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.
Top Related