1. Pointers for Insect Pathologists: Lessons from a Bio-based IPM Study Ayanava Majumdar Extension Entomologist Gulf Coast Research & Extension Center, Fairhope, AL Mark A. Boetel Assoc. Prof., Entomology Department North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND Stefan T. Jaronski Res. Entomologist, USDA-ARS Northern Plains Agric. Res. Lab., Sidney, MT

2. Sugarbeet Research Project Integration of cover crops with Metarhizium anisopliae (Ascomycete) for sustainable management of sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM), Tetanops myopaeformis (Diptera: Ulidiidae) Damaged root-tip Heavy scarring Deformed root Av. Yield loss = 40% Major insect in 49% sugarbeet acreage in many states. Significant scarring of root surfaces by SBRM feeding SBRM: healthy & infected

3. Problem of experimental setup Strain of M. anisopliae : ATCC62176 (MA1200) Rate of MA: 8 x 10 12 viable conidia per ha (2x) MA applications: modified-in-furrow granules, postemergence spray Choice of location, design & statistics…do it right the first time! Biomaterials are expensive! X X Red river valley of ND & MN High insect pressure Moderate insect pressure

5. Cover cropping technique Oats @ 187 & 374 seeds/m 2 Rye @ 374 & 187 seeds/m 2 1 2 3

6. Do you see an effect of pathogen? Results of purely bio-based insect control test can be less encouraging. High insect pressure: MA spray provided similar level of root protection to terbufos (chemical standard) Consistency of trends: weather, high SBRM insect pressure Untreated check plot MA granules only MA spray only Root injury = (0-9 scale) 8-9 5-6 5-6

14. QUESTIONS?