Deborah I. Breth, CCE-LOF Art Agnello, NYSAES, CU Elizabeth Tee, CCE-LOF
description
Transcript of Deborah I. Breth, CCE-LOF Art Agnello, NYSAES, CU Elizabeth Tee, CCE-LOF
NYFVI Grant – Feb. 07-Jan 09NYFVI Grant – Feb. 07-Jan 09Testing the “PETE” Insect Testing the “PETE” Insect Developmental Model to Developmental Model to
Limit Resurgence of CM in Limit Resurgence of CM in ApplesApples
Deborah I. Breth, CCE-LOFDeborah I. Breth, CCE-LOFArt Agnello, NYSAES, CUArt Agnello, NYSAES, CUElizabeth Tee, CCE-LOFElizabeth Tee, CCE-LOF
Funded by NYFVI and CCE-LOFFunded by NYFVI and CCE-LOF
PETE?PETE?
MSU model for 8 different fruit pestsMSU model for 8 different fruit pests ““Predictive Extension Timing Predictive Extension Timing
Estimator”Estimator” Listed universally as the timing Listed universally as the timing
model for CM in University model for CM in University Guidelines.Guidelines.
Does it work?Does it work?
Testing PETETesting PETE 2 high pressure and 2 low pressure blocks2 high pressure and 2 low pressure blocks Treatments include: Treatments include:
– a) MSU "PETE" CM model using first trap catch a) MSU "PETE" CM model using first trap catch of the season with first generation spray at of the season with first generation spray at 200-250 DD (using a base temperature of 50 200-250 DD (using a base temperature of 50 degrees F) and second generation spray at degrees F) and second generation spray at 1250 DD followed by a second application for 1250 DD followed by a second application for each generation 10-14 days after the first. each generation 10-14 days after the first. If greater than 5 moths per trap per week, If greater than 5 moths per trap per week, continue spraying for the third generationcontinue spraying for the third generation
– b) “Modified PETE” – based on seasonal trap b) “Modified PETE” – based on seasonal trap catch data managing the first generation as catch data managing the first generation as above, 200-250 DD50 F, but using a trap above, 200-250 DD50 F, but using a trap threshold of 5 moths per trap per week, threshold of 5 moths per trap per week, treating 7-10 days after exceeding that. treating 7-10 days after exceeding that.
– c) the grower standardc) the grower standard
Total Trap catch Per season -Total Trap catch Per season -20072007
Burnap Heberle Bartleson Brown
Total Avg CM per week
244 213 93 27
Total Avg OFM per week
382 253 163 207
Total Avg LAW per week
134 128 28 159
Brown Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Av
era
ge
# M
oth
s p
er
Tra
p
Brown CM
Brown OFM
Brown LAW
Brown CM Threshold
Brown 1st Gen OFM Threshold
Brown 2nd Gen OFM Threshold
Waterport Accumulated DD & Precip
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Acc
um
ula
ted
DD
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Pre
cip
(in
.)
Rain
Acc DD45
Acc DD50
Recommended Spray Dates – BrownRecommended Spray Dates – BrownPETE -Jun 10, 22, Jul 28, Aug 9 PETE -Jun 10, 22, Jul 28, Aug 9
Modified – Aug 15Modified – Aug 15
Brown Spray RecordsDate Material % Internal lep
PETE 12-Jun Imidan 70-W27-Jun Imidan 70-W17-Aug Assail 30 SG 0
Modified 11-Jun Danitol 2.4 EC17-Aug Assail 30 SG 0
GS 12-Jun Imidan 70-W17-Aug Assail 30 SG 0
Heberle Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ave
rag
e #
Mo
ths
per
Tra
p
CM
CM check
OFM
OFM check
LAW
CM Threshold
1st Gen OFM Threshold
2nd Gen OFM Threshold
Heberle Accumulated DD & Precip
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Acc
um
ula
ted
DD
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Pre
cip
(in
.)
Rain
ACC DD45
Acc DD50
Recommended Spray Dates – HeberleRecommended Spray Dates – HeberlePETE – Jun 7, 19, Jul 26, Aug 7PETE – Jun 7, 19, Jul 26, Aug 7
Modified – Jun 7, 19, Jul 1, 13, 25, Aug 10, 22, Sep 3, Modified – Jun 7, 19, Jul 1, 13, 25, Aug 10, 22, Sep 3, 1515
Heberle Spray RecordsDate Material % Internal lep
PETE 13-Jun Calypso29-Jun Calypso30-Jul Calypso *15-Aug Assail 30 SG12-Sep Assail 30 SG 7.6
Modified 13-Jun Calypso29-Jun Calypso10-Jul Danitol30-Jul Calypso15-Aug Assail 30 SG30-Aug Imidan12-Sep Assail 30 SG 3.7
GS 13-Jun Calypso29-Jun Calypso10-Jul Danitol30-Jul Calypso15-Aug Assail 30 SG12-Sep Assail 30 SG 8.3
Burnap Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ave
rag
e #
Mo
ths
per
Tra
p
CM
LAW
OFM
CM Threshold
1st Gen OFM Threshold
2nd Gen OFM Threshold
Harvest EvaluationsHarvest Evaluations
PressurPressuree FarmFarm TreatmentTreatment
MeansMeans
% clean% clean % int lep% int lep % worms% worms % sting% sting
LowLow Brown PETE 99.2 0.2 0 0.15
Modified PETE 98.5 0.1 0 0.5
Grower Std 98.5 0.7 0 0.3
Bartleson PETE 93.9 a* 0 0 b 2.3 a
Modified PETE 97.0 a 0 0 b 0.8 b
Grower Std 70.6 b** 0 0.5 a 0.3 b
HighHigh Burnap PETE 92.7 b 2.5 a 0.5 a 2
Modified PETE 94.9 ab 0.2 b 0 b 1.1
Grower Std 97.5 a 0.4 b 0.1 b 0.9
Heberle PETE 88.9 7.6 3.3 1.6 b
Modified PETE 91 3.7 1.7 3.3 ab
Grower Std 84.2 8.3 3.1 4.9 a
* - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm* - Numbers with letters following are statistically different by treatment for that farm
** - San Jose Scale infestation** - San Jose Scale infestation
NYFVI - Trap NetworkNYFVI - Trap Network Pheromone traps (163) Pheromone traps (163) 32 locations 32 locations to monitor adult CM, OFM, and LAW flight to monitor adult CM, OFM, and LAW flight use information to predict insect development and use information to predict insect development and
spray timing. spray timing. Traps were monitored weekly to maintain reliable Traps were monitored weekly to maintain reliable
data. data. The trap data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet The trap data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet
that could be viewed on the LOF website at that could be viewed on the LOF website at http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/lof/trapreports/index.htmlhttp://www.fruit.cornell.edu/lof/trapreports/index.html))
Harvest evaluations and spray records are being Harvest evaluations and spray records are being complied to help growers identify any weakness in complied to help growers identify any weakness in spray schedule. spray schedule.
2007 Harvest Survey2007 Harvest Survey
Number of growers – 78 Number of growers – 78 – (up from 49 in 2006)(up from 49 in 2006)
Number worms – 466Number worms – 466 CM – 83% - in 2002, 15%CM, 75% CM – 83% - in 2002, 15%CM, 75%
OFMOFM OFM/LAW – 16%OFM/LAW – 16% Unidentified – 8%Unidentified – 8% Number loads – 313 infestedNumber loads – 313 infested
Harvest SurveyHarvest Survey
Send letter to growers identifying Send letter to growers identifying ticket number, dates and variety, ticket number, dates and variety, and pest identified in loadand pest identified in load
Hope to identify specific problem Hope to identify specific problem areasareas
Increases awareness of a growing Increases awareness of a growing problem that will impact on the problem that will impact on the economics of the fruit industry. economics of the fruit industry.
Managing CM and OFM with Managing CM and OFM with Mating DisruptionMating Disruption
Isomate CM/OFM TT – 200 per acreIsomate CM/OFM TT – 200 per acre Second season at Kast and RussellSecond season at Kast and Russell Splat – ISCA Tech formulation for CM and Splat – ISCA Tech formulation for CM and
OFM to apply before fruit set for full OFM to apply before fruit set for full season controlseason control
Checkmate CM-F, OFM-F – apply 2 Checkmate CM-F, OFM-F – apply 2 applications per generation, continued applications per generation, continued regular insecticide applications the first regular insecticide applications the first seasonseason
Kalir MD vs Grw Std
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5/7
/20
07
5/1
4/2
00
7
5/2
1/2
00
7
5/2
8/2
00
7
6/4
/20
07
6/1
1/2
00
7
6/1
8/2
00
7
6/2
5/2
00
7
7/2
/20
07
7/9
/20
07
7/1
6/2
00
7
7/2
3/2
00
7
7/3
0/2
00
7
8/6
/20
07
8/1
3/2
00
7
8/2
0/2
00
7
8/2
7/2
00
7
9/3
/20
07
9/1
0/2
00
7
9/1
7/2
00
7
9/2
4/2
00
7
Mo
ths
pe
r tr
ap
CM-MD
OFM-MD
LAW-MD
CM-GS
OFM-GS
CM Threshold
1st Gen OFM Threshold
2nd Gen OFM Threshold
Internal Lep damageSPLAT - 1.2 %, 0 worms Grw Std - 16.6%, 2.2 % wormsOP's - 3, Pyrethroids - 3, Neonic - 3
Mating Disruption with SPLAT for CM/OFM by ISCA Technologies - 2007
Morrisey Internal Lep Trap Catch 2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ave
rag
e #
Mo
ths
per
Tra
p
OFM
High CM
Low CM
CM
CM Threshold
1st Gen OFM Threshold
2nd Gen OFM Threshold
Internal Lep DamageCheckmate CM F + OFM F - 1 %, 0.3% worms
OP's - 3, Pyrethroids - 1, Neonics - 5
Mating Disruption with Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F Sprayable by Suterra – 2007
Checkmate CM-F/OFM-F Checkmate CM-F/OFM-F Spray RecordsSpray Records
20062006 20072007
KASTKASTGrwGrwStdStd MD MD
GrwGrwStdStd
OPOP 77 22 55
IGRIGR 11
PyrethroidPyrethroid 11 11 11
NeonicNeonic 22 55 22
BioBio 00 00 00
AvauntAvaunt 00 00 00
Cost ($)Cost ($) 206206 220*220* 158158
% internal lep% internal lep 3.43.4 1.01.0 7.27.2
* Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost $164/acre* Checkmate CM-F and OFM-F additional cost $164/acre
Does it pay if MD is Does it pay if MD is 100-150/acre?100-150/acre?
If 1000 bu/acreIf 1000 bu/acre If 40 lb/buIf 40 lb/bu If 9.5/lb for peelers and cannersIf 9.5/lb for peelers and canners If 7/lb for juiceIf 7/lb for juice
Then lose $1000 per acreThen lose $1000 per acre If 5/lb for juiceIf 5/lb for juice Then lose $1800 per acreThen lose $1800 per acre
SummarySummary Critical to know which leps are problemsCritical to know which leps are problems CM is primary pest for most farms where CM is primary pest for most farms where
internal lep pests are a problem, internal lep pests are a problem, – but not all !!but not all !!
Mating Disruption is viable option for high Mating Disruption is viable option for high pressure orchards – need full insecticide pressure orchards – need full insecticide program the first seasonprogram the first season
Adds significant expense to spray cost ?Adds significant expense to spray cost ? Need cost analysis…rejected loads cost Need cost analysis…rejected loads cost
$500-1800 per acre depending on yield $500-1800 per acre depending on yield per acre and varietyper acre and variety