S1055: Biology, impact, and management of soybean insect pests in soybean production systems.
(Multistate Research Project)
S1055: Biology, impact, and management of soybean insect pests in soybean production systems.
Duration: 02/01/2013 to 09/30/2018
Statement of Issues and Justification
Statement of Issue(s) and Justification: Soybean production is increasing to meet the world demand for protein amid dwindling food supplies. Since 2009, the US has produced over 3 billion bushels of soybeans, generating $32 billion in production value (NASS). However, various native and invasive insect pests whose distributions are rapidly expanding and adapting to management practices threaten soybean yield and quality. In the Mid-South, up to 70% of acreage is treated for stink bugs, corn earworm, and other lepidopteran defoliators each year, with the estimated value of yield loss plus management costs of $51.76 per acre. In the Midwest, untreated economic soybean aphid infestations can further reduce production value by 3%, causing an estimated annual loss of $2.4 billion (Tilmon et al. 2011). In the short-term, loss of current highly effective management tactics due to expanding pest complexes is increasing producer costs. In the long-term, the establishment of invasive insect pests will continue to impact soybean ecosystems, including interactions with native pests and the biological control offered by various natural enemies. To address these concerns, coordinated research and Extension delivery are necessary to rapidly understand native and invasive pest biology, develop best management practices, and deliver recommendations to soybean producers.
Throughout the history of SDC347, this multi-state project has had an excellent record of rapidly addressing the needs of stakeholders. To further underline our positive relationships with stakeholders, participants are supported by state, regional and national soybean commodity groups as well as industry to develop soybean integrated pest management (IPM) insect research and Extension activities. Native and historical pests of soybean continue to present challenges to producers. Invasive pest problems, such as soybean aphid (a major focus of the group over the last decade), have been and will continue to be effectively addressed by this regional project. Major examples of changing soybean pest issues since the last project renewal include the emergence of new, invasive new Heteropterans (aphids, stink bugs, and Plataspids) and the geographical spread of established species. Coleopterans (Musser et al. 2012) and lepidopterans are developing insecticide resistance and expanding their range of distribution. Indeed, corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) remained the most important soybean insect pest in Mississippi (Musser et al. 2011a). Specifically, recently introduced pests, such as brown marmorated stink bug, kudzu bug, and redbanded stink bug, pose new challenges to the North American soybean industry (Suiter et al. 2010; Temple et al. 2011; Hebert 2011; Zhang 2012). These pests occur over multiple states presently, and all are expanding their ranges each year. Therefore, coordinated, area-wide research approaches are necessary to understand their biology, develop and deliver management recommendations, and track their distribution to minimize impact on soybean production. This approach has the ancillary benefit of avoiding overlapping research between regions. Specific research objectives include a need to develop and optimize reliable sampling methods, action thresholds, and cost-effective management strategies to maximize sustainable soybean production (e.g. Musser et al 2011b). Without research-based management recommendations, millions of dollars can be lost as a result of decreased yields or seed quality, improper deployment of control recommendations, and/or increased insecticide resistance. SDC347 participants have the skills, facilities and knowledge to develop and implement effective and user-friendly IPM programs for these pests and future insect pest problems. Moreover, they have a recent history of doing this type of work, and details of these achievements follow. Furthermore, as these soybean pests spread to new areas, additional participants benefit from the research performed by other regions.
Along with the changing pest complexes, soybean producers are also faced with managing pests with new tools and technologies. Increases in commodity prices and the high-value and demand for food grade and specialty soybeans (i.e., low-linolenic acid) have shifted growers attitudes from IPM to an insurance-based strategy. This shift of management tactics often results in the use of prophylactic treatments to prevent pest damage, usually without any quantification of pest numbers, or even the species present. The majority of soybean seed planted in North America is now treated with insecticides and/or fungicides, with 100% coverage (as is currently the case in corn) anticipated within the next several years at the current rates of implementation by the seed companies. Unnecessary insecticide use has the potential for negative effects on several levels, not the least of which is enhancing the potential for resistance. For example, the use of insecticidal seed treatments has dramatically increased, despite documented (by several members of SDC347) ineffectiveness in controlling late-season pest problems such as soybean aphid (Hodsgon et al. 2012). The insecticides are simply not present in foliage late in season when aphids colonize fields. The insecticides used are highly persistent and toxic to a range of beneficial organisms, with those effects remaining largely undefined at present. Furthermore, in the Southeast, insecticidal seed treatments are increasing in use and are generally targeted toward threecornered alfalfa hopper, bean leaf beetle and thrips. In North Carolina and Virginia insecticidal seed treatments are very efficacious for thrips, the most commonly found seedling pest of soybeans. However, a single yield loss due to thrips has never been recorded (Reisig et al. 2012). Newer methods of pest control are being developed and implemented, including host-plant resistance and transgenic (Bacillus thuringiensis-based) soybean. Varieties with soybean aphid resistance have been commercially released, despite the observation of aphid populations that have overcome the in-plant resistance almost immediately (i.e., virulent biotypes) (Michel et al. 2011; Hill et al. 2010). Research is needed on characterizing virulent biotype adaptation, uncovering novel resistant genes, and developing strategies that sustain the durability of host-plant resistance, including the use of multiple toxins (or stacking of traits) within single varieties. Industries have developed transgenic soybean for lepidopteran control, and these varieties have been evaluated by SDC347 participants. However, unlike the comparatively well-developed refuge strategies in corn, there are no plans or recommendations for maintaining the durability of these transgenic soybean varieties. Given the widespread distribution of soybean aphid and its unrivalled reproductive and migratory capacity (Tilmon et al. 2011), it is an ideal candidate to develop resistance to in-plant toxins. Consequently, strategies to ensure the proper and responsible deployment of these varieties are needed to delay insect resistance.
Advantages of Multi-State Effort. As soybean pests expand and spread across the soybean growing region, multi-state, collaborative research is necessary to discern management tactics that work under different cropping conditions and systems. These activities combine the expertise and efforts of multiple scientists leading to more timely and effective IPM solutions. With soybeans grown in 26 states and provinces and many soybean insect pests distributed across state and provincial borders, SDC347 is a natural working group for addressing soybean pest problems, and it has worked synergistically for years to benefit soybean industries in the US and Canada. Multistate collaborations already exist, and many management tactics have been successfully developed, delivered and implemented including IPM programs for lepidopteran defoliators, three-cornered alfalfa hopper, southern green, green and brown marmorated stink bug, slugs, and soybean aphid (Musser et al. 2011a; Hebert 2011).
SDC347 is composed of experienced basic and applied research and Extension entomologists from all soybean producing states in the US and provinces in Canada. Our working group also includes entomologists from universities and government agencies like the USDA. Participants maintain connections and collaborations through multi-state projects and with various state, regional and national commodity organizations as well as private industry. Through coordination of SDC347, these scientists have an excellent record of developing and implementing effective IPM programs for major insect pests attacking soybeans. In 2009, SDC347 (then named S1039) received the National Excellence in Multistate Research Award from the American Public Land-Grant Universities. Based on these prior accomplishments and our ongoing inertia, we feel strongly that our group is positioned to continue to deliver useful, science-based information to our stakeholders in the face of new and changing pest challenges.
Likely Impacts. SDC347 will generate necessary data on established and invasive soybean pest densities, distributions and biology that are critical to improve overall national soybean IPM programs. Most recently the group focus has been strongly on soybean aphids (Tilmon et al. 2011; Hodsgon et al. 2012). That will continue to be an area of focus, but invasive stink bugs, plataspids and insecticide-resistant Lepidoptera will receive more attention during the next several years (Suiter et al. 2010; Temple 2011; Hebert 2011). In general, the project will continue to focus on maintaining a sustainable soybean IPM program where sustainability is defined as pursuing maximal profitability in the short-term without sacrificing the potential for long-term stability of the system. We will continue our focus on utilizing a combination of biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to regulate pest populations while minimizing environmental risks.
Related, Current and Previous Work
Members of SDC347 have performed research and provided recommendations for several soybean insect pests. Here, we list the work that we have performed on a few major insects:
Soybean Aphid: In 2007, various SDC347 members participated in a multi-year and multi-state study and developed an economic threshold for use against the soybean aphid. With coordination from University researchers and Extension personnel, and state and regional commodity organizations, recommendations were delivered to soybean produced through various Extension media. Soybean breeders have identified naturally occurring host plant resistance for soybean aphid, and several seed companies have released commercial resistant seed (Hodsgon et al. 2012). Since 2008, soybean researchers have evaluated single gene/stacked gene expression for refinement of economic thresholds. However, some populations of soybean aphid can already overcome single gene host plant resistance in the field (Kim et al. 2008). This occurred with astonishing speed and highlights how difficult management of this pest with in-plant toxins is likely to be. Termed virulent soybean aphid biotypes, these aphids threaten the efficacy and longevity of this newest management tool, including the significant corollary that grower confidence the principle of in-plant resistance as a management strategy declines, raising the possibility that future, more effective releases may not be embraced. Members are beginning to investigate stacked lines (Wiarda et al. 2012). Several SDC347 members have developed genetic resources to understand soybean aphid dispersal across the Midwest (Michel et al. 2009; Bai et al. 2010; Orantes et al. 2012), as well as the genetics of virulence adaptation. These dispersal patterns have been confirmed with suction trap data (Schmidt et al. 2012). Molecular data has confirmed that soybean disperses across the Midwest late in the season, potentially spreading virulence and insecticide resistance (Michel et al. 2009; Orantes et al. 2012).
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB): BMSB was first detected in soybean fields in the Mid-Atlantic States in 2009 (Hebert 2011). In 2010, populations exploded throughout the eastern US causing damage in many crops including soybeans. During the 2010 season, the majority of soybean fields in western and central Maryland showed delayed maturity at the edges due to earlier feeding by BMSB, especially next to woodlots (Dively and Patton 2010). Growers reported greater than 50% yield loss in these affected areas. In 2011, BMSB surveys supported by local Soybean Boards were conducted in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia to determine the distribution of BMSB in the region. In Delaware, survey results indicated that the highest populations are currently found in New Castle County. They were only present in 10% of the fields surveyed in Kent County and no BMSB were detected Sussex county fields. In Virginia, economic infestations were found in 11 counties and low populations in 9 counties mostly located along the Interstate 81 corridor and north of Interstate 64. In Maryland, BMSB were present in most fields in all counties west of the Chesapeake Bay but infestations varied widely and were overall lower than levels in 2010. On the Eastern Shore of Maryland, Delaware and Virginia and in the coastal plain of Virginia populations have not yet reached damaging levels in soybean. In all three states, the highest populations were found on field edges. In Virginia, Tree of Heaven was the predominant hedgerow plant species. This created the opportunity to evaluate field perimeter insecticide treatments as a strategy for managing stink bugs in soybeans and initial results from research trials and grower demonstrations suggest that they were successful. For example, treating just 12 meters into the field along the perimeter prevented further stink bug invasion into the field and resulted in an 85 to 95% reduction in insecticide used compared to a whole-field treatment. Additional information is still needed to evaluate the effectiveness of perimeter treatments in preventing spread of infestations into the interior of fields. Results from insecticide trials conducted in Virginia and Maryland in 2011 indicate that most labeled insecticides provide control of BMSB populations. Further work is also necessary on the potential of natural enemies providing control against BMSB, and SDC347 members have begun these investigations (Koppel et al. 2011).
Kudzu Bug: This invasive pest was first discovered on kudzu near Atlanta, Georgia during the fall of 2009 (Suiter et al. 2010). The kudzu bug was introduced from Asia, where it is widespread, and is the only representative of the family Plataspidae in North and South America. Very little is known about this new pest. After this initial detection, the pest was confirmed in eight additional Georgia counties on kudzu, and in and around dwellings. Kudzu bug has quickly spread and become established as a severe economic pest of soybean in Georgia and South Carolina. In 2011, this pest was also found in most North Carolina counties, as well as in Virginia and Alabama. An 18% average decrease in yield was measured across 19 research trials with this insect in Georgia and South Carolina during 2010-2011, with a 47% yield loss observed in one trial.
Preliminary studies in Georgia (2010-2011) and South Carolina (2011) have established a treatment threshold of one nymph per sweep. Although this suggested threshold of 20 nymphs per 20 sweeps seems high, compared with the threshold for stink bugs and corn earworm, in areas of South Carolina and Georgia where this pest is well established, kudzu bug numbers of up to 2,400 per 20 sweeps have been found (120 times higher than the threshold).
The biology and ecology of the kudzu bug are largely unknown. At present, kudzu is thought to be an important host, perhaps necessary for this insects survival and dispersal to soybean (Eger et al. 2010). If this is true, then kudzu bug distribution may be limited to areas with kudzu. However, if this insect can survive and reproduce on hosts other than kudzu (at least ~40 plant hosts are known, to date, with the list increasing rapidly), climatological data predicts that this insect has the potential to spread into the lower and eastern Midwest, where soybean acreage dominates the landscape. Furthermore, insecticidal control is the only known effective management tactic for this insect in North America to date. However, a greater understanding of the biology and ecology of this insect could reveal more effective management strategies, including improving insecticide timing during weak points in the pests life cycle, biological control agents, pheromone-based monitoring, and changes to soybean varieties, planting date, or maturity group.
Piezodorus guildinii: Prior to 2000, the redbanded stink bug, Piezodorus guildinii (Westwood), had not been an economic threat to soybean production in the U.S. Now, redbanded stink bug has spread throughout Louisiana and Texas and cooperative research from these states show that it is the dominant stink bug species, comprising 59 to 72% of the total species found in soybean from R1 to R8 growth stages in LA, and 50% in TX. Research indicates that Louisiana populations of redbanded stink bug are very tolerant to current insecticides available for stink bug control on soybean and, consequently, production inputs have significantly increased due to increased pesticide applications.
LA and TX researchers have been defining economic injury levels (EIL) and economic thresholds (ET) for redbanded stink bug in soybean based on yield and quality. Research indicates that redbanded ET levels will need to be lowered to less than the recommended 6 per 25 sweeps due to quality factors. Yields were not significantly reduced at redbanded stink bug action thresholds of 0, 1, and 3, stink bugs per 25 sweeps (50 to 64 bu/A). Yields were significantly reduced at 6 and 9 per 25 sweeps (28 bu/A) and at 12 per 25 sweeps (10 bu/A). Seed quality was significantly reduced at 6, 9, and 12 stink bugs per 25 sweeps. Research in LA has also focused on determining stink bug distributions and densities in fields and surrounding landscapes and testing site-specific targeting of insecticides. Small scale (0.5 acre) and large scale (10 acre) plots indicate that stink bugs are aggregated along field edges early (R1) in the season. Applications along field edges reduced field colonization by two weeks and reduced overall stink bug populations when soybeans had reached R6; 14 per 25 sweeps on field edges compared to 0 per 25 sweeps in field interior.
In addition to cultural techniques, researchers have been investigating both biological control and host-plant resistance. In LA, 49% of redbanded stink bug egg masses were parasitized and 80% of all parasitoids comprise of a single species. Nematodes were also found parasitizing redbanded stink bug adults. Host plant resistance has also been a focus of LA stink bug IPM, and current soybean varieties do differ in stink bug susceptibility. In the untreated checks, redbanded stink bug numbers reached 20 per 25 sweeps in P4906 RR and 13 per 25 sweeps in DP4888 RR. Those containing moderate resistance will not need as many insecticide applications. Three insecticide applications were needed to control redbanded stink bug on P4906 RR while only two were needed on DP4888 RR.
Dectes Stem Borer: The occurrence of the Dectes stem borer, Dectes texanus, is increasing in parts of Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kansas and more recently in Nebraska (Buschman and Sloderbeck 2009; Tindall et al. 2010). However, the reason for this expansion is not known but may be attributed to the availability of alternate hosts, winter survival and other environmental factors. The Dectes stem borer has been known to cause severe lodging problems to soybeans in Kansas, especially in the north-central and southwestern parts of the state. Infestations of 50 to 80 % plants with tunneling are common in some fields. Such infestations can cause significant harvesting problems or yield losses due to the lodged plants. Niide et al. (2012) developed a method to identify Dectes larval resistance, based on a ratio of the number of egg punctures (ovipostion or Op) in petioles of field grown plants to the numbers of live larvae (Lv) [OP/Lv]. This method identified soybean plant introduction PI165673 as a genotype that was resistant and caused high larval mortality. Other experiments showed that Dectes adults lay eggs mainly in petioles of the upper 5 trifoliolate leaves located on the main stem. All of these results were consistent over 4 growing seasons. Thus, we now have a prototype method to identify resistance to Dectes larva using a small fraction of total plant stems, and a good source of Dectes larval resistance in PI165673. With regards to range expansion, it is possible that environmental factors (temperature, environmental gradients, soil type and precipitation) and cultural practices (tillage, rotation, etc) affect survival and thus affect its distribution. Therefore, it is imperative that we explore the interactions between overwintering temperatures, moisture and various crop management practices on the survival of Dectes and evaluate the implications winter mortality on spring population dynamics.
Characterize basic insect biology and ecology
Develop coordinated applied best management practices
Educate farmers, industry, colleagues, and agricultural professionals of research findings using traditional and innovative Extension toos and methods
Methods1. Characterize basic insect biology and ecology The expansion of invasive pests into new regions and the adaptation of native pests necessitates further research into how insects cope with new selection pressures. Data and information from this objective will not only lead to a better understanding of insect pests, but will be integrated with Objectives 2 and 3 to develop sustainable management recommendations based on biological parameters. a. Survey for the presence, establishment and spread of emerging pests -Participants: Erin Hodgson (IA), Ames Herbert (VA), Jeff Davis (LA), Ron Hammond (OH), Andy Michel (OH), Christian Krupke (IN), Ken Yeargan (KY), Fred Musser (MS), Thomas Hunt (NE), Tiffany Heng-Moss (NE), Kelley Tilmon (SD), Brian McCornack (KS), Jeremy Greene (SC), Bruce Potter (MN), Dominic Reisig (NC), J. Knodel (ND) --Existing, multi-state sampling efforts and development of new, common protocols to monitor the spread of pests throughout the soybean-growing region will be explored. Sampling methods will be based on previous work (Temple et al. 2009; Hebert 2011).This working group has a track record of successfully tracking pest movement through the northern and southern US (e.g., soybean aphid and the PIPE network, corn earworm and PestWatch network). A new pest that will require a coordinated effort includes the continued coordination of a pheromone-based monitoring for the brown marmorated stink bug across the Midwest. A web-based system for displaying data will be posted to the Working Group website (located at wiggio.com), and presented at annual meetings, and web-based resources like BugSpot.org will be explored. b. Understand soybean pest interactions -Participants: Jeff Davis (LA), Andy Michel (OH), John Reese (KS), Christian Krupke (IN), Ken Yeargan (KY), Louis Hesler (USDA-SD), Fred Musser (MS), Thomas Hunt (NE), Tiffany Heng-Moss (NE), Kelley Tilmon (SD), Brian McCornack (KS), Jeremy Greene (SC), Bruce Potter (MN), Dominic Reisig (NC) -Soybean insect pests interact with not only soybean, but other pests, pathogens (including as vectors for plant disease), natural enemies, host plant quality, resistance and tolerance (i.e., varieties), and abiotic factors (e.g. nutrients, insecticides). Methods will include host-plant resistance screening, evaluation of non-target effects of insecticide treatments (both seed-applied and foliar) and efficacy of virus transmission (referenced in Michel et al. 2011; Hodsgon et al. 2012; Hill et al. 2012) c. Describe insect physiology in a changing climate -Participants:Jeff Davis (LA), Andy Michel (OH) -Insects are tightly linked with environmental conditions that restrict geographical ranges and influence reproductive rate. As temperatures and climates change, insects may adapt and expand ranges. Research will focus on describing longevity and fecundity of insect pest populations at various temperatures, and predict range expansion. d. Develop insect genetic resources -Participants: Andy Michel (OH), Jeff Davis (LA) -Modern DNA sequencing technologies have improved our understanding of non-model species, including insect pests. Genetic data will be generated to understand molecular interactions of virulent biotype evolution, insecticide resistance adaptation, and to develop tools for improved diagnostics and detailed dispersal patterns (Bai et al. 2010). 2. Develop coordinated applied best management practices There is an ongoing need to have current and accurate pest management strategies in soybean. Using multiple insecticide applications every year is not a sustainable way to manage insects in field crops. For example, aphids have a historical record of becoming genetically resistant to a broad range of chemical classes, and populations can quickly become tolerant to organophosphates and pyrethroids. Working group participants have also demonstrated increases in pyrethroid resistance in various lepidopteran pests. One way to ensure effective products stay viable is to use them judiciously. For example, only treating soybean aphids when they surpass the economic threshold will help save money and boost natural enemy populations. New management recommendations need to be developed for emerging insect pests, made more complicated by their concurrence with native or newly established pest species. a. Develop sampling protocols and thresholds -Participants: Erin Hodgson (IA), Ames Herbert (VA), Fred Musser (MS), Thomas Hunt (NE), Brian McCornack (KS), , Jeremy Greene (SC), Bruce Potter (MN), Dominic Reisig (NC), Dominic Reisig (NC), J. Knodel (ND), Jeff Davis (LA) - Many successful IPM programs include regular sampling as a foundation. This can be especially important for managing erratic and emerging pests in soybean because the timing of insecticidal applications is critical. Developing and implementing economic thresholds is also important for reducing overall inputs and environmental risks, while increasing grower confidence and limiting the propensity of growers to apply treatments prophylactically (Temple et al. 2009). For example, a recently funded project by the North Central Soybean Research Program, coordinated efforts to develop soybean aphid thresholds for Rag1 (aphid-resistant soybean), late-season or mature soybean, and coordinated efforts between southern and northern tier soybean producing states to establish common ET/EIL protocols for addressing BMSB and other relevant stink bug species. Continual development of thresholds for established pests like soybean aphid as well as deployment of common protocols for emerging pests (e.g., BMSB, kudzu bug) will be completed through adapted multi-state protocols, which is group has a history of conducting (see Ragsdale et al. 2007). b. Evaluate control efficacy and monitor for resistance -Participants: Erin Hodgson (IA), Ames Herbert (VA), Andy Michel (OH), Christian Krupke (IN), Fred Musser (MS), Thomas Hunt (NE), Brian McCornack (KS), Jeremy Greene (SC), Bruce Potter (MN), Dominic Reisig (NC), J. Knodel (ND), Jeff Davis (LA) - Insecticides are the primary management tools for many of the most damaging and widespread soybean pests. However, overuse of insecticidal modes of action can lead to decreased efficacy and yield loss. Many members of our Working Group participate in efficacy evaluations for both registered and unregistered compounds and resistance monitoring of economically important pests. These programs help document change in product efficacy and describe changes in susceptibility of genetic populations. Established insecticide resistance monitoring programs will continue for key pests in much of the southern US (e.g., corn earworm). For northern states, fellow project investigators from each state will send field-collected populations of soybean aphids to the University of Nebraska insect toxicology laboratory. Aphid populations will be maintained in a plant growth chamber as described by Maghalaes et al. (2008). If necessary, aphid populations will be held and increased in the greenhouse on aphid-susceptible soybean variety. A systemic bioassay developed by Maghalaes et al. (2008, 2009) will be used for soybean aphid bioassays. In brief, the cut petioles of excised soybean leaves are immersed in solutions with different concentrations of technical grade insecticide and a control. Each petiole is infested with 30 aphids. Members have established additional protocols based on previous work (Temple et al. 2009; Musser et al. 2012), providing a solid foundation to expand to new pests, chemicals and environments. c. Describe natural enemies and non-target impacts -Participants: Christian Krupke (IN), Jeff Davis (LA), Kelley Tilmon (SD), Brian McCornack (KS), Jeremy Greene (SC), - Past research by the SDC347 group has demonstrated the value of biological control agents on the soybean aphid and the risks posed by insecticide applications (foliar and seed-applied) to these agents. This work will continue with a suite of new pests in the face of changing management approaches that will emphasize an insurance-based approach to managing multiple pests with broad spectrum insecticides. Members have performed much work in the impacts of natural enemies and developed common protocols (Schmidt et al. 2011; Koppel et al. 2011; Tilmon et al. 2011; Hodsgon et al. 2012; McCarville and ONeal, in press). d. Evaluate new technologies (host plant resistance, transgenics, seed treatments) -Participants: Erin Hodgson (IA), Ames Herbert (VA), Andy Michel (OH), John Reese (KS), Louis Hesler (USDA-SD), Fred Musser (MS), Thomas Hunt (NE), Kelley Tilmon (SD), Brian McCornack (KS), Jeremy Greene (SC), Bruce Potter (MN), Ian McRae (MN), Dominic Reisig (NC), J. Knodel (ND), Jeff Davis (LA) - In the last ten years, there has been an explosion of insect suppression technologies in soybean. Our Working Group participants are the primary contacts for the private sector in evaluating new tools in soybean like host plant resistance, transgenics and seed treatments in both laboratory and field settings. 3. Educate farmers, industry, colleagues, and agricultural professionals of research findings using traditional and innovative Extension tools and methods -Participants: Erin Hodgson (IA), Ames Herbert (VA), Andy Michel (OH), Christian Krupke, Thomas Hunt (NE), Kelley Tilmon (SD), Brian McCornack (KS), Jeremy Greene (SC), Bruce Potter (MN), Dominic Reisig (NC), C. DiFonzo (MI), J. Knodel (ND), Jeff Davis (LA) - Many members of our working group have substantial Extension appointments and work extensively with stakeholders at a variety of levels. One delivery method is through mandatory recertification programs: farmers and commercial applicators need continuing education credits to maintain their application certifications. This objective will produce relevant, research-based Extension materials (e.g., fact sheets, newsletters, other publications) on soybean insects and best management practices. Additional material will be generated using more recent social communication and electronic delivery methods. Members of this group are leaders in this effort including novel Smartphone apps such as The Bugspot (McCornack 2012) and the Northern Plains IPM Guide (Tilmon and Hadi 2012). Additional efforts include YouTube presentations (Hammond 2009; Obermeyer 2010; Hodsgon 2012). Often, these outputs are shared among members of the group to avoid duplication of effort and to harmonize our message between states. In addition, members will continue to deliver recommendations to a wide variety of audiences using various communication outlets including presentation, webinars, and social media and field demonstrations. The knowledge and experience gained from field research and demonstrations will enable producers and consultants to make informed decisions about managing insects in soybean, including: 1) gain a better understanding of the pest life cycles, and the implications for genetic resistance and long-term suppression; 2) recognize emerging (and often invasive) pest insects in soybean, and understand the effect of multiple feeders and cumulative damage; 3) identify natural enemies in soybean and their positive effects on pests; and 4) discover how proactive tactics (e.g., sampling and the use of an economic threshold) can ultimately protect yield and increase profits. It is important to highlight the fact that for our clientele, we represent the sole unbiased source for this information. Although there are many industry personnel that serve growers directly and include some of this information, their messages are necessarily influenced by their respective product lines. The information we share at our annual meeting will facilitate developing regional recommendations and multi-state publications as appropriate. Examples of innovative extension delivery methods Northern Plains IPM Guide moble apps for Droid and iPhone/iPad (www.NPIPM.org) Iowa State University soybean aphid podcast, http://www.ent.iastate.edu/soybeanaphid/ Greene, J. K. 2012-present. Clemson Agronomic News (Blog), http://sccrops.com/ Hodgson, E. W. 2010-present. Its a bugs life (blog), http://iowabuglife.blogspot.com/ Greene, J. K. 2012. Clemson University Cotton/Soybean Insect Newsletter (Vol. 1-7, 2006-2012). Distributed weekly (during season) to various clientele. Spring-Summer, www.clemson.edu/extension/rowcrops/cotton/pest_management/newsletters/index.html
Measurement of Progress and Results
- Peer review manuscipts of results from research in high impact journals.
- Proposals submitted to state, industry and federal agencies for research and education funding.
- Presentations to industry, grower and science/technical audiences of results or research and/or demonstration projects.
- Articles and/or reports to industry, grower and popular publications of research results.
Outcomes or Projected Impacts
- Regional performance data of new soybean aphid host plant resistance genes, including single and pyramided gene soybean lines and virulent aphid biotype abundance
- Analyses of the cost-effectiveness of aphid resistant varieties and seed treatments
- Pesticide resistance monitoring for corn earworm with baseline pesticide lethal dose (LDs) for soybean aphid
- Adjusted aphid economic injury levels for soybean aphid in R6 soybeans
- Knowledge on how to most effectively deploy a field perimeter treatment for managing BMSB
- Knowledge of the density of BMSB populations needed to cause delayed plant maturity, the stay green effect
- Data on the differences in efficacy and residual activity of labeled and non-labeled insecticides against BMSB
- Information for regional extension publications and outreach material,
Milestones(2013): Each of the output expectations will be met on an annual basis through the five year projected life of the project because this is an ongoing project.
(2013): Most of the outcome/impact expectations will be met on an annual basis as above.
Projected ParticipationView Appendix E: Participation
- Many members of our working group have substantial extension appointments and work extensively with stakeholders at a variety of levels. One delivery method is through mandatory recertification programs: farmers and commercial applicators need continuing education credits to maintain their application certifications. This objective will produce relevant, research-based extension materials (e.g., fact sheets, newsletters, other publications) on soybean insects and best management practices. Often, these outputs are shared among members of the group to avoid duplication of effort and to harmonize our message between states. In addition, members will continue to deliver recommendations to a wide variety of audiences using various communication outlets including presentation, webinars, and social media and field demonstrations. The knowledge and experience gained from field research and demonstrations will enable producers and consultants to make informed decisions about managing insects in soybean, including: 1) gain a better understanding of the pest life cycles, and the implications for genetic resistance and long-term suppression; 2) recognize emerging (and often invasive) pest insects in soybean, and understand the effect of multiple feeders and cumulative damage; 3) identify natural enemies in soybean and their positive effects on pests; and 4) discover how proactive tactics (e.g., sampling and the use of an economic threshold) can ultimately protect yield and increase profits. It is important to highlight the fact that for our clientele, we represent the sole unbiased source for this information. Although there are many industry personnel that serve growers directly and include some of this information, their messages are necessarily influenced by their respective product lines. The information we share at our annual meeting will facilitate developing regional recommendations and multi-state publications as appropriate.
The Technical Committee is made up of voting members from each state or province. The Executive Committee is made up of the Past-Chair, the Chair, and the Secretary (Chair-Elect), with the Administrative Advisor and the CSREES representative serving as ex-officio members. The Secretary in a given year assumes the Chair position the following year. Elections for a new Secretary are held at each annual meeting. A separate individual will handle local arrangements for annual meetings.
Bai X., W. Zhang, L. Orantes,T.-H. Jun, O. Mittapalli, M. A. R. Mian, and A. P. Michel. (2010). Combining next-generation sequencing strategies for rapid molecular resource development from an invasive aphid species, Aphis glycines. PLoS One 2010;5(6): e11370.
Buschman L.L. and P.E. Sloderbeck. (2009). Pest status and distribution of the stem borer, Dectes texanus, in Kansas. Journal of Insect Science. 10:1-11.
Dively G. and T.Patton. (2010). Summary of 2010 Studies of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug on Soybean in Maryland. Available at: http://frederick.umd.edu/files/Stinkbug-Dively2010studiesofBMSBonSoybeaninMaryland.pdf
Eger, Jr., J. E., L. M. Ames, D. R. Suiter, T. M. Jenkins, D. A. Rider, and
S. E. Halbert. (2010). Occurrence of the Old World bug Megacopta cribraria (Fabricius) (Heteroptera: Plataspidae) in Georgia: a serious home invader and potential legume pest. Insecta Mundi 0121: 1-11.
Hammond, R.B. (2009). Searching for Slug Eggs. Available at: http://entomology.osu.edu/ag/pageview3.asp?id=2087
Herbert A. (2011). Brown Marmorated Stink Bug: A Confirmed New Pest of Soybean. Plant management network; 2011. Webcast, available at: http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/edcenter/seminars/BMSB/
Hill, C.B., A. Chirumamilla, G. L. Hartman. (2012). Resistance and virulence in the soybean-Aphis glycines interaction. Euphytica. 186: 635-646.
Hill, C.B., L. Crull, T.K. Herman, D.J. Voegtlin, G.L. Hartman G.L. (2010). A new soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) biotype identified. Journal of Economic Entomology. 103:509-15.
Hodsgon E.W. (2012). Spider mite management in Iowa. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpjwTz09wDY&feature=youtu.be
Hodgson E.W., B.P. McCornack, K.J. Tilmon, J.J. Knodel. (2012). Management Recommendations for Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the United States. J Integrated Pest Management. 3: E1-E10.
Kim K.-S., C.B Hill, G.L. Hartman, M.A.R. Mian, B.W. Diers. (2008) Discovery of soybean aphid biotypes. Crop Science 48: 923928.
Koppel, A.L., D.A. Herbert, Jr., T. P. Kuhar, S. Malone, and M. Arrington. (2011). Efficacy of selected insecticides against eggs of Euschistus servus and Acrosternum hilare (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and the egg parasitoid Telenomus podisi Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 104: 137-142.
Magalhaes, L. C., T. E. Hunt, and B. D. Siegfried. (2008). Development of methods to evaluate susceptibility of soybean aphid to imidacloprid and thiamethoxam at lethal and sublethal concentrations. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 128: 330-336.
Magalhaes, L.C., T. E. Hunt, and B. D. Siegfried. (2009). Efficacy of Neonicotinoid seed treatments to reduce soybean aphid populations under field and controlled conditions in Nebraska. J. Econ. Entomol. J. Econ. Entomol. 102: 187-19.
McCarville, M. T., and M. E. ONeal. Measuring the benefit of biological control for single gene and pyramided host plant resistance for soybean aphid, Aphis glycines(Hemiptera: Aphididae) management. Journal of Economic Entomology. In press.
McCornack, B. 2012. The Bugspot. Available at: http://www.thebugspot.org/
Michel A.P., W. Zhang, J. Kyo Jung, S.T. Kang, M.A.R. Mian (2009). Population genetic structure of Aphis glycines. Environ Entomol 38:13011311.
Michel, A.P., O. Mittapalli, M. A. R. Mian. (2011). "Evolution of Soybean Aphid Biotypes: Understanding and Managing Virulence to Host-Plant Resistance". In "Soybean". Edited by:A. Sudaric. Vienna: INTECH. 2011.
Musser, F.R. , A.L. Catchot, Jr., J. A. Davis, D. A. Herbert, Jr., B. R. Leonard, G.M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D.D. Reisig, S.D. Stewart. (2011a). 2011 Soybean InsectLosses in the Southern US. Midsouth. Entomol. 5: 11-17.
Musser, F.R., A. L. Catchot,B.K. Gibson, K.S. Knighten. (2011b). Economic injury levels for southern green stinkbugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in R7 growth stage soybeans. Crop Protection. 30: 63-69.
Musser, F. R., K. S. Knighten, J. F. Smith and A. L. Catchot. (2012). Pyrethroid insecticide tolerance in bean leaf beetle,Cerotoma trifurcata in the Mississippi Delta. Pest Manag. Sci. 68: 658-662.
Niide, T., Higgins, R.A., Whitworth, R.J., Schapaugh, W.T., Smith, C.M., Buschman, L.L. (2012). Antibiosis resistance in soybean plant introductions to Dectes texanus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 105: 598-607
Obermeyer J. (2010). Soybean Aphid Natural Enemies Soybean Aphid Natural Enemies. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6lGN7MsOB0&feature=related
Orantes L.C.,W. Zhang, M. A. R. Mian, A. P. Michel (2012). Maintaining genetic diversity and population panmixia through dispersal and not gene flow in a holocyclic heteroecious aphid species. Heredity 109:127-123.
Ragsdale, D. W., B. P. McCornack, R. C. Venette, B. D. Potter, I. V. MacRae, E. W. Hodgson, M. E. O'Neal, K. D. Johnson, R. J. O'Neil, C. D. Difonzo, T. E. Hunt, P. A. Glogoza, and E. M. Cullen. (2007). Economic threshold for soybean aphid (Homoptera:Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 100:1258-1267.
Reisig, D.D., D.A. Herbert, S. Malone, S. (2012). Impact of neonicotinoid seed treatments on thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and soybean yield in Virginia and North Carolina. Journal of Economic Entomology. 105: 884-889.
Schmidt, N.P., M.E. ONeal, and L.A. Schulte. (2011). Effects of grassland habitat and plant nutrients on soybean aphid and natural enemy populations. Environ. Entomol. 40: 260-272.
Schmidt, N.P., M.E. O'Neal, P.F. Anderson, D. Lagos, D. Voegtlin, W. Bailey, P. Caragea, E. Cullen, C. DiFonzo, K. Elliott, C. Gratton, D. Johnson, C.H. Krupke, B. McCornack, R. O'Neil, D.W. Ragsdale, K.J. Tilmon, and J. Whitworth. (2012). Spatial distribution of Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae): A summary of the suction trap network. Journal of Economic Entomology. 105: 259-271.
Suiter, D.R., J.E. Eger, W.A. Gardner, R.C. Kemerait, J. N. All, P.M. Roberts, J.K. Greene, L. M. Ames, G.D. Buntin, T. M. Jenkins, G. K. Douce. (2010). Discovery and Distribution of Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Plataspidae) in Northeast Georgia. J of Integrated Pest Management. 1: F1-F5.
Tilmon, K.J., E. Hodgson, M.E. ONeal, D. W. Ragsdale. (2011) Biology of the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the United States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 2: 1-7.
Temple, J.H., B. R. Leonard, J. Davis, K. Fontenot. (2009). Insecticide efficacy against redbandedstinkbug, Piezodorus guildinii (Westwood), a new stinkbug pest of Louisiana soybean. MidSouth Ent. 2: 68-69.
Temple J, J.A. Davis, J. Hardke, P. Price, S. Micinski, C. Cookson, A. Richter, B. R. Leonard. 2011. Seasonal abundance and occurrence of the redbanded stink bug in Louisiana soybeans. Louisiana Agric. 54: 20-22.
Tilmon K. and B. Hadi. (2012). Northern Plains Integrated Pest Management Guide 2012. Available at: http://wiki.bugwood.org/NPIPM:Main_Page).
Tindall K.V., S. Stewart, F. Musser, G. Lorenz, W. Bailey, J. House, R. Henry, D. Hastings, M. Wallace, K. Fothergill. (2010). Distribution of the long-horned beetle, Dectes texanus, in soybeans of Missouri, Western Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. J Insect Sci. 10: 178.
Wiarda, S.L., W.R. Fehr, and M.E. ONeal. (2012). Soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) development on soybean with Rag1 alone, Rag2 alone and both genes combined. J. Econ. Entomol.105: 252-258.
Zhang Y., J.L. Hannula, S. Horn. (2012). The Biology and Preliminary Host Range of Megacopta cribraria (Heteroptera: Plataspidae) and Its Impact on Kudzu Growth. Env Ent. 42:40-50.
Representative Refereed extension publications related to our project (2008-present)
Bruulsema, T., C. DiFonzo, and C. Gratton. (2010). How potassium nutrition can suppress soybean aphids. Better Crops 94(2): 11-13.
Cullen, E. and S. Schramm. (2009). Two-Spotted Spider Mite Management in Soybean and Corn. A3890. University of Wisconsin-Extension Cooperative Extension Publishing, Madison, WI. 4 pp.
Herbert, A., S. Malone, E. Cullen and S. Ratcliffe. (2008). Identification of Soybean Aphid and Look-Alike Species. USDA North Central Region IPM Center and SDC329 Multistate Research Group. 2 pp.
Jensen, B, R. Proost, E. Cullen and R. Schmidt. (2010). Visual Guide for Soybean Aphid Scouting. NC IPM Center and UW IPCM Publication R-2-2010-10M. 4 panel pocket guide.
Tilmon, K. J. (2009). Managing change in crop production: Soybean aphid threshold. South Dakota State University Extension Publication ABC20714.16.