Upload
others
View
15
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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