Annual/Termination Reports:

[05/13/2013] [09/09/2014] [01/13/2016] [09/26/2016] [07/01/2017] [04/13/2018]

Report Information

Participants

Michel, Andy (Michel.70@osu.edu)  Ohio State University; Reisig, Dominic (ddreisig@ncsu.edu)  NC State University; Hodgson, Erin (ewh@iastate.edu)  Iowa State University; DiFonzo, Chris (difonzo@msu.edu)  Michigan State University; Koch, Robert (koch0125@umn.edu)  University of Minnesota; Sathyamurthy, Raghu; Hesler, Louis (louis.hesler@ars.usda.gov)  South Dakota; Hammond, Ron (hammond.5@osu.edu)  Ohio State University; McCornack, Brian; Reed, Tim; Allen, Clint; Adams, Brian; Cook, Don; ONeal, Matt (oneal@iastate.edu)  Iowa State University; Musser, Fred (fm61@msstate.edu  Mississippi State University; Beuzelin, Julien; Way, M. O. (moway@aesrg.tamu.edu  Texas AgriLife Research; McCarville, Michael; Suits, Rachel; Del Pozo-Valdiva , Alejandro; Ribeiro, Matheus; Marchi, Lia; Camargo, Carolina; Greene, Jeremy (greene4@clemson.edu)  Clemson University; Hunt, Tom (thunt2@unl.edu)  University of Nebraska; Johnson, Doug (doug.johnson@uky.edu)  University of Kentucky; Tilmon, Kelley (Kelly.Tilmon@sdstate.edu)  SD State University; Stewart, Scott; Davis, Jeff (jeffdavid@agcenter.lsu.edu)  LA State University; Richter, Art; Murray, Jeff

Brief Summary of Minutes

Monday, 2 March, 2013 Project Re-Write, what topics to include Discussion on Project Objectives

Tuesday, 3 March Nominate 2013 Secretary  Bob Koch nominated and elected. Ron Hammond retiring.

12:00 Adjourn

Accomplishments

In North Carolina, research and impacts were focused on seven Objectives: Objective 1: To determine the relationship between Helicoverpa zea and associated flower injury during R1 and R2 in relation to yield components. (Impact: The threshold for R1-R2 soybean needs to be defined somewhere above the densities tested in these experiments. Some level of flower feeding should be tolerated, as it does not impact yield when corn earworm densities are 2-3x the current economic threshold for R3-R7 soybeans) Objective 2: To determine Helicoverpa zea survivorship, performance and preference from different soybean tissue types. (Impact: The performance on various tissue types changed as larvae aged. This information will be critical to model effectiveness and the development of resistance for traditional plant breeders and for the development and implementation of transgenic soybeans) Objective 3: To evaluate the economic threshold for stink bugs in soybean. Objective 4: To evaluate the effect of planting date, maturity group, and insecticide treatment on kudzu bug (Megacopta cribraria) population densities and soybean yield. (Impact: Scouting and management of kudzu bug should focus on the earliest-planted and earliest-maturing soybeans) Objective 5: To establish the threshold for kudzu bug (Megacopta cribraria) in the southeastern U.S. Objective 6: To investigate the potential for first-generation kudzu bug (Megacopta cribraria) to reproduce on soybeans. (Impact: Kudzu bug may not need kudzu plants as an obligate host for development. If both generations of kudzu bug can develop on soybeans, this pest has potential to spread beyond the distribution of kudzu plants and may threaten larger areas of soybeans than previously thought.) Objective 7: To determine the efficacy of foliar pesticides against arthropod pests of soybean. (Impact: Although there are products that are effective to manage thrips, yield is not impacted. Although resistance has been detected in isolated areas, pyrethroids are still effective at managing corn earworm in most areas of North Carolina. Using a pyrethroid can save a grower, $5-8 per acre over more expensive alternative chemistries. Effective insecticides were determined for both soybean looper and beet armyworm. Finally, effective insecticides were determined for kudzu bug.)<br /> <br /> In Virginia, pyrethroid resistance monitoring indicated that 37.1% of corn earworm moths survived the adult vial test (averaged over the entire season), with 3,009 moths tested. Corn earworm moth black light trap captures were continued in 2012. Timely pest status updates, black light trap reports, and recommendations were posted weekly on the Virginia Ag Pest Advisory. Seven on-farm insecticide efficacy trials were established in Orange County to determine the impact of brown marmorated stink bugs (BMSB) in soybean. In general, high rates of control were achieved with pyrethroids, while carbamates and the growth regulator (at the rates tested) had the least control. A cage study was also conducted in 2011 to study the effect of BMSB feeding on soybean. Seed quality and yield data from this part of the objective were completed in Spring 2012 Densities of four stink bugs per 0.3 row-m resulted in significant seed damage in three of four experiments. The full flowering R2 soybean development stage was least affected by H. halys feeding, while the full pod R4 stage was the most sensitive, and slightly more sensitive than the full seed R6 stage. We examined the effects of both ambient and within-soybean canopy temperature and relative humidity on stink bug vertical distribution in two fields, one in 2010 and one in 2011. No significant relationship was observed between the environmental parameters measured or time of day on the vertical distribution of stink bugs in the canopy. Regardless of environmental conditions, an average of 15-20% of stink bugs was located below the typical 38cm zone of a sweep net sample. Scouts sampled 569 soybean fields in 65 counties throughout Virginia from from late June through early October. BMSB was recorded in soybean fields in 44 counties, over twice as many compared with 2011. In general, northern counties had medium to high populations, with low numbers distributed throughout most of the other soybean growing regions of the state. With the exception of one location (Fauquier Co.), field edge treatments by growers were successful in controlling BMSB populations on 1,885 soybean acres and preventing crop loss. They represented an estimated 30-40% reduction in insecticide use compared with if entire fields had been treated. For the first time in Virginia, kudzu bugs were found in low numbers in soybean fields in 9 counties, and in co-occurrence with BMSB in an additional 10 counties. A 2-year study was conducted in seedling soybean in Virginia to evaluate the within-plant location of thrips, whether populations from specific plant parts (Terminal, First Trifoliate, Remainder) can be used to accurately estimate whole-plant populations, and to determine the thrips species complex present as well as the evenness (species diversity/species richness) of the sampled population. Results suggest that a subsample consisting of the first fully opened trifoliate can be used to monitor thrips in V3-V4 stage soybean. In 2012, thrips control provided by soybean seed treatments was evaluated in three experiments in Virginia. In general, thrips injury ratings in the insecticide seed treatments were lower than the untreated controls. Yields were not significantly different in any test when analyzed by cultivar.<br /> <br /> In Minnesota, efforts were focused on six Objectives: 1. Survey for the presence, establishment, and spread of emerging pests Samples of mealy bugs were sent to Ron Hammond. Specimens were identified as clover root mealybug. Apparent associations included low K, soybean cyst nematode and/or alfalfa or field edges. The brown marmorated stink bug was first detected in Minnesota in 2010. In response, intensive surveys were conducted to attempt to delimit this infestation and acquire information on native Pentatomidae. Even though the target exotic species were not detected, this survey is providing a wealth of information on the diversity and abundance of native Pentatomidae, which been a poorly documented group. 2. Understand soybean pest interactions. A study on the effect of late season host plant quality on soybean aphid population and yield is in its third year. Unfortunately, late season aphid populations were unusually low in 2012. 3. Develop insect genetic resources. Aphids were provided for an annual, on-going aphid genomic study by Rosanna Giordano, University of Illinois. 4. Evaluate control efficacy and monitor for resistance. Application of chlorpyrifos did not control mites, but other arthropods including whiteflies, lady beetles and soybean aphids suppressed. Bifenthrin and avermectin performed well in this same trial. Lamberton, MN was a location for a NCSR&PC multi-state study on the effects of neonicitinoid insecticide alone and combined with fungicides on soybean aphids and beneficial. This site/year showed no yield response to seed applied fungicide, insecticide or combination as compared to untreated seed. Economic thresholds were not reached but thiomethoxam reduced cumulative aphid days by approximately 50%. 5. Describe natural enemies and non-target impacts. We have discovered the soybean aphid parasitoid Aphelinus certus throughout soybean growing areas in Minnesota in summer 2012. Since we first documented this species in Minnesota during the summer of 2011, our current finding that it is present throughout the state suggests strongly that it is able to overwinter and is established. Our sampling data also indicate that A. certus densities are higher near wheat fields than near other soybean fields. This is likely due to the fact that this parasitoid attacks grain aphids as well as soybean aphids. In a second development, we have been awarded a permit to release another Asian soybean aphid parasitoid  Aphelinus glycinis. Like A. certus, this species is very promising. We received the permit in October and have done some experimental releases in buckthorn in the fall of 2012 that we are monitoring. We are also planning for large-scale field releases in the summer of 2012. We investigated compatibility between Cruiser seed treatment and parasitism of soybean aphid. The parasitoid we used for these studies was Binodoxys communis. Even though this species has likely not established in Minnesota, we used it as a model organism to investigate interactions between parasitoids and seed treatment. Our studies showed that parasitoids and seed treatment were highly compatible in the sense that (1) there is no detectable toxic effect of the seed treatment passed on through aphids, and (2) the seed treatment lowers aphid densities to a level that produces higher rates of parasitism. We found that success of B. communis is partially impeded by high densities of aphids. Thus, factors such as seed treatments that reduce aphid densities can benefit parasitoids. The parasitoid Lysiphlebus orientalis was discovered attacking soybean aphids in China and we assessed its host range and ability to suppress soybean aphid under laboratory conditions in quarantine. We found that it had a narrow host range but also that it was unable to suppress aphid populations in cage studies despite achieving high levels of parasitism. Further studies revealed that aphids that were stung were able to produce some nymphs prior to mummifying and also that these nymphs had higher fecundity than the offspring of healthy aphids. We are investigating biological control of soybean aphids adjacent to diversified prairie plantings and willow hybrids that are being investigated as feedstocks for transportation bioenergy. Results from the first year of research suggest that suppression of (simulated) soybean aphid outbreaks is stronger adjacent to the biofuel plantings. 6. Evaluate new technologies (e.g., host plant resistance, transgenics, seed treatments). Lamberton was the MN location for a multi-state (NCSR&PC-funded) study evaluating host plant resistance with susceptible, Rag1, Rag2, Rag 1+2 isolines developed by Iowa State University. All rag genes were effective. Soybean aphids did not reach economic injury level but the Rag1+Rag 2 pyramid in particular did provide excellent reduction in soybean aphid populations compared to the susceptible isoline.<br /> <br /> In Alabama, studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Belay 2.13 insecticide in controlling stink bugs. Four days after application, the total number of stink bugs in the Belay treatment was significantly lower than the number in plots treated with bifenthrin (2 oz product per acre) plus non-ionic surfactant. A study was conducted to evaluate the possible yield enhancement effect of Dimilin applied to soybeans at the R3 stage at 3 locations. None of the treatments produced a statistically significant yield increase in comparison to untreated plots at any of the locations. The study indicated that a rate of Dimilin greater than 2 oz/acre would be necessary to reduce an established population of large, medium and small soybean loopers. Three studies were conducted in 2012 to determine the effect on yield of naturally occurring soybean insect pests. In one test, yields were not significantly different among treatments, although there was defoliation present. Good rainfall after test was initiated helped soybeans to yield well after suffering over 30% defoliation. In another test, untreated plots were defoliated more than treated plots, and yield was lower. In the third test, yields were not different among treatments. A sweep net survey of soybean fields in Alabama was conducted to determine which insect pest species were present in different counties, which species were the most abundant, and to maintain awareness among growers. Surveys estimated that over half the states soybean acreage was treated for loopers in 2012. The 3-cornered-alfalfa-hopper was the second most abundant pest detected. The 3rd most abundant pest detected was green cloverworm at a density of 0.27 per sweep. Although kudzu bugs were only collected in 10 fields in 6 counties it was the 4th most abundant pest collected. Velvetbean caterpillars were detected in 12 counties. Pod worm numbers were fewer than in 2011. Total average stink bug density was 0.115/sweep, about half the density observed in 2011. A new species of stink bug, Euschistus quadrator, was found at Prattville. No brown marmorated, red banded or red shouldered stink bugs were collected in 2012. The average density for grasshoppers was 0.047/sweep. Blister beetles, bean leaf beetles, Mexican bean beetles and white fringed beetles were all detected at densities of less than 0.01 per sweep.<br /> <br /> In Mississippi, research focused on Objective 1. Characterize insect-soybean interactions. For the third consecutive year, corn earworm costs plus losses exceeded stink bugs as the primary pest of soybeans in MS. The stink bug complex in soybeans during 2012 was primarily brown stink bugs (60%) and green stink bugs (35%). Other substantial pests during 2011 were the soybean looper, velvetbean caterpillar, green cloverworm, and bean leaf beetle. Combining the results of threshold trials, a density of 6 three cornered alfalfa hopper adults for 2 weeks did not cause any economic damage during reproductive growth. Threshold cage trials were conducted to establish thresholds for corn earworm on indeterminate soybeans. Based on the regression equation, for every corn earworm damaged pod, yield was reduced by 0.04 bu/ac. Also, for every corn earworm larvae present per 2.5 row feet, yield was reduced by 1.3 bu/ac. To determine the effect of pod loss due to simulated corn earworm feeding, two separate experiments were performed on an indeterminate maturity group 4 variety and a determinant maturity group 5 variety. It was found that yields were significantly reduced with each increase in pod removal level for both studies. Also, the R5 growth stage removals yielded significantly less than all other stages, indicating that R5 could be the most critical time to experience fruit loss. Significant maturity delays were also observed for the R5 removals compared to all other treatments in both studies. Numerous insecticide efficacy trials were conducted during 2011. Insects targeted were pea weevil, stink bugs, and soybean looper. Data are posted at http://www.mississippi-crops.com/trial-data/.<br /> <br /> In Nebraska, a large-scale field study was planted in 2012. Unfortunately, extreme heat during June-August limited population growth of soybean aphids, so the necessary soybean aphid population levels were not reached. The coinciding of R6 soybeans with patterns of high soybean populations in Nebraska indicate that using early maturity class soybeans should provide important information on the effect of soybean aphid injury to R6 soybean. Oxidative enzyme assays were conducted to decipher the role of peroxidase in the tolerance response of KS4202. The differences in peroxidase activity observed between infested and control V3 KS4202 plants throughout the course of the experiment suggest that peroxidases may be playing multiple roles in the tolerant plants. We are in the process of functional annotation and mining of candidate soybean aphid-susceptible and resistant genes in soybean using various databases of proteins (UniProKB), pathways (KEGG) and gene ontology and computational tools. . The illumine sequence data generated from NCSRP funding during the past three years provides a comprehensive data set that will allow us to characterize transcriptional changes in response to aphid feeding to better understand the underlying mechanism(s) and genes contributing to the tolerant response. Aphids were monitored for resistance to insecticides. Some significant differences can be observed based on non-overlapping confident intervals, but are unlikely to indicate significant levels of resistance. These data provide a baseline for future assessments. Teachers K-12 (primarily K-5), learned about the soybean from pod to plate, built a model for correlation of existing curriculum, worked alongside UNL scientists, conducted hands-on lab experiments to use with units on insects, and developed curricula.<br /> In Texas, research was focused on three Objectives. Objective 1: To characterize basic insect biology and ecology. More redbanded stink bug were found along the Texas Upper Gulf Coast than any other soybean-attacking stink bug. High populations were found on durano clover and a legume commonly found in disturbed areas in Southeast Texas. From cage studies, high populations of redbanded stink bug were associated with delayed maturity and flat pod syndrome. No evidence for translocation of a toxin or microorganism was found. Objective 2: o develop coordinated applied best management practices. Seed treatments of unknown composition were evaluated for control of Lepidoptera defoliators. Several of these seed treatments provided excellent control---at least 60 days after planting. Besiege at 9 fl oz/A provided good control of red banded stink bug and three cornered alfalfa hopper in a small plot experiment. Surprisingly, Steward applied at 6.7 fl oz/A provided control of red banded stink bug. Objective 3: to educate farmers, industry, colleagues and agricultural professionals of research findings using traditional and innovative Extension tools and methods. Findings were presented at a meeting in Vero Beach, FL hosted by Syngenta, This meeting was attended by colleagues and crop consultants. Area farmers consulted with Way in person, via email/phone and at the 16th Annual Cotton and Rice Conservation Tillage Systems Conference in Baton Rouge, LA concerning soybean pest management. An Extension bulletin on soybean insect pest management, co-authored by Way, will be completed in 2013. This bulletin will be available as a hard-copy and electronically. <br /> <br /> In Iowa, research was focused on seven objectives. Objective 1: Survey for the presence, establishment, and spread of emerging pests. We observed a significantly higher abundance of Japanese beetles in fields located in a High landscape compared to a Low landscape. In general, we observed very few stink bugs and no significant differences in their abundance in fields of differing surrounding landscape diversity. Although a few brown marmorated stink bugs have been found in Iowa during 2012, we have not yet observed them in any commercial or research soybean fields. Native stink bug populations were also relatively low in soybean fields in 2012. Objective 2: Understand soybean pest interactions. Greenhouse and field cage experiments were performed to characterize the effect of soybean aphid feeding on soybean cyst nematode (SCN) survival and reproduction. Results indicated that 3 weeks of feeding by soybean aphid populations below the economic threshold (i.e., <250 aphids/plant) increased SCN reproduction by 33%. During 2012 we compared alate captures of the soybean aphid and 5 combined species of non-colonizing aphids to the monthly prevalence of Soybean mosaic virus (SMV). This study indicated that the soybean aphid can be an important vector of SMV, but that non-colonizing aphids continue to play an important role in the transmission of SMV. Objective 3: Develop sampling protocols and thresholds. We analyzed pollen from bees captured in bee bowls to determine if these attractive traps captured bees that were foraging on soybean flowers. From a subset of the most abundant female bee species collected during soybean peak bloom, we estimated that 24% and 42% of the female bees carrying pollen had grains of soybean pollen either alone or intermixed with other types of pollen, in 2011 and 2012 respectively. Objective 4: Evaluate control efficacy and monitor for resistance. Foliar insecticides reduced Japanese beetle densities to less than two per sweep while the untreated control was 6 per sweep, The foliar applications killed the beetles in plots, but did not provide sufficient residual to control populations beyond seven days. Objective 5: Describe natural enemies and non-target impacts. In 2011, occurrence of fungal entomopathogens on Galleria mellonella cadavers and the abundance of M. brunneum were significantly lower in conventional fields compared to organic fields and their respective margins, and several factors involving soil properties and cropping systems affected the abundance of M. brunneum. Continuing on from 2011 into 2012, the impact of cover crops and extended rotations on arthropod communities were investigated within soybean and corn grown within a rotation. Another goal was to determine if the abundance of ecosystem service providing insects is equal along a gradient of different land use types. We observed significant year-to- year variation, with beneficial insect abundance and diversity being significantly greater in 2010 than 2011 and activity-density being significantly greater in 2011 than 2010. Despite the differences in beneficial insect communities between years, abundance and activity-density of pollinators (bees and syrphid flies) and natural enemy (predators and parasitoids) was significantly greater in buffer strips in both years. The diversity (species richness and evenness) was not consistently greater in buffer strip, as for abundance and activity-density; as we did not always observe significant differences in beneficial insect diversity between the organic farms and buffer strips. Beneficial insect diversity and abundance was consistently lowest in row crops. Objective 6: Evaluate new technologies (e.g., host plant resistance, transgenics, seed treatments). This study utilized four near-isogenic experimental soybean lines differing in their resistance to the soybean aphid (susceptible, Rag1 alone, Rag2 alone, and Rag1 + Rag2). Plants with the Rag1 and Rag2 genes had low populations of soybean aphids throughout the majority of the growing season. Evidence for late-season declines in the efficacy of either gene were inconsistent between 2011 and 2012, however in both years a decline in efficacy was observed for at least one of the genes. However, the efficacy of a Rag1 + Rag2 pyramid was consistently greater than lines carrying either gene alone. A thiamethoxam seed treatment equally reduced aphid population growth on the susceptible line, the Rag1 line, and the Rag2 line, indicating combining thiamethoxam and host plant resistance genes has an additive effect on reducing soybean aphid population growth. During the summer of 2012 we conducted an experiment to examine the effects of seed mixtures of resistant and susceptible seed on populations of the soybean aphid. Although soybean aphid populations were low for the 2012 growing season we did observe a significantly greater amount of cumulative aphid days for the 100% susceptible treatment when compared to the other treatments. There were no significant differences for yield among the treatments. Regardless of the low soybean aphid populations we did observe natural enemies in soybean. We observed significantly more natural enemies in the 5% susceptible: 95%resistant and 100% resistant treatments. Objective 7: Educate farmers, industry, colleagues, and agricultural professionals of research findings, using traditional and innovative extension tools and methods. We created a variety of extension materials to increase awareness of soybean pests, including: publications, presentations, blog articles, tweets, and a short video (see details in outcomes section). Our timely programming did help farmers and scouts assess pest populations and make foliar insecticide applications to protect yield. <br /> <br /> In Kentucky, the 2012 soybean production season marked the s third and final year of a survey of stink bugs in Kentucky grown soybeans. The green stink bug complex dominated the captures with 302 individuals, with only 58 bugs from the brown stinkbug complex. No invasive stink bugs were captured in the 2012 survey. Western corn rootworm soybean variant survey (2012). From all of the samples no western corn rootworm adult beetles were observed. Corn growers, using this information in 2013 should be able to plant corn hybrids that do not have the Bt rootworm protection in fields following soybeans in order to save considerable input costs. Impact of planting date, maturity group and insecticide application on incidence and yield reduction of Dectes stem borer on soybean. Maturity Group shows a numerical advantage (reduction) in level of infestation from MG III through MG IV to MG V, but advantage is not statistically significant, and there appears to be an interaction. This will require additional analysis to resolve. Impact of seed applied pesticides on growth and yield of soybean. This analysis indicates to us that, leaf area index did not differ by pesticide type, location and planting date variables had major impact on yield, the impact of planting date on yield varied by location, there were no differences among pesticide treatments, and the lack of difference in pesticide treatment did not vary by location or planting date. Thus pesticides had no measurable impact on yield.<br /> <br /> From USDA-ARS, North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory at Brookings, SD, the research focused mainly on evaluation and characterization of soybean lines for resistance to soybean aphid and also monitoring of natural enemies in soybean. To identify new sources of SA resistance in early maturing soybeans, a total of 334 soybean genotypes including resistant and susceptible checks were tested in the greenhouse and field. PI 603712 was only genotype which consistently exhibited resistance to SA in all tests, even higher than that of other known sources of SA resistance in the field. This suggests that PI 603712 might be a new source of SA resistance. In addition, the relatively high levels of SA colonization on a Rag1 genotype (PI 548663 or Dowling) in greenhouse tests suggest that the colony used in greenhouse tests might be virulent on Rag1 and thus might be biotype 2. Three pest management systems that vary in the intensity with which they rely on herbicides and insecticides (chemically intensive, reduced chemical, and spring cover crop treatments) affect insect pest populations, arthropod predator communities, weed assemblages, and soybean yield and profitability were analyzed. Although input costs of the cover crop and reduced chemical treatments were lower than the chemically intensive treatment, the chemically intensive treatment was most profitable of the three. Nevertheless, we contend that cover crops can be managed more efficiently in order to increase the profitability and competitiveness of this treatment while gaining the long-term benefits gleaned from conserving biodiversity in our agroecosystems. In this study, previously identified resistant lines were evaluated in laboratory tests against field-collected populations of soybean aphid and in field-plot tests over two years in South Dakota. Virulence in soybean aphid populations studied was variable and dynamic over the years of the study. These results, coupled with previous reports of biotypes virulent to Rag1, suggest that deployment of lines with a single aphid-resistance gene is limited for soybean aphid management, and that deployment strategies relying on multiple resistance genes may be needed to effectively use plant resistance against soybean aphid. In Ohio, three objectives were researched. Objective 1: Establish or modify thresholds of important regional pests to account for maturity group, planting systems, plant age, and natural enemy populations. No aphids were found in the state. A few other state conducted limited surveys, and a few specimens that were found were sent for identification. None were the trochanter mealybug. A new soybean pest, the brown marmorated stink bug, was found at low numbers in soybean fields throughout the state, suggesting they are finally moving into soybeans in Ohio; however, none were at economic levels. Numerous soybean fields were also seen with higher populations of green and red-shouldered stink bugs, with some of those fields at economic levels. We continue to anticipate that stink bugs will become a greater concern in future years because of global warming, with the potential to cause significant yield losses. Objective 2: Efficacy of seed treatments for seedcorn maggot. Efficacy trials with seed treatments conducted on soybean against seedcorn maggot proved fruitless because of the earliness of adult flies; oviposition had occurred well before the study commenced. Objective 3: Screen, characterize, and incorporate host plant resistance to soybean aphid and other key insects. Collaborative efforts including a USDA soybean breeder continued in the development of soybean resistant to the soybean aphid. Based on the data, the spread and increase of virulent biotypes will be more dependent on the complicated life history of the aphid, including environment (e.g. drought), movement to buckthorn and selection pressure (as measured by the acreage of Rag soybean).<br />

Publications

Impact Statements

1. S1055 scientists continue to evaluate insecticide performance against soybean pests. Additional work has been focused on evaluation and development of host-plant resistance. These summary reports of efficacy and yield response are available through individual state extension programs.
2. Many participating S1055 states documented the spread and importance of hemipteran pests, including stink bug and kudzu bug. These documentations will serve to increase education in the appropriate areas, as well as expand the focus of research as range expansion increases.
3. Corn earworm increased as a pest in the southern US. Thresholds for this pest were identified in both Mississippi and North Carolina. Pyrethroid-resistant populations several corn earworm samples were identified in Virginia.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Dominic Reisig (President); Bob Koch (Secretary); Andy Michel (Past President); Ames Herbert; Clint Allen; Brian McCornack; Jeff Davis; Fred Musser; Kelley Tilmon; Jeremy Greene; Doug Johnson; Louis Hesler; Tim Reed; Michael Crossley; Brad Fritz; Brian Adams; Andrew Adams

Brief Summary of Minutes

Summary of key items from meeting minutes:

2015 S1055 meeting will be held in Biloxi, MS on 18 March (noon – 5 pm) and 19 March (9 am to 5 pm) and will be coordinated to follow the 2015 South Eastern Branch meeting, which is planned for 15-18 March 2015. Fred Musser is local arrangements for the branch meeting and will do local arrangements for the S1055 meeting.

S1055 is in good shape as a multistate project. Updates were provided on Federal budget. Project revisions are performed every 5 years and the next revision will occur in 2017. Mary Purcell is the federal NIFA rep.

Louis Hesler was nominated and accepted to serve as secretary for 2015.

Accomplishments

In North Carolina, research focused on six objectives. The relationship between Helicoverpa zea and associated flower injury during R1 and R2 was examined by manipulating populations with insecticides. Number of injured flowers was positively correlated with corn earworm density, but total number of flowers and all yield components were not. Survivorship, performance and preference of Helicoverpa zea on different soybean tissue types were determined. Early-instar larvae (L2) preferred to feed on leaf tissue and undeveloped pods (R4). Later instar larvae (L4) did not prefer one tissue type over another, but developed the best on fully developed (R6) pods. The effect of planting date, maturity group, and insecticide treatment on kudzu bug (Megacopta cribraria) population densities and soybean yield was evaluated. Earlier-planted and earlier- maturing soybeans were more attractive to kudzu bug adults. Effects on yield were independent of planting date and maturity group in North Carolina, but were affected by insecticide spray, with sprayed soybeans yielding higher than unsprayed soybeans. Work was conducted to develop a threshold for kudzu bug on soybean. Three experiments were planted and established to evaluate the yield loss potential and to establish an economic threshold for kudzu bug. Kudzu bug was not present in sufficient densities to influence yield in North Carolina. However, results were combined with those from Georgia and South Carolina for threshold development.<br /> Preference of kudzu bug among soybean genotypes was evaluated. Soybean leaf size and shape may play a role in kudzu bug recruitment. Effect of soybean genotype is significant in recruitment of kudzu bug populations. Narrow leaf genotypes N7013 and Vance had consistently fewer kudzu bug egg masses, nymphs and adults than other genotypes tested, and may be a source of resistance for soybean breeders. Some Benning insect resistance lines (Benning H, Benning MG) also generated fewer kudzu bug nymphs and adults than other genotypes and may also provide sources of resistance for soybean breeders. Efficacy of foliar pesticides against arthropod pests of soybean was examined. Various chemicals were tested against soybean looper in soybeans. Interestingly, the performance of diamides was inconsistent.<br /> <br /> In Mississippi, insect losses plus costs were similar for corn earworm, stink bugs, bean leaf beetle and soybean looper, estimated between $8.70/acre and $10/acre for each of these pests. Kudzu bug was first found and treated in soybeans in MS during 2013. Research focused on characterizing insect-soybean interactions. The impact of threecornered alfalfa hoppers (TCAH) on soybeans during soybean reproductive growth was studied using field cages. Sixty adults / row ft. were placed on soybeans during R3-R4 stages for 2 weeks. At harvest, these plots were compared to adjacent plots that were caged but not infested. As in the same trial conducted during 2012, no yield loss was measured. To convert this density into a sweep net threshold, a second trial was conducted infesting a range of TCAH in large field cages (20’ x 20’). These cages were sampled with a sweep net to estimate sweep net efficiency. Combining the results of the trials, this would suggest that a density of 6 TCAH adults for 2 weeks did not cause any economic damage during reproductive growth. To determine the effect of pod loss due to simulated corn earworm feeding, experiments were performed in Stoneville, MS at the Delta Research and Extension Center. The variety chosen for the experiment was Asgrow 4605, a popular indeterminant cultivar in Mississippi. Pods were removed by hand at four different growth stages: R2, R3, R4, and R5. There were three removal levels at each growth stage: 0, 50, and 100%. Delayed maturity measurements were taken for the experiment. Plants were then harvested and yield measured to determine at which growth stages and damage level corn earworm feeding was most critical. There was a significant interaction effect between growth<br /> <br /> stage and damage level on the percentage of dropped leaves in each plot 137 days after planting, percentage of green stems present in each plot 139 days after planting, yield. With the decrease in the amount of leaf shed and increase in green stems present at both damage levels of R5, growers are facing significant maturity delays when faced with later season corn earworm infestations. Yield losses appear to be potentially less than originally thought at earlier growth stages (R2 and R4). At R5, however, it appears that damage is more detrimental to final yields than at earlier growth stages. Resistance monitoring of the corn earworm was conducted during 2013 as in previous years. Pyrethroid resistance remained low in Mississippi even though it was substantially higher in nearby Louisiana.<br /> <br /> In Nebraska, research addressed several topics. Field Evaluation of KS4202 soybean tolerance to soybean aphid was performed. In an EIL field study of soybean aphid resistant KS4202 (tolerance), aphid populations developed nicely. The lack of high yield loss for most CAD treatments, and the relatively low yield loss of the 38,936 CAD treatment indicates that KS4202 has tolerance to soybean aphid feeding. At the highest CAD, KS4202 had a yield loss of approximately 12.6%, when we would have expected a yield loss of about 27% (6.8% loss/each 10,000 CAD, Ragsdale et al. 2007). Dr. George Graef is incorporating KS4202 into his soybean breeding program. We have completed the functional annotation and mining of candidate soybean aphid-susceptible and resistant genes in soybean using various databases of proteins (UniProKB), pathways (KEGG) and gene ontology and computational tools. We have selected 2 peroxidase genes (Glyma09g02610; glyma06g15030) to further investigate in order to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanism(s) and genes contributing to the tolerant response. Work was performed on an adjusted soybean aphid EILs for R6 soybeans. Use of early maturing soybean appears to be suitable for matching the natural soybean aphid population growth curve during R6, but it is difficult to achieve moderate to high CAD solely during R6 (started in R5). Planting dates were late due to rain, so MG 0.6 soybean was planted on 6/10, 2013 and infested with soybean aphids on 8/2 (R5). Populations peaked approx. 8/30 (R6.5). No treatments reached the 250 aphid/plant ET (only 2 plots exceeded 250/plant). Cumulative aphid- days were 19.2 CAD in no-aphid check and 1,563-2,073 CAD in treatments (9/6, R7.5), with no significant differences in yield observed between treatments. Soybean aphid resistance to insecticides was also monitored on regional scale. The two bioassay methods developed, systemic and glass vial, indicated soybean aphids from eleven populations from the North Central region (NE, SD, ND, MN and WI) had no significant level of resistance to thiamethoxam. Toxicity of seed treatments to natural enemies was also examined. The predators Orius insidiosus and Crysoperla rufilabris were exposed to different concentrations of thiamethoxam in soybean leaves and in soybean aphid using different laboratory methodologies. A study was performed to reduced agent and area treatments for soybean. Initial findings indicate leaving untreated strips of at least 8 rows between spray zones may be an effective management strategy for soybean aphid in areas where aphids are relatively late to colonize soybean (mid-late July) and temperatures are relatively high during treatment (e.g. Nebraska with 90°F high temperatures). Natural enemies are preserved to help manage remaining insect pests or subsequent soybean aphid re-infestations. It would be expected to use this strategy in conjunction with other management tools as part of an overall IPM strategy. Active extension and outreach programming was continued.<br /> <br /> In Kansas, research focused on several pests. Image processing algorithms are being developed to automate soybean aphid counts on leaflets. Combining sophisticated algorithms with a mobile device to count aphid densities could improve these estimates. We designed the computer<br /> algorithm to incorporate built?in MATLAB image processing code to perform edge detection, thresholding, and object?based counting. We found a strong positive relationship between the<br /> aphid counts in the MATLAB processed images and manual counts (R2 = 0.75). This<br /> relationship was then validated using an independent dataset (R2 = 0.93). Our data indicates that the accuracy of the MATLAB code was similar to manual counts. Effects of temperature on soybean resistance to biotype 1 soybean aphids was also examined. The overall goal is to determine if/how various demographic responses of soybean aphid developing at different temperatures when reared on Rag1 resistant soybean plants. Specific responses include: preimaginal development, preimaginal survival, time to first reproduction, fecundity, and adult longevity. Screening and categorization of soybean genotypes for resistance to biotypes 1, 2,<br /> and 3 soybean aphids is also being performed. We found significant differences in chlorophyll<br /> <br /> loss between infested and un?infested leaves in three susceptible genotypes (KS4202, K072623 and LD05?4485) to biotype 1. Similarly three susceptible genotypes (KS4202, K072623 and<br /> K1639) showed significant difference in chlorophyll content to biotype 2. But this trend was<br /> absent in resistant genotypes, suggesting a level of tolerance in the genotypes that showed resistance to one of these two biotypes. In plant damage studies, we found 4 susceptible genotypes that were statistically different in their damage rating, compared to resistant genotypes. Even in susceptible genotypes, some were found to have some degree of tolerance to the aphid attack. Resistant genotypes showed varied classes of damage rating in between them. We developed F3 generations for QTL mapping studies of Kansas genotype, K1621. Site- specific management of D. texanus stem borer is also being evaluated. The objective of this field study was to examine the movement of D. texanus in soybean production fields of using protein markers. Four D. texanus infested soybean production fields in Kansas were sampled from June to August in 2013. Protein markers (bovine casein and chicken egg albumin) were sprayed along<br /> two edges (4 x 400?500 m) within each soybean field (target field) every 10 d during D. texanus<br /> adult activity. Fields were grid sampled and we sweep netted (80 sweeps per point) for D.<br /> texnaus adults and other key pests at all waypoints; size of a soybean field determined the<br /> number of waypoints. Specimens collected were analyzed for presence of protein using enzyme? linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). Preliminary results suggest that adult colonization<br /> patterns vary between fields and through time. Electronic monitoring of Helicoverpa zea is being developed. Our goal for the first year of the study was to expand our electronic trapping and monitoring system in Kansas and evaluate the ability of our trap design to predict severity of infestations in nearby sorghum fields. We tested the ability of each trap to estimate catches across a range of densities, geographic locations and trap dates in Kansas during the 2013 field season. In general, moth activity was high across all locations with total number of moths captured ranging from 1,945 to 6,383 moths per trap. In general, the new traps performed similar to previous units where each individual trap estimated real moth counts within 93.3 to 99.9% accuracy. Although moth captures were high, this did not always translate into a treat decision. Extension work included IWheat.org, MyFields.info,and MySoybean.org. We expanded existing Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) program to other elementary schools in Kansas.<br /> Teachers developed a total of 27 lesson plans that could be incorporated into a soybean?based<br /> science unit.<br /> <br /> In Louisiana, research was related to two broad objectives. Four projects aimed to characterize basic insect biology and ecology. Surveys were conducted for the presence, establishment and spread of emerging pests. We surveyed for soybean aphid (leaf sampling, visual surveys, and pan trapping), brown marmorated stink bug (sweep sampling and blacklight trapping) and kudzu bug (sweep sampling). Neither soybean aphid nor brown marmorated stink bug were detected.<br /> Kudzu bug was found in soybean in four northeast parishes: East Carroll, Franklin, Madison, and Tensas. Levels were at 1 per 100 sweeps. Soybean-pest interactions elucidated. We screened 10 high producing current commercial varieties (5 MGIV and 5 MGV) in replicated trials at two locations for redbanded stink bug damage. As per past results, current cultivars differ in their susceptibility to stink bug damage and this can be used in an IPM program. However, commercial soybean cultivars may be available only 1 year and are rarely available for purchase past 3 years. We also screened 45 PI from MGIII to MGVI which were identified as tolerant to redbanded stink bug damage in laboratory screenings. Finally, we are working with University of Arkansas and are screening their advanced soybean selections for stink bug tolerance. All screenings involve taking yield, 100 seed wt., and quality. Insect physiology in a changing climate was evaluated. We having been conducting supercooling and lower temperature survivorship studies for redbanded stink bug. Our research has found that the supercooling point for redbanded stink bug is -4°C. Lethal temperature exposures occur at 23°C, with 50% of the population dying if exposed for 4 hr and 95% of the population dying if exposed for 7 hr. To develop insect genetic resources, work is being performed on microsatellites for redbanded stink bug. Two projects aimed to develop coordinated applied best management practices. 2. Develop coordinated applied best management practices. Sampling protocols and thresholds were developed. We have established an action threshold for redbanded stink bug of 4 insects per 25 sweeps based on damage potential, quality, and yield loss. We are also re-evaluating threecornered alfalfa hopper thresholds. Control efficacy was evaluated and monitor for resistance was conducted. We have been monitoring for resistance to acephate in redbanded stink bug. In 2010, it was 4X more tolerant than southern green stink bug. This year, we had field failure of redbanded stink bug control with acephate at 0.5 lb/A. Redbanded stink bug tolerance to acephate has risen to 13X of southern green stink bug. We are also conducting an area wide resistance monitoring program for soybean looper to methoxyfenozide.<br /> <br /> In Wisconsin, research related to two broad objectives. Basic insect biology and ecology was characterized. The distribution of virulent soybean aphid biotypes in Wisconsin was determined. A two year survey (2012-2013) of soybean aphids in Wisconsin fields for Rag-virulent biotypes revealed a relatively low prevalence. The drought in 2012 significantly reduced the number of soybean aphid populations able to be sampled; nevertheless, 1 out of 13 field collections contained virulent aphids. These aphids, found in Monroe Co., performed similarly to those found in Dodge Co. in 2011 (Rag1-and 2-virulent). In 2013, four fields contained Rag1-virulent aphids, two fields contained Rag2-virulent aphids and one field Rag1-and 2-virulent aphids (out of 24 fields sampled). Differences in weather and number of sampling sites preclude interpretation of these findings as evidence for increasing prevalence of Rag-virulent biotypes; however, it should be known that virulent soybean aphid biotypes are indeed present and abundant in certain regions of Wisconsin. Landscape ecology of soybean aphid was examined. Soybean aphid and natural enemy densities across the state have been surveyed and were compared with landscape, pest management and climate variables to discern the main drivers in soybean aphid population dynamics in Wisconsin. Work was conducted to develop coordinated<br /> <br /> applied best management practices, by evaluating new technologies. Field evaluation of Rag1, Rag2 and Rag1+2 aphid-resistant lines as part of a continuing study were conducted at Arlington Agricultural Research Station (AARS). Aphid free subplots were treated once in July 11 at soybean aphid densities of ~20/plant to maintain <50/plant. Aphid densities did not reach economic threshold (250 aphids/plant) at any time throughout the experiment. Aphid samples were sent to Dr. Andy Michel at Ohio State University for monitoring of Rag-virulent aphid biotypes. Field evaluation of seed treatment efficacy (Cruiser and Apron Maxx) was also conducted at AARS. Soybean aphids and natural enemy densities were low throughout the season, with 0.2 to 2.8 Minute pirate bug (Orius insidiosus) nymphs and adults per plant and only one lady beetle egg mass <0.5 nymphs per plant at any time during the experiment.<br /> <br /> In Minnesota, focused primarily on coordinated applied best management practices. The response of early-maturing soybean to feeding by brown marmorated stink bug was evaluated via a caged field study. At R4 plants were caged and infested with 0, 1, 2, 4 or 8 fourth instars per row-foot with 6 replications of each treatment and nymphs fed for 15 days. Plant maturity was significantly delayed in cages with the highest bug density. Increasing stink bug density resulted in increased percentage of soybean seed injured. However, soybean plants compensated for the injury and reduced number of seed per pod by producing larger seed at higher stink bug densities. This compensation resulted in no significant differences in yield across the stink bug densities. The spectral response of soybean leaves to infestations of soybean aphid was evaluated to reduce costs (i.e., time) of soybean aphid scouting and improving pest management decision making. Two experiments were conducted (aphids manipulated with cages and aphids manipulated with insecticides. The number of aphids per plant per plot was recorded at approximately weekly intervals and spectral reflectance of the plants was recorded on several dates. Aphid pressure in the open field study was low and no relationship was found with spectral reflectance. In the cage study, however, aphid pressure was much higher. A significant negative relationship between plant reflectance (NDVI) and cumulative aphid pressure.<br /> Insecticide resistance monitoring was performed for soybean aphid and two-spotted spider mites. In 2013, soybean aphids were collected from soybean fields in seven locations in Minnesota. A leaf-dip bioassay was used to assess the susceptibility of these populations relative to a laboratory population that has not been exposed to insecticides since arrival in North America.<br /> Commercial formulations of lambda-cyhalothrin (Warrior II, Syngenta Crop Protection). Preliminary results indicate that there was variation among aphid populations in susceptibility to lambda-cyhalothrin. One population from Fergus Falls, MN had an LC50 significantly greater than that of the laboratory population. However, the magnitude of this difference was less than fourfold, which may not be biologically relevant. In 2012, a population of spider mites from southwest Minnesota (Lamberton) was confirmed to have 5-10 fold resistance to chlorpyrifos compared to a known susceptible laboratory population. In 2013, spider mites were collected from soybean fields from seven locations in Minnesota. Resistance ratios for field populations compared to the known susceptible laboratory population were all less than four, which is likely not biologically significant. Two new Aphelinus species are being evaluated for biological control of the soybean aphid. One species, A. certus is a non-native, generalist parasitoid. This species was not intentionally released in North America, but did arrive and is spreading through the eastern U.S. and parts of Canada. An experimental release of Aphelinus glycinis was conducted in St. Paul during summer 2013. Two release densities were used (ca. 400 per site vs. ca. 4,000 per site) and sampling was conducted over the first 2 generations post-release at<br /> <br /> various distances from the release sites. Screening for aphid-resistance in early maturing soybean germplasm was also performed. Laboratory screening was used to assess aphid resistance in 75 new plant introductions (M.G. 000-1) obtained from the USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection and previously untested lines for the U of MN Soybean Breeding Program. Assays were performed with unifoliate plants grown in small pots in growth chambers with known susceptible resistant varieties included as checks. Plants were manually infested with soybean aphids and populations counted after 9 and 14 days. Two of the new PIs may have putative resistance to the soybean aphid. These PIs clustered near the known resistant lines in terms of the mean number of aphids per plant.<br /> <br /> In South Dakota, research focused on soybean aphid and a new defoliating insect. Few studies have evaluated wild soybean for resistance to soybean aphid. In this study, initial screening assays indicated 20 wild soybean lines with resistance to soybean aphid, and three of the 20 lines had notable resistance in subsequent choice and no-choice assays. Significantly fewer soybean aphids settled on lines PI 468397 A and PI 479749 than on susceptible lines in choice assays, and aphid populations were low and moderately low on these two respective lines in no-choice assays. Populations of soybean aphid on a third line, PI 549046, were equal to or less than those on a resistant check over 3 wks in a no-choice assay. Based on results of the respective choice and no-choice assays, resistance to soybean aphid was manifested as both antixenosis and antibiosis in PI 468397 A and PI 479749, and as antibiosis in PI 549046. This is apparently the first report of resistance to soybean aphid in these three lines, and they provide soybean breeders and pest management practitioners new sources for developing aphid-resistant soybean lines.<br /> Field tests conducted independently at multiple sites showed that soybean aphid populations peaked in late summer on lines with Rag1 or Rag2 and reached economically injurious levels on susceptible lines, whereas lines with a pyramid of Rag1 + Rag2 held soybean aphid populations below economic levels. In the regional test, aphid populations were generally suppressed by lines containing one of the Rag genes. Aphids reached putative economic levels on Rag1 lines for some site years, but yield loss was moderated, indicating that Rag1 may confer tolerance to soybean aphid in addition to antibiosis and antixenosis. Moreover, no yield penalty has been found for lines with Rag1, Rag2, or pyramids. Results suggest that use of aphid-resistant soybean lines with Rag genes may be viable for managing soybean aphids. However, virulent biotypes of soybean aphid were identified before release of aphid-resistant soybean, and thus a strategy for optimal deployment of aphid resistant soybean is needed to ensure sustainability of this technology. Cupido comyntas, the eastern tailed-blue (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), is a legume- feeding caterpillar native to North America. One of its three subspecies, Cupido comyntas comyntas (Godart), is distributed over the eastern half of the United States and southeastern Canada. This subspecies was recorded for the first time feeding on cultivated soybean.<br /> Caterpillars fed upon soybean at various developmental stages, ranging from seedlings to podded plants, in several fields within a 5-km radius in Brookings County, South Dakota, from July 1 – 25, 2013. Feeding was confined to leaves, and no pod damage was observed. The caterpillars occurred at relatively low densities that were unlikely to have affected yield of soybean crops.<br /> An early maturity soybean line, H007Y12, had a lower incidence of eastern tailed-blue caterpillars than a relatively later maturity line, H19Y11. Eastern tailed-blue butterflies were observed feeding from soybean flowers on multiple dates in July and early August. As the geographic distribution of C. comyntas comyntas considerably overlaps the area where soybean<br /> <br /> is grown, entomologists should watch for and document any additional infestation of soybean by these caterpillars.<br /> <br /> In Kentucky, research focused on the stink bug complex. In the previous three years (2010-12) we conducted field sampling in soybeans in 16 KY counties for the presence of domestic stinkbugs (pentatomidae) and to detect the presence of the invasive “stinkbugs” brown marmorated stinkbug (BMSB) & Kudzu bug; pentatomidae & plataspidae. Data from these efforts indicated that no Kudzu bugs and only a single juvenile BMSB were capture in Kentucky soybeans. In a continued effort to monitor the spread of these pests in 2012 we established black light trapping locations on two UK experiment stations in Lexington, and Princeton, KY, and continued informal collection of distribution information concerning these two pests. At this time BMSB was known to be in the commonwealth but Kudzu bug had not been captured.<br /> Subsequently Kudzu bugs were collected from three counties in Southeastern, KY in August of 2013. Both Brown Marmorated Stinkbug and Kudzu Bug are in Kentucky. With the exception of the winter weather BMSB is expected to be problematic in the urban areas of Louisville, Lexington and Ashland. Black Light Trap Data Indicate: More stink bugs were captured in 2012 than in 2013, could this be due to drought of 2012? Green stink bug genera far more common than brown stink bug genera. More stink bugs captured in Princeton (west) than in Lexington (east) KY. In Princeton: more stink bugs captured around the orchard / pasture area than the field crops area (Luttrell tract). Most common genera collected Chinavia. Genera collected thus far: Chinavia, Banasa Chlorochroa, Thyanta, Euschistus. Trapping may continue for 2014-2015 at both locations.<br /> <br /> In Virginia, research focused on several topics. We monitored pyrethroid resistance in Helicoverpa zea by testing 1,412 moths in 2013, with a seasonal average of 22.7% of moths surviving the 24-hour cypermethrin exposure period. Weekly peaks never exceeded 31% survival in 2013. These numbers are the lowest we have seen since 2008 in Virginia, but are still high enough to be of concern. The field corn survey, which is used to predict corn earworm infestation levels in soybean, found a statewide average of 18% ears infested in mid-July. Corn earworm moth black light trap captures were continued in 2013. Timely pest status updates, black light trap reports, and recommendations were posted weekly on the Virginia Ag Pest Advisory. BMSB were recorded in 35 soybean-growing counties in 2013. In general, northern and central counties had the highest peak populations of BMSB, with lower numbers in southern and southeastern Virginia. Edge-only insecticide treatments in BMSB-infested fields were very successful in keeping BMSB populations low, and this could be an economical and effective management tactic in Virginia soybean. A comparison of BMSB sampling methods found that visual counts had higher overall mean values than sweep nets, particularly at higher counts (>25). Kudzu bugs were widespread in Virginia in 2013, reported in 65 counties (on soybean in 47 counties and on other hosts in 18 counties). This was the first season in Virginia where kudzu bug populations reached threshold levels (five per plant for first generation adults or one nymph per sweep for second generation kudzu bugs). A pyrethroid was highly effective against kudzu bugs in our first-ever kudzu bug efficacy test in Virginia (Brunswick County). Beneficial arthropod and pest densities were examined pre- and post- insecticide application in six large- plot experiments in Virginia and North Carolina soybean. The pesticides tested ranged from broad-spectrum to selective, consisting of pyrethroid and anthranilic diamide classes. Many<br /> <br /> beneficial species were found, but they did not always occur at the same time, and population densities varied and overlapped among species during the season.<br /> <br /> <br /> Impacts<br /> <br /> S1055 scientists continue to evaluate insecticide performance against soybean pests. Additional work has been focused on evaluation and development of host-plant resistance. These summary reports of efficacy and yield response are available through individual state extension programs.<br /> <br /> Many participating S1055 states documented the spread and importance of exotic hemipteran pests, including stink bugs and kudzu bug. These documentations will serve to increase education in the appropriate areas, as well as expand the focus of research as range expansion increases.<br /> <br /> Strong Extension and outreach programs are providing necessary information of pest diagnostics, biology, impacts and management throughout the soybean producing region of the country.<br />

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

• Bob Koch (President), University of Minnestoa, koch0125@umn.edu
• Louis Hesler (Secretary), USDA-ARS, Brookings, SD, louis.hesler@ars.usda.gov
• Fred Musser (Local Arrangements), MS State University, fm61@msstate.edu
• Dominic Reisig (Past President), North Carolina St. Univ., ddreisig@ncsu.edu
• Julien Beuzelin, LSU Ag Center, JBeuzelin@agcenter.lsu.edu
• Sebe Brown, LSU Ag Center, SBrown@agcenter.lsu.edu
• Carolina Camargo, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, caro.camargo@yahoo.es
• Angus Catchot, Mississippi State University, acatchot@ext.msstate.edu
• Don Cook, Mississippi State University, dcook@drec.msstate.edu
• Jeff Davis, LSU Ag Center, JeffDavis@agcenter.lsu.edu
• Tom Hunt, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, thunt2@unl.edu
• David Kerns, LSU Ag Center, DKerns@agcenter.lsu.edu
• Rogers Leonard, LSU Ag Center, RLeonard@agcenter.lsu.edu
• Lia Marchi Werle, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, lia.marchi@huskers.unl.edu
• Matt O'Neal, Iowa St. University, oneal@iastate.edu
• Matheus Ribiero, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, marcus.ribiero@huskers.unl.edu
• Kelley Tilmon, South Dakota St. Univ., Kelley.tilmon@sdstate.edu
• Suhas Vyavhare, Texas A&M University, suhas.vyavhare@yahoo.com
• Jake Wenger, The Ohio State University, wenger.93@osu.edu

Brief Summary of Minutes

The 2016 S1055 meeting will be held in Raleigh, NC on Sunday, 13 March (9 am to 5 pm) and Monday, 14 March (1 pm to 5 pm) and will be coordinated to mesh with the 2016 South Eastern Branch meeting, which is planned for 13-16 March 2016. Dominic Reisig is involved with local arrangements for the branch meeting and kindly agreed to assist with local arrangements for S1055. The group expressed interest to have more involvement in the meetings from industry, governmental organizations (e.g., EPA), non-governmental organizations, and others. There will be an attempt to foster this sentiment by holding a S-1055-centered symposium in which speakers from these groups will be invited to speak and attend on Monday afternoon of the meeting. Discussion indicated that incumbent members of S-1055 will likely also be speakers at the symposium. There will also be efforts to make personnel from these various groups aware of S-1055 activities so that they may become more involved with S-1055. Members expressed a desire that the symposium speakers address pest resistance management issues.

Julien Beuzelin was nominated and graciously accepted to serve as secretary for 2015.  Mary Purcell is the Federal NIFA representative.

S1055 is sound as a multistate project. Project revisions are performed every 5 years; next revision will occur in 2017. 

Accomplishments

<p>Accomplishments of the S1055 working group have led to improved pest management practices for several soybean insects including soybean aphid, kudzu bug, a complex of stink bugs, and various defoliators. The accomplishments include several activities and outputs over the past year.</p><br /> <p>The group completed two multistate studies regarding management practices for soybean insect pests. One multistate study determined that an IPM approach to soybean aphid management (scout/threshold) provided a greater probability of a much higher financial return than neonicotinoid seed treatment. Another multistate study found that a Rag1 + Rag2 pyramid is as effective as an insecticide for controlling soybean aphid. Both of these findings have been conveyed to producers at various meetings. Both studies were with funding from and in conjunction with the North Central Regional soybean Project.</p><br /> <p>S1055 researchers from multiple states have also documented the spread and economic impact of exotic stink bugs and kudzu bug, throughout various soybean-producing states. Kudzu bug distribution data are now linked through a University of Georgia-hosted website to create a national distribution map (<a href="http://www.kudzubug.org/distribution_map.cfm">http://www.kudzubug.org/distribution_map.cfm</a>).</p><br /> <p>S1055 scientists evaluated insecticide performance against soybean pests, including ways to reduce the number of insecticide applications and to minimize their impact on beneficial insects. These evaluations generated numerous summary reports of efficacy and yield response that are available through individual state extension programs. Researchers in several states have also generated information on baseline susceptibilities of various pests that will be useful in monitoring for and determining levels of insecticide resistance.</p><br /> <p>As alternatives to insecticides, S1055 scientists have also conducted numerous lab and field studies to evaluate the effects of host-plant resistance, natural enemies, and various tillage practices on insect pest levels.</p><br /> <p>Information and technology regarding soybean insect pest management were transferred through numerous educational meetings and field days in the various states for growers, crop consultants, pest management practitioners, scientists, and other stakeholders.</p><br /> <p>Outputs: Scientists published 17 articles and developed numerous extension publications on soybean insect pests in the past year (see list below). Members of the group transfer information from these publications by regularly holding educational meetings and field days on soybean insect pests for growers, crop consultants, pest management practitioners, and other scientists.</p>

Publications

<ul><br /> <li>Bhusal, S.J., Jiang, G., Hesler, L.S., Orf, J.H. 2014. Soybean aphid resistance in soybean germplasm accessions of maturity group I. Crop Sci. 54:2093-2098. doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.03.0205.</li><br /> <li>Cox, R., O'Neal, M., Hessel, R., Schulte, L.A., Helmers, M. 2014. The impact of prairie strips on aphidophagous predator abundance and soybean aphid predation in agricultural catchments. Environ. Entomol. 43:1185-1197.</li><br /> <li>Gill, K.A., Cox, R., O'Neal, M.E. 2014. Quality over quantity: Buffer strips can be improved with select native plant species. Environ. Entomol. 43: 298-311.</li><br /> <li>Herbert, D.A. 2014. The Virginia Ag Crop and Pest Advisory blog and MailChimp delivered advisory. http://blogs.ext.vt.edu/ag-pest-advisory/.</li><br /> <li>Herbert, D.A., Jr., K. Kamminga, S. Malone, T. P. Kuhar, E. Day, J. Greene, C.S. Bundy, L. Brown, and P. Ellsworth. 2014. Field Guide to Stink Bugs of Agricultural Importance in the United States.&nbsp;Northeastern Integrated Pest Management Center. Virginia Cooperative Extension. VT/0914/444356/ENTO-68. https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/444/444-356/444-356.html.</li><br /> <li>Herbert, D.A., S. Malone, M. Arrington, and R. Whalen. 2014. 2013 Insect Pest Management In Virginia Cotton, Peanut, Soybean, and Sorghum. AREC-61NP. https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/AREC/AREC-61/AREC-61.html.</li><br /> <li>Hesler, L.S. 2013. Efficacy of inorganic compounds against soybean aphid, laboratory tests 2012. Arthropod Management Tests. 38:F82. doi: 10.4182/amt.2013.M1.</li><br /> <li>Hesler, L.S. 2014. Inventory and assessment of foliar natural enemies of the soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in South Dakota. Environ. Entomol. 43:577-588.</li><br /> <li>Hodgson, E.W., Sisson, A.J. 2014. "Predicted Mortality of Bean Leaf Beetle Is Highest in 25 years." Integrated Crop Management News. Paper 62. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cropnews/62.</li><br /> <li>Koch, R.L. and B. Potter. 2014. Scouting for soybean aphid. University of Minnesota Extension. (http://z.umn.edu/soybeanaphidscouting).</li><br /> <li>Marchi-Werle, L., T. M. Heng-Moss, T. E. Hunt, E.L.L. Baldin, L.M. Baird. 2014. Characterization of Peroxidase Changes in Tolerant and Susceptible Soybeans Challenged by Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 107:1985-1991. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1603/EC14220.</li><br /> <li>McCarville, M.T., O'Neal, M.E., Potter, B.D., Tilmon, K.J., Cullen, E.M., McCornack, B.P., Tooker, J.F., Prischmann-Voldseth, D.A. 2014. One gene versus two: A regional study on the efficacy of single gene versus pyramided resistance for soybean aphid management. (2014) Journal of Economic Entomology, 107:1680-1687.</li><br /> <li>McCarville, M.T., Soh, D.H., Tylka, G.L., O'Neal, M.E. 2014. Aboveground feeding by soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, affects soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, reproduction belowground. PLoS ONE 9 (1), art. no. e86415.</li><br /> <li>Philips, C.R., T.P. Kuhar, M.P. Hoffmann, F.G. Zalom, R. Hallberg, D.A. Herbert, C. Gonzales, S. Elliott. 2014. Integrated Pest Management. In: LS. John Wiley &amp; Sons. Chichester. DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003248.pub2.</li><br /> <li>Tiroesele B, Skoda SR, Hunt TE, Lee DJ, Molina-Ochoa J, Foster JE. 2014. Population structure, genetic variability, and gene flow of the bean leaf beetle, Cerotoma trifurcata, in the Midwestern United States. J. Insect Sci. 14:62. http://www.insectscience.org/14.62</li><br /> <li>Vyavhare, S., M. O. Way, R. F. Medina. 2014. Stink bug species composition and relative abundance of the redbanded stink bug in soybean in the Upper Gulf Coast Texas. Environ. Entomol. 43:1621-1627.</li><br /> <li>Whitworth, R.J., J.P. Michaud, H.N. Schwarting. 2014. Soybean insect pest management guide, 2014. Kansas State University Research and Extension, #MF743.</li><br /> </ul>

Impact Statements

1. • The viability of non-chemical approaches to soybean aphid management will likely reduce the amount of pesticide in the environment.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Hester, Louis (louis.hester@ars.usda.gov) - USDA-ARS,SD, Chair S-1055;
Beuzelin, Julien (jbeuzelin@agcenter.lsu.edu) - LSU AgCenter, LA , Secretary S-1055;
Koch, Bob (koch0125@umn.edu) - University of Minnesota, MN, Past President S-1055;
Leonard, Rogers (rleonard@agcenter.lsu.edu) - LSU AgCenter, LA, Administrative Advisor S-1055;
Bateman, Nick (nrbito@msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
Catchot, Angus (acatchot@ext.msstate.edu)-Miss. State Univ, MS
Chen, Jie (jchen@lsu.edu) - LSU AgCenter, LA;
Chen, Xuan (Xuan.chen@agcenter.lsu.edu) - LSU AgCenter, LA;
Cook, Don (dcook@frec.msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
Crow, Whitney (wdc165@msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
Davis, Jeff (jeffdavis@agcenter.lsu.edu) - LSU AgCenter, LA;
Difonzo, Chris (difonzo@msu.edu) - Michigan State University, MI;
Fleming, Daniel (jef18@msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
Gore, Jeff (jgore@drec.msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
Herbert, Ames (herbert@vt.edu) - Virginia Tech, VA;
Lahiri, Sriyanka (slahiri@ncsu.edu) - NC State University, NC;
McCornack, Brian (mccornac@lcsu.edu) - Kansas State Univ., KS;
Musser, Fred (fm61@msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
O’Neal, Matt (oneal@iastate.edu) - Iowa State University, IA;
Owens, David (owensd119@ufl.edu) - Univ. of Florida IFAS, FL;
Pitts, Dan (Daniel.l.pitts@monsanto) - Monsanto Company, SC;
Reisig, Dominic (ddreisig@ncsu.edu) - NC State University, NC;
Stewart, Scott (sdstewart@utk.edu) - Univ. of Tennessee, TN;
Thrash, Ben (bthrash@msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS;
Tilmon, Kelley (Tilmon.1@OSU.edu) - Ohio State University, OH;
Wright, Bob (rwright2@unl.edu) - University of Nebraska, NE;
Whalen, Adam (daw153@msstate.edu) - Miss. State Univ., MS

Brief Summary of Minutes

The 2016 annual meeting for Project S1055 was held in Memphis, TN on Sunday March 12, 2017 from 8 AM to 5 PM. This project review meeting was in conjunction with the Entomological Society of America Southeastern Branch (ESA SEB) meeting.

The symposium entitled “The gamut of resistance management for soybean insect pests: Issues and prospects” was held during the ESA SEB meeting on March 14, 2016. This symposium was organized by S1055 members, and speakers included S1055 members and personnel from industry. As a follow up, a symposium focusing on soybean insect pest management might be held during the 2017 ESA SEB meeting to increase dissemination of results and overall visibility of the project.

Brian McCornack was nominated and accepted to serve as secretary for 2016-2017. Mary Purcell is the USDA-NIFA representative.

Efforts will be made to increase scientist participation in Project S1055. A mechanism to add personnel from industry, regulatory agencies, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to Appendix E was discussed. In addition, personnel in land grant institutions from states not currently represented in Project S1055 will be contacted.

S1055 is sound as a multistate project. Project revisions are performed every 5 years. The next revision is due in 2018 and was initiated by forming a re-write committee. The committee includes Jeff Davis (Chair), Fred Musser, Dominic Reisig, Matt O’Neal, Julien Beuzelin, and Brian McCornack.

The 2017 project review meeting was scheduled for a period during next year's ESA SEB meeting scheduled on 12-15 March 2017. Project members involved with local arrangements for the ESA SEB meeting will assist with local arrangements for the S1055 annual meeting.

Accomplishments

<p>Reports from 13 states (Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) were received and used to summarize accomplishments for Project S1055 during the reporting period. Research and extension efforts in the Midwest continue to focus on the soybean aphid, whereas efforts in the Southeast continue to focus on the kudzu bug and the brown marmorated stink bug. Efforts in the Midsouth address the diverse group of insects attacking soybean, including stink bugs, the soybean looper, the corn earworm, and the threecornered alfalfa hopper.</p><br /> <p>A three-year, three-state (Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland) collaborative project to study the biology and develop management strategies for the brown marmorated stink bug in soybean was completed. Two products, an 18-page color booklet and a field scouting card, were developed and distributed, providing a comprehensive resource with images and recommendations for the invasive pest.</p><br /> <p>Members of Project S1055 have also conducted surveys to document the spread in the United States of another invasive species, the kudzu bug. Up-to-date kudzu bug distribution maps are available at <a href="http://www.kudzubug.org/distribution_map.cfm">http://www.kudzubug.org/distribution_map.cfm</a>. Collaborative work in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia identified soybean genotypes exhibiting resistance to the invasive pest. In addition, studies on the role of cultural practices showed that early planted fields, those with conventional tillage, and those with wider rows were more susceptible to kudzu bug infestations.</p><br /> <p>Members of Project S1055 evaluated the efficacy of insecticides for management of numerous soybean insect pests. These evaluations included seed treatments and foliar applications. Results of these evaluations support soybean recommendations for individual states. These studies also have implications for pest management in other crops, with on-farm experiments in Illinois showing that foliar insecticides targeting rotation-resistant western corn rootworms did not reduce the adult populations in soybean, and are unlikely to reduce injury to first-year corn after soybean.</p><br /> <p>Members of Project S1055 showed that insecticide resistance continues to be a major threat to soybean insect pest management nationwide. Soybean aphid resistance to pyrethroids was documented in Minnesota, and resistance to neonicotinoids was monitored in 10 states in the Midwest. Soybean loopers collected from Arkansas, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee exhibited resistance to chlorantraniliprole, a diamide insecticide.</p><br /> <p>In addition to insecticides, various aspects of host plant resistance and biological control were studied. For example, soybean aphid virulent genotypes surviving on soybean plants with Rag 1, Rag 2, Rag 1 + Rag 2 were detected. Resistance management plans are being studied, and the soybean aphid may serve as a model for developing resistance management plans for other aphid-infested crops. Additionally, a multistate project for the release of soybean aphid parasitoid, <em>Aphelinus glycinis</em>, was initiated in Minnesota and will also involve releases in Iowa and Ohio.</p><br /> <p>Research on the threecornered alfalfa hopper conducted in Mississippi and Louisiana did not detect yield losses associated with the insect during soybean reproductive stages. This work suggests that the pest status of the insect has been overestimated in the Midsouth under current soybean production practices.</p><br /> <p>An annual survey of insect losses and management practices in soybean was conducted in seven southern states. This annual effort, led by entomologists in Mississippi, will be expanded to a national survey next year.</p><br /> <p>Results of research were shared among members of Project S1055 through formal collaborations and informal discussions, which increases the rapid dissemination of new knowledge and associated management recommendations, promotes further collaborations, and assists in avoiding overlapping of research projects.</p><br /> <p><em>Outputs:</em></p><br /> <p>Members of Project S1055 published at least 26 peer-reviewed research articles and developed numerous extension publications on soybean insect pest biology and management during the reporting period . Educational meetings and field days were used to transfer this information to growers, extension agents, crop consultants, ag industry representatives, and other scientists.</p>

Publications

<p><strong><em>Refereed journal articles:</em></strong></p><br /> <p>Adams, B., A. Catchot, D. Cook, J. Gore, F. Musser, J.T. Irby, and B. Golden. 2015. The impact of simulated corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) damage in indeterminate soybean. Journal of Economic Entomology 108: 1072-1078. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov094">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov094</a>.</p><br /> <p>Adams, B.P., D.R. Cook, A.L. Catchot, J. Gore, F. Musser, S.D. Stewart, D.L. Kerns, G.M. Lorenz, J.T. Irby, and B. Golden. 2016. Evaluation of corn earworm, <em>Helicoverpa zea </em>(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), economic injury levels in Mid-South reproductive stage soybean. Journal of Economic Entomology (in press). <a href="http://dx.doi.ord/10.1093/jee/tow052">http://dx.doi.ord/10.1093/jee/tow052</a>.</p><br /> <p>Bahlai, C.A., W. vander Werf, M. O&rsquo;Neal, L. Hemerik, and D.A. Landis. 2015. Shifts in dynamic regime of an invasive lady beetle are linked to the invasion and insecticidal management of its prey. Ecological Applications 25: 1807-1818. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2022.1">http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2022.1</a>.</p><br /> <p>Bakken, A.J., S.C. Schoof, M. Bickerton, K.A. Kamminga, J.C. Jenrette, S. Malone, M.A. Abney, D.A. Herbert, D. Reisig, T.P. Kuhar, and J.F. Walgenbach. 2015. Occurrence of brown marmorated stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) on wild hosts in non-managed woodlands and soybean fields in North Carolina and Virginia. Environmental Entomology 44: 1011-1021. DOI: 10.1093/ee/nvv092.</p><br /> <p>Clifton, E.H., S.T. Jaronski, E.W. Hodgson, and A.J. Gassmann. 2015. Abundance of soil-borne entomopathogenic fungi in organic and conventional fields in the Midwestern USA with an emphasis on the effect of herbicides and fungicides on fungal persistence. PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133613.</p><br /> <p>Cooper, S.G., V. Concibido, D. Hunt, G. Jiang, C. Krupke, B. McCornack, R. Mian, M. O&rsquo;Neal, D. Prischmann-Voldseth, D. Ragsdale, and D. Wang. 2015. Geographic distribution of soybean aphid biotypes in USA and Canada during 2008-2010. Crop Science. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2014.11.0758.</p><br /> <p>Del Pozo-Valdivia, A., N. Seiter, D. Reisig, J. Greene, F. Reay-Jones, and J. Bacheler. 2016. <em>Megacopta cribraria</em> (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) population dynamics in soybeans as influenced by planting date, maturity group, and insecticide use. Journal of Economic Entomology (in press).</p><br /> <p>Enders, L., R. Bickel, J. Brisson, T. Heng-Moss, B. Siegfried, A. Zera, and N. Miller. 2015. Abiotic and biotic stressors causing equivalent mortality induce highly variable transcriptional responses in the soybean aphid. G3: Genes, Genomes and Genetics 5(2): 261-270.</p><br /> <p>Fritz, B., A. Del Pozo-Valdivia, C. Sorenson, T. Carter, and D. Reisig. 2016. Host plant resistance to <em>Megacopta cribraria</em> (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in diverse soybean germplasm maturity groups V through VIII. Journal of Economic Entomology (in press).</p><br /> <p>Gill, K.A., and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Survey of soybean insect pollinators: Community identification and sampling method analysis. Environmental Entomology 44: 488-498. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv001">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv001</a>.</p><br /> <p>Gray, M.E. and J.L. Spencer. 2015. Western corn rootworm: <em>Diabrotica virgifera virgifera </em>LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) resistance to Bt maize and crop rotation: management challenges and opportunities. Bulletin of the Royal Entomological Society; Antenna: ECE Special Edition 39: 100-101.</p><br /> <p>Kandel, D.R., K.J. Tilmon, and T.R. Shuster. 2015. Effect of host plant resistance and seed treatments on soybean aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and their natural enemies. Journal of Entomological Science 50: 186-205.</p><br /> <p>Musser, F.R., A.L. Catchot, Jr., J.A. Davis, D.A. Herbert, Jr., G.M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D.D. Reisig, and S.D. Stewart. 2015. 2014 soybean insect losses in the southern US. Midsouth Entomologist 8: 35-48. <a href="http://midsouthentomologist.org.msstate.edu/">http://midsouthentomologist.org.msstate.edu/</a>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Nemec, K., E. Beckendorf, L. Hesler, W. Riedell, and J. Lundgren. 2016. The effect of flowering calendula and cuphea plants on <em>Orius insidiosus</em> survival and predation of <em>Aphis glycines</em>. Biocontrol Science and Technology 261: 12-22, DOI:10.1080/09583157.2015.1072130.</p><br /> <p>North, J., J. Gore, A. Catchot, S. Stewart, G. Lorenz, F. Musser, D. Cook, D. Kerns, and D. Dodds. 2016. Value of neonicotinoid insecticide seed treatments in Mid-South soybean (<em>Glycine max </em>L.) production systems. Journal of Economic Entomology (in press) <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow035">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow035</a>.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Pilkay, G., F.P.F. Reay-Jones, J.K. Greene, M.D. Toews, and W.C. Bridges. 2015. Spatial and temporal dynamics of stink bugs in southeastern farmscapes. Journal of Insect Science 15: 1-13. DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/iev006.</p><br /> <p>Prochaska, T., T. Donze-Reiner, L. Marchi-Werle, N.A. Palmer, T.E. Hunt, G. Sarath, and T. Heng-Moss. 2015. Transcriptional responses of tolerant and susceptible soybeans to soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) herbivory. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 9: 347-359.</p><br /> <p>Seiter, N., A. Del-Pozo Valdiva, J. Greene, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, P. Roberts, and D. Reisig. 2015. Action thresholds based on sweep-net sampling for management of the kudzu bug, <em>Megacopta cribraria</em> (Hemiptera: Plataspidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 108: 1818-1829. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov171.</p><br /> <p>Seiter, N.J., J.K. Greene, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, P.M. Roberts, and J.N. All. 2015. Insecticidal control of <em>Megacopta cribraria</em> (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in Soybean. Journal of Entomological Science 50: 263-283.</p><br /> <p>Stubbins, F.L., P. Agudelo, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, and J.K. Greene. 2015. First report of a mermithid nematode infecting the invasive <em>Megacopta cribraria</em> (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in the United States. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 127: 35-37.</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. The effect of an interspersed refuge on <em>Aphis glycines</em> (Hemiptera: Aphididae), their natural enemies, and biological control. Journal of Economic Entomology 109: 406-415. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov302.</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., M.T. McCarville, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. An induced susceptibility response in soybean promotes avirulent <em>Aphis glycines</em> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations on resistant soybean. Environmental Entomology 44: 658-667. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv051">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv051</a>.</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., M.T. McCarville, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Reduced fitness of virulent <em>Aphis glycines</em> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) biotypes may influence the longevity of resistance genes in soybean. PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138252.</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., M.T. McCarville, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Determining the duration of <em>Aphis glycines</em> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) induced susceptibility effect in soybean. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 9: 457-464. DOI: 10.1007/s11829-015-9395-7.</p><br /> <p>Vyavhare, S.S., M.O. Way, and R.F. Medina. 2015. Determination of growth stage-specific response of soybean to redbanded stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and its relationship to the development of flat pods. Journal of Economic Entomology 108: 1770-1778. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov145.</p><br /> <p>Vyavhare, S.S., M.O. Way, R.A. Pearson, and R.F. Medina. 2015. Redbanded stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) infestation and occurrence of delayed maturity in soybean. Journal of Economic Entomology 108: 1516-1525. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov132.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;<strong><em>Refereed Book Chapters</em></strong></p><br /> <p>Greene, J.K. 2015. Kudzu Bug, pp. 143-144, <em>In</em> G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.</p><br /> <p>Greene, J.K., and J.A. Davis. 2015. Stink Bugs, pp. 146-149, <em>In</em> G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.</p><br /> <p>Lorenz, G., A. Herbert, and R. Leonard. 2015. Arthropod Pests-Caterpillars, pp. 139-141, <em>In</em> G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.</p><br /> <p>Tilmon, K.J., and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Soybean Aphid, <em>In</em> G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.</p><br /> <p><strong><em>Theses and Dissertations</em></strong></p><br /> <p>Whalen, A. 2015. Factors influencing honey bee abundance across agricultural landscapes in the Midsouth. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>Ramsey, J. 2015. Evaluating the pest status of threecornered alfalfa hopper in Mississippi agricultural crops. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>Dill, T. 2015. Adult emergence and egg distribution of the Heliothine complex and their impact on Bt resistance management in agricultural landscapes. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>Rozeboom, P.A. 2015. Organic foliar Milstop&reg; shows efficacy against soybean aphid, <em>Aphis glycines</em> Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on soybean, <em>Glycine max </em>(L.) Merrill (Fabales: Fabaceae). M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University</p><br /> <p>Rystrom, Z.D. 2015. Seasonal activity and sampling methods for the Dectes stem borer, <em>Dectes texanus</em> Leconte in Nebraska soybeans. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. <a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss/36/">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss/36/</a></p><br /> <p>Enchayan, J.S. 2015. Investigation of reduced agent and area treatments for <em>Aphis glycines</em> management and its effects on key predators. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. <a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss/39/">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entomologydiss/39/</a></p><br /> <p><strong><em>Extension Publications</em></strong></p><br /> <p><strong><em>&nbsp;</em></strong></p><br /> <p>Herbert, D.A. Jr., B. Cissel, J. Whalen, G. Dively, C. Hooks, T. Patton, D. Venugopal, T. Kuhar, B. Aigner, S. Malone, J. Hogue, and E. Seymore. 2015. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Biology and Management in Mid-Atlantic Soybeans. Virginia Cooperative Extension. ENT-168NP. <a href="http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/ENTO/ENTO-168/ENTO-168.html">http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/ENTO/ENTO-168/ENTO-168.html</a>.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2015. 2015 Yellow Book Report of insecticide evaluation for soybean pests, 26 pp. Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Publication 298-15.</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J., P. Beauzay and M. Boetel. 2015. 2015 North Dakota Field Crop Insect Management Guide. NDSU Ext. Serv., E-1143.</p><br /> <p>Krupke, C., W. Bailey, C. DiFonzo, E. Hodgson, T. Hunt, K. Jarvi, B. Jensen, J. Knodel, R. Koch, B. McCornack, A. Michel, J. Peterson, B. Pottern, A. Szczepaniec, K. Tilmon, J. Tooker, and S. Zukoff. 2015. The effectiveness of neonicotinoid seed treatments in soybean, 8 pp. Purdue University Publication E-268.</p>

Impact Statements

1. Documentation of soybean insect pest pressure and associated losses provides much needed information to researchers, regulators, and commodity groups.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Beuzelin, Julien (jbeuzelin@agcenter.lsu.edu), Chair - LSU AgCenter, LA; McCornack, Brian (mccornack@ksu.edu), Secretary - Kansas State University; Thomas Hunt (thunt2@unl.edu), University of Nebraska; Scott Stewart (sdstewart@utk.edu) University of Tennessee; Tim Reed (reedtim@auburn.edu) Auburn University; Jeff Davis (jeffdavis@agcenter.lsu.edu) LSU AgCenter; Jie Chen (jchen31@lsu.edu LSU) AgCenter; Monique de Souza (mdesouza@agcenter.lsu.edu) LSU AgCenter; Kelley Tilmon (tilmon.1@osu.edu) Ohio State University; Chris DiFonzo (difonzo@msu.edu) Michigan State University; Matt O'Neal (oneal@iastate.edu) Iowa State University; Angus Catchot (acatchot@entomology.msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Whitney Crow (wdcl65@msstate.edu); Mississippi State University; Nick Bateman (nbateman@entomology.msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Tyler Tomes (tt305@msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Jeff Gore (jgore@drec.msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Don Cook (Dcook@drec.msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Raul Villanueva (raul.villanueva@uky.edu) University of Kentucky ; John North (Jnorth@entomology.msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Fred Musser (fm61@msstate.edu) Mississippi State University; Silvana V.Paula-Moraes (paula.moraes@ufv.edu) University of Florida; Nicki Taillon (ntaillon@uaex.edu) University of Arkansas; Gus Lorenz (glorenz@uaex.edu) University of Arkansas

Brief Summary of Minutes

Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements. Beuzelin addressed the group as the chair for the S1055 project and thanked Stewart for work with local arrangements. The floor was opened for modifications to the meeting schedule. All members accepted the format and continued with the agenda that was presented.

Administrative Update. Dr. Rogers Leonard, Administrative Advisor, provided some general background information on the group for new people in attendance and commented on the continued success of the participants and the activity of the group within the US. He encouraged the group to continue producing outputs and impacting stakeholders.  He mentioned the possibility of nomination for a team / project award in the future.  He noted that the strength of the committee resides in the membership, which includes broad representation across the US. Leonard made it a point to indicate that it is important to invite public stakeholders and private industry to this meeting.  Participation is not exclusive to land grant universities and encouraged student involvement, industry representation, and breadth in subject matter, which has allowed non-members to add an important perspective.  Leonard made comments about funding allocations and recognized the efforts that went into the formal S1055 symposium to be presented later in the week at the Southeastern Branch Entomological Society of America (SEB-ESA) conference. He urged the group to keep this activity ongoing; participation in the SEB-ESA regional meeting is an effective model for dissemination of information generated from the S1055 project. Leonard also reminded the group of the important task ahead, which is a revision of the current project.  He also commented on the process and the importance of current members to resubmit approvals for Appendix E.  Non-Land-Grant scientists interested in participating should contact Leonard directly to be included in Appendix E.  However, he suggested that the group may wish to create an Executive Board / Committee to make decisions for the group on interactions with a broad segment of stakeholders.

Discussion of the Project Renewal.  There was a discussion of the current project facilitated by Beuzelin.  The S1055 participants moved to make Davis as the chair of the new project development committee; while O’Neal, McCornack, Musser, and Beuzelin will participate as members supporting Davis.  Davis led a discussion how to outline objectives and stressed the importance of defining objectives that allow multiple states to report and share data. Other topics included a specific objective around the annual symposium, but included other topics like the soybean pest loss report that is currently coordinated by Musser.  One proposed research objective included the impact of cover crops on soybean pest dynamics. O’Neal suggested that the group focus on broad objectives that allow members to respond to emerging pests. There was general discussion about double reporting and that new project objectives should include activities that are not listed in other Federal-approved projects.

The group agreed to continue the S1055 symposium at a ESA branch meeting annually, adopt/modify the Musser pest loss report to other states not currently participating, and to develop are more broad research objective, where ideas are to be shared with Davis. The deadline for suggestions was one week following this meeting.

Selection of Officers, Meeting Date, and Venue for 2018.  Location of the next S1055 meeting will coincide with the Entomological Society of America (ESA) Southeastern Branch meeting, which will be held from March 4-7, 2018, in Orlando, FL. Hunt noted that limiting the general project discussion to a single day reduced the amount of information shared and networking that had been present in previous meetings for this project.   Musser suggested that it was due to fewer collaborative activities. There was general discussion about symposium topics that would attract SEB-ESA meeting attendees. O’Neal proposed that symposium planning start immediately to ensure the group can solicit noteworthy speakers. There was a general discussion regarding the timing of the symposium. The working group voted unanimously to move the symposium to Tuesday with the S1055 annual meeting occurring on Wednesday.  Koch noted that this change will allow for a more productive discussion after viewing the symposium. Potential symposium topics were discussed and included stink bugs, Hemiptera in general, sucking bugs, ecology, secondary pests outbreaks and interactions, and host plant resistance (HPR).

Insect Pest and Soybean Yield Loss Reports. Musser discussed the history of the soybean insect pest and yield loss reports, which started in 2004. Since its initiation, AL, AR, LA, MS, NC, TN, and VA contributed to the report, which represents 14% of the soybean crop nationally (roughly 11.7M acres in 2015, but acreage went down in 2016). This is a publically available resource of estimates on insect pest management and damage in soybeans, adoption of practices (foliar, seed treatments), and HPR/transgenic (future use of survey) adoption.  He noted that the report allows specialists to retrieve information by state or region and identify trends or shifts in practices over time. Musser described data sources, which included informal surveys with consultants and agents and pesticide distributors.  The survey information was then revised with personal experience, phone calls, and firsthand experience. This report is published as a non-refereed article in the Mid-South Entomologist, which is open access. The main purpose of the report is to show patterns, trends, or regional differences and compare these results with other published work. Participants report following: total soybean acreage, average yield, price (USDA-NASS estimates), percent treated seed, acres infested with pests, acres above a pest action threshold, acres treated with pesticides, and number of applications.  The data reported with the least confidence is percent loss per acre infested with a pest.  Outputs for the formal report include yield lost to insects, number of foliar sprays, treatment costs, value of yield lost to insects, pest specific costs, other (e.g., automatic sprays).   Catchot noted that an automatic application has its own line, not combined with “other” pests.  

Musser discussed the most recent report from 2016.  The number of sprays per acre were consistent at 1.2 to 1.5.  The MS data showed corn earworm (CEW) was not recognized as a pest for several years, but in 2011 infestations increased and significant yields has been observed.  Musser commented that mild winters tend to support higher stink bug injury in soybeans the following year. Conversely, mild winters for CEW means better biocontrol the following year, which is a working hypothesis. The survey also documents spread of kudzu bug (economic losses and infested acreage). It appears that entomopathogens and parasitism are managing this pest a low levels. In general, those soybean acres using seed treatments also were associated with scouting.  The common factor for use of seed treatments and scouting was an expectation of insect pest problems from recent history. The North/South trend in number of acres scouted indicated more acreage in the Southeastern US is scouted than that in the Midsouth states, even in spite of the estimates that Midsouth acres have more pest issues. More information on the report can be found at: http://midsouthentomologist.org.msstate.edu.

Open Discussion. Koch provided an update on recent pollinator activities in Minnesota, including some key policy occurring at the state legislative level. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture mandated a risk assessment and overview as first steps to reverse pollinator decline and restore pollinator health in MN. Koch expressed concern over the mandate, as key entomologists MN were not involved in the mandate released on August 25, 2016. There were general concerns regarding the ban on neonicotinoids especially for those relying on this insecticide group for crop production. Koch made further comments about the mandate, which included a requirement to verify need, review labels, use inspections, and support pollinator stewardship. The governor directed state agencies on how neonicotinoids should be used. These comments generated a general discussion within the S1055 group regarding neonicotinoids and return on investment. In general, return on investment is higher for Southern soybeans and not as well-defined across the Northern soybean belt. One issue is that a state mandate is needed to give a producer a choice to have seed non-treated; at this time there is no choice.  There is a push for the MN governor’s committee on pollinator protection to not create policy by building comments with a hope to influence outcomes. O’Neal provided an update on Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for pollinators currently being organized by the USDA to conserve pollinators in soybean. These BMP’s are modeled after strategy used in almond production. This is a keystone partnership of select experts to write BMPs highlighting where pollinators would be at risk, separate from what is legally required.  A lengthy group discussion ensued about the benefits and concerns around “top-down” administrative guidance and potential mandates that could result in required implementation of BMPs. This discussion prompted a suggestion to more formally present the key issues and arguments in an organized symposium at the next S1055 meeting, which will be co-organized by Lorenz and O’Neal. The main goal would be to invite stakeholders and scientists representing broad pollinator issues as participants in the discussion at the symposium.    

Afternoon discussion included current status of kudzu bug, soybean aphid, stink bugs, and lepidopteran pests. Koch presented data on the rising level of soybean aphid resistance to pyrethroids in MN using glass vial bioassays. Biological control is occurring through the steady increase of Aphelinus certus, which has been documented in several northern soybean-producing states.  Davis expects redbanded stink bug to be high this year in LA due to ideal overwintering conditions. Lorenz commented on this species movement into AR and also was expecting higher populations, similar to those levels observed in 2009. Reed also felt that this stink bug will be a more serious pest in 2017 and plans to conduct surveys to determine levels across AL.  Koch detected first field in MN with Brown marmorated stink bug nymphs outside urban areas. This observation is an indicator that populations are established and survey efforts on its expansion are planned.

There was a discussion about Lepidoptera control, including soybean loopers, with regards to possible diamide failures in field trials. Lorenz also noted unsatisfactory control with Prevathon used against CEW.  He also used this issue to justify the value of Bt soybean as a promising tool in south where Lepidoptera are a yield-limiting issue. Members discussed potential refuge requirements in other crops with similar Lepidopteran species.

Concluding Remarks. McCornack will be the incoming S1055 President (2017-2018). The group revisited potential objectives for the next project proposal given the day’s discussion, and included: 1) a formal symposium at a professional conference, 2) a soybean pest infestation and yield loss survey to estimate national information using a common template, 3) a general topic to target pest ecology and behavior, and 4) a shared research topic. The formal symposium topic will address pollinator issues in soybean production.  A motion was made by Musser to have Lorenz and O’Neal co-organize the symposium, which was seconded by Tilmon. Motion passed. McCornack will work with ESA SEB to organize local arrangements for the 2018 meeting. The business meeting was then adjourned and participants moved to discuss S1055 project accomplishments and impacts.

Accomplishments

<p><strong>Activities:&nbsp; </strong>Reports from nine states (Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas) were received and used to summarize accomplishments for the S1055 Project during the reporting period.</p><br /> <p>Research and extension efforts in the Midwest focused on the soybean aphid resistance to pyrethroids and stink bug monitoring for invasive and endemic species, whereas efforts in the Southeast continue to focus several stink bug species and key lepidopteran pests like loopers and CEW. Efforts in the Midsouth address the diverse group of insects attacking soybean, including stink bugs, the soybean looper, the corn earworm, and the three-cornered alfalfa hopper.</p><br /> <p>For soybean aphid in Iowa, late-season accumulation of aphid pressure (i.e., after R5) may not impact yield like it does in early reproductive growth; a foliar insecticide applied after seed set may not be an economically profitable choice. Other research activities in Iowa included estimating the economic returns of conventional soybean pest management, area-wide management of soybean aphids through importation biological control and host plant resistance, developing an IRM plan for soybean aphid resistant soybeans, and understanding the effect of soybean trichome density on soybean aphid and its natural enemies</p><br /> <p>Researchers in Kansas continue mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) that explain resistance in PI165673 to <em>Dectes texanus</em> and will develop molecular markers linked to these QTLs. Activities in 2016 focused on creating a different type of borer-resistant plant by moving the silenced laccase2 (Lac2) borer gene required for skin development into soybean plants and kill <em>D</em>. <em>texanus</em> beetle adults and larvae. Other research focused on limiting sprays for controlling adult <em>D</em>. <em>texanus</em> in production soybean fields and the development of a sampling plan for making management decisions.</p><br /> <p>An annual survey led by Mississippi was conducted among seven southern states that grew a total of more than 11 million acres of soybean to document inputs and losses attributed to insects. Stink bug was the most costly pest during 2015 followed by corn earworm, soybean looper, and bean leaf beetle. Estimated yield losses to insects were 3.51% or $14.25/acre even after spending $23.85/acre on insect controls. This survey has been conducted annually since 2004 and provides a valuable perspective on changes in insect pressure and management over time. Research was also initiated during 2016 to better understand the biology of the kudzu bug, a new pest of soybean. In particular we are monitoring its population dynamics in soybean and its impact on soybean when it infests soybean during early vegetative stages. Surveys were conducted over many planting dates, geographical regions and soybean varieties to evaluate population dynamics of pest and beneficial insects in soybean. Research was initiated in 2016 to evaluate the impact of agronomic management on nectar production in soybean.</p><br /> <p>The NDSU Extension's Integrated Pest Management Survey monitored for soybean aphids, spider mites and bean leaf beetles in a total of 488 soybean fields in 40 counties of North Dakota during 2016. These data provided timely updates on the detection and population levels of soybean aphids. Results were posted on the IPM website weekly during the field season. <a href="http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ndipm">http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ndipm</a>.</p><br /> <p>Nebraska monitored for stink bug movement in several soybean production fields. In addition, select cooperators were contacted to test &ldquo;do-it yourself&rdquo; bioassay kit to monitor for soybean aphid insecticide resistance. Kits were sent to cooperators from Iowa and Minnesota, and retested in Nebraska. This initial field tests used increasing concentrations of thiamethoxam, rather than a discriminating dose to calculate the current LD₅₀s of these populations. Cooperators assayed their respective soybean aphid populations and forwarded data to the University of Nebraska &ndash; Lincoln.</p><br /> <p>Coordinated surveys were implemented for kudzu bug in parishes across Louisiana. Four new parishes were added in 2016.&nbsp; Kudzu bug movement across LA has slowed but the reduction in populations that the southeast states have observed has not yet occurred in LA. Delayed leaf senescence in soybean was characterized and a publication codifying terms and causes was published.</p><br /> <p>A new insect associated with soybean plots in Texas were observed at the Beaumont Center in September 2016. This insect was <em>Spoladea recurvalis </em>(F.) and is in the family Crambidae. James McDermott in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&amp;M University identified the insect. It was found in abundance in the adult stage and was collected from soybean plots.</p><br /> <p>In South Dakota, companion plants calendula and cuphea, whether alone or in combination, do not have an effect on the amount of&nbsp;<em>Aphis glycines</em>&nbsp;consumed by&nbsp;<em>Orius insidiosus</em>&nbsp;on soybean plants. South Dakota also identified several phenylpropanoid compounds that may be applied to recruit green lacewings and flower flies to point sources within crop fields. In addition, peak aphid populations were reduced by 40% and 75% in 2 of 3 years by planting spring wheat before soybeans relative to oat&ndash;pea mixture.</p><br /> <p>Tennessee continued a long term, regional study to evaluate the efficacy and value of insecticide seed treatments in soybean. The study was duplicated in one or more locations in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In general, insect pest pressure was low although there was increased vigor in soybean receiving an insecticide seed treatment. A significant yield response was not observed in the Tennessee trials.</p><br /> <p><strong>Outputs</strong>: Members of Project S1055 published at least 17 peer-reviewed research articles and developed numerous extension publications on soybean insect pest biology and management during the reporting period (see list below). Outputs included the mentorship and training of graduate students including publication of theses and dissertations. Members of the project held educational meetings and field days for growers, extension agents, crop consultants, Ag industry representatives, and other scientists.</p><br /> <p><strong>Patents: &nbsp;No.&nbsp;</strong>US20160309720 A1 &nbsp; <strong>&nbsp; Date:</strong> April 25, 3016 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <strong>Title:</strong> Methods and compositions comprising steroid honey bee feeding inhibitors</p>

Publications

<p><strong>Refereed Journal Articles:</strong></p><br /> <p>Adams, B. P., D. R. Cook, A. L. Catchot, J. Gore, F. Musser, S. D. Stewart, D. L. Kerns, G. M. Lorenz, J. T. Irby and B. Golden. 2016. Evaluation of corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), economic injury levels in Mid-South reproductive stage soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 109(3): 1161-1166. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow052">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow052</a>.</p><br /> <p>Baldin, E.L.L., L. Marchi-Werle, L.E.R. Pannuti, T.M. Heng-Moss, T.E. Hunt. 2016. Evaluating categories of resistance in soybean genotypes from United States and Brazil to <em>Aphis glycines</em> (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Florida Entomologist 99 (3): 487-495.</p><br /> <p>Cruz, P.L., E.L.L. Baldin, L.R.P. Guimar&atilde;es, L.E.R. Pannuti, G.P.P. Lima, T.M. Heng-Moss, T.E. Hunt. 2016. Tolerance of KS-4202 soybean to the attack of <em>Bemisia tabaci</em> biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Florida Entomologist 99 (4): 1-8.</p><br /> <p>Dolezal, A.G., N.A. Scavo, S.D. Hendrix, M.A. Harris, M.J. Wheelock, M.E. O&rsquo;Neal, and A.L. Toth. Honey bee viruses in wild bees: viral prevalence, loads and experimental inoculation. PloS One. E0166190</p><br /> <p>Dunbar, M.W., A.J. Gassmann, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. Impacts of rotation schemes on ground-dwelling arthropods. Environmental Entomology. 45: 1154-1160. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvw104">https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvw104</a></p><br /> <p>Harbach, C.J., Allen, T.W., Bowen, C.R., Davis, J.A., Hill, C.B., Leitman, M., Leonard, B.R., Mueller, D.S., Padgett, G.B., Phillips, X.A., and Schneider, R.W. 2016. Delayed senescence in soybean: Terminology, research update, and survey results from growers. Plant Health Progress 17: 76-83.</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L.S. Volatile semiochemicals increase trap catch of green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) and flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in corn and soybean plots. J. Insect Sci. 16(1), article 77, pp. 1&ndash;8. 2016. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iew057.</p><br /> <p>Hough, A. R., J. R. Nechols, B. P. McCornack, D. C. Margolies, B. K. Sandercock, D. Yan, &amp; L. Murray. 2016. The Effect of temperature and host plant resistance on population growth of the soybean aphid biotype 1 (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environmental Entomology, December, nvw160. doi:10.1093/ee/nvw160.</p><br /> <p>Jurenka, R., K. Russell, M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Phytoecdysteroids as antifeedants towards several beetles that include polyphagous and monophagous feeding guilds. Pest Management Science. Doi:10.1002/ps.4500.</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J., P.B. Beauzay and P. Prasifka. 2016. Efficacy of foliar-applied sulfoxaflor for control of soybean aphid and impact on lady beetles, 2015. AMT 41(1).&nbsp; doi: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsw060">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsw060</a></p><br /> <p>Lundgren, J.G., L.S. Hesler and R.L. Anderson. Preceding crop affects soybean aphid abundance and predator&ndash;prey dynamics in soybean. J. Appl. Entomol. doi:10.1111/jen.12395.&nbsp;2016.</p><br /> <p>Nemec, K., E. Beckendorf, L. Hesler, W. Riedell &amp; J. Lundgren. The effect of flowering calendula and cuphea plants on <em>Orius insidiosus</em>&nbsp;survival and predation of&nbsp;<em>Aphis glycines</em>. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 261:12-22, DOI:10.1080/09583157.2015.1072130. 2016.</p><br /> <p>North, J., J. Gore, A. Catchot, S. Stewart, G. Lorenz, F. Musser, D. Cook, D. Kerns and D. Dodds. 2016. Value of neonicotinoid insecticide seed treatments in Mid-South soybean (Glycine max L.) production systems. J. Econ. Entomol. 109(3): 1156-1160. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow035">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow035</a>.</p><br /> <p>Wheelock, M.J. and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Insect pollinators in Iowa cornfields: community identification and trapping method analysis. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0143479. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143479</p><br /> <p>Wheelock, M.J., K.P Rey, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Defining the insect pollinator community found in Iowa corn and soybean fields: implications for pollinator conservation.&nbsp; Environmental Entomology. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvw087">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvw087</a></p><br /> <p><strong>Theses and Dissertations:</strong></p><br /> <p>North, J. Impact of neonicotinoids in mid-south row crop systems. M.S. thesis. Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>Marchi-Werle, L. 2016. Soybean tolerance to soybean aphid (<em>Aphis glycines</em> Matsumura) herbivory. Dissertation, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.</p><br /> <p>Camargo Gil, Carolina. 2016. Ecological risks of the conventional insecticide/fungicide seed treatment mixture of thiamethoxam and mefenoxam in soybean on beneficial insects. Dissertation, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.</p><br /> <p><strong>Outreach / Extension / Stakeholder Friendly Publications:</strong></p><br /> <p>Musser, F. R., A. L. Catchot, Jr., J. A. Davis, D. A. Herbert, Jr., G. M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D. D. Reisig, &amp; S. D. Stewart. 2016. 2015 Soybean Insect Losses in the Southern US. MidSouth Entomol. 9: 5-17.</p><br /> <p>Koch, R., B. Potter, E. Hodgson, C. Krupke, J. Tooker, C. DiFonzo, A. Michel, K. Tilmon, T. Prochaska, J. Knodel, R. Wright, T. Hunt, B. Jensen, K. Estes, and J. Spencer. The biology and economics behind soybean aphid insecticide recommendations. 2016. Plant Health Progress 17: 265-269. DOI: 10.1094/PHP-RV-16-0061</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W. 2016. Getting to know the insects, 12 pp. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Publication PMR 1021.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W. Resistance management for soybean aphid, pp. 97-99. <em>In </em>Proceedings: 28th Annual Iowa State University Integrated Crop Management Conference, Ames, IA, 30 November - 1 December 2016.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2016. 2016 Yellow Book Report of insecticide evaluation for soybean pests, 22 pp. Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Publication 300-16.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2016. Evaluation of insecticides for control of soybean aphid, 2015. Entomological Society of America Arthropod Management Tests. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsw041">http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsw041</a>.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. &ldquo;Bean leaf beetle activity noted in 2016.&rdquo; <em>In </em>Integrated Crop Management News. 4 August 2016.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. &ldquo;Spider mite injury confirmed in soybean.&rdquo; <em>In </em>Integrated Crop Management News. 6 July 2016.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. &ldquo;Look for seed corn maggot in corn soybean.&rdquo; <em>In </em>Integrated Crop Management News. 13 April 2016.</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E., E. Clifton, G. Tylka, and A. Gassmann. &ldquo;Managing two soybean pests to optimize yield.&rdquo; <em>In </em>Integrated Crop Management News. 11 February 2016.</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J., P. Beauzay and M. Boetel. 2016. 2017 North Dakota Field Crop Insect Management Guide. NDSU Ext. Serv., E-1143 (Revised).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J. 2016. Cutworms Active. NDSU Crop and Pest Report #1 (May 5, 2016).</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J. 2016. Time to Scout for Soybean Aphid. NDSU Crop and Pest Report #9 (June 30, 2016).</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J. 2016. Soybean Aphid Economic Threshold. NDSU Crop and Pest Report #12 (July 21, 2016).</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J. 2016. Soybean Aphids &ndash; IPM Scouting Reports. NDSU Crop and Pest Report #12 (July 21, 2016).</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J. 2016. Soybean Aphids Continues to be Low. NDSU Crop and Pest Report #13 (July 28, 2016).</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J. 2016. Soybean Aphids Continues to be Low. NDSU Crop and Pest Report #15 (August 18, 2016).</p><br /> <p>Hunt, T. R. Wright. 2016. Insect Resistance Management: Basic Concepts and Importance to Modern Agriculture. Proc. of the 2016 Crop Production Clinics, pp. 53-55. University of Nebraska Extension, Lincoln, NE.</p><br /> <p>Hunt, T., W. Ohnesorg. 2016. Soybean Insect Defoliators. Proceedings of the 2016 Crop Production Clinics, pp. 41-42. University of Nebraska Extension, Lincoln, NE.</p><br /> <p>Graham, S., and S. Stewart 2016. Common defoliating pests in soybean. University of Tennessee Extension, Institute of Agriculture, W392.</p><br /> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p><br /> <p><br />&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Impact Statements

1. The multi-state assessment of long-term trends in insecticide use for key soybean pests has created more responsive Extension programming and highlighted relevant research needs for various stakeholder groups.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Admin Advisors: Rogers Leonard (rleonard@agcenter.lsu.edu), LSU Ag Center and Mary Purcell-Miramontes, USDA NIFA (mpurcell@nifa.usda.gov).

State Representatives: Jeremy Greene (greene4@clemson.edu), Clemson University; Matt O’Neal (oneal@iastate.edu) and Erin Hodgson (ewh@iastate.edu), Iowa State; Brian McCornack (mccornac@ksu.edu) and Mike Smith (cmsmith@ ksu.edu) Kansas State University; Jeff Davis (jeffdavis@agcenter.lsu.edu), LSU Ag Center; Chris DiFonzo (difonzo@msu.edu), Michigan State University; Fred Musser (fm61@msstate.edu), Mississippi State University; Dominic Reisig (ddreisig@ncsu.edu), North Carolina State University; Janet Knodel (janet.knodel@ndsu.edu), North Dakota State University; Andy Michel (Michel.70@osu.edu) and Kelley Tilmon (tilmon.1@osu.edu), Ohio State University; Mo Way (moway@aesrg.tamu.edu), Texas A and M; Nick Seiter (nseiter@illinois.edu), University of Illinois; Doug Johnson (retired) and Raul Villanueva (raul.villanueva@uky.edu), University of Kentucky; Robert Koch (koch0125@umn.edu), University of Minnesota; Tom Hunt (thunt2@unl.edu), Justin McMechan (Justin.mcmechan@unl.edu), and Bob Wright (rwright2@unl.edu), University of Nebraska; Ames Herbert (retired), University of Virginia; Louis Hesler (louis.hesler@ars.usda.gov), USDA-ARS. Other Meeting Attendees: Silvana Paula-Moraes (paula.moraes@ufv.edu), University of Florida; Tim Reed (reedtim@auburn.edu), Auburn University; Julien Beuzelin, LSU; Scott Stewart (sdstewart@utk.edu), University of Tennessee; Angus Catchot (acatchot@msstate.edu) and Don Cook (dcook@frec.msstate.edu), Mississippi State University; Ron Hammond (retired), Ohio State; Gus Lorenz (glorenz@uaex.edu) University of Arkansas.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Final Meeting S1055 multistate project meeting  (7 March, 2018)Orlando FL;  followed by Summary of All Meetings

PARTICIPANTS:

Brian McCornack (mccornack@ksu.edu), Kansas State University, Chair

Chris DiFonzo (difonzo@msu.edu), Michigan State University, Secretary

Rogers Leonard (rleonard@agcenter.lsu.edu), Louisiana State University, Admin Advisor

Mary Purcell-Miramontes (mpurcell@nifa.usda.gov), USDS NIFA

Tim Reed (reedtim@auburn.edu), Auburn University

Matt O'Neal (oneal@iastate.edu) & Erin Hodgson (ewh@iastate.edu), Iowa State University

Jeff Davis (jeffdavis@agcenter.lsu.edu), Louisiana State University AgCenter

Fred Musser (fm61@msstate.edu) & Angus Catchot (acatchot@msstate.edu), Miss. State University

Dominic Reisig (ddreisig@ncsu.edu), North Carolina State University

Kelley Tilmon (tilmon.1@osu.edu), Ohio State University

Nick Seiter (nseiter@illinois.edu), University of Illinois

Raul Villanueva (raul.villanueva@uky.edu), University of Kentucky

Thomas Hunt (thunt2@unl.edu) & Blessing Ademokoya, University of Nebraska

Administrative Update, Dr. Rogers Leonard

• Discussion of S1055 Membership and meetings. Multistate committees are no longer limited to a particular region (i.e., an S- committee can meet in a northern state). Annual report must be done and submitted 90 days from this meeting. Dr. Leonard agreed to check if a Termination report could replace a 2018 annual report.


• Pollinator Symposium was effective and could be an objective in the rewrite.


• The rewrite process is late, thus time is of the essence. Approval chain for a new project committee: administrator—internal peer review—back to committee—southern regional directors---back to committee----submit to NIFA for program review.

USDA NIFA Representative Comments Dr. Mary Purcell-Miramontes

• Filling out state reports and using proper subject codes is important especially for Govt accountability. Govt officers search via these codes to provide metrics for decision making and or generate statistics to make funding decisions.


• NIFA ENT: Purcell-Miramontes, Bob Nowierski, Herb Bolton. Plus two plant pathologists, a new nematologist, an agronomist, and three plant breeders. NIFA is on a continuing resolution until 23 March, but the Agency will continue to release RFAs to keep progress going. Funding cuts are a possibility, including in SARE, organic transitions, crop protection and pest management. Currently there is a projection for an increase in AFRI and specialty crops funding. Congress in general looks favorably on agriculture and has reinserted funding lines in the past back in to the budget.


• AFRI: Largest competitive grants program in NIFA, funded (in theory) at $700 million. In reality, appropriations have never come close to the cost of doing research. Currently AFRI foundational programs are funded at $200 million; the plant health area is funded at ~$40 million.


• Funding opportunities available for the soybean group: Foundational Knowledge of Ag Production Systems (an undersubscribed program; Ngouajo lead); Pests & Beneficial Species in Ag Production (Purcell lead); Critical Ag Research & Extension (CARE); Exploratory Research. The latter program has a rolling deadline.


• New program in 2017, the Plant Biotic Interactions (PBI) program, with a strong focus on molecular mechanisms in research, including plant biotic interactions with microbes and insects. Contact: Ann Lichens-Park.


• Points for discussion: new goals/ priorities/ objectives that are appropriate for a multistate effort; what does success look like and what are the roadblocks?; what efforts are being made to raise visibility of accomplishments and outputs (ie impact statements)? Multi-page impact statement is required at the end of a project (examples on NIFA home page, archived site).

Comment from Dominic Reisig:  Worked w/ southern regional IPM center to develop a survey for growers, which could be shared among the group, to try to get at documenting impacts

Proposed Meeting Time, place, officers for 2019

• 2019 Meeting: Cleveland, Week of January 21, in conjunction w/ NC246 corn insect meeting. Host:  Kelley Tilmon, Ohio State University


• Incoming Secretary: Nick Seiter, Univ of Illinois

All motions passed unanimously

S-1055 Project Renewal, Jeff Davis

• Defined voting members in the renewal.


• Kept rewrite general without very specific details, to accommodate many people.


• New objectives eliminate sub-objectives.


• Group discussion of the new objectives, as follows:

1) Documenting changing soybean pest assemblages. This objective is meant to involve most members, and would include the Musser survey, north central stink bug sampling, kudzu bug sampling, etc.

2) Characterize soybean insect biology and ecology. Understanding insect biology and interactions with biotic and abiotic factors. Very broad, capturing work on any arthropod.

3) Develop coordinated applied best management practices. Another broad objective broadly covering work on IPM practices.

4) Extension objective (educate farmers, industry, colleagues, etc…). Particularly targeting new methods and innovative tools. Catch-all objective for outreach and extension to highlight the public nature of the group’s work.

The group discussed each objective, wordsmithing as appropriate. The draft rewrite was posted on the Basecamp web site; deadline for edits was March 11 and final comments on the whole text are due by March 18. The group discussed the Basecamp platform for communication. Chair McCornack described how to add documents and access the project rewrite.

Discussion and Follow-up, SEB-ESA Pollinator Symposium organized by S-1055,  Matt O’Neal

• The symposium at the southern branch meeting was a result of cooperation between northern (Matt O’Neal) and southern (Gus Lorenz) members of the group. Many commented that they liked the structure and flow of the talks. Some talks may be posted on the Basecamp site at a later date. There was talk of recreating this symposium at another meeting.


• The Best Management Practices for Pollinators in Soybean Fields (publication mentioned in the symposium) is available as a pdf online.


• A new honey bee extension specialist (Randall Cass) at Iowa State is interested in cooperating on beekeeper / landowner surveys about reporting (e. g., thru Fieldwatch) on locations of hives. He will provide some information on Basecamp. There was a discussion about the need for IRB approval for surveys and the time that takes. There was a final discussion about how the Fieldwatch web site works, and an encouragement for people to use the site.

 Discussion, Future Symposia Ideas

(1) Pollinator symposium – at 2019 ESA national meeting, St. Louis.

 *Matt O’Neal agreed to coordinate this activity. 

(2) New symposium, Resistance to Insecticides & PIP Technologies – This symposium could cover lessons from multiple pests and have industry, commodity, and / or regulatory representation in the speaker list. It could bring in lessons from Bt corn resistance as well.

*F. Musser and D. Reisig agreed to organize for the ESA Southern Branch meeting in Mobile AL, March 3-6, 2019.

*N. Seiter and R. Villanueva agreed to organize for the ESA NC Branch meeting in Cincinnati OH, March 17-19, 2019.

*Brian McCornack agreed to look in to the technology piece of the meeting. 

 Insect pest and yield loss survey, Fred Musser

• Musser went over the data from the 2017 yield loss. New states joined the survey in 2017. He reiterated that the survey is “100% expert opinion.” The survey provides a historic record and is a citable source in the Mid-South Entomologist, although it can be biased and reflects perceptions of the reporter. Minor pests can be difficult to estimate.


• Data was presented visually by state on a US map, with states shaded to show varying levels of pest infestation, insecticide use, or yield loss. The lowest values were consistently clumped in the Great Lakes region, with moderate losses or insecticide use along the Atlantic Coast, and heaviest pressures often along the Mississippi production area. Slides will be placed on Basecamp.


• The info will be written up and published in the Mid-South Entomologist in 2018 (combined data plus excel sheets for each state). The historic data will also be redone as a searchable database that allows for data mining – there was some discussion of this. Suggestion: zoom call in fall 2018 between Dr. Musser & state reporters, to discuss participation and data collection.

Status of pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid, Erin Hodgson

• There were continued performance issues of insecticide against SBA in 2015 -2017 in MN, IA, ND, SD, and Manitoba. Glass vial assays were used to test resistance to bifenthrin and lambda cyhalothrin. This work was published in fall 2017.


• Vial assays were done in 2017 from multiple locations in this region. Although soybean in the Red River Valley is not typically treated, some aphid populations showed resistance in the 2017 assay. Areas with resistant populations in one year may not show resistance the next year; this is a typical pattern during the formation of resistance. In areas in Minnesota with repeat failures, the recommendation is not to use pyrethroids.


• Why did this happen? Reliance on a single (pyrethroids) mode of action; spraying populations that are below threshold; spraying in a tank mix with herbicides or fungicides; use of reduced rates, especially in spray cocktails; poor coverage (= exposure to low rates) because beans are sprayed when tall with low GPA. A new fact sheet from MN, IA, ND, SD reiterates stakeholder education.


• If full-blown chlorpyrifos resistance occurs, there are not many options – many alternative modes of action not labeled.


• Note, if people in other states find suspect resistance in 2018, contact Bob Koch, as there may be a possibility of getting a test kit to evaluate the population.

Brief of State Highlights from 2017

Tilmon (Ohio): ‘’weird” Lep activity in 2017 = patchy economic outbreaks of odd species that were noticeable enough to get calls. Stink bugs are increasing.

Tim Reed (Auburn): Commented that kudzu bug thresholds might be too low.

Mississippi (Musser): Concurs that kudzu bug thresholds are too low. Did not find diamide resistance in loopers in the state. Trying to develop an adult moth assay for diamides x earworm. Red-banded stink bugs were terrible in 2017; thresholds may need to be a bit lower. They are more damaging per insect than other stink bugs species.

North Carolina (Reisig): Interested in fall armyworm migration, particularly in using a radar. Has been unsuccessful in procuring funding for a variety of reasons. Looking for any collaborators interested in supporting this type of system ($200,000 each). Group discussion about where and how to fund a trap network. Earworm in NC came out early, and hit veg stage beans. Concerned about resistance and lack of available materials. Also had stink bug problems, primarily because growers were not scouting effectively.

McCornack (Kansas): UAV work. Showed pics from a fly-over of a field with a dicamba issue, to illustrate how a modest amount of flight time could be used to diagnose the problem in the field. He is comparing physical scouting via aerial scouting in efficacy and time. He also has a ‘go pro on a stick’ that can be used to sample within a corn or sorghum canopy, as well as flying bug sucker that can suck insects off a plant, and is testing a remote grasping tool. This could have biosecurity uses (could sample without spreading something thru a field).

Hunt (Nebraska): Increased use of cover crops is leading to more insect issues. Growers are also experimenting with high and low maturity group beans so they can manipulate planting and harvest dates, and this practice may lead to new insect issues.

Seiter (Illinois):  Overall it was a minor insect year. Some problems after rye cover crops; slugs in the south; Japanese beetle was the top insect that growers noticed.

Villanueva (Kentucky):  Slug problems in double cropped beans (~150,000 acres replanted due to slug damage). Dectes stem borer is a problem. First two counties with kudzu bugs detected in soybean.

Meeting Adjourned at 5 pm on March 7, 2018 - Minutes submitted by C.D. DiFonzo

Minutes for each of the other annual meetings were posted on the NIMSS web site at https://www.nimss.org/projects/view/SAES/14636.

Brief Summary of Activities for Duration of S-1055 project

Soybean production continues to increase in the U.S. to meet a global demand for protein, oil, biofuel, and other industrial uses. When this project started in 2013, soybeans were planted on 76 million ac in the U.S. for a total output of 3.3 billion bu; by the final year of this project, output increased to 4.4 billion bu on 90 million acres. As soybean production has increased, so have pest problems due to a combination of new invaders, expanding ranges of current pests, changes in cultural practices, and insecticide resistance. Soybean growers also face new challenges such as the potential restriction of neonicotinoid insecticides, the need to protect pollinators, and growing concerns about surface water quality. As challenges grow in scale, multi-state, collaborative research becomes increasingly necessary.

The S-1055 Multistate project combined the expertise of basic and applied entomologists from 20 states, covering the majority of soybean-producing acreage in the country. We worked at the state, regional, and national level, as appropriate, on research and outreach projects focused on insect pests and beneficials of soybean. Our ultimate goal was sustainable soybean insect management, defined as maximizing profitability in the short-term without sacrificing the long-term stability of the system. Research activities were grouped into two objectives. The first objective was to characterize basic insect biology and ecology. Research projects in this area elucidated the biology, ecology, physiology, and genetics of insects in soybeans. This objective included surveys for the establishment and spread of emerging pests, as non-native species continue to invade US soybean production. Information from Objective 1 was integrated into the second objective, developing applied best management practices for arthropod pests of soybean. Research projects in this area involved developing or fine-tuning sampling protocols, thresholds, control methods, and recommendations to manage soybean pests; screening for resistance; examining natural enemies in soybean and measuring non-target impacts of pest control. Research findings from Objectives 1 and/or 2 were the basis for work in a final outreach objective 3, which had the primary goal of educating farmers, industry, colleagues, and agricultural professionals about arthropods in soybean. Traditional and innovative Extension tools and methods were used to share findings with clientele.

S-1055 governance was handled through an executive committee made up of the Past-Chair, Chair, and the Secretary (Chair-Elect). Separate individuals handled local arrangements for annual meetings. The committee met six times in the following location: Baton Rouge LA (2013), Greenville SC (2014); Biloxi MS (2015); Raleigh NC (2016), Memphis TN (2017), and Orlando FL (2018). All meetings were in conjunction with the annual conference of the Southeastern Branch (SEB) of the Entomological Society of America. This was not only cost-effective, but provided an opportunity for S-1055 to sponsor soybean insect symposia at the SEB meeting. The symposia featured the research findings of committee members as well as expertise outside the S-1055 working group to inspire new research and/or extension ideas. These symposia were key group activities of the project.

Accomplishments

<p>Over the past five years, S-1055 members followed the changing insect community in soybean in the US, documenting the spread of emerging pests and conducting research into basic biology and ecology of insects interacting with the crop. Coordinated surveys continued for invasive emerging pests such as the kudzu bug, as it spread from its introduction site in Georgia; a distribution map for this pest was made publically available online. Associated research documented its biology, population dynamics, feeding behavior, and yield impact. Collaborative work in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia determined the cultural practices (planting date, tillage, row spacing) associated with higher infestations. Other emerging pests of note were stink bugs; both native and exotic invasive species increased in importance in US soybean fields. Many states documented the spread of two non-natives, redbanded stink bug in the south and brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) further north, and their impact on soybean maturity, yield, and quality. Studies were completed on the biology, alternate hosts, and management of BMSB in soybean on the east coast, which were helpful to states in the west and south recently colonized by BMSB. Nine other states began a collaborative project to determine stink bug species composition and best sampling practices in the Midwest. In 12 states, sturdy flip-books with color images were produced and distributed to thousands of growers to aid in identification, sampling, and management of stink bugs. &nbsp;Other pests that were the focus of research projects, particularly in the Mid-south where a diverse group of insects attack soybean, included corn earworm, Dectes stem borer, soybean looper, and three-cornered alfalfa hopper.</p><br /> <p>S-1055 members responded to the changing impact of the pest community in soybeans by conducting research into applied best management practices that addressed stakeholder needs. Insecticides continue to play an important role in the management of soybean pests, and many members conducted and published efficacy evaluations to support control recommendations for individual states. An annual survey to estimate insect losses and insecticide inputs in soybean, conducted in seven southern states since 2004, was expanded nationally in 2017 to 16 states representing 32.6 million acres of production. The survey, led by Mississippi State, provides a valuable perspective on changes in insect pressure and management over time. Stink bugs, corn earworm, and soybean looper were the most costly pests in the southern region during the scope of the project. In the latest survey in 2017, combined management costs and yield losses attributed to insects was estimated at $32.69/ac. With the addition of more states, there was a regional pattern of higher management cost and loss in the southern states compared to northern states.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>With insecticide use comes the threat for insect resistance. Members used the annual meeting to coordinate adult vial tests used to monitor for and document resistance of corn earworm to pyrethroids; this effort was organized and reported by Mississippi State. In other multi-state collaborations, diamide resistance in soybean looper (SBL) was monitored using field-collected populations throughout the southern U.S.&nbsp; A discriminating dose bioassay was used to evaluate the efficacy of three formulated insecticides and one Cry1Ac Bt protein against SBL field populations. In the Midwest, pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid was documented for the first time in the US. Nebraska coordinated a program to monitor for aphid resistance to neonicotinoids in ten Midwestern states. While no thiamethoxam resistance was observed, there was a change in sub-lethal effects in some populations. Methods to screen for neonicotinoid resistance in bean leaf beetle were developed. To share lessons about resistance with the academic community, S-1055 sponsored a symposium on resistance at an Entomological Society of America regional meeting.</p><br /> <p>Neonicotinoid seed treatments (NSTs) have been under scrutiny nationally in the last five years, and an estimated 60% of US soybean acres are seed-treated. Members conducted research on NST efficacy, economic benefit, and impact on non-target species. &nbsp;Several collaborative studies documented the limited value of NSTs in the Midwest, due to a narrow control window and low pest pressure early in the season. For soybean aphid specifically, IPM-based management (scouting and thresholds) provided a greater probability of a financial return than a preventative seed treatment. Extension materials were created and disseminated regionally to share this information with producers. In contrast, NSTs provided economic benefits in some years and in some states in the Mid-South, where pest pressure was higher and more diverse.</p><br /> <p>The non-target impact of NSTs on natural enemies and on the dynamics of a secondary pest (spider mite) was also documented in the lab and field. Finally, the potential exposure of pollinators to NSTs in the mid-South was examined by analyzing soil, flower, pollen and honey bee samples collected in or near agricultural crops, including soybean. Soybean flowers contained no or trace amounts of insecticide, but a proportion of the wildflowers on field margins tested positive. Although this could be a route of exposure for foragers in the spring, there was no information to suggest that the low levels of NST detected in the study posed a risk to honey bees.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>To use insecticides more judiciously, S-1055 members developed or refined sampling plans, thresholds, or management recommendations for corn earworm, Dectes stem borer, kudzu bug, soybean aphid, and stink bugs. With the aim to reduce or eliminate insecticide use, considerable research was done on biological control in soybean. Members published studies on ground-dwelling arthropods, predatory insects, wasp parasitoids, entomopathogens, and insect killing nematodes, as well as companion plantings and semiochemicals to attract natural enemies. A related focus of research by several members was to survey the insect pollinator community in soybean fields. In addition to honey bees, 105 species of wild bees and 11 species of hover flies identified from fields. In Iowa, buffer and prairie strips are being implemented and evaluated to improve biodiversity in the agricultural landscape, to improve habitat for both natural enemies and pollinators. Entomologists in some states are working with growers and beekeepers to reduce the chance of pesticide exposure to hives. Communication is improved by the use of the FieldWatch web site, www.fieldwatch.com, which includes sections for applicators and beekeepers. To share information on S-1055 activities in this area, committee sponsored a symposium on pollinators at an Entomological Society of America regional meeting.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>A great deal of progress was made by S-1055 in the area of host plant resistance as a means to reduce insecticide use in soybean. Members screened for, or evaluated the impact of, resistance against target pests, including stem borer, kudzu bug, and whiteflies. In some cases, quantitative trait loci (QTLs) were mapped, a step in the development of molecular markers to speed up the breeding process to create resistant varieties. At least five different institutions screened for soybean aphid resistance. Aphid-resistant lines were evaluated for yield response, performance with seed treatments, EILs, and natural enemies. The distribution of known aphid biotypes, which show virulence to particular resistance genes, was variable from year to year across the Midwest. Further studies elucidated the fitness costs for virulent biotypes on susceptible beans and the duration of host susceptibility induced by aphid feeding. In the field, pyramids of resistance genes performed better than single genes, and equal to insecticide treatments for controlling soybean aphid. Pyramids may be useful in prolonging the utility of aphid resistance genes in an IRM plan for aphid resistant soybeans.</p>

Publications

<p><strong>Refereed Publications, grouped by objective</strong><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p><br /> <p><em>&nbsp; &nbsp; Objective 1: Basic insect biology and ecology, including pest surveys, physiology, genetics, and insect-soybean interactions</em></p><br /> <p>Adams, B., A. Catchot, D. Cook, J. Gore, F. Musser, J.T. Irby, and B. Golden. 2015. The impact of simulated corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) damage in indeterminate soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 108: 1072-1078.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Bakken, A.J., S.C. Schoof, M. Bickerton, K.A. Kamminga, J.C. Jenrette, S. Malone, M.A. Abney, D.A. Herbert, D. Reisig, T.P. Kuhar, and J.F. Walgenbach. 2015. Occurrence of brown marmorated stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) on wild hosts in non-managed woodlands and soybean fields in North Carolina and Virginia. Environ. Entomol. 44: 1011-1021.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Bastola, A., and J. A. Davis. 2017. Cold tolerance and supercooling capacity of the redbanded stink bug, (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Environ. Entomol. 47(1):133-139.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Del Pozo-Valdivia, A., N. Seiter, D. Reisig, J. Greene, F. Reay-Jones, and J. Bacheler. 2016. Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) population dynamics in soybeans as influenced by planting date, maturity group, and insecticide use. J. Econ. Entomol. 109: 1141&ndash;1155.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Del Pozo-Valdivia, A. I., D. D. Reisig, and J. S. Bacheler. 2017. Impacts of tillage, maturity group, and insecticide use on Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) populations in double cropped soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 110(1):168-176.</p><br /> <p>Enders, L., R. Bickel, J. Brisson, T. Heng-Moss, B. Siegfried, A. Zera, and N. Miller. 2015. Abiotic and biotic stressors causing equivalent mortality induce highly variable transcriptional responses in the soybean aphid. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 5(2): 261-270.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Husseneder, C., J. Park, A. Howells, C. V. Tikhe, J. A. Davis. 2017. Bacteria associated with Piezodorus guildinii (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), with special reference to those transmitted by feeding. Environ. Entomol. 46: 159-166.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Koch, Robert L, Daniela T. Pezzini, Andrew P. Michel, and Thomas E. Hunt. 2017. Identification, Biology, Impacts and Management of Stink Bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) of Soybean and Corn in the Midwestern United States. JIPM, 8(1): 1-14.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Gray, M.E. and J.L. Spencer. 2015. Western corn rootworm: Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) resistance to Bt maize and crop rotation: management challenges and opportunities. Bull. Royal Entomol. Soc.; Antenna: ECE Special Edition 39: 100-101.</p><br /> <p>Harbach, C.J., Allen, T., Bowen, C., Davis, J.A., Hill, C.B., Leitman, M., Leonard, B.R., Mueller, D.S., Padgett, G., Phillips, X., Schneider, R. 2016. Delayed senescence in soybean: Terminology, research update, and survey results from growers. Plant Health Progress 17: 76-83.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Jurenka, R., K. Russell, M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Phytoecdysteroids as antifeedants towards several beetles that include polyphagous and monophagous feeding guilds. Pest Management Sci. Doi:10.1002/ps.4500.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>McCarville, M.T., Soh, D.H., Tylka, G.L., O'Neal, M.E. 2014. Aboveground feeding by soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, affects soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, reproduction belowground. PLoS ONE 9 (1), art. no. e86415.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Pilkay, G., F.P.F. Reay-Jones, J.K. Greene, M.D. Toews, and W.C. Bridges. 2015. Spatial and temporal dynamics of stink bugs in southeastern farmscapes. J. Insect Science 15: 1-13.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Reisig, D., R. Suits, H. Burrack, J. Bacheler, and J. E. Dunphy. 2017. Does florivory by Helicoverpa zea cause yield loss in soybeans? J. Econ. Entomol. 110(2):464-470.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Stubbins, F. L., P. L. Mitchell, M.W. Turnbull, F. P. F. Reay-Jones, and J. K. Greene. 2017. Mouthpart morphology and feeding behavior of the invasive kudzu bug, Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae). Invert. Biol. 136(3): 309-320.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Suits, R., D. D. Reisig, and H. Burrack. 2017. Feeding preference and performance of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae on different soybean (Fabales: Fabaceae) tissue types. Fla. Entomol. 100: 162-167.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Tiroesele B, Skoda SR, Hunt TE, Lee DJ, Molina-Ochoa J, Foster JE. 2014. Population structure, genetic variability, and gene flow of the bean leaf beetle, Cerotoma trifurcata, in the Midwestern United States. J. Insect Sci. 14:62.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Vyavhare, S., M. O. Way, R. F. Medina. 2014. Stink bug species composition and relative abundance of the redbanded stink bug in soybean in the Upper Gulf Coast Texas. Environ. Entomol. 43:1621-1627.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Vyavhare, S.S., M.O. Way, and R.F. Medina. 2015. Determination of growth stage-specific response of soybean to redbanded stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and its relationship to the development of flat pods. J. Econ. Entomol. 108: 1770-1778.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Vyavhare, S.S., M.O. Way, R.A. Pearson, and R.F. Medina. 2015. Redbanded stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) infestation and occurrence of delayed maturity in soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 108: 1516-1525.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Objective 2a. Sampling protocols and thresholds</em>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Adams, B. P., D. R. Cook, A. L. Catchot, J. Gore, F. Musser, S. D. Stewart, D. L. Kerns, G. M. Lorenz, J. T. Irby and B. Golden. 2016. Evaluation of corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), economic injury levels in Mid-South reproductive stage soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 109(3): 1161-1166.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Koch, R., B. Potter, E. Hodgson, C. Krupke, J. Tooker, C. DiFonzo, A. Michel, K. Tilmon, T. Prochaska, J. Knodel, R. Wright, T. Hunt, B. Jensen, K. Estes, and J. Spencer. The biology and economics behind soybean aphid insecticide recommendations. 2016. Plant Health Progress 17: 265-269.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Seiter, N., A. Del-Pozo Valdiva, J. Greene, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, P. Roberts, and D. Reisig. 2015. Action thresholds based on sweep-net sampling for management of the kudzu bug, Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 108: 1818-1829.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Objective 2b. Control efficacy and insecticide resistance</em>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Adams, A., J. Gore, A. Catchot, F. Musser, D. Cook, N. Krishnan, and T. Irby. 2016. Residual and systemic efficacy of chlorantraniliprole and flubendiamide against corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in soybean. J. Econ. Entomol. 109(6): 2411-2417.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Adams, A., J. Gore, A. Catchot, F. Musser, D. Cook, N. Krishnan and T. Irby. 2016. Susceptibility of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) neonates to diamide insecticides in the Midsouthern and Southeastern United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 109(5): 2205-2209.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Clifton, E. H., E. W. Hodgson, G. Tylka, and A. J. Gassmann. 2017. Interactions of host-plant-resistance and seed treatments on soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) and soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines Ichinohe). Pest Management Science. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4800.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hanson, A. A., J. Menger-Anderson, C. Silverstein, B. D. Potter, I. V. MacRae, E. W. Hodgson, and R. L. Koch. 2017. Evidence for soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in the upper midwestern United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 110(5):2235-2246.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Krupke, C., A. Alford, E. Cullen, E. Hodgson, J. Knodel, B. McCornack, B. Potter, M. Spigler, K. Tilmon, and K. Welch. 2017. Assessing the value and pest management window provided by neonicotinoid seed treatments for management of soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) in the Upper Midwest. Pest Management Science. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4602.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Musser, F. R., A. L. Catchot, Jr., J. A. Davis, D. A. Herbert, Jr., G. M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D. D. Reisig, S. D. Stewart. 2014. 2013 soybean insect losses in the southern US. Midsouth Entomol. 7:15-28.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Musser, F.R., A.L. Catchot, Jr., J.A. Davis, D.A. Herbert, Jr., G.M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D.D. Reisig, S.D. Stewart. 2015. 2014 soybean insect losses in the southern US. Midsouth Entomologist 8:35-48.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Musser, F. R., A. L. Catchot, Jr., J. A. Davis, D. A. Herbert, Jr., G. M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D. D. Reisig, S. D. Stewart. 2016. 2015 Soybean Insect Losses in the Southern US. MidSouth Entomol. 9:5-17.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Musser, F. R., A. L. Catchot, Jr., J. A. Davis, G. M. Lorenz, T. Reed, D. D. Reisig, S. D. Stewart, S. Taylor. 2017. 2016 Soybean insect losses in the southern US. MidSouth Entomol. 10:1-13.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>North, J., J. Gore, A. Catchot, S. Stewart, G. Lorenz, F. Musser, D. Cook, D. Kerns and D. Dodds. 2016. Value of neonicotinoid insecticide seed treatments in Mid-South soybean (Glycine max L.) production systems. J. Econ. Entomol. 109(3): 1156-1160.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Ribeiro, M.G P de M, T. E Hunt, B. D Siegfried. 2017. Acute-contact and chronic-systemic in-vivo bioassays: regional monitoring of susceptibility to thiamethoxam in soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations from the North Central United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 111(1):337-347.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Seiter, N.J., J.K. Greene, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, P.M. Roberts, and J.N. All. 2015. Insecticidal control of Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in Soybean. J. Entomol. Sci. 50: 263-283.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Tietjen, C.L., T.E. Hunt, D.D. Snow, D. Cassada, and B.D. Siegfried. 2017. Method development for monitoring bean leaf beetle susceptibility to thiamethoxam seed treatments on soybean. J. Ag. Urban Entomol. 33: 32-43.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Objective 2c. Natural enemies and non-target impacts</em></p><br /> <p>Bahlai, C.A., W. vander Werf, M. O&rsquo;Neal, L. Hemerik, and D.A. Landis. 2015. Shifts in dynamic regime of an invasive lady beetle are linked to the invasion and insecticidal management of its prey. Ecological Applications 25: 1807-1818.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Bannerman, J.A., B.P. McCornack, D.W. Ragsdale, N. Koper, and A.C. Costamagna. 2018. Predators and alate immigration influence the season-long dynamics of soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Biol. Control, 117: 87-98.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Camargo C.G., T.E. Hunt, L. Giesler, B.D. Siegfried. 2017. Thiamethoxam toxicity and effects on consumption behavior in Orius insidosus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) on soybean. Environ. Entomol. 46(3) 693&ndash;699.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Clifton, E.H., S.T. Jaronski, E.W. Hodgson, and A.J. Gassmann. 2015. Abundance of soil-borne entomopathogenic fungi in organic and conventional fields in the Midwestern USA with an emphasis on the effect of herbicides and fungicides on fungal persistence. PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133613.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Cox, R., O'Neal, M., Hessel, R., Schulte, L.A., Helmers, M. 2014. The impact of prairie strips on aphidophagous predator abundance and soybean aphid predation in agricultural catchments. Environ. Entomol. 43:1185-1197.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Dunbar, M.W., A.J. Gassmann, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Impacts of rotation schemes on ground-dwelling arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 45: 1154-1160.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Dunbar, M.W., A.J. Gassmann, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2017. Limited impact of a fall-seeded, spring-terminated rye cover crop on beneficial arthropods. Environ. Entomol. 46: 284-290.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Gill, K.A., and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Survey of soybean insect pollinators: Community identification and sampling method analysis. Environ. Entomol. 44: 488-498.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Gill, K.A., Cox, R., O'Neal, M.E. 2014. Quality over quantity: Buffer strips can be improved with select native plant species. Environ. Entomol. 43: 298-311.</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L.S. 2014. Inventory and assessment of foliar natural enemies of the soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in South Dakota. Environ. Entomol. 43:577-588.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L.S. 2016. Volatile semiochemicals increase trap catch of green lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) and flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in corn and soybean plots. J Insect Sci. 16(1), 1-8.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Lundgren, J.G., L.S. Hesler and R.L. Anderson. Preceding crop affects soybean aphid abundance and predator&ndash;prey dynamics in soybean. J. Appl. Entomol. doi:10.1111/jen.12395.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Nemec, K., E. Beckendorf, L. Hesler, W. Riedell, and J. Lundgren. 2016. The effect of flowering calendula and cuphea plants on Orius insidiosus survival and predation of Aphis glycines. Biocontrol Sci. Technology 261: 12-22.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Regan, K. H., D. Ordosch, K. D. Glover, K. J. Tilmon and A. Szczepaniec.&nbsp; 2017.&nbsp; Effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on population dynamics of spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and abundance of their natural enemies in soybean fields.&nbsp; Crop Protection 98: 24-32.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Schulte, LA, J. Niemi, M.J. Helmers, M. Liebman, J.G. Arbuckle, D.E. James, R.K Kolka, M.E. O&rsquo;Neal, M.D. Tomer, J.C Tyndall, H. Asbjornsen, P. Drobney, J. Neal, G.V. Ryswky, and C. Witte. 2017. Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn-soybean croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 114: 11247-11252.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Souza, M. F., L. F. A. Veloso, M. V. Sampaio, and J. A. Davis. 2017. Influence of host quality and temperature on the biology of Diaeretiella rapae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae). Environ. Entomol. 46(4):995-1004.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Stewart, S.D.,&nbsp; G. Lorenz, A. Catchot, J. Gore, D. Cook, J. Skinner, T. Mueller, D. R. Johnson, J. Zawislak, and J. Barber. 2014. Potential exposure of pollinators to neonicotinoid insecticides from the use of insecticide seed treatments in the mid-southern U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (16), pp 9762&ndash;9769.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Stubbins, F.L., P. Agudelo, F.P.F. Reay-Jones, and J.K. Greene. 2015. First report of a mermithid nematode infecting the invasive Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in the United States. J. Invert. Pathol. 127: 35-37.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. The effect of an interspersed refuge on Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), their natural enemies, and biological control. J. Econ. Entomol. 109: 406-415.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Wheelock, M.J. and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Insect pollinators in Iowa cornfields: community identification and trapping method analysis. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0143479.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Wheelock, M.J., K.P Rey, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2016. Defining the insect pollinator community found in Iowa corn and soybean fields: implications for pollinator conservation. Environ. Entomol. 45(5):1099-1106.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Objective 2d. Evaluate new technologies&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Baldin, E.L.L., L. Marchi-Werle, L.E.R. Pannuti, T.M. Heng-Moss, and T.E. Hunt. 2016. Evaluating categories of resistance in soybean genotypes from United States and Brazil to Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Florida Entomol. 99 (3): 487-495.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Bhusal, S.J., Jiang, G., Hesler, L.S., Orf, J.H. 2014. Soybean aphid resistance in soybean germplasm accessions of maturity group I. Crop Sci. 54:2093-2098.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Cooper, S.G., V. Concibido, D. Hunt, G. Jiang, C. Krupke, B. McCornack, R. Mian, M. O&rsquo;Neal, D. Prischmann-Voldseth, D. Ragsdale, and D. Wang. 2015. Geographic distribution of soybean aphid biotypes in USA and Canada during 2008-2010. Crop Science. 55:2598&ndash;2608.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Cruz, P.L., E.L.L. Baldin, L.R.P. Guimar&atilde;es, L.E.R. Pannuti, G.P.P. Lima, T.M. Heng-Moss, T.E. Hunt. 2016. Tolerance of KS-4202 soybean to the attack of Bemisia tabaci biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Florida Entomol. 99 (4): 1-8.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Fritz, B., A. Del Pozo-Valdivia, C. Sorenson, T. Carter, and D. Reisig. 2016. Host plant resistance to Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in diverse soybean germplasm maturity groups V through VIII. J. Econ. Entomol. 109: 1438&ndash;1449.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L. S. and K. J. Tilmon.&nbsp; 2017. Infestation ratings database for soybean aphid on early-maturity wild soybean lines.&nbsp; Data in Brief 15:138-141.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L. S., B. M. Van de Stroet, N. R. Schultz, E. A. Beckendorf and K. J. Tilmon.&nbsp; 2017. Laboratory Evaluation of Soybean Plant Introductions for Resistance to Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae).&nbsp; J. Ag. Urban Entomol. 33:133-141.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hough, A. R., J. R. Nechols, B. P. McCornack, D. C. Margolies, B. K. Sandercock, D. Yan, &amp; L. Murray. 2017. The effect of temperature and host plant resistance on population growth of the soybean aphid biotype 1 (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ. Entomol. 46: 58&ndash;67.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Kandel, D.R., K.J. Tilmon, and T.R. Shuster. 2015. Effect of host plant resistance and seed treatments on soybean aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and their natural enemies. J. Entomol. Sci. 50: 186-205.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Lampson, B. D., A. Khalilian, J. K. Greene, Y. J. Han, and D. C. Degenhardt. 2017. Development of a Portable Electronic Sensor for Detection of Megacopta cribraria (Hemiptera: Plataspidae). Journal of Advances in Entomol. 5(3): 75-86.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Marchi-Werle, L., T. M. Heng-Moss, T. E. Hunt, E.L.L. Baldin, L.M. Baird. 2014. Characterization of Peroxidase Changes in Tolerant and Susceptible Soybeans Challenged by Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 107:1985-1991.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Marchi-Werle, Lia, Renata Ramos Pereira, John C Reese, Tiffany Heng-Moss, Thomas Hunt. 2017. Yield Response of Tolerant and Susceptible Soybean to the Soybean Aphid. Agronomy Journal, 109 (4):1663-1669.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Marchi-Werle, L., E. L. L. Baldin, H. D. Fischer, T. M. Heng-Moss and T. E. Hunt 2017. Economic Injury Levels for Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on the Soybean Aphid Tolerant KS4202 Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). J. Econ. Entomol. 110(5): 2100-2108.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>McCarville, M.T., O'Neal, M.E., Potter, B.D., Tilmon, K.J., Cullen, E.M., McCornack, B.P., Tooker, J.F., Prischmann-Voldseth, D.A. 2014. One gene versus two: A regional study on the efficacy of single gene versus pyramided resistance for soybean aphid management. J. Econ. Entomol. 107:1680-1687.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Prochaska, T., T. Donze-Reiner, L. Marchi-Werle, N.A. Palmer, T.E. Hunt, G. Sarath, and T. Heng-Moss. 2015. Transcriptional responses of tolerant and susceptible soybeans to soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) herbivory. Arthro-Plant Interactions 9: 347-359.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., M.T. McCarville, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Reduced fitness of virulent Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) biotypes may influence the longevity of resistance genes in soybean. PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138252.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., M.T. McCarville, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Determining the duration of Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) induced susceptibility effect in soybean. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 9: 457-464.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A.J., M.T. McCarville, and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. An induced susceptibility response in soybean promotes avirulent Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations on resistant soybean. Environ. Entomol. 44: 658-667.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Varenhorst, A. J., S. R. Pritchard, M. E. O&rsquo;Neal, E. W. Hodgson, and A. K. Singh. 2017. Determining the effectiveness of three-gene pyramids against Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) biotypes. J. Econ. Entomol. 110(6):2428-2435.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Zhang, S., Z. Zhang, Z. Wen, C. Gu, C. Bales, C. DiFonzo, Q. Song, R. Meyer, Y-Q. An, D. Wang. 2017. Fine mapping of the aphid resistance genes Rag6 and Rag3c from Glycine soja 85-32.&nbsp; J Theoretical &amp; Applied Genetics. 130:2601-2615.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Zhang S., Z. Zhang, C. Bales, C. Gu, C. DiFonzo, M. Li, Q. Song, P. Cregan, D. Wang. 2017. Mapping novel aphid resistance QTL from wild soybean Glycine soja 85-32.&nbsp; J Theoret. &amp; App. Genetics. 130:1941&ndash;1952.</p><br /> <p><strong>Refereed Book Chapters</strong></p><br /> <p>Greene, J.K. 2015. Kudzu Bug, pp. 143-144, In G. Hartman, J. Rupe, E. Sikora, L.&nbsp; Domier, J.&nbsp; Davis, and K.&nbsp; Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases &amp; Pests. American Phytopath. Society, St. Paul, MN.</p><br /> <p>Greene, J.K., and J.A. Davis. 2015. Stink Bugs, pp. 146-149, In G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopath. Society, St. Paul, MN.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Greene, J. K., J. A. Baum, E. P. Benson, C. S. Bundy, W. A. Jones, G. G. Kennedy, J. E. McPherson, F. R. Musser, F. P. F. Reay-Jones, M. D. Toews, and J. F. Walgenbach. 2018. General Insect Management. pp. 729-774. In: J. E. McPherson (ed.), Invasive Stink Bugs and Related Species (Pentatomoidea): Biology, Higher Systematics, Semiochemistry, and Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Koch, K.G., Donze-Reiner, T., Hunt, T.E., Heng-Moss, T.H., Baldin, E.L.L. 2018.&nbsp; Toler&acirc;ncia. In: Baldin, E.L.L.; Vendramim, J.D.; Louren&ccedil;&atilde;o, A.L. (Eds.).&nbsp; Resist&ecirc;ncia de plantas a insetos: fundamentos e aplica&ccedil;&otilde;es. Fealq, Piracicaba, S&atilde;o Paulo, (in Portuguese).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Lorenz, G., A. Herbert, and R. Leonard. 2015. Arthropod Pests-Caterpillars, pp. 139-141, In G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopath. Society, St. Paul, MN.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Lundgren, J. G. and F. R. Musser. 2015. Bean leaf beetle, pp. 137-139. In: G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis and K. L. Steffey (eds.), Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests, fifth ed. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, USA.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Tilmon, K.J., and M.E. O&rsquo;Neal. 2015. Soybean Aphid, In G. L. Hartman, J. C. Rupe, E. J. Sikora, L. L. Domier, J. A. Davis, and K. L. Steffey [eds.], Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. American Phytopath. Society, St. Paul, MN.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Arthropod Management Tests and Other Reports</strong></p><br /> <p>Hesler, L.S. 2013. Efficacy of inorganic compounds against soybean aphid, laboratory tests 2012. AMT. 38:F82.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L., E. Beckendorf, N. Schultz , B. Van De Stroet, K. Tilmon, and P. Rozeboom. 2017. Resistance to soybean aphid in early maturing plant introduction lines of soybean, 2012-2015. AMT. https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsx112.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hesler, L., E. Beckendorf, N. Schultz, B. Van De Stroet, K. Tilmon and P. Rozeboom. 2017. SOYBEAN.APHID.LH.2017. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/ method.aspx?id=495901.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2016. Evaluation of insecticides for control of soybean aphid, 2015. AMT. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsw041.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2017. Evaluation of insecticides for control of soybean aphid, 2016. AMT. DOI: 10.1093/amt/tsx045.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J., P.B. Beauzay and P. Prasifka. 2016. Efficacy of foliar-applied sulfoxaflor for control of soybean aphid and impact on lady beetles, 2015. AMT 41(1).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><strong>Theses and Dissertations</strong></p><br /> <p>Adams, B. 2015. An evaluation of corn earworm damage and thresholds in soybean. PhD dissertation, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>Adams, A. 2016. Baseline susceptibility of selected lepidopteran pests to diamides and use strategies in Mississippi soybean. PhD dissertation, Mississippi State University.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Bateman, N. 2017. Impact of planting date and maturity group on management strategies for insect pests in soybean. PhD dissertation, Mississippi State University.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Camargo Gil, Carolina. 2016. Ecological risks of the conventional insecticide/fungicide seed treatment mixture of thiamethoxam and mefenoxam in soybean on beneficial insects. Dissertation, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Dill, T. 2015. Adult emergence and egg distribution of the Heliothine complex and their impact on Bt resistance management in agricultural landscapes. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Enchayan, J.S. 2015. Investigation of reduced agent and area treatments for Aphis glycines management and its effects on key predators. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Marchi-Werle, L. 2016. Soybean tolerance to soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) herbivory. Dissertation, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.</p><br /> <p>McRight, W. 2018. Evaluation of kudzu bug as a pest of Mississippi soybean production systems. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>North, J. 2016.&nbsp; Impact of neonicotinoids in mid-south row crop systems. M.S. thesis, Mississippi State University.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Ramsey, J. 2015. Evaluating the pest status of three-cornered alfalfa hopper in Mississippi agricultural crops. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p>Ribeiro, Matheus Geraldo Pires de Mello. 2017. Baseline Susceptibility, Resistance Detection and Selection for Resistance in Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae) to the Neonicotinoid Insecticide, Thiamethoxam. ETD collection for University of Nebraska - Lincoln. AAI10271836.</p><br /> <p>Rozeboom, P.A. 2015. Organic foliar Milstop shows efficacy against soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrill (Fabales: Fabaceae). M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Rystrom, Z.D. 2015. Seasonal activity and sampling methods for the Dectes stem borer, Dectes texanus Leconte in Nebraska soybeans. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Thrash, B. 2018. Evaluation of soybean production practices that impact yield losses from simulated insect defoliation. PhD dissertation, Mississippi State University.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Whalen, A. 2015. Factors influencing honey bee abundance across agricultural landscapes in the Midsouth. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University.</p><br /> <p><strong>Meeting Symposia sponsored by S-1055</strong></p><br /> <p>The Gamut of Resistance Management for Soybean Insect Pests: Issues and Prospects. 2016. Entomological Society of America - Southeastern Branch meeting, Raleigh, NC.</p><br /> <p>Value, Integration, and Regional Specificities of Insecticide Use in Soybean Production Systems. 2017. Entomological Society of America - Southeastern Branch meeting, Memphis, TN.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Pollinators in Soybean. 2018. Entomological Society of America - Southeastern Branch meeting, Orlando, FL.</p><br /> <p><strong>Key Extension Bulletins covering soybean insects</strong></p><br /> <p>Catchot, A., C. Allen, D. Cook, D. Dodds, J. Gore, T. Irby, E. Larson, B. Layton, S. Meyers and F. Musser. 2015. 2015 insect control guide for agronomic crops. MSU Extension Service Publ. 2471.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Catchot, A., C. Allen, J. Bibb, D. Cook, D. Dodds, J. Gore, T. Irby, E. Larson, B. Layton, J. MacGown, S. Meyers and F. Musser. 2016. 2016 insect control guide for agronomic crops. MSU Extension Service Publ. 2471.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Catchot, A., C. Allen, J. Bibb, D. Cook, W. Crow, J. Dean, D. Fleming, J. Gore, B. Layton, N. Little, J. MacGown, F. Musser, S. Winter, D. Dodds, T. Irby, E. Larson and S. Meyers. 2017. 2017 insect control guide for agronomic crops. MSU Extension Service Publ. 2471.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Catchot, A., C. Allen, J. Bibb, D. Cook, W. Crow, J. Dean, D. Fleming, J. Gore, B. Layton, N. Little, J. MacGown, F. Musser, S. Winter, D. Dodds, T. Irby, E. Larson and S. Meyers. 2018. 2018 insect control guide for agronomic crops. MSU Extension Service Publ. 2471.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Graham, S., and S. Stewart 2016. Common defoliating pests in soybean. University of Tennessee Extension, Institute of Agriculture, W392.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Herbert, D.A., Jr., K. Kamminga, S. Malone, T. P. Kuhar, E. Day, J. Greene, C.S. Bundy, L. Brown, and P. Ellsworth. 2014. Field Guide to Stink Bugs of Agricultural Importance in the United States. Northeastern Integrated Pest Management Center. Virginia Cooperative Extension.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Herbert, D.A., S. Malone, M. Arrington, and R. Whalen. 2014. 2013 Insect Pest Management in Virginia Cotton, Peanut, Soybean, and Sorghum. AREC-61NP. https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/AREC/AREC-61/AREC-61.html.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Herbert, D.A. Jr., B. Cissel, J. Whalen, G. Dively, C. Hooks, T. Patton, D. Venugopal, T. Kuhar, B. Aigner, S. Malone, J. Hogue, and E. Seymore. 2015. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Biology and Management in Mid-Atlantic Soybeans. Virginia Cooperative Extension. ENT-168NP. http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/ENTO/ENTO-168/ENTO-168.html.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W. 2016. Getting to know the insects. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, Publication PMR 1021.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2015. 2015 Yellow Book Report of insecticide evaluation for soybean pests, 26 pp. Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Publication 298-15.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hodgson, E. W., and G. VanNostrand. 2016. 2016 Yellow Book Report of insecticide evaluation for soybean pests. Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Publication 300-16.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Hunt, T. R. Wright. 2016. Insect Resistance Management: Basic Concepts and Importance to Modern Agriculture. Proc. of the 2016 Crop Production Clinics, pp. 53-55. University of Nebraska Extension, Lincoln, NE.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Knodel, J.J., P. Beauzay, M. Boetel and T.J. Prochaska. 2017. 2018 North Dakota Field Crop Insect Management Guide. NDSU Ext. Serv., E-1143 (Revised).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Koch, R.L. and B. Potter. 2014. Scouting for soybean aphid. University of Minnesota Extension. (http://z.umn.edu/soybeanaphidscouting).&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Krupke, C., W. Bailey, C. DiFonzo, E. Hodgson, T. Hunt, K. Jarvi, B. Jensen, J. Knodel, R. Koch, B. McCornack, A. Michel, J. Peterson, B. Potter, A. Szczepaniec, K. Tilmon, J. Tooker, and S. Zukoff. 2015. The effectiveness of neonicotinoid seed treatments in soybean. Purdue University Publication E-268.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Raudenbush, A., A. Michel, and K. Tilmon. 2017. Flip book: Stink bugs on soybean in the North Central Region. North Central Soybean Research Program.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Whitworth, R.J., J.P. Michaud, H.N. Schwarting. 2014. Soybean insect pest management guide, 2014. Kansas State University Research and Extension, #MF743.</p>

Impact Statements

1. Activity (Outreach to stakeholders (Objective 3): Many of the participants in this project had an outreach component to their program. The combined output from our activities included hundreds of research-based written materials (e.g., fact sheets, newsletters, bulletins), extension talks, social communication/ electronic deliverables (webinars, mobile apps, videos) and field demonstrations on soybean insects and best management practices, delivered to thousands of stakeholder and shared among committee members. Impact: Our research-based, publically-shared knowledge helps producers and consultants to make better informed decisions about managing insects in soybean, ultimately protecting yield and environment, and increasing profits. In many cases, this information may be the sole source of unbiased knowledge available to our clientele.

Back to top