Tag: seed treatment

Optimizing Early Season Pest Management for Maryland Field Corn

Maria Cramer, PhD Candidate and Kelly Hamby, Entomology Extension Specialist
Department of Entomology, University of Maryland

Background

Research Questions

  1. Are the NST Poncho 250® and the in-furrow pyrethroid Capture LFR® effective at controlling pests and increasing yield in high-input (Bt) or low-input (non-Bt) field corn in Maryland?
  2. Do Poncho and Capture hurt slug predators and flare up slug damage?

Study Design

In order to capture the range of pest pressures and growing conditions in Maryland, we replicated our study across 3 UMD research farms (Keedysville, Beltsville, and Queenstown) and over 3 years (2020-2022). At each location we planted one field of a Bt hybrid and one field of a similarly-yielding non-Bt hybrid as early as possible in the growing season (Table 1). In 2020 our Bt hybrid was LC1196 VT2P (Local Seed, Memphis, TN) which expresses Cry1A.105/Cry2Ab2 proteins. In 2021 and 2022 we planted P1197YHR (Pioneer Hi-bred International. Johnston, IA) which contains Cry1Ab and Cry1F proteins. We planted P1197LR (Pioneer Hi-bred International, Inc. Johnston, IA) for our non-Bt hybrid all three years. All hybrids had excellent yield potential and were grown with standard no-till practices. In each field we established 3 replicates of 3 treatments at planting: 1) an untreated control, with bare seed and no in-furrow product, 2) an in-furrow pyrethroid treatment using Capture LFR® (active ingredient: bifenthrin, rate: 13.6 fl oz/acre), and 3) an NST treatment using Poncho® (active ingredient: clothianidin, rate: 0.25 mg/seed). Each replicate consisted of 24 rows of corn at 30 inch row spacing, and was 200 feet long.

Year Location Planting date Sampling dates
2020 Keedysville May 18 June 8
Beltsville May 21 June 10
Queenstown May 13 June 3 and 4
2021 Keedysville May 14 June 1 and 3
Beltsville May 17 June 2
Queenstown May 4 May 25 and 26
2022 Keedysville May 26 June 10
Beltsville June 2 June 21
Queenstown May 12 May 31

Question 1: Are the NST Poncho 250® and the in-furrow pyrethroid Capture LFR® effective at controlling pests and increasing yield in high-input (Bt) or low-input (non-Bt) field corn in Maryland?

Data Collection

In order to evaluate how the treatments affected pest pressure, we visually sampled V2-V3 corn for types of pest damage (Figure 1), recording the number of plants and area damaged. We counted the number of healthy and stunted plants to determine if the treatments impacted stand. Because neonicotinoids can sometimes stimulate plant growth unrelated to pest damage7,8, we measured plant height to determine if plant growth was impacted by either treatment. At the end of the growing season, we measured stand again and harvested the corn to collect yield data.

Figure 1. Diagnostic seedling pest damage: a) soil pest, b) cutworm, c) armyworm, d) slug, e) stinkbug, f) miscellaneous feeding damage from a spotted cucumber beetle.

Results and Takeaways for Question 1

Poncho reduced insect damage more consistently than Capture LFR (in both Bt and non-Bt corn) and increased Bt corn stand. Capture LFR sometimes reduced insect damage (in non-Bt corn), but never improved stand.

We compared the number of seedlings with any type of pest damage between treatments and found that Poncho decreased damage about 62% in Bt corn and about 66% in non-Bt corn (Figure 2a and 2b). Compared to the control, Capture did not reduce damage in the Bt corn, but did reduce damage by about half in the non-Bt. Poncho increased stand about 8% compared to control in the Bt corn (25,731 ± 456 plants per acre and 23,623 ± 714 plants per acre, respectively), but did not improve it for non-Bt. Capture did not impact stand for either Bt or non-Bt corn.

Figure 2. Mean % ± SE of seedling A) Bt and B) non-Bt corn plants damaged by pests. Data were collected across three UMD research farms from 2020-2022. Within each graph, treatment bars with different letter above them are significantly different from each other.

There were no yield benefits from using either insecticide in either corn. This was likely due to a lack of economic pest pressure.

Non-Bt and Bt yields were the same across treatments (Figure 3A and 3B). This was probably because pest pressure was so low. Even though Poncho and Capture decreased pest damage, pests were below treatment thresholds—for example, armyworm damage in the control ranged from 0% to 5.4% of Bt plants, and 0% to 22.9% of non-Bt plants, in both cases below the treatment threshold of 35%9. Cutworm damage was similarly low ranging from 1% to 6.3% in Bt control and 0.5% to 3.8% in non-Bt control, also below the treatment threshold of 10% feeding damage9.

Figure 3. Mean yield ± standard error in bushels per acre corrected to 15.5% moisture of A) Bt corn and B) non-Bt corn. Yield data from 2020-2022 across three UMD research farms. Treatments did not significantly impact yield.

Takeaway: Pest pressure and yield were similar between the Bt and non-Bt varieties, and non-Bt yielded well without any insecticides. In general, without pre-existing pest problems in a given field, at-planting insecticides are unlikely to pay off in Maryland.

Question 2: Do Poncho and Capture hurt slug predators and flare up slug damage?

Data Collection

To assess the effect of treatments on slug biocontrol agents, we measured slug predatory ground beetles and predation. We measured predatory beetles with pitfall traps for three consecutive weeks. Because the predators that eat slugs also attack caterpillars, we used sentinel caterpillars to see how much predation was occurring (Figure 4). We placed sentinel caterpillars in the plots overnight, collected them the following morning, and assessed signs of damage from predators. To determine if slugs were flared up by the treatments, we measured slug abundance once a week for 6 weeks beginning between 14 to 21 days after planting and measured slug-damaged seedlings during V2-V3.

Figure 4. Sentinel caterpillars placed in field overnight and collected in the morning to determine predator activity.

Results and Takeaways for Question 2

Predation on sentinel caterpillars was not decreased by insecticides.

We measured the percent of sentinel prey that were damaged by predators overnight (Figure 5) and saw no relationship between treatment and predation rates (Figure 6). This suggests that the insecticides did not decrease predator activity in treated plots. We did generally see some level of predation all weeks at our locations, indicating that predators are usually present in seedling corn.

Figure 5. Top: predators feeding on sentinel prey. Bottom: examples of damaged prey proportions. Images: M. Cramer, University of Maryland.
Figure 6. Mean ± SE % sentinel prey caterpillars consumed across three UMD research farms from 2020-2022. Control, Capture, and Poncho did not significantly differ.

Predator abundance was not altered by insecticides.

When we measured the weekly counts of ground beetles, we found similar results between treatments. This was true when we looked at all ground beetles (predators, omnivores, and seed-eaters), as well as when we looked only at predatory beetles (Figure 7A and 7B).

Figure 7. Mean ± SE count of A) all ground beetles, and B) specifically predatory ground beetles, caught per week in pitfall traps across three UMD research farms from 2020-2022. No significant differences.

Slug natural enemies did occur throughout the study, suggesting that biocontrol could be more intentionally leveraged.

The two most abundant ground beetle species in our study were both predators. One of these species, Chlaenius tricolor (Figure 8) is a slug predator that consumes slugs in agricultural ecosystems5,10. Although its abundance was not affected by treatments, it was present at all locations in all years, suggesting that it is a particularly important slug natural enemy in Maryland crops.

Figure 8. Chlaenius tricolor, a slug predator that was found throughout the study. Photo credit: ©Molanic 2023: https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/314013175.

Neither insecticide increased slug abundance or slug damage.

If treatments had negatively affected predators, we would expect to see more slugs and damage in the insecticide plots. However, when we compared slug counts between treatments, we found that the insecticide treatments were not different from the control (Figure 9). Slug damage to the seedling corn was also similar across the control and insecticide treatments (Figure 10).

Figure 9. Mean number of slugs per replicate plot ± SE the week closest to seedling sampling across three UMD research farms from 2020-2022. No significant differences.
Figure 10. Mean ± SE % of corn seedlings damaged by slugs across three UMD research farms from 2020-2022. Control. No significant differences.

While slugs can be damaging in many crops, the worst slug damage in our study did not affect corn stand or yield, suggesting that corn is generally tolerant of slug damage at the levels we observed in this study.

Slug damage was scarce across years and locations except in 2021 at Keedysville. Even in that case where a high proportion of seedlings (42% ± 4% on average) were damaged by slugs, we did not see an associated decrease in stand or yield. Corn seedlings were able to outgrow the slug damage as the weather warmed, even when they appeared severely defoliated. The seedling resilience we observed is supported by work on hail damage in corn which shows that as long as the growing point is intact, corn can regrow from complete defoliation11.

Even though we did not see non-target effects in this study, both pyrethroids and neonicotinoids can decrease natural enemies in crop fields6,12–14.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the farm managers and staff of WYEREC, WMREC, and CMREC Beltsville for their expertise and assistance. We would also like to thank the Hamby lab’s many undergraduate researchers for helping complete this project with all their hard work.

Sources:

  1. Kullik, S. A., Sears, M. K. & Schaafsma, A. W. Sublethal Effects of Cry 1F Bt Corn and Clothianidin on Black Cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Larval Development. J. Econ. Entomol. 104, 484–493 (2011).
  2. North, J. H. et al. Value of neonicotinoid insecticide seed treatments in mid-south corn (Zea mays) production systems. J. Econ. Entomol. 111, 187–192 (2018).
  3. Reisig, D. & Goldsworthy, E. Efficacy of Insecticidal Seed Treatments and Bifenthrin In-Furrow for Annual White Grub, 2016. Arthropod Manag. Tests 43, 1–2 (2017).
  4. Sappington, T. W., Hesler, L. S., Clint Allen, K., Luttrell, R. G. & Papiernik, S. K. Prevalence of sporadic insect pests of seedling corn and factors affecting risk of infestation. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 9, (2018).
  5. Douglas, M. R., Rohr, J. R. & Tooker, J. F. Neonicotinoid insecticide travels through a soil food chain, disrupting biological control of non-target pests and decreasing soya bean yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 250–260 (2015).
  6. Dubey, A., Lewis, M. T., Dively, G. P. & Hamby, K. A. Ecological impacts of pesticide seed treatments on arthropod communities in a grain crop rotation. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 936–951 (2020).
  7. Ding, J. et al. Thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid seed treatments effectively control thrips on corn under field conditions. J. Insect Sci. 18, (2018).
  8. Preetha, G. & Stanley, J. Influence of neonicotinoid insecticides on the plant growth attributes of cotton and okra. J. Plant Nutr. 35, 1234–1245 (2012).
  9. Flessner, M. & Taylor, S. V. 2021 Field Crops Pest Management Guide. Virginia Cooperative Extension (2021) doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394807-6.00031-9.
  10. Eskelson, M. J., Chapman, E. G., Archbold, D. D., Obrycki, J. J. & Harwood, J. D. Molecular identification of predation by carabid beetles on exotic and native slugs in a strawberry agroecosystem. Biol. Control 56, 245–253 (2011).
  11. Thomason, W. & Battaglia, M. Early defoliation effects on corn plant stands and grain yield. Agron. J. 5024–5032 (2020) doi:10.1002/agj2.20402.
  12. Disque, H. H., Hamby, K. A., Dubey, A., Taylor, C. & Dively, G. P. Effects of clothianidin-treated seed on the arthropod community in a mid-Atlantic no-till corn agroecosystem. Pest Manag. Sci. 75, 969–978 (2019).
  13. Bhatti, M. A. et al. Field Evaluation of the Impact of Corn Rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)–Protected <I>Bt</I> Corn on Foliage-Dwelling Arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 34, 1336–1345 (2006).
  14. Taravati, S., Mannion, C., McKenzie, C. & Osborne, L. Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Selected Systemic and Contact Insecticides on Nephaspis oculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), in a Tri-Trophic System. J. Econ. Entomol. 112, 543–548 (2018).

At-planting treatments for controlling early-season insect pests in corn

Maria Cramer, Edwin Afful, Galen Dively, and Kelly Hamby
Department of Entomology, University of Maryland

Slug feeding damage: characteristic long, thin holes made by a rasping mouthpart.

Background: Multiple insecticide options are available for early-season corn pest management, including neonicotinoid seed treatments (NSTs) and in-furrow pyrethroids such as Capture LFR®. In addition, many Bt corn hybrids provide protection against seedling foliar pests such as cutworm and armyworm. Given that almost all corn seed is treated with neonicotinoid seed treatments (NSTs), Capture LFR® may not provide any additional protection.

Methods: In this study we compared four treatments: fungicide seed treatments alone; Capture LFR® (active ingredient: bifenthrin) applied in the planting furrow with the fungicide seed treatment; Cruiser Maxx® 250, an NST (active ingredient: thiamethoxam), which includes a fungicide; and Capture LFR® + Cruiser Maxx® 250 together. We evaluated the amount of soil and foliar pest damage after emergence. Yield was measured at harvest.

Preliminary results: Our results suggest that when wireworm pressure is high, Capture LFR® and Cruiser Maxx® 250 protect against damage and significantly increase yields. Neither treatment is superior, so we recommend using only one, and only in fields where pest pressure is known to be high. As most corn seed already contains NSTs, use of Capture LFR® at planting is unlikely to be warranted.

Sampling for soil and foliar pests

Background: Capture LFR®, an in-furrow pyrethroid product, is marketed for control of early-season corn pests, including soil pests such as white grub and wireworm and above-ground pests such as cutworm and armyworm. However, the insect pest management systems already adopted in corn may provide sufficient protection. Most corn seeds are treated with NSTs, which provide seedlings with systemic protection from many soil and above-ground pests. Additionally, most Bt corn hybrids express proteins with efficacy against cutworm and armyworm in the seedling stage, although they do not affect soil pests. Unlike NSTs and Bt traits, pyrethroids are not systemic and do not provide protection beyond the soil area to which they are applied.

While in-furrow applications of bifenthrin (the active ingredient in Capture LFR®) can effectively reduce wireworm damage in potatoes1 and provides white grub control in field corn2,3, it does not consistently increase yield in corn3 or soybeans4. Yield benefits are likely to be seen only where there is known soil pest pressure. Meanwhile, preventative applications of pyrethroids have been linked to declines in natural enemies 5,6, including carabid beetles, which are important predators of slugs.

Objectives: Our objectives were to determine whether in-furrow applications of Capture LFR® (bifenthrin) provided 1) protection against soil pests, 2) protection against seedling pests, and 3) yield benefits compared with fungicide alone, Cruiser Maxx® 250, or combined with Cruiser Maxx® 250.

Methods: This study was conducted in 2018 and 2019 at the University of Maryland research farm in Beltsville, MD. We planted 4 replicate plots of a standard Bt field corn hybrid, TA 758-22DP (VT Double Pro insect control) in 2018 and LC1488 VT2P (SmartStax RIB complete insect control) in 2019 at 29,999 seeds per acre. Plots were planted late in 2018 (June 18) but on time in 2019 (May 20). Standard agronomic growing practices for the region were used. We compared the following four treatments, applied at planting:

  No in-furrow application In-furrow Capture LFR®

Applied at 13.6 fl oz/ac
Fungicide seed treatment Fungicide (F) seed treatment alone

2018: Maxim Quattro®

2019: Vibrance Cinco®

 Fungicide +

Capture LFR® (F + Cap)

 
Cruiser Maxx® 250 Cruiser Maxx® 250

(Cru)

 Cruiser Maxx® 250 + Capture LFR® (Cru +Cap)

We sampled plants 24 days after planting in 2018, and 18 days after planting in 2019. In 2018, we recorded the number of stunted plants (indicating potential soil pest damage), and in 2019, we dug up stunted plants and recorded those for which soil pest damage could be confirmed. In both years, we assessed rates of above-ground feeding by pests such as cutworm and armyworm.

Wireworm (left) and characteristic above-ground symptoms of wireworm feeding (right). Note wilted center leaf.Results: Soil Pests. In 2018 there was no difference in the percent stunted plants between treatments (Figure 1), with less than 5% stunting in all treatments. This low level of pest damage may have been due to the late planting date, which could have avoided peak soil pest pressure. In 2019, all of the insecticide treatments had significantly lower soil pest damage than the fungicide control (Figure 1). Combining Capture LFR® with Cruiser Maxx® 250 was not more effective than Cruiser Maxx® 250 alone, but was more effective than Capture LFR® alone, suggesting that treatments involving Cruiser Maxx® 250 are somewhat more effective against the soil pests at this farm. In both years, plots were located in a field with a history of wireworms; however, damage was only observed in 2019. In a field without pest pressure, such as we saw in 2018, these treatments did not improve plant stand.

Foliar pests. In both 2018 and 2019, rates of foliar damage were extremely low (below 5% of plants) in all treatments and there were no differences between treatments.

Yield. In 2018, there were no yield differences between the treatments (Figure 2). Overall, we had low yields in 2018, likely a result of the late planting date. In 2019, all of the insecticide treatments had significantly higher yields than the fungicide control, with no differences between any of the insecticide treatments (Figure 2). Combining Capture LFR® with Cruiser Maxx® 250 did not increase yield.

Figure 1. 2018 and 2019 soil pest pressure, Beltsville, MD. Mean percent plants damaged for four treatments: F=Fungicide, F+Cap= Fungicide + Capture LFR®, Cru=Cruiser Maxx® 250, Cru+Cap= Cruiser Maxx® 250 + Capture LFR®. In 2018, treatments did not impact stunted plants (N.S.) In 2019, all insecticide treatments significantly reduced soil pest damage (columns with different letters have significantly different mean damage).
Figure 2. 2018 and 2019 yields, Beltsville, MD. Mean yield for four treatments: F=Fungicide, F+Cap= Fungicide + Capture LFR®, Cru=Cruiser Maxx® 250, Cru+Cap= Cruiser Maxx® 250 + Capture LFR®. Yields were not significantly different in 2018 (N.S). In 2019, all insecticide treatments had significantly higher yield than the fungicide only treatment (columns with different letters have significantly different mean yield).

Conclusions: In 2018 and 2019 we did not see sufficient foliar pest pressure to justify an insecticide application. This may be due to effective control by Bt proteins in the corn hybrids and/or low foliar pest pressure.

In a field with established wireworm pressure, all three insecticide treatments reduced soil pest damage and improved yield relative to a fungicide only control in the 2019 field season. While there were differences in pest damage levels between the different insecticide treatments, no one treatment provided superior yield benefits. Because nearly all corn seed is treated with NSTs like Cruiser Maxx® 250, additional applications of Capture LFR® may not be necessary. Preventative applications increase costs and present risks to beneficial insects without providing yield benefits. Additionally, soil pest pressure tends to be low throughout Maryland. We sampled untreated corn at five locations across Maryland in 2019 and found on average less than 3% soil pest damage. Unless a field has a known history of wireworms or white grubs, we do not recommend using at-planting insecticides.

Acknowledgements and Funding. This project was funded in both years by the Maryland Grain Producers Utilization Board. We appreciate the help provided by Rachel Sanford, Madison Tewey, Eric Crandell, Gabriel Aborisade, and Kevin Conover.

Sources

  1. Langdon, K. W., Colee, J. & Abney, M. R. Observing the effect of soil-applied insecticides on wireworm (coleoptera: Elateridae) behavior and mortality using radiographic imaging. J. Econ. Entomol. 111, 1724–1731 (2018).
  2. Afful, E., Illahi, N. & Hamby, K. Agronomy News. 10, 2–4 (2019).
  3. Reisig, D. & Goldsworthy, E. Efficacy of Insecticidal Seed Treatments and Bifenthrin In-Furrow for Annual White Grub, 2016. Arthropod Manag. Tests 43, 1–2 (2017).
  4. Koch, R. L., Rich, W. A., Potter, B. D. & Hammond, R. B. Effects on soybean of prophylactic in-furrow application of insecticide and fertilizer in Minnesota and Ohio. Plant Heal. Prog. 17, 59–63 (2016).
  5. Douglas, M. R. & Tooker, J. F. Meta-analysis reveals that seed-applied neonicotinoids and pyrethroids have similar negative effects on abundance of arthropod natural enemies. PeerJ 1–26 (2016). doi:10.7717/peerj.2776
  6. Funayama, K. Influence of pest control pressure on occurrence of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in apple orchards. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 46, 103–110 (2011).