Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in 2004: Product Performance Issues Linger Michael...
-
Upload
cameron-palmer -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
3
Transcript of Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in 2004: Product Performance Issues Linger Michael...
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 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
Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004
2.9
3.43.01
4.7 4.53
4.05
3.15
5.8
4.15
2.65
3.55
2.952.65
2.92.45
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ave
rage
Roo
t R
atin
g
Planting date – April 19Rainfall: May – 4.4”, June – 3.8”, July – 5.7”, Aug. – 3.6”
July 10, 2004
Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004
80
55
65
5 510
60
15
90
45
80
90
75
85
1112131415161718191
Azt
ec2.
1(B
)A
ztec
4.6
7(B
)A
ztec
4.67
(F)
Em
pow
er2(
B)
Em
pow
er2(
F)Fo
rce3
G(B
)Fo
rtre
ss2.
5G(F
)Fo
rtre
ss5G
(F)
Lor
sban
15G
(B)
Cap
ture
2EC
(B)
Lor
sban
4E(B
)C
ruis
erPo
ncho
1250
YG
RW
Che
ck
Ave
rage
% C
onsi
sten
cy
0
Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004
6
5458
16
66
100
51
4
32
8
1112131415161718191
Azt
ec2.
1(B)
Azt
ec 4
.67(
B)A
ztec
4.67
(F)
Empo
wer
2(B)
Empo
wer
2(F)
Forc
e3G
(B)
Fort
ress
2.5G
(F)
Fort
ress
5G(F
)Lo
rsba
n15G
(B)
Cap
ture
2EC
(B)
Lors
ban4
E(B)
Cru
iser
Ponc
ho12
50Y
GR
WC
heck
Ave
rage
% L
odgi
ng
Planting date – April 19Rainfall: May – 4.4”, June – 3.8”, July – 5.7”, Aug. – 3.6”
Sept. 28, 2004
Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004
202
177
194
171157
180
202
92
169
197
177
197 196204
197
75
95
115
135
155
175
195
215
Azt
ec2.
1(B
)A
ztec
4.6
7(B
)A
ztec
4.67
(F)
Em
pow
er2(
B)
Em
pow
er2(
F)Fo
rce3
G(B
)Fo
rtre
ss2.
5G(F
)Fo
rtre
ss5G
(F)
Lor
sban
15G
(B)
Cap
ture
2EC
(B)
Lor
sban
4E(B
)C
ruis
erPo
ncho
1250
YG
RW
Che
ck
Yie
ld –
Bu
shel
s p
er A
cre
YieldGard RW, DeKalb, September 3, 2004
Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004
2.752.95 3.05
4.7
4.13 3.95
2.35
55.05
3.15
3.9
2.75
3.32.95
2.65
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ave
rage
Roo
t R
atin
g
Planting date – April 28Rainfall: May – 9.5”, June – 3.1”, July – 2.1”,
Aug. – 3.3”
July 21, 2004
Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004
100
75
85
1520
100
10
80
20
95
55
80
90
1112131415161718191
Ave
rage
% C
onsi
sten
cy
000
Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004
20
33
46
10093
83
56
96100
23
73
4
29
4
1112131415161718191
Azt
ec2.
1(B)
Azt
ec 4
.67(
B)A
ztec
4.67
(F)
Empo
wer
2(B)
Empo
wer
2(F)
Forc
e3G
(B)
Fort
ress
2.5G
(F)
Fort
ress
5G(F
)Lo
rsba
n15G
(B)
Cap
ture
2EC
(B)
Lors
ban4
E(B)
Cru
iser
Ponc
ho12
50Y
GR
WC
heck
Ave
rage
% L
odgi
ng
Planting date – April 28
Rainfall: May – 9.5”, June – 3.1”, July – 2.1”, Aug. – 3.3”
Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004
165 168161
134 133
164169
135138
169
155
169 171165
181
75
95
115
135
155
175
Azt
ec2.
1(B
)A
ztec
4.6
7(B
)A
ztec
4.67
(F)
Em
pow
er2(
B)
Em
pow
er2(
F)Fo
rce3
G(B
)Fo
rtre
ss2.
5G(F
)Fo
rtre
ss5G
(F)
Lor
sban
15G
(B)
Cap
ture
2EC
(B)
Lor
sban
4E(B
)C
ruis
erPo
ncho
1250
YG
RW
Che
ck
Yie
ld –
Bu
shel
s p
er A
cre
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.
University of Illinois Web sites:
http://www.ipm.uiuc.eduhttp://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin
2004 Corn Rootworm Efficacy Results For Indiana
Larry BledsoePurdue University
Root Rating Performance1, 2004Seed-Applied
LocationBest
Rating2
Cruiser
1.125
Poncho
1250Check
Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.95 1.95 2.55
Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 5.50 3.70 5.90
Columbia City, IN 1.60 ygr 1.95 2.00 3.60
Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 5.05 3.95 5.00
Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 5.10 4.10 5.75
Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 4.15 4.05 5.80
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.
Root Rating Performance1, 2004Liquid
LocationBest
Rating2
Capture
TB
Regent
IF
Lorsban
4ECheck
Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.85 1.70 1.80 2.55
Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 3.65 3.70 3.25 5.90
Columbia City, IN 1.60 ygr 1.75 2.05 2.15 3.60
Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 3.90 3.15 5.00
Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 3.45 3.00 5.75
Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 3.55 2.65 5.80
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.
Root Rating Performance1,2, 2004Granular
LocationBest
Rating3
Aztec
2.1G
Counter
CREmpower
Force
3G
Fortress
2.5G
Lorsban
15GCheck
Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.75 1.80 1.95 1.65 1.90 1.85 2.55
Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 2.60 2.50 4.45 2.55 2.20 3.55 5.90
Columbia City, IN
1.60 ygr 1.70 2.30 2.60 1.95 2.45 2.30 3.60
Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 2.75 4.70 2.65 2.75 3.30 5.00
Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 3.25 3.35 2.55 2.95 5.75
Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 2.90 4.70 2.45 2.95 2.65 5.80
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.
Root Rating Performance1, 2004Transgenic Granular
LocationBest
Rating2
YieldGard
RW
Aztec
2.1G
Force
3GCheck
Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.50 1.75 1.65 2.55
Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 3.10 2.60 2.55 5.90
Columbia City, IN 1.60 ygr 1.60 1.70 1.95 3.60
Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 2.35 2.75 2.65 5.00
Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 1.80 3.25 3.35 5.75
Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 3.15 2.90 2.45 5.80
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.
Soil Insecticide Consistency*1999 - 2003
Class Organophosphates Pyrethroids FiprolesNico-
tinoids
Fortress 5G
Lorsban 15G
Aztec 2.1G
Counter CR
Capture 2E
Force 3G
Regent 4SC
Poncho 1250
Band Applic.
Root rating
% consistency
2.2
78
2.3
67
2.2
82
1.9
83
2.2
61
2.1
78
n/a n/a
Infurrow
Root rating
% consistency
2.1
71
2.2
72
2.0
87
1.8
91
2.2
66
2.1
75
2.5
57
n/a
Seed Applied
Root rating
% consistency
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9
87
*% of root masses where damage rating was less than 3.0 when the untreated equaled or exceeded 3.0.
Corn Rootworm ControlEfficacy Trials
Iowa
Dr. Jon Tollefson
Professor of Entomology
Iowa State University
Iowa 16 Root- Rating Index
1. No or minor feeding damage
2. Feeding injury evident, but no roots eaten back to within 1½ in. of plant
3. Several roots pruned to within 1½ in. of plant, but never equivalent of entire node
4. One node eaten back to with 1½ in. of plant
5. Two nodes eaten
6. Three nodes eaten
Node-Injury Scale
X . YY
Percentage of a node eaten
Number of full nodes eaten
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
Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Consistency
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 100 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.16 ab 100 a
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 0.18 ab 98 a
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.18 ab 98 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.22 ab 88 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.23 ab 93 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.24 ab 85 ab
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.26 ab 90 ab
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.26 ab 85 ab
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 0.28 ab 78 ab
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.33 bc 73 ab
Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.38 bcd 65 abc
Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.39 bcd 58 bcd
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.58 cde 20 cde
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.60 cde 32 cde
Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.64 de 30 cde
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.72 e 23 de
Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 0.98 f 10 e
Check --- --- 1.17 f 0 e
Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury % Lodging
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 3 ab
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.16 ab 0 a
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 0.18 ab 0 a
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.18 ab 0 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.22 ab 0 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.23 ab 0 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.24 ab 0 ab
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.26 ab 1 ab
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.26 ab 0 a
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 0.28 ab 0 a
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.33 bc 3 ab
Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.38 bcd 1 a
Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.39 bcd 2 ab
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.58 cde 6 ab
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.60 cde 9 ab
Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.64 de 12 ab
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.72 e 17 b
Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 0.98 f 36 c
Check --- --- 1.17 f 39 c
Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Bushels/acre
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 175 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.16 ab 185 a
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 0.18 ab 175 a
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.18 ab 184 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.22 ab 175 a
Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.23 ab 170 abc
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.24 ab 185 a
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.26 ab 173 ab
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.26 ab 170 abc
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 0.28 ab 187 a
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.33 bc 174 ab
Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.38 bcd 171 abc
Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.39 bcd 180 ab
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.58 cde 178 a
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.60 cde 176 a
Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.64 de 170 abc
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.72 e 171 abc
Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 0.98 f 154 bc
Check --- --- 1.17 f 151 c
Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Consistency
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 100 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.23 ab 83 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.27 ab 70 abc
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.29 ab 70 abc
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.34 ab 70 abc
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.41 ab 50 abcd
Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.43 ab 47 abcd
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.44 ab 50 abcd
Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.45 ab 43 abcd
Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.57 ab 43 abcd
Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.61 bc 53 abcd
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.72 abc 40 abc
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.73 abc 27 bcd
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.77 abc 20 cd
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.80 bc 47 bcd
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 1.38 cd 7 d
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 1.54 d 8 d
Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 1.66 d 10 d
Check --- --- 1.68 d 3 d
Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury % Lodging
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 0 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.23 ab 0 a
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.27 ab 0 a
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.29 ab 0 a
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.34 ab 0 a
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.41 ab 0 a
Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.43 ab 0 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.44 ab 0 a
Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.45 ab 0 a
Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.57 ab 0 a
Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.61 bc 7 ab
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.72 abc 1 a
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.73 abc 0 a
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.77 abc 6 ab
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.80 bc 4 a
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 1.38 cd 6 ab
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 1.54 d 11 ab
Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 1.66 d 18 bc
Check --- --- 1.68 d 29 c
Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Bushels/acre
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 217 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.23 ab 199 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.27 ab 202 ab
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.29 ab 193 ab
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.34 ab 209 ab
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.41 ab 203 ab
Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.43 ab 205 ab
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.44 ab 190 ab
Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.45 ab 205 ab
Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.57 ab 205 ab
Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.61 bc 202 ab
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.72 abc 191 ab
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.73 abc 206 ab
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.77 abc 209 ab
Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.80 bc 190 ab
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 1.38 cd 201 ab
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 1.54 d 182 b
Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 1.66 d 189 ab
Check --- --- 1.68 d 186 ab
Rootworm Efficacy, Sutherland, 2004
Product Rate Placement Injury Consistency
YieldGard RW --- GM 0.00 a 100 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.02 ab 100 a
Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 0.02 ab 100 a
Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.02 ab 100 a
Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.02 ab 100 a
Force 3G 0.12 F 0.03 ab 100 a
Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.04 ab 100 a
Aztec 2.1G 0.14 T 0.05 ab 100 a
Capture 2EC 0.074 TB 0.06 ab 100 a
Lorsban 4E 1.2 TB 0.07 ab 100 a
Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 0.09 ab 100 a
Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.11 ab 100 a
Cruiser 5FS 0.092 ST 0.38 ab 77 ab
Poncho 600FS 0.25 mg ST 0.42 ab 60 ab
Cruiser 5FS 0.25 mg ST 0.45 ab 70 ab
Check --- --- 1.68 d 3 d
2-Year Summary of Rootworm Control, IA. 2003-2004Product Placement Injury Consistency Lodging
Aztec 2.1G F 0.24 ab 82 ab 0 a
Aztec 2.1G TB 0.33 b 70 b 0 a
Aztec 4.67G F-sb 0.29 ab 74b 1 a
Aztec 4.67G TB-sb 0.27 ab 81 ab 0 a
Capture 2EC TB 0.72 d 42 de 2 a
Cruiser ST 1.34 e 10 fg 20 b
Force 3G F 0.26 ab 82 ab 0 a
Force 3G TB 0.26 ab 79 b 0 a
Fortress 2.5G F 0.38 bc 71b 1 a
Fortress 5G F-sb 0.61 cd 63 bc 2 a
Lorsban 15G TB 0.70 d 51cd 2 a
Poncho 1250 ST 0.84 d 25 ef 3 a
YieldGard RW GM 0.03 a 98 a 1 a
Check --- 1.69 f 2 g 26 c
Monsanto Genetically Engineered Corn, Ames, IA. 2004.
Product
Place-
ment
Node
InjuryConsis-tency
%
Lodging
YieldGard
RW--- 0.02 a 100 a 0 a
Force
3GTB 0.09 a 95 a 10 a
Poncho
1250ST 1.80 b 5 b 58 b
YieldGard
CB--- 1.82 b 0 b 23 b
CHECK --- 2.12 b 0 b 38 b
Monsanto Genetically Engineered Corn, Ames, IA. 2004.
Product
Place-
ment
1st Gen ECB
rating
2nd Gen ECB
# Tunnelscm
Tunnels
YieldGard
RW--- 2.73 b 1.6 b 6.0 b
Force
3GTB 2.33 b 1.7 b 6.4 b
Poncho
1250ST 2.53 b 1.8 b 6.6 b
YieldGard
CB--- 0.03 a 0.0 a 0.0 a
CHECK --- 1.80 b 1.2 b 4.1 ab
Ostlie © 2005
Corn Rootworm Management Trials in Minnesota, 2003-4
Ken OstlieDepartment of Entomology - University of
(612) 624-7436 office (612) 750-0993 cell
Ostlie © 2005
Basic Principles: Managing Insects
1. Farmers are engaged in risk management …balancing costs of product vs probability and magnitude of adverse outcomes.
2. Insect management traits only protect yield potential
3. All features have logistical as well as direct economic costs.
4. Predicting risk requires an investment in field-specific information (=scouting)…
5. May not be feasible, practical or cost effective.
Ostlie © 2005
Prophylactic (Insurance) Treatments
Applied before pests appearsExamples:
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
Ostlie © 2005
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
Ostlie © 2005
Dilemma for FarmersMaking management decisions for preventative treatments based on limited data!Key Insurance Questions: How much do you need? How much can you afford?
Ostlie © 2005
Corn Rootworm Injury
Ostlie © 2005
Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides
Ostlie – Rosemount, 2003
3.75
2.202.40 2.40
2.63 2.582.88 3.00
3.35 3.30 3.202.90
3.202.95
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Roo
t In
jury
Rat
ing
( 1
- 6
scal
e)
Seed Trt.GranulesLiquidsTransgenic
Ostlie © 2005
Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides
Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003
4.44
2.23 2.35 2.42.75 2.75 2.78
3.48
2.93 3.053.38
3.93 3.854.18
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Roo
t In
jury
Rat
ing
( 1
- 6
scal
e)
Seed Trt.GranulesLiquidsTransgenic
Ostlie © 2005
Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides
Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003
4.44
2.23 2.35 2.42.75 2.75 2.78
3.48
2.93 3.053.38
3.93 3.854.18
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Roo
t In
jury
Rat
ing
( 1
- 6
scal
e)
Seed Trt.GranulesLiquidsTransgenic
Ostlie © 2005
Yield Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides
Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003
97.3
111.8
104.4101.7
103.9 105.2107.4
105.2
99.4
95.3
105.5
107104.8
108.3
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
Roo
t In
jury
Rat
ing
( 1
- 6
scal
e)
Seed Trt.GranulesLiquidsTransgenic
Ostlie © 2005
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.
Ostlie © 2005
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.
Ostlie © 2005
What Role does Early-Season Vigor and Stand Protection Play in Yield Response?
NeoNicotinoid Seed Treatment
ConventionalSoil Insecticide
Ostlie © 2005
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.
Ostlie © 2005
Stand Response to Corn Rootworm Protection
Minnesota – 2004
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Surv
ivin
g S
tand (10
00s/
A) .
Rosemount
Lamberton
p<0.0001 LSD=3.8p=0.8088 LSD=4.9
Ostlie © 2005
Corn Rootworm Protection: IA Nodal Injury scale, 0-3
Minnesota - 2003
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Nodes<2"
.
Rosemount
Lamberton
p<0.0001 LSD=0.31p=0.0405 LSD=0.11
Ostlie © 2005
Lodging Response to Corn Rootworm Protection
Minnesota - 2004
05
1015202530354045
% P
lants
Lodged .
Rosemount
Lamberton
p=0.0001 LSD=??p=0.0002 LSD=7.1
Ostlie © 2005
Yield Response to Corn Rootworm Protection
Minnesota - 2004
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
Yie
ld (bu/A
)
Rosemount
Lambertonp<0.0001 LSD=17.4p=0.3055 LSD=8.9
Ostlie © 2005
Root and stand protection provided by CRW management options are well-understood.
The big questions relate to the value of insurance treatments.
What’s the frequency of payoffs vs costs? Is there anything($$) returned to your wallet?
Can scouting be used to ensure value?
Rootworm Trial ResultsRootworm Trial Results
Lance J. MeinkeLance J. Meinke
University of Nebraska-LincolnUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln
[email protected]@unl.edu
Trial Site:Trial Site:
University of Nebraska University of Nebraska Agricultural Research and Agricultural Research and
Development Center, Mead, NEDevelopment Center, Mead, NE
2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment
2.32 f2.32 f
0.24 abc0.24 abc
0.29 abc0.29 abc
0.23 abc0.23 abc
0.18 abc0.18 abc
0.17 abc0.17 abc
0.15 ab0.15 ab
0.12 ab0.12 ab
0.05 a0.05 a
RR 0-3RR 0-3
0.70.7Counter 15G (TB)Counter 15G (TB)
70.270.2UntreatedUntreated
2.02.0Force 3G (TB)Force 3G (TB)
2.52.5Aztec 2.1G (TB)Aztec 2.1G (TB)
2.32.3Fortress 2.5G (I)Fortress 2.5G (I)
0.00.0Regent 4 SC (MT)Regent 4 SC (MT)
1.21.2Aztec 3.78G (TB)Aztec 3.78G (TB)
0.70.7Aztec 2.1 (Aztec 2.1 (½½ rate, TB) rate, TB) + Poncho 1250 (ST)+ Poncho 1250 (ST)
0.00.0YieldGard Rootworm + YieldGard Rootworm + Poncho 250Poncho 250
Percentage LodgedPercentage LodgedInsecticideInsecticide
2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment
2.32 f2.32 f
1.24 e1.24 e
1.18 e1.18 e
1.01 de1.01 de
0.67 cd0.67 cd
0.57 bcd0.57 bcd
0.52 abcd0.52 abcd
0.52 abcd0.52 abcd
0.51 abcd0.51 abcd
0.36 abc0.36 abc
RR 0-3RR 0-3
70.270.2UntreatedUntreated
38.738.7Thimet 20G (TB)Thimet 20G (TB)
12.612.6Capture 2EC (MT)Capture 2EC (MT)
14.814.8Cruiser 5 FS (ST)Cruiser 5 FS (ST)
2.62.6Capture 2EC (TB)Capture 2EC (TB)
0.70.7Poncho 1250 (ST)Poncho 1250 (ST)
3.83.8Lorsban 15G (TB)Lorsban 15G (TB)
7.67.6Force 3G (TB, SB)Force 3G (TB, SB)
1.81.8Lorsban 4E (TB)Lorsban 4E (TB)
5.45.4Aztec 4.67G (SB)Aztec 4.67G (SB)
Percentage LodgedPercentage LodgedInsecticideInsecticide
2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment
TreatmentTreatment RR 0-3 ScaleRR 0-3 ScalePercentage Percentage
LodgingLodging
MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho 250MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho 250 0.08 0.08 aa 0.00.0
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SCIsoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SC 0.62 0.62 abab 1.91.9
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3GIsoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3G 0.85 0.85 abab 2.62.6
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 1250Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 1250 1.16 1.16 bcbc 5.15.1
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250 1.75 1.75 cdcd 24.524.5
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FSIsoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FS 2.06 2.06 dede 29.429.4
Isoline DKC 60-15Isoline DKC 60-15 2.83 2.83 ee 93.593.5
2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment
TreatmentTreatment RR 0-3 RR 0-3 ScaleScale
Bulk Yield / Bulk Yield / Acre Acre
(bushels)(bushels)
MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho 250250
0.08 0.08 aa 214.0 a214.0 a
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SCIsoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SC 0.62 0.62 abab 209.7 a209.7 a
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3GIsoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3G 0.85 0.85 abab 208.4 a208.4 a
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 12501250
1.16 1.16 bcbc 204.3 a204.3 a
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250 1.75 1.75 cdcd 200.7 a200.7 a
Isoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FSIsoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FS 2.06 2.06 dede 190.9 a190.9 a
Isoline DKC 60-15Isoline DKC 60-15 2.83 2.83 ee 118.0 b118.0 b
Rootworm control efficacyRootworm control efficacy
Robert Wright ([email protected])
University of Nebraska
South Central Ag Lab, Clay Center
2003, Clay Center2003, Clay Center
Product Placement Root injury rating (0-3)
Aztec 2.1G TB 0.62 a
Cruiser 5FS ST 1.14 ab
Poncho 1250
ST 1.30 b
Untreated - 2.53 c
2003, Clay Center2003, Clay Center
Product Placement Yield (bu/acre)
Aztec 2.1G TB 212.2 a
Cruiser 5FS ST 210.3 a
Poncho 1250
ST 214.8 a
Untreated - 171.4 b
2003, Clay Center2003, Clay Center
Hybrid Insecticide Root injury rating (0-3)
YGRW
(DKC60-12)
No 0.15 a
Isoline
(DKC60-15)
Aztec 2.1G
TB
0.35 ab
Isoline No 0.44 b
2003, Clay Center2003, Clay Center
Hybrid Insecticide Yield (bu/acre)
YG RW
(DKC60-12)
No 237.7 a
Isoline
(DKC60-15)
Aztec 2.1G
TB
234.2 ab
Isoline No 229.89 b
2000-2003 Clay Center Summary2000-2003 Clay Center Summary
Product Rate RR (1-6)
Force 3G TB 4 oz/1000 row-ft 3.31 a
Aztec 2.1G TB 6.7 oz/1000 row-ft 3.34 a
Counter 20CR TB
6 oz/1000 row-ft 3.60 ab
Regent 4SC MT 0.24 fl oz/1000 row-ft 3.91 b
Untreated - 5.90 c
Clay Center, 2000-2004Clay Center, 2000-2004
Product Rate RR (1-6)
Force 3G TB 4 oz/1000 row-ft
3.07 a
Aztec 2.1G TB
6.7 oz/1000 row-ft
3.09 a
Capture 2EC MT
0.3 fl oz/1000 row-ft
4.04 b
Untreated - 4.91 c
UNL Web sitesUNL Web sites• http://entomology.unl.edu/fldcrops/trials.htm• http://entomology.unl.edu/scal• http://nerec.unl.edu/ipm/entomology/entomolog
y.htm