Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
409-658-2186
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
Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
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
Table 6. Statistical analysis of data from Table 5. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
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
Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs
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
Table 8. Statistical analysis of data from Table 7. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Variety
Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
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
Table 10. Statistical analysis of data from Table 9. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
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
Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs
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
Table 12. Statistical analysis of data from Table 11. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Variety
Lepidopterous larvae Stink bugs
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
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
Table 14. Statistical analysis of data from Table 13. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
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
Agronomic and Cultural Information
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
Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using
x 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and
means separated by LSD.
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
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 0.5 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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
28
Table 4. Mean stink bug 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)
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
29
Table 5. Mean lepidopterous larvae 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)
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
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
31
Table 7. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 7 days after treatment for MG V soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
32
Table 8. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 7 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 0.25 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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
33
Table 9. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 7 days after treatment for MG V soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
34
Table 10. Mean stink bug 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)
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
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)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
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
TREATMENTS AND RATES
Treatment no. Description
Rate
(fl oz/A)
1 Belt SC 2
2 Belt SC 3
3 Cobalt Advanced 25
4 Untreated ---
Agronomic and Cultural Information
Planting: Planted AG6730 (4 treatments with 4 replications = 16 plots) on May 27 (8
viable seeds/ft)
Emergence on Jun 3
Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
39
Table 2. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 4. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper Banded
cucumber
beetle Adults Nymphs Total
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
40
Table 5. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A) Soybean looper
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
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA
and LSD)
Table 7. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 5 days after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
41
Table 8. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A) Soybean looper
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
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA
and LSD)
Table 10. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper Banded
cucumber
beetle Adults Nymphs Total
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
42
Table 11. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 12. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG
VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A) Soybean looper
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 13. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VI
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
43
Table 14. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot 26 days after treatment for MG VI soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 15. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot 26 days after treatment for MG
VI soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A) Soybean looper
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 16. Mean misc. insect data in 10 sweeps per plot 26 days after treatment for MG VI
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
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
TREATMENTS AND RATES
Treatment no. Description
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
Agronomic and Cultural Information
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 2 on Sep 26 (4 DAT) @ R6
15 sweeps/plot on row 3 on Sep 30 (8 DAT) @ R6
15 sweeps/plot on row 4 on Oct 7 (15 DAT) @ R7
Harvest: Plots harvested on Oct 21
Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 40 ft long
Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using
x 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and
means separated by LSD.
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
b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
47
Table 2. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 3. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
48
Table 4. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 1 day after treatment for MG VII soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper Banded
cucumber
beetle Adults Nymphs Total
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 5. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
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
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA
and LSD)
Table 7. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 4 days after treatment for MG VII soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
50
Table 8. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
51
Table 10. Mean misc. insect data in 15 sweeps per plot 8 days after treatment for MG VII
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 11. Mean stink bug data in 15 sweeps per plot 15 days after treatment for MG VII soybean
insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
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
soybean insecticide screening experiment. Beaumont, TX. 2011.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
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
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
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
4 2 8 1 12 4 16 3 Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
Test located on east end of block
Variety: S68-D4 (seed provided by Syngenta)
Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers
TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS
Treatment no. Description
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
Agronomic and Cultural Information
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
Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5
pt/A were applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray
tank and boom at 33 gpa.
Irrigation: Plots were flush irrigated as needed
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
Sampling: Soybeans @ V1 on Jun 27
No visual differences in treatments noted on Jun 27; no early season insect
pests observed
Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 2
Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
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
b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
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
2 2 4 1 6 1 8 1 Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
Test located on west end of block
Variety: HBK 7028
Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers
TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS
Treatment no. Description
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
1 Untreated
---
2a
Rancona Xxtra + NipsIt INSIDE 3.5 + 1.28 a Seed treatment
Agronomic and Cultural Information
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
Plot size: Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A, Glyfos Xtra @ 1.5 qt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 2.5
pt/A were applied pre-emergence on Jun 15 with a tractor-mounted spray
tank and boom at 33 gpa.
Irrigation: Plots were flush irrigated as needed
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
Sampling: Soybeans @ V1 on Jun 27
56
No visual differences in treatments noted on Jun 27; no early season insect
pests observed
Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 2
Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 20 ft long
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
b Yield adjusted to 13% moisture
c Seed treatment
Means in a column are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)