Reports have come in this week of heavy asiatic garden beetle activity, in some cases in areas where it was not previous reported. Over the past several years, we have monitored adult beetle activity and the peak is consistently around the first week of June. There is however an extended period of emergence after that, in which beetles are still active.
Much of our early planted cotton has grown enough that it will outpace some asiatic garden beetle feeding at this stage. Some late planted cotton with only a few leaves may still be at risk. Carefully monitor any late planted fields, particularly fields with some history of asiatic garden beetle feeding and sandy fields. The best control measure is a spray of bifenthrin at the highest labeled rate. Although the beetles are active at night, research has not identified a difference in number of beetle cadavers when spraying during the day or at night.
Tarnished plant bug
Some cotton is beginning to square here in Suffolk, which means it is time to start scouting weekly for tarnished plant bugs. Protecting early squares is critical for limiting potential yield losses from this pest. That said, not every field will need an early treatment, and spraying too early can be a waste of input costs. The economic threshold from first squaring until the first or second week of bloom is;
More than 8 plant bugs/100 sweeps AND less than 80% square retention
Try to avoid using strong broad spectrum insecticides (Acephate, Bidrin, Bifenthrin) until late in the season to prevent flaring up other pest issues. Pyrethroids (Bifenthrin, Warrior II) or mixes containing pyrethroids (Endigo, Brigadier) may also have limited efficacy for plant bugs due to insecticide resistance development. Once we reach the first week of bloom, sampling switches from the sweep net to a drop cloth. The threshold at this stage is 2-3 plant bugs per drop cloth sample.
Finally, a brief update on the invasive cotton jassid. The first confirmed reports of insect activity have come in from South Alabama, South Georgia, and Florida over the last couple weeks. Based on these being the first sightings in 2026, it is likely that these insects did not successfully survive this past winter in most of their 2025 spread area and will have to remigrate northward this year. These being the first sightings may be good news for us here in Virginia, but we will continue to monitor aggressively throughout this season. The current distribution can be found here (https://stop2scl.org/cotton/). This map will be updated in real time and will help us track the spread from the south in 2026.
Reports of pea leaf weevil activity have come in from New Kent County and the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The pea leaf weevil (Sitona lineatus) is established in Virginia, but it is highly sporadic and rarely considered an economic pest in soybean. However, It has been found causing significant injury to seedling soybean plants this year. Many of the problem fields are soybeans planted into heavy residue from a legume cover crop, like vetch.
Adult weevils feed on seedling foliage, creating characteristic notching along leaf margins. Under heavy infestations, this feeding can lead to economically significant defoliation. Foliar insecticide applications should be considered when defoliation reaches approximately 40% at the seedling stage. Effective control options include pyrethroids such as beta-cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, and zeta-cypermethrin.
Larvae can also be a concern, as they develop in the soil and feed on root nodules, potentially reducing nitrogen fixation in host plants. However, currently, there have been no confirmed reports of larval injury in soybean fields in our region.
Fields planted without an insecticide seed treatment may be at greater risk, as seed treatments can provide early protection against both foliar feeding and belowground injury. These fields should be prioritized for scouting.
We are beginning to see thrips numbers and injury increase in trials on the research station in Suffolk. Many folks are making decisions this week about whether or not a foliar application is needed, and if so, what to spray.
The first thing to consider in cotton is the growth stage. You are most likely to get an economic return on a foliar application made at the early first true leaf stage. Applications made beyond this stage usually have diminishing return on that investment. In many of our trials planted in late may, we have progressed to the second true leaf stage, and third true leaf in some cases.
Last year, we found tobacco thrips in Virginia with reduced susceptibility to acephate (~75-80% mortality). This year we are continuing to monitor using lab assays and field trials. Results of lab screenings are still to come, but in our earliest field tests on station, acephate (at 8 oz/ac) has provided an acceptable level of control. This is one location and one planting date. Milage will vary by location, planting date, and field conditions. If you decide to make a foliar application of acephate, it will be important to carefully monitor after the fact to ensure an acceptable level of control. The alternative option which provides excellent control is Hemi SC (2.5 – 3.0 oz/ac). This product needs to be applied with a non-ionic surfactant or with an herbicide that already has a surfactant to provide good control.
In 2025, the percentage of western flower thrips in the population was high (70%-80% in many fields). This year, we have seen the opposite so far with about 70% tobacco thrips in our tests on station. Western flower thrips have always been more difficult to control with acephate, so a lower percentage of this species makes acpehate a more viable option. Again, the species composition can vary by location and field conditions.
As always, please contact me with any questions you may have.
As many are aware, a new pest of cotton rapidly spread throughout the southeast in 2025. The cotton jassid (Two-spot Cotton Leafhopper) was first identified in Florida in late 2024, and by the end of the 2025 season was confirmed as far north as Northhampton county, North Carolina. It was not identified in Virginia in 2025, but we do not know what the population will do in 2026. Aggressive monitoring for this pest is a critical first step in managing this pest when (or hopefully if) it does arrive in Virginia cotton. This is a tiny insect (~2 mm in length), light green, and has two very distinctive black spots on the tips of its wings. There are native insects that are very similar in appearance, but do not have these two spots. Look on the underside of potential host plants to scout.
The cotton jassid (two-spot cotton leafhopper)
This pest has a wide host range including cotton, specialty crops like okra and eggplant, and ornamental hibiscus (to name a few preferred/common hosts). If you have any of these plants in your yard, home garden, or you grow cotton and notice any hopperburn symptoms, please contact me as soon as possible so we can scout. Hopper burn appears as yellowing around the leaf margins, and can progress to dark red/brown and senescence on margins of affected leaves. You will likely notice injury before you notice the insect, so this is a good way to scout as well.
Cotton jassid injury in cotton
At winter meetings we distributed packages of okra seed to our stakeholders to use as sentinel monitoring plots in home gardens. If you would like a packet of seed to contribute to this effort, we still have some. This article has additional details about what the pest looks like, scouting, damage, and how you can contribute to the monitoring effort.
With a good rain today (Thursday May 7), now is a good time to consider your plan for thrips management in cotton and peanuts for 2026.
The first step is to consider how your planting date affects your thrips management, using the thrips risk predictor tool from NC State. This tool forecasts the risk of heavy thrips injury to cotton, specific to a given location and target plant date. An example output from the tool at the Tidewater AREC in Suffolk can be seen below. Because the model uses local weather data, the closer to planting you are when you check, the more accurate the model will be. In this example, the model looks very different than when it was checked prior to today’s weather. It will also change significantly for different locations, so it is worth your time to enter your own information. As of May 7, for the Tidewater AREC, cotton planted between 5/9 and 5/12 will be at elevated risk for thrips injury.
Cotton planted into the high risk windows may benefit from the addition of an in-furrow insecticide targeting thrips. You can also recheck the model after planting to target your scouting efforts and determine the need for foliar insecticides. In the above example, if we had planted cotton on 4/29, we would be monitoring it carefully for thrips injury as it emerges and grows. The most consistent economic return on a foliar thrips spray will come from an application just as the first true leaf is visible. The thrips risk model also generates an optimal spray date, as indicated by the red dot on the figure below. This is an underutilized feature of the tool, and we are testing the value of this model output in the 2026 season.
This tool is specifically designed for cotton, but planting date also has an impact on thrips in peanut. In 2025, we found significantly higher thrips pressure and tomato spotted wilt virus incidence in early planted (late April) peanuts relative to mid or late may. Imidacloprid (Admire Pro) in furrow at planting can provide some thrips suppression, but efficacy has decreased over time, and it is likely insufficient for high-risk scenarios. There are other at-plant options including AgLogic and Thimet, but they are more expensive. We are generating more extensive efficacy data for all at-plant options in 2026. For earlier planted peanuts, scout carefully to determine the need for a foliar application in addition to at-plant insecticides.
The next thing to consider is what insecticide to use, if a foliar application is made. In 2025, we identified tobacco thrips populations with reduced susceptibility to Acephate in Virginia (~ 75-79% mortality on average). We are continuing to monitor this situation in 2026. Hemi SC provides excellent control for both tobacco thrips and western flower thrips and is a viable alternative. This product must be applied either in combination with an herbicide or with a non-ionic surfactant to achieve good control. For peanut, Exirel (cyantraniliprole) can provide good control as a foliar application.
One additional consideration for foliar management are differences in species composition. Western flower thrips have histroically been more difficult to manage with acephate. In 2025, we had a higher proportion of western flower thrips in cotton than usual. Look out for future updates on species composition for 2026.
Posted on behalf of: Dr. Carrie Ortel, Soybean Agronomist
Each year, the Virginia Tech Soybean Agronomy Program conducts the Official Variety Trials (OVT), evaluating a wide range of commercially available soybean varieties to provide farmers with unbiased, research-based information for variety selection. Traditionally, these results are compiled into a VCE factsheet and shared during winter extension meetings in January and February.
This year, growing interest in earlier access to results encouraged our team to launch a new interactive Soybean Variety Selection Tool, allowing producers to explore yield data as soon as it becomes available. The familiar VCE factsheet—including seed grading information—will still be published in early 2026, but this new tool offers a more timely and dynamic way to view performance data throughout the harvest season.
Filter the data Use the buttons on the left side of the page to filter results based on:
System (full-season or double-crop)
Location
Group (field-determined relative maturity grouping)
Brand
Variety
Herbicide package
Relative maturity group
Yield (bu/ac)
Relative yield (percentage of maximum yield at that site and group)
Sort columns Click any column header to sort the table and explore trends.
Access company tech sheets Want more information? Click any variety name to open the associated company tech sheet. You will have a redirect notice appear, the new web link should begin with https://arec.vaes.vt.edu, followed by variety information, indicating you’re continuing to a safe VT site with the PDF available.
View archived results To explore last year’s dataset, change the “Planting Year” filter to 2024.
Share your feedback Use the “Let us know what you think!” button to submit anonymous comments and suggestions.
Learn more about the tool Click the “?” icon for a detailed overview of how everything works.
Why This Tool Matters
Our goal is to deliver timely, unbiased, and easy-to-interpret variety trial results to support producers in making confident variety selection decisions. While the 2025 yield data is now live, remember that results from a single year should be considered preliminary. That’s why archived data from previous years remains accessible—you’ll get a clearer picture by comparing performance over time.
We encourage growers to select multiple top-performing varieties across several maturity groups, ensuring coverage of the herbicide and disease resistance traits needed for success on your farm.
Thank You
We extend our sincere appreciation to everyone who made this tool and the 2025 OVT season possible. Special thanks to Chris Mitchell, VT CALS Web Manager, and Suzanne Pruitt, Tidewater AREC Communicator, for their guidance and support in bringing the Soybean Variety Selection Tool to life.
We are also grateful to our colleagues across the Virginia Tech Agricultural Research and Extension Centers for hosting trial plots: Dr. Joseph Oakes and his team at the EasternVirginia AREC; Dr. Arash Rashed, Ned Jones, and Laura DeBusk at the Southern Piedmont AREC; Dr. Mark Reiter and Andrew Fletcher at the Eastern Shore AREC; and Jenny Sheetz at the Northern Piedmont Center.
Finally, we appreciate the participating seed companies for contributing their top varieties to the soybean OVT and supporting research that benefits growers across Virginia.
Questions or Suggestions?
We’d love to hear from you. Contact: Carrie Ortel — carrieo@vt.edu
Corn earworm larvae have been found well in excess of economic thresholds in several counties throughout Virginia the past two weeks. In Prince George, we sampled a field with 50+ larvae per 15 sweeps (see below photo). There are a few key things to remember for managing corn earworm in soybeans.
It pays to scout. Use the economic threshold. For corn earworm in soybeans, we have what’s called a “dynamic threshold”. The benefit of using a dynamic threshold is that it shifts with commodity prices, production practices, and the cost of control and you can be certain that you will get economic return on a spray under current conditions. You can find the calculator here. At an estimated soybean price of $10/bu, and $15 cost of control using a sweep net to sample 15 inch soybean rows you get an economic threhsold of 2.2 larvae per 15 sweeps.
We have expanded our corn earworm moth monitoring in 2025. While these traps do not indicate the need to spray alone, they can guide your scouting efforts and help make decisions. The monitoring tool is updated in real time and can be found here.
Select the right insecticide Pyrethroids alone will have limited efficacy for corn earworm, particularly for large larvae. Our most recent efficacy data can be found in the figure below. These numbers are total number of corn earworm larvae per 15 sweeps at 2 days post application. If targeting stink bugs as well as corn earworm a product containing both a pyrethroid and a diamide (I.e. Besiege or Elevest) would be a good option. If you are also reaching defoliation thresholds (15% during reproductive stages) and have mostly soybean loopers, Besiege has offered limited control for soybean loopers in recent years. Intrepid Edge or Steward are good options to manage both corn earworm and soybean loopers.
As always, please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Tim Bryant (btim2@vt.edu).
Recently, soybean aphids have been confirmed at higher populations than typically expected in August. While many folks are scouting for worms and stinkbugs, we also recommend looking for aphids in your soybean fields as well. The key variables to consider regarding managing soybean aphids are the number of aphids per plant and the soybean growth stage. Information from our Pest Management Guide on Soybean Aphids in summary including info on thresholds and sampling are as follows (VCE Field Crops PMG, Publication 456-016):
Number of aphids per soybean plant
The current economic threshold for aphids is an average of 250 aphids per plant, on two consecutive field visits spaced about 5-7 days apart. This is because aphid populations can “crash” quickly due to heavy pressure by natural enemies like lady beetles, parasitic wasps, and fungal diseases. When scouting, choose a “Z” or “W” shaped pattern to cover the entire field and sample at least 20 to 30 plants per field by examining the entire plant, including stems and upper and lower leaf surfaces. Use the aphid/plant average for determining the need for treatment.
The soybean growth stage
The threshold of 250 aphids per plant applies to soybeans through the R5 growth stage (3 mm long seed in the pod at one of the four uppermost nodes on the main stem), after which time plants can tolerate 1,000+ aphids with no threat to yield. If an insecticide is applied for aphids, pyrethroids (e.g. bifenthrin, Warrior II, Mustang Max, etc.) can be effective for management, but choosing a more selective insecticide can preserve natural enemy populations and limit future flare ups of aphids or other pests.
We hit the tarnished plant bug threshold for the first time this season on July 15 at the Tidewater AREC, in Suffolk. Reports of threshold numbers are rolling in from collaborators as well. Here are a few key reminders for successful plant bug management this year;
1. Use economic thresholds
These economic thresholds are the point at which you will see a return on investment from spraying for plant bugs.
Pre-bloom threshold;
8 plant bugs/100 sweeps AND less than 80% square retention
Many of our cotton fields here on the research farm and in on-farm trials are beginning to flower this week. Once you reach 50% of plants in a field with flowers, switch to using a drop cloth to sample plant bugs. The drop cloth should be placed on the ground between two rows and the plants on either side vigorously beaten over top of the sheet. Take a sample in 6-8 spots throughout a field and average to determine the number of bugs per drop cloth sample. Making the switch from sweep net samples to drop cloth samples during bloom is critical for making informed management decisions on plant bugs.
Threshold from the 1st week of bloom on;
3 plant bugs/5 row feet
Even if you are using a Thryvon cotton variety, it still needs to be scouted and treated for plant bugs at the recommended thresholds. Weekly scouting will provide the best insight on when and where insecticide applications are needed.
2. Insecticide rotation
Hold off on using strong broad-spectrum insecticides until late in the season. These include pyrethroids and organophosphates;
Organophosphates: Bidrin, Orthene
Pyrethroids: Warrior II, Bifenthrin, countless generics (look for insecticide MOA 3A on the label). Many premixed products, including Endigo or Brigadier include a pyrethroid.
Plant bugs have developed resistance to pyrethroids, and these products eliminate beneficial insects, which may keep other pests in check later in the season. An early pyrethroid spray can often flare spider mites, aphids, and bollworms later in the year.
A good option for your first spray for plant bugs is Transform @ 2 oz/ac. Diamond @ 4-6 oz/ac can be included as well, where there are nymphs present. This product is an insect growth regulator and will not have activity for adult plant bugs. If timed correctly, it has been shown to increase the time before another plant bug spray is needed. Neonicotinoids (Centric, Admire) can also be effective early in the season, but need to be combined with other products to get good control as the year progresses. Be sure to check the label for restrictions on use patterns during bloom (e.g., application restrictions because of risk to bees and other insect pollinators).
Carrie Ortel, Extension Soybean Agronomist, Virginia Tech Tidewater AREC
Mark Reiter, Soils and Nutrient Management Extension Specialist, Virginia Tech Eastern Shore AREC
Joseph Haymaker, Postdoctoral Associate, Virginia Tech Eastern Shore AREC
Many of the full-season soybean fields in Virginia are beginning to flower, which is a great time to start tissue testing if there is a concern for crop nutrition. Tissue testing is an effective way to monitor crop nutrition when done correctly. To get reliable results, choose the correct, uppermost fully expanded soybean leaf during optimal conditions and carefully interpret the results. Tissue testing may begin as early as V4 but is most reliable during flowering and can continue through pod filling.
Step 1: Plan Your Sampling During Good Field Conditions
Time It Right – Field Conditions Matter
Field conditions at sampling time greatly affect the accuracy of tissue tests. Aim to collect samples when plants are actively transpiring, which usually means:
Adequate soil moisture (not drought or waterlogged).
Moderate temperatures and healthy plant function.
Avoid sampling during:
Drought, which can limit nutrient uptake even when nutrients are present in the soil.
Saturated soils, which can temporarily inhibit root function.
Shortly after foliar nutrient applications—wait at least a week and ensure a rain event has occurred to allow nutrients to be absorbed and leaf surfaces to clear.
Address In-Field Variability
Soybean nutrient levels can vary within a field due to differences in soil texture, drainage, or previous management practices. For meaningful results:
Divide fields into management zones based on known variability.
Take one composite sample per zone, collecting at least 18 trifoliolate leaves randomly throughout that area (Ortel et al., 2023).
This helps identify localized deficiencies and supports more precise nutrient management.
Step 2: Collect Your Leaf Sample
Choose the Right Plant Part
To get consistent and accurate results, it’s critical to sample the correct, uppermost fully expanded trifoliate leaf, as nutrient concentrations differ between leaves. The uppermost fully expanded trifoliate leaf is typically located on the second, third, or fourth node from the top of the plant (Figure 1, shown below).
Figure 1. Soybean plant at the full flower (R2) growth stage. The uppermost fully developed leaf is shown as the leaf on the third node from the top of this plant.
Look for the highest leaf that is dark green, full-sized, and has a coarse texture.
Avoid leaves with a velvety feel or are lighter in color than others—these are still developing and can falsely indicate nutrient levels.
Check with your testing lab for specific guidelines. Some labs also recommend sampling the whole plant during vegetative stages or including/excluding the petiole (the stalk attaching the leaf to the stem). Be sure your sampling method agrees with the lab’s interpretation standards.
Collect the Sample Properly
Once you identify the correct leaf, follow these best practices:
Collect 18–25 leaves per sample for a good composite.
Take samples across a consistent management zone (based on yield history, soil type, or other field characteristics).
Place leaves in a paper bag (not plastic) to allow drying and prevent mold.
If your lab uses critical nutrient thresholds without the petiole (e.g., Virginia Tech), remove the petiole before bagging.
Step 3: Interpret Results with Context
Getting accurate lab results is only half the process—understanding them correctly is essential.
Use growth-stage-specific critical concentrations when available, such as potassium in soybean (Slaton et al., 2021). These values indicate the threshold below which yield may be affected.
If no critical values are available, use sufficiency ranges cautiously—they are less precise and based on broader surveys instead of replicated research.
Also, consider nutrient mobility:
Mobile nutrients like nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg) can move within the plant and are often relocated from leaves to developing seeds and pods (Bender et al., 2015). Lower concentrations in leaves during reproductive stages may not signal a deficiency.
Immobile nutrients like calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), and most micronutrients remain in their original locations and offer more stable indicators.
Although some nutrient deficiencies may not be visually apparent (hidden hunger), only take action with a corrective application of fertilizer if a deficiency occurs. Prophylactic foliar fertilizer applications have not been shown to increase yields (Matcham et al., 2021). When a nutrient deficiency does occur, a corrective application of granular fertilizer should be used to correct macronutrients, while a foliar fertilizer may be used to correct micronutrients.
Take Home Points
Collect a composite sample of at least 18 of the uppermost fully expanded soybean trifoliate leaves from each management zone.
Only collect tissue samples during favorable field conditions and adequate soil moisture.
Consider the plant part collected (petiole included or excluded), growth stage, and nutrient mobility with interpreting results.
Bender, R. R., Haegele, J. W., & Below, F. E. (2015). Nutrient uptake, partitioning, and remobilization in modern soybean varieties. Agronomy Journal, 107(2), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj14.0435
Matcham, E. G., Vann, R. A., Lindsey, L. E., Gaska, J. M., Lilley, D. T., Ross, W. J., Wright, D. L., Knott, C., Lee, C. D., Moseley, D., Singh, M., Naeve, S., Irby, J. T., Wiebold, W., Kandel, H., Lofton, J., Inman, M., Kleinjan, J., Holshouser, D. L., & Conley, S. P. (2021). Foliar fertilizers rarely increase yield in United States soybean. Agronomy Journal, 113(6), 5246–5253. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20889
Ortel, C. C., Roberts, T. L., Hoegenauer, K. A., Poncet, A. M., Slaton, N. A., & Ross, W. J. (2023). Mapping variability of soybean leaf potassium concentrations to develop a sampling protocol. Agrosystems, Geosciences and Environment, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20439
Slaton, N. A., Drescher, G. L., Parvej, R., & Roberts, T. L. (2021). Dynamic critical potassium concentrations in soybean leaves and petioles for monitoring potassium nutrition. Agronomy Journal, 113(6), 5472–5482. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20819
