tree fruit ipm · pesticide resistance • export regulations ... so what are the drivers for tree...

$: Tree Fruit IPM · Pesticide Resistance • Export regulations ... So what are the drivers for tree fruit IPM \⠀椀渀 ... is the factors that gover對n exports. We export up to$
World Class. Face to Face. Tree Fruit IPM: Drivers and Passengers

Elizabeth H. Beers Tree Fruit Research & Extension Center 1100 N. Western Ave. Wenatchee, Washington

Hort 421/521 5 April 2012 Pullman, WA

Presenter

Presentation Notes

When I was invited to give this talk, I was going to give a standard IPM talk; but I started looking back at my experiences over the past 30 years, and realized that regardless of what the theory of IPM was, there were certain forces that shaped the world I live in, and that it might be more interesting to organize the information around those forces. I am however, going to cover some of the standard information on IPM in general, and tree fruits in particular.

World Class. Face to Face.

E. Beers ©2012

What are the drivers?

• Key pests • Pesticide Resistance • Export regulations (phytosanitary, MRLs) • State/federal regulations (EPA, FDA, WSDA) • Cost of production/value of crop • IPM is dynamic

Presenter

Presentation Notes

So what are the drivers for tree fruit IPM (in this case, in eastern WA). Here’s a list of things I grapple with, directly or indirectly, on a daily basis. Because I’m an entomologist, I’m going to start with arthropod pests, and key pests in particular. I’ll go over details of the definition later on, but by circular reasoning, these are pests that drive our IPM systems Pesticide Resistance in some of the key and secondary pests has shaped our pest management programs to a large extent in the past, and is still doing so today. Even though we recognize the role resistance has played, we are still relatively helpless in predicting or preventing it. The next factor which is particularly important to Washington growers, is the factors that govern exports. We export up to 30% of our crops, and because there is a premium price for exported fruit, it’s a desirable target. Two conflicting sets of regulations govern exports as far as insect control is concerned: phytosanitary (the presence of any insects or insect parts on the crop, and especially those of a quarantine pest); and MRLs. (=Maximum Residue Levels). This refers to the maximum level of a pesticide that can be present on exported fruit, and each country can its own levels. A third factor is state and federal regulations. The EPA is the responsible agency for pesticide registration, and as such has a major role what pesticides move into and out of the market. The WSDA registers pesticides at the state level, and no Washington grower can use a pesticide in Washington without that label, even if a federal label has been issued. The FDA has a role in determining pesticide residues on crops, and ensuring that no carcinogen is present on food crops. Lastly, the overarching framework is the economics of fruit growing: the cost of production versus the value of the crop. In theory, this is just one of the factors considered by IPM, but in practice, it is the 800 lb gorilla. I’ll return to these major themes as I go through some of the other IPM information.


E. Beers ©2012

Barriers to IPM implementation

Gallardo et al 2009. Production cost of

‘Gala’ apples. FS005E

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I mentioned at the beginning of the talk that cost of production and the value of the crop were major determinant of IPM implementation. Here is a fundamental problem we face. This is the 2009 production cost estimates – the big ticket item in any of these enterprise budgets are the fixed costs in land, depreciation, buildings, machinery, taxes, management costs, and amortized establishment costs. That accounts for nearly half. Of the variable costs, pruning and harvest are big chunks. Now we come to the IPM part: Chemicals and Fertilizers. I don’t have the breakdown, but this category include PGRs, fungicides and herbicides and fertilizers, so let’s say conservatively insecticides and miticides are 4% of the total production cost. Even a 50% savings in insecticides has little effect on the overall cost structure. So the short-term incentives to implementing an IPM program are not that great. On the balance side, you potentially risk all or part of the value of the crop if you mess up. This is one of the reasons that programs tend to stray toward the conservative side. The longer terms risks are more difficult to pin down, and more external: human and environmental health, resistance development. If implementation of IPM has been a slower than it might, its because of this harsh reality.


E. Beers ©2012

What is IPM?

…is the intelligent selection and use of pest-control actions that will ensure favorable economic, ecological, and sociological consequences”

A key point:

The most stable systems are those that require the fewest number of interventions

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here is one of the classic definitions of IPM. We like to underscore the “intelligent” so it won’t be confused with a stupid selection of pest control measures. The big three factors are 1) economic, 2) ecological and 3) sociological, BUT – there is a reason “economic” comes first in the lineup! We are shooting for a stable agroecosystem, which is a bit of an oxymoron, since most agroecosystems are highly artificial; but the theory is that if we design a more stable system, that system will require fewer interventions.


E. Beers ©2012

• site-specific • multi-tactic • information-based • a decision making process • profitable for the grower • promotes human health • promotes a quality environment

Integrated pest management (IPM) is:

Integrated Pest Management of Tree Fruits in Washington

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Other characteristics of IPM: site specific (we don’t write up a blanket recommendation for the entire state); multi-tactic (preferably, pesticides are not the first tactic); information-based (contrasted with calendar-based); and all the rest One point is that IPM, from its earliest inception, included explicitly that the outcome had to be profitable for the grower; otherwise the exercise is a bit pointless. This is both an important safeguard and reality check on IPM theory, and frankly, the only reason it has endured as a guiding principle.


E. Beers ©2012

Strategies to manage pests Eradication - elimination of pests Containment - prevent infestations Suppression - reduce densities*

*IPM generally uses the strategy of suppression - reduction of pest densities to acceptable levels by use of multiple tactics.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Eradication – locally eliminate a pest population. There have been a number of attempts at this, some successful, but this strategy is not used all that much. It typically require the proverbial “federal project” – a large, expensive, intensive, multi-year [decade] project. The sterile insect technique is most often cited in conjunction with eradication Containment – a pest population is prevented from moving to new areas – doesn’t help the old area, but provides a huge benefit to the new area. Quarantines are our primary example of containment Suppression – on a day-to-day basis, this is the bread-and-butter technique used by most crops on most pests.


E. Beers ©2012 FOUNDATION

Elements of a stable IPM structure

IPM

Sampling Biology Taxonomy Ecology

Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here is a conceptual graphic about IPM that entomologist love to show. Perhaps we have a love for the neoclassical, or that so many insect names have Greek origins? But it does give a place to talk about some of the important element. First, we have a foundation: the underlying sciences of biology, ecology, and taxonomy. Taxonomy is a greatly underrated block in our foundation, but the name of an organism is the key that unlocks the door to all that is known about it in the literature. The name is how current entomologists can find out all that is known about a given species; from its taxonomic position, we can deduce much about it’s probable life cycle and pestiferousness. Also part of the foundation are sampling, thresholds, and models (series of linked mathematical equations that predicts the temporal occurrence of insect stages, or the population densities). The tactics are the toolbox we draw from when we have a pest problem to address – I’ll go over some specific examples, to give you an idea of their relative importance in western tree fruits.


E. Beers ©2012

A Poor Foundation leads to an unstable IPM structure

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

TACTICS

Taxonomy Ecology Models Thresholds

FOUNDATION

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here’s the next conceptual graphic we love: a poor foundation makes for an unstable structure. If you are missing one of those building blocks, your structure is likely to be a bit fragile


E. Beers ©2012

An unstable IPM structure depends on ONE Tactic


Models Thresholds

CHEMICAL

TACTICS

FOUNDATION

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Even if you have all the foundational elements in place, choosing only one tactic makes the structure unstable – for an excellent reason, the single tactic shown is that of chemical control, which despite all efforts to the contrary, continues to the most-used tool in the toolbox.


E. Beers ©2012

Regulatory Factors influencing adoption of IPM: Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA)

o Aggregate exposure of pesticides, from all uses including home and water

o Pesticides with common mode-of-action only one risk cup

o Up to a 10x safety factor for food in diets of infants and children

o Endocrine disruption considered in risk

dietary + non

dietary

Pesticides A B C D E F

Crowded

Smaller cup

Less room


E. Beers ©2012

Agricultural concerns were: • Traditional chemical controls would be banned • Registration of new chemistries would be slow

• New chemistries would cost more • There would more restrictions on re-entry and pre-harvest

intervals

Factors influencing adoption of IPM

Reality has been: • Lost many traditional pesticides, especially OP insecticides

• Label restrictions placed on many others pesticides • Many new alternatives registered

• New products do cost more on a per acre basis.

Regulatory factors: Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA)


E. Beers ©2012

EPA announced in 2007 the phase out of azinphosmethyl after the

2012 season on all crops. Schedule is shown in the table.

The phase-out decision was based primarily on worker

safety.


Other OP insecticides will be restricted of phased out due to concerns over water quality tied to endangered species. For example, EPA is responding to

a law suite to establish large buffers for 34 pesticides used in agriculture, some of which are important in tree fruit production.

Post FQPA regulatory actions are focusing on worker and environmental safety


E. Beers ©2012

Biological Factors Resistance development:

• Resistance development in “key” pests, e.g. codling moth.

• Disruption of biological controls due to use of “harder” pesticides for control of secondary

pests

• Secondary pests require additional insecticides for their control



E. Beers ©2012


Social factors • Consumer concerns about food safety and

pesticide residues

• Public concern over environmental contamination with pesticides

• Health concerns of farm workers exposed to pesticides

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Social factors can be put in place by the top-down or bottom-up method. Top-down is government regulation; bottom-up is where a large grocery chain demands that certain criteria be met in the production of the food they buy. The latter is overtaking the former in terms of daily impact on fruit producers – you may be familiar with the term GlobalGAP, or Good Agricultural Practices – these entail a farm-level systems plan that broadly cover worker safety and food safety. They are a privately owned certification system, and through the auditing process, your farm can be certified.


E. Beers ©2012

Key pest: a pest which, if uncontrolled, has the potential annually to destroy the crop; most of the control efforts are directed against this pest.

Secondary pest: Present sporadically in time and space; can be direct or indirect.

Direct pest: a pest that feeds on the crop; in the case of apple and pear, feeds directly on the fruit or directly affects the quality of the fruit (exception = pear psylla).

Indirect pest: a pest that feeds on any part but the saleable part (=fruit) and reduces the crop by limiting photosynthesis or removing plant nutrients, thus affecting the crop.

Induced pest: a pest that would not occur in high numbers in an unsprayed orchard

IPM Terminology


E. Beers ©2012

Key Pests of tree fruit crops in Washington

• Codling moth (apple)

• Pear psylla (pear)

• Cherry fruit fly (cherry)

• Oriental fruit moth (peach)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

So what are the key pests? Each crop usually has a different one. On apple, it is CM; on pear, pear psylla; cherry, cherry fruit fly, and peach, OFM. Three of the four are internal feeding larvae, and as such are unacceptable fruit contaminants. The fourth, PP, is technically an indirect pest, but the amount of coincidental damage to the fruit makes this a system driver in many pear production areas. It is worth noting that the key pest of a given crop may vary among different production regions. CM is less important in eastern and mid-Atlantic areas, and leafrollers are more dominant. PP is of critical importance in northcentral Washington on pear, but a minor pest in CA (CM is more important). In some cases, a pest simply does not occur in a production region: an example is CFF in California (major production regions). Spotted wing drosophila, a new pest, is now the most important internal feeding larva in that region


E. Beers ©2012

Invasive Pests become Key Pests

• Spotted wing drosophila invaded North America in 2009

• Direct (internal) pest of cherries (and berries); other stone fruits questionable

• Quarantined by 2 important trading partners

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I mentioned earlier about how phytosanitary restrictions are a major driver for IPM: here is a recent example in the form of an invasive pest. Many of you have read the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” – the entomologist’s version is “Hot, Flat, and Infested”. The lowering of trade barriers has increased our exchange of agricultural products with the world in general, and as we exchange products, we also exchange pests. We have set up (on both sides of the exchange) mechanisms to keep foreign pests from entering out countries, but even if we regulate these at the probit 9 level, eventually something slips through. And so part of the dynamic nature of our IPM systems is that we are frequently dealing with new pests.


E. Beers ©2012

MRLs – the new reality

Export Country

fenpropathrin

spinetoram

malathion

zeta cyperm

ehtrin

spinosas

lambda-cyhalothrin

MR

L re

lativ

e to

US

(x-fo

ld h

ighe

r/low

er)

0

10100200300400500

Canada Japan S. Korea Taiwan EU Austrailia

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here is a brief digression on MRLs – for the most part, other countries set their residue tolerance BELOW that of the US tolerance. This means that for some products, the US tolerance is up to 500-fold higher than that of our trading partner. The key here is that the US label is typically geared to produce a residue in compliance with the US tolerance – but NOT that of a foreign country. So a grower can folllow the US label to the letter in terms of rates and preharvest intervals, and still violate the allowable residues in a foreign country. This lack of harmonization is the next layer in the export scenario: phytosanitary restirctions push us to spray more, and MRL limits push us to spray less.


E. Beers ©2012

Secondary Pests of tree fruit crops in Washington

• Aphids • Mites • Sucking bugs • Scales • Thrips • Campylomma • Leafhopper • Leafminer

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Returning now to our pest definitions, here is an abbreviated list of secondary pests. Some of these <CLICK> may be secondary in terms of their biotic potential, but are, in fact, direct fruit feeders. Others are indirect feeders, but affect the fruit in other ways <CLICK>, usually through excrement that drips on the fruit, in addition to chlorophyll removal. Yet another category are, for all intents and purposes, chlorophyll removers, but can infest the harvested product <CLICK> where they are not really feeding, but diapausing. The rest are “pure” indirect pests for the most part, in that they really only affect the plant through their leaf- or shoot-feeding activities



Foundation of IPM

IPM


Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Let’s take a quick look at the model part of the foundation


E. Beers ©2012

Models used in IPM • Phenology models Used to predict when critical events occur

• Based on heat unit accumulations (Degree-Days) • Insects and mites are cold-blooded, so developmental rate is

proportional to the ambient temperature Heat units are called physiological time

• The amount of heat required to complete a given stage of the life cycle is constant

• Demographic models (less common) Used to predict the effects of changes in mortality and

reproduction on population growth


E. Beers ©2012

Why use Phenology Models?

• Allows you to predict the timing of a difficult event that is critical to IPM by monitoring the accumulation of heat units (physiological time) from an easy to detect event

• Allows the comparison of how best to time pest control actions against multiple pests


E. Beers ©2012

Definitions • Upper Threshold Temperature at which no development occurs because of heat

deactivation • Lower Threshold Temperature where no development occurs because of cold

deactivation • Degree-Day (= heat unit) The amount of heat accumulated when the temperature is 1° above

the lower threshold for a period of 1 day. • Biofix Some easily observed event which can be used to synchronize the model

to field populations

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here is some of the terminology


E. Beers ©2012

Beginning of egg hatch

Apply treatment

to protect fruit

Example: Codling Moth Phenology Model

Know time from adult flight to egg hatch = 250 degree days

Easy to

monitor adults

Impossible to find eggs

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here’s an example of the model for our key apple pest. Through model validation, we know the length of time in DD (which can be translated into calendar days) it take from first adult flight to the beginning of egg hatch. This is the target for many of our pesticides, the young larva. The target depends on the type of pesticide, but this is what the model was based on.


E. Beers ©2012

Model Accuracy II (Beers & Brunner, 1992) • How does the model compare to spraying 21 days after full bloom of ‘Delicious’?

-5

0

5

10

15

20

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 93

Model Calendar

No.

Day

s B

etw

een

Obs

erve

d an

d P

redi

cted

Lar

val E

ntry

into

the

Frui

t

Year

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Before the codling moth model was developed, we used to use the calendar method, 21 days after full bloom. Coincidentally, full bloom of ‘Delicious’ was a good indicator of the first moth flight, and 21 days after that was an attempt to hit the early part of egg hatch. The trouble with averages is that every year is different – some are hotter, some are colder, and insects, being poikilotherms, will respond to that. We compared the accuracy of the model to the calendar over about a decade, and as you can see, the calendar method was within 2 days only 3 out of 9 years, whereas the model was within 2 days 9 out of 9 years. So our accuracy in hitting the target was dramatically improved.


E. Beers ©2012

When are models less useful? • When life stage isn’t critical for timing • When critical stage of pest is easy to see or tied to

tree phenology/fruit development • When pest has many, overlapping generations

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Generations of woolly apple aphid in Iraq, redrawn

from Bodenheimer et al., 1947


E. Beers ©2012

Models

• What models DO: Predict correct time to spray

• What model DON’T do: Predict need to spray



Foundation of IPM

IPM


Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Next let’s look a sampling


E. Beers ©2012

Sampling - the information on which IPM decisions are based

Sampling: (Southwood Chapters 1 & 2) Sample used to make inference about pest

presence (qualitative) or density (quantitative) for decision making

Absolute estimates •Mark-recapture •Foliage sampling •Emergence trap •Whole plant extraction

Relative estimates •Pheromone trap

•Pitfall trap •Beating tray •Sweep net

Indices •Frass

•Cast skins •Nests

•Feeding sites


E. Beers ©2012

Considerations associated with Sampling: Method/unit - what type is appropriate for pest

and stage to be monitored Size - the number of units necessary to make an

appropriate management decisions Precision - the repeatability of sample, the estimate of error risk associated with estimate Timing - when the sample should be taken to

reach an appropriate decision



E. Beers ©2012


Samples • When to take them - time (models)

• How many to take - efficiency • Where to take them - spatial component

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16

Popu

latio

n D

ensi

ty

Time 1 2 3 4 5 6

What is the best sample estimate?

Time 2 = 5 bugs

Time 3 = 13 bugs

Time 5 = 1 bug

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Read One thing to recognize about sampling: it requires LABOR, and labor is expensive, especially skilled labor. This is one of the single biggest barrier to IPM adoption, is that in a perfect world, all of our decisions are based on accurate samples, with so many leaves/acre or per block. In reality, fieldmen walk through an orchard and look for bugs or damage. For a few insects, like thrips and campylomma, they use a beating tray, but the vast majority of on-the-ground sampling is just a walk through.


E. Beers ©2012

Uniform Random Clumped

Increased sample size for same level of precision


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Uniform: organisms scattered throughout sample units at a regular interval, not commonly found with insects Random: organisms scattered throughout sample units with an equal chance of being on any unit, rare with insects Clumped: most of the organisms are located on only a few of the available sample units, most typical of insect populations The point here is that with a clumped distribution, if you walk down the wrong row, you may miss the population entirely. For better or worse, one of the ways fieldmen overcome clumped distributions is EXPERIENCE. They look for places where the problem occurred in years past. For pests that immigrate into the orchard, they look harder at the borders, especialy a vulnerable one. The concept of a random sample gets violated almost daily, but this may not necessarily be a bad thing.



Foundation of IPM

IPM


Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Next is the concept of thresholds. You’ve sampled your orchard, and know how many bugs/leaf or stings/fruit you have – now what?


E. Beers ©2012

Action threshold: the density of a pest that stimulates a management action.

Economic injury level: the density of a pest that will

cause crop loss equal to the cost of using a control tactic.

A complex concept that involves many factors, market value of crop, time when injury occurs, weather, etc.

Thresholds - Actions based on results of sampling populations

Time # -

--->

AT

EIL Crop loss occurs

Presenter

Presentation Notes

A threshold is value against which you compare your sample number (telling you pest density). [read definitions] One of the problems inherent in the EIL is that the value of the crop is unknown at the time the decision is made – you can make an educated guess, but the realized value may not be known until its sold the following February. Another problem, is that while can fairly readily estimate the crop loss from direct pests (% damaged fruit), we have a very poor handle in the EIL for most indirect pests. Too many other variables come into play: cultivar, density, crop load, leaf to fruit ratio, environmental stress, multiple pests – the list and permutations are endless. A slightly easier threshold is when an indirect pest starts defoliating the trees, and exposing the fruit to more sunburn – thus making it direct damage.



IPM Tactics

IPM


Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Moving now to tactics – let’s start with a fun one, behavioral.


E. Beers ©2012

Sex Pheromones and Mating Disruption • Sex pheromones are typically emitted by females

to attract males Allows mating to occur over a large area

• Populations do not have to be extremely high to ensure mating can occur

Some pheromones are attractive >1 mile • Mating disruption is the use of large amounts of

synthetic sex pheromone of a pest to interfere with normal mating process

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Start with mating disruption.


E. Beers ©2012

Differences in MD and Conventional

• Doesn’t act like a pesticide A low dose of pesticides will kill a certain amount

of pests • No mortality associated with MD Acts by reducing the growth rate of the population

• If the pheromones are put on after moths have emerged, MD will not work

• If too low a rate of dispensers are used, MD will not work


E. Beers ©2012

Benefits of Mating Disruption • No worker safety problems • No salmon and groundwater concerns • Species-specific -- only affects one pest, not

natural enemies Increased BC for secondary pests

• Approved for organic production • Can be used to reduce the problem of

insecticide resistance • Conserves pesticides for times & situations

when they are really needed


E. Beers ©2012

Normal Mate Finding

male

female

Pheromone plume


E. Beers ©2012

How Mating Disruption Acts (in theory)

• Pheromone communication is disrupted or corrupted Sensory habituation False trials Masking Unbalanced sensory input

• knowing mechanisms is critical so that we can understand successes and prevent failures


E. Beers ©2012

Additional Mechanisms?

• The behavioral mechanisms are important, but not necessarily predictive or the only ones !

• Population biology gives us some answers No different in % mating between MD and non-MD areas

doesn’t mean that mating occurs at the same time Mate finding will be more difficult because of the behavioral

mechanisms Mating is delayed, not prevented


E. Beers ©2012

Effect of Delayed Mating on OBLR

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0 Day2 Day4 Day6 Day

Cum

ulat

ive

Num

ber o

f Fer

tile

Fem

ale

Eggs

Lai

d

Day of Female Life

31%

61%

90%

40%

79%


E. Beers ©2012 Worst Better Best

Location & Shape of Orchard


E. Beers ©2012

Hand-applied dispensers remain the

most reliable technology available.

Reducing point sources per acre increases risk

of fruit injury or requires more supplemental

insecticides to achieve desired levels of

control.

Percent Fruit injury

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

CTT 50

CTT 100

CTT 200

C - plus 400

Check Mate

NoMate

Isomate C-plus

Isomate CTT

Density of point sources impacts efficacy


E. Beers ©2012

Implemented mating disruption on an areawide basis as PART of an integrated management program - Cooperation !!!

Howard Flat CAMP site - Chelan, WA 1200 acres 36 growers

4 warehouses 16 crop consultants

Lessons from CAMP (Codling moth Areawide Management Project)

Areawide use of Pheromones - added value


E. Beers ©2012

Results of areawide control project

0

5

10

15 20

25

30

35

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Ave. moth capture per trap per year

Howard Flat, WA

Ave. percent traps capturing moths

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Ave. percent codling moth damage

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Ave. codling moth insecticides appl./acre

Howard Flat, WA


E. Beers ©2012

Gradually changed the program as pest pressures declined: reduced pheromone rates and supplemental controls.

1995 0.55%

0.20%

0.01%

Lessons from CAMP --> Results



IPM Tactics

IPM


Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS


E. Beers ©2012

Predators - insects that consume large numbers of prey per individual over its lifecycle, usually will feed on many

kinds of insects.

Parasites - insects that produce one or a few offspring from one host, usually have a close association between the

host and parasite.

Pathogen - organism that infects the host, such as fungus, virus or bacteria, that kills or debilitates the host.

Nematodes - worm-like organisms that seek out or ambush hosts, penetrate hosts and multiply, eventually killing or

sterilizing the host.

IPM Tactics: Biological control


E. Beers ©2012

• Spider mites in late 50s and early 60s caused high levels of damage to apple, even with repeated miticide applications.

• Dr. Stan Hoyt, WSU-TFREC, observed a predatory mite attacking spider mites in certain orchards.

• Discovery that Typhlodromus occidentalis survived selective rates of certain OP insecticides, Guthion and Imidan.

• Integrated Mite Management: uses biological control of spider mites and chemical control of codling moth.

• Stable system, only about 10% of apple orchards treated for spider mite suppression annually, many orchards have NOT

been treated for 35 years.

Biological Control in Washington Orchards


E. Beers ©2012

Biological control of Leafminer

• Leafminer became pest in 1980s; resistance suspected

• Parasite, Pnigalio flavipes, identified as primary natural enemy in WA orchards

• P. flavipes preys (host-feeding) and reproduces on WTLM

• P. flavipes tolerates certain OP insecticides, e.g. Guthion and Imidan BUT is susceptible to

Lorsban and Penncap-M

• For the last decade leafminer has been controlled biologically in Washington

orchards.


E. Beers ©2012

Habitat Management and Biological Control

Orchards

Colpoclypeus florus and host leafroller phenology in orchards versus roses

containing A. comptana

May June Aug Oct July Sep Apr

Host

Suitable

Host

Suitable

Pandemis flight C. florus

disperses to find

overwintering host

C. florus returns to orchards to attack pest leafroller


E. Beers ©2012


Natural occurring wild rose patch

Strawberry leafroller - Ancylis comptana

Alternate overwintering and summer host for C. florus


E. Beers ©2012


Orchards

Colpoclypeus florus and host leafroller phenology in orchards versus roses

containing A. comptana

May June Aug Oct July Sep Apr

Host

Suitable

Host

Suitable

Pandemis flight C. florus Enters

Diapause

Roses



IPM Tactics

IPM


Models Thresholds

BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

BEHAVIORAL

CULTURAL

GENETICS

TACTICS


E. Beers ©2012

Chemical Control - Insecticides Classes of Insecticides

Chlorinated hydrocarbons - DDT Organophosphate - Guthion Carbamate - Sevin Pyrethroids - Pounce, Warrior Inorganic - sulfur, kaloin Biologicals - botanicals, Bt, virus (pathogenic)

Neonicotinyl - Assail, Calypso Insect Growth Regulators

•Juvenile hormone mimics - Esteem •Chitin synthesis inhibitors - Rimon •Molting hormone agonists - Intrepid

Naturalyte - spinosad Others - emamectin benzoate, indoxacarb

Traditional Broad spectrum

Mammalian toxicity Contact toxicity

Newer Narrow spectrum

Low mammalian toxicity Act by Ingestion


E. Beers ©2012

Ovicides - how do they work?

A majority of codling moth eggs are laid on the leaf upper surface near fruiting clusters, some on fruit - both generations.

Egg Leaf

There are two ways to affect eggs prior to hatch: Apply the product over the egg (topically), OR Apply the product to the surface before eggs are laid.


E. Beers ©2012

Chemical Control - Insecticides

Insect Growth Regulators •Juvenile hormone mimics - Esteem

When introduced at wrong time in life cycle causes abnormal development - sterility.

•Chitin synthesis inhibitors - Rimon

When consumed these chemicals prevent normal development of the new insect skin - dehydration.

•Molting hormone agonists - Intrepid

When consumed these chemicals stimulate a pre-mature molt that is lethal - sterility.


E. Beers ©2012


Insect Growth Regulators •Juvenile hormone mimics - Esteem When introduced at wrong time in life cycle causes abnormal development -

sterility.

•Chitin synthesis inhibitors - Rimon When consumed these chemicals prevent

normal development of the new insect skin - dehydration.

•Molting hormone agonsits - Intrepid When consumed these chemicals stimulate

a pre-mature molt that is lethal - sterility.

Normal pupa


E. Beers ©2012


New Insecticides •Advantages

• Safe to humans (200 to >5000 times less toxic) • Less impact on environment

• Selective - narrow spectrum of activity • Reduced impact on biological control agents

• Increased negative impact on biological control agents • Resistance management

•Drawbacks

• Higher costs • Precise timing and coverage required

• Selective - need more knowledge • Slower acting


E. Beers ©2012

Organic

Holistic but legalistic

A Perspective on Pest Management

Pest Management Continuum

Synthetic Pesticides

Conventional IPM Bio-based

IPM “Organic-ish”

Optimize pesticide use Conserve bio-agents

Minimize environmental effects

1950-1960s


E. Beers ©2012

Organic Fruit Production US in Washington

Percent of Organic Fruit Production WA (2008) Apple - 10%; Cherry - 6%; Pear - 10%


E. Beers ©2012

It’s all in the Delivery….

OPM Online http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/

Reference for: • Biology • Identification • Life history • Biological control • Monitoring • Management

Revised ad hoc


E. Beers ©2012


Crop Protection Guide Online

http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/eb0419/

• Pesticide safety • Rules/regulations • Recommendations

Revised annually Research-based


E. Beers ©2012


Decision Aid System http://das.wsu.edu/

Weather-driven phenology models (AgWeatherNet)

Pests and diseases News and updates

Updated daily

tree fruit ipm · pesticide resistance • export regulations ... so what are the drivers for tree...

Documents