Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council 2012 Research Report. Understanding foliar pest interactions for sustainable vine management

Similar documents
Managing potato leafhopper in wine grapes

Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council 2008 Research Report

Wine Grape: Cold Climate Viticulture

Vineyard Insect Management what does a new vineyard owner/manager need to know?

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 3 September 2012 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

Managing Insect Pests of Ripening Grapes

Leaf removal: a tool to improve crop control and fruit quality in vinifera grapes

Final Report. TITLE: Developing Methods for Use of Own-rooted Vitis vinifera Vines in Michigan Vineyards

SWD in Cherry. Larry Gut and Nikki Rothwell

Update on Small Fruit Insecticides for grapes, blueberries, and brambles. Rick Weinzierl University of Illinois

Chemical Control Options for SWD in Blueberries, Caneberries, Strawberries, Grapes, and Stone fruits

Tom Kuhar Associate Professor Dept. of Entomology Virginia Tech

2012 Research Report Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council

Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council 2014 Research Report. Biology and management of invasive insect pests in Michigan vineyards 2014

Report of Progress 961

Insect Pests of Cucurbits in New Hampshire

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL METHODS FOR GRAPE LEAFHOPPER: PART 2 FINAL REPORT 1/22/01

Crops - Commercial. Soybeans

Monitoring and Controlling Grape Berry Moth in Texas Vineyards

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 2 September 2013 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 26 July 2010 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

Mealybug Species. Vine Mealybug. Grape and Obscure Mealybugs. Longtailed Mealybug. Pink Hibiscus Mealybug. Gills Mealybug

Role of lygus bug in fruit deformity. IPM tools for managing lygus bug

Spotted Wing Drosophila and Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Updates

Title: Western New York Sweet Corn Pheromone Trap Network Survey

Greg Krawczyk, Larry A. Hull, Travis R. Enyeart and Margaret E. Reid

See page 7 for upcoming vineyard walks across Wisconsin - 4 locations

THE THREAT: The disease leads to dieback in shoots and fruiting buds and an overall decline in walnut tree health.

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 14 May 2012 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

Crops - Commercial. Soybean

Risk Assessment of Grape Berry Moth and Guidelines for Management of the Eastern Grape Leafhopper

Insect Control Research for Pecan

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 3 May 2010 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

Crops - Commercial. Soybeans

Sweet corn insect management by insecticides in Ohio, 2015 Final report 12/31/2015

Lack of irrigation in 2002 reduced Riesling crop in Timothy E. Martinson Finger Lakes Grape Program

First season experiences with Spotted Wing Drosophila

Control of Vine Mealybug, Planococcus ficus, in Wine Grapes using New Reduced-risk Insecticides in a Pest Management Program

Dry Beans XIII-5 Mexican Bean Beetle

Spider Mite Management in Walnuts. David Haviland Entomology Farm Advisor UCCE Kern County Tri-County Walnut Day, 2008

Sustainable grape production for the reestablishment of Iowa s grape industry

Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council 2015 Research Report. Biology and management of invasive insect pests in Michigan vineyards 2015

Citrus Crop Guide. New registration for citrus gall wasp

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 18 June 2012 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

Corn Earworm: Is It Resistant to Pyrethroids?

FALL TO WINTER CRANBERRY PLANT HARDINESS

Arthropod Management in California Blueberries. David Haviland and Stephanie Rill UC Cooperative Extension, Kern Co. Blueberry Field Day 20 May 2009

Volume XL Issue 1, March 31, General Situation

Corn Earworm Management in Sweet Corn. Rick Foster Department of Entomology Purdue University

SWD Management Recommendations for Michigan Blueberry

Aftermath of the 2007 Easter Freeze: Muscadine Damage Report. Connie Fisk, Muscadine Extension Associate Department of Horticultural Science, NCSU

Climate Limitations and Vineyards in Arizona

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 12 July 2010 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

2010 Winter Canola Variety Trial

Vegetable Insecticide Update. Final cancellation order for sulfoxaflor¹. Calypso 4 F (thiacloprid) Final cancellation order for sulfoxaflor

Demonstration Vineyard for Seedless Table Grapes for Cool Climates

Walnut Husk Fly: Biology, Monitoring and Management. R. A. Van Steenwyk Dept. of E.S.P.M University of California, Berkeley

Mechanical Canopy and Crop Load Management of Pinot Gris. Joseph P. Geller and S. Kaan Kurtural

Soil application of neonicotinoid insecticides for control of insect pests in wine grape vineyards

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 15 September 2014 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station

BIOLOGY, MONITORING, CONTROL & UPDATE ON THE SPOTTED-WING DROSOPHILA (SWD) Blair Sampson USDA-ARS Poplarville, MS

Rice Protection from Invertebrate Pests

See page 7 for upcoming vineyard walks across Wisconsin - 4 locations

LERGP Crop Update July 30, 2015

1. Continuing the development and validation of mobile sensors. 3. Identifying and establishing variable rate management field trials

Grape Weed Control. Harlene Hatterman-Valenti North Dakota State University

Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council Annual Report 2012

Management of Late-Season Infestations of Cotton Aphids and Sweetpotato Whiteflies (Strain B) in Pima Cotton in the San Joaquin Valley

Progress Report Submitted Feb 10, 2013 Second Quarterly Report

Update on microbial control of arthropod pests of strawberries

NEW ZEALAND AVOCADO FRUIT QUALITY: THE IMPACT OF STORAGE TEMPERATURE AND MATURITY

POWERFUL INSECT CONTROL IN CITRUS

Vineyard IPM Scouting Report for week of 28 September, 2009 UW-Extension Door County and Peninsular Agricultural Research Station Sturgeon Bay, WI

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Spotted wing drosophila in southeastern berry crops

WEED CONTROL IN SWEET CORN RESEARCH RESULTS 2006 PREPARED BY DARREN ROBINSON, RIDGETOWN CAMPUS FOR THE ONTARIO PROCESSING VEGETABLE GROWERS

Title: Control of Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in 'Jubilee' Sweet Corn in the Willamette Valley, 1987.

Management and research of fruit rot diseases in vineyards

Evaluation of Compost Teas for Disease Management of Wild Blueberries in Nova Scotia

THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HAIL ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF PUMPKINS AND TWO SQUASH VARIETIES

CULTURE Dr. Gary C. Pavlis, Ph.D. Atlantic County Agricultural Agent. INSECTS Dr. Cesar Rodriguez-Saona, Extension Specialist in Blueberry Entomology,

PROCESSING TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY

Marvin Butler, Rhonda Simmons, and Ralph Berry. Abstract. Introduction

EFFECT OF CULTURAL MANIPULATION OF "MUMMY" WALNUTS ON WINTER SURVIVAL OF NAVEL ORANGEWORM

Mechanical Shoot & Leaf Removal Practices. Sean Dean

New Research on Navel Orangeworm Management

Integrated Pest Management for Nova Scotia Grapes- Baseline Survey

Managing Spotted Wing Drosophila, Drosophila Suzukii Matsumara, In Raspberry.

Angel Rebollar-Alvitar and Michael A. Ellis The Ohio State University/OARDC Department of Plant Pathology 1680 Madison Avenue Wooster, OH 44691

Kelli Stokely Masters of Agriculture candidate Department of Horticulture Oregon Wine Research Institute

Report of Progress 945

Influence of GA 3 Sizing Sprays on Ruby Seedless

Prepared by Louise Ferguson, Mark Bell, Mark Henderson

Evaluation of 18 Bell Pepper Cultivars In Southwest Michigan

Southern Region Small Fruit Consortium Final Report Title: Final Report Grant Code: Research Project Personnel: Objectives: Justification:

Do lower yields on the vine always make for better wine?

2014 Agrium AT Fertilizer Trial Glen R. Obear and Bill Kreuser, Ph.D University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Objectives

Mating Disruption an AreawideApproach to Controlling the Borer Complex in cherry

Ohio Grape-Wine Electronic Newsletter

IPM Implementation benefits from the partnership between scientists and growers: a case study in a Tuscan wine-growing area

Transcription:

Michigan Grape & Wine Industry Council 2012 Research Report Understanding foliar pest interactions for sustainable vine management Rufus Isaacs 1, Steven Van Timmeren 1, and Paolo Sabbatini 2 1. Dept. of Entomology and 2. Dept. of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 ABSTRACT This project investigated the response of wine grapes to potato leafhopper (PLH) and Japanese beetle (JB) feeding damage. After exposing vines to low and high levels of PLH and JB feeding damage, no discernible effects were seen on vine growth or clusters produced, however JB feeding damage did have some effect on fruit quality. Bioassays were also conducted to determine the residual effectiveness of insecticides against PLH and JB. Several of the insecticides provided excellent control against PLH and JB through 14 days after treatment. The longer residual effectiveness of some of these compounds gives growers greater flexibility when deciding what and when to spray insecticides. GOALS & OBJECTIVES This project aims to improve understanding of the effects that potato leafhopper and Japanese beetle have on grape vine health and fruit production with the goal of reducing insecticide inputs and increasing flexibility in timing of insecticide applications when they do become necessary. Objectives 1. Determine whether the combination of PLH and JB feeding causes greater reduction in vine growth and fruit quality than either pest alone. 2. Compare insecticides for their speed and duration of activity against PLH and JB. 3. Develop and implement a thresholds-based canopy management strategy for Michigan winegrape growers. OUTCOMES This project builds on our previous study on potato leafhopper-vine interactions that resulted in recommendations for less intensive management of PLH in vineyards. Results from the first year of this study indicate that Japanese beetle feeding can be managed less intensively as long as sufficient time is given for vines to recover later in the summer. PROJECT PERIOD This project was conducted during the 2012 season and will continue through the 2013 season. 1

WORK ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE PERIOD Objective 1. Determine whether the combination of PLH and JB feeding causes greater reduction in vine growth and fruit quality than either pest alone. A mature Pinot gris vineyard was used to for experiments investigating the effect of PLH and JB feeding damage on vine growth and fruit quality. In June 2012, vines were exposed to a high or low level of PLH feeding through selective application of insecticides to the vines. Vines exposed to a high level of PLH feeding had significantly more leaves with PLH-induced yellowing (6.6 ± 1.0 leaves) than those exposed to a low level of PLH feeding (0.19 ± 0.1). In July 2012, vines were exposed to a high or low level of JB feeding by placing adult JB onto half of the vines and covering those vines with floating row cover mesh to keep the beetles in place. Vines exposed to adult JB had a higher percentage of leaf area removed (44.6 ± 5.4 percent) than vines that were not exposed to beetles (2.5 ± 0.8 percent). To measure the effect that PLH and JB feeding on the health of the grape vines, five grape shoots per vine were measured at three times during the 2012 season. No significant differences were found among any of the treatments, indicating PLH and JB feeding damage did not have any effect on shoot growth. In addition, there were no significant differences among treatments in the total number of clusters per vine or the weight of those clusters at harvest. Three sets of grape berry samples were collected in August 2012 at three, two, and one week prior to the final cluster harvest on 5 September 2012. These berry samples and the final cluster samples were analyzed for Brix, ph, and TA levels in order to determine if PLH and JB feeding affected how the grapes ripened. The level of PLH feeding had no significant effect on Brix, ph, or TA for any of the berry samples, nor for the clusters at harvest (Table 1, Fig. 1). However, there was a significant effect of JB feeding on the ph of berry samples at one and two weeks before harvest as well as on the ph of the clusters at harvest. Vines that had a high level of JB feeding had fruit with significantly lower phs. Also, vines with that received high PLH and high JB feeding levels had slightly lower Brix levels at harvest, although this decrease was not significant. The results from the first year of this study indicate that grape vines can handle a lot of feeding damage by more than one pest early in the season, as evidenced by the lack of significant differences in shoot growth and cluster number and weight. However, the significant effects on some aspects of the fruit quality indicate that the vines ability to fully recover from damage from both pests appears to be limited. The second year of this study will provide more insight on these results as well as shed light on whether damage inflicted in the first year has an effect on vine health and fruit quality in the second year. Objective 2. Compare insecticides for their speed and duration of activity against PLH and JB. Potted Riesling grapes were treated with one of 13 insecticides or left untreated. Pots were left outside exposed to all weather except rain. Specific chemicals and rates applied are located in Tables 3 and 4. At 1, 3, 7, and 14 days after treatment (DAT) five PLH nymphs were held in place on the underside of treated leaves using a clip cage. Cages were left in place for 24 hours at which point nymphs were classified as alive, moribund, or dead. These insecticide trials were conducted in June 2012 and were repeated in July 2012 for JB. Instead of clip cages, Japanese beetles were placed in a 32 oz deli cup along with the treatment grape leaf in a water pick. After 48 hours the percentage of leaf area removed by beetle feeding was visually estimated in five percent increments. 2

Results from the PLH bioassays indicate that most of the insecticides provided excellent control through 14 DAT (Table 2). The only products that did not provide much control were Azera, Evergreen, and Pyganic. These chemicals showed slight efficacy at 1 DAT but no efficacy past that point. Results from the JB bioassays were similar to the PLH bioassays (Table 3). Most of the insecticides prevented JB feeding through the 14 days of the study. The organic treatments again had slightly lower amounts of JB feeding early on, but not later on in the study. The exception to this was Evergreen which reduced JB feeding on the leaves through 7 DAT. Objective 3. Develop and implement a thresholds-based canopy management strategy for Michigan winegrape growers. Based on our results from this first year of the study, in 2013 we will work closely with four growers whose farms are being visited weekly to develop a management plan that takes into account the potential of vines to tolerate feeding by these foliage-infesting insects. These sites will then be monitored weekly for insect pests, and we will plan to avoid insecticide applications for PLH and treat for JB once populations get to the point where significant defoliation begins to occur. COMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES, ACCOMPLISHMENTS, AND IMPACTS Publications Van Timmeren, S., Wise, J.C., and Isaacs, R. (2012) Soil application of neonicotinoid insecticides for control of insect pests in wine grape vineyards. Pest Management Science. 68: 537-542. Presentations Update on insect management in vineyards. South West Michigan Research and Extension Center. July 25, 2012. 80 attendees. Grape insect management using models and new insecticides. Three invited presentations in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to National Grape Cooperative members. July 10-12, 2012. Total of 75 attendees. Integrating thresholds for leaf feeding pests into grape IPM programs. Isaacs, R. Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Convention. Niagara Falls, Canada. February 23, 2012. New insecticides and their fit for Michigan grape growers. Isaacs, R. Southwest Hort Days. Benton Harbor, Michigan. February 9 th 2012. Presentation slides available online: http://www.isaacslab.ent.msu.edu/extension_presentations.html FUNDING PARTNERSHIPS Funding from other projects from MGWIC and from US-EPA and chemical companies helped to support the technician working on this project. Acknowledgements We thank Pat Murad from the Dept. of Horticulture for fruit analysis and technical assistance with this project, and the farm management staff at TNRC as well as Delilah Clement, Emily Haas, Margie Lund, and Jacob Morden for technical help with this study. We also thank Doug Welsch for access to a site to collect insects, as well as the Michigan Grape and Wine Industry Council for financial support of this study. 3

Table 1. Brix, ph, and TA levels of Pinot gris grape clusters at harvest after exposure to low and high levels of potato leafhopper (PLH) and Japanese beetle (JB) feeding earlier in the2012 season. Means are presented ± SE. PLH JB Feeding Feedin Brix Level ph TA Level g Level Low Low 18.0 ± 0.5 3.7 ±.04 5.2 ± 0.2 Low High 16.6 ± 0.7 3.5 ±.03 5.6 ± 0.2 High Low 16.7 ± 0.6 3.6 ±.05 5.6 ± 0.3 High High 16.01 ± 0.6 3.5 ±.04 5.8 ± 0.2 4

Table 2. Percentage of PLH nymphs placed in clip cages on treated grape foliage that were moribund or dead after 24 hours. Nymphs were placed on treated foliage at 1, 3, 7, and 14 DAT. Percentages are presented ± SE. Treatment Rate per Acre 1 DAT 3 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT Untreated NA 8.3 ± 8.3 20 ± 14.1 22.5 ± 10.3 26.3 ± 4.7 Actara 25WG 3.5 oz 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 Admire Pro 1.4 oz 91.7 ± 8.3 95.8 ± 4.2 100 ± 0 95 ± 5 Assail 30SG 2.5 oz 93.8 ± 6.3 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 96.9 ± 3.1 Azera 2 pints 57.1 ± 18.5 20 ± 11.5 53.8 ± 21.7 22.5 ± 9.0 Baythroid XL 3.2 oz 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 Belay 2.13EC 4 oz 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 Brigade 2.4EC 6.4 oz 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 Danitol 2.4EC 10.6 oz 93.8 ± 6.3 90 ± 10 76.3 ± 17.7 100 ± 0 Evergreen EC 60-6 16 oz 58.8 ± 19.6 25 ± 9.6 15 ± 5 17.5 ± 11.8 Hero 2.13EC 10.3 oz 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 Pyganic 1.4EC 32 oz 45 ± 15 23.3 ± 3.3 25.4 ± 12.6 25.7 ± 5.7 Scorpion 35SL 5 oz 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 95 ± 5 100 ± 0 Sevin XLR+ 2 quarts 95 ± 5 95 ± 5 100 ± 0 100 ± 0 5

Table 3. Average percent leaf area removed by JB feeding on treated grape foliage for 48 hours. Potted grape vines were treated with insecticides and individual leaves and beetles were put in deli cups at 1, 3, 7, and 14 DAT. Percentages are presented ± SE. Treatment Rate per Acre 1 DAT 3 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT Untreated NA 53.8 ± 13.0 58.8 ± 5.2 65 ± 13.9 66.3 ± 6.9 Actara 25WG 3.5 oz 0.5 ± 0.3 13.8 ± 9.0 3 ± 1.1 2.8 ± 1.3 Admire Pro 1.4 oz 0.5 ± 0.3 1 ± 0 1 ± 0 0.3 ± 0.3 Assail 30SG 2.5 oz 0.3 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.3 2 ± 1 0.3 ± 0.3 Azera 2 pints 43.8 ± 15.6 37.5 ± 13.0 65 ± 13.2 47.5 ± 4.8 Baythroid XL 3.2 oz 0 ± 0 3.8 ± 3.8 0.3 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.3 Belay 2.13EC 4 oz 1 ± 0 0.3 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.3 1 ± 0 Brigade 2.4EC 6.4 oz 0.3 ± 0.3 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 Danitol 2.4EC 10.6 oz 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 0.3 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.3 Evergreen EC 60-6 16 oz 18.8 ± 7.7 20 ± 6.5 32.5 ± 4.3 65 ± 8.7 Hero 2.13EC 10.3 oz 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 0 ± 0 0.3 ± 0.3 Pyganic 1.4EC 32 oz 50 ± 11.7 38.8 ± 4.3 80 ± 7.4 82.5 ± 4.8 Scorpion 35SL 5 oz 0.5 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.3 Sevin XLR+ 2 quarts 0.3 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.3 0.5 ± 0.3 6

Figure 1. Brix, ph, and TA levels of Pinot gris berry samples taken at three, two, and one week prior to final harvest after exposure to low and high levels of potato leafhopper (PLH) and Japanese beetle (JB) feeding earlier in the2012 season. Means are presented ± SE. 7

Figure 2. Bioassay containers used for testing efficacy and residual effect of insecticides on potato leafhoppers (clip cage-top picture) and Japanese beetles (32 oz deli cup-bottom picture). 8