 |
Sponsored by the Cooperative State Research, Extension,
and Education Service |
 |
November 2006
Written by Kerry Richards*
Pest Management Information Center at The Pennsylvania State University
The following are excerpts from the official version of the sweet corn
pest management strategic plan (PMSP) that can be found at http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/NE_Sweet_Corn.pdf.
This html version is only available for ease of searching information within
the PMSP, but the official version should be referred to when quoting the PMSP.
Contained in these excerpts:
General Discussion and Recommendations
Priorities for Regulation, Research, and Education
See the rest of the document (in pdf format)
Executive Summary
Collectively, the 11 northeastern states produce 22.9 percent of the total U.S.
crop of fresh market corn and approximately 14.1 percent of the processed corn
in the country. Regionally, sweet corn is grown on approximately 110,800 acres,
represents 30 percent of the vegetable crop acreage, and is grown by 50 percent
of the nearly 6,000 vegetable farmers in the region (2002 Census). Fresh market
corn represents approximately 74,400 acres, while processing corn is grown on
36,400 acres (2002 Census). The largest producing states in the northeast for
fresh market corn are New York (28,000 acres) and Pennsylvania (19,600 acres).
Of the northeastern states surveyed by National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) that produce sweet corn for processing, New York produces just over one-half
(110,200 tons) of all of the processed sweet corn grown in the region, with
Delaware coming in a distant second (49,020 tons). Total value of sweet corn
in the northeastern states is $157,951,000 for fresh market corn and $29,110,000
for processed corn.
The original draft of this Pest Management Strategic Plan (PMSP) was developed from input provided by land grant commodity specialists, sweet corn producers, and industry representatives at a workshop held in December 2004. Participants who attended the workshop are listed on pages 3–4 of this document. Further development of the PMSP was based on grower input gathered from two additional sources: a survey of New England sweet corn growers conducted by the University of Massachusetts in 2004 (n= 215) and a NASS survey of growers in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey (n=250). Throughout this document, information from all three sources is presented to illustrate the pest management issues that growers face, a field-based perspective of actual chemical use, and grower perspectives of the effectiveness of the chemical control options. While pest conditions and pest management practices differ among states and geographic areas within the region, we have found that there are consistent patterns and needs.
The content of this document regarding production and pest management practices and products for sweet corn is based on many reliable sources, but the primary sources of information came from the New England Vegetable Pest Management Guide and the Pennsylvania Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations. Additional material was adapted, with permission, from the North Central States Sweet Corn PMSP.
Growers indicated that the major caterpillar pests (corn earworm, European corn borer, fall armyworm) along with corn leaf aphid present their biggest challenge in insect pest management. The predominance of synthetic pyrethroids, and to some extent the carbamates among the insecticides that are available—and are considered effective—is a major concern. Growers indicated a strong need for alternatives that provide a different chemistry; are effective, reasonably priced, and safe for handlers; and have less impact on natural enemies. Until these are available, maintaining current registrations for non-pyrethroid products is important.
Alternatives that are highlighted in the recommendations include alternative chemistries, biological control, and transgenic (Bt) cultivars. Growers also have a need for resources and tools to enable them to implement IPM practices throughout the region at the farm level, regardless of farm size or location. The challenges facing organic sweet corn producers are also discussed in this PMSP.
Weed management in sweet corn requires herbicides that will effectively control annual broadleaves, grasses, and perennial broadleaf weeds. When asked to rank the weed pests requiring the most management, 91 percent of the 209 New England growers who responded ranked annual broadleaf weeds as the most significant weed pest. Eighty percent felt that annual grasses were the most significant weed problem, followed by perennial broadleaf weeds at 58 percent and perennial grasses at 54 percent. New chemical control options are needed for weeds, including short residual herbicides, and both pre- and post emergence options. Until new chemistries are available, registrations for critical uses should be maintained. Cultivation is widely used as a supplement to herbicides, and organic farmers depend upon cost-effective cultural and mechanical methods for weed control.
Management of insect and weed pest problems often has an effect on the presence of disease problems. Although the use of seed treatments and resistant varieties has dramatically reduced the incidence of many sweet corn disease problems, several diseases still present potentially significant economic losses if not properly managed. Growers indicated that Stewart’s wilt, common leaf rust, common smut, and stalk rots are the most important diseases in terms of the percentage of acres infested.
Vertebrate pests cause significant losses. Birds, raccoons, and deer were ranked as the most serious pests. A variety of control methods and repellents are used with varying effectiveness. Growers noted the need for effective seed treatments against bird pests of seeds and seedlings.
Within the context of the Sweet Corn PMSP, workshop participants discussed their greatest pest management challenges and outlined their priorities for regulatory, research, and education action. Pages 5–7 indicate these priorities facing sweet corn producers, based on the consensus of those present at the Sweet Corn PMSP workshop.
**************************************************
General Discussion and Recommendations
· Healthy soils are important for general plant health and pest resistance.
· Adjusting the planting date (early or late) can be used to avoid several pests; however, it can lead to a problem with establishment of the crop or pressure from other pests, and it is not always economically feasible.
· The need for succession planting to provide continuous market availability creates challenges for pest management practices, which must respond to changes in environment and pest pressure over the course of the season.
· The overwintering range of some pests seems to be expanding.
· Transgenic sweet corn cultivars are available for control of some corn insect pests; however, increased public acceptance of genetically modified crops is critical to their potential impact.
· Transgenic sweet corn cultivars are not available in some parts of the region or to some growers due to regulatory restrictions, including organic restrictions.
· Lack of an adequate number of experienced extension personnel, scouts, and consultants is a limiting factor in the implementation of IPM throughout the region.
· Irrigation is a cultural practice that contributes to the effective management of pests and the production of a high-quality crop. Depending on weather conditions, the majority of sweet corn production acreage in the region is set up for irrigation during dry periods.
· Maintaining availability of different types of chemistries for pest management options is critical to resistance management.
**************************************************
Priorities for Regulation, Research, and Education
Regulatory Priorities
Major Insect Pests (Lepidoptera)
· Register (and re-register) different/additional chemical families for Lepidopteran pests. For corn earworm, which is the most destructive corn ear pest, six of the nine chemicals registered are pyrethroids, which could lead to resistance in pest populations. These are also the most widely used. Resistance management is an important issue for effective pest management, and alternative chemistries are critical to resistance management.
· Maintain registrations for nonpyrethroid products, including the current methomyl registration.
· Register control methods that will not negatively affect beneficial insect populations.
· Reduce regulatory barriers for access and distribution of biological organisms (e.g., Trichogramma ostriniae).Weeds
· Maintain herbicide registrations for critical uses:
§ Triazines – Broadleaf weeds
§ Sutan+ – Johnsongrass
§ Eradicane – JohnsongrassMinor Pests
· Maintain labeled use for Diazinon as a soil-applied and incorporated material; soil insects are not adequately controlled by other presently labeled products.
· Register new products (e.g., neonicotinoids) for corn leaf aphid.
· Maintain Metasystox R registration (which is used as a rescue treatment primarily in the southern part of the region in rare instances of mite outbreak) until a viable alternative is labeled for sweet corn.
· Register new lower risk chemistry products for twospotted spider mite control.
· Register spinosad (trade names SpinTor 2 SC, Entrust) for flea beetle control. Entrust registration would be especially important for organic growers.
· Establish a mechanism that facilitates management of damaging bird populations.
· Register seed treatments for bird control.Research Priorities
Insect management
· Management of corn earworm and other Lepidoptera with less reliance on
pyrethroids:§ Alternatives to the current pyrethroids for larval control, due to potential suspected resistance, declining efficacy, and negative effects on beneficials.
§ Research ecological/biological management of European corn borer and
other Lepidoptera.· Determine how to make the best use of transgenic cultivars (Bt hybrids) in an integrated pest management approach. Evaluate effects of regional Bt field corn use on sweet corn pest populations and beneficial insect populations.
· Work on resistance management for spinosad and other materials approved for organic growers.
· Determine effective management systems for using T. ostriniae to control European corn borer in all northeastern sweet corn growing areas.
· Conduct research on how to preserve natural enemies to pests, including effects of insecticide and fungicide chemistries on beneficial populations and effects of beneficial populations on pest populations.
· Develop pest prediction modeling to complement in-field scouting and thresholds.§ Develop or refine phenology models for key pests such as European corn borer, corn leaf aphid, corn earworm, and sap beetle.
§ Improve prediction capabilities that enable growers to make site-specific decisions by using action thresholds.· Document pyrethroid resistance development, especially in Lepidopteran pests.
· Conduct research on the control of soil-borne insects and seed pests, such as seedcorn maggot, to replace Diazinon.
· Conduct research on control for mites, including twospotted spider mite, by using oil sprays or other safer alternatives to replace Metasystox-R. Good control methods are not available for mite infestations, and the new products are prohibitively expensive.
· Develop alternative chemicals for aphid control.
· Develop seed treatment or other effective strategies for bird control.Weed management
· Develop new chemical control options for weeds, including a short residual herbicide for double-cropping systems (two crops planted in the same year) because Bladex is no longer available.
· Alternative weed control strategies for organic production.
· Develop post emergence annual and perennial grass herbicides.Educational Outreach Priorities
· Ensure that growers understand how new chemistries (such as Callisto 4F or Aim) are labeled and recommended. Emphasis should be on how use and recommendations for sweet corn differ from the field corn label recommendations-critical for decreasing the potential for severe crop injury.
· Increase the number of people in the field who are trained in integrated pest management (IPM) to help growers monitor pest populations.§ Develop monitoring programs; obtain infrastructure for scouting and monitoring programs relevant to diversified and small growers across the northeast.
§ Educate growers about predictor models for European corn borer.· Information transfer concerning beneficial insects, for both organic and IPM systems.
§ Education on how and why to preserve beneficial insects and how to use other ecological/biological approaches to managing pests.
§ Provide information on the toxicity of pest control measures and pesticide chemistries to beneficial insects, bees, workers, soil, and water.
§ Education on the impact of transgenic cultivars (Bt hybrids) on beneficials.· Education on insect and disease identification.
§ Create a pictorial field guide with all sweet corn pests, including leaf diseases and insects. Growers liked the New England calendar-type color picture guide to vegetable pests.
§ Include more hands-on insect identification and biology at grower meetings.· Provide training on alternative weed control methods, especially alternatives to atrazine that are registered but not generally used.
· Market IPM to increase consumer demand for IPM and locally grown products and to make the public aware of the other benefits resulting from IPM implementation.
· Provide information to growers about the development and prevention of resistance in pest populations across the region, especially in the early stages when resistance is first observed.
**************************************************
**************************************************
*Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the following for the review of this document:
Galen Dively—Department of Entomology, University of Maryland
Tim Elkner—Extension Educator, Horticulture, Cooperative Extension, The Pennsylvania State University
Sharon Gripp- Pesticide Education Program Information Specialist- The Pennsylvania State University
Ann Hazelrigg—Pesticide Applicator Training, University of Vermont
Ruth Hazzard—Co-chair, Vegetable IPM Working Group, University of Massachusetts
Brad Majek—Extension Specialist, Weed Science, Rutgers University
Curtis Petzoldt—Assistant Director and Vegetable IPM Coordinator, New York State IPM Program, Cornell University
Peggy (Margaret) Siligato—Pesticide Applicator Training Program Coordinator, University of Rhode Island
Julie Todd – Editor, Technically Correct Scientific Communications
Pam Westgate- Research Project Manager -UMASS Extension Vegetable Program University of Massachusetts
Joanne Whalen—Integrated Pest Management Extension Specialist, University of Delaware
Workshop Participants:
Abby Seaman
* Charles D. Bornt
*Jean Paul Courtens
Kerry Richards
*Paul Dutton
*Keith Armstrong
*Lockwood (Pooh) Sprague
*James Ward
Andrea Szylvian
*Warren Lamborn
Edith Lurvey
Elizabeth Thomas
Shelby Fleischer
Iliana Rivas
Kenneth Gauen
Luke McConnell
Kathy Murray
George W. Hamilton
Natalia Clifton
Ruth Hazzard
* grower participant
|
Sponsored by the Cooperative State Research, Extension,
and Education Service |
|