We planted corn on 17 April 2024 on Portsmouth fine sandy loam near Salem, NC, to test selected in-furrow insecticides for efficacy against southern corn billbug. Our plots were 4 rows wide by 40 feet long, with 4 replicates in a randomized complete block design. We applied the insecticide treatments indicated in Table 1 to all 4 rows of corn at planting. We applied the liquids with the planter streamed in-furrow out of a 1/8-inch tube at 30 PSI and 10 GPA to direct the liquid onto the seed. We applied Counter using an inverted jar with a hole size in the lid calibrated to achieve the desired at-planting rate. Poncho was applied as a seed treatment and all seed had a fungicidal seed treatment. We took stand counts (representing the number of plants per 80 row-feet) and injury assessments (number of billbug-damaged plants per 80 row-feet) on 21 DAT and conducted injury assessments again on 28 DAT. We evaluated yield by harvesting the 2 middle rows of each plot on 27 August 2024, adjusting weights by 15.5%. We analyzed data using a mixed model ANOVA, with treatment as the fixed factor and replication and the interaction of treatment and replication as random factors. We used transformations, as needed, to satisfy model assumptions. Finally, we used Fisher’s protected LSD procedure for means separations.

21 DAT28 DAT
Stand countInjured plantsInjured plantsYield
Treatment/Form.Rate(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(bu/acre)
Counter 20Ga6.5d160.25a86.75a124.50a87.72c
Poncho 5FSb1.25e166.50a25.50b79.25b82.99c
Poncho 5FSb0.5e162.25a18.00b83.25b114.11abc
Poncho 5FSb + Counter 20Ga0.5e + 6.5d167.25a20.50b98.00ab109.53abc
Regent 4SCc3.2f165.25a103.25a127.50a144.91a
Sivanto Prime 1.67Lc28f161.50a108.00a132.00a131.43ab
Untreated check-165.50a113.00a129.25a94.67bc
P > FP = 0.3743P < 0.0001P = 0.0183P = 0.0181
21 DAT28 DAT
Stand countInjured plantsInjured plantsYield
Treatment/Form.Rate(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(bu/acre)
Counter 20Ga6.5d160.25a86.75a124.50a87.72c
Poncho 5FSb1.25e166.50a25.50b79.25b82.99c
Poncho 5FSb0.5e162.25a18.00b83.25b114.11abc
Poncho 5FSb + Counter 20Ga0.5e + 6.5d167.25a20.50b98.00ab109.53abc
Regent 4SCc3.2f165.25a103.25a127.50a144.91a
Sivanto Prime 1.67Lc28f161.50a108.00a132.00a131.43ab
Untreated check-165.50a113.00a129.25a94.67bc
P > FP = 0.3743P < 0.0001P = 0.0183P = 0.0181

Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P > F 0.05).

aIn-Furrow Granule.

bSeed treatment.

cIn-Furrow Spray.

dlb form. (wt) / acre.

emg AI/seed.

ffl oz form. / acre/.

21 DAT28 DAT
Stand countInjured plantsInjured plantsYield
Treatment/Form.Rate(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(bu/acre)
Counter 20Ga6.5d160.25a86.75a124.50a87.72c
Poncho 5FSb1.25e166.50a25.50b79.25b82.99c
Poncho 5FSb0.5e162.25a18.00b83.25b114.11abc
Poncho 5FSb + Counter 20Ga0.5e + 6.5d167.25a20.50b98.00ab109.53abc
Regent 4SCc3.2f165.25a103.25a127.50a144.91a
Sivanto Prime 1.67Lc28f161.50a108.00a132.00a131.43ab
Untreated check-165.50a113.00a129.25a94.67bc
P > FP = 0.3743P < 0.0001P = 0.0183P = 0.0181
21 DAT28 DAT
Stand countInjured plantsInjured plantsYield
Treatment/Form.Rate(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(/80 row ft.)(bu/acre)
Counter 20Ga6.5d160.25a86.75a124.50a87.72c
Poncho 5FSb1.25e166.50a25.50b79.25b82.99c
Poncho 5FSb0.5e162.25a18.00b83.25b114.11abc
Poncho 5FSb + Counter 20Ga0.5e + 6.5d167.25a20.50b98.00ab109.53abc
Regent 4SCc3.2f165.25a103.25a127.50a144.91a
Sivanto Prime 1.67Lc28f161.50a108.00a132.00a131.43ab
Untreated check-165.50a113.00a129.25a94.67bc
P > FP = 0.3743P < 0.0001P = 0.0183P = 0.0181

Means within columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (Fisher’s Protected LSD, P > F 0.05).

aIn-Furrow Granule.

bSeed treatment.

cIn-Furrow Spray.

dlb form. (wt) / acre.

emg AI/seed.

ffl oz form. / acre/.

At 21 DAT, injury levels were significantly lower in plots treated with Poncho (1.25 mg AI/seed), Poncho (0.5 mg AI/seed), and Poncho (0.5 mg AI/seed) + Counter (6.5 lb/acre) compared with the untreated check (Table 1). At 28 DAT, injury levels were significantly lower in plots treated with Poncho (1.25 mg AI/seed) or Poncho (0.5 mg AI/seed) compared with the untreated check. We observed significantly higher yields in plots treated with Regent 3.2 oz compared with the untreated check.1

Footnotes

1

This study was supported by industry gifts of products and/or research funding.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected].
Subject Editor: Whitney Crow
Whitney Crow
Subject Editor
Search for other works by this author on: