scholarly journals FOLIAR APPLICATION OF INSECTICEDS FOR SOYBEAN APHID MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH DAKOTA, 2013

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley L. McManus ◽  
Billy W. Fuller
2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. tsw072
Author(s):  
Bradley L. McManus ◽  
Billy W. Fuller ◽  
Larissa G. Giddings

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. tsw094
Author(s):  
Bradley L. McManus ◽  
Billy W. Fuller ◽  
Larissa G. Giddings
Keyword(s):  

Plant Disease ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 91 (10) ◽  
pp. 1255-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Palle Pedersen ◽  
Craig Grau ◽  
Eileen Cullen ◽  
Nancy Koval ◽  
John H. Hill

The recent introduction of the colonizing soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) to soybean in the northern United States has raised concern for potential increased disease caused by the nonpersistently aphid-transmitted Soybean mosaic virus (SMV). This study was conducted to examine the potential integration of host plant resistance and insecticide tactics for control of virus disease. Research from four location-years demonstrated that foliar application of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin (Warrior) or the organophosphate chlorpyrifos (Lorsban 4E) timed to suppress soybean aphid populations does not reduce SMV. Therefore, the introduction of a colonizing aphid to the array of migratory noncolonizing aphids that transmit SMV does not result in potential for disease control through vector suppression by foliar insecticides. Treatment also did not result in management of Bean pod mottle virus (BPMV), transmitted by the bean leaf beetle (Cerotoma trifurcata), presumably because of issues related to different phenologies of the insect vectors. Soybean cultivars with the lowest virus titer in seed produced the highest grain yield and, thus, were rated as field tolerant compared with cultivars with the highest virus titer in seed. Host plant resistance, not vector control, is the most effective tactic to control SMV.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.


1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (12) ◽  
pp. 857-858
Author(s):  
Warren P. Edwards
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document