1 / 67

Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in 2004: Product Performance Issues Linger

Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in 2004: Product Performance Issues Linger. Michael E. Gray and Kevin L. Steffey Department of Crop Sciences University of Illinois. Corn Rootworm Insecticide Efficacy Trials, 2004. Locations: DeKalb, Monmouth, and Urbana

xander-david
Download Presentation

Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in 2004: Product Performance Issues Linger

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in 2004: Product Performance Issues Linger Michael E. Gray and Kevin L. Steffey Department of Crop Sciences University of Illinois

  2. Corn Rootworm Insecticide Efficacy Trials, 2004 • Locations: DeKalb, Monmouth, and Urbana • Planting dates: April 28, 27, and 19, respectively • Hybrid: Golden Harvest (H-8588 RW) and isoline (Golden Harvest H-8799) • Root evaluations: July 21, July 15, and July 10 • Plots planted within a trap crop system (late-planted corn interplanted with pumpkins) • Liquids applied in 6-inch bands over rows, 5 gpa, 47 psi • Spring tines were mounted behind firming wheels of planter • Planting population – 30,000 seeds per acre • Golden Harvest (H-8588 RW) treated with Poncho 250 • 20 roots per treatment were evaluated for larval injury

  3. Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004 Planting date – April 19 Rainfall: May – 4.4”, June – 3.8”, July – 5.7”, Aug. – 3.6” Average Root Rating July 10, 2004

  4. Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004 Average % Consistency 0

  5. Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004 Planting date – April 19 Rainfall: May – 4.4”, June – 3.8”, July – 5.7”, Aug. – 3.6” Average % Lodging Sept. 28, 2004

  6. Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004 Yield – Bushels per Acre

  7. YieldGard RW, DeKalb, September 3, 2004

  8. Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004 Planting date – April 28 Rainfall: May – 9.5”, June – 3.1”, July – 2.1”, Aug. – 3.3” Average Root Rating July 21, 2004

  9. Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004 Average % Consistency 0 0 0

  10. Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004 Rainfall: May – 9.5”, June – 3.1”, July – 2.1”, Aug. – 3.3” Planting date – April 28 Average % Lodging

  11. Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004 Yield – Bushels per Acre

  12. Conclusions … • The insecticidal seed treatments (Poncho 1250 and Cruiser) did not provide adequate root protection in our insecticide efficacy trials (DeKalb, Monmouth, Urbana) in 2004. • Under heavy pressure, Poncho 1250 and Cruiser may be poor product choices for a refuge when using a transgenic insecticidal hybrid for corn rootworm control. • The granular soil insecticides (exception Empower2) generally provided acceptable levels of root protection in our Illinois’ trials. • The YieldGard Rootworm hybrid provided less than satisfactory root protection in the Urbana experiment.

  13. University of Illinois Web sites: http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin

  14. 2004 Corn Rootworm Efficacy Results For Indiana Larry Bledsoe Purdue University

  15. Root Rating Performance1, 2004 1 Root damage rating scale: 1=None or minor feeding scars, 6=severe injury. 3.0 or greater=plants likely predisposed to a significant loss. 2 The “Best Rating” is the least amount of rootworm damage for any product in the plot.

  16. Root Rating Performance1, 2004 1 Root damage rating scale: 1=None or minor feeding scars, 6=severe injury. 3.0 or greater=plants likely predisposed to a significant loss. 2 The “Best Rating” is the least amount of rootworm damage for any product in the plot.

  17. Root Rating Performance1,2, 2004 1 Root damage rating scale: 1=None or minor feeding scars, 6=severe injury. 3.0 or greater=plants likely predisposed to a significant loss. 2 All products applied in T-band except for Fortress 2.5G which was placed in-furrow. 3 The “Best Rating” is the least amount of rootworm damage for any product in the plot.

  18. Root Rating Performance1, 2004 1 Root damage rating scale: 1=None or minor feeding scars, 6=severe injury. 3.0 or greater=plants likely predisposed to a significant loss. 2 The “Best Rating” is the least amount of rootworm damage for any product in the plot.

  19. Soil Insecticide Consistency*1999 - 2003 *% of root masses where damage rating was less than 3.0 when the untreated equaled or exceeded 3.0.

  20. Corn Rootworm ControlEfficacy TrialsIowa Dr. Jon Tollefson Professor of Entomology Iowa State University

  21. Iowa 16 Root- Rating Index • No or minor feeding damage • Feeding injury evident, but no roots eaten back to within 1½ in. of plant • Several roots pruned to within 1½ in. of plant, but never equivalent of entire node • One node eaten back to with 1½ in. of plant • Two nodes eaten • Three nodes eaten

  22. Node-Injury Scale X . YY Percentage of a node eaten Number of full nodes eaten

  23. Node-Injury Scale 0.00 No feeding damage 1.00 One node of roots, or equivalent of a node, eaten back to within 2” of stalk 2.00 Two nodes eaten 3.00 Three or more nodes eaten Damage between complete nodes is scored as percent: 0.25 = ¼ node eaten 1.50 = 1½ nodes eaten

  24. Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004

  25. Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004

  26. Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004

  27. Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004

  28. Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004

  29. Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004

  30. Rootworm Efficacy, Sutherland, 2004

  31. 2-Year Summary of Rootworm Control, IA. 2003-2004

  32. Monsanto Genetically Engineered Corn, Ames, IA. 2004.

  33. Monsanto Genetically Engineered Corn, Ames, IA. 2004.

  34. Corn Rootworm Management Trials in Minnesota, 2003-4 Ken Ostlie Department of Entomology - University of Minnesota ostli001@umn.edu (612) 624-7436 office (612) 750-0993 cell

  35. Basic Principles: Managing Insects Farmers are engaged in risk management …balancing costs of product vs probability and magnitude of adverse outcomes. Insect management traits only protect yield potential All features have logistical as well as direct economic costs. Predicting risk requires an investment in field-specific information (=scouting)… May not be feasible, practical or cost effective.

  36. Prophylactic (Insurance) Treatments Applied before pests appears Examples: • Transgenic crops (Bt rootworm) • Seed-applied insecticides (seed treatments) • Soil-applied insecticides (if decision not based on scouting) When to use an insurance treatment? • If risk (probability, severity) of problem is high • If efficacy is better, or rescue options are lacking • If treatments are difficult to time • If scouting resources are limited

  37. What are the Downsides of Insurance Treatments? • Unnecessary costs • Loss of flexibility and reactivity • Reduces emphasis on scouting and field-specific farming • May sacrifice performance for convenience • Resistance development

  38. Dilemma for Farmers Making management decisions for preventative treatments based on limited data! Key Insurance Questions: • How much do you need? • How much can you afford?

  39. Corn Rootworm Injury

  40. Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides Ostlie – Rosemount, 2003 Transgenic Liquids Granules Seed Trt.

  41. Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003 Transgenic Liquids Granules Seed Trt.

  42. Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003 Transgenic Liquids Granules Seed Trt.

  43. Yield Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003 Transgenic Liquids Granules Seed Trt.

  44. Synopsis of Corn Rootworm Management Studies: 2003-4 • Bt CRW consistently offers root protection better than or equal to granular insecticides. Yields are slightly higher than comparable isolines protected by soil insecticides. Further study of yield effects warranted. CRW management in refuge acres continues to be a dilemma. Yield potential of Bt CRW hybrids currently a limit to adoption. • Granular soil insecticides offer the most consistent root protection among the insecticide treatments. The performance of band vs infurrow application varies with moisture; T-bands perform worse under drought conditions. ½ and ¾ rates of Aztec, Counter and Force work as well as full rates. Fortress performs well at the higher rate labeled by AMVAC.

  45. Synopsis of Corn Rootworm Management Studies: 2003-4 • Liquid performance varies with soil moisture from planting through pupation. Under droughty conditions performance deteriorates. • Seed treatments consistently protect only ½ - ¾ node compared to unprotected roots. Under heavy pressure, root and lodging protection were unacceptable. Yield response occasionally more than expected. Broad scale trials need to examine stand and early-season vigor contributions to yield. Importance of scouting to determine where to use seed treatments is critical.

  46. What Role does Early-Season Vigor and Stand Protection Play in Yield Response? Conventional Soil Insecticide NeoNicotinoid Seed Treatment

  47. What are Lodging and Yield Consequences of Seed Treatments and Transgenics? • Basic design: Factorial of 3 CRW management options (None, Force 3G, Bt CRW) with 3 rates of Poncho (None, 250 and 1250). Missing Bt CRW without Poncho. • Monitored stand, root injury, lodging and yield • Replicated in studies across the Midwest.

  48. Stand Response to Corn Rootworm ProtectionMinnesota – 2004

More Related