Integrated Pest Management

Managing New and Invasive Pests Without Losing Effective Insecticides

Contributing author: Dr. Zee Ahmed.

New and invasive pests can challenge existing pest management programs. When a pest first appears, information about its biology, seasonal activity, natural enemies, and management may still be developing. In these situations, insecticides may become an important management tool, but repeated reliance on the same mode of action can increase resistance risk.

This is where insecticide resistance management fits within integrated pest management (IPM). IPM starts with accurate pest identification and monitoring, then determines whether management is needed and integrates cultural, biological, and chemical tactics when appropriate.

The Insecticide and Miticide Mode of Action Field Guide supports this approach by emphasizing pesticide use when needed, compatibility with cultural and biological control, treatment of susceptible pest life stages, and rotation among different modes of action when repeated treatments are necessary. The Guide represents a collaborative effort among researchers and Extension specialists and was revised and expanded over several years.

The guide is more than a list of insecticides and IRAC numbers. For different mode-of-action groups, it explains how chemistry works within the pest, key target arthropods, what to expect after treatment, interactions with nontarget organisms, and considerations for effective use. It also includes biological options such as Bacillus thuringiensis, baculoviruses, entomopathogenic fungi and nematodes, along with horticultural oils and insecticidal soaps.

Another important IPM consideration is compatibility with beneficial organisms. The guide discusses how different chemistries may affect predators, parasitoids, predatory mites, pollinators, and other nontarget organisms. This information can help pest managers better integrate chemical and biological control within the same IPM program.

The guide also explains why simply changing product names may not provide an effective resistance-management rotation. Different chemical classes can share the same mode of action. The IRAC group number therefore provides an important tool for selecting different modes of action rather than relying only on product or active-ingredient names.

This becomes particularly important for invasive species, where effective management tools may be limited or still being evaluated. The guide includes examples relevant to invasive pest management, including emerald ash borer and imported fire ants, while covering major pest groups such as aphids, beetles, caterpillars, mealybugs, mites, scales, thrips, and whiteflies.

For invasive and established pests, the objective is not only to control the current infestation but also to maintain effective management options for the future. Connecting pest identification, monitoring, cultural and biological control, appropriate insecticide selection, and mode-of-action rotation can make resistance management a practical part of IPM.

Explore the full Insecticide and Miticide Mode of Action Field Guide. For more about the development of the guide and the collaboration behind it, read the Clemson College of Agriculture, Forestry and Life Sciences story: Land-grant universities release new guide for managing insecticide resistance.

Always read and follow the current pesticide label. The label takes precedence over recommendations provided in the guide.

Figure 1. New and invasive pests can increase management challenges in turfgrass and ornamental systems. Integrating pest identification, monitoring, appropriate insecticide selection, and resistance management within IPM can help manage current pest problems while preserving effective management tools for the future. Image credit: Image composition and photographs by Muhammad Z. “Zee” Ahmed, except box tree moth, courtesy of Cosmin Manci, and crape myrtle bark scale, from Xie et al. (2022), Scientific Reports.

 

Whitefly Chemical Control With the Least Possible Collateral Damage

Contributing author: Dr. Zee Ahmed, Clemson University.

Whitefly Chemical Control With the Least Possible Collateral Damage

Our new whitefly natural enemies compatibility article came online today in GrowerTalks, dated September 30, 2026. It was written by Powlomee Mondal, a second-year Ph.D. student in the Turf and Ornamental Entomology Lab, with Dr. Zee Ahmed. The article reviews 73 published studies and explains how effective whitefly chemistries can be used alongside biological control

without disrupting natural enemies.

As the article notes, “compatibility is not a fixed property of a chemistry, but depends on dose, timing, strain and exposure pathway”

Some key points include:

  • Insect growth regulators such as buprofezin, pyriproxyfen, fenoxycarb, and the feeding inhibitor flonicamid were repeatedly reported as compatible under the conditions tested.
  • Several modern chemistries, including spiromesifen, spirotetramat and sulfoxaflor, showed low disruption to Amblyseius swirskii and some parasitoids when used under the reported conditions.
  • Materials such as imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, bifenthrin and spinosad caused high mortality or strong sub‑lethal effects and should be avoided during active releases.
  • Compatibility patterns should be interpreted as risk categories, not guarantees, because exposure conditions vary widely across laboratory, greenhouse and semi‑field studies.

This update gives growers a practical reference for choosing softer options when biological

control is active and for avoiding chemistries that disrupt natural enemies.

Read the full article here: https://www.growertalks.com/Article/?articleid=28234

Figure 1. Ten whitefly species used for training and diagnostic reference. Adult sizes aren’t shown to scale because the photographs were taken at different focal lengths and angles. Colors may differ from field appearance due to lighting, camera settings, and natural variation. Individuals within a species can vary in appearance, influenced by age, host plant, and environmental conditions. Not all whiteflies appear uniformly white.  Image credits: Ahmed et al. 2016, Whiteflies of Florida Picture Manual, University of Florida. Prepared by Zee Ahmed, Clemson University.

Ongoing research on defoliators, podworm, and natural enemies in South Carolina soybean fields

Entomologists at Clemson University have been sampling soybean fields across the state of South Carolina for soybean defoliators, podworms (Helicoverpa zea) and their natural enemies. Common soybean defoliators include the soybean looper, green cloverworm, velvetbean caterpillar, yellow stripped armyworm and the bean leaf beetle (Fig 1). The most predominant natural enemies include big-eyed bugs, assassin bugs, damsel bugs, spined soldier bug, and several lady beetle species. This research has several goals, including quantifying the spatial variability in insect densities and defoliation levels during full bloom and pod-filling stages, associating defoliation levels with defoliator species, and using landscape cropping area around soybean fields and field management information to predict insect densities and defoliations levels. Management of defoliators and podworms is primarily performed by chemical insecticide applications during pod set growth stage (R3). The ultimate goal of this project is to optimize insecticide usage by informing growers of the risk of infestations in their fields.

Fig 1:Green cloverworm, soybean looper and bean leaf beetle (from left to right), common soybean defoliators in SC.

Fig 2 (left): Soybean field defoliated in Marion County. Fig. 3 (right): pod worms present in the same field.

A total of 46 fields were sampled this year. Most fields did not reach the defoliation threshold, but some did for the corn earworm. In most cases, our visual estimates of defoliation levels in a field overestimated actual defoliation levels. This field in Marion County (Fig 2) was estimated to be around 10% defoliation when observing the canopy, and pod worms far exceeded the threshold number of 3 per 10 sweeps (Fig 3). However, when using software to accurately estimate defoliation based on photos of leaves, the field was at 3.4% defoliation only. None of the scouted fields have reached the defoliation threshold level for reproductive stages to date, but more fields remain to be scouted this year.

 

A Practical, Compatible Strategy for Greenhouse Mealybug Management

Contributing author: Dr. Zee Ahmed

Mealybugs remain one of the most persistent and costly pests in greenhouse ornamentals. Their waxy covering, protected feeding sites, cryptic diagnostics, and overlapping generations make them difficult to suppress with insecticides alone. Recent work from Clemson University provides growers with a clear, practical roadmap for integrating biological control with selective chemistries without undermining either tool.

This synthesis is based on two complementary publications:

Together, these pieces distill what growers can reliably use and how to deploy those tools in a compatible, stage‑aligned program.

 

Biological Control: What Actually Works in Greenhouses

Across commercial suppliers, only a small set of biological agents consistently perform against citrus, Madeira, long-tailed, and striped mealybugs:

  • Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (mealybug destroyer)
  • Chrysoperla spp. (lacewings)
  • Micromus variegatus
  • Parasitoids (Anagyrus pseudococci, Leptomastix dactylopii, Leptomastidea abnormis)
  • Entomopathogenic fungi (Beauveria bassiana, Isaria fumosorosea)

These are the tools growers can realistically access and integrate.

 

Chemical Tools: Selectivity Determines Compatibility

Many broad-spectrum insecticides (IRAC 1A, 1B, 3A, 4A) suppress mealybugs but also harm predators and parasitoids, even as dried residues. Clemson’s synthesis highlights selective chemistries that maintain compatibility:

  • Buprofezin (IRAC 16)
  • Pyriproxyfen (IRAC 7C)
  • Flonicamid (IRAC 29)
  • Afidopyropen (IRAC 9D)
  • Pyrifluquinazon (IRAC 9B)
  • Spirotetramat (IRAC 23)

These materials repeatedly show low direct toxicity to adult predators and minimal disruption when used thoughtfully.

Additional diagnostic and species‑specific guidance is available in Mondal et al. (2025), which outlines practical identification keys, IR‑4 efficacy patterns, and management considerations for citrus, Madeira, Mexican, Phormium, and root mealybugs.

 

Timing Is the Key to Compatibility

Growers often ask for a simple “safe vs. unsafe” list, but compatibility depends on when and how materials are used:

  • Apply selective insecticides early, before predator release.
  • Introduce Cryptolaemus or lacewings when populations are moderate, not explosive.
  • Use spot treatments to preserve predators.
  • Allow residues to decline before reintroducing biological control if a reset spray is necessary.

This timing‑based approach is the core of both GrowerTalks articles.

 

Operational Takeaways for Growers

  • Cryptolaemus remains the cornerstone predator for greenhouse mealybugs.
  • Lacewings provide supplemental pressure on crawlers.
  • Selective chemistries allow growers to intervene without disrupting biological control.
  • Integrated programs are most successful when pesticides and predators are used together, not in competition.
  • Compatibility is achieved through selectivity + timing, not by avoiding chemicals altogether.

 

References 

Ahmed, M.Z., Tan, P., & Mondal, P. 2027. Greenhouse Mealybug Management Guide for Growers. In: GrowerTalks 2027 Insecticide, Miticide & Fungicide Guide, pp. 7–8. Available at: https://www.growertalks.com/pdf/IMF2027_Guide.pdf

Mondal, P., Tan, P., & Ahmed, Z. 2025 Effective mealybug control strategies for greenhouse growers. In: Greenhouse Management 2025, August 8, 2025. Available at: https://www.greenhousemag.com/article/managing-mealybugs-pest-control-greenhouse/

Tan, P., & Ahmed, M.Z. 2026. A Practical, Compatible Strategy for Greenhouse Mealybug Management. GrowerTalks, August 31, 2026. Available at: https://www.growertalks.com/Article/?articleid=28194

 

Figure Caption: Mealybugs turning ornamentals into an all‑you‑can‑eat buffet. Compiled by Zee Ahmed (Clemson University).

Upcoming Pee Dee Rec Field day on September 3!

The Pee Dee Research and Education Center is going to hold a field day on September 3.

The event will begin at 9:30 am and lunch will be served after a field tour.

The tour will cover all the research and extension activities performed in the Pee Dee, especially in row crops. Topics that will be covered include the cover crops, soil microbiology, research focused on sorghum yield, the cotton OVT trials, Insect pest management in corn, crop rotation, breeding butter bean and peas and many other agronomic subjects. Please join the community and meet the experts that work at the Pee Dee Research and Education Center!

The full tour can be found here: Program2026_Trifold_Final 

 

 

Clemson 2026 Corn and Soybean field day July 30

The Edisto Research and Education Center at Blackville invites you to learn the most recently findings of research in corn and soybean pathology, entomology, soil and crop science in South Carolina. Come join us in the Corn and soybean field day organized at the Edisto Rec on July 30, from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm, and hear from the experts of Clemson University!

Registration begins at 8:30am.

The event is free and lunch will be provided.

Location: Clemson Edisto Research and Education Center, 64 Research Road, Blackville, SC 29817

The field day program can be found here.

For more information contact Dr. Michael Plumblee, 803-284-3343 or mplumbl@clemson.edu

Coastal Research and Education Center Vegetable Field Day on June 10, 2026

The Coastal Research and Education Center at Clemson hosted a vegetable field day last week. Pre- and post-harvest, weed, insects and disease management of watermelon and leafy greens, tomato resistant varieties and weed management of green onions, were all topics discussed during the field day.

The postharvest lab led by Dr. Karin Albornoz and her graduate students presented ongoing research on predicting watermelon harvest timing using multispectral cameras mounted on drones. This management tool aims to improve fruit quality for consumers and reduce food waste. Dr. Albornoz also discussed postharvest factors that affect the shelf life and nutritional content of collard greens (Figure 1). Specifically, she shared results from an experiment using the variety ‘Top Bunch 2.0’ to simulate cooling delays of 2, 6, and 8 hours. The 8-hour cooling delay increased leaf yellowing and reduced nutritional content compared with the 2-hour delay. These results indicate that growers should cool and store their produce as soon as possible after harvest to maintain quality for a longer period.

Figure 1. Dr. Albornoz and Zenaba Abdissa (lab technician) during the CREC Vegetable field day in Charleston, 2026.

Anaerobic soil disinfestation driven weed management for watermelons and onions was discussed by Dr. Matthew Cutulle and his graduate students. They showed plots where polymer mulch were flooded with water to become an anaerobic environment sufficient to suppress weed populations. After that, they cultivated watermelon in one experiment and green onion in another experiment with a similar design. The method also helped suppress some diseases, and the untreated plots were heavily infested with competing weeds and anthracnose (Figure 2). Further studies are being carried out to manipulate environment to suppress weed and disease as an alternative to growers who grow organic watermelons and green onions.

Figure 2. Untreated plot where the watermelon plant was competing with weeds and was infested with anthracnose.

Dr. Tom Bilbo underlined the preliminary recommendations to manage two-spot cotton leafhopper in okra and eggplants (Figure 3). The two-spot cotton leafhopper was found in South Carolina last year in July and August, and extension agents are still looking for them this year around the state. This insect feeds primarily on plants that belong to the Malvaceae family, like okra, egg plants and cotton. Feeding symptoms on okra and eggplants include yellowing of the leaves commonly named as “hopperburn” and leaf curling. Dr. Bilbo mentioned that the cultivars can be more susceptible than others. Fors instance, ‘Clemson Spineless” is more susceptible than ‘Jambalaya’. He also pointed out chemical control options available and the importance of using selective insecticides to conserve natural enemies.

Dr. Bilbo’s graduate students Sabina Parajuli and Pragya Kiju presented their research on the use of cover crops and weeds to improve pest management in cucurbit crops and brassica. Growing zucchini on rye residues helped suppressing cucumber beetles during the summer, and on sudex residue helped suppressing aphids, whiteflies and two-spot cotton leafhopper during the fall. For brassica, wild radish supported diamond back moth, but also its natural enemies, which ultimately improves biocontrol in the field. More research is needed on these topics to consolidate these alternative management practices.

Figure 3. Dr. Tom Bilbo sharing information to growers about pest management in cucurbits and brassica during the CREC Vegetable field day.

Dr. Anthony Keinath showed a field trial of fungicides for watermelon (Figure 4). During his talk he focused on management of anthracnose, a foliar disease that was introduced into the area shown in the field day. Dr. Keinath also mentioned practices to improve spraying performance, for example, spraying when vines begin to run and no later than when the first male flowers open. Another practice is to spray every seven to ten days during vine run until mid-May. During this time, diseases can attack if a crop goes without fungicide for more than a week. Dr. Keinath recently published a new watermelon fungicide guide in the Land Grant Press by Clemson Extension containing the most updated recommendations of fungicides and programs needed to manage watermelon foliar diseases. The guide is free for download and can be found here.

Figure 4. Dr. Anthony Keinath speaking during the CREC Field day about watermelon disease management.

Ongoing two-spot cotton leafhopper research at Clemson University

Researchers at Clemson University are investigating the distribution of two-spot cotton leafhopper (a.k.a. ‘cotton jassid’) in cotton fields in South Carolina. This species is native to Southeast Asia and was detected in the U.S. (Florida) during 2024 and in South Carolina during July 2025, reaching high population levels in some cotton fields. Research trials at the Pee Dee and Edisto Research and Education Centers and growers’ fields will be conducted to characterize distributions of the two-spot cotton leafhopper in cotton over the growing season, aiming to optimize IPM strategies for this pest. Although the species has not been reported in the U.S. during 2026, populations of the insect are likely to infest cotton fields later in the season; researchers will then initiate weekly grid sampling in cotton fields to describe within-field patterns of distribution for nymphs and adults (Figure 1). This will help develop a sampling plan for research on thresholds for two-spot cotton leafhopper in the U.S. and ultimately assist cotton growers with control decisions.

Figure 1: Cotton field ready for sampling two-spot cotton leafhopper during the 2026 field season.

Two-spot cotton leafhopper Extension handout

An Extension handout was developed by the Clemson Cotton IPM team to illustrate and summarize current information about the two-spot cotton leafhopper. The handout contains information on the insect’s life cycle and identification, injury to cotton, sampling, and the preliminary threshold based on data collected in 2025. The handout is free and available through THIS LINK. More information on two-spot cotton leafhopper can also be found in the MyIPM for Row Crops app!

Cutting to the Chase: What 15 Years of Whitefly Trials Actually Show

Contributing author: Dr. Zee Ahmed

Over the past six months, Ahmed Lab has assembled the most comprehensive, side‑by‑side database of whitefly efficacy data available for ornamental crops. This effort—led by Dr. Zee Ahmed (PI Turf and Ornamental Entomology Lab at Clemson) and his Ph.D. student, Powlomee Mondal—consolidated 15 years of published greenhouse trials across multiple crops, biotypes, and chemistries. The goal was to give growers a clear, evidence‑based picture of what consistently works, especially against the MED/Q biotype that challenges poinsettia production every Christmas season. This synthesis appears in the May 2026 Poinsettia Special Issue of GrowerTalks. The summary below highlights the key findings for Clemson IPM stakeholders as the new poinsettia season begins.

Whiteflies remain one of the most persistent and costly pests in greenhouse ornamentals. Across 15 years of trials, a consistent pattern emerges: only a small group of products repeatedly delivers high control, and their value depends on precise placement within the poinsettia crop cycle.

High‑Efficacy Products Are Few (Table 1)

Table 1 summarizes 15 greenhouse trials across salvia, zinnia, basil, hibiscus and poinsettia. Reported efficacy ranged from –45% to 99%. Only four products consistently reached ≥90% efficacy:

  • Cyantraniliprole (IRAC 28)
  • Dinotefuran (IRAC 4A)
  • Pyrifluquinazon (IRAC 9B)
  • Afidopyropen (IRAC 9D)

Two microbial agents—Beauveria bassiana GHA and BW149—also exceeded 90% efficacy in hibiscus trials. These materials repeatedly suppressed whiteflies across crops, biotypes and growing conditions, including MED/Q.

MOA Patterns Are Consistent (Table 1)

High‑performing products were concentrated in three MOA groups:

  • IRAC 28 – ryanodine receptor modulators
  • IRAC 4A – neonicotinoids
  • IRAC 9B/9D – feeding disruptors

Other MOA groups showed low to moderate performance. Microbials were the only consistent exception.

Neonics and Poinsettias

Dinotefuran was the only neonicotinoid in Table 1 that consistently reached ≥90% efficacy. Other IRAC 4 subgroups (4C, 4D) performed moderately.

Poinsettias do not present a pollinator exposure pathway under commercial greenhouse conditions. Growers following “non‑neonic” programs can rely on pyrifluquinazon, afidopyropen and microbials without losing efficacy.

Crop Stage Determines Fit (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Whitefly chemical control guide for poinsettia production.

 

Table 1: Summary of chemical and microbial products evaluated for whitefly management across ornamental crops.

 

Figure 1 integrates efficacy patterns from Table 1 with poinsettia crop physiology. Product fit aligns with predictable stages:

  • Rooting – highest sensitivity; microbials preferred
  • Early vegetative – canopy expansion; afidopyropen fits well
  • Post‑pinch – rapid regrowth; strongest chemistries needed
  • Mid‑season – highest whitefly pressure; high‑efficacy products essential
  • Finish – bract development; residue and phytotoxicity risk dominate

Figure 1 shows that cyantraniliprole, dinotefuran and pyrifluquinazon align with post‑pinch through mid‑season, when pressure is highest and tissues are less sensitive. Stage‑Aligned Rotation (Figure 1)

The Early–Bridge–Peak–Clean rotation directly reflects the stage‑based fit patterns in Figure 1:

Early (Rooting → Early Vegetative)

  • Beauveria bassiana (GHA or BW149)
  • Afidopyropen as canopy expands

Bridge (Early Vegetative → Post‑Pinch)

  • Afidopyropen maintains suppression

Peak (Post‑Pinch → Mid‑Season)

  • Cyantraniliprole
  • Dinotefuran
  • Pyrifluquinazon

Clean (Finish)

  • Beauveria bassiana
  • Softer chemistries to protect bracts

This sequence distributes selection pressure, prevents mid‑season population spikes and avoids late‑season residue issues.

Operational Conclusions

  • Table 1 shows that high‑efficacy products are limited and must be protected.
  • Figure 1 demonstrates that MOA rotation only works when aligned with crop stage.
  • Performance is active‑ingredient specific, not MOA‑wide.
  • Early suppression—not late intervention—determines finish quality.
  • Microbials remain essential at rooting and finish due to plant sensitivity.

Fifteen years of greenhouse data converge on a single conclusion: whitefly management succeeds when the strongest tools are deployed at the correct crop stages and overuse of any single chemistry is avoided.

 

Citation

Ahmed MZ, Mondal P (2026). Fifteen Years of Whitefly Control: Cutting to the Chase. GrowerTalks 9(1), May 2026 Issue. Available at: https://www.growertalks.com/Article/?articleid=27982 (Accessed May 4, 2026).

 

Acknowledgment

We thank James E. Faust (Clemson University), Erfan Vafaie (formerly Texas A&M University), JC Chong (SePRO Corporation), Jay Mitchell (Mitchell’s Nursery & Greenhouse Inc.), Luke Venable and Amanda Blayton Thompson (Forest Lake Greenhouses) for their helpful comments.

A guide to manage two spottedspider mites in strawberry fields: sampling, thresholds and control with miticides

Contributing author: Dr. Tom Bilbo

Twospotted spider mites (Tetranycus urticae) are important pests of strawberries in South Carolina. They feed on leaves and occasionally directly in fruits, reducing number and quality of fruits produced by plants. Managing twospotted spider mites in strawberry fields can be challenging, especially under dry conditions when populations tend to increase rapidly.

Dr. Tom Bilbo, at Clemson University in collaboration with other vegetable entomologists across the southeastern USA, developed a quick-reference guide to support growers managing twospotted spider mites. The guide outlines field sampling methods within fields and presents established economic thresholds developed for both pre-flowering and post-flowering strawberry plants. When sampling indicates that mite populations have reached these thresholds, applying miticides is recommended to prevent yield losses.

The guide also summarizes the efficacy of synthetic and organic miticides, including their active ingredients, target life stages, efficacy, re-entry intervals (REI), pre-harvest intervals (PHI) and the maximum application per crop cycle.

The guide can be found below, but additional information on how to use the guide, as well as a free downloadable miticide handout, can be found on the SC Grower website.