1 Pheromone Report Special

Volume XXXIII, Number 3/4, March/April 2011 (Published July 2012) Brave New World—Systemic and Genetically Engineered Crops

By William Quarles Preserve Nature Lakeshore UW-Madison Denniston, Glenda courtesy Photo

lmost overnight, genetically engineered (GE) crops have A profoundly changed agricul- ture in the U.S. Leading the way have been corn, soybean, and cot- ton crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. As a result, traditional farming and IPM methods have been tossed aside and replaced with a simplistic solution. Seeds are drilled into the soil without cultiva- tion. When weeds appear, fields and crops are sprayed with glyphosate, usually by aerial application. Repeated applications are needed, and glyphosate resistant (GR) crops are often grown in the same field, year after year (Duke and Powles 2009; Mortensen et al. 2012). Glyphosate is systemically absorbed by the crop, and it appears in the food sold for con- Glyphosate applications associated with GR crops have destroyed milk- sumption (EPA 2011; Arregui et al. weed habitat of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, leading to an 2004; Duke 2011). Other GE 81% reduction of Midwest monarch populations. changes include crops that grow their own . Genes from the Large Pesticide Increase resistant, and resistance increases bacterium pesticide applications (Duke and Overall, GE crops have caused a (BT) are inserted into plant Powles 2009). GR crops actually large pesticide increase. BT crops genomes. Each plant cell produces reduced herbicide applications over have led to less applied insecticide, insecticidal proteins, and these the first three years after their but GR crops need large amounts of insecticides are incorporated into introduction. But rapid emergence the food (Gassmann 2012). glyphosate. Roundup Ready® GR of resistant weeds has caused large Genetically engineered foods are crops were introduced in 1996, and glyphosate increases each year. For not labeled, despite the fact that cumulative pesticide use over 16 instance, there was a 31% increase 90% of Americans support labeling years has increased by about 400 (Acres 2012). Consumers are million lbs (182 million kg) exposed to these new genetic cre- (Benbrook 2009; Benbrook 2012). ations and their systemic pesticides These production systems are not without their knowledge. The effects sustainable, but agribusiness has In This Issue of longterm, widespread exposure to bet America’s future on GE crops, these products have not been fully in exchange for large, shortterm investigated, and most of the stud- corporate profits. Systemic Pesticides 1 ies supporting their safety have GE crops are not sustainable ESA Report 10 been produced by industry because farmers rely on larger (Antoniou et al. 2011; Antoniou et amounts of fewer pesticides. Weeds al. 2012). and pest insects then become 2 Update

in glyphosate use from 2007 to Nafis Gary courtesy Photo The IPM Practitioner is published six times 2008 (Benbrook 2009). per year by the Bio-Integral Resource Repeated use of the same pesti- Center (BIRC), a non-profit corporation undertaking research and education in inte- cides is leading to their buildup in grated pest management. soil and contamination of water and Managing Editor William Quarles air (Chang et al. 2011; Battaglin et Contributing Editors Sheila Daar al. 2005). GE crops have caused Tanya Drlik destruction of habitat for the Laurie Swiadon monarch butterfly and other envi- Glyphosate formulations can Editor-at-Large Joel Grossman ronmental problems (Hartzler 2010; be toxic to frogs. Business Manager Jennifer Bates Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012; Artist Diane Kuhn Antoniou et al. 2012). Resistance to and about 8.6 million lbs (3.9 mil- BT and invasion of secondary pests lion kg) were applied in 2010 (CA For media kits or other advertising informa- have led to systemic seed treat- tion, contact Bill Quarles at 510/524-2567, DPR 1996; 2010). [email protected]. ments with neonicotinoid pesticides In 2008, 57% of the corn acreage that have toxic effects on bees and 73% of the acreage in Advisory Board George Bird, Michigan State Univ.; Sterling (Quarles 2011; Hopwood et al. the U.S. had been planted in BT Bunnell, M.D., Berkeley, CA ; Momei Chen, 2012; Krupke et al. 2012). More varieties (Benbrook 2009). In 2010, Jepson Herbarium, Univ. Calif., Berkeley; than 45% of U.S. cropland is now over 58 million acres (23.5 ha) Sharon Collman, Coop Extn., Wash. State treated with systemic chemical pes- Univ.; Sheila Daar, Daar & Associates, worldwide were planted to BT Berkeley, CA; Walter Ebeling, UCLA, Emer.; ticides (Stokstad 2012). crops, mostly cotton and corn Steve Frantz, Global Environmental Options, (Gassmann 2012). Longmeadow, MA; Linda Gilkeson, Canadian Ministry of Envir., Victoria, BC; Joseph Scope of the Problem Hancock, Univ. Calif, Berkeley; William GE canola, sugarbeets, corn, soy- Monarch Butterfly Olkowski, Birc Founder; George Poinar, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; beans, and cotton are grown com- Habitat destruction of the Ramesh Chandra Saxena, ICIPE, Nairobi, mercially in the U.S. (Duke and monarch butterfly, Danaus plexip- Kenya; Ruth Troetschler, PTF Press, Los Powles 2009). Since most of the pus, represents one of the first Altos, CA; J.C. van Lenteren, Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands. acreage is devoted to GE soybeans, large scale environmental catastro- cotton, and corn, only these crops phes due to GE crops. The monarch Manuscripts The IPMP welcomes accounts of IPM for any will be discussed here. In 2008, butterfly is one of the best known pest situation. Write for details on format for herbicide resistant soybeans, cot- environmental icons (Brower and manuscripts or email us, [email protected]. ton, and corn represented 92%, Malcolm 1991). Developing caterpil- Citations 93%, and 63% of total acres plant- lars of the monarch are dependent The material here is protected by copyright, ed to each crop in the U.S., and on wild stands of milkweed, and may not be reproduced in any form, either written, electronic or otherwise without amount was increasing each year Asclepias spp. From the milkweed written permission from BIRC. Contact (Benbrook 2009). In 2011, 94% of they obtain the chemicals that give William Quarles at 510/524-2567 for proper all U.S. soybeans were GE them a bad taste, and thus protect publication credits and acknowledgement. glyphosate resistant. Since GR soy- them from predators (Malcolm et al. Subscriptions/Memberships beans were first planted, there has 1989). A subscription to the IPMP is one of the bene- fits of membership in BIRC. We also answer been a 97% glyphosate increase in Milkweed is especially sensitive to pest management questions for our members soybeans, from 3 million lbs (1.4 glyphosate, and stands along crop and help them search for information. million kg) in 1994 to 92 million lbs edges have been destroyed by mas- Memberships are $60/yr (institutions/ libraries/businesses); $35/yr (individuals). (41.7 million kg) in 2006 (Pleasants sive glyphosate applications associ- Canadian subscribers add $15 postage. All and Oberhauser 2012). ated with GE crops. There has been other foreign subscribers add $25 airmail In 2011, about 72% of all U.S. an 81-90% reduction of milkweed postage. A Dual membership, which includes a combined subscription to both the IPMP corn was GE glyphosate resistant. on farmland in Iowa. Similar reduc- and the Common Sense Pest Control There has been a 94% glyphosate tions are found throughout the Quarterly, costs $85/yr (institutions); $55/yr (individuals). Government purchase orders increase in corn, from 4 million lbs Midwest where GE crops are plant- accepted. Donations to BIRC are tax- (1.8 million kg) in 2000 to 63 mil- ed (Hartzler 2010; Pleasants and deductible. lion lbs (28.5 million kg) in 2010 Oberhauser 2012). FEI# 94-2554036. (Pleasants and Oberhauser 2012). From 1999 to 2010 disappearing Change of Address has fewer acres of GE milkweed insectary plants have led When writing to request a change of address, please send a copy of a recent address label. crops planted than areas such as to an 81% decline in Midwest pro- © 2012 BIRC, PO Box 7414, Berkeley, CA the Midwest, but glyphosate use in duction of migrating monarchs. 94707; (510) 524-2567; FAX (510) 524-1758. California has doubled since 1996, Partly due to this reduction, over- All rights reserved. ISSN #0738-968X the first year that Roundup Ready wintering populations in Mexico crops were used. About 4.2 million have dropped by 65% (Pleasants lbs (1.9 million kg) of glyphosate and Oberhauser 2012; Brower et al. and its salts were applied in 1996, 2012).

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 2 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 3 Update

Frogs, Pathogens, Nutrients Box A. Glyphosate Problems Pesticides may be one of the causes of widespread amphibian Glyphosate herbicide was origi- phoma (de Roos et al. 2003; Cox decline seen over the last 30 years. nally developed by John Franz at 2004). More than one-third of amphibian in 1970. It works by There is a large variation in envi- species are now threatened with inhibiting a key enzyme needed for ronmental persistence. The soil half extinction. Glyphosate formulations plant growth. It is broadspectrum life of glyphosate ranges from 2-197 and will affect most higher plants. days, and the soil half life of the containing various surfactants and Differences in damage between degradation product AMPA ranges inerts may cause amphibian toxici- plant species is due mainly to dif- from 76-240 days. Glyphosate binds ty, including birth defects (Paetow ferences in absorption (Duke and to soil, but it still moves out into et al. 2012; Paganelli et al. 2010; Powles 2008). streams. Phosphate fertilizers dis- Howe et al. 2004). Glyphosate for- Glyphosate has low acute toxicity, place glyphosate and increase mulations are toxic to tadpoles, and a generally benign toxicological runoff (Cerdeira and Duke 2010). and some studies have shown that profile (Duke and Powles 2008; Nearly every stream, river, and glyphosate formulations kill tad- Mink et al. 2011). But some studies reservoir in heavily farmed regions poles in natural settings (Relyea have shown that glyphosate or its contain glyphosate and its degrada- 2005a; Moore et al. 2012; Williams formulations may cause birth tion products (Chang et al. 2011). and Semlitsch 2010). Glyphosate defects and endocrine disruption In the Midwest, glyphosate or its formulations can reduce species problems in animals (Richard et al. degradation products were found in diversity of frogs and other species 2005; Paganelli et al. 2010; 69% of surface water samples test- in aquatic communities (Relyea Dallegrave et al. 2003). Reduced ed. Concentrations measured in 2005b). (See Box A) testosterone and delayed puberty streams are low, but direct meas- Glyphosate binds to micronutri- has been seen in rats at relatively urements of runoff from small ents in the soil, making them less low concentrations (Dallegrave et al. watersheds can have amounts (5.1 available for plant nutrition. Low 2007; Romano et al. 2010). Most of mg/liter) that exceed drinking water levels of glyphosate reduce root the controversy coming from these standards of 0.7 mg/liter (Battaglin studies is centered on what is an uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu, et al. 2005). environmentally relevant amount Glyphosate was found in 60- making plants more susceptible to (Antoniou et al. 2011; Williams et 100% of rain and air samples tested disease. The problem is worsened al. 2012). in Iowa and Mississippi by U.S. with the increased glyphosate Applicators that use glyphosate Geologic Survey (USGS) (Chang et application seen with GE crops often absorb it. One study showed al. 2011). Glyphosate or AMPA was (Johal and Huber 2009). Sprays of that 60% of farmers that use it found in 92% of rain samples in glyphosate increase populations of have traces of glyphosate in their Indiana. Concentrations were low, plant pathogens in soil (Cerdeira urine (Acquavella et al. 2004; but maximum concentrations of and Duke 2010; Duke et al. 2007). Battaglin et al. 2005). A large scale glyphosate were higher the maxi- Roots of GR soybeans and corn are epidemiologic study of exposed mum concentrations of other herbi- heavily colonized by Fusarium farmers showed an association with cides tested. About 0.7% of (Kremer and Means 2009). multiple myeloma (de Roos et al. glyphosate applied to soil goes air- Roundup Ready seeds are now 2005). Another study showed a con- borne and is removed from air by being treated with the fungicide nection with non-Hodgkins lym- rainfall (Chang et al. 2011). pyraclostrobin (Acceleron®) to help deal with the disease problem. In 2010, 11% of corn was treated with in Oregon led to gene escape into nate nearby fields, but fungicides. Less than 1% of corn the wild bentgrass population drops with distance. GE had been treated in earlier years (Bollman et al. 2012). Three years in alfalfa pollen, however, can move (Benbrook 2012; Antoniou et al. after the trials, “as much as 62% of 4 km (2.4 mi) or more. In one 2012). the wild bentgrass population in the vicinity possessed the GR trait” Gene Flow and Human (Duke and Powles 2009). Error Movement of GE transgenes into One of the problems of GE crops organic crops is possible. One is the flow of the transgenes into study showed half the samples the environment, causing genetic from six conventional soybean cul- pollution. Transgenes can spread tivars had up to 1% GE contamina- through seeds, pollen, and vegeta- tion. Also, there was up to 1% GE GE crops can lead to genetic tive propagules. As an example, contamination in half the samples pollution, causing great eco- field trials of glyphosate resistant from six conventional corn culti- nomic damage. (GR) bentgrass, Agrostis stolonifera vars. GE corn pollen can contami-

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 3 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 4 Update study, 22% of seed tested from trap show only that the GE food is “sub- problem is lack of traditional seeds. plants 1000 m (0.6 mi) away from stantially equivalent” to the natural Most seed companies in the 1990s alfalfa production fields had the product. This is a very vague term. were purchased by pesticide manu- (Mallory-Smith and A living body might be “substantial- facturers, as they saw vast profits Zapiola 2008; Snow et al. 2005). ly equivalent” to a recently dead could be made by monopolizing Geneflow is compounded by one, but there is still an obvious both seeds and pesticides. It is not human error. To farmers and mar- profound difference. Often substan- in their interest to produce and pro- keters, all corn looks alike. This tially equivalent means only that mote traditional seeds (Mortensen fact may have led to the illegal sales nutritional analyses are done, not et al. 2012; Gray 2011). of Starlink® corn in 2000. The corn animal safety tests (Zobiole et al. The simplistic agronomic systems was approved for animal use, but 2010; Ridley et al. 2011; Antoniou of GE crops can make them easier not for human food. Starlink was et al. 2012). to grow. Intially, GE crops led to found in taco shells, and the result- A recent publication by Antoniou larger profits for farmers. But prof- ing recall cost industry more than et al. (2012) reviews GE . its may not be sustainable due to $1 billion. Traces of Starlink were Possible food safety issues occur if increased seed costs, weed resist- still being found in the food supply the transgene product is toxic or ance and other problems (Duke and in 2008. A similar mixup between allergenic, or if the transformation Powles 2009; Gianessi 2008). approved BT11 corn and unap- process itself is mutagenic, causing According to Benbrook (2012), there proved BT10 was discovered in has been a 30% shift of net 2005 (MacIlwain 2005; EPA 2008). income/acre in corn, soybeans, and Gene flow and human error may cotton from farmers to seed and become dangerous with Pharm pesticide providers. Net profits in Crops that have been engineered to soybean and cotton have dropped produce drugs (Mallory-Smith and since 2004 (Duke and Powles Zapiola 2008). 2009). All kinds of genetic traits are being incorporated into crops. But Calculations showing the profit amylase corn may be the first crop advantages of GE crops do not that eats itself. As it grows, amylase include the economic burden posed is secreted that digests the starch by pest resistance (Gianessi 2008; produced. The result is a product Buman et al. 2005). Glyphosate easier to convert into ethanol. But weed resistance may increase weed even low amounts mixed into food control costs in GE crops by $12- supplies could lead to lower quality, $14/acre ($30-$35/ha)(Owen such as sticky tortillas and gummy Farmers are losing their inde- 2010). Profit advantage simulations bread (Waltz 2011). pendence, as traditional also do not include some environ- seeds are disappearing. mental costs, such as loss of the Safety of GE Crops monarch butterfly and reductions in frog populations (Pimentel et al From the beginning there were new or allergens to be pro- 1992). regulatory difficulties with the duced. According to Antoniou et al. introduction of GE crops. They were (2012), GE BT crops fed to animals Favorable Government clearly novel, and millions of people have caused toxic effects to the Policy would be exposed. Regulators had small intestine, liver, kidney, to decide whether GE crops should spleen, and pancreas. There was GE crops are being planted be treated as food or drugs. The also reduced weight gain and because of favorable government pharmaceutical industry has to immune system disturbances. policy. From the beginning, the show through animal tests and According to Antoniou et al. (2012) USDA has promoted GE crops. clinical trials that a drug is effective animals fed GE soybeans showed When the National Organic Program and safe before it can be sold. Yet “disturbed liver, pancreas and was being created, the USDA want- when the drug is sold, much larger testes function.” ed to include GE products in organ- numbers of people are exposed, and ic agriculture. The agency relented sometimes hidden toxic effects Why are GE Crops Being only after large scale resistance by appear (Karha and Topol 2004). consumers and organic interests The final GE regulatory model Planted? (Quarles 1998). USDA approval and involves EPA, USDA, and FDA. If there are environmental prob- deregulation has been granted to Toxic effects of gene products are lems and uncertain safety, why are almost every GE crop application. regulated by EPA. USDA approves GE crops being produced? GE crops Lawsuits, such as the case of GE production of GE crops. The FDA are supported by aggressive mar- alfalfa, are needed to reverse bad does a premarket preview of all GE keting, favorable government policy, decisions (Duke and Powles 2008; food (Freese 2007). Industry has to and some cost advantages. A major Kimbrell 2011).

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 4 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 5 Update

Government crop insurance pro- cides will likely eliminate any envi- grams favor GE crops. In 2008, The ronmental advantage produced by Farm Stewart and Williams Bob of courtesy Photo USDA’s Crop Insurance Board low- GR crops (Mortensen et al. 2012). ered premiums for farmers who would plant at least 75% of their Resistance to Glyphosate corn to an approved transgenic Glyphosate was used for more hybrid (Gray 2011). than 20 years without a report of As this issue went to press, vari- resistance. Problems started with ous amendments were being added the introduction of GE glyphosate to U.S. Farm Bill legislation that resistant crops in 1996 and the would make it easier to get GE resulting explosion of glyphosate crops with multiple herbicide resist- use (Duke and Powles 2009). ant traits (see below) approved. The Conversion from IPM methods of House Farm Bill contains HR 872, weed control to no-tillage monocul- Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, tures maintained by one herbicide which stops the EPA from reviewing has led to a shift in the agricultural new and expanded uses of pesti- weed spectrum in the U.S. Sensitive cides, and speeds approval of GE weeds are disappearing, tolerant Resistant horseweed, Conyza crops (Baden-Mayer 2012). weeds are proliferating, and evolved canadensis, covers millions of resistance of superweeds is a reality acres of GE crops. Environmental Benefits (Owen 2008; Webster and Nichols GE crops produce some environ- 2012). Resistant species such as horse- mental benefits, mainly due to no- Resistance can build quickly. weed, C. canadensis, are hybridiz- till production, which conserves Resistant waterhemp, Amaranthus ing and spreading resistance to water and soil. But no-till methods tuberculatus; and horseweed, related species such as hairy flea- can be used with conventional Conyza canadensis, were seen 2-3 bane, C. bonariensis. Other weeds crops. GR crops have meant fewer years after the introduction of GR such as lambsquarters, Chenopo- applications of other herbicides, soybeans. Resistant horseweed in dium ; pokeweed, Phytolacca such as 2,4-D and atrazine. But cotton is a problem that may americana; field horsetail, Equi- this may be a short term phenome- require a partial return to tillage setum arvense; velvetleaf, Abutilon non. Weeds resistant to glyphosate (Owen 2008; Heap 2011). theophrasti; tropical spiderwort, are driving farmers to increase Resistance to glyphosate has Commelina benghalensis; wild tillage and apply other herbicides. evolved in many species and is parsnip, Pastinaca sativa; and oth- The industry solution is to produce widely distributed. In 2011, 21 ers are becoming problems because GE crops simultaneously resistant weed species worldwide were resist- they are either naturally tolerant or to several herbicides (see below). ant to glyphosate. About 8 resistant are encouraged by no-till produc- Due to pesticide pollution, planting species have become problems in tion (Owen 2008; Owen 2010; of crops resistant to multiple herbi- GR crops in the U.S., and they are Benbrook 2009; Duke and Powles listed in Table 1. Leading the list in 2009).

ht oreyVrii ehWe DGuide ID Weed Tech Virginia courtesy Photo infested acreage is Palmer ama- ranth, Amaranthus palmeri, and Resistance to BT horseweed, Conyza canadensis (Owen 2010; Benbrook 2009; Bacillus thuringiensis is one of Powles 2008; Heap 2011; Riley the most important tools of organic 2010; 2011). agriculture. It is applied to crops as

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri, is resistant to glyphosate.

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 5 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 6 Update a spray. It leaves no toxic residuals, was likely (Tabashnik et al. 2009). spares beneficial insects, and gen- As a result, the EPA made estab- erally affects only pests that eat the lishment of BT free refuges a crop. It degrades quickly in the labeled requirement. Up until 2008, field, and does not contaminate BT corn labels required planting of water (Glare and O’Callaghan 20% non-BT corn to help prevent 2000). resistance. It was a good idea, but Several crops have been engi- grower compliance has been less neered with transgenes that express than 80%, and in 2010 the EPA dropped the refuge requirement to

ht oreyPgyGe SAARS USDA Greb Peggy courtesy Photo 5% for SmartStax GE corn (Gray 2011). European corn borer, Despite the general success with Ostrinia nubilalis refuges, pests are growing resistant. From 1996 to 2006, no resistance was seen. However, seven species crops, fewer parasitoids specific for have developed resistance within European corn borer are found in the last four years. These include BT corn (Marvier et al. 2007; pink bollworm, corn earworm, Naranjo 2011). Helicoverpa zea; fall armyworm, Secondary pests in BT crops have Spodoptera frugiperda; corn stalk led to systemic seed treatments. borer, Buseola fusca; cotton boll- Reduction of the beneficial ground worm, H. armigera; Australian boll- beetle, Harpalus pensylvanicus, in worm, H. punctigera; and western BT corn treated with neonicotinoids corn rootworm. In some cases, the was due either to direct toxicity BT crop is no more effective than from the systemic pesticide or lack untreated crops (Gassmann 2012). of prey due to BT (Leslie et al. Resistance to BT and invasion of 2009). The western corn rootworm, secondary pests not affected by BT Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, is have led to widespread seed treat- Stacked Traits and resistant to effects of BT corn. ments with systemic neonicotinoid Multiple Herbicides insecticides (Benbrook 2008; No lessons have been learned Quarles 2011; Stokstad 2012). from the past about pesticide tread- insecticidal BT proteins. BT corn mills (van den Bosch 1978; insecticidal to the European corn BT Effects on Beneficials Olkowski et al. 1991). To deal with borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, and the According to Naranjo (2011), more glyphosate resistant weeds, the cor- western corn rootworm, Diabrotica than 360 published studies have porate solution is to engineer crops virgifera virgifera, have been plant- examined the possible effect of BT simultaneously resistant to several ed. insecticidal to the crops on non-target organisms. herbicides (Green et al. 2008; pink bollworm, Pectinophora Since beneficial insects do not eat Benbrook 2009). gossypiella, and other Lepidoptera the crop, most of the negative One of the first was SmartStax® covers more than 6.7 million acres effects are indirect, due to reduced corn, which was resistant both to (2.7 million ha)(Benbrook 2009; prey or consumption of herbivorous the herbicides glyphosate and glu- Naranjo 2011). pests full of BT proteins. Thus fewer fosinate, and simultaneously insec- Transgenes in BT crops produce predators are found in BT cotton ticidal to the western corn root- insecticidal proteins that differ from worm, and various Lepidoptera.

the natural product used in organic ARS USDA Greb Peggy courtesy Photo Others waiting approval include agriculture. Organic consumers crops simultaneously resistant to wash off any residual BT, those glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba who buy the GE crop eat insectici- (Gray 2011). dal BT proteins. BT proteins grow- Approval of these “stacked trait” ing in the crops are always there, crops with resistance to multiple pests are constantly exposed, mak- herbicides will lead to large increas- ing resistance more likely es of 2,4-D and dicamba similar to (Benbrook 2008; Benbrook 2009). those already seen with glyphosate. Several insect species have devel- One estimate is that herbicide use The pink bollworm, Pectinophora oped resistance to BT in the labora- in soybeans will approximately dou- gossypiella, is resistant to tory, and organic farmers objected ble by 2020 if these crops are effects of BT cotton. to BT crops because field resistance approved (Mortensen et al. 2012).

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 6 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 7 Update

This might be a conservative esti- mate. According to the manufactur- er, applications of 2,4-D would be Box B. Toxicity of 2,4-D 560-2240 g/ha (227-907 g/acre) The herbicide 2,4-dichlorophe- face water and groundwater. The (Mortensen et al. 2012). Application noxyacetic acid (2,4-D) has been EPA has found traces in 49.3% of of the minimum rate of 2,4-D to 54 used since 1940. It is more acutely finished drinking water samples, million acres (22 million ha) of GE toxic than glyphosate. Subchronic but well below the 70 ppb (0.07 corn would be 27 million lbs (12.3 oral exposure causes damage to the mg/liter) maximum contaminant million kg). Application of the mini- thyroid, kidney, adrenal glands, level. Exposure is widespread and mum rate to 132 million acres (53 ovaries and testes of laboratory ani- “2,4-D was detected in urine sam- million ha) of herbicide tolerant, mals. Damage occurs when kidneys ples from all age groups in a large corn, cotton, and soybeans would are not able to excrete the fast study of the American public.” The be 66 million lbs (30 million kg) of enough. This fact means 2,4-D No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) 2,4-D. Total agricultural use now is might be more toxic to older people dose in rats is 5 mg/kg/day. The about 30 million lbs (14 million kg). with impaired renal clearance. reference dose (dose below which no Crops resistant to 2,4-D could at Because of the damage to reproduc- toxic effects are expected) in least triple the amount of 2,4-D tive organs in animals and wide- humans is 0.01 mg/kg/day (NPIC applied in agriculture (EPA 2005; spread exposure, 2,4-D is being 2012; CDC 2005). Benbrook 2009). screened as a possible endocrine About 46 million lbs (21 million Though there are questions about disruptor by the EPA. Occupational kg) a year of 2,4-D are currently glyphosate safety, other herbicides exposure in humans has been asso- applied—30 million lbs (14 million may actually be more toxic (see Box ciated with reduced sperm motility kg) in agriculture. Since 2,4-D is B). Water is already contaminated and viability. Large doses led to used on lawns as well as agricul- with herbicides, and crops resistant birth defects in rats (NPIC 2012). ture, aggregate exposure is a prob- There is scientific disagreement lem. The Food Quality Protection to multiple herbicides will result in about its carcinogenic effects. The Act requires that aggregate expo- major increases (USGS 2008; EPA classifies it as “not classifiable sure must be considered. Because Benbrook 2012). as to human carcinogenicity.” The of this law, the EPA had to require International Agency for Research a reduction in application rates for Multiple Resistance on Cancer (IARC) calls it “possibly urban uses in 2005 (EPA 2005). Further implementation of this carcinogenic to humans.” One of the The new and expanded herbicide simplistic approach to weed man- confounding problems is that com- use proposed for GE crops would agement will lead to multiple herbi- mercial preparations can vary in normally trigger a re-evaluation. cide resistance, and other prob- purity, and older formulations were However, as this article went to lems. One of the expected problems contaminated with carcinogenic press, HR 872, Reducing Regulatory is misapplication. To a professional dioxins. Some epidemiologic studies Burdens Act, an amendment added have associated 2,4-D with non- to the U.S. Farm Bill, will stop the applicator, all soybean crops look Hodgkins lymphoma (NPIC 2012). EPA from reviewing new and the same. Unmodified or glyphosate 2,4-D is soluble in water. It moves expanded uses of pesticides (Baden- resistant crops may be sprayed by in soil and has been found in sur- Mayer 2012). mistake with 2,4 D or dicamba, with resulting crop destruction. Since herbicides in these crops dal modes of action—44% of these horseweed can be controlled by are applied aerially, another prob- have appeared since 2005 tillage, crop rotation, and cover lem will be pesticide drift. After (Mortensen et al. 2012). crops (Shaner et al. 2012). Even if application, pesticides can GE herbicide resistant crops contin- volatilize, and ester formulations of Integrated Pest ue to be used, they should be com- 2,4-D are especially volatile. These Management bined in an IPM program with other risks might drive farmers to convert methods to reduce resistant weeds to multiple resistant crops in self Herbicide resistant crops are not and maintain a sustainable system defense (Mortensen et al. 2012). needed to provide effective weed (Mortensen et al. 2012). Companies promoting multiresis- control in agriculture. Weeds can be tant crops suggest applying controlled by using the principles of Conclusion glyphosate and other herbicides integrated pest management (IPM) simultaneously. Repeated applica- (Stern et al. 1959). A combination GE food should have been regu- tion of these other herbicides will of cover crops, competitive culti- lated in the same way as drugs. As lead to the same weed resistance vars, restricted tillage, and spot it is, GE crop consumption is a seen with overuse of glyphosate. treatments with herbicides can pro- vast, uncontrolled experiment, with There are 28 weed species already duce profits and effectiveness simi- no oversight, no monitoring for resistant to 2,4-D. There are 38 lar to an all herbicide regime adverse reactions, and no real way weed species already simultaneous- (Liebman et al. 2008; Pimentel et al. to assess liability. Gene flow and ly resistant to two or more herbici- 2005). For instance, resistant can be tracked

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 7 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 8 Update only after it occurs. If we remember Battaglin, W.A., D.W. Kolpin, E.A. Scribner et al. Duke, S.O. and S.B. Powles. 2008. Glyphosate: a the problems with Starlink corn, 2005. Glyphosate, other herbicides, and once in a century herbicide. Pest Manag. transformation products in Midwestern Sci. 64:319-325. the whole industry is one catastro- streams, 2002. J. Amer. Water Resources Duke, S.O. and S.B. Powles. 2009. Glyphosate phe away from total meltdown. Assoc. 41(2):323-332. resistant crops and weeds: now and in the If we overlook safety and environ- Benbrook, C. 2008. Prevention, not profit, future. AgBioForum 12(3/4):346-357. should drive pest management. Pesticides Duke, S.O. 2011. Glyphosate degradation in mental issues, GE crops have not News 82:12-17. glyphosate resistant and glyphosate suscep- been used wisely. Monolithic plant- Benbrook, C. 2009. Impacts of Genetically tible crops and weeds. J. Agric. Food Chem. ings of one cultivar increase the Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the 59:5835-5841. United States: the First Thirteen Years. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. potential for total crop failure. Organic Center, Boulder, Colorado. 69 pp. 2,4-D RED Facts. 10 pp. www.epa.gov/opp- Relying almost entirely on www.organic-center.org srrd1REDs/factsheets/24d_fs.htm glyphosate and BT for pest manage- Benbrook, C. 2012. The good, the bad and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. ment has increased pest resistance, ugly: impacts of GE crops in the United Starlink corn regulatory information. April 8, States. Presentation April 12, 2012 at the 2008. www.epa.gov and current GE crops may become University of California, Irvine. Online at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. ineffective. Seed monopolies are Organic Center. 9 pp. www.organic- Glyphosate pesticide tolerances. Fed. Reg. also causing farmers to lose their center.org 76(68):19701-19706. Bollman, M.A., M.J. Storm, G.A. King et al. Freese, W. 2007. Regulating transgenic crops: is independence. 2012. Wetland and riparian plant communi- government up to the task? FDLI Update:14- We should learn from the pesti- ties at risk of invasion by transgenic herbi- 17. www.fdli.org cide treadmills of the past. GE cide resistant Agrostis spp. in central Gassmann, A.J. 2012. Field-evolved resistance crops that tolerate several herbi- Oregon. Plant Ecol. 213:355-370. to BT maize by western corn rootworm: pre- Brower, L.P. and S.B. Malcolm. 1991. Animal diction from the laboratory and effects in the cides are not the answer to resist- migrations: endangered phenomena. Amer. field. J. Invert. Pathol. 110:287-293. ant weeds. The result will be mas- Zool. 31:265-276. Gianessi, L.P. 2008. Review: economic impacts of sive applications of herbicides that Brower, L.P., O.R. Taylor, E.H. Williams et al. glyphosate resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012. Decline of monarch butterflies over- 64:346-352. are more toxic than glyphosate. wintering in Mexico: is the migratory phe- Glare, T.R. and M. O’Callaghan. 2000. Bacillus Weeds will become resistant to mul- nomenon at risk? Insect Conserv. Diversity thuringiensis: , Ecology and Safety. tiple herbicides. The answer is a 5:95-100. Wiley, NY. 350 pp. Buman, R.A., B.A. Alessi, J.F. Bradley et al. Gray, M.E. 2011. Relevance of traditional inte- return to IPM principles that allow 2005. Profit and yield of tillage in cotton pro- grated pest management (IPM) strategies for both sustainable crop production duction systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. commercial corn production in a transgenic and environmental protection. 605):235-242. agroecosystem—a bygone era? J. Agric. Food For now, the only sure way to CA DPR 1996. 1996 Annual Pesticide Use Chem. 59:5852-5858. Indexed by Chemical. California Department Green, J.M., C.B. Hazel, D.R. Forney and L.M. avoid eating GE food is to buy of Pesticide Regulation. www.cdpr.gov Pugh. 2008. New multiple-herbicide crop organic products. Maybe if more CA DPR. 2010. Top 100 pesticides used in CA. resistance and formulation technology to people vote in the marketplace, pro- California Department of Pesticide augment the utility of glyphosate. Pest Regulation. www.cdpr.gov Manag. Sci. 64:332-339. ducers will make some changes. CDC (Centers for Disease Control). 2005. Third Hartzler, R.G. 2010. Reduction in common milk- National Report on Human Exposure to weed (Asclepias syriaca) occurrence in Iowa Environmental Chemicals, pp. 390-394. cropland from 1999 to 2009. Crop Prot. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29:1542-1544. William Quarles, Ph.D., is an IPM Atlanta. www.cdc.gov Heap, I. 2011. International survey of herbicide Specialist, Executive Director of the Cerdeira, A.L. and S.O. Duke. 2010. Effects of resistant weeds. October 12, 2011, glyphosate resistant crop cultivation on soil www.weedscience.org Bio-Integral Resource Center and water quality. GM Crops 1(1):16-24. Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd et al. (BIRC), and Managing Editor of the Chang, F-C., M.F. Simcik and P.D. Capel. 2011. 2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? The IPM Practitioner. He can be reached Occurrence and fate of the herbicide Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. glyphosate and its degradate Online. 33 pp. by email, [email protected]. aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmos- Howe, C.M., M. Berrill, B.D. Pauli et al. 2004. phere. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 30(3):548-55. Toxicity of glyphosate based pesticides to Cox, C. 2004. Glyphosate. J. Pesticide Reform four North American frog species. Environ. References 24(4):10-15. Tox. Chem. 23(8):1928-1938. Acquavella, J.F., B.H. Alexander, J.S. Mandel et Dallegrave, E. F.D. Mantese and R.S. Coelho et Johal, G.S. and D.M. Huber. 2009. Glyphosate al. 2004. Glyphosate biomonitoring for farm- al. 2003. The teratogenic potential of the effects on diseases of plants. Eur. J. Agron. ers and their families: results from the farm herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar 31:144-152. family exposure study. Environ. Health rats. Toxicol. Lett. 142:45-52. Karha, J. and E.J. Topol. 2004. The sad story of Perspectives 112:321-326. Dallegrave, E., F.D. Mantese, R.T Oliveira et al. Vioxx, and what we should learn from it. Acres. 2012. Americans want GMO-food labeling. 2007. Pre- and postnatal toxicity of the com- Cleveland Clin. J. Med. 71(12):933-939. Acres USA 42(5):10. mercial glyphosate formulation in Wistar Kimbrell, G. 2011. Genetically engineered food: Antoniou, M., M.E.M. Habib, C.V. Howard, et al. rats. Arch. Toxicol. 81:665-673. failed promises and hazardous outcomes. 2011. Roundup and Birth Defects: is the De Roos, A.J., S.H. Zahm, K.P. Cantor et al. Pesticides and You 31(2):19-23. Public Being Kept in the Dark? Earth Open 2003. Integrative assessment of multiple Kremer, R.J. and N.E. Means. 2009. Glyphosate Source, 51 pp. www.earthopensource.org pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s and glyphosate resistant crop interactions Antoniou, M., C. Robinson and J. Fagan. 2012. lymphoma among men. Occup.Environ. with rhizosphere . Eur. J. GMO Myths and Truths. Earth Open Med. 60(9):e11 [CAB Abstracts] Agron. 31:153-161. Source, 123 pp. www.earthopensource.org De Roos, A.J., A. Blair, J.A. Rusiecki et al. 2005. Krupke, C.H., G.J. Hunt, B.D. Eitzer et al. 2012. Arregui, M.C., A. Lenardon, D. Sanchez et al. Cancer incidence among glyphosate exposed Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for 2004. Monitoring glyphosate residues in pesticide applicators in the agricultural honey bees living near agricultural fields. transgenic glyphosate resistant soybean. health studies. Environ. Health Perspectives PLoS ONE 7(1):e29628. 8pp. Pest Manag. Sci. 60(2):163-166. 113(1):49-54. Leslie, T.W., D.J. Biddinger, C.A. Mullin and S.J. Baden-Mayer, A. 2012. Tell congress: no free Duke, S.O., D.E. Wedge, A.L. Cerdeira et al. Fleischer. 2009. Carabid population dynam- pass for Monsanto. 6 pp. www.organic- 2007. Herbicide effects on plant disease. ics and temporal partitioning: response to consumers.org Outlooks Pest Manag. Feb:36-40. coupled neonicotinoid transgenic technolo-

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 8 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 9 Update

gies in maize. Environ. Entomol. 38(3):935- National Organic Program. IPM Practitioner 943. 20(2):9-10. Liebman, M., L.R. Gibson, D.N. Sundberg et al. Quarles, W. 2011. Pesticides and honey bee 2008. Agronomic and economic performance death and decline. IPM Practitioner characteristics of conventional and low 33(1/2):1-8. external input cropping systems in the cen- Relyea, R.A. 2005a. The lethal effect of Roundup tral Corn Belt. Agronomy J. 100:600-610. on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecol. MacIlwain, C. 2005. US launches probe into Appl. 15(4):1118-1124. sales of unapproved transgenic corn. Nature Relyea, R.A. 2005b. The impact of insecticides 434:423. and herbicides on the biodiversity and pro- Malcolm, S.B., B.J. Cockrell and L.P. Brower. ductivity of aquatic communities. Ecol. 1989. Cardenolide fingerprint of monarch Appl.15(2):618-627. butterflies reared on common milkweed, Richard, S., S. Molemi, H. Sipahutar et al. 2005. Asclepias syriaca. J. Chem. Ecol. 15(3):819- Differential effects of glyphosate and 853. Roundup on human placental cells and aro- Mallory-Smith, C. and M. Zapiola. 2008. Gene matase. Environ. Health Perspectives flow from glyphosate resistant crops. Pest 113(6):716-720. Manag. Sci. 64:428-440. Ridley, W.P., G.G. Harrigan, M.L. Breeze et al. Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz et al. 2007. 2011. Evaluation of compositional equiva- A meta analysis of effects of BT cotton and lence for multitrait crops. J. maize on nontarget vertebrates. Science Agric. Food Chem. 59:5865-5876. 316:1475-1477. Riley, P. 2010. Resistant weeds cast a shadow Mink, P.J., J.S. Mandel, J.I. Ludin et al. 2011. over glyphosate resistant crops. Pesticides Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and News 87:3-5. non-cancer outcomes: a review. Reg. Toxicol Riley, P. 2011. When less equals more:the rapid Pharmacol. 61(2):172-184. rise of weeds resistant to glyphosate. Moore, L.J., L. Fuentes, J.H. Rodgers, Jr. et al. Pesticides News 93:6-8. 2012. Relative toxicity of the components of Romano, R.M., M.A. Romano, M.M. Bernardi et the original formulation of Roundup to five al. 2010. Prepubertal exposure to commer- North American anurans. 2012. Ecotoxicol. cial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate Environ. Safety 78:128-133. alters testosterone levels and testicular mor- Mortensen, D.A., J.F. Egan, B.D. Maxwell, M.R. phology. Arch. Toxicol. 84:309-317. Ryan and R.G. Smith. 2012. Navigating a Shaner, D.L., R.B. Lindenmyer and M.H. Ostlie. critical juncture for sustainable weed man- 2012. What have the mechanisms of resist- agement. BioScience 62(1):75-84. ance to glyphosate taught us? Pest Manag. Naranjo, S.E. 2011. Impacts of Bt transgenic Sci. 68:3-9. cotton on integrated pest management. J. Snow, A.A., D.A. Andow, P. Gepts et al. 2005. Agric. Food Chem. 59:5842-5851. Genetically engineered organisms and the NPIC (National Pesticide Information Center). environment: current status and recommen- 2012. 2,4-D Technical Fact Sheet. 13 pp. dations. Ecol. Appl. 15(2):377-404. www.npic.org Stern, V.M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch and Olkowski, W., S. Daar and H. Olkowski. 1991. K.S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated concept. Common Sense Pest Control. Taunton Press, Hilgardia 29(2):81-101. Newtown, CT. 715 pp. Stokstad, E. 2012. Field research on bees raises Owen, M.D.K. 2008. Weed species shifts in concern about low-dose pesticides. Science glyphosate resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 335:1555. 64:377-387. Tabashnik, G.E. J.B.J. Van Rensburg and Y. Owen M.D.K. 2010. Herbicide resistant weeds in Carriere. 2009. Field evolved resistance to genetically engineered crops. House of BT crops: definition, theory, and data. J. Representatives Testimony, July 28, 2010. 7 Econ. Entomol. 102:2011-2025. pp. www.nationalacademies.org USGS (United States Geologic Survey). 2008. Paetow, L.J., J.D. McLaughlin, R.I. Cue et al. Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and 2012. Effects of herbicides and chytrid fun- Groundwater, 1992-2001—A Summary. gus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis on the http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3028/ health of post metamorphic northern leop- Van den Bosch, R. 1978. The Pesticide ard frogs (Lithobates pipiens). Ecotoxicol. Conspiracy. Doubleday. Garden City, NY. Environ. Safety 80:372-380. 226 pp. Paganelli, A., V. Gnazzo, H. Acosta et al. 2010. Waltz, E. 2011. Amylase corn sparks worries. glyphosate based herbicides produce terato- Nature Biotechnol. 29:294. genic effects in vertebrates by impairing Webster, T.M. and R.L. Nichols. 2012. Changes retinoic acid signalling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. in the prevalence of weed species in the 23:1586-1595. major agronomic crops of the Southern Pimentel, D., H. Acquay, M. Biltonen et al. 1992. United States: 1994/1995 to 2008/2009. Environmental and economic costs of pesti- Weed Sci. 60:145-157. cides. BioScience 42(10):750-760. Williams, A.L., R.E. Watson and J.M. DeSesso. Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson et al. 2005. 2012. Developmental and reproductive out- Environmental, energetic, and economic comes in humans and animals after comparisons of organic and conventional glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J. farming systems. BioScience 55:573-582. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 15(1):39-96. Pleasants, J.M. and K.S. Oberhauser. 2012. Williams, B.K. and R.D. Semlitsch. 2010. Larval Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because responses of three midwestern anurans to of herbicide use: effect on the monarch but- chronic low dose exposures of four herbi- terfly population. Insect Conserv. Diversity cides. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. March, 10 pp. 58(3):819-827. Powles, S.B. 2008. Evolved glyphosate-resistant Zobiole, L.H.S., R.S. Oliveira, J.V. Visentainer et weeds around the world: lessons to be al. 2010. Glyphosate affects seed composi- learnt. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:360-365. tion in glyphosate resistant soybean. J. Quarles, W. 1998. Last minute changes for the Agric. Food Chem. 58(7):4517-4522.

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 9 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 10 Conference Notes Special Pheromone Report from the ESA 2011 Annual Meeting

By Joel Grossman Cigarette beetle larvae can chew ered an economic pest at very low through packaging to infest various infestation levels and is often treat- hese Conference Highlights stored commodities. Food stations ed with multiple insecticide applica- are from the Nov. 13-16, with oviposition (egg-laying) cups tions. Effectiveness of insecticides T 2011, Entomological Society were used to assess larval cigarette is limited because VMBs are usual- of America (ESA) annual meeting in beetle populations. The food sta- ly protected under the bark or on Reno, Nevada. ESA’s next annual tions were brought into the lab bi- roots. Repeated insecticide use also meeting is November 11-14, 2012, weekly and incubated; microscopes adversely impacts VMB natural in Knoxville, Tennessee. For more were used to identify the species of enemies. In this situation, use of information contact the ESA (10001 larvae. female sex pheromone-based mat- Derekwood Lane, Suite 100, In 2010, after two weeks no dif- ing disruption is a safe, effective, Lanham, MD 20706; 301/731- ferences were noted between and species-specific control tool to 4535; http://www.entsoc.org pheromone treated and fumigated work in combination with or as an facilities. After eight weeks, the alternative to insecticides.” Cigarette Beetle Mating mating disruption treatments had CheckMate® puffer dispensers Disruption significantly fewer cigarette beetles were applied at the rate of 2 puffers than the fumigated facilities. A year per acre (0.4 ha) in each of the 10 Pheromone mating disruption can later, the benefits of the mating dis- acre (4.05 ha) treatment plots in a create false trails for males to fol- ruption treatments were still evi- grid pattern, and a perimeter of low, mask natural female dent. Larval populations trapped in CheckMate® VMB-XL dispensers pheromones, or overwhelm natural the oviposition cups were lower in was established around each treat- mating scents, said Rizana Mahroof the mating disruption treatment ment plot and compared with the (South Carolina State Univ, 300 facilities than in the fumigated untreated control. “The number of College St NE, Orangeburg, SC facilities. male VMB catches significantly 29117; [email protected]). One The pheromone mating disruption decreased over time in the mating advantage of pheromone mating experiments in South Carolina disruption treatment plots as com- disruption is that no residues are warehouses and food and feed pro- pared to the untreated plots...The detectable in end products such as cessing facilities were “successful in percentage of (grape) clusters that stored grain, spices, and . disrupting cigarette beetle popula- displayed any VMB damage was Disadvantages include the need for tions both short-term and long- higher in the control as compared government regulatory approval and term,” said Mahroof. But there are to mating disruption treatment.” the need for other methods if pest potential complications. For exam- The conventional grower insecti- densities are too high. ple, cigarette beetles can co-exist cide program was compared with In 2010 and 2011 mating disrup- with other pests, such as drugstore the “effectiveness of the VMB mat- tion was tested against the cigarette beetles, Stegobium paniceum. ing disruption program using Meso- beetle, Lasioderma serricorne, in Fumigation interventions for other emitters at 25 per acre (0.4 ha) and three South Carolina feed mills, one issues add another layer of poten- CheckMate® plastic dispensers at flour mill, and a seed warehouse. tial complications to the mating dis- 250 per acre (0.4 ha),” said Sial. The pheromone was synthetic serri- ruption strategy. “The male VMB counts in both of cornin (4,6-dimethyl-7-hydrox- the mating disruption treatments ynonan-3-one) in Trécé mating dis- Vine Mealybug Mating was similar to those in the grower ruption dispensers. standard insecticide treatment. Trécé and Insects Limited Disruption However, the male VMB trap catch- pheromone sticky traps monitored “Vine mealybug (VMB), Pla- es started numerically increasing in the cigarette beetle mating disrup- nococcus ficus, has emerged as a August, which could be attributed tion experiments. In 2010, two mills serious pest of vineyards in to the fact that CheckMate® stan- had only mating disruption treat- California,” said Ashfaq Sial (Univ dard plastic dispensers might have ments. Two other mills were fumi- of California, 130 Mulford Hall run out of pheromone by then.” gated and did not have mating dis- #3114, Berkeley, CA 94720; ash- Grape cluster damage was similar ruption treatments. In 2011, a seed [email protected]). “Besides infest- in both mating disruption treat- warehouse was added to the experi- ing the grape clusters and accumu- ments, but slightly higher than the ment, with one cigarette beetle mat- lating honeydew on various parts of conventional insecticide program. ing disruption dispenser per 225 ft2 vines, VMB is a vector of several The area of impact of a single (21 m2). viral diseases. It is therefore consid- puffer unit (i.e. pheromone plume

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 10 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 11 Conference Notes effect) was calculated using a 64- control and favor the pest by elimi- P. viteana pheromone baited traps trap grid (8x8) in two 1-acre (0.4- nating the arid zone that dries out and is active around the same ha) plots. “A single puffer unit pro- the pest. time.” grammed to puff every 15 minutes (Lorsban®), the only There is a danger that lures from 2:00 AM to 2:00 PM daily was registered chemical for control, is attracting species other than grape placed in the center of the hard to apply, is disliked by grow- berry moth may result in moth pheromone treatment plot,” said ers, and is not used much because species misidentification, leading to Sial. “Trap captures were signifi- of a 35-day post-harvest interval. flawed IPM decisions. A two-year cantly reduced in pheromone treat- Entomogenous nematodes show experiment with large delta traps ments compared to the untreated promising results, and may be used compared four commercial control... For the pheromone more in the future. pheromone lure catches for grape puffers, a clear local suppression Pheromone mating disruption berry moth and sumac moth in was observed which appeared to provides good results against other wooded and open vineyards. range from a very narrow band of clearwing moth (Sesiidae) species “Separate experiments with the 50 feet (15 m) to beyond the plot such as peach tree borer, Synan- same methodology were completed boundaries of 200 feet (61 m).” thedon exitiosa, and dogwood borer, in two table grape (Concord) vine- S. scitula. Pheromone mating dis- yards,” said Jordan. Pheromone Grape Root Borer IPM and ruption ropes used against clear- lures from Alpha Scents, Inc. (West Mating Disruption wing moths are typically a two-com- Linn, OR), ISCA Technologies ponent blend. (Riverside, CA), Suterra (Bend, OR), Grape root borer,Vitacea polisti- In 2004-2006, 200 pheromone and Trécé, Inc. (Adair, OK) had less formis, larvae live for two years in ropes per acre (0.4 ha) had one than 7.6% of the impurity, E9-12Ac the soil, complicating the evaluation grower very happy because his when measured using gas chro- of pheromone mating disruption, vines stopped dying. In 2007-2010, matography-mass spectrometry said Douglas Pfeiffer (Virginia Tech, the rate was reduced to 100 ropes (GC-MS). Lower levels of the impuri- 205C Price Hall, Blacksburg, VA per acre (0.4 ha), as the lower cost ty are believed linked to higher 24061; [email protected]). Grape root could lead to wider acceptance. In grape berry moth trap catches. borer larvae can be invisible under heavily infested Northhampton “Pheromone monitoring for P. the root bark; root softness indi- County, there was a highly signifi- viteana is impractical in wooded cates their presence. Pupation lasts cant reduction in the pest and vineyards, while E. argutanus a month, with emergence in late improved vine health. Regulatory attraction does not appear different June to early July. approval for Isomate-GRB in the between environments,” said When grape root borer surveys U.S. is expected. In 2013, data Jordan. “Additional research should began in Virginia in 2002, this should be available for a further determine the origin of E9-12Ac in underground pest often went unno- reduced rate of 75 ropes per acre lures to maintain quality control ticed until the vines were about to (0.4 ha). Minimum treatment area and attraction.” die. One vineyard lost vines only 2- is 5 acres (2 ha). 3 years old; and another had 16 NOW California Nut borer exuviae in one vine. One Grape Berry Moth grower found large grape root borer Pheromone Traps infestations when pulling out wine Pheromone “The navel orangeworm (NOW), grape vines. Indeed, 7 of 8 survey Grape berry moth, Paralobesia Amyelois transitella, is the primary sites in the North Piedmont grape viteana, is one of the principal pest of almonds and pistachios, area were infested in 2002; with the grape pests in northeastern and California crops collectively worth worst infestations near wild vines, central North America. “Different $5 billion in 2010,” said Charles which were a possible infestation insecticide use patterns depend Burks (USDA-ARS, 9611 S. source. By 2003 it was evident that more or less on the phenology of Riverbend Ave, Parlier, CA, 93648; the pest was established in Virginia the insect, which can be monitored [email protected]). vineyards. using pheromone traps,” said “Population growth of this pest Mounding soil around the vines Timothy Jordan (Virginia Tech, varies greatly depending on the after borer pupation in summer, Blacksburg, VA 24061; tajordan@ host, cultivated variety, and stage, and pulling the mounds down in vt.edu). “Septa lures contain a syn- and abundance is greater in mature fall is a labor-intensive control tac- thetic sex pheromone of the female, pistachios compared to mature tic that must be well timed, and P. viteana, reported by manufactur- almonds. Seasonal trends in abun- does not work in all soils. Grape ers as a 9:1 blend of Z9-12Ac and dance also differ between these root borer IPM also includes a Z11-14Ac. The E-isomer of the pri- crops. Despite advances in charac- weed-free area around the vine that mary component (Z9-12Ac) is con- terizing the pheromone blend of this creates a dry environment reducing sidered a potential contaminant. A species, there is still no pheromone early instar larvae by 95%. similar tortricid moth, sumac moth, lure available for this species with Irrigation tends to counter the weed Episimus argutanus, is attracted to sufficient field stability for practical

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 11 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 12 ConferenceConference Notes Notes use.” [Note: Puffer formulations, Each pheromone trap was baited Emerald Ash Borer however, have been used success- with sleeve cages of 3 unmated Biocontrol Pheromones fully for areawide mating disruption females in late May, and monitored of Amyelois transitella. See IPMP weekly into early September. “There “The emerald ash borer (EAB), 30(7/8):11] was a trend of more males in Agrilus planipennis, is a serious “Unmated navel orangeworm peripheral traps in each cardinal pest of ash trees, Fraxinus spp. in females are used as a pheromone direction, although this trend was the U.S. and Canada,” said Allard source for lures in research, and stronger in the north-south direc- Cossé (USDA-ARS, 1815 N are also in limited commercial use,” tion (with the rows) than in the University St, Peoria, IL, 61604; [email protected]). said Burks. “Mating in this species east-west direction (across the “Biological control with natural ene- occurs in the last 2 hours before rows),” said Burks. “Across rows mies is the only sustainable method dawn above 17°C (62.6°F), and the upwind trap captured the most for managing EAB at the landscape begins earlier in the night as tem- males, but along rows the down- level in forests, woodlots, and ripar- peratures fall closer to the 12°C wind trap captured the most ian zones. Spathius agrili males.” (53.6°F) threshold for mating activi- (Braconidae) has been isolated from ty.” Dogwood Borer EAB in China and was approved for Abundance and sampling range U.S. field release in 2007. Recently, are important considerations with Pheromones Protect a native parasitoid, S. floridanus, pheromone traps. “Sampling range Apples was identified attacking EAB larvae, is the maximum distance from Dogwood borer (DWB), Synanthe- suggesting it may also be an effec- which the target species is known don scitula, a clearwing moth tive EAB biocontrol agent.” to be captured by an attractive trap (Sesiidae) wood-boring pome fruit “Pheromones could be useful in over a given time,” said Burks. pest in eastern North America, monitoring systems to evaluate the “Distance over which mutual inter- feeds “on burr knot and vascular establishment and spread of popu- ference between traps can be tissue on the trunks of apple trees, lations of EAB biocontrol agents,” demonstrated has been used to reducing tree vigor and potentially said Cossé. “Current practices estimate sampling range. Several killing young trees,” said David require a laborious process of studies have shown that fewer Epstein (USDA-ARS, 1400 Inde- felling EAB infested ash trees and the removal of EAB larvae, in the males are captured in pheromone pendence Ave SW, Washington, DC hope of detecting the presence of traps with more calling females in 20250; [email protected]). the parasitoids.” the area. Such demonstrations The DWB sex pheromone was iden- Septa with a Spathius agrili 3- imply that the number of calling tified by Zhang et al. in 2008, component pheromone blend (1 mg females would affect the sampling enabling pheromone mating disrup- of major component) were tested in range of a pheromone trap.” tion, attract and remove technology large field cages with 8 potted ever- “Sampling range varied with (mass trapping), and monitoring of green ash plants and yellow sticky abundance,” said Burks. “At low to DWB phenological development. traps. “Approximately 45% of the moderate adult density, the sam- “Attract and remove differs from males and 50% of the females were pling range for navel orangeworm traditional use of mass trapping by adults using female-strength lures recaptured in three replicated 24- deploying pheromone-baited trap- hour experiments, demonstrating is over 400 m (1,312 ft): i.e. greater ping devices in quantities usually than 40 acres (16 ha).” the attractiveness of the synthetic associated with the number of mat- pheromone in a more natural set- “Unmated females used as a ing disruption dispensers required ting,” said Cossé. Septa “stayed pheromone source were from a to achieve disruption.” attractive after 4 weeks in the field.” USDA laboratory colony,” said “Male DWB were captured in sig- “Males and females of both Burks. “Females were isolated as nificantly higher numbers in traps species (S. agrili and S. floridanus) mature larvae, and placed in plastic baited with the Alpha Scents DWB are attracted to their respective mesh cages shortly after eclosion lure and in traps with red septa pheromone and all listed com- for transport to the field where they lures loaded with 1 mg pheromone pounds have a behavioral function,” were placed in wing traps. Grids of extracted from Isomate®-DWB lure said Cossé. Both biological control 9 pheromone traps were hung from dispensers,” said Epstein. “Video agents share the lactone trees in the center and 402 m footage of male moths responding to pheromone component (E)-11- (1,319 ft) and 805 m (2,641 ft) in pheromone sources also show that tetradecen-4-olide; but each species each cardinal direction in 3 almond males frequently approached and is attracted to a different chiral ver- and 3 pistachio orchards, each of made contact with high load lures sion of the molecule. Indeed, approximately 256 ha (633 acres).” (>10 mg), but had few approaches racemic and chiral variations of Orchard rows were north-south; to 1 mg and smaller load lures. pheromone components are of light nighttime winds were from the Male moths had a mean retention major importance in these closely west and southwest. time of 30 seconds on 10 mg lures.” related biocontrol species. Since

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 12 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 13 ConferenceConference Notes Notes

“for S. floridanus both natural lac- emanating from C. sayi adults, in gence periods and to estimate tones have to be present in the an effort to determine the presence insect populations. For best results, blend for a positive behavioral and identity of any sex or aggrega- and to locate the source of infesta- response...it will be unlikely that S. tion pheromone.” tion, we recommend adding one floridanus will be attracted to the S. more trap per farm.” That is, place agrili pheromone.” RHYFER Lure for Red 3 traps in a 200 tree farm, 4 traps Palm Weevil in a 300 tree farm. Chestnut Weevil The red palm weevil is an invasive Lady Beetles and Aphid Semiochemicals species from the Middle East that Pheromones “The most successful use of semi- has been discovered in California “Newly hatched aphidophagous (see IPMP 32(7/8) New Invasives ochemicals controlling agricultural (aphid-eating) lady beetle larvae are Threaten California Crops and pests combines host-plant volatiles poor hunters, making their first Ornamentals). “The discovery of the with insect-produced pheromones.” meal particularly important,” said male-produced aggregation said Bruce Barrett (Univ of Thomas Whitney (Univ of Kentucky, pheromone (4-methyl-5-nonanol Missouri, 3-22I Agric Bldg, S-225 Agric Sci Center N, Lexing- and 4-methyl-5-nonanone) for the Columbia, MO 65211; BarrettB@ ton, KY 40546; thomas.whitney@ red palm weevil (RPW), Rhyncho- missouri.edu). “The level of attrac- uky.edu). “By laying their eggs in tiveness of herbivorous insects phorus ferrugineus, made the clusters, females are thought to towards constitutive plant volatiles implementation of pheromone- improve their sexual fitness by way is critical in understanding their based monitoring and trapping of of ‘social feeding’. Under this dispersal and how such phy- the weevil possible for its manage- hypothesis, lady beetle hatchlings tophagous insects might be man- ment,” said ESA poster exhibitor will use the aphid alarm phero- aged. The lesser chestnut weevil. AlphaScents (1089 Willamette Falls mone, (E)-beta-farnesene, as an Curculio sayi, infests the nuts of Dr, West Linn, OR 97068; olfactory cue to locate its meal trees within the genus Castanea [email protected]). “RHYFER, when a fellow clutchmate is already throughout the United States, and an innovative new pheromone lure, preying. If one larvae captures an it has not been reported to feed or is a highly efficient alternative to aphid, others can share and avoid oviposit on any other group of chemical control of the most dan- starvation.” plants.” gerous insect pest on date palm in “We examined social feeding in “Chestnut weevils (fall and spring the Arab Gulf countries.” the two-spotted lady beetle, Adalia “The active ingredients of collected) were tested behaviorally bipunctata, and tested the hypothe- RHYFER are clear liquids with by placing them in a glass holding sis that increased initial larval den- slight musty color,” said Alpha- chamber at the base of a Y-tube sity increases predation success Scents. “These very high purity olfactometer and then recording if and larval survivorship,” said pheromones are preloaded on an and when they moved into the arm Whitney. “Our results confirm that absorbent matrix (special paper) of either the compound or the con- lady beetle larvae are attracted to and enclosed in an inert, permeable trol air source,” said Barrett. “The cues from damaged aphids and also plastic bag...Pheromone is released Y-tube was surrounded by white suggest that larger groups are more from the lure at a controlled rate likely to capture an individual cardboard to obscure visual cues over a period of time. Basically, the and lighted by an overhead light aphid. We found no support, how- release rate of RHYFER, after reach- ever, for the prediction that being source centered to prevent its influ- ing equilibrium (usually 48-72 ence on beetle choice.” EAG (elec- part of a group improves the sur- hours), will remain constant vival of larval lady beetles.” troantennogram) responses to plant throughout most of the life of the “We suggest that increased (larval volatiles were recorded from excised lure and will diminish over time. lady beetle) egg consumption can weevil antennae. RHYFER is formulated using high explain why survival of individual Of the compounds tested, lesser quality plastic to assure a constant hatchlings was greater when more chestnut weevils were attracted release rate.” Lure replacement is eggs in their cluster remained only to (E)-2-hexanal and beta- recommended every 65 days for unhatched,” said Whitney. “Feeding pinene. They were repelled by a lures with 700 mg (0.025 oz); and on unfertilized eggs and unhatched number of ketones, esters, and every 20 days for lures with 200 mg siblings can prolong lady beetle alcohols. (0.007 oz). survival. When the opportunity for “No studies of the preference of C. “For optimal weevil catch, place feeding on eggs was removed, how- sayi adults based on chestnut culti- traps on the ground with the lower ever, we found no support for the var have been conducted, and such half of the trap inserted in the social feeding hypothesis. This sug- studies may affect the suggested ground between date palm trees,” gests that two-spotted lady beetles plantings of chestnut trees in Mid- said AlphaScents. “One trap per from varying cluster sizes can be Missouri,” said Barrett. “Future hectare (2.47 acres) or one trap per equally successful, which holds research should also examine the 100 date palm trees is a common implications for augmentative bio- VOCs (volatile organic compounds) application to detect peak emer- logical control.”

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 13 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 14

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 14 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 15

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 15 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 16

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 16 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 17

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 17 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 18

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 18 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 19

IPM Practitioner, XXXIII(3/4) March/April 2011 19 Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94707 20

Classified Ads PRODUCTS PRODUCTS