First-Year Corn Rootworm Management Guidelines for 2001– (John Obermeyer, Rich Edwards, and Larry Bledsoe)

The accompanying map “2000 Western Corn Rootworm Sweep Net Survey in Soybean,” developed by Ron Blackwell, on page 3, provides relative numbers of beetles in fields observed between July 25 and August 22, 2000. Differences in beetle numbers vary from field to field, so use caution when interpreting county data. Unless one sampled his/her field several times during the egg-laying period (sweep net, sticky traps, or visual), there is a risk in applying our numbers to your specific field. This map, research data, and observations reported to us from producers, county educators, crop consultants, and ag chem dealers have helped us formulate the following rootworm management guidelines for 2001 in first-year corn.

Highest Risk - Northern Indiana: The highest beetle populations in 2000 were observed in this area of Indiana.

• A soil insecticide is not needed for rootworm larval control in a field where no, or very few, rootworm beetles were observed in 2000 soybean.
  
• Where rootworm beetles were consistently observed in 2000 soybean, the application of a soil insecticide is probably justified in corn in 2001.
  
• In areas where rootworms have caused problems in first-year corn and one did not monitor for rootworm beetles in 2000, a soil insecticide is needed in 2001.

Lowest Risk - Southern Indiana:  Significant rootworm damage to first-year corn has yet to occur much below Interstate 70.

• A soil insecticide is not needed for rootworm larval control in 2001 first-year corn, with the following exception:
  
  • A few isolated first-year cornfields in southern Indiana have been damaged by corn rootworm. Producers that observed a significant number of rootworm beetles in 2000 soybean, may need to apply a soil insecticide in corn in 2001. If planting after May 1, applying a reduced rate (75% rate) of a rootworm insecticide may be a cost-savings, yet efficacious, option.*

The above discussion is based on assessment of risk of damage from the western corn rootworm variant. An insecticide may be needed if other insect pests are present in economic numbers. Whenever soil insecticides are used, we encourage producers to leave untreated strips in order to evaluate product performance and the economics of treating.

*Producers who experiment with reduced rates do so with the understanding that they are solely responsible for the performance of the product. The soil insecticide manufacturer is under no legal obligation when their product is applied at less than labeled rates. Other soil insect pests may not be controlled with reduced insecticide rates.

back to top

Seed-Applied Insecticides and Efficacy– (John Obermeyer, Rich Edwards, and Larry Bledsoe)

Insecticide coated seed corn that controls rootworms and secondary soil insects is quite appealing to producers. The recent testing and market release of seed-delivered insect control is not surprising. Most granular soil insecticides are now under the watchful eye of EPA, which leads to speculation that it is just a matter of time before they are no longer available. This leaves the door wide open for new chemistries, technologies and/or delivery mechanisms to fill this possible void in soil insect control.

Limited supplies of NK brand seed with ProShield was available for the 2000 growing season. ProShield; a concentrate of Force insecticide (tefluthrin) attached to  corn seed is a joint venture between Zeneca Ag Products and Novartis Seeds (both have since merged and renamed Syngenta). Force 3G granular soil insecticide has been a consistent performer through many years of testing. But since tefluthrin is not systemic and has relatively little horizontal movement in the soil, one cannot but wonder how a seed applied insecticide will protect the roots several inches away. The company explanation is that the patented process of micro-encapsulation and polymers gets it there. Unrelated to ProShield treated seeds efficacy was its plantability. Several producers experienced problems with the treated seed not flowing correctly, causing planter monitors to light up even with the addition of talc. We’ve been assured by Syngenta personnel that this “bug” is being worked out for next year.

Imidacloprid, the active ingredient of new Gaucho and Prescribe seed treatments, is a new chemistry for commercial corn. Bayer’s Gaucho has been used on seed corn for a couple years in the Midwest to reduce corn flea beetle feeding and subsequent transmission of Stewart’s disease on susceptible inbreds. This chemistry is used in the urban market for various uses, e.g., Merit for turf insects. Now Gustafson is working with some seed companies to pretreat their varieties with one of two rates of imidacloprid. The lower rate, Gaucho, is touted as protecting seed from wireworms and seedcorn maggots. The higher rate, Prescribe, in addition to wireworm and seedcorn maggots is claiming to protect seed from rootworms and corn flea beetle. Please note that white grub is not on the label or in advertisements for Gaucho or Prescribe! In contrast, previously mentioned Merit is an excellent turf insecticide for grub control. The difference is that Merit is applied in the fall when annual grubs (i.e., Japanese beetle) are small and susceptible to this chemistry. Japanese beetle grubs in the spring are larger and difficult if not impossible to control with most insecticides.

Root ratings of seed-applied insecticides for 2000 from Purdue, Illinois and Iowa State Universities’ rootworm efficacy trials are shown below:

Overall, these root ratings don’t look favorable when compared to standard granular soil insecticides. In most cases they do perform better than the untreated check, indicating there is some control, albeit marginal. Where one anticipates moderate to heavy rootworm pressure (see previous article) these seed-delivered insecticides would be an unwise choice.

back to top

back to top

2000 Indiana Ear Rot Survey– (Charles Woloshuk, Dept. Botany and Plant Pathology and Ralph Gann, Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service)

We have sampled the Indiana corn crop every year since 1989 for ear rot diseases and mycotoxins. Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service (IASS) randomly selects the field to be sampled.  Corn acres throughout the state have an equal probability of being selected.  IASS personnel sample fields during the last week in September through October.   Two sampling sites are located in each field, and samples consist of the primary ears from five consecutive plants in a single row.  The five ear samples are placed in cloth bags and mailed to Purdue University.  The husks are left on the ears during the mailing. Upon arriving at Purdue, ears are husked and examined for symptoms and signs of ear rots.  Data are recorded for the percentage of kernels visibly infected by each type of ear rot.  Occurrence of the following ear rots are noted: Fusarium ear rot (Gibberella  fujikoroi), Gibberella ear rot (Gibberella zeae), Aspergillus ear rot (Aspergillus flavus), Diplodia ear rot (Stenocarpella zeae), and minor ear rots (species of Trichoderma, Alternaria, Penicillium, Nigrospora, and unindentified fungi).  In the survey for the year 2000, 318 samples were collected from 159 fields, resulting in a total of 1590 ears examined for ear rots.

The only ear rot of significance this year was Diplodia ear rot. Infection by Diplodia is enhanced by dry weather prior to silking followed by wet conditions at and just after silking.  Ears are most susceptible to this disease during the first 21 days after silking. When infection occurs within two weeks after silking, husks prematurely become bleached or straw colored, and entire ears are white to grayish or grayish brown, shrunken, and lightweight.  Lightweight ears generally stand upright with the inner husks adhering tightly to each other.  Black specks (tiny fruiting bodies of the fungus, called pycnidia) may be scattered on the husks, cobs and sides of kernels.  Ears infected later in the growing season generally have a somewhat uniform whitish to grayish mold growth over and between the kernels starting at the base of the ear and progressing towards the tip.  Infected kernel tips are discolored.

The survey data allowed calculation of the percentage of samples that showed ear rot, and calculation of the severity of ear rot (the percentage of kernels per ear that were affected).

Here are the numbers. 

• Diplodia ear rot was found in at least one sample fields in 30 of 66 counties surveyed (see map).
  
• 55 (17%) of the 318 samples examined had at least one ear with Diplodia ear rot.
  
• 64 (4%) of the 1590 ears examined had Diplodia ear rot. 
  
• The severity of Diplodia rot was 50% or greater on 44 of the 64 ears.

These numbers reflect what people are reporting throughout Indiana.  For a perspective of how this year is different from the past, 2 samples with Diplodia ear rot were obtained in 1999, 7 in 1998 and 6 in 1997.  What was different about this year?  We can speculate that the dry subsoil moisture may have contributed as well as other factors such as an increase in no-till fields, hybrid genetics, and above normal rain during silking.

Proper storage of Diplodia infected corn is crucial. For more information on this topic read CORN EAR ROTS IN INDIANA, Pest&Crop Newsletter No. 24 September 1, 2000.

back to top

Areawide Pest Management Program– (Corey Gerber, Areawide PM Coordinator)

What is the Areawide Corn Rootworm Pest Management study?

The Indiana/Illinois Corn Rootworm Areawide Pest Management (AWPM) Program is a coordinated effort that links a group of producers together with crop consultants, applicators, and university and government researchers to manage the western corn rootworm (WCR), Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte, over a large, well-defined area. The summer of 2000 marked the fourth year of this 5-year study.

This study was designed to test the feasibility of using the areawide concept in the eastern Midwest for managing the WCR. The underlying principle of areawide management is to manage rootworm beetle populations at levels that will not cause economic injury to corn and to prevent beetles from reinfesting the area in which these low population levels have been established. In the study area, unlike the other midwestern areawide management study sites, WCR have adapted to the corn/soybean rotational system. This development virtually eliminates crop rotation as an effective tool for managing WCR. The areawide rootworm management concept is based upon the use of semiochemical insecticidal-baits as the primary rootworm management tool. As the program was being established, it is anticipated that rootworm beetle populations will be brought down to a level that will greatly diminish, or perhaps eliminate, the need for soil insecticide at the end of this 5-year period.

The areawide program site:

The study site was established as a 16-square-mile area located southeast of Sheldon, Illinois, and west of Raub, Indiana. This location was selected based on the close proximity to the institutions (Purdue University and the University of Illinois) coordinating the study, as well as being located in the “heart” of an area in which rootworm beetles have exhibited a dramatic change in behavior by laying a high number of eggs in soybean fields. An increasing number of growers in this affected area have resorted, understandably, to the use of soil insecticides to protect their first-year corn fields. The continuation of this rootworm management practice will put a significant financial burden on farmers and may result in undesirable environmental and public health effects.

This program enlists the partnership of 41 growers and approximately 10,700 acres of corn and soybean in the managed and control areas. The 9,300 acre managed area is treated with an insecticidal-bait whenever populations of rootworm beetles exceed set levels. Treatments are made to fields by aircraft. Several fields either adjoining or within 0.75 miles of the managed area are also monitored for rootworm beetle populations; however, if treatment levels are exceeded, adult-control treatments are not applied. These fields represent the control fields. Comparisons between the managed fields and control fields are used to determine the effectiveness of treatment applications.

How are spray applications determined?

In order to determine the need and proper timing of an insecticidal-bait treatment, hired crop scouts monitor corn and soybean fields on a weekly basis from the time adult rootworm beetles emerged until the population dwindled in late summer. 

WCR populations in corn are sampled by counting the number of beetles infesting two plants approximately 3-5 feet apart in each of ten locations within a field. Beetle populations are estimated in soybean fields using Pherocon AM® yellow sticky cards. Sticky cards are distributed through a field in two rows of four cards each. Individual sticky cards are positioned so that one half of each card was above the soybean canopy. New sticky cards were placed in the field immediately after cards, which had been in the soybean field for 1 week, were removed for beetle counting.

While monitoring the soybean fields, if a soybean field within the managed area reached threshold, the entire region within which that particular field was located was treated. The decision to treat for WCR beetles was arbitrarily determined in soybean as 2 beetles/sticky trap/day.

Careful scouting of corn and soybean fields is necessary to determine the proper timing of insecticidal-bait applications within the areawide pest management site. Treatments are applied to corn and soybean fields on a region by region basis (large block areas) whenever a set number of adult rootworm beetles is observed.

What has been learned?

To determine the effectiveness of insecticidal-baits used in the areawide program, corn roots are evaluated for rootworm larval damage. During 1999-2000, The average rootworm larval damage (based on the Hills & Peters 1-6 root-rating scale) within the managed area, was 1.75 in treated strips and 2.13 in untreated strips (no soil insecticides). Outside of the managed area, the average root rating was 2.76 in treated strips and 3.80 in untreated strips (no soil insecticides).

This root rating data indicates that the areawide suppression approach is having an adverse effect on the beetle population within the areawide site. This statement is based on the fact that the check strip root rating value (2.13) within the managed area versus the check strip root rating value (3.80) in the control area were significantly different. The primary factor involved with this difference was the aerial application of insecticidal-baits. In addition, the root rating value within the managed area was below the economic threshold damage rating of 3.5, and the root rating value in the check strips located outside of the managed area was higher than this economic threshold damage rating. Therefore, preliminary results suggest that this suppression approach is having an impact on the beetle population within the areawide site.

back to top

PEST&CROP NEWSLETTER INDEX 2000

Alfalfa Weevil
Alfalfa Weevil Damage in Southern Indiana – 3
Alfalfa Weevil Larval Survey – 3, 5, 6, 7
Serious Alfalfa Weevil Damage in Central Indiana - 5
Economic Alfalfa Weevil Damage Heading Northward – 6

Aphids
New Soybean Insect Damaging Fields in Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois – 22
Aphids in Indiana Soybeans, What’s the Scoop!?!? – 23

Armyworm
Armyworm in Corn and Wheat – 8
Fall Armyworms – 11
Fall Armyworm in Late Planted Corn Whorls - 19

Bean Leaf Beetle
Emerging Soybeans Attract Bean Leaf Beetle – 6
Bean Leaf Beetle in Soybean – 9
Bean Leaf Beetle Resurgence in Some Soybean Fields – 20
Bean Leaf Beetle and Pod Feeding - 22

Black Cutworm
As Usual, Black Cutworm Moths are Here – 3
Black Cutworm Adult Pheromone Trap Report – 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Black Cutworm Adult Pheromone Trap Locations – 3
Black Cutworm and Hoosier Hospitality – 5
Is 2000 the Year of the Black Cutworm – 7
Black Cutworm Comparison 1997-2000 – 7
Black Cutworm Coming On Strong, Scout Now – 8
Cutworm Damage Continues Northward - 9

Black Light Catch Report
Black Light Trap Catch Report – 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Claybacked Cutworms
Claybacked Cutworms in Soybeans - 10

Corn Earworm
Corn Earworm Surge – 21

Corn Flea Beetle
Winter Temperatures, Corn Flea Beetle Survival, Stewart’s Wilt, and Management Tactics – 2
Corn Flea Beetle Making Their Presence Known - 8

Corn Rootworm
Abbreviated Rootworm Management Guidelines for Indiana’s First-Year Corn – 1
Rootworm Insecticide Classifications and Consistency of Performance - 1
Capture 2 EC and Rootworm Larval Control – 2
Corn Rootworm Hatch is Underway – 10
Dates Corn Rootworm Larvae First Observed – 10
Suspect Rootworm Damage? Inspect For It Now – 13
Rootworms Feeding on Soybean Roots? – 14
Western Corn Rootworm Beetles Emerging – 15
A Nibble Here, A Nibble There, Silk Snackers Want Their Share – 16
Corn Lodging Reported – 16
Corn Rootworm and Japanese Beetle Survey in Pollinating Corn Fields – 16, 17
What About Controlling WCR Beetles in Soybean Fields Where First-Year Corn Rootworm Problems Exist? – 17
Corn/Weed Pollen And Rootworm Beetles – 18
Rootworm Beetle Monitoring in Soybeans – 19
The DTC Rootworm Dig – 20
First-Year Corn Rootworm Management Guidelines for 2001 - 28

European Corn Borer
Corn Borer Moths Beginning to Fly – 9
European Corn Borer Update – 11
European Corn Borer Survey – 11, 14
Corn Borer Still Low – 13
Although Corn Borer Populations Are Generally Low, Some Fields Have Significant Damage - 14
Corn Borer Activity Picking Up – 19
Southwestern Corn Borer Update – 20
Corn Borer Activity High in Some Areas of Indiana – 21
Overwintering European Corn Borer Population – 27
European Corn Borer survey Results, Fall 2000 – 27
Indiana Fall Corn Borer Survey 1990-2000 – 27
1998-2000 Overwintering ECB Larvae – 27
Indiana Fall Corn Borer Survey 1961-2000

Grasshoppers
Grasshoppers in Field Crops - 14

Hessian Fly
New Wheat Variety Improves Management of Hessian Fly - 25

Insecticides
ProShield Seed Treatment – 1
Regent Soil Insecticide – 1
Last Minute Insecticide Decisions for First-Year Corn - 3
Calibrate Granular Insecticide Boxes Before Planting – 4
Correction to Insecticide Table for Alfalfa Weevil – 6
Harvest Restrictions for Soybean Insecticides – 22
Seed-Applied Insecticides and Efficacy

Insects (Miscellaneous)
What About Seed Attacking Insects? – 4
Corn Plants Being Pulled Down Holes! – 10
Grape Colaspis Grubs Feeding – 12
Corn Insect Pests Beyond the Field – 24
Stalk Lodging and Postmortem Insect Damage Diagnosis - 26
Stinging Caterpillars - 23

Japanese Beetle
Beginning of the Japanese Beetle – 13
Japanese Beetle, Feeding in Field Crops and Grub Potential – 15
Soybean Defoliators Busy in Some Fields - 18

Potato Leafhopper
Potato Leafhoppers … They’re Here – 9
Sample Now for Potato Leafhopper – 11
Potato Leafhopper Survey in Alfalfa - 15

Seedcorn Maggots
Seedcorn Maggots in Soybean - 9

Slugs
Are Slugs Sliming Your Crop? – 10

Spider Mites
Yellowing of Soybeans in Dry Areas May or May Not be Due to Twospotted Spider Mite Feeding – 21

Stalk Borers
Stalk Borer Hatch, Migration, and Damage – 7
Stalk Borer Migrating - 10

White Grubs
White Grub Concerns? – 5

Control
Effects of Dry Weather on Weed Control – 5
Bull and Musk (Biennial) Thistle Control in Perennial Grass Crops – 8
Control Practices for Canada Thistle 2000 – 8
Fluctuating Weather Conditions May Cause Weed Control Difficulties – 9
Late-Season Weed Control in Soybeans – 18

Herbicides
New Corn and Soybean Herbicides for Year 2000 – 1
Herbicide Rate Correction – 4
Getting Off To A Good Start – 4
Phone, Mail, World Wide Web Sales of Herbicide Products – 4
Additives in New Formulations of Glyphosate Herbicides – 5
Dicamba Effects on Soybean Yields - 19
Managing Winter Annual Weeds, Are Fall Herbicide Treatments Necessary? - 26

Corn
Corn Seedling Diseases – 10
Seed Decay and Seedling Blights of Corn – 12
Stewart’s Wilt – 13
Corn Rust – 13, 14, 17
Corn Diseases – 20
Certain Ear and Stalk Rots Showing Up – 20
Diplodia Ear Rot of Corn – 21
Corn Anthracnose – 21
Corn Ear Rots in Indiana – 24
2000 Indiana Ear Rot Survey - 28

Soybeans
Continuous Soybeans: A Plant Pathologist’s Perspective – 4
Early Season Soybean Diseases – 10
Soybean Sudden Death Syndrome –  14, 17, 20, 21
Phytophthora Rot – 20
Soybean White Mold – 20
Yellow Areas on Soybean Fields – 21
Disease Risks for Soybeans  - 26

Wheat
Growth Stages of Wheat – 2
Virus Diseases of Wheat – 2
Wheat Disease Prospects – 5
Wheat Streak Mosaic Epidemic - 6
Fuarium Head Blight (Scab) of Wheat – 8
Leaf and Glume Blotch of Wheat – 8
Tan Spot of Wheat - 8
Wheat Disease Update – 10, 11

Corn
Minimizing Pollen Drift & Commingling of GMO and non-GMO Corn Grain – 2
Corn Planting Fever! – 3
Emergence Process in Corn – 5
Requirements for Uniform Germination and Emergence of Corn – 5
The Germination Process in Corn – 5
Seeding Depth Decisions for Corn – 5
Calculating Heat Units for Corn Phenology – 6
Leaf Staging Methods for Corn – 6
Predicting Corn Phenology for Phun and Profit – 6
The Root of the Matter – 8
Can Corn Survive Leafing-Out Underground – 8
Growing Points of Interest – 8
Spiraling Sub-Surface Seedlings – 9
Silver Leaf Symptom in Corn – 9
Assessing Hail Damage in Corn – 10
Earthworms Pulling Corn Leaf Tips Into Soil? – 10
Factors to Consider in Corn Replant Decisions – 10
Unusual Twisted Whorls in Corn – 11
Isn’t Corn Supposed to be Green – 11
Flooding and Ponding Damage to Corn – 11
Once Uniform, Now Uneven – 12
Agronomist Fooled by Disease – 13
Ear Size Determination in Corn – 14
Flooding & Ponding: How Long Can Corn tolerate ‘Wet Feet’? - 14
Some Call’em Suckers, Some Call’em Tillers: Good or Bad for Corn? – 15
Soggy Soils Severely Stunt Stands of Corn – 16
Suggestive Behavior in the Corn Field – 16
Opportunities for Mapping Corn Problem Areas – 17
Take the Time to Wander Crop Variety Plots – 18
Scrambled Silks, Anyone? – 18
Tips for Test Plots – 19
Corn Yield Trends for Indiana 1930-2000 – 20
Grain Fill Stages in Corn – 21
Yield Loss During Grain Fill – 21
Impact of Root Lodging on Corn Yield – 22
It’s Never Too Late to Walk Your Fields – 23
Post-Maturity Grain Drydown in the Field – 23
Watch for Poor Kernel Set in Corn – 25
Yield Monitor Calibration Tips - 25

Miscellaneous
Planter Maintenance: There’s Still Time! – 1
Y2Dry? Should Indiana Farmers Plan for a 2000 Drought? – 1
Seedbed Moisture Conservation in 2000 – 2
Gird Thyself for Battle! – 4
Tillage and Soil Temperatures in 2000 – 5
Consistent Variability: An Oxymoron or a Requirement for Precision Farming? - 9

Soybeans
Planning for the 2000 Soybean Crop – 2
Evaluating Thin Soybean Stands – 11
Double Crop Soybean Following Wheat – 12
The Impact of Excessive Rainfall on Soybeans – 16

Wheat
Condition of Indiana Winter Wheat Crop – 2
Wheat Condition as of April 19, 2000 - 5

Miscellaneous
Purdue Extension Specialists – 1
Field Crops Pest Management Manual Form – 1
U.S. EPA Bans Most Home Use of Dursban Pesticide – 12
Report: Herbicide Could Cause Cancer – 15
Do GMO’s Cause Global Warming?? – 15
Area Planted with Transgenic Crops Up in 1999 – 18
2000 Pest&Crop Reader Survey - 27

Upcoming Events
2000 Dates/Locations Container Recycling Project - 4
Forage Education Opportunities – 12
Weed Day Spotlights Weed Control Strategies, Products – 12
Agronomy Farm Field Day - 19

Workshops
Purdue University Hands-On Post Harvest Training and Recertification Workshop - 25

Know your Friends: Bigeyed Bugs – 6
You Can Track Heat Units for black Cutworm in Your Area – 7
Prepare Grain Bins for Wheat, Now – 10
Suitability of Corn Insects for Green Lacewings – 14
Artificial Habitats Boost Predator Populations in Soybean - 14
Lodged Corn Plants, Must be Rootworms! – 15
Monitoring Soybeans for Rootworm Beetles with Yellow Sticky Traps - 16

Heat Unit Accumulations, Indiana Weather Summary and Heat Unit Forecasts appear in most issues of the newsletter. 

back to top