2012 ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH REPORT · This report is a compilation of results of Entomology Project experiments conducted in 2012. Some 2012 results are not included because of confidentiality

2012

ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH

REPORT

Editor: M. O. Way Co-editor: R. A. Pearson

Texas A & M AgriLife Research Center at Beaumont

OFFICE OF M. O. (Mo) Way, Professor of Entomology

Texas A & M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont 1509 Aggie Drive

Beaumont, Texas 77713

Tel. 409-752-2741, Extension 2231 Cell. 409-658-2186 Fax. 409-752-5560

Email. [email protected] WWW – http://beaumont.tamu.edu

July 29, 2013 Dear stakeholder, cooperator and/or colleague: This report is a compilation of results of Entomology Project experiments conducted in 2012. Some 2012 results are not included because of confidentiality agreements. Financial support for these experiments was provided by Texas A & M AgriLife Research, Texas Rice Research Foundation (rice check-off monies), Texas Soybean Board, USDA and various private agricultural companies. I thank these donors for their generous contributions. I am confident the results contained in this booklet will provide useful pest management information to clientele. I also wish to thank my support staff for an outstanding, productive year in 2012: Rebecca Pearson ................ Research Assistant Jannie Castillo .................... Student Assistant Cara Austin ........................ Student Assistant Lacie Cammack ................. Student Assistant Emily Bourg ....................... Student Assistant Anselmo Garza................... Student Assistant Zachary Garza .................... Student Assistant Grealing Daniel .................. Student Assistant Justin Wilson ...................... Agricultural Research Worker II Suhas Vyavhare ................. Graduate Student Finally, I thank Jack Vawter and his staff at the David R. Wintermann Rice Research Station at Eagle Lake for excellent work at Eagle Lake. This annual report is also available online at the Beaumont Center website: http://Beaumont.tamu.edu/eLibrary/Reports_default.htm If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Sincerely, M.O. Way Professor Entomology

http://beaumont.tamu.edu/eLibrary/Reports_default.htm�

Dermacor X-100 Treatment Rate Study, Early Planting

i

M.O. Way ⋅ [email protected] ⋅ (409)752-2741 ext.2231 Texas A & M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont ⋅ 1509 Aggie Dr. ⋅ Beaumont, TX 77713 ⋅ http://beaumont.tamu.edu

Table of Contents1.

Rice Rice Water Weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus) Dermacor X-100 Treatment Rate Study, Early Planting .....................................................1 Dermacor X-100 Treatment Rate Study, Late Planting .......................................................5 Dermacor X-100 Water-Seeded Study ................................................................................9 Dermacor X-100 Tank-Mix Study .....................................................................................13 CruiserMaxx Rice Seed Treatment, Early Planting ...........................................................16 CruiserMaxx Rice Seed Treatment, Late Planting ............................................................20 CLXL745 Seed Treatment Overwinter Study ...................................................................24 Valent Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control ...................................................28 Valent Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control .................................................32 Timing of Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control ...........................................36 Rice Stink Bug (Oebalus pugnax) Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control ....................................................43 Stalk Borers Presidio Seed Treatments at Eagle Lake ............................................................................46 XP753 Seed Treatments at Eagle Lake ..............................................................................49 Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer ......................................................................................51 Soybean Soybean Foliar Insecticide Screening Study............................................................................52 Soybean Seed Treatment Study ...............................................................................................61 Redbanded Stink Bug Research* .............................................................................................69 Sugarcane, Energy Cane and Sorghum

Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Test ......................................................................................71 Density-Dependent Yield-Loss by the Mexican Rice Borer in Sugarcane, Energycane, and

Energy Sorghum* ..............................................................................................................73 Evaluation of Sugarcane, Energycane, and Sorghum Cultivars for Resistance to the Mexican

Rice Borer* ........................................................................................................................75 1. All reports are authored by M. O. Way and R. A. Pearson except those with an *.

1


Dermacor X-100 Treatment Rate – Early Planting Block 1S

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN

← North I II III IV

1 4 10 2 19 9 28 1 2 6 11 1 20 5 29 4 3 3 12 6 21 7 30 5 4 9 13 8 22 3 31 2 5 5 14 9 23 6 32 8 6 2 15 3 24 2 33 3 7 8 16 4 25 1 34 7 8 1 17 7 26 8 35 9 9 7 18 5 27 4 36 6

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers on reps I and III Variety: CL162 (provided by Horizon Ag) and XP753 (provided by RiceTec)

Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS

Treatment no. Variety Description Rate 1 CL162 Dermacor X-100a 2.5 fl oz/cwt 2 CL162 Dermacor X-100a 1.75 fl oz/A 3 CL162 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 fl oz/cwt 4 CL162 Untreated --- 5 XP753 Dermacor X-100a 4 fl oz/cwt 6 XP753 Dermacor X-100a 5 fl oz/cwt 7 XP753 Dermacor X-100a 1.75 fl oz/A 8 XP753 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 fl oz/cwt 9 XP753 Untreated ---

a Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.30 µg ai/seed, Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.50 µg ai/seed and Apron XL @ 1.90 µg ai/seed


2


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 9 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test @ 50 lb/A (CL162) and 20 lb/A (XP753) into League soil (pH

5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 27 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers on reps I and

III Emergence on May 6 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 29 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 26 (20 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34 lb N/A (20% of 170) on CL162 only on Apr 29 at planting 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on CL162 on May 26 at PF 120 lb N/A on XP753 on May 26 at PF 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on CL162 only on Jun 11 at panicle differentiation 60 lb N/A on XP753 on Jul 16 at late boot/early heading Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A applied

with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 16 for early season weed control

Treatments: All seed treatments applied by Entomology project on Apr 24 Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 10 Vigor ratings on May 14; no signs of insect damage other than rice water weevil

(RWW) feeding scars Vigor ratings on May 23; some phyto (possibly from herbicide) in all plots,

seems worse in XP753 than in CL162 RWW cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4 inches deep,

containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 19 and Jun 28. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Jul 26; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Sep 14 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.


3


Discussion

Rice plant stands were higher in CL162 than XP753 plots, as expected (Table 1). Within a variety, plant stands were not significantly different among treatments; thus, the seed treatments did not affect rice plant stands. Vigor ratings were lowest in the untreated, regardless of variety. So, in general, plants derived from treated seed appeared more “robust” than plants in untreated plots. Vigor ratings were somewhat subjective and included color, uniformity of stand and general appearance.

RWW densities on the 1st sample date were very high in untreated plots of both varieties (Table 2). However, untreated XP753 produced higher numbers of RWW compared to untreated CL161 which is not surprising because RWWs prefer thin to thick stands of rice. The lower rates of Dermacor X-100 performed as well as the higher rates for both varieties (seeding rates). Results were similar for the 2nd sample date. CruiserMaxx Rice did not perform as well as Dermacor X-100, regardless of variety/seeding rate. In addition, for CL162, Dermacor X-100 rates significantly reduced WH densities. The majority of stalk borers were Mexican rice borer. No significant populations of other insects were observed during the course of the experiment. XP753 produced higher yields than CL162 across all treatments. For CL162, the average yield increase for the seed treatments compared to the untreated was more than 800 lb/A. For XP753, the average yield increase for the seed treatments compared to the untreated was more than 1,100 lb/A. Table 1. Mean stand and vigor data for Dermacor X-100 seed treatment rate study (early planting). Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Variety Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

Stand (plants/ft of

row)

Vigor rating (1 – 9)a

May 14 May 23 CL162 Dermacor X-100b 2.5 8.4 a 5.3 c 6.3 ab CL162 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 7.9 a 5.3 c 6.0 ab CL162 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 8.4 a 6.8 a 6.8 a CL162 Untreated --- 7.9 a 5.0 c 5.0 c XP753 Dermacor X-100b 4 4.8 b 5.3 c 6.0 ab XP753 Dermacor X-100b 5 5.1 b 5.0 c 5.8 bc XP753 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 3.8 b 5.3 c 5.5 bc XP753 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 4.2 b 6.0 b 5.8 bc XP753 Untreated --- 4.9 b 5.0 c 5.0 c

a Scale of 1 – 9: 1 = visually and clearly inferior to untreated; 2 = significantly inferior; 3 = noticeably inferior; 4 = slightly inferior; 5 = equal to; 6 = slightly better; 7 = noticeably better; 8 = significantly better; and 9 = visually and clearly better than untreated. b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.30 µg ai/seed, Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.50 µg ai/seed and Apron XL @ 1.90 µg ai/seed Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


4


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil (RWW), whitehead and yield data for Dermacor X-100 seed treatment rate study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.


(fl oz/cwt) RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) Jun 19 Jun 28

CL162 Dermacor X-100b 2.5 8.3 cd 2.5 d 0.0 c 6964 cd CL162 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 6.5 d 2.3 d 0.3 c 7238 c CL162 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 23.5 bc 7.8 bcd 13.5 a 6953 cd CL162 Untreated --- 81.8 a 21.8 a 6.5 b 6234 d XP753 Dermacor X-100b 4 8.0 cd 14.3 abc 0.0 c 9894 a XP753 Dermacor X-100b 5 8.3 cd 5.3 cd 0.3 c 9892 a XP753 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 5.0 d 3.3 d 0.0 c 10232 a XP753 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 38.5 b 17.5 ab 0.0 c 9666 ab XP753 Untreated --- 100.3 a 26.3 a 0.5 c 8794 b

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.30 µg ai/seed, Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.50 µg ai/seed and Apron XL @ 1.90 µg ai/seed

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

5


Dermacor X-100 Treatment Rate – Late Planting Block 5S

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 6 10 1 19 9 28 8 2 3 11 8 20 2 29 3 3 1 12 4 21 7 30 6 4 4 13 5 22 6 31 7 5 5 14 9 23 8 32 2 6 7 15 2 24 4 33 5 7 8 16 7 25 1 34 9 8 9 17 6 26 3 35 1 9 2 18 3 27 5 36 4

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers on reps I and III Variety: CL162 (provided by Horizon Ag) and XP753 (provided by RiceTec)



Treatment no. Variety Description Rate 1 CL162 Dermacor X-100a 2.5 fl oz/cwt 2 CL162 Dermacor X-100a 1.75 fl oz/A 3 CL162 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 fl oz/cwt 4 CL162 Untreated --- 5 XP753 Dermacor X-100a 4 fl oz/cwt 6 XP753 Dermacor X-100a 5 fl oz/cwt 7 XP753 Dermacor X-100a 1.75 fl oz/A 8 XP753 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 fl oz/cwt 9 XP753 Untreated ---


Dermacor X-100 Treatment Rate Study, Late Planting

6


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 9 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test @ 50 lb/A (CL162) and 20 lb/A (XP753) into League soil (pH

5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 22 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers on reps I and

III Emergence on May 29 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 22 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 22 (24 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on CL162 only on May 22 at planting 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on CL162 on Jun 22 at PF 120 lb N/A on XP753 on Jun 22 at PF 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on CL162 only on Jul 18 at panicle differentiation 60 lb N/A on XP753 on Aug 3 Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A applied

with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 21 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by the Entomology Project Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 4 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted on Jun 4 Thrips counts (thrips/10 plants) on Jun 6 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted on Jun 14 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted on Jun 20 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 16 and Jul 27. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Sep 3; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.




7


Discussion

As expected, rice plant stands were higher in plots planted with CL162 than those planted with XP753 because of the difference in seeding rate (Table 1). None of the seed treatments negatively affected stand; however, data suggest Dermacor X-100 seed treatments applied to CL162 were associated with better stands than untreated CL162. Thrips counts were too low for meaningful evaluation. Vigor ratings were visual and somewhat subjective (based on color, uniformity of stand and general health). June 4 and June 14 vigor rating dates showed the seed treatments exhibited significantly better vigor than the untreated for both varieties. On June 20, the seed treatments applied to XP753 exhibited better vigor than the corresponding untreated.

Populations of RWW on the 1st sample date were relatively high in the untreated plots of both varieties (Table 2). All seed treatments effectively controlled RWW. The lower rates of Dermacor X-100 were as effective as the higher rates for both varieties. Results were similar for the 2nd sample date. WH counts in CL162 plots planted with Dermacor X-100-treated seed were significantly lower compared to untreated plots of CL162. The majority of stalk borers were Mexican rice borer. Yields of CL162 were highest in plots planted with treated seed. Highest yields of CL162 were produced in plots planted with seed treated with the low rate of Dermacor X-100. Table 1. Mean stand, thrips and vigor data for Dermacor X-100 seed treatment rate study. Late planting. Beaumont, TX. 2012.


(fl oz/cwt)

Stand (plants/ft of row)

Thrips/10 plants

Vigor ratingsa (1 – 9)

Jun 4 Jun 14 Jun 20 CL162 Dermacor X-100b 2.5 8.6 a 1.5 b 8.8 a 9.0 a 9.0 a CL162 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 8.6 a 5.3 a 8.8 a 9.0 a 9.0 a CL162 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 7.9 ab 0.5 b 8.8 a 9.0 a 9.0 a CL162 Untreated --- 6.6 bc 0.5 b 8.0 bc 8.0 b 9.0 a XP753 Dermacor X-100b 4 3.9 d 1.0 b 8.5 ab 8.8 a 9.0 a XP753 Dermacor X-100b 5 4.3 d 0.3 b 8.8 a 9.0 a 9.0 a XP753 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 4.3 d 3.0 ab 9.0 a 9.0 a 9.0 a XP753 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 5.1 cd 1.5 b 8.8 a 9.0 a 9.0 a XP753 Untreated --- 4.5 d 2.0 ab 7.8 c 7.8 b 8.3 b

a Scale of 1 – 9: 1 = visually and clearly inferior to untreated; 2 = significantly inferior; 3 = noticeably inferior; 4 = slightly inferior; 5 = equal to; 6 = slightly better; 7 = noticeably better; 8 = significantly better; and 9 = visually and clearly better than untreated. b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.30 µg ai/seed, Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.50 µg ai/seed and Apron XL @ 1.90 µg ai/seed Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


8


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil (RWW), whitehead and yield data for Dermacor X-100 seed treatment rate. Late planting. Beaumont, TX. 2012.


(fl oz/cwt) RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) Jul 16 Jul 27

CL162 Dermacor X-100b 2.5 1.5 c 0.8 d 1.3 b 6448 cd CL162 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 1.3 c 0.0 d 1.3 b 6525 c CL162 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 2.3 c 4.0 bc 6.3 a 6045 de CL162 Untreated --- 34.0 a 11.8 a 6.8 a 5814 e XP753 Dermacor X-100b 4 2.8 c 1.5 cd 0.5 b 9241 ab XP753 Dermacor X-100b 5 3.3 bc 0.5 d 0.0 b 9182 ab XP753 Dermacor X-100b 1.75 fl oz/A 2.0 c 1.0 d 0.0 b 9514 ab XP753 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 9.8 b 4.8 b 1.3 b 9308 ab XP753 Untreated --- 41.5 a 10.3 a 0.5 b 9060 b

a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.30 µg ai/seed, Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.50 µg ai/seed and Apron XL @ 1.90 µg ai/seed Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

9


Dermacor X-100 Water-Seeded Study Block 6S

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 3 9 7 17 8 25 6 2 8 10 5 18 4 26 1 3 1 11 3 19 6 27 8 4 4 12 8 20 7 28 2 5 6 13 2 21 1 29 5 6 2 14 4 22 3 30 7 7 7 15 6 23 5 31 3 8 5 16 1 24 2 32 4

Plot size: 4 ft x 18 ft long, with barriers Variety: CL162 (provided by Horizon Ag) and Presidio (provided by TRIA)



Treatment no. Variety Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) 1 Presidio Dermacor X-100 2 2 Presidio Dermacor X-100 1.75 3 Presidio Karate Za 0.03 lb ai/A 4 CL162 Dermacor X-100 3 5 CL162 Dermacor X-100 2.5 6 CL162 Karate Za 0.03 lb ai/A 7 CL162 Untreated --- 8 Presidio Untreated ---

a Karate Z foliar treatments applied 3 days after rice emergence through water

Dermacor X-100 Water-Seeded Study

10


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Broadcast (Presidio @ 100lb/A, and CL162 @ 70 lb/A) by hand into flooded

plots containing League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 31

Plot size = 4 ft x 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence through water on Jun 9 Irrigation: Permanent flood (PF) on May 29 (continuous flood regime) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 113.3 lb N/A (2/3 of 170) on May 29 at planting 56.7 lb N/A (1/3 of 170) on Jul 6 Herbicide: Londax @ 1.5 oz/A applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle

(800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on Jul 2, for duck salad control

Treatments: Treatments 1, 2, 4 and 5 (Dermacor X-100 seed treatments) applied by the

Entomology Project Treatments 3 and 6 (Karate Z foliar spray) applied using a hand-held, CO2

pressurized, 3 nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on Jun 12 (3 days after emergence through water)

Sampling: Floating seedlings removed and counted on Jun 11 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted; poor stand on south end of plot 29 on Jun 16 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted; poor stand on south end of plot 29 on Jun 22 5, 0.34ft2 stand counts per plot on Jul 2 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted; poor stand on south end of plot 29 on Jul 3 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 2 and Jul 11. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in each plot on Sep 3; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Sep 10 Size harvested plot = 4 ft wide, 18 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD


11


Discussion

Dislodged seedlings (floaters) were observed in selected plots about the time of rice emergence through water. Previous research implicated a small aquatic beetle, Tropisternus lateralis, responsible for dislodging seedlings through foraging, feeding and reproductive activities. Other factors, such as wind and tadpole shrimp, also can cause uprooting of seedlings. However, tadpole shrimp do not occur in Texas rice paddies. Very high numbers of floaters were found in untreated and Karate Z-treated plots (Table 1). This suggests Dermacor X-100 seed treatments prevented T. lateralis from uprooting rice. The seed treatment probably killed populations of this aquatic insect. In addition, T. lateralis was observed in plots with an abundance of floaters. Karate Z treatments were probably not effective because applications were made at rice emergence through water. Prior to this time, seedlings were probably uprooted by T. lateralis.

Although the number of floaters was significantly different among treatments, rice plant stands were not. Vigor ratings were visual and based on color, height, uniformity and general plant health. The most vigorous appearing plot in a replication was assigned a vigor rating of 9; all other plots in this replication were rated relative to the highest rated plot. Vigor ratings were similar among treatments 7 days after rice emergence through water. However, 13 and 23 days after rice emergence through water, generally, untreated plots of both varieties exhibited the least vigor.

Due to the late planting date, RWW populations were relatively low in untreated plots (Table 2). However, WH counts were very high in untreated plots of CL162. Data suggest CL162 is very susceptible to stalk borer damage. The majority of stalk borers were Mexican rice borer. Yields were relatively low throughout the experiment---again, due to the late planting date. In addition, Presidio produced higher yields than CL162 which may be due to lower stalk borer pressure in Presidio versus CL162. Table 1. Mean floater, vigor and stand data for Dermacor X-100 water-seeded study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.


(fl oz/cwt) Floaters/

plot Stand

(plants/ft2) Vigor ratings (1 – 9)

Jun 16 Jun 22 Jul 2 Presidio Dermacor X-100 2 1.5 c 30.0 a 9.0 9.0 a 9.0 a Presidio Dermacor X-100 1.75 1.8 c 30.8 a 9.0 9.0 a 8.8 a Presidio Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/A 356.5 a 31.8 a 9.0 9.0 a 8.5 ab CL162 Dermacor X-100 3 1.3 c 21.6 b 9.0 8.3 ab 8.5 ab CL162 Dermacor X-100 2.5 4.8 c 21.1b 8.5 7.8 b 8.0 ab CL162 Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/A 197.3 ab 22.4 b 9.0 9.0 a 8.8 a CL162 Untreated --- 166.5 b 21.7 b 9.0 8.5 ab 7.5 bc Presidio Untreated --- 386.5 a 32.8 a 9.0 8.5 ab 6.5 c

NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


12


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil (RWW), whitehead and yield data for Dermacor X-100 water-seeded study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.


(fl oz/cwt) RWW/5 cores

WHs/plot Yield (lb/A) Jul 2 Jul 11

Presidio Dermacor X-100 2 9.0 5.5 bc 7.5 c 5490 ab Presidio Dermacor X-100 1.75 15.3 9.0 bc 5.3 c 5831 a Presidio Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/A 23.5 16.3 a 10.5 c 5517 ab CL162 Dermacor X-100 3 7.8 3.8 c 32.5 b 5316 abc CL162 Dermacor X-100 2.5 7.0 9.3 ab 31.0 b 4983 abc CL162 Karate Z 0.03 lb ai/A 14.8 6.0 bc 38.0 b 4877 abc CL162 Untreated --- 18.3 8.3 bc 64.0 a 4311 c Presidio Untreated --- 16.3 6.8 bc 8.5 c 4530 bc

NS Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

13


Dermacor X-100 Tank Mix Study Block 8N

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 3 7 5 13 1 19 6 2 4 8 6 14 5 20 3 3 1 9 3 15 4 21 2 4 6 10 1 16 2 22 5 5 2 11 4 17 6 23 1 6 5 12 2 18 3 24 4

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, without barriers Variety: CLXL745 (seed provided by RiceTec)



Treatment no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) 1 Dermacor X-100a 5 2 NipsIt INSIDEa 1.92 3 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 4 Dermacor X-100 + NipsIt INSIDEa 5 + 1.92 5 Dermacor X-100 + CruiserMaxx Rice 5 + 7 6 Untreated ---


Dermacor X-100 Tank-Mix Study

14


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted @ 25 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay

64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun 5 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long without metal barriers Emergence on Jun 12 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Jun 5 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jul 3 (21 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 120 lb N/A on Jul 3 at PF 60 lb N/A on Aug 17 at late boot/early heading Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A applied


Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Entomology Project. Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 28 Vigor ratings on Jun 29, all plots showing some herbicide injury Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 25 and Aug 6. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Sep 17; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.



Discussion

No seedling insect pests (chinch bug, aphids and thrips) were detected in any of the plots.

Plant stands were unaffected by the seed treatments (Table 1). Vigor was evaluated per replication visually on June 29 (17 days after rice emergence). The rating scale was 1-9 with 9 being the most vigorous plot in a replication---all other plots in a replication were compared to the most vigorous appearing plot. Data show vigor ratings did not differ significantly among treatments. In part due to the late planting, populations of RWW were not high in the untreated on the first or second sample dates. However, populations in all seed treatments were

Dermacor X-100 Tank-Mix Study

15


numerically less than the untreated. Lowest populations were found in the Dermacor X-100 + CruiserMaxx Rice seed treatment on the first sample date. WH densities were low in all treatments, but this is expected when dealing with hybrid varieties. Yields across treatments were relatively low due to the late planting date, but all seed treatment yields were numerically larger than the untreated.

Basically, data show combinations of seed treatments were not antagonistic. Further research needs to be conducted on hybrids and non-hybrids. Efforts should be made to evaluate a broader spectrum of insect control when combinations of seed treatments are applied. Table 1. Mean data for Dermacor X-100 tank mix study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt)


Vigor ratingsa

(1 – 9)

RWW/5 cores WHs/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) Jul 25 Aug 5

Dermacor X-100a 5 3.6 8.5 12.0 bc 2.0 c 0 6727 NipsIt INSIDEa 1.92 4.9 9.0 17.0 ab 8.0 ab 2.0 6848

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 4.5 8.5 11.3 bc 4.5 bc 1.0 6442 Dermacor X-100 +

NipsIt INSIDEa 5 + 1.92 4.8 9.0 19.3 ab 3.3 bc 0.3 7030

Dermacor X-100 + CruiserMaxx Rice 5 + 7 3.9 9.0 8.0 c 4.8 abc 0.3 6678

Untreated --- 4.3 8.5 23.0 a 10.5 a 1.8 6113 NS NS NS NS

a Vigor rating scale was 1-9 with 9 being the most vigorous plot in a replication---all other plots in a replication were compared to the most vigorous appearing plot. b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.30 µg ai/seed, Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.50 µg ai/seed and Apron XL @ 1.90 µg ai/seed Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

16


CruiserMaxx Rice Treatment – Early Planting Block 2N

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 7 9 5 17 1 25 4 2 8 10 1 18 4 26 8 3 3 11 2 19 5 27 5 4 1 12 4 20 8 28 1 5 5 13 6 21 7 29 7 6 4 14 3 22 6 30 3 7 2 15 7 23 2 31 6 8 6 16 8 24 3 32 2

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers on reps II and IV Variety: CL162 (provided by Syngenta)




(fl oz prod/cwt) 1 Untreateda --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice 2 7 3 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 7 4 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 7 + 4 5 Cruiser 5FSb 180 g ai/hkg seed 6 Dermacor X-100a 6 7 NipsIt INSIDEa 80 g ai/hkg seed 8 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Zc 7 + 34 g ai/ha

a Also contains Apron XL @ 7.5 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed b Also contains Apron XL @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed c Karate Z foliar treatment applied 4 days after permanent flood

CruiserMaxx Rice Seed Treatment, Early Planting

17


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay

64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 28 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers on reps II

and IV Emergence on May 5 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 29 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 26 (21 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34 lb N/A (20% of 170) on Apr 29 at planting 85 lb N/A (50% of 170) on May 26 at PF 51 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jun 11 at panicle differentiation (PD) Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A with a 2-

person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 16 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Syngenta (Karate Z, foliar) applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle (800067

tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on May 30 (4 days after permanent flood)

Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 10 Vigor ratings, no signs of early insect pests except RWW feeding scars on May

14 Thrips counts on 10 plants/plot on May 16 Vigor ratings on May 25 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 15, Jun 22 and Jun 29. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Aug 1; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity.

Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 23 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Percent data transformed using arcsine; RWW and WH counts transformed

using



18


Discussion

Plant stands were significantly different which may have been due to blackbird damage to sprouting rice (Table 1). However, the combination of CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 may have adversely affected plant stand. All seed treatments exhibited increased vigor compared to the untreated on both rating dates (May 14---9 days after rice emergence and May 25---1 day before PF). Ratings were replication specific; in other words, the best plot in a given replication was given a rating of 100%---all other plots in the given replication were given ratings equal to or less than this best plot. Ratings were subjective and visual (included color, general health and uniformity of stand and growth). No pytotoxicity was observed in the experiment, except some minor bleaching due to application of Command 3ME. The number of thrips per 10 plants was low and not significantly different among treatments.

Populations of RWW were high in the untreated on the 1st and 2nd sample dates (Table 2). RWW populations in the untreated on the 3rd sample date were below treatment threshold levels (about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores), so data from this sample date are not as valuable as data from the 1st and 2nd sample dates. All seed treatments effectively controlled RWW. WH counts were relatively high in the untreated. Treatments containing Dermacor X-100 significantly reduced WH counts. The majority of stalk borers were Mexican rice borer. Yields of all seed treatments were numerically higher than the untreated. CruiserMaxx Rice 1 and CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 produced yields significantly higher than the untreated (about 1000 lb/A more). Table 1. Mean stand and vigor data for CruiserMaxx Rice seed treatment study. Early planting. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz prod/cwt)

Stand (plants/ft of

row)

Vigor rating (%) Thrips/10 plants May 14 May 25

Untreateda --- 15.1 ab 81.3 c 80.0 c 6.8 CruiserMaxx Rice 2 7 16.4 a 100 a 97.5 a 8.3 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 7 15.3 ab 97.5 ab 100 a 6.3

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 7 + 4 11.8 c 97.5 ab 100 a 7.3

Cruiser 5FSb 180 g ai/hkg seed 13.2 bc 97.5 ab 100 a 7.8 Dermacor X-100a 6 14.6 ab 95.0 b 92.5 b 7.5 NipsIt INSIDEa 80 g ai/hkg seed 15.3 ab 100 a 100 a 7.5

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Zc 7 + 34 g ai/ha 15.6 ab 98.8 ab 100 a 5.5

a Also contains Apron XL @ 7.5 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed b Also contains Apron XL @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed c Karate Z foliar treatment applied 4 days after permanent flood Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


19


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil, whitehead and yield data for CruiserMaxx Rice seed treatment study. Early planting. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz prod/cwt) RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) Jun 15 Jun 22 Jun 29

Untreateda --- 63.3 a 44.8 a 12.3 a 15.0 b 5975 b CruiserMaxx Rice 2 7 6.8 b 6.0 b 4.5 bc 9.5 bcd 6202 ab CruiserMaxx Rice 1 7 6.0 b 2.3 b 2.0 bc 11.8 bc 6930 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 7 + 4 1.8 b 2.0 b 0.8 c 6.0 cd 7014 a

Cruiser 5FSb 180 g ai/hkg seed 11.0 b 4.3 b 6.0 ab 23.5 a 6544 ab Dermacor X-100a 6 2.5 b 1.5 b 1.3 bc 5.5 d 6735 ab NipsIt INSIDEa 80 g ai/hkg seed 3.5 b 5.5 b 4.5 bc 15.8 ab 6713 ab

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Zc 7 + 34 g ai/ha 1.3 b 1.5 b 2.5 bc 17.0 ab 6183 ab

a RWW = rice water weevil, WH = whitehead b Also contains Apron XL @ 7.5 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed c Also contains Apron XL @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed d Karate Z foliar treatment applied 4 days after permanent flood Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.07 for Yield, P = 0.05 for RWW and WH data, ANOVA and LSD)

20


CruiserMaxx Rice Treatment – Late Planting Block 6N

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 4 9 5 17 8 25 6 2 3 10 2 18 6 26 3 3 6 11 7 19 5 27 1 4 7 12 4 20 7 28 5 5 5 13 6 21 2 29 4 6 8 14 1 22 3 30 2 7 1 15 8 23 4 31 8 8 2 16 3 24 1 32 7

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers on reps II and IV Variety: CL162 (provided by Syngenta)




(fl oz prod/cwt) 1 Untreateda --- 2 CruiserMaxx Rice 2 7 3 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 7 4 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 7 + 4 5 Cruiser 5FSb 180 g ai/hkg seed 6 Dermacor X-100a 6 7 NipsIt INSIDEa 80 g ai/hkg seed 8 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Zc 7 + 34 g ai/ha

a Also contains Apron XL @ 7.5 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed b Also contains Apron XL @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed

CruiserMaxx Rice Seed Treatment, Late Planting

21


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (CL162) @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 25 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers on reps II

and IV Emergence on Jun 1 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 26 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 22 (21 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on May 25 at planting 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on Jun 22 at PF 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jul 18 at panicle differentiation (PD) Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A applied


Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Syngenta Treatment 8 (Karate Z, foliar) applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3

nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on Jun 22, before PF

Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 4 Thrips counts (thrips/10 plants) on Jun 6 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted on Jun 8 Vigor ratings; no phyto noted on Jun 22 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 16, Jul 23 and Jul 30. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.


Harvest: Harvested all plots on Sep 7 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long

Discussion

Plant stands were unaffected by the seed treatments (Table 1). Relatively low populations of thrips were observed (5 days after rice emergence); however, CruiserMaxx Rice 2, CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100, Cruiser 5FS and CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Z gave


22


significant control. Since Karate Z was applied after thrips were counted, CruiserMaxx Rice 1 must be providing thrips control. I believe the species of thrips is the western flower thrips, but I am not certain. Vigor ratings were taken visually June 8---1 week after rice emergence and June 22---just before application of the PF. Within each replication, the plot with the best vigor was assigned 100%. All other plots in the replication were assigned equal or lower % ratings. Vigor ratings were somewhat subjective, but included color, general health and uniformity in stand and growth. CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Z treatment on the 1st vigor rating date exhibited the best vigor. On the 2nd vigor rating date, all seed treatments exhibited better vigor than the untreated.

Populations of RWW were relatively low in the untreated on all 3 sample dates due to the late planting date (Table 2). The treatment threshold is about 15 RWW larvae/pupae per 5 cores. Nevertheless, all treatments reduced RWW numbers significantly compared to the untreated on the 1st and 2nd sample dates. WH counts were relatively high in the untreated, largely due to the late planting date. The majority of stalk borers dissected from the WHs was Mexican rice borer. Although no significant differences were detected among treatments, those containing Dermacor X-100 produced the fewest numbers of WHs. Yields were not significantly different among treatments, but all treatments were numerically greater than the untreated. The average of all treatment yields was about 330lb/A more than the untreated. Table 1. Mean stand, thrips and vigor data for CruiserMaxx Rice seed treatment study. Late planting. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz prod/cwt)


Thrips/10 plants

Vigor (%)

Jun 8 Jun 22 Untreateda --- 13.8 3.5 a 90.0 b 85.0 b

CruiserMaxx Rice 2 7 12.6 1.3 cd 88.8 b 100 a CruiserMaxx Rice 1 7 14.9 2.3 abc 90.0 b 100 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 7 + 4 14.4 1.8 bc 90.0 b 100 a

Cruiser 5FSb 180 g ai/hkg seed 14.5 0.3 d 90.0 b 100 a Dermacor X-100a 6 14.3 3.0 ab 90.0 b 97.5 a NipsIt INSIDEa 80 g ai/hkg seed 13.6 2.5 abc 90.0 b 100 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Zc 7 + 34 g ai/ha 13.3 0.3 d 100 a 100 a

NS a Also contains Apron XL @ 7.5 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed b Also contains Apron XL @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


23


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil, whitehead and yield data for CruiserMaxx Rice seed treatment. Late planting. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz prod/cwt) RWWa/5 cores WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A) Jul 16 Jul 23 Jul 30

Untreateda --- 13.3 a 15.0 a 7.3 a 14.0 6762 CruiserMaxx Rice 2 7 3.0 b 2.0 b 5.8 ab 15.5 6938 CruiserMaxx Rice 1 7 1.8 bc 2.5 b 1.0 c 14.3 6880

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Dermacor X-100 7 + 4 0.5 c 1.8 b 0.3 c 6.3 7223

Cruiser 5FSb 180 g ai/hkg seed 1.8 bc 1.3 b 2.5 bc 11.3 7155 Dermacor X-100a 6 0.8 c 0.5 b 0.5 c 3.8 7345 NipsIt INSIDEa 80 g ai/hkg seed 2.0 bc 2.3 b 1.3 c 15.5 6859

CruiserMaxx Rice 1 + Karate Zc 7 + 34 g ai/ha 0.8 c 1.5 b 1.5 c 11.0 7249

NS NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Also contains Apron XL @ 7.5 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 1.25 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 1.0 g ai/hkg seed c Also contains Apron XL @ 10.0 g ai/hkg seed, Maxim 4FS @ 2.0 g ai/hkg seed and Dynasty 0.83FS @ 6.0 g ai/hkg seed Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

24


Seed Treatment Overwinter Study – CLXL745 Block 8S

Beaumont, TX 2011 – 2012

⇐ North PLOT PLAN

I II III IV 1 1 9 5 17 8 25 2 2 4 10 8 18 7 26 1 3 2 11 6 19 3 27 7 4 8 12 1 20 5 28 3 5 6 13 2 21 4 29 8 6 7 14 3 22 2 30 5 7 5 15 4 23 1 31 6 8 3 16 7 24 6 32 4

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with no barriers Test located on west side of field

Variety: CLXL745 (seed provided by RiceTec) Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



(fl oz/cwt) Timinga

1 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Winter 2 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Spring 3 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A Winter 4 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A Spring 5 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Winter 6 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Spring 7 Untreated --- Winter 8 Untreated --- Spring

a Winter = treated in the winter; Spring = treated in the spring

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted CLXL745 @ 25 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun 5

CLXL745 Seed Treatment Overwinter Study

25


Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Emergence on Jun 12 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Jun 5 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jul 3 Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 120 lb N/A on Jul 3 before PF 60 lb N/A on Aug 17 at late boot/early heading Total N = 180 lb/A Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A applied

with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 26 for post emergence weed control

Treatments: Seed treated Dec 21, 2011. Treated and untreated seed placed in TRIA seed barn

(not refrigerated) on Jan 10, 2012 and left until planting. A portion of stored untreated seed was treated in the spring prior to planting.

Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 28 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 25 and Aug 6. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whitehead (WH – sign of stalk borer damage) counts on rows 2, 3, 5 and 6 in each plot on Sep 17



Discussion

Only 1lb of CLXL745 seed and 2lb of CL161 seed were treated with each of the 3

insecticidal seed treatments in December 2011. After treatment, seed (including untreated seed) was stored in paper sacks in TRIA’s seed barn where seed rice is stored in supersacks and bags during the winter. TRIA employees fumigate this seed to protect against stored product insects, but not the seed designated for this experiment. This seed barn is not heated or cooled. Seed for this experiment remained in the seed barn until just prior to planting (from January 10 to approximately June 5, 2012)---about 5 months. Stored product insect damage---primarily Angoumois grain moth (AGM)---was severe in untreated CL161 seed. Thus, we did not proceed with evaluating CL161 seed treatments in the field---we only evaluated CLXL745 seed treatments in the field because damage was negligible. However, prior to planting, we randomly


26


removed 4, 50g samples of seed from each treatment, including the untreated. We sorted through the samples and counted the number of stored product insects. We found only a few lesser grain borer, so these data are not included. But, we did find many Angoumois grain moth (AGM) in untreated CL161 seed and none in any of the CLXL745 treatments, including the untreated (Tables 1 and 2). These data indicate the 3 seed treatments protected CL161 seed from AGM damage. Data also suggest CLXL745 may be resistant to AGM damage. This possibility needs to be further investigated.

CLXL745 plant stands were unaffected by the seed treatments (Table 3). Rice water weevil (RWW) populations were very low in the untreated (and other treatments), probably due to the late planting date (June 5). In addition, no barriers were installed around the plots which can affect results. Nevertheless, on the second RWW sampling date, all of the seed treatments applied in the winter resulted in numerically fewer RWW compared to the untreated. Whitehead (WH) counts were low across treatments which is typical for hybrid varieties. Surprisingly, yields of all seed treatments applied in the winter were significantly higher than the corresponding untreated. NipsIt INSIDE, CruiserMaxx Rice and Dermacor X-100 winter seed treatments produced an average increase in yield over the corresponding untreated of 529, 375 and 612 lb/A, respectively. These yield differences are difficult to explain given the relatively low populations of RWW. However, the higher yield difference associated with Dermacor X-100 seed treatments may be due to better control of stalk borers. Perhaps WH densities in hybrids are not an accurate method of evaluating stalk borer control/ damage? Again, more research needs to be conducted to better define this relationship. Table 1. Mean number Angoumois grain moth (AGM) in 50g samples. CL161. Beaumont, TX. 2011 – 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timinga Mean no. AGM NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Winter 4.3 b

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A Winter 1.0 b CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Winter 0.8 b

Untreated --- Winter 202.8 a a Winter = treated in the winter; Spring = treated in the spring Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 2. Mean number Angoumois grain moth (AGM) in 50g samples. CLXL745. Beaumont, TX. 2011 – 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timinga Mean no. AGM NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Winter 0

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A Winter 0 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Winter 0

Untreated --- Winter 0 a Winter = treated in the winter; Spring = treated in the spring


27


Table 3. Mean data for seed treatment overwinter study. CLXL745. Beaumont, TX. 2011 – 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) Timinga


RWWb/5 cores WHsb/4 rows

Yield (lb/A) Jul 25 Aug 6

NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Winter 6.7 8.3 8.3 abc 2.0 7268 a NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 Spring 8.8 13.0 4.8 bcd 1.8 7468 a

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A Winter 5.5 7.5 4.3 cd 1.3 7351 a Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A Spring 5.4 6.5 1.8 d 0.5 7458 a

CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Winter 5.4 8.8 4.0 cd 1.8 7114 ab CruiserMaxx Rice 7 Spring 6.1 6.5 5.0 bcd 3.0 7194 ab

Untreated --- Winter 6.2 9.8 13.8 a 2.0 6739 c Untreated --- Spring 6.1 12.8 10.3 ab 2.5 6906 bc

NS NS NS a Winter = treated in the winter; Spring = treated in the spring b RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

28


Valent Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Block 2S

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 3 9 7 17 6 25 5 2 1 10 3 18 2 26 3 3 7 11 5 19 7 27 6 4 6 12 1 20 8 28 4 5 5 13 2 21 3 29 1 6 4 14 8 22 4 30 7 7 8 15 6 23 5 31 2 8 2 16 4 24 1 32 8

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers on reps I and III Variety: Presidio (provided by TRIA)




(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreateda --- 2 NipsIt INSIDEa 1.92 3 Dermacor X-100a 2.5 4 Cruiser 5FSa 3.6 5 NipsIt INSIDE + Release LCb 1.92 + 0.96 6 NipsIt INSIDEb 1.92 7 NipsIt INSIDE + Dynasty 0.83SCb 1.92 + 1.1 8 NipsIt INSIDE + V10355b 1.92 + 1.0

a Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt, Dynasty @ 1.1 fl oz/cwt and Apron XL @ 0.372 fl oz/cwt b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt and Seabring 318FS @ 0.4 fl oz/cwt

Valent Seed Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

29


Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 8 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (Presidio) @ 80 lb/A into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt

32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 28 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers on reps I and

III Emergence on May 5 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 29 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 25 (20 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on Apr 29 at planting 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on May 25 at PF 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jun 11 at panicle differentiation (PD) Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and RiceBeaux @ 3 qt/A applied

with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 17 for early season weed control

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Valent Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 10 Vigor ratings on May 15 Thrips counts (10 plants/plot) taken, collected thrips for ID, some aphids,

sharpshooters and black-faced leafhoppers observed (some snails) on May 16. Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 15 and Jun 26. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.


Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 22 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Percent data transformed using arcsine; insect and WH counts transformed using



30


Discussion

Plant stands were unaffected by the seed treatments (Table 1). Visual ratings taken May 15 (10 days after rice emergence) showed all seed treatments exhibited significantly better vigor than the untreated. The most vigorous plots in a replication were rated 100% while less vigorous plots in the same replication were rated less. Vigor was based on the general appearance, color and uniformity of the stand/plants. Thrips populations were too low for a meaningful evaluation. RWW populations on both sample dates were high in the untreated (Table 2). NipsIt INSIDE by itself performed the best of any of the seed treatments on the first sample date, but all seed treatments effectively controlled RWW. For the second RWW sample date, control by all seed treatments was good. WH counts---a measure of stalk borer (primarily Mexican rice borer) activity---were too low in the experiment for meaningful evaluation. Yields were not significantly different across treatments, but all seed treatments numerically outyielded the untreated. In fact, the average yield of all seed treatments containing NipsIt INSIDE was 540 lb/A more than the untreated. Basically, data show NipsIt INSIDE combined with Release LC, Dynasty or V10355 was not adversely affected compared to NipsIt INSIDE alone. Table 1. Mean stand, vigor and thrips data for Valent seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

Stand (plants/ft of

row) Vigor (%) Thrips/plant

Untreateda --- 12.7 85.0 b 0.8 NipsIt INSIDEa 1.92 13.5 97.5 a 0.6

Dermacor X-100a 2.5 14.0 100 a 0.5 Cruiser 5FSa 3.6 12.6 100 a 0.7

NipsIt INSIDE + Release LCb 1.92 + 0.96 12.2 95.0 a 0.9 NipsIt INSIDEb 1.92 13.3 100 a 1.1

NipsIt INSIDE + Dynasty 0.83SCb 1.92 + 1.1 12.8 97.5 a 0.8 NipsIt INSIDE + V10355b 1.92 + 1.0 14.3 100 a 0.7

NS NS a Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt, Dynasty @ 1.1 fl oz/cwt and Apron XL @ 0.372 fl oz/cwt b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt and Seabring 318FS @ 0.4 fl oz/cwt Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).


31


Table 2. Mean rice water weevil (RWW), whitehead (WH) and yield data. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/cwt) RWW/5 cores WHs/4

rows Yield (lb/a) Jun 15 Jun 26

Untreateda --- 77.5 a 41.3 a 2.3 6321 NipsIt INSIDEa 1.92 1.5 c 6.0 bc 5.3 7140

Dermacor X-100a 2.5 2.5 c 0.3 c 3.0 6903 Cruiser 5FSa 3.6 11.0 b 13.8 b 3.3 6614

NipsIt INSIDE + Release LCb 1.92 + 0.96 8.5 b 6.0 bc 4.0 6808 NipsIt INSIDEb 1.92 9.8 b 9.8 b 2.8 6658

NipsIt INSIDE + Dynasty 0.83SCb 1.92 + 1.1 5.5 bc 11.8 b 4.0 6818 NipsIt INSIDE + V10355b 1.92 + 1.0 8.8 b 8.3 b 2.3 6882

NS NS a Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt, Dynasty @ 1.1 fl oz/cwt and Apron XL @ 0.372 fl oz/cwt b Also contains Maxim 4FS @ 0.08 fl oz/cwt and Seabring 318FS @ 0.4 fl oz/cwt Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

32


Valent Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Block 4S

Beaumont, TX 2012

PLOT PLAN


1 3 9 5 17 8 25 1 2 8 10 6 18 4 26 7 3 4 11 2 19 1 27 8 4 1 12 7 20 3 28 4 5 5 13 8 21 7 29 3 6 2 14 1 22 2 30 6 7 6 15 3 23 5 31 5 8 7 16 4 24 6 32 2

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers Variety: Presidio (provided by TRIA)


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS Treatment

no. Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga

1 Untreated --- --- 2 Karate Z + NISb 1.86 + 0.25 v/v BF 3 Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v 8 DAF 4 Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v 14 DAF 5 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v BF 6 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v 8 DAF 7 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v 14 DAF 8 NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST

a BF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment b NIS = non-ionic surfactant


32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 5

Valent Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

33


Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on May 15 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 5 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 8 (24 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand. 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on May 5 at planting 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on Jun 8 at PF 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jun 27 at panicle differentiation (PD) Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and Stam 80EDF @ 2 lb ai/A

applied with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 29 for early season weed control

Treatments: Treatments 2 and 5 applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle

(800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on Jun 8

Treatments 3 and 6 applied as above on Jun 16 Treatments 4 and 7 applied as above on Jun 22 Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 25 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 2, Jul 9 and Jul 17. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.


Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 29 Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Data analysis: Percent data transformed using arcsine; RWW and WH counts transformed

using


Discussion

Plant stands were unaffected by the treatments (Table 1). RWW populations were

relatively high in the untreated on the 1st sample date. Surprisingly, none of the Karate Z treatments (regardless of timing) provided adequate control of RWW. BF application of Karate Z was made to muddy soil due to a rain event which may have compromised control. But, I think this is unlikely because Karate Z binds to soil particles and sticks to plants (especially with the addition of NIS to the treatment). In addition, soil was only muddy, so moving water was not an issue and all plots were surrounded by barriers.


34


The Belay 2.13SC treatment applied BF provided good control on the 1st and 2nd sample dates. By the 3rd sample date, RWW populations in the untreated were relatively low (below treatment threshold of about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores). Thus, Belay 2.13SC applied BF and 8 DAF gave good control of RWW. Belay 2.13SC applied 14 DAF provided about 50% control of RWW on the 1st sample date. In short, Belay 2.13SC applied BF up to at least 8 DAF gave good control of RWW---much better than Karate Z applied at these times. We have observed occasional failures of Karate Z to control RWW in small plot tests in recent years. NipsIt INSIDE was not effective which is very unusual. We believe the seed to be treated with NipsIt INSIDE was inadvertently not treated. We have not observed RWW control failures with NipsIt INSIDE.

WH counts were relatively low and not significant across treatments (Table 2). The majority of stalk borers were Mexican rice borers. Yields were low throughout the experiment, partially due to the late planting date of Presidio. Yields were not significantly different among treatments, but all Belay 2.13SC treatments produced numerically higher yields than the untreated.

Table 1 Mean stand and rice water weevil data for Valent foliar treatment study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga


No. RWWb/5 cores

Jul 2 Jul 9 Jul 17 Untreated --- --- 11.6 45.8 a 29.3 a 9.0 ab

Karate Z + NISc 1.86 + 0.25 v/v BF 13.0 45.5 a 32.3 a 14.0 a Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v 8 DAF 11.9 36.0 ab 37.3 a 10.3 ab Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v 14 DAF 12.7 43.5 a 39.0 a 10.3 ab

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v BF 12.9 7.5 c 6.0 b 5.3 bc Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v 8 DAF 12.4 4.0 c 2.8 b 1.3 c Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v 14 DAF 13.7 22.3 b 3.5 b 2.3 c

NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST 12.2 61.3 a 37.8 a 14.8 a NS

a BF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment b RWW = rice water weevil c NIS = non-ionic surfactant Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


35


Table 2. Mean whitehead and yield data for Valent foliar treatment study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga WHsb/4 rows Yield (lb/A)

Untreated --- --- 1.0 5195 Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v BF 1.0 5092 Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v 8 DAF 3.5 5648 Karate Z + NIS 1.86 + 0.25 v/v 14 DAF 1.3 5550

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v BF 1.0 5625 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v 8 DAF 2.3 5641 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 v/v 14 DAF 2.3 5902

NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST 3.0 5325 a BF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment b WH = whitehead c NIS = non-ionic surfactant Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

36


Timing of Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control Blocks 3N & 3S Beaumont, TX

2012

PLOT PLAN

← North Block 3N I II

1 7 9 5 17 6 25 13 2 14 10 6 18 5 26 3 3 8 11 1 19 9 27 15 4 3 12 10 20 12 28 4 5 12 13 15 21 8 29 10 6 4 14 11 22 11 30 7 7 2 15 9 23 1 31 14 8 13 16 24 2 32

Block 3S

III IV 1 1 9 2 17 13 25 4 2 5 10 14 18 1 26 6 3 13 11 6 19 2 27 10 4 11 12 10 20 11 28 7 5 12 13 8 21 12 29 15 6 3 14 4 22 5 30 9 7 9 15 7 23 14 31 3 8 15 16 24 8 32

Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers Variety: Presidio (provided by TRIA)


Timing of Foliar Treatments for Rice Water Weevil Control

37


TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS Treatment

no. Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga

1 Untreated --- --- 2 Karate Z + NIS 1.85 + 0.25 % v/v BF 3 V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 4 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 5 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 6 V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 7 V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 8 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 9 V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 10 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 11 V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 12 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 13 V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 14 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 15 NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST

aBF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment


32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 2 Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long with metal barriers Emergence on May 10 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 2 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 4 (25 days after emergence) Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand 34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on May 2 at planting 85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on Jun 4 at PF 51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jun 22 at panicle differentiation (PD) Herbicide: Permit @ 1 oz/A, Command 3ME @ 1 pt/A and Stam 80EDF @ 2 lb ai/A

applied with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on May 29 for early season weed control


38


Treatments: Treatments 2 – 6 applied using a hand-held, CO2 pressurized, 3 nozzle (800067 tips with 50 mesh screens, 29 gpa final spray volume) spray rig on Jun 4---before flood (BF)

Treatments 7 – 10 applied as above on Jun 12---8 days after flood (DAF); 0.5 inch precipitation 4 h after treatments applied; could not spray 7 DAF because of windy conditions

Treatments 11 – 14 applied as above on Jun 20 (16 DAF); did not apply treatments Jun 19 because of rain

Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on May 17 Plant ht of 3 plants/plot on Jun 20, Jun 27 and Jul 5 Tiller counts (2, 1 ft counts/plot) on Jul 3 Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 25 and Jul 5; core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Aug 1; WHs are a measure of stalk borer activity. Collected 20 WHs for dissection: found 18 Mexican rice borer (MRB); 0 sugarcane borer (SCB)

Harvest: Harvested all plots with a small plot combine on Aug 28 (reps I and II) and 29

(reps III and IV) Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long Milling: Harvest samples were air-dried to approximately 12%; 500g from each sample

(plot) were removed and hulled using a Grainman huller (sample passed through huller 2 times); 100g of hulled rice removed and milled using a Zaccaria Paz-1 rice milling machine; total milled rice and head rice yields were recorded

Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

Rice stands were not significantly different among the treatments (Table 1). However,

plant height varied across treatments on all sample dates. The V-10357 and V-10358 treatments applied 8 DAF significantly increased plant height compared to the untreated on all 3 sample dates (8, 15 and 23 DAT). The V-10357 and V-10358 treatments applied 16 DAF significantly increased plant height compared to the untreated on the later 2 sample dates (7 and 15 DAT). No significant differences were detected in plant height on the last sample date among the V-10357 and V-10358. None of the treatments applied BF significantly increased plant height compared to the untreated. So, plant height was only affected by post-flood applications of V-10357 and V-10358. Tiller number was not significantly different among treatments (Table 2).

On the first sample date, RWW populations were high in the untreated (treatment threshold = about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores), so the experiment generated meaningful data regarding treatment efficacies. The Karate Z treatment provided poor control on both sample


39


dates. Perhaps we failed to apply this treatment, but we have observed lack of control of RWW by Karate Z applied BF in other recent experiments. In general, best control of RWW was provided by BF applications of foliar treatments, followed by 8 and 16 DAF applications. Basically, 16 DAF treatment applications were too late to provide good control of RWW. In general, the higher rate of Belay 2.13SC provided slightly better control of RWW than the lower rate across application timings. The seed treatment---NipsIt INSIDE---gave good control of RWW on both sample dates. Also, in general, foliar treatment applications at 16 DAF provided better control of RWW on the 2nd compared to the 1st sample date which makes sense. These late treatments at 16 DAF were more effective because they more closely coincided with the 2nd sampling date.

WH counts were not significantly different among treatments; thus, none of the treatments controlled stalk borers---mainly MRB (Table 3). Yields were relatively high, but not significantly different among treatments which was surprising because of the large populations of RWW in the untreated (Table 3). However, all foliar treatments, except Karate Z and V-10357 applied 8 DAF, produced higher yields than the untreated. The highest yield was attributed to Belay 2.13SC applied 8DAF at 4.5 fl oz/A (772 lb/A more than the untreated). No phytotoxicity or lodging was observed in the experiment. Milling quality (total milled and head rice) was not significantly different among treatments (Table 3).


40


Table 1. Mean stand and plant height data for Belay 2.13SC timing study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga


Plant ht (cm)

Jun 20 Jun 27 Jul 5 Untreated --- --- 12.9 69 bc 76 c-f 81 def

Karate Z + NIS 1.85 + 0.25 % v/v BF 11.2 64 c 71 efg 80 ef V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 11.9 70 bc 76 c-f 84 b-e

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 13.4 68 c 79 bcd 82 c-f Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 11.5 71 bc 77 b-e 85 bcd

V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 12.7 70 bc 77 b-e 81 def V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 12.3 83 a 83 ab 87 ab

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 13.2 66 c 70 fg 79 f V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 12.7 82 a 88 a 91 a

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 11.3 67 c 73 d-g 85 bcd V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 13.7 69 bc 78 bcd 86 bc

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 13.0 70 bc 74 d-g 79 ef V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 11.5 64 c 82 abc 86 abc

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 13.0 66 c 69 g 82 c-f NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST 12.7 76 ab 77 cde 83 b-f

NS aBF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


41


Table 2. Mean tiller and rice water weevil data for Belay 2.13SC timing study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga Tillers

/ft of row

RWWb/5 cores

Jun 25 Jul 5 Untreated --- --- 21 73.8 a 23.3 a

Karate Z + NIS 1.85 + 0.25 % v/v BF 24 66.8 ab 27.3 a V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 24 11.0 cd 9.5 bc

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 23 5.0 de 6.0 cd Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 22 0.8 e 6.5 cd

V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 24 11.3 cd 9.8 bc V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 27 23.3 c 6.0 cd

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 24 10.3 cd 2.0 d V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 26 13.0 cd 5.5 cd

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 22 10.8 cd 3.8 cd V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 23 64.5 ab 16.3 ab

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 25 52.3 ab 5.5 cd V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 24 64.8 ab 10.0 bc

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 16 DAF 27 45.0 b 10.8 bc NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST 25 10.0 cd 8.0 bcd

NS aBF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment b RWW = rice water weevil Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


42


Table 3. Mean whitehead, yield and milling quality for Belay 2.13SC timing study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) Timinga WHsb/4

rows Yield (lb/A)

Milled rice (%)

Head rice (%)

Untreated --- --- 2.5 7256 74.1 53.5 Karate Z + NIS 5.12 + 0.25 % v/v BF 2.8 6808 73.7 52.8 V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 2.5 7394 74.0 55.0

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 6.0 7570 73.2 55.4 Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v BF 2.8 7600 74.0 56.4

V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v BF 5.0 7482 74.1 55.9 V-10357 + NIS 1.87 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 9.0 7216 73.8 54.4

Belay 2.13SC + NIS 3.5 + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 5.3 7654 73.9 56.3 V-10358 + NIS 2.4 oz prod/A + 0.25 % v/v 8 DAF 9.3 7361 74.0 55.5



Belay 2.13SC + NIS 4.5 + 0.25 % v/v 15 DAF 3.3 7345 74.1 56.5 NipsIt INSIDE 1.9 fl oz/cwt ST 5.8 7463 73.6 55.2

aBF = before flood; DAF = days after flood; ST = seed treatment b WHs = whiteheads Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

43


Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control Beaumont, TX

2012

PLOT PLAN ← North

III IV 2 6 5 3 4 1 2 1 5 4 6 3

I II 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 5 1 2 4 6



(fl oz/A) 1 Untreated --- 2 Endigo ZC 5 3 Endigo ZCX 5 4 Karate Z 2.56 5 Centric 40WG 3.5 oz/A 6 Tenchu 20SG 9 oz/A

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications Field: Variety = Sierra; ratoon crop Treatments: Treatments applied with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles,

50 mesh screens, 12 gpa final spray volume) on Sep 20; rice @ heading – soft dough

Sampling: 30 sweeps on Sep 21 (1 DAT) and Sep 24 (4 DAT) Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD

Discussion

Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control

44


The experiment was designed as a RCB with 6 treatments and 4 replications and was conducted at the Beaumont Center in a field of ratoon rice managed by the Texas Rice Improvement Association. Plot size was 21 ft by 40 ft. Treatments were applied on 20 Sep when rice was in heading to soft dough stages. Applications were made with a 2-person, CO2-powered spray rig equipped with 13, 80015 tip nozzles and 50 mesh screens (spray swath was 21 ft). Final spray volume was 26 gal/ac. Conditions were clam during the spray applications. At 1, 4, 8 and 12 DAT, 30 consecutive sweeps were taken in each plot. RSB and LHG were counted in each sample of sweeps. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.

Populations of RSB were relatively high 1 and 4 DAT in untreated plots (Table 1). All insecticidal treatments provided good control of RSB (nymphs and adults) at 1 and 4 DAT. However, populations of RSB declined to very low levels at 8 and 12 DAT in untreated plots, so no meaningful conclusions can be drawn regarding these later sampling dates (Table 2). All insecticidal treatments significantly reduced LHG populations compared to the untreated at 4 DAT (Table 1). At 8 and 12 DAT, populations of LHG in untreated plots were too low to draw meaningful conclusions from the data (Table 2). Table 1. Mean insect data (1 and 4 days after treatment) for Syngenta rice stink bug study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) 1 DATa 4 DATa

RSBAb RSBNb GHb RSBA RSBN GH Untreated --- 16.3 a 3.0 a 5.5 12.8 a 2.0 a 6.8 a Endigo ZC 5 0.5 cd 0.3 b 1.5 0.8 b 0.0 b 3.5 b

Endigo ZCX 5 2.3 bc 0.0 b 1.8 1.0 b 0.3 b 3.0 b Karate Z 2.56 0.3 d 0.0 b 1.5 1.0 b 0.3 b 3.5 b

Centric 40WG 3.5 oz/A 2.0 bcd 0.0 b 4.0 1.3 b 0.0 b 2.0 bc Tenchu 20SG 9 oz/A 3.0 b 1.0 b 3.8 4.3 b 0.0 b 1.0 c

NS a Insects in 30 sweeps; DAT = days after treatment b RSBA = rice stink bug adults; RSBN = rice stink bug nymphs; GH = grasshoppers Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

Foliar Treatments for Residual Rice Stink Bug Control

45


Table 2. Mean insect data (8 and 12 days after treatment) for Syngenta rice stink bug study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/A) 8 DATa 12 DATa

RSBAb RSBNb GHb RSBA RSBN GH Untreated --- 1.5 0.3 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.5 b Endigo ZC 5 1.5 0 0.3 0.5 0 0.8 b

Endigo ZCX 5 0.3 0 0.5 0.8 0 1.0 b Karate Z 2.56 0.8 0 1.8 0 0 2.0 ab

Centric 40WG 3.5 oz/A 2.3 0.3 1.0 0.5 0 3.5 a Tenchu 20SG 9 oz/A 1.0 0 1.5 0.3 0 1.8 ab

NS NS NS NS NS a Insects in 30 sweeps; DAT = days after treatment b RSBA = rice stink bug adults; RSBN = rice stink bug nymphs; GH = grasshoppers Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

46


RO

AD

Presidio Seed Treatments Eagle Lake, TX

2012

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

Pres

idio

1 1 5 4 9 2 13 3 2 2 6 3 10 1 14 2 3 4 7 1 11 3 15 4 4 3 8 2 12 4 16 1

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long, no barriers Seed source: Presidio (TRIA) seeded at 80 lb/A Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING

Trt no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreated --- 2 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 3 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 4 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A

a Applied at late boot/heading

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (Presidio @ 80 lb/A) into Edna soil on Apr 16 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Emergence on Apr 24 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 24 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 22 Fertilization: 47.5-47.5-47.5 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 16 preplant 80 lb N/A (urea) on May 21 before permanent flood (BF) 60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 11 at panicle initiation/differentiation Total N/A for main crop = 187.5 lb

Presidio Seed Treatments at Eagle Lake

47


Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 3 lb ai/A and Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A applied on Apr 30 Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A and Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A applied on May 21 Treatments: Treatment 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A) applied on Jun 26 (late boot/heading) Sampling: Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4

inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 12. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.

Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts/plot) and whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 26; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage

Harvest: Harvested on Aug 13 Size harvested plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using


Discussion

The reason for conducting this experiment was to compare RWW and stalk borer control

provided by Dermacor X-100 and (NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Z). The seed treatment Dermacor X-100 controls both RWW and stalk borers while the seed treatment NipsIt INSIDE controls RWW but not stalk borers. However, a foliar application of Karate Z at late boot/heading does help control stalk borers. Dermacor X-100 applied to hybrid seed is more expensive than NipsIt INSIDE applied to hybrid seed followed by an application of Karate Z at late boot/heading (NipsIt INSIDE targets RWW while Karate Z targets stalk borers). Many farmers currently tank-mix Karate Z with a fungicide at late boot/heading which means the application cost of Karate Z is nil. Thus, we wanted to evaluate the relative efficacies and cost effectiveness of these options to control both RWW and stalk borers.

RWW counts were too low for a meaningful evaluation (Table 1). Panicle density was not significantly different among treatments. However, WH counts were significantly lower in the Dermacor X-100 and (NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Z ) treatments compared to the untreated and NipsIt INSIDE only. This suggests the application of Karate Z for stalk borer control was as effective as the Dermacor X-100 seed treatment. Although yields among treatments were not significantly different, highest yields were produced in treatments exhibiting good stalk borer control. The majority of stalk borers was Mexican rice borer.

We wanted to produce a ratoon crop to further evaluate the treatments, but logistical problems prevented production of a ratoon crop.

Presidio Seed Treatments at Eagle Lake

48


Table 1. Mean data for Presidio seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) RWW/5

cores Panicles/ft

of row WHs/4 rows

Yield (lb/A)

Untreated --- 19.8 30.1 8.8 a 8969 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 11.8 30.8 7.5 a 8808

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 12.3 32.5 1.8 b 9331 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A 11.0 31.4 1.3 b 9404 NS NS NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Karate Z applied at late boot/heading Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

49


RO

AD

XP753 Seed Treatments Eagle Lake, TX

2012

PLOT PLAN

I II III IV

XP7

53

1 2 5 3 9 4 13 1 2 3 6 2 10 1 14 2 3 1 7 4 11 3 15 4 4 4 8 1 12 2 16 3

Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long, no barriers Seed source: XP753 (RiceTec) seeded at 25 lb/A Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers

TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING

Trt no. Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) 1 Untreated --- 2 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 3 Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 4 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za 1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A

a Applied at late boot/heading

Agronomic and Cultural Information Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 4 treatments and 4 replications Planting: Drill-planted test (XP753 @ 25 lb/A) into Edna soil on Apr 16 Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Emergence on Apr 24 Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 24 Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood Permanent flood (PF) on May 22 Fertilization: 0-50-50 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 16 preplant 90 lb N/A (urea) on May 21 before permanent flood (BF) 30 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jul 6 at panicle initiation/differentiation Total N/A for main crop = 120 lb

XP753 Seed Treatments at Eagle Lake

50


Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 3 lb ai/A, Command 3ME @ 0.4 lb ai/A applied on Apr 30 Propanil @ 2 lb ai/A and Permit @ 0.06 lb ai/A on May 21 Treatments: Treatment 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A) applied on Jun 26 at late boot/heading Sampling: Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts/plot) and whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul

26; WHs are a measure of stalk borer damage Harvest: Harvested on Aug 13 Size harvested plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long Data analysis: WH counts transformed using


Discussion

The reason for conducting this experiment was to compare RWW and stalk borer control

provided by Dermacor X-100 and (NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Z). The seed treatment Dermacor X-100 controls both RWW and stalk borers while the seed treatment NipsIt INSIDE controls RWW but not stalk borers. However, a foliar application of Karate Z at late boot/heading does help control stalk borers. Dermacor X-100 applied to hybrid seed is more expensive than NipsIt INSIDE applied to hybrid seed followed by an application of Karate Z at late boot/heading (NipsIt INSIDE targets RWW while Karate Z targets stalk borers). Many farmers currently tank-mix Karate Z with a fungicide at late boot/heading which means the application cost of Karate Z is nil. Thus, we wanted to evaluate the relative efficacies and cost effectiveness of these options to control both RWW and stalk borers.

RWW counts were too low for a meaningful evaluation (Table 1). Panicle density was lowest for the untreated. Highest panicle density was recorded for the NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Z treatment. WH counts were low and not significantly different among treatments. Yields were high, but not significantly different among treatments. We wanted to ratoon crop the experiment, but logistical problems prevented production of a ratoon crop. Table 1. Mean data for XP753 seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2012.

Description Rate

(fl oz/cwt) RWWa/5

cores Panicles/ft

of row WHsa/4

rows Yield (lb/A)

Untreated --- 16.3 24.3 b 1.5 11535 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 12.0 27.6 a 1.5 11761

Dermacor X-100 1.75 fl oz/A 9.8 24.8 b 2.3 11538 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Zb 1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A 8.3 27.9 a 0.8 12029 NS NS NS a RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead b Karate Z applied at late boot/heading Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).

51


Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer Texas Rice Belt

2012 PIs: Mo Way (Texas AgriLife), Gene Reagan (LSU AgCenter) and J. Beuzelin (LSU AgCenter) Co-PIs and trap operators: Becky Pearson (Chambers and Jefferson Cos.), Jack Vawter

(Colorado Co.), Mike Hiller (Jackson Co.) and Noelle Jordan (Orange Co.) Mexican rice borer (MRB) pheromone traps were set up in selected counties of the Texas Rice Belt (TRB). MRB was detected for the first time in Louisiana in November 2008. MRB was collected for the first time in Orange Co. in September 2010. Data are being used to follow the progress of MRB population densities over time in the TRB. In December 2012, an MRB moth was found in a light trap in Florida. Table 1. Monthly totals of Mexican rice borer adults from pheromone traps (2 traps/county) located next to rice on the Texas Upper Gulf Coast in 2012.

Month Chambers Co. Colorado Co. Jefferson Co. Orange Co.a

January 23 56 2 1 February 5 76 3 0 March 387 1687 90 1 April 433 795 114 2 May 344 619 96 0 June 166 421 72 0 July 106 198 33 0

August 289 340 63 0 September 235 274 57 1

October 500 345 46 1 November 544 167 60 0 December 31 22 4 0

a Traps located next to fallow field

52


Soybean Foliar Insecticide Screening Test Beaumont, TX

2012

← North PLOT PLAN I II III IV

1 10 13 7 25 blank 37 10 49 blank 2 4 14 5 26 blank 38 1 50 blank 3 blank 15 9 27 6 39 7 51 blank 4 blank 16 3 28 3 40 6 52 blank 5 3 17 6 29 5 41 2 53 blank 6 7 18 8 30 10 42 8 54 blank 7 blank 19 8 31 7 43 5 55 blank 8 blank 20 5 32 4 44 1 56 9 9 9 21 blank 33 10 45 8 57 3 10 2 22 blank 34 2 46 9 58 4 11 1 23 blank 35 1 47 2 59 blank 12 blank 24 6 36 4 48 blank 60 blank

I II III IV Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long

Variety: AG6732. Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



(fl oz/A) 1 Prevathon 10 2 Prevathon 14 3 Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 4 Belt 2 5 Besiege 7 6 Besiege 9 7 Intrepid 6 8 Steward 6.7 9 Untreated ---

10 GF2372 1 oz/A

Soybean Foliar Insecticide Screening Study

53


Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Planted AG6732 (10 treatments, with 4 replications) on May 26 (8 viable

seeds/ft); all seed treated with Cell-Tech nitrogen-fixing inoculant (inoculants for soybeans, ‘S’ culture, Bradyrhizobium japonicum and talc).

Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Emergence on Jun 2/3 Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-

emergence on May 30 with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 15 gpa final spray volume).

Treatments: Treatments 2 – 8 and 10 were applied with a 2-nozzle hand-held spray boom

(no. 2 cone nozzles on 30 inch centers, 20 gpa) on Sep 18 Sampling: 10 sweeps/plot on row 2 on Sep 20 (2 days after treatment, DAT) @ R6 10 sweeps/plot on row 3 on Sep 24 (6 DAT) @ R6 10 sweeps/plot on row 2 on Sep 28 (10 DAT) 10 sweeps/plot on row 3 on Oct 4 (16 DAT) Harvest: Plots harvested on Nov 9 and Nov 12 Size harvested plot = 2 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Data analysis: Insect counts transformed using

x + 0.5 ; yields converted to bu/A and 13% moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.

Discussion

Plots were regularly inspected for Lepidoptera, stink bugs and other insect pests. By Sep

18, insect pest populations were high enough to warrant application of treatments. At 2 DAT, low populations of Lepidoptera were found in all plots except the Steward and

Prevathon + Asana XL treatments---in these treatments, no Lepidoptera were collected (Table 2). Populations of nymphs and adult redbanded stink bug (RBSB) were lowest in the high (9 fl oz/A) rate of Besiege (Table 3). For all stink bug species, Besiege at the high rate above provided the best control. Populations of threecornered alfalfa hopper (TCAH) were high in the untreated (Table 4). Best control was provided by the Besiege and GF2372 treatments. Prevathon by itself was not effective, but when combined with Asana XL gave good control which suggests Asana XL was effective against TCAH.

At 6 DAT, low populations of velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) were collected in the untreated (Table 5). All other treatments, except GF2372 controlled low populations of VBC. High populations of RBSB (mainly nymphs) were collected in the untreated (Table 6). Best control was provided by Besiege, Prevathon + Asana XL, GF2372 and Steward treatments. TCAH numbers were very high (mostly adults) in the untreated, but Prevathon + Asana XL and the Besiege treatments provided the best control (Table 7). GF2372 did not perform as well as at 2 DAT.


54


At 10 DAT, Lepidoptera numbers were very low throughout the experiment (Table 8). RBSB populations were not significantly different across treatments, so none of the treatments provided 10 days of residual activity (Table 9). None of the treatments provided significant control of TCAH (nymphs + adults) (Table 10).

At 16 DAT, Lepidoptera numbers were very low throughout the experiment (Table 11). RBSB populations were on the decline (Table 12). Again, none of the treatments gave significant control of TCAH (Table 13).

Yields were low across treatments and not significantly different (Table 1). Disease problems (charcoal rot and “sudden death syndrome”) were evident in certain plots which caused high variability in treatment yields. This was a non-irrigated experiment. Table 1. Yield data for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Yield (bu/A)

Prevathon 10 13.0 Prevathon 14 11.4

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 18.3 Belt 2 15.6

Besiege 7 12.9 Besiege 9 18.6 Intrepid 6 16.8 Steward 6.7 16.2

Untreated --- 14.5 GF2372 1 oz/A 15.8

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


55


Table 2. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 20 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper

Green cloverworm

Velvetbean caterpillar Total

Prevathon 10 0 b 0.3 b 0 c 0.3 cd Prevathon 14 0 b 0.3 b 0 c 0.3 cd

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 0 b 0 b 0 c 0 d

Belt 2 0.5 ab 0 b 0.3 bc 0.8 cd Besiege 7 0.3 b 0 b 0 c 0.3 cd Besiege 9 0.5 ab 0 b 0 c 0.5 cd Intrepid 6 0.3 b 0.5 ab 0.3 bc 1.0 bc Steward 6.7 0 b 0 b 0 c 0 d

Untreated --- 0 b 0.3 b 2.0 a 2.3 ab GF2372 1 oz/A 1.3 a 1.3 a 0.8 b 3.3 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 3. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 20 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Southern green Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T A N T Prevathon 10 0 0 0 1.0 b 3.5 4.5 bc 0.3 0.3 0.5 5.0 bc Prevathon 14 0 0 0 0.8 b 5.0 5.8 ab 0.8 0 0.8 6.5 ab

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 0 0 0 0.8 b 2.8 3.5 bc 0.8 0.5 1.3 4.8 bc

Belt 2 0 0.3 0.3 0.8 b 3.3 4.0 bc 0.5 0.3 0.8 5.0 bc Besiege 7 0 0 0 1.0 b 3.3 4.3 bc 1.0 0 1.0 5.3 bc Besiege 9 0 0 0 0.3 b 1.8 2.0 c 0.8 0 0.8 2.8 c Intrepid 6 0 0 0 3.0 a 6.8 9.8 a 0.5 0 0.5 10.3 a Steward 6.7 0 0 0 0 b 2.8 2.8 bc 0.3 0 0.3 3.0 bc

Untreated --- 0 0 0 0.3 b 6.0 6.3 abc 1.0 0 1.0 7.3 ab GF2372 1 oz/A 0.8 0 0.8 0.8 b 3.8 4.5 bc 1.3 0 1.3 6.5 abc

NS 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 = 0.07 for total redbanded stink bug and total stink bugs, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD)


56


Table 4. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 20 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Adults Nymphs Total Prevathon 10 25.3 a 2.8 28.0 a Prevathon 14 19.5 ab 0.5 20.0 ab

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 2.3 d 0.3 2.5 d

Belt 2 13.3 bc 1.8 15.0 bc Besiege 7 4.0 cd 0.8 4.8 cd Besiege 9 3.3 cd 1.0 4.3 cd Intrepid 6 23.3 ab 2.0 25.3 ab Steward 6.7 19.5 ab 1.3 20.8 ab

Untreated --- 21.0 ab 2.3 23.3 ab GF2372 1 oz/A 6.0 cd 1.5 7.5 cd

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


Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper

Green cloverworm

Velvetbean caterpillar Total

Prevathon 10 0 0 0 b 0 b Prevathon 14 0 0 0 b 0 b

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 0 0 0 b 0 b

Belt 2 0 0 0 b 0 b Besiege 7 0 0 0.3 b 0.3 b Besiege 9 0 0 0 b 0 b Intrepid 6 0 0.3 0.3 b 0.5 b Steward 6.7 0 0 0 b 0 b

Untreated --- 0 0.5 2.0 a 2.5 a GF2372 1 oz/A 0.3 0.3 2.0 a 2.5 a

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


57


Table 6. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 24 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Redbanded Brown

Total Aa Na Ta A N T Prevathon 10 2.3 7.0 abc 9.3 abc 0.3 0.3 0.5 9.8 abc Prevathon 14 1.8 4.5 bcd 6.3 bcd 0.5 0.3 0.8 7.0 bcd

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 1.3 2.8 cd 4.0 de 0.8 0.5 1.3 5.3 cde

Belt 2 1.3 8.5 ab 9.8 abc 0.5 0.8 1.3 11.0 ab Besiege 7 2.5 2.3 d 4.8 cde 0.5 0 0.5 5.3 cde Besiege 9 0.8 1.5 d 2.3 e 0.3 0.3 0.5 2.8 e Intrepid 6 4.0 7.5 abc 11.5 ab 0.8 0.3 1.0 12.5 ab Steward 6.7 1.0 2.0 d 3.0 de 0.8 0.3 1.0 4.0 de

Untreated --- 1.8 10.3 a 12.0 a 1.5 0.8 2.3 14.3 a GF2372 1 oz/A 1.5 1.3 d 2.8 de 0.3 0 0.3 3.0 de

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) Table 7. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 24 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Grasshoppers Leafhoppers Adults Nymphs Total Prevathon 10 30.3 a 3.0 ab 33.3 a 0.3 bc 0 b Prevathon 14 22.3 a 4.5 a 26.8 a 0.8 ab 0 b

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 7.8 bc 0.8 cd 8.5 bc 0 c 0 b

Belt 2 32.8 a 3.3 ab 36.0 a 1.0 a 0.5 ab Besiege 7 3.3 c 0.3 d 3.5 c 0 c 0 b Besiege 9 3.0 c 0.5 cd 3.5 c 0.3 bc 0 b Intrepid 6 29.5 a 3.5 a 33.0 a 0 c 0 b Steward 6.7 18.0 c 2.3 abc 20.3 a 0 c 0.8 ab

Untreated --- 15.3 ab 3.3 ab 18.5 ab 0.3 bc 0 b GF2372 1 oz/A 22.3 a 1.0 bcd 23.3 a 0 c 0.8 a

Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.07 for grasshoppers and leafhoppers, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD)


58



Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper Green

cloverworm Velvetbean caterpillar Total

Prevathon 10 0 0 0 0 Prevathon 14 0 0 0 0

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 0.3 0 0.3 0.5

Belt 2 0 0 0 0 Besiege 7 0 0 0 0 Besiege 9 0 0 0 0 Intrepid 6 0 0 0 0 Steward 6.7 0 0.3 0 0.3

Untreated --- 0 0.3 1.0 1.3 GF2372 1 oz/A 0.3 0 1.5 1.8

Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 9. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 28 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate


Total Aa Na Ta A N T Prevathon 10 1.3 5.5 6.8 0 0.5 0.5 7.3 Prevathon 14 1.8 2.8 4.5 0 0.3 0.3 4.8

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 3.8 4.5 8.3 1.0 0.3 1.3 9.5

Belt 2 3.5 5.8 9.3 0.8 0.5 1.3 10.5 Besiege 7 2.8 1.8 4.5 0.8 0 0.8 5.3 Besiege 9 2.3 2.0 4.3 0.3 0 0.3 4.5 Intrepid 6 1.8 6.0 7.8 0.8 0.3 1.0 8.8 Steward 6.7 2.0 3.5 5.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 7.0

Untreated --- 2.8 4.5 7.3 1.0 0.3 1.3 8.5 GF2372 1 oz/A 3.3 2.5 5.8 0.8 0.3 1.0 6.8

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


59


Table 10. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 10 sweeps per plot on Sep 28 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Threecornered alfalfa hopper

Assassin bug Adults Nymphs Total Prevathon 10 16.8 cd 1.8 18.5 cd 0.8 a Prevathon 14 19.5 c 1.0 20.5 c 0 b

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 16.3 cd 1.5 17.8 cd 0 b

Belt 2 30.3 ab 0.8 31.0 ab 0 b Besiege 7 9.5 de 0 9.5 e 0 b Besiege 9 14.5 cde 0 14.5 cde 0 b Intrepid 6 39.8 a 1.8 41.5 a 0 b Steward 6.7 9.8 e 1.5 11.3 de 0 b

Untreated --- 16.0 cd 0 16.0 cde 0.3 b GF2372 1 oz/A 21.0 bc 0.8 21.8 bc 0 b

NS Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 11. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps per plot on Oct 4 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A) Soybean looper Green cloverworm Total Prevathon 10 0 0 0 Prevathon 14 0 0 0

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 0 0 0

Belt 2 0 0 0 Besiege 7 0 0 0 Besiege 9 0 0 0 Intrepid 6 0 0 0 Steward 6.7 0 0.3 0.3

Untreated --- 0 0 0 GF2372 1 oz/A 0.3 0 0.3



60


Table 12. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps per plot on Oct 4 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate


Total Aa Na Ta A N T Prevathon 10 2.3 3.5 5.8 0.3 0 0.3 6.0 Prevathon 14 3.3 2.0 5.3 0.5 0 0.5 5.8

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 2.8 2.0 4.8 0.3 0.3 0.5 5.3

Belt 2 1.3 3.8 5.0 0 0 0 5.0 Besiege 7 3.0 1.0 4.0 0 0 0 4.0 Besiege 9 4.8 1.0 5.8 0.3 0 0.3 6.0 Intrepid 6 2.0 2.8 4.8 0 0 0 4.8 Steward 6.7 2.5 4.5 7.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 7.8

Untreated --- 2.0 3.5 5.5 0.8 0.8 1.5 7.0 GF2372 1 oz/A 4.3 1.8 6.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 7.0

a A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 13. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 10 sweeps per plot on Oct 4 for soybean insecticide screening. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)


Adults Nymphs Total Prevathon 10 25.3 1.5 26.8 Prevathon 14 30.5 0 30.5

Prevathon + Asana XL 10 + 7 19.0 0.5 19.5

Belt 2 24.3 0.8 25.0 Besiege 7 16.3 0 16.3 Besiege 9 21.0 0.3 21.3 Intrepid 6 29.5 1.8 31.3 Steward 6.7 18.0 0.3 18.3

Untreated --- 18.3 0.8 19.0 GF2372 1 oz/A 30.8 0.3 31.0


61


Soybean Seed Treatments Beaumont, TX

2012

← North PLOT PLAN I II III IV

1 4 8 3 15 2 22 5 2 2 9 7 16 6 23 2 3 7 10 6 17 3 24 7 4 6 11 5 18 1 25 4 5 5 12 1 19 5 26 3 6 3 13 4 20 4 27 1 7 1 14 2 21 7 28 6

Plot size: 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Variety: (seed provided by Syngenta)



Treatment no. Descriptiona Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) 1 A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 2 A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 3 A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 4 A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed

5 STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141 62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23

6 STP15142+ STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3

7 A12640 + Temik 15Gb 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha a All treatments include A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b Granular, incorporated pre-plant

Agronomic and Cultural Information

Planting: Planted test (7 treatments, with 4 replications) on Aug 1 (8 viable seeds/ft);

all seed treated Cell-Tech nitrogen-fixing inoculant (inoculants for soybeans, ‘S’ culture, Bradyrhizobium japonicum)

Plot size = 4 rows, 30 inch row spacing, 30 ft long Emergence on Aug 6

Soybean Seed Treatment Study

62


Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-emergence with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- No. 2 cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 15 gpa final spray volume) on Aug 3.

Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Syngenta Treatment 7 (Temik 15G) applied by hand and incorporated with rakes on

Jul 31 Oversprayed all plots with Orthene 90S @ 1 lb prod/A on Oct 3 Oversprayed all plots with Endigo ZC @ 4.5 fl oz/A on Nov 21 Sampling: Plant stands (2, 3 ft counts) on Aug 20; removed 10 plants/plot for later

processing (measured height, growth stage, and counted number of thrips/plant)

Vigor ratings on Aug 22: some plots (1 - 3, and 5) missing leaves (may be rabbit damage); no phyto observed

Collected 5 plants/plot for later processing (measured height, growth stage, and defoliation, and counted number of nodes, threecornered alfalfa hopper girdles and whitefly damage) on Sep 6

Vigor ratings on Sep 6 (R4); no phyto observed 10 sweeps/plot on Sep 6, Sep 26 (R5/6) and Oct 4 (R6) Collected 5 plants/plot and counted filled and unfilled pods in Dec

Discussion

Soybean plant stands were similar among treatments (Table 1). Plant ht. was similar among treatments 14 and 31 days after seedling emergence through soil. Stage of growth also was similar among treatments on the above dates. Finally, no. of nodes per plant was not significantly different 31 days after emergence of soybeans through soil. Thus, seed treatments did not affect plant density or growth through R1. Plots also were rated visually for vigor. This was a relatively subjective measure. Within each replication, the plot exhibiting the best vigor (color, uniformity and general health) was assigned 100%---all other plots in the replication were assigned a % vigor rating based on this plot. On Aug 22, the treatments exhibiting the best vigor were A14006 + A14379 and A12640 (Table 2). Vigor ratings were similar among treatments 15 days later. Thrips and threecornered alfalfa hopper girdle densities were too low for meaningful evaluation. Defoliation also was low (mainly caused by banded cucumber beetle).

On Sep 6 (when soybeans were R4), Lepidoptera defoliators (velvetbean caterpillar and green cloverworm) and brown stink bugs were too low for meaningful evaluation (Table 4). On Sep 6, threecornered alfalfa hopper populations were too low for meaningful evaluation (Table 5). On Sep 26 (when soybeans were R5/6), total Lepidoptera numbers were increasing, but the seed treatments were not effective (Table 6). Sampling on this date was 51 days after soybean emergence through soil, so, perhaps the seed treatments “played out” by this time. Also, stink bug pressure was low at this time; thus, no conclusions regarding stink bug control can be drawn (Table 7). Threecornered alfalfa hopper populations also were low on this date, but banded cucumber beetle densities were lowest in the STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 treatment (Table 8). On Oct 4, banded cucumber beetle densities were significantly different among treatments (Table 9). Lowest populations were collected from the A14379 treatment.


63


We oversprayed all the plots on Oct 3 and Nov 21, but we were unable to harvest the test because of the late planting date (wet weather late in the season prevented harvest). But, in Dec we removed at random 5 plants per plot and recorded the no. of filled and unfilled pods. These data show no significant differences among the treatments (Table 3). Table 1. Mean plant characteristic data for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed)

Stand (plants/ ft of row)

Plant ht (inches) Growth stage No. nodes/ plant Aug 20 Sep 6 Aug 20 Sep 6

A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 8.6 7.7 21.1 V3.6 R1 6.7

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 9.2 9.2 21.8 V3.5 V6/R1 6.4

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 9.1 9.0 22.3 V3.5 V6/R1 8.2

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 7.9 8.4 20.5 V3.5 R1 7.4

STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 9.2 8.1 20.2 V3.4 V7/R1 7.9

STP15142+ STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 8.7 7.4 19.9 V3.4 V7/R1 8.0

A12640 + Temik 15Gb 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 8.9 8.6 20.9 V3.6 V7/R1 7.4

a All treatments include A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column not significantly different (P = 0.08, ANOVA and LSD)


64


Table 2. Mean insect damage data for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment study. Beaumont, TX.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) Vigor ratings (%) Thrips/10

plants Defoliation

(%) TCAHb girdles Aug 22 Sep 6

A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 100 a 97.5 2.5 3.5 0.3

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 92.5 ab 92.5 0.8 1.3 0.3

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 100 a 100 1.0 2.3 0.8

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 92.5 ab 90.0 0.3 0.5 0

STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 87.5 b 87.5 0.3 1.0 0

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 92.5 b 95.0 0.3 2.0 0

A12640 + Temik 15Gc 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 87.5 b 95.0 0.5 1.5 0

NS NS NS NS a Also treated with A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b TCAH = threecornered alfalfa hopper c Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 3. Mean filled and unfilled pod data for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) No. filled pods/5

plants No. unfilled pods/5

plants A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 110.3 44.8 A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 125.0 58.3

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 152.5 28.3

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 108.5 41.3 STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 126.0 58.3

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 134.5 47.5

A12640 + Temik 15Gc 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 119.3 64.8 a All treatments include A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


65


Table 4. Mean lepidopterous larvae and stink bug data in 10 sweeps on Sep 6 for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) GCWb VBCb Total leps BSBb

A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 0 0.5 0.5 0

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 0 0.5 0.5 0

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 0 0.5 0.5 0

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 0 0.5 0.5 0.3 STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 0 0.5 0.5 0

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 0 0 0 0

A12640 + Temik 15Gc 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 0.3 1.0 1.3 0.3 a Also treated with A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; BSB = brown stink bug c Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD) Table 5. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 10 sweeps on Sep 6 for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) Adults Nymphs Total A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 1.8 0 1.8

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 3.8 0 3.8

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 2.0 0.3 2.3

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 1.5 0 1.5 STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 1.8 0 1.8

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 3.8 0 3.8

A12640 + Temik 15Gb 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 3.3 0 3.3 a All treatments include A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


66


Table 6. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 10 sweeps on Sep 26 for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) SLb GCWb VBCb Total leps A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 0 0.8 9.0 9.8

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 0.3 0.8 5.3 6.3

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 0.3 0.5 5.5 6.3

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 0.3 1.0 5.8 7.0 STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 0.3 0.5 5.0 5.8

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 0.3 0.8 7.0 8.0

A12640 + Temik 15Gc 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 0.3 1.0 7.0 8.3 a Also treated with A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b GCW = green cloverworm; VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; BSB = brown stink bug c Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

Table 7. Mean stink bug data in 10 sweeps on Sep 26 for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) RBSBb BSBb Total stink

bugs A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 1.5 0.5 2.0

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 2.0 0 2.0

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 2.0 0 2.0

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 1.3 0 1.3 STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 1.0 0 1.0

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 1.3 0 1.3

A12640 + Temik 15Gc 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 1.3 0 1.3 a Also treated with A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b RBSB = redbanded stink bug; BSB = brown stink bug c Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


67


Table 8. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 10 sweeps on Sep 26 for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed)

Threecornered alfalfa hopper Banded cucumber

beetle Adults Nymphs Total A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 0.8 0.8 1.5 6.8 a

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 0.3 0.3 0.5 3.3 bc

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 0.3 0 0.3 5.5 ab

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 0.8 0.3 1.0 5.0 ab STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 0 0 0 5.8 ab

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 2.0 c

A12640 + Temik 15Gb 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 1.0 1.3 2.3 4.8 ab

NS NS NS a All treatments include A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)


68


Table 9. Mean insect data in 10 sweeps on Oct 4 for Syngenta Avicta soybean seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatmenta Rate

(g ai/hkg seed) VBCb RBSBb TCAHb

BCBb Ab Nb Tb A12640 0.0094 mg ai/seed 0 0.8 0 0.3 0.3 8.3 ab

A14379 0.086 mg ai/seed 0.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 3.5 c

A14006 + A14379 0.15 mg ai/seed + 0.086 mg ai/seed 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 5.0 bc

A19101 0.2419 mg ai/seed 0.3 0 0 0 0 6.3 abc

STP15273 + STP15142 + STP27320 + STP17141

62.5 + 16.2 + 0.16 + 5.23 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.3 9.5 a

STP15142 + STP15199 + STP20282 4.0 + 5.0 + 78.3 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 4.8 bc

A12640 + Temik 15Gc 6.25 + 590 g ai/ha 0.3 0 0.3 0.3 0.5 8.8 a

NS NS NS NS NS a All treatments include A18059 @ 0.99 g ai/hkg seed b VBC = velvetbean caterpillar; RBSB = redbanded stink bug; TCAH = threecornered alfalfa hopper; A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total; BCB = banded cucumber beetle c Granular, incorporated pre-plant Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

69


Redbanded Stink Bug Research 2012

Suhas Vyavhare and Mo Way---Texas A&M AgriLife Research 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 can be found in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri. The geographic expansion of this introduced pest has considerably increased in recent years. For example, since 2000, the RBSB has rapidly spread across Louisiana, reaching all soybean growing areas in the state by 2006. Similarly, our soybean field surveys along the Gulf Coast of Texas during 2011 and 2012 shows that RBSB has become the most abundant stink bug species in Texas soybeans.

Our research mainly focuses studies on the soybean-RBSB interactions and stink bug population dynamics in soybean especially in Upper Gulf Coast of Texas. This information will allow better prediction of the occurrence of economically important stink bugs and thus improve the decision guidelines for stink bug integrated pest management.

Objective 1: To quantify the growth stage specific response of soybean to varying densities of RBSB Materials and methods: Soybeans were planted in the field on May 20, 2012 at the Texas A&M Agrilife Research and Extension Center, Beaumont. Soybean rows used for the study were kept free of any insect damage with insecticide applications. When plants approached the R2 (full bloom) stage, 4 adjacent plants were randomly selected and cylindrical, wire mesh cages was used to confine RBSBs. Prior to putting cages over the plants, selected plants were visually checked and made insect-free. RBSB densities (0, 1, 2 and 4 RBSB adults/cage) were used. RBSBs were field-collected on the same day of infestation. RBSBs were kept in the cages for 10 days. Plants were inspected daily and dead RBSBs replaced. After 10 days of infestation, cages and insects were removed and plants were sprayed with acephate at 1 lb. ai/A to insure no further insect activity. The same procedures were repeated for growth stages R3 (beginning pod), R4 (full pod), R5 (beginning seed), R6 (full seed), and R7 (maturity). Controls were established without any infestations for any of the plant growth stages. At maturity, plants were threshed and seeds weighed and inspected for damage. In addition, filled and unfilled/flat pods were counted. Objective 2: To determine the relationship between RBSB feeding and occurrence of delayed maturity and flat pod syndromes in soybean Materials and methods: Delayed maturity syndrome: In order to determine the effect of mechanical pod removal and RBSB infestation on delayed maturity syndrome development in soybeans, 2 experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, soybeans were infested with 4 densities of RBSB (0, 2, 4 and 8 RBSB adults/cage) at R4/5 stage of soybean growth. While in the other experiment, mechanical pod removal treatments were such as to remove 25, 50, 75 % of pods, and a control. Pod removal treatments were assigned during R4/5 stage of growth. The aim of this study was to determine the role of sink-source balance alteration via mechanical pod removal and RBSB feeding in the occurrence of delayed maturity syndrome of soybeans.

Redbanded Stink Bug Research

70


Flat pod syndrome: MG V soybeans were planted in the field under irrigation at the Beaumont Center. Plants were sprayed with insecticides in order to protect the plants from any kind of insect damage. 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 and both) using specially designed cages isolating these portions of the plants to determine if a substance or agent associated with RBSB feeding is translocated through plants to cause flat pod syndrome. The top 2 internodes of the plants were considered as the top portion and the rest of the plant as the bottom portion. Since both portions were isolated, RBSB were restricted with cages to only specific portions. Overall there were 4 treatments viz. infestation of only top portion, infestation of only bottom portion, infestation of both top and bottom portions, and a control without any infestation. Two RBSB adults were placed in each cage. Infestation was maintained for 3 days after which cages were removed; plants were repeatedly sprayed with acephate to avoid further insect damage. At maturity, pods were harvested separately from each plant portions and flat and fully developed pods were counted. Objective 3: To determine relative abundance and composition of stinkbug species attacking soybean fields in Texas Materials and methods: Densities of stink bug species were monitored since 2011 in commercial soybean fields along the Upper Gulf Coast of Texas. Soybean fields were sampled at weekly intervals throughout the reproductive stages of soybeans. Study fields were located in Jefferson, Matagorda, and Colorado Counties. Sampling was done with a 15 inch diameter sweep net by taking 5 sets of 25 sweeps at random locations in each field on each date. Sampling began during the early reproductive stages of soybeans and continued until plant maturity. Stink bugs collected in each sample were identified and recorded in the field itself. Research results will be reported in subsequent Entomology Annual Reports after my dissertation is approved which will ensure my data is original when submitted for publication.

71


Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Test Beaumont, TX

2012

⇑ North PLOT PLAN

I

1 3 15 4 29 2

I 2 blank 16 blank 30 blank 3 blank 17 5 31 blank 4 blank 18 blank 32 6 5 1 19 1 33 3

II

II

6 blank 20 blank 34 5 7 blank 21 6 35 1

III 8 2 22 2 36 blank 9 4 23 4 37 3

III 10 blank 24 1 38 2

IV 11 5 25 3 39 6 12 6 26 blank 40 blank

IV 13 4 27 blank 41 blank 14 5 28 blank 42 blank

Plot plan not to scale. Plot size: 1 row, 5.25 ft row spacing, 20 ft long with buffer rows between plots, blank plots not used due to poor stands

Variety: US02-9010 Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers



(fl oz/A) 1 Prevathon 10 2 Prevathon 14 3 Prevathon 20 4 Belt SC 3 5 Belt SC 4 6 Untreated ---

Agronomic and Cultural Information Planting: Planted 5 rows of US02-9010 on Oct 12, 2011

Sugarcane Insecticide Screening Test

72


Plot size = 1 row, 5.25 ft row spacing, 20 ft long, buffer row between plots Herbicide: None applied; plots cultivated in April Fertilizer: 80 lb N/A (urea) applied to rows 1, 3 and 5 (plot rows)

on May 31 Treatments: Treatments applied Sep 27 with hand-held, CO2 pressurized spray rig with 2

nozzles (Conejet TSS tips with 50 mesh screens); spray swath 5 ft; boom held parallel to long axis of sugarcane plants; each plot row sprayed on the east and west sides (on each side of row); final spray volume 34 gpa.

Sampling: Stalk counts (plants/20 ft) on Nov 12 Removed 10 stalks from each plot on Nov 16 and Nov 19; weighed stalks

and counted number of bored internodes.

Discussion

Most stalk borers found in this experiment were Mexican rice borer. Stands were not significantly different in the experiment, although counts in the low rate of the Prevathon treatment were considerably lower than in the other treatments (Table 1). Treatments were applied very late in the season, in fact, too late for a meaningful experiment. However, number of bored internodes was very low, even in the untreated. Stalk borer pressure was too low and the treatments were applied too late for a meaningful evaluation. Table 1. Mean data for sugarcane insecticide screening study. Beaumont, TX. 2012.

Treatment Rate

(fl oz/A)

Stand (stalks/20 ft

of row) Wt. of 10

stalksa (lbs)

No. internodes/

stalk

No. bored internodes/

stalk Yield

(tons/A) Prevathon 10 48.0 13.2 20.6 1.1 13.2 Prevathon 14 64.8 14.2 20.3 1.4 19.2 Prevathon 20 62.5 13.3 20.1 1.2 17.3 Belt SC 3 57.0 14.1 21.6 1.7 16.8 Belt SC 4 59.0 15.0 21.4 0.8 18.9

Untreated --- 60.3 13.8 20.6 1.5 17.7 a Stalks “topped”; leaves and sheaths removed then stalks weighed (wet wt. minus leaves and sheaths) Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

73


DENSITY-DEPENDENT YIELD-LOSS BY THE MEXICAN RICE BORER IN SUGARCANE, ENERGYCANE, AND ENERGY SORGHUM

T.E. Reagan1, M.T. VanWeelden1, B.E. Wilson1, and J.M. Beuzelin2, and M.O. Way3

1Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Department of Entomology 2Louisiana State University AgCenter, Dean Lee Research Station

3Texas A&M AgriLIFE Research and Extension Center at Beaumont, Texas

The Mexican rice borer (MRB), Eoreuma loftini, is an invasive stem-borer, which poses a threat to crops grown for biofuel production in the Gulf Coast Region. An experiment was conducted in 2012 at the Texas A&M AgriLIFE Research and Extension Center in Beaumont, Texas to evaluate yield-loss by the MRB among varieties of sugarcane, energycane, and energy sorghum. Two sugarcane varieties (HoCP 04-838 and HoCP 85-845) and two energycane varieties (L 79-1002 and HoCP 02-113) were evaluated. Two high-biomass sorghum varieties (ES 5200 and ES 5140) and one sweet sorghum variety (M81E), which have potential for biofuel production, were also evaluated. The experiment was arranged using a split-plot design with four replications. Replications consisted of seven, 3-row plots (72 ft long, 1.6 m row spacing). Crop varieties were randomized to plot. Plots were further divided into four, 3-row subplots (18 ft long) and subjected to one of four MRB infestation levels: suppressed infestation (biweekly applications of tebufenozide), natural infestation, enhanced infestation, and highly-enhanced infestation. To achieve enhanced infestation levels, MRB egg masses (~30 eggs) were clipped to the basal leaves of each plant consistent with natural oviposition behavior. Ten stalks samples were collected from each subplot at the end of the season and the no. bored internodes and emergence holes were recorded. Stalks were weighed, crushed, and juice was analyzed to estimate sugar yield and theoretical ethanol output. Theoretical ethanol output was calculated using methods described by Vasilakoglou et al. (2011). Differences were detected in the percentage of bored internodes across variety, infestation level, and variety by infestation level (Table 1). Tebufenozide applications were successful in suppressing injury to < 1.0% bored internodes in all subplots subjected to control infestation levels. In subplots with highly-enhanced infestations, the percentage of bored internodes ranged from 9.1–26.8%, with varieties of energycane (L 79-1002 and HoCP 02-113) and sweet sorghum (M81E) expressing higher levels of resistance. In terms of yield, differences in wet weight per stalk were detected across varieties and infestation levels. Higher infestations were associated with a decrease in wet weight for all varieties. A negative impact in yield was also evident in terms of theoretical ethanol production, as decreases in ethanol productivity were observed with enhanced infestations. In highly-enhanced infestations, decreases in ethanol production ranged from 12–42% when compared to suppressed subplots. For both conventional and bioenergy varieties, maximum ethanol productivity was achieved in MRB-suppressed subplots.

Results from this study demonstrate that the MRB has potential to reduce yield in bioenergy crops. Stemborer IPM practices will need to be implemented into bioenergy cropping systems in order to reduce yield-losses under high borer pressure.

Density-Dependent Yield Loss by the Mexican Rice Borer

74


Table 1: Mexican rice borer injury and yield parameters for sugarcane, energycane, high-biomass sorghum, and sweet sorghum varieties with varying infestation levels (1=control, 2=natural, 3=enhanced, 4=highly-enhanced). Replicated field trial, Beaumont, TX, 2012.

REFERENCES Vasilakoglou, I., K. Dhima, N. Karagiannidis, and T. Gatsis. 2011. Sweet sorghum productivity for biofuels under increased soil salinity and reduced irrigation. Field Crops Res. 120(1): 38-46. This research is a portion of the Ph.D. program of Matthew VanWeelden in the Department of Entomology.

Theoretical Ethanol Output (L ha)

Variety

Energycane L 79-1002

1

Energycane HoCP 02-113

Sugarcane HoCP 04-838

Sugarcane HoCP 85-845

High-biomass Sorghum ES 5200

High-biomass Sorghum ES 5140

Sweet Sorghum M81E

Infestation Level Percent Bored Internodes

Weight (kg)/Stalk

2341

234123

234

0.04.0

13.09.40.02.76.0

412341

234123

41

0.290.350.340.27

26.80.0

13.212.019.4

5.826.822.10.0

23.510.9

10.30.1

18.128.421.90.7

26882.016485.018658.019931.023008.020456.017755.0

0.520.33

0.580.460.420.660.590.54

0.230.710.640.520.430.79

0.540.330.27

7725.97201.47978.541997.025758.031471.0

19815.015041.012765.012323.010478.09396.4

Type III Test of Fixed Effects

Variety

Infestation Level

Variety* Infestation Level

F = 3.29 P = 0.0230F = 31.31 P < 0.0001F = 2.71

P = 0.0019

30501.021538.014413.013413.014675.016920.0

0.220.140.17

0.260.230.230.28

11.47.29.1

0.5

F = 20.06 P < 0.0001

F = 28.86 P < 0.0001F = 18.59 P < 0.0001F = 1.49

P = 0.1251

F = 27.28 P < 0.0001 F = 1.41

P = 0.1579

11754.010835.09922.6

75


EVALUATION OF SUGARCANE, ENERGYCANE, AND SORGHUM CULTIVARS FOR RESISTANCE TO THE MEXICAN RICE BORER, BEAUMONT, TX, 2012

T.E. Reagan1, B.E. Wilson1, M.T. VanWeelden1, and J.M. Beuzelin2, W.H. White3, R. Richard3,

and M.O. Way4

1Department of Entomology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 2Louisiana State University AgCenter, Dean Lee Research Station

3USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit at Houma, Louisiana 4Texas A&M AgriLIFE Research and Extension Center at Beaumont, Texas

Host plant resistance is an important part of Mexican rice borer (MRB), Eoreuma loftini (Dyar), integrated pest management (IPM) due to limitations in chemical and biological control tactics. Resistant cultivars show low levels of MRB injury (percent bored internodes) and have potential to reduce area-wide populations. The effect of cultivars on area-wide populations is assessed by comparing the number of adult emergence holes. Research suggests resistant cultivars which impede stalk entry and prolong larval exposure on plant surfaces may enhance the efficacy insecticide applications. Additionally, host plant resistance has potential to reduce the input cost associated with alternative pest management strategies. Host plant resistance is of particular importance to bioenergy crops including energycane and high-biomass sorghum which are anticipated to be grown on marginal land with reduced input costs. Continued evaluation of stalkborer resistance is valuable to maintaining the success of stalkborer IPM. Resistance to the MRB was evaluated in cultivars of sugarcane, energycane, and sorghum. Commercial sugarcane varieties included were HoCP 85-845 (resistant), HoCP 05-838 (susceptible), and Ho 05-961 (intermediate). Seven experimental cultivars from the sugarcane variety development programs at LSU and USDA-Houma included were L 08-088, L 08-090, L 08-092, Ho 07-613, Ho 08-709, Ho 08-711, and Ho 08-717. Five sugarcane cultivars commonly grown in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas (CP 79-1210, CP 89-2143, TCP 87-3388, TCP 99-4474, TCP 99-4480) were also evaluated. Cultivars with potential for bioenergy production include six energycanes (L 79-1002, Ho 02-113, Ho 07-9014, Ho 07-9017, Ho 07-9027, and Ho 07-9076), two energy sorghums (ES 5200 and ES 5140), and one sweet sorghum (M81E). A five replication field study was conducted at the Texas A&M AgriLIFE Center at Beaumont, TX. Test plots were 1-row (12 ft) arranged in a randomized block design. Sugarcane and energycane cultivars were planted 26 October 2011; sorghum was planted 19 April 2012. On 22 October 2012, twelve randomly selected stalks were collected from each plot and the total no. internodes, the no. bored internodes, and the no. emergence holes were recorded. The sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis, is present in the Beaumont area, however, the stem borer population was >90% MRB in 2012. The percentage of bored internodes and no. emergence holes per stalk were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (Proc Glimmix, SAS Institute) with binomial and Gaussian distributions, respectively. Results show significant differences between cultivars (df = 23, 96; F = 14.46; P <0.0001) in percentage of bored internodes which ranged from 6.01 to 26.47% (Table 1). Differences were also detected in the no. emergence holes pre stalk (df = 23, 96; F = 3.05; P <0.0001) which ranged from 0.11 to 1.43 (Table 2). Consistent with results from previous evaluations, HoCP 85-845 was the least injured (% bored) of all cultivars tested. Experimental cultivar, L 08-090, was the most susceptible in terms of both injury and adult emergence. All of the energycane cultivars demonstrated

Sugarcane, Energycane and Sorghum Variety Test

76


moderate to high levels of resistance. The three sorghum varieties demonstrated a high degree of susceptibility.

Cultivar Crop % Bored Internodes

Cultivar Crop Emergence Holes/Stalk

L 08-090 SC 26.47 L 08-090 SC 1.43 CP 79-1210 SC 22.80 L 08-088 SC 1.01

M81E SS 20.54 CP 79-1210 SC 0.98 CP 89-2143 SC 19.29 ES 5200 ES 0.98 Ho 08-717 SC 18.30 HoCP 05-838 SC 0.95

HoCP 05-838 SC 17.24 CP 89-2143 SC 0.87 ES 5140 ES 16.81 M81E SS 0.82

Ho 05-961 SC 16.51 ES 5140 ES 0.77 L 08-088 SC 16.35 Ho 05-961 SC 0.72 ES 5200 ES 15.26 Ho 08-717 SC 0.70

TCP 99-4474 SC 14.81 TCP 99-4474 SC 0.67 L 08-092 SC 14.47 Ho 08-711 SC 0.63

Ho 08-709 SC 13.43 Ho 08-709 SC 0.55 Ho 07-613 SC 13.38 Ho 07-613 SC 0.55 Ho 08-711 SC 13.18 L 08-092 SC 0.47

Ho 07-9014 EC 12.91 TCP 99-4480 SC 0.46 TCP 87-3388 SC 12.23 Ho 07-9014 EC 0.32

L 79-1002 EC 11.23 TCP 87-3388 SC 0.28 Ho 07-9017 EC 11.10 Ho 02-113 EC 0.28

TCP 99-4480 SC 10.97 HoCP 85-845 SC 0.23 Ho 07-9027 EC 10.04 Ho 07-9027 EC 0.23 Ho 02-113 EC 9.55 L 79-1002 EC 0.20

Ho 07-9076 EC 9.03 Ho 07-9076 EC 0.14 HoCP 85-845 SC 6.01 Ho 07-9017 EC 0.11 *SC = Sugarcane, EC = Energycane, ES = Energy Sorghum, SS = Sweet Sorghum **Means which share a line are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05)

Table 1. Mexican Rice Borer Injury Beaumont, TX, 2012

Table 2. Mexican Rice Borer Moth Production Beaumont, TX, 2012

Documents

2012 ENTOMOLOGY RESEARCH REPORT · This report is a compilation of results of Entomology Project experiments conducted in 2012. Some 2012 results are not included because of confidentiality