Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2004 Investigation of insect-weed interactions in the rice agroecosystem Kelly V. Tindall Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Tindall, Kelly V., "Investigation of insect-weed interactions in the rice agroecosystem" (2004). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2509. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2509 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. INVESTIGATION OF INSECT-WEED INTERACTIONS IN THE RICE AGROECOSYSTEM A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Entomology By Kelly V. Tindall B.S. Louisiana State University-Shreveport, 1998 M.S. Louisiana State University, 2000 December 2004 For Jordan Grace, Colin, and Christi, know that you can accomplish anything ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Louisiana State University AgCenter, the faculty and staff of the Department of Entomology, and the personnel of the Northeast, Macon Ridge, and Rice research stations. I would also like to express appreciation to my major professor, Michael Stout, Bill Williams and Roger Leonard for acting as surrogate advisors while I was in North Louisiana, as well as my other committee members, Eric Webster , Jim Ottea, Carl Motsenboker, and Rodrigo Valverde. I would like to thank Drs. Frank Guillot, Jim Fuxa, and Tim Schowalter for guiding our department in my time at LSU. I would like to express special appreciation to James Geaghan for all of his help with statistics; Steve Linscombe for providing me with seed and use of his milling equipment; John Bernhardt for training me to assess pecky rice; Morgan Smith and Todd Bridges at for allowing me to conduct a test at Woodsland Plantation; and Donna Mitten at Bayer CropSciences for her assistance with the glufosinate-tolerant project. I would like to also thank, Boris Castro, Ann Burns, Bruce Copes, Jerry Bartleson, Ryan Pousson and numerous student workers for there assistance, especially, Rita Riggio, not only for her assistance, but also for her friendship. I would to express extreme and sincere appreciation to my friends and families, (all three of them – the Tindalls, Chandlers, and Harrisions), for all their support which was provided in so many ways; without their support, this project would not have been possible. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents for instilling in me the importance of education and the discipline to pursue this degree. I would like to thank Louisiana Rice Research Board and the Southern Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program for funding this research. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………... iii LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………. vi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………… viii ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….. xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Pests of the Rice Agroecosystem………….…………………….. 1 Interactions of Coexisting Pests in Agroecosystems……………. 11 Objectives and Goals…………………………………………….. 22 References………………………………………………………... 23 2. USE OF COMMON WEEDS OF RICE AS HOSTS FOR THE RICE WATER WEEVIL (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) Introduction……………………………………………………… 35 Materials and Methods…………………………………………... 37 Results…………………………………………………………… 44 Discussion………………………………………………………... 49 References………………………………………………………... 53 3. EFFECTS OF THE PRESENCE OF BARNYARDGRASS ON RICE WATER WEEVIL (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) AND RICE STINK BUG (HEMIPTERA: PENTATOMIDE) POPULATIONS ON RICE Introduction……………………………………………………… 55 Materials and Methods…………………………………………... 57 Results…………………………………………………………… 60 Discussion………………………………………………………... 65 References………………………………………………………... 70 4. EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE PRESENCE OF BARNYARDGRASS ON RICE STINK BUG IN A LARGE PLOT DEMONSTRATION TEST Introduction……………………………………………………… 73 Materials and Methods…………………………………………... 74 Results…………………………………………………………… 75 iv Discussion………………………………………………………... 77 References………………………………………………………... 79 5. COMBINED AND INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS OF GRAMINACEOUS WEEDS AND RICE STINK BUGS ON RICE Introduction……………………………………………………… 81 Materials and Methods…………………………………………... 83 Results…………………………………………………………… 87 Discussion………………………………………………………... 94 References………………………………………………………... 100 6. INCREASE IN INCIDENCE OF DAMAGE TO RICE BY SUGARCANE BORER, DIATRAEA SACCHARALIS, DAMAGE IN THE PRESENCE OF AMAZON SPRANGLETOP, LEPTOCHLOA PANICOIDES Introduction……………………………………………………… 103 Materials and Methods…………………………………………... 105 Results…………………………………………………………… 107 Discussion………………………………………………………... 108 References………………………………………………………... 111 7. EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIONAL ROLE OF GLUFOSINATE-TOLERANT RICE IN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT STRATAGIES FOR RICE WATER WEEVIL (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE) CONTROL Introduction……………………………………………………… 113 Materials and Methods…………………………………………... 116 Results…………………………………………………………… 123 Discussion………………………………………………………... 126 References………………………………………………………... 132 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS……………………………. 136 APPENDIX LETTER OF PERMISSION FOR CHAPTERS 2, 3, AND 7….... 141 VITA………………………………………………………………………………….. 142 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2.1. Assessment of the ability of rice water weevil to complete its life cycle on commercial rice (Cv. Cocodrie) and seven common weeds in greenhouse experiments. Presence of adult feeding was used as an indicator of completion of life cycle…………………………………... 44 Table 2.2. Infestation of common monocot (M) and dicot (D) weeds in Louisiana rice fields by rice water weevil larvae and pupae……………………... 45 Table 2.3. Preference of rice water weevils on commercial rice and seven weed species in greenhouse choice tests. Survival was characterized by examining the number of eggs surviving to larvae 25 days after adult infestation……………………………………………………………... 46 Table 3.1. Dates of selected agronomic practices………………………………… 58 Table 3.2. Mean number of rice stink bugs per 20 sweeps found in 2001 on rice when grown in association with barnyardgrass (BYG) compared to numbers found in whole plots of rice…………………………………. 62 Table 3.3. Mean number of rice stink bugs per 20 sweeps found in 2003 on rice when grown in association with barnyardgrass (BYG) compared to numbers found in whole plots of rice…………………………………. 63 Table 3.4. Mean number of rice stink bugs per 20 sweeps found in 2002 on rice when grown in association with barnyardgrass (BYG) compared to numbers found in whole plots of rice…………………………………. 64 Table 5.1. List of pathogens that have been isolated from pecky rice kernels and various weeds common to rice fields………………………………….. 97 Table 6.1. Mean number of plants damaged by borers from borers in 0.1 m2 of rice when rice was grown in association with Amazon sprangletop (SPR) compared to numbers found in whole plots of rice. Damage was characterized as deadhearts, partial whiteheads, whiteheads, sheath lesions, and total damage………………………………………. 108 vi Table 6.2. Mean number of plants damaged by borers observed when visually examining entire plots of rice when rice was grown in association with Amazon sprangletop (SPR) compared to numbers found in rice of whole plots of rice. Damage was characterized as deadhearts, partial whiteheads, whiteheads, sheath lesions, and total damage………………………………………………………………… 109 Table 7.1. Important dates and experimental information for each replication of greenhouse studies conducted in Baton Rouge, LA in 2001 that investigated the effect of the glufosinate-tolerant rice on rice water weevil densities………………………………………………………... 118 Table 7.2. Important dates of agronomic practices for field studies examining the effect of the glufosinate-tolerant rice technology on rice water weevil densities………………………………………………………………. 122 Table 7.3. Mean number of eggs and larvae per plant and mean larval weights of rice water weevils when adult weevils were presented a choice of glufosinate-tolerant rice (LL-401) treated with glufosinate, glufosinate-tolerant rice (LL-401) with no herbicide, and the parent variety ‘Bengal’ with no herbicide in greenhouse experiments in Baton Rouge, LA, 2001……………………………………………….. 124 Table 7.4. LC50 for rice water weevil adults exposed to commercially formulated or technical grade glufosinate…………………………………………. 125 Table 7.5. Evaluation of the glufosinate-tolerant rice (LL-002) technology and potential interactions between insecticide use and flooding regimes on rice water weevil larvae compared to a conventional rice line………... 125 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1. Feeding by rice water weevil adults on commercial rice (Cv. ‘Cocodrie’) and common weeds of rice (n = 63). Different letters represent significant differences in amount of feeding between plant species (Tukey’s studentized range test) * Hemp sesbania was not included in the analysis……………………………………………….. 48 Figure 3.1 The total number (±SE) of rice stink bugs on barnyardgrass and rice when rice was in the exterior portion of plots where * denotes 90- 100% panicle emergence of rice (2003)……………………………….. 66 Figure 4.1. Number