Biological Control 48 (2009) 259–263
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biological Control 48 (2009) 259–263 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon A novel approach to biological control with entomopathogenic nematodes: Prophylactic control of the peachtree borer, Synanthedon exitiosa David I. Shapiro-Ilan a,*, Ted E. Cottrell a, Russell F. Mizell III b, Dan L. Horton c, Jerry Davis d a USDA-ARS, Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Laboratory, 21 Dunbar Road, Byron, GA 31008, USA b Department of Entomology, University of Florida, Quincy, FL, USA c Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA d Department of Experimental Statistics, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA, USA article info abstract Article history: Generally, microbial control agents such as entomopathogenic nematodes are applied in a curative man- Received 23 July 2008 ner for achieving pest suppression; prophylactic applications are rare. In this study, we determined the Accepted 13 October 2008 ability of two Steinernema carpocapsae strains (All and Hybrid) to prophylactically protect peach trees Available online 19 October 2008 from damage caused by the peachtree borer, Synanthedon exitiosa, which is a major pest of stone fruit trees in North America. In prior studies, the entomopathogenic nematodes S. carpocapsae and Heteror- Keywords: habditis bacteriophora caused field suppression when applied in a curative manner to established S. exiti- Biological control osa populations. In our current study, nematodes were applied three times (at 150,000–300,000 infective Entomopathogenic nematode juveniles/tree) during September and October of 2005, 2006, and 2007. A control (water only) and a sin- Heterorhabditis Peachtree borer gle application of chlorpyrifos (at the labeled rate) were also made each year. The presence of S. exitiosa Prophylactic damage was assessed each year in the spring following the treatment applications. Following applica- Steinernema tions in 2006, we did not detect any differences among treatments or the control (possibly due to a Synanthedon exitiosa low and variable S. exitiosa infestation of that orchard). Following applications in 2005 and 2007, how- ever, the nematode and chemical treatments caused significant damage suppression. The percentage of trees with S. exitiosa damage in treated plots ranged from 0% damage in 2005 to 16% in plots treated with S. carpocapsae (Hybrid) in 2007. In control plots damage ranged from 25% (2005) to 41% (2007). Our results indicate that nematodes applied in a preventative manner during S. exitios’s oviposition period can reduce insect damage to levels similar to what is achieved with recommended chemical insecticide treatments. Published by Elsevier Inc. 1. Introduction 1990). Infective juveniles (IJs), the only free-living stage, enter hosts through natural openings (mouth, anus, and spiracles), or When applied inundatively, microbial control agents (bacteria, in some cases, through the cuticle. After entering the host’s protozoa, fungi, and entomopathogenic nematodes) are generally hemocoel, nematodes release their bacterial symbionts, which used in a curative manner to control an existing pest population are primarily responsible for killing the host within 24–48 h, (Tanada and Kaya, 1993; Lacey and Kaya, 2007). Due to economic defending against secondary invaders, and providing the nema- constraints, and in some cases a lack of persistence in the environ- todes with nutrition (Dowds and Peters, 2002). The nematodes ment, field application of microbial control agents in a preventative molt and complete up to three generations within the host after manner is relatively rare (Shapiro-Ilan et al., 2002; Lacey and which IJs exit the cadaver to find new hosts (Kaya and Gaugler, Shapiro-Ilan, 2008). In this study, we investigated the feasibility 1993). of using prophylactic microbial control when applying Entomopathogenic nematodes are used to control a variety of entomopathogenic nematodes for control of the peachtree borer, economically important insect pests such as the black vine weevil, Synanthedon exitiosa (Say) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). Otiorhynchus sulcatus (F.), diaprepres root weevil, Diaprepes abbre- Entomopathogenic nematodes (genera Steinernema and Het- viatus (L.), fungus gnats (Diptera: Sciaridae), and various white erorhabditis) kill insects with the aid of a mutualistic symbiosis grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) (Klein, 1990; Shapiro-Ilan et al., with a bacterium (Xenorhabdus spp. and Photorhabdus spp. for 2002; Grewal et al., 2005a). Additionally, entomopathogenic nem- steinernematids and heterorhabditids, respectively) (Poinar, atodes are highly virulent to larvae of many species of Sesiidae including several Synanthedon spp. (Miller and Bedding, 1982; * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 478 9562929. Deseö and Miller, 1985; Kaya and Brown, 1986; Begley, 1990; E-mail address: [email protected] (D.I. Shapiro-Ilan). Nachtigall and Dickler, 1992; Williams et al., 2002). 1049-9644/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.10.008 260 D.I. Shapiro-Ilan et al. / Biological Control 48 (2009) 259–263 Synanthedon exitiosa (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae), is a serious pest of between rows. During these experiments, average trunk diameter various Prunus spp. including peach (Prunus persica L.) (Johnson of test trees ranged from 31 to 108 mm. et al., 2005). In the southeastern US, the majority of S. exitiosa In each year the experiment was conducted, nematodes (S. moths emerge and mate during late-summer and early fall carpocapsae All and Hybrid strain) were applied to the same trees (Johnson et al., 2005). Mated adult females usually oviposit eggs three times during S. exitiosa’s egg-laying period. In 2005, nema- (200 to 800 in total) on the bark of host plants or on nearby non- todes were applied September 2, September 23, and October 14 host plants. Hatched larvae bore into the trunk of stone fruit trees at a rate of 150,000 IJs/tree in the first two applications and near the soil surface and tunnel toward roots. Larvae continue to 300,000 IJs/tree in the third application. In 2006, nematodes were feed below the soil line at the crown and on major roots. Larvae applied on September 21, September 28, and October 12 at overwinter in the host plant, but can continue to feed during warm 300,000 IJs/tree in the first two applications and 150,000 IJs/tree periods, and (in the eastern US) complete development in about 1 in the third application. In 2007, nematodes were applied on Sep- year. Current management of S. exitiosa across the southeastern US tember 24, October 1, and October 9 at 300,000 IJs/tree on each relies solely upon post-harvest chemical control, mainly chlorpyri- application date. The same trees were used each year for each of fos (Horton et al., 2008). Due to environmental and regulatory the given treatments (except that additional trees were added in pressures, research toward developing alternative pest control 2007). Nematodes were applied by pouring approximately 60 ml measures are warranted (Tomerlin, 2000). Entomopathogenic water suspensions around the base of each tree. The application nematodes have potential as biocontrol alternatives for S. exitiosa sites were then covered with about 2 cm of soil from the orchard suppression. floor and watered with an additional 2 l of water. Control trees Under field conditions, entomopathogenic nematodes caused receiving water only were treated the same. Additionally, each significant S. exitiosa mortality and suppressed damage when ap- year on the date of the first nematode application, a single applica- plied in a curative manner to late-instar infestations (Cossentine tion of chlorpyrifos (Lorsban 4E, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianap- et al., 1990; Cottrell and Shapiro-Ilan, 2006). Application of H. olis, IN, USA) was made in a similar manner by applying 237 ml heliothidis (=bacteriophora) to peach trunks in mid-June signifi- solution/tree, which was based on the recommended label rate, cantly reduced the number of adult S. exitiosa that emerged from (i.e., 7 L of formulated product/ha [44.9% A.I.]). All trees were then feeding sites by approximately 80% (Cossentine et al., 1990). Addi- watered three times per week for the following 2 weeks. Precipita- tionally, 88% control of S. exitiosa larvae was obtained with Steiner- tion and soil temperatures were monitored each year during the nema carpocapsae (Weiser) in a field trial conducted in the spring periods that nematodes were expected to be active, i.e., from the (Cottrell and Shapiro-Ilan, 2006). Although such curative treat- first application until 2 weeks after the last application; these data ments may contribute to protecting the tree and reducing subse- were collected from a weather station located on the USDA-ARS re- quent populations, substantial damage from larval feeding will search farm approximately 0.32 km from the application site. The have already occurred by the spring and could result in tree death experiments were arranged in a randomized complete block design (Johnson et al., 2005). Indeed, to avoid damage, recommendations with four blocks of six trees per treatment in 2005 and 2006, and for control with chemical insecticides are focused on the S. exitiosa four blocks of eight trees per treatment in 2007. egg-laying period and directed at newly hatched larvae before they Treatment effects from all applications were evaluated the fol- burrow into the cambium (Johnson et al., 2005; Horton et al., lowing spring, i.e., May 19, 2006, May 24, 2007, and April 16, 2008). Our objective was to determine if entomopathogenic nem- 2008. On each evaluation date, the presence or absence of S. exiti- atodes could be applied using a similar approach, i.e., with prophy- osa infestation on each tree was evaluated according to Cottrell and lactic applications to reduce or prevent S. exitiosa damage. Shapiro-Ilan (2006). Briefly, soil was removed to approximately 12 cm depth around the base of each tree and examined for signs of infestation, e.g., galleries and frass exudates (Johnson et al., 2. Materials and methods 2005; Cottrell and Shapiro-Ilan, 2006). 2.1.