2015 annual report

2015
ENTOMOLOGY
RESEARCH
REPORT
Editor: M. O. Way
Co-editor: R. A. Pearson
Texas A & M AgriLife Research
Center at Beaumont

OFFICE OF M. O. (Mo) Way, Professor of Entomology
Texas A & M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont
1509 Aggie Drive
Beaumont, Texas 77713
Tel. 409-752-2741, Extension 2231
Cell. 409-658-2186
Fax. 409-752-5560
Email. moway@aesrg.tamu.edu
WWW – http://beaumont.tamu.edu
February 19, 2016
Dear stakeholder, cooperator and/or colleague:
This report is a compilation of results of Entomology Project experiments conducted in
2015. Financial support for these experiments was provided by Texas A & M AgriLife Research,
Texas Rice Research Foundation (rice check-off monies), Texas Soybean Board, United
Sorghum Board, USDA, and various private agricultural companies. I thank these donors for
their generous contributions. I am confident the results contained in this booklet will provide
useful pest management information to clientele.
I also wish to thank my support staff for an outstanding, productive year in 2015:
Rebecca Pearson ................ Research Assistant
Suhas Vyavhare ................. Post-Doctoral Scientist
Augustine Castro................ Agricultural Research Technician II
Carra Curtice...................... Lamar University Student Intern and Technician II
Caleb Marshall................... Lamar University Student Intern
Katie Ruth.......................... Lamar University Student Intern
Braydon Meloncon............. Sam Houston State University Student Intern
Case Cammack................... Student Assistant
Alissa Carre........................ Student Assistant
Alicyn Schroeder ............... Student Assistant
Finally, I thank Jack Vawter and his staff at the David R. Wintermann Rice Research Station at
Eagle Lake for excellent work at Eagle Lake.
This annual report is also available online at the Beaumont Center website:
http://Beaumont.tamu.edu/eLibrary/Reports_default.htm
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.
Sincerely,
M.O. Way
Professor
Entomology

i
M.O. Way ⋅ moway@aesrg.tamu.edu ⋅ (409)752-2741 ext.2231
Texas A & M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Beaumont ⋅ 1509 Aggie Dr. ⋅ Beaumont, TX 77713 ⋅ http://beaumont.tamu.edu
Table of Contents1.
Rice
Rice Water Weevil (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus)
Bayer Antonio Seed Treatments..........................................................................................1
Bayer XL753 Seed Treatments............................................................................................4
Valent Seeding Rate Study ..................................................................................................7
Reduced Rates of Dermacor X-100 on Non-hybrid Rice..................................................10
Dermacor X-100 vs. Silicon Study....................................................................................13
Seed Treatment Replant Study...........................................................................................16
Botanical Insecticides for Rice Water Weevil Control – Dayflower.................................19
Botanical Insecticides for Rice Water Weevil Control – Ducksalad.................................20
Rice Stink Bug (Oebalus pugnax)
Evaluation of Rice Stink Bug Treatment Thresholds – Corman Field..............................21
Evaluation of Rice Stink Bug Treatment Thresholds – G5 Field......................................22
Insecticide Screening for Rice Stink Bug Control.............................................................23
Fungicides for Rice Stink Bug Peck Study........................................................................26
Stalk Borers
Antonio Seed Treatments for Stalk Borer Control ............................................................28
XL753 Seed Treatments for Stalk Borer Control ..............................................................31
Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer......................................................................................34
Sheath Blight
Foliar Fungicide Evaluation for Control of Sheath Blight*...............................................35
Soybean
Soybean Insecticide Screening Study......................................................................................38
Sugarcane, Energy Cane and Sorghum
Sorghum Seed Treatments.......................................................................................................45
Insecticide Screening for Sugarcane Aphid Control in Grain Sorghum..................................49
Sorghum Host Plant Resistance Study.....................................................................................53
Sugarcane Alion Herbicide Test ..............................................................................................60
1. All reports are authored by M. O. Way and R. A. Pearson except those with an *.

1
Bayer Antonio Seed Treatments
Block 3N
Beaumont, TX
2015
← North PLOT PLAN
I II III IV
1 1 6 4 11 2 16 3
2 2 7 3 12 1 17 2
3 4 8 2 13 5 18 4
4 5 9 1 14 3 19 5
5 3 10 5 15 4 20 1
Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long
Variety: Antonio (80 lb/A)
Note: smaller numbers in italics are plot numbers
TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS, RATES AND TIMINGS
Trt
no. Treatment
Rate
(mL/hkg)
1 Untreated ---
2 Evergol Energya
130.4
3 Evergol Energy + Poncho 600a
130.4 + 125
4 Evergol Energy + Poncho Votivo 2nd
gen.a
130.4 + 150
5 Cruiser 5FS + Maxim + Apron XLa
129.1 g ai/hkg + 2.504 g ai/hkg + 7.7 g ai/hkg
a
Also contain Pro-ized Green Colorant @ 130.4 mL/hkg
Agronomic and Cultural Information
Experimental design: Randomized complete block with 5 treatments and 4 replications
Planting: Drill-planted test (Antonio @ 80 lb/A) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt
32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 8
Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long
Emergence on May 15
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 8
Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood
Permanent flood (PF) on Jun 6 (22 days after emergence)
Fertilization: All fertilizer (urea) was distributed by hand.
34 lb N/A on May 8 at planting

2
85 lb N/A on Jun 6 at PF
51 lb N/A on Jun 22 at panicle differentiation
Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 2 qt/A; Permit @ 1 oz/A, and Command 3ME @ 0.8 pt/A applied
with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16
gpa final spray volume) on Jun 1 for early season weed control
Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Bayer
Sampling: Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4
inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 25 and Jul
2. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed through 40 mesh
screen buckets and immature RWW counted.
Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 middle rows per plot on Aug 4; WHs are a
measure of stalk borer activity.
Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Aug 24
Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long
Data analysis: Count data transformed using x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12% moisture; all
data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD
Discussion
RWW populations were high in untreated and Evergol Energy (no insecticide) plots on
both sample dates (Table 1). The economic injury level (EIL) for RWW is about 15 larvae/pupae
per 5 cores; thus, populations of RWW were much higher than the EIL in the above plots. All
insecticidal seed treatments significantly reduced RWW populations on both sample dates, but
control was not as good as expected. One reason is 2015 was a very wet year. About 7.5 inches
of rain fell from emergence of rice through soil to application of the flood 22 days later. This
means soil in plots remained quite wet during this time. In fact, drain pipes were let down
multiple times during this period to help dry plots to allow spraying of herbicides and application
of urea to relatively dry ground. These prolonged wet conditions may have affected the efficacy
of the insecticidal seed treatments. For instance, some of the insecticide may have washed off the
seed causing dilution of the chemical. A second reason is we did not install metal barriers around
the plots this year. Perhaps the insecticides on the seed spread among surrounding plots in the
absence of barriers.
Whitehead counts were not significantly different among treatments, so the insecticidal
seed treatments did not affect stem borer activity (Table 1). Virtually all of the whiteheads were
caused by Mexican rice borer larvae.
Yields were low throughout the experiment, due in part to the late planting date and due to the
fact plots were not seeded with a high yielding hybrid variety (Table 1). Nevertheless, all
insecticide seed treatments outyielded the untreated. The seed treatment with Poncho Votivo 2nd
generation produced almost 1000 lb/A more grain than the untreated

3
Table 1. Mean data for Bayer Antonio seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(mL/hkg)
RWWa
/5 cores
WHsa
/4
rows
Yield
(lb/A)Jun 25 Jul 2
Untreated --- 92.5 a 57.0 a 5.8 5193.6 b
Evergol Energyb
130.4 88.8 a 67.8 a 3.3 5669.8 ab
Evergol Energy +
Poncho 600b 130.4 + 125 32.3 b 21.5 b 9.3 6058.8 a
Evergol Energy +
Poncho Votivo 2nd
gen.b 130.4 + 150 28.5 b 29.5 b 8.3 6145.4 a
Cruiser 5FS + Maxim +
Apron XLb
129.1 g ai/hkg +
2.504 g ai/hkg +
7.7 g ai/hkg
39.3 b 29.0 b 6.3 5876.4 ab
NS
a
RWW = rice water weevil; WH = whitehead
b
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.07 for
Yield, P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD)

4
Texas A & M AgriLife Research Center at Beaumont ⋅ 1509 Aggie Dr. ⋅ Beaumont, TX 77713 ⋅ http://beaumont.tamu.edu
Bayer XL753 Seed Treatments
Block 3S
Beaumont, TX
2015
← North PLOT PLAN
I II III IV
1 1 6 4 11 2 16 3
2 2 7 3 12 1 17 2
3 4 8 2 13 5 18 4
4 5 9 1 14 3 19 5
5 3 10 5 15 4 20 1
Variety: XL753 (20 lb/A)
Trt
no. Treatment
Rate
(mL/hkg)
1 Untreated ---
2 Evergol Energya
130.4
3 Evergol Energy + Poncho 600a
130.4 + 125
4 Evergol Energy + Poncho Votivo 2nd
gen.a
130.4 + 150
5 Cruiser 5FS + Maxim + Apron XLa
129.1 g ai/hkg + 2.504 g ai/hkg + 7.7 g ai/hkg
a
Planting: Drill-planted test (XL753 @ 20 lb/A) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt
Emergence on May 15
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 8

5
60 lb N/A on Jul 23 at late boot/early heading
Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Bayer
Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Aug 27
Discussion
RWW populations were high in untreated and Evergol Energy (no insecticide) plots on
both sample dates (Table 1). The economic injury level (EIL) for RWW is about 15 larvae/pupae
per 5 cores; thus, populations of RWW were much higher than the EIL in the above plots. Only
the insecticidal seed treatment with Poncho Votivo 2nd
gen. significantly reduced RWW
populations on the 1st sample date. None of the treatments significantly reduced RWW
populations on the 2nd
sample date. These results were unexpected. One reason is 2015 was a
very wet year. Almost 10 inches of rain fell from planting May 8 to application of the flood June
6. This means soil in plots remained quite wet during this time. In fact, drain pipes were let down
multiple times during this period to help dry plots to allow spraying of herbicides and application
of urea to relatively dry ground. These prolonged wet conditions may have affected the efficacy
of the insecticidal seed treatments. For instance, some of the insecticide may have washed off the
seed causing dilution of the chemical. A second reason is we did not install metal barriers around
the plots this year. Perhaps the insecticides on the seed spread (causing dilution of the seed
treatment) among surrounding plots in the absence of barriers. Also, the low seeding rate (20
lb/A for the hybrid XL753) may have contributed to lack of control because if seed is treated on
a cwt basis, then lower seeding rates will result in less toxicant applied on a per unit area (A)
basis.
Whitehead counts were not significantly different among treatments, so the insecticidal
seed treatments did not affect stem borer activity (Table 1). Virtually all of the whiteheads were
caused by Mexican rice borer larvae.
Yields were high throughout the experiment due in large part to the hybrid XL753 (Table
1). However, no significant treatment differences in yield were detected.

6
Table 1. Mean data for Bayer XL753 seed treatments. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(mL/hkg)
RWWa
/5 cores
WHsa
/4
rows
Yield
(lb/A)Jun 25 Jul 2
Untreated --- 80.8 b 73.5 4.5 9986.0
Evergol Energyb
130.4 124.3 a 65.0 1.8 9692.7
Evergol Energy +
Poncho 600b 130.4 + 125 71.5 b 54.0 1.3 9483.9
Evergol Energy +
Poncho Votivo 2nd
gen.b 130.4 + 150 47.8 c 44.8 1.8 9903.3
Cruiser 5FS + Maxim +
Apron XLb
129.1 g ai/hkg +
2.504 g ai/hkg +
7.7 g ai/hkg
72.0 b 56.0 1.5 9157.5
NS NS NS
a
b
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05,
ANOVA and LSD)

7
Valent Seeding Rate Study
Block 5N
Beaumont, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
← North
I II III IV
1 5 8 1 15 6 22 2
2 7 9 6 16 3 23 5
3 2 10 5 17 4 24 1
4 1 11 4 18 2 25 7
5 6 12 3 19 7 26 3
6 4 13 2 20 1 27 6
7 3 14 7 21 5 28 4
Plot size: 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long, with barriers
Variety: Antonio (provided by TRIA)
Treatment
no. Description Seeding Rate
Rate
(fl oz/cwt) Timinga
1 Untreated 90 --- ---
2 CruiserMaxx Rice 90 7 ST
5 Belay 2.13EC 90 4.5 fl oz/A 7 – 10 DAF
a
ST = seed treatment, DAF = days after flood
Planting: Drill-planted test (Antonio @ 30, 60 and 90 lb/A) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand
3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun 5
Emergence on Jun 12

8
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Jun 6
Permanent flood (PF) on Jul 2 (20 days after emergence)
34 lb N/A on Jun 5 at planting
85 lb N/A on Jul 2 at PF
51 lb N/A on Jul 21 at panicle differentiation
Treatments: Seed treatments applied by Entomology Project on Jun 4
Treatments 5-7 applied with a 3-nozzle spray boom (800067 nozzles, 50 mesh
screens, 27 gpa final spray volume) on Jul 13
Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 23
Rice water weevil (RWW) cores (5 cores per plot, each core 4 inches diameter, 4
inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 23 and Jul
Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 middle rows per plot on Sep 14; WHs are a
Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Sep 16
Discussion
In general, plant stands reflected seeding rates (Table 1). However, CruiserMaxx Rice
applied to rice seed and planted at the highest seeding rate significantly increased plant stand
compared to the untreated and the Belay treatment applied post-flood following planting at the
same seeding rate of 90 lb/A. At this seeding rate, CruiserMaxx Rice may have stimulated
germination, increased seedling vigor or controlled an unknown pest responsible for decreasing
plant stand.
On the 1st
RWW sampling date, populations were well above the economic injury level in
the untreated (the economic injury level is about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores). So, this was a
good test of the efficacy of the treatments. CruiserMaxx Rice treatments at seeding rates of 60
and 90 lb/A gave excellent control of RWW, but only 79% control compared to the untreated at
the lowest seeding rate (30 lb/A). This is why I believe the current label for CruiserMaxx Rice
should take into account seeding rate---lower seeding rates should require more CruiserMaxx
Rice on a cwt basis. Belay applied 11 DAF provided about the same level of RWW control
(75%), regardless of seeding rate.

9
On the 2nd
RWW sampling date, populations were again above the economic injury level
in the untreated. Best control was achieved with CruiserMaxx Rice at the highest seeding rate
and all the Belay treatments. Data suggest the Belay treatments provided a little longer residual
activity compared to the seed treatments applied at 60 and 90 lb/A seeding rates.
None of the treatments effectively reduced whitehead densities in this experiment which means
none of the treatments controlled Mexican rice borer (virtually all dissected whiteheads revealed
infestations of this stalk borer species).
Yields were relatively low across treatments due to the late planting date caused by
excessive rainfall during the planting season and throughout the season (the Beaumont Center
received over 82 inches of rain in 2015). Nevertheless, highest yields were produced by
CruiserMaxx Rice at the highest seeding rate and Belay treatments at 60 and 90 lb/A seeding
rates.
In conclusion, a post-flood application of Belay is a viable option for rice farmers who don’t
treat seed for RWW. Also, post-flood applications of Belay are not preventive---the rice farmer
can apply Belay after ovipositing weevils enter fields. If adult weevil feeding scars are abundant,
the farmer can opt to treat with Belay.
Table 1. Mean data for Valent seeding rate study. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Seeding
Rate
Rate
(fl oz/cwt) Timinga
Stand
(plants/ft
of row)
RWWb
/5 cores
WHsb
/4
rows
Yield
(lb/A)Jul 23 Jul 30
Untreated 90 --- --- 9.4 bc 103.5 a 34.0 a 8.0 5758.5 bcd
CruiserMaxx Rice 90 7 ST 12.9 a 4.0 d 3.5 d 8.5 6375.2 a
CruiserMaxx Rice 60 7 ST 8.7 c 5.0 cd 13.3 bc 7.5 5890.3 abc
CruiserMaxx Rice 30 7 ST 5.7 d 22.0 b 13.5 b 8.8 5359.4 cd
Belay 2.13EC 90 4.5 fl oz/A 11 DAF 10.4 b 29.0 b 8.8 bcd 6.5 6025.5 ab
Belay 2.13EC 60 4.5 fl oz/A 11 DAF 8.8 c 16.3 bc 4.3 cd 7.3 6054.5 ab
Belay 2.13EC 30 4.5 fl oz/A 11 DAF 5.1 d 31.5 b 8.3 bcd 6.0 5235.5 d
NS
a
ST = seed treatment, DAF = days after flood
b
RWW = rice water weevil, WH = whitehead
ANOVA and LSD).

10
Reduced Rates of Dermacor X-100 on Non-Hybrid Rice
Block 5S
Beaumont, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
← North
I II III IV
1 5 9 8 17 2 25 4
2 1 10 4 18 3 26 6
3 2 11 6 19 7 27 5
4 6 12 3 20 1 28 2
5 7 13 5 21 8 29 7
6 4 14 2 22 5 30 3
7 8 15 1 23 4 31 8
8 3 16 7 24 6 32 1
Variety: Antonio (80 lb/A and 50 lb/A)
Treatment no. Variety
Seeding rate
(lb/A) Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
1 Antonio 80 Untreated ---
2 Antonio 80 Dermacor X-100 1.0
5 Antonio 50 Untreated ---
Experimental design: Complete randomized block with 8 treatments and 4 replications

11
Planting: Drill-planted test (Presidio @ 80 lb/A and CL152 @ 50 lb/A) into League soil
(pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun
9
Emergence on Jun 14
34 lb N/A on Jun 9 at planting
51 lb N/A on Jul 23
Treatments: Seed treatments applied by the Entomology Project
Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jun 23
inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 27 and Aug
Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 middle rows per plot on Sep 14; WHs are a
Harvest: Harvested all plots on Sep 17
Discussion
Rice plant stands reflected seeding rates (Table 1). The 80 lb/A seeding rate averaged
13.3 plants/ft of row across treatments; the 50 lb/A seeding rate averaged 8.4 plants/ft of row
across treatments. RWW populations were high in untreated plots on both sampling dates. For
the 80 lb/A seeding rate, the lowest rate of Dermacor X-100 provided similar control to the
highest rate (no significant differences). For the 50 lb/A seeding rate, control was again similar
across rates of Dermacor X-100.
Virtually all dissected WHs revealed infestations of Mexican rice borer. At the 80 lb/A
seeding rate, Dermacor X-100 at 1.5 and 2.0 fl oz/cwt provided excellent control of stalk borers
(as evidenced by WH densities). At the 50 lb/A seeding rate, Dermacor X-100 at 2.0 and 2.5 fl
oz/cwt provided better control of stalk borers than the lowest rate (1.5 fl oz/cwt).

12
Yields were relatively low due to the late planting date which was unavoidable due to
heavy and prolonged rainfall during the planting season. However, even the lowest rate of
Dermacor X-100 for the 80 and 50 lb/A seeding rates outyielded the respective untreateds by
about 760 and 994 lb/A, respectively.
So, based on these data, reducing the rate of Dermacor X-100 to 1.5 fl oz/cwt for the 80
lb/A seeding rate and to 2.0 fl oz/cwt for the 50 lb/A seeding rate may be a viable option for
main crop rice. Because of the late planting date, we were unable to ratoon crop the experiment.
Thus, we cannot recommend these combinations of seed treatment rates and seeding rates for
main and ratoon crop rice production.
Table 1. Mean data for reduced rates of Dermacor X-100 on non-hybrid rice. Beaumont, TX.
2015.
Treatment
Seeding
rate
(lb/A)
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
Stand
(plants/ft
of row)
RWWa
/5 cores
WHsa
/4
rows
Yield
(lb/A)Jul 27 Aug 3
Untreated 80 --- 13.0 ab 100.3 a 54.3 a 7.5 a 5057.2 b
Dermacor X-100 80 1.0 14.2 a 12.5 bc 11.0 bc 3.0 abc 5815.7 a
Dermacor X-100 80 1.5 11.9 abc 7.3 c 6.0 c 0.0 d 5527.5 a
Dermacor X-100 80 2.0 14.2 a 7.3 c 4.8 c 0.8 cd 5744.7 a
Untreated 50 --- 7.8 cd 89.8 a 65.0 a 6.3 a 4502.1 c
Dermacor X-100 50 1.5 7.5 d 19.8 b 14.8 b 3.5 ab 5496.1 ab
Dermacor X-100 50 2.0 8.5 cd 10.8 bc 9.5 bc 1.5 bcd 5507.6 ab
Dermacor X-100 50 2.5 9.6 bcd 15.8 bc 6.0 c 1.3 bcd 5962.5 a
a
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05,
ANOVA and LSD).

13
Dermacor X-100 – Silicon Study (Cooperating with Mike Stout’s Project)
Block 6N
Beaumont, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
← North
I II III IV
1 5 9 6 17 7 25 4
2 7 10 3 18 2 26 6
3 1 11 4 19 5 27 8
4 8 12 5 20 6 28 3
5 4 13 2 21 1 29 7
6 2 14 8 22 3 30 5
7 6 15 7 23 4 31 1
8 3 16 1 24 8 32 2
Variety: XL753 (20 lb/A) and Antonio (80 lb/A)
Treatment no. Variety Descriptiona
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
1 XL753 Dermacor X-100 + Silicon 5 + 4000 kg/ha
2 XL753 Dermacor X-100 5
3 XL753 Silicon 4000 kg/ha
4 XL753 Untreated ---
5 Antonio Dermacor X-100 + Silicon 1.75 + 4000 kg/ha
6 Antonio Dermacor X-100 1.75
7 Antonio Silicon 4000 kg/ha
8 Antonio Untreated ---
a
Dermacor X-100 applied as seed treatment; Silicon incorporated into soil after planting.

Dermacor X-100 – Silicon Study
14
Planting: Drill-planted test (Antonio @ 80 lb/A and XL753 @ 20 lb/A) into League soil
(pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jun
10
Emergence on Jun 18
Antonio:
34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on Jun 10, incorporated into soil after planting
85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on Jul 10 at PF
51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jul 31 at panicle differentiation (PD)
XL723:
60 lb N/A on Aug 25 at late boot/early heading
gpa final spray volume) on Jul 2 for early season weed control
Treatments: Dermacor X-100 seed treatments (1, 2, 5 and 6) applied by the Entomology
Project on Jun 8
Silicon applied and incorporated by Entomology Project after planting on Jun 10
Sampling: Stand counts (3, 3 ft counts on rows 2, 4 and 6) on Jul 6
inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jul 31 and Aug
Whiteheads (WHs) counted in 4 rows per plot on Sep 14; WHs are a measure of
stalk borer activity.
Harvest: Harvested all plots on Oct 6
Discussion
The experiment was planted very late (June 10) due to abnormally and persistent wet
conditions during the spring and summer (about 82 inches of rain were recorded at the Beaumont
Center in 2015). We almost abandoned the experiment because of poor stands resulting from
blackbird pressure and persistent water-logged soil. However, we decided to continue the
experiment even though plant stands were less than ideal. Rice plant stands were low and not
significantly different among treatments (Table 1).

Dermacor X-100 – Silicon Study
15
On the 1st sample date, untreated plots of both varieties harbored populations of RWW
above the economic injury level (about 15 immatures per 5 cores) which suggests data from this
experiment are useful (Table 1). Dermacor X-100 alone provided good control of RWW,
regardless of variety. The addition of silicon did not increase or decrease control. Silicon alone
did not control RWW, regardless of variety. As expected, populations of RWW were lower on
the 2nd
compared to the 1st
sample date. Results from both sample dates are similar.
WH densities were significantly lower in treatments with Dermacor X-100 (Table 1).
Virtually all dissected WHs were infested with Mexican rice borer. As expected, WH densities
were higher in untreated Antonio than untreated hybrid plots. The addition of silicon to
Dermacor X-100 treatments did not affect the efficacy of the seed treatments.
For hybrid yields, the addition of silicon to the seed treatment did not significantly
improve yield (Table 1). However, silicon alone numerically increased yield over the untreated
by more than 100 lb/A. For Antonio, the addition of silicon to the seed treatment significantly
increased yield over the seed treatment alone by more than 600 lb/A. Silicon alone also
significantly increased yield over the untreated by about 520 lb/A.
In conclusion, data suggest silicon alone or in combination with the seed treatment
Dermacor X-100 has no impact on RWW or stem borer control. However, silicon alone may
increase yield via another mechanism than insect control. This mechanism may be related to
nutrition or nutrient uptake.
Table 1. Mean data for Dermacor X-100 vs. silicon study. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Variety Treatment
Rate
(fl
oz/cwt)
Stand
(plants/ft
of row)
No. RWWa
/5 cores
WHsa
/4
rows
Yield
(lb/A)Jul 31 Aug 7
XL753
Dermacor X-100 +
Silicon
5 +
4000 kg/ha
3.0 5.0 c 6.8 cd 0.5 b 8757.3 a
XL753 Dermacor X-100 5 2.3 6.8 c 6.0 cd 0.5 b 8816.6 a
XL753 Silicon 4000 kg/ha 2.3 33.3 ab 11.8 ab 2.8 b 8098.9 b
XL753 Untreated --- 2.4 28.5 b 10.8 bc 1.8 b 7994.7 b
Antonio
Dermacor X-100 +
Silicon
1.75 +
4000 kg/ha
3.6 0.3 c 0.5 e 0.8 b 6339.2 c
Antonio Dermacor X-100 1.75 3.1 3.0 c 2.8 de 0.8 b 5714.1 d
Antonio Silicon 4000 kg/ha 3.6 57.5 a 18.5 a 7.8 a 5270.9 d
Antonio Untreated --- 3.4 40.0 ab 18.0 a 10.5 a 4749.0 e
NS
a
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly (NS) different (P = 0.05,
ANOVA and LSD).

16
Seed Treatment Replant Study
Block 2N
Beaumont, TX
2015
⇐ North PLOT PLAN
I II III IV
1 3 8 2 15 1 22 5
2 6 9 5 16 7 23 3
3 4 10 1 17 3 24 7
4 2 11 7 18 5 25 4
5 1 12 4 19 2 26 6
6 5 13 3 20 6 27 1
7 7 14 6 21 4 28 2
Variety: Presidio (seed provided by TRIA)
Treatment no. Description
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
Timing
1st
planting 2nd
planting
1 Untreated --- --- ---
2 CrusierMaxx Rice 7 Ta
Ua
3 CruiserMaxx Rice 7 T T
4 Dermacor X-100 1.75 T U
5 Dermacor X-100 1.75 T T
6 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T U
7 NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T T
a
T = treated; U = untreated
Planting: Drill-planted test (Presidio @ 80 lb/A) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt
32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 3
Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing
Emergence on Apr 17 (1st
planting)
Drill-planted 2nd
planting on May 4

17
Emergence on May 11 (2nd
planting)
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 7 (1st
planting)
and May 5 (2nd
planting)
34 lb N/A on Apr 7 at 1st
planting
34 lb N/A on May 5 at 2nd
planting
51 lb N/A on Jun 22 at panicle differentiation
Treatments: Seed treatments applied by the Entomology Project
All plots sprayed with glyphosate on Apr 24 to kill emerged rice from 1st
planting
Harvest: Harvested all plots on Aug 18
Discussion
Some rice farmers replant due to blackbird damage, seedling disease, herbicide
phytotoxicity, chinch bug damage, poor land preparation and/or inability to drain paddies after
heavy rains occur soon after planting. Cool temperatures frequently associated with early
planting can hinder seedling emergence and stand establishment. Also, low seeding rates, which
are becoming more common, increase the chances of replanting, given less than ideal
environmental and biotic conditions. Most rice farmers apply an insecticide to their seed. So, an
obvious question to answer is: if a farmer has to replant, does he/she have to apply an insecticide
to the replant seed if the 1st planted seed was treated with an insecticide? This is the question this
experiment addresses.
The 1st
planting on Apr 3 was flushed to stimulate germination and seedling growth.
Following this initial flush, 8.4 inches of precipitation occurred between planting and emergence

18
on Apr 17. Thus, soil stayed water-logged (we could not drain and dry the plots adequately)
during this period. In addition, blackbird damage was severe. Thus, 1st
planting stands were poor.
We did not record plant stands which we should have done, but will do in future similar
experiments. In short, the extreme environment (heavy rain and blackbird damage) provided a
good test of the persistence and efficacy of the insecticidal seed treatments.
In general, populations of RWW were low throughout the experiment (Table 1). The
economic injury level for RWW is about 15 larvae/pupae per 5 cores. Untreated plots only
averaged 24 and 30 larvae/pupae per 5 cores on the 1st
and 2nd
sampling dates, respectively. Data
show Dermacor X-100 applied only to 1st
planted seed reduced RWW populations 58 % on both
sample dates for replanted rice. Similar CruiserMaxx Rice and NipsIt INSIDE treatments did not
perform as well as Dermacor X-100.
WHs were low throughout the experiment, so these data are not very useful (Table 1).
Yields were very low across treatments due in part to the late replanting date (May 4)
(Table 1). There were no significant differences in yield among treatments, probably due to
relatively low RWW populations among treatments. However, yields were numerically higher in
treatments where both 1st
and replant seed were treated with an insecticide compared to
treatments where only 1st
plant seed was treated with an insecticide.
Data from this experiment suggest both 1st
and replant seed should be treated with an
insecticide for control of RWW. However, this experiment was exposed to abnormally high
rainfall and blackbird damage during early growth stages of rice which may have reduced
efficacy of insecticidal seed treatments.
Table 1. Mean data for seed treatment replant study. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
Timinga
RWWb
/5 cores WHsb
/4
rows
Yield
(lb/A)1st
planting 2nd
planting Jun 26 Jul 2
Untreated --- --- --- 24.0 a 30.3 a 1.5 5002.6
CrusierMaxx Rice 7 T U 18.5 ab 24.0 ab 1.3 4760.2
CruiserMaxx Rice 7 T T 3.0 de 7.0 c 0.5 5167.1
Dermacor X-100 1.75 T U 10.0 c 12.8 bc 0 4868.3
Dermacor X-100 1.75 T T 0.5 e 0 d 0.3 5048.1
NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T U 15.5 bc 19.5 ab 0.5 4758.7
NipsIt INSIDE 1.92 T T 4.0 d 6.8 c 1.5 4951.3
NS NS
a
T = treated; U = untreated
b
Means in a column followed by the same or no letter are not significantly (NS) different (P =
0.05; ANOVA and LSD)

19
Botanical Insecticides for Rice Water Weevil Control – Dayflower
Greenhouse
Beaumont, TX
2015
Plot size = 6” pots
Treatments: Blended 100 dayflower leaves with 300 ml water and 3 ml AgriDex. Applied
solution to plants in 8 pots and infested all pots with 4 RWW/pot on Jun 19. All
plants were covered with plastic cages.
Sampling: Counted number of RWW feeding scars and number of leaves/plant on Jun 19
(pre-treatment)
Counted number of RWW feeding scars and number of leaves/plant on Jun 23
Washed pot contents through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW
counted on Jul 17
Discussion
This experiment was conducted in the greenhouse at the Beaumont Center. Significantly
more RWW adult feeding scars were found on untreated than dayflower extract-treated plants
(Table 1). In addition, the dayflower extract did not appear to cause any phytotoxicity to rice.
RWW immature populations were very low in both treatments, so these data are not meaningful.
We will expand this study next year---perhaps apply the dayflower extract at time of
flooding to rice in the field---in a replicated small plot test. Reduced adult RWW feeding scar
density could mean less oviposition and lower immature RWW populations.
Table 1. Mean data for dayflower for rice water weevil control. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
No. RWW
feeding scars/pot No. leaves/plant
No. RWW
feeding scars/leaf
No. immature
RWW/pot
Dayflower 9.7 b 4.5 b 2.1 b 1.4
Untreated 21.0 a 5.1 a 4.1 a 0.8
NS
0.05, ANOVA and LSD)

20
Botanical Insecticides for Rice Water Weevil Control – Ducksalad
Greenhouse
Beaumont, TX
2015
Experimental design: Two tests each consisting of a randomized complete block with 2
treatments and 8 replications
Plot size = 6” pots
Treatments: Blended 100 ducksalad leaves with 300 ml water and 3 ml AgriDex. Applied
solution to plants in 8 pots and infested all pots with 4 RWW/pot on Jun 11 for
Test I and Jul 17 for Test II. All plants were covered with plastic cages after
infestation.
Sampling: Counted number of pre-treatment RWW feeding scars and number of
leaves/plant on Jun 11for Test I and Jul 17 for Test II
Counted number of RWW feeding scars and number of leaves/plant on Jun 16
for Test I and Jul 20 for Test II
Discussion
These experiments were conducted in the greenhouse at the Beaumont Center. Data show
the ducksalad extract had no effect on adult RWW feeding scar densities (Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1. Mean data for ducksalad for rice water weevil control. Test I. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
No. RWW feeding
scars/plant No. leaves/plant
No. RWW feeding
scars/leaf
Ducksalad 18.2 3.6 5.0
Untreated 25.1 3.8 6.6
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD)
Table 2. Mean data for ducksalad for rice water weevil control. Test II. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
No. RWW feeding
scars/plant No. leaves/plant
No. RWW feeding
scars/leaf
Ducksalad 22.7 4.8 5.1
Untreated 20.4 4.9 4.2

21
Rice Stink Bug Study – Corman Field
2015
Treatments: Tenchu 20 SG applied
Sampling: Removed 300 panicles in 3 different areas of treated and untreated rice on Aug
10; weighed and hulled samples and inspected for peck.
Data analysis: Count data transformed using x + 0.5 ; percent data transformed with arcsine;
all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD
Discussion
We cooperated with Crop Consultant Glenn Crane on commercial rice fields near Lissie,
TX. Weight of panicles, no. filled grains, no. partially filled grains and no. unfilled grains were
not significantly different in protected vs protected plots (Table 1). Peck data also were not
significantly different between sprayed and unsprayed plots (Table 2). Crane took rice stink bug
sweep samples, but we have not yet incorporated these data into the report.
Table 1. Mean panicle data for rice stink bug study. Corman field. 2015.
Treatment
No. of
panicles
Wt. of
panicles
(g)
No. filled
grains
No. partially
filled grains
No. unfilled
grains
Treated 299.7 899.6 857.8 91.6 50.7
Untreated 295.3 896.4 749.3 111.5 139.1
Means in a column are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA and LSD).
Table 2. Mean peck data for brown rice for rice stink bug study. Corman field. 2015.
Treatment
Wt. whole
grains without
peck
(g)
Wt. whole
grains with
peck
(g)
Wt. brokens
without peck
(g)
Wt. brokens
with peck
(g) % peck
Treated 61.4 0.1 7.6 0.2 0.4
Untreated 60.9 0.2 7.0 0.6 1.2

22
Rice Stink Bug Study – G5 Field
2015
Treatments: Tenchu 20 SG applied
Sampling: Removed 300 panicles in 3 different areas of treated and untreated rice on Aug
10; weighed and hulled samples and inspected for peck.
Data analysis: Count data transformed using x + 0.5 ; percent data transformed with arcsine;
all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD
Discussion
We cooperated with Crop Consultant Glenn Crane on commercial rice fields near Lissie,
TX. Weight of panicles, no. filled grains, no. partially filled grains and no. unfilled grains were
not significantly different in protected vs protected plots (Table 1). Peck data also were not
significantly different between sprayed and unsprayed plots (Table 2). Crane took rice stink bug
sweep samples, but we have not yet incorporated these data into the report.
Table 1. Mean panicle data for rice stink bug study. G5 field. 2015.
Treatment
No. of
panicles
Wt. of
panicles
(g)
No. filled
grains
No. partially
filled grains
No. unfilled
grains
Treated 302.7 1243 755.6 69.8 174.6
Untreated 304.3 1248 733.7 69.9 196.4
Table 2. Mean peck data for brown rice for rice stink bug study. G5 field. 2015.
Treatment
Wt. whole
grains without
peck
(g)
Wt. whole
grains with
peck
(g)
Wt. brokens
without peck
(g)
Wt. brokens
with peck
(g) % peck
Treated 60.5 0.1 7.5 0.1 0.3
Untreated 57.2 0.2 9.3 0.4 0.8

23
Rice Stink Bug Insecticide Screening Study
Beaumont, TX
2015
⇑ North PLOT PLAN
I IV
1 1 (white) 13 1 (white)
2 2 (red) 14 5 (yellow)
3 3 (blue) 15 3 (blue)
4 4 (light green) 16 2 (red)
5 5 (yellow) 17 6 (purple)
6 6 (purple) 18 4 (light green)
II III
7 2 (red) 19 3 (blue)
8 3 (blue) 20 2 (red)
9 4 (light green) 21 4 (light green)
10 5 (yellow) 22 6 (purple)
11 6 (purple) 23 5 (yellow)
Plot size: 4 rows, 5 ft. row spacing, 40 ft long
Variety: Jasmine 85 (ratoon)
Trt
no. Treatment Flag color
Rate
(fl oz/A)
1 Untreated White ---
2 Endigo ZCX Red 5
3 Endigo ZCX Blue 6
4 Karate Z Light green 2.56
5 Assail 30SG + Karate Z Yellow 5.4 oz/A + 2.5
6 Tenchu 20SG Purple 9
Plot size = 5 ft x 50 ft; conducted in a TRIA ratoon field of Jasmine 85

24
Treatments: Applied treatments 2 - 6 on Oct 1 with a 3-nozzle spray boom (Teejet 11004VS
tips, 50 mesh screens, 28 gpa final spray volume) to ratoon rice (Jasmine 85) in
heading/dough
Sampling: 10 sweeps per plot on Oct 5, Oct 9, Oct 14 and Oct 21
Discussion
The experiment was conducted on a TRIA ratoon field of Jasmine 85. The EP evaluated
the novel insecticides Endigo ZCX and Assail 30SG. Unfortunately, RSB populations were low
from the beginning to the end of the experiment (Tables 1 and 2). Thus, no useable data were
gained from this experiment. Because of the extremely low populations of RSB, we did not
gather panicles for peck and yield information.
Table 1. Mean insect data from 10 sweeps on Oct 5 and Oct 9. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
4 DATa
8 DAT
RSBAb
GHb
RSBA RSBNb
GH
Untreated --- 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.0
Endigo ZCX 5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0
Endigo ZCX 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Karate Z 1.92 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.3
Assail 30SG + Karate Z 2.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5
Tenchu 20SG 9 oz prod/A 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3
a
DAT = days after treatment
b
RSBA = rice stink bug adults; GH = grasshoppers; RSBN = rice stink bug nymphs

25
Table 2. Mean insect data from 10 sweeps on Oct 14 and Oct 21. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
13 DATa
20 DAT
RSBA RSBN GH RSBA GH
Untreated --- 0.8 0.8 a 0.3 0.8 a 0.3 ab
Endigo ZCX 5 0.3 0.0 b 0.5 0.0 b 0.0 b
Endigo ZCX 6 0.0 0.0 b 0.3 0.0 b 0.0 b
Karate Z 1.92 0.3 0.0 b 0.5 0.0 b 0.3 ab
Assail 30SG + Karate Z 2.56 0.3 0.0 b 0.3 0.0 b 0.0 b
Tenchu 20SG 9 oz prod/A 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 0.0 b 0.8 a
NS NS
a
DAT = days after treatment
b
RSBA = rice stink bug adults; RSBN = rice stink bug nymphs; GH = grasshoppers
0.07 for RSBN 13 DAT and RSBA 20 DAT, and P = 0.05 for all others, ANOVA and LSD).

26
Fungicides and Rice Stink Bug Peck
Block 9N
Beaumont, TX
2015
Treatment # Flag color Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
1 Light green Untreated ---
2 Blue Tilt 10
3 Red Quadris 15.5
Experimental design: Complete randomized block with 3 treatments and 4 replications
32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jul 20
Plot size = 4 ft x 100 ft
Emergence on Jul 26
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Jul 20
Permanent flood (PF) on Aug 26 (31 days after emergence)
34 lb N/A on Jul 20 at planting
85 lb N/A on Aug 26 at PF
51 lb N/A on Sep 25
gpa final spray volume) on Jul 20 for early season weed control
Treatments: Treatments 2 and 3 applied with a 3-nozzle spray boom (800067 nozzles, 50
mesh screens, 19.2 gpa final spray volume) on Oct 14
Sampling: Cages set out (1 cage/treatment/replication) and infested with 8 adult RSB each
on Oct 14; rice heading – milk
Cages removed on Oct 28
Panicles removed on Nov 13

Fungicides and Rice Stink Bug Peck
27
Discussion
Glenn Crane, Crop Consultant, suggested we conduct an experiment to see if typical
foliar fungicide treatments applied at panicle differentiation to heading may decrease peck
caused by the rice stink bug (RSB). So, in the fall, we set up a preliminary experiment to answer
this query.
The experiment was planted very late---we were not very interested in yield data; mainly
peck data in fungicide-treated vs untreated plots.
Treatments were applied, then after treatment sprays dried, cages made of wire mesh
screen (small enough to prevent adult RSB movement in or out of cages) were placed over rice
plants in the heading stage. Cages were in the shape of cylinders 44 inches tall and 15 inches in
diameter. Eight adult RSB were placed in each cage; cages were removed 14 days later.
Rice within cages was hand-harvested and threshed. Grain was hulled and brown rice was
inspected for peck.
Although no. of grains with peck was not significantly different among treatments, data
suggest peck may have been reduced when rice was sprayed with Tilt or Quadris (Table 1). The
possibility exists that the fungicides affected RSB feeding behavior or may have caused RSB
mortality. However, another possible explanation is the fungicides decreased populations of
common fungi on the grains. These fungi may be associated with peck.
Results are very preliminary, but we plan to expand this research in 2016---more
replications, earlier planting date, more treatments, etc.
Table 1. Mean data for fungicide and rice stink bug peck study. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A) Wt. of 100 grains No. grains with peck
Untreated --- 1.9 1.6
Tilt 10 1.8 1.0
Quadris 15.5 1.8 0.7

28
ROAD
Antonio Seed Treatments
Eagle Lake, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
I II III IV
Antonio
1 2 5 4 9 1 13 3
2 3 6 1 10 3 14 2
3 4 7 2 11 4 15 1
4 1 8 3 12 2 16 4
Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long
Seed source: Antonio (TRIA) seeded at 80 lb/A
TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING
Trt no. Description
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
1 Untreated ---
2 CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za
7 + 0.03 lb ai/A
3 Dermacor X-100 1.75
4 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za
1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A
a
Applied at late boot/heading
Planting: Drill-planted test (Antonio @ 80 lb/A) into Nada soil on Apr 2
Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long
Emergence on Apr 10
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 2
Permanent flood (PF) on May 22 on main crop (31 days after emergence)
Ratoon crop PF on Aug 7
Fertilization: 0-45-45 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 2 preplant
45-0-0 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 2 preplant
80 lb N/A (urea) on May 21 before permanent flood
60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 2 at panicle initiation/differentiation

29
100 lb N/A on Aug 6 for ratoon crop
Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 2 lb ai/A and Command 3ME @ 0.3 lb ai/A applied on Apr 13
Permit @ 0.05 lb ai/A and Propanil @ 2 lb/A applied on May 11
Treatments: Treatments 2 and 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A) applied on Jun 30 (late
boot/heading)
inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 15 (24 days
after PF) and Jun 22. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed
through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.
Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts/plot) on Jul 16
Whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 16 (main) and Oct 1 (ratoon); WHs are
a measure of stalk borer damage
Harvest: Harvested main crop plots on Aug 4
Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long
Harvested ratoon crop plots on Oct 21
Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long
Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12%
moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.
Discussion
Number of panicles per foot of row was not significantly different among treatments;
thus, treatments did not affect panicle production (Table 1). Populations of RWW were very low
on both sampling dates, so these data are not very meaningful. WH densities were low on the
main crop, so, again these data are not very meaningful. However, on the ratoon crop, WH
densities were high in the untreated and lowest in the Dermacor X-100 treatment. Data suggest
control of stalk borers (virtually all stalk borers were Mexican rice borers as detected by
dissecting infested stalks) on the ratoon crop was achieved by the Dermacor X-100 seed
treatment. Karate Z applied once on the main crop did not provide control of stalk borers on the
ratoon crop. Probably due to the low densities of RWW, we did not detect any differences in
yield among the treatments for both main and ratoon crops. However, highest numerical yields
for both main and ratoon crops were produced by the Dermacor X-100 treatment.

30
Table 1. Mean insect and panicle count data for Antonio seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
No. RWWa
/5 cores Panicles/ft
of row
No. WHsa
/4 rows
Jun 15 Jun 22 Main Ratoon
Untreated --- 3.8 a 0.8 82.0 6.3 26.3 a
CruiserMaxx Rice +
Karate Zb
7 +
0.03 lb ai/A
2.3 ab 1.5 81.5 1.5 16.0 ab
Dermacor X-100 1.75 1.0 bc 2.0 80.5 2.3 7.5 b
NipsIt INSIDE +
Karate Zb
1.92 +
0.03 lb ai/A
0.5 c 1.8 91.5 3.3 16.3 ab
NS NS NS
a
b
Applied at late boot/heading to main crop
0.05, ANOVA and LSD).
Table 2. Mean yield data for Antonio seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
Yield (lb/A)
Main Ratoon Total
Untreated --- 7211.6 3662.2 10874
CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za
7 + 0.03 lb ai/A 7574.5 3256.9 10831
Dermacor X-100 1.75 7432.8 3929.9 11363
NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za
1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A 7550.8 3459.8 11011
a

31
ROAD
XL753 Seed Treatments
Eagle Lake, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
I II III IV
XL753
1 2 5 4 9 1 13 3
2 3 6 1 10 3 14 2
3 4 7 2 11 4 15 1
4 1 8 3 12 2 16 4
Plot size: 9 rows, 7.5 in. row spacing, 16 ft long, with barriers
Seed source: XL753 (RiceTec) seeded at 25 lb/A
TREATMENT DESCRIPTION, RATE AND TIMING
Trt no. Description
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
1 Untreated ---
2 CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za
7 + 0.03 lb ai/A
3 Dermacor X-100 5.0
4 NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za
1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A
a
Applied at late boot/heading
Planting: Drill-planted test (XL753 @ 25 lb/A) into Nada soil on Apr 2
Plot size = 9 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long
Emergence on Apr 10
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on Apr 2
Permanent flood (PF) on May 22 on main crop (31 days after emergence)
Ratoon crop PF on Aug 7
Fertilization: 0-45-45 (lbs N-P-K/A) on Apr 2 preplant
120 lb N/A (urea) on May 21 before permanent flood (BF)
60 lb N/A (ammonium sulfate) on Jun 24 at boot/heading
100 lb N/A on Aug 6 for ratoon crop

32
Herbicide: RiceBeaux @ 2 lb ai/A and Command 3ME @ 0.3 lb ai/A applied on Apr 13
Permit @ 0.05 lb ai/A and Propanil @ 2 lb/A applied on May 11
Treatments: Treatments 2 and 4 (Karate Z @ 0.03 lb ai/A) applied on Jun 30 (late
boot/heading)
inches deep, containing at least one rice plant) were collected on Jun 15 (24 days
after PF) and Jun 22. Core samples were stored in a cold room, later washed
through 40 mesh screen buckets and immature RWW counted.
Panicle counts (3, 1 ft counts/plot) on Jul 16
Whitehead (WH) counts (4 rows) on Jul 16 (main) and Oct 1 (ratoon); WHs are
a measure of stalk borer damage
Harvest: Harvested main crop plots on Aug 4
Size harvested main crop plot = 7 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long
Harvested ratoon crop plots on Oct 21
Size harvested ratoon crop plot = 4 rows, 7.5 inch row spacing, 16 ft long
Data analysis: RWW and WH counts transformed using x + 0.5 ; yields converted to 12%
moisture; all data analyzed by ANOVA and means separated by LSD.
Discussion
Panicle density was not significantly different among treatments; thus, treatments did not
affect panicle production (Table 1). RWW populations across treatments were extremely low on
both sampling dates; thus, these data are not very meaningful. Also, WH counts in the main crop
were low and not significantly different among treatments. In the ratoon crop, WH densities were
significantly lower in the Dermacor X-100 treatment compared to the other treatments which
shows this seed treatment provides good control of stalk borers in the ratoon crop. Karate Z
treatments applied to the main crop do not persist to protect the ratoon crop from stalk borer
damage. Virtually all stalk borers found in this experiment were Mexican rice borer. Yields were
high and not significantly different across treatments in both crops (Table 2). However, lowest
yields were recorded from the untreated for both crops.

33
Table 1. Mean insect and panicle count data for XL753 seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
No. RWWa
/5 cores Panicles/ft
of row
No. WHsa
/4 rows
Main Ratoon
Untreated --- 5.0 2.8 21.3 1.0 7.3 a
CruiserMaxx Rice +
Karate Zb
7 +
0.03 lb ai/A
4.0 3.5 20.5 0.5 7.5 a
Dermacor X-100 5.0 4.3 2.3 22.2 0.3 1.3 b
NipsIt INSIDE +
Karate Zb
1.92 +
0.03 lb ai/A
3.3 1.3 27.2 0.0 5.8 a
NS NS NS NS
a
b
Table 2. Mean yield data for XL753 seed treatments. Eagle Lake, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/cwt)
Yield (lb/A)
Main Ratoon Total
Untreated --- 9089 5550 14639
CruiserMaxx Rice + Karate Za
7 + 0.03 lb ai/A 9593 5612 15205
Dermacor X-100 5.0 9869 6118 15987
NipsIt INSIDE + Karate Za
1.92 + 0.03 lb ai/A 10489 5623 16112
a

34
Trapping for Mexican Rice Borer
Texas Rice Belt
2015
PIs: Mo Way (Texas A & M AgriLife Research), Gene Reagan (LSU AgCenter) and J. Beuzelin
(LSU AgCenter)
Co-PIs and trap operators: Becky Pearson and Carra Curtice (Chambers and Jefferson Cos.),
Jack Vawter (Colorado Co.) and Noelle Jordan (Orange Co.)
Mexican rice borer (MRB) pheromone traps were set up in selected counties of the Texas
Rice Belt (TRB). MRB was detected for the first time in Louisiana in November 2008. MRB
was collected for the first time in Orange Co. in September 2010. Data are being used to follow
the progress of MRB population densities over time in the TRB. In December 2012, an MRB
moth was found in a light trap in Florida.
Table 1. Monthly totals of Mexican rice borer adults from pheromone traps (2 traps/county)
located next to rice on the Texas Upper Gulf Coast in 2015.
Month Chambers Co. Colorado Co. Jefferson Co. Orange Co.
January 15 1 0 0
February 3 0 0 0
March 0 39 1 0
April 47 100 29 2
May 45 86 36 0
June 46 87 29 0
July 53 251 20 0
August 54 60 32 0
September 76 81 14 1
October 229 66 80 0
November 2 37 15 0
December 0 0 0 1

35
Foliar Fungicide Evaluation
JO & WAY
Texas A&M AgriLife, Beaumont, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
Building ← North Block 2S
I II III IV
1 1 8 3 15 1 22 1
2 2 9 6 16 5 23 6
3 4 10 1 17 3 24 5
4 6 11 5 18 2 25 3
5 3 12 2 19 1 26 4
6 1 13 4 20 6 27 2
7 5 14 1 21 4 28 1
Variety: Antonio (provided by TRIA)
Foliar fungicide treatment – Syngenta
Treatment
no. Description
Rate
(fl oz prod/A)
Timing
1 Untreated ---
2 Quilt Xcel 2.2 SE + surfactant 21 + 1% v/v PD + 10 d
3 Quadris TOP + surfactant 14 + 1% v/v PD + 10 d
4 A20760 + surfactant 7.7 + 1% PD + 10 d
5 A20760 + Quadris + surfactant 7.7 + 3.3 + 1% PD + 10 d
6 A20760 + Sercadis + surfactant 7.7 + 5.7 + 1% PD + 10 d

Foliar Fungicide Evaluations
36
Experimental Randomized complete block with 6 treatments and 4 replications.
design
32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on May 4.
Plot size = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long.
Emergence of main crop on May 11.
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood for 48 hours, then drain) on May 5.
Note: Plots were flushed as needed from emergence to permanent flood.
Permanent flood (PF) on main crop on Jun 2 (22 days after emergence).
34.0 lb N/A (20% of 170) on May 5 at planting on all plots.
85.0 lb N/A (50% of 170) on Jun 2 at PF.
51.0 lb N/A (30% of 170) on Jun 22 after panicle differentiation (PD).
100 lb N/A on Aug 26 on ratoon.
gpa final spray volume) on May 1 for early season weed control.
Insecticide: Karate Z @ 2.56 fl oz/A applied on Jun 2 for rice water weevil control
Sheath blight Introduced sheath blight grain inoculum on June 26.
Inoculation:
Fungicide: Foliar fungicide application on June 26 at 10 days after PD.
Harvest: Harvested all main crop plots on Aug 18.
Ratoon crop harvested on Nov 5.
Size harvested plot = 7 rows, 7 inch row spacing, 18 ft long.

Foliar Fungicide Evaluations
37
Summary
Foliar fungicide treatment – Block 2S
Title of the trial: Evaluate A20760A for disease control in rice (FDI380A4-2015US).
Block Treatment
Main crop
yield
Ratoon
yield Total yield
Main
crop
disease
severity
Main crop
disease
incidence (%)
2S 1 7734.4 B 1437.4 9171.8 B 3.9 A 50.8 A
2S 2 8284.4 AB 1343.8 9716.5 AB 1.0 B 0.9 B
2S 3 8483.6 A 1603.3 10091.0 A 0.4 B 0.4 B
2S 4 8069.1 AB 1583.4 9652.5 AB 1.1 B 1.9 B
2S 5 8333.0 AB 1616.1 9949.1 AB 0.1 B 0.1 B
2S 6 8168.7 AB 1506.5 9675.1 AB 0.9 B 3.3 B
Fisher’s Protected
LSD (α = 0.05) 639.0 788.6 1.1 11.1
P value 0.118 0.334 0.126 < 0.0001 < 0.0001
All fungicide treatments significantly reduced sheath blight severity and incidence in the main
crop, compared with the non-treated control (Treatment 1). At P value = 0.118-0.126, treatment
3 produced the highest main crop and total yields.

38
Soybean Insecticide Screening Study
Blocks 6S & 7S
Beaumont, TX
2015
← North PLOT PLAN
6S
18 1 (white) 17 2 (red)
15 6 (yellow) 16 3 (blue)
14 4 (light green) 13 6 (yellow)
11 5 (purple) 12 2 (red)
10 3 (blue) 9 5 (purple)
7S
6 5 (purple) 5 2 (red)
3 4 (light green) 4 3 (blue)
2 6 (yellow) 1 4 (light green)
Plot size: 4 rows, 5 ft. row spacing, 40 ft long
Variety: AG6732
Trt
Rate
(fl oz/A)
2 Belt SC Red 2
3 Belt SC Blue 2.5
4 Belt SC Light green 3
5 Besiege Purple 7
6 Prevathon Yellow 14
Planting: Planted test (AG6732) on Jun 12

39
Emergence on Jun 17
Irrigation: Soybeans were irrigated as needed (blocks were in a rice strip with irrigation
capability)
Herbicide: First Rate @ 0.75 oz/A and Dual Magnum @ 2.5 pt/A were applied pre-
emergence with a 2-person hand-held spray boom (13- No. 2 cone nozzles,
50 mesh screens, 15 gpa final spray volume) on Jun 12.
Fertilization: Urea applied @ 50 lb N/A and flushed on Jul 21
Urea applied @ 50 lb N/A and flushed on Sep 25
Treatments: Treatments 2 – 6 applied with a hand-held spray boom (2 nozzle boom
(Conejet TSS cone nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 22 gpa final spray volume) on
Oct 5
Sampling: Insect sweeps (12 sweeps/plot) on Oct 6 (1 DAT), Oct 9 (4 DAT), Oct 13 (8
DAT), and Oct 20 (15 DAT)
Discussion
The experiment was planted late (June 12) due to extended wet weather---I wanted to
plant earlier (mid-May) but could not because of untimely rains.
One DAT, populations of Lepidoptera defoliators were too low for meaningful
interpretation (Table 1). However, redbanded stink bug (RBSB) and threecornered alfalfa hopper
(TCAH) populations were moderately high (Table 2). No differences among treatments were
detected which may have been due to insufficient time for insecticides to produce results.
Four DAT, the highest rate of Belt SC (3 fl oz/A), Besiege and Prevathon effectively
controlled low populations of soybean looper (SL) and velvetbean caterpillar (VBC) (Table 3).
RBSB nymphs were abundant, but only the Besiege treatment at 7 fl oz/A gave effective control
(Table 4). TCAHs were abundant across treatments, but the Besiege treatment numerically
reduced populations the most, compared to the untreated (Table 5).
Eight DAT, all treatments significantly reduced green cloverworm (GCW) populations,
although densities were rather low in the untreated (Table 6). Total RBSBs were significantly
lower in the Besiege treatment compared to the untreated (Table 7). None of the treatments
controlled TCAH (Table 8).
Fifteen DAT, Lepidoptera defoliator populations were too low in the untreated for
meaningful interpretation (Table 9). In addition, none of the treatments significantly reduced
stink bug or TCAH populations (Tables 10 and 11).
Plots were not harvested because of prolonged extremely wet conditions---making
machine harvesting impossible.
In conclusion, Besiege at 7 fl oz/A, Prevathon at 14 fl oz/A and Belt SC at the highest
rate evaluated (3 fl oz/A) effectively controlled rather low populations of Lepidoptera defoliators
while Besiege at 7 fl oz/A provided control (about 80%) of stink bugs (primarily RBSB) at 4
DAT. Decreasing control of stink bugs with Besiege was evident at 8 and 15 DAT. None of the
treatments gave acceptable control of TCAH.

40
Table 1. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 12 sweeps on Oct 6 (1 DAT) for soybean insecticide
screening test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Soybean
looper
Green
cloverworm
Velvetbean
caterpillar Total leps
Untreated --- 1.0 0.3 2.0 3.3
Belt SC 2 1.0 0.0 0.7 1.7
Belt SC 2.5 1.0 0.0 0.3 1.3
Belt SC 3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.7
Besiege 7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7
Prevathon 14 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.3
Table 2. Mean redbanded stink bug and miscellaneous insect data in 12 sweeps on Oct 6 (1
DAT) for soybean insecticide screening test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Redbanded stink bug
Threecornered
alfalfa hopper
Banded
cucumber
beetleAdults Nymphs Total
Untreated --- 1.0 5.0 6.0 12.7 0.0
Belt SC 2 2.0 6.3 8.3 18.7 0.3
Belt SC 2.5 1.0 4.3 5.3 10.7 0.0
Belt SC 3 1.0 3.7 4.7 16.0 0.3
Besiege 7 1.0 4.0 5.0 4.7 0.3
Prevathon 14 0.3 2.3 2.7 18.0 0.0
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Soybean
looper
Green
cloverworm
Velvetbean
Untreated --- 2.0 a 0.3 2.3 4.7 a
Belt SC 2 1.0 ab 0 0.0 1.0 bc
Belt SC 2.5 2.3 a 0 0.3 2.7 ab
Belt SC 3 0.0 b 0 0.0 0.0 c
Besiege 7 0.3 b 0 0.0 0.3 bc
Prevathon 14 0.3 b 0 0.0 0.3 bc
NS NS

41
Table 4. Mean stink bug data in 12 sweeps on Oct 9 (4 DAT) for soybean insecticide screening
test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Southern
green stink
bug adults
Redbanded stink bug
Total stink
bugsAdults Nymphs Total
Untreated --- 0.0 0.7 13.7 a 14.3 14.3
Belt SC 2 0.3 2.0 15.0 a 17.0 17.3
Belt SC 2.5 0.0 1.7 10.0 a 11.7 11.7
Belt SC 3 0.0 1.0 6.7 ab 7.7 7.7
Besiege 7 0.0 1.0 1.7 b 2.7 2.7
Prevathon 14 0.0 0.7 7.7 ab 8.3 8.3
NS NS NS NS
ANOVA and LSD).
Table 5. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 12 sweeps on Oct 9 (4 DAT) for soybean insecticide
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered
alfalfa hopper Grasshoppers
Banded
cucumber beetle
Untreated --- 16.0 0.0 0.0 b
Belt SC 2 16.3 0.3 0.0 b
Belt SC 2.5 10.0 0.7 0.0 b
Belt SC 3 17.0 0.0 0.0 b
Besiege 7 7.3 0.3 0.0 b
Prevathon 14 18.0 0.0 0.7 a
NS NS

42
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A) Soybean looper
Green
cloverworm Total leps
Untreated --- 0.3 3.3 a 3.7 a
Belt SC 2 0.3 0.3 b 0.7 b
Belt SC 2.5 0.0 0.3 b 0.3 b
Belt SC 3 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 b
Besiege 7 0.3 0.0 b 0.3 b
Prevathon 14 0.3 0.0 b 0.3 b
NS
Table 7. Mean stink bug data in 12 sweeps on Oct 13 (8 DAT) for soybean insecticide screening
test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Southern
green stink
bug adults
Redbanded stink bug
Total stink
bugsAdults Nymphs Total
Untreated --- 0.0 4.0 9.7 ab 13.7 ab 13.7 ab
Belt SC 2 0.7 7.3 14.3 a 21.7 a 22.3 a
Belt SC 2.5 0.0 3.7 10.0 ab 13.7 ab 13.7 ab
Belt SC 3 0.3 2.3 5.7 bc 8.0 bc 8.3 bc
Besiege 7 0.3 1.0 3.7 c 4.7 c 5.0 c
Prevathon 14 0.0 5.0 11.3 ab 16.3 ab 16.3 ab
NS NS
ANOVA and LSD).
Table 8. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 12 sweeps on Oct 13 (8 DAT) for soybean
insecticide screening test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa
hopper Grasshoppers
Untreated --- 21.7 0.0
Belt SC 2 25.7 0.7
Belt SC 2.5 28.7 0.0
Belt SC 3 26.3 0.3
Besiege 7 13.7 0.7
Prevathon 14 25.3 0.7

43
Table 9. Mean lepidopterous larvae data in 12 sweeps on Oct 20 (15 DAT) for soybean
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Soybean
looper
Green
cloverworm
Velvetbean
Untreated --- 0.0 1.3 0.3 1.7
Belt SC 2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.7
Belt SC 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Belt SC 3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Besiege 7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7
Prevathon 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table 10. Mean stink bug data in 12 sweeps on Oct 20 (15 DAT) for soybean insecticide
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Southern green Redbanded Brown
Total
stink
bugsAa
Na
Ta
A N T A N T
Untreated --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 9.0 13.0 0.3 0.0 b 0.3 13.3
Belt SC 2 0.3 9.0 9.3 9.0 10.7 19.7 0.7 0.0 b 0.7 29.7
Belt SC 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.7 8.0 6.7 14.7 0.3 0.7 a 1.0 16.3
Belt SC 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.7 9.3 0.7 0.0 b 0.7 10.0
Besiege 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.0 6.3 0.3 0.0 b 0.3 6.7
Prevathon 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 4.7 10.7 0.3 0.0 b 0.3 11.0
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
a
A = adults; N = nymphs; T = total
ANOVA and LSD).
Table 11. Mean threecornered alfalfa hopper data in 12 sweeps on Oct 20 (15 DAT) for soybean
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Threecornered alfalfa hopper
Adults Nymphs Total
Untreated --- 20.7 0.7 21.3
Belt SC 2 26.3 1.3 27.7
Belt SC 2.5 39.0 1.0 40.0
Belt SC 3 24.0 0.3 24.3
Besiege 7 22.0 0.3 22.3
Prevathon 14 26.7 0.7 27.3

44
Table 12. Mean miscellaneous insect data in 12 sweeps on Oct 20 (15 DAT) for soybean
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
Grass-
hoppers
Banded
cucumber
beetle
Leaf-
hoppers Spiders
Assassin
bugs
Spotted
cucumber
beetle
Bean leaf
beetle
Untreated --- 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.0
Belt SC 2 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Belt SC 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0
Belt SC 3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.7
Besiege SC 7 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prevathon SC 14 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.0

45
Sorghum Seed Treatments
Block 1N
Beaumont, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
← North
I II III IV
1 5 6 2 11 4 16 1
2 1 7 4 12 2 17 3
3 2 8 3 13 1 18 5
4 4 9 5 14 5 19 2
5 3 10 1 15 3 20 4
Variety: Chromatin K73-J6 (provided by David Kerns)
Treatment no. Description
Rate
(fl oz/lb)
1 Cruiser 5FS 0.076
2 Poncho 600 0.064
3 Gaucho 600 0.064
4 NipsIt INSIDE 0.064
5 Untreated ---
All seed treated with Concep @ 0.32 fl oz/50 lb seed
Planting: Drill-planted test (K73-J6 @ about 1 seed/inch) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand
3.2%, silt 32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Apr 8
No emergence due to heavy rains; replanted test on May 5
Emergence on May 13 (2nd
planting)
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Apr 9 (1st
planting) and
May 7 (2nd
planting)
Note: Plots were flushed as needed

46
38 lb N/A on Apr 9 (1st
planting) and May 7 (2nd
planting)
77 lb N/A on Jun 8 at 5-leaf stage
Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-
held, CO2-powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final
spray volume) on Apr 9 (1st
planting) and May 6 (2nd
planting) for weed control
Treatments: All seed treated with Concept III (safener)
Applied AV-1011 (bird repellent) @ 2 gal/A with a 2-person hand-held, CO2-
powered spray rig (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray
volume) on Jul 27
Sampling: Measured plant ht and counted number of leaves on 5 plants per plot on Jun 8,
Jun 29, Jul 6 and Jul 13
Stand counts - 3 ft counts in 2 rows on Jun 29
Counted number of SCA on 10 leaves (1 leaf per plant) per plot on Jun 29
Counted number of SCA on 20 leaves (1 leaf per plant) per plot on Jul 6, Jul 13,
Jul 20, Jul 27, Aug 3, Aug 11
Measured percent heading in 20 plants per plot on Jul 20
Counted number of seed heads per row on Aug 25
Collected and weighed 20 seed heads per plot on Aug 31
Data analysis: Count data transformed using x + 0.5 ; percent data transformed with arcsin; all
Discussion
Due to abnormally wet conditions during the spring, we replanted this experiment. We
rototilled and pipe-harrowed the plots before the 1st
planting. For the 2nd
planting, we planted
directly into a “stale seedbed”---no weeds in the plots. The time between the 1st
and 2nd
plantings
was 27 days. The amount of rainfall during this time was 9.7 inches. We kept the same
treatments in the same plots for both plantings. There is a possibility that seed treatment residues
from the 1st
planting may have affected the results garnered from the 2nd
planting, but we think
this possibility is unlikely due to the length of time and large amount of rain between plantings.
Regardless of treatment, plant stand, plant height and no. of leaves per plant were not
significantly different---except for plant height on Jul 6 (Table 1). Thus, we conclude the seed
treatments did not affect plant growth prior to SCA infestation. We did not observe any
phytotoxicity or stimulatory effect on plants. We conducted periodic observations of plots to
determine the early presence of SCAs. Thus, we began sampling for SCA on Jun 29 just after we
began to observe SCAs in the experiment.
On Jun 29, no SCAs were found in any of the seed treatment plots, but mean no. of SCAs
in untreated plots was about 16 per leaf (Table 2). One week later, we began to observe SCAs in
the seed treatment plots, but numbers were significantly higher in untreated plots. SCA
populations continued to increase in untreated plots up to Jul 20, then decreased abruptly. SCA
populations in the seed treatment plots were much lower than in untreated plots up to Jul 20.

47
Results suggest all seed treatments in this experiment provided a degree of control of SCA
through the peak of their population build-up. However, SCA populations were relatively low
and highly variable throughout the experiment.
We do not have a combine to harvest sorghum, so we counted the heads in each plot and
followed up with recording the wet weight of 20 randomly selected heads in each plot. We found
no significant difference in % of plants with heads on Jul 20 (Table 3). We also found no
significant difference in no. of heads and wet weight of heads per plot; however, all seed
treatments produced numerically more heads and higher head weights per plot than the untreated.
Table 1. Mean plant characteristic data for sorghum seed treatment test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/lb)
Stand
(plants /ft
of row)
Plant ht (cm) No. leaves
Jun 8 Jun 29 Jul 6 Jul 13 Jun 8 Jun 29 Jul 6 Jul 13
Cruiser 5FS 0.076 39.4 39.4 92.7 103.0 b 110.0 6.7 8.4 7.9 8.7
Poncho 600 0.064 33.8 33.8 94.1 111.1 a 113.0 6.7 8.5 7.7 9.4
Gaucho 600 0.064 37.7 37.7 96.9 109.6 a 113.4 6.9 8.5 8.0 9.4
NipsIt INSIDE 0.064 37.5 37.5 95.7 106.2 ab 114.3 7.1 8.1 7.7 9.5
Untreated --- 35.7 35.7 89.9 106.1 ab 107.3 6.9 7.4 7.8 9.2
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Table 2. Mean SCA data for sorghum seed treatment test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/lb)
No. SCAa
per leaf
Jun 29 Jul 6 Jul 13 Jul 20 Jul 27 Aug 3 Aug 11
Cruiser 5FS 0.076 0.0 b 4.0 b 4.8 2.6 1.5 0.1 0.0 b
Poncho 600 0.064 0.0 b 2.2 b 0.5 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 b
Gaucho 600 0.064 0.0 b 12.2 b 6.0 4.3 10.1 1.9 0.0 b
NipsIt INSIDE 0.064 0.0 b 3.0 b 3.6 1.4 13.3 1.9 0.0 b
Untreated --- 15.8 a 45.5 a 50.6 126.9 13.5 3.9 2.3 a
NS NS NS NS
a
Number of sugarcane aphids per leaf from 10 leaves for Jun 29 and 20 leaves for all others

48
Table 3. Mean heading and yield data for sorghum seed treatment. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/lb)
Percent headed
on Jul 20
No. seed heads/
row
Wet wt. (g) of 20
seed heads
Cruiser 5FS 0.076 58.8 149.1 363.1
Poncho 600 0.064 61.3 142.6 390.9
Gaucho 600 0.064 80.0 146.8 325.6
NipsIt INSIDE 0.064 61.3 158.3 337.9
Untreated --- 61.3 134.8 302.8

49
Sorghum Insecticide Screening Study
Blocks 7N, 8N & 8S
Beaumont, TX
2015
← North PLOT PLAN
8S
32 3 (light green) 31 5 (red)
30 7 (purple)
29 1 (white) 28 2 (pink)
27 8 (blue) 26 6 (yellow)
7N
24 1 (white) 25 4 (orange)
21 4 (orange) 22 3 (light green) 23 2 (pink)
18 7 (purple) 19 6 (yellow) 20 5 (red)
15 8 (blue) 16 2 (pink) 17 8 (blue)
8N
13 4 (orange) 14 6 (yellow)
10 5 (red) 11 7 (purple) 12 1 (white)
7 7 (purple) 8 8 (blue) 9 3 (light green)
4 4 (orange) 5 5 (red) 6 6 (yellow)
1 1 (white) 2 2 (pink) 3 3 (light green)
Variety: RV9924
Trt
Rate
(fl oz/A)
2 Endigo ZCX + NIS Pink 5 + 0.25% v/v
3 Centric 40WDG + NIS Light green 2.5 oz/A + 0.25% v/v
4 Fulfill 50WDG + Kinetic Orange 5 oz/A + 4
5 Sivanto Red 4
6 Sivanto Yellow 8
7 Lorsban Advanced Purple 32 oz/A
8 Transform WG Blue 1 oz/A

50
Planting: Drill-planted test (@ about 1 seed/inch) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt
32.4%, clay 64.4%, and organic matter 3.8 - 4.8%) on Jul 14; late planting to
better coincide with predicted high populations of sugarcane aphid (SCA)
Emergence on Jul 20
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on Jul 15
38 lb N/A on Jul 14
77 lb N/A on Aug 3 at 5-leaf stage
Herbicide: AAtrex 4L @ 2.3 pt/A and Dual II Magnum @ 1 pt/A with a 2-person hand-held
spray boom (13- 80015 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, 16 gpa final spray volume) on
Jul 15 for weed control
Treatments: Applied treatments 2 – 8 on Aug 28 with a 3-nozzle, hand-held, CO2 powered
spray boom (800067 nozzles, 50 mesh screens, final spray volume = 13.7 gpa);
plant ht ca. 20 inches, plants not heading
Sampling: Counted number of SCA on leaves selected from mid-canopy of plants (1 leaf
per plant); 5 leaves per plot on Aug 27, 10 leaves per plot on Aug 31 and Sep 4,
and 20 leaves per plot on Sep 14
Counted number of seed heads per row on Oct 8
Removed and weighed 20 seed heads per plot on Nov 11
Data analysis: Count data transformed using x + 0.5 ; all data analyzed by ANOVA and
means separated by LSD
Discussion
We planted this experiment late in hopes of encountering high populations of SCA.
During the experiment, we periodically checked the plots for the presence of SCA. Not until
about 2 weeks before treatment applications on August 28, did we observe aphids. We waited
until populations increased before applying treatments. At this time, we easily observed
honeydew on plant foliage. Thus, SCAs did not infest plots early in the growing season.
Pretreatment counts were high and not significantly different among treatments (Table 1).
At 3 DAT, all treatments significantly reduced populations compared to the untreated; however,
Endigo, Centric, Sivanto and Transform treatments performed the best. For instance, % reduction
in populations compared to the untreated was 99.9, 99, 99.7 (average of 2 Sivanto treatments)
and 96.3, respectively. So, all the above treatments provided excellent control of SCA 3DAT.
Lorsban Advanced and Fulfill treatments did not provide as good control (about 74%). At 7
DAT, populations in the untreated declined compared to 4 days before. However, results among
treatments were similar to 3 DAT. At 17 DAT, SCAs virtually disappeared from the plots. Both

51
rates of Sivanto performed equally well. We periodically checked the plots for a reinfestation
which was not observed. So, the SCA infestation began about mid-August and ended about mid-
September.
We do not have a combine to harvest sorghum, so we recorded the number of heads
produced in each plot. Based on this yield component, all treatments produced significantly more
heads than the untreated (Table 2). Furthermore, Endigo and Centric treatments produced 97 and
82% more heads than the untreated, respectively. We also randomly removed 20 seed heads per
plot and recorded their wet weights. Untreated plots produced significantly lighter seed heads
compared to all the insecticide treatments (Table 2). So, the last column in Table 2 shows the
estimated relative green weight yields of the treatments. Clearly, controlling the SCA in this
experiment resulted in impressive yield responses, in spite of the fact these yields are not
representative of sorghum yields in SE Texas. As mentioned before, this was a late planted
experiment. In addition, blackbird damage and head mold were evident in the plots.
Table 1. Mean data for sorghum insecticide screening test. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
No. SCAa
per leaf
PRE 3 DAT 7 DAT 17 DAT
Untreated --- 719.0 940.3 a 302.7 a 0
Endigo ZCX + NIS 5 + 0.25% v/v 758.8 1.5 c 0.8 b 0
Centric 40WDG + NIS 2.5 oz/A + 0.25% v/v 807.0 9.3 c 0.2 b 0
Fulfill 50WDG + Kinetic 5 oz/A + 4 573.8 251.4 b 150.6 a 0.1
Sivanto 4 648.0 3.4 c 0.0 b 0
Sivanto 8 873.5 3.1 c 0.1 b 0
Lorsban Advanced 32 oz/A 532.0 238.4 b 217.4 a 0
Transform WG 1 oz/A 767.5 34.8 c 29.1 b 0
NS NS
a
PRE = pretreatment, DAT = days after treatment; number of SCA per 5 leaves per plot on PRE,
10 leaves on 3 and 7 DAT, and 20 leaves on 17 DAT

52
Table 2. Mean seed head data for sorghum insecticide screening study. Beaumont, TX. 2015.
Treatment
Rate
(fl oz/A)
No. seed
heads/row
Wet wt. (g) per
seed head
Wet wt. (g) per
row
Untreated --- 63.8 e 16.3 c 1081.2 b
Endigo ZCX +
NIS
5 + 0.25% v/v 116.3 ab 29.4 ab 3439.2 a
Centric 40WDG
+ NIS
2.5 oz/A +
0.25% v/v
126.1 a 25.5 b 3201.7 a
Fulfill 50WDG +
Kinetic
5 oz/A + 4 85.4 d 34.2 a 2887.5 a
Sivanto 4 112.4 abc 29.7 ab 3384.7 a
Sivanto 8 101.6 bcd 27.7 b 2807.8 a
Lorsban
Advanced
32 oz/A 94.3 cd 30.2 ab 2859.3 a
Transform WG 1 oz/A 111.1 abc 26.2 b 2927.4 a
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P = 0.05, ANOVA
and LSD).

53
Sorghum Host Plant Resistance
Block 1S
Beaumont, TX
2015
PLOT PLAN
← North
I II III IV
1 DKS37-07 13 RV9924 25 RTX430 37 RTX2783
2 DKS37-07 14 RV9924 26 RTX430 38 RTX2783
3 DKS51-01 15 RTX2783 27 RV9782 39 DKS37-07
4 DKS51-01 16 RTX2783 28 RV9782 40 DKS37-07
5 RV9924 17 DKS37-07 29 DKS51-01 41 RV9924
6 RV9924 18 DKS37-07 30 DKS51-01 42 RV9924
7 RV9782 19 RTX430 31 RV9924 43 RTX430
8 RV9782 20 RTX430 32 RV9924 44 RTX430
9 RTX2783 21 RV9782 33 DKS37-07 45 DKS51-01
10 RTX2783 22 RV9782 34 DKS37-07 46 DKS51-01
11 RTX430 23 DKS51-01 35 RTX2783 47 RV9782
12 RTX430 24 DKS51-01 36 RTX2783 48 RV9782
Treated with Transform WG Untreated
Experimental design: Split plot with main plot = variety and subplot = treated or untreated and 4
replications
Planting: Drill-planted test (@ about 1 seed/inch) into League soil (pH 5.5, sand 3.2%, silt
Emergence on May 15
Irrigation: Flushed blocks (temporary flood, immediate drain) on May 7
38 lb N/A on May 7
77 lb N/A on Jun 8 at 5-leaf stage

2015 annual report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to 2015 annual report

Similar to 2015 annual report (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2015 annual report