Declines in Non-Persistent Viruses of Succulent Green Bean: a Value Proposition for At-Plant Seed Treatments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Declines in non-persistent viruses of succulent green bean: a value proposition for at-plant seed treatments 2019 Wisconsin Agribusiness Classic January 17, 2019 Russell L. Groves1, Scott A. Chapman1, Benjamin Bradford1, Don Caine2, Michael Johnson2, Matthew Badtke2, and Brian A. Nault3 1Department of Entomology, 537 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 2Del Monte Foods, Inc., 1400 Plover Rd, Plover, WI 54467 3Department of Entomology, 525 Barton Laboratories 630 W. North Street, Geneva, NY 14456 Presentation Outline – New Project – Old problem • Chronology of green bean viruses in Wisconsin & New York • Dynamics of virus spread • 2017 – 2019 Research Objective – Determine whether low populations of soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, correspond with low infection rates of recent virus infections (Cucumber mosaic virus) Dr. Brian A. Nault, Professor • Future directions and new steps Cornell University Green Bean Virus Complex (2003 – Present) Major Viruses: Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV – seedborne/aphid) Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV - aphid) Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV - aphid) CMV Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV – aphid) Clover yellow vein virus (CLYVV – aphid) Minor Viruses: CLYVV Tobacco ringspot virus (TRV-nematode) Tomato ringspot (TmRSV-nematode) Soybean mosaic virus (SMV – seedborne/aphid) Watermelon mosaic virus-2 (WMV-2 - aphid) CMV impact on snap bean yield Non-infected CMV-Infected Photo: B. Nault Emerging bean viruses: the problem (Wisconsin) Wisconsin Snap Bean Survey 2003 100.00% 90.00% 79.00% 80.00% 70.00% 59.13% 60.00% 52.78% CMV 50.00% 42.66% AMV BCMV 40.00% Virus Incidence Virus 30.00% 22.60% 21.99% 19.50% 18.00% 20.00% 10.00% 3.00% 2.50% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33% 0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 Central Sands New Richmond SpringLocation Green Door County Oconto County German et al. (2004) CMV impact on snap bean industry – processing plant Year Estimated Loss ($)* Year Estimated Loss ($)* 2001 2,000,000 2010 limited 2002 700,000 2011 limited 2003 1,000,000 2012 limited 2004 500,000 2013 limited 2005 1,500,000 2014 limited 2006 limited 2015 limited 2007 2,500,000 2016 limited 2008 limited 2017 limited 2009 1,000,000 2018 limited *CMV caused over $9 million in losses in a decade (source: Vegetable Processing Industry in New York) CMV impact on snap bean industry – processing plant Year Estimated Loss ($)* Year Estimated Loss ($)* 2001 2,000,000 2010 limited 2002 700,000 2011 limited 2003 1,000,000 2012 limited 2004 500,000 2013 limited Why? 2005 1,500,000 2014 limited 2006 limited 2015 limited 2007 2,500,000 2016 limited 2008 limited CMV2017 virtually absent,limited probably 2009 1,000,000 because2018 no soybeanlimited aphids *CMV caused over $9 million in losses in a decade (source: Vegetable Processing Industry in New York) Possible sources of variation (CMV): vector, cultivar and landscape Aphis glycines (Hystyle – Huntington) Insect Vector Cultivar changes Landscape Biology and Distribution of the Soybean aphid (Aphis glycines Matsumura) © Merle Shepard, Bugwood.org Nonpersistent virus acquistion by insects - aphids Non-persistent (CMV, AMV, PVY) often referred to as “stylet-borne” Haemocoel PSG ASG Midgut Hindgut Salivary Food Canal Canal Phloem Non-persistent virus movement in insects Food Ingestion - pathogen Egestion - pathogen particles particles attach to maxillary lumen released with saliva Ingestion Salivation Non-persistent transmission Acquisition time - time required to acquire pathogen Seconds Inoculation time - time required by infectious insect to inoculate a susceptible host Seconds Latent period - (minimum time between acquisition of a pathogen and ability to transmit) Zero Retention time - time after acquisition that a vector remains capable of transmitting the virus Minutes to hours Research objectives • To monitor activity of winged soybean aphids in snap bean fields • To assess incidence of CMV in snap bean fields • Evaluate the influence of cultivar and local landscape on insect abundance and virus incidence Aphid collection methods - New York Sampling aphids • New York only • 2017 & 2018 • 3 periods (early, middle and late) • 4 fields/ period • 3 traps/ field • Sampled weekly • Aphids identified to species Ceramic tile on bottom + water + soap Aphid collections – Wisconsin (Suction Trap Network) Weekly captures of dispersing aphid species. Dr. David Voegtlin, Illinois Natural History Survey Acyrthosiphon pisum "Pea aphid" Aphis craccivora "Black legume aphid" Aphis glycines "Soybean aphid" Aphis gossypii "Cotton- melon aphid" Aphis helianthi "Sunflower or dogwood aphid" Aphis nasturtii "Buckthorn - potato aphid" Aphis spiraecola "Spiraea aphid" Brachycaudus helichrysi "Leaf curling plum aphid" Lipaphis pseudobrassicae "Turnip aphid" Macrosiphum euphorbiae "Potato aphid" Myzus persicae "Peach potato aphid" Rhopalosiphum insertum "Apple grass aphid" Rhopalosiphum maidis "Corn leaf aphid" Rhopalosiphum padi "Bird cherry-oat aphid" Schizaphis graminum "Greenbug" Sitobion avenae "English grain aphid" Therioaphis trifolii "Spotted Alfalfa aphid" Virus detection methods – New York & Wisconsin Sampling Plants for CMV • NY: n= 46 and 38 fields in 2017 and 2018, respectively; WI: n= 20 fields in 2017 and 2018 • Sampled 500 plants/field (NY); 200 plants/field (WI) at bloom stage • Random collection of plants • DAS-ELISA • PCR confirmation (WI samples only) ~ 97% • (+) was 3x OD reading in negative control RESULTS - Winged aphid activity – New York Mean winged aphids/ snap bean field/ trap over 4 weeks Sampling period 2002-2006 Mid June – mid July 8 (6-11) Mid July – early Aug 17 (3-42) Early Aug – early Sept 17 (4-25) RESULTS - Winged aphid activity – New York Mean winged aphids/ snap bean field/ trap over 4 weeks Sampling period 2002-2006 2017 Mid June – mid July 8 (6-11) 12.6 Mid July – early Aug 17 (3-42) 1.4 Early Aug – early Sept 17 (4-25) 13.9 RESULTS - Winged aphid activity – New York No. of winged aphids/ snap bean field/ trap over 4 weeks Sampling period 2002-2006 2017 Mid June – mid July 8 (6-11) 12.6 NO Mid July – early Aug 17 (3-42) 1.4 soybean aphids! Early Aug – early Sept 17 (4-25) 13.9 Rank Species Captures Aphid species diversity 1 Aphis glycines 313169 2 Rhopalosiphum padi 146799 2005-2017 3 Rhopalosiphum maidis 79793 4 Pemphigus sp. 50138 5 Tetraneura sp. 24010 6 Therioaphis trifolii 19439 7 Capitophorus elaeagni 12496 8 Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale 11749 9 Sitobion avenae 10160 10 Hyalopterus pruni 9871 11 Hyadaphis foeniculi 9004 12 Acyrthosiphon pisum 8733 13 Aphis craccivora 8607 14 Pemphigus populitransversus 7581 15 Capitophorus hippophaes 7458 16 Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae 6710 17 Schizaphis graminum 6119 18 Lipaphis pseudobrassicae 6067 19 Rhopalosiphum insertum 5426 20 Phylloxeridae 5009 21 Aphis asclepiadis 4277 22 Anoecia cornicola 3656 23 Aphis gossypii 3636 24 Colopha ulmicola 3611 25 Myzus persicae 2770 26 Uroleucon sp. 2567 27 Aphis nasturtii 2522 28 Myzus lythri 2479 29 Macrosiphum euphorbiae 2460 Aphid collections – Wisconsin (Suction Trap Network) Aphid collections – Wisconsin (Suction Trap Network) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Aphid collections – Wisconsin (Suction Trap Network) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 New York - snap bean fields infected with CMV in 2017 0% infected with CMV 1-19% infected with CMV 20-100% infected with CMV Wisconsin - snap bean fields infected with CMV in 2017 0% infected with CMV 1-19% infected with CMV 20-100% infected with CMV Virus detection results Incidence of CMV in snap bean fields Number of fields in Estimated mean which CMV was incidence of CMV per Year State detected field 2017 New York 1/46 0.004% Wisconsin 1/20 0.025% RESULTS - Winged aphid activity – New York Mean winged aphids/ snap bean field/ trap over 4 weeks Sampling period 2002-2006 2017* 2018** Mid June – mid July 8 (6-11) 12.6 128.5 Mid July – early Aug 17 (3-42) 1.4 24 Early Aug – early Sept 17 (4-25) 13.9 69 * No soybean aphids in any samples ** Aphids now being identified to species Virus detection results Incidence of CMV in snap bean fields Number of fields in Estimated mean which CMV was incidence of CMV per Year State detected field 2017 New York 1/46 0.004% Wisconsin 1/20 0.025% 2018 New York 22/38 18.7% Wisconsin 19/20 47.4% New York - snap bean fields infected with CMV in 2018 0% infected with CMV 1-19% infected with CMV 20-100% infected with CMV Wisconsin - snap bean fields infected with CMV in 2018 0% infected with CMV 1-19% infected with CMV 20-100% infected with CMV Preliminary Results Summary • In 2017, no soybean aphids in NY samples, few in WI samples; CMV virtually absent from snap bean fields in NY and WI • In 2018, many more aphids in NY and WI (species being identified); CMV was back at moderate levels in many fields in NY and WI 2010 Biotechnology Endorsement Estimates – proportion of acreage adopting transformation technology Hutchison et al. 2010 Global Insecticide Seed Treatment Use is Increasing “The global insecticide seed treatment market is projected to reach nearly $1.6 billion by 2016, growing at a CAGR of 11.4%.” (Source: marketsandmarkets.com. January 2012). Neonicotinoid concentrations and planting date Jul 1 Acknowledgements Research Grant Funding: Midwest Food Processors Association USDA SCRI – SCBG Program In-kind support for this program provided by: Del Monte Foods (Plover, WI): Matthew Badtke, Mike Johnson, and Don Caine.