Source: NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV submitted to NRP
SUGARBEET INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT AND BIOLOGY
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
HATCH
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1012990
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Oct 1, 2017
Project End Date
Sep 30, 2022
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIV
1310 BOLLEY DR
FARGO,ND 58105-5750
Performing Department
School of Natural Resource Sciences
Non Technical Summary
Red River Valley sugarbeet producers contributed nearly 30% of the total sugar production in the U.S. during the past ten-year (i.e., 2006 to 2015) period. The profitability of the region's sugarbeet producers is frequently threatened by damaging insect pest infestations. As such, research is needed to better understand insect pest biology and to develop science-based, readily adoptable, economical, and environmentally compatible insect management tools.Proposed activities for this project are designed to support the research and Extension missions of NDSU as a Land Grant institution by generating insect pest biology and management knowledge that will lead to quantifiable direct impacts on the production capability and profitability of sugarbeet producers.The sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM), Tetanops myopaeformis Röder, is the key economic insect pest of sugarbeet in the Red River Valley (RRV), and it is also a major threat in about one-third of the sugarbeet acreage in North America. In North Dakota field trials, NDSU research showed that the SBRM can inflict up to 45.2% losses in recoverable sucrose yield if it is not effectively controlled.A relatively small number of chemical pesticides are currently registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for SBRM management. With so few control options, RRV sugarbeet producers have had to rely heavily on the same insecticide mode of action (i.e., acetylcholinesterase [ACHE] inhibition) for root maggot control for over 40 years. In areas affected by severe SBRM infestations, ACHE inhibitor insecticides are commonly applied two to three times per year to maintain adequate levels of control. This long-term pattern of repeated use of these materials has exerted intense selection pressure for insecticide resistance development in SBRM populations in this growing region. Therefore, research is critically needed to develop alternative strategies for root maggot management to ensure the long-term sustainability and profitability of sugarbeet production in areas affected by this pest.An accurate model, based on weather patterns that prevail in the Red River Valley, is needed to anticipate when SBRM flight activity is likely to peak each year in the annual life cycle of this pest. This information could be combined with economic threshold information to make pest management decisions if infestation levels warrant intervention with a rescue insecticide application. Carlson and Anderson (unpublished) constructed such a model, based on temperature requirements for SBRM larval development, that was used for nearly two decades to predict peak activity of sugarbeet root maggot flies in sugarbeet fields. A more robust dataset, subjected to the appropriate algorithm, could lead to more accurate prediction of emergence and subsequent movement by adult SBRM flies into sugarbeet fields. This could, in turn, improve growers' ability to manage sugarbeet root maggot outbreaks. Additionally, linkage of the new model with NOAA extended weather forecast model output could markedly transform our capability to predict major events in the pest's life cycle.Springtails can also be a major insect pest problem for Red River Valley sugarbeet producers. Severe springtail feeding injury can cause significant plant stand reductions and associated yield losses. Previous research suggests that springtails are capable of causing gross revenue losses of nearly $700/ha if not properly controlled. Research is needed to better understand the ecology of these pests and to develop effective tools to manage them.Recent research at another university has implicated neonicotinoid seed treatment insecticides in honey bee kills and has led to increased scrutiny and proposed restrictions on these materials, including a complete ban on their use in the United States. Those findings suggested that hopper box seed-flow lubricants (e.g., talcum) abrade seed-applied insecticides from coated seed, and thatthe resulting insecticide-laden dust is released into the air in exhaust plumes emitted by vacuum-based planters, inadvertently exposing bees and other non-target pollinators to the insecticides. In response to public concerns and perceived risks associated with these insecticides, the EPA issued a moratorium on any new uses of currently labeled neonicotinoid products in April of 2015. These concerns have raised questions about the need for talcum or other seed-flow lubricants. If lubricants are not needed, or if a less-abrasive material could perform at least as well as talcum without negatively impacting seed delivery and seedling establishment, it could provide helpful evidence to support continued federal registration of neonicotinoid seed treatment insecticides currently used in sugarbeet production systems.
Animal Health Component
70%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
5%
Applied
70%
Developmental
25%
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
21120101130100%
Knowledge Area
211 - Insects, Mites, and Other Arthropods Affecting Plants;

Subject Of Investigation
2010 - Sugar beet;

Field Of Science
1130 - Entomology and acarology;
Goals / Objectives
1. Optimize current methodology and develop new strategies for sustainable management of sugarbeet insect pests (Integrated Research and Extension)2. Monitor and map sugarbeet root maggot fly activity and growing degree-day accumulations to improve NDSU forecast model (Integrated Research and Extension)3. Evaluate the impacts of conventional and experimental hopper box lubricants on insecticide-treated seed
Project Methods
Objective 1. Optimize current methodology and develop new strategies for sustainable management of sugarbeet insect pests (Integrated Research and Extension).This work will be carried out on grower field sites in northeastern North Dakota, where some of the highest sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) infestations in North America occur annually.Work will focus on combining insecticidal seed treatments with postemergence rescue insecticides for SBRM management. The emphasis will be on twokey objectives: 1) identify the most effective methodology for applying registered granular and sprayable liquid insecticide products; and 2) pursue alternative postemergence insecticide options. Treatment performance will be assessed in relation to the 0 to 9 SBRM feeding injury scaleof Campbell et al. (2000). Comparisons will also be made according to root yield, sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose yield.In other field research, wild Beta germplasm accessions will be screened for potential host plant resistance to the sugarbeet root maggot. Each year, 20 to 30 accessions will be obtained for testing from the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Wild germplasm will be compared with a known root maggot-susceptible commercial hybrid as a control. Larval feeding injury will be rated on up to ten roots per entry by the 0 to 9 scale of Campbell et al. (2000). Surviving plant stands will also be assessed.Pending adequate infestations of secondary insect pests, such as wireworms and springtails, registered and experimental insecticides will be screened to identify effective management tools. Performance will be based on surviving plant stand and corresponding sugarbeet yield and quality parameters as described above. A major focus of this research will be to identify options to neonicotinoid seed treatment insecticides which, as previously outlined, are facing increasing scrutiny regarding their reported harmful effects to honey bees and other non-target organisms.Experimental design for all of these experiments is expected to be a randomized block with four replications of the treatments. Balanced data will be subjected to the analysis of variance procedure, and an appropriate multiple-comparison test will be used to compare means when significant treatment differences are detected at alpha = 0.05.Objective 2. Monitor and map sugarbeet root maggot fly activity and growing degree-day accumulations to improve NDSU forecast model (Integrated Research and Extension).This proposed work will be carried out by examining historic SBRM infestation patterns (based on archived trapping data from NDSU and the American Crystal Sugar Cooperative) to identify multiple locations within the Red River Valley production area for monitoring SBRM fly activity throughout the growing season. Monitoring will be carried out each year by using sticky-stake traps (Blickenstaff and Peckenpaugh 1976) that will be checked three times weekly. In-season trapping data will be made available on an NDSU-hosted webpage for producers and crop advisors to use for identifying the development of emerging SBRM outbreaks and, in turn, for making management decisions.To augment the existing SBRM forecast model, archived data from a minimum of 150 site/year combinations of peak SBRM fly activity dates will be collected from the NDSU database and from American Crystal Sugar Company. Peaks in SBRM fly activity will then be correlated with site-specific degree-day (DD) accumulation data derived from the North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network (NDAWN) for each site/year combination. Threshold temperatures, based on the aforementioned work of Carlson and Anderson (unpublished), will be used to calculate DD units. The algorithm used for the root maggot model on the NDAWN website will be updated to reflect the overall average DD units required for SBRM populations to reach peak fly activity from the multisite dataset. Area-specific (i.e., southern, central, and northern Red River Valley) information on typical DD accumulation rates, as related to SBRM control recommendations will also be posted on the NDAWN site for use by producers and crop advisors to make effective decisions regarding postemergence rescue control of the SBRM. The resulting SBRM model will be compared with other commonly used degree-day modeling techniques (e.g., sine, logistic, normal, triangle, etc.) to determine the most appropriate methodology.Objective 3. Evaluate the impacts of conventional and experimental hopper box lubricants on insecticide-treated seed.This research will be conducted for up to three years at uniform field locations within the Red River Valley production area. Locations will be chosen based on having no major risk of significant insect, disease, or weed infestations that could introduce unwanted variability to the experiment. Conventional procedures for insecticidal seed treatment applications will be used to prepare seed, and an approved variety for the growing area will be used in all study years. A conventional row crop planter will be used, and plots will be planted according to procedures common to sugarbeet production in the region (e.g., 1¼ inch planting depth, targeted seed spacing of one seed per 4½ inches of row length, etc.).The experiment will be arranged in a split-plot design with four replications of the treatments. Seed size will be the whole-plot factor, with two levels (i.e., regular pellet [10.5/64-inch diam.] and Pro200, an extra-large pellet (12.5/64-inch diam.) being compared to determine if seed diameter impacts seedling establishment. Seed-flow lubricant will be the sub-plot factor, with the following sub-level treatments being compared: 1) talcum; 2) graphite; 3) talc/graphite mixture (i.e., 80:20, respectively); 4) Fluency AgentTM; and 5) a non-lubricant control.Treatment performance will be assessed by carrying out multiple in-season plant stand counts, and following up with harvest to compare treatments according to the aforementioned yield and quality parameters.

Progress 10/01/19 to 09/30/20

Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences reached in carrying out this work included entomologist colleagues, insect pathologists, extension educators, agricultural producers, sugar cooperative agriculturists, agricultural industry representatives, and crop consultants. Forecasts of peak insect activity and reports about insect outbreaks, combined with recommendations for insect control intervention were shared with sugar company agriculturists, county Extension personnel, and private consultants through direct communication (phone calls, emails, and text messages), as well as indirectly via winter grower seminars sugarbeet radio, and the NDSU Crop and Pest Report. Changes/Problems:One problem in 2020 that impacted both research and outreach in this program was the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicated Extension program efforts and added expense to carrying the research because most project employees had to travel to research sites in separate vehicles. Another problem that affected the research portion of this project was the occurrence of two distinct periods of peak fly activity at several monitoring sites, including our insecticide trial and smart trap testing location. Although this phenomenon is somewhat rare, it has occurred in the past three growing seasons. This has precipitated concern that seasonal emergence patterns of this insect may be evolving. Other problems with our field research, as mentioned above, included the occurrence of root disease in most of the SBRM trials, and infrequent post-planting rainfall, combined with light/variable infestations in the ND and MT springtail trials. As a result, yield differences among treatments in much of this research were infrequent in comparison to most previous years. Another challenge in carrying out some of our research was associated with the smart trap study. To improve the accuracy of, and "train", the algorithm for each trap type, results must be confirmed/ruled out, and fed back into it. As such, all trapped insects must be identified to determine if they are SBRM flies. This involves evaluation of all digital images captured by the camera traps, and carefully identifying all insects captured in the insect-zapping traps. This processing takes a considerable amount of time. We have samples from four to six weeks of operation from each year. Each of the 16 camera traps collected one image every 24 hours throughout the duration of the study. As such, a substantial number of images must be evaluated from the 2020 growing season to determine accuracy of counts provided by the traps. Similarly, we need to process dozens samples of insects captured by the zapper traps. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Training #1. Due to continued increases in sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) populations in recent years, a "Train the Trainer" session was carried out to educate regional sugar cooperative managers on the most current recommended practices for root maggot population management. A total of 5 individuals were trained in this session. Training #2. An educational webinar was conducted to train local sugar cooperative agriculturists on the following: 1) accurate identification of SBRM flies (i.e., distinguishing them from other fly species commonly captured on traps); 2) proper construction, deployment, and processing of sticky traps used to monitor SBRM flies; and 3) recommended best practices for effective SBRM management. A significant component of this session involved planning a collaborative project between my program at NDSU and American Crystal Sugar Company's Agriculture Department that was aimed at significantly increasing the coverage area of our SBRM fly monitoring program to throughout the entire Red River Valley production area. The collaboration allowed us to monitor 150 grower fields for root maggot fly activity, which was about 5X the number of fields my program can typically monitor each year. Data collected helped me provide growers and agricultural advisors about emerging fly activity hotspots and potential outbreak situations in a timely manner. It also provided more intensive sampling for construction of a SBRM risk forecast for the following growing season. A total of 32 individuals were trained in the session. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, in-person field plot demonstration tours could not be held; however, a "virtual plot tour" was held via an online conferencing platform to give stakeholders near-first-hand observations (based on preliminary data and in-field photographs) relating to the performance of the insect monitoring and management tools being researched. This training was a collaborative session between me and three other scientists representing the disciplines of plant pathology, agronomy, and weed science, and it replaced about four conventional in-person field day events. Results were also presented to commodity group leaders, growers, sugar cooperative agriculturists, extension/research personnel, and agricultural industry representatives at the annual "Sugarbeet Research Reporting Session" and at four winter sugarbeet grower seminars. Research findings were also distributed online in the "Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports" publication. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Much of the research conducted in 2020 will need to be repeated because of either low insect infestations (both springtail trials), plant disease that obscured yield comparisons (root maggot trials). The smart insect trap study should also be repeated, as the manufacturer has developed a new model of the camera trap. We also need more data on both of the original trap versions.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Root Maggot Control. Six sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) control studies were conducted in eastern ND. In Test 1, the best-performing insecticide combinations were: 1) Poncho Beta seed treatment plus Counter 20G (8.9 lb) at planting; and 2) Poncho Beta seed treatment plus Counter 20G (8.9 lb) at planting, combined with a postemergence application of Yuma (chlorpyrifos) 4E liquid at 2 pts product per acre. In Test 2, the most effective SBRM control programs included 8.9 lb of Counter 20G at planting, combined with 2 postemergence rescue applications of Yuma 4E at either 1 or 2 pts (product/ac). Counter appeared to be slightly more effective than Poncho Beta when it was applied at the high (8.9 lb) rate; however, few differences were detectable among insecticide programs. Root maggot Test 3 focused on Movento HL, a recently registered insecticide. In this trial, all insecticide treatments provided significant reductions in SBRM feeding injury; however, the only insecticide treatments that produced significant yield increases included: 1) Poncho Beta seed treatment plus a postemergence application of Yuma 4E at its high (2 pts product/ac) rate; 2) Poncho Beta plus a post application of Mustang Maxx; 3) Counter 20G at its moderate labeled rate (7.5 lb/ac); and 4) Poncho Beta plus a post application of Movento HL at its high rate (4.5 oz/ac). Sugarbeet root maggot Test 4 assessed the impacts of combining at-plant or postemergence insecticides with 10-34-0 starter fertilizer and/or azoxystrobin fungicide on SBRM control and potential plant phytotoxicity from the combinations. Negative impacts on stand establishment and survival were rare. Trends suggested increased risk of plant injury by combining at-plant applications of Counter 20G with 10-34-0 starter fertilizer plus azoxystrobin fungicide. Applying the fungicide postemergence, either concurrently with Thimet 20G or tank-mixed with chlorpyrifos (i.e., Yuma 4E), appeared to be safer than at-plant insecticide/fertilizer/fungicide combinations. All insecticide-based treatment combinations provided significant SBRM feeding injury reductions compared to the untreated check; however, treatments including at-plant and postemergence insecticide applications provided the greatest protection from SBRM feeding injury. SBRM feeding injury was higher when Counter 20G was combined with a concurrent application of azoxystrobin plus starter fertilizer. Results also suggested some risk of yield loss from applying starter fertilizer concurrently with Counter 20G. Root maggot Test 5 was an efficacy/plant safety trial on two new insecticides: Midac, a newly registered sugarbeet insecticide; and Bifender, which is not yet registered in sugarbeet. Both products are alternatives to the acetylcholinesterase (ACHE) inhibitors that have been used since the 1970s. If found efficacious and safe to the crop, they would be alternatives to help delay the development of SBRM resistance to ACHE insecticides. All insecticide treatments were assessed as stand-alone applications or either concurrently applied or tank-mixed with 10-34-0 starter fertilizer. Initial plant stand counts indicated no significant treatment impacts on seedling establishment; however, at 49 days after planting, plant stands in plots treated with Counter 20G at the high rate plus an in-furrow application of starter fertilizer were significantly lower than those that received Counter without fertilizer. This was most pronounced when Counter was applied at its high labeled rate. Most treatment combinations involving either Midac or Bifender, with or without starter fertilizer, had greater plant stands at 49 DAP than the combination of Counter 20G applied at its high rate with a concurrent application of fertilizer. Plots treated with the high rate of Counter 20G produced the highest recoverable sucrose yields; however, yields produced by most treatments that included Bifender or Midac were not significantly greater than those from plots treated with the high rate of Counter. Patterns suggested that Midac could be more effective when applied via dribble-in-furrow placement than when applied in a 3-inch T-band, and Bifender appears to be slightly more effective at its high (10.97 fl oz/ac) rate, although the difference in sucrose yield between it and the 6.6-oz rate was not significant. In Test 6, several experimental insecticides were tested for SBRM control potential. Although not recommended for SBRM control in high-risk areas, all treatments were applied as stand-alone entries to determine their potential for future incorporation into integrated programs. The following provided significant reductions in SBRM feeding injury and sucrose yield increases in comparison to the check: 1) Counter 20G at planting at both 7.5 and 8.9 lb product/ac; 2) Endigo ZC, applied at planting in a 3-inch T-band at 4.5 fl oz product/ac; and 3) a planting-time T-banded application of Asana XL at its high labeled rate (9.6 fl oz/ac) plus Exponent (8 fl oz/ac), an insecticide synergist. Endigo and Asana were not significantly outperformed by Counter 20G, the registered planting-time standard. Other treatments that generated encouraging yield results included Yuma 4E (a chlorpyrifos alternative to Lorsban 4E), Dibrom 8, Asana XL (without the synergist), and Fastac (a sprayable liquid neonicotinoid insecticide). Root Maggot Fly Survey. SBRM fly activity was monitored in 150 fields throughout the Red River Valley in 2020 as a collaborative effort with a local grower-owned cooperative. Average fly counts in 2020 exceeded those in 2019, and were the second-highest in the production area in the past 14 years. Fly activity data from all fields was overlaid with root injury rating data from 57 fields to develop a SBRM risk forecast for the 2021 season. The NDSU developmental model was used to predict timing of peak SBRM fly activity for various representative sites throughout the growing area, and to help growers make informed control decisions regarding curative insecticide applications at optimal timing intervals. Smart trapping technology for SBRM fly monitoring. Automated insect traps, based on machine-learning/artificial intelligence (AI) technology, which "learns" how to identify the target insect based on either:1) images of insects generated by a high-definition camera; or 2) relative impedance produced on electrodes located within a bug-zapper-type trap. A replicated trial comparing baited and unbaited versions of each trap type with conventional sticky-stake traps (also both baited and unbaited) was carried out for about 6 weeks during 2020. Evaluation of all data from both trap types is ongoing. Springtail Control. An experiment to evaluate granular and liquid at-plant insecticides, and insecticidal seed treatments for springtail management was conducted near Fairview, MT. Data collected included seedling survival (stand counts) and yield parameters (recoverable sucrose and root tonnage per acre, and percent sucrose content). Despite a light and variable springtail infestation, the following treatments provided significant levels of plant stand protection compared to the untreated check: 1) Poncho Beta seed treatment + Mustang Maxx applied at 4 fl oz/ac in a 3-inch T-band; 2) Poncho Beta + Midac applied at 13.6 fl oz/ac in a 3-inch T-band; 3) Counter 20G banded at 5.9 lb product/ac; 4) Poncho Beta + Mustang Maxx, dribbled in-furrow at 4 oz/ac; 5) Poncho Beta alone; and 6) Cruiser 5FS seed treatment. The variable infestation, coupled with infrequent rainfall, contributed significant variability to the yield data. As such, there were no detectable differences among the treatments. However, stand count data suggests that the best current options for protecting sugarbeet from these pests in the MonDak growing area consist of either an at-plant application of Counter 20G (5.9 lb/ac) or combining an insecticidal seed treatment with an at-plant liquid insecticide.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Calles-Torrez, V., M.A. Boetel, and J.J. Knodel. 2020. Corn Rootworm Survey in North Dakota and a Comparison of Two Sticky Traps. Journal of Applied Entomology. 144: 897910.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A. Insect Management, pp. 51-71. In M. Khan [ed.], Sugarbeet Production Guide. North Dakota State University and University of Minnesota Coop. Ext. Serv. Bulletin #A1698.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A. Sugarbeet Insects, pp. 92-97. In J. Knodel [ed.], North Dakota Field Crop Insect Management Guide. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. Bulletin #E1143-20.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Fly Monitoring in the Red River Valley in 2019. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 97-99.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Forecast for the 2020 Growing Season. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 100-101.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Hakk, P.C., M.F.R. Khan, A.K. Chanda, T.J. Peters, and M.A. Boetel. 2020. Turning Point Survey of Fungicide Use in Sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2018. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 138-153.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., M.F.R. Khan, T.J. Peters, and P.C. Hakk. 2020. Turning Point Survey of Sugarbeet Insect Pest Problems and Management Practices in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2018. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 84-96.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. A 3-Year Assessment of Postemergence Liquid Insecticide Rates, Timing, and Product Rotations for Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 111-116.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. Experimental Insecticides for Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control: Combined Results from Four Years of Screening. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 117-121.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. Midac FC Insecticide for Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control: Combined Results from a Two-Year Screening Trial. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 122-126.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. Springtail Control in the MonDak Sugarbeet Production Area: a Comparison of Granular, Sprayable Liquid, and Seed-Applied Insecticides. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 127-129.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Boetel, M.A., and J.J. Rikhus. 2020. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control by using Single-, Dual-, and Triple-Component Insecticide Regimes. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 102-110.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Peters, T.J., M.F.R. Khan, A. Lystad, and M.A. Boetel. 2020. Turning Point Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices in Sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2018. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 50: 7-12.


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

Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences reached in carrying out this work included entomologist colleagues, insect pathologists, extension educators, agricultural producers, sugar coopertative agriculturists, agricultural industry representatives, and crop consultants. Changes/Problems:One problem in 2019 that impacted this research was that sugarbeet root maggot fly emergence began exceptionally early (nearly three weeks ahead of normal), and two distinct periods of peak fly activity were recorded at several monitoring sites, including our insecticide trial and smart trap testing location. The occurrence of two fly activity peaks in a single growing season is somewhat rare, and the first peak was unusually early (similar to that observed in 2018). Weather events were also very challenging to this research. Planting conditions at St. Thomas were very difficult due to late-spring overland flooding. The movement of floodwater across the entire plot area resulted in deposition of extensive patches of plant trash (i.e., wheat stalks) in much of the area. Resulting plant trash concentrations were not uniform, thus likely contributing a substantial amount of variability within and among replicates across the field. As a result, significant differences were very infrequent in comparison to observations in most trials from previous years. Several significant rainfall events and a very wet fall also complicated harvest operations at the Prosper location. As a result, we were unable to harvest one replicate (25%) of that location. The excessive rainfall throughout the growing season also deposited excess plant trash on several plots at Prosper, which contributed additional inter-plot variability. Another challenge in carrying out some of our research was associated with the smart trap study. To improve the accuracy of, and "train", the algorithm for each trap type, results must be confirmed/ruled out, and fed back into it. As such, all trapped insects must be identified to determine if they are SBRM flies. This involves evaluation of all digital images captured by the camera traps, and carefully identifying all insects captured in the insect-zapping traps. This processing takes a considerable amount of time. We have samples from four weeks of operation. Each of the 16 camera traps collected one image every 24 hours throughout the duration of the study. As such, a substantial number of images must be evaluated to determine accuracy of counts provided by the traps. Similarly, we need to process 96 samples of insects captured by the zapper traps. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A "Train the Trainer" session was carried out to train regional sugar cooperative managers and agriculturists on the following: 1) accurate identification of sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) flies (i.e., distinguishing them from other fly species commonly captured on traps); and 2) proper construction, deployment, and processing of sticky traps used to monitor SBRM flies. The second component of the session involved planning a collaborative project between my program at NDSU and American Crystal Sugar Company's Agriculture Department. The project was aimed at significantly increasing the coverage area of our SBRM fly monitoring program to throughout the entire Red River Valley production area. The collaboration allowed us to monitor a total of 119 grower fields for root maggot fly activity, which was more than three times the number of fields my program can typically monitor each year. Data collected helped me provide growers and agricultural advisors about emerging fly activity hotspots and potential outbreak situations in a timely manner. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Field plot demonstration tours were held during the growing season to give stakeholders first-hand observations relating to the performance of the insect monitoring and managment tools being researched. Results were also presented to commodity group leaders, growers, sugar cooperative agriculturists, extension/research personnel, and agricultural industry representatives at the annual "Sugarbeet Research Reporting Session". Findings were also distributed online in the "Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports" publication. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Much of the research conducted in 2019 will need to be repeated because several overland flooding events, which occurred multiple times within the growing season, likely contributed significant confounding variability to many plots in the sugarbeet root maggot and springtail management trial locations. The smart (AI) insect trap study also must be repeated, as we have only conducted that research for two growing seasons thus far.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Several sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) control studies were conducted in eastern ND. In Test 1, the best-performing insecticide combinations (regarding root protection and recoverable sucrose yield) were: 1) Counter 20G at planting (7.5 or 8.9 lb product/ac) plus a postemergence application of Thimet 20G at 7 lb/ac; and 2) a 3-component program comprised of Poncho Beta seed treatment plus Counter 20G (8.9 lb) at planting, plus Thimet 20G applied postemergence at 7 lb product/ac. In Test 2, all insecticide programs, comprised of either Poncho Beta seed treatment or Counter 20G insecticide at planting, and combined with a 1- or 2-pt (product/ac) post application of Lorsban Advanced, resulted in reduced SBRM feeding injury and increased root and sucrose yield. Trends suggested that Counter was slightly more effective than Poncho Beta as the planting-time insecticide component; however, differences among insecticide programs were rarely significant. Although postemergence applications of Lorsban Advanced provided numerical yield increases, none was significant. In root maggot Test 3, all insecticide treatments, irrespective of whether involving a single, planting-time material (i.e., Counter 20G or Poncho Beta seed treatment) for planting-time protection, or a dual-component (i.e., planting-time plus postemergence spray) program, provided significant increases in root protection from SBRM feeding injury and yield when compared to the untreated control. The highest root protection and yield occurred in plots treated with Counter 20G at its moderate (7.5 lb product/ac) labeled rate. No significant increases in either root protection or yield resulted from postemergence applications of Lorsban Advanced, Mustang Maxx, or Movento HL. In Test 4, programs involving at-plant and postemergence insecticide combinations with 10-34-0 starter fertilizer and/or a liquid fungicide (Quadris flowable) were evaluated for SBRM control and for potential yield impacts. All insecticide treatments provided significant SBRM feeding injury reductions and yield increases when compared to the check. Application timing (3 d vs. 13 d before peak SBRM fly activity) did not significantly affect control or associated yield parameters. There were no significant negative impacts from applying Quadris concurrently with a planting-time application of Counter 20G or a postemergence application of )Thimet 20G, irrespective of whether the regime included 10-34-0 starter fertilizer. Further testing is needed, but findings suggest that including Quadris fungicide in single-pass applications, either at planting or as a postemergence rescue program may be safe with regard to plant health/phytotoxicity. This work will be repeated in 2020. Root maggot Test 5 evaluated multiple postemergence insecticide regimes for SBRM management. Dual application (i.e., planting-time plus postemergence) treatments performed best in both root protection and yield. Yield appeared to be optimized by applying Counter 20G at a moderate (7.5 lb product/ac) rate, and following it with two postemergence applications of Lorsban Advanced at its moderate (1 pt product/ac) rate, although rate-related differences in root protection and yield were non-significant. In treatments involving rotations of Lorsban Advanced and Mustang Maxx, applying Lorsban first (i.e., 3 d before peak SBRM fly activity) tended to be more effective than when Mustang was applied first in the rotation. In Test 6, experimental treatments (e.g., biorationals, an insect repellent, and conventional insecticides not currently registered for use in sugarbeet) were tested for SBRM control potential. All treatments were single applications. Although this practice is not recommended for SBRM control in high-risk areas, the treatments were applied as stand-alone entries to determine their potential for future incorporation into integrated programs. The top-performing treatments in relation to root protection from SBRM feeding injury and yield included: 1) Bifender FC applied in a 3-inch T-band at 7.84 fl oz product/ac; and 2) Counter 20G at planting time at a moderate rate (7.5 lb product/ac). As observed in previous testing, Bifender provided better root protection when applied via T-band placement than when applied using dribble in-furrow. This trend also showed in yield results; however, the differences were not significant. Neither of the Bifender treatments were significantly outperformed by Counter 20G, the registered planting-time standard. Other treatments that generated encouraging results with respect to root and recoverable sucrose yield included Endigo ZC, Midac FC, and Dibrom. Root Maggot Fly Survey SBRM fly activity was monitored in 35 fields throughout Red River Valley in 2019. A collaborative effort, led by NDSU, involved monitoring an additional 84 fields by agriculturists from a local sugar cooperative. Average fly counts in 2019 were the second-highest for the production area in the past 13 years, which underscores the importance of continued pursuit of effective technology to monitor and manage this pest. Fly activity data was overlaid with root injury rating data from 49 of the 119 fly monitoring fields to develop a SBRM risk forecast for the 2020 season. The NDSU developmental model was used to predict timing of peak SBRM fly activity for various representative sites throughout the growing area, and to help growers make informed pest management decisions regarding curative insecticide applications at optimal timing intervals. Smart, insect trapping technology for monitoring root maggot flies Automated insect traps, based on machine-learning/artificial intelligence technology, which "learns" how to identify the target insect based on either:1) images of insects generated by a high-definition camera; or 2) relative impedance produced on electrodes located within a bug-zapper-type trap. A replicated trial comparing baited and unbaited versions of each trap type with conventional sticky-stake traps (also both baited and unbaited) was carried out for 4 weeks during 2019. The bait formulation tested did not appear to have a significant impact on trapping frequency, suggesting that baiting may not be necessary to monitor SBRM flies with this technology. Evaluation of all data from both trap types is currently underway. Springtail Management Two performance trials were conducted on springtail management in 2019: one near Buford (Williams County), in northwestern ND, and a second trial near Prosper (Cass County), ND. The Buford trial failed due a low springtail infestation. The Prosper trial involved at-plant and postemergence insecticide/fungicide/starter fertilizer combinations, and was initially deployed as a plant safety trial intended to be carried out in the absence of insect pest pressure; however, a significant springtail infestation developed in the plots. Findings indicated that all insecticide treatments provided good protection from springtail injury. No significant reductions in yield were observed by making planting-time Counter 20G applications concurrently with Quadris applications. This suggests that these crop protection products may be safe to be deployed simultaneously and save input costs as single-pass applications; however, a numerical reduction in sucrose yield and a significant loss in root tonnage were observed when 10-34-0 starter fertilizer was applied in furrow in combination with Counter 20G at its maximum application rate (8.9 lb product/ac). If starter fertilizer is preferred at planting, growers should consider a more moderate (7.5 lb product/ac or lower) rate of Counter 20G at planting for these scenarios.

Publications

  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., M. F. R. Khan, T. J. Peters, and P. C. Hakk. 2019. Turning Point Survey of Sugarbeet Insect Pest Problems and Management Practices in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2017. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 106-111.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., J. J. Rikhus, and A. J. Schroeder. 2019. Effective Springtail Management in Sugarbeet with Granular, Sprayable Liquid and Seed-Applied Insecticides. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 146-148.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., J. J. Rikhus, and A. J. Schroeder. 2019. Impact of Insecticide Spray Rates, Timing and Product Rotations for Postemergence Root Maggot Control. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 125-129.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., J. J. Rikhus, and A. J. Schroeder. 2019. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Forecast for the 2019 Growing Season. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 115-116.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., J. J. Rikhus, and A. J. Schroeder. 2019. Two Screening Trials on Experimental Insecticides in the Ongoing Search for Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control Alternatives. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 136-141.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., A. J. Schroeder, and J. J. Rikhus. 2019. Application Rate and Timing Impacts on Performance of Thimet 20G for Postemergence Control of the Sugarbeet Root Maggot. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 130-135.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., A. J. Schroeder, and J. J. Rikhus. 2019. Performance of Single-, Dual-, and Triple-Component Insecticide Programs Under Moderate and Severe Sugarbeet Root Maggot Pressure Situations. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 117-124.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., A. J. Schroeder, and J. J. Rikhus. 2019. Three-Year Performance Summary on Movento HL Insecticide for Postemergence Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 142-145.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Boetel, M. A., A. J. Schroeder, J. J. Rikhus, and S. C. Lahman. 2019. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Fly Activity in the Red River Valley in 2018. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 112-114.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Hakk, P. C., M. F.R. Khan, A. K. Chanda, T. J. Peters, and M. A. Boetel. 2019. Turning Point Survey of Fungicide Use in Sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2017. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 155-165.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2019 Citation: Peters, T. J., M. F. R. Khan, and M. A. Boetel. 2019. Turning Point Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices in Sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2017. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 49: 7-14.


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

Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences reached in carrying out this work included entomologist colleagues, insect pathologists, extension educators, agricultural producers, sugar coopertative agriculturists, agricultural industry representatives, and crop consultants. Changes/Problems:One challenge to this research in 2018 was that sugarbeet root maggot fly emergence began exceptionally early(nearly three weeks ahead of normal), andthree distinct periods of peak fly activity were recorded at several monitoring sites, including our insecticide trial and smart trap testing location.The occurrence of three fly activity peaks in a single growing season is unprecedented, and the first peak was extremely unusual, as it occurred earlier than any recorded in the past 20 years. This unusual occurrence not only impacted our research trials, but it is also a significant concern regarding what producers could face with regard to managing the sugarbeet root maggot in 2019. Other challenges in carrying out some of our research were associated with the smart trap study. First, the evaluation of all digital images captured by the Sentinel traps, which is currently underway, is taking a considerable amount of time, because each of the 16 camera traps collected one image every 24 hours throughout the duration of the root maggot fly activity period (about 6 weeks). As such, a substantial number of images must be reviewed to determine accuracy of the counts provided by the traps. Second challenge during this first year of testing smart traps involved the "bug zapper" version. Although the flies were in effect knocked out by the zapper electrodes, they were not killed and several flies subsequently recovered. Thus, it is possible that a very small number may have been able to escape the collection container (equipped with an inverse cone to minimize escape) and be re-counted. If funding is received to continue this work, insecticide-laced fly-kill strips will be positioned within the collection containers to ensure that captured flies are only counted once. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Presentations were made at four winter grower seminars to train Extension personnel, sugar cooperative agricultural staff, crop consultants, and producers on anticipated insect pest population levels, and to equip them with recommended strategies to effectively manage them. Two summer field day demonstration plot tours were conducted to provide additional training on sugarbeet insect pest management. An additional "train the trainer" seminar and round table discussion session was held in late-summer of 2018 to educate sugar cooperative agriculturists and managers on best practices for sugarbeet root maggot management. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?This information has been disseminated through one-on-one talks with stakeholders (e.g., producers, sugar cooperative agriculturists, etc.), conference presentations, non-refereed research report publications, a weekly newsletter (the NDSU Crop & Pest Report), about 6 radio interviews, and emailed communications to industry leaders. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?A proposal has been submitted to a regional commodity group to continue mostof this work. It is anticipated that the projects involving the following will be conducted:1) sugarbeet root maggot monitoring; 2) Smart technology for insect population monitoring; 3) optimization of sugarbeet root maggot management via experimental and registered insecticide materials; and 4) springtail management tool testing.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Several sugarbeetroot maggot (SBRM) control studies were conducted in eastern ND.In Test 1, the best-performing combinations (in relation to root protection and recoverable sucrose yield) were:1) Counter 20G at planting (7.5 or 8.9 lb product/ac) plus postemergence Thimet 20G at 7 lb/ac; 2) Poncho Beta seed treatment plus a postemergence application of Counter 20G at 8.9 lb; and 3) Poncho Beta seed treatment plus Counter 20G at planting at 5.25 lb product/ac. InTest 2, applying Lorsban Advanced at the high (2 pts product/ac) rate at 3 days before peak fly provided greater reductions in SBRM feeding injury than applying it at 1 pt/ac. A similar trend was observed with yield; however, the increases were not statistically significant. In Test 3, the best-performing treatment, with respect to root protection and yield, was Poncho Beta-treated seed plus a postemergence application of Lorsban Advanced at 2 pts product/ac. The second-best treatment involved Poncho Beta-treated seed combined with a postemergence spray of Mustang Maxx at 4 fl oz product/ac. This treatment was not statistically different from the Poncho Beta plus Lorsban Advanced treatment in either root protection or sucrose yield. All treatments that included a postemergence application of Movento HL, regardless of rate or timing, significantly reduced SBRM feeding injury and increased yield when compared to the untreated check. InTest 4, timing and rates of postemergence Thimet 20G applications were evaluated for SBRM control. All insecticide treatments, whether a single planting-time application of Counter 20G or a combination involving Counter at planting plus postemergence Thimet 20G, provided significant SBRM feeding injury reductions and yield increases when compared to the untreated check.There were no significant impacts of Thimet application timing (7 or 13 days before peak SBRM fly activity) or rate (4.9 lb vs. 7 lb product/ac) on yield. Findings suggest the following: 1) growers using Counter at planting and adding postemergence Thimet applications may not need to apply the high rate of either product for excellent control; and 2) there is a large window of time (1 to 2 weeks before peak fly) to effectively apply Thimet 20G. Root maggotTest 5was conducted to test multiple postemergence insecticide spray timings, rates, and rotations. The best overall treatment, in both root protection and yield, involved planting-time Counter 20G at 7.5 lb product/ac plus two applications of Lorsban Advanced at 2 pts product/ac (7 days pre-peak and 4 days after peak fly). Another treatment that provided excellent control was the combination of Counter 20G at 8.9 lb product/ac plus a single application of Lorsban Advanced at 2 pts product/ac. Other entries that were not outperformed in yield by the above-mentioned treatments included: 1) Counter 20G at planting (7.5 lb/ac) plus Lorsban Advanced applied at 7 days pre-peak and 8 days post-peak at 2 pts/ac; 2) Counter 20G at planting (7.5 lb/ac) plus 1 pt/ac of Lorsban Advanced at 3 days pre-peak; 3) Counter 20G at planting (7.5 lb/ac) plus Lorsban Advanced (1 pt/ac) applied at 7 days pre-peak and 4 days post-peak); and 4) Counter 20G at planting (7.5 lb/ac) plus Mustang Maxx (3 days pre-peak) plus Lorsban Advanced (1 day post-peak) at 1 pt/ac. Trends also suggested that a single application of Lorsban Advanced at 2 pts/ac is just as effective as splitting the same amount of Lorsban into two 1-pt applications. In Test 6, experimental treatments (e.g., biorational and conventional chemical insecticides, and an insect repellent) were tested for potential as SBRM control tools. The top-performing treatments in relation to root protection from SBRM feeding injury and yield included: 1) Counter 20G at planting time at a moderate rate (7.5 lb product/ac); and 2) Vydate C-LV at 34 fl oz product/ac. Endigo ZC was the only planting-time treatment that was not out-performed by Counter 20G at the moderate (7.5-lb) rate. The following postemergence treatments were not significantly outperformed by postemergence Lorsban Advanced at its moderate (1 pt product/ac) rate: 1) Vydate C-LV; 2) Ecozin Plus; 3) Evergreen Crop Protection; Dibrom; 4) Larva Biocontrol; 5) Captiva; 6) Aza-Direct; and 7) Larva Biocontrol at planting plus a postemergence tank mix of Thymol plus Spidermite Control. In SBRMTest 7, the experimental planting-time insecticides Bifender FC and Midac were compared with Counter 20G at its moderate rate (7.5 lb product/ac). That rate of Counter was chosen to determine if either of these experimental materials could provide at least moderate SBRM control, which is what 7.5 lb of Counter has provided in past testing. The top-performing treatment in this experiment was Bifender FC applied in a 3-inch T-band. This treatment was statistically superior in root protection from SBRM feeding injury and sucrose yield. Treatments not significantly outperformed by T-banded Bifender in either root protection or yield included the following: 1) Bifender at 10.9 fl oz plus Midac at 6.9 fl oz product/ac; and 2) Midac at 13.5 fl oz/ac. Root Maggot Fly Survey SBRM fly activity was monitored in 36 fields throughout Red River Valley in 2018. Fly activity data were overlaid with root injury rating data from all 36 fields, plus an additional 30 fields, to develop a SBRM risk forecast for the 2019 season. The NDSU developmental model was used to predict timing of peak SBRM fly activity for various representative sites throughout the growing area. Degree-day accumulations were then used to advise growers regarding proper timing of postemergence insecticide treatments. Smart, insect trapping technology for monitoring root maggot flies Automated insect traps based on machine-learning/artificial intelligence technology, which "learns" how to identify the target insect based on either:1) images of insects generated by a high-definition camera; or 2) relative impedance produced on electrodes located within a container-type trap. A replicated trial comparing baited and unbaited versions of each trap type with conventional sticky-stake traps (also both baited and unbaited) was carried out for about 5 weeks during 2018. The bait formulation tested did not appear to have a significant impact on trapping frequency, suggesting that baiting may not be necessary to monitor SBRM flies with this technology. Evaluation of all digital images captured by the camera traps is currently underway. Springtail Management Two springtail insecticide performance trials were conducted near Prosper, ND in 2018. Findings indicated that insecticidal seed treatments performed at comparable levels to Counter 20G, and rate had no significant impact on performance of Counter in relation to plant protection or yield parameters. The top-yielding treatment was the combination of Poncho Beta plus an at-plant application of Mustang Maxx (4 fl oz product/ac). This entry yielded significantly greater sucrose yield than either rate of Counter 20G. Poncho Beta plus Mustang also provided numerically greater root and sucrose yields than either of these products as single treatments; however those differences were not statistically significant. Seed Lubricant Study This experiment was conducted (in light of concerns about neonicotinoid seed treatment insecticides being abraded from seed and negatively impacting pollinators) to determine if planter hopper box seed lubricants are needed for sugarbeet seedling establishment. Lubricants tested included talcum, graphite, a talcum/graphite mixture, and Fluency Advanced. Results suggest that reducing or eliminating talcum from use in these planters will not impose deleterious effects on sugarbeet stand establishment that translate to statistically significant yield loss. Growers can safely and effectively deploy insecticidal seed treatments with any lubricant tested (or even by excluding a lubricant) without significantly impacting sugarbeet seedling establishment or yield.

Publications

  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., M.F.R. Khan, T.J. Peters, and P.C. Hakk. 2018. Turning Point Survey of Sugarbeet Insect Pest Problems and Management Practices in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2016. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 70-73.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., J.J. Rikhus, and A.J. Schroeder. 2018. Application Timing and Rate Effects on Postemergence Insecticide Sprays for Root Maggot Control. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 85-89.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., J.J. Rikhus, and A.J. Schroeder. 2018. Evaluation of Experimental Insecticides for Management of the Sugarbeet Root Maggot. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 94-97.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., J.J. Rikhus, and A.J. Schroeder. 2018. Movento HL: Two Years of Performance Trials on a Newly Registered Insecticide for Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 98-101.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., J.J. Rikhus, and A.J. Schroeder. 2018. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Forecast for the 2018 Growing Season. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 77.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., J.J. Rikhus, and A.J. Schroeder. 2018. Wireworm Management in Sugarbeet Using Planting-Time Granular, Liquid and Seed Treatment Insecticides. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 102-104.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., J.J. Rikhus, A.J. Schroeder, N.R. Cattanach, A. Chatterjee, and K. Sharpe. 2018. Impacts of Seed Lubricants on Seedling Establishment and Yield: On-Farm and Small-Plot Trials. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 108-113.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., A.J. Schroeder, and J.J. Rikhus. 2018. Does Application rate or Timing Impact Performance of Thimet 20G for Postemergence Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control? Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 90-93.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., A.J. Schroeder, and J.J. Rikhus. 2018. Springtail Control in Sugarbeet: A Comparison of Granular, Sprayable Liquid and Seed-Applied Insecticides. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 105-107.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., A.J. Schroeder, and J.J. Rikhus. 2018. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control Using Single- Dual- and Triple-Component Insecticide Programs. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 78-84.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., A.J. Schroeder, J.J. Rikhus, S.C. Lahman, and T.A. Lunde. 2018. Sugarbeet Root Maggot Fly Monitoring in the Red River Valley  2017. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 74-76.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Hakk, P.C., M.F.R. Khan, A.K. Chanda, T.J. Peters, and M.A. Boetel. 2018. Turning Point Survey of Fungicide Use in Sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2016. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 123-128.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2018 Citation: Peters, T.J., M.F.R. Khan, and M.A. Boetel. 2018. Turning Point Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2016. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. North Dakota State University Coop. Ext. Serv. 48: 6-12.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Boetel, M.A., A.J. Schroeder, and J.J. Rikhus. 2018. Postemergence insecticide timing for root maggot control and the 2018 forecast. 48th Annual Sugarbeet Research Reporting Session, January 2018, Fargo, ND.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Rikhus, J.J., M.A. Boetel, and Schroeder, A.J. 2018. Experimental and conventional tools for sugarbeet root maggot control. 48th Annual Sugarbeet Research Reporting Session, January 2018, Fargo, ND.
  • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Other Year Published: 2018 Citation: Schroeder, A.J., M.A. Boetel, and J.J. Rikhus. 2018. Wireworm and springtail control using granular, liquid, and seed treatment insecticides. 48th Annual Sugarbeet Research Reporting Session, January 2018, Fargo, ND.