Using Trap Crops to Control Developing Trap Crops for ... · Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs & ......
Transcript of Using Trap Crops to Control Developing Trap Crops for ... · Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs & ......
4/13/2016
1
Using Trap Crops to Control
Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs &
The Feasibility of Biodegradable
Mulches
Annette Wszelaki
Commercial Vegetable Specialist
Developing Trap Crops for Organic
Management of Native and Invasive
Stink Bugs in Peppers
Background
• Organic growers lack effective stink bug
management
– Feeds on many crops
– Moves to crops based on season
– Colonizes fields from edge
• Sunflower trap border delayed BMSB
colonization in organic peppers and
tomatoes in West Virginia (Mathews
unpublished)
Effective Trap Crops
Good candidates
• Highly attractive when stink bugs are moving
to crops and when cash crop is fruiting
• Non-competitive with cash crops in close
vicinity (i.e., no reduction in yields)
• Potentially provide other ecosystem services
(e.g., attract and/or provision natural enemies
to enhance biological control)
4/13/2016
2
2014 Multi-State Trap Crop Study
PI/Site State # Sites # Reps
Nielsen/RAREC NJ 1 4
Nielsen/Muth NJ 1 1
Mathews/Redbud WV 1 4
Dively/UMD MD 1 4
Pfeiffer/VATech VA 1 1
Moore/OCU TN 1 3
Kotcon/WVU WV 1 4
Welty/Stratford OH 1 1
Welty/Bridgeman OH 1 1
Walgenbach/Sizemore NC 1 1
Zinati/Rodale PA 1 4
Totals: 8 11 28
• Evaluate sunflower and sorghum trap crop for bell
peppers, 8 states:
Design
• Bell peppers
(‘Aristotle’) , single
row in black plastic
• Trap crop border
(4’ wide)
sunflower and
sorghum, direct
seeded
Plot Exterior Plot Interior
4/13/2016
3
Trap Border
• Stink bugs (BMSB and native
species) and natural
enemies: surveyed weekly
(eggs, nymphs, adults)
• Peppers: 5 samples (10
plants/row)
• Trap crop border: 2 samples
(1 m long, each side of trap
crop border)
2014 Insect Sampling
0.51 0.810.65 0.320
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Sunflower Sorghum
Log
Me
an T
ota
l/1
Me
ter
2014 Seasonal SB Densities on Trap Crops(N=11 Sites)
BMSB Native SB
t 50= -1.06P = 0.2962
t 50= 3.66P = 0.0006
*
2014 Pepper Damage Assessment
• All mature fruit harvested weekly (100
plants/plot), 7 weeks (Jul – Sept)
Rating Class 0 –
Undamaged
Rating Class 1 –
Minor Injury
Rating Class 2 –
Major Injury
4/13/2016
4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
High Med Low
Me
an %
Pe
pp
ers
Har
vest
ed
Stink Bug Pressure Group
Class 1 Damage (N=9 sites)
Control Trap Crop
*
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
High Med Low
Me
an %
Pe
pp
ers
Har
vest
ed
Stink Bug Pressure Group
Class 2 Damage (N=9 sites)
Control Trap Crop
*
2014 Pepper Yields
145.0 134.00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Seasonal Harvest
Me
an w
ee
kly
tota
l/1
00
pla
nts
Control Trap Crop
N = 9 sitesF1,46= 1.88
P = 0.17
Stink Bug Egg Predation
Enhanced in Trap Border
t = 2.80
P = 0.01
t = 2.36
P = 0.022
4/13/2016
5
Conclusions
Sorghum/sunflower trap holds promise
• Attractive when stink bugs are moving to crops, delays
colonization of peppers, reduces damage (medium-low
pest pressure)
• Need to better match trap crop seasonality (i.e., sorghum)
to protect crop in fruiting stage
• Incorporate pheromone trap and/or killing agent to
remove bugs from trap crop
• No reduction in pepper yields
• Sunflowers are attracting natural enemies and
enhancing biological control (eggs)
Acknowledgements
• USDA-NIFA Organic Research and Extension
Initiative (Grant # 2012-51300-20097)
This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under award number 2014-51181-22382. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://biodegradablemulch.org
Do biodegradable mulches have a place in your production system?
Annette WszelakiDepartment of Plant Sciences
University of Tennessee
Agricultural Plastic Mulch
20
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
4/13/2016
6
Benefits of Plastic Mulch
• Weed management
• Reduces some diseases and insect pests
• Warms soil in spring
• Increases yield
• Reduces erosion
• Hastens time to harvest
• Conserves moisture
• Increases crop quality
• More efficient use of water and fertilizer
• Reduces soil compaction
• Efficient double or triple cropping
21
Problems with Plastic Mulch
22
• Need for removal and disposal
• Disposal cost is $145-236/ac (Galinato et al., 2012)
• Generally not all plastic is removed
• Issue of sustainability
• Decrease soil productivity, water quality
• Overall environmental hazard
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
Biodegradable Plastic Mulch
Has the potential to be a sustainable technology if it:
• Provides equal benefits as plastic mulch
• Reduces labor costs for removal and disposal
• Reduces landfill waste
• Completely biodegrades
• Causes no harm to soil ecology or environment
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
What does biodegradable mean?
• Capable of being broken down via microbial activity
• Complete biodegradation (i.e., mineralization) refers to the oxidation of the compound to carbon dioxide and water
• Biodegradation provides carbon as a source of food for the growth and reproduction of microorganisms
Source: Numata, 2009
Slide courtesy of Ghumire and Miles, 2015.
4/13/2016
7
Biodegradable Mulch Ingredients
1 Abbreviations: PBAT polybutylene adipate terephthalate; PBS polybutylene succinate; PBSA PBS-co-adipic acid; PCL polycaprolactone; PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate; PLA polylactic acid; TPS thermoplastic starch
2 Estimated relative rate of biodegradation; Brodhagen et al. 2015. Biodegradable plastic agricultural mulches and key features of microbial degradation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2015) 99:1039–1056.
Ingredient1 Feedstock Synthesis ERBD in soil
2
Cellulose Biobased Biological High
PBAT Hydrocarbon Chemical Low moderate
PBS Hydrocarbon Chemical Low moderate
PBSA Hydrocarbon Chemical Low moderate
PCL Hydrocarbon Chemical Moderate
PHA Biobased Biological Moderate high
PLA Biobased Biological & Chemical Low
Sucrose Biobased Biological High
TPS/Starch Biobased Biological High
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
Biodegradable Mulches on the Market
1 Abbreviations: PBAT polybutylene adipate terephthalate; PBS polybutylene succinate; PBSA PBS-co-adipicacid; PCL polycaprolactone; PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate; PLA polylactic acid; TPS thermoplastic starch
Adapted from: Hayes et al. 2012. Biodegradable agricultural mulches derived from biopolymers. In Degradable Polymers and Materials, Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition. Am. Chem. Soc.
Polymer trade name Polymers in biodegradable mulch1 Polymer trade name Polymers in biodegradable mulch
Bio 360 Mater-Bi (TPS + PCL); PBAT EnPol PBS
BioAgri Mater-Bi (TPS + PCL); PBAT Envio PBAT; PLA; TPS
Biocycle Sucrose/PHA blend Garden Weed Barrier Cellulose (paper)
Bio-Flex PLA/co-polyester GreenBio PHA
Biomax TPS Starch + TPS Ingeo TPS/PLA; PBS/PLA
Biomer L PHA Mater Bi PCL/TPS; PBAT
Bionolle PBS or PBSA; TPS + PLA + PBS/PBSA Landmaster Cellulose (paper)
Biopar TPS + co-polyester Mirel PLA + PHAs
Biosafe PBAT/TPS blend; PBS; PBSA Naturecycle PHA
Eastar Bio PBAT/TPS blend Paragon TPS
EcoCover Recycled paper Planters Paper Cellulose (paper)
EcoFilm Unspecified plastic ReNew PHAs
Eco-Flex PBAT; TBS Skygreen Terephthalic acid co-polyester
Ecovio PLA; PBAT/TPS Weed Block Cellulose (paper)
Eco-One Unspecified plastic; oxo-degradable WeedGuard Cellulose (paper)
EcoWorks PBAT + PLA
Biodegradable and Biobased
Biodegradable: Microbial activity that results in CO2, H2O and microbial biomass
Biobased: Feedstocks derived from renewable resources (plant and/or animal mass) via biological processes
Biobased ingredient that doesn’t biodegrade in soil: PLA1
Synthetic ingredients that biodegrade in soil: PCL, PBS, PBAT
1 Probably would degrade over 10+ years if thin enough; passes ASTM/ISO compostability standard
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
What are we lacking?
• Better understanding of biodegradation of commercially available mulches in different climates
• Information on mulch accumulation after multiple applications
• Technology to measure mulch biodegradation in soil
• Good agriculture practices to hasten mulch biodegradation
Slide courtesy of Ghumire and Miles, 2015.
4/13/2016
8
This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under award number 2014-51181-22382. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://biodegradablemulch.org
Performance and Adoptability of Biodegradable Plastic Mulch for
Sustainable Specialty Crop Production
Funded by USDA-NIFA through Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI)
Experiments at Knoxville TN, and Mount Vernon WA
USDA SCRI BDM Project
30
• Evaluate impacts of repeated use on agricultural soil ecosystem (soil quality, microbial communities, carbon storage)
• Identify degradation mechanisms and interrelationships among life-cycle stages: fossil fuel-derived or biobased, role of weathering, soil degradation or composting
• Evaluate degradation in diverse climates to improve performance and evaluation methods
• Compare results of lab-scale standardized tests for biodegradability and weathering with results from field studies
• Identify potential crop weed, disease and insect pest problems
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
USDA SCRI BDM Project
31
• Identify supply chain steps with focus on economic relevance and feasibility, regulation, and farmer’s perceptions to elucidate bridges and barriers to adoption
• Educate farmers, intermediaries, consumers and the general public on BDMs, biodegradation, and biobased plastics
• Interact with consumers, farmers, intermediaries, regulators, composters, and scientists to increase interest in sustainable use of BDMs
• Educate and train students, research associates, and scientists on skills needed to work on transdisciplinary research problems
Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.
Project Design
• Two locations: Mt. Vernon, WA & Knoxville, TN
• ‘Cinnamon Girl’ pie pumpkin
• 30’ plots of 5 rows each, replicated 4 times
• Planted from seed June 15
• Harvested September 14
• Eight treatments
4/13/2016
9
Mulch Products in Experiment
33
Treatment Company Width (In.)
Thickness (mm)
1. Bare ground2. BioAgri BioBag USA 48 0.0254
3. BioAgri Removed BioBag USA 48 0.24
4. Experimental/Metabolix Metabolix 48 0.018
5. Naturecycle Custom Bioplastics 48 0.0254
6. Organix BASF/Organix Ag. 48 0.0177
7. Polyethylene (PE) FilmTech Corp. 48 0.0381
8. WeedGuardPlus Sunshine Paper Co. 48 0.018
Soil Studies
34
Tennessee field site, 21 Sept. 2015
Slide courtesy of DeBruyn, 2015Lysimeter installation
Soil respiration Water infiltrationLysimeters
35
Soil StudySoil pH, EC, and nitrate measurements
Soil samples archived for microbiology analyses
Slide courtesy of DeBruyn, 2015.
36
Plastics Analysis
Colorimetry
Larry measuring thickness
Rachel measuring tensile strength
CO2 analyzer Slide courtesy of Hayes, 2015.
4/13/2016
10
Technology Adoption
Identify bridges and barriers to the diffusion and adoption of BDMs across a
diverse stakeholder audience.
37
Crop Data
• Percent visual degradation (weekly)
• Weed counts (2 weeks after planting, mid-season, and late season)
• Insect and disease scouting
• Yield (Marketable/Total, weights and numbers)
• Storage & quality evaluations (every 2 wks for 8 wks)
– Weight loss - Color
– Soluble solids - Dry weight
39
Crop Activities
Early Season
WSU
UTK
Mid-Season Later Season
WSUWSU
WSU
UTK
UTK
Slide courtesy of Inglis, 2015.
2015 Preliminary Data: TN Yield
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Yie
ld (
t/h
a)
4/13/2016
11
41
Yie
ld (
t/h
a)
d
ab ab bc bca
cd
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Marketable Unmarketable
2015 Preliminary Data: WA Yield
42
2015 Preliminary Data: TN Yield
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Nu
mb
er o
f fr
uit
per
ha
Marketable Unmarketable
dab abc bc bc
acd
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Marketable Unmarketable
Nu
mb
er o
f fr
uit
per
ha
2015 Preliminary Data: WA Yield
43 44
Fruit Defects
4/13/2016
12
2015 Preliminary Data: TN Adhesion
45
abb b
a
b b0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mu
lch
ad
hes
ion
(%
)
2015 Preliminary Data: WA Adhesion
a
b
a
a
b
a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mu
lch
ad
hes
ion
(%
)
46
2015 Preliminary Data: TN Percent Soil Exposure
47
0
20
40
60
80
100
BioAgri
Metabolix
Naturecycle
Organix
PE
WeedGuardPlus
Per
cen
t S
oil
Exp
osu
re (
PS
E)
48
2015 Preliminary Data: WA Percent Soil Exposure
0
20
40
60
80
100
BioAgri
Metabolix
Naturecycle
Organix
PE
WeedGuardPlus
Per
cen
t S
oil
Exp
osu
re (
PS
E)
4/13/2016
13
2015 Preliminary Data: TN Weeds
49
Nu
mb
er o
f w
eed
s (p
er m
2 )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7-Jul 29-Jul 31-Aug
Bare ground
BioAgri
Metabolix
Naturecycle
Organix
PE
WeedGuardPlus
50
Nu
mb
er o
f w
eed
s (p
er m
2 )
2015 Preliminary Data: WA Weeds
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
19- Jun 31-Jul 11-Sep
Bare ground
BioAgri
Metabolix
Naturecycle
Organix
PE
WeedguardPlus
2015 Preliminary Weed Information
Predominant weeds in TN:1. Nutsedge
2. Carpetweed
3. Goose grass
4. Annual bluegrass
5. Crabgrass
Predominant weeds in WA:1. Pigweed
2. Chickweed
3. Grass (assorted)
51
2015 Summary
TN• PSE greatest for Naturecycle and WeedGuardPlus (100% by end of season)• Weeds greatest for Naturecycle, but low for WeedGuardPlus• No difference in pumpkin yield due to mulch product• Mulch adhesion low (<20%), greatest for Organix and BioAgri
WA• PSE differed for mulch products, was greatest for Naturecycle (61% by end of
season)• Marketable pumpkin yield with BioAgri and Metabolix were comparable with
PE mulch• Yield was lowest for Bare ground• No weeds in any mulch treatment throughout the season except for
Naturecycle one week before harvest• Mulch adhesion high (30-50%), except for Metabolix and PE
4/13/2016
14
UT Project Team
53
• Project Leadership – Douglas Hayes (Project Director)
• Extension and Outreach Working Group - Annette Wszelaki, Susan Schexnayder, Jenny Moore
• Field Activities Working Group – Annette Wszelaki, Jenny Moore, Arnold Saxton
• Plastics Analysis Working Group – Douglas Hayes, Larry Wadsworth
• Soil Ecology Working Group – Sean Schaeffer, Jenn DeBruyn• Supply Chain/Life Cycle Assessment Working Group – Margarita Velandia
• Technology Adoption Working Group – Margarita Velandia, Susan Schexnayder, Annette Wszelaki
• Project Assessment Working Group – Susan Schexnayder
THANK YOU!
• Several mulches performed similarly to black plastic
• Will they fully biodegrade?
• Will the initial cost even out with cost of labor for removal, transportation and disposal?
• Will they change soil quality?
• Stay tuned…
• Questions? Annette Wszelaki ([email protected])
• http://biodegradablemulch.org