CONTINUED TESTING OF PHEROMONE MESO-EMITTERS FOR MATING DISRUPTION - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CONTINUED TESTING OF PHEROMONE “MESO-EMITTERS” FOR MATING DISRUPTION OF CODLING MOTH IN CALIFORNIA

Stephen Welter and Frances Cave

University of California, Berkeley, CA

Cooperators: Rachel Elkins, Joe Grant, and Carolyn Pickel

• Goal: build the most cost-effective pheromone

program that provides adequate damage suppression

• Optimize overall costs
• Build good pheromone strategy
• Recognizes but minimize insecticide interventions
• High CM densities often require insecticide

supplements

• Other pests (leafrollers, NOW) may require treatments
• Does not preclude alternative objective of improved

pheromone programs

• 2009 field trial focus – Large block testing of “best”

mesos from 2007 and 2008

• Meso-emitter rate trials (walnuts only) – not shown
• Meso-emitter large plot efficacy trials (walnuts and pears)

Approaches

• Two axes to consider:

– Alter the number of dispensers per acre (2006 on) – Alter the amount of pheromone per acre (on-going 2008 on) – Issues

• Are the relationships linear between number of point

sources and amount of pheromone required per acre OR

• Are there interactions between the amount of

pheromone released per dispenser and possible mechanisms of mating disruption?

• If true, then multiple studies (or true factorial

experiments) will be required, which are extremely difficult to envision logistically

Pheromone “Meso-emitter”

• Hand applied dispenser unit
• Reduced point sources: 18-20 units per acre vs >160 per acre
• Higher emission rate per unit (vs Checkmate or Isomate)

Pheromone Dispensers per Acre

50 100 150 200 Mega (Puffer) Mega-lite (MOP) Meso (Experimental) Intermediate- (e.g. Isomate /Suterra) Number of Units per Acre (18-20 units per acre)

All treatments statistically different from grower standard, yet not from each other

a b b b b b b

Selected 20 units per acre as starting point

Current Meso-emitter Products

(Differ in Expected Total Pheromone per Acre)

Isomate “rope” (2008) G037 Suterra membrane type dispensers. G037 deployed at 18 units per acre. CM XL1000

(for comparison)

* 2009 “ring” is a 5-C TT unit that separates to form a ring of 10 single tubes. Deployed at 20 rings per acre.

RATIONALE / POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF REDUCED POINT SOURCES

• Rationale
• Studies support increased point source strategies
• BUT empirical experience with puffers (e.g. Lake

County, walnuts in Locke, CA) demonstrate success using reduced emitter point sources

• Potential benefits
• More rapid application
• Reduced labor costs
• Increased opportunity for pheromone use in

walnuts

• Feasible pruning tower application (walnuts)
• Target sites not suitable for puffer use

CHALLENGES OF SITE SELECTION FOR PHEROMONE FIELD TRIALS

• Lack of independence between treatment plots
• Pheromone moves, cannot be contained
• Few sites large enough to accommodate

meaningful plot sizes and adequate treatment separation

• Need for productive codling moth pressure in trial

sites

• Low populations do not produce adequate

damage for treatment contrasts

• High populations can overwhelm and bleed

across treatments

Changes in Orchard Selection 2009 Field Trials

• Pears

– Targeted orchards in 1st year of “relaxed management” (no insecticide applications, limited weed management, sometimes no water) – Expectation of codling moth populations increasing over time

• Walnuts

– Used processor data to target sites with 4 year histories of 3-6% damage;

Contrasts

• Pears

– Pheromone programs (10-20 acres) vs Untreated Control (3-5 acres) – Meso pheromone programs vs Conventional pheromone programs (Isomate or Checkmate)

• Walnuts

– Pheromone programs plus insecticide (5-20 ac) vs same insecticide program (5-20 ac) – “ additive effect

• f pheromone if damage sufficiently high”

– Meso pheromone programs plus insecticide vs Conventional pheromone programs plus insecticide

Meso-emitter Efficacy Trials

Treatment Plots (number of acres) Crop Site Meso (Suterra G037) Ring (Isomate) Pheromone Standard * Control Grower Standard ** Pears Isleton 1 (14) 1(10)

• Walnut Grove

2 (10,20) 2 (5,5) 2 (UTC) (5,5) Ukiah 2 (18,18) 1 (16) 2 (6,6) 3 (UTC) (3,5,5) Walnuts Colusa 1 (7) 1 (5) 1(5) Gustine 1 (16) 1(5) 1(10) Knight’s Landing 1 (18) 1 (5) 1 (5) Linden 1 (20) 1 (5) 1 (5) Tracy 1 (20) 1 (5) 1 (UTC) (5) Yuba City 1 (5) 1 (5) 1 (8)

Total number of plots = 34 (306 acres) 9 (139) 3 (43) 11 (62) 11 (62) * Pheromone standard was Checkmate CM XL1000 in all sites except organic Isleton pears which was grower-applied Isomate-C TT. ** Organic Isleton pear site was grower applied pheromone to remainder of site. In walnuts, any insecticide treatments were applied uniformly to both control and pheromone treatments. No insecticides were applied in Tracy site.

Pear Orchard Plot Maps for Sites in Ukiah and Walnut Grove, CA

• Damage was significantly

suppressed by meso program compared to control

• No statistical difference

between meso and standard pheromone programs

• Control plots were as follows
• Pears – untreated

controls

• Walnuts - may have

included insecticide treatments applied by the grower uniformly to both control and pheromone plots.

Suterra Meso-emitter Efficacy

Combined commodity data (n=8)

Blocks with 0% damage in all treatments excluded

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Control (GS) XL1000 + GS G037 + GS

Percent Codling Moth Damage ±SE Treatment

Pear and Walnut Combined Codling Moth Damage at Harvest

a ab b P = 0.03 *

Pears: Trap Capture and Suppression

• For each lure type higher

numbers collected in untreated controls

• Lack of independence

between plots indicated by low 1x counts in untreated controls

• No significance between

plot treatments

• Even with large blocks,

there is pheromone intrusion

100 200 300 400 500 1x 10x Combo

Average Season Total CM / Trap

2009 Pears: Season Total Trap Capture

Control (GS) Pheromone Standard + GS G037 Suterra Meso + GS

P = 0.13 P = 0.22 P = 0.65

Pears: Codling Moth Pressure

CM/DA Combo Lure Traps

• High variation across

sites

• Range 80 to >500

in untreated controls (no control in Isleton site)

• Range 13 to 380

in meso treatments

100 200 300 400 500 600 Ukiah Isleton Walnut Grove 1 Walnut Grove 2

Average Total CM / Trap Site

2009 Pears: Combo Lure Baited Traps Average Season Total CM Capture

Control (GS) Pheromone Standard + GS G037 Suterra Meso + GS

* * No control block in Isleton site.

Pear Codling Moth Damage

Pattern is similar to

• verall trend, but

not statistically different due to smaller number of reps and low population levels in

• ne orchard

0% 2% 4% 6% Control (GS) XL 1000 + GS G037 + GS Percent Codling Moth Damage (±SE)

Treatment

2009 Pears: Average Percent Damage Meso Efficacy Trial (Suterra)

P = 0.18

• Damage patterns relative to treatment were similar across sites

0% 0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

0% 5% 10% 15%

Isomate-C TT G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra North South * Northwest Southeast Isleton Walnut Grove Ukiah

Average % CM damage Site / Treatment

2009 Pears: Suterra Meso Efficacy Trial Codling Moth Damage at Harvest

Pt

t t>0.135

Too low

Walnut Codling Moth Trap Counts and Suppression

Seasonal moth counts high in all plots (mean 190- 360) Trap suppression comparable at

• ca. 99%

34.6 0.3 0.04 355.0 192.3 304.1 100 200 300 400 Control Checkmate XL1000 G037 Suterra Meso Control Checkmate XL1000 G037 Suterra Meso 1X Biolure COMBO Average Number Codling Moth / Trap Trap Lure / Plot Treatment

2009 Walnuts: Pheromone Efficacy Trails Season Total Codling Moth (4-Site Average)

0% 1% 2% 3% Control XL1000 G037 Suterra

Percent Codling Moth Damage (±SE) Treatment

Codling Moth Damage at Harvest 2009 Walnut Meso Efficacy Trial (4-Site Average)

P = 0.052

1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 2.7% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.8% 1.3% 3.9% 2.5% 0.6% 0% 2% 4% 6% Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Control XL1000 G037 Suterra Knights Landing Yuba City Linden Gustine Percent CM Damage Site / Treatment

2009 Walnuts: Codling Moth Damage at Harvest Meso-emitter Efficacy Trials (Suterra Membrane) Variation in both pressure and outcome observed across orchards

Isomate Rings - Codling Moth Counts

Good suppression of 1X lures and good population pressures in 2 of 3 orchards

0.7 175.5 11

49 4.5 630 72.5 166 66 200 400 600 800 Control Isomate ring Control Isomate ring Control Isomate ring Ukiah Pears Tracy Walnuts Colusa Walnuts

Average Number CM / Trap Treatment / Location / Crop

2009 Isomate Ring in Pears and Walnuts: Average Season Total Codling Moth Per Trap

1x Combo

Trap Load

0% damage observed in ring plots compared to low damage in other plots

0% 0% 0.2% 1.2% 0% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.7% 1.1% 0.3%

0% 1% 2% Isomate ring (E) Control (E) XL1000 (N) Control (N) XL1000 (S) Control (S) Isomate ring (E) Control (E) XL1000 (N) Control (N) XL1000 (S) Control (S)

Percent CM Damage Treatment / Site

2009 Pears: Isomate Ring Trial - Ukiah

Codling Moth Damage

1st Generation Harvest

0%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% Control XL1000 Isomate Ring Control XL1000 Isomate Ring Control XL1000 Isomate Ring Control XL1000 Isomate Ring Colusa Tracy Colusa Tracy

Percent CM damage Site / Treatment

2009 Walnuts: Isomate "Ring" Efficacy Trials Codling Moth Damage

Canopy Counts

P = ns P = ns

Harvest

SUMMARY

• Meso-emitter treatments provided control comparable

to standard pheromone programs across a range of pressures

• Differences were statistically significant for pooled data

from walnuts and pears

• Trap suppression (1x) averaged 95% or more in both

meso and standard pheromone programs which is different than in 2008

• Damage suppression patterns were consistent across

commodities

• Time of application reduced more than 80% in pears

and 90-95% in walnuts.

Acknowledgments We are grateful for the contributions and cooperation given by growers and advisors through the course of each field season. We thank John Arnaudo, Steve Bell, Rick Carothers, Bob Costanho, Sonny Dale, Simone Furlan, Randy Hanson, Matt Hemly, Kyle Lang, Lee Metzler, Glen Olson, Dave Sarasqueta, Tom Shea, Jim Tarke, Steve Thomas, Jed Walton, Thom Wiseman, and Steve Ziser for their contributions this past year. We also would like to acknowledge the support of Suterra , Pacific Biocontrol, and Diamond Walnuts.