Corn Stunt: A New Disease and a New Insect Vector for New York State

Gary C. Bergstrom

School of Integrative Plant Science, Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Section, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Printer-friendly .pdf version.

The presence of the corn stunt spiroplasma was confirmed in corn fields in four non-contiguous New York Counties (Erie, Jefferson, Monroe, and Yates) in October 2024.  The causal agent of corn stunt, Spiroplasma kunkelii, belongs to a specialized class of bacteria known as mollicutes which also includes phytoplasmas. Spiroplasma cells lack walls, and they have a short, spiral shape. They live an obligate lifestyle, i.e., they survive and reproduce only in living leafhopper hosts and in the phloem sieve elements of specific plant hosts. The pathogen that causes corn stunt is transmitted by the corn leafhopper, Dalbulus maidis, also not documented previously in New York (Figure 1). That status changed this October as individuals of D. maidis were caught on a yellow sticky trap in Jefferson County. One captured leafhopper was confirmed by molecular tests to be infected by S. kunkelii. This is the first documentation of the corn leafhopper and of S. kunkelii in both corn leaves and corn leafhoppers in New York.

Figure 1. Corn leafhopper
Figure 1. Corn leafhopper, Dalbulus maidis, the insect vector of corn stunt spiroplasma, is characterized by two prominent dark dots between its eyes and a deeply imbedded V-pattern on its upper thorax. Photo courtesy of Dr. Ashleigh Faris, Oklahoma State University.

How is the spiroplasma transmitted and spread?

The corn leafhopper, D. maidis, can acquire spiroplasma through its probing mouthparts in less than an hour of feeding in phloem tissues of infected corn plants, but it can take up to two weeks of spiroplasma replication in the leafhopper’s body before the insect can then transmit the spiroplasma into the phloem of healthy corn plants. Symptoms don’t generally appear until about a month after plants have been infected. The most severe symptoms are the result of infection at early corn growth stages (from VE to V8). An infected leafhopper can transmit spiroplasma to many nearby plants and can also be blown by air currents and deposited into distant corn fields.

Where did the leafhopper and spiroplasma in New York come from?

Corn stunt is a disease complex first described nearly 80 years ago in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Spiroplasma kunkelii is the principal pathogen causing corn stunt. However, other pathogens, either alone or in combination, also can cause corn stunt; these pathogens include the maize bushy stunt phytoplasma, the maize rayado fino virus, and the maize striate mosaic virus. Leaf samples from New York have been archived for later testing for these additional pathogens. Over past decades, there have been observations of corn stunt symptoms in several southern and eastern states but epidemics of corn stunt with well documented isolation of S. kunkelii have been primarily in Texas, Florida, and California. In recent years, corn stunt has occurred as a yield-reducing disease primarily in Mexico, Central and South America, particularly in Argentina and Brazil. The principal vector, the corn leafhopper, can be transported long distances by air currents and carries the pathogen within it. While there is no direct proof, it is very likely that long-distance atmospheric transport of the corn leafhopper into the Midwest and Northeast in 2024 was aided by storm systems that moved north from southern states.

What are the symptoms of corn stunt?

Corn stunt symptoms present similarly to other stresses in corn, including drought, soil compaction, and phosphorous deficiency. Leaf blades and sheathes can show white or yellow stripes (loss of chlorophyl) or red or purple streaks (anthocyanin pigments) and plants may show premature senescence (but without stalk rot) (Figure 2). Corn stunt varies from several common stressors in that plants can show significant stunting and ear abnormalities such as poorly filled ears, no ears or multiple ears at the same node. Symptoms may appear in patches within a field or across larger portions of a field.

red streaked corn leaves infected with corn stunt
Figure 2. Corn plants testing positive for corn stunt spiroplasma showed stunting, leaf reddening, and abnormal ears in (A) Erie County and (B) Jefferson County, New York near the end of the 2024 growing season.

How was corn stunt detected in New York?

From conference calls with my field crop pathology counterparts in southern and corn belt states this summer, I became aware that, in association with stunted and discolored corn plants, corn stunt and corn leafhopper were being observed further north of their usual ranges in 2024. Yet, I thought that New York was at a sufficiently northern latitude to avoid these problems. I credit a very observant agronomy specialist, Rafaela Aguiar with Kreher Family Farms, for noticing unusual symptoms in field corn in Erie County in late summer. Rafaela, a native of Brazil and with previous agronomic experience in South America, thought the symptoms resembled corn stunt which she had seen in South America. Though I was skeptical, it turned out that Rafaela was correct. We initially collected samples of symptomatic plants (Figure 2A) from three Erie County fields and sent them to the Diagnostic Lab at Oklahoma State University. Two of the three fields came back as strongly positive for the corn stunt spiroplasma. In a race against corn harvest and frost, samples were then collected from corn in other counties where similar symptoms had been reported. Samples from Jefferson, Monroe, and Yates Counties were also positive (Figure 2B). I suggest that, given more time for scouting in October, corn stunt may have been diagnosed in many more corn fields in New York this year.

What does this mean for future corn production in New York?

Documentation of the pathogen and its insect vector in New York in 2024 demonstrated that corn stunt could occur in New York in future growing seasons. And if spiroplasma-infected corn leafhoppers arrive at earlier corn growth stages, significant yield losses could result.  Then again, the atmospheric pathways that carried corn leafhoppers to New York in 2024 might not be repeated for several years. Many presume that the corn leafhopper will not overwinter as far north as New York, but, with climate change, that may be proven incorrect.  There is much that we don’t know. Cornell University, Cornell Cooperative Extension, and the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program have committed to participate in a Corn Stunt Working Group of plant pathologists and entomologists in states affected by corn stunt and corn leafhopper. One aim of the group is to deploy a common protocol to monitor the corn leafhopper during the 2025 growing season. Also, the Cornell Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic is gearing up to offer a molecular test for corn stunt spiroplasma in 2025.

How will the corn stunt disease complex be managed?

Awareness and accurate diagnosis of corn stunt and regional monitoring for corn leafhopper are necessary first steps in managing this complex. Based on limited observations in 2024, it appears that corn stunt could cause significant yield reductions under New York corn growing conditions. Plant breeding is the long-term solution to prevent corn yield losses. Hybrids with moderate resistance to the spiroplasma and / or the leafhopper have been deployed in Latin American countries to manage the corn stunt complex. International companies that sell seed in the U.S. as well as Latin America are aware of which germplasms are most promising for incorporation into hybrids for northern temperate areas such as ours. I do not expect much choice of resistance in northern hybrids in 2025. Management of corn leafhopper populations with insecticides at corn vegetative stages to reduce corn stunt deserves further investigation. My principal advice to New York growers in 2025 is to plant corn at the earliest recommended date to avoid arrival of leafhoppers at the most vulnerable plant stages for infection by spiroplasma.

Acknowledgements:

I gratefully acknowledge agronomist Rafaela Aguiar of Kreher Family Farms for her keen observation of corn stunt symptoms and her continuing cooperation. Colleagues Michael Stanyard (Cornell Cooperative Extension Northwest New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops Program) and Michael Hunter (New York State Integrated Pest Management Program) were instrumental in collecting corn leaf samples and leafhoppers from additional sites in New York. Identification of corn leafhopper and corn stunt spiroplasma would not have been possible without the expert help of colleagues at Oklahoma State University including professors Maira Duffeck and Ashleigh Faris, and diagnostician Jennifer Olson.

References:

Faris, A.M. and M. Duffeck. 2024. Corn leafhopper leads to corn stunt disease across Oklahoma – August 12, 2024. Oklahoma State University Extension News, EPP23-17.

Klaudt, J. 2004. Corn leafhoppers carrying corn stunt make first-time appearance in Kansas. Kansas State University Research and Extension News Release – October 16, 2024.

Redinbaugh, M.G. 2016. Diseases caused by mollicutes. Pages 16-19 in: Compendium of Corn Diseases (Fourth Edition), ed. G.P. Munkvold and D.G. White. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.

 

 

 

PRE and POST Herbicide Options for Weed Control in NY Field Corn

Vipan Kumar1, Mike Hunter2, Mike Stanyard3

1School of Integrative Plant Sciences -Soil and Crop Sciences Section, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, 2Field Crops IPM Coordinator, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYSIPM), Redwood, NY, 3Cornell Cooperative Extension Northwest New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops Program

As the spring weather is warming up in the New York (NY), some producers have started planting their field corn in various parts of the state. Planting is an important time to make decisions regarding herbicide selection for effective weed control throughout the field corn growing season. This article provides an overview and discuss some major herbicide options labelled in the NYS field corn.

Preplant burndown options

If no tillage is practiced, burndown herbicides such as glyphosate (Roundup PowerMax), glufosinate (Liberty), paraquat (Gramoxone), 2,4-D (2,4-D LV4) and saflufenacil (Sharpen) can be helpful to control winter annual weeds prior to corn planting. If glyphosate-resistant horseweed is present in the field, paraquat or combination of Sharpen + 2,4-D can be an effective burndown option. Make sure to use appropriate adjuvants as per each herbicide label to maximize the effectiveness of these burndown treatments. Burndown treatments should be made on actively growing winter annual weeds under optimum weather conditions (sunny conditions with air temperature above 55 F with no forecast of cold weather after applications).

Preemergence (PRE) herbicide options

Preemergence or soil-applied herbicides are generally applied after crop planting but prior to its emergence. However, sometimes these preemergence herbicides can also be tank-mixed with preplant burndown treatments. Several preemergence options are available to use in field corn in the NY. Majority of these preemergence herbicides belong to Group 5, 14, 15, and 27 although there are few options from Group 2, 3, and 4 as well. Major preemergence herbicide options (not a complete list) along with their active ingredients and sites of action (SOA) labelled in NYS field corn are listed in Table 1. Several of these preemergence options are available in premixtures with two or three active ingredients from different groups (multiple SOA) and generally provide longer soil residual activity on summer annual weeds. For example, Harness Extra and FulTime NXT are premixtures of atrazine (Group 5) and acetochlor (Group 15) whereas Lumax EZ and Lexar EZ are premixtures of atrazine (Group 5), s-metolachlor (Group 15), and mesotrione (Group 27). Premixtures containing active ingredients from Group 5, 15 and 27 are most commonly used in field corn for grass and broadleaf weed control. While selecting appropriate preemergence option and its application rate, producers should thoroughly read the herbicide label for target weed species, rotational restrictions on the subsequent crops, cover crops or intercrops as well as consider the soil type, texture, and other soil properties (organic matter, soil pH, etc.).


Table 1.  Preemergence herbicide options labelled in NY field corn.

Herbicides Active Ingredients SOA
Prowl Pendimethalin 3
Aatrex Atrazine 5
Outlook Dimethenamid 15
Surpass NXT Acetochlor 15
Dual Magnum S-metolachlor 15
Harness Xtra, FulTime NXT Atrazine + Acetochlor 5, 15
Bicep Lite II Magnum, Cinch ATZ Lite Atrazine + S-metolachlor 5, 15
Verdict Saflufenacil + Dimethenamid 14, 15
Harness Max Acetochlor + Mesotrione 15, 27
Acuron Flexi S-metolachlor + Bicyclopyrone + Mesotrione 15, 27
Acuron Atrazine + S-metolachlor + Bicyclopyrone + Mesotrione 5, 15, 27
SureStart II Flumetsulam + Clopyralid + Acetochlor 2, 4, 15
Lumax EZ, Lexar EZ Atrazine + S-metolachlor + Mesotrione 5, 15, 27
Resicore, Resicore XL Clopyralid + Acetochlor + Mesotrione 4, 15, 27

*Restricted Use Pesticides      ¥Not for use in Nassau and Suffolk Counties


Postemergence (POST) herbicide options

Postemergence herbicides are applied after emergence of corn and weeds. Redroot pigweed, Powell amaranth, common lambsquarters, common ragweed, horseweed, common waterhemp, velvetleaf, foxtails (yellow, green, and giant), fall panicum, etc. are most common spring/summer annual weeds in NY corn. In addition, Palmer amaranth populations have also been recently found from six counties. In addition, field bindweeds, horsenettle, milkweed, yellow nutsedge, Canada thistle, hemp dogbane, quackgrass, etc. are most common perennial weeds. Johnsongrass populations have also been reported from corn fields in some southern counties of NY. Several postemergence herbicides are available to use in NY field corn to control these annual and perennial weed species. Majority of these labelled postemergence herbicides belong to Group 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, and 27.

Table 2 highlights major postemergence herbicide options (not a complete list) along with their active ingredients and sites of action (SOA) labelled in conventional, Roundup Ready and Liberty Link corn hybrids. Several of these postemergence herbicides are broad-spectrum and can control both grass and broadleaf weed species. For instance, Postemergence applications of Capreno, Realm Q, Impact Core, Roundup PowerMax, Liberty can all help controlling grass and broadleaf weeds. In contrast, postemergence applied Aatrex, Banvel, Clarity, Callisto, Yukon are most effective controlling broadleaf weeds only. Producers should thoroughly read each herbicide label for target weed species, rotational restrictions on the subsequent crops, cover crops or intercrops during selection of appropriate postemergence option and its rate. Make sure to use appropriate adjuvants as per each herbicide label to maximize the effectiveness of these postemergence herbicides. If glyphosate- or triazine-resistant weeds are present, producers should select alternative effective two-pass herbicide program (preemergence followed by postemergence).


Table 2. Postemergence herbicide options labelled in NY field corn.

Herbicides Active Ingredients SOA
For Conventional Corn Hybrids
Accent Q, Steadfast Q Nicosulfuron, Nicosulfuron + Rimsulfuron 2
Permit, Resolve Q Halosulfuron, Rimsulfuron + Thifensulfuron 2
Banvel, Clarity, DiFlexx Dicamba 4
Aatrex*¥ Atrazine 5
Basagran; Moxy 2EC Bentazone; Bromoxynil 6
Callisto; Armezone/Impact; Laudis Mesotrione; Topramezone; Tembotrione 27
Yukon Halosulfuron + Dicamba 2, 4
Capreno Thiencarbazon + Tembotrione 2, 27
Realm Q Rimsulfuron + Mesotrione 2, 27
Impact Core*¥ Acetochlor + Topramezone 15, 27
Kyro*¥ Clopyralid + Acetochlor + Topramezone 4, 15, 27
For Roundup Ready Corn Hybrids
Roundup PowerMax; Durango DM Glyphosate 9
Halex GT Glyphosate + S-metolachlor+ Mesotrione 9, 15, 27
For Liberty Link Corn Hybrids
Liberty Glufosinate 10

*Restricted Use Pesticides      ¥Not for use in Nassau and Suffolk Counties

Note: For further information on currently labelled PRE and POST herbicide options in NY field corn, check the 2024 Cornell Guide for Integrated Field Crop Management (available online).


Field Study in 2023

A field study was conducted in Franklin and Jefferson counties, NY, in 2023 growing season to determine the effectiveness of various preemergence herbicides (Table 3) with and without atrazine (42 fl oz/a) for weed control in field corn. Both field sites had natural infestation of common lambsquarters. Field corn was planted around May 20 at both sites and selected preemergence herbicides were applied immediately after planting. Small plots (10 feet wide by 30 feet long) were used to test each herbicide program. Test plots were laid arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 4 replications. All PRE herbicides were applied using CO2-operated backpack sprayer equipped with handheld boom with four nozzles (AIXR 110015). Results indicated no significant differences in common lambsquarters control among all tested preemergence herbicides at 35 days after treatments. Across both sites in Franklin and Jefferson counties, preemergence applied Acuron Flexi, Harness Max, Resicore XL, and Verdict + Outlook alone or with atrazine provided 94 to 100% control of common lambsquarters (Table 3; Figure 1)). In 2024, we plan to evaluate these preemergence applied herbicides (with or without atrazine) across multi-locations again to validate these results.


Table 3. Percent common lambsquarters control at 35 days after applications of various preemergence herbicide premixes alone or in combination with atrazine in field corn during 2023 growing season in Franklin and Jefferson Counties, NY.

 

Herbicide Active Ingredient (s) Site of action (SOA) Rate (oz/a) Franklin Jefferson
% control
Acuron Flexi S-metolachlor/bicyclopyrone/mesotrione 15, 27 72 98 97
Aatrex 4L + Acuron Flexi Atrazine + S-metolachlor/bicyclopyrone/mesotrione 5,15,27 42 + 72 99 94
Harness Max Acetochlor/mesotrione 15,27 64 100 97
Aatrex 4L + Harness Max Atrazine + acetochlor/mesotrione 5,15,27 42 + 64 99 97
Resicore XL Clopyralid/acetochlor/mesotrione 4,15,27 96 99 98
Aatrex 4L + Resicore XL Atrazine + clopyralid/acetochlor/mesotrione 5,4,15,27 42 + 96 100 99
Verdict + Outlook Saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P + dimethenamid-P 14,15,15 16 + 4.6 99 94
Aatrex 4L + Verdict + Outlook Atrazine + saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P + dimethenamid-P 5,14,15,15 16 + 4.6 + 42 99 98

corn rows showing amount of weeds with different treatments
Figure 1. Side-by-side comparison of PRE applied Acuron Flexi and Harness Max with and without atrazine for common lambsquarters control at 35 days after application in Jefferson County, NY during 2023 growing season.

Disclaimer: Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. Persons using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current label directions of the manufacturer.

2024 Updates on XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium Registrations and Use in Dicamba-Tolerant Soybeans for NY Producers

Vipan Kumar1, Michael Helms2, Mike Hunter3, Mike Stanyard4

1School of Integrative Plant Sciences -Soil and Crop Sciences Section, Cornell  University, Ithaca, NY 14853, 2Cornell Pesticide Safety Education Program, 3Field Crops IPM Coordinator, New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYSIPM), Redwood, NY, 4Cornell Cooperative Extension Northwest New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops Program

soybeanOn February 06, 2024, the U.S. district court in Arizona vacated 2020 registrations of three dicamba containing products (XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium) for over-the-top (OTT) applications in dicamba-tolerant (Xtend and XtendFlex) soybean. In response to the U.S. district court ruling, the EPA issued an Existing Stock Order on February 14, 2024, that allows limited sale, distribution, and use of these dicamba OTT products that were already in the possession of growers, distributors or in the channels of trade and outside the control of pesticide companies as of February 06, 2024.

According to this Existing Stock Order, the manufacturers/registrants are no longer allowed to distribute these dicamba products in the US other than for disposal or lawful export. However, any dealer with an existing stock may sell these dicamba products until May 31, 2024 (cutoff date in New York (NY)). If soybean producers and applicators in NY are planning to grow Xtend or XtendFlex soybean and thinking to use these dicamba products in 2024 growing season, they should consider the following important points:

  • Only three dicamba containing products (XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium) are labelled for OTT applications in Xtend or XtendFlex soybean.
  • Only certified applicators (private or commercial) are allowed to use XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium herbicides for OTT applications in Xtend or XtendFlex soybean.
  • NY growers and applicators must read and understand the EPA’s Existing Stocks Order on the use of XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium herbicides for OTT applications in Xtend or XtendFlex soybean.
  • Product that dealers had on hand prior to February 06, 2024 can be sold or distributed in NY through May 31, 2024 (the cutoff date for NY).
  • Applicators are allowed to use existing stocks of these dicamba products for OTT applications in Xtend or XtendFlex soybeans until June 30, 2024 (cutoff application date for NY).
  • The NY registrations for XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium herbicides are set to expire on July 31, 2024. Unfortunately, there are no CleanSweepNY programs currently scheduled for 2024, so alternative disposal options may need to be found.
  • Mandatory dicamba training: Applicators must take mandatory annual dicamba training before applying XtendiMax, Engenia and Tavium herbicides in Xtend or XtendFlex soybean. These online dicamba trainings are offered by following manufacturers/registrants:

Training is reciprocal across brands and applicators only need to take one dicamba-specific training each year (i.e. only one training session either from BASF, Bayer or Syngenta). Contact your local dealer for further information.

  • Note that other dicamba-containing products (e.g. Banvel, Clarity and the many generics) are not labelled for OTT applications in Xtend or XtendFlex soybeans. However, some glyphosate products (Roundup PowerMax, Durango, etc.) can be used in OTT applications in Xtend or XtendFlex soybeans. Some glufosinate (Liberty) products can only be used for OTT applications in XtendFlex soybean, not in Xtend soybean.

Disclaimer: Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. Persons using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current label directions of the manufacturer.

What’s in a Net? Citizen Scientists Sweep Alfalfa Fields for Pests and Predators

Ashley Bound1, Emily Anderson2, Erik Smith1

 1CCE Central NY Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops Team
2CCE Chenango County 

Introduction

Potato leafhopper (PLH) is a major pest to alfalfa crops across the US and in Central New York. It causes damage to young plants and successive regrowth, resulting in a decrease in overall quality with the potential to cause financial losses to farmers. With funding from the Chobani Community Impact Fund and leadership from the Central New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops (CCE CNYDLFC) regional team and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Chenango County (CCE Chenango), local Future Farmers of America (FFA) chapters worked together during the 2023 growing season to inform farmers about PLH population dynamics in their fields. The goal of this project was to monitor alfalfa fields for PLH, inform farmers if and when PLH populations had reached the action threshold (the population at which a farmer would want to take action to prevent economic loss) and gain a better understanding of the populations of potential insect predators of PLH through the growing season. In the process, community members of different ages and backgrounds had the opportunity to come together to gain hands-on experience with agriculture in the region, share skills and unique perspectives, connect with farmers, and participate in a local citizen science project.

Alfalfa is a good source of protein for livestock and a high-yielding crop for silage, hay, and pasture, and is an essential component of Total Mixed Rations on most dairy farms. Alfalfa is also useful in crop rotations because its root systems help improve soil structure and, as a legume, it is able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere.

One of alfalfa’s most common pests in New York is potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae) (PLH) (Fig. 1). Heavy PLH pressure can result in the reduction of stand quality and the loss of nutritional value, and it can impact the availability of successive cuttings. PLH is found across much of the eastern half of the United States and is a pest of many different crops, including clovers, potatoes, soybeans, and apples. At ¼  in, the small PLH can cause big problems. It feeds by using its straw-like mouthparts to extract sap from plants. While taking nutrients from the plant, the PLH also secretes a toxic saliva, which reduces the plant’s ability to photosynthesize. Leaves of infected plants will begin to yellow; this is known as “hopper burn” (Fig. 2).

Potato leaf hopper
Figure 1. A potato Leafhopper adult is about ¼ inches in length (Ken Wise)
hopper burn on alfalfa
Figure 2. Hopper burn, PLH-damaged alfalfa (NYSIPM)

Potato leafhopper management

PLH pressure in alfalfa fields is commonly addressed in two ways: spraying the field with a pesticide to reduce PLH numbers or harvesting the field early. Costs and benefits exist between both options, but often the decision relies on the timing of the upcoming harvest.

Advising between when to cut and when to spray pesticides can help the farmer reduce the cost of pesticides, fuel, and labor used while also maintaining the value of the alfalfa stand.

Farmers and pest scouts use large canvas sweep nets to sample PLH populations in alfalfa fields (Fig. 3). If the field has high PLH numbers, but the farmer is within one week of harvesting the field anyway, it would be more cost-effective to cut the field early. Cutting early allows the farmer to prevent further damage caused by PLH and maintain the quality of the alfalfa without unnecessarily expending time, fuel, and product by spraying with a pesticide. On the other hand, if the field is more than one week away from harvest and PLH numbers are high, it would make more economic sense to treat the field with an insecticide to provide the alfalfa more time to mature without PLH damage, since a low-yield harvest would have low economic value.

It is unclear whether PLH populations are predated upon by other insects or spiders to a degree that would affect alfalfa yield loss. Several species are reported to feed on PLH, but PLH are considered too fast to be captured by most predators. Still, insecticide applications intended to manage PLH would potentially affect other insects in the field, including those predating on pea aphid, another summertime insect pest of alfalfa that can cause yield loss in rare cases where populations get out of hand.

 What is considered a high PLH number?

Table 1. Economic thresholds of PLH in non-PLH-resistant alfalfa (adapted from Cornell Guide for Integrated Field Crop Management)

Height of Alfalfa (in) Max PLH/Sweep
<3 0.2
3-7 0.5
8-10 1
11-14 2
15+ 2*

* No action needed if within 1 week of cutting, and consider cutting early.

For Example…

If the stand of alfalfa is 21 in. tall and the average number of PLH per sweep was 2.5, then the action threshold has been reached, and it would make sense to cut the stand early to prevent further damage because it is likely within one week of harvest.

However, if the alfalfa in the field is only 10 in. tall and an average of 1.5 PLH were found per sweep, the field should instead be managed with an insecticide application to prevent further PLH damage, since the next cutting will not happen within the next week.

If the alfalfa height is 20 in., but the average number of PLH per sweep was only 1.2, then the action threshold was not reached, and no action would be warranted for the field.

Methods

To help our extension staff collect data and provide management recommendations to local farmers, nine area youth groups including seven FFA chapters were provided with sweep nets, insect identification guides, and a comprehensive insect identification textbook, all of which they could keep at the end of the project. In-person training sessions and data sheets were also provided by CCE staff.

Data collection was performed with a standard 15-inch-diameter insect sweep net (Fig. 3). Participants swept the net a total of 10 times back and forth in a swinging motion while walking forward – each swing counting as one sweep – and at the end of the 10 sweeps, the number of insects in the net was recorded. In addition to PLH, participants also recorded seven types of predators that are known to feed on PLH and other insect pests. These included hoverfly larvae (Fig. 4), ladybugs and ladybug larvae (Fig. 5), lacewing larvae, damsel bugs, assassin bugs, minute pirate bugs, and spiders (including harvestmen, also known as daddy longlegs).

sweep net
Figure 3. Sweep net (Gemplers)
Hoverfly larva and aphids
Figure 4. Hoverfly larva feeding on an aphid (Kerri Wixted)
Ladybug larva
Figure 5. Ladybug larva (Cornell University)

This process was repeated for a total of three – five sets of sweeps, or 30-50 total sweeps per field. Fields were typically re-sampled weekly through the growing season, except immediately following harvest.

After counting the numbers of pests and predators and averaging those values across all sweeps, alfalfa height was recorded so that a determination could be made as to whether that field reached the threshold for management using the established economic thresholds (Table 1).

Results and Discussion

With four FFA chapters and one local youth group participating through the duration of the project, we were able to monitor PLH in 21 alfalfa fields on 13 farms in 5 counties over 12 weeks from June to August, when alfalfa crops are at highest risk of PLH and when producers are most likely to invest in insecticidal sprays to salvage yield.

Across all fields and sampling dates, 1,951 PLH and 1,291 insect predators were recorded (Table 2). This does not include many other insects that were also observed in our sweep nets, like horse flies, deer flies, bees, aphids, and parasitoid wasps. The two most common insects sampled were aphids and several species of parasitoid wasps. Aphid populations seldom reach damaging levels in alfalfa, and these species of wasp parasitize other insects, primarily aphids in this setting.

Table 2. Total PLH and selected predators observed across all fields and dates

table 2

Out of 126 sampling efforts, the action threshold was reached only 10 times (7.9%). Of those 10 times, applying a short-residual insecticide was the most economical management strategy in five cases, while early harvest was recommended the other five times. This meant that it was only economical to spray in 3.97% of cases. Only eight fields of the 21 monitored during the growing season reached threshold at least once (38% of fields). Five of those eight were fields where early harvest was recommended due to being within one week of planned harvest. Interestingly, of the three fields where sprays were recommended due to reaching threshold more than a week from harvest, two were in this situation more than once during the season (twice each). This means that only very few fields experienced consistently high PLH pressure. These fields will be monitored in 2024 to see if these trends continue, or whether 2023 was unique. Without question, PLH populations can vary wildly between growing seasons due to their migratory nature, so more observation will be needed to see how different fields experience PLH pressure over time.

Predators outnumbered PLH in our sweeps until mid-July, and again after mid-August (Fig. 6). We know that the predators we recorded have been reported by others to feed on PLH, but we do not have a good understanding of how well they may be able to control PLH populations. But if they are, and if 2023 was a typical year for these species, there appears to be a period of about 5 weeks in the middle of summer that may be the highest risk for yield loss due to PLH infestation and potential yield loss. Alfalfa weevil is an important pest of alfalfa through late-June, and these predators may be exploiting this pest before PLH populations increase.

figure 6 bar graph
Figure 6. Insect population dynamics in Central NY alfalfa fields in 2023

Forage crops are unique because they are harvested multiple times per year, allowing for a partial reset of local pest populations with each harvest. But while the recommended short-residual sprays do not have extended activity directly, their effects can extend through the growing season if used incorrectly. Spraying without scouting to verify whether action thresholds have been reached, and spraying when pests are below economic thresholds not only wastes money in the short-term, but puts important insect diversity at risk. Not only non-target insects like pollinators, but also predators that may be feeding on PLH, alfalfa weevil, and aphids and preventing their populations from reducing forage yield and quality.

Potato leafhopper-resistant alfalfa varieties exist, and the economic thresholds of these varieties can be double, to nearly 10x the level of traditional alfalfa. If PLH-resistant varieties were used in this study, the economic threshold would have been reached no more than three times, all in different fields. For resistant varieties with economic thresholds higher than 3x the standard varieties, no fields in our study would have reached the economic threshold. However, farmers usually prioritize digestibility or other desired traits over pest resistance when choosing an alfalfa variety (these traits are not stackable with current varieties), so most alfalfa grown in NY is not PLH-resistant.

The partnership between CCE Chenango, the CNYDLFC regional team, and FFA chapters was instrumental to the project’s geographic reach and success. Through this partnership, young people in the community were able to aid farmers while learning about local agriculture, entomology, Integrated Pest Management, and the natural diversity that can be found on farms. While many of the young people involved with this project either lived on farms or were otherwise related to farmers, this was an enriching experience that gave them a better understanding of how crops are produced, and how farmers and CCE work together to make informed management decisions.

Additional Resources

Acknowledgments

This project was made possible by Chobani through the Chobani Community Impact Fund and relied on leadership and participation from the Central New York Dairy, Livestock, and Field Crops team; Cornell Cooperative Extension of Chenango County; high school members of the local Future Farmers of America chapters; and each landowner that generously allowed sweeping to occur on their fields. The authors thank Joe Lawrence (PRO-DAIRY) and Ken Wise (NYSIPM) for reviewing the article. For questions, contact Erik Smith, erik.smith@cornell.edu.