Project Directors
Washiington State University
- Vincent P. Jones (Project Director)
- Jay F. Brunner (Executive Committee)
- Elizabeth Beers
- Karina Galardo
- Jessica Goldberger
University of California, Berkeley
- Nicholas J. Mills (Executive Committee)
Oregon State University
- Peter W. Shearer
- Steve Castagnoli
USDA-ARS Wapato
- Dave R. Horton
- Thomas R. Unruh
Advisory Group
California: Mike Devencenzi, Joseph Grant
(UCCE), Jed Walton, Dr. Marshall Johnson (UC Riverside, outside scientist), Carolyn Pickel and
Walt Bentley (UCIPM), Drs. Pete Goodell, Lucia Verela and Tunyalee Martin (UCIPM)
Oregon: Rich Garvin, Bruce Decker, Phil Van
Buskirk (OSU Extension)
Washington: Dan Flick, Nick Stephens, Karen
Lewis (WSU Extension), Dr. Doug Walsh (WSU, outside scientist)
Canada: Dr. Gary Judd (Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, outside scientist)
Project Goals
- Improve the long-term sustainability of the apple, pear and walnut industries in the western
US by enhancing biological control (BC) of pest insects and mites.
- Synthesize the information developed in this project along with existing information to
provide the outreach tools needed to bring about change in grower practices.
Objectives
- Evaluate the sublethal effects of newer pesticides on key natural enemies in laboratory and
field assays in apple, pear, and walnut orchards.
- Characterize natural enemy phenology, including timing of emergence from overwintering
areas, entry into orchard, and development within the orchard.
- Evaluate attractants as natural enemy monitoring tools and compare them to traditional
methods.
- Develop molecular and video methods to monitor predation of codling moth.
- Conduct economic analyses to determine long-term costs associated with IPM programs with and
without various levels of biological control.
- Survey clientele to identify optimal ways to present information that will lead to quicker
adoption of new technologies; synthesize existing and new information to provide real-time
support for pest control decisions by stakeholders.
Focusing on Tomorrow Today
Our project has just finished the third year of five and we are
actively moving into the outreach phase. This past year, we hired a new post-doc, Dr. Angela
Gadino to help us make the outreach portion of the grant every bit as successful as the research
part has been.
Our web site (enhancedbiocontrol.org)
has also undergone a major upgrade and we will be actively pursuing stories from each of the
researchers involved in the project and these will be posted along with video interviews of
growers and managers associated with various aspects of the project. As each of the objectives
winds down and the analyses and syntheses of our work are completed, results will be posted and
outreach and scientific articles will be published. We invite you to visit our web site where
electronic versions of this and past progress reports are available, and where results will be
regularly updated. Our group is committed to the idea that the job is not done until the
information generated is available to the stakeholders.
New Lerveraged Funds
Finally, we are aggressively pursuing funding that will allow us to
proceed with some of the logical extensions to our research findings. To date, we have been
successful with five different grants, totaling $895,000 and have pending grants worth an
additional $227,000.
BC Short Course
We are starting the outreach phase with a two-day short course on the
importance of BC in apple, pear, and walnut orchards highlighting the advances that our project
has made (details and registration information are available
here). The interactive courses in Washington (one site in
Wenatchee, the other in Pasco) and Oregon (Hood River) will be held concurrently on February 7-8
using Internet conferencing capabilities as well as having our scientists distributed in each of
the three locations. The course in California will be offered on February 22-23 in Stockton and
is being coordinated with UC IPM and UC CE.
Acknowledgements
Matching Funds Sources:
- Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission
- Washington State Commission on Pesticide Registration
- California Walnut Board
- Washington State University
- Oregon State University
- University of California, Berkeley
- USDA-ARS Yakima Ag. Research Lab
Grower Cooperators
- California walnut growers in Suisun Valley and Davis
- Oregon pear growers in Hood River
- Washington apple growers in Quincy, Bridgeport, Frenchman Hills, Yakima, and Wapato
Participating Research Personnel:
Although the project directors are ultimately responsible for the work
done in this project, there is also a key group of post-doctoral research scientists and
technical support personnel that have been essential to our project through their dedication and
hard work. We gratefully acknowledge their efforts to make the project a success:
Mills Lab (UC Berkeley)
- Technical Support - Objs. 1-3
- Kevi Mace-Hill
- Laura Jones
- Lisa Fernandez (Graduate Student)
Shearer Lab (OSU)
- Post-Doctoral Research Scientists - Objs. 1-3
- Technical Support - Obj. 1-3
- Amanda Borel
- Preston Brown
Horton & Unruh Labs (USDA)
- Post-Doctoral Research Scientists - Objs. 2-3
- Technical Support - Objs. 2-3
- Merilee Bayer
- Deb Broers
- Francisco De La Rosa (also Obj. 1)
Beers Lab (WSU)
- Technical Support - Obj. 1
Brunner Lab (WSU)
- Technical Support - Obj. 6
Goldberger Program (WSU)
- Post-Doctoral Research Scientists - Obj. 6
- Technical Support - Obj. 6
- Emily Green-Tracewicz (Graduate Student)
Gallardo Program (WSU)
- Technical Support - Obj. 5
- Qianqian Wand (Graduate Student)
Jones Lab (WSU)
- Post-Doctoral Research Scientists - Objs. 2,3,6
- Ute Chambers
- Andrea Bixby-Brosi
- Angela Gadino
- Technical Support - Objs. 2-3
- Callie C. Baker
- Tawnee D. Melton
- Teah Smith
- Brad Petit (Obj. 6)
- Kodi Jaspers
- Stacey McDonald
Mills, Beers, Shearer, Unruh
Pesticides Influence BC Success
Milestones:
Complete laboratory bioassays for all pesticides and 8 natural enemies
and completed second year of field studies.
Progress Summary:
Acute bioassays have been completed for all combinations of pesticides
and natural enemy species, except for the predator Chrysoperla carnea. These acute
bioassays are based on adult exposure for the two parasitoids and both adult and juvenile
exposure for the predators. Bioassays to determine the sublethal effects of pesticides will be
finished this spring for the predators Hippodamia convergens (ladybug), Pelegrina
aeneola (spider) and Chrysoperla carnea (lacewing).
Field trials have been completed at each location as
specified in the grant. Summary and synthesis of this information will continue for the next 1-2
years.
Studies performed this year:
Laboratory studies are finished for most of the species, and those
bioassays not completed should be done by spring 2012 and added to the enhanced biocontrol web
site. The current summary of lab studies is shown below.
Field studies this year were similar to last year;
abnormal weather conditions on the west coast resulted in very low pest and natural enemy
populations in most of the field trials. The largest pesticide effects noticed were reductions
in earwig density in Delegate plots in Oregon pears (same as 2010) and a reduction in the
lacewing Chrysoperla plorabunda population density in Altacor plots in the same trials.
In WA apples, Delegate use in the first CM
generation led to significantly higher woolly apple aphid late in the season. When Delegate was
applied during the second CM generation, the effects were intermediate, while the Warrior
(pyrethroid)/Altacor or Altacor/Warrior treatments had the lowest woolly apple aphid population
densities.
In California, walnut aphid populations were extremely low, but there was a significant increase
in mid-summer in the Delegate treatments, which corresponded to a sharp drop in the level of
Trioxys pallidus parasitism.
Implications for the Industries:
The lab bioassays show the potential of various pesticides to disrupt
natural enemy populations and can be used to guide pesticide choice during times when natural
enemies are present and susceptible to disruption. The field studies have been of more
questionable value, mostly because of how weather conditions, previous management practices, and
year-to-year variability in pest and natural enemy populations affect results. We have found
some interesting trends in pest/natural enemy interactions in the large scale plots that smaller
scale studies would not have shown, but it is clear that an alternative method of evaluating
pesticide risk on natural enemy population dynamics and the effects on biological control needs
to be found. Our vision at this point is that simulations (modeling section), field studies on
residue decay, and laboratory studies on population biology will need to be combined to address
the problem.
Effects of pesticides on natural enemies tested
to date. Cell color reflects changes in natural enemy attribute:
green (< 25% reduction), yellow (25–75% reduction),
or red (≥ 75% reduction), or white (not yet analyzed.
Jones, Mills, Shearer, Horton
Knowing Phenology
Improves Management Options
Milestones:
Complete field phenology evaluations in apple, pear, and walnut
orchards.
Progress Summary:
This section exceeded the milestones and goals of the grant because we
were able to get leveraged funds to include field phenology in sweet cherries in OR and WA, and
a second leveraged grant to expand the apple field data collection. Summary and synthesis of
this information will continue for the next 1-2 years.
Implications for the Industries:
As we develop the natural enemy phenology models, we will be able to
begin optimizing timings for pesticides to protect the natural enemies. The breakthrough in
evaluating how pesticides impact pests and natural enemies (see below) will allow us to develop
a dynamic risk index. This will enable pest managers to visualize impacts of pesticides at
various timings and determine how to minimize natural enemy impacts.
Plans for Next Year
This season, we sampled an additional three walnut orchards, four
apple orchards, and nine pear orchards. This is a re-allocation of resources from apple to pear,
but as mentioned above this was compensated by a grant leveraging our SCRI funding and allowing
us to continue monitoring phenology in apple for another two years. The reallocation to pear
also allows us to include pear production in Washington which brings into play the warmer
orchards in NC Washington. Sweet cherry monitoring was also conducted in OR and WA. We also
switched our general monitoring trap from the previously used white delta traps to yellow and
white panels. The yellow panels give a much better capture of certain parasitoid groups (see
Objective 3 for monitoring the “big 3” parasitoids), and white panels are
more attractive to brown lacewings and certain predatory bugs.
Analysis of the 2011 data has not yet begun. We have completed the
identification of most groups, but are waiting for the spray records, and data entry for data
from all locations. Most of the modeling effort has been directed towards ways to understand
pesticide effects as detailed in the section below.
How understanding the first leads to the
second
How did we get here?
Last year we found that pesticide applications at certain times
can make it appear that an insect generation is missing, ends early, or starts late.
However, what started as a focus on change in phenology led us to a solution that provides
an unparalleled method of evaluating pesticide impacts on natural enemies as well as pests.
We have developed demographic degree-day (DD) models that allow us to simulate single or
multiple applications at any time in the season, different amounts of mortality, length of
residual control, and pesticides with different modes of action and differential effects on
each life stage. These models allow us to clearly evaluate pesticide effects over time and
provide us with the ability to perform cost/benefit analysis of each spray at various times
throughout the season.
We have started the modeling effort using
codling moth (CM). This species was initially chosen because life history information was
already available. We are also applying for leveraged funds to add models for the
obliquebanded leafroller and one of our most common NE in apple and pear, Chrysopa
nigricornis. The modeling effort, combined with simple residue decay bioassays and
sublethal assays (as already performed in this grant) would greatly improve our ability to
predict the effects of pesticides on population dynamics of pests and natural enemies.
Background:
For simplicity, in the examples below a pesticide is applied only
once at 365 DD. Larvae are only exposed to mortality on the day they emerge from the egg;
once larvae are in the fruit, only natural mortality is applied. The pesticide is also
assumed not to affect other life stages. Each stage suffers some natural mortality and the
pesticide adds a given percentage of mortality on top of the natural mortality. In the
examples, we show how varying the amount of insecticide-induced mortality and the duration
of residual activity affects population growth of CM in the presence and absence of mating
disruption (MD) and the total numbers in the larval stage of each generation.
Results:
The graph 1 shows the effect of 45% and 90% insecticide-induced
mortality. As expected, doubling mortality lowers the number of larvae but does not halve
the population size (blue versus red bars on graph 2), because it only affects ≈ 25% of the
larvae during the 7 day residual activity period. Even though the insecticide acts only
once, the population curve is distorted compared to the control in each generation,
suggesting different timings for subsequent applications are needed to take advantage of the
first spray’s effect. If you double the length of the residual activity to 14 days (green
line), the effect is similar to the effect of doubling the mortality rate (red line). The
black line shows that MD makes even a poor insecticide look dramatically better because moth
reproduction is reduced by nearly a third and is active throughout the season. The bar graph
on the right allows a quick way to visualize how each treatment affects the cumulative
population level in each generation.
Graph 1. Effect of 45% and 90% insecticide-induced
mortality
Graph 2. Cummultive effect of insecticide
Jones, Mills, Shearer, Horton, Unruh
Improved Monitoring Tools Make BC
Visible
Milestones:
We have completed studies on lure longevity, optimal release rates,
trap types, and mixtures versus separate lures, with >65 attractant blends.
Progress Summary:
This section exceeded the milestones and goals of the grant. Summary
and synthesis of this information will continue for the next 1-2 years.
Studies performed this year
All locations performed field trials using some of our best blends
from previous years, and with the addition of acetic acid (AA) or methyl salicylate (MS). Last
year, we found that both AA and MS acted to increase trap catch of lacewings, and together were
even more powerful.
Unlike previous years, we did not use the factorial design because we were limited in resources
to test the required number of treatments. The study still enabled us to evaluate how several
major taxonomic groups responded to AA, MS, and our previous best blends. We also included
several single and two component attractants to help evaluate when simpler lures would work
better. The final adjustment this year was a change from the white delta traps to yellow sticky
panels. This alteration alone made significant differences in our capture of our key parasitoid
groups (results below).
Results of our large field study
The lacewing Chrysoperla plorabunda
responded similarly in apple, pear, and walnut. We found that adding acetic acid to any of the
lures increased trap catch compared to the blend without AA present. The best lure was a
combination of 2-phenylethanol (PE) + MS + AA, and was statistically better in pear and walnut
than the general lure of geraniol (GER) + MS + PE (=GMP) used for our phenology trapping.
The syrphid Eupeodes fumipennis was the most common species
caught in California walnuts. Studies there showed that the addition of AA to lures always
resulted in a reduction in trap catch. The top four combinations were PE + GER, followed by GMP,
acetophenone (AP) + GER, and PE + MS.
In Washington apples, the syrphid diversity was
considerably greater than seen in CA walnuts, but overall levels were lower. We found three
species of Eupeodes (fumipennis, volucris, and americanus) with the
latter two being the most common. In addition, two other genera (Scaeva pyrastri and
Syrphus spp.) were also found, but in lower numbers. For the three Eupeodes
spp., the top four attractants were the same as found in CA walnuts, and the effect of
adding AA was reduced attraction as well.
The brown lacewing, Hemerobius spp., was
also frequently caught in CA walnuts. Similar to the syrphid results, addition of AA decreased
trap catch with nearly all lures. The best lure was AP + PE, but there were no significant
differences between PE + MS or just the MS lure by itself.
Implications for the Industries
Our work is providing effective and simple sampling tools needed by
the industry to monitor effects of different management tactics on natural enemies. We have
begun providing lures to a small number of pest managers for use in Washington apples. In
return, the pest managers will provide us with feedback and help in industry adoption of this
technology. We will expand this program to Oregon and California this coming year. Discussions
have also begun with several companies regarding potential to manufacture and distribute the
lures.
Solving Practical Problems
If HIPVs are to be useful tools to enhance BC in
our orchards, their use needs to be simple and we need to know which species to monitor.
Separate or mixed?
A key to making commercial lures is to make them simple. Our studies
to date have used separate lures for each attractant in a blend. With our results from the last
three years, we have quantified release rates of 14 different herbivore-induced plant volatiles
(HIPVs) through the polyethylene tubing in either direct sunlight or sheltered inside a delta
trap. We chose tubing thickness depending on the volatility of the attractant and differences in
trap catch. The results of those trials enabled us to pair different attractants that required
the same tubing thickness and compare how mixing the attractants together affected trap catch.
Our results (Fig. 1) showed no significant differences in trap catch between the combination
lure (PE + GER) and the separate lures for all taxa found in significant number:
Stethorus, Aphelinus mali, Chrysopa nigricornis, E. volucris
or E. americanus. We also saw no significant differences in the MS + AP trial for Stethorus,
C. nigricornis, A. mali, and the ichneumonid Glypta.
While each attractant combination should be tested,
we expect that no issues will arise with trap catch when mixing attractants together that
require the same tubing thickness.
Figure 1. Trap capture when combining
PE + GER or MS +AP versus separate lures.
Figure 2. For the
"big 3", a plain yellow panel is a great monitoring tool.
Parasitoid trapping: the "big 3"
Three parasitoids we consider essential in apple, pear, and walnut are
the woolly apple aphid parasitoid, Aphelinus mali, the pear psylla parasitoid Trechnites
psyllae, and the walnut aphid parasitoid, Trioxys pallidus. The change to
yellow panels from delta traps this past season brought in large numbers of each parasitoid
compared to previous years. In the case of T. pallidus, none of the lures improved trap
catch over the blank yellow panel. We also found no statistical benefit to adding lures for T.
psyllae, although both the GMP and PE + AA + MS lures were roughly 2x higher than the
control. For A. mali, the only lure better than the control was PE + GER. Any addition
of AA to the lure blend resulted in decreased trap catch. Basically, for “the big 3”, a plain
yellow panel is a great monitoring tool (Fig. 2).
Indicator species or how to live with an embarrassment of
riches...
Our best lures attract a rich diversity of natural
enemies. While useful for evaluating phenology, abundance and diversity of the entire natural
enemy complex, this can be a challenge for IPM decision making. Rather than try to make sense of
each species, we propose choosing 2-3 and using them as indicator species to estimate the
effects of different management tactics and whether the BC of secondary pests is likely. Based
on the activity of our attractive blends, their ease of identification, and their abundance in
our orchards, we propose to use the squalene lure to monitor C. nigricornis, a PE + MS
+ AA lure to monitor C. plorabunda, and the AP + GER lure to monitor syrphids in the
genus Eupeodes. These different combinations tend to minimize attraction of the other
two indicator species and are even more species specific if using orange delta traps for the
lacewings (eliminates syrphids) and yellow panels for the syrphids (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. It would be more useful for IPM decision making to only
look at 2-3 indicator species using the lure blends optimized for their capture.
Unruh
Predators are More
Common Than Expected
Milestones:
Development of a robust and reliable method for molecular gut content
analysis of arthropod CM predators, field collection and evaluation of predators to determine
predation rates on codling moth.
Progress Summary:
This area has progressed extremely well this past year. Sample
processing is still in progress but is expected to be finished early in the spring.
Studies performed this year
Progress has been made in three different areas. First, new primers
and reaction conditions have increased the detection sensitivity of codling moth DNA without DNA
purification. These results have been verified by sequencing and 100% of the extracts tested
showed CM DNA presence. Second, Tom Unruh developed an improved medium for collecting predators
in the field that allows a week-long preservation of prey DNA in the predator gut contents.
There is some possibility of contamination, but further work is being done using surface
sterilization to reduce the contamination issue. To date, the contamination issue does not
appear to have affected results as dry-trapped versus wet trapped samples show statistically
similar rates of predation. The final area of progress has been accomplished in measuring
predation rates and is detailed below.
Who's eating codling moth?
Studies showed that three groups of arthropods (spiders, ground
beetles, and earwigs) tested positive for codling moth DNA between 10.7 and 12% of the time.
Predation frequencies did vary between orchard sites sampled, and was related to density of the
codling moth. In most commercial orchards, codling moth is relatively rare, so having these
levels of predation, combined with the high predator densities that are possible (see below) is
indicative of predation pressure on the fifth-instar larvae which are seeking pupation or
overwintering sites.
Figure 1. Predator enclosure
Density measurements of the carabid (ground beetle) predators of CM
were made in two orchards. Aluminum flashing was placed in six different areas in each orchard
to create a predator enclosure (Fig. 1). Within each enclosure, four pitfall traps were placed
at the corners. and the beetles were completely trapped out. In the first orchard, the average
density of the ground beetle Pterostichus melanarius, was an astounding 18 beetles/m2, and in
the second orchard 6.5/m2. Ground beetles are generalist predators and observations of beetle
abundance support our hypothesis that any prey, especially late-instar codling moth larvae on
the ground, are at high risk of being attacked. This is particularly valuable in new high
density orchards where codling moth larvae tend to cocoon more on the ground than on the tree
due to smoother bark.
Spiders were less common in our pitfall traps than
ground beetles, but many were collected from trees using beating trays. DNA analysis of the
spiders showed that 7 of 13 species fed on CM (Fig. 2) and that predation was dominated by three
spider genera: Hololena, Phidippus, and Antrodiaetus.
Figure 2. Results of DNA gut content analysis
Gallardo, Brunner
What is the Cost of
Enhanced Biological Control?
Milestones:
Synthesize information on growers’ willingness to pay for indirect
benefits of IPM, develop an expected profit model using enhanced BC and synthesis for use in
Objective 6.
Progress Summary:
This objective is on track to meet the goals and milestones of the
grant.
Studies performed this year
Analyses were conducted on pesticide use data from seven case study
orchards to assess the value of natural enemy conservation in pest management. Similar analyses
are planned for pear and walnut case study data in 2012. Previous assumptions that IPM programs
applying less disruptive OP alternatives (identified in Objective 1) will result in overall
lower pest management costs were tested. Comparison of pesticide use in seven case studies
implementing different management tactics, material choices, accumulated costs and added costs
were examined. In addition, interviews with WA apple and OR pear growers were conducted to
assess willingness to pay for different pesticide features.
Ecosystem Services
Evaluating the cost/benefit of biological control is more than simply
enumerating how many sprays are saved by conserving natural enemies. The idea of ecosystem
services is an important way to assess the value of biological control. If natural enemies are
reduced or compromised, then growers are forced to pay to replace the mortality that natural
enemies would normally cause. Additionally, if a pesticide has unintended effects on fish or
wildlife, then we need to consider those effects as well in the overall cost/benefit
analysis.
In our analysis, we used the seven orchard case
studies and focused on the pesticides applied, how they affected natural enemies (based on
Objective 1 and other studies), and whether pesticides were targeted at
aphids or mites, which are frequently considered to be signs of a disrupted management program.
To evaluate how control costs were affected by use
of pesticides harsh to natural enemies, we plotted the costs of secondary pest control (aphids,
mites) in each orchard against the costs of pesticides that were considered disruptive to
natural enemies (Graph 1). We found that for every dollar spent on the application of pesticides
disruptive to natural enemies growers spent $0.47 in control costs for secondary pests.
Graph 1. Costs of
secondary pest control versus costs of disruptive (high impact) insectisides.
Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services
Interviews with Washington apple and Oregon pear growers showed they
were willing to pay for increased pesticide effectiveness, but were also willing to pay to
preserve natural enemies and fish and wildlife. Apple growers were willing to pay almost
$38/acre more for a pesticide that was non-toxic to natural enemies, whereas pear growers were
willing to pay $27/acre for a pesticide with no toxicity to fish and and $8/acre for a pesticide
with no toxicity to wildlife.
Implications for the
Industries
This work illustrates the start of our cost-benefit analysis of
capturing the value and benefits of conserving natural enemies in orchards. This coming year we
will expand this analysis to a larger number of apple orchards and evaluate similar data sets in
pear and walnut orchards. It will provide a framework for cost management decisions based on the
ecosystem services provided by the conservation and enhancement of natural enemies.
Goldberger, Brunner, All PD's
Optimizing Technology
Transfer
Milestones:
Use survey results to guide development of educational and outreach
programs, synthesize data from completed objectives and implement into management programs,
present results to industry.
Progress Summary:
This section has met and exceeded the goals of the grant in many
aspects.
Studies performed this year
Our group has begun the various outreach programs as information has
become available. We have a biological control short course planned
in Washington, Oregon, and California for February 2012. We have organized a symposium at the
Washington Horticultural Association meeting in December 2011 highlighting project
accomplishments and have finished the pear and walnut surveys. Our
outreach programs next year will also begin a stronger web presence (highlights
below) and a “train the trainer” program that is currently being developed. Summary and
synthesis of research information will continue for the next 1-2 years and will be integrated
into the educational program as they are completed.
- Field days for horticultural events were used to feature work done by SCRI team members. In
mid-July, six of our members gave presentations at the Hood River Mid-Columbia Research and
Extension Center field day. The featured guest was Sonny Ramaswamy, Dean of the College of
Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University.
- The annual WSU-Sunrise field day in mid-August also had several speakers associated with the
SCRI project. Featured guests included WSU president Elson Floyd, and Dan Bernardo, dean of
the WSU College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences (CAHNRS).
- Our SCRI grant accomplishments were also highlighted at the Washington State Horticultural
Association 2011 annual meeting with an entire session of seven presentations by SCRI team
members.
- Dr. Karina Gallardo, presented a keynote address focused on her work in Objective 5 at
the WSU-CAHNRS all-faculty conference in the fall.
- Our team has made media contacts and outreach a priority. The Good Fruit Grower magazine did
a series of seven different articles on different aspects of our project. There has also
been several articles for the Capital Press, WSU’s Connections Magazine, and WSU On Solid
Ground Magazine.
- In Oregon, Dr. Shearer participated in the Mid-Columbia Today program on KIHR radio on
encouraging biological control in pear orchards.
- The OSU Hood River group is working on an orchard IPM web page that will include project
updates as well as information needed for enhancing BC in the mid-Columbia Basin.
Pear growers and decision
making
The survey was directed at pear growers and the respondents were
overwhelmingly highly educated owners/lessees that relied on consultants to provide IPM advice.
However, they clearly made their own decisions a good proportion of the time. Their key sources
of information for IPM were fieldmen working for agricultural chemical distributors, the
pesticide label, and fieldmen working for the packing house. Secondary sources were formal
education or continuing education classes, industry sponsored conferences or workshops,
University publications, extension agents, scientists, and other educational workshops. All
responders indicated that they monitor insect populations to aid decision making. The data also
indicate they use multiple sources of information on insect population monitoring, including
themselves (65%), farm employees (20%), or fieldmen working for agricultural chemical
distributors (71%), the packing house (33%), and private consultants (10%). (Fig. 1)
Pear
growers and biocontrol
Codling moth control is one of the biggest ways pear growers practice
conservation biological control. Slightly more than half are using mating disruption for CM
control, and they use spot treatments to varying degrees, degree-day models to help time various
tactics, tend to choose the least disruptive CM pesticides, and try to time applications to
minimize effects on natural enemies (Fig.2). During the last 3 years, there was a nearly 15%
increase in the use of BC tactics for those who intentionally try to foster BC practices (Fig.
3). Most of the focus was on conservation BC, but about 20% attempted to enhance NE habitats and
4% released insectary-reared natural enemies.
How they
want information
The Oregon/Washington pear growers commonly use computers (85%) and
smartphones (25%) in orchard operations, and 75% regularly access the Internet for farm
information. Their preferred sources of information are printed (66%), Internet (56.7%), via
email (46.3%), large group in person meetings (45%) or via field days (34%). No other
information sources received more than 25% support.
Figure 1. Combined survey results for
responder type, use of IPM consultants, and how IPM decisions are influenced.
Figure 2. Tactics used by respondants
to protect NE's.
Figure 3. How much the use of BC
practices have changed over the past three years.
Interactive 2-Day Short Course:
Enhancing BC in Orchard Systems
This interactive course will give participants a broad understanding
of natural enemies in orchard systems through a mixture of presentations, small group activity
sessions, and open discussion.
Information from research supported by the USDA-SCRI
grant project focused on enhancing biological control in western apple, pear, and walnut
orchards will be highlighted. The course will focus on topics such as using new tools for
monitoring natural enemies, the effects of pesticides on natural enemies, and how understanding
insect phenology enables us to identify windows of opportunity and develop more BC friendly pest
management programs. The information presented in this course is helpful and relevant to most
perennial cropping systems. Find more information about our short course at:
enhancedbiocontrol.org/BC_SC.html.
Web-based Information Transfer
Our portal
Web-based information transfer must form the basis of our outreach
program. Our web site has gone through a major upgrade this year to accommodate an expected
large volume of new information. We put nearly 25% of the grant funding towards outreach, and
our goal is to leave a legacy of information that is easily accessible for our stakeholders.
This coming year, our outreach team will vigorously pursue stories from our researchers,
collaborate in the writing of stories, and provide those stories to various traditional
University and industry outlets, social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube), and the web portals
at UC IPM, OSU, and WSU. We also purchased the URL enhancedbiocontrol.org to simplify searches.
Expect a large increase in new information being added starting this coming year.
WSU-Decision Aid System (WSU-DAS)
WSU-DAS is the flagship product for IPM decision making in Washington
tree fruit. A survey of apple IPM consultants in 2010 by the Pest Management Transition Program
showed they considered DAS to be the most important information source of IPM information. In
the past four years, it has gone from a beta system with 12 users to roughly 300 regular users.
Those three hundred estimate they directly make decisions on 80% of the 225,000 acres of tree
fruit in Washington State. DAS allows us to share in real time information on IPM tactics,
models of pests and natural enemies, pesticide choices that minimize natural enemy mortality,
and provide timely stories important for IPM decision makers. Our work in the enhanced BC grant
will be integrated into this system as the research is completed and will be spread to the other
states as it is developed. An iPhone version is available!
das.wsu.edu
UC IPM
UC IPM Online presents IPM information for urban, agricultural, and
natural resource areas. Use the Natural Enemies Gallery to learn about life cycles and
identification. In agricultural crops, learn about natural enemies and their role in biological
control by visiting the Pest Management Guidelines. Information about the toxicity of some
pesticides to natural enemies is presented in the guidelines for each crop. Toxicity to natural
enemies is also presented for urban pesticides and discussed in several related resources on
biological control. The information generated by the enhanced BC grant will be integrated into
UC IPM Online through these resources and will be useful for both of our urban and agricultural
clientele.
