Category: Insects

Using partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata) to increase natural enemies in neighboring soybeans

Laura C. Moore^,*, Alan W. Leslie#, Cerruti RR Hooks$,* and Galen P. Dively+,*
Former graduate student^, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist$, Professor Emeritus+, CMNS, Department of Entomology*, Agriculture Extension Agent, Charles County#

Introduction

Increasing floral diversity within agricultural fields has been proposed as a method to bolster natural enemies and subsequently reduce pest populations. A key factor that enhances predator and parasitoid populations is the availability of nectar and/or pollen food subsidies from flowering plants. Many natural enemies, particularly hymenopteran (wasps) parasitoids, require carbohydrates for successful reproduction and overall fitness. However, monoculture cropping systems are relatively weed-free and generally lack floral resources required by many natural enemies. A literature review showed that the successful establishment of certain parasitoids in cropping systems depended on the presence of nectar-bearing weeds. In addition to providing natural enemies nectar and pollen to eat, flowering plants can supply alternative hosts or prey, shelter, overwintering sites and a more suitable microclimate.

Many conservation projects have been implemented by farmers to increase beneficial services on arable lands. In Maryland, the opportunity to practice conservation biological control exists within the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Conservation biological control is a pest management approach that manipulates agricultural systems so as to promote pest suppression by naturally occurring predators, parasitoids and pathogens. The CREP seeks to establish riparian buffers in Maryland to improve water quality, filter sediments and nutrients from runoff and provide wildlife habitat. However, these buffers can be engineered to support communities of natural enemies and serve as corridors for their movement into neighboring crops.

The aim of this study was to determine whether buffer strips could be used as insectary plants to enhance beneficial arthropods (insects and spiders) within neighboring soybeans. Insectary plants are plants grown with cash crops to attract, feed and shelter insect parasitoids and predators so as to enhance their natural control of insect pests. We monitored pest and beneficial arthropods in the buffer insectary plants and neighboring soybean plantings and tried to link arthropods found in buffer plants with pest management in neighboring soybeans.

Abbreviated Experimental Procedures

Insectary buffer test plants. Partridge pea and purple tansy are commonly used to enhance floral resources along field margins for pollinator plantings and to enhance communities of natural enemies in adjacent crops. Partridge pea is a native annual legume and is widely used in seed mixes of CREP riparian buffers because it readily reseeds itself, is competitive when grown with grass mixes, and provides nutritional seed for game birds. As an insectary plant, partridge pea has a long bloom period and each leaf petiole has an extrafloral nectary at its base, which produces nectar throughout the growing season. A diverse assemblage of pollinators and natural enemies are attracted to partridge pea. Purple tansy has a long flowering period, high-quality nectar and pollen production, and is reported as being a valuable insectary plant. Proso millet is a warm season annual grass that lacks floral resources. As such, it served as a grass control to determine how added vegetation diversity in the absence of floral resources would impact natural enemies.

Experimental design. Field experiments were conducted over two years at the Central Maryland Research and Education Center in Beltsville, MD. In year 1, 16 plots of soybean were seeded on May 11. Each plot consisted of 20 soybean rows spaced 35 cm (15 in) apart and bordered on each side by an insectary buffer strip (Fig. 1). The test buffer strips consisted of 1) purple tansy, 2) partridge pea, 3) 50:50 seed mixture of purple tansy + partridge pea, or 4) proso millet. Each soybean plot-buffer combination was replicated four times. Seeds of partridge pea, purple tansy, and proso millet were planted with a no-till drill in rows 23 cm (9 in) apart at a rate of roughly 12,000 seeds per ha (4856 per ac) on the day soybeans were planted.

Fig. 1. Illustration of a soybean-buffer treatment plot in year 1. Soybean plots were bordered on each side with buffer insectary plants. Buffers included purple tansy, partridge pea, 50:50 seed mixture of partridge pea/purple tansy or proso millet.

The year 1 study showed that purple tansy was unsuitable for the hot summer conditions in Maryland Thus, it was not used in the year 2 experiment, which focused solely on partridge pea as the insectary buffer plant. The year 2 experiment included 14 strip plantings of full season soybean at five different locations (Fig. 2). Soybeans were planted no-till in 75 cm (30 in) wide rows during May. Each strip was bordered at one end with a partridge pea buffer and at the other end with a mixed grass border of fescue (Festuca spp.) and orchardgrass (Dactylis spp.).

Fig. 2. Aerial view of experimental layout in year 2. Study consisted of 14 contour strips of full-season soybeans and adjoining partridge pea buffers (indicated by black polygons) at one end of each strip. Grassy areas were on opposite ends of soybean strips without a buffer.

Arthropod population assessments. Abundances of arthropods active in the plant canopy were measured with yellow sticky cards secured to bamboo poles. Further, sweep-net samples were taken in July and August to estimate green cloverworm (Hypena scabra) numbers. The green cloverworm served as a bioindicator of changes in pest populations potentially caused by enhanced natural enemy activity. The larger field size in year 2 allowed sticky cards to be placed throughout the soybean strip. One card was placed in the center of each partridge pea buffer, and additional cards were placed at distances of 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 m (10 ft to 79 ft) from the border on both sides of each soybean strip (total of 10 sticky cards per strip). Sampling was conducted weekly or biweekly. In year 2, pitfall traps were also installed in the ground adjacent to each sticky card to estimate the abundance of surface-dwelling arthropods over 7-day intervals.

Summary of Results

Year 1 Study – comparison of four insectary buffers parasitoid abundance. Three families of parasitoids Mymaridae, Scelionidae and Trichogrammatidae comprised 83.9% of the total of parasitic wasps captured on sticky cards. Families Ceraphronidae, Braconidae and Eulophidae comprised an additional 12.5% of the wasp parasitoid group. Of these parasitoids, mymarids were the most abundant and there were 73-78% higher sticky card captures of this wasp in partridge pea compared to purple tansy and millet buffers. However, significantly fewer mymarids were captured in soybeans adjacent to partridge pea than adjacent to purple tansy or millet. Scelionid parasitoids were more abundant in millet and purple tansy buffers but their numbers were similar in soybeans regardless of the neighboring buffer type. Trichogrammatid abundance was greatest in millet early in the season and in buffers with partridge pea by season end. Two families of fly parasitoids (Tachinidae and Sarcophagidae) averaged 9.4 and 4.4 flies per sticky card in insectary buffers and soybean plots, respectively. The abundance of sarcophagid flies was significantly higher in buffers with partridge pea than millet or purple tansy alone. Similarly, soybeans adjacent to partridge pea were inhabited by more tachinids and sarcophagids than soybeans adjacent to millet or purple tansy.

Predator abundance. Overall predator abundance was significantly higher in purple tansy and millet compared to partridge pea or mixed (partridge pea + purple tansy) buffers. Mean captures per card were 5.0 in partridge pea, 6.8 in mixed, 8.5 in purple tansy, and 10.3 in millet. However. similar predator numbers were captured in soybean plots adjacent to all four buffer types.

Insect herbivores (plant feeders). Sweep net counts of green cloverworm were statistically similar in soybean plots adjacent to the four different buffer types. Overall numbers per 10 sweeps averaged 24.6, 27.0, 18.0, and 23.0 in soybeans adjacent to millet, purple tansy, mixed and partridge pea buffers, respectively. The bulk of other insect herbivores captured on sticky cards were mainly aphids, leafhoppers, planthoppers and plant bugs. Mean numbers captured per card were 86.1 (millet), 113.2 (purple tansy), 57.6 (mixed) and 53.7 (partridge pea).

3.2. Year 2 Study partridge pea vs. natural grass vegetation

Parasitoid abundance. The most abundant parasitoids belonged to families Mymaridae, Trichogrammatidae and Scelionidae in order of abundance, and together comprised 84.3% of the total hymenopteran parasitoids captured. Each family responded differently to the partridge pea treatment. Mymarid abundance was higher overall in partridge pea buffers but did not enhance their abundance in neighboring soybeans (Fig. 3). Significantly fewer trichogrammatids were captured in partridge pea compared to numbers captured in soybean with and without the partridge pea buffer. Mean captures of dipteran parasitoids per sticky card abundance were significantly higher in soybean neighboring partridge pea, with the exception of the first and last sampling dates.

Fig. 3. A) Mean number (±SE) of mymarid parasitoids captured per sticky card in partridge pea buffer, soybean neighboring buffer, and soybean without buffer in year 2. Data for soybean were averaged over all sampling distances (3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 m) from the field edges. B) Mean number in soybean at different distances from field edges with and without a partridge pea buffer.

Predator abundance. Long-legged flies, minute pirate bugs, and big-eyed bugs comprised 81.4% of the total predatory arthropods captured. Soldier beetles, fireflies and lady beetles represented an additional 11.6%. Mean abundance of predators per sticky card was 11.5 ± 1.1 in buffer, 4.1 ± 0.16 in soybean neighboring buffer and 4.9 ± 0.18 in soybean without buffer. Abundance of predators was significantly lower in soybean neighboring the partridge pea buffer (Fig. 4). However, this was largely due to the activity of long-legged flies, which were more attracted to the partridge pea buffer. Still, their numbers were significantly lower in soybean strips neighboring partridge pea compared to soybeans without partridge pea buffers.

Fig. 4. A) Mean number (±SE) of arthropod predators captured per sticky card in partridge pea buffer, soybean neighboring buffer and soybean without buffer in year 2. Data for soybean were averaged over all sampling site distances (3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 m) from the field edges. B) Mean number in soybean at different distances from field edges with and without a partridge pea buffer. Arthropod predator guild consisted of long-legged flies, minute pirate bugs, big-eyed bug, soldier beetles, fireflies and lady beetles.

Insect herbivores/pests. Thrips, leafhoppers, treehoppers, froghoppers and planthoppers comprised over 95% of herbivores captured on sticky cards. The total number of herbivores per sticky card averaged 108.2 in the partridge pea buffer, 96.3 in soybean neighboring buffer, and 96.4 in soybean without buffer. Thus, herbivore numbers did not differ significantly in the buffer and soybeans.

Pitfall trap predators. A total of 56,296 arthropods were identified from pitfall trap samples. Of predators captured in pitfall traps, ants, spiders, soldier beetle larvae, rove beetle adults and larvae, and ground beetle adults and larvae were the most abundant. Ant numbers were significantly lower in soybeans neighboring partridge pea on all sampling dates.

Discussion

Year 1 study was conducted to determine if pure and mixed buffer strips of partridge pea and purple tansy could attract greater numbers of beneficial arthropods than non-floral strips of millet, and whether these buffers enhance beneficial arthropod abundance in neighboring soybeans. Purple tansy was not a suitable insectary plant as it was not well adapted to the seasonal period of the study in Maryland. Furthermore, purple tansy would probably be less desirable to establish and maintain as a buffer strip due to its relatively high seed price, slow growth characteristic and greater susceptibility to weed competition. Moreover, purple tansy was quickly out-competed by partridge pea in the mixed planting to the extent that the pure and mixed buffers containing partridge pea attracted similar arthropod communities.

Overall, results consistently showed that partridge pea attracted and supported high populations of natural enemies and potential hosts and prey, with abundances significantly greater than levels found in adjacent soybeans. Sticky card captures of wasp and fly parasitoids in year 1 were more than 70% higher overall in buffers containing partridge pea compared to other buffer types. Similarly, populations of all beneficial arthropods captured by sticky card and pitfall sampling in year 2 were approximately 80 to 72% higher, respectively, in partridge pea buffers compared to the soybean crop.

Parasitoids. Mymarid wasps were notably the most common parasitoids captured on sticky cards and consistently more abundant in partridge pea compared to soybean. These tiny wasps parasitize insect eggs in concealed sites within plant tissues or the soil and are important natural control agents of economically important leafhopper pests. In year 1, mymarids reached levels in partridge pea buffers that were four-fold higher than those in soybean plots, yet significantly lower levels of mymarids were captured in soybean adjoining these buffers. This suggests that the partridge pea lured mymarids from neighboring soybeans. High numbers of mymarids were also captured in partridge pea in year 2 but their abundance in soybeans was not enhanced. This suggests that partridge pea may provide some parasitoids and their associated hosts with all resources required for survival and reproduction. This would in effect provide no incentive for these parasitoids to forage within neighboring crops.

Most fly parasitoids found on sticky cards were tachinids or sarcophagids. The vast majority of hosts of tachinid flies are plant-feeding insects. Their level of parasitism can vary greatly, from less than 1% to approaching 100%, depending on such factors as the size of a host and parasitoid population, and environmental conditions. During both study years, their overall abundance in partridge pea was 62.3% higher than levels in soybean. In year 2, this effect was heightened at the field edge next to buffers, suggesting that higher numbers of parasitic flies encroached into the neighboring soybeans but enter only a short distance within the crop.

Predators. In year 1, predators captured on sticky cards were 65% more abundant in the millet and purple tansy buffers. This response was mainly attributed to the abundance of long-legged flies. These predatory flies hover while searching for small, soft-bodied arthropods, particularly other flies, aphids, spider mites, larvae of small insects and thrips. However, abundances of long-legged flies in soybean plots were not affected by buffer type in year 1. Long-legged flies were also the predominant predators active in the plant canopy in year 2, with overall numbers 2-3 times higher in partridge pea buffers compared to levels found in soybeans. However, their abundance was significantly lower in soybean neighboring partridge pea, particularly at sampling sites closest to the field edge. This is further evidence that the partridge pea acted as a natural enemy sink.

Of the ground-dwelling predators captured by pitfall traps, ants were the predominant group and their abundance was significantly higher in partridge pea than adjoining soybeans. Their numbers were significantly lower in soybean plantings adjacent to partridge pea than grassy check treatment on all sampling dates, implying again that partridge pea acted as a natural enemy sink by luring ants away from soybean. Populations of other ground-dwelling predators, which consisted mainly of spiders, rove beetles, soldier beetles and ground beetles, showed a definite preference for partridge pea compared to soybeans. However, their abundances in the crop were not affected by partridge pea presence.

Herbivores. Sticky card captures each study year indicated that partridge pea harbored significantly more insect herbivores compared to soybean. The majority of herbivores were aphids, leafhoppers, planthoppers and plant bugs. In year 1, number of green cloverworm, as well as other herbivores in soybean were similar regardless of the buffer treatment.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that partridge pea provides floral resources and alternative food for a diverse community of natural enemies and herbivores. However, its presence as a monoculture buffer did not result in increased number of major natural enemies in neighboring soybeans. Taken together, partridge pea planted as a monoculture acted more as a natural enemy sink by attracting beneficial arthropods away from soybean, potentially decreasing natural control efforts. For this reason, a monoculture of partridge pea may not be an ideal insectary planting if the ultimate goal is to maximize natural enemy efficacy in neighboring soybean fields.

In conservation reserve practices, monocultures of partridge pea are more commonly planted as a wildlife habitat to provide food for bobwhite quail and other wildlife and as flowering habitat for different pollinator taxa. Because the foliage is potentially poisonous to cattle and re-seeding plants can aggressively fill in voids when used as part of a seed mix, conservationists recommend for herbaceous riparian buffers that the total seed mix consist of no less than 1% and no more than 4% partridge pea. However, decisions about the deployment of insectary plants as a monoculture or part of a riparian buffer mix planting should take into consideration the attractiveness and resources provided to natural enemies and their hosts/prey by the insectary habitat in comparison to those provided by the neighboring cash crop. Simple addition of a highly attractive flowering buffer adjacent to a crop could be counterintuitive to natural biological control efforts.

Acknowledgements

Financial support for field studies and publishing results was provided by the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Grants Program, Maryland Soybean Board and USDA NIFA EIPM grant number 2017-70006-27171.

Getting Rid of Mosquitoes on the Farm

Kelly Nichols, Agriculture Agent Associate
University of Maryland Extension, Frederick County

Warmer temperatures and higher humidity are slowly making their appearance. Unfortunately, this means mosquitoes will soon make their appearance as well. Mosquitoes not only are pesky as they fly around you, but are a health risk for humans and livestock, as they carry diseases such as West Nile Virus and Zika Virus. Female mosquitoes need stagnant, nutrient-rich water in order to lay their eggs. After the mosquito eggs hatch, the larvae and pupae will live in the water before becoming an adult. The easiest solution to get rid of mosquitoes is to remove places where this water can accumulate.

Items such as water troughs, buckets, wheelbarrows, and bird baths should be stored inside or upside down when not in use. If stagnant water does accumulate while these items are in use, dump the water and replace it regularly. Loader buckets should be tilted downwards when stored to prevent water accumulation. Get rid of unused tires, and do not pile tires outside. If tires are outside, including those on top of bunk silos, cut them in half to reduce water accumulation. Tarps that cover bales or equipment should be placed so that water can drain. Gutters should be cleaned regularly.

For water sources that can’t be removed, there are insecticides and products that create a film on top of the water. Be sure to read the label before use. Note that the pupae do not actually eat during this stage, and therefore cannot ingest an insecticide, so it is important to use the right product for the correct stage. Creating a film on top of the water’s surface prevents the pupae from being able to access air to survive. Crusts on manure pits can act as a film; however, keep in mind that if using an insecticide, the crust will prevent it from reaching the larvae. Reduce weeds around the pit to deter mosquito habitat. If ponding is occurring in fields and around the barnyard, determine the cause and take the necessary actions. These actions may include alleviating compaction, fixing gutters, or fixing drainage pipes.

 

Early Summer Insect Scouting

Emily Zobel, Agriculture Agent Associate
University of Maryland Extension, Dorchester County

Overwintering bean leaf beetles are emerging and starting to feed. Soybean seedlings can recover, with no yield loss, from 40% defoliation. Many small caterpillars, such as the green clover worms will also defoliate plants. However, once soybean plants start to bloom, you want to control defoliating insects when you have greater than 15% defoliation.

Check for cutworm and armyworms leaf feeding on young corn plants. The threshold for cutworms is when 10% of the field has feeding damage at 1-2 leaf, and 5% damage at 3-4 leaf or 4 larvae found per 100 ft. For armyworms, the treatment threshold is when 25% of the plants are infested and larvae are under a 0.75 inch long. Armyworms that are 1.25 inches are late instars and have likely completed their feeding.

No-till fields of both corn and soybean are at an increased risk of slug damage. Slugs feed at night, so you will likely not find them during daytime scouting. Their feeding damage will be found on the lower leaves of plants. The leaf will have narrow, irregular, linear tracks or scars of various lengths that may be eaten partly or entirely through the leaf. Peter Coffey wrote a great article about slug management, which can be found here (https://blog.umd.edu/agronomynews/2018/05/03/what-should-i-do-about-slugs/) .

As wheat gets harvested during the month, stink bugs may move into nearby cornfields. Their feeding could affect the developing ear and kernels. Populations will be highest around the edge of the field, and full-field control may not be needed. Field corn treatment threshold are when 25% of plants are infested with stink bugs before pollination, and 50% of plants are infested with stink bugs are after pollination up to early dough stage. Counts should be done on 10 plants in 10 different locations in the field. Do not count beneficial stinkbugs, such as the spined soldier bug.

 

Considering an Insecticide For Your Small Grain?

Alan Leslie1, Agriculture Agent; Kelly Hamby2, Extension Specialist; and Galen Dively, Professor Emeritus2
1University of Maryland Extension, Charles County
2University of Maryland, Department of Entomology

This time of year, anyone growing small grains will be planning to apply fungicides to manage Fusarium head blight, and many will consider tank-mixing an insecticide to control any insect pest problems at the same time. These tank mixes are an appealing option to reduce the time, fuel, and damage to the crop from having to make a second pass over the field later on in the season. In addition, with many synthetic pyrethroids now available as cheaper generic versions, the costs associated with adding an insecticide to the tank may seem like cheap insurance against possible pest outbreaks. However, to ensure that this added investment gives you a return with increased yields, you should still follow an integrated pest management approach and base the decision to add an insecticide on scouting and documentation of an existing pest problem. Below, we outline several possible insect pests that could be controlled with an insecticide applied with fungicides over small grains, and summarize situations where that application may be warranted, and when it may not.

Aphids. Aphid populations need to be controlled in the fall to reduce Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus incidence in small grains. Spring insecticide applications will not reduce incidence of the disease. Only a few aphid species tend to feed on grain heads, and can reduce yield from head emergence through milk stage (Fig. 1). After the soft dough stage, no economic losses occur. Aphid populations are generally kept in check by insect predators and parasitoids, and thresholds for chemical control of aphids in the spring require at least 25 aphids per grain head (with 90% of heads infested) or 50 per head (50% heads infested) and low numbers of natural enemies. Applying a broad spectrum insecticide when aphid pressure is not above threshold tends to kill off beneficial predatory and parasitic species, which can allow aphid populations to flare up, as they are no longer being suppressed by their natural enemies.

aphids on wheat head
Figure 1. Aphids feeding on wheat head.

True armyworm and grass sawfly. Both true armyworm (Fig. 2) and grass sawfly (Fig. 3) are sporadic pests of small grains and their pest pressure and feeding damage can vary widely from year to year. Automatically applying an insecticide to target these pests is not likely to be a cost-effective strategy since they are not pests that reliably cause economic injury. When these pests are present in high numbers, they are capable of causing significant yield loss through their behavior of clipping grain heads. Scouting should be done to check for the presence of these two pests and insecticide treatment is only needed if they exceed threshold values of one larva per linear foot for armyworm and 0.4 larvae per linear foot for grass sawflies.

armyworm and sawfly larave
Figure 2. True armyworm larva (top). Figure 3. Grass sawfly larva (bottom).

Hessian fly. Cultural methods are the best way to control Hessian fly in small grain, such as planting after the fly-free date, selecting resistant varieties, and using crop rotation to disrupt their population growth. Spring feeding by the fly larvae can cause stems to break, reducing yields. There are no effective rescue treatments for Hessian fly; insecticides targeting fly larvae are ineffective since they are well protected from sprays by feeding inside of the leaf sheath (Fig. 4). If this year’s crop is damaged, it is imperative that fly-resistant varieties are planted after the fly-free date next year.

Hessian fly larvae feeding inside wheat stem
Figure 4. Hessian fly larvae feeding inside of wheat leaf sheath.

           Cereal leaf beetle. This species is widespread in Maryland and is typically present in small grains, though it only occasionally reaches levels that injure crops. Cereal leaf beetle larvae chew the upper surfaces of leaves, leaving them skeletonized (Fig. 5). Larvae can cause yield loss if the flag leaf is severely skeletonized before grain-fill is completed. Insecticides with good residual activity tank mixed and applied with fungicides can potentially control populations of cereal leaf beetles, protect the flag leaf, and improve the yield of the crop if beetle pressure is high. However, predicting whether populations will reach damaging levels is not straightforward, and scouting should be used to guide spray decisions. If a field has 25 or more larvae plus eggs per 100 tillers, and there are more larvae than eggs, then chemical control is needed. In Maryland, a parasitoid wasp species (Anaphes flavipes) may parasitize 70-98% of cereal leaf beetle eggs, so if a field is dominated by eggs with few larvae, insecticide may not be needed. Additionally, feeding by cereal leaf beetle will not cause economic damage after the hard dough stage. So far, we have received no reports of economic levels of cereal leaf beetle in the region.

Cereal leaf beetle feeding on leaf
Figure 5. Cereal leaf beetle larva and feeding damage.

In conclusion, tank mixing an insecticide with your fungicide application can pay off if you have economically damaging levels of an insect pest, but applying any insecticide without a pest problem will not pay off. If populations are present, seem to be increasing, and you will not be harvesting soon, you could gamble. The risks of that gamble include losing money on an unnecessary input cost, secondary pest outbreaks if natural enemy populations are wiped out, or the target pest outbreaks anyway because the application was poorly timed. Scouting fields regularly to document pest pressure and using IPM thresholds as a guide for using chemical controls is the best way to hedge your bets when deciding whether to add an insecticide to the tank this spring.

For more information on tank-mixing insecticides with small grain fungicide applications, check out current research updates from Dr. Dominic Reisig at North Carolina State University: https://smallgrains.ces.ncsu.edu/2019/03/aphids-in-wheat/

https://entomology.ces.ncsu.edu/2015/04/should-you-spray-cereal-leaf-beetle/

And Dr. David Owens at the University of Delaware:

https://www.udel.edu/academics/colleges/canr/cooperative-extension/fact-sheets/cereal-leaf-beetle/

 

 

Scout now for alfalfa weevil

Alan Leslie
Agriculture Extension Agent, Charles County

After a relatively mild winter, we are getting reports of high numbers of alfalfa weevils causing damage to alfalfa fields in Southern MD. Eggs that were laid by alfalfa weevil adults last fall are all hatching now, and early spring is when the larvae can cause the most damage to alfalfa stands, reducing the yield and quality of the first cutting and potentially setting the entire stand back for the rest of the year. Now is the time to be scouting for larvae and to consider chemical treatment to prevent economic yield loss. Alfalfa weevil larvae look very similar to caterpillars, with a dark head and a green body with a white stripe running down the middle. Early signs of injury from alfalfa weevil larvae appear as pinholes in leaves, but extensive feeding will skeletonize leaves, leaving plants with a distinct gray color. Sweep nets do not do a very good job of catching small larvae, so the best way to scout your fields is to cut stems and beat them on the inside of a bucket to knock the larvae loose. To effectively sample a field, you should collect at least 30 stems from across the field, and beat them vigorously inside the bucket. Make sure to keep track of the exact number of stems you sample, so you can calculate the average number of larvae per stem. Thresholds for control depend on the average height of the stand at the time you sample, with the threshold increasing in taller plants (Table 1).

Table 1.Threshold numbers of larvae per plant for different average stand heights that would warrant chemical control

Stand height (inches) Larvae per plant
0-11 0.7
12 1.0
13-15 1.5
16 2.0*
17-18 2.5*

*At these stand heights, prompt or early harvest can also control the larval infestation

We have also gotten reports of less than adequate control of alfalfa weevil populations using synthetic pyrethroids (group 3A; beta-cyfluthrin, zeta-cypermethrin, permethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, cyfluthrin). Because synthetic pyrethroids have historically been such a cheap and reliable chemical class, they have been widely used on many pests, and there are many examples of insect species becoming resistant to this class of insecticide. Currently we do not have good data on the extent to which local populations of alfalfa weevil are becoming resistant to pyrethroids, but it is always a good idea to rotate modes of action of insecticides sprayed over your fields to help prevent resistant populations from developing. Other chemical classes that give effective control of alfalfa weevil include carbamates (group 1A; methomyl, carbaryl) organophosphates (group 1B; phosmet, malathion, chlorpyrifos), and oxadiazines (group 22A; indoxacarb). If you have any remaining chlorpyrifos in your inventory, this may be a good opportunity to use it up, since the state of Maryland will likely introduce legislation to ban its use this year or in the near future. Remember to always read and follow the label whenever making any insecticide applications; the label is the law!

Unexpected Outbreak of Cowpea Aphid in Alfalfa

Darsy Smith, Graduate Student & Dr. William Lamp, Professor
University of Maryland, Department of Entomology

alfalfa field with aphid damage
Figure 1. Yellow appearance of the alfalfa field that lead to the discovery of the cowpea aphid outbreak at BARC. Photo courtesy of Russell Griffith.

An unexpected outbreak of cowpea aphid, Aphid craccivora Koch, in Maryland was discovered last month by Terry Patton, who was contacted by Russell Griffith, tractor operator leader at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), because of the yellow appearance of an alfalfa field (Figure 1) and the infestation of dark aphids (Figure 4). Since the 1990s, infestations of the cowpea aphid have been observed in Maryland alfalfa, but this is an unusually large outbreak. Stay alert to this emerging pest and learn how to identify it since it has a wide range of hosts and may damage crops.

close-up of cowpea aphid
Figure 2. Adult cowpea aphid. Note the cornicle (yellow arrow) is dark and long and the abdomen (red arrow) is distinctive dark and shiny. Photo courtesy of influentialpoints.com
A group of cowpea aphids
Figure 3. Adult and nymph cowpea aphids. Nymph color is opaque and varies (yellow arrow) from brown to gray while the adult (red arrow) has the distinctive dark, shiny abdomen. Photo courtesy of Andrew Jensen, https://aphidtrek.org/

Cowpea aphid identification and injury. Cowpea aphid is not generally an economic pest in alfalfa but learning how to identify the aphid and its injury can help you prevent losses. Cowpea aphid is easily differentiated from other aphids in alfalfa because its dark coloration, with the abdomen of the adults much darker and shinier than the rest of its body (Figure 2). In addition, the cornicle (or siphuncule) is dark and long (Figure 2). The nymph is less shiny (opaque) and varies from brown to gray (Figure 3). The legs and antennae of both adults and nymphs are pale with dark tips (this characteristic is more distinctive in adults).

The cowpea aphid is a sap-sucking feeder and damage caused in alfalfa by this pest results from the injection of a toxin into the phloem of the plant. With high population densities on plants, the aphid can cause stunting or plant death. In addition, it can cause yellowing in alfalfa leaves (Figure 1). Like other aphids, this insect produces honeydew that will benefit fungus growth and eventually cause sooty mold.

How to find them? Cowpea aphids are usually found in clusters on the alfalfa leaf and stems (Figure 4). It can also be found in vegetative growth and flower parts of a wide range of hosts. They are readily sampled with sweep nets.

Group of cowpea aphids feeding on alfalfa
Figure 4. Cowpea aphids on growing tip of alfalfa at BARC. Photo courtesy of Russell Griffith.

Host plants. Cowpea aphid is most commonly found in alfalfa, but may be found on other legumes, such as clovers. More uncommonly, the aphids occur on a variety of weeds and other plants in other plant families.

Management options. Unfortunately, there is not an economic threshold specified for this pest in Maryland alfalfa at this point. However, here are general guidelines for responding to the pest:

  1. Conserve natural enemies. Natural enemies such as lady beetles, damsel bugs, and parasitoid wasps often locate, feed, and reproduce in conjunction with high densities of aphid in alfalfa. If you conserve natural enemies you might find aphids parasitized by parasitoid wasps (Figure 5). When scouting for aphids, watch for natural enemies to help control aphid populations. To help natural enemies stay in your alfalfa field you can use border-strip cutting while harvesting to provide refuge habitats. For more information of this practice, see “Harvest Scheduling and Harvest Impacts on IPM” at the end of this report.
  2. Monitoring for decision-making.  Early infestations in alfalfa can result from migration from southern areas. Pay attention to alfalfa fields in March and continue to monitor until fall. Since there are no thresholds developed for cowpea aphid, the thresholds for insecticide applications developed for the blue alfalfa aphid can be used: if alfalfa is 10 inches, then treat if there are 20 or more aphids per stem; if alfalfa is 20 inches tall, then treat if 50 or more aphids per stem.

    Parasitized aphids
    Figure 5. Aphids parasitized or aphid mummies by a parasitoid wasp. Note the emergence hole (yellow arrows) of the parasitoid wasp in the mummy. Photo courtesy of Darsy Smith.

Potential reasons for the outbreak.

Researchers in the Lamp Lab, University of Maryland, have noted this pest in greenhouse settings but rarely observed them in alfalfa fields. Dr. Lamp suggests that the cowpea aphid may have migrated into Maryland because this species is more common in southern and western areas. Also, the mild winter may have allowed individuals that migrated last year to overwinter in Maryland. Additionally, lack of natural enemies in early spring can potentially lead to an outbreak. Conserving the natural enemies in alfalfa fields and neighboring areas can help decrease aphid abundance.

How can you help?

Records from your alfalfa fields and surrounding crops are valuable sources of information. The information is helpful to not just explain an outbreak but also to provide useful guidelines for farmers to manage the crop and avoid a future outbreak. Practical information that you can provide include any of the following:

  1. Date of first time you have observed the pest
  2. Date of outbreak
  3. Plant height and phenology stage: when you observed the pest for the first time and during outbreak
  4. Presence of natural enemies
  5. Pesticide use and efficacy of application
  6. Alfalfa cultivars/varieties planted during outbreak and previous year
  7. Pictures of damage and estimate of loss

If you find cowpea aphid in your alfalfa field, please contact the nearest county extension office.

Further resources:

University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa, Cowpea aphid. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r1301511.html

University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa, Blue alfalfa aphid http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r1302311.html

University of California Pest Management Guidelines: Alfalfa, Harvest Scheduling and Harvest Impacts on IPM. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r1901011.html#BORDERSTRIP

Aphids on the world’s crops. An identification and information guide.                        http://www.aphidsonworldsplants.info/

Prepared by Darsy Smith, Graduate Student, Department of Entomology, University of Maryland

Mild Winters Favor Greenbug Aphids and Winter Grain Mite in Small Grains and Orchardgrass

Kelly Hamby, Terry Patton, and Galen Dively
Department of Entomology, University of Maryland College Park

Summary. Weather stations in Baltimore, MD recorded the 3rd warmest winter on record in 81 years from Dec 2019 to February 2020, with 10% of our 30 year average snowfall (NOAA National Climate Report). Insects that overwinter as immatures or adults in above-ground protected areas are typically favored by mild winters, especially species that are not cold-hardy because much of the population would typically die during the winter. However, the lack of snowfall can also reduce overwintering survival because snow can insulate against freezing temperatures. Mild winter conditions favor green bug aphids and winter grain mite outbreaks in small grains and orchardgrass, and these pest populations can build rapidly. Fortunately, mild winters also favor many beneficial natural enemies. Greenbug aphid outbreaks have been observed in central Maryland orchardgrass (see Figure 1), and greenbugs have also been observed in Delaware. Overall, aphid populations have been spotty in Delaware and promising natural enemy activity has been observed (UD Weekly Crop Update, March 20). However, close surveillance is necessary when greenbug is the predominate species because greenbug injects toxic saliva during feeding and can be very destructive. It is important to carefully scout your fields for aphids multiple times to determine whether populations are building or crashing on your farm. Management interventions may be necessary to prevent economic losses. Winter grain mites may also be a problem this year and scouting close to the soil surface is necessary to catch this issue in a timely manner.

Figure 1. Heavy aphid populations have been observed in orchardgrass in central Maryland.
Figure 3. Aphid damage to orchardgrass in central Maryland.

Cereal Aphids and Greenbugs. Multiple species of aphid occur in Maryland small grains and orchardgrass (see Figure 2) and aphids can vector barley yellow dwarf virus. Bird-cherry oat aphids vector the most severe strain and may need to be managed in the fall to prevent damage from barley yellow dwarf, especially in intensive management wheat. Although the direct damage from aphid feeding is generally similar across species, it is especially important to record species if greenbugs are present. Greenbug saliva contains enzymes that break down cell walls, so their feeding is most damaging. They initially cause spotting on the leaf followed by discoloration and eventual leaf and root death if feeding continues. Grain cultivars vary in their tolerance for greenbug damage. One of the first noticeable symptoms of aphid outbreaks are circular yellow to brown spots with dead plants in the center (see Figure 3); however, aphid damage may be confused with moisture stress and/or nitrogen deficiency so make sure to scout for aphids especially in areas that are showing stress symptoms. Scout a minimum of 1 linear row foot in 10 sites, the more row feet and locations the better, and estimate the number of aphids per foot of row. The rule of thumb treatment threshold for small grains is to treat if counts exceed 150 per linear foot throughout most of the field, with few natural enemies detected (e.g., mummy aphids, lady beetles, fungal infections). One natural enemy to every 50 to 100 aphids can be enough to control the population. This threshold may be lower if greenbugs are the predominant aphid and greenbug populations should be carefully monitored. Foliar insecticides including pyrethroids (Group 3A), neonicotinoids (Group 4A), and organophosphates (Group 1B) can be used to control aphids.

Figure 2. Common cereal aphids. Notice color and length of antennae and cornicles (tail pipes). Greenbugs are light green with a dark green stripe, with black tips of the legs, cornicles, and antennae. Photos: Various Extension websites.

Winter Grain Mite. Winter grain mites are a cool season pest of small grains and orchardgrass that cause a silvery leaf discoloration from feeding damage that punctures individual plant cells. Feeding can also stunt plants. Winter mites have a dark brown to black body with bright reddish-orange legs (see Figure 4). Somewhat uniquely, their anal opening is on the upper surface and can appear as a tan to orange spot that is more visible under magnification. Two generations of winter grain mite occur per year and are active from the fall to early summer. They oversummer in the egg stage, with the first generation hatching around October and adult populations peaking in December or January. The second generation peaks from March to April and produces the oversummering eggs. Because spring eggs result in fall populations, rotating the crop away from grasses and managing wild grasses around field edges can be helpful to reduce populations. Adult activity occurs when temperatures are between 40 and 75°F, and they prefer cool, cloudy calm weather. Therefore, winter grain mites are easier to see during these conditions, and more likely to be higher on the plant during the early morning or late evening. If you are scouting on a hot, dry day or in the middle of the day, you should check under residue where the soil is moist, and may need to dig 4 or 5 inches into the soil to find the mites. Winter grain mite does not typically cause economic damage, and no thresholds have been developed. If large portions of a field show symptoms and mites are present, treatment may be warranted. No products are specifically labeled for winter grain mite; however, products labeled for brown mite such as dimethoate (Group 1B, in wheat only) are likely to be effective. Warrior II (pyrethroid, Group 3A) may also provide suppression.

Figure 4. Winter grain mite adult.

References and Useful Extension Articles:

Kansas State University Wheat Pests, Winter Grain Mite, https://entomology.k-state.edu/extension/insect-information/crop-pests/wheat/winter-grain-mite.html

NOAA National Climate Report Supplemental Material, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/202002/

Oklahoma State World of Wheat Blog, Winter grain mites in northcentral OK, https://osuwheat.com/2015/01/06/winter-grain-mites-in-northcentral-ok/

University of Delaware Weekly Crop Update March 20,2020. Agronomic Crop Insect Scouting, https://sites.udel.edu/weeklycropupdate/?p=14510

University of Delaware Fact Sheets and Publications, Winter Grain Mite Management in Small Grains, https://www.udel.edu/academics/colleges/canr/cooperative-extension/fact-sheets/winter-grain-mite/

Virginia Tech Insect Control in Field Crops, ENTO-335C, https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/456/456-016/ENTO-335C.pdf

 

 

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).

 

Department Issues Spotted Lanternfly Quarantine in Cecil and Harford Counties

Adult spotted lanternfly
Adult spotted lanternfly. Image: Lawrence Barringer, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Bugwood.org

Reposted from Maryland Department of Agriculture press release

The Maryland Department of Agriculture today issued a spotted lanternfly quarantine for all of Cecil and Harford Counties. This quarantine is effective immediately and will restrict the movement of regulated articles within the quarantine zone that contain the spotted lanternfly in any of its life stages, including egg masses, nymphs, and adults.

Examples of regulated articles include landscaping, remodeling, or construction waste; packing materials like wood boxes or crates; plants and plant parts; vehicles; and other outdoor items.

Following the department’s 2019 survey season, these two counties were found to have established populations of spotted lanternfly. The quarantine has been issued in an effort to control the spread of this invasive insect to other parts of the state. A map of the quarantine zone can be viewed here.Businesses, municipalities, and government agencies that require the movement of any regulated item within or from the quarantine zone must have a permit. A permit can be obtained by taking a free online training course through PennState Extension. Upon completion of the course and an online exam, individuals will receive a permit.

Managers, supervisors, or employees of a business or organization operating in the quarantine zone must receive the approved training and pass the exam by at least 70% to demonstrate a working knowledge and understanding of the pest and quarantine requirements. Training of other employees, inspection of vehicles and products, and removal of living stages of spotted lanternfly must also be completed.

All spotted lanternfly permits for Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware are transferable and valid throughout the region — meaning a permit from any of these states can be used in Maryland. Maryland is currently in the process of developing its own training and permitting system for spotted lanternfly.

Those living within the quarantine zone are encouraged to be vigilant in containing the spread of spotted lanternfly. The department has created a residential compliance checklist that is available for download on its website that educates residents on the lifecycle of the spotted lanternfly, and areas to inspect around the home.

The spotted lanternfly poses a major threat to the region’s agricultural industries as it feeds on over 70 different types of plants and crops, including grapes, hops, apples, peaches, oak, pine, and many others. Originally from Asia, the spotted lanternfly is nonnative to the U.S., and was first detected in Berks County, Pennsylvania in the fall of 2014. As a known hitchhiker, the spotted lanternfly has spread to 14 counties within Pennsylvania, and also has confirmed populations in Delaware, Virginia, and New Jersey.

This fall, the department’s Plant Protection and Weed Management Program partnered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to treat Ailanthus altissima for spotted lanternfly at multiple sites in the upper northeast corner of Cecil County, and along the northern border of Harford County. In total, 2,698 trees have been treated (2,403 trees in Cecil County and 295 trees in Harford County). The program continues to work with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine program, University of Maryland Extension and others to monitor the insect in Maryland.

If you suspect you have found a spotted lanternfly, snap a picture of it, collect it, put it in a plastic bag, freeze it, and report it to the Maryland Department of Agriculture at DontBug.MD@maryland.gov. Dead samples from any life stage can be sent to the Maryland Department of Agriculture Plant Protection and Weed Management Program at 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401.

More information about the spotted lanternfly can be found on the department’s website. For questions related to the quarantine, permitting, or treatment, please contact that Plant Protection and Weed Management Program at 410-841-5920.

Download the department’s Spotted Lanternfly Quarantine Fact Sheet for more details about the quarantine.

Pyrethroid insecticide effects on pests and beneficials in field corn

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

Overview

Background: Due to their low cost, pyrethroid insecticides are often applied when other chemical applications are made. For example, they may be included in tank mixes with herbicides in early whorl corn and with fungicides during tasseling. These pyrethroid sprays often target stink bugs; however, the timing of these treatments is not ideal for stink bug management. Pyrethoid insecticides may harm beneficial insects that help keep pest populations in check and repeated use of pyrethroids can contribute to insecticide resistance.

Methods: In this study, we examined the effect of Bifenture EC® (pyrethroid active ingredient: bifenthrin) applied with herbicides in V6 corn and with fungicides in tasseling corn. We evaluated impacts on pests and beneficials at both application timings. Yield was measured at harvest.

Preliminary Results:  At both application timings, Bifenture EC® did not improve insect pest management because pests were not present at economic levels. We did not find evidence for flare-ups of aphids or spider mites, but a rainy late summer made it unlikely that we would see many of these pests. There were no yield differences between the treatments.

Background

As a result of the low cost of pyrethroid insecticides, preventative applications are common, especially in tank mixes with other routine chemical inputs, such as herbicides and fungicides. However, lower grain prices and low insect pest pressure make it less likely that pyrethroid applications will provide economic returns. Bt hybrids1 and neonicotinoid seed treatments control many of the pests targeted by pyrethroid insecticides. Because they have broad spectrum activity, pyrethroids can negatively impact natural enemies2 which can result in flare-ups of secondary pests3. Tank mix timings may be less effective than applying when insect populations reach threshold. For example, when pyrethroids are combined with herbicide applications, they are too late to control early-season stink bugs and other seedling pests. When pyrethroids are combined with fungicide sprays at tasseling, few insect pests are present at damaging levels. Stink bugs may feed on the developing ear at this time, causing deformed “cowhorned” ears; however, this is rarely a problem in Maryland and stink bug damage is generally not economic throughout a field because feeding is primarily concentrated at the field edge4. Insecticide applications at tasseling have a high potential to affect beneficial insects, especially pollinators and natural enemies that are attracted to corn pollen.

Objectives: Our objectives were to determine the effect of pyrethroids applied preventatively in tank-mixes on corn pests, beneficials, and yield.

Methods: This study was conducted in 2018 and 2019 at the University of Maryland research farm in Beltsville, MD. For each application timing, we planted four replicate plots of a standard Bt field corn hybrid, DeKalb 55-84 RIB (SmartStax RIB complete Bt insect control in addition to fungicide and insecticide seed treatments) at 29,999 seeds per acre. Standard agronomic practices for the region were used.

The herbicide timing compared two treatments:

  1. Herbicide alone (22 oz/acre Roundup WeatherMAX®, 0.5 oz/acre Cadet®, 3 lb/acre ammonium sulfate
  2. Herbicide (same as above) + Insecticide (Bifenture EC® 6.4 oz/acre)

Treatments were applied at V6/V7. We visually surveyed corn plants for pest and beneficial insects before and after application. We also placed sentinel European corn borer (ECB) egg masses in the field to assess predation rates before and after treatment.

The fungicide timing compared two treatments:

  1. Fungicide alone (Trivapro® 13.7 oz/acre)
  2. Fungicide (same as above) + Insecticide (Bifenture EC® 6.4 oz/acre)

Treatments were applied at green silk. We inspected the ear zone and silks for pests and beneficial insects before application. After application, we recorded the number of ears with pest damage and the kernel area damaged. We also counted stink bug adults and cowhorned ears. Six weeks after application, we visually assessed plants for spider mite and aphid colonies.

Sampling for pests and beneficials (left) and; sentinel European corn borer egg mass (right).
Sampling for pests and beneficials (left) and; sentinel European corn borer egg mass (right).

Results

In the herbicide-timing study in 2019 we observed no effect on beneficial insects from the treatments (Figure 1). The most abundant beneficial species were minute pirate bugs and pink spotted lady beetles, which are very mobile and may have recolonized treated plots after treatment. Similarly, treatments did not affect predation on the sentinel egg masses, suggesting that the pyrethroid application may not have affected predators’ ability to locate and consume eggs. Across the treatments, 30-50% of egg masses were consumed by predators.

Minute pirate bug on European corn borer egg mass.
Minute pirate bug on European corn borer egg mass.

The treatments did not impact the number of beneficials at the herbicide timing (N.S.). The pyrethroid insecticide significantly reduced the number of plant hoppers and plant bugs from less than 4 per plant on average to less than 2 per plant (significantly different p<0.05, *), though these insects are not economic pests at this stage. There were never more than 2 stink bugs per 90 plants, well below the treatment threshold of 13 per 100 plants4.

In the fungicide-timing study in 2019, beneficials, especially minute pirate bugs, were abundant at the time of application (3 in every 10 plants), while stink bugs, the presumed target pest, were very rare (1 stink bug in every 68 plants). In 2018, stink bugs were similarly scarce. Overall pest abundance was low (1 in every 35 plants). After application, there was no difference in the incidence or amount of the corn ear damaged by worms, stink bugs, or sap beetles between treatments. Average stink bug and earworm incidence was roughly 1 in 10 ears, while sap beetle was even less frequent. Cowhorned ears and adult stink bugs were almost non-existent in both treatments.

Six weeks after application we found no differences in aphid or spider mite populations between the treatments, suggesting that pyrethroid applications at tasseling did not cause secondary pest outbreaks. We sampled after a period of dry weather; however, the late summer was rainy at Beltsville, which likely suppressed spider mite and aphid populations. Under drought-stress, reductions in the natural enemy population from pyrethroid use might contribute to flare-ups of aphids and spider mites.

Figure 1. Herbicide timing. July 3, 2019, Beltsville MD. Mean number of insects per 10 plants in V7 corn after treatment. N.S.=not significant. H=herbicide; P=pyrethroid.

Yield

For the herbicide timing and fungicide-timing (Figure 2) studies, treatments did not affect yields in either 2018 or 2019.

Conclusions

Figure 2. Herbicide timing (left) and fungicide timing (right), 2018 and 2019, Beltsville MD. Mean yield per acre under two treatments. Yields were not significantly different by treatment in either study. For the fungicide-timing study, 2019 yields were significantly higher than in 2018. N.S.=Not Significant. H=Herbicide; F=Fungicide; P=Pyrethroid.

Results from the 2018 and 2019 studies suggest that pyrethroid applications do not provide yield benefits in corn when tank-mixed with herbicides or fungicides, likely due to the lack of insect pest pressure at these spray timings. Beneficial insects were abundant in the crop at each of these timings and did not appear to be affected by the pyrethroids in the herbicide plots. Repeated preventative use of pyrethroids in the same field could potentially hinder the natural biocontrol of corn pests.

Lady beetle larva (a predatory insect) in silks.
Lady beetle larva (a predatory insect) in silks.

Sources

1 DiFonzo, C. 2017. Handy Bt Trait Table for U.S. Corn Production, http://msuent.com/assets/pdf/BtTraitTable15March2017.pdf

2Croft, B.A., M.E. Whalon. 1982. Selective toxicity of pyrethroid insecticides to arthropod natural enemies and pests of agricultural crops. Entomophaga. 27(1): 3-21.

3Reisig, D.C., J.S. Bacheler, D.A. Herbert, T. Kuhar, S. Malone, C. Philips, R. Weisz. 2012.Efficacy and value of prophylactic vs. integrated pest management approaches for management of cereal leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in wheat and ramifications for adoption by growers. J. Econ. Entomol. 105(5): 1612-1619

4Reisig, D.C. 2018. New stink bug thresholds in corn, https://entomology.ces.ncsu.edu/2018/04/new-stink-bug-thresholds-in-corn/