Although the corn earworm flight is still strong, we are not hearing of many fields with high numbers of worms. However, we are hearing of a lot of fields with pod-stage thresholds and many are being re-sprayed. Several folks have reported seeing newly hatched small worms but are waiting a few days before spraying to see how things develop. Holding off a few more days may mean the difference in having to treat a third time. There are a lot of fields that seem to be holding with no new earworms developing, especially the early planted fields. More infestations are being reported in later-planted double crop fields. This is a typical pattern as the pods in early planted fields are getting to the point where they are no longer attractive or vulnerable. Maybe this second infestation will not be as bad as we expected, but we have another week or two before we will know. Our advice is to keep checking fields at least every 5 days or so, until fields reach the R7 growth stage. As a side note, our pyrethroid testing of adult corn earworms is showing a gradual increase in the level of survivorship, now averaging over 40% for this past week (see the attached figure). Better consider one of the non-pyrethroid options.
We are finding (and hearing about) more soybean loopers. The most we have encountered is about 15 to 20 per 15 sweeps, but even at those numbers, the level of defoliation is not bad or to the point where fields need protection. This may get worse, or may not, depending on a lot of factors.
One of the oddest situations is the extremely large numbers of green cloverworms that are being reported in some areas. Folks are finding 30-40 and more per 15 sweeps and they are definitely working on the foliage. We always see cloverworms in soybean fields but never at these high levels. They are having to be controlled in fields with limited growth (due to slow growth during the hot dry weather).
Reports from Maryland are saying that brown marmorated stink bugs are inundating soybean fields in western and central Maryland. We have known about this pest for several years. It is a native of China, was first reported in Virginia in 2005 (one specimen) and has gradually increased in number. It has become established in Virginia and is now causing problems in vegetable a fruit crops. Soybean is one of its many host crops in China and as we feared, it is now moving into that crop. We have found a few in Virginia soybean fields, about 1 per 15 sweeps in a couple of fields. We do not know much about damage potential or control options but a lot of research is underway.
Additional information: cew-cypermethrin-aug-26-2010-ppt

For August 16-19, Ed Seymore reported that surveyed fields in the following counties had little to no soybean aphids, with the exception of Gloucester in the Wood’s X area: Augusta (0), Albemarle (0), Buckingham (0), Caroline (1-5), Charles City (0), Clark (1-5), Culpeper/Fauquier (6-39) aphids/plant), Gloucester (150-249), Goochland (0), Henrico (0), King and Queen (0), King William (0), Lancaster (0), Mathews (1-5), Middlesex (0), Rockingham (0), and Shenandoah (0). The economic threshold for soybean aphid is 250 aphids/plant. Under ideal conditions, soybean aphid populations can double every 2 days. Very low numbers (about 1 per 15 sweeps) of brown marmorated stink bugs were detected in one soybean field in central Culpeper County.

With financial support from the Virginia Soybean Board and federal funding for our state IPM program, our soybean scout Ed Seymore has begun to monitor about 30 soybean fields for soybean aphid and a new invasive pest species, the brown marmorated stink bug. From Aug. 2 to mid-August 2010, surveyed fields in the following counties had little to no soybean aphids: Augusta (0), Albemarle (0), Buckingham (0), Caroline (0), Charles City (0), Clark (0), Culpeper/Fauquier (1-5 aphids/plant), Gloucester (0), Goochland (0), Henrico (0), King and Queen (0), King William (0), Lancaster (0), Mathews (0), Middlesex (0), Orange (6-39 aphids/plant), Rockingham (0), and Shenandoah (0). The economic threshold for soybean aphid is 250 aphids/plant so these low numbers of aphids do not pose any threat at present. Very low numbers (about 1 per 15 sweeps) of brown marmorated stink bugs were detected in two soybean fields in central Culpeper County. Researchers are still trying to determine the extent and nature of brown marmorated stink bug feeding injury to soybean, but it will likely pose a risk if populations become established.

Soybean looper is a common pest of our soybean crop and can be found in small numbers in most fields, most years. But it is very uncommon to have large infestations. The moths have to migrate into Virginia from the south so when we do have big problems, they occur late in the season. Our last bad soybean looper year was 2005. In 2005, they moved into several soybean fields in mid-September. Being unfamiliar with the pest, growers were not looking for them and not sampling fields. In a few cases, fields were totally destroyed with loopers eating all the leaves leaving only leaf veins, stems and stalks (see the attached images, insecticide protected vs. unprotected soybean field). This insect is capable of doing a lot of feeding in a short period of time. This is why I try to correct folks when they call green cloverworms–loopers. Although green cloverworms do ‘loop’ or ‘inch’ when they crawl, they are distinctly different from soybean loopers both in appearance and in the rate they feed. Both are light green with white longitudinal strips down the tops of their backs and sides. The differences are that green cloverworms are of equal girth from head to tail, have 3 pairs of abdominal prolegs, and wiggle vigorously if you put one in the palm of your hand (see the attached images). Loopers tend to be smaller at the head end and fatter towards the tail end, have only 2 pairs of abdominal prolegs, and they don’t thrash around in your hand. And most importantly, loppers eat much more, worm-for-worm, compared with cloverworms.

A pattern that played out in 2005 was that all the fields hit hardest by soybean looper had been previously treated with a pyrethroid. The pyrethroids had reduced the beneficial population so when the invading moths laid their eggs, most survived. Large numbers of soybean looper moths have now been spotted in several fields in North Carolina. Almost all of our soybean fields have been treated with a pyrethroid. We could be set up for a huge problem. Loopers are also fairly hard to control with pyrethroids which provide only about 50% control, at best. Products with pyrethroid/neonicotinoid mixes will not help. Field trials in 2005 showed that only Lannate, Larvin, Steward and Tracer provided acceptable levels of control. Belt and Intrepid could likely be added to that list, but we have not evaluated those.

Bottom line, stay alert to these late season pests and keep a watch on your soybeans, especially any that have been treated with a pyrethroid.
Additional information: looper-vs-gcw-herbert-2010-ppt

To date, this has been one for the records in terms of corn earworm pressure in soybeans. Many of our fields have been treated, although most are still in the flowering/late flowering stage. We do not have thresholds for flowering beans but know that high numbers of worms can do too much damage by eating all the flowers which can result in delayed maturity. What’s next for these fields? Will earworms recycle to present another threat to podding fields? My guess is, yes, at least some percentage of fields may need to be retreated. The decision to retreat should be made based not on rumor, seeing spray rigs running in the neighbor’s field, or conversations at the diner, but based on knowledge that thresholds have been met. Growers cannot afford to make unnecessary sprays, especially with low yield potential and having already paid for one application. And, if a pyrethroid was used the first time we would strongly recommend that these second applications be non-pyrethroids. If you have treated with Karate, Baythroid, Endigo, Birgade, Bifenthrin, Tombstone, Sniper, Mustang Max, Hero, Proaxis, or Leverage—you have treated with a pyrethroid. In our field trials we are having good success controlling worms with relatively low rates of these non-pyrethroids (e.g., Steward at 4.6 oz and Larvin at 10 oz). But even at these rates, the cost is more than the pyrethroids.

Many full-season soybean crops on the Eastern Shore of Virginia were sprayed for insect pests this week. In many cases, these sprays were needed as pest numbers of spider mites, corn earworms, green cloverworms and other caterpillar pests were high. In the fields that I insected, I saw a lot of green cloverworm, corn earworm, yellowstriped armyworm, and some beet armyworms. I did not see soybean loopers, which often are hard to kill. Beet armyworms have also shown resistance to pyrethroids in past trials on the Eastern Shore. A number of different insecticides were applied. Some growers sprayed Steward to combat the complex of caterpillars; whereas some others sprayed Orthene and a pyrethroid such as Warrior to combat the mix of pests. Other growers sprayed a generic Lorsban 4E, which provided efficacy against the spider mites as well as the caterpillar pests including beet armyworms. Let’s hope our growers do not have to spray again, as these sprays were applied early in the crop, and we’ve still probably yet to see the major flight of corn earworms that attack the pods.

Corn earworm has moved into soybean fields across much of Virginia. This is earlier than normal and most are faced with the decision to treat (or nor) flowering stage beans. Infestation levels vary a lot from field to field from almost no worms in lush canopy fields, to drought stressed open canopy fields with as many as 25+ per 15 sweeps. Although we have decent thresholds for foliage feeding and pod feeding, there is little guidance as to the impact of flower feeding by corn earworms. Several years ago researchers in North Carolina (Eckel et al. 1992) concluded that flower feeding contributed to yield reductions by delaying pod set, but no exact thresholds were developed. Without good guidelines as to how many can be tolerated, we are suggesting that low to moderate numbers (6 or less medium plus large worms/15 sweeps) could be safe, especially if beans are growing well with good soil moisture. More than that may represent a threat. Again, just a ‘grab’.
We are also getting a lot of calls from folks finding live worms after pyrethroid sprays, in cotton, peanut and soybean fields. Most are using either Karate Z or Baythroid XL and the ‘misses’ are about equal among the products. The most obvious cases are where there were very high numbers of worms so the survivors are still quite noticeable. We visited one field that had been sprayed 24 hours earlier and found an average of about 4 to 8 worms/15 sweeps. Since it was still not forming pods, I suggested that it not be retreated, yet.
Of course, any field that has been treated will be very susceptible to any subsequent infestations, as beneficial insects would have been mostly eliminated so be sure to begin re-scouting 7 days after the last application. If another treatment is needed, strongly consider a non-pyrethroid.
We are also seeing a mix of worm species including yellow striped armyworms, green cloverworms, and maybe some tobacco budworms. Corn earworm is still the primary species, so I would direct the spray program to those.