1 / 23

Use of Phenology Models for Insect Management in Southeastern Tree Fruits

Use of Phenology Models for Insect Management in Southeastern Tree Fruits. Jim Walgenbach Department of Entomology NC State University MHCREC, Mills River, NC. Raleigh. Mills River. Charlotte. Direct Insect Pests of Apples and Peaches in NC. San Jose Scale Plum Curculio Stink Bugs

morwen
Télécharger la présentation

Use of Phenology Models for Insect Management in Southeastern Tree Fruits

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Phenology Models for Insect Management in Southeastern Tree Fruits Jim Walgenbach Department of Entomology NC State University MHCREC, Mills River, NC

  2. Raleigh Mills River Charlotte

  3. Direct Insect Pests of Apples and Peaches in NC • San Jose Scale • Plum Curculio • Stink Bugs • Oriental Fruit Moth • Tufted Apple Bud Moth • Codling Moth • Comstock Mealybug • Apple Maggot

  4. Attributes of Insect Phenology Models in Tree Fruits • Temperature-driven • Models predict biological events important in management • Adult emergence, egg hatch, etc. • Predominately used to optimize • Insecticide use • Scouting resources

  5. Factors Contributing to Use of Phenology Models by Grower Community • Host range and mobility of pest • Common vs. sporadic pest • Consequences of over-spraying • Cost, resistance development • Availability, efficiency and ease of monitoring tools • Simplicity of outputs

  6. Direct Insect Pests of Apples and Peaches in NC • San Jose Scale • Plum Curculio • Stink Bugs • Oriental Fruit Moth • Tufted Apple Bud Moth • Codling Moth • Comstock Mealybug • Apple Maggot

  7. 2nd Generation Tufted Apple Bud Moth (Playnota idaeusalis) APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

  8. Moths/trap % Egg hatch 100 75 % Cumulative egg hatch 50 25 0 DD 4000 2000 3000 0 1000 MAY APR JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT TABM Pheromone Trap Catches and % Cumulative Egg Hatch 150 125 100 75 Moths/trap 50 Biofix 25 0

  9. Codling Moth (Cydia pomonella) APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

  10. Codling Moth Degree-Day Model • Riedl et al. 1976. Can. Entomol. • Predicts percentage of adult emergence and egg hatch of first and second generations. • Degree-day accumulations begin at biofix, defined as first emergence of male moth. • In practice, first sustained capture of male moth in pheromone trap is biofix. • Insecticide applications are recommended at initial egg hatch.

  11. 350DD 1350DD 250DD 1250DD Biofix Codling Moth Phenology Adults Predicted Egg Hatch 40 100 30 80 60 20 Moths per trap 40 10 20 0 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

  12. Impact of Resistance Development on Phenological Models

  13. Developmental Rate of Insecticide-Resistant Codling Moth Populations is Slower than Susceptible Populations • E. Lue. 2005. Trade-offs between insecticide resistance and development time in codling moth. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~es196/projects/2005final/Lue.pdf • Development from egg-adult was 10% greater for a Guthion-resistant resistant compared to a susceptible codling moth population • Boivin, T., J. Chadoeuf, J.C. Bouvier, D. Beslay, and B. Saupanor. 2005. Modeling the interaction between phenology and insecticide resistance genes in the codling moth, Cydia pomonella. Pest Manag. Sci. 61: 53-67. • Pheromone trapping studies validated a model that predicted delayed emergence of insecticide resistant codling moth, and segregation of susceptible and resistant individuals increased with the frequency of resistance.

  14. 2007 First Generation Trap Captures vs. Degree-Days Accumulations OP-Resistant Orchards OP-Susceptible Orchards Orchard H1 MHCRS Orchard P1 Orchard L1

  15. Mean deviation (d) from model Orchard H1 + 27.7 (±5.4) Orchard P1 + 19.2 (±1.9) Mean deviation (d) from model Orchard L1 -10.6 (±6.3) MHCRS + 4.8 (±3.3) Predicted vs Actual Percentage Catch of 1st Generation Codling Moth

  16. 2006 First Generation Codling Moth Pheromone Trap Captures – Orchard H1 100 May June 80 60 Moths per trap 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 DD from biofix

  17. 0.41 0.77 May June Dose-Response of Codling MothPopulations to Azinphosmethyl 95 90 80 70 60 Lab % Mortality (probit scale) 50 40 Orchard H1 30 20 10 5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Dose (log ppm)

  18. 350DD 250DD Biofix 1250 DD Codling Moth Phenology - 2009 Adults Predicted Egg Hatch 40 100 30 80 60 20 Moths per trap Percentage egg hatch 40 10 20 0 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

  19. 410DD Predicted vs. Actual Emergence of Codling Moth Based on DD Accumulations - 2009 Predicted Actual 100 80 % Cumulative moths 60 40 20 0 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

  20. In-Orchard Monitoring and Information Delivery

More Related