Evaluation of Soybeans in Maturity Groups I-IV for Resistance to Heterodera glycines.
Forty-seven private and public soybean (Glycine max) cultivars in maturity groups I, II, III, and IV were evaluated in the field for resistance to Heterodera glycines race 3 and race 4 at two sites, Kilbourne and Urbana, Illinois. The soil at Kilbonrne was an irrigated sand infested with race 3. The soil at Urbana was a nonirrigated silty clay loam infested with race 4. Yield of nematode-susceptible controls was reduced at both locations, and yield differences were observed among the other cultivars. Soybeans grown in sand yielded less than the soybean grown in silty clay loam. Although populations of H. glycines recovered at planting were lower at Kilbourne than at Urbana, a greater percentage of loss in yield was associated with the sand at Kilbourne. Several soybean cultivars had a high level of resistance to both populations of H. glycines.
Effect of Within-field Variation in Soil Texture on Heterodera glycines and Soybean Yield.
The influence of soil texture on Soybean yield in the presence of Heterodera glycines was investigated by comparing yields of susceptible cultivars with a resistant cultivar for 2 years. Soybean yield was negatively correlated with increasing sand content (P = 0.05). Yields of susceptible cultivars were suppressed with increasing sand content. Final nematode population densities were lowest in plots with greatest sand content. Soybean infection by SCN, as determined by the number of cysts 30 days after planting, was not consistently related to soil texture over 2 years. Initial nematode population density was positively related to soybean yield the first year and negatively related to soybean yield the second, probably a result of greater yield suppression by H. glycines in plots with greater sand content.
The Performance of Insecticides – A Critical Review
As part of minimizing the risk of crop losses due to herbivorous arthropods (here, mainly referring to insects and mites), most of the World’s commercial food production systems are subjected to several applications of pesticides before being harvested. Some crops are sprayed 10-20 times, while most field crops are sprayed 1-5 times during the growing sea‐ son. In the US alone, the average number of insecticide applications ranges from 1-3 for most of the major field crops, and the total annual costs of pesticide applications exceed $1.3 billion ([1], U.S. Department of Agriculture agricultural statistics services: www.nass.us‐ da.gov/). Several large ag-producing countries publish extensive details on insecticide use, including Australia, and the data presented below were collected from a public website (http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriChemUsFruits//2000s/2008/AgriChemUs‐ Fruits-05-21-2008.pdf) on pesticide applications in the US in 2006. A somewhat extreme but also important example is the fresh sweet maize production in the US, which was grown on about 85,000 ha. Based on data from 14 US states, 20 different active ingredients of herbi‐ cides were applied an average 1.04 times to fresh sweet maize and amounted to about 2.6 kg of active ingredients of herbicides per ha. The same data suggested that about 3.5 kg of 23 different active ingredients of insecticides were applied on average 2.10 times per ha. Simi‐ larly, tomato fields (grown on about 42,000 ha in the US in 2006) were treated with 12 differ‐ ent active ingredients of herbicides, which were applied, on average, 1.14 times and the equivalent of about 0.7 kg of active ingredients per ha. Regarding insecticides, the same to‐ mato fields were treated with 32 different active ingredients, which were applied an average of 3.6 times and equal to about 4.9 kg of active ingredients per ha. While tomatoes and sweet corn may be close to the top of the list of growing crops receiving pesticide treatments, cau‐ liflower, celery, and many other horticultural crops and fruits are also subjected to intensive pesticide spraying regimes. Thus, farmers acknowledge that weeds and arthropods can po‐ tentially cause significant economic losses, and total pesticide application costs are low