SAES-422 Multistate Research Activity Accomplishments Report
Sections
Status: Approved
Basic Information
- Project No. and Title: SERA7 : Biology and Management of Peanut Insects and Other Arthropods(IEG-23)
- Period Covered: 12/01/2000 to 10/01/2001
- Date of Report: 10/26/2001
- Annual Meeting Dates: 10/01/2001 to 10/02/2001
Participants
Dr. Dennis Kopp, USDA CSREES, dkopp@intranet.reeusda.gov; Dr. Scott Armstrong, Texas Tech University & Texas A&M University, joarmstr@ttacs.ttu.edu; Mr. Jokirk Newbrough, Texas Cooperative Extension Service, Texas A&M University, j newbrough@tamu.edu; Dr. Rick Brandenberg, North Carolina State University, rick_brandenberg@ncsu.edu; Dr. Jim Todd, University of Georgia, todd@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu ; Dr. Steve L. Brown, University of Georgia, bugbrown@arches.uga.edu; Mr. Simmy McKeown, University of Georgia; Mr. James R. Weeks, Auburn University, jweeks@acesag.auburn.edu; Dr. Jay Chapin, Clemson University, Jchapin@clemson.edu; Project Leadership: Chair: James R. Weeks, jweeks@acesag.auburn.edu; Chair Elect: Scott Armstrong, joarmstr@ttacs.ttu.edu; Secretary Elect: Ames Herbert, herbert@vt.edu;
I. Chairman Ron Weeks opened the meeting. Chairman Weeks mentioned that the minutes of the meeting would be due to Dr. Jones within two weeks.
II. Scott Armstrong introduced Dr. Dick Auld and Dr Jaroy Moore. Dr. Moore, director of the Lubbock Experiment Station, introduced the goals and directives of the Experiment Station with some comments on production statistics. Dr. Auld, head of the Department of Plant and Soil Science at Texas Tech University, discussed department faculty and their role in agriculture in the region. He also discussed the issue of water use and water quality as related to peanut production in West Texas.
III. A registration fee of $4.00 was collected from each attendee to cover local meeting expenses.
IV. Administrative Advisors
Dr. Richard Jones our experiment station advisor due to a previous obligation was not able to meet with the group this year.
As of the time of the meeting an extension advisor had not been selected for our group.
Dennis Kopp handed out literature and introduced 12 CREES Programs. He also presented the Regional Pest Management Initiative for fiscal year 2003.
V. Election of officers for 2002
Ames Herbert was nominated and unanimously elected as secretary for 2002. Armstrong will preside as chairman from the step wise progression from secretary.
VI. Site and date selection for 2002 meeting
Ron Weeks asked for any suggestions for 2002. Rick Brandenburg mentioned that it might be time to rotate our meeting up to Virginia to visit and discuss production problems in that area since tomato spotted wilt was a serious problem in both the Virginia and North Carolina areas. Those in attendance unanimously voted to travel to the Suffolk, Virginia area and meet at the Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center. A general quorum decided that a tour was needed, and the meeting was set for October 2 4, 2002.
VII. Discussion on a regional peanut insect management publication
The subject of producing a regional publication for peanut IPM was brought forward from last years discussion. A significant amount of time was spent on trying to determine if it would possible for the ESA to publish and market the publication. Many expressed the concern that it would not be feasible and that the ESA would not be interested. The other option would be for APS to use a brief, but quality photo publication to use if the older, previously published a publication on peanut insect management needed updating. A quorum present expressed that this was unlikely. Dennis Kopp suggested that perhaps a "crop profile" could be produced for peanuts at the national or state levels. A crop profile is a resource of production and management that includes a list of insect, weed, fertility production practices and used by university and government agencies and published electronically. After discussion on this subject, it was discovered that most states, including Texas already had "crop profiles". Dennis said he would talk to some people that would determine if a national profile was needed and that he would have them contact SERA IEG 7 with further information.
VIII. State reports for insect situations and yield estimates:
North Carolina Rick Brandenburg thrips densities were considered low in the early season but tomato spotted wilt ended up being a significant problem with up to 40% infection in some fields. Rick commented that this was the most significant TSW problem that has occurred under his observations. Potato leafhopper densities were also high and never seemed to drop. They appear to be a pest to manage in the future. Lepidopteran pest were not an issue all season long this problem is probably an indication that corn acreage is decreasing and cotton acreage is increasing. Spider mites were "spotty" in areas that were dry. Rick expressed concern over the TSW and said that he understands some of the concern and frustration that other entomologist felt as they went through epidemics.
South Carolina Jay Chapin - CBR and leafspot, peanut diseases, were a problem for Jay‘s growing region this year. Burrowing bugs were monitored with pitfall traps and caused damage in some areas. Jay mentioned that he could not notice a ttastev difference in peanuts that were burrowing bug damaged. Leser cornstalk borers were a problem where drought showed up. Spider mites were not a problem in the 2001 production season.
Georgia Jim Todd, Steve Brown and Simmy McKeown indicated that insect pressure in general was light, but late season infection of TSWV did reduce yields where present. Lesser corn stalk borers were injuring peanuts until rain slowed the problem but some significant damage did occur. Potato leafhopper‘s were moderate in densities. Three cornered alfalfa hoppers were spotty but caused some problems in late planted fields. Simmy mentioned that velvetbean caterpillar were a problem late season but that Dimilin worked very well for controlling them. Steve mentioned the TSW program in Georgia, handed out the publication entitled "Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut" and that adaption of management practices from producers was increasing every year.
Texas Jokirk Newbrough, Scott Armstrong Jokirk said that the first obvious problem in his area was water quality and quantity. The water is salty and later in the season when no rain fell, the stress of low water quality and the inability to keep peanuts watered adequately turned out to be a problem. Yellow decline, a disease that was a symptom of the aforementioned stress is also evident in some fields. Jokirk mentioned that the cause of the "yellow decline" has not been determined. Droughthy conditions also allowed for LCSB and spider mite problems in areas where water was inadequate. Sclerotinia was evident in some fields, especially where producers were not rotating there crops out of peanuts. Scott mentioned that although it appeared that the rednecked peanut worm (RNPW) infested peanuts from mid October on, every terminal was infested in some fields. If RNPW were to infest peanuts earlier in the season, control measures might have to be used to prevent yield loss.
Alabama Ron Weeks mentioned that Alabama producers were adopting management practices for TSW and planting late along with using systemic insecticides was having an impact on reducing the incidence of TSW. Ron said that leaf spot was a problem and that symptoms of the disease were more different than he had seen in previous seasons. The symptoms often looked like burn injury at first in some instances. Yields for Alabama peanuts have the potential to be higher than average with the possibility that record yields may occur. Foliage feeders were not a factor and three cornered alfalfa hoppers caused problems in some spotty locations.
IX. Insect control recommendations
Chairman Weeks called for insect control recommendations. Steve Brown, Jim Todd and Simmy McKeown discussed the recommendations from Georgia. Some pesticides like Fury from FMC were being evaluated for peanut insect control, Fipronil was also being considered. Steve asked the group if Tracer were to labeled on peanuts, what would the target insects be? Jay Chapin said that Fall armyworms would be a good candidate in his area because Lannate was providing marginal to poor control. Steve said that when Lannate is applied in hot weather, it will dissipate quickly and provide poor results plus the fact that producers do not like applying it with ground rigs. Rick Brandenburg mentioned that Danitol was providing adequate control of Lepidopterous pests in his area.
Steve mentioned recommendations for defoliators and the problem with making recommendations for different types of peanuts (i.e. florunners vs. Spanish) or the age and overall canopy development. A sliding scale that considers these factors has not been developed but certainly could be used.
Leaf hopper control is recommended when 25% leaf burn occurs. Jim Todd commented that this threshold works well but that there is a species difference in leafhoppers and there is know sure way to take this in to account.
IX. Brief overview of research and extension projects
South Carolina Jay Chapin Presented images of the three different species of burrowing bugs that are found in his area and briefly discussed some differences in biology and host plants. Jay also presented some data on burrowing bug damage and resulting economic consequences. A lengthy discussion followed concerning burrowing bug insecticide control, alternate host plants, biology and pod damage to peanuts.
North Carolina Rick Brandenburg Explained that possibly 10% of peanut fields may actually have southern corn rootworm (SCRW) infestations but estimates of 75% of fields are treated with prophylactic treatments. Rick explained that this was even after many educational meetings and the "Risk Management" publication that he and Ames Herbert developed. Rick mentioned that he enlisted the help of a sociologist to conduct a study on why producers treat when the risk is minimal. The results of the study were that the treatments are used for insurance, or that the producers had heard from family members or other producers how much damaging SCRW‘‘s were and simply were not willing to produce the crop without the use of insecticide.
Texas Scott Armstrong Explained that he and Forrest Mitchell were screening peanut varieties for proteinase inhibitors by using the world collection peanut variety and by incorporating them in diets of LCSB and the SCRW. Mitchell is responsible for the LCSB trials while Armstrong is responsible for diet studies on SCRW. Additionally, Dr. Keyan Salzman at College Station, Texas, is responsible for screening peanut tissue for proteinase inhibitors. Armstrong also mentioned the previous two years survey for thrips vectors of TSW in the West Texas growing region and that the tobacco thrips appears to be in low densities early in the season and at thus possess a small risk for epidemics.
Georgia Jim Todd presented the results of several insecticide, cultivar, row patterns, and combinations of pre plant herbicides with at planting insecticides for management of TSW. Thimet insecticide is providing yield advantages that may not be explained by thrips control. Recent studies were mentioned by Jay Chapin that suggested when the peanut plant is exposed to Thimet, certain genetic traits may be expressed or over expressed which could explain the advantages in yield when Thimet is used. Todd also mentioned that cultivars like "Georgia Green" are still helping in the suppression of TSW. Steve Brown‘s observations were that reducing the first generation of TCAH‘s greatly reduced problems later in the season because reproduction in the field was significantly reduced.
Alabama Ron Weeks reported on the evaluation of major insect populations in minimum till peanuts. Combinations of ryegrass with wheat and oats, or ryegrass alone appear to have slightly lower TSW infected plants. Ron presented the results of leafhopper and three cornered alfalfa control tests. From the products evaluated, Leverage and Karatez provided good control while Centric provided marginal control. Ron also presented the results of planting "Georgia Green" peanuts with the use of different combinations of at planting insecticides and foliar applied insecticides. The pressure from thrips damage and TSW symptoms was low for June and most of July, but by the August evaluations, TSW was higher than 38% in the untreated control. Most treatments kept TSW symptoms reduced, especially where Thimet was used.
II. Scott Armstrong introduced Dr. Dick Auld and Dr Jaroy Moore. Dr. Moore, director of the Lubbock Experiment Station, introduced the goals and directives of the Experiment Station with some comments on production statistics. Dr. Auld, head of the Department of Plant and Soil Science at Texas Tech University, discussed department faculty and their role in agriculture in the region. He also discussed the issue of water use and water quality as related to peanut production in West Texas.
III. A registration fee of $4.00 was collected from each attendee to cover local meeting expenses.
IV. Administrative Advisors
Dr. Richard Jones our experiment station advisor due to a previous obligation was not able to meet with the group this year.
As of the time of the meeting an extension advisor had not been selected for our group.
Dennis Kopp handed out literature and introduced 12 CREES Programs. He also presented the Regional Pest Management Initiative for fiscal year 2003.
V. Election of officers for 2002
Ames Herbert was nominated and unanimously elected as secretary for 2002. Armstrong will preside as chairman from the step wise progression from secretary.
VI. Site and date selection for 2002 meeting
Ron Weeks asked for any suggestions for 2002. Rick Brandenburg mentioned that it might be time to rotate our meeting up to Virginia to visit and discuss production problems in that area since tomato spotted wilt was a serious problem in both the Virginia and North Carolina areas. Those in attendance unanimously voted to travel to the Suffolk, Virginia area and meet at the Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center. A general quorum decided that a tour was needed, and the meeting was set for October 2 4, 2002.
VII. Discussion on a regional peanut insect management publication
The subject of producing a regional publication for peanut IPM was brought forward from last years discussion. A significant amount of time was spent on trying to determine if it would possible for the ESA to publish and market the publication. Many expressed the concern that it would not be feasible and that the ESA would not be interested. The other option would be for APS to use a brief, but quality photo publication to use if the older, previously published a publication on peanut insect management needed updating. A quorum present expressed that this was unlikely. Dennis Kopp suggested that perhaps a "crop profile" could be produced for peanuts at the national or state levels. A crop profile is a resource of production and management that includes a list of insect, weed, fertility production practices and used by university and government agencies and published electronically. After discussion on this subject, it was discovered that most states, including Texas already had "crop profiles". Dennis said he would talk to some people that would determine if a national profile was needed and that he would have them contact SERA IEG 7 with further information.
VIII. State reports for insect situations and yield estimates:
North Carolina Rick Brandenburg thrips densities were considered low in the early season but tomato spotted wilt ended up being a significant problem with up to 40% infection in some fields. Rick commented that this was the most significant TSW problem that has occurred under his observations. Potato leafhopper densities were also high and never seemed to drop. They appear to be a pest to manage in the future. Lepidopteran pest were not an issue all season long this problem is probably an indication that corn acreage is decreasing and cotton acreage is increasing. Spider mites were "spotty" in areas that were dry. Rick expressed concern over the TSW and said that he understands some of the concern and frustration that other entomologist felt as they went through epidemics.
South Carolina Jay Chapin - CBR and leafspot, peanut diseases, were a problem for Jay‘s growing region this year. Burrowing bugs were monitored with pitfall traps and caused damage in some areas. Jay mentioned that he could not notice a ttastev difference in peanuts that were burrowing bug damaged. Leser cornstalk borers were a problem where drought showed up. Spider mites were not a problem in the 2001 production season.
Georgia Jim Todd, Steve Brown and Simmy McKeown indicated that insect pressure in general was light, but late season infection of TSWV did reduce yields where present. Lesser corn stalk borers were injuring peanuts until rain slowed the problem but some significant damage did occur. Potato leafhopper‘s were moderate in densities. Three cornered alfalfa hoppers were spotty but caused some problems in late planted fields. Simmy mentioned that velvetbean caterpillar were a problem late season but that Dimilin worked very well for controlling them. Steve mentioned the TSW program in Georgia, handed out the publication entitled "Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut" and that adaption of management practices from producers was increasing every year.
Texas Jokirk Newbrough, Scott Armstrong Jokirk said that the first obvious problem in his area was water quality and quantity. The water is salty and later in the season when no rain fell, the stress of low water quality and the inability to keep peanuts watered adequately turned out to be a problem. Yellow decline, a disease that was a symptom of the aforementioned stress is also evident in some fields. Jokirk mentioned that the cause of the "yellow decline" has not been determined. Droughthy conditions also allowed for LCSB and spider mite problems in areas where water was inadequate. Sclerotinia was evident in some fields, especially where producers were not rotating there crops out of peanuts. Scott mentioned that although it appeared that the rednecked peanut worm (RNPW) infested peanuts from mid October on, every terminal was infested in some fields. If RNPW were to infest peanuts earlier in the season, control measures might have to be used to prevent yield loss.
Alabama Ron Weeks mentioned that Alabama producers were adopting management practices for TSW and planting late along with using systemic insecticides was having an impact on reducing the incidence of TSW. Ron said that leaf spot was a problem and that symptoms of the disease were more different than he had seen in previous seasons. The symptoms often looked like burn injury at first in some instances. Yields for Alabama peanuts have the potential to be higher than average with the possibility that record yields may occur. Foliage feeders were not a factor and three cornered alfalfa hoppers caused problems in some spotty locations.
IX. Insect control recommendations
Chairman Weeks called for insect control recommendations. Steve Brown, Jim Todd and Simmy McKeown discussed the recommendations from Georgia. Some pesticides like Fury from FMC were being evaluated for peanut insect control, Fipronil was also being considered. Steve asked the group if Tracer were to labeled on peanuts, what would the target insects be? Jay Chapin said that Fall armyworms would be a good candidate in his area because Lannate was providing marginal to poor control. Steve said that when Lannate is applied in hot weather, it will dissipate quickly and provide poor results plus the fact that producers do not like applying it with ground rigs. Rick Brandenburg mentioned that Danitol was providing adequate control of Lepidopterous pests in his area.
Steve mentioned recommendations for defoliators and the problem with making recommendations for different types of peanuts (i.e. florunners vs. Spanish) or the age and overall canopy development. A sliding scale that considers these factors has not been developed but certainly could be used.
Leaf hopper control is recommended when 25% leaf burn occurs. Jim Todd commented that this threshold works well but that there is a species difference in leafhoppers and there is know sure way to take this in to account.
IX. Brief overview of research and extension projects
South Carolina Jay Chapin Presented images of the three different species of burrowing bugs that are found in his area and briefly discussed some differences in biology and host plants. Jay also presented some data on burrowing bug damage and resulting economic consequences. A lengthy discussion followed concerning burrowing bug insecticide control, alternate host plants, biology and pod damage to peanuts.
North Carolina Rick Brandenburg Explained that possibly 10% of peanut fields may actually have southern corn rootworm (SCRW) infestations but estimates of 75% of fields are treated with prophylactic treatments. Rick explained that this was even after many educational meetings and the "Risk Management" publication that he and Ames Herbert developed. Rick mentioned that he enlisted the help of a sociologist to conduct a study on why producers treat when the risk is minimal. The results of the study were that the treatments are used for insurance, or that the producers had heard from family members or other producers how much damaging SCRW‘‘s were and simply were not willing to produce the crop without the use of insecticide.
Texas Scott Armstrong Explained that he and Forrest Mitchell were screening peanut varieties for proteinase inhibitors by using the world collection peanut variety and by incorporating them in diets of LCSB and the SCRW. Mitchell is responsible for the LCSB trials while Armstrong is responsible for diet studies on SCRW. Additionally, Dr. Keyan Salzman at College Station, Texas, is responsible for screening peanut tissue for proteinase inhibitors. Armstrong also mentioned the previous two years survey for thrips vectors of TSW in the West Texas growing region and that the tobacco thrips appears to be in low densities early in the season and at thus possess a small risk for epidemics.
Georgia Jim Todd presented the results of several insecticide, cultivar, row patterns, and combinations of pre plant herbicides with at planting insecticides for management of TSW. Thimet insecticide is providing yield advantages that may not be explained by thrips control. Recent studies were mentioned by Jay Chapin that suggested when the peanut plant is exposed to Thimet, certain genetic traits may be expressed or over expressed which could explain the advantages in yield when Thimet is used. Todd also mentioned that cultivars like "Georgia Green" are still helping in the suppression of TSW. Steve Brown‘s observations were that reducing the first generation of TCAH‘s greatly reduced problems later in the season because reproduction in the field was significantly reduced.
Alabama Ron Weeks reported on the evaluation of major insect populations in minimum till peanuts. Combinations of ryegrass with wheat and oats, or ryegrass alone appear to have slightly lower TSW infected plants. Ron presented the results of leafhopper and three cornered alfalfa control tests. From the products evaluated, Leverage and Karatez provided good control while Centric provided marginal control. Ron also presented the results of planting "Georgia Green" peanuts with the use of different combinations of at planting insecticides and foliar applied insecticides. The pressure from thrips damage and TSW symptoms was low for June and most of July, but by the August evaluations, TSW was higher than 38% in the untreated control. Most treatments kept TSW symptoms reduced, especially where Thimet was used.
Accomplishments
As result of this group meeting, regional and multi state research has been planned and discussed for specific pests. An example is the management of tomato spotted wilt virus of peanut which is vectored by thrips. This pest began as a localized problem and has spread across the peanut belt. Multi state research and extension programs in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama supported by peanut grower check off funds have provided a significant management tool for southeast growers. As TSWV incidence increases in other peanut states, the strategies developed in Georgia called the "Virus Index" are being adopted and localized to those states. Exchange of data in this SERA IEG has enhanced the research and extension specialists‘ ability to rapidly employ the management tactics necessary for TSWV in peanut. The discussion by this group of pesticide efficacy, new emerging pests and potential problems has given direction to our individual research and extension programs and allowed an early adoption of management tactics by peanut growers.
Impacts
Publications
None, although an insect identification guide is in the planning stages with collaboration by all group members on specific groups of insects (see minutes for discussion).