IPM in Small Fruits Focusing on Strawberries and Grapes

Oscar E. LiburdEntomology and NematologyUniversity of Florida Gainesville

Outline

Overview of UF Small Fruit & Vegetable IPM Program

Strawberry Pest Management

IPM in Grapes

Program Overview

Emphasis - Small Fruit

- Blueberries- Strawberries- Grapes- Brambles (raspberries/blackberries)

Minor Projects- Vegetables (Cucurbits)- Citrus (Caribbean fruit fly)

Integrated Pest Management

Overall Program Goal

To cooperate with the small fruit and vegetable industries, researchers and extension personnel to propose, develop and deliver IPM programs that will reduce growers' reliance on pesticides withthe ultimate goal of protecting humans and the environment

Laboratory Research Focus:

To investigate the behavioral and ecological factors affecting key fruit and vegetable pests and to develop ecologically-based pestmanagement programs

Small Fruit Entomology Field Research CenterUF/IFAS Plant Research Unit, Citra, FL

Strawberries2 ac

Grapes 1.5 acBlueberries

SouthernHighbush

1 ac

•Star• Emerald• Millennia• Jewel

BlueberriesRabbiteye

0.5 ac• Bright-well• Powder-blue• Premier• Climax

Blackberries0.5 ac

Raspberries0.5 ac

• Carlos• Nobel.• Blanc du Bois• Conquistador.

IPM Tactics Currently being Investigated for ManagingKey Small Fruit and Vegetable Pests

Monitoring Sampling

Pheromone

Biological Control

Attract & Kill Systems Cultural Techniques

Strawberry Pest Management TEAM

Jeff WhiteElena Rhodes Crystal Kelts

Aimee Fraulo

Background Strawberry Production in Florida

• Florida ranks 2nd behind CA

• Produces 100% of the domestically grown winter strawberries on ~ 7000 acres

• $190 million value

• Key pest

Twospotted spider mite TSSMTetranychus urticae Koch

TSSM Injury on Strawberries

Traditional Florida TSSM Control Program

• Frequent applications of Vendex®(fenbutatin-oxide)

• Predatory mites

- 90% of the growers- Phytoseiulus persimilis Athias-Henriot

TSSM Recommended Management Program

Innundative Releasesof predatory mites

Selective reduced-risk pesticides

Integration of tactics

Effective Sampling

Objectives:

To evaluate the potential of using predatory mites and reduced-risk miticides for controlling TSSM population

To investigate the effects of cultural factors on TSSM populations [soil moisture and timed releases of predatory mites]

Strawberry IPM Program

0

4

8

Acram

Wip

eout

Vendex

Repel

Control

mea

n #

of T

SSM

0

4

8

Acram Wipeout Vendex Repel Control

mea

n #

of T

SSM

48 h POA

12 h POA

Screening of Reduced-risk and Conventional Miticides for Control of TSSMin Greenhouse Grown Strawberries

Elena Rhodes

University of Florida

Establishing TSSM Population

• Laboratory Experimental Protocol

– Mite-free strawberry plants variety “Festival” were placed into previously constructed cages

– Ten TSSM were released onto each plant and allowed to multiply for 2 weeks

– After two weeks, 1 leaflet from each plant was collected. The number of TSSM motiles and eggs on each leaflet were counted

Elena Rhodes

University of Florida

Elena Rhodes

University of Florida

– Predatory mites were released onto each plant 3 days after the initial sample was taken

– Setup:• Fifteen replicates of three trt

– Untreated (control) plants– 10 P. persimilis per plant– 10 Neoseiulus californicus

(McGregor) per plant

– TSSM and predatory mitepopulations were sampled once a week for ~ 4 weeks

Elena Rhodes

University of Florida

Releasing Predatory Mites

Laboratory Experimental Protocol cont’d

05

1015202530354045

1 2 3

Week after predatory mite release

Mea

n #

of T

SSM

egg

s

CNP

a

a

b bb

ab

Rhodes and Liburd, 2006 J. Econ. Entomol. 99: 1291-1298

Evaluation of Predatory Mites (Eggs)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3

Week after predatory mite release

Mea

n #

of T

SSM

mot

iles

CNP

a

a

bb

bab

Rhodes and Liburd, 2006 J. Econ. Entomol. 99: 1291-1298

Evaluation of Predatory Mites (Motiles)

24 ft.20 ft.

24 ft.

40 ft.

Field # 1

170 ft

P P

P P

PP

C C

C C

C C

A A

A A

A A

N N

N N

N N

11

2 3 4

2

3

4

5 6

Evaluation of Predatory Mites

Field Experiment

• Completely randomized block

• Six replicates per TRT

• Samples were taken once per week

• 6 leaflets per plot)

• Predators were released into N and Pplots, at the rate of 1 predator for 10 TSSM

Elena Rhodes

University of Florida

Evaluation of Predatory Mites

Field Experiment #1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

pretrt early mid early-late late

Period

TSSM

mot

iles

per l

eafle

t

CPNA

a

a

ab

cbc

bb

b

Rhodes and Liburd (2006) J. Econ. Entomol. 99: 1291-1298

Average TSSM motiles for five periods during the season

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

C A Nc Pp

Treatment

Yiel

d (k

g)

b bab

a

Rhodes and Liburd (2006)J. Econ. Entomol. 99: 1291-1298

Mean ± Yield per Treatment in Strawberries

Field Experiment # 2

Evaluation of Combination Treatments

Average TSSM motiles in three periods during the season

0

10

20

30

40

50

mid early-late late

Period

TSSM

mot

iles

per

leaf

let

CPNAP/NA/NA/P

a

b

bcc ccc

a

bbc

cd cddd

Rhodes et al. 2006 Exp. Appl. Acarol. 39: 213-225

• Laboratory– Both P. persimilis and N. californicus suppressed populations of TSSM

on strawberry plants below levels found in the control

• Field– Applications of Acramite effectively controlled TSSM populations in

the field

– N. californicus gave better control of TSSM populations in the field than did P. persimilis

– Yield was highest from the N. californicus treated plots and lowest from the untreated control plots

– Releasing both species in combination does not appear to be an economical strategy since it is not any better than using N. californicusalone

Conclusions

Future Research (strawberries)

• Spectral analysis of strawberry leaves and GIS/GPS mapping to locate mite “hot spots” in field and to determine timing of early season predatory releases

• Identify the major families of naturally occurring predators throughout the growing season and determine their impact onour releases and TSSM

Grape Root BorerGrape Root BorerVitaceaVitacea polistiformispolistiformis (Harris)(Harris)

R. Bessin, University of Kentucky www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/fruit/ef220.htm

Scott Weihman, University of Florida

Grape Root Borer adult femaleGrape Root Borer adult female Grape Root Borer adult maleGrape Root Borer adult male

Scott Weihman

Previous work by Snow et al. (1991) and Webb et al. (1992)found high populations of GRB throughout Florida

Typical Signs of Grape Root Borer Infestation

Wilting and die-back

Yellowing of leaves

Stunted growth

Decreased yield

Adult female start flying (June- Oct.)

Oviposition(4-5days)

Eggs

Eggs hatch (8- 12 days)

1st Instar ( larvae)2nd Instar

3rd Instar

4th Instar

5th Instar

Pupation

Winter 1

Summer/ Fall 1

Summer 1

Early summer 1

Spring 1

Summer 2

Winter 2

Spring 2

Late spring 2

Objectives (Grapes)

To monitor populations of GRB in the major grape growing areas of Florida and to examine seasonal flight patterns and degree of infestation in vineyards within regions

To compare the effectiveness of bucket traps versus winged traps in capturing GRB

To investigate the effect of trap colors on captures of GRB

To investigate alternatives to Lorsban® 4E (chlorpyrifos)

Monitoring Protocol

12 vineyards located in different regions (north, centraland south) of Florida were monitored

Four pheromone baited traps were used per vineyard~ 30 m apart.

- GRB pheromoneE2Z13-18Ac (99)Z3Z13-18Ac (1)

Traps were monitored weekly from June to Septemberand GRB were counted and removed during each monitoringinterval

Investigation of seasonal flight patterns

0100

200300

400

June July Augus t Septem ber October

0100200

300400

June July Augus t Septem ber October

0

100

200

300

400

June July August September October

Mean number of GRB trapped per week throughout Florida A

vera

ge n

umbe

r pe

r w

eek

Northern

Central

Southern

450

275

130

R2 = 0.7885

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Age (years)

Num

ber o

f GR

B c

aptu

red

Age of vineyard was correlated with infestation levels. the older the vineyard the higher the infestation levels

Relationship Between Age of the Vineyard and GRB Infestation

0

2

4

6

8

Type of trap used for GRB.

Estim

ated

num

ber

of in

sect

s pe

rw

eek

Bucket

Sticky

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

June July August September OctoberAve

rage

num

ber o

f GR

B c

aptu

red

per

mon

th

Repeated measures analysisUsing 3 vineyards

Performance of Baited Winged and Bucket Traps in FloridaVineyards (2003)

Effect of Trap Color

Capture of GRB in Different Colored TrapsCapture of GRB in Different Colored Traps

05

10

15202530

3540

Green Yellow White Blue

Trap Color

Mea

n W

eekl

y Tr

ap C

atch

es

dfdf=48,19; =48,19; FF=8.49; =8.49; PP < 0.0001< 0.0001

Alternatives to Lorsban® 4E

Twist-ties were applied at a rate of 250 per acre(~ one per vine)

LastCall®GRB was applied at 900 droplets (45g) per acre (~ 3.5 drops per vine)

Lorsban® 4E was applied at a rate of ½ pt/100 gal of water

Untreated (Control)

Completely randomized block with 4 replicates

0

10

20

30

40

50

Twist Ties LastCallGRB Lorsban Control

Treatments

Mea

n Se

ason

al T

rap

Cap

ture

s

b

b

aa

Captures of GRB in Florida Vineyards

05

1015202530354045

June July August September October

Months

Ave

rage

# o

f GR

B/m

onth

Twist TiesLastCallGRBLorsbanControl

Captures of GRB in Florida Vineyards

Peak emergence of Northern vineyards occurred one month earlier (August) compared with central and southern vineyards

Bucket traps consistently performed better than intercept winged traps in our monitoring program

Trap shut down occurred in plots treated with Shin-Etzu twist-ties. This may indicate and that males were unable to find calling females

Conclusions

LastCall®GRB appeared to be effective. However, towards the end of each six wk period, LastCall®GRB became less effective due to the weathering of the matrix

Pheromone baited traps in the control and blocks treated with Lorsban 4E caught an average of 2.7 times as many GRB as blocks that had twist-ties

Conclusions Cont’d

Acknowledgements

• Jaycee Turner/Gissette Seferina• Alejandro Arevalo• Craig Roubos• Teresia Nyoike• Citra Plant Science Agricultural Research Unit• UF IFAS Statistics Dept.