Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies
Alejandro CostamagnaDepartment of Entomology
CARP Project Team: Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies
Hector Carcamo (AAFC Lethbridge)
Tyler Wist (AAFC Saskatoon)Jennifer Otani
(AAFCBeaverlodge)
John Gavloski(MAFRD Carman)
Barb Sharanowski (Univ. of Central Florida)
Rob Duncan (U of MB)
Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
TharshiNagalingam(U of MB)
Biology and Damage
J. Soroka
J. Bannerman
Manitoba Agriculture
Species Response to Seed Treatments
Tansey et al J. Econ. Entomol. (2008)
Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies
1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular
methods3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations
and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major
seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines
for canola producers.
Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies
1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular
methods3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations
and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major
seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines
for canola producers.
Economic Thresholds
• 25% defoliation - Nominal threshold in canola• Canola hybrids may compensate the damage• Montana study: 15-20% defoliation (Tangtrakulwanich et al. 2014)
Objective: Determine economic threshold for flea beetles in canola hybrids
Methodology
Foliar spray at defoliation level
Control 45% 25% 15-20% Seedtreatment
Fungicide only Fungicide + Insecticide
Matador (lambda-cyhalothrin) at 34 ml/ac
SY 4135 (Roundup Ready® hybrid canola)
Treatments
Control45% 15-20% 25%Seed
Small plots RCBD4-5 Replicates
Flea beetle abundanceand species compositionWeekly, 2.2 stage
Defoliation 3 times per week, until 2.240 plants per plot
Plant densityNo. of plants in 1m row
J. Soroka
Trials 2015-2017Regions Trials conducted Spraying occurred Yield data obtained
Manitoba 18 13 11Alberta: Lethbridge 11 11 10Alberta: Beaverlodge 3 3 3Saskatchewan 8 8 8
40 35 32Analysis of yield• ANOVA with block effect • Mean comparisons: Tukey’s test
2016• Early seeded trials: 4 • Late seeded trials: 3
Early seeded trials: Moderate flea beetle damage
40% 34% 28% 10% 40% 29% 15% 23% 28% 20%
TharshiNagalingam(U of MB)
Early seeded trials: High flea beetle damage
TharshiNagalingam(U of MB)
*waterlogging
Early seeded trials: Low flea beetle damage
15% 6%15% 28% 28% 2% 16% 18% 18%
TharshiNagalingam(U of MB)
Preliminary Conclusions• Results are variable among trials!
Early seeded trials:• Seed treatments: numerically higher yield• Foliar insecticide spray treatments: higher yield than control• Spray at 25% defoliation: good control
Late vs early seeded trials: • Late trials experienced less flea beetle damage and no significant
yield effect
Future analyses of data …
• Plant density
• Defoliation
• Flea beetle species abundance
• Planting dates
Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies
1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular
methods3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations
and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major
seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines
for canola producers.
Petri Dish Predation ExperimentsNo‐choice assays (generalist predators)
14
Wet paper in the bottom
Controlled growth chambers
6 FB
24h starved predators
Control: no predators
72 h of predation
P
Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
Petri Dish Predation Experiments
© Matthew Roth© Richard Migneault© Mardon Erbland © Terry Thormin
Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
Petri Dish Predation Experiments
© Matthew Roth© Richard Migneault© Mardon Erbland © Terry Thormin
Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
Petri dish predation experiments
© MJ Hatfield
Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
Nabis sp.
More Realistic Arenas…
14
Aldo Rios
P
Caged potted plants in growth chambers
Prey densities:
o 5, 10, 15, and 20 FB
Control: no predators
Consumption:evaluated after 24 h
Preliminary Conclusions
• Common ground beetles can consume flea beetles!
• More realistic experimental conditions?
• Field conditions?
Primers based on Cytochrome Oxidase I (COI) for P. striolata and P. cruciferae.
Barb Sharanowski (Univ. of Central Florida)
Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies
1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular
methods3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations
and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major
seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines
for canola producers.
Flea beetle sampling
Fields sampled
2015 29
2016 25
2017 25
Flea Beetles Populations – MB 2015
June 12
Flea Beetles Populations – Peace River 2015
June 3
Flea Beetles Populations – MB 2016
May 24
Flea Beetles Populations – Peace River 2016
May 17
Flea Beetles Populations – Lethbridge 2016
June 2
Flea Beetles Populations – SK 2016
June 9
Change in relative abundance Region Species 2015-2016 Historic Reference
Manitoba P. cruciferae 30 – 49 % 88-96% Lamb 1983
P. striolata 51 – 69% 4-12%
Manitoba P. cruciferae 78-92% Turnock et al. 1989
P. striolata 6-22%
Saskatchewan P. cruciferae 9 – 20% 40% Soroka 2012
P. striolata 80 – 90% 50%
Alberta P. cruciferae 66 – 86 % > 99% Cárcamo et al. 2006
(Lethbridge) P. striolata 13 – 33% very few
Alberta P. striolata 91-99% dominant Cárcamo et al. 2006
(Beaverlodge)
J. Soroka
Arc Map 10: Carman
2 km
• Landscape composition – different scales(up to 2 km radius)
• Digitally quantified: ArcGIS 10• Habitat diversity (Simpson’s diversity Indices)
• 30 bi‐directional Malaise traps• Between soybean and adjacent habitats
Landscape characteristics
Natural enemy movements
250 m500 m1000 m1500 m2000 m
©ishansamaranayake
Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) Minute pirate bugs (Anthocoridae) Damsel bugs (Nabidae) Brown lacewings (Hemerobiidae) Green lacewings (Chrysopidae) Hover flies (Syrphidae)
Landscape Effects on Flea Beetles Populations
% Canola
Partial residuals
% Other crops
Partial residuals
CFB = I*** - Canola*** - Other crops**AIC = 70.318r2 = 0.479F2, 23 = 12.53p = 0.0002
*** p < 0.0001** p < 0.001 Other crops: alfalfa, berry patch, clover, faba beans, fallow, flax, forage, hay,
hemp, lentils, mustard, peas, potatoes, research plot, reserved plot, sunflower, vegetable plot
Crucifer Flea Beetle (1 km radius)Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
CFB = I*** - Canola*** ‐ Cereals**AIC = 67.680 r2 = 0.457 F2, 23 = 11.52 p = 0.0003
*** p < 0.0001** p < 0.001 Cereals: barley, canary grass, corn, oats,
rye, wheat
% Canola
Partial residuals
Partial residuals
% Cereals
Striped Flea Beetle (2 km radius)Thais Silva Guimaraes(U of MB)
Summary and Conclusions
• Seed treatments: good control• Spray at 25% defoliation: good control • Increased dominance of striped flea beetles• Generalist predators can attack flea beetles!• Proportion of canola in landscape related to flea beetle abundance
• Lots of data still to be processed!
THANK YOU !Cárcamo Lab
Jennifer Otani
Tyler Wist
Rob Duncan
John Gavloski
Costamagna Lab
Top Related