limited, but still important where those uses are necessary and especially when other alternatives have already been used (e.g.

Similar documents
September 21, RE: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP Dear Ms. Yu-Ting Guilaran:

EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP Date: August 22, 2018

Midsouth Entomologist 10: 1-13 ISSN:

Implications of Cover Crops for Crop and Insect Management the good, the bad, and the ugly SCOTT D. STEWART THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

Implications of Cover Crops for Soybean and Insect Management the good, the bad, and the ugly SCOTT D. STEWART THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

EPA Docket: EPA HQ OPP

Insect Losses and Management on Desert Lettuce:

OPP Docket Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC

2016 Row Crops Inservice. Insect Updates SCOTT STEWART THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

Evaluation of Cotton Yield, Quality, and Growth Response to Soil-Applied Potassium

LACA Technical Update February 10, Don Johnson Sr. Technical Support

COTTON PRODUCT USE GUIDE

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDES

Cassandra Klotz-Ingram, Sharon Jans, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, and William McBride 1

In 2000 Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, January 4-8, San Antonio, Texas, pp

Rice Research Updates for Entomology. Moneen Jones, Research Entomologist Delta Research Center

Stink Bug and Lepidopteran Control in Soybean

Response to World Wildlife Fund Background Paper Transgenic Cotton: Are There Benefits for Conservation?

FARMER FRIENDLY SUMMARY. Cotton Insect Pest Management, Agreement TN Scott Stewart, The University of Tennessee

Benefits of Pyrethroids to Citrus

The Comparative Advantage of Upland Cotton Production in Texas

A powerful choice for protecting your cotton Product Use Guide 8 th Edition

Neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoid Profile. Safety. Neonicotinoids and Bees

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

Statewide Insect Pest Survey in Soybeans

S UMMARY E XECUTIVE. Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in National Center For Food And Agricultural Policy

Structural Changes in U.S. Cotton Supply

Insecticide Usage on Desert Lettuce,

EPA Docket: EPA- HQ- OPP Date Submitted: January 17, 2017

PEAnut InSECt COntROl

April 20, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP

The 1997 Production Year in Review

Quality of Cotton Classed by State

Volume XLI Issue 8, May 25, General Situation. Cotton

THIS RECOMMENDATION IS MADE AS PERMITTED UNDER FIFRA SECTION 2(ee) AND HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO OR APPROVED BY THE EPA.

Statement for the Record By. Leonard P. Gianessi Senior Research Associate. And. Janet E. Carpenter Research Associate

of Tarnished Plant Bug Sampling Methods in Blooming Cotton

STINK BUG ECOLOGY IN SOUTHEASTERN FARMSCAPES

The Value of Neonicotinoids in Turf and Ornamentals: A Case Study of Neonicotinoid Use for Controlling Silverleaf Whitefly in Ornamentals

37860 West Smith-Enke Road Maricopa, Arizona (520) FAX: (520) Agricultural Experiment Station Cooperative Extension

NE BMSB Update for George C. Hamilton Department of Entomology Rutgers University

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture: A Case Study of Neonicotinoid Use in Mid-South Cotton

The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences

Agricultural Experiment Station Cooperative Extension West Smith-Enke Road Maricopa, Arizona FAX: (520)

A super power in your herbicide and fungicide applications.

EFFECTS OF INSECTICIDE TREATMENTS ON PHYTOPHAGOUS STINK BUGS AND BIG-EYED BUGS IN COTTON

Insects in Vegetables: A Review of 2011 and What to Know for Rick Foster Purdue University

Good Agricultural Practices for Producing a High Quality Peanut Product

Crop Management and Cropping Systems

Complex Example. Page 1 of 8

Acreage. Cr Pr 2-5 (6-03)

Registration of Enlist Duo. March 10, 2015

Insect Management in Reduced Tillage Systems

PRODUCT INFORMATION. Active Ingredient: Thiamethoxam % Other Ingredients: 78.4% Total: 100.0%

2016 Southern Consultants Meeting

Pesticide Reporting: Why should you care? January 2014

Peanut Thoughts from North of the Border. David Jordan, Crop and Soil Sciences North Carolina State University

A Strategy for Prioritizing Research Goals and Outreach Plans to Reduce Soybean Production Losses Caused by Stink Bugs and Related Insect Pests

New Soybean Pests and IPM Study Results 2016

Crop Production ISSN:

Field Study Investigating Cry51Aa2.834_16 in Cotton for Control of Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and Tarnished Plant Bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae)

Farm Radio Habits Wave 1, Winter Conducted by Millennium Research, Inc.

USDA ~ April 6, Dear Mr. Keigwin:

FUNGICIDE & INSECTICIDE ON SOYBEANS

Impacts of Biofuels on the South

Pesticide Registration Review Program Update

Impact of Planting Date and Maturity Group Selection on Soybean Yield

Managing Stink Bugs. in Cotton: Research in the. Southeast Region

IPM Publications, Information You Can Use: IPM1001 Corn Diseases

Final 2011 Delaware Soybean Board Report

SOYBEAN YIELD RESPONSE: PLANTING DATE AND MATURITY GROUPS IN MISSISSIPPI

What We ve Learned About Our People and CC: A PINEMAP 4 Years

FHB Impacts on Southeastern Millers, Farmers, Seedsmen, and Breeders. Jimmy Clements

Neonicotinoid seed treatments (NSTs) and potential impacts on pollinators

Dicamba Issues EPA Perspective

Effective insect control does not necessarily have to be an expensive component

Area wide Incidence of Whiteflies and CYSDV In Fall Melons in Yuma County,

Weekly Farm Economics: Geographical Acreage Changes between 2006 and 2012 in Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, and Cotton

Stink Bug Management in Cotton

SOYBEAN INSECTICIDE PERFORMANCE RATING, 2017

Bayer Product Update for 2010 Season LACA Alexandria, LA

South Carolina Peanut Growers Meeting

STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HEMP INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. Hawaii Representative Cynthia Henry Thielen

ARIZONA. September 14, 2016

Actara/Platinum: cotton, melons, leafy vegetables Assail: cotton, leafy vegetables. 2) Multiple applications allowed by labels.

Winter Wheat Seedings

US Crops and Where They re Grown. Introduction. Corn, Soybeans, Barley, and Oats

SOYBEANS: LARGE SUPPLIES CONFIRMED, BUT WHAT ABOUT 2005 PRODUCTION?

Stink Bug and Three-Cornered Alfalfa Hopper Management in Soybean

Cotton/Soybean Insect Newsletter

Monitoring and control strategy of Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys ) in Georgia

SOYBEANS: SMALLER STOCKS, MORE ACRES, AND EARLY WEATHER WORRIES

Greenhouse Tomato Production. Mary Peet North Carolina State University

Minnesota and Neonicotinoids. Gregg Regimbal, Manager

Pecan IPM Toolbox. Pecan Basics

LOUISIANA RICE NOTES Drs. Dustin Harrell & Don Groth

The Value of Neonicotinoids in North American Agriculture: Executive Summary

GRAIN SORGHUM. Tifton, Georgia: Early-Planted Grain Sorghum Hybrid Performance, 2011 Nonirrigated. 2-Year Average Yield

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE COTTON DIVISION, MARKET NEWS BRANCH 4841 SUMMER AVENUE, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE Telephone

Development of fungal biopesticides for use against green vegetable bugs and mirids.

Transcription:

TO: ATTN: FROM: RE: Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Yu Ting Guilaran National Cotton States Arthropod Pest Management Working Group Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0915 Acephate Risk Assessment, Case Number 0042 Dear Dr. Guilaran: The National Cotton States Arthropod Pest Management Working Group (NCSAPMWG, https://southernpests.org/) is a collaboration of 35-45 entomologists from land-grant universities specializing in management of arthropod pests of cotton, corn, soybean, grain sorghum, and wheat in all cotton producing states from California to Virginia. Originally, the group convened for the first meeting in 1978 in Orlando, FL, and was called the 1978 National Cotton Pest Management Seminar. The NCSAPMWG has recently been recognized by the Southern and Western Region IPM Centers as an official working group. We would like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the opportunity to comment and provide information on Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0915, Pesticide Registration Review, Acephate Risk Assessment, Case Number 0042. We are the public sector scientists who have responsibility for directly developing, delivering and helping implement the science that supports practitioners of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for insect pests of agronomic crops grown in our regions. Historically, acephate has been an important insecticide for IPM programs in cotton and soybean across the cotton belt. However, there are significant differences among the different regions of the U.S. in terms of realistic use patterns that we would like to highlight. Cotton In general, acephate is the most important insecticide for tobacco thrips (Frankliniella fusca) control across most of the country in cotton. It is used as a supplemental seed treatment or infurrow spray in many areas where neonicotinoid resistance has occurred. Additionally, one to two foliar applications are often needed to control thrips in cotton. In the far western U.S. (New Mexico, Arizona, and California), acephate is rarely used for insect pest control in cotton. Based on surveys, it accounts for less than 2% of the sprays for Lygus hesperus and is only used at the highest labeled rate (1.0 lb /A). It is also occasionally used as a cheap, very late season synergist to overcome pyrethroid resistance in whiteflies and minimize risks of whitefly honeydew. A small number of growers make us of it as the only chemical control for the brown stink bug (Euschistus servus). As a result, use of acephate in the western U.S. is very

limited, but still important where those uses are necessary and especially when other alternatives have already been used (e.g., to support resistance management). Notably, Arizona applies most insecticides, especially late season ones and including acephate, by aerial application. In Texas, acephate needs and subsequent uses are highly variable across the different cotton production regions. Depending on region, the primary targets include thrips species, cotton fleahopper (Pseudatomoscelis seriatus), Lygus spp., and stink bug species (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). The potential number of sprays range from 2 to 5 applications depending on location. The rates are generally lower than the highest labelled rates, except for the occasional stink bug application resulting in the maximum seasonal use ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 lbs ai/a. In the southeastern states that include Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, acephate is important for the control of tobacco thrips, stink bug species (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) and tarnished plant bug (Lygus lineolaris). Generally, cotton producers in the southeastern region use acephate as a seed treatment at approximately 0.036 lb ai/a or as an infurrow spray at 0.97 lb ai/a. That application may be followed by one foliar application for thrips at 0.18 to 0.36 lb ai/a at the first true leaf stage (approximately 10-12 days after planting). An additional foliar spray (and occasionally two) is usually made during the third to fifth week of flowering to control tarnished plant bug and/or stink bugs (76 Days to 90 Days after planting). Total use in the southeastern U.S. will typically be around 1.11 lb ai/a, but may occasionally approach 3.0 lbs ai/a under extreme plant bug and stink bug pressure. By far, the greatest use of acephate in cotton occurs in the midsouthern states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri. Use of acephate for thrips control in this region is similar to that in the southeastern U.S. However, the primary pest of cotton in the midsouth region is the tarnished plant bug and multiple sprays are often needed to control this pest, especially in Delta regions. A small percentage of the acreage in this region may require the maximum seasonal use rate of 4.0 lbs ai/a in any given year. The greatest use typically occurs during the flowering period approximately 60 to 112 days after planting. Many fields will receive up to three applications in this window. Soybean Similar to cotton, the reliance on acephate for IPM programs in soybean varies greatly across the southern U.S. In general, soybean is a relatively minor crop west of Arkansas and Louisiana. The primary use of acephate in soybean is to control stink bug species. Brown stink bug (Euschistus servus), green stink bug (Acrosternum hilare), and southern green stink bug (Nezara viridula) are the most common and widely distributed stink bug species found in soybean. However, two invasive species, the redbanded stink bug (Piezodorus guildinii) and brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys), can also occur in some areas. The redbanded stink bug has greatly changed the use patterns for acephate in Louisiana. Currently, acephate is the only insecticide labeled in soybean that will provide adequate control of this pest, but only when mixed with a pyrethroid. Redbanded stink bug is a voracious feeder that can cause substantial yield and quality losses in soybean from R5 to R8 growth stages if not adequately managed. Feeding from redbanded stink bug results in greater damage and yield loss than any other stink bug species in soybean.

Additionally, it can rapidly re-infest fields after an application and often requires multiple applications at the upper range of the rate scale (0.75-1.0 lb ai/a). This species is an annual pest of soybean in Louisiana and in southern and southeastern Texas. Within a short period of time, this species will also migrate to more northern locations such as Mississippi and Arkansas following mild winters. Although the maximum labeled rate of acephate is 1.5 lbs ai/a in soybean, up to 2.0 lbs ai/a is required to adequately control this pest. This prompted states where this pest occurs to obtain a Section 24c label to increase the maximum seasonal use to 2.0 lbs ai/a. Summary The midsouth region of the U.S. has the greatest demand for acephate in cotton and soybean compared to other regions of the U.S. In cotton, most of the acephate use is to target tarnished plant bug in this region. The use of an organophosphate is critical for tarnished plant bug control in the midsouth because of the number of sprays needed each year and the limited number of alternative insecticides with a different mode of action that provide acceptable control. Currently, the maximum seasonal use rate of acephate is used on a small percentage of the acres in the midsouth where tarnished plant bug pressure is greatest and its use occurs over the entire season; however, in Arizona, the maximum use rate is needed when acephate is used, especially late season. Dicrotophos is the only other viable organophosphate for tarnished plant bug management, but severe use restrictions and higher cost limits its utility in IPM. Acephate is also very important for thrips management in most regions of the U.S. as a seed treatment, in-furrow spray, foliar spray, or some combination of these uses. In soybean, acephate is primarily used to control several stink bug species. Of those, the redbanded stink bug is the most economically important. In areas where redbanded stink bug occurs, a 24c label to increase the maximum seasonal use rate to 2.0 lbs ai/a is critical. In the more southern areas of the U.S., this insect is an annual pest and the seasonal maximum use rate is needed every year. In more northern locations, the pest migrates in from more southern locations and the maximum seasonal use rate is typically needed following mild winters. Finally, the use of acephate in cotton and soybean IPM programs varies greatly across the U.S., but remains an important component in some regions. Because of that, any restrictions on its use should reflect the needs of the region where actual use patterns are the greatest. Although little concession can be made to the seasonal use rates in those regions, the EPA should consider realistic use patterns in their assessments and realize that other insecticides are being used in a rotational strategy to maximize control and limit selection pressure. We have attempted to highlight some realistic use scenarios in the tables below for different regions of the country. These use scenarios are based on university recommendations as well as consultations with growers and consultants. Most regions of the U.S. can accept some use restrictions, but other regions cannot. Although the current application interval on the acephate label is 7 days, we never recommend more than 2 sequential applications to minimize selection for resistance. As a result, adding some language to the label related to timing of the season, rotation, or application intervals would be acceptable.

Again, we would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for the ability to provide input on this important insecticide. We will be more than happy to discuss the use of acephate in our cropping systems and realistic use patterns at any time. Realistic use scenarios of acephate in cotton for different regions of the U.S. These are use scenarios for acephate only in a rotation strategy, and other insecticides will be mixed with acephate or used in between acephate applications to manage target pest species. These scenarios are developed under the assumption that other insecticides are available for use. Maximum use scenarios presented are exaggerated examples of possible use but would likely never occur. Realistic use scenarios represent high-use, but likely, situations. The days represent days after planting Texas ~12-18 days - 0.25 lb ai/a for thrips ~21-27 days - 0.25 lb ai/a for cotton fleahopper (pre-bloom) ~28-34 days Imidacloprid or thiamethoxam for cotton fleahopper (pre-bloom) ~35-45 days - 0.25 lb ai/a for cotton fleahopper + Imidacloprid (pre-bloom) ~45-50 days 0.75 lb ai/a for plant bugs (bloom) ~52-70 days Sulfoxaflor for plant bugs (bloom) ~70-100 days 1.0 lb ai/a for stink bug (late bloom) Total: 2.50 lb ai/a Southeast (VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, and FL) At planting: 0.97 lb ai/acre as in-furrow liquid spray OR 6.4 fl oz/cwt seed treatment ~12 days- At 1 st leaf: 0.18 to 0.36 lb ai/acre for thrips (pre-bloom) ~19 days- At 3 rd leaf: 0.18 to 0.36 lb ai/acre for thrips (pre-bloom) ~76 days- During 3 rd week of bloom: 0.75 lb ai/a for stink bugs and plant bugs (bloom) ~90 days- During 5 th week of bloom: 0.75 lb ai/a for stink bugs and plant bugs (bloom) ~104 days- During 7 th week of bloom: 0.75 lb ai/a for stink bugs and plant bugs (bloom) In most years, only one application will be required from the third through seventh weeks of bloom. Total: 2.97 lb/ai/acre (above ground foliar only)

Midsouth (AR, MS, LA, TN, and MO) Growth Rate/acre Proportion Total Acres Total lb Stage DAP a Use b (lb AI) of Acres Acres Treated AI / use at-plant, or 0 IST 0.036 0.25 1,980,000 495,000 17,820 at-plant 0 IFS 1.0 0.03 1,980,000 59,400 59,400 1-2 leaf 18 F 0.25 0.5 1,980,000 990,000 247,500 pre-bloom 48 F 0.5 0.33 1,980,000 653,400 326,700 bloom 69 F 0.75 0.8 1,980,000 1,584,000 1,188,000 bloom 79 F 0.75 0.8 1,980,000 1,584,000 1,188,000 bloom 100 F 0.75 0.6 1,980,000 1,188,000 891,000 Seasonal lb AI/acre (with IST and no IFS) 3.306 Total lb AI (based on 3,918,420 1,980,00, acres) Seasonal lb AI/acre (with no IST and IFS) 4.0 Average seasonal lb AI 1.979 per acre (based on 1,980,00, acres) a DAP = days after planting. b Use: IST = insecticide seed treatment, IFS = in-furrow spray, F = foliar. Realistic use scenarios of acephate in soybeans for North and South Louisiana These are use scenarios for acephate only in a rotation strategy, and other insecticides will be mixed with acephate or used in between acephate applications to manage target pest species. These scenarios are developed under the assumption that other insecticides are available for use. Realistic use scenarios represent high-use, but likely, situations. The R stage represents reproductive growth stage at which insecticides are applied: North Louisiana ~R5-0.75 lb ai/a for stink bugs ~R6.5-1.0 lb ai/a for stink bugs Approximately 14-20 days between R5 and R6.5 Total: 1.75 lb ai/a South Louisiana ~R5.5-1.0 lb ai/a for stink bugs ~R6.5-1.0 lb ai/a for stink bugs Approximately 14-20 days between R5 and R6.5 Total: 2.0 lb ai/a