2022
Finding pyrethroid-resistant aphids before it is too late
Contributor/Checkoff:
Category:
Sustainable Production
Keywords:
Biotic stressCrop protectionField management Pest
Parent Project:
This is the first year of this project.
Lead Principal Investigator:
Matthew O'Neal, Iowa State University
Co-Principal Investigators:
Project Code:
Iowa State University
Contributing Organization (Checkoff):
Leveraged Funding (Non-Checkoff):
In the fall of 2020, we received $200,000 from the USDA’s Crop Protect and Pest Management program. Minus the indirect costs of $45,323, this provided $154,677 worth of laboratory and field assays to develop new molecular markers to detect insecticide resistant aphids for 2020-2023. We do not have funding to test these markers in farmer fields as proposed herein. That includes a lack of funding for personnel to conduct these objectives.
Show More
Institution Funded:
Brief Project Summary:

Soybean aphids, like many pests, are developing resistance to primary control options. To better understand this threat, this project applies genetic tools to this challenge. Observations suggest that aphid populations increased following a foliar insecticide in northern Iowa, though they were below treatment levels. Due to resistance, applying a preventative insecticide could be more costly than not spraying. This work intends to help farmers figure out when aphids in their fields carry insecticide resistance. It also explores ways to maintain the effectiveness of pyrethroids, the most cost-efficient chemical control option.

Key Benefactors:
farmers, agronomists, Extension agents

Information And Results
Project Deliverables

Our ultimate goal is to develop the science for an in-field test that farmers could use without timely lab-based assays. This type of test is available for farmers to test if Roundup Ready plants are expressing the genes that provide protection against that herbicide (Figure 3). This type of test allows farmers to get results in real-time, to make decisions in the field. Through this project, we can get closer to just such a commercial product.

Specific things learned through each objective.

Objective 2:
What will we learn:
I. Does the field have pyrethroid-resistant aphids? This will be confirmed with the first visit (prior to foliar insecticide application).
II. Did the insecticide increase the frequency of any of the mutations (resistant aphids)? This will be measured with the second visit (after the foliar insecticide application).
III. Is the insecticide application making a bad situation worse? This will be assessed by comparing the proportion of resistant aphids between first and second visits.
These data will be shared with the farmer, ISU Extension and crop scouts so that they can make informed decisions about which insecticides to use during the field season and into the future.

Objective 3:
What will we learn:
I. Which alternatives to pyrethroids protect farmers from resistant soybean aphids?
II. Do aphids have cross-resistance to other insecticides? We will determine if these three insecticides that can be used to manage outbreaks.

Final Project Results

Update:
We surveyed commercial soybean fields in the northern third of Iowa and found strong evidence of insecticide resistant aphids. This evidence included populations spreading and increasing beyond the what was measured before an insecticide was sprayed. This is remarkable because insecticides have performed very well, reducing populations and preventing yield loss after they are applied. We are using molecular markers to determine if the aphids collected both before and after the use of an insecticide have mutations associated with insecticide resistance. We anticipate that the frequency of these mutations will increase after the application. This is very worrisome as this will increase the likelihood of these mutations spreading.

We also learned that despite the increase in aphid spread and population after the insecticides were applied, the populations were very low, at least an order of magnitude below what is considered a threshold to spray insecticide. This is somewhat comforting, but highlights a larger issue. Farmers may be using insecticide unnecessarily, applying them when they are not needed to prevent yield loss from soybean aphids. By using insecticides in this way, they are eroding the value of insecticides. Even though the populations are too low to cause yield loss, they are still responding to the insecticide, with the resistance evolving and spreading amongst the survivors.

These data will be used in the years to come to demonstrate how insecticide use in soybeans can erode their value. This will be done across multiple platforms, including twitter, podcasts and the many farmer meetings conducted through ISU extension and outreach.


View uploaded report Word file

We surveyed commercial soybean fields in the northern third of Iowa and found evidence of insecticide resistant aphids. This result is important for two reasons. The first is that the soybean aphid populations across Iowa were very low, including the fields we visited. Some of the 22 fields we visited had no aphids, even the fields with the most aphids had populations below what is required to reduce soybean yield (< 250 aphids per plant on average). A subset of these fields were sprayed with insecticide. Either the farmer was very risk-adverse or was practicing a preventative approach (i.e. a 'prevent-defense') to avoid possible outbreaks later in the season. This brings up the second reason our result is important is that even with this low density of aphids, we found evidence of insecticide resistance in the population. This was most noticeable after the insecticides were applied. When we returned to these fields at least 7 days after an insecticide was applied, not only had the percentage of plants infested with aphids increased, but so too had the average number of aphids on them. This is the response we would see if the aphids were resistant to the insecticide.We are using molecular markers to determine if the aphids collected both before and after the use of an insecticide have mutations associated with insecticide resistance. We anticipate that the frequency of these mutations will increase after the application. This is very worrisome as this will increase the likelihood of these mutations spreading.


Even though the populations of aphids increased after insecticides were applied, they were too low to reduce soybean yield. So the farmers did not suffer immediately from these resistant aphids. But this is very troubling. Insect susceptibility to insecticide is a natural resources that can be eroded with continued insecticide use. Farmers may be using insecticide unnecessarily, applying them when they are not needed to prevent yield loss from soybean aphids. By using insecticides in this way, they are eroding the value of insecticides. Even though the populations are too low to cause yield loss, they are still responding to the insecticide, with the resistance evolving and spreading amongst the survivors.

Going forward, we will share these results with farmers. We hope that these results will show farmers the potential consequences of insecticide use that is not immediately necessary. Furthermore, we will couple our molecular data to determine if that data can more rapidly determine the presence of aphid resistant soybeans than bioassays with living aphids.

The United Soybean Research Retention policy will display final reports with the project once completed but working files will be purged after three years. And financial information after seven years. All pertinent information is in the final report or if you want more information, please contact the project lead at your state soybean organization or principal investigator listed on the project.