DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A "REAL-TIME" APPLE IPM WEBSITE FOR NY

Transcription

1 1 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A "REAL-TIME" APPLE IPM WEBSITE FOR NY Arthur Agnello and Harvey Reissig Dept. of Entomology Cornell University, NYS Agric. Expt. Sta., Geneva, NY Apple growers in the Eastern US have faced challenges in managing the complex of insects and diseases of apples using conventional pesticides during the last decade because of increasing pesticide regulatory restrictions, public concerns about food safety and environmental quality, and the development of resistance to older materials by key insect and disease pests. Growers are attempting to utilize newer reduced-risk pesticides, but they are more expensive and require more precise use patterns because of their different modes of action. In addition, many current IPM protocols were designed for older conventional materials. During the last several years, an interdisciplinary group of scientists at Cornell University has developed a web-based, Real Time Apple IPM Decision Support System that can deliver relevant, current information on weather data and pest populations to facilitate grower pest management decisions throughout the growing season. This system tracks seasonal development of key insect pests and diseases using Degree Day and Infection Risk Models. The models indicate pest status, pest management and sampling options, and are linked to an interactive system that helps growers choose appropriate materials when pesticides must be used. Insect pest developmental stages are calculated from Degree Day (DD) accumulations at NEWA (NYS IPM's Network for Environment and Weather Applications) and NWS airport weather stations throughout the state (Fig. 1). The insect pests addressed by this website are: apple maggot, oriental fruit moth, codling moth, plum curculio, obliquebanded leafroller, and spotted tentiform leafminer. Fig. 1. Home screen for initial selection of pest and weather station of interest.

2 2 After the user selects a weather station and pest of interest, pest DD models and historical records are used to calculate: Tree Phenological Stage, Pest Stage(s), Pest Status, and Pest Management Information (Fig. 2). Fig. 2. Results page showing pest and crop developmental status and management information. When a pesticide spray is recommended, a pesticide decision filter helps users pick an appropriate material to use (Fig. 3). Fig. 3. Pesticide decision filter for selection of appropriate choice based on pest pressure, product efficacy, and management program elected. Predictions provided by the website can be refined and adjusted to current insect activity by user-entered events obtained through field monitoring (such as biofix, first sustained flight of a pest species). The pesticide selection filter is based on Cornell University product efficacy ratings and the type of management program selected by the user (e.g., conventional, reduced-risk, non-organophosphate, organic). Hyperlinks on the results pages provide access to supplemental resources such as crop and pest biology and development

3 information, sampling and monitoring methods, and pesticide profiles plus access to database of NYS labels for registered products. During the 2009 growing season, the Apple IPM website was beta-tested by a group of 16 NY apple growers, along with their respective Cornell extension educators and private consultants located in Orleans, Wayne, Onondaga, Clinton, Saratoga, and Albany Counties. At each site, a planting of apples from acres in size was monitored for crop and pest status throughout the season, and a suitable nearby weather station was designated for providing daily temperature data as a basis for crop and pest developmental predictions. Insect pests addressed by the website were: apple maggot (AM), oriental fruit moth (OFM), codling moth (CM), plum curculio (PC), obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR), and spotted tentiform leafminer (STLM). DD information based on either historical records or user-entered biofix data included: the start, peak, or progress of the oviposition or egg hatch period (for CM, OBLR, OFM, and STLM); the start, peak or end of the pest's 1st, 2nd, etc., flight (for AM, CM, OBLR, OFM, and STLM) (Fig. 4); the first occurrence of adult or larval feeding, foliar or fruit damage, or mines (for OBLR and STLM). Insect monitoring traps were placed in all orchards and checked approximately once per week to monitor adult flights, and weekly fruit inspections were conducted starting in July to assess the incidence of any larval feeding damage to apples caused by leafrollers or internal feeding Lepidoptera such as codling moth or oriental fruit moth. All results of this insect monitoring were reported on a weekly basis to each respective grower and consultant for their use in determining appropriate management decisions in the blocks. Codling Moth 1st Catch - Predicted vs Observed 2009 Van Fleet* Truncali Ten Eyck Sullivan Stone Ridge Oakes Knight* Forrence* DeBadts* Craft* Chazy Burch Brown Apple Acres = Predicted range = Overlap = First catch (* = traps deployed too late to accurately track 1st catch) APRIL MAY JUNE Fig. 4. Predicted vs. observed first trap capture of codling moth 1st generation adults. We compared web predictions with population trends observed in the field for as many of the pest species as was possible, although not all populations of all species were large enough or distinct enough to make a practical assessment of the website's accuracy in all cases. In general, the main sources of error in the website predictions were: 3

4 4 Traps set out too late; missed 1st flight; biofix wrong (STLM and OFM especially). Trap check interval too long to precisely identify trap catch trends; even 7-day period should be shortened for important events (dates near anticipated first or peak catches). Target populations too low to make good predictions of biological events. Model prediction (based on historical data) was simply not precise enough to be accurate every time (e.g., CM peak flight). Weather stations not numerous enough or close enough to individual sites to be representative of true DD conditions. During the 2009 growing season, a field study was conducted to test two different IPM protocols integrating information obtained from the Real Time Apple IPM website in NY apple orchards. Tests were set up in 14 orchards in major NY apple production regions. Entomology department personnel monitored and sampled plots throughout the season. Growers applied pesticides based on monitoring results and web predictions of pest development. In the Fruit Monitoring Protocol, growers applied normal sprays for insect control until plum curculio (PC) activity was over. Starting in late June, 1000 apples were inspected on the tree weekly for damage from internal Lepidoptera (codling moth or oriental fruit moth) and obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR). Apple maggot (AM) traps were deployed in late July. Control sprays were recommended whenever treatment thresholds were reached (1 fruit damaged by either OBLR or internal leps; and an average AM capture of 5 AM/trap). In the Web-Optimized treatment Protocol, normal control sprays were also applied until PC activity was over. An initial summer spray was recommended based on web predictions of hatch of summer OBLR eggs and 1 st generation internal lep eggs (using either Delegate or Altacor). A second spray was recommended based on web predictions of AM activity and 2 nd generation internal lep egg hatch (alternating to whichever choice of Delegate or Altacor had not been used previously). Growers would have applied an average of 2.0 and 1.1 summer sprays, respectively, in the Web-Based and Fruit Monitoring plots if they had followed recommendations. Fewer sprays were recommended in these plots than have been previously applied in NY apple orchards under traditional IPM programs (2-3 Avg. sprays). Harvest insect damage was similar in both protocols (2.9%, Web-Based; 3.2%, Fruit Monitoring). Growers' spray records are being compared to assess the actual numbers of applications made to the orchards in this trial. Studies were also conducted with cooperating growers to develop and test apple IPM protocols that integrate information from the Real Time Tree Fruit IPM website in NY apple orchards. Tests were set up in 14 grower orchards in all major NY apple production regions. Two different IPM programs were tested in most orchards. Entomology department personnel monitored and sampled plots throughout the season. Growers applied pesticides based on monitoring results and IPM protocols. In the Fruit Monitoring Protocol, growers applied normal sprays for insect control throughout plum curculio activity. Starting in late June, 1000 apples were monitored weekly for damage from internal lepidoptera (codling moth and oriental fruit moth) and the obliquebanded leafroller OBLR. Apple maggot (AM) red sticky traps with apple volatiles were deployed in late July. Control sprays were recommended whenever treatment thresholds were reached (1 apple damaged by either OBLR or Int Lep., or an average capture of 5 AM/trap). In the Web-Optimized Treatment Protocol, growers applied normal insect control sprays throughout plum curculio activity. An initial summer spray was recommended based on web predictions of hatch of summer OBLR eggs and 1st generation Int Lep eggs. A second spray was recommended based on web predictions of AM activity and 2 nd generation Int. Lep. egg hatch. Growers were allowed to choose their own pesticides for application in both of these programs, but we recommended that they use either Altacor or Delegate in both programs when sprays were necessary because these two chemicals provide excellent control of Int. Lep. and OBLR and are also active against AM.

5 5 Growers were also told to rotate between these two materials in early and late sprays in order to manage resistance to these pests by using only one application of each material, which are in different chemical classes, so that pests were exposed to different modes of action during the season. The Classic Apple IPM Approach for managing insect pests has traditionally been defined as not applying insecticides unless pest populations reach pre-determined threshold levels observed by sampling and monitoring orchards. This basic IPM format has been tested in NY apple orchards from the early 1970 s until the present time and usually an average of 2-3 sprays during the summer after petal fall have been applied in monitored orchards. Although the Web-Optimized Treatment Protocol that was tested this year in 2009 may not fit the strict definition of the Classic Apple IPM Approach the level of recommended sprays, which would be 2/season, compares very favorably with results from standard IPM programs tested in NY orchards for many years. This Web-Based program has several potential advantages over standard IPM programs because it: 1) Reduces the need for IPM labor and expertise, 2) Eliminates some of growers fear of not spraying in IPM programs, and 3) Could be more sustainable than sampling based programs because it would insure that insecticide residues were present in the orchard during estimated optimum activity periods of key insect pests such as Int. Lep. and OBLR. Theoretically, these residues could eliminate small populations of immigrating pests during these key times of pest activity. In contrast, IPM programs in which no summer control sprays are applied because pest thresholds were never reached have never been sustainable for more than 1-3 years, presumably because gradual immigration of small numbers of pests into relatively clean orchards eventually results in un-acceptable pest levels because of population increases in the absence of insecticide sprays. Both treatment plots were monitored weekly throughout the season to provide research information by sampling 1000 apples, even though these results were used to determine the need and timing of sprays only in the Fruit Monitoring Protocol plots. Very few damaged apples were found in either of the treatments throughout the season, and most damaged apples observed were injured by the summer generation of OBLR rather than Int. Lep. (Table. 1, Table 2) Table 1. Damaged fruit observed during the summer in web-based plots in various grower orchards. Numbers of damaged fruit/1000 sampled apples Date Jul 8 Jul 15 Jul 22 Aug 8 Aug 14 Aug 22 AA BR BU CZ CR DB FR FU KN OK SU VF

6 6 Table 2. Damaged fruit observed during the summer in fruit monitoring plots in various grower orchards. Numbers of damaged fruit/1000 sampled apples Date Jul 8 Jul 15 Jul 22 Aug 8 Aug 14 Aug 22 AA BR BU CZ CR DB FR FU KN OK SL SU VF AM pressure was quite high in all of the test orchards during July and August in 2009 and at least one spray would have been recommended in all of the orchards except the SL orchard (Table 3). Table 3. AM catches in monitored orchards during Cumulative Weekly Catch (Threshold= 15 flies) Date Jul 15 Jul 22 Jul 29 Aug 8 Aug 14 Aug 22 Aug 29 Sep 2 AA BR BU CZ CR DB FR FU KN OK SL SU VF

7 In the Web-Based plots growers strictly following the protocol would have applied an average of 2.0 sprays and in the Fruit Monitoring plots the growers would have applied an average of 1.1 sprays during the summer. Fruit damage was low and quite similar in both the Web-Based (2.9% Avg.) and Fruit Monitoring (3.2% Avg.) plots. Insecticide spray records are still being collected from participating growers, so it is currently not possible to determine how well growers followed the recommended protocols in all of the research plots. However, the initial results in both programs appeared to be promising and additional modification and testing of these different IPM protocols will continue during the next several seasons. 7 Acknowledgments Grower Cooperators: Walt Blackler, Eric Brown, Jim Burch, Gary & Stephanie Craft, Bob DeBadts, Mack Forrence, Todd Furber, Tré Green, Jerry & Josh Knight, Darrel Oakes, Elizabeth Ryan, S&L Farms, Adam Sullivan, Pete Ten Eyck, Bill Truncali, Dave Van Fleet Consultants: Jeff Alicandro, Peck Babcock, Jim Eve, Jim Misiti, Apple Leaf, LLC Web Programmers: Keith Eggleston, Bill Parken Technical Field Staff: Daisy Aguilera, Melissa Berger, Ashley Blackburn, Dave Combs, Lindsay DeWitt, Sarah Dressel, Kate Fello, Jordan Gianforte, Tori Green, Lindsay LaValley, Jackie Mattick, Frank Zeoli Funding Support: NY Farm Viability Institute, NY Apple Association, Northeast Regional IPM Program