Reducing Reliance on Insecticides to Manage Spotted Wing Drosophila

Reducing reliance on insecticides to manage spotted wing drosophila

Hannah Burrack, Katie Swoboda-Bhattarai, and Lauren Diepenbrock Department of Entomology Topics New SWD initiatives

Research updates Pesticide rotation programs Timing insecticide applications

Recommendations Development and Implementation of Systems-Based Organic Management Strategies for Spotted Wing Drosophila

Three years: 1 Sept 2015 through 31 Aug 2018

Project goals: Support the development of novel organic SWD management strategies that will increase NOP compliant management options for growers and decrease their reliance on broad-spectrum insecticides.

USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative Award Number 2015-51300-24154 OREI Objectives

Objective 1: Develop semiochemical-based behavioral management tactics for SWD Objective 2: Develop cultural control tactics and evaluate their efficacy and feasibility for reduction of SWD damage Objective 3: Develop effective chemical control strategies that minimally disrupt biological suppression of pest complexes Objective 4: Develop an integrated outreach approach to evaluate and implement organic SWD management strategies Project Director: Ash Sial Ahmad University of Georgia Co-Project Directors: Hannah Burrack North Carolina State University Matt Grieshop Michigan State University Christelle Guedot University of Wisconsin-Madison Kelly Hamby University of Maryland Rufus Isaacs Michigan State University Donn Johnson University of Arkansas Jana Lee United States Department of Agriculture Tracy Leskey United States Department of Agriculture Oscar Liburd University of Florida Jennie Popp University of Arkansas Mary Rogers University of Minnesota Peter Shearer Oregon State University Alex Stone eOrganic – Oregon State University Vaughn Walton Oregon State University Frank Zalom University of California Davis Sustainable Spotted Wing Drosophila Management for United States Fruit Crops

USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) Award number 2015-51181-24252 Sustainable Spotted Wing Drosophila Management for United States Fruit Crops

Four years: 15 Sept 2015 through 14 Sept 2019

Project goals: To integrate SWD management practices with those necessary for other pest species, to reduce the reliance on insecticides as the sole means of SWD management, to deliver this information to stakeholders, and to facilitate stakeholder adoption of recommendations.

USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) Award number 2015-51181-24252 Project participants

NC State University Oregon State University Hannah Burrack, Entomology Vaughn Walton Max Scott, Entomology Peter Shearer Zack Brown, Ag & Resource Economics Cornell University Jean-Jaques Debois*, SIPMC Greg Loeb Rhonda Conlin*, Extension IT Miguel Gomez Michigan State Unversity Rutgers University Rufus Isaacs, Entomology Cesar Rodriguez-Saona Larry Gut, Entomology University of California, Davis Ke Dong, Entomology Joanna Chiu University of Maine Frank Zalom Frank Dummond University of California, Berkeley University of Notre Dame Kent Daane Zain Syed USDA-ARS University of Georgia Kim Hoelmer Ash Sial Stakeholder advisory board members (13) Objectives

Objective 1: Implement and evaluate SWD management programs

Objective 2: Develop tactics and tools that predict SWD risks

Objective 3: Optimize SWD management programs Objectives

Objective 1: Includes on farm research; economic modeling; extension & outreach

Objective 2: Includes population models & interactive decision aids; sources of flies before, during & after fruit growing season; better monitoring tools

Objective 3: Includes improvements to insecticides; insecticide resistance monitoring; biological control; post harvest management; GM SWD Crop- & region-specific IPM treatments developed with stakeholder input at annual P advisory board meeting r

On farm research o Comparing current standard practices to integrated SWD c management systems On farm On results e guide research s Nationally coordinated field and laboratory research activities & s extension education Anticipated outputs

Region & Crop appropriate SWD management programs that minimize insecticide use

Interactive decision aids that help growers: predict SWD populations, minimize insecticide resistance risk, and plan management programs

Educational productions including: websites, webinars, presentations & slide sets, publications, and interactive social media tools Topics New SWD initiatives

Research updates Pesticide rotation programs Timing insecticide applications

Recommendations Season-long management strategies

Season long program Trade Name Active Ingredient Class Mustang Max zeta-cypermethrin pyrethroid Maximum modes of Malathion 8F malathion organophosphate action Delegate spinetoram spinosyn Malathion 8F malathion organophosphate Export Delegate spinteoram spinosyn Mustang Max zeta-cypermethrin pyrethroid Non organophosphate Delegate spinteoram spinosyn Season-long management strategies

Blueberry (2013-2014) and Blackberry (2014-2015)

Large scale (0.25 to 1.00 acre) plots Applications made with grower equipment Season-long management strategies

Laboratory assessment - Bioassays: 0DAT & 7DAT

Field-level assessment -Adult trapping

-Larval infestation

-Pesticide residue sampling -Berry samples collected 7 days after treatment -Analysis performed by Georgia Department of Agriculture Photos by Matt Bertone Season-long management strategies

Laboratory assessment - Bioassays: 0DAT & 7DAT

Field-level assessment -Adult trapping Adults were present at low number in all treatments, but did not differ -Larval infestation Infestation was detectable, but did not differ, for all treatments -Pesticide residue sampling -Berry samples collected 7 days after treatment -Analysis performed by Georgia Department of Agriculture Photos by Matt Bertone Season-long management strategies

Infestation was present in all treatments

Treatment 7/4/14 7/10/14 7/17/14* 7/24/14 Export Friendly 6.67 x 10-16 a 0.175 a 0.3063 a 3.8187 b Maximum MOA 0.025 a 0.025 a 0.2312 a 7.1688 a Non-organophosphate 6.67 x 10-16 a 0.00625 a 0.2062 a 2.6813 b There was no larval infestation during the first two weeks of this trial. *Final floricane treatment, grower managed treatment for primocane fruiting

Photos by Matt Bertone Season-long management strategies

Laboratory assessment - Bioassays: 0DAT & 7DAT All treatments had high adult mortality at 0 DAT, limited residual (7 DAT) Season-long management strategies

Laboratory assessment - Bioassays: 0DAT & 7DAT At one 2015 location, Mustang Max reduced immature SWD more than other treatments even on dates where adult mortality did not differ

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 6/12/15 6/19/15 6/26/15 7/3/15 Export-Friendly 35.33 ± 8.37a1 6.33 ± 3.23a3 10.67 ± 6.78a1 19.00 ± 3.92a3 Maximum Modes of Action (MOA) 2.67 ± 8.37b2 2.33 ± 3.23a1 9.50 ± 6.78a3 1.33 ± 3.92b2 Non-organophosphate 6.33 ± 8.37b2 11.00 ± 3.23a3 4.00 ± 6.78a2 0.00 ± 3.92b3 week 5 week 6 week 7 7/14/15 7/20/15 7/29/15 Export-Friendly 3.33 ± 2.12a1 6.67 ± 2.05a3 0.00 ± 1.07a1 Maximum Modes of Action (MOA) 2.00 ± 2.12a1 2.33 ± 2.05a3 2.33 ± 1.07a1 Non-organophosphate 0.00 ± 2.12a2 1.67 ± 2.05a3 0.00 ± 1.07a2 1Malathion, 2Mustang Max, 3Delegate Season-long management strategies

Laboratory assessment - Bioassays: 0DAT & 7DAT At one 2015 location, Mustang Max reduced immature SWD more than other treatments even on dates where adult mortality did not differ AND had some residual activity

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Treatment Male Female Male Female Male Female Export-Friendly 0.00±0.14b1 0.00±0.06b1 0.00±0.04a3 0.00±0.04b3 0.53±0.18a1 0.60±0.25a1 Maximum Modes of 0.30±0.17ab2 0.30±0.07a2 0.07±0.04a1 0.13±0.04a1 0.60±0.18a3 0.47±0.25a3 Action (MOA) Non-organophosphate 0.47±0.14a2 0.27±0.06a2 0.00±0.04a3 0.00±0.04b3 0.80±0.18a2 0.80±0.25a2 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Treatment Male Female Male Female Male Female Export-Friendly 0.53±0.15a3 0.13±0.09b3 0.07±0.11a1 0.00±0.05b1 0.27±0.13a3 0.27±0.09a3 Maximum Modes of 0.67±0.15a2 0.47±0.09a2 0.13±0.11a1 0.13±0.05ab1 0.27±0.13a3 0.33±0.09a3 Action (MOA) Non-organophosphate 0.53±0.15a3 0.47±0.09a3 0.40±0.11a2 0.27±0.05a2 0.33±0.13a3 0.00±0.09b3 1Malathion, 2Mustang Max, 3Delegate How long is an insecticide detectable?

Insecticide 0.06 Max

0.05 Min MRL Amount of 0.04 residue detected 0.03 ppm each week 0.02

0.01

0 6/24/2014 7/2/2014 7/8/2014 7/23/2014 7/30/2014 8/6/2014 8/12/2014 Date material was applied E.U. U.S. 2014 Blackberry: Export JAP

0.06 0.25 Malathion Delegate 0.05 High 0.2 Low 0.04 0.15 0.03 0.1

0.02 millionperparts parts per millionperparts High 0.05 0.01 Low

0 0 E.U. U.S. 2014 Blackberry: Maximum MOA JAP 0.25 Delegate High 0.2 Low

0.15

0.1

0.05 parts per millionperparts

0.06 High 0.15 Malathion Mustang Max High 0.05 Low 0.13 Low 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.07

0.02 0.05 parts per millionperparts parts per millionperparts 0.03 0.01 0.01 0 -0.01 E.U. U.S. 2014 Blackberry: Non OP JAP

0.25 0.15 High High Delegate Mustang Max 0.13 Low 0.2 Low 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.1 0.05 parts per millionperparts 0.05 millionperparts 0.03 0.01 0 -0.01 How long are insecticides detectable?

Lowest residue Lowest residue detected- HIGH Days after detected- LOW Days after Active Ingredient Year Treatment (ppm) application (ppm) application Export 0.016 13 0.006 15 Spinetoram 2014 (Delegate) Max MOA 0.009 21 0.000 7 Non-OP 0.016 15 0.000 6 Export 0.027 15 0.000 7 Malathion 2014 Max MOA 0.000 21 0.000 15 Zeta- Max MOA 0.029 30 0.000 20 cypermethrin 2014 (Mustang Max) Non-OP 0.042 14 0.000 23 Season long management programs

Season long program Trade Name Active Ingredient Class Imidan phosmet organophosphate “Export-friendly 1”; Malathion 8F malathion organophosphate maximum modes of action (Export1) Delegate spinetoram spinosyn Danitol fenpropathrin pyrethroid Lannate methomyl carbamate “Export-friendly 2”; Malathion 8F malathion organophosphate maximum modes of action (Export2) Delegate spinteoram spinosyn Danitol fenpropathrin pyrethroid Short preharvest interval Mustang Max zeta-cypermethrin pyrethroid (ShortPHI) Malathion 8F malathion organophosphate Delegate spinetoram spinosyn Reduced Risk (Reduced Risk) Exirel cyantraniliprole ryanoid Untreated Control (UTC) How long is an insecticide detectable?

Order in Lowest residue Days after Active Ingredient year Treatment rotation detected (ppm) application Acetamiprid 2013 Red. Risk 2,4 0.0000 6 (Assail) Cyantraniliprole 2014 Red. Risk 1,3,5 0.0630 16 (Exirel) Fenpropathrin 2013 Exp1 4 0.0660 14 (Danitol) 2014 Exp1 4 1.7060 14 Malathion 2013 PHI 2,4 0.0000 5 (8F) 2014 Exp1/PHI 2 0.0000 21 Methomyl 2014 Exp2 1 0.0370 41 (Lannate) Phosmet 2013 Exp1 1,5 0.0020 28 (Imidan) 2014 Exp1 1 0.0090 36 Spinetoram 2013 Red. Risk 1,3 0.0000 15 (Delegate) 2014 Exp1 3 0.0060 23 Zeta-cypermethrin 2013 PHI 1,3 0.0000 15 (Mustang Max) 2014 PHI 1 0.1140 14 How long is an insecticide detectable?

Research updates Pesticide rotation programs Timing insecticide applications

Recommendations Season long infestation risk in the southeast in context

Western North Carolina, 2011 Total SWD per week SWD Total Blueberry infestation risk in context

Southern Highbush Rabbiteye -ripen before population builds up -ripen once population is present = likely escape infestation with = unlikely to fully escape, even with good management management -hand harvest = sorting at the field; -machine harvest = not always sorted, infested pickers remove damaged fruits fruit not removed unless fruit goes through sorting Daily activity patterns

See Katie Swoboda-Bhattarai’s presentation in the 4:10 grad student session! When does infestation develop?

Research planting Commercial field  October 2013  October 2014  Unmanaged, unpicked  Actively managed  High numbers of D. suzukii  Low numbers of D. suzukii

18 4 F = 32.11, p < 0.0001 F = 16.41, p < 0.0001 16 [3,75] a [2,149] 14 12 10 b a 2 8 6 c 4 Mean SWD per Mean berry SWD 2 d per Mean berry SWD b 0 0 Green-Pink Red Purple Ripe Green-Pink Red Purple Ripe When does infestation develop?

Weekly infestation snapshots Weekly trap captures When does infestation develop?

44 40 Females 36 Males 32 28 24 20 16 12

Mean SWD per trap per SWD Mean 8 4 0 17-Jun 24-Jun 1-Jul 8-Jul 15-Jul 22-Jul 29-Jul 5-Aug

44 40 Ripe 36 Purple 32 Red 28 24 Green-Pink 20 16 12

Mean SWD per berry per SWD Mean 8 4 0 17-Jun 24-Jun 1-Jul 8-Jul 15-Jul 22-Jul 29-Jul 5-Aug Week*Stage: F[12,342] = 12.49, P < 0.0001 Infestation rates within plant canopy

Canopy ~ 15 in. + all above (+38.1 cm)

Inner ~22 in. Mid edge (50.8 cm)

~22 in. Lower edge (50.8 cm)

= Trellis wire Infestation rates within plant canopy

2014 Minimally managed Highly managed -pilot study Aug. 14 - Oct. 8 2014 Sept. 17 - Oct. 1 2014 -late season blackberry 10 8 a -infestation present 9 7 a 8 6 7 Canopy 6 5 5 4 b 4 b 3 3 b bc Inner b 2 2 c

Mid edge per Larvae berry per Larvae berry 1 1 0 0

Lower edge

F3,12 = 126.46, p < 0.0001 F 3,4 = 13.88, p=0.014 Infestation rates within plant canopy

2014: Prime-Ark 45®

June July August September October

2015: Ouachita, Navajo ,and Vonn varieties

Grower 1 June July August Ouachita & Navajo mixed

Grower 2 June July August Navajo

Piedmont Rsrch. Station June July August Ouachita & Vonn = start/stop Sandhills Rsrch. Station June July blackberry Ouachita production Infestation rates within plant canopy

Grower 1 Grower 2

June July August June July August

0.25 canopy 2.5 inner 0.2 lowedge midedge 2.0 0.15

per berryper 1.5

0.1 berryper larvae larvae

larvae larvae 1.0 0.05

0.5 0

0.0 6/22/2015 7/1/2015 7/8/2015 7/14/2015 7/20/2015 8/10/2015 week: F = 3.24, p=0.0265 4,28 Week*location: F 5,40 = 6.25, p<0.0001 Infestation rates within plant canopy

Piedmont Sandhills June July August June July

30 7 canopy inner 6 25 lowedge midedge 5 20 4 per berryper

15 berryper 3 larvae larvae 10 larvae 2

5 1

0 0 6/29/2015 7/10/2015 7/17/2015 7/30/2015 8/9/2015 6/19/2015 6/25/2015 6/30/2015 7/7/2015 week*location: F9,39= 3.61, p < 0.0038 week*location: F7,35 = 2.98, p < 0.0182 Infestation rates within plant canopy

Higher relative humidity within the interior portion of plants

2014: Pilot, grower field 2015: Piedmont Research Station -32 days (Aug 15- Sept 15) -62 days (Jun 9- Aug 9) -no difference in daily average temp -no difference in daily average temp

(F1,31 = 1.95, p = 0.172) (F1,61 = 1.55, p = 0.218) -small difference in relative humidity -small difference in relative humidity

(F1,31 = 7.30, p = 0.011) (F1,31 = 17.30, p = 0.0001) Infestation rates within plant canopy

canopy

inner

mid edge

low edge Infestation rates within plant canopy

150 cm No water + water

75 cm

30 cm

60 cm 150 cm

75 cm

30 cm

60 cm Non crop hosts

Common name Scientific name Ripe fruit period

Honeysuckle Lonicera spp. 7/1 – 10/7

Common blackberry Rubus sp. 7/8 – 9/16

Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara 7/21 – 10/3

Stiff dogwood Cornus foemina 8/19 – 10/6

American pokeweed Phytolacca americana 8/26 – 10/7

Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 8/29 – 10/7

Spicebush Lindera benzoin 9/8 – 10/7

Autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata 9/8 – 10/6

Lee et al 2015 Non crop hosts

1.0

0.8 Flies emerging from pokeweed

preferred to lay eggs in 0.6 blackberries, when given a

choice 0.4

Immature SWD performed of eggs Proportion eggs laid in 0.2 blackberry better in blackberries eggs laid in pokeweed 0.0 Natal host: Natal host: blackberry pokeweed

Diepenbrock et al Submitted Topics New SWD initiatives

Research updates Pesticide rotation programs Timing insecticide applications

Recommendations Recommendations 2016

For blackberries and raspberries ripening mid summer and later, begin SWD treatments when fruit starts to change color

Continue weekly, maximizing days before harvest for Delegate

Monitor TSSM populations following treatments Recommendations 2016

Apply treatments at dawn and dusk

Make applications every row and check coverage

Keep fruit as cold as possible for as long as possible & communicate with customers about cold chain More information Read us @ entomology.ces.ncsu.edu Like us @NCSmallFruitIPM Follow us @ facebook.com/NCSmallFruitIPM Effects of cold storage

Fruit infested over the course of 7 days and held at 68F until desired life stage reached

At least 4 treatment replicates and 8 control replicates were conducted for each life stage

Exposed in commercial-scale cold room at 35F for 72 hrs Effects of cold storage

Development took 3 days longer in cold treated fruit, meaning larvae did not develop at 35F

Development was faster in raspberries than in blueberries Effects of cold storage

No eggs survived to pupation in blueberries held at 35F for 72 hrs, but * some of all other life * stages did

No significant difference in survival for first and second instar Effects of cold storage

First instar larvae in * raspberries were not * * impacted by storage at 35F for 72 hrs, but other life stages were impacted