Definition

Minutes from the 2000 National IPM in Corn Meeting
24-26 October, 2000
The St. Anthony's Hotel, San Antonio, TX

24 October 2000

Opening remarks from the ARS Program Staff ? Robert Faust

Future of the program: This is the 5^th year of the program so we need to determine the extent of next year?s program. There needs to be a real benefit of the continuing. Have we obtained our original goals and will these be achieved next year. A plan of action must be established.

Budget concerns: USDA has been charged with generating an accounting report of the IPM programs. The report will document the progress or benefit being achieved with the IPM programs. Very interested in the outcomes from each of the areawide sites. Specifically, has this IPM program reduced any pesticide usage?

Wrap-up of the program: A final progress report and meeting with administrators, growers, etc. will need be take place at the end of the next season. A summary brochure will be generated along with a report from each of the sites.

Meeting charge from Larry Chandler: Let us be honest and frank in expressing any concerns that we have before going into next season.

Adoption of new agricultural technologies ? Stan Doberkow

Numerous adoption surveys and reports are generated each year on field usage by NAAS,

Nationwide, about 30% of the corn acreage were treated with insecticides,

Pesticide usage in corn: 43% for CRW larvae, 19% for CRW adults, and 19% for ECB, moths,

There is a lot of yearly variation on insecticide usage from state to state,

With the increase in Bt corn plantings, there has been a decrease in the number of ECB treatments,

Areawide CRW implications: Can expect rapid adoption of Bt corn for CRW control. There are several uncertainties such as registration, refugia, impact on non-target species, and consumer acceptance of BT technologies.

Potential role of CRW program: Monitor resistance, evaluate refugia guidelines, quantify impact on CRW and non-targets, study effects of buffers on nearby effects, and quantify impact of CRW Bt on pesticide usage and profitability

CRW soil insecticide use versus transgenic hybrids ? Marshall Martin

Collect yield, root rating, and weather data from IN/IL, IA, and KS,

Goal was to establish the monetary benefit of CRW control,

Soil insecticide usage slightly increased yield and decreased root ratings over untreated plots in IN and IL,

Wider yield benefit distribution between different soil insecticides in IA,

In KS, very low yield benefit in irrigated corn and high yield benefit in dryland corn with soil insecticides,

Yield results for soil insecticides can be used as a baseline for transgenics,

Discussion session based on items highlighted by M. Martin?s presentation

Should recommendations for CRW control be different across regions? General consensus was yes.

How much root protection will transgenics offer? Companies say the Bt offers 80% control. How does this relate to root ratings? The across field consistency offered by Bt may be one of their greatest benefits (i.e. may reduce hot spots in field),

Can transgenics be incorporated into AWPM (areawide pest management)? Corn prices and transgenics are working against AWPM. Areawide programs with 150 growers involved could serve as a role model for adoption of resistance management practices.

Are adult management and resistance management mutually exclusive? Could AWPM reduce the beetles to a low enough level to make Bt unnecessary?

What are the optimum refugia (size, location, etc.)? May be a 80/20 requirement with a ? mile split between refugia and transgenic corn. NCR 46 is discussing the refugia question.

2000 Research Updates

Insecticide resistance ? Sirinivas Parimi

Looked at populations from NE, IL, IA, SD, and ND

Use esterase activity to evaluate populations and is detailed in the 2000 Status Report,

More esterase activity is higher in treated areas than in surrounding areas,

Data suggest that IA and KS may have a slight movement toward resistance,

Reciprocal crossing of resistant and susceptible males and females showed that resistance is a dominant trait and not sex linked.

NOTE: For each of the following state reports, there is much more detail given in the 2000 Status Report

Nebraska update ? Lance Meinke

Resistance to methyl parathion is spreading,

Just about everywhere in NE, 5-10% of individuals are resistant.

IL/IN Update ? Cory Gerber

9300 acres in managed area and 1400 in control area,

Root ratings were lower in the managed area,

Yield higher in managed area with nad without soil insecticides than in control area,

Beetle movement into the area has an effect on beetle numbers,

Western CRW in alfalfa had very little corn pollen in their midguts,

Plans for 2001: continue with program and evaluate effects of treatments that were made in 2000.

Kansas Update ? Gerry Wilde

4200 acres in managed area nad 1300 acres in control area,

Peak emergence was reached in 6-13 July,

2000 treatment thresholds: >25 beetle/sticky trap/week and >15 beetle/sticky trap/week for retreatment,

Thresholds were lowered from 1999 to avoid hotspots in the fields,

Root ratings were lowered in managed area vs. control area in fields that reached thresholds,

0% of the 1^st year fields in the managed area had to be treated in 99 or 00,

Have been able to reduce beetle numbers in managed area,

No extra protection of core area versus the managed area,

Transgenics had significantly lower root ratings than for soil insecticides,

Plans for 2001: Need to find a good adulticide with alternate toxicants with good residual, how will transgenics fit in? refugia versus adult suppression program, growers are interested in continuing the program.

Iowa Update ? Jon Tollefson

Area scouted stayed around 6000 acres,

Treated 98% of managed area in 1997, 45% in 1998, 89% in 1999, and 19% in 2000,

Treatment threshold was 6 beetles/sticky trap/day,

Slam treatments were equivalent to soil insecticides for root ratings,

CRW trap captures dropped significantly at R1 growth stage but rebounded after silking was over,

Plant counts and emergence traps track well with each other,

Most growers in the managed area are not using soil insecticides,

Plans for 2001: Tech transfer to producers, put positive spin on not having to handle soil insecticides and reduced rates of toxicant, use AWPM for proactive adult management, mangement program in IA dryland corn will be different than irrigated corn, lower cost of scouting with quality assurance.

Texas Update ? Clint Hoffmann

Main research sites were in Granger and Wharton,

Wharton site is focused on transferring the program to producers,

2000 root ratings were lower in fields that had lower CRW abundance in 1999,

Evaluating role of Mexican CRW on aflatoxin incidences in corn. There were no significant incidences of aflatoxin in Granger in 2000.

Evaluating how distance that a CRW trap is placed in a field has on accuracy of assessment of the population. Traps placed at the edge of the field were not effective at evaluating population.

Plans for 2001: Technology transfer to the corn producers in Texas and other locations involved with the corn rootworm program, influence of MCR on aflatoxin levels in corn, the use of grassland borders around cornfields, influence of corn rootworm semiochemical-baited trap placement on trap captures, and temporal behavior patterns of adult Mexican corn rootworms.

South Dakota ? Larry Chandler

Discussed differences in WCR and NCR emergence,

See report for details,

Had WCR emerging from 1^st year corn.

Discussion from Research Reports

Scouting Programs: Can you do a complete scouting program in 2 months? Hard for a business to insure a good program that can be economically feasible.

Benefits of the program is equal to the cost of soil insecticides,

Hard to put a cost estimate on benefit to grower of not having to handle soil insecticides,

Labor force necessary for AWPM is hard to obtain,

CRW Bt corn is expected to cost $10/acre, which is equivalet to the AWPM program,

Need to provide an added benefit to producers, i.e. make life simpler for them,

GMO?s make life simpler,

In order to make a scouting program more economical: need to make scouting more efficient, must have thresholds that are more dependable (enough to stake business?s reputation),

C. Could perceived benefit to environment be a selling point of the AW program?

Since IPM has been iniated, the 75% goal has not quite be met, pesticide use has not declined, and we do not know about pesticide risk reduction.

Lowest rates of insecticides hold the most material during rainfastness studies,

Invite with PennCap M at 10% of the average recommended rate was the most effective treatment,

Created EUP with Red Dye #28 in Invite. Residual out to 3 days. Killed within 10-15 minutes of feeding.

Cucurbitacins ? availability and future production ? Fathi Halaweish ? Chemistry Professor ? SD State

Problems with current cucurbitacin production: time costly extraction, unpredictable sources, changes in quality from plant to plant, etc.

Plant tissue can be used to produce the specific type of cucurbitacin that is needed.

Working with Pioneer Seed company on the integration of the CRW trap into their operation,

Emergence depends on the soil degree days with temperature driving development of cohorts from egg to oviposition,

Mitchell?s additions to the model: added weather generator, uses full life cycle, includes both egg hatch distribution and larval survival rates.

Need to have an idea of insect dispersal: influence of food supply, distance traveled, mortality, etc.

In order to link population models to yield effects, need to know effects of NCR population on yield.

For something to be adopted, it must be tryable, observable, compatible, complex, and have a relative advantage.

Since transnational companies are the #1 source of producer information, the program must have the support of these companies to become adopted.

Farmers are generally moving toward lower management systems; therefore, we may need to target the program at consultants.

Private sector model for adoption: A private business would offer AWPM services for a fee. We will need to find a firm that has a large contiguous area as well as customer confidence and loyalty. The AWPM services must offer a net profit to the grower. Services must be based on long-term goals and not on short-term profits for the program to be adopted.

Since we will have spent $6.9 million over the life of the project, we need to have some significant accomplishments.

At the 3 university sites, they generally had better control in 2000, lower root ratings, and more optimism that the program is having an impact.

Are populations being reduced to their lowest obtainable levels (i.e. 30% in KS and IN)?

Private scouts: large corporation vs. individual scouts. Which one is best suited for AWPM?

After a lot of discussion, the concerns and questions were consolidated in the following issues:

Are we ready to transfer the technology? Bring in others who have more experience.

Can we do AWPM in a different manner? Multifaceted approach with a variety of technologies.