Watch out for the Blues

  Noticeable numbers of grass blue butterfly larvae (Zizina labradus) have been observed in young soybean crops in the Wide Bay Burnett. While the small green larvae (maximum length 10 mm) may be difficult to see in the crops, the damage they cause is very obvious.

Grass blue butterfly larvae feeding results in windowing of the leaves (this is mostly cosmetic) and destruction of vegetative terminals.    

The latter damage is of greater concern. Terminal death (tipping) can result in crops setting pods low to the ground where they are more difficult to harvest. Damage in most crops has been uneconomic to date. 

Thresholds are determined at 25% terminal loss.   

However after the current rain event dies down, growers should re-inspect crops for any terminal death symptoms. Other early signs of infestation of this pest include the small blue-winged adults (butterflies) flitting over the crop, and the presence of their relatively large (0.6mm diameter) pale blue eggs.

 
Similar species

Grass blue larvae are often confused with hoverfly larvae. They are of similar appearance and size but hoverfly larvae are key aphid and whitefly predators.. Hoverfly larvae are ‘true fly’ larvae or maggots and they differ from grass blue larva in that they do not have a head capsule, true segmented legs and fleshy prolegs.  

To confirm that you have pest (the grass blue larvae) and not the beneficial, flip them over to check for the (normally hidden) head capsule, 3 pairs of proper legs (at the head end) and 4 pairs of ventral prolegs.  These legs are positioned towards the larva’s mid-line and are not visible from above. Another way to confirm identity is to place the larvae in a jar with some leaves – the hoverfly larvae will not eat the leaves but instead rear up to look for prey while the plant pest will eat the leaves.

Hoverfly larvae                                Grass blue butterfly larvae

     

 Management

There are no registered insecticides for the control of grass blue butterfly in pulse crops. However, insecticides used for the control of helicoverpa will incidentally control this pest as well.

DEEDI scientists at Kingaroy are currently looking for IPM friendly solutions to manage this (occasional) pest. It is important that any means of control minimises the risk of flaring silverleaf whitefly, noticeable (but not damaging) numbers of which were seen in many regions, at least before the recent heavy rains. 
 
Article by Hugh Brier – DEEDI entomologist, Kingaroy
Posted in soybeans | Leave a comment

Beware of Apple Dimpling bugs

 

There have been several reports of high numbers of apple dimpling bug (ADB) in early squaring cotton throughout the major cotton growing valleys. Also known as the yellow mirid, ADB adults (about 3mm long) are about one third the size of green mirid adults.  They are yellow-green, have dark spines on the legs and hairy wings that are folded flat on the back. Apple dimpling bugs are capable of moving quickly and have a distinctive apple smell when squashed. 

 

 Apple dimpling bug adult

 

Pest or predator?

ADB are well known as predators of helicoverpa eggs and mites. However, they are also plant feeders and on young cotton will feed on small ‘pin’ squares which results in shedding of the squares. Damage at seedling stage is unlikely to affect yield but will delay maturity by 4-5 days.


 Damaged (left) and undamaged squares © Mary Whitehouse CSIRO

When do they need controlling?

Dr Moazzem Khan (DEEDI) has studied the responses of cotton to ADB. Based on his findings – current recommended economic thresholds for ADB is 10 bugs per metre row of cotton along with 50% fruit retention at the squaring stage.
 

Monitoring and sampling for ADB is best done early in the morning or late afternoon. ADB populations can be assessed visually as well as with a beatsheet (at the time of this study only visual sampling was used). Assessments should be conducted in the top half of cotton plants.

Overall visual sampling was the most efficient sampling method for ADB. However, at the seedling stage visual sampling, beat sheet sampling and suction methods were equally effective. As the plants mature, visual sampling was found to be twice as effective when compared to beat sheet sampling. This means that ADB numbers found with beat sheet sampling, from boll set onwards, should be multiplied by two to get a better estimate of the population in the field.

The decision to control ADB depends on both fruit retention and ADB numbers. However, bear in mind that ADB feeding can be very variable and the cotton plant’s ability to compensate for loss of pin squares, by retaining other squares that may otherwise have been shed, is usually quite good.
  
Control options

If the decision to control is warranted, it is essential to consider the risk of flaring secondary pests. As ADB are also predators, there is a risk that a decision to control them may increase the chance of mite population build-up. As an occasional pest there are few products registered for their control. A low rate of Fipronil is the softest registered option. The only other registered options, OPs (organophosphates), are not available in the IRMS until late in the season and would be highly disruptive to beneficial insects in the crop. 

Article by Moazzem Khan and Susan Maas

Posted in Cotton | Leave a comment

Helicoverpa and NPV in Sorghum – Current Issues

As the earlier plantings of sorghum progress through flowering, moderate to high Helicoverpa pressure means that many crops have caterpillar numbers over threshold.  Nucleopolyhedrovirus (NPV) is one of the main insecticides used to control Helicoverpa larvae in sorghum, however prevailing conditions play an important role in the speed and level of control achieved with NPV.

Cooler weather

Larvae need to be actively feeding when NPV is applied for good control to be achieved.  Because larval feeding rate is largely governed by temperature, NPV is recommended to be applied between 25°C and 35°C.  However good performance can be achieved under cooler conditions, with application temperatures above 18°C considered acceptable.  Temperatures below 15°C can cause larvae to stop feeding, and prolonged periods below 15°C may cause “cold shock”, with larvae taking a few hours of warmer conditions to recover.  For this reason, it best to delay applying NPV until temperatures have warmed to above 20°C following a cold night.

The cooler conditions will also mean that control with NPV will be slower than usual, since the rate of virus infection is proportional to insect growth rate.  Expect to see small (1st and 2nd instar) larvae dying within 6 days, however medium (3rd instar) larvae may take up to 8 days to die, depending on the average temperature.  Larvae dying slowly due to cool weather will not increase the level of damage from larval feeding.

Applying NPV where rain is forecast

The likelihood of wet weather raises questions about how best to time NPV applications when rain is expected.  NPV is significantly more effective against smaller larvae, so delaying application can impact on performance.

Many years of field experience has shown that rainfall following an application generally has no impact on NPV performance, or may even have a positive impact on NPV performance (NPV is spread by rainfall splash). So do not delay an application if light to moderate rain is expected.  Where very heavy rainfall is expected within one hour after application, it is advised to delay application until conditions improve, as there is a risk of the virus being washed off the crop before it is ingested by the larvae.

Other key issues relating to NPV use

  • Ideally apply NPV when larvae are less than 7 mm in length (2nd instar – small).  These size larvae are more effectively controlled with lower rates of NPV
  • Do not target larvae over 13 mm in length (4th instar – medium) with NPV – control will be compromised and these larvae will do significant damage before succumbing to NPV infection
  • There is no economic benefit in controlling larvae with NPV in pre-flowering sorghum

Article by Anthony Hawes

Posted in helicoverpa, NPV, Sorghum | Leave a comment

Early season aphid identification and management considerations in cotton

As the cotton season gets underway aphids are starting to be detected in crops, on ratoons, volunteers and weeds. Last season, there were some regions where Cotton Bunchy Top (CBT) was detected in crops towards the end of the season. To assess and manage the risk of yield loss caused by CBT, and minimise the difficulties of controlling insecticide resistant cotton aphids  it is important to i) be able to correctly identify aphids in the crops and ii) consider how early season infestations (in crop and on nearby weeds) will be managed.

There is a lot already written about aphids and aphid management in cotton. Follow the link to the Cotton CRC website to read more about aphid biology and ecology, alternative hosts, and strategies to manage (including managing insecticide resistance).

http://www.cottoncrc.org.au/industry/Publications/Pests_and_Beneficials/Aphids__Bunchytop

Identifying aphids in cotton

There are a number of species of aphid that will establish in cotton, Cotton Aphid, Cowpea Aphid and Green peach aphid are the most common. Cowpea and green peach aphid will colonise cotton, but tend only to persist in cooler conditions. Cowpea aphids were present in cotton crops in Emerald in early November this year, but numbers have since declined. We have received samples of cowpea aphid and cotton aphid from cotton on the Downs this season.

Key features used in the identification of aphids are illustrated below. Use a x10 hand lens to examine the aphid to see the tubercles, cornicles and cauda features.

 Illustration from aphid identification key: http://ipm.ucdavis.edu/TOOLS/KEYAPHID/typical.html

 

Aphid impact on cotton

Aphids have the potential to reduce yield by direct feeding and exude honeydew, resulting in sticky cotton. Early season infestations may result in CBT transmission, and subsequent yield loss caused by CBT.

Research to date (Lewis Wilson et al.), has only detected CBT transmission by Cotton Aphid, although it is possible that other species may transmit at very low levels.

Deciding if aphids need control

Here I will cover some basic points to consider when monitoring for aphids, and in making an assessment of the need for, or timing of aphid control.

  •  Identify the aphids
  • Make an assessment of the level of infestation – % of plants with aphids. Look for aphids towards the top of the plant, at 3-4 nodes down from the terminal, under leaves.
  • Mark, or record, infestations and revisit to determine if the population is spreading, increasing in size, and whether there is beneficial insect activity.
  • If the infestation is spreading – this is the point at which to make a decision about control.
  • Don’t wait until populations are out of control (>30% infestation) to act.
  • Suppression of populations for example with a spray oil, may be sufficient to minimise the risk of spread and in situations where there is a high risk of CBT transmission.
  • Large influxes or rapidly spreading infestations may warrant the application of pirimicarb.
  • Early season spray decisions should take into consideration the potential disruption to beneficials that contribute to the subsequent control of aphids, SLW and mealybug.

 CBT and aphid infestations

  • Crops at high risk of CBT are those close to reservoirs of CBT and aphids (weeds, particularly malvaceae species; ratoons).
  • Early infection will result in more severe symptoms.
  • However, do not start spraying aphids at first appearance in the crop. Large influxes of cotton aphid from CBT reservoirs represent a larger risk, in terms of CBT transmission, than a slow influx over a longer period of time.
  • CBT symptoms will not appear in the crop for up to 8 weeks after transmission – don’t act on symptoms.

 Article by Melina Miles

Posted in aphids, Cotton | Leave a comment

Paul Grundy joins Toowoomba team

Dr Paul Grundy has joined the Field Crops Entomology team in Toowoomba as Senior Entomologist. Paul has moved to Toowoomba from Ayr where he was involved in evaluating the viability of cotton production in the Burdekin. Read More »

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2010-11 Annual Silverleaf Whitefly Resistance Testing Results and Implications for Management in the coming Season.

Last season was a somewhat low pressure year for silverleaf whitefly (SLW) in all cotton districts. The low pressure may have been attributed in part to high rainfall especially through central Queensland which does not favour whitefly population build up. St George and Mungindi districts still reached densities that exceeded the recommended insecticide spray thresholds although they generally fitted into the ‘2A suppression’ zone of management as opposed to the potentially more damaging ‘3B insect growth regulator (IGR)’ zone. Read More »

Posted in Silverleaf whitefly | Leave a comment

Late season winter crop pest management – remember to look out for armyworm and helicoverpa

As winter crops finish up and approach harvest, there are a couple of pests that still have the potential to cause some concerns. 

Armyworm and helicoverpa in barley, wheat and oats.

There have been a number of reports of armyworm activity across the northern region in isolated pockets. Armyworm has the capacity to lop heads in barley, wheat and oats after the crops have turned. As the crop turns the stems dry down, but the nodes take longer to dry, staying green for some time after the rest of the plant is dry Read More »

Posted in armyworm, helicoverpa | Leave a comment

2011 IPM forum highlights

More than 50 researchers, extension staff and industry representatives attended this year’s IPM forum in Toowoomba. The IPM forum is an annual event and brings together researchers and industry to discuss the latest research and developments in pest management for the Northern region. Topics presented at the forum consist of a mix of current research and industry-ready research outcomes. Below are extracts of some of the presentations that featured at the IPM forum. For more information about the forum or the range of topics, please contact Kate Charleston.  Read More »

Posted in Cotton, Events, Grains | Leave a comment

IPM Forums for growers and advisers – Thursday July 28th, 2011

These Forums, for growers and advisers, will provide an opportunity to hear about recent research into the management of  insect pests  in grains and cotton. Researchers will be able to discuss with you strategies and options for the upcoming season, what to look out for, and how to minimise your risk of losses caused by key insect pests. Read More »

Posted in aphids, Cotton, Events, Grains, mealybugs, Natural enemies, Winter cereals | Leave a comment

Mites invade mungbeans

Two spotted mites (TSM) or red spider mites have been reported in damaging numbers in many mungbean crops on the Darling Downs and in Northern NSW.  Crops at particular risk are those adjacent to maturing cotton (or any other mite hosts) from which mites are dispersing in large numbers.  As TSM are very small (0.5 mm) the first evidence of their presence is usually the damage symptoms which consist of fine stippling and webbing on the leaves. Heavy infestations will result in leaf desiccation, leaf drop, and yield loss. Read More »

Posted in mites, mungbeans | Leave a comment

Bad Behavior has blocked 79 access attempts in the last 7 days.