corn rootworms presented significant challenges in 2004: product performance issues linger

Corn Rootworms Presented Significant Challenges in

2004: Product Performance Issues Linger

Michael E. Gray and Kevin L. Steffey

Department of Crop Sciences

University of Illinois

Corn Rootworm Insecticide Efficacy Trials, 2004

Locations: DeKalb, Monmouth, and Urbana Planting dates: April 28, 27, and 19, respectively Hybrid: Golden Harvest (H-8588 RW) and isoline (Golden

Harvest H-8799) Root evaluations: July 21, July 15, and July 10 Plots planted within a trap crop system (late-planted corn

interplanted with pumpkins) Liquids applied in 6-inch bands over rows, 5 gpa, 47 psi Spring tines were mounted behind firming wheels of planter Planting population – 30,000 seeds per acre Golden Harvest (H-8588 RW) treated with Poncho 250 20 roots per treatment were evaluated for larval injury

Corn Rootworm Control TrialUrbana, Illinois, 2004

2.9

3.43.01

4.7 4.53

4.05

3.15

5.8

4.15

2.65

3.55

2.952.65

2.92.45

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ave

rage

Roo

t R

atin

g

Planting date – April 19Rainfall: May – 4.4”, June – 3.8”, July – 5.7”, Aug. – 3.6”

July 10, 2004


80

55

65

5 510

60

15

90

45

80

90

75

85

1112131415161718191

Azt

ec2.

1(B

)A

ztec

4.6

7(B

)A

ztec

4.67

(F)

Em

pow

er2(

B)

Em

pow

er2(

F)Fo

rce3

G(B

)Fo

rtre

ss2.

5G(F

)Fo

rtre

ss5G

(F)

Lor

sban

15G

(B)

Cap

ture

2EC

(B)

Lor

sban

4E(B

)C

ruis

erPo

ncho

1250

YG

RW

Che

ck

Ave

rage

% C

onsi

sten

cy

0


6

5458

16

66

100

51

4

32

8

1112131415161718191

Azt

ec2.

1(B)

Azt

ec 4

.67(

B)A

ztec

4.67

(F)

Empo

wer

2(B)

Empo

wer

2(F)

Forc

e3G

(B)

Fort

ress

2.5G

(F)

Fort

ress

5G(F

)Lo

rsba

n15G

(B)

Cap

ture

2EC

(B)

Lors

ban4

E(B)

Cru

iser

Ponc

ho12

50Y

GR

WC

heck

Ave

rage

% L

odgi

ng

Planting date – April 19Rainfall: May – 4.4”, June – 3.8”, July – 5.7”, Aug. – 3.6”

Sept. 28, 2004


202

177

194

171157

180

202

92

169

197

177

197 196204

197

75

95

115

135

155

175

195

215

Azt

ec2.

1(B

)A

ztec

4.6

7(B

)A

ztec

4.67

(F)

Em

pow

er2(

B)

Em

pow

er2(

F)Fo

rce3

G(B

)Fo

rtre

ss2.

5G(F

)Fo

rtre

ss5G

(F)

Lor

sban

15G

(B)

Cap

ture

2EC

(B)

Lor

sban

4E(B

)C

ruis

erPo

ncho

1250

YG

RW

Che

ck

Yie

ld –

Bu

shel

s p

er A

cre

YieldGard RW, DeKalb, September 3, 2004

Corn Rootworm Control TrialDeKalb, Illinois, 2004

2.752.95 3.05

4.7

4.13 3.95

2.35

55.05

3.15

3.9

2.75

3.32.95

2.65

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ave

rage

Roo

t R

atin

g

Planting date – April 28Rainfall: May – 9.5”, June – 3.1”, July – 2.1”,

Aug. – 3.3”

July 21, 2004


100

75

85

1520

100

10

80

20

95

55

80

90

1112131415161718191

Ave

rage

% C

onsi

sten

cy

000


20

33

46

10093

83

56

96100

23

73

4

29

4

1112131415161718191

Azt

ec2.

1(B)

Azt

ec 4

.67(

B)A

ztec

4.67

(F)

Empo

wer

2(B)

Empo

wer

2(F)

Forc

e3G

(B)

Fort

ress

2.5G

(F)

Fort

ress

5G(F

)Lo

rsba

n15G

(B)

Cap

ture

2EC

(B)

Lors

ban4

E(B)

Cru

iser

Ponc

ho12

50Y

GR

WC

heck

Ave

rage

% L

odgi

ng

Planting date – April 28

Rainfall: May – 9.5”, June – 3.1”, July – 2.1”, Aug. – 3.3”


165 168161

134 133

164169

135138

169

155

169 171165

181

75

95

115

135

155

175

Azt

ec2.

1(B

)A

ztec

4.6

7(B

)A

ztec

4.67

(F)

Em

pow

er2(

B)

Em

pow

er2(

F)Fo

rce3

G(B

)Fo

rtre

ss2.

5G(F

)Fo

rtre

ss5G

(F)

Lor

sban

15G

(B)

Cap

ture

2EC

(B)

Lor

sban

4E(B

)C

ruis

erPo

ncho

1250

YG

RW

Che

ck

Yie

ld –

Bu

shel

s p

er A

cre

Conclusions …

The insecticidal seed treatments (Poncho 1250 and Cruiser) did not provide adequate root protection in our insecticide efficacy trials (DeKalb, Monmouth, Urbana) in 2004.

Under heavy pressure, Poncho 1250 and Cruiser may be poor product choices for a refuge when using a transgenic insecticidal hybrid for corn rootworm control.

The granular soil insecticides (exception Empower2) generally provided acceptable levels of root protection in our Illinois’ trials.

The YieldGard Rootworm hybrid provided less than satisfactory root protection in the Urbana experiment.

University of Illinois Web sites:

http://www.ipm.uiuc.eduhttp://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin

http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/

http://www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin

2004 Corn Rootworm Efficacy Results For Indiana

Larry BledsoePurdue University

Root Rating Performance1, 2004Seed-Applied

LocationBest

Rating2

Cruiser

1.125

Poncho

1250Check

Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.95 1.95 2.55

Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 5.50 3.70 5.90

Columbia City, IN 1.60 ygr 1.95 2.00 3.60

Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 5.05 3.95 5.00

Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 5.10 4.10 5.75

Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 4.15 4.05 5.80

1 Root damage rating scale: 1=None or minor feeding scars, 6=severe injury. 3.0 or greater=plants likely predisposed to a significant loss.

2 The “Best Rating” is the least amount of rootworm damage for any product in the plot.

Root Rating Performance1, 2004Liquid

LocationBest

Rating2

Capture

TB

Regent

IF

Lorsban

4ECheck

Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.85 1.70 1.80 2.55

Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 3.65 3.70 3.25 5.90

Columbia City, IN 1.60 ygr 1.75 2.05 2.15 3.60

Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 3.90 3.15 5.00

Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 3.45 3.00 5.75

Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 3.55 2.65 5.80



Root Rating Performance1,2, 2004Granular

LocationBest

Rating3

Aztec

2.1G

Counter

CREmpower

Force

3G

Fortress

2.5G

Lorsban

15GCheck

Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.75 1.80 1.95 1.65 1.90 1.85 2.55

Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 2.60 2.50 4.45 2.55 2.20 3.55 5.90

Columbia City, IN

1.60 ygr 1.70 2.30 2.60 1.95 2.45 2.30 3.60

Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 2.75 4.70 2.65 2.75 3.30 5.00

Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 3.25 3.35 2.55 2.95 5.75

Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 2.90 4.70 2.45 2.95 2.65 5.80


2 All products applied in T-band except for Fortress 2.5G which was placed in-furrow.


Root Rating Performance1, 2004Transgenic Granular

LocationBest

Rating2

YieldGard

RW

Aztec

2.1G

Force

3GCheck

Lafayette, IN 1.50 ygr 1.50 1.75 1.65 2.55

Wanatah, IN 2.20 frt 3.10 2.60 2.55 5.90

Columbia City, IN 1.60 ygr 1.60 1.70 1.95 3.60

Dekalb, IL 2.35 ygr 2.35 2.75 2.65 5.00

Monmouth, IL 1.80 ygr 1.80 3.25 3.35 5.75

Urbana, IL 2.45 frc 3.15 2.90 2.45 5.80



Soil Insecticide Consistency*1999 - 2003

Class Organophosphates Pyrethroids FiprolesNico-

tinoids

Fortress 5G

Lorsban 15G

Aztec 2.1G

Counter CR

Capture 2E

Force 3G

Regent 4SC

Poncho 1250

Band Applic.

Root rating

% consistency

2.2

78

2.3

67

2.2

82

1.9

83

2.2

61

2.1

78

n/a n/a

Infurrow

Root rating

% consistency

2.1

71

2.2

72

2.0

87

1.8

91

2.2

66

2.1

75

2.5

57

n/a

Seed Applied

Root rating

% consistency

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9

87

*% of root masses where damage rating was less than 3.0 when the untreated equaled or exceeded 3.0.

Corn Rootworm ControlEfficacy Trials

Iowa

Dr. Jon Tollefson

Professor of Entomology

Iowa State University

Iowa 16 Root- Rating Index

1. No or minor feeding damage

2. Feeding injury evident, but no roots eaten back to within 1½ in. of plant

3. Several roots pruned to within 1½ in. of plant, but never equivalent of entire node

4. One node eaten back to with 1½ in. of plant

5. Two nodes eaten

6. Three nodes eaten

Node-Injury Scale

X . YY

Percentage of a node eaten

Number of full nodes eaten

Node-Injury Scale

0.00 No feeding damage

1.00 One node of roots, or equivalent of a node, eaten back to within 2” of stalk

2.00 Two nodes eaten

3.00 Three or more nodes eaten

Damage between complete nodes is scored as percent: 0.25 = ¼ node eaten 1.50 = 1½ nodes eaten

Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Consistency

YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 100 a

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.16 ab 100 a

Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 0.18 ab 98 a

Force 3G 0.12 F 0.18 ab 98 a

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.22 ab 88 ab

Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.23 ab 93 ab

Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.24 ab 85 ab

Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.26 ab 90 ab

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.26 ab 85 ab

Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 0.28 ab 78 ab

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.33 bc 73 ab

Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.38 bcd 65 abc

Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.39 bcd 58 bcd

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.58 cde 20 cde

Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.60 cde 32 cde

Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.64 de 30 cde

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.72 e 23 de

Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 0.98 f 10 e

Check --- --- 1.17 f 0 e

Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury % Lodging

YieldGard RW --- GM 0.02 a 3 ab

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.16 ab 0 a


Force 3G 0.12 F 0.18 ab 0 a

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.22 ab 0 ab


Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.24 ab 0 ab

Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.26 ab 1 ab

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.26 ab 0 a

Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 0.28 ab 0 a

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.33 bc 3 ab

Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.38 bcd 1 a

Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.39 bcd 2 ab

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.58 cde 6 ab

Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.60 cde 9 ab

Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.64 de 12 ab

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.72 e 17 b

Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 0.98 f 36 c

Check --- --- 1.17 f 39 c

Rootworm Efficacy, Crawfordsville, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Bushels/acre


Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.16 ab 185 a


Force 3G 0.12 F 0.18 ab 184 a

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.22 ab 175 a

Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.23 ab 170 abc

Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.24 ab 185 a

Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.26 ab 173 ab

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.26 ab 170 abc


Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.33 bc 174 ab

Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.38 bcd 171 abc

Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.39 bcd 180 ab

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.58 cde 178 a

Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.60 cde 176 a

Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.64 de 170 abc

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.72 e 171 abc

Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 0.98 f 154 bc

Check --- --- 1.17 f 151 c

Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Consistency


Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.23 ab 83 ab

Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.27 ab 70 abc

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.29 ab 70 abc

Force 3G 0.12 F 0.34 ab 70 abc

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.41 ab 50 abcd

Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.43 ab 47 abcd

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.44 ab 50 abcd

Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.45 ab 43 abcd

Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.57 ab 43 abcd

Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.61 bc 53 abcd

Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.72 abc 40 abc

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.73 abc 27 bcd

Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.77 abc 20 cd

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.80 bc 47 bcd

Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 1.38 cd 7 d

Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 1.54 d 8 d

Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 1.66 d 10 d

Check --- --- 1.68 d 3 d

Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury % Lodging


Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.23 ab 0 a

Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.27 ab 0 a

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.29 ab 0 a

Force 3G 0.12 F 0.34 ab 0 a

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.41 ab 0 a

Force 3G 0.12 TB-sb 0.43 ab 0 a

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.44 ab 0 a

Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.45 ab 0 a

Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.57 ab 0 a

Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.61 bc 7 ab

Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.72 abc 1 a

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.73 abc 0 a

Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.77 abc 6 ab

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.80 bc 4 a

Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 1.38 cd 6 ab

Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 1.54 d 11 ab

Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 1.66 d 18 bc

Check --- --- 1.68 d 29 c

Rootworm Efficacy, Nashua, 2004Product Rate Placement Injury Bushels/acre


Aztec 2.1G 0.14 TB 0.23 ab 199 ab

Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.27 ab 202 ab

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 TB-sb 0.29 ab 193 ab

Force 3G 0.12 F 0.34 ab 209 ab

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.41 ab 203 ab


Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.44 ab 190 ab

Capture 2EC 0.09 F 0.45 ab 205 ab

Capture 2EC 0.09 TB 0.57 ab 205 ab

Regent 4SC 0.12 F-m 0.61 bc 202 ab

Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.72 abc 191 ab

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 F 0.73 abc 206 ab

Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.77 abc 209 ab

Empower2-1.15g 0.092 TB 0.80 bc 190 ab

Lorsban 15G 1.2 TB 1.38 cd 201 ab

Fortress 5G 0.185 F-sb 1.54 d 182 b

Cruiser 5FS 1.25 mg ST 1.66 d 189 ab

Check --- --- 1.68 d 186 ab

Rootworm Efficacy, Sutherland, 2004

Product Rate Placement Injury Consistency


Aztec 2.1G 0.14 F 0.02 ab 100 a


Fortress 2.5G 0.185 F 0.02 ab 100 a

Force 3G 0.12 TB 0.02 ab 100 a

Force 3G 0.12 F 0.03 ab 100 a

Aztec 4.67G 0.14 F-sb 0.04 ab 100 a

Aztec 2.1G 0.14 T 0.05 ab 100 a

Capture 2EC 0.074 TB 0.06 ab 100 a

Lorsban 4E 1.2 TB 0.07 ab 100 a


Poncho 600FS 1.25 mg ST 0.11 ab 100 a

Cruiser 5FS 0.092 ST 0.38 ab 77 ab

Poncho 600FS 0.25 mg ST 0.42 ab 60 ab

Cruiser 5FS 0.25 mg ST 0.45 ab 70 ab

Check --- --- 1.68 d 3 d

2-Year Summary of Rootworm Control, IA. 2003-2004Product Placement Injury Consistency Lodging

Aztec 2.1G F 0.24 ab 82 ab 0 a

Aztec 2.1G TB 0.33 b 70 b 0 a

Aztec 4.67G F-sb 0.29 ab 74b 1 a

Aztec 4.67G TB-sb 0.27 ab 81 ab 0 a

Capture 2EC TB 0.72 d 42 de 2 a

Cruiser ST 1.34 e 10 fg 20 b

Force 3G F 0.26 ab 82 ab 0 a

Force 3G TB 0.26 ab 79 b 0 a

Fortress 2.5G F 0.38 bc 71b 1 a

Fortress 5G F-sb 0.61 cd 63 bc 2 a

Lorsban 15G TB 0.70 d 51cd 2 a

Poncho 1250 ST 0.84 d 25 ef 3 a

YieldGard RW GM 0.03 a 98 a 1 a

Check --- 1.69 f 2 g 26 c

Monsanto Genetically Engineered Corn, Ames, IA. 2004.

Product

Place-

ment

Node

InjuryConsis-tency

%

Lodging

YieldGard

RW--- 0.02 a 100 a 0 a

Force

3GTB 0.09 a 95 a 10 a

Poncho

1250ST 1.80 b 5 b 58 b

YieldGard

CB--- 1.82 b 0 b 23 b

CHECK --- 2.12 b 0 b 38 b

Monsanto Genetically Engineered Corn, Ames, IA. 2004.

Product

Place-

ment

1st Gen ECB

rating

2nd Gen ECB

# Tunnelscm

Tunnels

YieldGard

RW--- 2.73 b 1.6 b 6.0 b

Force

3GTB 2.33 b 1.7 b 6.4 b

Poncho

1250ST 2.53 b 1.8 b 6.6 b

YieldGard

CB--- 0.03 a 0.0 a 0.0 a

CHECK --- 1.80 b 1.2 b 4.1 ab

Ostlie © 2005

Corn Rootworm Management Trials in Minnesota, 2003-4

Ken OstlieDepartment of Entomology - University of

[email protected]

(612) 624-7436 office (612) 750-0993 cell

Ostlie © 2005

Basic Principles: Managing Insects

1. Farmers are engaged in risk management …balancing costs of product vs probability and magnitude of adverse outcomes.

2. Insect management traits only protect yield potential

3. All features have logistical as well as direct economic costs.

4. Predicting risk requires an investment in field-specific information (=scouting)…

5. May not be feasible, practical or cost effective.

Ostlie © 2005

Prophylactic (Insurance) Treatments

Applied before pests appearsExamples:

Transgenic crops (Bt rootworm) Seed-applied insecticides (seed treatments) Soil-applied insecticides (if decision not based on

scouting)

When to use an insurance treatment? If risk (probability, severity) of problem is high If efficacy is better, or rescue options are lacking If treatments are difficult to time If scouting resources are limited

Ostlie © 2005

What are the Downsides of Insurance Treatments?

Unnecessary costs Loss of flexibility and reactivity Reduces emphasis on scouting and field-specific

farming May sacrifice performance for convenience Resistance development

Ostlie © 2005

Dilemma for FarmersMaking management decisions for preventative treatments based on limited data!Key Insurance Questions: How much do you need? How much can you afford?

Ostlie © 2005

Corn Rootworm Injury

Ostlie © 2005

Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides

Ostlie – Rosemount, 2003

3.75

2.202.40 2.40

2.63 2.582.88 3.00

3.35 3.30 3.202.90

3.202.95

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Roo

t In

jury

Rat

ing

( 1

- 6

scal

e)

Seed Trt.GranulesLiquidsTransgenic

Ostlie © 2005

Corn Root Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides

Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003

4.44

2.23 2.35 2.42.75 2.75 2.78

3.48

2.93 3.053.38

3.93 3.854.18

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Roo

t In

jury

Rat

ing

( 1

- 6

scal

e)


Ostlie © 2005

Yield Protection: Transgenics, Seed Treatments and Soil Insecticides

Ostlie & Potter – Lamberton, 2003

97.3

111.8

104.4101.7

103.9 105.2107.4

105.2

99.4

95.3

105.5

107104.8

108.3

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

Roo

t In

jury

Rat

ing

( 1

- 6

scal

e)


Ostlie © 2005

Synopsis of Corn Rootworm Management Studies: 2003-4

Bt CRW consistently offers root protection better than or equal to granular insecticides. Yields are slightly higher than comparable isolines protected by soil insecticides. Further study of yield effects warranted. CRW management in refuge acres continues to be a dilemma. Yield potential of Bt CRW hybrids currently a limit to adoption.

Granular soil insecticides offer the most consistent root protection among the insecticide treatments. The performance of band vs infurrow application varies with moisture; T-bands perform worse under drought conditions. ½ and ¾ rates of Aztec, Counter and Force work as well as full rates. Fortress performs well at the higher rate labeled by AMVAC.

Ostlie © 2005

Synopsis of Corn Rootworm Management Studies: 2003-4

Liquid performance varies with soil moisture from planting through pupation. Under droughty conditions performance deteriorates.

Seed treatments consistently protect only ½ - ¾ node compared to unprotected roots. Under heavy pressure, root and lodging protection were unacceptable. Yield response occasionally more than expected. Broad scale trials need to examine stand and early-season vigor contributions to yield. Importance of scouting to determine where to use seed treatments is critical.

Ostlie © 2005

What Role does Early-Season Vigor and Stand Protection Play in Yield Response?

NeoNicotinoid Seed Treatment

ConventionalSoil Insecticide

Ostlie © 2005

What are Lodging and Yield Consequences of Seed Treatments and Transgenics?

Basic design: Factorial of 3 CRW management options (None, Force 3G, Bt CRW) with 3 rates of Poncho (None, 250 and 1250). Missing Bt CRW without Poncho.

Monitored stand, root injury, lodging and yield

Replicated in studies across the Midwest.

Ostlie © 2005

Stand Response to Corn Rootworm Protection

Minnesota – 2004

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Surv

ivin

g S

tand (10

00s/

A) .

Rosemount

Lamberton

p<0.0001 LSD=3.8p=0.8088 LSD=4.9

Ostlie © 2005

Corn Rootworm Protection: IA Nodal Injury scale, 0-3

Minnesota - 2003

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Nodes<2"

.

Rosemount

Lamberton

p<0.0001 LSD=0.31p=0.0405 LSD=0.11

Ostlie © 2005

Lodging Response to Corn Rootworm Protection

Minnesota - 2004

05

1015202530354045

% P

lants

Lodged .

Rosemount

Lamberton

p=0.0001 LSD=??p=0.0002 LSD=7.1

Ostlie © 2005

Yield Response to Corn Rootworm Protection

Minnesota - 2004

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

Yie

ld (bu/A

)

Rosemount

Lambertonp<0.0001 LSD=17.4p=0.3055 LSD=8.9

Ostlie © 2005

Root and stand protection provided by CRW management options are well-understood.

The big questions relate to the value of insurance treatments.

What’s the frequency of payoffs vs costs? Is there anything($$) returned to your wallet?

Can scouting be used to ensure value?

Rootworm Trial ResultsRootworm Trial Results

Lance J. MeinkeLance J. Meinke

University of Nebraska-LincolnUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln

[email protected]@unl.edu

Trial Site:Trial Site:

University of Nebraska University of Nebraska Agricultural Research and Agricultural Research and

Development Center, Mead, NEDevelopment Center, Mead, NE

2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment

2.32 f2.32 f

0.24 abc0.24 abc

0.29 abc0.29 abc

0.23 abc0.23 abc

0.18 abc0.18 abc

0.17 abc0.17 abc

0.15 ab0.15 ab

0.12 ab0.12 ab

0.05 a0.05 a

RR 0-3RR 0-3

0.70.7Counter 15G (TB)Counter 15G (TB)

70.270.2UntreatedUntreated

2.02.0Force 3G (TB)Force 3G (TB)

2.52.5Aztec 2.1G (TB)Aztec 2.1G (TB)

2.32.3Fortress 2.5G (I)Fortress 2.5G (I)

0.00.0Regent 4 SC (MT)Regent 4 SC (MT)

1.21.2Aztec 3.78G (TB)Aztec 3.78G (TB)

0.70.7Aztec 2.1 (Aztec 2.1 (½½ rate, TB) rate, TB) + Poncho 1250 (ST)+ Poncho 1250 (ST)

0.00.0YieldGard Rootworm + YieldGard Rootworm + Poncho 250Poncho 250

Percentage LodgedPercentage LodgedInsecticideInsecticide

2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment2004 Corn Rootworm Soil Insecticide Experiment

2.32 f2.32 f

1.24 e1.24 e

1.18 e1.18 e

1.01 de1.01 de

0.67 cd0.67 cd

0.57 bcd0.57 bcd

0.52 abcd0.52 abcd

0.52 abcd0.52 abcd

0.51 abcd0.51 abcd

0.36 abc0.36 abc

RR 0-3RR 0-3

70.270.2UntreatedUntreated

38.738.7Thimet 20G (TB)Thimet 20G (TB)

12.612.6Capture 2EC (MT)Capture 2EC (MT)

14.814.8Cruiser 5 FS (ST)Cruiser 5 FS (ST)

2.62.6Capture 2EC (TB)Capture 2EC (TB)

0.70.7Poncho 1250 (ST)Poncho 1250 (ST)

3.83.8Lorsban 15G (TB)Lorsban 15G (TB)

7.67.6Force 3G (TB, SB)Force 3G (TB, SB)

1.81.8Lorsban 4E (TB)Lorsban 4E (TB)

5.45.4Aztec 4.67G (SB)Aztec 4.67G (SB)

Percentage LodgedPercentage LodgedInsecticideInsecticide

2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment

TreatmentTreatment RR 0-3 ScaleRR 0-3 ScalePercentage Percentage

LodgingLodging

MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho 250MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho 250 0.08 0.08 aa 0.00.0

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SCIsoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SC 0.62 0.62 abab 1.91.9

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3GIsoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3G 0.85 0.85 abab 2.62.6

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 1250Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 1250 1.16 1.16 bcbc 5.15.1

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250 1.75 1.75 cdcd 24.524.5

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FSIsoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FS 2.06 2.06 dede 29.429.4

Isoline DKC 60-15Isoline DKC 60-15 2.83 2.83 ee 93.593.5

2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment2004 Efficacy and Yield Experiment

TreatmentTreatment RR 0-3 RR 0-3 ScaleScale

Bulk Yield / Bulk Yield / Acre Acre

(bushels)(bushels)

MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho MON863 DKC 60-12 + Poncho 250250

0.08 0.08 aa 214.0 a214.0 a

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SCIsoline DKC 60-15 + Regent 4 SC 0.62 0.62 abab 209.7 a209.7 a

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3GIsoline DKC 60-15 + Force 3G 0.85 0.85 abab 208.4 a208.4 a

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 12501250

1.16 1.16 bcbc 204.3 a204.3 a

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250Isoline DKC 60-15 + Poncho 250 1.75 1.75 cdcd 200.7 a200.7 a

Isoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FSIsoline DKC 60-15 + Cruiser 5 FS 2.06 2.06 dede 190.9 a190.9 a

Isoline DKC 60-15Isoline DKC 60-15 2.83 2.83 ee 118.0 b118.0 b

Rootworm control efficacyRootworm control efficacy

Robert Wright ([email protected])

University of Nebraska

South Central Ag Lab, Clay Center

2003, Clay Center2003, Clay Center

Product Placement Root injury rating (0-3)

Aztec 2.1G TB 0.62 a

Cruiser 5FS ST 1.14 ab

Poncho 1250

ST 1.30 b

Untreated - 2.53 c


Product Placement Yield (bu/acre)

Aztec 2.1G TB 212.2 a

Cruiser 5FS ST 210.3 a

Poncho 1250

ST 214.8 a

Untreated - 171.4 b


Hybrid Insecticide Root injury rating (0-3)

YGRW

(DKC60-12)

No 0.15 a

Isoline

(DKC60-15)

Aztec 2.1G

TB

0.35 ab

Isoline No 0.44 b


Hybrid Insecticide Yield (bu/acre)

YG RW

(DKC60-12)

No 237.7 a

Isoline

(DKC60-15)

Aztec 2.1G

TB

234.2 ab

Isoline No 229.89 b

2000-2003 Clay Center Summary2000-2003 Clay Center Summary

Product Rate RR (1-6)

Force 3G TB 4 oz/1000 row-ft 3.31 a

Aztec 2.1G TB 6.7 oz/1000 row-ft 3.34 a

Counter 20CR TB

6 oz/1000 row-ft 3.60 ab

Regent 4SC MT 0.24 fl oz/1000 row-ft 3.91 b

Untreated - 5.90 c

Clay Center, 2000-2004Clay Center, 2000-2004

Product Rate RR (1-6)

Force 3G TB 4 oz/1000 row-ft

3.07 a

Aztec 2.1G TB

6.7 oz/1000 row-ft

3.09 a

Capture 2EC MT

0.3 fl oz/1000 row-ft

4.04 b

Untreated - 4.91 c

UNL Web sitesUNL Web sites• http://entomology.unl.edu/fldcrops/trials.htm• http://entomology.unl.edu/scal• http://nerec.unl.edu/ipm/entomology/entomolog

y.htm

http://entomology.unl.edu/fldcrops/trials.htm

http://entomology.unl.edu/scal

http://nerec.unl.edu/ipm/entomology/entomology.htm

http://nerec.unl.edu/ipm/entomology/entomology.htm

corn rootworms presented significant challenges in 2004: product performance issues linger

Documents

rootworm damage

root damage rating scale

corn rootworm efficacy

illinois trials

root evaluations

best rating

yieldgard rootworm hybrid

satisfactory root protection