micro-sprinklers in strawberry production role of beneficial … · • spider mite and predatory...

Micro-sprinklers in strawberry production Role of beneficial microbes on strawberry health and yield

Miticide evaluation for spider mite management Role of lygus bug in fruit deformity

IPM study with an emphasis on lygus bug management

Surendra Dara PhD, DAIT Strawberry and Vegetable Crops Advisor and Affiliated IPM Advisor

University of California Cooperative Extension San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties

[email protected]

eNewsletters: ucanr.edu/strawberries-vegetables and ucanr.edu/pestnews Download the free iOS app “IPMinfo” about strawberry pests and diseases

berriesnveggies.tumblr.com @calstrawberries @calveggies strawberriesvegetables

Santa Maria Strawberry Meeting 10 November, 2015

mailto:[email protected]

Irrigation needs for strawberries

• 24-29” for a typical fall planted crop

• Drip irrigation throughout the production season

• Overhead sprinkler irrigation during the initial few weeks

Micro-sprinkler

Experimental field

Micro-sprinkler

Micro-sprinkler Grower Standard 1

Grower Standard 2

Thanks to Manzanita field crew

Micro-sprinkler vs. Standard Aluminum

Micro-sprinkler

Standard aluminum sprinkler

• Treatments: Micro-sprinklers and grower standard aluminum pipes (~2.5 ac each)

• Plots: Six 25’ long plots within each treatment

Micro-sprinkler vs. Standard Aluminum

Electrical Conductivity

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

1/1/2015 2/1/2015

EC d

S/m

Grower Standard Micro-sprinkler

a

a

b b

Cumulative irrigation volume

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

11

/6/1

4

11

/7/1

4

11

/8/1

4

11

/9/1

4

11

/10

/14

11

/11

/14

11

/12

/14

11

/13

/14

11

/14

/14

11

/15

/14

11

/16

/14

11

/17

/14

11

/18

/14

11

/19

/14

11

/20

/14

11

/21

/14

11

/22

/14

11

/23

/14

11

/24

/14

11

/25

/14

11

/26

/14

11

/27

/14

11

/28

/14

11

/29

/14

Gal

lon

s o

f w

ate

r/ac

re

Standard aluminum Micro-sprinkler

81,600 gpa

120,000 gpa

Canopy size

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1/6/2015 2/6/2015 3/6/2015

Can

op

y Si

ze (

cm2

)

Grower Standard 1 Micro-sprinkler

Plant health rating

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

1/6/2015 2/6/2015 3/6/2015

Pla

nt

He

alth

Rat

ing


RATING 0 Dead 1 Weak 2 Moderate-Low 3 Moderate-High 4 Good 5 Very good

Botrytis fruit rot

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Bo

tryt

is s

eve

rity


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

3/26/2015 4/13/2015 5/22/2015

Bo

tryt

is s

eve

rity

3 Days after harvest

5 Days after harvest

RATING 0 None 1 1-25% 2 26-50% 3 51-75% 4 76-100%

Powdery mildew

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

4/15/2015 6/16/2015 6/24/2015

Date

Po

wd

ery

mild

ew s

eve

rity

GS1-Severity GS2-Severity MS-Severity

RATING 0 None 1 1-25% 2 26-50% 3 51-75% 4 76-100%

Yield – Seasonal total of marketable berries

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

Grower Standard 1 Grower Standard 2 Micro-sprinkler

Seas

on

al T

ota

l of

Mar

keta

ble

Be

rrie

s (g

r)

Yield – Seasonal total of marketable berries

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000


Seas

on

al T

ota

l of

Mar

keta

ble

Be

rrie

s (g

r)

Yield –Marketable berries

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2/7

/20

15

2/9

/20

15

2/1

1/2

015

2/1

3/2

015

2/1

5/2

015

2/1

7/2

015

2/1

9/2

015

2/2

1/2

015

2/2

3/2

015

2/2

5/2

015

2/2

7/2

015

3/1

/20

15

3/3

/20

15

3/5

/20

15

3/7

/20

15

3/9

/20

15

3/1

1/2

015

3/1

3/2

015

3/1

5/2

015

3/1

7/2

015

3/1

9/2

015

3/2

1/2

015

3/2

3/2

015

3/2

5/2

015

3/2

7/2

015

3/2

9/2

015

3/3

1/2

015

4/2

/20

15

4/4

/20

15

4/6

/20

15

4/8

/20

15

Mar

keta

ble

Be

rrie

s at

Eac

h H

arve

st (

gr)

Grower Standard 1 Grower Standard 2 Micro-sprinkler

Yield – Marketable berries

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2/7

/20

15

2/9

/20

15

2/1

1/2

015

2/1

3/2

015

2/1

5/2

015

2/1

7/2

015

2/1

9/2

015

2/2

1/2

015

2/2

3/2

015

2/2

5/2

015

2/2

7/2

015

3/1

/20

15

3/3

/20

15

3/5

/20

15

3/7

/20

15

3/9

/20

15

3/1

1/2

015

3/1

3/2

015

3/1

5/2

015

3/1

7/2

015

3/1

9/2

015

3/2

1/2

015

3/2

3/2

015

3/2

5/2

015

3/2

7/2

015

3/2

9/2

015

3/3

1/2

015

4/2

/20

15

4/4

/20

15

4/6

/20

15

4/8

/20

15

Mar

keta

ble

Be

rrie

s at

Eac

h H

arve

st (

gr)


Acknowledgements

Grower Dave Peck, Manzanita Berry Farms Industry partners Brent Wellington, Netafim Danilu Ramirez, RDO Water Technical assistance Chris Martinez Fritz Light Manzanita Field Crew

Strawberries and microbial enhancers

• Canopy size • Plant health condition • Yield • Powdery mildew severity • Botrytis fruit rot severity • Spider mite and predatory mite numbers

Strawberries and microbial enhancers Treatment Active Ingredient(s) Application Dates

1 Untreated

2 HealthySoil (Grower Standard)

Proprietary

3 BotaniGard ES Beauveria bassiana GHA 11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, and 4/9/ 15

4 Met52 EC Metarhizium brunneum F52 11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, and 4/9/15

5 NoFly Isaria fumosorosea FE 9901 11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, and 4/9/15

6 Actinovate AG Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108 11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, 4/9/15, 5/1/15, 5/29/15, and 6/26/15

7 TerraClean 5.0 Hydrogen dioxide, peroxyacetic acid 11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, 4/9/15, 4/17/15, 5/1/15, 5/29/15, 6/12/15, and 7/3/15

8 TerraGrow Bacillus licheniformis, B. subtilis, B. pumilus, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. megaterium, Trichoderma harzianum, and T. reesei

11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, and 4/9/ 15

9 TerraClean + TerraGrow

11/7/14, 12/5/14, 1/6/15, 1/15/15, 2/3/15, 3/5/15, and 4/9/15

10 O-MEGA Bat guano, turmeric, stevia, ginger, cinnamon, Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum lipoferum, Aspergillus niger, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Cellulomonas cellulans

11/7/14,11/14/14, 11/21/14, 11/28/14, 1/2/15, 1/6/15, 1/9/15, 1/16/15, 1/23/15, 1/30/15, 2/6/15, 2/13/15, 2/20/15, 2/27/15, 3/6/15, 3/13/15, 3/20/15, 3/27/15, 4/3/15, 4/10/15, 4/17/15, 4/24/15, 5/1/15, 5/8/15, 5/15/15, 5/22/15, 5/29/15, 6/5/15, 6/12/15, 6/19/15, 6/26/15, 7/3/15, and 7/10/15


3 8 6 7 1 9 2 4 8 2 3 5 9 1 4 6 10

5

III 4

III 2

III 9

III 1

III 7

III 6

III 8

III 3

III 5

IV 4

IV 2

IV 9

IV 1

IV 7

IV 6

IV 8

IV 3

IV 5

II 6

II 4

II 1

II 9

II 5

II 3

II 2

II 8

II 1

0

I 6

I 4

I 1

I 9

I 5

I 3

I 2

I 8

I 10

Sampling plot Bed

7

II 7

I 7

10

II 1

0

I 10

33

0’


Cultivar: BG 6.3024 Planted on 6 November, 2014

Impact on plant canopy

350

400

450

500

550

Untreated HealthySoil BotaniGard Met52 NoFly Actinovate TerraClean TerraGrow TC+TG O-MEGA

Pla

nt

Can

op

y Si

ze (

cm2

)

600

620

640

660

680

700


Pla

nt

Can

op

y Si

ze (

cm2

)

850

870

890

910

930

950


Pla

nt

Can

op

y Si

ze (

cm2

) 26 January, 2015

20 February, 2015

17 March, 2015

Tukey’s HSD P > 0.05

a

b

a

ab

a a

ab ab a

ab

Tukey’s HSD P = 0.002

Impact on plant health

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0


Pla

nt

Hea

lth

Rat

ing

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0


Pla

nt

Hea

lth

Rat

ing

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0


Pla

nt

Hea

lth

Rat

ing 26 January, 2015

20 February, 2015

17 March, 2015


Impact on berry yield

35,000

36,000

37,000

38,000

39,000

40,000

41,000


Seas

on

al T

ota

l of

Mar

keta

ble

Be

rrie

s (g

)

45,000

46,000

47,000

48,000

49,000

50,000

51,000


Seas

on

al T

ota

l of

All

Be

rrie

s (g

)

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000


Seas

on

al T

ota

l of

Un

mar

keta

ble

Be

rrie

s (g

) Total yield

Marketable yield

Unmarketable yield


Impact on powdery mildew

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5


Dis

eas

e s

evei

rty

4/16/215 6/16/2015 6/26/2015

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


Dis

eas

e s

evei

rty

Average

Severity rating 1: 1-24%, 2: 25-50%, 3: 51-75% and 4: 76-100%

ab b

a a ab

ab ab ab

ab ab


Tukey’s HSD P = 0.008

Impact on botrytis fruit rot

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.003 DAH 5 DAH

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00


Bo

tryt

is s

eve

rity

Harvested on 26 March, 2015

Harvested on 13 April, 2015

Harvested on 22 May, 2015

Harvested on 16 June, 2015

Severity rating 1: 1-24%, 2: 25-50%, 3: 51-75% 4: 76-100%


Impact on botrytis fruit rot

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50


Bo

tryt

is S

ever

ity

(Ave

rage

))

3 DAH 5 DAH

Severity rating 1: 1-24%, 2: 25-50%, 3: 51-75% and 4: 76-100%


Conclusions

• Entomopathogenic fungi could be useful in crop production and crop protection

• Additional studies are needed to enhance our understanding of their interaction with plants, arthropods, and pathogens

Acknowledgements

Grower Dave Peck, Manzanita Berry Farms Industry partners BioSafe Systems, Bioworks, Healthy Soil, Monsanto BioAg, O-MEGA Technical assistance Chris Martinez Fritz Light Manzanita Field Crew

Miticide evaluation study

Treat I Spray Rate/ac II Spray Rate/ac III Spray Rate/ac IV Spray Rate/ac 1 Untreated Untreated Untreated Untreated

2 Acramite 50WS 1 lb Kanemite 15 SC 24 fl oz Nealta 13.7 fl oz Oberon 2SC 16 fl oz

3 Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz Acramite 50WS 1 lb Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz Acramite 50WS 1 lb

4 Nealta 13.7 fl oz XPulse 1 qt Nealta 13.7 fl oz Met52 EC + AzaGuard

16 fl oz + 12 fl oz

5 XPulse 1 qt Acramite 50WS 1 lb Met52 EC + AzaGuard

16 fl oz + 12 fl oz Kanemite 15 SC 24 fl oz

6 Epi-Mek 0.15 EC + Grandevo

16 fl oz + 3 lb Grandevo 3 lb Grandevo 3 lb Grandevo 3 lb

7 MBI-206EP 1 qt MBI-206EP 1 qt MBI-206EP 1 qt MBI-206EP 1 qt



10 Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz Grandevo 2 lb Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz Grandevo 2 lb

11 Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz MBI-206EP 2 qt Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz MBI-206EP 2 qt

12 Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz Grandevo 3 lb MBI-206EP 4 qt Epi-Mek 0.15EC 16 fl oz

Miticide evaluation study

-150.0

-100.0

-50.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

Percent change in mobile stages

Spider mites Predatory mites

Acknowledgements

Grower Ramiro Chavez, La Fuente Farms PCA Daniel Ibarra Industry partners BASF, BioSafe Systems, Marrone BioInnovations, Laverlam Technical assistance Fritz Light Tamas Zold

Strawberry fruit deformation

Strawberry fruit deformation Lygus bug damage

Deformity due to poor pollination, genetic, environmental, and other factors

Role of lygus bug on fruit deformation

• Conventional (18) and organic (10) fields • 9 Sampling dates

• 4 replications (different parts of the field)

• At least 100 deformed berries/replication

Role of lygus bug on fruit deformation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Conventional Organic

Percent deformity from lygus bug and other causes

Lygus Other

A B

b a

Tukey’s HSD at P = 0.0008

Conclusions

• In both conventional (59%) and organic (67%) fields majority of the deformity was related to lygus bug feeding

• Lygus-related damage was significantly higher in organic fields and damage due to other factors was significantly higher in conventional fields

• Sampling for lygus is the most reliable way to make treatment decision

Acknowledgements

Grower Dave Peck, Manzanita Berry Farms Daren and Kevin Gee, DB Specialty Farms Technical assistance Fritz Light Tamas Zold

2015 Strawberry IPM trial Sundance Berry Farms, Santa Maria

Chemicals-Mode of action groups

3A Pyrethrins-Sodium channel modulators 4A Neonicotinoids 4C Sulfoximines 4D Butenolides 9C Flonicamid – Modulators of chordotonal organs 15 Benzoylureas - Inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis

Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor competitive modulators }

Non-chemical alternatives

• Entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana, Isaria fumosorosea, and Metarhizium brunneum

• Botanical insect growth regulator, azadirachtin

• Mechanical removal - vacuuming

Azadirachtin mode of action

• Interferes with protein synthesis • Affects molting and metamorphosis • Disturbs mating and sexual communication • Sterilizes adults • Reduces reproductive ability • Acts as antifeedant and repellent

http://files.meistermedia.net/cpd/images/structures/largeview/azadirachtin.gif

Lygus bug management study 1st application (Rate/acre) 2nd application (Rate/acre) 3rd application (Rate/acre)

1 Untreated Untreated Untreated

2 Assail 70 WP (3 oz) 4A* Assail 70 WP (3 oz) 4A Assail 70 WP (3 oz) 4A

3 Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum

4 Rimon 0.83 EC (12 fl oz) 15 +

Brigade (16 oz) 3A

Met52 EC(16 fl oz) +

Debug Turbo (104 fl oz)

Met52 EC (16 fl oz) +

AzaGuard (16 fl oz)

5 Sequoia (4.5 oz) 4C Sequoia (4.5 oz) 4C Vacuum

6 Pfr-97 (2 lb) +

Neemix (9 fl oz)

Pfr-97 (2 lb) +

Neemix (9 fl oz) Vacuum

7 Vacuum Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D +


Rimon 0.83 EC (12 fl oz) 15 +

Brigade (16 oz) 3A

8 Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D Vacuum

9 Sequoia (4.5 oz) 4C Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D Beleaf 50 SG (2.8 oz) 9C

10 B. bassiana+neem (1qrt) B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A+neem (1qrt) B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A (1qrt)

11 B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A (1qrt) B. bassiana+neem (1qrt) Beleaf 50 SG (2.8 oz) 9C

12 B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A (1qrt) Vacuum Rimon 0.83 EC (12 fl oz) 15 + Brigade (16 oz) 3A

*MoA group 4A Neonicotinoids 4C Sulfoximines 4D Butenolides

9C Flonicamid – Modulators of chordotonal organs 15 Benzoylureas - Inhibitors of chitin biosynthesis

3A Pyrethrins-Sodium channel modulators Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor competitive modulators }

Treatments and sampling

• Treatments applied on 26 August, 2 and 9 September, 2015 • Vacuuming was done twice a week only in vacuum treatments • Spray volume was 100 gpa for all treatments • Sampled 6 days after each application

Lygus life stages after three applications

0

10

20

30

40Pre-treatment Post-treatment

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

Young Nymphs

Old Nymphs

Adults

P = 0.012

a

b b

ab ab

ab ab

ab ab ab ab

ab

Nu

mb

er/2

0 p

lan

ts

Change in lygus and natural enemy populations

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pe

rce

nt

chan

ge p

ost

-tre

atm

en

t

Lygus bug

Natural enemies

Treatment efficacy Rank % Change I Spray II Spray III Spray

I -28.9 Sequoia (4.5 oz) 4C* Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D Beleaf 50 SG (2.8 oz) 9C

II -12.1 Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D Vacuum

III 0.0 B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A (1qrt)

Vacuum Rimon 0.83 EC (12 fl oz) 15 + Brigade (16 oz) 3A

IV 7.8 Rimon 0.83 EC (12 fl oz) 15 +

Brigade (16 oz) 3A

Met52 EC(16 fl oz) +


Met52 EC (16 fl oz) +

AzaGuard (16 fl oz)

V 8.0 Assail 70 WP (3 oz) 4A* Assail 70 WP (3 oz) 4A Assail 70 WP (3 oz) 4A

VI 11.5 Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum

VII 27.3 Vacuum Sivanto (14 fl oz) 4D +


Rimon 0.83 EC (12 fl oz) 15 +

Brigade (16 oz) 3A

VIII 32.7 Pfr-97 (2 lb) +

Neemix (9 fl oz)

Pfr-97 (2 lb) +

Neemix (9 fl oz) Vacuum

IX 46.8 B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A (1qrt)

B. bassiana+neem (1qrt) Beleaf 50 SG (2.8 oz) 9C

X 70.8 Sequoia (4.5 oz) 4C Sequoia (4.5 oz) 4C Vacuum

XI 78.3 Untreated Untreated Untreated

XII 85.7 B. bassiana+neem (1qrt) B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A +neem (1qrt)

B. bassiana+pyrethrum 3A (1qrt)

*Mode of action group

Conclusions

• Lygus infestations were very high and only two treatments reduced their populations and one treatment prevented their buildup

• Consider IPM strategy by using chemical, botanical, microbial, and mechanical tools

Acknowledgements

Grower and Team Dave Murray, Sundance Berry Farms Ted Ponce Industry Partners Agro Logistics Systems, Arysta LifeScience, Bayer CropScience, BioSafe Systems, Certis USA, Dow AgroSciences, Helena Chemicals, Laverlam International Corp., and Monsanto BioAg Technical assistance Sundance Berry Farms field crew Chris Martinez Fritz Light Kristin Nicole Stegeman Tamas Zold

Thank you!

Presentations from this meeting canbe downloaded from: http://ucanr.edu/meetingpresentations

http://ucanr.edu/meetingpresentations

micro-sprinklers in strawberry production role of beneficial … · • spider mite and predatory...

Documents