Navel orangeworm biology, monitoring, and management

Similar documents
Monitoring Methods for Codling Moth Dr. Jay Brunner, WSU TFREC, Wenatchee

Developing an Easily Used Bait Monitoring Method for Oriental Fruit Moth in Mating Disruption Orchards

Comparison of Two Yellow Sticky Traps for Capture of Western Cherry Fruit Fly (Rhagoletis indifferens) in Tart Cherry in Northern Utah 2015

QUALITY EVALUATIONS OF WALNUT VARIETIES IN SAN BENITO COUNTY 2004

Prionus Mating Disruption and Trap Capture in Sweet Cherry 2011

Comparison of kairomone DA 2313 and pheromone lure trapping for codling moth with oviposition monitoring

A NEW ERADICATION STRATEGY FOR SMALL, REMOTE GYPSY MOTH INFESTATIONS

Report of Progress 895

Comparison of MON76980 (Xtendimax) and Liberty Herbicide Systems for weed control in Soybeans at Rochester, MN in SUMMARY:

Annex 1 to ISPM No. 26 (ESTABLISHMENT OF PEST FREE AREAS FOR FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)) Fruit fly trapping (200-) Steward: Walther Enkerlin

Population Parameters and Their Estimation. Uses of Survey Results. Population Terms. Why Estimate Population Parameters? Population Estimation Terms

GYPSY MOTH (LYMANTRIA DISPAR) TRAPPING & TREATMENTS IN MINNESOTA 2012 UPDATE

2014 EVALUATION OF HOUSE FLY DEMONSTRATION. COOPERATORS: James Colby Moreland and Jody & Robin Thomas

2.1 Developing Effective Monitoring Tools For Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

Traps for Monitoring Apple Pests in Ohio

Steven & Angelia Coy Wiggins, MS

A pheasant researcher notebook:

Figure 1. A) Sam Malan watches wasp choice test. B) Y-tube apparatus example.

2014 House Fly Densities around Dairies in Central Texas

Utah Extension IPM and Sustainable Agriculture Mini Grant Program

Analysis of Variance. Copyright 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Advancements in Pest Management Monitoring for Food Processors

Page 1 of 7. Development of a rat bait with slug-repellent properties 1. July 14, 2016

Dear Volunteer: Sincerely, Anne Coles. President, Alberta Trappers Association. RFMA Log Book- Trapping Season 2017/18 Page 1

Traps for Monitoring Apple Pests in Ohio

Turfgrass Entomology Research 2006

Table 1. Key plant indicators observed during the study period. 75% green-up 100% green-up. Annual bluegrass 75% boot 16 April

Season-Long Patterns of Attraction of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug to Pheromone Lures and Light Traps in Orchard Agroecosystems

Two New Invasive Pests in Washington: Spotted Wing Drosophila and Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

Result Demonstration Report

Egg+Nymphal Development with fitted model using Tlow=54F. Fitted to Tlow=50F

Recent Trends in Organic Tree Fruit Production: 2001

Justification for Rainbow Trout stocking reduction in Lake Taneycomo. Shane Bush Fisheries Management Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation

Cotton Comments OSU Southwest Oklahoma Research and Extension Center Altus, OK

Evaluation of Insecticide Effects on Biology of Cherry Fruit Fly. Various homeowners in Tri-Cities and Yakima, WA

Blue Diamond Growers Quality Management ASFMRA in California Almonds Outlook 2018 Conference

Field Evaluation of a Novel Lure for Trapping Seedcorn Maggot Adults

Data Set 7: Bioerosion by Parrotfish Background volume of bites The question:

Sunfish / Bluegill Fillets - 5 lbs Price: $87.00 Skin on Fillets - Individually Frozen 2012 source: internet

Phenology of Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs and Distribution near California Pear Orchards. (Funding provided by the Pear Pest Management Research Fund)

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

Address: 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd Address: Dept. Entomology, Barton Lab City: Wapato City: Geneva

Previous Work on the Culture of the Cocahoe Minnow Fundulus grandis

CULTURE Dr. Gary C. Pavlis, Ph.D. Atlantic County Agricultural Agent

One-factor ANOVA by example

2017 Cricket Frass as a Potential Nitrogen Fertility Source

Results of a Two-Year Pink Bollworm Survey in the Southern Plains of Texas and New Mexico

Phenology of Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs and Distribution near California Pear Orchards

Monitoring Surfing Quality Below the Jordan River Generating Station (Year 3)

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

Where now for slug control without Draza?

STUDIES OF EPHEMEROPTERA IN THE AUCKLAND AREA. by J. A. McLean * I: LIGHT TRAPPING IN CASCADE KAURI PARK INTRODUCTION

Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program. Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management

Lures to monitor and control vertebrates at low densities: sex pheromone attractants

THE BIOLOGY OF THE PRAWN, PALAEMON

Neighborhood Influences on Use of Urban Trails

Energy Output. Outline. Characterizing Wind Variability. Characterizing Wind Variability 3/7/2015. for Wind Power Management

P artners in. Peanut Variety Tests. rogress. C. B. Godsey and W. Vaughan Department of Plant and Soil Sciences. Variety Tests.

W. Lindsay Chadderton, The Nature Conservancy, South Bend, IN Randall M. Claramunt, Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, MI

PHENOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BROWN MARMORATED STINK BUGS IN CALIFORNIA PEAR ORCHARDS

DMU 038 Jackson County

Introduction: Methods:

P artners in. Peanut Variety Test. rogress. C.B. Godsey, W. Vaughan, and B. Heister Department of Plant and Soil Sciences.

Kenai River Sockeye Escapement Goals. United Cook Inlet Drift Association

Dauphin Lake Fishery. Status of Walleye Stocks and Conservation Measures

Youngs Creek Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P 10359)

2010 Wildlife Management Unit 501 moose and deer

Purpose: To test if new kind of traps for turnip moth are easier and better to use than the normal traps which are used in Denmark.

IPM Fun with Insects, Weeds and the Environment. Lesson #2 Insect IPM. The New York State Integrated Pest Management Program

The Regional Power Grid Team

DMU 419 Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, and Shiawassee Counties

Comparison of Sticky Wing and Cone Pheromone Traps for Monitoring Seasonal Abundance of Black Cutworm Adults and Larvae on Golf Courses

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Run timing and morphology of steelhead kelts from the Situk River

Volume 37, Issue 3. Elite marathon runners: do East Africans utilize different strategies than the rest of the world?

North Carolina State University

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

STUDY PERFORMANCE REPORT

Project No: R Visual Lures for Possums. Malcolm Thomas and Fraser Maddigan. Pest Control Research Ltd PO Box 7223 Christchurch New Zealand

HSIS. Association of Selected Intersection Factors With Red-Light-Running Crashes. State Databases Used SUMMARY REPORT

AP 11.1 Notes WEB.notebook March 25, 2014

Youngs Creek Hydroelectric Project

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF PRAYS OLEAE (BERN.) BY CHRYSOPIDS IN TRAS OS-MONTES REGION (NORTHEASTERN PORTUGAL)

Tennessee Black Bear Public Opinion Survey

Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 143: JESO Volume 143, Optimization of synthetic pheromone blend for C. rosaceana

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Annual Report to. Almond Board of California. May 1, Project No.: 99-FZ-00 Insect and Mite Research

Solutionbank S1 Edexcel AS and A Level Modular Mathematics

Beverly Sauls SEDAR31-DW11. 5 August 2012

INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS ON FISHERY

save percentages? (Name) (University)

Adaptation to climate variation in a diversified fishery:

Deer Management Unit 252

INLAND MARITIME INITIATIVE: FOREST CARNIVORES. Winter 2011 Update

PHENOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BROWN MARMORATED STINK BUGS IN AND NEAR CALIFORNIA PEAR ORCHARDS

THUNDER BAY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Alewife Brook, Cape Elizabeth, River Herring Monitoring Summary 2015

Hook Selectivity in Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish when using circle or J Hooks

Deer Management Unit 349

Transcription:

Navel orangeworm biology, monitoring, and management Chuck Burks 1, Elizabeth Fichtner 2, and Brad Higbee 3 1 USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA 2 UCCE, Tulare, CA 3 Paramount Farming, Bakersfield, CA

Topics, NOW Monitoring and Management 1) Importance of NOW as a primary cause of damage 2) Source of NOW resident or immigrant populations? 3) Monitoring tools for NOW characterization of NOW Biolure 4) Pest management tactics for NOW

Importance of NOW as a primary cause of damage in walnuts

Harvest sampling procedures 1,000 nuts taken from center of block Three sampling times Pre-harvest (poled, end of August) First commercial shake (mid- September) Second commercial shake (early October) Expectation: CM damage stable past husk split; NOW increases

Percent insect damage by site and Percent insect damage by site and harvest, 2013 Site harvest Preharvest Harvest 1 Harvest 2 1 0.2 0.9 3.8 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.3 4 0.1 1.0 1.3 5 0.0 0.1 3.0 6 1.0 17.2 7 0.0 0.2 8 0.0 0.1 9 0.1 1.4 3.4 10 0.9 7.2 Significant trend of increasing damage Indicates that NOW is the primary cause of damage in these locations Problem blocks have been consistent (1, 6, 10) These are taller blocks

Does NOW damage come from resident or immigrant populations?

Monitoring for seasonal abundance 600 300 ft Feet south to north 400 200 300 ft 0 0 200 400 600 Feet west to east 10-acre plots

Seasonal abundance, males and eggs, two years A) Males, 2012 C) Males, 2013 NOW Males/week NOW Eggs/week 150 100 50 0 50 40 30 20 10 B) Eggs, 2012 B) Eggs, 2013 Biofix: males usually precede eggs Male data show presence throughout the growing season Egg detection poor, but showed second flight better than males 0 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep 01-Mar 01-May 01-Jul 01-Sep

Non-mating disruption sites for NOW dispersal comparison

Non-mating disruption sites for NOW dispersal comparison Expectation if males come from other nut crops Hypothetical relationship between males captured and distance to other nut crops Males/trap/week 100 75 50 25 0 0 1 2 3 Distance, miles More males if nearer other nut crops Slope and correlation coefficient are negative

No relation between distance from other nut crops and pheromone trap captures Year Flight Spearman r P 2012 1 0.20 0.67 2 0.43 0.33 3 0.43 0.33 2013 1 0.79 0.03 2 0.58 0.18 3 0.58 0.17 Observed associations positive (and generally not significant) Negative (inverse) relationship expected if other nut crops are sources of NOW infestation in walntus

Distribution of egg on traps in a walnut site next to almonds Almonds (Nonpareil and polinator) to the north (above) of a Serr block Egg traps are shortrange attractants Distribution of eggs on grid of 30 traps used to ask whether there are more eggs nearer the almonds than farther away

Distribution of egg on traps in a walnut site next to almonds 2012 Diameter of black dots proportional to eggs on trap positions (shown with red x There were not significantly more eggs in the north half than in the south half of the block

Distribution of egg on traps in a walnut site next to almonds 2013 Kuskal- Flight Side Eggs per trap Wallis H 1 North 68 ± 14 0.0039 South 61 ± 17 2 North 0 ± 0 3.2116 South 6 ± 4 3 North 27 ± 7 0.5417 South 28 ± 8 Nonparametric statistics used to compare eggs in north (newer almonds) and south (farther away). Differences between eggs in the two halves of the field were not statistically significant

Monitoring tools for NOW characterization of NOW Biolure

Comparison of NOW Biolure and unmated females Four traps four experiments 1) Wing vs. delta traps, unmated females only 2) Single-day experiment, almonds 3) Single-day experiment, walnuts 4) Season-long experiment, almonds and pistachios

Wing vs. LDP When both are baited with females, capture in wing and LDP traps is proportional to glue area (n = 8) Males/trap/week Trap Bait 150 100 50 0 a Wing Females b LDP

Four trap types almonds, 2012 Treatment effects (mean ± SE) Males/trap/week Trap 100 a 75 50 b 25 c c 0 Wing Wing LDP Bucket Bait Females NOW Biolure Replicated 4 x 4 Latin square Inter-trap distance 50 m 1-day interval Repeated measure 14 nights during September 2012 F = 32.2, df = 3,31; P < 0.0001

Four trap types walnuts, 2013 Serr Vina Chandler A B D C E 1 km 5000 ft Treatment effects (mean ± SE, n = 48) 300 a Males/trap/week Trap 200 b 100 c c 0 Wing Wing LDP Bucket Bait Females NOW Biolure Randomized blocks Inter-trap distance 180 m 14 nights during September 2013

Season-long trials, almonds & pistachios, 2013 Inter-trap distance 200 m Trapping interval 3-4 days Lures tested 4-5 weeks Randomized block design 6 plots in each crop Little difference between wing traps baited with females or NOW Biolure Wing traps consistently out-performed delta traps when both baited with NOW Biolure

Effect of Trap density in walnuts 2 Serr Vina Chandler 1 A B D 4 C E 3 1 km 5000 ft Serr and Vina more susceptible than Chandler March-August: femalebaited wing traps around periphery of block (1-4) September: replicates of trap-lure test (A-E)

Effect of Trap density in walnuts Period Trapping Unit Observation periods Males trapped March-August Trap 1 20 weeks 64 ± 4.9 Trap 2 20 weeks 64 ± 6.3 Trap 3 20 weeks 66 ± 7.1 Trap 4 20 weeks 54 ± 5.9 F 3,22 = 1.29 F 19,57 = 3.35*** September Plot A 3 days 116 ± 15a Plot B 3 days 115 ± 19a Plot C 3 days 87 ± 18ab Plot D 3 days 34 ± 5bc Plot E 3 days 21 ± 4c F 4,8 = 11.1*** F 2,8 = 1.3 Differences between varieties apparent with dense traps, not with sparse traps

Summary, characterization of NOW Biolure 1) Wing traps and LDP traps capture proportional to glue area when both are baited with unmated females. 2) In one-day trials, wing traps baited with NOW Biolure captured ~50% fewer males compared to wing traps baited with unmated females. LDP and bucket traps performed similarly, with 10-20% of the capture in female-baited wing traps. 3) In wing traps, the number of males captured with NOW Biolure and with live females was more similar in multi-day tests. 4) When examining adjacent blocks, there is a trade-off between trap independence and local information.

Pest management tactics for NOW

NOW mating disruption outcomes: 2012 and 2013 2012 2013 Four mating disruption plots Two mating disruption plots Males abundant prior to mating disruption, and near-complete trap suppression In proportion to pre-treatment, significantly fewer eggs in MD blocks High damage in some MD blocks Few males in MD blocks prior to treatment. A few (1-4) males captured in the blocks during the season Difference in proportion of eggs laid after treatment not significant High damage in some MD blocks

Mating disruption for NOW practical considerations Block size Canopy height Existing control

Insecticide timing: NOW and CM NOW Eggs/trap/week 80 60 40 10 5 2012 NOW Eggs CM Males 10 8 6 4 2 Codling moth males/trap/week NOW eggs: not representative for later flights CM 1B vs. start of NOW oviposition NOW Eggs/trap/week 0 0 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 50 2013 40 5 4 30 3 20 2 10 1 0 0 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 6 Codling moth males/trap/week NOW First CM Biofix Plus 600 DDF egg peak 4/7/2012 5/19/2012 4/20/2012 29 3/31/2013 5/11/2013 3/31/2013 41 Days difference

NOW Spring Treatment 40 acre block; presume northsouth (up-down) rows 10 acres grower standard 30 acres test regime

Treatment regimes Grower s standard: CM treatment, flight 1B, Altacor or Belt (IRAC 28) CM treatment, flight 2A, Lorsban (IRAC 1B) Husksplit treatment, Brigade (IRAC 3) NOW spring treatment Intrepid (IRAC 18A), full rate, at first peak egg activity Then follow grower s standard

Response variables Egg traps (to assist NOW treatment timing) Males in pheromone traps Total and NOW damage in harvest samples: Husksplit First commercial harvest 330 ft 990 ft 1320 ft

Conclusions 1) NOW was a more important cause of damage than CM over two years in most of the study sites examined 2) Problems at trouble sites are more likely due to residents than immigrants 3) NOW Biolure is an important step forward best used with wing traps. 4) For many blocks, important challenges must be overcome for mating disruption to be effective for NOW. NOW-specific management with insecticide can be improved.