

Efficacy of exclusion tactics to

control thrips and MCMV in maize

By
James R. Lambeth (Rick)
 Rick Lambeth
 Background
 Family farm near Plainview, IL
 Corn, soy, wheat, forage crops, cattle

 Education
 Eastern Illinois University
 B.S. Biological Science

 Personal life
 Wife Tamra of 5 years
 Engineer in oil & gas industry
• Jerseyville • Kihei • Houston
 Expecting our first child in July •Biotech Field Testing •Trait Integration •South Testing Region
•Corn, Soy •Corn •Cotton, Corn, Soy,
 Things I don’t get to do enough: Chemistry

 Hiking, canoeing, hunting, fishing,

camping, traveling, and farming
Illinois Hawaii Texas

 Career Monsanto Career

2003-present
 Seed industry – Monsanto
 Hawaii Seed Industry
 Continuous year long growing conditions

 Plant breeding, counter season hybrid nursery,

and parent lines increases

 Seed industry presence on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,

Maui

 Pioneer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto, Syngenta

 Seed corn is highest value crop in Hawaii

 Valued at $146.3 million, 2500+ jobs statewide

 Domestic seed movement efficiency, subject to

USDA, EPA regulation
 Enter the problem

 A beautiful day in Kihei in 2011…

 “This looks like MCMV”
 Tissue samples quickly confirmed via ELISA (Enzyme-
linked immunosorbent assay)
 Numerous emergency containment measures put in
place, none successful

 Fast forward 18 months and nurseries are being

plowed in with no expected seed return
 Maize Chlorotic Mottle Virus
MCMV symptoms
Leaf mosaic - Fine, chlorotic, longitudinal streaks, parallel to leaf
veins, apparent 10 days after inoculation

Leaf chlorosis/necrosis - Streaks can coalesce, followed by leaf

necrosis, and plant death

Stunting - Shortened internode length and stem diameter

Ear malformation - Short ears, partially filled, prematurely aged
husks

Tassel malformation - Short prematurely aged tassels

Synergistic disease
MCMV + MDMV = CLN
Maize chlorotic mottle virus + maize dwarf mosaic virus = corn
lethal necrosis

Symptoms - Accelerated tissue aging, necrosis spreading from leaf

margins, reduced seed set, plant death
  Insignificant row crop pest in
most regions
 Only confirmed arthropod
vector of MCMV in Hawaii
 Tiny at ~2 mm but visible with
naked eye
 Generation time 7-13 days

 Effective virus transmission

after 3 hours exposure
 Vector for 6 days after
exposure ceases

Corn Thrips
(Frankliniella williamsi Hood)
 IPM for Thrips
 Chemical control  Cultural practices
 Neonicotinoid seed
treatments  Fallow periods
 Imidacloprid , clothianidin  Forced break in host availability
(Poncho 1250) most
effective  Spatial isolation
 Limited spray chemistries  Limit green bridge effect
 Spinosad (Radiant SC)
most effective
 Frequent applications
required
 1-3 sprays weekly
 Pest-pesticide contact
difficult to achieve
 Burrowed in whorl
 Alternative IPM

What about exclusion…

• Fine diameter mesh screen effective in
greenhouses and vegetable row cages

• The two experiments that follow were conducted

to test No-Thrips screen in a field setting in corn
 Materials & Methods
 No-Thrips screen
 Purchased through
Hummerts International
 4500 Earth City Expressway,
Earth City, MO 63045
 11.5 ft x 100 ft section
ordered for trial purposes
 Specifications
 UV stabilized monofilament
 150 micron diameter mesh
 Thrips stated to be ~192
micron
 0.15mm thread thickness
 Cage structures
 Screen cut into treatment
sections
 Four 25 ft x 11.5 ft sections
 Screens cut again for
second trial
 Supported with 24” rebar
arches
 Attached to ground with 4”
landscape fabric pins
 Net Experiment 1 - Setup

Parameters
 2 Net treatments
 2 Inbred corn lines
 Treatments and inbreds randomized
 2 replications
 Plot = 2 rows x 18 feet
B B B B Treatment
 36 seeds planted per row B B B B Covered
B Inbred A Inbred B B
 Seed treated with Poncho 1250 B Inbred A Inbred B B Uncovered
B B B B
 Net cover applied at 2 days after planting B B B B

 Followed standard early season IPM practices B Inbred B Inbred A B

B Inbred A Inbred B B

 Net removed 23 days after planting B B B B

B B B B
 Net Experiment 1 – Data Collection

Observations

Stand • Emerged seedlings counted at net removal

• Used to normalize MCMV observations

MCMV • Visual assessment of presence or absence of symptoms

• Used with stand count to arrive at percent MCMV symptomatic per plot

• Half emerged plants sampled for thrips via whorl dissection

Thrips • Destructive sampling method, thrips counted as leaves pulled apart

• Used with number of samples to arrive at average thrips per plant on
plot basis
 Net Experiment 2 - Setup
B B B B
B B B B

Parameters B
B
Inbred D
Inbred C
Inbred B
Inbred A
B
B
Treatment
Covered
B Inbred B Inbred D B
 2 Net treatments B Inbred C Inbred A B Uncovered
B B B B
 4 Inbred corn lines B B B B
B Inbred A Inbred C B

 Treatments and inbreds randomized B Inbred B Inbred D B

B Inbred A Inbred D B

 2 replications B Inbred B Inbred C B

B B B B

 Plot = 2 rows x 10 feet B B B B

 26 seeds planted per row

 Seed treated with Poncho 1250
 Net cover applied at 2 days after planting
 Followed standard early season IPM practices
 Net removed 26 days after planting
 Net Experiment 2 – Data Collection

Observations

Stand • Emerged seedlings counted at net removal

• Used to normalize other observations

• ELISA analysis for virus presence, positive or negative

MCMV • Non-destructive plant tissue sample, all plants sampled
• Used with stand count to arrive at percent MCMV positive per plot

• Half emerged plants sampled for thrips via whorl dissection

Thrips • Destructive sampling method, thrips counted as leaves pulled apart

• Used with number of samples to arrive at average thrips per plant on
plot basis
 Hypotheses Tested - Thrips

Net Treatment

• H0: Row cover with No-Thrips netting will have no significant effect
on plot average number of thrips per plant at time of net removal.
• HA: Row cover with No-Thrips netting will have significant effect on Expected
plot average number of thrips per plant at time of net removal.

Inbred

• H0: Inbred line will have no significant effect on plot average number Expected
of thrips per plant at time of net removal.
• HA: Inbred line will have significant effect on plot average number of
thrips per plant at time of net removal.
 Thrips Exclusion – Net Experiment 1
 Results
 Higher average thrips per plant observed
in uncovered plots in both inbreds
 No interaction between inbred and net
treatment expected

 One-way ANOVA performed across inbreds

 Results significant; p<0.0355
 Fit with expectations, and aligned with
manufacturers exclusion claims

 Reject H0, accept HA

 Row cover with No-Thrips netting has
significant effect on plot average number
of thrips per plant
 Thrips Exclusion – Net Experiment 2
 Results
 Higher average thrips per plant
observed in uncovered plots in all
inbreds
 Again no interaction between
inbred and net treatment expected

 One-way ANOVA performed across

inbreds
 Results significant; p<0.0001

 Reject H0, accept HA

 Row cover with No-Thrips netting
has significant effect on plot
average number of thrips per plant

 Dramatic increase in thrips pressure

compared to Net Exp 1
 Position relative to neighbor
nursery, younger green bridge
 Missed IPM sprays due to rain
 Thrips Exclusion – Inbred Treatment
 Results
 No significant difference observed in
plot average thrips per plant between Net Exp 1
inbreds
 One-way ANOVA performed across net
treatments
 Net Exp 1; p = 0.7645
 Net Exp 2; p = 0.9272

 Fail to reject H0
 Inbred line has no significant effect on
plot average number of thrips per Net Exp 2
plant

 Results fit expectations

 Hypotheses Tested - MCMV

Net Treatment

• H0: Row cover with No-Thrips netting will have no significant effect
on number of MCMV symptomatic plants per plot at time of net
removal.
• HA: Row cover with No-Thrips netting will have significant effect on Expected
number of MCMV symptomatic plants per plot at time of net
removal.

Inbred

• H0: Inbred line will have no significant effect on number of MCMV Expected
symptomatic plants per plot at time of net removal.
• HA: Inbred line will have significant effect on number of MCMV
symptomatic plants per plot at time of net removal.
 MCMV Avoidance – Net Experiment 1
 Results
 Higher percent MCMV observed in uncovered
plots in both inbreds
 Inbred B showed higher MCMV in covered plots
than expected
 No interaction between inbred and net
treatment expected

 One-way ANOVA performed across inbreds

 Difference not significant; p<0.0817

 Potential explanations:
 Outlier effect amplified by small number of plots
compared
 Mis-identification of symptoms resulting in false
positives
 Incomplete or interrupted seal could have
resulted in partial exposure during the test

 Methodology for Net Experiment 2 adjusted in

response to findings
MCMV Avoidance – Net Experiment 2
 Results
 Greater percent MCMV per plot
observed in uncovered plots across
all inbred
 No interaction between inbred and
net treatment expected

 One-way ANOVA performed

 Results significant; p<0.0001

 Reject H0, accept HA

 Row cover with No-Thrips netting
has significant effect on number of
MCMV symptomatic plants per plot

 Improved sampling methodology

 More sophisticated detection
method – ELISA
 Eliminated human error in symptom
mis-identification
 MCMV Avoidance – Inbred Treatment
 Results
 No significant difference observed in
percent MCMV between inbreds
Net Exp 1
 One-way ANOVA performed across net
treatments
 Net Exp 1; p = 0.1349
 Net Exp 2; p = 0.9061

 Fail to reject H0
 Inbred line has no significant effect on
number of MCMV symptomatic plants
per plot
Net Exp 2
 Results fit expectations
 Conclusion
Thrips exclusion is possible using No-Thrips net material

MCMV avoidance is possible using No-Thrips net material

Inbred did not factor significantly in thrips exclusion or MCMV avoidance

 Even brief disruptions in net ground seal may

have lead to outliers
 Net treatment provided shade and wind
protection during early development
 Vulnerability to wind damage when net
removed
 Protection conferred ceases at net removal
 Later infection serves as increased viral load
in overall nursery system
 Later infection serves to impact seed
movement regardless of yield impact
 Future Work

 Overall eradication of MCMV in Hawaii is unlikely

 Netting materials and labor costs limit scalability

 Sound cultural and chemical control practices will
continue to be necessary to protect nursery
operations on large scale

 In high pressure settings protection of critical

material on a small scale could be possible via full
season containment screenhouses
 High value generations in plant breeding process
 Important component of two step quarantine to
secure seed movement between Hawaii and other
geographies
 References
Bextine, B., A. Wayadande, B.D. Bruton, S.D. Pair, F. Mitchell, and J. Fletcher. 2001. Effect of insect exclusion
on the incidence of yellow vine disease and of the associated bacterium in squash. Plant Disease
85:875-878. http://www.apsnet.org/publications/plantdisease/2001/August/Pages/85_8_875.aspx

Cabanas, D., S. Watanabe, C.H.V. Higashi, and A. Bressan. 2013. Dissecting the mode of maize chlorotic
mottle virus transmission (Tombusviridae: Machlomovirus) by Frankliniella williamsi (Thysanoptera:
Thripidae). Economic Entomology 106:15-24.

Jiang, X.Q., L.J. Meinke, R.J. Wright, D.R. Wilkinson, and J.E. Campbell. 1992. Maize chlorotic mottle virus in
Hawaiian-grown maize: vector relations, host range and associated viruses. Crop Protection 11:248-
254.

Nelson, S., J. Brewbaker, and J. Hu. Maize Chlorotic Mottle. Plant Disease Dec 2011. College of Tropical
Agriculture and Human Resources University of Hawaii at Manoa. PD-79.
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/PD-79.pdf
 Closing Slide

Questions?