ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF ARTHROPODS IN CORN

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: TERMINATED
• Funding Source: HATCH
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 1007292
• Project No.: PEN04595
• Multistate No.: NC-_old246
• Project Start Date: Oct 1, 2015
• Project End Date: Sep 30, 2020

Project Director
Tooker, JO, FR.

Recipient Organization
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
208 MUELLER LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY PARK,PA 16802

Performing Department
Entomology

Non Technical Summary
Over 80 million acres of field corn (Zea mays) and 600,000 acres of sweet corn, worth about $65 billion and $1 billion respectively, are grown in the U.S. each year. The European corn borer (ECB) (Ostrinia nubilalis) and western corn rootworm (WCR) (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) account for over $1 billion each in control costs and grain losses annually. Rootworms are particularly problematic because of their propensity to evolve resistance to management tactics, including crop rotation (Gray et al. 2009), insecticides (Meinke et al. 1998), and now Bt toxins (Gassmann et al. 2011, 2014).There are numerous other corn insect pests that cause significant economic loss to U.S. corn producers. The southwestern corn borer (Diatraea grandiosella) causes several million dollars in damage to corn in the Western High Plains (Morrison et al. 1977). Recently, the sugarcane borer (D. saccharalis) has emerged as an important corn pest in the south (Castro et al. 2004, Porter et al. 2005). Significant foliage and ear feeders include the two most important lepidopteran pests of corn in the southeast, corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) and fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (Buntin et al. 2004). Losses attributed to corn earworm in sweet corn can be as high as 50% (Wiseman 1999). The western bean cutworm (Striacosta albicosta) has recently expanded its range to become an increasingly serious corn pest as far east as Pennsylvania and north into Canada (e.g. Michel et al. 2010). Among underground pests, the northern corn rootworm (NCR) (D. barberi) is a perennial pest in much of the Corn Belt, and the southern corn rootworm (D. undecimpunctata howardi) is occasionally important, especially in the southeast. Many secondary pests, such as wireworms (Elateridae) and white grubs (Scarabaeidae), can cause serious local problems, and may be resurging with the decrease in soil insecticides used to manage rootworms following wide adoption of transgenic Bt corn. Widespread prophylactic use of neonicotinoid seed treatments to control these secondary soil pests may not be sustainable because of increasing environmental concerns (Mullin et al. 2005, Krupke et al. 2012).Established in 1953 to address ECB, earlier versions of NC-205 evolved to include a broader array of corn pests. First other stalk-boring Lepidoptera were included, and then other above-ground Lepidoptera. This was a natural progression for the committee, as 1) these pests increased in economic importance, and 2) a pest species does not exist in isolation, but as part of a pest complex and arthropod community. NCCC-46, the Multistate Research Coordinating Committee 'Development, Optimization and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms', originated in 1964 as WCR was spreading eastward from the Great Plains into the Central Corn Belt (Gray et al. 2009). NCR was already an economic pest in the Corn Belt, but it was becoming clear that WCR was an even bigger threat to corn production.During the 1990s, NC-205 and NCCC-46 began to co-locate and meet sequentially during the same week. This was in part because several members were on both committees, but more importantly to invite Industry for discussing the deployment, efficacy, non-target effects, and insect resistance management (IRM) implications of transgenic Bt corn, topics of broad interest to both committees. This sequential meeting model became even more valuable upon the introduction of Bt transgenic corn targeting corn rootworm in 2003, its rapid adoption (Rice 2004), the stacking of genes targeting both corn rootworm and corn Lepidoptera in the same plant, and the discovery of WCR field resistance to Cry3Bb1 toxin (Gassmann et al. 2011). Because of the increasing interaction of NC205 and NCCC46, merging of the committees was discussed during the 2014 annual committee meetings. It was felt that a formal merging of the committees would be of mutual benefit, both scientifically and logistically, and after additional discussion, each committee voted to merge. Therefore, this NC-205 renewal proposal reflects the decision to merge the committee membership and address the larger corn insect pest complex, with emphasis on above-ground Lepidoptera pests and below-ground Coleoptera pests.Since the commercial release of Bt transgenic corn against ECB in 1996 and against rootworms in 2004, a revolution in corn insect pest management has occurred. Seed companies continue to develop genetically-modified (GM) crops for pest protection. New GM corn hybrids have resistance to a broader range of lepidopteran pests, some have resistance to coleopteran pests, and most current GM hybrids have genes targeting both Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. This technology often eliminates the need to store and handle insecticides and it increases the efficiency of grower operations and pest control (Rice 2004, Sappington 2014). However, the development of resistance by WCR to some Bt toxins is threatening to reverse these gains. Keeping abreast of these changes with timely and relevant research over an area as large and diverse as the U.S. Corn Belt lends itself to a coordinated, committee approach.Bt corn acreage in the U.S. has increased from 8% in 1997 to 80% in 2014. At this level of adoption, the potential for resistance increases. Research conducted by this committee was used to develop models predicting the rates of resistance evolution and efficacy of refuge in preventing resistance. This led to the IRM approach that used a 20% independent refuge planting; however, as GM technology has evolved, so has IRM. Recently deployed GM corn hybrids use multiple genes that target ECB and WCR. The IRM plan for these hybrids requires a smaller refuge, and seed mixtures (Bt and non-BT) are now being deployed. The models supporting these IRM modifications were constructed using the best information available, but a number of assumptions had to be made. These assumptions must be tested and research conducted to move them from assumptions to quantified variables. Furthermore, information is needed on the economics of this evolving technology at the field, farm, and regional levels. Addressing these knowledge gaps forms the basis for several objectives of the project. The long-term goal of our research is to develop sustainable ways to manage the corn insect pest complex. This is a high regional priority, and in the context of demonstrating sustainable practices, it also is an important national priority.

Animal Health Component

0%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

50%

Applied

50%

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
211	3110	1130	50%
215	1510	1070	50%

Knowledge Area
211 - Insects, Mites, and Other Arthropods Affecting Plants; 215 - Biological Control of Pests Affecting Plants;

Subject Of Investigation
1510 - Corn; 3110 - Insects;

Field Of Science
1130 - Entomology and acarology; 1070 - Ecology;

Keywords

corn

maize

insect

slug

pest

natural enemies

bt

neonicotinoid

Goals / Objectives
<b> Investigate the relationship between pest management technologies and the agricultural environment.</b> <p> 1a. Assess the need, efficacy and pest management window of seed treatment insecticides, primarily neonicotinoids, to control secondary below-ground insect pests.<p> 1b. Evaluate possible effects of insecticidal seed coatings on non-target beneficial insects. <b>Employ diverse delivery methods to disseminate information related to sustainable management of corn arthropod pests.</b> <p> 4a. Establish an NC-205 video library website with permanent high quality versions of IPM videos for open online access and download to computer and portable electronic devices.<p> 4b. Produce and deploy a comprehensive IPM system for cost-effective prevention, early detection, rapid diagnosis, and mitigation of new and emerging corn pests that links all stakeholders who have common interests in pest detection and management.<p> 4c. Develop an array of IPM and IRM distance education workshops.

Project Methods
Field- and lab-based research in collaboration with farmers and colleagues at other land-grant universities, and collaborative extension programming.

Progress 10/01/15 to 09/30/20

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, Extension staff, staff of NRCS and State Conservation Districts, other agricultural professionals, entomologists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We worked with county-based extension educators, farmers, graduate students and undergraduate students to explore the benefits and costs of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Local understanding of pest populations is the most critical aspect of implementing IPM, so we continue to advocate to growers to scout their fields regularly. We have conveyed this message repeatedly to farmers via talks to farmer groups arranged by county-based extension educators and to scientific colleagues via invited and contributed talks. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We interact regularly with county-based extension educators, through phone calls, emails, in-person visits, and extension conferences and field days. We have shared the results of our research nationally and internationally at scientific meetings, and have also published our results in peer-reviewed journals. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?For the next reporting period under replacement project NC246, we will begin new, yet-to-be defined experiments that will seek to better understand the pest management benefits of conservation agriculture.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1. For Penn State&#39;s contribution, our main research efforts over the reporting period was to test the influence of preventative pest management tactics on the benefits of conservation-based farming tactics in terms of arthropod diversity and pest control in maize production. In two separate, but related projects, we studied connections among prophylactic insecticide use, soil quality, and populations of invertebrate pests, weeds, and arthropod predators (spiders and insects). Our hypothesis is that annual deployment of prophylactic insecticides and fungicides will decrease soil quality and function, and populations of beneficial arthropods associated with soil, particularly, predaceous insects and spider anddetritivorous species like Colembola and mites. Simultaneously, we tested the benefits of cover crops for dampening potential negative effects of preventative use of insecticides and fungicides. We collected our last data forthe project in fall of 2019, and have since been compiling data, conducting statistical analyses and learning what our results mean. Because pest populations were low, we found that using insecticides provided very little benefit to pest management and yield. Instead, cover crops reduced pest density and damage, largely because most arthropod predator groups were more abundant in cover-crop plots. Further, preventative pest management decreased predation rates compared to control plots that did not receive any pest management tactics. Within our IPM treatment, we used a pyrethroid application because one group of pests exceeded economic thresholds, and this insecticide application was actually more disruptive in some respects to the predator community than preventative insecticide use. Our results suggest that the best pest management outcomes may occur when preventative pest management tactics are avoided and biological control is promoted. Moreover, when pest populations in field crops are relatively low, cover crops may offer apromising alternative to insecticide pest management. We also finished two other projects within the last year. In both, we tested the benefits of crop species diversity for crop productivity and insect control, one in a vegetable system and the other in silage production. In a vegetable production system, we assessed the strength of crop species relatedness on insect pest populations. Using squash as a focal species, we studied the influence of different crop species with known evolutionary divergence time from squash on the pest complex that developed on squash plants. We found that crop relatedness influenced herbivore abundance later in summer when plants may have been large enough to influence their neighbors. Evolutionary relatedness of crop plants did not affect predator, pollinator, or detritivore populations. As we summarize our results, we expect to be able to use our results to generate recommendations so that farmers can take advantage of crop evolutionary relationships to improve pest control when laying out their farms. In silage production, we assessed monocultures of typical silage crops (e.g., corn, sorghum, and soybeans) to mixtures of these crops (e.g., corn and soybean, corn and sorghum, and corn, sorghum, soybean, and sunflower). We confirmed that corn monocultures tend to be most productive, but some mixtures do not lag very far behind and provide pest management benefits and resistance to drought that are likely to become more important as climate change progresses. Objective 2. Since Oct. 1, 2016, Tooker has presented 67 extension presentations to the agricultural community of Pennsylvania and surrounding areas. These presentations have reached at least 4,643 people and does not account for additional audiences that viewed recorded content (e.g., webinars, recorded extension presentations) that viewed after the initial presentations. In these presentations, Tooker presented details of pest species that are typical of no-till agriculture and strategies for controlling these pests. Typically the promoted strategy leveraged no-till, cover crops, diverse rotation, and integrated pest management as a multi-component approach to management of pests with fewer insecticides and a reliance on arthropod predators.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Busch, A. K., M. R. Douglas, G. M. Malcolm, H. D. Karsten, and J. F. Tooker. 2020. A high-diversity/IPM cropping system fosters beneficial arthropod populations, limits invertebrate pests, and produces competitive corn yields. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 292: 106812.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Rowen, E. K., K. Regan, M. E. Barbercheck, and J. F. Tooker. Is Tillage Beneficial or Detrimental for Invertebrate Pest Management? A Meta-Analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 294: 106849.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Rowen, E. K., and J. F. Tooker. 2019. Manure decreases herbivore performance but increases early-season damage on corn in the greenhouse and field. Environmental Entomology 49: 141-150
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Walter, J. A., L. W. Sheppard, P. D. Venugopal, D. C. Reuman, G. Dively, J. F. Tooker, D. M. Johnson. 2019. Weather and crop composition drive spatial synchrony of Lepidopteran agricultural pests. Ecological Entomology 45: 573-582.

Progress 10/01/18 to 09/30/19

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, Extension staff, staff of NRCS and State Conservation Districts, other agricultural professionals, entomologists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We worked with county-based extension educators, farmers, graduate students, undergraduate students to explore the benefits and costs of Integrated Pest Managment. Our research has revealed that local knowledge of pest control is the most critical factor in implementing IPM. This knowledge is gained by scouting fields regularly. The has relayed this message to farmers via extension talks and to colleagues via invited and contributed talks. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We interact regularly with farmers and county-based extension educators how often work as intermediaries between farmers and researchers on campus. I interact with these populations via phone call, emails, in-person visits, and extension conferences and field days. We presented the our research results via invited research or extension talks at domestic and foreign universities or scientific conferences. We have also published our results in peer-reviewed journals. Invited scientific presentations: Tooker, J. F. Toxic slugs and plants that can smell: Unforeseen interactions in ag. and natural systems alter herbivore populations Departmental Seminar. Entomology and Plant Pathology Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 15 October 2018. Tooker, J. F. Combining No-till and IPM to increase diversity and conservation biological control in field crop production. Joint Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 2018. Pearsons, K. A., and J. F. Tooker. Response of non-target epigeal communities in field crops to neonicotinoid seed coatings. Joint Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 2018. Rice, K.B., Hernandez M., Tooker, J.F., Medeiros, H., Tabb, A. and Leskey, T.C. 2018. Lights lasers and drones: New techniques for tracking insects in the field. Joint Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America and Entomological Society of Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 2018. Tooker, J. F., and K. Wickings. 2018. Exploring Soil Biological Health and Pest Management Trade Offs to Maximize Crop Productivity. 2018 Climate and Agroecology Project Directors&#39; Meeting. USDA NIFA, Washington, D.C. 6-7 December 2018. Pearsons, K., E. Rowen, K. Wickings, R. Smith, and J. F. Tooker. Unintended consequences of pest management on soil ecosystems. Annual Meeting of the Eastern Branch of the Entomological Society of America, Blacksburg, VA, March 2019. Tooker, J. F. Departmental Seminar. Department of Entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1 April 2019. Tooker, J. F. Departmental Seminar, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden, 23 May 2019. Tooker, J. F. Departmental Seminar. Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 4 September 2019. Extension presentations: Tooker, J. F., Insecticides, IPM, and some new ways to control insects, Penn State Commercial Applicator&#39;s School, 27-Aug-2019, attendees: 70. Tooker, J. F., The benefits of non-Bt corn, Penn State Agronomic Diagnostic Clinic, 17-Jul-2019, attendees: 35. Tooker, J. F., The benefits of non-Bt corn, Penn State Agronomic Diagnostic Clinic, 16-Jul-2019, attendees: 65. Tooker, J. F., Insects, slugs, soil health and IPM, Pennsylvania Furnace, Weed/Insect Field Day, 10-Jul-2019, attendees: 40. Tooker, J. F., Cover Crops, Slugs, and Naked Seed, Online, Cover Crop Innovators webinar, 18-Apr-2019, attendees: 23. Tooker, J. F., Insect &amp; Slug Management in No-till Cropping Systems: a case for IPM, Wellsboro, PA, Women in Agriculture conference, 17-Apr-2019, attendees: 65. Tooker, J. F., IPM &amp; Soil Health: An Argument for Avoiding Preventative Pesticide Use, Danville, PA, Connecting Soils and Profits Tools for Improving Soil Health, 14-Mar-2019, attendees: 200. Tooker, J. F., IPM &amp; Soil Health: An Argument for Avoiding Preventative Pesticide Use, Wysox, PA, Connecting Soils and Profits Tools for Improving Soil Health, Wysox, PA, 13-Mar-2019, attendees: 70. Tooker, J. F., IPM &amp; Soil Health: An Argument for Avoiding Preventative Pesticide Use, State College, PA, Connecting Soils and Profits Tools for Improving Soil Health, 12-Mar-2019, attendees: 45. Tooker, J. F., Controlling slugs and insects with no-till and cover crops, Prospect, PA, Western Pennsylvania Regional Soil Health Workshop, 7-Mar-2019, attendees: 55. Tooker, J. F., Do not Let Slugs Slow you Down, Batavia, NY, Annual Meeting of Western New York Crop Management, 20-Feb-2019, attendees: 130. Tooker, J. F., IPM for controlling pests in no-till fields, Selinsgrove, PA, Snyder County Conservation District Winter Meeting, 15-Feb-2019, attendees: 70. Tooker, J. F., Controlling slugs and insects in no-till fields with cover crops, Columbus, OH, Ohio AgriBusiness Association Industry Conference, 31-Jan-2019, attendees: 65. Tooker, J. F., Slugs and IPM--Healthier soil decreases troubles from menacing molluscs?, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, FarmSmart Conference, 19-Jan-2019, attendees:25. Tooker, J. F., Slugs and IPM--Healthier soil decreases troubles from menacing molluscs?, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, FarmSmart Conference, 19-Jan-2019, attendees: 125. Tooker, J. F., Pest Management in Reduced Tillage Production, Boalsburg, PA, Pennsylvania Agronomic Education Society, 17-Jan-2019, attendees: 70. Tooker, J. F., Integrated pest management, Lamar PA, Soil Health Breakfast, 5-Jan-2019, attendees: 16. Tooker, J. F., Slimy Slugs and IPM - to Conquer Your Slugs You Have to Think Like a Slug, Indianapolis, IN, Indiana CCA Conference, 18-Dec-2018, attendees: 110. Tooker, J. F., Slimy Slugs and IPM - to Conquer Your Slugs You Have to Think Like a Slug, Indianapolis, IN, Indiana CCA Conference, 18-Dec-2018, attendees: 90. Tooker, J. F., Identifying Strategies for Fighting Slugs, weeds and pests, Washington, NJ, New Jersey No-Till and Cover Crop Conference, 13-Dec-2018, attendees: 45. Tooker, J. F., Controlling insects and slugs in no-til fields, University of Vermont No-Till Training, 3-Dec-2018, attendees: 51. Tooker, J. F., Insect and Slug Management in Reduced Tillage and Cover Crop Production Systems: Plant-Insect Interactions in Agriculture Systems, Big Flats, NY, NRCS Cover Crop and Soil Health Workshop and Tour, 20-Oct-2018, attendees: 65. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?For the next reporting period we will finish data collection for our ongoing research and apply our statistical model, then interpret our results and prepare to write manuscripts to share what we have learned.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? State and Multistate Goal 1: We are in the final year of three projects testing connections among conservation-based farming tactics, insecticide use, arthropod diversity and pest control in field crop production. In two separate, but related projects, we are studying connections between prophylactic insecticide use, soil health, and populations of insect and slug pests, weeds, and natural enemies. The hypothesis that we are testing is that annual inputs of preventative insecticides and fungicides will decrease soil quality and populations of predaceous arthropods and detritivores. At the same time, we are testing the value of cover crops for moderating or reversing any negative effects of pesticide use. The data collection in these projects is wrapping up this autumn, then we will be able to run our statistical models and develop our results. In two other projects that are also in their final years, we assessed the influence of plant species diversity on plant productivity and pest control in vegetable and silage production. In vegetable production, we tested the influence of crop evolutionary relatedness on pest populations. Our research with squash and a variety of crop species of known evolutionary divergence time indicate that crop relatedness did not influence populations of predators, pollinators, or detritivores, but did influence herbivore abundance in the last months of the season, when plants were large enough to influence their neighbors. We expect to formulate these results into recommendations that farmers arrange their fields with crop relatedness in mind. State Goal 2b/Multistate Goal 4b: In silage production, we compared monocultures of corn, sorghum, and soybeans to mixtures of corn and soybean, corn and sorghum, and corn, sorghum, soybean, and sunflower. Our results indicate that mixtures can be produce as much above ground biomass as monocultures, but mixtures access more soil moisture and nitrogen compared to corn planted by itself. We have also learned that plots with more plant species have larger natural-enemy populations. State Goal 2a and 4c/Multistate Goal 4a and 4c: Video production (goal 4a) has not become a focus of our lab group because we have not developed the expertise. For goal 4c, we have not invested much in distance education; relevant extension messages are far more influential when meetings are attended in person. I have yet to develop distance education as a strength of my extension programming.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Rowen, E. K., J. F. Tooker, C. Blubaugh. 2019. Soil fertility management to promote arthropod pest suppression. Invited manuscript, Biological Control 134: 130-140.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Acevedo, F. E., P. Smith, M. Peiffer, A. M. Helms, J. F. Tooker, and G. W. Felton. Phytohormones in fall armyworm saliva modulate defense responses in plants. Journal of Chemical Ecology 45: 598609
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Reed, H., W. Curran, J. Tooker, S. Duiker, and H. Karsten. Planting green effects on corn and soybean production. Agronomy Journal 111: 2314-2325
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: McTish, Sarah, MS Thesis. 2019. Title: Diversified Integrated Pest Management Cropping Systems Influence Pest Populations and the Potential for Environmental Pollution
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Coco, Angela, MS Thesis. 2019. Title: The Influence of Crop Phylodiversity on Herbivorous Insects of Squash and Their Natural Enemies

Progress 10/01/17 to 09/30/18

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, Extension staff, other agricultural professionals, entomologists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The presentations listed below provide training and professional developement opportunities to fellow scientists, extension personnel, farmers and other agricultural professionals. Invited scientific presentations: Tooker, J. F. Departmental Seminar, Institut pour Recherche sur la Biologie de l&#39;Insecte. Universit&eacute; de Francois Rebelais de Tours, Tours, France, 19 October 2017. Tooker, J. F. Slugs and you: To conquer slugs, you have to think like a slug. Scandinavian NOVA PhD Course: Stacking Biodiversity Benefits for Sustainable IPM, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 2 October 2017. Tooker, J. F. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) &amp; Insect Pests of Field Crops. Scandinavian NOVA PhD Course: Stacking Biodiversity Benefits for Sustainable IPM, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 3 October 2017. Tooker, J. F., E. Yip, A. Helms, C. De Moraes, and M. Mescher. An insect pheromone primes plant defenses with community wide effects. European PhD Network "Insect Science." Naples, Italy, 15-16 November 2017. Extension presentations 12 March 2018, IPM and soil health, Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance Soil Health Day, Elizabethtown, PA. 13 March 2018, IPM and soil health, NRCS Soil Health Day, Muncy, PA. 15 March 2018, IPM and soil health, NRCS Soil Health Day, Danville, PA. 13 June 2018, To conquer your slugs, you have to think like a slug, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority No-Till and Cover Crop meeting, Exeter, Ontario, (Delivered online). 18 July 2018, Managing slugs in no-till fields. Penn State Diagnostic Clinic, Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center, Penn State University, Rock Springs, PA. 19 July 2018Managing slugs in no-till fields. Penn State Diagnostic Clinic, Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center, Penn State University, Rock Springs, PA. 29 August 2018, J. F. Tooker and M. Skvarla. Penn State Extension Pesticide Applicator&#39;s School. What is that? Identifying insects you find while scouting crop fields. Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center, Penn State University, Rock Springs, PA. 29 August 2018, What&#39;s the Scoop On Slugs? Soil and Water Quality Field Day, USDA Agricultural Research Service Lab, Klingerstown, PA. These graduate students also contributed to the research at the base of the project Rowen, Elizabeth, PhD Expected 2020, Title Effect of Soil Health Management on Insect Pests Pearsons, Kirsten, PhD Expected 2020, Title Effect of prophylactic pesticide use on decomposers in agroecosystems Baniszewski, Julie, PhD Expected 2022, Title TBD How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We interact regularly with county-based extension educators, through phone call, emails, in-person visits, and extension conferences and field days. We have shared the results of our research nationally and internationally at scientific meeting, and have also published our results in peer-reviewed journals. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?For the next reporting period we will continue our ongoing experiments testing the value of various forms of diversity for soil health and soil biological activity while scrutinizing preventative pest management tactics to determine their influence on metrics of arthropod abundance and diversity and soil biological health.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Rowen, Elizabeth, PhD Expected 2020 Title Effect of Soil Health Management on Insect Pests Pearsons, Kirsten, PhD Expected 2020 Title Effect of prophylactic pesticide use on decomposers in agroecosystems Baniszewski, Julie, PhD Expected 2022, Title TBD (1) As part of USDA-funded projects, we continue to explore connections among conservation-based farming tactics, pesticide use (neonicotinoid seed treatments &amp; broadcast insecticides), diversity and pest control in grain and silage production. During the past year, we continue to study these connections at our research farm in central Pennsylvania in five large field experiments. The first of these is testing the value of IPM and crop rotational diversity for controlling insect and slug pests. In the past year, our results have indicated that IPM and crop rotation can foster sufficient populations of arthropod natural enemies (insects and spiders) that insecticides are not necessary to produce competitive corn yields. We are currently developing a manuscript that we will submit to a peer-review journal to share our results. In two separate projects, we are exploring the connection between preventative insecticide use, soil quality, and populations of insect pests, weeds, and natural enemies. We are testing the hypothesis that annual inputs of preventative insecticides and fungicides will degrade soil quality and the arthropod community associated with pest control (i.e., natural enemies) and decomposition (microarthropods like collembolans and mites). In these projects, we are also testing the potential of cover crops to ameliorate any negative influences of preventative pesticides on pest control, arthropod communities, or soil quality. The data collection in these projects is ongoing and we are preparing to conduct our initial statistical analyses now that we have two years of data in hand. In two other projects, we are testing the influence of plant species diversity on plant productivity and pest control in silage and vegetable production. In silage production, we are comparing the value of species mixtures to monocultures for producing animal feed and controlling insect pests. We appear to be learning that species mixtures can be as productive as monocultures in terms of amount of above ground biomass produced, and plots with more plant species have large natural enemy populations. In vegetable production, we are testing the strength of crop evolutionary relatedness to help with insect pest control. Preliminary analyses of our results from two years of data collection appear to indicate that a focal crop species that is surrounded by crop species that are very distantly related to the focal species harbor lower populations of herbivorous pest when compared to the same focal crop species surrounded by closely related crop species. These results may lead to recommendations to farmers to widely separate on their farms crop species that are closely related. That is, for example, do not plant tomatoes and eggplant near each other; rather plant sweet corn next to tomatoes. We are still collecting our last pieces of data for this project, then we will run statistical analyses and draft a manuscript to be peer-reviewed. (2) From an extension perspective, we communicated with the agricultural community of Pennsylvania the value of Integrated Pest Management IPM), while providing insight on the influence of insecticidal seed treatments and preventative applications of broadcast insecticides on natural enemy populations and the pest control they provide. We have also promoted to farmers IPM in within the concept of "soil health" and discussed how the areas intersect; that is overuse of pesticides is expected to degrade soil quality.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Tooker, J. F., M. R. Douglas, and C. Krupke. 2017. Neonicotinoid seed treatments: limitations and compatibility with Integrated Pest Management. Agricultural & Environmental Letters 2:170026. doi:10.2134/ael2017.08.0026
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Walter, J., A. Ives, J. F. Tooker, D, M. Johnson. 2018. Life history and habitat explain variation among insect pest populations subject to global change. Ecosphere, in press; doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2274

Progress 10/01/16 to 09/30/17

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, Extension staff, other agricultural professionals, entomologists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A key point that we have been emphasizing is that insect pest populations are dynamic and that these dynamics matter in terms of risk to crop fields. Insect populations change annually, which alters the risk that these pests pose to crops, and the most valuable control options. This point is particularly relevant for IPM, because scouting is the key to understanding local pest population and implementing IPM. This message has been vital for graduate student trainees and extension educators through out the state. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have published our results in peer-reviewed journals and presented scores of extension presentations to the agricultural community of Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?For the next reporting period we will continue to test the value of various forms of diversity for soil health and soil biological activity. We will also continue to scrutinize various pest management tactics to understand how they influence the biological activity of soil. To determine if there are tactics available to farmers that might be able to mitigate the negative influence of regular pesticide use, we will incorporate into our experiments fall planted cover crops and measure their effects on soil activity. In addition to these research activities, we will continue to share our results with farmers to inform them about the management tactics that are most effective for controlling their insect pest populations while maintaining yield and profitability.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? To help Pennsylvania farmers improve adoption of IPM and reduce their reliance on chemical inputs for insect and slug control, our current research efforts are trying to understand the role that diversity can play in grain and silage cropping systems. During the reporting period, we had four large-scale experiments focused in part on corn production to understand the value of integrated pest management when complemented various forms of diversity. Some of this research is exploring tradeoffs between pest management and soil health, which is a topic capturing the attention of an increasing number of farmers. The soil health movement is based on building biologically active soils that can support more vigorous crop plants. Unfortunately, building soil biological activity appears to be directly at odds with current pesticide use-patterns. Pesticides, of course, are meant to limit some of the biotic activity in crop fields, but they often are over used and influence cropping system more strongly than is realized. Our research is exploring feedbacks between pest and soil health management practices to determine if soil health building practices can improve belowground ecological function, including regulation of pests (insects, pathogens, and weeds) and enhancement of decomposition and nutrient cycling processes. In addition, we are also measuring the influence of pest management practices on soil biological function. Our response variables included insect and slug pest populations, natural-enemy populations, amounts of predation, various measures of soil biological activity, and many measures of crop productivity and yield. Our experiments are part of ongoing, multi-year projects. We are still in the process of processing arthropod samples and collecting data before performing statistical analyses. Our expectation is that by building biological soil communities, pest populations will decrease with many benefits, including improved crop productivity with less need for pesticides. From an extension perspective, we communicated with the agricultural community of Pennsylvania the value of insecticidal seed treatments, varieties of Bt corn, benefits of using non-Bt corn hybrids, details of pest biology, and alternative means of controlling insect pests of corn, including farming to increase diversity and improve biological control. We have also been able to promote integrated pest management in the context of broad interest in soil health. Farmers seem to recognize that there is value in farming for healthier soil, so restrained us of insecticides aligns well with farming for soil life and diversity.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Douglas, M. R., and J. F. Tooker. 2016. Meta-analysis reveals that neonicotinoid seed treatments and pyrethroids have similar negative effects on abundance of arthropod natural enemies PeerJ 4:e2776.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Pearsons, K., I. Mik�, J. F. Tooker. 2017. The cyanide gland of the greenhouse millipede, Oxidus gracilis (Polydesmida: Paradoxosomatidae). Research Ideas and Outcomes 3: e12249 (published online 14 Feb 2017, https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.3.e12249)
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Le Gall, M., and J. F. Tooker. 2017. Developing ecologically based pest management programs for terrestrial molluscs. Journal of Pest Science 90: 825838.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2017 Citation: Pearsons, K., I. and J. F. Tooker. 2017. In-field habitat management to optimize pest control of novel soil communities in agroecosystems. Insects 8(3):82. doi:10.3390/insects8030082.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2017 Citation: Castano-Duque, L., K. Loades, J. F. Tooker, K. Brown, W. P. Williams, and D. S. Luthe. A maize inbred exhibits resistance against western corn rootwoorm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera. Journal of Chemical Ecology, in press.

Progress 10/01/15 to 09/30/16

Outputs
Target Audience:Farmers, Extension staff, other agricultural professionals, entomologists. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A key point that we have been emphasizing is that insect pest populations are dynamic and that these dynamics matter in terms of risk to crop fields. Insect populations change annually, which alters the risk that these pests pose to crops, and the most valuable control options. This point is particularly relevant for IPM, because scouting is the key to understanding local pest population and implementing IPM. This message has been vital for graduate student trainees and extension educators through out the state. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have published our results in peer-reviewed journals and presented scores of extension presentations to the agricultural community of Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? We communicated with the agricultural community of Pennsylvania the value of insecticidal seed treatments, varieties of Bt corn, benefits of using non-Bt corn hybrids, details of pest biology, alternative means of controlling insect pests of corn, and details on the issue of resistance to Bt technology. This latter topic is particularly relevant because populations of western corn rootworms resistant to Bt hybrids are proliferating in the Midwest, so communicating the situation to Pennsylvania growers reinforces our message of proper stewardship of these transgenic technologies in our region.

Publications

• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Walls, J. T, P. Caciagli, J. F. Tooker, J. M. Russo, E. G. Rajotte, C. Rosa. 2016. Modeling the decision process for barley yellow dwarf management. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 127:775786.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Awaiting Publication Year Published: 2016 Citation: Rice, K. B., R. Troyer, K. M. Watrous, J. F. Tooker, and S. J. Fleischer. Landscape factors influencing stink bug damage in agricultural systems following the introduction of the brown marmorated stink bug (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, (in press).
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Rice, K. B., S. J. Fleischer, C. M. De Moraes, M. C. Mescher, J. F. Tooker, and M. Gish. 2015. Handheld lasers allow efficient detection of fluorescent marked organisms in the field. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129175. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129175.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Ray, S., I. Gaffor, F. Acevedo, A. M. Helms, W.-P. Chuang, J.F. Tooker, G. W. Felton, D. S. Luthe. 2015. Maize plants recognize herbivore-associated cues from caterpillar frass. Journal of Chemical Ecology 41:781792.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Bohnenblust, E. W., A. D. Vaudo, J. F. Egan, D. A. Mortensen, and J. F. Tooker. 2016. Effects of the herbicide dicamba on non-target plants and pollinator visitation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35:144151.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Grettenberger, I. M. and J. F. Tooker. 2016. Inter-varietal interactions among plants in genotypically diverse mixtures tend to decrease herbivore performance Oecologia 182:189-202.