New Controls Investigated for Vine Mealybug
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RESEARCH ArticLE t of Industrial Hygienists. Lewis Pub. New controls investigated Faucett J, Meyers J, Tejeda D, et al. 2001. An instrument to measure muscu- for vine mealybug loskeletal symptoms among immigrant Hispanic farmworkers: Validation in the nursery industry. J Agric Saf Health 7(3):185–98. Kent M. Daane Garg A, Chaffin D, Herrin G. 1978. Walter J. Bentley n the early 1990s, the vine mealybug Prediction of metabolic rates for manual Vaughn M. Walton was accidentally introduced into the materials handling jobs. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J CoachellaI Valley (Gill 1994; Godfrey 39(8):661–74. Raksha Malakar-Kuenen et al. 2003), probably from Mexican or Glisan B. 1993. Customized prevention Jocelyn G. Millar programs play vital role in back protection Argentinian table-grape vineyards. This Chuck A. Ingels process. Occup Health Safety 62(12):21–6. invasive pest quickly spread to grape- Ed A. Weber Hashemi L, Webster BS, Clancy EA, growing regions in the San Joaquin Val- Volinn E. 1997. Length of disability and Carmen Gispert cost of workers’ compensation low back ley (1998), Central Coast (1999), North pain claims. J Occupational Environ Med t Coast (2001), Sacramento Valley (2002), 39(10):937–45. Sierra foothills (2002) and Monterey Leamon TB. 1994. Research to reality: A critical review of the validity of various cri- The vine mealybug is a newly inva- area (2002). As of fall 2005, the vine teria for the prevention of occupationally sive pest that has spread throughout mealybug had been found in 17 Califor- induced low back pain disability. Ergonom- California’s extensive grape-growing nia counties, and it is likely that more ics 37(12):1959–74. infestations have not been detected. Marras WS, Allread WG, Burr DL, regions. Researchers are investigating Vineyard mealybugs decrease crop Fathallah FA. 2000. A prospective valida- new control tools to be used in com- tion of a low-back disorder risk model and quality by excreting honeydew, which an assessment of ergonomic interventions bination with or as an alternative to promotes sooty molds, and by infest- associated with manual materials handling standard organophosphate insecticide tasks. Ergonomics 43(11):1866–86. ing grape bunches (Flaherty et al. 1992). Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, controls. Insect growth regulators and The vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus et al. 1993. The role of dynamic three- nicotine-based insecticides provide [Signoret]) has biological characteristics dimensional trunk motion in occupation- that make it more damaging than other ally related low back disorders: The effect good alternative pesticides for use in of workplace factors, trunk position, and some vineyards. Ongoing studies on vineyard mealybugs (Godfrey et al. trunk motion characteristics on risk of in- the augmentative release of natural 2002). For example, the vine mealybug jury. Spine 18(5):617–28. has a high reproductive rate, with some enemies and mating disruption also Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, females depositing more than 250 eggs, et al. 1995. Trunk motion and occupation- show promise, but commercial prod- ally related low back disorder risk. Ergo- and a fast development time, with four nomics 38:377–410. ucts are not yet available to growers. to seven generations per year in the San Meyers J, Miles J, Faucett J, et al. 2001. Priority risk factors for back injury in agri- cultural field work: Vineyard ergonomics. J Agromed 8(1):37–52. [NRC-IOM] National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2001. Musculo- skeletal disorders and the workplace: Low back and upper extremities. Panel on Mus- culoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sci- ences and Education. Washington, DC: Nat Acad Pr. [OSU] Ohio State University Research News. 2001. Landmark study uncovers rea- sons behind recurring back injury. Decem- ber. Columbus, OH. http://researchnews. osu.edu/archive/backemg.htm. US Public Health Service. 1991. Healthy People 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives. US De- partment of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Obj. 10.2. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ. 1993. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lift- ing tasks. Ergonomics 36(7):749–76. Waters T, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A. 1994. Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub No 94–110. The nonnative vine mealybug, female (left) and winged male (right), excretes abundant Webster B, Snook S. 1990. The cost of honeydew, and infests and feeds on grape leaves and bunches. The authors investigated compensable low back pain. J Occup Med sustainable alternatives to conventional insecticides, which are often ineffective because 32(1):13. the mealybug can reside under the bark. http://CaliforniaAgriculture.ucop.edu • JANUARy–MARCH 2006 31 Joaquin Valley. In addition to producing no-insecticide control. Treatment plots Insecticide trials abundant honeydew, the vine mealy- were three rows by 80 to 125 vines bug feeds on grape leaves and bunches Until recently, the recommended (0.5 to 0.7 acres), running the length through much of the summer. This pest insecticide program for vineyard of each row. In the drip-irrigated vine- also has a wide host range, which in- mealybugs was a delayed dormant yards, a 4- to 6-hour pretreatment irri- cludes common weeds (such as malva), organophosphate insecticide (chlorpy- gation prepared the soil. Imidacloprid potentially increasing residual popula- rifos [Lorsban, Dow Chemical]) and/or was then applied through the irriga- tions outside the vineyard. Finally, like in-season applications of a short- tion system, and a 6- to 8-hour post- other vineyard mealybugs, the vine residual organophosphate (e.g., diazinon treatment irrigation was used to move mealybug can transmit grapevine viral [Helena Chemical]) or carbamate (e.g., the insecticide into the root zone. The diseases (Golino et al. 1999). methomyl [Lannate, DuPont]) (Bentley furrow-irrigated vineyards were pre- Unfortunately, the vine mealybug is et al. 2003). While these insecticides pared by French plowing the berm and a pest that is here to stay in California can provide adequate vine mealybug furrow area to expose surface roots, and will likely continue to spread. Its control, their repeated use may also followed by a 1-day pretreatment irriga- dissemination is facilitated by the sticky kill natural enemies of the mealybug, tion. Imidacloprid was then applied into nature of the honeydew; infested plant reducing the level of biological control the furrows using an herbicide spray material may be moved by wind-blown (Walton and Pringle 1999). We studied rig, and the application was followed by leaves, animals, farm equipment and the effectiveness of two insecticides a 1-day posttreatment irrigation. field crews. Grape clusters harvested considered less disruptive than the Mealybug density was monitored from infested vineyards may also pro- organophosphates: imidacloprid before treatment application (between mote the pest’s movement to new vine- (Admire, Bayer), a systemic, nicotinoid March 13 and 19, 2002) by a field dis- yard blocks because some mealybugs insecticide; and buprofezin (Applaud, section of two spurs per vine on 25 ran- can survive the destemming process Nichino America), an insect growth domly selected vines per plot for a total and grower-managed compost piles. regulator. We report here on a part of of 625 vines per vineyard (Geiger et al. As a result, caution must be taken with this larger study. 2001). To determine treatment effect, the disposal of harvest waste. Finally, Systemic insecticide. In 2002, we crop damage was evaluated at harvest because mealybugs often reside beneath tested the effectiveness of imidaclo- using a 0-to-3 cluster rating system, the vine’s bark or underground, the prid as a systemic insecticide (applied where 0 = no mealybug damage, 1 = detection of infested nursery stock is through irrigation water and taken up by honeydew (indicating the presence of difficult and the effectiveness of contact the vine roots) at different timings. The mealybugs), 2 = honeydew and mealy- insecticides is reduced. study was conducted in two vineyards, bugs but the cluster is harvestable, and In response to the serious conse- one with drip and the other with furrow 3 = unmarketable (Geiger and Daane quences of vine mealybug infesta- irrigation, near Del Rey (Fresno County). 2001). In each treatment plot, 25 vines tions in California, a consortium of The vineyards were mature (more than were randomly selected and nine clus- University, private, and county and 20 years old) ‘Thompson Seedless’ ters per vine were sampled. state personnel has initiated regional blocks, planted in a well-drained, sandy- Foliar treatments. In 2003, we tested trapping and control efforts (Daane, loam soil and managed for raisin grapes. five treatments in the existing 2002 drip- Bentley, et al. 2004). Effective, In each vineyard, imidacloprid was and furrow-irrigated plots. The five insecticide-based control programs applied at full label rate in a random- treatments were: (1) 32 ounces imida- have been developed for regions ized complete block with five blocks, cloprid per acre, applied in May 2003 to where the pest is well established. In a each containing the following five treat- plots that had received the same treat- series of studies, we focused on more ments: 32 ounces imidacloprid per acre ment in April 2002; (2) no insecticide ap- sustainable controls that may work in applied in (1) April, (2) May or (3) June; plied in 2003 to plots that had received combination with or as alternatives to (4) 16 ounces imidacloprid per acre ap- 32 ounces imidacloprid per acre in May standard insecticide programs. plied in both April and May; and (5) a 2002; (3) 12 ounces buprofezin per acre, 32 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 60, NUMBER 1 Left to right, the vine mealybug was introduced into California in the early 1990s, and is currently found in at least 17 counties; infested windblown leaves can easily spread the pest from vine to vine, and vineyard to vineyard; grape bunches are rendered unmarketable; a damaged grapevine trunk.