Spent Coffee Grounds Do Not Control Cycad Aulacaspis Scale
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
undersides of leaves (Howard and Spent Coffee Grounds Do Not Control Cycad Weissling, 1999; Smith and Cave, Aulacaspis Scale 2006; Wiese et al., 2005) and roots (Howard et al., 1999; Weissling et al., 1999), which are difficult to cover Tracy Monique Magellan1, Chad Husby, Stella Cuestas, with foliar sprays (Hodges et al., and M. Patrick Griffith 2003; Smith and Cave, 2006). At Montgomery Botanical Center (MBC, Coral Gables, FL), research on ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. asian cycad scale, Aulacaspis yasumatsui, coffee beans, the control and integrated pest man- mulch, neem oil, orange oil, Coffea arabica, Cycas debaoensis, Cycas micronesica agement of CAS has been performed (Wiese and Mannion, 2007). Mannion SUMMARY. Cycad aulacaspis scale [CAS (Aulacaspis yasumatsui)] is a highly de- structive pest insect worldwide. CAS feeds on cycad (Cycas sp.) plantings and is also (2003) performed a study examining posing a problem for the foliage industry. The use of spent coffee grounds to possible chemical deterrents, many of prevent or control CAS has received increased popularity in the last few years. This which were not viable because of phy- study assesses whether the application of spent coffee grounds is a realistic control totoxicity. Experiments on biological method against CAS, and whether spent coffee grounds can be successfully used as control of CAS were also conducted at a natural alternative to chemical pesticides. Two tests were performed during MBC (Cave, 2006; Wiese and Mannion, Summer 2010 and 2011. The first experiment assessed seven treatments: five coffee 2007; Wiese et al., 2005). treatments, neem oil, and orange oil to control CAS on the debao cycad (Cycas Potential insecticidal activity of debaoensis). In the second experiment, only coffee mulch was tested against the coffee was tested on leaf-cutting ant Cycas micronesica control on the debao cycad and fadang ( ). There was no statistical ( ) with nega- evidence of a difference between the control and the coffee mulch treatment with Atta sexdens rubropilosa regard to infestation (insects per square centimeter). Soil pH differences were tive results (Miyashira et al., 2011) confirmed between control and coffee treatments, with the application of coffee and on mosquito (Aedes aegypti) with mulch lowering pH by an average of 0.48. Spent coffee grounds did not have an positive results (Guirado and Bicudo, effect on cycad mortality, but neem oil and orange oil increased cycad mortality. 2007; Laranja et al., 2003). Prior studies indicated neem oil (Fiaz et al., 2012; Mamoon-ur- AS is a highly destructive pest The debao cycad is critically en- Rashid et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2002) in southern Florida and world- dangered, and the population trend is and orange oil (Ashok et al., 2007; wide. In 1996, CAS was in- decreasing (International Union for C Hollingsworth, 2005; Zunino et al., troduced to Miami, FL, from southern Conservation of Nature, 2010). Arti- 2012) have insecticidal properties. China or Thailand (Germain and ficial propagation in the commercial In 2009, a preliminary study was Hodges, 2007; Howard and Weissling, nursery industry will be highly bene- conducted at MBC involving a variety 1999; Howard et al., 1999; Weissling ficial to the species, by minimizing of cycads that were mulched with et al., 1999). CAS is highly detri- collecting pressure on the wild pop- spent coffee grounds. The goal of the mental to cycads. Since its introduc- ulations. Its bipinnate leaf structure study was to observe whether there tion, thousands of cycads have been makes it an attractive foliage plant, would be a benefit with regard to CAS killed in the Miami area (Mannion, though its susceptibility to CAS may control. The results appeared to be 2003; Whitelock, 2002). CAS is also deter nurseries from propagating this positive, but lacked quantitative rigor thegreatestthreattothenativepop- species. and sufficient control. This study was ulation of fadang in Guam (Marler Since 2006, there has been dis- conducted to more rigorously deter- and Muniappan, 2006). Its abundance cussion in the cycad enthusiast com- mine whether spent coffee grounds are is taking a toll on cycad plantings and munity regarding the benefits of coffee an effective control method for CAS. is posing a problem for the foliage grounds (Broome, 2007; Kelly, 2008); industry (Emshousen et al., 2004; yet, no scientific studies support Wiese et al., 2005; Woods, 2007). these claims (Popenoe, 2010). Two Materials and methods The ornamental horticulture indus- methods of application have been dis- Three types of coffee application try has suffered millions of dollars in cussed: 1) a foliar application of coffee were used: spent coffee mulch, spent losses because of CAS (Mannion, 2003; grounds mixed with water and 2) coffee tea, and a combination of spent Woods, 2007). coffee mulch at the base of the plants. coffee mulch and spent coffee tea. In prior research, foliar contact pes- Half doses were included among the Montgomery Botanical Center, 11901 Old Cutler ticide applications have not worked treatments to assess whether treat- Road, Coral Gables, FL 33156 well to control CAS because of the ment thresholds may exist. Leaflet We thank John DeMott from Redland Nursery in heavy-scale concentrations on the area, soil pH, and total number of Homestead, FL, for his generous donation of the Cycas debaoensis used in the two experiments. We also thank Michael Calonje, cycad curator of MBC, for allocating the Cycas micronesica for the second round Units of testing; Starbucks Coffee Company for their dona- To convert U.S. to SI, To convert SI to U.S., tion of pounds and pounds of grounds for the study; multiply by U.S. unit SI unit multiply by Vickie Murphy for her horticultural expertise; and Jack Bauer, Ansel Thomas, and Hostilio Torres for 29.5735 fl oz mL 0.0338 constructing the shadehouse. 3.7854 gal L 0.2642 1Corresponding author. E-mail: tracym@montgomery 2.54 inch(es) cm 0.3937 botanical.org. 1 mmhoÁcm–1 mSÁcm–1 1 • April 2013 23(2) 201 RESEARCH REPORTS CAS present were measured. After Soil was saturated and after 30 min, filter (#4 Cone Permanent Golden initial infestation counts were made, 12 fl oz of irrigation water (well #GF214; Medelco, Bridgeport, CT) treatments began. Neem and orange water) was poured on each pot. The and the solution was sprayed on the oil treatments were also applied. Treat- leachate was collected in a plastic sau- adaxial and abaxial leaflet surfaces of ments were reapplied weekly. cer. EC and pH were measured [fol- each plant in that treatment. The EXPT.1.In the first experiment, lowing methodology from Cavins remaining coffee tea was used as a 40 debao cycads of similar size were et al. (2000), Bilderback (2001), and drench to saturate the root area. For selected at a nursery and potted in 3-gal Whipker et al. (2001)]. At the start of the ½ tea solution, the same coffee tea pots. We used cycad potting mix, which the experiment, the pH of the well recipe was used and diluted in a 1:1 is composed of Fafard organic soil water was 7.2 and EC was 1 mmho/cm. ratio with water. Total dosage per conditioner (Conrad Fafard, Agawam, Photos and initial insect counts plant (spray + drench) was 0.5 gal. MA); sand, coarse silica sand (Florida were taken showing baseline level of Orange oil (product 9492; Garden- Silica Sand Co., Fort Lauderdale, FL); scale infestation for 40 individuals. In Ville, Austin, TX) and neem oil leaf and expanded clay (Hydroton; Florida all cases, no live insects were found on polish (model SP-NO8; Dyna-Gro Nu- Garden Supplies, Miami, FL) in a the experimental plants at the start of trition Solutions, Richmond, CA) were 1:1:1 ratio by volume. The plants were the experiment, but CAS is prevalent appliedataconcentrationof60mLper grown in full sun from 13 May to on the property’s large cycad collec- gallon. In these treatments, the adaxial 9 Nov. 2010 (Fig. 1). Spent coffee tion located near the experimental and abaxial surfaces of the leaflets were grounds were collected from local area. Plants were watered on the same fully sprayed and the remainder of the coffeehouses weekly. Five replicates schedule, two to three times a week. solution was applied as a soil drench. of six coffee treatments were applied: Coffee mulch treatment con- The oil treatments were also applied at 1) no treatment (control), 2) spent sisted of 500 mL compressed spent a total dose per plant (spray + drench) coffee mulch, 3) coffee tea, 4) half- espresso grounds. Half mulch treat- of 0.5 gal. strength coffee tea, 5) half-strength ment was 250 mL compressed spent Five leaflets were collected from coffee mulch, and 6) mulch and espresso grounds. Compressed espresso each plant and CAS insects were coffee tea. Treatments 7 and 8 were grounds were used to standardize the counted on 23 Sept. and 8 Nov. orange oil and neem oil, respectively. quantity of coffee and water in all 2010. Leaf areas and insect counts were Baseline pH and electrical con- treatments. Drip coffee grounds were measured using ImageJ64 (Rasband, ductivity (EC) pour-through measure- not used because they are more vari- 2012), and insects per square centi- ments were taken before beginning able in initial water content. meter were calculated. treatments using a pH/EC meter The coffee tea was made by mix- Infestation densities were com- (AGRI-METER model AG6/pH; ing 500 mL spent coffee grounds in pared via one-way analysis of variance Myron L Co., Carlsbad, CA). An irriga- 1 gal of water to steep overnight. The (ANOVA) using JMP (version 9.0; tion water leachate pour-through pro- following day the coffee tea was fil- SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Binomial cedure was used (Bilderback, 2001).