ichemistry for whitefly control to gain additionalbenefit from natural enemies!



Food Web in Cotton*

Gossypium hirsutum

Bemisia

Zelus spp.Sinea spp.

Coccinellids

SalticidsClubionids Thomisids

Drapetis sp.

Chrysoperla spp.Collops spp. Nabis spp.

Orius tristicolor

Encarsia spp. Eretmocerus spp.

Geocoris spp.

The idea that different species dominate the controldynamic in different years or locations in AZ cotton isa remarkable testament to the complexity of the foodweb. Certain conditions may favor certain pathwaysin certain years and other pathways in other years.Yet the same, generally, level of natural mortality isexpressed.

Note parasitoids (in black boxes) in general, whilepresent, rarely contributed major sources ofirreplaceable mortality in this system, despite ratherlarge shifts in parasitoid diversity favoring exoticspecies.



Ellsworth/UA

Blo

om

s p

er

Are

a

Heat Units After Planting (86° / 55°F)

PrimaryFruitingCycle

‘Top’crop

cut-out

Bt CottonEradication

Stage I: Fully SelectiveStage II: Partially Selective

Stage III: Broad Spectrum

Fully Selective: Carbine

Broad Spectrum Insecticides

Secondary pests heldunder natural control

Partially Selective: Belay*Broad: Orthene, Vydate

DiscontinueLygus sprays

0 3000 HUAP1000 2000

“…failure to recognize thatcontrol of arthropod populations

is a complex ecologicalproblem…. leads to the error of

imposing insecticides on theecosystem, rather than fitting

them into it.”

Stern et al. 1959

Technology Use Plan

Our system breaks down to 3 key pests and a large arrayof secondary pests that never become significant, IFdisruptions of natural controls do not occur. For PBW, Btcotton is the ultimate biorational, and now witheradication, broad spectrum insecticides for its controlare fading completely from our system. For whitefly, wehave organized our insecticides into 3-stages based onselectivity, deferring all broad-spectrum inputs until theend of the season, if needed at all. For Lygus, we haveone selective insecticide, flonicamid, and perhaps onepartially selective compound, Belay, that was registeredin 2010. Cotton IPM in AZ has become an exceptionallywell-developed and selective system where conservationbiological control is firmly established as a key element.All other pests are held under natural control most, if not,all the time. This is the way technology should bedeployed. Stern way back in 1959 made this importantstatement and one we heed each day.



Ellsworth/UA

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '090

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fo

lia

r S

pra

y I

nte

nsit

y

Whitefly Pink bollworm Lygus bugs Other

Statewide Cotton Sprays

The need was great; the situation dire. Cottongrowers were spraying 5-15 times to control an arrayof pests. Whitefly, Pink Bollworm, and Lygus bugs areour 3 key pests of cotton in AZ.

There was a critical need for an IPM strategy,especially after the whitefly outbreak of 1995precipitated in part by a resistance episode.

Statewide average cotton foliar insecticide sprayintensity by year and insect pest (Ellsworth et al.,2008).



Ellsworth/UA

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '090

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fo

lia

r S

pra

y I

nte

nsit

y

Whitefly Pink bollworm Lygus bugs Other

Cotton IPM Saves Millions $

$212,000,000 saved costs & yield loss

IGRs, Bt cotton & AZ IPM plan

Zero grower sprays for PBW

Ellsworth et al. 2009

The results have been striking. A watershed ofchange occurred in 1996 with the introduction of verysafe and selective Insect Growth Regulators forwhitefly control, and transgenic Bt cotton, along withan IPM plan for whitefly management.

More recently, state agencies began PBW eradicationin 2006. For the first time since the mid-1960’s, AZgrowers statewide did not spray at all for PBW! Btcotton is grown on 98.25% of the acreage. Andwhiteflies have faded from memory as a severe andunmanageable pest.

[Carbine for Lygus control first adopted in 2006.]

The credit we take for any part of this is shared withmany, many others, but the result has been over$200M saved cumulatively since 1996.



Ellsworth/UA

economicthresholds

rapidsampling

selectiveinsecticides

So how does this work for Lygus management. IPMoptimizes this 3-way interaction. Carbine has beenthe selective insecticide we have used since 2006. Wehave rapid sampling plans using a sweepnet and verywell researched and robust economic thresholds forLygus.



Ellsworth/UA

Cotton Lygus Insecticides

Acephate

Endosulfan

Flonicamid

57

Acephate

Endosulfan

Flonicamid

91

66%

81%

In a random survey of central Arizona cotton fields in2008 and 2009, we can see this pattern of cottoninsecticide use.

Two thirds of the sprays targeting Lygus wereCarbine in 2008 and grew to 81% in 2009! This hasbeen at the expense of the cheaper, but much morebroad spectrum insecticides, Orthene and Endosulfan.



Ellsworth/UA

Cotton Lygus Insecticides1st Use

Acephate

Endosulfan

Flonicamid

35

Acephate

Endosulfan

Flonicamid

45

87% 91%

Our guidelines specifically suggest using Carbine firstagainst Lygus as a way of deferring the use of anybroad spectrum insecticides.

Your industry has embraced this approach with 87%of Lygus 1st sprays being Carbine in 2008 and 91% in2009!



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus Control Technologies

I run annual assessments of insect control chemistryin my small plot evaluations. Plots are 12 rows x 40ft, typically.



Ellsworth/UA

System Compatibility

LygusIPM

WhiteflyIPM

In 1996, many quickly pointed out that IGRs weregreat but what gains we make in NE conservationthrough their use could be wiped out by broadspectrum insecticides needed for Lygus control.However, since then we have made major progress inachieving compatibility between these two pestmanagement systems.



Ellsworth/UA

HistoricalDependence

Endosulfan, 1954

Dimethoate, 1962

Bidrin, 1964

Temik, 1970

Monitor, 1972

Orthene, 1973

Vydate, 1974

Pyrethroids, 1979

For many years now, we have depended on a set ofbroad spectrum options. That is, compounds that areeffective but are rather broad spectrum in theirimpact on the arthropods present in the system.These include acephate, methamidophos (which seeslittle use today), oxamyl, endosulfan, all in AZ, butalso dimethoate, Temik, and Bidrin, throughout theSouth, and pyrethroids in other parts of the West.Until only very recently — nearly 30 years! — therehave been no new chemistries developed withconsistent control of the Lygus bug complex.



Ellsworth/UA

HistoricalDependence

Endosulfan, 1954

Dimethoate, 1962

Bidrin, 1964

Temik, 1970

Monitor, 1972

Orthene, 1973

Vydate, 1974

Pyrethroids, 1979

PotentiallySelective Options

Carbine, 2006

Metaflumizone, 2008

Belay, 2010*

Sulfoxaflor, 2012

More recently, we have had exciting new advanceswith potentially selective options: flonicamid wasrecently registered as Carbine and is very effectiveagainst Lygus, and metaflumizone was on track forbeing quite selective, too. But alas, development ofthis product has ceased for the U.S. and we maynever enjoy its benefits. However, Belay has beenrecently registered and may provide some selectivitybenefits to us in the future. A more exciting prospectis sulfoxaflor which we hope to see commercialized in2012. These compounds bring us new chemistry thatmay in fact be more selective than our traditional,broad spectrum options.

This not only gives us new “effective” options, butprovides new opportunities to exploit the benefits ofnatural enemy conservation in our system.



Ellsworth/UA

Product Comparisons05F2L

Acephate

Metaflumizone UTC

Carbine

05F2L-T18 Carbine WG (2.8 oz) in NE, Orthene (1.0 lbai/A) in NW, 320WVI (0.25 lbs ai/A) in SW, UTC inSE; 5-fold yield increase over the Untreated Check.

While flonicamid and metaflumizone have performedadmirably against Lygus and helped to preserve theyield component in dramatic fashion, a majorpotential attribute of their use in our system will beto drive more and more to a selective system thathelps preserve our natural enemy complex.

The way we know this is from trials we routinelyperform for independent product testing. This wasfrom 2005, before flonicamid registration. We toldyou this would be an important technology, a Lygusfeeding inhibitor, through talks like this. But there areother powerful ways to learn about these things.



Ellsworth/UA

2009 Cotton Efficacy Trials

Last year, we decided to try something different. Weheld a small field day and prepared an old cottontrailer so that it could be pulled through the field.This way we could carry nearly 40 people rightthrough and over the top of our cotton plots. Theability to see the impact of mites, whiteflies and ofcourse Lygus bugs was dramatic. I hope to see youthis coming year when we do this once againsometime in September.



Ellsworth/UA

Cotton Pest ManagementField Tour

Whitefly Test(2 Carbine cover sprays)

Lygus Test(2 IGR cover sprays)

Note Height Differences

Here are some photos showing how the tourproceeded.



Ellsworth/UA

We are able to look at so many different products atonce, scientifically replicated, and independently. It’sas if we were growing and watching 100 differentfields. We can accomplish contrasts and comparisonsthat would take you years to see in normalobservation of commercial fields. Plus, we seecompounds very early on in the developmentalprocess and this helps us steward the process ofproduct development with the collaboratingcompanies. As growers, you get the first glimpses ofthese technologies well before they arecommercialized, plus you get to see all the currentproducts and other approaches to pest management,all without risking a dime of your own on theseapproaches.



Ellsworth/UA

DP161B2F

27 May

H a r v e s t e d H a r v e s t e d

Here’s a shot of one border in this trial. Pretty easy topick out the untreated check where Lygus bugsreduced yields over 5-fold. And right next to theforeground plot where we used three products inrotation, Carbine (feeding inhibitor) followed byVydate followed by Orthene.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus per100 sweeps

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Lygus Nymphs / 100

Seasonal MeanAll 6 weeks

Carbine r1r2

rot. r2acephate

Belay +r1r2r3

Leverage r1r2

EndigoHero

Diamond +r1r1r2r3

sulfoxaflor r1r2r3r4r5

UTC

It is a challenge to show you all the data at once. Butonce I orient you to the overall data, we will examineit one section at a time.

Here we have Lygus NYMPHS per 100 sweeps from aseasonal mean of 6 weeks during the primary fruitingcurve.

Different chemistries are color-coded.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus per100 sweeps

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Lygus Nymphs / 100


Carbine r1r2

rot. r2acephate

Belay +r1r2r3

Leverage r1r2

EndigoHero

Diamond +r1r1r2r3


UTC

4 Nymphs per 100

You can see that we had sustained pressure in excessof 40 nymphs / 100 sweeps. Our threshold is 15 totalLygus with just 4 nymphs per 100 sweeps (lineshown). We were at 10-fold that level over asustained period!



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus per100 sweeps

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Lygus Nymphs / 100


Carbine r1r2

rot. r2acephate

Belay +r1r2r3

Leverage r1r2

EndigoHero

Diamond +r1r1r2r3


UTC

4 Nymphs per 100

In my experience, the 4 nymphs per 100 is a good,but conservative threshold. If after spraying, underthis kind of pressure, a product manages to holdnymph levels below 8 nymphs per 100 (gray bar), it isperforming maximally.

You can see that some products managed this level ofcontrol; some didn’t.



Ellsworth/UA

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Lygus Total : Nymphs / 100

Seasonal MeanAll 6 weeks Lygus per

100 sweeps

Carbine r1r2

rot. r2acephate

Belay +r1r2r3

Leverage r1r2

EndigoHero

Diamond +r1r1r2r3


UTC

Now I am overlaying the remaining Lygus numbers togive a total count (total Lygus / 100) with nymphsshaded.



Ellsworth/UA



100 sweeps

Carbine r1r2

rot. r2acephate

Belay +r1r2r3

Leverage r1r2

EndigoHero

Diamond +r1r1r2r3


UTC

15 Total Lygus

with

4 Nymphs per 100

The threshold is 15 total Lygus per 100 sweeps (lineshown). We sustained 5-6 times this level for 6weeks.



Ellsworth/UA



100 sweeps

Carbine r1r2

rot. r2acephate

Belay +r1r2r3

Leverage r1r2

EndigoHero

Diamond +r1r1r2r3


UTC

15 Total Lygus

with

4 Nymphs per 100

Again, operationally, if a product held levels below 30per 100 sweeps (gray band), it was performing very,very well.

By all criteria, Carbine performed great as usual.Orthene also did well. Of the new compounds, Belaywas right there and sulfoxaflor (examined at 5 rates)did very well from rate 3 and up.

Pyrethroids and neonicotinoids (except for Belay)performed poorly.



Ellsworth/UA

UTC-Lygus, 0.41 bales

Here are the 4 replicate plots for the untreated check(UTC). Only 0.41 bales to the acre, not much cotton.



Ellsworth/UA

UTC-LygusOberonEndigo

Leverage360HAgriFlex

Leverage360LHero

AgrimekBAS320

EXP32R1Orthene

CarbineLoBelay+Orthene

DiamondMedBelayMed

DiamondHiDiamondLo

Diamond+CarbineBelayHi

EXP32R2C-V-O

EXP32R4EXP32R3

CarbineEXP32R5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Yield (Bales / A)

Here are the yield data, showing UTC at the bottom.



Ellsworth/UA

UA-EXP32 R5 UTC

Here is sulfoxaflor used at a very high rate andshowing very good Lygus control. Note the hugedifference in plant heights. When Lygus are notcontrolled, fruiting positions (and fruit) are lost. Thenall the energy the plant produces goes intounproductive vertical growth. Tall cotton is a telltalesign of Lygus injury many times.



Ellsworth/UA



Leverage360LHero

AgrimekBAS320

EXP32R1Orthene


DiamondMedBelayMed

DiamondHiDiamondLo


EXP32R2C-V-O

EXP32R4EXP32R3

CarbineEXP32R5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Yield (Bales / A)

‘R3’ may end up being the commercialized rate forthis new compound (EXP32=sulfoxaflor). Control ofLygus and yields were excellent. The lower rateswere less reliable.



Ellsworth/UA

UA-EXP32 R1, 1.44 bales

Here is the whole rate series, starting with the lowestrate (R1) for sulfoxaflor.



Ellsworth/UA


R2



Ellsworth/UA


R3



Ellsworth/UA


R4



Ellsworth/UA


R5



Ellsworth/UA

Carbine UTC

Carbine has continued to perform outstanding incontrol of Lygus and protection of yield.



Ellsworth/UA



Leverage360LHero

AgrimekBAS320

EXP32R1Orthene


DiamondMedBelayMed

DiamondHiDiamondLo


EXP32R2C-V-O

EXP32R4EXP32R3

CarbineEXP32R5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Yield (Bales / A)

Here are the Carbine containing treatments. Note thevery low rate (1.7 oz) of Carbine is too low for thiskind of pressure.



Ellsworth/UA

Carbine Lo, 1.67 bales

This is a very low rate of Carbine and I would notrecommend this practice in the face of the Lygusnumbers we were seeing. This was done forcomparative purposes only.



Ellsworth/UA

C - V - O, 2.38 bales

The rotation performed well, though mites resurged abit in the end of the season.



Ellsworth/UA

Carbine, 2.52 bales

Carbine alone at the highest labeled rate really didwell, leading the trial.



Ellsworth/UA

Belay Hi UTC

Belay was registered this past January, but the ratehere shown is off-label (above the maximumcurrently permitted)[REVISION: as of 7/2010, thelabel has been expanded to include this rate (6 oz).Control was very good though somewhat less thanCarbine.



Ellsworth/UA



Leverage360LHero

AgrimekBAS320

EXP32R1Orthene


DiamondMedBelayMed

DiamondHiDiamondLo


EXP32R2C-V-O

EXP32R4EXP32R3

CarbineEXP32R5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Yield (Bales / A)

Here are the Belay treatments; the “medium” ratewas 4.5 oz and performed well.



Ellsworth/UA

Belay+Orthene, 1.75 bales

A combo with Orthene. No benefits to this practice.While Lygus control was very good, the resurgence ofmites reduced yields significantly plus one morespray was made here than in the Carbine or otherleading treatments. This is a tangible example of hownon-selective, broad spectrum chemistry can ruingains in target pest control by leading to resurgencesof non-targets, in this case mites, but other timeswhiteflies, aphids, thrips, caterpillar pests, etc.



Ellsworth/UA

Belay Med., 1.81 bales

A medium rate of Belay (4.5 oz).



Ellsworth/UA

Belay Hi, 2.15 bales

The high rate of Belay.



Ellsworth/UA

Diamond Hi ** UTC

We have been testing novaluron (Diamond) for yearsand have never been comfortable recommending it. Itis a broad spectrum IGR and as such is damaging tothe beneficial insects that we need. Mites andwhiteflies resurged in many of the Diamond plots.Even so, this is the best we’ve ever made Diamondlook, albeit requiring a two week and two sprayheadstart over all the other products. As a result, Istill cannot recommend it for Lygus control in AZ.



Ellsworth/UA



Leverage360LHero

AgrimekBAS320

EXP32R1Orthene


DiamondMedBelayMed

DiamondHiDiamondLo


EXP32R2C-V-O

EXP32R4EXP32R3

CarbineEXP32R5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Yield (Bales / A)

Here are the Diamond-containing treatments.



Ellsworth/UA

Diamond Hi, 1.98 bales

Very high rate used very early and more sprays thanother products.



Ellsworth/UA

Hero UTC

Pyrethroids still don’t work in our system againstLygus in cotton. Every so often, people argue thispoint with me. So periodically, we re-examine this intrials. This time we chose to use Hero, a new veryactive mixture of two pyrethroids (you can think of itas Capture mixed with Mustang). As you can seethere was no significant control of Lygus. Note theheight of the crop.



Ellsworth/UA



Leverage360LHero

AgrimekBAS320

EXP32R1Orthene


DiamondMedBelayMed

DiamondHiDiamondLo


EXP32R2C-V-O

EXP32R4EXP32R3

CarbineEXP32R5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Yield (Bales / A)

These are all pyrethroid containing treatments. Noneperformed well.



Ellsworth/UA

Hero, 0.87 bales

Hero.



Ellsworth/UA

Endigo, 0.57 bales

A premix of thiamethoxam and lamba cyhalothrin.



Ellsworth/UA

UTC-Lygus, 0.41 bales

The UTC.



Ellsworth/UA

Orthene, 1.63 bales

So there really is a penalty to using broad-spectrumchemistry early and repeatedly. We lost cotton hereto mites, despite good control of Lygus. The Ortheneplots were defoliated by mites weeks ahead of therest of the field.

This is why we emphasize selectivity or safety forbeneficials. There are economies gained byconserving these biological controls in your cottonfields.



Ellsworth/UA

Stages Definedby Efficacy &Safety onBeneficials

• Stage I – FullSelectivity

• Stage II – PartialSelectivity

• Stage III –SynergizedPyrethroids

Ellsworth et al. 2006

As part of our IPM program, a 3-stage chemical useplan for whitefly control identifies chemistry based onefficacy and selectivity attributes, with the ultimategoal of exploiting selectivity as much as is possible. Itdoes not mandate a sequence but suggests moreselective approaches will create more effectiveecosystem services that provide regulation of all pestspecies.

Not surprisingly, we wish to construct parallelrecommendations for Lygus.



Ellsworth/UA

Consequences of LygusControl Chemical Choices

Carbine

No Bolls Cotton LeafCrumple

MiteDefoliation

MiteDamage

WhiteflyHoneydew

Hero10 oz

5x

Carbine2.8 oz

3x

Diamond6 oz4x*

Acephate16 oz

4x

Diamond9 oz4x

Endigo3.4 oz

5x

Just like in the early 1990’s when we visibly saw theconsequences of our control chemical choices inwhitefly control, the same is true for those choicesmade for Lygus control.

At our recent field day, I pulled out representativeplants from various plots to show how in identicalenvironments how different the outcomes are basedon Lygus product choices.



Ellsworth/UA

Examples of mite damage at the time of the field day.Note the entirely defoliated Orthene plants in upperright hand corner.



Ellsworth/UA

Natural Enemies ExcludedNatural Enemies Excluded

Broad-spectrumLygus sprays

releasewhiteflies

Broad-spectrumLygus sprays

releasewhiteflies

Peter Asiimwe, our current graduate student, is tryingto understand the relative contribution of NEs andirrigation to the control dynamics of Bemisia. Lastyear, we had plots where NEs were chemicallyexcluded by using a common Lygus insecticide. Thesebroad-spectrum sprays released whiteflies from thenatural control possible in the rt hand figure. Theresult was very sticky and sooty cotton. The left sidewas never sprayed at all.



Ellsworth/UA

Natural enemies excluded

Natural enemies excluded

19% yield loss

7% yield loss

Biological Defoliation

Regardless of irrigation regime, there were majorlosses to whiteflies where NEs were excluded. Thesepaired pictures were shot on the same day (twoweeks after the ones shown on the previous slide)and show cotton that was biologically defoliated bythis sucking pest. The cotton on the left was neversprayed for any pest and also had commerciallyunacceptable whitefly levels but at much lowerdensities than in the exclusion plots.

This example stresses the interactions of our controlsystems for Lygus and whiteflies. That is, no matterhow selective our control system is for whiteflies, ifgrowers are spraying for Lygus or other pests withbroad-spectrum materials, selective advantages maybe lost.



Ellsworth/UA

Whitefly Chemistry Review

Lygus, beetles?Partial (?)Neonic.Belay

Whiteflies !??? (no mites)NewUA EXP32

???DiamideHGW86, cyazypyr

Partial - FullUniqueNNI0101,pyrifluquinazon

Systemic !???KetoenolSpirotetramat

Aphids !PartialNeonic.Intruder

MitesFullKetoenolOberon

Scales !Full !IGR-uniqueCourier

Aphids !Full !IGR-UniqueKnack

CommentsSelectivityClassCompound

Oberon is a lipid biosynthesis inhibitor and anexcellent miticide, too.



Ellsworth/UA












Intruder is only partially selective, not fully selectivelike the IGRs and Oberon (at lower rates). Keep thisin mind if your goal is to maximize natural enemybenefits. It is, however, an excellent aphicide.



Ellsworth/UA












Spirotetramat or Movento appears to be operatingmuch like Oberon in terms of safety to beneficials.That is early results show it to be fully selective. But amajor attribute of this compound is it is fullysystemic, meaning when applied to the leaves ittranslocates to all plant parts, even the below groundroots! The is the first foliar insecticide with this typeof mobility.



Ellsworth/UA












Pyrifluquinazon is a new chemistry. Recent tests aresuggesting that at best it is partially selective, muchlike Intruder.



Ellsworth/UA












Cyazypyr is new chemistry and early in developmentfor cotton.



Ellsworth/UA












UA EXP32 or sulfoxaflor impacts Lygus and whiteflies,though better at controlling Lygus.

Belay has a broader spectrum of insect control andmay therefore only be “partially” selective.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus Chemistry Review

Poor fitNoNeo. + Pyr.Premixes

Not effectiveNoPyr.Pyrethroids

Cottonleafperforator

NoCarbamateVydate

Late seasonNoO.P.Acephate


Whiteflies,beetles (?)

Partial (?)Neonic.Belay

Aphids !Full !UniqueCarbine


Carbine is an excellent aphicide.



Ellsworth/UA





NoCarbamateVydate









Ellsworth/UA





NoCarbamateVydate









Ellsworth/UA





NoCarbamateVydate







Acephate and Vydate are still good compounds, butshould be reserved for late season use only whenneeded. Vydate is excellent on cotton leafperforator.



Ellsworth/UA





NoCarbamateVydate







Pyethroids are still NOT effective on Lygus in cottonin AZ.

Premixes in general have a poor fit in AZ. Avoid them.



Ellsworth/UA

Product Comparisons09F3L

Belay Hi

UA-EXP32 R5 UTC

Carbine

uniqueneonicotinoid

unique

09F3L Carbine WG (2.8 oz) in NE, Belay Hi in NW,sulfoxaflor in SW, UTC in SE; 5-fold yield increaseover the Untreated Check.



Ellsworth/UA

Blo

om

s p

er

Are

a

Heat Units After Planting (86° / 55°F)

PrimaryFruitingCycle

‘Top’crop

cut-out

Bt CottonEradication

Stage I: Fully SelectiveStage II: Partially Selective

Stage III: Broad Spectrum

Fully Selective: Carbine

Broad Spectrum Insecticides

Secondary pests heldunder natural control

Partially Selective: Belay*Broad: Orthene, Vydate

DiscontinueLygus sprays@ NAWF ~ 5

0 3000 HUAP1000 2000

Technology Use Plan

15:4

Here is our technology use plan that supports ourcotton IPM system. It emphasizes selectiveapproaches to the control of our three key pestssupported by well-defined sampling programs anddecision-making. Sprays for whiteflies depends onsampling of adults and nymphs and implementationof chemical-use stage-specific thresholds. For Lygus,adults and nymphs are also measured. Sprays aremade according to a two-component threshold.Additional sprays are made as needed when Lygusare increasing and above threshold, but discontinuedat a time in crop development based on variety,planting date, and irrigation plans.

There is no doubt. IPM and resistance managementare completely interdependent. We need good,selective chemistry to help us conserve beneficialsand control our target pests effectively.

what is ipm? cotton insect management · 2010. 7. 13. · ellsworth, ipm, irm & selective...

Documents