effect of inundative releases of predatory mites on pest ... · predatory mites: neoseiulus barkeri...

Tuomo Tuovinen & Isa Lindqvist

MTT Agrifood Research Finland

Effect of inundative releases of

predatory mites on pest mites on

raspberry

11.4.2014 1

Introduction Raspberry as a high value crop: increasing area in Finland Benefits of growing in tunnels: weatherproof, high quality berries High inputs, low tolerance to pests Integrated pest management, EU directives Limited availability of effective pesticides

The main target pests in 2011-2013: Two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae • harmful especially in warm seasons and in tunnels • few acaricides in use in Finland

Raspberry leaf and bud mite Phyllocoptes gracilis • harmful especially in cv. Glen Ample • vector of Raspberry Leaf Blotch virus (RLBV) Other pests: aphids, raspberry beetle, raspberry cane midge

Methods: Experiment in 2011-2013 Tunnel and open field plots, plants in pots Varieties Glen Ample and MaurinMakea No pesticide treatments Monitoring of aphids, raspberry beetle and raspberry cane midge Weight and quality of yield Biological control of mites • 2011: introductions of Phytoseiulus persimilis and Neoseiulus barkeri • 2012: introductions of Neoseiulus cucumeris • 2013: introductions of N. barkeri, N. cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii

- N.barkeri+N.cucumeris / N.cucumeris / A.swirskii Population dynamics of mites • leaf samples, one leaf per plant, generative and vegetative shoots • two – three weeks intervals • direct microsopic inspection and/or wash and rinse method for extraction of mites

Experiment 2011

Predatory mites: Neoseiulus barkeri and Phytoseiulus persimilis Introductions of P. persimilis, 18-36 mites/plant (loose materials on leaves):

• tunnel: 22.6., 14.7. and 27.7., total of 90 mites/plant • open field: 30.6., 22.7. and 10.8., total of 90 mites/plant Introductions of N. barkeri, 70 mites/plant (in sachets of 500 mites): • tunnel and open field: 15.7. and 5.8. , total of 140 mites/plant

Tunnel Open field

Results 2011: Raspberry leaf and bud mite

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

50

100

150

200

15.6. 29.6. 13.7. 27.7. 10.8. 24.8. 7.9.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: tunnel

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

15.6. 29.6. 13.7. 27.7. 10.8. 24.8. 7.9.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin Makea: tunnel

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

P.persimilis

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

20

40

60

80

20.6. 4.7. 18.7. 1.8. 15.8. 29.8. 12.9.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: open field

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

2

4

6

8

20.6. 4.7. 18.7. 1.8. 15.8. 29.8. 12.9.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin Makea: open field

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

2

4

6

8

20.6. 4.7. 18.7. 1.8. 15.8. 29.8. 12.9.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin Makea: open field

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

Results 2011:

Two-spotted spider mite

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

1

2

3

4

15.6. 29.6. 13.7. 27.7. 10.8. 24.8. 7.9.

T.u

rtic

ae /

leaf

Glen Ample: tunnel

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Tetranychus urticae population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

15.6. 29.6. 13.7. 27.7. 10.8. 24.8. 7.9.

T.u

rtic

ae /

leaf

Maurin makea: tunnel

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Tetranychus urticae population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

P.persimilis

Dynamics of Tetranychus urticae population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

1

2

3

4

20.6. 4.7. 18.7. 1.8. 15.8. 29.8. 12.9.

T.u

rtic

ae /

leaf

Glen Ample: open field

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Dynamics of Tetranychus urticae population in 2011 Blue arrows: releases of N. barkeri / Red arrows: releases of P. persimilis Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

1

2

3

4

20.6. 4.7. 18.7. 1.8. 15.8. 29.8. 12.9.

T.u

rtic

ae /

leaf

Maurin Makea: open field

Cont Treat Cont Treat

Conclusions 2011: Raspberry leaf and bud mite • Slow release method for N. barkeri did not work • RLBM increased quickly in tunnel in Glen Ample • No control effect was noticed • Practically no N. barkeri was found in leaf samples Two-spotted spider mite • TSM increased more in Maurin Makea • P. persimilis was effective against TSM • P. persimilis was present in tunnel especially in late season • Naturally occurring cecidomyiid and staphylinid larvae had some role in tunnel

Experiment 2012

Predatory mite: Neoseiulus cucumeris Introductions at two weeks intervals, 220 predators/plant (60 ml)

Six times, total of 1300 predatory mites/plant • 22.5., 31.5., 14.6., 28.6., 12.7. and 26.7.

Released in plastic triangle ’predator cottages’

Results 2012: Raspberry leaf and bud mite

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant

0

100

200

300

400

16.5. 30.5. 13.6. 27.6. 11.7. 25.7. 8.8. 22.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: tunnel

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

100

200

300

400

16.5. 30.5. 13.6. 27.6. 11.7. 25.7. 8.8. 22.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: tunnel

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0

40

80

120

160

16.5. 30.5. 13.6. 27.6. 11.7. 25.7. 8.8. 22.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin Makea: tunnel

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

40

80

120

160

16.5. 30.5. 13.6. 27.6. 11.7. 25.7. 8.8. 22.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin makea: tunnel

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

0

20

40

60

80

100

31.5. 14.6. 28.6. 12.7. 26.7. 9.8. 23.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: open field

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

31.5. 14.6. 28.6. 12.7. 26.7. 9.8. 23.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: open field

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

0

5

10

15

20

31.5. 14.6. 28.6. 12.7. 26.7. 9.8. 23.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin Makea: open field

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

5

10

15

20

31.5. 14.6. 28.6. 12.7. 26.7. 9.8. 23.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Maurin Makea: open field

Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont Ncuc Cont

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2012 Dash lines: generative shoots, solid lines: vegetative shoots Arrows: releases of N. cucumeris 220/plant Triangles: no. of Phytoseiidae/leaf (right axis)

Comparison of Phytoseiidae and Cecidomyiidae in 2012 Lines: Phytoseiid active stages Triangles: Cecidomyiid larvae

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

16.5. 30.5. 13.6. 27.6. 11.7. 25.7. 8.8. 22.8.

Pre

dat

ors

/ le

af

Glen Ample: tunnel

Treatm: Phytos. Cont: Phytos. Treatm: Cecid. Cont: Cecid.

Comparison of Phytoseiidae and Cecidomyiidae in 2012 Lines: Phytoseiid active stages Triangles: Cecidomyiid larvae

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

16.5. 30.5. 13.6. 27.6. 11.7. 25.7. 8.8. 22.8.

Pre

dat

ors

/ le

af

Maurin Makea: tunnel

Treatm: Phytos. Cont: Phytos. Treatm: Cecid. Cont: Cecid.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

31.5. 14.6. 28.6. 12.7. 26.7. 9.8. 23.8.

Pre

dat

ors

/ le

af

Glen Ample: open field

Treatm: Phytos. Cont: Phytos. Treatm: Cecid. Cont: Cecid.

Comparison of Phytoseiidae and Cecidomyiidae in 2012 Lines: Phytoseiid active stages Triangles: Cecidomyiid larvae

Comparison of Phytoseiidae and Cecidomyiidae in 2012 Lines: Phytoseiid active stages Triangles: Cecidomyiid larvae

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

31.5. 14.6. 28.6. 12.7. 26.7. 9.8. 23.8.

Pre

dat

ors

/ le

af

Maurin Makea: open field

Treatm: Phytos. Cont: Phytos. Treatm: Cecid. Cont: Cecid.

Conclusions 2012: Raspberry leaf and bud mite • The ’cottage ’slow release method for N. cucumeris worked • RLBM had spread all over the areas in tunnel and open field • RLBM control by N. cucumeris ca. 50% in tunnel • In open field no control effect was noticed Two-spotted spider mite • Low population of TSM all the season, 1-2/leaf, max. 4 mites/leaf • Same number both in treated and control plots • Low level of naturally occurring cecidomyiid larvae • Lower temperature compared to 2011 or 2013

Experiment 2013

Treatments: 1. Neoseiulus barkeri + Neoseiulus cucumeris (4 x 220+220/plant) 2. N. cucumeris (4 x 220/plant) 3. Amblyseius swirskii (4 x 220/plant) 4. Untreated control Each treatment in different tunnel / open field area Introductions: 29.5., 19.6., 17.7., 8.8. , 220/plant each time Released as loose materials in plastic triangle ’predator cottages’ Preliminary results only of Glen Ample in tunnel

Experimental field arrangement 2013 - 7 plants/plot Blue: Glen Ample Pink: Maurin Makea

T OF T OF T OF T OF

N. c

ucu

me

ris

A. s

wir

skii

Co

ntr

ol

N. c

ucu

me

ris

N. c

uc.

+ N

. bar

keri

A. s

wir

skii

N. c

uc.

+ N

. bar

keri

Co

ntr

ol

0

100

200

300

400

500

24.5. 7.6. 21.6. 5.7. 19.7. 2.8.

P.g

raci

lis /

leaf

Glen Ample: tunnel

Abar+Acuc Acuc Aswi Control

Dynamics of Phyllocoptes gracilis population in 2013 Arrows: releases of predatory mites, 220/plant

0

5

10

15

20

24.5. 7.6. 21.6. 5.7. 19.7. 2.8.

T.u

rtic

ae /

leaf

Glen Ample: tunnel

Abar+Acuc Acuc Aswi Control

Dynamics of Tetranychus urticae population in 2013 Arrows: releases of predatory mites, 220/plant

Comparison of Phytoseiidae and Cecidomyiidae in 2013 Solid lines, right axis: Phytoseiid active stages Triangles, left axis: Cecidomyiid larvae

Cecidom:

Phytos:

Conclusions 2013 (Glen Ample in tunnel): Raspberry leaf and bud mite • The ’cottage ’slow release method worked better • High initial population of RLBM in all plots • Cecidomyiid larvae present before releases of phytoseiids • Best RLBM control by A. swirskii ? Two-spotted spider mite • Variable TSM numbers in the beginning • Effect of cecidomyiids remarkable • Best control by A. swirskii ?

Experimental field arrangement - 7 plants/plot Blue: Glen Ample Pink: Maurin Makea

6 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0

0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0

Experimental field arrangement - 7 plants/plot Blue: Glen Ample Pink: Maurin Makea

Occurrence of symptoms of RLBV in the area (20.8.2013) - no. of plants with symptoms

First obseravation in 2011

T OF T OF T OF T OF

THANK YOU

Acknowledgements:

Rikala foundation