Oscar E. Liburd P r o f e s s o r , E n t o m o l o g y & N e m a t o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a

Lindsy E. Iglesias M . S . S c h o o l O f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s & E n v i r o n m e n t , E n t o m o l o g y & N e m a t o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y O f F l o r i d a

IPM Techniques to Address the Invasive Spotted Wing Drosophila

in Blueberries

Overview

1. Blueberry Production in the Southeastern US

2. Introduction to SWD

3. Current Research Oviposition Behavior

Florida Distribution

Monitoring

Chemical Control

4. IPM Recommendations

5. Future Research

Blueberry Production in the Southeast

~136,600,000 lbs (USDA-NASS 2011)

Southeast produces 32% of U.S. total (USDA-NASS 2011)

Key Blueberry Pests in the Southeastern US

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/LyraEDISServlet?command=getThumbnailImage&oid=1358134

Blueberry Gall Midge

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tb

n0

.gst

atic

.com

/im

ages

?q=

tbn

:AN

d9

GcS

GF

tmY

X8

2Vc_

Fp

q1C

Tu

6V

E-J

Bp

9h

TU

Ao_

Bh

Mx9

Fu

blW

39oB

AX

9

Blueberry Maggot

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tbn

3.gs

tati

c.co

m/i

mag

es?q

=tb

n:A

Nd

9GcQ

9JX

B-g

Jbn

qu9S

MM

oUF

gU-

g9en

nE

Lrr

VU

lGSL

CG

Y21

IWei

mX

aP

Western Flower Thrips

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tb

n2.

gsta

tic.

com

/im

ages

?q=

tbn

:AN

d9G

cTY

0IJ

7wlD

3eF

LJ6

VO

R6G

Ne0

EC

7KH

dx_

XjO

my

A_

E75

m5w

NC

L7m

J

Spotted Wing Drosophila

Early Season Mid Season

Cranberry Fruitworm

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tb

n0

.gst

atic

.com

/im

ages

?q=

tbn

:AN

d9

GcQ

NN

28vw

0I9

Rm

0kL

iMq3

ccgi

ifoT

HiS

BB

3Kqr

41q

RvL

t7V

Riu

9jX

A

SWD Global Distribution

Japan 1916 – Identified by Matsumura in 1931

Hawaii 1980 – first in US

California 2008

Washington & Oregon 2009

European countries

Other US states

Florida 2009

US picture with red countries

SWD Records in the Southeastern US

Identification of SWD

Family Drosophilidae “Vinegar flies” “Fruit flies” “Pomace flies”

Male Dark spots on wings Two bands on forelegs

Female Serrated ovipositor No wing spots

Male SWD Female SWD

htt

p:/

/ext

ensi

on.p

su.e

du

/veg

etab

le-f

ruit

/fac

t-sh

eets

/sp

otte

d-w

ing-

dro

sop

hil

a

SWD Lifecycle

htt

p:/

/jen

ny.

tfre

c.w

su.e

du

/op

m/g

alle

ry.p

hp

?pn

=16

5

Egg 1-3 days

Larvae 5-7 days

Pupae 4-15 days

Adult 21- 63 days* Oviposition 1-2 days Fecundity 200-600 eggs

Host Injury

Scars on berry upon insertion of the ovipositor

• Berry browns and softens as larvae develop inside

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tbn

2.g

stat

ic.c

om/i

mag

es?q

=tb

n:A

Nd

9G

cQxd

0-

Y8

B1Y

Z5o

8G

JFqJ

fML

Erf

Sij

AN

ZC

mx_

Fd

I-Ie

K5j

Wrm

owi

Key Small Fruit Hosts in the Southeast

Ph

oto

cou

rtes

y of

E. W

eibe

lzah

l

Ph

oto

cou

rtes

y of

E. W

eibe

lzah

l

Ph

oto

cou

rtes

y of

E. W

eibe

lzah

l P

hot

o co

urt

esy

of L

.E. I

gles

ias

htt

p:/

/im

g4-3

.su

nse

t.ti

mei

nc.

net

/i/1

99

9/0

1/ra

spbe

rrie

s-m

ain

-m-m

.jpg?

300

:30

0

M o n i t o r i n g f o r S W D

What Areas of the State are Infested with SWD?

2012 SWD Distribution in FL

15 blueberry farms sampled in 9 counties

4 to 6 traps set at each location

Traps serviced weekly for 4 to 11 weeks February 14 to May 17

Trap Design

Plastic cup with yellow visual stimulus and lid

8 to 10 holes along top

150 ml ACV

2 drops odorless dish soap

Twist-tie

Mean SWD By County

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Me

an

SW

D p

er

Tra

p

County from North to South

b

a

d d cd

bc

d

bcd cd

P < 0.05

Mean Female And Male SWD By County

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Me

an

SW

D p

er

Tra

p

County from North to South

Female

Male

* P < 0.05

*

*

* *

Distribution of SWD Findings

SWD present in 8 of 9 major blueberry producing counties Highest mean in Citrus

Absence in DeSoto suggests higher temperatures early in the season may help prevent establishment

Higher numbers of females in Alachua, Citrus, Orange, and Putnam suggest counting males may not provide accurate estimate of total SWD population

M o n i t o r i n g f o r A d u l t S W D

What is the Most Effective Trapping System for SWD?

Comparison of Traps

A B(yel) C(soap) D(card) Control

• Location: Citrus County • RCBD with 4 replicates • Traps serviced and rotated weekly

Trap Study Results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Mean SWD per Trap

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mean Male and Female per Trap

F

M

Me

an

SW

D p

er

Re

pli

cate

Me

an

SW

D C

oll

ect

ed

pe

r T

rap

* P < 0.05 Treatment

a

a

a

a

b

Trap Study Findings

Control not recommended

Visual lure, sticky card nor soap significantly affected SWD capture

Generally more females

ACV more attractive to females?

Greater female to male ratio in field?

Is ACV most attractive bait?

M o n i t o r i n g f o r A d u l t S W D

What is the Most Effective Bait for SWD?

Current and Future Baits

Current Apple Cider Vinegar Yeast-Sugar Mixture Fermented Fruit

New Possibilities Merlot + Rice Vinegar Merlot + Red Wine

Vinegar Landolt et al. 2012

Bait Study: ACV vs. Yeast-Sugar

Treatments

ACV Yeast-sugar

No Soap, No YSI No Soap, No YSI

No Soap, YSI No Soap, YSI

Soap, No YSI Soap, No YSI

Soap, YSI Soap, YSI

YSI = yellow sticky insert

Larval Monitoring

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Program/305/Oct2010GrapeWorkshop/JanaLee_Corvallis%20OR.pdf

1. Sample >30 edible berries 2. Place in resealable plastic bag 3. Lightly crush berries 4. Add sugar/salt solution 5. Allow fruit to sink,10-15 mins 6. Larvae will float to surface

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tb

n0

.gst

atic

.com

/im

ages

?q=

tbn

:AN

d9

GcR

srrT

Vc3

69

4V

ICZ

dM

Nh

55n

hY

7Wto

0Ii

2_

HT

Aat

mB

0Y

8W

gnV

Qq

8

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tbn

3.g

stat

ic.c

om/i

mag

es?q

=tb

n:A

Nd

9G

cQ_

-B

hjz

573J

E-N

22jW

sJC

QQ

e47M

QS

QfB

aVgu

mY

oYK

Fh

Ech

Kh

6y

¼ cup salt/sugar 4 cups water

Blueberry Maggot vs. SWD

Shape SWD tapered at both ends

BB Maggot tapered anterior, flattened posterior

Size Full-grown BB Maggot 2x full-grown

SWD

May appear similar when young

http://ncsmallfruitsipm.blogspot.com/2012/02/larvae-in-fruit-distinguishing-between.html

C o n t r o l T e c h n i q u e s

How Effective Are Standard Labeled Pesticides Against SWD?

Chemical Techniques

Trade Name Type PHI Organic?

Malathion Organophosphate 1 day

Mustang Max TM Pyrethroid 1 day

Danitol® Pyrethroid 3 day

Delegate® Spinosyn 3 day

Entrust Spinosyn 3 day Y

PyGanic Pyrethroid 0 day Y

Pesticides should be rotated with different modes of action to avoid resistance development

Pesticide Efficacy Study

Bel4 Mus4 Bel6 Del6 Dan10.3 Cont Dan16 Buffer

• Treatments sprayed in field with CO2 backpack

• Treatments • BelayTM at 4 oz/ac

• BelayTM at 6 oz/ac

• Danitol® at 10.333 oz/ac

• Danitol® at 16 oz/ac

• Mustang® at 4 oz/ac

• Delegate® at 6 oz/ac

• Water treated control

Pesticide Efficacy Study

Four branches selected from each treatment, placed in bioassay in lab 1, 3, 7, 14 days after application (DAA) Uniform berry number

Range of ripeness stages

10 male and 10 female

introduced into separate chambers

Adult Activity

Measured daily for 72 h after flies introduced

Observed for 5 mins

Activity Scale:

0 Fly death

1 Response to tapping, inverted or twitching

2 Decrease response to tapping

3 Fly in its natural state, unaltered activity

Response of Female SWD to Standard Pesticides

Trt Bel4 Bel6 Dan10.3 Dan16 Mus4 Del6 Cont

Day 1 2.57 ± 0.10 2.42 ± 0.05 1.82 ± 0.06* 1.70 ± 0.14* 1.73 ± 0.09* 1.00 ± 0.36* 2.72 ± 0.08

Day 3 2.37 ± 0.05 2.46 ± 0.13 2.18 ± 0.11* 2.23 ± 0.10* 2.04 ± 0.15* 2.42 ± 0.11 2.85 ± 0.14

Day 7 2.73 ± 0.04 2.72 ± 0.06 2.51 ± 0.08* 2.32 ± 0.10* 2.62 ± 0.07 2.51 ± 0.02* 2.87 ± 0.03

Day 14 2.87 ± 0.12 2.98 ± 0.07 2.79 ± 0.05 2.86 ± 0.05 2.56 ± 0.11* 2.64 ± 0.04 2.93 ± 0.11

Average female adult activity per 24-h period for each treatment by DAA.

Asterisk (*) and highlighting indicates significant difference when compared with the control as P < 0.05.

Response of Male SWD to Standard Pesticides

Trt Bel4 Bel6 Dan10.3 Dan16 Mus4 Del6 Cont

Day 1 2.57 ± 0.11 2.33 ± 0.20 0.98 ± 0.32* 1.03 ± 0.11* 0.78 ± 0.14* 1.45 ± 0.19* 2.86 ± 0.08

Day 3 2.56 ± 0.05 2.41 ± 0.08 2.25 ± 0.26* 2.04 ± 0.26* 2.47 ± 0.03 2.12 ± 0.20* 2.79 ± 0.11

Day 7 2.68 ± 0.13 2.64 ± 0.09 2.03 ± 0.12* 2.27 ± 0.07 2.41 ± 0.07 2.78 ± 0.08 2.72 ± 0.03

Day 14 2.83 ± 0.05 --- ** 2.74 ± 0.11 2.60 ± 0.05 2.42 ± 0.13 2.72 ± 0.09 2.99 ± 0.04

Average male adult activity per 24-h period for each treatment by DAA

Asterisk (*) and highlighting indicates significant difference when compared with the control as P < 0.05. **Bel6 (Day 14) all male flies lost due to freezing process.

Which Pesticides Reduce Larval Survival to the Next Generation?

Females removed 72 h

after introduction

Emerging flies counted daily for 48 h after females removed

Data collection began when the first flies emerged

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tbn

1.gs

tati

c.co

m/i

mag

es?q

=tb

n:A

Nd

9G

cTY

oqW

pT

ER

p-

n2F

cvP

09

4L

Wv4

nkO

3xoF

3Ig

PX

m0

k_h

fuol

Yc7

c78

w

htt

ps:

//en

cryp

ted

-tb

n1.

gsta

tic.

com

/im

ages

?q=

tbn

:AN

d9

GcS

nd

g0P

Ctm

F_

c3ID

_T

uzt

W9

9-_

NX

DvX

22H

p6

OO

2O-g

ikZ

qAis

T2

Larval Survival

Trt Bel4 Bel6 Dan10.3 Dan16 Mus4 Del6 Cont

Day 1 0.37 ± 0.17 0.20 ± 0.07 0.08 ± 0.06* 0.01 ± 0.01* 0.17 ± 0.15 0.60 ± 0.52 1.36 ± 0.44

Day 3 0.49 ± 0.23 0.35 ± 0.13 0.26 ± 0.25 0.24 ± 0.21 0.21 ± 0.17 0.46 ± 0.22 0.26 ± 0.09

Day 7 2.35 ± 0.78 0.96 ± 0.73 0.38 ± 0.23 0.46 ± 0.33 0.76 ± 0.45 0.93 ± 0.34 1.21 ± 0.51

Day 14 2.91 ± 1.67 1.12 ± 0.54 0.44 ± 0.14 1.19 ± 0.95 0.66 ± 0.31 1.50 ± 0.60 2.52 ± 0.79

Average number of emerging flies per berry by treatment for each DAA.

Asterisk (*) and highlighting indicates significant difference as P < 0.05.

Pesticide Efficacy Findings

Danitol®, Mustang Max® and Delegate® performed equally well at reducing adult SWD activity No differences between Danitol® 10 oz and 16 oz rates

Danitol® appears to be effective in preventing SWD larval survival to the next generation

BelayTM at 4 and 6 oz/acre were not effective in suppressing adult activity or larval survival throughout study

General IPM Recommendations

Weekly monitoring using cup traps ACV or yeast-sugar mixture bait

1 trap per 5-acre block

Field borders and center of field

Cultural Techniques Sanitation

Frequent harvesting

Removal of culls

Chemical control Reduced-risk pesticides according to label rates

Rotate classes

Begin implementing management programs when berries are full green.

Future Research Considerations

Evaluation of traps and lures (field and lab experiments)

Reduced-risk and biological chemical controls

Evaluation of sugar as a bait in pesticides

Site characteristics effect on SWD population

Acknowledgements

UF Fruit & Vegetable IPM Lab Elke Weibelzahl

Janine Razze

Sara Brennan

Ruohan Li

Elena Rhodes

Teresia Nyoike

Nicole Benda

Tamika Garrick

Lindsy Iglesias

• NFREC-Suwannee Valley • PSREU • All participating growers

Photo courtesy of E. Rhodes