The subject of this proposal is research and outreach on soybean entomology in the North Central Region. This is a Year 2 renewal proposal for a 3-year proposal submitted in FY19. Year 1 progress to date encompasses October 2018 to May 2019, and we are preparing for our first field season on the project (Summer 2019). Soybean insect pests not only reduce yield, but can also reduce grain quality, altering oil and protein content (Rupe and Luttrell 2008). Thus insect pests can affect soybean value by affecting both yield and composition. In addition, inefficient pest management adds to the expense of farm production, cutting into farmers’ bottom lines. This proposal involves collaborative research among 25 researchers in 13 states, working on four main program areas encompassing I.Extension/outreach and farmer feedback, II. Insect management and profitability, III. Aphid resistant varieties and virulence management, and IV. Insect monitoring. The objectives within these programs address the efficient, cost-effective management of defoliating (chewing) insects; the role of cover crops relative to insects in soybean production; aphid resistance to insecticides (a documented and growing problem in the region); a new objective focusing on soybean stem borer (Dectes); the ability of honey bees to improve soybean yield; a public-private partnership with Corteva (formerly Pioneer Hi-Bred International) to advance aphid resistant soybean varieties for wide scale commercialization; advances in soybean breeding for aphid resistant varieties; regional monitoring programs for pest and beneficial insects; and a survey program to assess farmer priorities and needs to inform future research and extension. In addition, we have an extension objective with a dedicated budget line to produce deliverables and disseminate project results.

This project builds on past NCSRP research and investment in several important ways. Previous work on the potential for insecticide resistance in aphids and tools to measure this resistance are now being used because the insecticide-resistant soybean aphids have been found in four states, with the problem spreading each year. NCSRP research to develop aphid resistant soybean lines is nearing fruition as a major seed distributor (Corteva/Pioneer) is moving towards commercialization; the collaborative work with industry described in the current proposal will advance this effort. NCSRP research on pollinators in soybean has advanced to the point where we are ready to assess the value that honey bees may provide in soybean production (with some preliminary studies documenting the potential for substantial yield improvement). This proposal also incorporates new objectives including the role of cover crops in pest management (whether for good for for ill); the spreading problem of soybean stem borer; and maximizing the efficiency of scouting and management of defoliating insects (such as Japanese beetle, clover worm, bean leaf beetle.

The soybean team in this proposal is multi-disciplinary, with researchers in the fields of entomology, agronomy, and plant breeding. Several of our objectives are coordinated multi-state efforts making our results applicable to a broad geographic area and creating greater research efficiencies through collaboration. Finally, this proposal incorporates several new researchers in the region (new faculty at the University of Nebraska, University of Illinois, University of Missouri) and also includes established researchers who are new to the project from the University of Wisconsin, University of Kentucky, and Michigan State University – all of which increases our collaborative power and the reach of our results. The benefit for soybean farmers is that coordinated, collaborative research and outreach is the most efficient way to address insect pest problems that affect their production and profitability.

Program I. Extension/Outreach and Farmer Feedback

1.1 Extension coordination and deliverables
1.2 Determining farmer needs and priorities

Program II. Insect Management and Profitability

2.1 Management guidelines for defoliating insects
2.2 Cover crops: pest and beneficial insects in cereal rye to soybean transition systems
2.3 Pollinators to improve soybean yield
2.4 Insecticide-resistant soybean aphids
2.5 Soybean stem borer (*New objective*)

Program III. Aphid Resistant Varieties and Aphid Virulence Management

3.1 Advancing aphid resistant soybeans through a public-private partnership
3.1.1 Field testing aphid resistant soybean varieties for commercialization
3.1.2 Insect Resistance Management for aphid-resistant soybeans
3.2 Soybean breeding for aphid resistance

Program IV. Insect Monitoring

4.1 Biological control of soybean aphid
4.2 Monitoring soybean aphids and other soybean insect pests in suction traps

Updated April 28, 2020:
Progress Report (Year 2, October 2019 – March 2020)

Program I. Extension/Outreach and Farmer Feedback

1.1 Extension coordination and deliverables
Participants: Kelley Tilmon* (Ohio State University), with contributions all team members *Project leader

During the reporting period we began collecting information for an updated Second Edition of the popular Stink Bugs of the North Central Region field guide. We also collected images for a new factsheet on pollinators found in soybean in the region.

1.2 Determining farmer needs and priorities
Participants: Tom Hunt* (University of Nebraska), Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri) *Project leaders

The focus group procedures were developed (e.g., focus group regions determined, participant selection criteria determined), as well as a focus group script. We have selected the time period of November 2020 (after harvest) to conduct the focus groups. All the above was done under consultation with Dr. Mary Anne Casey, PhD (professional survey/focus group facilitator, University of Minnesota).

Program II. Insect Management and Profitability

2.1 Management guidelines for defoliating insects
Participants: Nick Seiter* (University of Illinois), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State), Brian McCornack (Kansas State), Chris DiFonzo (Michigan State), Christian Krupke (Purdue), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State). *Project leader

During the reporting period we analyzed data from the summer: 32 fields in 6 states were sampled for insect defoliation a total of 47 times following a common protocol. Most fields had an overall average of less than 2% defoliation. The highest average defoliation observed across an entire field was 7.1% at a field in Iowa, and the highest average defoliation observed at an individual sampling point (15 leaflets from 5 plants) was 11.5% in the same field. Both of these values are well below the established economic thresholds for defoliating insects in soybean, and none of the sampled fields would have lost yield due to insect defoliation. Ground-level imagery, as well as a limited amount of aerial drone imagery, was collected from these fields to develop sampling aids. Because a graduate student candidate was not identified in Year 1, the objective leader will assume responsibilities for manuscript preparation and data analysis.

2.2 Cover crops: pest and beneficial insects in cereal rye to soybean transition systems
Participants: Justin McMechan* (University of Nebraska), Shawn Conley (University of Wisconsin), Louis Hesler and Shannon Osborne (USDA ARS South Dakota), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Bruce Potter (University of Minnesota), Kevin Rice (University of Missouri), Nick Seiter (University of Illinois); Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), and Robert Wright (University of Nebraska). *Project leader

Data were analyzed from 2019 field work. Cover crop biomass in 2019 varied significantly between sites and termination dates ranging from 75 to 4,600 lb./acre. For the termination treatments, there was no difference observed for soybean yield or plant injury from defoliators; however, arthropods were observed in pitfall traps at all sites. Cover crop sites have been established for the 2020 season. However, Covid-19 has forced a few states to abandon these sites as PIs are unable to carry out late-spring data collection. Other states are continuing but their efforts will be limited due to a loss of summer help, travel restrictions, and continually changing regulations.

2.3 Pollinators to improve soybean yield
Participants: Reed Johnson*, Chia Lin, and Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University) *Project leader

Pollination: distance experiment. We measured yield at different distances from honey bee hives (field center), midpoints to the edge, and field edges in three fields. Minimal insect pollination was expected near the mid-point of the transect as this would be the farthest point from the honey bee colonies and unmanaged pollinators that are typically most abundant along field edges. In two of three fields we found significantly more seeds/plant on edges than at midpoints, and lower seed set at midpoints than field centers near the hives (though not significantly lower). Our preliminary results showed that supplementing honey bee colonies for soybean pollination can potentially benefit seed production, at least in some varieties. The effect may also be influenced by factors such as field size, varieties, and other field conditions. Pollination: cage experiment. We placed pollinator-exclusion cages in a field to test pollination differences in three soybean varieties (Asgrow AG34X6, AG39X7, and Pioneer 38A98X) with caged and uncaged treatments. This experiment was a collaborated effort with a soybean grower and beekeeper, who noticed more honey bees visiting flowers of AG34X6 than other varieties planted in adjacent fields in the previous year. The three varieties differed significantly in nectar production and sugar concentration. Superior yield from pollination was found in the two varieties with the most/sweetest nectar. Floral attractiveness to bees: we measured nectar during peak bloom in 184 soybean varieties grown as single-variety plots in the same field. Floral attractiveness traits including color, size, nectar volume, and sugar concentration of nectar were measured during bloom. Nectar volume, sugar concentration, and proportion of nectar-producing flowers varied greatly among varieties and within the same variety on different dates, and more bees foraged on varieties with the most nectar. Flower color and size did not appear to affect bee visitation in this experiment. Additional analyses will be performed to examine correlations between floral attractiveness and seed quality traits.

2.4 Insecticide-resistant soybean aphids
Participants: Robert Koch* (University of Minnesota), Ana Vélez (University of Nebraska), Janet Knodel (North Dakota State University); with contributions from other NCSRP participants including Andy Michel (Ohio State University), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota), and Tom Hunt (University of Nebraska) *Project leader

Resistance to thiamethoxam: Over 150 aphid clones collected from collaborators around the region were sent to Ohio State University for genetic characterization and whole-plant assays. Two clonal lines were sent from OSU to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to perform dose-response and diagnostic assays using glass-vial bioassays. UNL attempted to establish the clonal lines and was able to perform four replication of both bioassays with these clonal lines. However, the control mortality was >20%, rendering the data unusable. UNL was not able to perpetuate the clonal lines to repeat the bioassays. Resistance to pyrethroids: Data on efficacy of pyrethroid application for soybean aphid and efficacy of pyrethroids in glass vials from several locations continue to be analyzed to determine if glass vial results can be used to predict field results. Several soybean aphid populations varying in susceptibility (resistance) to pyrethroids are being subjected to greenhouse and laboratory lifetable studies to determine of fitness costs are associated with this insecticide resistance. We are still assessing what the implications of the pandemic are to upcoming planned research.

2.5 Soybean stem borer (*New objective in Year 2*)
Participants: Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri), Robert Wright (University of Nebraska), Raul Villanueva (University of Kentucky) *Project leader

We finalized the protocol for assessing sunflowers as trap crop for dectes stem borer, selected field sites for 2020, and experiment planting is scheduled for May 2020.

Program III. Aphid Resistant Varieties and Aphid Virulence Management

3.1 Advancing aphid resistant soybeans through a public-private partnership
Participants: Matt O’Neal* (Iowa State University), Andy Michel* (Ohio State University), Mauricio Urrutia* (Corteva), David Onstad* (Corteva), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Deirdre Prischmann (North Dakota State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota). *Project leaders

We have completed the analysis of data from the 2019 field season and shared those results with our colleagues at Corteva/Pioneer. During 2019, aphids were collected and sent to OSU for genetic screening. Only a small percentage of aphids (<2%) were able to survive on Rag plants. Varieties for testing in 2020 have been mailed to cooperators for the 2020 field season. For the IRM project: A model is being developed and parameter values chosen during the first part of 2020. The computer program will be written in spring 2020 with first results evaluating IRM expected by end of summer barring delays. .We completed an analysis exploring how insecticidal seed treatments might be used in the deployment of a refuge strategy. Our data showed that, although insecticidal seed treatment would decrease the overall population, they did not make a significant impact on the frequency of virulent or avirulent biotypes. This manuscript will be submitted for publication in May 2020. We also published a paper that reveals the value of soybean aphid-resistant varieties from both field-data and an economic analysis (Dean et al. 2019), and one revealing that soybean aphid biotypes that can survive on aphid-resistant soybeans are less susceptible to lambda-cyhalothrin (Warrior insecticide) than biotypes that are susceptible to resistant varieties (Valmorbida et al. 2020).

3.2 Soybean breeding for aphid resistance
Participants: Brian Diers* (University of Illinois), Glen Hartman* and Doris Lago-Kutz (USDA-ARS) *Project leaders

Two trials for each soybean aphid biotype were done under greenhouse conditions to test the isogenic lines for resistance to soybean aphid. The phenotyping tests of 31 lines with stack Rag genes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 was completed. Data analysis and manuscript is in progress.

Program IV. Insect Monitoring

4.1 Biological control of soybean aphid
Participants: George Heimpel*, with contributions from other project team members *Project leader

As in Year 1, we have requested colleagues in each of the 12 states of the NCSRP to continue sampling for aphids and mummies in soybean fields. We will also request that cuttings of soybeans with mummies be mailed to Saint Paul, MN for identification of primary and hyperparasitoids. In our 2019 field surveys, both aphid and Aphelinus numbers were low. In August Aphelinus were at moderate densities of 0.5 to 1.5 per plant in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois, and lower numbers were detected in North Dakota, Iowa, and Michigan. These numbers represent limited sampling of 1 to 4 fields in June, July, and August, and Aphelinus was not found until August in any states but Minnesota and Michigan. More extensive sampling in Minnesota (at least 2 fields per county from 56 counties) showed Aphelinus in only 2 counties in July and 13 counties in August. Despite low aphid numbers, we found a surprisingly high number of Lysiphlebus testaceipes parasitisms. Hyperparasitism was undetected in most sites.

4.2 Monitoring soybean aphids and other soybean insect pests in suction traps
Participants: Glen Hartman* and Doris Lagos-Kutz (USDA-ARS/ University of Illinois) and Nick Seiter (University of Illinois), with contributions from other project team members *Project leader

Our collaborators (33 located in 10 states) sent suction trap samples to the USDA Laboratory in Urbana weekly from the May 17th, 2019 until October 23rd, 2019. Aphid data was entered in EddMaps website to be shared publicly through https://suctiontrapnetwork.org/data/ Additional data of soybean thrips (Neohyadatothrips variabilis), potato leaf hopper (Empoasca fabae), minute pirate bugs (Orius insidiosus) and hover flies (Syrphid species) have been collected and will be analyzed and summarized. Preparation for the coming suction trap season 2020 started in the middle of March. Most of the supplies were ordered, and supply shipments to collaborators will proceed when U of I buildings get unlocked (pandemic). The plan for this coming season is to operate the suction traps from May 22nd through October 23rd, 2020 (23 weeks), barring pandemic-related obstacles.

Updated October 23, 2020:
Program I. Extension/Outreach and Farmer Feedback

1.1 Extension coordination and deliverables

Participants: Kelley Tilmon* (Ohio State University), with contributions all team members *Project leader

During the reporting period our emphasis shifted to field work and progress on extension deliverables slowed. With the start of fall we will commence work on an updated Second Edition of the popular Stink Bugs of the North Central Region field guide. We have also started layout on a publicatio on pollinators found in soybean in the region. Because of budget cutbacks and rebudgeting demands we will not be able to immediately supply these deliverables in hard copy, but we can create electronic versions for free online distribution. We will be design them so that they can readily be turned into print versions when resources permit. An extension-focused video is being created on management of pyrethroid-resistant soybean aphids. This will be shared when completed.

1.2 Determining farmer needs and priorities

Participants: Tom Hunt* (University of Nebraska), Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri) *Project leaders

This objective is focused on farmer participation and feedback. During the growing and harvest season this has not been possible. However we have prepared to hold focus groups in the winter after the conclusion of harvest. Focus group procedures and scripts have been developed.

Program II. Insect Management and Profitability

2.1 Management guidelines for defoliating insects

Participants: Nick Seiter* (University of Illinois), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State), Brian McCornack (Kansas State), Chris DiFonzo (Michigan State), Christian Krupke (Purdue), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State). *Project leader

In 2020, we sampled 33 fields in 6 states using a reduced protocol (10 sample points per field) to measure the extent of defoliation. In addition, we sampled 3 fields with higher overall levels of defoliation using an expanded sampling protocol to measure spatial patterns in insect defoliation. Average percent defoliation overall was low, well below established thresholds in most cases and below 5% in all but 6 fields. However, several fields had elevated levels of defoliation compared with 2019, including four fields between 5-10% defoliation and one field with an average percent defoliation of 31.3%. Efforts in 2021 will focus on developing Extension materials based on this work.

2.2 Cover crops: pest and beneficial insects in cereal rye to soybean transition systems

Participants: Justin McMechan* (University of Nebraska), Shawn Conley (University of Wisconsin), Louis Hesler and Shannon Osborne (USDA ARS South Dakota), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Bruce Potter (University of Minnesota), Kevin Rice (University of Missouri), Nick Seiter (University of Illinois); Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), and Robert Wright (University of Nebraska). *Project leader

COVID-19 reduced the number of sites where cover crops studies were conducted in 2020, though we were still able to cover several sites. Soybean harvest is still underway, however, of the sites harvested, no statistical differences in yield between no cover crop and cover crop treatments have been reported. No significant pest pressure was reported at any of the research sites this summer. Insect activity was reported at a number of sites with increasing activity of some insects groups with delayed termination of the cover crop. Several states have indicated that cover crops have been planted or will be in the coming weeks.

2.3 Pollinators to improve soybean yield

Participants: Reed Johnson*, Chia Lin, and Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University) *Project leader

Honey bee pollination experiment: Two colonies were installed near the center of six soybean fields to evaluate the effect
of bee pollination on seed production. Colonies at four of the six fields had significant honey buildup during soybean bloom and increased weight by at least 40% of the initial colony weight. Floral origins of honey sampled from these colonies will be determined by microscopic pollen analysis. We hand-harvested 36 plants along each of four transects radiating from the bee hives to field edges (144 plants total per field) and will compare soybean yield at different distances from the hives.

Floral attractiveness traits in soybean varieties: Floral attractiveness traits (color, size, nectar volume, and nectar sugar concentration) and bee visitation frequency were recorded from 120 varieties planted in Marengo Co., Ohio. Strong variation was observed in nectar production and bee visitation frequency among varieties. Up to 80 ul of nectar per flower was recorded in varieties that were also frequently visited by bees. Nectar in several varieties contained 25% - 39% sugar. Similar range of sugar concentration has been reported for white clove (Trifolium repens), one of the most important summer nectar plants in our study region. We will analyze floral attractiveness data with the seed quality data for the same varieties generated by Laura Lindsey’s team and identify additional “bee-attractive” varieties for cage experiments in 2021.

Cage experiments: Four soybean varieties, including two highly-attractive and two unattractive varieties identified from 2019’s study, were planted in 12 screened cages, with or without a honey bee colony enclosed, to evaluate foraging preferences and quantify the effect of honey bee pollination on yield. More honey bees were observed probing flowerers of the attractive varieties, which also produced more nectar and less influenced by weather conditions compared to the unattractive varieties. We will harvest the plots in October to determine the yield difference with vs. without the presence of honey bees in the selected varieties.

2.4 Insecticide-resistant soybean aphids

Participants: Robert Koch* (University of Minnesota), Ana Vélez (University of Nebraska), Janet Knodel (North Dakota State University); with contributions from other NCSRP participants including Andy Michel (Ohio State University), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota), and Tom Hunt (University of Nebraska) *Project leader

Neonicotinoid insecticides: Over the summer, 69 aphid lines were collected and are being maintained for later on-plant screening.

Pyrethroid insecticides: To assess the magnitude and scale of pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid, the standardized protocol for coupled field efficacy trials and glass-vial bioassays was implemented at three locations in Minnesota. This work will contribute to glass-vial efficacy results to those expected by a field application of a pyrethroid. Data from the glass vials and field plots will soon be summarized and analyzed. Aphid populations were low at other locations. In preparation for the efforts to assess potential fitness costs of pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid, nearly 34 soybean aphid colonies were established from field collections of aphids. These colonies were screened for pyrethroid resistance and six populations are being selected for the follow-up work on fitness costs.

2.5 Soybean stem borer (*New objective in Year 2*)

Participants: Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri), Robert Wright (University of Nebraska), Raul Villanueva (University of Kentucky) *Project leader

Large-scale field experiments were conducted on five commercial farms and two university research farms to test the efficacy of sunflower as a trap crop for dectes stem borer in soybean. Four rows of sunflowers were planted along 150 meters of soybean fields with historic dectes stem borer infestations. A non-trap crop control treatment consisted of 150 m of soybean along the same field border with a 50 meter buffer between treatments. Visual and weekly sweep samples were collected from June through mid August. Prior to harvest, we collected 20 soybean plants from each treatment at each sampling location (edge, 20 m, 100 m) (total = 120 plants per field). Additionally, we collected 120 sunflower plants from each field site. The number of dectes larvae in plants at each location and treatment were recorded. Statistical analysis has not been completed.

Program III. Aphid Resistant Varieties and Aphid Virulence Management

3.1 Advancing aphid resistant soybeans through a public-private partnership

Participants: Matt O’Neal* (Iowa State University), Andy Michel* (Ohio State University), Mauricio Urrutia* (Corteva), David Onstad* (Corteva), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Deirdre Prischmann (North Dakota State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota). *Project leaders

Field testing aphid resistant soybean varieties for commercialization: We received aphid-resistant and susceptible cultivars of a shared genetic background from Corteva. This was sufficient seed and permission to test these varieties during various states experience the COVID-19 pandemic for four states (ND, SD, NB, IA, OH) to participate. Soybean plots were successfully established in all participating states. These plots were scouted for aphids and growth throughout this quarter. Aphid populations were below threshold in both resistant and susceptible cultivars, though significantly lower on resistant cultivars. Where present, aphids were collected from all plots to allow for determining if virulent aphids were present. we have collected 69 aphids from field collections with 1/3 being collected from resistant lines. These are being currently screened to check for virulence. Monthly updates with Corteva representatives occurred throughout this period. Data were discussed and Corteva has shared updates on progress to make aphid-resistance available commercial in the next 2-3 growing seasons. Plots are being prepared for harvest.
Insect resistance management for aphid-resistant soybeans: Team members met periodically to discuss and develop a model to predict the frequency of virulent soybean aphids. The model requires field data to more accurately estimate the current frequency and likely changes as aphid-resistant soybeans are more widely used. Data required for the model was collected from the field plots part of our collaboration with Corteva. Dr Michel is determining whether aphids found on these plots belong to the various virulent biotypes. These data are anticipated later this fall.

3.2 Soybean breeding for aphid resistance

Participants: Brian Diers* (University of Illinois), Glen Hartman* and Doris Lago-Kutz (USDA-ARS) *Project leaders

Four known soybean aphid biotypes (from USDA Laboratory stock collection) were evaluated in no-choice experiments by quantifying the number of aphids on 32 new soybean lines with five Rag genes and combinations, and the four checks used to maintain the stock of the soybean aphid biotypes: LD10-5903a (Rag1), LD08-12435a (Rag2), LD12-12734a (Rag1/2) and susceptible Williams 82. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was fitted using the JMP Fit Model platform. For aphid biotype 1, most lines provided resistance except the susceptible line (SSSSS), Rag4, and the soybean check Williams 82. For aphid biotype 2, most lines provided resistance except Rag4, Rag1/4, and the soybean checks LD10-5903a (Rag1) and Williams 82. For aphid biotype 3, most lines provided resistance except the susceptible line (SSSSS), Rag4, and the soybean checks LD08-12435a (Rag2) and Williams 82. For biotype 4, some of soybean lines provided resistance especially the ones with Rag6 genes and combinations, but the susceptible line (SSSSS), Rag1, Rag2, Rag3, Rag4, Rag1/2, Rag1/3, Rag1/4, Rag2/4, Rag1/2/3, Rag1/2/4, Rag1/3/4 and Rag2/3/4, and the soybean checks LD10-5903a (Rag1), LD08-12435a (Rag2), LD12-12734a (Rag1/2) and Williams 82 showed no resistance. Agronomic results of the lines mentioned above will be summarized along with the phenotype data on aphid resistance will be published in a peer review journal.

Program IV. Insect Monitoring

4.1 Biological control of soybean aphid

Participants: George Heimpel*, with contributions from other project team members *Project leader

Soybean aphid densities were generally low across the region in 2020, except for the 3 states of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin which had low densities in the early season, moderate in the mid season, and high numbers in late August with levels above the spraying threshold (250 aphids per plant) in Iowa and Minnesota. These numbers represent each state’s maximum aphid tally per plant, averaged per field, from sampling of 1 to 4 fields generally within a few kilometers radius. As part of another project we sampled extensively in Minnesota (at least 2 fields per county from 68 counties between July 21 and August 27) and found widespread soybean aphids, with all counties at low aphid densities plus four counties reaching the spraying threshold. Aphelinus numbers were low as well, with most states reporting no mummies. In August Aphelinus were at moderate densities of 0.5 to 4.4 per plant in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These numbers represent limited sampling of 1 to 4 fields in June, July, and August, and Aphelinus was not found until late July. More extensive sampling in Minnesota (at least 2 fields per county from 68 counties) found Aphelinus in 34 counties across the center of the state. Similar to 2019, in a few sites we found a high number of tan braconid mummies, from which emerged the parasitoid Lysiphlebus testaceipes. In late June, when aphids were just beginning to be noticed, an aphid-infested plant on the Saint Paul, Minnesota, campus produced more than 40 tan mummies. In early July, Illinois found 19 tan mummies. Later in the season we found tan mummies in Iowa on July 28 (12 mummies) and August 24 (8 mummies), and at low levels (1 to 3 mummies) in Wisconsin July 28 and August 24 and in Minnesota August 17. Hyperparasitism was undetected in most sites. From Wisconsin July 28th, we received 50 black mummies from which emerged 5 Alloxysta sp. (Figitidae). Within Minnesota we sampled more extensively and from over 800 black mummies we found 8 Alloxysta as well as 1 each of Asaphes sp. (Pteromalidae) and Syrphophagus aphidivorus (Encyrtidae); the Alloxysta were found from a 400 km transect, and the Asaphes and Syrphophagus were found in southeastern Houston county. Notably one tan braconid mummy from Saint Paul, MN, July 1 produced the hyperparasitoid Asaphes sp.

4.2 Monitoring soybean aphids and other soybean insect pests in suction traps

Participants: Glen Hartman* and Doris Lagos-Kutz (USDA-ARS/ University of Illinois) and Nick Seiter (University of Illinois), with contributions from other project team members *Project leader

Collaborators were sent and received suction trap supplies by the first week of May. They replaced suction trap samples and mailed them to the USDA Laboratory in Urbana in a weekly basis from the May 22nd through October 2nd, 2020. The samples have been processed (drain the antifreeze and water and stored in ethanol at -20 Celsius) up to September 11, and the other samples have been stored in a walking cold room at -4 Celsius. The sampling will continue until October 23rd. Data collected so far are stored at the website https://www.eddmaps.org, and shared with our collaborators and extension personnel through https://suctiontrapnetwork.org/data/.

Updated July 28, 2021:
Program I. Extension/Outreach and Farmer Feedback

1.1 Extension coordination and deliverables
Participants: Kelley Tilmon* (Ohio State University), with contributions all team members *Project leader

Extension deliverables described in the previous progress report were unable to be completed because of rebudgeting following budget cuts to Year 3 funding. Work on electronic versions will resume after the 2021 field season and distributed through online channels.

1.2 Determining farmer needs and priorities
Participants: Tom Hunt* (University of Nebraska), Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri) *Project leaders

This objective is focused on farmer participation and feedback to assess needs and thoughts. We contracted with a professional focus group consultant, Dr. Mary Anne Casey, to help us conduct a series of farmer focus groups. Focus group sessions were conducted with 4-5 participants representing four quadrants of the North Central Region (NE, NW, SW. SE) and a global session comprised of 5 crop consultants/advisors. This project was completed on schedule and two reports were written documenting and summarizing farmer priorities for soybean pest management research and communication – a shorter executive summary report, and a longer full report. These reports have been provided to NCSRP for distribution to various soybean checkoff organizations and are appended to this document. This report helped inform our current proposal to the NCSRP and it is our hope that the results of this report will also help guide future research and outreach efforts.

Program II. Insect Management and Profitability

2.1 Management guidelines for defoliating insects
Participants: Nick Seiter* (University of Illinois), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State), Brian McCornack (Kansas State), Chris DiFonzo (Michigan State), Christian Krupke (Purdue), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State). *Project leader

Sampling of commercial soybean fields in 7 states reveals that insect defoliation rarely causes economic damage to soybean. Out of 65 commercial soybean fields sampled in 2019 and 2020, only 1 was above established economic thresholds for insect defoliation. All but 6 fields were below 5% defoliation.During sampling, we collected over 600 images of soybean canopy defoliation, which will be used to develop and improve visual sampling aids (including field guides, a fact sheet, and a web-based scout-training quiz). During summer 2021, we are collecting additional images of soybean defoliation and the responsible insects for use in print and digital extension materials. In addition, we are producing a series of short instructional videos and an interactive web-based training module. A manuscript is in preparation based on the results of our field sampling. An additional extension manuscript will present recommendations for managing defoliating insects in the North Central U.S. and economic thresholds for soybean defoliation based on published research.

2.2 Cover crops: pest and beneficial insects in cereal rye to soybean transition systems
Participants: Justin McMechan* (University of Nebraska), Shawn Conley (University of Wisconsin), Louis Hesler and Shannon Osborne (USDA ARS South Dakota), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Bruce Potter (University of Minnesota), Kevin Rice (University of Missouri), Nick Seiter (University of Illinois); Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), and Robert Wright (University of Nebraska). *Project leader

For 2021, cover crops have been terminated, soybean planted, and data collected on arthropods through pitfalls traps and injury to soybean. No significant injury to soybean as a result of a rye cover crop was reported from any of the 10 sites this year. With this year’s data collection, a total of 31 site years of data has been collected which will be analyzed and summarized this fall. Identification of arthropods collected from pitfall traps is currently in progress. Wet weather caused delays in soybean planting this year resulting in excessive cereal rye cover crop growth at some sites.


2.3 Pollinators to improve soybean yield
Participants: Reed Johnson*, Chia Lin, and Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University) *Project leader

We received permission from soybean growers to evaluate the effects of honey bee pollination on soybean yield in nine fields adjacent to honey bee apiaries. When seed pods are mature and before each field is harvested, we will sample plants along a transect at 100 m intervals to evaluate yield and pod development in relation to the distance from the apiaries. Seeds from the fields where yield is being evaluated are also planted in small plots (10 ft wide by 20 ft long) in a common garden design at the Waterman Agricultural and Natural Resources Laboratory in Columbus, OH. We will evaluate floral traits and measure nectar productivities in these varieties. In addition to the common garden study, we have planted 16 soybean varieties, some identified as high-yield, nectar-rich varieties from the 2019 – 2020 surveys, in 12 caged plots at Waterman. Fine mesh covers will be installed to exclude wild pollinators during soybean bloom. Small honey bee colonies will be installed in six of these cages. Yield and pod development will be compared between plants with and without honey bee pollination for each variety.

2.4 Insecticide-resistant soybean aphids
Participants: Robert Koch* (University of Minnesota), Ana Vélez (University of Nebraska), Janet Knodel (North Dakota State University); with contributions from other NCSRP participants including Andy Michel (Ohio State University), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota), and Tom Hunt (University of Nebraska) *Project leader

Five soybean aphid populations were collected in 2020 and maintained in a greenhouse. These included four insecticide-resistant populations from Minnesota and one susceptible population from North Dakota. Data were analyzed from experiments in growth chambers and the greenhouse to assess potential fitness costs of pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid. Preliminary results suggest that pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid is not associated with a measurable decrease in aphid fitness (size, reproduction, survival, etc.). Data comparing the efficacy of field applications of pyrethroids to the levels of mortality observed in glass-vial assays were limited due to lack of aphid infestations in collaborating states. The field applications in controlled and replicated experiments, confirmed the continued presence of insecticide resistant aphids.

2.5 Soybean stem borer
Participants: Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri), Robert Wright (University of Nebraska), Raul Villanueva (University of Kentucky) *Project leader

Large-scale field experiments were set up in soybean fields to test the efficacy of sunflower as a trap crop for dectes stem borer. Visual and weekly sweep samples were collected starting in June and will continue throughout August. Prior to harvest, we will assess stem borer damage in soybean and control treatments. Additional assessments of cocklebur weevil infestations in sunflower trap crops are being quantified.

Program III. Aphid Resistant Varieties and Aphid Virulence Management
3.1 Advancing aphid resistant soybeans through a public-private partnership
Participants: Matt O’Neal* (Iowa State University), Andy Michel* (Ohio State University), Mauricio Urrutia* (Corteva), David Onstad* (Corteva), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Deirdre Prischmann (North Dakota State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota). *Project leaders

During the winter of 2020 and spring of 2021, Dr. O’Neal and Ivair Valmorbida (PhD candidate) gathered the yield and aphid data from the collaborators. Delays occurred due to the pandemic. We are preparing a finally summary of these data, and preparing a factsheet for the 2022 growing season on the benefits of aphid-resistant soybeans. We continue to collaborate with our colleagues at Corteva on aphid management and biology. One example of this collaboration is that Corteva’s entomologists are sharing rearing space during the pandemic such that there are back-up colonies in case our university rearing space became inaccessible.

With regard to field testing aphid resistant soybean varieties for commercialization: We have maintained multiple colonies of aphids that vary in their ability to survive on aphid-resistant soybeans. These lines are shared with other PIs and with and agribusinesses in need of aphids to screen varieties for resistance. This work includes a collaboration with Dr. Danny Singh (Plant Breeder, ISU) who is evaluating soybean germplasm and advanced cultivars for commercial release. This screening occurred during the winter of 2020 and will continue in winter 2021. In addition we have completed the following: We have completed bioassays for aphids collected in 2020. The frequency of any virulence was low (> 2%) in any individual population. Through our screening, we have found 3 aphid colonies that appear to survive on the Rag1/2/3 triple stack. Continued bioassays with these colonies are ongoing with seed from Brian Diers.
With regard to insect resistance management (IRM) for aphid-resistant soybeans: From January to July of 2021, Dr. David Onstad of Corteva has meet with Drs. O’Neal and Michel to develop a model to explore how aphids may respond to the wide-spread commercial release aphid-resistant soybeans. Dr. Onstad has developed a basic model and is gathering data to inform it, regarding the fitness cost associated with virulence to aphid-resistance. We have also added additional data and input from a colleague not initially involved in this project, Dr. Adam Varenhorst of South Dakota State University. Delays in developing the model occurred through adding Dr. Varenhorst to the NDAs required for this public private partnership.

Dr. O’Neal has collaborated with a new faculty member, Dr. Rana Parshad, and his PhD student Aniket Banerjee, to develop a model to explore how virulent and avirulent aphids interact on aphid-resistant soybeans. This was submitted in July to the Journal of Economic Entomology (Banerjee et al. In review). This manuscript includes data that is being used by Dr. Onstad for our larger IRM model. In anticipation of future field work to explore if the frequency of virulent aphids increases with increasing use of aphid-resistant soybeans, Dr. Michel is validating genetic markers. These markers will be used in field work in the 2022 season.

3.2 Soybean breeding for aphid resistance
Participants: Brian Diers* (University of Illinois), Glen Hartman* and Doris Lago-Kutz (USDA-ARS) *Project leaders

Registration of 64 soybean germplasm lines with all combinations of five soybean aphid resistance genes in two genetic backgrounds, and agronomic and phenotyping (against four known soybean aphid biotypes) is in progress.

Program IV. Insect Monitoring
4.1 Biological control of soybean aphid
Participants: George Heimpel*, with contributions from other project team members *Project leader

We have started collecting data and field samples for 2021, with all colleagues reporting their early season numbers. More data will be coming as the season progresses. We found soybean aphids and black mummies early in the season in Saint Paul and Rosemount, MN, including one Aphelinus certus female on June 16th, 2021, when densities were 2 aphids per V3 soybean plant in Minnesota. Michigan also reported soybean aphids and mummies at this time, with 10.4 aphids per plant and 6 A. certus from one field, and from another field 18 A. certus and 2 Lysiphlebus testaceipes. Iowa reported a few plants with high aphid numbers, along with one black and 3 tan mummies. Since this early flush of aphids all sites report low densities, below 0.5 aphids per plant in weekly sampling in Minnesota. Soybean aphid densities were generally low across the region throughout the 2020 field season, except for the 3 states of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin which had low densities in the early season, moderate in the mid season, and high numbers in late August with levels above the spraying threshold (250 aphids per plant) in Iowa and Minnesota. Aphelinus numbers were low in 2020, with most states reporting no mummies. In August A. certus were at moderate densities of 0.5 to 4.4 per plant in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These numbers represent limited sampling of 1 to 4 fields in June, July, and August, and A. certus was not found until late July. Hyperparasitism was undetected in most sites in 2020. From Wisconsin July 28th, we received 50 black mummies from which emerged 5 Alloxysta sp. individuals (Figitidae). In 2020 hyperparasitism by Alloxysta brevis ranged between 1% for a statewide Minnesota survey, conducted over 6 weeks, and 10% hyperparasitism in Wisconsin in late July. While hyperparasitism remains a minor concern, the numbers are not increasing; in 2017 we reported 26% hyperparasitism regionally. In 2017 we found only 7 of 45 hyperparasitoids were Alloxysta, while other years Alloxysta has been the most abundant. Alloxysta is of special interest as we have shown the most abundant of the 3 Alloxysta species in the region, A. brevis, to be thelytokous.

4.2 Monitoring soybean aphids and other soybean insect pests in suction traps
Participants: Glen Hartman* and Doris Lagos-Kutz (USDA-ARS/ University of Illinois) and Nick Seiter (University of Illinois), with contributions from other project team members *Project leader

34 suction insect monitoring suction traps began operation on May 14, 2021, located in Illinois (5 traps), Indiana (5), Iowa (4), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Michigan (5), Minnesota (4), Missouri (1), Nebraska (2) and Wisconsin (6). The samples have been collected weekly and shipped to Doris Lagos-Kutz. All the samples have been processed (cleaned and stored in 95% ethanol at -20 Celsius) and sorted up to July 9th, 2021. Aphid data has been stored in excel files and website https://www.eddmaps.org, and shared with our collaborators and extension personnel through https://suctiontrapnetwork.org/data/. Data from other crop pests and predators have been stored in excel files. We are working on making these additional data publicly available through eddmaps.

View uploaded report

View uploaded report 2

Program I. Extension/Outreach and Farmer Feedback

Determining farmer needs and priorities
Participants: Tom Hunt* (University of Nebraska), Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri) *Project leaders
This objective is focused on farmer participation and feedback to assess needs and thoughts. We contracted with a professional focus group consultant, Dr. Mary Anne Casey, to help us conduct a series of farmer focus groups. Focus group sessions were conducted with 4-5 participants representing four quadrants of the North Central Region (NE, NW, SW. SE) and a global session comprised of 5 crop consultants/advisors. This project was completed on schedule and two reports were written documenting and summarizing farmer priorities for soybean pest management research and communication – a shorter executive summary report, and a longer full report. These reports have been provided to NCSRP for distribution to various soybean checkoff organizations and are appended to this document. This report helped inform our current proposal to the NCSRP and it is our hope that the results of this report will also help guide future research and outreach efforts.

Program II. Insect Management and Profitability
Management guidelines for defoliating insects
Participants: Nick Seiter* (University of Illinois), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State), Brian McCornack (Kansas State), Chris DiFonzo (Michigan State), Christian Krupke (Purdue), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State). *Project leader
Sampling of commercial soybean fields in 7 states reveals that insect defoliation rarely causes economic damage to soybean. Out of 65 commercial soybean fields sampled in 2019 and 2020, only 1 was above established economic thresholds for insect defoliation. All but 6 fields were below 5% defoliation.During sampling, we collected over 600 images of soybean canopy defoliation, which will be used to develop and improve visual sampling aids (including field guides, a fact sheet, and a web-based scout-training quiz). During summer 2021, we are collecting additional images of soybean defoliation and the responsible insects for use in print and digital extension materials. In addition, we are producing a series of short instructional videos and an interactive web-based training module. A manuscript is in preparation based on the results of our field sampling. An additional extension manuscript will present recommendations for managing defoliating insects in the North Central U.S. and economic thresholds for soybean defoliation based on published research.

Cover crops: pest and beneficial insects in cereal rye to soybean transition systems
Participants: Justin McMechan* (University of Nebraska), Shawn Conley (University of Wisconsin), Louis Hesler and Shannon Osborne (USDA ARS South Dakota), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Bruce Potter (University of Minnesota), Kevin Rice (University of Missouri), Nick Seiter (University of Illinois); Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), and Robert Wright (University of Nebraska). *Project leader
For 2021, cover crops have been terminated, soybean planted, and data collected on arthropods through pitfalls traps and injury to soybean. No significant injury to soybean as a result of a rye cover crop was reported from any of the 10 sites this year. With this year’s data collection, a total of 31 site years of data has been collected which will be analyzed and summarized this fall. Identification of arthropods collected from pitfall traps is currently in progress. Wet weather caused delays in soybean planting this year resulting in excessive cereal rye cover crop growth at some sites.

Pollinators to improve soybean yield
Participants: Reed Johnson*, Chia Lin, and Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University) *Project leader
We received permission from soybean growers to evaluate the effects of honey bee pollination on soybean yield in nine fields adjacent to honey bee apiaries. When seed pods are mature and before each field is harvested, we will sample plants along a transect at 100 m intervals to evaluate yield and pod development in relation to the distance from the apiaries. Seeds from the fields where yield is being evaluated are also planted in small plots (10 ft wide by 20 ft long) in a common garden design at the Waterman Agricultural and Natural Resources Laboratory in Columbus, OH. We will evaluate floral traits and measure nectar productivities in these varieties. In addition to the common garden study, we have planted 16 soybean varieties, some identified as high-yield, nectar-rich varieties from the 2019 – 2020 surveys, in 12 caged plots at Waterman. Fine mesh covers will be installed to exclude wild pollinators during soybean bloom. Small honey bee colonies will be installed in six of these cages. Yield and pod development will be compared between plants with and without honey bee pollination for each variety.

Insecticide-resistant soybean aphids
Participants: Robert Koch* (University of Minnesota), Ana Vélez (University of Nebraska), Janet Knodel (North Dakota State University); with contributions from other NCSRP participants including Andy Michel (Ohio State University), Erin Hodgson (Iowa State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota), and Tom Hunt (University of Nebraska) *Project leader
Five soybean aphid populations were collected in 2020 and maintained in a greenhouse. These included four insecticide-resistant populations from Minnesota and one susceptible population from North Dakota. Data were analyzed from experiments in growth chambers and the greenhouse to assess potential fitness costs of pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid. Preliminary results suggest that pyrethroid resistance in soybean aphid is not linked to any detrimental traits for the aphids, making it more likely for the insecticide resistance to spread. Data comparing the efficacy of field applications of pyrethroids to the levels of mortality observed in glass-vial assays were limited due to lack of aphid infestations in collaborating states. The field applications in controlled and replicated experiments, confirmed the continued presence of insecticide resistant aphids in the region.

Soybean stem borer
Participants: Kevin Rice* (University of Missouri), Robert Wright (University of Nebraska), Raul Villanueva (University of Kentucky) *Project leader
Large-scale field experiments were set up in soybean fields to test the effect of sunflower as a trap crop for dectes stem borer, to attract them away from soybean. Visual and weekly sweep samples were collected starting in June and will continue throughout August. Prior to harvest, we will assess stem borer damage in soybean and control treatments. Additional assessments of cocklebur weevil infestations in sunflower trap crops are being quantified. Results will be summarized in the fall.

Program III. Aphid Resistant Varieties and Aphid Virulence Management
Advancing aphid resistant soybeans through a public-private partnership
Participants: Matt O’Neal* (Iowa State University), Andy Michel* (Ohio State University), Mauricio Urrutia* (Corteva), David Onstad* (Corteva), Kelley Tilmon (Ohio State University), Thomas Hunt (University of Nebraska), Deirdre Prischmann (North Dakota State University), Adam Varenhorst (South Dakota State University), Louis Hesler (USDA ARS South Dakota). *Project leaders
During the winter of 2020 and spring of 2021, Dr. O’Neal and Ivair Valmorbida (PhD candidate) gathered yield and aphid data from the collaborators. Delays occurred due to the pandemic. We are preparing a final summary of these data, and preparing a factsheet for the 2022 growing season on the benefits of aphid-resistant soybeans. We continue to collaborate with our colleagues at Corteva on aphid management and biology. One example of this collaboration is that Corteva’s entomologists are sharing rearing space during the pandemic such that there are back-up colonies in case our university rearing space became inaccessible.
With regard to field testing aphid resistant soybean varieties for commercialization: We have maintained multiple colonies of aphids that vary in their ability to survive on aphid-resistant soybeans. These lines are shared with other researchers and with agribusinesses in need of aphids to screen varieties for resistance. This work includes a collaboration with Dr. Danny Singh (Plant Breeder, ISU) who is evaluating soybean germplasm and advanced cultivars for commercial release. This screening occurred during the winter of 2020 and will continue in winter 2021. In addition we have completed the following: We have completed bioassays for aphids collected in 2020. The frequency of any virulence was low (> 2%) in any individual population. Through our screening, we have found 3 aphid colonies that appear to survive on the Rag1/2/3 triple stack. Continued bioassays with these colonies are ongoing with seed from Brian Diers.
With regard to insect resistance management (IRM) for aphid-resistant soybeans: From January to July of 2021, Dr. David Onstad of Corteva has meet with Drs. O’Neal and Michel to develop a model to explore how aphids may respond to the wide-spread commercial release aphid-resistant soybeans. Dr. Onstad has developed a basic model and is gathering data to inform it, regarding the fitness cost associated with virulence to aphid-resistance. We have also added additional data and input from a colleague not initially involved in this project, Dr. Adam Varenhorst of South Dakota State University. Delays in developing the model occurred through adding Dr. Varenhorst to the NDAs required for this public private partnership.
Dr. O’Neal has collaborated with a new faculty member, Dr. Rana Parshad, and his PhD student Aniket Banerjee, to develop a model to explore how virulent and avirulent aphids interact on aphid-resistant soybeans. This was submitted in July to the Journal of Economic Entomology (Banerjee et al. In review). This manuscript includes data that is being used by Dr. Onstad for our larger IRM model. In anticipation of future field work to explore if the frequency of virulent aphids increases with increasing use of aphid-resistant soybeans, Dr. Michel is validating genetic markers. These markers will be used in field work in the 2022 season.

Soybean breeding for aphid resistance
Participants: Brian Diers* (University of Illinois), Glen Hartman* and Doris Lago-Kutz (USDA-ARS) *Project leaders
Registration of 64 soybean germplasm lines with all combinations of five soybean aphid resistance genes in two genetic backgrounds, and agronomic and phenotyping (against four known soybean aphid biotypes) is in progress.

Program IV. Insect Monitoring
Biological control of soybean aphid
Participants: George Heimpel*, with contributions from other project team members *Project leader
We have started collecting data and field samples for 2021, with all colleagues reporting their early season numbers. More data will be coming as the season progresses. We found soybean aphids and black mummies early in the season in Saint Paul and Rosemount, MN, including one Aphelinus certus female on June 16th, 2021, when densities were 2 aphids per V3 soybean plant in Minnesota. Michigan also reported soybean aphids and mummies at this time, with 10.4 aphids per plant and 6 A. certus from one field, and from another field 18 A. certus and 2 Lysiphlebus testaceipes. Iowa reported a few plants with high aphid numbers, along with one black and 3 tan mummies. Since this early flush of aphids all sites report low densities, below 0.5 aphids per plant in weekly sampling in Minnesota. Soybean aphid densities were generally low across the region throughout the 2020 field season, except for the 3 states of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin which had low densities in the early season, moderate in the mid season, and high numbers in late August with levels above the spraying threshold (250 aphids per plant) in Iowa and Minnesota. Aphelinus numbers were low in 2020, with most states reporting no mummies. In August A. certus were at moderate densities of 0.5 to 4.4 per plant in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These numbers represent limited sampling of 1 to 4 fields in June, July, and August, and A. certus was not found until late July. Hyperparasitism was undetected in most sites in 2020. From Wisconsin July 28th, we received 50 black mummies from which emerged 5 Alloxysta sp. individuals (Figitidae). In 2020 hyperparasitism by Alloxysta brevis ranged between 1% for a statewide Minnesota survey, conducted over 6 weeks, and 10% hyperparasitism in Wisconsin in late July. While hyperparasitism remains a minor concern, the numbers are not increasing; in 2017 we reported 26% hyperparasitism regionally. In 2017 we found only 7 of 45 hyperparasitoids were Alloxysta, while other years Alloxysta has been the most abundant. Alloxysta is of special interest as we have shown the most abundant of the 3 Alloxysta species in the region, A. brevis, to be thelytokous.

4.2 Monitoring soybean aphids and other soybean insect pests in suction traps
Participants: Glen Hartman* and Doris Lagos-Kutz (USDA-ARS/ University of Illinois) and Nick Seiter (University of Illinois), with contributions from other project team members *Project leader
34 suction insect monitoring suction traps began operation on May 14, 2021, located in Illinois (5 traps), Indiana (5), Iowa (4), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Michigan (5), Minnesota (4), Missouri (1), Nebraska (2) and Wisconsin (6). The samples have been collected weekly and shipped to Doris Lagos-Kutz. All the samples have been processed (cleaned and stored in 95% ethanol at -20 Celsius) and sorted up to July 9th, 2021. Aphid data has been stored in excel files and website https://www.eddmaps.org, and shared with our collaborators and extension personnel through https://suctiontrapnetwork.org/data/. Data from other crop pests and predators have been stored in excel files. We are working on making these additional data publicly available through eddmaps.

Soybean insect pests not only reduce yield, but can also reduce grain quality, altering oil and protein content (Rupe and Luttrell 2008). Thus insect pests can affect soybean value by affecting both yield and composition. In addition, inefficient pest management adds to the expense of farm production, cutting into farmers’ bottom lines. This proposal involves collaborative research among 25 researchers in 13 states, working on four main program areas encompassing I.Extension/outreach and farmer feedback, II. Insect management and profitability, III. Aphid resistant varieties and virulence management, and IV. Insect monitoring. The objectives within these programs address the efficient, cost-effective insect management.

See chart in proposal