Native Habitat Restoration in Eastern Washington Wine Vineyards

NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS

AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Entomology

MAY 2019

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of

KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

______David James, Ph.D., Chair

______Elizabeth Beers, Ph.D.

______Joan Davenport, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Lorraine Seymour and Gerry Lauby for their expertise, their organizational skills, their excellence as sounding boards, and hopefully their ability to pass some of that on to me. I thank Cole Provence and my family who were always supportive. I thank all the people who helped me with my statistics, especially Bernardo Chaves. I thank the computer technician who saved my computer’s data and my life. I thank

Michael Aquilino. He knows what he did. Finally, I’d like to thank everyone who served on my committee, as well as Laura Lavine, for their guidance along the way.

iii

NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS

AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Abstract

by Katharine Denise Buckley, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2019

Chair: David James

Perennial crop systems such as wine grapes have begun using cover crops and hedgerows to increase beneficial insects and promote sustainable vineyard management in areas such as New Zealand and California. However, in arid wine growing regions such as eastern Washington, cover crops are often hard to grow and prohibitively expensive due to water costs. These studies were designed to determine if native plants, which require little or no irrigation, could be used to increase beneficial insect populations and enhance conservation biological control of vineyard pests in eastern Washington. Vineyards with some form of native habitat restoration in four different grape growing regions of eastern Washington were sampled using yellow sticky traps and leaf samples to monitor beneficial and pest insect numbers. These vineyards were compared with nearby conventional vineyards over a three-year period.

Secondary pests such as spider mites were well suppressed in habitat-enhanced vineyards, though the primary pests, leafhoppers, were not. Most beneficial insect groups were found to be more abundant in native habitats than in vineyards, and were

often significantly more abundant in vineyards with native habitat restoration over conventional vineyards. This indicates that native plants used as cover crops or in refugia patches may be a valuable addition to conservation biological control management strategies in arid areas. A partial cost/benefit analysis was also performed, which showed that habitat restoration may be more expensive in the short term than conventional pest control, although long-term benefits may outweigh costs.

In a separate study to determine the best plants to use in habitat restorations, native and naturalized plants were evaluated for attractiveness to beneficial insects using clear plastic sticky traps. Plant attractiveness varied greatly by both insect group and time of year. Some native plants currently used to enhance beneficial insect habitat may not be the best option for growers in central Washington, and others such as sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata , may be far more important than previously realized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

ABSTRACT ...... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xv

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

References ...... 9

INCIDENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF BENEFICIAL AND PEST ARTHROPODS IN HABITAT-ENHANCED AND CONVENTIONAL VINEYARDS ...... 18

Introduction ...... 18

Methods ...... 22

Vineyards ...... 22

Sampling ...... 26

Leaf samples ...... 26

Yellow sticky traps ...... 26

Data Analysis ...... 30

Results ...... 30

Grape Leaf Samples ...... 30

Yellow Sticky Traps ...... 37

Bee Identification ...... 50

Discussion ...... 51

References ...... 55

BENEFICIAL INSECT ATTRACTION TO NATIVE FLORA IN CENTRAL WASHINGTON ...... 60

Introduction ...... 60

Methods ...... 63

Data Analysis ...... 65

Results ...... 67

Discussion ...... 85

References ...... 89

ANALYSIS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 94

Introduction ...... 94

Methods ...... 95

Results ...... 97

Discussion ...... 102

References ...... 104

CONCLUSION ...... 107

References ...... 111

SATELLITE MAPS AND PLANT LISTS OF ALL VINEYARDS IN STUDY ...... 112

Columbia Gorge Vineyards ...... 113

Ancient Lakes Vineyards ...... 116

Red Mountain Vineyards...... 118

Walla Walla Vineyards ...... 121

PESTICIDE RECORDS OF STUDY VINEYARDS ...... 125

Columbia Gorge Vineyards ...... 125

Dry Hollow ...... 125

vii

2011 ...... 125

2012 ...... 125

2013 ...... 125

Klickitat Canyon ...... 126

2011 ...... 126

2012 ...... 126

2013 ...... 126

Ancient Lakes Vineyards ...... 126

Jones of Washington ...... 126

2011 ...... 126

2012 ...... 127

2013 ...... 127

White Heron ...... 127

2011 ...... 127

2012 ...... 128

2013 ...... 128

Red Mountain Vineyards...... 128

Ambassador ...... 128

2011 ...... 128

2012 ...... 129

2013 ...... 129

Ciel du Cheval ...... 130

2011 ...... 130

viii

2012 ...... 130

2013 ...... 131

Upchurch ...... 132

2011 ...... 132

2012 ...... 132

2013 ...... 132

Walla Walla Vineyards ...... 133

Seven Hills ...... 133

2011 ...... 133

2012 ...... 134

2013 ...... 135

River Rock ...... 135

2011 ...... 135

2012 ...... 135

2013 ...... 135

Woodward Canyon ...... 136

2011 ...... 136

2012 ...... 136

2013 ...... 137

NATIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH YEARS TRAPPED ...... 138

NATIVE PLANT TRAP TOTALS AND LOCATIONS ...... 142

NATIVE PLANT TRAP LOCATIONS...... 146

Table of Location Abbreviations and Meanings ...... 146

Map of Locations ...... 148

Aerial Photos of Selected Locations ...... 149

Photos of Selected Locations ...... 151

NATIVE PLANT BLOOM CHART ...... 153

NATIVE PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HABITAT RESTORATION ...... 156

SAMPLE GROWER SURVEY FOR 2015 ANNUAL WAWGG MEETING ...... 160

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 2-1. Experimental design of vineyards...... 23

Table 2-2. Acres of vineyards, grape variety, irrigation of vines, mean temperature and precipitation of locations, and GPS coordinates of study vineyards...... 24

Table 2-3. Frequency of mowing, surrounding area, types and management of native habitat of study vineyards...... 25

Table 2-4. Insect species or groups from grape leaves with categories for statistical analysis...... 28

Table 2-5. Insect species or groups from yellow sticky traps with categories for statistical analysis...... 29

Table 2-8. Mean yellow sticky trap CIDs by arthropod group, treatment, and years with standard error, F-statistic and P-values for treatment, and letters indicating statistical differences of different treatments (alpha level = 0.1)...... 39

Table 2-8 Continued...... 40

Table 2-10. Number of bee genera and species at different locations. C = Control vineyards, H = Habitat, E = Habitat-enhanced vineyard, T = Total...... 51

Table 3-1. Identified insect groups from native plant sticky traps with groupings for statistical analysis included...... 66

Table 3-2. ANOVA results of overall beneficial insect groups across all bloom periods...... 67

Table 3-3. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for April...... 69

Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test...... 69

Table 3-3 Continued...... 70

Table 3-4. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for May...... 71

Table 3-4 Continued...... 72

Table 3-4 Continued...... 73

Table 3-4 Continued...... 74

Table 3-5. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for June...... 75

Table 3-5 Continued...... 76

Table 3-5 Continued...... 77

Table 3-5 Continued...... 78

Table 3-6. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for July...... 79

Table 3-6 Continued...... 80

Table 3-7. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for August...... 81

Table 3-8. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for September...... 83

Table 3-9. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for October...... 84

Table 4-1. Questionnaire questions and answers for participating growers. NH = Native habitat-enhanced vineyard. All answers reported as written...... 101

Table A-1 Continued...... 115

xii

Table A-3 Continued...... 120

Table A-4 Continued...... 124

Table B-1. Jones of Washington 2011 spray records...... 126

Table B-2. Jones of Washington 2012 spray records...... 127

Table B-3. Jones of Washington 2013 spray records...... 127

Table B-4. Ambassador 2011 spray records...... 128

Table B-5. Ambassador 2012 spray records...... 129

Table B-6. Ambassador 2013 spray records...... 129

Table B-7. Ciel du Cheval 2011 spray records...... 130

Table B-7 Continued...... 131

Table B-8. Ciel du Cheval 2012 spray records...... 131

Table B-9. Upchurch 2012 spray records...... 132

Table B-10. Upchurch 2013 spray records...... 132

Table B-12. Seven Hills 2012 spray records...... 134

Table B-13. Seven Hills 2013 spray records...... 135

Table B-14. Woodward Canyon 2011 spray records...... 136

Table B-15. Woodward Canyon 2012 spray records...... 136

Table B-16. Woodward Canyon 2013 spray records...... 137

Table C-1. Native plant species with years trapped ...... 138

Table C-1. Continued ...... 139

xiii

Table C-1. Continued ...... 140

Table C-1. Continued ...... 141

Table D-1. Native plant trap totals and locations ...... 142

Table D-1. Continued ...... 143

Table D-1. Continued ...... 144

Table D-1. Continued ...... 145

Table E-1. Location Abbreviations and Meanings ...... 146

Table E-1. Continued ...... 147

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2-1. Map showing location of conventional and habitat–enhanced vineyards in central Washington used in this study ...... 22

Figure 2-2. Leafhopper cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from grape leaf samples by treatments...... 34

Figure 2-3. Pest bugs cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from grape leaf samples by treatments ...... 35

Figure 2-4. Spider mite cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from grape leaf samples by treatment ...... 36

Figure 2-5. Rust mite cumulative insect day (CID) averages for pooled years from grape leaf samples by treatments ...... 37

Figure 2-6. Leafhopper cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 42

Figure 2-7. Anagrus spp. cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 43 Figure 2-8. Bees cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 44

Figure 2-9. Butterflies cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 45

Figure 2-10. Predatory and pollinating flies cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 46

Figure 2-11. Lacewings cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 47

Figure 2-12. Predatory thrips cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 48

Figure 2-13. Parasitic wasp cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments ...... 49

Figure 3-1. Clear sticky trap placed over Phlox at McBee Grade site using stakes. .... 64

Figure 4-1. Total cost of habitat restoration and annual cost of weed control by acre for two habitat restored vineyards (NH2 & NH4) and two conventional vineyards (C1 & C2) from preliminary survey...... 97

Figure 4-2. Average cost in time and money of pest and weed control per year per acre amongst vineyards with different types of native habitat ...... 100

Figure A-1. Satellite images of Columbia Gorge vineyards including trap placements 113

Figure A-2. Satellite image of Ancient Lakes vineyards including trap placements ..... 116

Figure A-3. Satellite images of Red Mountain vineyards including trap placement ..... 118

Figure A-5. Detailed satellite view of Woodward Canyon vineyard with notes on surroundings and restored native habitat within the vineyard ...... 122

Figure E-1. Native habitat locations ...... 148

Figure E-2. Prosser and Tri-cities subset of native habitat locations ...... 148

Figure E-3. Beers Road, Prosser, WA native plant trap location example from 2014. 149

Figure E-4. Horn Rapids County Park, Benton City, WA native plant trap location example. A) HR Boat Launch site. B) HR Upper Elevation site...... 150 Figure E-5. McBee Road, Benton City, WA native plant sites. A) McBee Lower Elevation site on April 15, 2013 with Phlox drummondii blooming. B) McBee Middle Elevation site on June 18, 2012 with Gerry Lauby and a sagebrush mariposa lily ( Calochortus macrocarpus ) blooming. C) McBee Upper Elevation site on May 28, 2013...... 151

Figure E-6. Horn Rapids County Park, Benton City, WA native plant sites. A) HR Boat Launch site on May 30, 2012. B) HR Upper Elevation site on May 30, 2012 with Blue Mountain prairie clover ( Dalea ornata ) blooming. C) HR Airfield site on May 13, 2013 with yarrow ( Achillea millefolium ) blooming...... 152

Figure E-7. Satus Pass native plant site on Box Canyon Road, Goldendale, WA on June 12, A) 2012 and B) 2013...... 152

Figure F-1. Native plant bloom chart...... 153

Figure F-1. Continued ...... 154

Figure F-1. Continued ...... 155

Figure G-1. Native plant recommendations for habitat restoration...... 157

Figure G-1. Continued ...... 158

xvi

Figure G-1. Continued ...... 159

xvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Biological control is the use of organisms to control other organisms. Classical biological control, where introduced pests are countered with intentionally introduced natural enemies, has been shown to be cost-effective in some cases (Gutierrez et al.

1999, Zeddies et al. 2001) in large part due to decreased pesticide applications as well as increased yields. Augmentative biological control, the release of reared natural enemies, has comparable benefits to the use of insecticides in agricultural production, and even higher benefits when part of IPM programs (Naranjo et al. 2015).

Conservation biological control is the third type of biological control, which typically uses habitat manipulation and reduced pesticide use to conserve beneficial organisms already present in an area (Barbosa 1998). However, few analyses on the costs and benefits of conservation biological control have been performed (Cullen et al.

2008, Naranjo et al. 2015), especially with regards to habitat manipulation, and some did not find a benefit in pest control that exceeded lost revenue (Naranjo et al. 2015).

For example, alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) was intercropped with soybeans (Glycine max

(L.) Merr.) in order to attract beneficial insects to combat soybean pests (Schmidt et al.

2007). The decrease in soybean yields countered any benefits from the decreased pest pressure. However, in perennial cropping systems where insectary plantings are planted in underutilized space (row middles and borders), the same issues may not occur. In these cases, increased biodiversity and low pesticide input systems have been shown to increase beneficial insects while maintaining low pest populations and may be economically favorable in some cases (Crowder et al. 2010, Dickinson 1994).

Two studies, for example, found that habitat manipulation could produce benefits, or

negate them . Colloff et al. (2013) found that a widespread thrips (Pezothrips kellyanus

(Bagnall)) outbreak in South Australia was prevented in orchards with dense ground cover, composed of a diverse mix of perennial grasses and forbs, which maintained greater populations of predatory mites. The mean net income of these orchards was about AU$3000 greater than orchards with patchy weeds and bare ground. Landis et al.

(2008) found that decreased landscape diversity across the midwestern United States due to increased corn (Zea mays L.) plantings for biofuel was substantially decreasing biological control services in soybeans. These studies, combined with others on the effectiveness of conservation biological control, demonstrate that in many cases increased biodiversity on the farm and/or landscape level can help control pests (Landis et al. 2000, Paredes et al. 2015, Thies & Tscharntke 1999).

Despite the relative paucity of research on the economic benefits of conservation biological control, especially in regards to habitat manipulation, a small segment of grape (Vitis spp.) growers in Washington have begun experimenting with the addition of native habitat areas to their vineyards, based on probable biological control of pests like leafhoppers and mites (Prischmann et al. 2007). Wine grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in

Washington are already relatively free of most pests and diseases found in other major wine growing areas, mainly due to the arid climate, its relative isolation from other wine growing regions and strong adherence to virus-free propagation material. Washington also differs from many other wine growing regions in that most of the vines are not grafted, due to the general absence of a serious root pest, grape phylloxera

(Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch)) which is rare in the local sandy soils (Beale et al. 2004,

Buckley & Klaus 2018).

Many other major grape pests in other wine-growing regions are also either not present or occur very sporadically or rarely (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). The grape flea beetle ( Altica chalybea (Illiger)), which is a major pest in the Midwestern United States, is a minor pest in Washington state, as are black vine weevils ( Otiorhynchus sulcatus

(F.)).

The major pests in Washington vineyards are cutworms and leafhoppers.

Monitoring is very important for cutworms, and they are usually controlled with an early spring trunk spray with synthetic pyrethroids. A 2003-2007 survey (Wright et al. 2010) found that most cutworms in Washington are Abagrotis orbis (Grote) and A. vetusta

Walker. The main leafhopper pests are the Western grape leafhopper ( Erythroneura elegantula Osborn) and Virginia creeper leafhopper ( E. ziczac Walsh). There are effective insecticides that target leafhoppers and cultural methods including shoot thinning and deficit irrigation to limit vine vigor, which would otherwise attract and host larger numbers of leafhoppers (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). Leafhoppers are also preyed upon by many generalist predators in the nymphal stage and a number of Anagrus wasp species parasitize their eggs. Other species of grape cutworms and leafhoppers are either uncommon or absent from Washington.

Many secondary grape pest species are also not found in Washington. For example, grape mealybug ( Pseudococcus maritimus (Ehrhorn)), is the only species of mealybug currently found on grape in Washington (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). The only major grape scale is the European fruit lecanium ( Parthenolecanium corni (Bouché)).

Both mealybugs and scales transmit grapevine leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaVs)

(Moyer and O’Neal 2014). Sanitation practices are necessary to prevent the spread of

these insects as much as possible (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). There are only a few spider mite and thrips species in Washington as well. The twospotted spider mite

(Tetranychus urticae Koch) and McDaniel spider mite ( Tetranychus mcdanieli

McGregor) are prevalent in most of the state and the Willamette spider mite

(Eotetranychus willamettei (McGregor)) and Pacific spider mite ( Tetranychus pacificus

McGregor) have recently been found in a few limited areas (Hansen 2014). The grape thrips (Drepanothrips rueteri Uzel) and Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis

(Pergande)) are also minor pests of grapes in Washington. Bud mites ( Colomerus vitis

(Pagenstecher)) and rust mites ( Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa)) are also present (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). All of these secondary pests are mostly controlled by generalist predators.

Brown marmorated stink bug ( Halyomorpha halys Stål) is a new invasive species recently detected in the state that may become a problem in the future, either by direct feeding damage or tainted wine (Moyer and O’Neal 2014, Mohekar et al. 2017). Spotted wing drosophila ( Drosophila suzukii Matsumura), another invasive species that was potentially a problem, does not appear to be a major wine grape pest in the Pacific

Northwest (Ioriatti et al. 2015, Lee et al. 2011).

Low pest pressure allows wine growers to restrict pesticide spraying to a minimum and instead use mostly sustainable practices to control many pests. This type of pest management, which relies on knowledge of the pests and a variety of different management practices to control them, is known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

(Jepson et al. 2006). IPM can be a very economical method of pest control since it relies on Economic Injury Thresholds (EITs) to determine if control meaures are

necessary. A key component of EIT use is monitoring pest populations and disease levels, and frequently uses models to predict the best time for control measures to be enacted. Biological control is one of the foundations of effective IPM, and there are a host of both generalist predators and grape pest specific parasitoids already present in

Washington grapes or in adjacent natural areas (Prischmann et al. 2005, Prischmann et al. 2007). Given the initial low insecticide input, wine grapes in Washington are a good candidate cropping system for implementation of successful conservation biological control.

Cover cropping and hedgerows are some of the more typical habitat manipulations used to increase biodiversity within an agricultural landscape. Refugia, unsprayed areas that may be part of the crop or uncropped natural habitat, are also commonly utilized, especially where riparian zones are present, often in the form of irrigation ponds. Irrigation ponds can be important habitat for birds and amphibians, though studies on their effect on insect abundance and diversity are lacking (Knutson et al. 2004, Sebastián-González et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2004). Vineyards in some areas

(California, New Zealand) have used these methods to effectively reduce pest pressure to the point where few pesticide inputs are required (Wilson et al. 2008, Gurr et al.

2007). New Zealand in particular has become known for sustainable grape growing practices. The Waipara region of New Zealand is using plantings of alyssum (Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv.) to encourage Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Cameron), the primary parasitoid of the light brown apple moth ( Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)), which is the most serious grape pest in the area (Gurr et al. 2007). In California, prune trees (Prunus domestica L.) are used to provide overwintering habitat to Anagrus epos Girault, an egg

parasitoid of the leafhopper E. elegantula (Murphy et al. 1996). One study in southern

California, however, found that cover crops requiring additional irrigation were cost prohibitive due to water restrictions, which are getting worse due to the recent drought

(Irvin et al. 2010). Utilization of drought-hardy native plants for cover crops in the irrigated agriculture of arid and semi-arid regions may be a more sustainable alternative

(Winter et al. 2018).

Before agricultural development was made possible by an abundant supply of irrigation water through dams and irrigation distribution canals, most of eastern

Washington State was covered with sagebrush steppe or shrub-steppe habitat. More than 50% of this has been converted to agriculture, with additional acreage degraded from cattle grazing and altered fire regimes stemming from the colonization of invasive species such as cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum L.) and Russian thistle ( Salsola tragus

L.) (Rickard et al. 2012). Sagebrush steppe is dominated by shrubs interspersed with bunch grasses and diverse forbs. Big leaf sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata Nutt) and bluebunch wheatgrass ( Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Á. Löve) are the dominant plants, with smaller amounts of gray and green rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa (Pall. ex Pursh) G.L. Nesom & Baird and Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Greene), spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa (Hook.) Moq.), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata Curran), horsebrush (Tetradymia glabrata Torr. & A. Gray, T. canescens DC.) and other species of sagebrush as well as a diverse variety of bunchgrasses and forbs. The region varies from arid (less than 250 mm precipitation annually) to semi-arid (average of 250 to 500 mm precipitation annually), with extremely hot and dry summers, and most of the 200 to

500 millimeters of precipitation falling during the cold winter as rain or snow. Only

limited studies of the attractiveness of a few species of sagebrush steppe flora to beneficial insects in the Pacific Northwest have been conducted (Hollingbery et al.

2012, Miliczky & Horton 2007, Olszak 1991), although more extensive studies of native plants in other ecosystems have been performed in Michigan (Landis et al. 2000).

Many of the studies on conservation biological control cite floral resources of cover crops, patches, or hedgerows as one way to increase beneficial insect numbers and parasitism rates (Isaacs et al. 2009, Unruh et al. 2012). Floral resources are important for some groups of natural enemies such as parasitic wasps and predatory bugs ( Orius spp.) (Berndt et al. 2006, Heimpel & Jervis 2005, Hoffman et al. 2017,

Pisani Gareau et al. 2013), but other impacts of landscape management can also be a factor. Besides providing floral resources, the creation of refuge areas can also decrease predation, parasitism, and insecticide contact, increase mating opportunities, and provide alternate hosts (Flaherty & Huffaker 1970, Pisani Gareau et al. 2013, Krey et al. 2017). Native plants have proven to increase beneficial insects in New Zealand, though plant species selection is apparently important to avoid increases in pest species as well (Danne et al. 2010). Assessment of native plants for conservation biological control appears to be, however, relatively rare (Fiedler et al. 2008).

Plant resources within farms are not the only tool that may affect beneficial insects. Other components of crop management may also have impacts, such as the amount or timing of disturbance from mowing or harvesting (Prischmann et al. 2005), tillage (Sharley et al. 2008), and pesticide use (Beers & Schmidt 2014, Gentz et al.

2010, James 2004, Jenkins & Isaacs 2007, Prischmann & James 2003). The amount and composition of adjacent unmanaged plants may also affect the levels of beneficial

insects (Schmidt-Entling & Döbeli 2009, Thomson & Hoffmann 2009, 2010, & 2013,

Thomson et al. 2010), and agricultural intensification on the landscape level (Donald &

Evans 2006, Gagic et al. 2014, Tscharntke et al. 2005).

Based on the potential benefits for IPM, as well as the possibilities of improved consumer image and wine sales, grape growers in eastern Washington are increasingly open to conserving or restoring sagebrush steppe habitat in and around their vineyards.

If this trend is to continue, there are some questions that must be answered regarding the effectiveness of sagebrush steppe habitat restoration as an IPM strategy for grape growing in eastern Washington State. To address this, my research focused on the following questions: How are beneficial insects affected by sagebrush steppe habitat restoration in vineyards? Does sagebrush steppe habitat restoration in and/or near vineyards effectively manage grape pests with limited or no use of insecticides? Is habitat restoration a cost-effective IPM strategy? What native plants are best suited for use in vineyards in eastern Washington in encouraging all natural enemies as well as other beneficial insects?

I hypothesized that native habitat restoration in vineyards increases beneficial insect abundance and diversity and that this has a negative impact on pests. I further hypothesized that this can be cost-effective over several years. Finally I hypothesized that certain plants are better suited to habitat restoration than others, specifically in regards to their attractiveness to beneficial insects, though also their ease of management and water use requirements. If all these hold true, then conservation and enhancement of existing native habitat may become a priority for growers in this region.

References

Barbosa, P. A. (1998). Conservation Biological Control . San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Beale, P., Clarke, S., Corliss, K., Eastwell, K., Grove, G., James, D., Keller, M.,

Halstead, S., Hamman, R., McFerran, J., Means, M., Morasch, B., Morrell, C., Moulton,

G., Olivia, D, Olmstead, M., Parker, B., Riga, K., Sample, J., Walsh, D., Wildman, T., &

Williams, S. (2004, May 27). Pest management strategic plan for Washington State wine grape production. Workshop summary. IPM Centers. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/wawinegrapepmsp.pdf

Beers, E. H., & Schmidt, R. A. (2014). Impacts of orchard pesticides on

Galendromus occidentalis : Lethal and sublethal effects. Crop Protection , 56 , 16–24. Berndt, L. A., Wratten, S. D., & Scarratt, S. L. (2006). The influence of floral resource subsidies on parasitism rates of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in New

Zealand vineyards. Biological Control , 37 (1), 50–55.

Buckley, K., & Klaus, M. (2018). 2017 Grape Survey Report (Survey Report).

Yakima, WA: WSDA.

Colloff, M. J., Lindsay, E. A., & Cook, D. C. (2013). Natural pest control in citrus as an ecosystem service: Integrating ecology, economics and management at the farm scale. Biological Control , 67 (2), 170–177.

Crowder, D. W., Northfield, T. D., Strand, M. R., & Snyder, W. E. (2010).

Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature , 466 (7302),

109–112.

Cullen, R., Warner, K. D., Jonsson, M., & Wratten, S. D. (2008). Economics and adoption of conservation biological control. Biological Control , 45 (2), 272–280.

Danne, A., Thomson, L. J., Sharley, D. J., Penfold, C. M., & Hoffmann, A. A.

(2010). Effects of native grass cover crops on beneficial and pest invertebrates in

Australian vineyards . Environmental Entomology, 39 (3), 970–978.

Dickinson, J. (1994). Comparative economic and ecological analyses of lower chemical input fruit farms and other fruit farming systems. SARE Project Report.

Retrieved January 16, 2014, from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=LNC91-

037&y=1994&t=1

Donald, P. F., & Evans, A. D. (2006). Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43 (2),

209–218.

Fiedler, A. K., Landis, D. A., & Wratten, S. D. (2008). Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: The role of habitat management.

Biological Control, 45 (2), 254–271.

Flaherty, D. L., & Huffaker, C. B. (1970). Biological control of Pacific mites and

Willamette mites in San Joaquin valley vineyards. I. Role of Metaseiulus occidentalis .

Hilgardia, 40 , 267–308.

Gagic, V., Hänke, S., Thies, C., & Tscharntke, T. (2014). Community variability in aphid parasitoids versus predators in response to agricultural intensification. Insect

Conservation and Diversity , 7(2), 103–112.

Gentz, M. C., Murdoch, G., & King, G. F. (2010). Tandem use of selective insecticides and natural enemies for effective, reduced-risk pest management.

Biological Control , 52 (3), 208–215.

Gurr, G. M., Scarratt, S. L., Jacometti, M., & Wratten, S. D. (2007). Management of pests and diseases in New Zealand and Australian vineyards. In Biological Control : A

Global Perspective : Case Studies from Around the World (p. 466). Wallingford, Oxon,

GBR: CABI Publishing.

Gutierrez, A. P., Caltagirone, L. E., & Meikle, W. (1999). Evaluation of results:

Economics of biological control. In T. S. Bellows, T. W. Fisher (Ed.), Handbook of

Biological Control (pp. 243–252). San Diego: Academic Press.

Hansen, M. (2014, September 12). New spider mite found in Washington. Good

Fruit Grower . Retrieved from https://www.goodfruit.com/new-spider-mite-found-in- washington/

Heimpel, G. E., & Jervis, M. A. (2005). Does floral nectar improve biological control by parasitoids. Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous Insects: A Protective

Mutualism and Its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 267–304.

Hoffmann, C., Köckerling, J., Biancu, S., Gramm, T., Michl, G., & Entling, M. H.

(2017). Can flowering greencover crops promote biological control in German vineyards? Insects, 8 (4).

Hollingbery, E. N., Pike, K. S., Graf, G., & Graf, D. (2012). Parasitoids

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) of rabbitbrush aphids and linkage with agriculturally important pest aphids in Washington State, United States of America. The

Canadian Entomologist , 144 (05), 621–634.

Ioriatti, C., Walton, V., Dalton, D., Anfora, G., Grassi, A., Maistri, S., & Mazzoni,

V. (2015). Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and its potential impact to wine grapes during harvest in two cool climate wine grape production regions. Journal of

Economic Entomology , tov042.

Irvin, N., Hoddle, M., Cziraki, I., Gispert, C., Jepson, P., Musashi, S., Ohmart, C.,

Perring, T., & Toscano, N. (2010). Using nectar cover cropping in vineyards for sustainable pest management (Project Summary No. SW07-022). SARE Report.

Retrieved January 16, 2014 from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=SW07-

022&y=2007&t=2

Isaacs, R., Tuell, J., Fiedler, A., Gardiner, M., & Landis, D. (2009). Maximizing arthropod-mediated ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: the role of native plants. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 7(4), 196–203.

James, D. G. (2004). Effect of buprofezin on survival of immature stages of

Harmonia axyridis , Stethorus punctum picipes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Orius tristicolor (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), and Geocoris spp. (Hemiptera: Geocoridae).

Journal of Economic Entomology, 97 (3), 900–904.

Jenkins, P. E., & Isaacs, R. (2007). Reduced-risk insecticides for control of grape berry moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and conservation of natural enemies. Journal of

Economic Entomology , 100 (3), 855–865.

Jepson, P. C., Brewer, L. J., Jepson, S. B., & others. (2006). Integrated pest management resource guide . Oregon State University Extension Service. Doc. No. EM

8898.

Knutson, M. G., Richardson, W. B., Reineke, D. M., Gray, B. R., Parmelee, J. R.,

& Weick, S. E. (2004). Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecological

Applications, 14 (3), 669–684.

Krey, K. L., Blubaugh, C. K., Chapman, E. G., Lynch, C. A., Snyder, G. B.,

Jensen, A. S., Fu, Z., Prischmann-Voldseth, D. A., Harwood, J. D., & Snyder, W. E.

(2017). Generalist predators consume spider mites despite the presence of alternative prey. Biological Control, 115 , 157–164.

Landis, D. A., Gardiner, M. M., Werf, W. van der, & Swinton, S. M. (2008).

Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105 (51), 20552–20557.

Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., & Gurr, G. M. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of

Entomology , 45 (1), 175–201.

Lee, J. C., Bruck, D. J., Curry, H., Edwards, D., Haviland, D. R., Van Steenwyk,

R. A., & Yorgey, B. M. (2011). The susceptibility of small fruits and cherries to the spotted-wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii . Pest Management Science , 67 (11), 1358–

1367.

Miliczky, E., & Horton, D. R. (2007). Natural enemy fauna (Insecta, Araneae) found on native sagebrush steppe plants in eastern Washington with reference to species also found in adjacent apple and pear orchards. Pan-Pacific Entomologist ,

83 (1), 50–65.

Mohekar, P., Lapis, T. J., Wiman, N. G., Lim, J., & Tomasino, E. (2017). Brown marmorated stink bug taint in Pinot noir: Detection and consumer rejection thresholds of trans -2-Decenal. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 68 (1), 120–126.

Moyer, M., & O’Neal, S. (2013). Field guide for integrated pest management in

Pacific Northwest vineyards (No. PNW644) (p. 132). Prosser, WA: Washington State

University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho.

Murphy, B. C., Rosenheim, J. A., & Granett, J. (1996). Habitat diversification for improving biological control: Abundance of Anagrus epos (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in

Grape Vineyards. Environmental Entomology, 25 (2), 495–504.

Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C., & Frisvold, G. B. (2015). Economic value of biological control in integrated pest management of managed plant systems. Annual

Review of Entomology , 60 (1), 621–645.

Olszak, R. W. (1991). The relations between the aphids and parasitoids occurring on apple trees and on six species of shrubs. In Behaviour and impact of aphidophaga: proceedings of the 4th meeting of the IOBC W.G. Ecology of aphidophaga (pp. 61–65). SPB Academic Publishing.

Paredes, D., Cayuela, L., Gurr, G. M., & Campos, M. (2015). Is ground cover vegetation an effective biological control enhancement strategy against olive pests?

PLoS ONE , 10 (2), e0117265.

Pisani Gareau, T. L., Letourneau, D. K., & Shennan, C. (2013). Relative densities of natural enemy and pest insects within California hedgerows. Environmental

Entomology , 42 (4), 688–702.

Prischmann, D. A., & James, D. G. (2003). Phytoseiidae (Acari) on unsprayed vegetation in southcentral Washington: implications for biological control of spider mites on wine grapes. International Journal of Acarology , 29 (3), 279–287.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., & Snyder, W. E. (2005). Impact of management intensity on mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) in Southcentral

Washington wine grapes. International Journal of Acarology , 31 (3), 277–288.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., Storm, C. P., Wright, L. C., & Snyder, W. E.

(2007). Identity, abundance, and phenology of Anagrus spp . (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae) and leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) associated with grape, blackberry, and wild rose in Washington state. Annals of the Entomological Society of

America , 100 (1), 41–52.

Rickard, A., Rogers, L. E., Vaughan, B. E., & Liebetrau, S. F. (2012). Shrub-

Steppe: Balance and Change in a Semi-Arid Terrestrial Ecosystem . Elsevier.

Sharley, D. J., Hoffmann, A. A., & Thomson, L. J. (2008). The effects of soil tillage on beneficial invertebrates within the vineyard. Agricultural and Forest

Entomology, 10 (3), 233–243.

Schmidt, N. P., O’Neal, M. E., & Singer, J. W. (2007). Alfalfa living mulch advances biological control of soybean aphid. Environmental Entomology , 36 (2), 416–

424.

Schmidt-Entling, M. H., & Döbeli, J. (2009). Sown wildflower areas to enhance spiders in arable fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133 (1-2), 19–22.

Sebastián-González, E., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., & Botella, F. (2010). Agricultural ponds as alternative habitat for waterbirds: spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and management strategies. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 56 (1), 11–20.

Thies, C., & Tscharntke, T. (1999). Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems. Science , 285 (5429), 893–895.

Thomson, L. J., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2009). Vegetation increases the abundance of natural enemies in vineyards. Biological Control, 49 (3), 259–269.

Thomson, L. J., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2010). Natural enemy responses and pest control: Importance of local vegetation. Biological Control, 52 (2), 160–166.

Thomson, L. J., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2013). Spatial scale of benefits from adjacent woody vegetation on natural enemies within vineyards. Biological Control, 64 (1), 57–65.

Thomson, L. J., McKenzie, J., Sharley, D. J., Nash, M. A., Tsitsilas, A., &

Hoffmann, A. A. (2010). Effect of woody vegetation at the landscape scale on the abundance of natural enemies in Australian vineyards. Biological Control, 54 (3), 248–

254.

Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005).

Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters , 8(8), 857–874.

Unruh, T. R., Pfannenstiel, R. S., Peters, C., Brunner, J. F., & Jones, V. P.

(2012). Parasitism of leafrollers in Washington fruit orchards is enhanced by perimeter plantings of rose and strawberry. Biological Control , 62 (3), 162–172.

Williams, P., Whitfield, M., Biggs, J., Bray, S., Fox, G., Nicolet, P., & Sear, D.

(2004). Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biological Conservation, 115 (2), 329–341.

Wilson, H., Altieri, M., Black, S., Estensen, D., Gates, D., Heinzen, R., Morrison,

R., Sipiora, M., Taylor, K. (2008). Restoring plant diversity and soil health in Napa and

Sonoma Vineyards: scaling up an agroecologically based pest management strategy .

SARE Report. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=FW08-

311&y=2008&t=2

Winter, S., Bauer, T., Strauss, P., Kratschmer, S., Paredes, D., Popescu, D.,

Landa, B., Guzmán, G., Gómez, J. A., Guernion, M., Zaller, J. G., & Batáry, P. (2018).

Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 55 (5), 2484–2495.

Wright, L. C., James, D. G., Reyna, V., Conte, S. C. del, Gingras, S., Landolt, P.,

& Brooks, T. (2010). Species composition of cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae in south central Washington vineyards. Annals of the Entomological Society of America ,

103 (4), 592–596.

Zeddies, J., Schaab, R. P., Neuenschwander, P., & Herren, H. R. (2001).

Economics of biological control of cassava mealybug in Africa. Agricultural Economics ,

24 (2), 209–219.

CHAPTER 2 INCIDENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF BENEFICIAL AND PEST ARTHROPODS IN HABITAT-ENHANCED AND CONVENTIONAL VINEYARDS

Introduction

The addition of cover crops, hedgerows and refugia have been used to increase beneficial insect populations in and near crops. This added vegetation can help decrease predation, parasitism, and insecticide contact, increase mating opportunities, and provide alternate hosts and floral resources for many different groups of beneficial insects (Flaherty & Huffaker 1970, Pisani Gareau et al. 2013, Krey et al. 2017). The increase in floral diversity typically results in an increase in diversity, abundance and stability of beneficial insect populations, which can help suppress pest outbreaks

(Barbosa 1998, Gurr et al. 2004). Hedgerows may be used to surround fields, or even within fields. Cover crops may be used in the off season in annual crops, or between rows in annual and perennial cropping systems. Refugia, unsprayed areas that may be part of the crop or uncropped natural habitat, are also commonly utilized, especially where riparian zones are present (Landis et al. 2000).

Vineyards in some areas have used these methods to increase beneficial insects and reduce pests (Wilson et al. 2008, Gurr et al. 2007, Murphy et al. 1996, Flaherty &

Huffaker 1970, Thomson & Hoffman 2009, Hoffman et al. 2017). New Zealand, for example, has become known for sustainable growing and pest management practices.

Grape (Vitis spp. ) growers in the Waipara region of New Zealand have adopted plantings of alyssum (Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv.) in vineyards to encourage

Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Cameron) , the primary parasitoid of the most serious grape pest in the area, the light brown apple moth ( Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)), for

biological control (Gurr et al. 2007). However, in arid or semi-arid agricultural regions, paying for irrigation for cover crops can become cost prohibitive, especially during times of drought (Irvin et al. 2010). Therefore utilizing drought-hardy native plants for insectary plantings in the irrigated agriculture of arid and semi-arid regions could be helpful

(Winter et al. 2018).

The endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystem of the Columbia Basin covers most of eastern Washington, with only 200-300 millimaters of precipitation annually

(Pyke et al. 2015). More than 50% of this native habitat has been converted to agriculture, with additional acreage degraded from cattle grazing and altered fire regimes from the colonization of invasive species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum

L.) and Russian thistle ( Salsola tragus L.) (Rickard et al. 2012). Many of the generalist predatory insects that live in native shrubs, bunchgrasses and forbs are natural enemies of grape pests (James 2004, Prischmann et al. 2005). These native plants are also drought-tolerant and once established in habitat restoration projects require no irrigation. With their low resource requirements and their use by beneficial insects, native sagebrush steppe plant species may be good candidates for conservation biological control.

A small group of grape growers in Washington have begun experimentally adding native habitat areas to their vineyards, in an effort to promote biological control of leafhoppers and mites (Prischmann et al. 2007). Wine grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in

Washington are already remarkably free of most pests and diseases found in other major wine growing areas, mainly due to the arid climate, cold winters, relative isolation from other wine growing regions, strong adherence to the use of virus-free propagation

material, and sandy soils which limit grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch))

(Beale et al. 2004).

Cutworms and leafhoppers are the most important grape pests in Washington.

Cutworms cause early season bud and shoot damage, and are usually controlled with monitoring and an early spring trunk spray with synthetic pyrethroids. The main leafhopper pests are the Western grape leafhopper (Erythroneura elegantula Osborn) and Virginia creeper leafhopper ( E. ziczac Walsh). Leafhoppers are attracted to vigorous growth, where they feed on grape leaf cells, which in extremes can decrease berry sugars, sunburn fruit, and weaken the vines (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). They are typically controlled with imidacloprid (a systemic, targeted insecticide) and cultural methods including shoot thinning and deficit irrigation to limit vine vigor (Moyer and

O’Neal 2014). Leafhopper biological control includes generalist predators of their nymphal stage and Anagrus wasp egg parasitoids.

In addition to the major pests, a few secondary or sporadic pests are also found in Washington vineyards. Grape mealybug (Pseudococcus maritimus (Ehrhorn)) is the only species of mealybug found on grape in Washington (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). The only scale species of significance is the European fruit lecanium (Parthenolecanium corni (Bouché)). Sanitation practices prevent the spread of these insects (Moyer and

O’Neal 2014). The twospotted spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae Koch) and McDaniel spider mite ( Tetranychus mcdanieli McGregor) are prevalent in most of the state although the Willamette spider mite ( Eotetranychus willamettei (McGregor)) and Pacific spider mite ( Tetranychus pacificus McGregor) have been recently found in a few limited areas (Hansen 2014). The grape thrips (Drepanothrips rueteri Uzel), Western flower

thrips ( Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)), bud mites (Colomerus vitis

(Pagenstecher)), and rust mites (Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa)) are also present (Moyer and O’Neal 2014). All of these secondary pests rarely cause problems, and are mostly controlled by generalist predators and easily controlled with pesticides when they do threaten to become a problem (Skinkis et al. 2018).

This low pest pressure allows wine grape growers to restrict pesticide applications to a minimum (0-3 insecticide applications per year for the growers in this study, with 3-11 fungicide applications, and 0-3 herbicide applications), and instead use sustainable practices to control most pests. This type of pest management, which relies on knowledge of the pests and a variety of different management practices to control them, is known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (Jepson et al. 2006). Biological control is one of the foundations of effective IPM, and there are a lot of both generalist predators and specialist parasitoids already present in Washington grapes (Prischmann et al. 2005, Prischmann et al. 2007). With low insecticide input, wine grape production in eastern Washington is a good candidate agroecosystem for the implementation of successful conservation biological control, which uses habitat manipulation and selective insecticides to promote natural enemies.

Native habitat restoration in wine grape vineyards could enhance the abundance and diversity of beneficial arthropods, thereby improving conservation biological control.

We report on a study comparing pest and natural enemy adundance in conventional vineyards with those where patches of native habitat were cultivated in or near vineyards.

Figure 2-1. Map showing location of conventional and habitat–enhanced vineyards in central Washington used in this study. Conventional vineyards are in white, habitat-enhanced vineyards are in green.

Methods

Vineyards

Conventional vineyards (vineyards without habitat enhancement), and those with native habitat restoration projects (habitat-enhanced), were identified in four different

American Viticultural Areas (AVA) across central Washington (Columbia Gorge, Ancient

Lakes, Red Mountain, Walla Walla) (www.washingtonwine.org). Each location constituted a replicate, and the treatments within replicates were conventional and habitat enhanced (Table 2-1). Studies were conducted over a 3-year period (2011 to

2013). Due to changes in management at two of the vineyards after the 2011 season,

replacement vineyards were chosen and used throughout the remainder of the study

(Table 2-1).

Table 2-1. Experimental design of vineyards. Vineyard Treatment Replicate (AVA) 2011 2012 2013 Conv Columbia Gorge Dry Hollow Dry Hollow Dry Hollow Ancient Lakes Jones Jones Jones Red Mountain Ambassador Ambassador Ambassador Walla Walla Seven Hills** River Rock River Rock

HabEnh Columbia Gorge Dobson Dobson Dobson Ancient Lakes White Heron White Heron White Heron Red Mountain Ciel du Cheval** Upchurch Upchurch Walla Walla Woodward Woodward Woodward **changed due to change in management practices

The age and method of habitat restoration varied at different vineyards (Table 2-

3). Two of the vineyards had added patches of habitat in the last two years before the study began; one of the vineyards had been involved in habitat restoration for several decades. While native habitat patches (refugia) were sometimes used by themselves, most vineyards had a combination of refugia and native plants planted between the vineyard rows. The between-row native plants were typically not irrigated as nearly all vineyards in Washington state use drip irrigation only within the vine rows. All of the vineyards in the study use drip irrigation except Dry Hollow, which is not irrigated. The refugia varied in their level of maintenance (Table 2-3). The climate was similar in each location, except for precipitation (Table 2-2). Satellite photographs of all vineyards are included in Appendix A. Pesticide records are attached in Appendix B.

Table 2-2. Acres of vineyards, grape variety, irrigation of vines, mean temperature and precipitation of locations, and GPS coordinates of study vineyards. Total Acres of Mean Mean Vineyard Vineyard Block Variety Temp. Precip. GPS Coordinates Acres Sampled (°C) (mm)

45°33'21.14"N Dry Hollow 12 4 Syrah 11.9 368 121°11'55.67"W

45°43'10.63"N Klickitat Canyon 3.5 2.4 Syrah 11.9 368 121°17'36.30"W

47°14'3.30"N Jones of WA 6.14 1 Malbec 10.3 198 120°0'26.09"W

47°14'10.51"N White Heron 11.8 2 Malbec 10.3 198 119°59'55.50"W

Cabernet 46°16'35.18"N Ambassador 20 1 11.6 195 Sauvignon 119°26'4.09"W

Cabernet 46°16'52.46"N Ciel du Cheval 160 4 11.6 195 Sauvignon 119°26'56.11"W

Cabernet 46°15'37.91"N Upchurch 15 1 11.6 195 Sauvignon 119°27'39.02"W

Cabernet 45°56'32.55"N Seven Hills >200 3.6 12.3 530 Franc 118°26'51.00"W

45°57'59.47"N River Rock 9 3 Syrah 12.3 530 118°23'45.69"W

Woodward Cabernet 46°5'51.77"N 42 6 12.3 530 Canyon Franc 118°35'17.95"W

Climate data from www.usclimatedata.com

Table 2-3. Frequency of mowing, surrounding area, types and management of native habitat of study vineyards. Mowing Area Surrounding Management of Vineyard Between Native Habitat Plot Restored Habitat Rows Some unrestored 100% Agriculture habitat near tasting Dry Hollow Frequent (Grapes, N/A room, not immediately Cherries) adjacent to vineyard Surrounding vineyard Weeding, non- Klickitat Canyon Never 100% Habitat and between rows irrigated 75% Habitat, 25% Unrestored Jones of WA Frequent Agriculture N/A surrounding (Grapes) Weeding, occasional Patches, surrounding White Heron Infrequent 100% Habitat mowing near vines, and between rows non-irrigated 75% Agriculture (Grapes, Ambassador Frequent None N/A Cherries), 25% Residence Patch around 25% Habitat, 75% Occasional herbicide irrigation pond, some Ciel du Cheval Frequent Agriculture on weeds, non- plants between rows (Grapes) irrigated in poor condition 75% Agriculture Patches adjacent to Irrigated, once a year Upchurch Frequent (Grapes), 25% vineyard mowing Habitat/Residence 100% Agriculture Patches within Seven Hills Frequent Weeding, irrigated (Grapes) vineyard 100% Agriculture (Grapes, Apples, River Rock Frequent None N/A Cherries, Pear & Plum) Small wildflower Patches, surrounding Woodward patches irrigated, Frequent 100% Habitat and some between Canyon larger patches non- rows irrigated

Sampling

Two primary methods of sampling were used in all three years of the study. Leaf samples were used primarily for grape pests, and were most efficient when used for wingless arthropods or stages, although alate pests were also recorded on yellow sticky traps. Leaf samples were taken from vineyards, but not habitat patches. Both types of samples were taken every 2 weeks from bud break (about Mid-May) through harvest

(mid-September). Yellow sticky traps (Pherocon AM/NB Traps, Trécé, Inc., Adair,

Oklahoma) were used to capture alate forms of insects. These traps are known to be attractive attractive to a wide variety of beneficial insects (Wallis and Shaw 2008,

Thomson et al. 2004). Traps were placed both in vineyards and in native habitat patches near vineyards. Leaf samples Pest arthropods (spider mites, rust mites, leafhopper eggs and nymphs) were the primary arthropods of interest in the leaf samples, although other minor pests and beneficial arthropods were also noted (Table 2-4). On each trap collection date, thirty grape leaves were collected at random from the grape canopy in the plots. Leaves were kept cool until returned to the laboratory, and examined for arthropods with the aid of a microscope. All arthropods were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible

(Table 2-4), counted for each leaf, then the results of the counts of all 30 leaves were averaged for later data analysis.

Yellow sticky traps

Five traps were placed in fixed locations of each vineyard replicate with one trap at each corner and one at the center across a small block of vines within the vineyard

(Table 2-2). The traps were attached to the trellis system between 1 and 2 meters in height, in close proximity to the vine canopy. Five additional traps were placed in the habitat areas of habitat-enhanced vineyards on fences or posts between 1 and 1.25 meters in height. After retrieval from the vineyards, traps were stored in a conventional freezer at -12°C for at least 24 hours to ensure all insects were dead, and then allowed to dry at room temperature if wet from rainfall or irrigation. The traps were then catalogued and stored in unsealed plastic bags until the insects were identified using a stereomicroscope. Arthropods counted included pest insects, primarily Western grape and Virginia creeper leafhoppers and Lygus spp. Beneficial insect groups counted included lacewings, ladybugs, predatory bugs, predatory and parasitic flies, predatory thrips, predatory and parasitic wasps including Anagrus spp. (grape leafhopper egg parasitoids (Prischmann et al. 2007)), and pollinators including bees and butterflies

(Table 2-5).

Bees on the yellow sticky traps were further identified to a lower taxonomic level from the Columbia Gorge, Walla Walla and Red Mountain vineyards in 2013. The vast majority of bees trapped were from genera that are <6mm in size. It is highly likely that these are the only ones consistently caught by the yellow sticky traps, as larger bees were observed to walk off the traps.

Table 2-4. Insect species or groups from grape leaves with categories for statistical analysis. Beneficial arthropod categories Species, genera, or family included Phytoseiidae and Stigmaeidae (predatory Galendromus occidentalis mites) (Nesbitt) Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman) Zetzellia mali (Ewing) Tydeidae (tydeid mites) Hemiptera (predatory bugs) Orius spp. Geocoris spp. Coccinellidae (ladybugs) Stethorus spp. Neuroptera (lacewings) Chrysopidae Hemerobiidae Aeolothripidae (predatory thrips) Franklinothrips spp. Aeolothrips spp. Pest arthropod categories Tetranychidae (spider mites) Tetranychus spp. Eotetranychus spp.

Panonychus ulmi (Koch) Eriophyidae (rust mites) Calepitrimerus vitis Nalepa Cicadellidae (leafhoppers) Erythroneura elegantula Osborn Erythroneura ziczac Walsh Hemiptera (pest spp., excluding leafhoppers) Coccoidea Pseudococcidae

Table 2-5. Insect species or groups from yellow sticky traps with categories for statistical analysis. Beneficial arthropod categories Species, genera, or family included Neuroptera (lacewings) Chrysoperla plorabunda (Fitch) Chrysopa nigricornis Burmeister Chrysopa coloradensis Banks Chrysopa oculata Say Eremochrysa spp. Hemerobius spp. Micromus spp. Coccinellidae (ladybugs) Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) Coccinella septempunctata L. Coccinella transversogutatta Mulsant Hippodamia convergens Guerin-Meneville Psyllobora vigintimaculata (Say) Stethorus picipes Casey Stethorus punctillum (Weise) Scymnus spp. Hemiptera (predatory bugs) Deraecoris brevis (Uhler) Geocoris pallens Stal Orius tristicolor (White) Nabidae Aeolothripidae (predatory thrips) Franklinothrips spp. Aeolothrips spp. Diptera (predatory and parasitic flies) Empididae Syrphidae Dolichopodidae Sarcophagidae Tachinidae Ichneumonidae and Braconidae (ichneumonid and braconid wasps) Mymaridae (fairy wasps) Anagrus spp. Encyrtidae and Aphelinidae Coccophagus spp. Metaphycus spp. Other parasitic wasps Pteromalidae, Eulophidae, Trichogrammatidae, Scelionidae Apoidea (bees) Lepidoptera (butterflies) Pest arthropod categories Hemiptera (pest spp.) Lygus spp. Erythroneura elegantula Osborn Erythroneura ziczac Walsh

Data Analysis

Cumulative insect days (CIDs), as per Ruppel (1983), were calculated for all arthropod functional groups for each vineyard plot, which served as the dataset used for analysis. The leaf sample data had two treatments (Conventional and Habitat-enhanced vineyards), but for the yellow sticky trap datas, the habitat was considered to be a third treatment. This seasonal index of abundance was analyzed by treatment (2-3), location

(4 replicates) and year (3, 2011-2013). All data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (PROC GLIMMIX, SAS 2015). Data were tested for normality with the

Shapiro-Wilk test, and datasets that followed a normal distribution with analyzed with this distribution in the model statement, otherwise a lognormal distribution was used. Treatment effects were examined both by looking at each year separately, and then pooling across the three years of the study, examining treatment and interaction effects.

Results

Grape Leaf Samples

The most numerous arthropods found on the grape leaves were leafhopper eggs and nymphs, spider mites, rust mites, and tydeid mites, with relatively small numbers of scales and mealybugs (Table 2-6). Leafhopper eggs and nymphs were significantly higher in habitat-enhanced vineyards versus conventional vineyards in 2012 and when all three years were pooled (Table 2-6, 2-7, Figure 2-2). This trend in leafhopper densities was the reverse of all other pests, with scales and mealybugs (pest hemipterans) (Figure 2-3), spider mites (Figure 2-4) and rust mites (Figure 2-5) being significantly higher in conventional vineyards than in habitat-enhanced vineyards. The

differences between treatments for these three groups were not significant in 2011, were only significant in 2013 and pooled years for pest bugs, and only significant for pooled years in rust mites. These three groups of secondary pests in wine grapes had lower populations in habitat-enhanced vineyards.

The grape leaf samples did not provide an accurate picture of alate beneficial insects, which were better represented in their capture on yellow sticky traps. The exception to that were ladybugs, which were significantly higher in habitat-enhanced vineyards when years were pooled (Table 2-7).

Table 2-6. Mean grape leaf CIDs by arthropod group, treatment, and years with standard error, F-statistic and P-values for treatment, and letters indicating statistical differences of different treatments (alpha level = 0.1). Arthropod Group Treatment N 2011 2012 2013 Pest Bugs HabEnhVineyard 4 3.84±2.75a 12.57±9.01a 3.16±0.40b ConvVineyard 4 36.09±20.39a 71.66±41.56a 8.17±2.17a F, P 1.56, 0.3002 2.63, 0.2030 6.51, 0.0839

Pred. Bugs HabEnhVineyard 4 0.35±0.15a 0.00±0.00a 0.21±0.12a ConvVineyard 4 0.12±0.12a 0.23±0.23a 0.00±0.00a F, P 1.78, 0.2745 1.00, 0.3910 3.00, 0.1819

Lacewings HabEnhVineyard 4 0.00±0.00a 0.00±0.00a 0.00±0.00a ConvVineyard 4 0.09±0.09a 0.00±0.00a 0.00±0.00a F, P 1.00, 0.3910 0.00, 0.0000 0.00, 0.0000

Ladybugs HabEnhVineyard 4 1.40±1.11a 0.53±0.53a 4.26±4.10a ConvVineyard 4 0.20±0.12a 0.00±0.00a 0.00±0.00a F, P 1.79, 0.2728 1.00, 0.3910 2.50, 0.2117

Leafhoppers HabEnhVineyard 4 13.10±8.39a 21.97±14.25a 42.77±40.38a ConvVineyard 4 3.14±1.82a 0.68±0.43b 18.17±18.05a F, P 2.06, 0.2468 10.73, 0.0466 0.97, 0.3979

Pred. Mites HabEnhVineyard 4 49.48±23.83a 54.14±25.04a 53.15±26.72a ConvVineyard 4 44.76±36.43a 75.52±42.53a 50.00±34.68a F, P 0.76, 0.4476 0.81, 0.4349 0.08, 0.7973

Rust Mites HabEnhVineyard 4 378.55±292.43a 245.20±71.12a 681.58±429.45a ConvVineyard 4 263.76±257.65a 454.43±387.87a 2016.14±1977.22a F, P 2.74, 0.1963 1.02, 0.3875 1.76, 0.2767

Spider Mites HabEnhVineyard 4 0.61±0.30a 0.70±0.55b 0.58±0.22b ConvVineyard 4 4.48±2.82a 68.90±39.29a 144.90±124.54a F, P 0.36, 0.5924 153.51, 0.0011 10.09, 0.0503

Pred. Thrips HabEnhVineyard 4 0.51±0.32a 0.93±0.54a 0.12±0.12a ConvVineyard 4 0.79±0.46a 0.17±0.11a 0.17±0.11a F, P 1.33, 0.3328 0.25, 0.6496 1.00, 0.3910

Tydeid Mites HabEnhVineyard 4 215.28±66.39a 572.62±228.11a 632.59±372.54a ConvVineyard 4 131.25±68.07a 465.59±162.45a 439.09±277.26a F, P 0.78, 0.4419 0.47, 0.5430 1.10, 0.3722 Degrees of freedom = 3.

Table 2-7. Mean grape leaf CIDs for pooled years by arthropod group and treatment, with standard error, F-statistic and P-values for treatment, year and treatment*year, and letters indicating statistical differences of different treatments (alpha level = 0.1). Arthropod Group Treatment N Mean ± SE F, P Pest Bugs HabEnhVineyard 12 6.52±3.12b treatment 4.61, 0.0603 ConvVineyard 12 38.64±16.02a year 1.59, 0.2557 trt*year 0.39, 0.6882

Pred. Bugs HabEnhVineyard 12 0.19±0.07a treatment 1.55, 0.2452 ConvVineyard 12 0.12±0.08a year 1.31, 0.3165 trt*year 2.05, 0.1845

Lacewings HabEnhVineyard 12 0.00±0.00a treatment 1.00, 0.3434 ConvVineyard 12 0.03±0.03a year 1.00, 0.4053 trt*year 1.00, 0.4053

Ladybugs HabEnhVineyard 12 2.06±1.38a treatment 4.63, 0.0599 ConvVineyard 12 0.07±0.05b year 0.64, 0.5474 trt*year 0.61, 0.5650

Leafhoppers HabEnhVineyard 12 25.95±13.68a treatment 8.27, 0.0183 ConvVineyard 12 7.33±5.95b year 0.03, 0.9722 trt*year 0.36, 0.7079

Pred. Mites HabEnhVineyard 12 52.26±13.19a treatment 0.03, 0.8679 ConvVineyard 12 56.76±20.27a year 0.11, 0.8961 trt*year 0.71, 0.5152

Rust Mites HabEnhVineyard 12 435.11±167.42b treatment 5.52, 0.0434 ConvVineyard 12 911.44±656.61a year 0.54, 0.6031 trt*year 0.38, 0.6953

Spider Mites HabEnhVineyard 12 0.63±0.20b treatment 18.94, 0.0018 ConvVineyard 12 72.76±43.02a year 0.60, 0.5702 trt*year 2.17, 0.1698

Pred. Thrips HabEnhVineyard 12 0.52±0.22a treatment 0.19, 0.6705 ConvVineyard 12 0.38±0.17a year 0.52, 0.6136 trt*year 0.68, 0.5289

Tydeid Mites HabEnhVineyard 12 473.50±144.34a treatment 2.99, 0.1179 ConvVineyard 12 345.31±109.10a year 0.69, 0.5246 trt*year 0.04, 0.9591 Degrees of freedom = 9.

Figure 2-2. Leafhopper cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from grape leaf samples by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat- enhanced vineyards

Figure 2-3. Pest bugs cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from grape leaf samples by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat- enhanced vineyards

Figure 2-4. Spider mite cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from grape leaf samples by treatment. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat- enhanced vineyards

Figure 2-5. Rust mite cumulative insect day (CID) averages for pooled years from grape leaf samples by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat-enhanced vineyards

Yellow Sticky Traps Leafhopper adults, like the eggs and nymphs in the grape leaf samples, were significantly higher in habitat-enhanced vineyards over conventional vineyards (Table 2-

8, 2-9, Figure 2-6). This was especially true during an outbreak in 2013 in the Ancient

Lakes habitat-enhanced vineyard, where even the traps placed outside the vineyard in the habitat areas caught enough leafhoppers to have significantly higher densities than the paired conventional vineyard. This particular vineyard had elevated leafhopper numbers compared to other vineyards in all three years of the study, but the outbreak in

2013 almost certainly is responsible for the significant difference between treatments.

Adult leafhoppers and Lygus bugs (no difference between treatments, Table 2-8,

2-9) were the only pest species regularly found on the yellow sticky traps, but most groups of beneficial insects were frequently caught by the traps. The leafhopper egg parasitoids, Anagrus spp., were not significantly different between treatments (with the

exception of 2013 (Figure 2-7)), but their distribution was related to that of the leafhoppers (Figure 2-6). There was a significant correlation between leafhoppers and

Anagrus on yellow sticky traps of (Corr. coefficient=0.5377, P <0.0001).

There were no significant differences between treatments for any beneficial insect groups in 2011. Ladybugs were significantly higher in habitat-enhanced vineyards and conventional vineyards when all years were pooled (with a highly significant year effect) (Table 2-8, 2-9). Predatory bugs were not different among treatments in any year

(Table 2-8, 2-9).

Bees, butterflies, predatory and pollinating flies, and lacewings were all significantly more abundant in native habitat than in either vineyard type (Table 2-8, 2-

9). Bees displayed this trend in 2012, 2013 and the pooled years (Figure 2-8).

Butterflies only displayed this trend in 2013 (Figure 2-9), and in pooled years both native habitat and the habitat-enhanced vineyards had significantly more butterflies than conventional vineyards (Table 2-9). Predatory and pollinating flies were significantly more abundant in native habitat in 2013 (Figure 2-10) and for pooled years, with a highly significant year effect (Table 2-9), and had a notable difference between native habitat and habitat-enhanced vineyards in 2012 (Figure 2-10). Lacewings were significantly more abundant in native habitat than either vineyard treatment in 2012 and for pooled years (Figure 2-11).

Predatory thrips were significantly different between vineyard treatments in 2013

(Figure 2-12), with significantly higher abundance in habitat-enhanced vineyards over even native habitat in pooled years, which was also significantly higher than conventional vineyards (Table 2-9). Parasitic wasps were more abundant in habitat and

habitat-enhanced vineyards in 2012 and 2013; in 2012 and pooled years they were significantly higher in native habitat (Table 2-8, 2-9, Figure 2-13).

Arthropod Group Treatment N 2011 2012 2013 Anagrus Habitat 4 68.35±25.49a 13.35±4.27a 19.75±2.32ab HabEnhVineyard 4 43.85±25.84a 64.30±53.43a 334.20±269.12a ConvVineyard 4 84.70±27.13a 8.83±3.76a 10.87±3.75b F, P 0.70, 0.5312 1.29, 0.3411 2.95, 0.1280

Bees Habitat 4 3.65±1.63a 11.85±2.25a 20.05±1.87a HabEnhVineyard 4 5.50±2.38a 4.00±0.58b 5.70±2.22b ConvVineyard 4 3.10±1.01a 2.45±0.85b 4.60±2.16b F, P 0.51, 0.6264 9.65, 0.0133 20.04, 0.0022

Pred. Bugs Habitat 4 3.90±1.84a 5.00±1.54a 7.60±3.25a HabEnhVineyard 4 6.15±2.96a 2.15±1.09a 5.10±2.11a ConvVineyard 4 3.05±1.24a 2.68±1.17a 2.80±1.95a F, P 0.27, 0.7725 1.40, 0.3171 0.92, 0.4484

Butterflies Habitat 4 1.55±0.58a 1.90±0.51a 3.95±1.72a HabEnhVineyard 4 2.60±2.07a 0.90±0.44a 1.60±0.62b ConvVineyard 4 0.90±0.77a 2.10±1.71a 1.78±0.91b F, P 1.73, 0.2555 0.99, 0.4259 5.86, 0.0389

Pred. Flies Habitat 4 34.90±13.80a 31.55±11.94a 257.95±72.45a HabEnhVineyard 4 20.40±4.16a 13.90±6.73b 75.15±19.64b ConvVineyard 4 35.40±13.68a 24.68±18.16ab 66.72±22.45b F, P 0.95, 0.4391 3.11, 0.1186 56.60, 0.0001

Lacewings Habitat 4 1.45±0.46a 4.70±2.22a 7.55±2.77a HabEnhVineyard 4 3.45±2.10a 1.00±0.33b 0.90±0.13ab ConvVineyard 4 0.75±0.30a 1.15±0.62b 1.55±0.70b F, P 1.01, 0.4187 12.54, 0.0072 3.34, 0.1062

Ladybugs Habitat 4 14.15±5.06a 15.55±4.58a 20.05±4.23a HabEnhVineyard 4 26.25±9.48a 12.50±6.85a 34.50±10.87a ConvVineyard 4 7.35±1.95a 5.68±1.67a 28.33±14.71a F, P 2.10, 0.2036 2.10, 0.2039 0.60, 0.5796

Table 2-8 Continued. Arthropod Group Treatment N 2011 2012 2013 Leafhoppers Habitat 4 48.75±35.82a 28.20±25.95ab 56.85±50.95b HabEnhVineyard 4 117.15±102.14a 151.65±125.95a 603.85±554.88a ConvVineyard 4 14.55±6.94a 7.08±4.27b 2.10±1.20c F, P 1.82, 0.2413 3.96, 0.0801 18.54, 0.0027

Lygus Bugs Habitat 4 0.10±0.06a 0.45±0.21a 0.90±0.54a HabEnhVineyard 4 0.20±0.14a 0.15±0.10a 0.10±0.10a ConvVineyard 4 0.20±0.12a 0.05±0.05a 0.20±0.14a F, P 0.04, 0.9602 1.39, 0.3188 1.24, 0.3530

Pred. Thrips Habitat 4 21.80±5.55a 60.95±26.38a 149.45±70.42ab HabEnhVineyard 4 32.10±6.87a 59.40±21.55a 251.90±156.61a ConvVineyard 4 30.70±16.89a 24.88±7.19a 152.80±98.39b F, P 0.46, 0.6545 3.18, 0.1144 4.96, 0.0536

Parasitic Wasps Habitat 4 350.95±59.40a 511.35±52.72a 801.90±170.34a HabEnhVineyard 4 366.15±72.82a 306.70±52.69b 714.00±366.68a ConvVineyard 4 234.20±21.49a 191.98±42.87c 244.83±98.68b F, P 2.29, 0.1824 23.50, 0.0015 3.54, 0.0964

Table 2-9. Mean yellow sticky trap CIDs for pooled years by arthropod group and treatment, with standard error, F-statistic and P-values for treatment, year and treatment*year, and letters indicating statistical differences of different treatments (alpha level = 0.1). Arthropod Group Treatment N Mean ± SE F, P Anagrus Habitat 12 33.82±10.77a treatment 1.41, 0.2687 HabEnhVineyard 12 147.45±92.17a year 2.69, 0.1218 ConvVineyard 12 34.80±13.52a trt*year 1.86, 0.1615

Bees Habitat 12 11.85±2.26a treatment 5.93, 0.0105 HabEnhVineyard 12 5.07±1.02b year 3.62, 0.0701 ConvVineyard 12 3.38±0.81b trt*year 2.51, 0.0782

Pred. Bugs Habitat 12 5.50±1.30a treatment 1.15, 0.3402 HabEnhVineyard 12 4.47±1.25a year 0.83, 0.4684 ConvVineyard 12 2.84±0.78a trt*year 1.01, 0.4264

Butterflies Habitat 12 2.47±0.65a treatment 3.07, 0.0715 HabEnhVineyard 12 1.70±0.70a year 1.17, 0.3535 ConvVineyard 12 1.59±0.65b trt*year 0.82, 0.5279

Pred. Flies Habitat 12 108.13±39.09a treatment 6.55, 0.0073 HabEnhVineyard 12 36.48±10.46b year 5.81, 0.0240 ConvVineyard 12 42.26±11.03b trt*year 1.41, 0.2695

Lacewings Habitat 12 4.57±1.31a treatment 6.32, 0.0084 HabEnhVineyard 12 1.78±0.73b year 0.06, 0.9429 ConvVineyard 12 1.15±0.31b trt*year 1.32, 0.2990

Ladybugs Habitat 12 16.58±2.54ab treatment 2.77, 0.0892 HabEnhVineyard 12 24.42±5.54a year 5.31, 0.0300 ConvVineyard 12 13.79±5.47b trt*year 0.94, 0.4643

Leafhoppers Habitat 12 44.60±20.67b treatment 17.41, <0.0001 HabEnhVineyard 12 290.88±186.68a year 0.16, 0.8572 ConvVineyard 12 7.91±2.92c trt*year 1.44, 0.2622

Lygus Bugs Habitat 12 0.48±0.20a treatment 1.24, 0.3124 HabEnhVineyard 12 0.15±0.06a year 0.06, 0.9412 ConvVineyard 12 0.15±0.06a trt*year 0.71, 0.6010

Pred. Thrips Habitat 12 77.40±27.86b treatment 7.66, 0.0039 HabEnhVineyard 12 114.47±56.09a year 1.84, 0.2133 ConvVineyard 12 69.46±35.03c trt*year 0.41, 0.7973

Parasitic Wasps Habitat 12 554.73±79.86a treatment 18.76, <0.0001 HabEnhVineyard 12 462.28±126.06b year 0.66, 0.5399 ConvVineyard 12 223.67±33.79c trt*year 2.01, 0.1355

Figure 2-6. Leafhopper cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat- enhancedHabitat-enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-7. Anagrus spp. cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat-enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-8. Bees cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat-enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-9. Butterflies cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat- enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-10. Predatory and pollinating flies cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat-enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-11. Lacewings cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat- enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-12. Predatory thrips cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat-enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Figure 2-13. Parasitic wasp cumulative insect day (CID) annual averages from yellow sticky traps by treatments. Conv = Conventional vineyards, HabEnh = Habitat-enhanced vineyards, Habitat = Restored habitat.

Bee Identification

Lasioglossum (Halictidae: small sweat bees) was by far the most common bee genus caught with 83% of all individuals (Table 2-6). Hylaeus (Colletidae: yellow faced bee) and Perdita (Andrenidae) and Apis mellifera Linnaeus (European honey bees) were the next most common species. Hylaeus and Perdita are small bees that are approximately the same sizes as Lasioglossum . Many of the Halictus (Halictidae: sweat bees) individuals found were also of small size (10 mm or less). Honey bees are comparatively larger insects, which have been observed walking off yellow sticky traps on occasion.

Bees were caught throughout the trapping season, but they were most frequently caught between late May and late August. There did not seem to be a major correlation between any of the species and time of capture, but most of the bees caught are polylectic (except Perdita ), and many are eusocial (some Lasioglossum species and

Apis mellifera ). Polylectic, eusocial species feed on the pollen of many species of plants, and maintain colonies for most to all of the year. Lasioglossum species, while similar morphologically, display a wide variety of behaviors, especially regarding social behavior. Lasioglossum species can range from solitary to primitively eusocial.

Three trends were apparent in our data. First, the monitoring method used

(yellow sticky traps) were more efficient in capture of smaller bees. Second,

Lasioglossum are more abundant near vineyards than Hylaeus or Perdita . Finally, more bees (principally Lasioglossum ) are present in habitat areas than in vineyards.

While grapes do not require pollen transfer by arthropods, many other crops do require pollination. If growers have a diversified crop portfolio they may use habitat

restoration to improve bee habitat. Besides their value in crop pollination, bees can also be used as healthy ecosystem indicators (Tscharntke et al. 1998). Native habitat restoration that attracts and maintains high bee populations is probably successfully attracting other beneficial insects, and in other crops can lead to higher fruit set and production (Blaauw & Isaacs 2014)

Table 2-10. Number of bee genera and species at different locations. C = Control vineyards, H = Habitat, E = Habitat-enhanced vineyard, T = Total. Columbia Gorge Red Mountain Walla Walla Identified Bees Total C H E T C H E T C H E T Lasioglossum 2 117 29 148 43 43 46 132 8 120 13 141 421 Hylaeus 1 7 4 12 2 9 11 1 3 4 27 Apis mellifera 3 1 4 0 2 11 13 17 Perdita 1 1 1 3 4 1 11 12 17 Halictus 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 7 Halictus farinosus 0 0 1 1 1 Megachile 1 1 0 2 1 3 4 Agapostemon virescens 0 0 1 2 3 3 Colletes 1 1 1 1 0 2 Calliopsis 0 1 1 0 1 Eucera 0 0 1 1 1 Melissodes 0 0 1 1 1 Shecodes 0 0 1 1 1 Unidentified 1 1 0 1 3 4 5 Total Bees 8 128 34 170 46 67 53 166 15 157 14 186 522

Discussion

Over the course of this three year study, there was only one case of a pest population high enough to be considered treatable by the grower (2013, Ancient Lakes, habitat-enhanced). This vineyard had consistently high leafhopper densities throughout the study, and likely influenced the treatment mean for habitat-enhanced vineyards. At the same site, the leafhopper egg parasitoids Anagrus spp. had a similar increase in population, and were consistently present at that vineyard throughout the study. It

seems likely that most years Anagrus spp. kept the leafhoppers under control, given that the grower had not treated for leafhoppers in 10 years. It is difficult to determine if high leafhopper abundance is a result of habitat enhancement, or just a peculiarity of this vineyard. Leafhoppers may be more affected by vine vigor than cover crops or native habitat restoration (Daane & Costello 1998).

Conversely, it appears that habitat enhancement proves a direct benefit to pest control. Secondary pests including spider mites, rust mites, mealybugs and scales were lower with the addition of native habitat to vineyards, although the mechanism is unknown. An increase in beneficial arthropods may be responsible in some cases, or subtle alterations in abiotic factors (e.g., dust) which may affect mite densities (Godfrey

2011).

Unsurprisingly, many beneficial arthropod groups were more abundant in native habitat than in nearby vineyards overall, but with year-to-year variability. James et al.

(2015) offers a more in depth look at butterflies in vineyards, but it is safe to say that at least native pollinators, both butterflies and bees, were more abundant in native habitat over vineyards. This was the trend for many generalist predators as well except for predatory thrips. Predatory thrips and the specialized leafhopper egg parasitoids,

Anagrus spp., were more abundant in habitat-enhanced vineyards than just native habitat. These two groups in particular may be benefiting from the abundance of prey found in the vineyards enhanced with native habitat. These results of increased generalist predators and selective parasites associated with the native habitat restoration, as well as a caution on plant selection to ward off increasing some pest population, are comparable to similar studies (Daane et al. 2010). As with other studies,

there is a wide range in response by different insect groups, with some significantly affected, and others not (Hoffman et al. 2017, Thomson & Hoffman 2010).

It has been a long held hypothesis that increased plant diversity increases insect diversity (Knops et al. 1999, Murdoch et al. 1972, Siemann et al. 1998) and this research seems to support this, especially as one of the major differences between native habitat, habitat-enhanced vineyards and conventional vineyards was the diversity of plant species, as well as numbers of invasive versus native plant species (Appendix

A). It is possible that more substantial benefits to growers may accrue with a further increase in plant diversity or an increase in the size of habitat patches, but there does appear to be some benefit already. More research is needed on the optimum habitat to vineyard ratio as well as edge effects of habitat restoration adjacent to vineyards

(Thomson & Hoffman 2013). Additional research could be done to explore other benefits of sagebrush steppe restoration, such as impacts on other ecosystem services, ecotourism, and endangered species conservation, as pest management is only one of many possible benefits (Fiedler et al. 2008).

Though one of the main wine grape pests in the area was not controlled with habitat restoration alone, many secondary pests did appear to be. Some of these secondary pests, such as spider mites, infest other crops in the area besides wine grapes, such as hops, mint and apples. Future research should be conducted to determine if these pest populations are lower in other crops with sagebrush steppe habitat restoration.

Conversion to agriculture is a major factor in the loss of existing sagebrush steppe habitat. The native bunch grasses, diverse forbs and shrubs support a surprising

variety of beneficial arthropods with very little precipitation. Many of these plant species disappear with the installation of irrigated agriculture, tillage, and herbicides, along with the arthropod fauna they support. Bringing back these arthropods is only one of the benefits to restoring this unique ecosystem to areas where it has been lost. Restoration and conservation of native habitats go hand in hand, but it is usually easier and quicker to restore slightly degraded native habitat than restore plant and animal communities on bare ground. Knowing there are benefits to having sagebrush steppe habitat as part of an agricultural landscape in eastern Washington may help make conservation of the existing native habitat a priority for all growers in this region.

References

Barbosa, P. A. (1998). Conservation Biological Control . San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Beale, P., Clarke, S., Corliss, K., Eastwell, K., Grove, G., James, D., Keller, M.,

Halstead, S., Hamman, R., McFerran, J., Means, M., Morasch, B., Morrell, C., Moulton,

G., Olivia, D, Olmstead, M., Parker, B., Riga, K., Sample, J., Walsh, D., Wildman, T.,

Williams, S. (2004, May 27). Pest management strategic plan for Washington State wine grape production . Workshop summary. IPM Centers. Retrieved March 5, 2012 from http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/wawinegrapepmsp.pdf

Daane, K., & Costello, M. (1998). Can cover crops reduce leafhopper abundance in vineyards? California Agriculture , 52 (5), 27–33. Danne, A., Thomson, L. J., Sharley, D. J., Penfold, C. M., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2010). Effects of native grass cover crops on beneficial and pest invertebrates in

Australian vineyards. Environmental Entomology , 39 (3), 970–978.

Fiedler, A. K., Landis, D. A., & Wratten, S. D. (2008). Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: The role of habitat management.

Biological Control , 45 (2), 254–271.

Flaherty, D. L., & Huffaker, C. B. (1970). Biological control of Pacific mites and

Willamette mites in San Joaquin valley vineyards. I. Role of Metaseiulus occidentalis .

Hilgardia, 40, 267–308.

Godfrey, L. D. (2011). Pest Notes: Spider Mites (Pest Notes No. 7405). Davis,

CA: University of California. Retrieved from http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PDF/PESTNOTES/pnspidermites.pdf

Gurr, G. M., Scarratt, S. L., Jacometti, M., & Wratten, S. D. (2007). Management of Pests and Diseases in New Zealand and Australian Vineyards. In Biological Control :

A Global Perspective : Case Studies from Around the World (p. 466). Wallingford, Oxon,

GBR: CABI Publishing.

Gurr, G., Wratten, S., & Altieri, M. (2004). Ecological Engineering for Pest

Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods . Collingwood VIC,

Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Hansen, M. (2014). New spider mite found in Washington. Good Fruit Grower

September 12. Retrieved from https://www.goodfruit.com/new-spider-mite-found-in- washington/

Hoffmann, C., Köckerling, J., Biancu, S., Gramm, T., Michl, G., & Entling, M. H.

(2017). Can flowering greencover crops promote biological control in German vineyards? Insects, 8 (4).

Irvin, N., Hoddle, M., Cziraki, I., Gispert, C., Jepson, P., Musashi, S., Ohmart, C.,

Perring, T., Toscano, N. (2010). Using nectar cover cropping in vineyards for sustainable pest management (Project Summary No. SW07-022). SARE Report.

Retrieved from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=SW07-

022&y=2007&t=2

James, D. G. (2004). Effect of buprofezin on survival of immature stages of

Harmonia axyridis , Stethorus punctum picipes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Orius tristicolor (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), and Geocoris spp. (Hemiptera: Geocoridae).

Journal of Economic Entomology , 97 (3), 900–904.

James, D. G., Seymour, L., Lauby, G., & Buckley, K. (2015). Beauty with benefits: butterfly conservation in Washington State, USA, wine grape vineyards.

Journal of Insect Conservation, 19 (2), 341–348.

Jepson, P. C., Brewer, L. J., & Jepson, S. B. (2006). Integrated pest management resource guide . Oregon State University Extension Service. EM 8898.

Knops, J. m. h., Tilman, D., Haddad, N. M., Naeem, S., Mitchell, C. E., Haarstad,

J., Groth, J. (1999). Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters , 2(5), 286–293.

Krey, K. L., Blubaugh, C. K., Chapman, E. G., Lynch, C. A., Snyder, G. B.,

Jensen, A. S., Fu, Z., Prischmann-Voldseth, D. A., Harwood, J. D., & Snyder, W. E.

(2017). Generalist predators consume spider mites despite the presence of alternative prey. Biological Control, 115 , 157–164.

Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., & Gurr, G. M. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of

Entomology , 45 (1), 175–201.

Moyer, M., & O’Neal, S. (2013). Field guide for integrated pest management in

Pacific Northwest vineyards (No. PNW644) (p. 132). Prosser, WA: Washington State

University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho.

Murdoch, W. W., Evans, F. C., & Peterson, C. H. (1972). Diversity and pattern in plants and insects. Ecology , 53 (5), 819–829.

Murphy, B. C., Rosenheim, J. A., & Granett, J. (1996). Habitat Diversification for

Improving Biological Control: Abundance of Anagrus epos (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in Grape Vineyards. Environmental Entomology , 25(2), 495–504.

Pisani Gareau, T. L., Letourneau, D. K., & Shennan, C. (2013). Relative densities of natural enemy and pest insects within California hedgerows. Environmental

Entomology , 42 (4), 688–702.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., & Snyder, W. E. (2005). Impact of management intensity on mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) in Southcentral

Washington wine grapes. International Journal of Acarology , 31 (3), 277–288.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., Storm, C. P., Wright, L. C., & Snyder, W. E.

(2007). Identity, abundance, and phenology of Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae) and leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) associated with grape, blackberry, and wild rose in Washington state. Annals of the Entomological Society of

America, 100 (1), 41–52.

Rickard, A., Rogers, L. E., Vaughan, B. E., & Liebetrau, S. F. (2012). Shrub-

Steppe: Balance and Change in a Semi-Arid Terrestrial Ecosystem . Elsevier.

Ruppel, R. F. (1983). Cumulative insect-days as an index of crop protection.

Journal of Economic Entomology , 76 (2), 375–377.

Siemann, E., Tilman, D., Haarstad, J., & Ritchie, M. (1998). Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity. The American Naturalist ,

152 (5), 738–750.

Skinkis, P., Walton, V., DeFrancesco, J., Edmunds, B., & Bell, N. (2018). Grape

Pests. In Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook: Small Fruit Crops . Oregon

State University. Retrieved from https://pnwhandbooks.org/sites/pnwhandbooks/files/insect/chapterpdf/smallfruit.pdf

Thomson, L. J., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2010). Natural enemy responses and pest control: Importance of local vegetation. Biological Control , 52 (2), 160–166.

Thomson, L. J., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2013). Spatial scale of benefits from adjacent woody vegetation on natural enemies within vineyards. Biological Control , 64 (1), 57–65.

Thomson, L., J. Neville, P., & Hoffmann, A. (2004). Effective trapping methods for assessing invertebrates in vineyards. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,

44.

Tscharntke, T., Gathmann, A., & Steffan ‐Dewenter, I. (1998). Bioindication using trap-nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: community structure and interactions. Journal of Applied Ecology , 35 (5), 708–719.

Wallis, D. R., & Shaw, P. W. (2008). Evaluation of coloured sticky traps for monitoring beneficial insects in apple orchards. New Zealand Plant Protection Society,

61 , 328-332.

Wilson, H., Altieri, M., Black, S., Estensen, D., Gates, D., Heinzen, R., Morrison,

R., Sipiora, M., Taylor, K. (2008). Restoring plant diversity and soil health in Napa and

Sonoma Vineyards: scaling up an agroecologically based pest management strategy .

SARE Report. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=FW08-

311&y=2008&t=2

Winter, S., Bauer, T., Strauss, P., Kratschmer, S., Paredes, D., Popescu, D.,

Landa, B., Guzmán, G., Gómez, J. A., Guernion, M., Zaller, J. G., & Batáry, P. (2018).

Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 55 (5), 2484–2495.

CHAPTER 3 BENEFICIAL INSECT ATTRACTION TO NATIVE FLORA IN CENTRAL WASHINGTON

Introduction

Cover crops can be an important contribution to agriculture. Depending on how they are used they can increase soil nutrients such as soil organic carbon and plant available nitrogen, reduce erosion, and provide resources for beneficial insects

(Steenwerth & Belina 2008, De Baets et al. 2011, Snapp et al. 2005). They can be utilized in the off season in annual crops, or between rows in annual and perennial cropping systems. Along with cover crops, hedgerows and refugia areas that can surround or be embedded within fields, have been used to increase beneficial insect populations in and near crops. Refugia are unsprayed areas that may be part of the crop or uncropped natural habitat (Landis et al. 2000). This increase in plant and floral diversity, and lowered pesticide pressure, typically results in an increase in the diversity and stability of beneficial insect populations, both of which can help suppress pest outbreaks (Barbosa 1998, Gurr et al. 2004).

Various perennial and annual cropping systems have used these methods to effectively reduce pest pressure to the point where few pesticide inputs are required

(Gurr et al. 2007, Wilson et al. 2008,). Native California hedgerows have been shown to decrease tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) pests 100m to 200m from the edge of the field (Morandin et al. 2014). Citrus growers in China have utilized ground covers of the weed Ageratum conyzoides L. to help control the citrus red mite, Panonychus citri

McGregor (Liang & Huang 1994). Alyssum ( Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv.) has been used in apples (Malus domestica Borkh.) in Washington to suppress woolly apple

aphids ( Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann)) (Gontijo et al. 2013). Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) growers in the Waipara region of New Zealand have adopted plantings of alyssum to encourage Dolichogenidea tasmanica (Cameron) , the primary parasitoid of their most serious grape pest, the light brown apple moth ( Epiphyas postvittana

(Walker)) (Gurr et al. 2007). Native plants as cover crops in Australian vineyards have also increased light brown apple moth egg predation (Danne et al. 2010).

Cover crops in arid and semi-arid climates can be problematic, especially in times of drought, because they often require additional irrigation. One study in southern

California, for example, found that cover crops requiring additional irrigation were cost prohibitive due to water restrictions (Irvin et al. 2010). Few native plants from arid (less than 250 mm precipitation annually) and semi-arid areas (average of 250 to 500 mm precipitation annually) have been studied for use in cover crops, or other agricultural use, especially in the Pacific Northwest, and even more specifically in relating to their attraction to beneficial insects (Winter et al. 2018), despite their benefits over non- natives (Daane et al. 2010).

Eastern Washington State varies from arid to semi-arid, with extremely hot and dry summers. Precipitation falls mostly during the cold winters. The region was covered with sagebrush steppe or shrub steppe habitat before agricultural development was made possible by an abundant supply of irrigation water through dams and irrigation distribution canals. Over half of this has been converted to agriculture or urban areas, with additional acreage degraded from cattle grazing and altered fire regimes caused by invasive species such as cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum L.) and Russian thistle ( Salsola tragus L.) (Rickard et al. 2012).

Sagebrush steppe is dominated by shrubs interspersed with bunch grasses and diverse forbs. Big leaf sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata Nutt) and bluebunch wheatgrass

(Pseudoroegneria spicata (Pursh) Á. Löve) are the dominant plants, with smaller amounts of gray and green rabbitbrush ( Ericameria nauseosa (Pall. ex Pursh) G.L.

Nesom & Baird and Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Greene), spiny hopsage ( Grayia spinosa (Hook.) Moq.), bitterbrush ( Purshia tridentata Curran), horsebrush ( Tetradymia glabrata Torr. & A. Gray, T. canescens DC.) and other species of sagebrush as well as a diverse variety of bunchgrasses and forbs (Rickard et al. 2012). Only limited studies of the attractiveness of a few sagebrush steppe flora to beneficial insects in the Pacific

Northwest have been conducted (Hollingbery et al. 2012, Miliczky & Horton 2007,

Olszak 1991), although more extensive studies of native plants in other ecosystems have been performed in other locations such as Michigan (Landis et al. 2000).

Many of the generalist predatory insects that live amongst the native plants are natural enemies of grape pests (James 2004, Prischmann et al. 2005). A few grape growers in Washington have added or conserved native habitat areas in or near their vineyards, to try to promote these natural enemies and provide biological control of leafhoppers and mites (Prischmann et al. 2007). With already low pesticide inputs resulting in minimal impacts on beneficial arthropods, Washington wine grapes make for a good candidate system for successful conservation biological control.

Although existing habitat restoration projects are providing some level of biological control of secondary pests (Chapter 2), there are almost certainly some native plants that are better suited for use in attracting and retaining natural enemies. A number of other characteristics may also be considered for plants used in native habitat

restoration including invasive status, ease of cultivation, bloom period, commercial availability, and attractiveness. The most important characteristic for use in vineyards, however, is the relative attractiveness of different native plant species to different groups of grape pest predators and parasitoids. This research was designed to determine the best native plants to use in wine grapes, though the information developed may also be applicable to a wide variety of other crops and habitat restoration projects.

Methods

Beneficial insect attraction was evaluated for 106 species of native plants, 16 naturalized flowering shrub species, and 9 noxious weeds at multiple locations across central Washington (Appendix E). A subset of some commercially available species was also planted in plots at the Washington State University Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center (Prosser, WA) to provide information on ease of establishment as well as additional information on insect attractiveness (locations H 10, H 11 and Roza).

Some of the commercially available plant species were planted at the H 10 and H 11 sites in 2 by 1 meter plots in three replicates with 15 plants per replicate, and at the

Roza research farm in between wine grape rows in 1 by 6 meter plots in six replicates with 40 plants per replicate (See appendices C, D, and E for lists of locations, years, and plants).

Ideal trapping conditions were characterized by species being present at three or more discrete locations at a site, with three traps placed on individual plants at least a meter, though preferably, 3 meters or more apart. Three control traps for the location were set out at least 50 feet from any traps on plants and generally located on bare

ground or dead vegetation. Plant species were evaluated during the blooming period for the first two years but due to extremely high beneficial insect numbers, some were selected for additional evaluation during non-blooming periods in the third season

(James et al. 2015, James et al. 2018). The trapping season commenced when the first species began blooming until the last species had finished blooming.

In all cases, monitoring was done with a transparent 40.6 x 12.1 cm sticky trap

(WindowBugCatcher, large 40.6 x 12.1 cm, Alpha Scents Inc., Portland, Oregon).

Traps were attached using twist ties or U-shaped stakes over the blooming part of the plant (Figure 3-1), or live vegetation when the plant was not in bloom, with the sticky side facing out. Traps were checked and replaced every two weeks, plus or minus three days Traps were frozen in a conventional freezer at -12°C for a period of at least 24 hours to ensure all insects were dead, and then if wet from rainfall or irrigation were spread out to dry after being frozen. The traps were then stored in unsealed plastic bags at room temperature until the insects were identified using a stereomicroscope.

Figure 3-1. Clear sticky trap placed over Phlox at McBee Grade site using stakes.

Arthropods counted included pest insects, primarily Western grape leafhopper

(Erythroneura elegantula Osborn) and Virginia creeper leafhopper ( E. ziczac Walsh)

(henceforth referred to as ‘grape leafhoppers’) and Lygus spp. Beneficial insect groups evaluated included lacewings, ladybugs, predatory bugs, predatory, pollinating, and parasitic flies, predatory thrips, predatory and parasitic wasps including Anagrus spp.

(grape leafhopper egg parasitoids (Prischmann et al. 2007), bees, and butterflies

(Kevan & Baker 1983) (Table 3-1).

Data Analysis

Two basic measurements were calculated from the arthropod counts. The first was the diversity of beneficials was measured using the Shannon Index. The second was an analysis of variance that was used on total beneficial arthropods and pests, and diversity of beneficial arthropods to determine if there was a difference between plant species. All other data was transformed with log10(x+0.5) which created a normal distribution. Plant species were also analyzed by month to differentiate the best plants for each insect group per each blooming period (April through October). Analyses were performed with JMP® statistical software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina) with plant species comparisons analyzed with Dunnett tests with the bare ground/dead vegetation controls.

Table 3-1. Identified insect groups from native plant sticky traps with groupings for statistical analysis included. Beneficial arthropod categories Species, genera, or family included Neuroptera (lacewings) Chrysoperla plorabunda (Fitch) Chrysopa nigricornis Burmeister Chrysopa coloradensis Banks Chrysopa oculata Say Eremochrysa spp. Hemerobius spp. Micromus spp. Coccinellidae (ladybugs) Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) Coccinella septempunctata L. Coccinella transversogutatta Mulsant Hippodamia convergens Guerin-Meneville Psyllobora vigintimaculata (Say) Stethorus picipes Casey Stethorus punctillum (Weise) Scymnus spp. Hemiptera (predatory bugs) Deraecoris brevis (Uhler) Geocoris pallens Stal Orius tristicolor (White) Nabidae Aeolothripidae (predatory thrips) Franklinothrips spp. Aeolothrips spp. Diptera (predatory and parasitic flies) Empididae Syrphidae Dolichopodidae Sarcophagidae Tachinidae Ichneumonidae and Braconidae (ichneumonid and braconid wasps) Mymaridae (fairy wasps) Anagrus spp. Encyrtidae and Aphelinidae Coccophagus spp. Metaphycus spp. Apoidea (bees) Lepidoptera (butterflies) Pest arthropod category Hemiptera (pest bugs) Lygus spp. Erythroneura elegantula Osborn Erythroneura ziczac Walsh

Results

There were differences between plant species across total beneficial insects and diversity of beneficial insects (Table 3-2), indicating there are some plants better suited for habitat restoration in regards to their attractiveness to beneficial insects.

Table 3-2. ANOVA results of overall beneficial insect groups across all bloom periods. Total Diversity of Beneficials Beneficials df 133 133 F statistic 21.4823 13.9506 P-value <0.0001 <0.0001

Each month during the field study had at least two plant species that were significantly different from the controls for both total beneficial insects and the diversity of beneficial insects as measured by the Shannon Index (Table 3-3 - 3-9). Most plant species were attractive for only a short period (likely due to generally short bloom periods). There were only seven native and one naturalized species that were attractive for over three months, all of which have long bloom periods: Achillea millefolium L.,

Apocynum androsaemifolium L., Asclepias speciosa Torr., Eriogonum elatum Douglas ex Benth., E. umbellatum Torr., Gaillardia aristata Pursh, Nepeta cataria L.

(naturalized), and Sphaeralcea munroana (Douglas) Spach. Achillea millefolium ,

Eriogonum elatum , E. umbellatum , Gaillardia aristata , and Sphaeralcea munroana also have open flower morphology that make them easily accessible to most insects.

Most insect groups had at least one plant species to which they were significantly attracted in each month, except for lacewings in September, and in October both pollinating, parasitic, and predatory flies and Coccophagus and Metaphycus . Out of the

131 species of plants, 59 were significantly more attractive to total beneficial insects

than the control, with 53 more attractive to a diversity of beneficial insects than the control. Forty species were attractive to Anagrus spp., 53 to bees, 19 to butterflies, 24 to lacewings, 28 to ladybugs, 43 to predatory bugs, 23 to predatory, parasitic, and pollinating flies, 45 to predatory thrips, 30 to ichneumonids and braconids, and only 7 plant species were attractive to Coccophagus and Metaphycus species (Appendix G,

Tables 3-3 – 3-9). Thirteen species were significantly more attractive to grape pest bugs than to the control, though it should be noted that only three of those had averages of

15 bugs or more per trap (Balsamorhiza careyana A. Gray, Philadelphus lewisii Pursh, and Artemisia tridentata ) (Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-9).

Table 3-3. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for April. April Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Ichneum. & Cocco. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Braconid Meta.

Achillea 138.67±25.30 30.32±3.44 52.00±10.94 5.00±0.86 millefolium 0.0492 <.0001 0.0018 0.0011 Alyssum 8.33±3.62 60.33±5.86 alyssoides 0.0011 0.0002 Amelanchier 1.67±0.40 alnifolia <.0001 Astragalus 2.58±0.43 0.33±0.07 sclerocarpus 0.0013 0.0005 Astragalus 71.67±10.33 18.98±1.40 16.61±2.39 1.44±0.32 1.89±0.74 succumbens 0.0033 0.0001 <.0001 0.0337 0.0028 Balsamorhiza 3.94±0.41 6.73±0.64 careyana <.0001 0.0368 Balsamorhiza 13.11±14.60 hookeri 0.0279 69 Crocidium 13.00±14.60 multicaule 0.0002 4.00±25.30 Draba verna 0.0003 Erigeron 2.67±0.90 poliospermus 0.0223 Erysimum 105.57±9.56 20.99±1.30 11.57±2.21 11.57±2.21 1.71±0.32 capitatum <.0001 <.0001 0.0006 <.0001 0.0187 Lomatium 15.91±3.06 columbianum 0.0009 Lomatium 11.25±3.59 gormanii 0.0202 100.16±10.05 17.58±1.37 28.89±4.35 2.68±0.34 Lupinus spp. <.0001 0.0063 0.0053 <.0001 1.83±0.25 Phlox longifolia <.0001 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-3 Continued. April Plant Total Div. of Predatory Predatory Predatory Ichneum. & Cocco. & Pest Bugs Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs Species Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Flies Thrips Braconid Meta.

Pteryxia 3.67±1.81 terebinthina 0.0153 Purshia 98.83±8.94 20.69±1.21 5.54±0.61 17.50±3.87 0.50±0.05 tridentata <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0033 <.0001 Ribes 15.64±0.90 6.70±0.94 12.82±1.53 0.80±0.25 3.57±0.21 aureum 0.0177 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Rumex 1.17±0.56 venosus 0.0442 108.38±15.49 23.38±3.59 1.75±0.48 43.13±6.70 Salix exigua 0.0112 <.0001 0.0119 <.0001 Viola 9.83±17.89 trinervata 0.0023 Control 49.02±3.41 12.03±0.46 0.39±0.23 1.69±0.48 7.18±0.79 7.18±0.79 0.39±0.13 0.27±0.11 1.24±0.24 8.68±1.48 0.58±0.12 3.16±0.36 0.00±0.02

70 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-4. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for May. May Plant Total Div. of Predatory Predatory Predatory Ichneum. Cocco. & Pest Bugs Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs Species Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Flies Thrips & Braconid Meta.

Achillea 281.86±11.38 23.43±0.72 4.68±0.49 8.21±1.05 6.22±0.60 81.92±7.51 4.97±0.49 4.88±0.62 0.64±0.07 millefolium <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Agastache 161.56±23.69 23.09±1.50 2.00±3.03 6.94±1.01 1.11±0.15 22.39±1.03 20.50±1.30 occidentalis <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Amelanchier 1.33±0.37 alnifolia 0.0004

Asclepias 124.17±41.04 11.33±3.79 0.83±0.27 11.17±2.18 80.67±27.07 speciosa 0.007 0.0018 0.0179 0.0011 0.0027

Astragalus 4.27±1.11 5.27±2.40 5.73±1.42 reventiformis <.0001 0.0033 <.0001

Balsamorhiza 14.74±1.02 15.54±2.06 2.67±0.69 4.72±0.88 careyana 0.0076 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Balsamorhiza 10.33±2.52

71 sagittata <.0001

Cardaria 86.87±25.95 18.40±1.65 2.60±1.11 9.80±2.40 4.73±1.13 draba 0.0163 0.0002 0.0295 <.0001 0.0037

Ceanothus 11.17±2.18 6.33±2.25 sp. 0.0039 0.0009

Chaenactis 122.50±20.52 18.03±1.30 4.75±1.90 0.54±0.13 1.04±0.16 douglasii <.0001 <.0001 0.0013 0.0282 <.0001

Cornus 223.33±58.04 30.30±3.68 1.33±0.46 165.67±38.29 sericea 0.0011 <.0001 0.0195 0.0034

Crataegus 21.99±2.13 9.67±3.10 0.78±0.22 12.56±1.83 douglasii <.0001 0.0038 <.0001 0.0022

Crepis 371.13±25.95 20.60±1.65 337.33±17.12 1.47±1.13 atribarba <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0062

Elaeagnus 154.62±21.94 17.81±1.39 4.19±2.03 0.71±0.14 64.33±14.47 3.57±1.20 angustifolia <.0001 <.0001 0.0249 <.0001 <.0001 0.0002

Erigeron 124.33±17.50 17.79±1.11 0.39±0.11 64.33±14.47 2.91±0.96 0.42±0.10 filifolius <.0001 <.0001 0.0005 0.013 <.0001 0.0 204 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Erigeron 224.00±58.04 29.23±3.68 6.33±7.41 4.67±2.48 1.33±0.37 3.33±2.52 piperianus 0.0008 <.0001 <.0001 0.0151 0.0004 0.0269 110.25±29.02 18.13±1.84 Erigeron pumilus <.0001 0.0039

Eriogonum 90.40±16.99 18.11±1.08 1.51±0.14 6.66±0.74 compositum <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Eriogonum 57.15±19.35 10.56±1.79 4.19±1.06 douglasii 0.0201 <.0001 0.002

Eriogonum 72.88±17.50 2.33±0.75 7.09±1.62 2.09±0.76 heracleoides 0.0028 0.0327 0.0026 <.0001

Eriogonum 63.22±15.70 15.09±1.00 1.59±0.67 8.85±1.45 0.56±0.13 20.61±10.36 2.05±0.86 72 sphaerocephalum 0.0094 0.0013 0.0024 <.0001 0.0058 0.0086 0.0029

Eriogonum 101.92±29.02 19.14±1.84 3.67±1.26 strictum 0.0005 0.0004 <.0001

Eriogonum 84.04±19.35 3.19±0.83 3.59±1.79 thymoides 0.0065 <.0001 0.0289

Eriogonum 79.67±23.69 19.06±2.19 6.22±1.30 umbellatum 0.003 <.0001 0.0026

Eriophyllum 201.95±21.94 15.55±1.39 141.81±14.47 2.95±0.95 lanatum <.0001 0.0346 <.0001 <.0001

Erodium 16.00±5.37 cicutarium 0.0087 3.44±1.83 Frasera albicaulis 0.016

Hymenopappus 101.47±25.95 18.38±1.65 2.80±1.11 10.07±1.38 filifolius <.0001 0.0003 0.0026 <.0001 2.11±1.43 Lomatium grayii 0.0084 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-4 Continued. May Ichneum. Cocco. Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & & Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Braconid. Meta. 68.91±21.94 17.01±1.39 5.14±2.03 1.62±0.95 5.05±1.20 Lupinus lepidus 0.0062 0.0005 0.0133 0.001 0.0002 149.33±23.69 19.08±1.50 85.56±15.63 1.67±1.03 6.89±1.30 Lupinus spp. <.0001 <.0001 0.0006 <.0001 <.0001

Mahonia 8.00±3.10 aquifolium 0.0262 105.33±41.04 19.74±2.61 33.67±3.79 0.83±0.26 9.00±2.18 Nepeta cataria 0.0171 0.034 <.0001 0.0426 0.0104

Opuntia 6.56±3.10 polyacantha 0.0039

Penstemon 16.33±2.68 7.00±1.54 attenuatus <.0001 0.0035

Penstemon 14.65±2.25 10.82±1.30

73 fruticiformis <.0001 0.0003

Penstemon 14.67±3.79 gairdneri <.0001

Penstemon 22.92±2.68 pruinosus <.0001 0.83±3.71 8.75±2.68 2.92±1.26 3.75±1.59 Penstemon spp. 0.0044 0.0351 0.0002 0.0209 95.06±17.50 19.42±1.11 0.94±2.24 12.97±1.62 0.79±0.11 5.27±0.93 3.64±0.76 Phacelia hastata <.0001 <.0001 0.026 <.0001 <.0001 0.0105 <.0001

Prunus 23.67±5.37 1.00±0.37 emariginata 0.0006 0.0043

Prunus 87.13±25.95 17.18±1.65 6.33±2.40 1.07±0.21 virginiana 0.0003 0.0061 0.0018 0.0007

Purshia 71.42±17.50 14.90±1.11 4.85±0.75 tridentata 0.0003 0.0135 <.0001 167.00±58.04 7.33±2.48 12.00±5.37 Ribes aureum 0.0297 0.0005 0.0407 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-4 Continued. May Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Ichneum. Cocco. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips & Braconid Meta.

63.92±16.75 16.41±1.06 4.28±1.55 0.56±0.13 21.94±11.05 1.58±0.73 Rosa woodsii 0.0009 <.0001 <.0001 0.0418 0.013 0.0076 133.58±20.52 18.53±1.30 3.92±0.88 24.58±1.90 59.79±13.54 1.96±0.89 Salix exigua <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0417 91.77±18.35 19.65±1.17 1.87±0.78 7.13±1.70 0.73±0.12 0.63±0.15 9.20±0.98 3.80±1.00 Salvia dorii <.0001 <.0001 0.0206 <.0001 <.0001 0.0016 <.0001 <.0001

Sphaeralcea 57.06±17.50 9.94±1.62 munroana 0.0301 <.0001

Viburnum 11.67±3.18 dentatum 0.0004 24.78±3.68 4.33±2.48 14.33±5.37 1.33±0.37 13.33±3.08 Vicia villosa 0.009 0.0246 0.0151 <.0001 0.0196

Zigadenus 2.67±0.37 venenosus

74 <.0001 Control 50.18±6.12 10.48±0.39 0.14±0.78 0.63±0.26 2.17±0.57 0.16±0.04 0.02±0.04 0.14±0.05 3.03±0.33 19.41±4.04 0.15±0.27 0.87±0.33 0.11±0.04 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-5. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for June. June Ichneum. Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Cocco. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Meta. Braconid

Achillea 255.03±12.09 22.39±0.70 0.49±0.78 2.27±0.41 9.84±0.89 0.18±0.06 12.40±0.90 52.85±7.28 4.49±0.46 5.67±0.52 millefolium <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0485 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 22.18±2.97 5.17±1.97 Acroptilon repens 0.0107 0.0001 Agastache 99.00±30.61 21.97±1.76 2.12±1.17 occidentalis 0.0003 <.0001 0.0048 Apocynum 27.98±4.20 4.00±1.87 1.00±0.34 3.67±1.46 5.33±2.79 androsaemifolium 0.0034 <.0001 0.026 0.0003 0.0267 Asclepias 182.17±51.53 24.02±2.97 1.50±1.32 4.33±1.97 5.67±1.01 fascicularis 0.0002 0.0008 0.0001 0.0012 <.0001 Asclepias 104.65±17.50 18.96±1.01 1.77±0.60 21.00±1.29 2.79±0.45 0.88±0.08 7.67±1.31 22.06±10.55 2.08±0.67 speciosa <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 95.22±42.07 19.46±2.42 8.00±1.44 16.22±3.10 4.44±1.61

75 Cardaria draba 0.0087 0.0312 <.0001 <.0001 0.0032 Centranthus 12.00±3.85 ruber <.0001 Chaenactis 101.33±21.04 16.12±1.21 0.86±0.54 1.39±0.42 45.33±12.67 2.47±0.81 douglasii <.0001 0.0031 <.0001 0.0002 0.0236 <.0001 Clematis 90.56±19.71 16.23±1.14 36.24±11.88 ligusticifolia <.0001 0.0007 <.0001 24.00±6.67 Cornus sericea 0.0042 206.78±42.07 169.67±25.35 Crepis atribarba 0.0027 <.0001 1.50±0.90 Dalea ornata 0.0127 1.67±0.34 Daucus carota 0.0002 176.10±27.54 17.71±1.59 4.05±0.94 6.05±1.05 Erigeron filifolius <.0001 0.0022 0.0422 0.0076 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-5 Continued. June Cocco. Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Ichneum. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Braconid Meta.

2.05±0.92 Erigeron linearis 0.0052 10.33±1.44 Erigeron pumilus 0.0004 Erigeron 20.28±2.19 speciosus <.0001 Eriogonum 196.23±23.04 25.19±1.33 4.37±0.79 5.77±0.46 6.23±1.72 36.47±13.88 4.80±0.88 16.80±0.99 compositum <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Eriogonum 1.50±1.03 douglasii 0.0083 100.57±27.54 18.09±1.59 3.14±0.94 5.91±2.06 4.14±1.05 Eriogonum elatum <.0001 0.0008 0.013 <.0001 <.0001 Eriogonum 98.37±23.04 17.87±1.33 2.47±0.79 9.50±1.70 7.47±1.72 76 heracleoides <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0024 Eriogonum 11.67±3.10 microthecum 0.0079 Eriogonum 10.09±1.42 0.74±0.39 sphaerocephalum <.0001 0.0401 Eriogonum 101.68±23.85 18.20±1.37 9.86±1.76 3.39±0.48 1.89±0.91 strictum <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0004 0.0016 Eriogonum 75.30±21.97 15.73±1.27 1.97±0.75 16.06±1.62 6.55±1.64 3.12±0.94 umbellatum 0.0009 0.0184 0.0136 <.0001 <.0001 0.0047 Eriophyllum 301.72±29.75 20.95±1.71 241.56±17.92 lanatum <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 133.00±51.53 36.83±3.80 Frasera albicaulis 0.0024 <.0001 91.25±25.77 19.75±1.48 14.96±1.90 10.50±1.92 3.96±0.99 Gaillardia aristata <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Holodiscus 182.96±25.77 19.30±1.48 12.29±1.90 0.71±0.12 1.75±0.52 41.38±15.52 7.13±0.99 discolor <.0001 <.0001 0.0025 <.0001 0.0031 0.003 0.0013 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-5 Continued. June Ichneum. Cocco. Total Div. of Predatory Predatory Predatory Plant Species Pest Bugs Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & & Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Flies Thrips Braconid Meta. Hymenopappus 112.28±29.75 17.13±1.71 1.06±0.60 8.83±2.22 filifolius <.0001 0.0259 0.0436 <.0001 Iris 35.00±5.37 1.00±0.34 missouriensis 0.0021 0.026 Lepidium 3.93±1.16 0.79±0.16 latifolium 0.0005 <.0001 2.67±0.34 Ligustrum spp. <.0001 198.17±36.44 29.42±2.10 3.50±1.25 2.58±0.73 4.25±2.72 125.42±21.95 Lupinus spp. <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0366 <.0001 Medicago 121.75±25.77 22.10±1.48 12.13±0.88 0.58±0.66 10.21±1.92 9.25±0.99 sativa <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0051 <.0001 <.0001 8.50±3.42 Melilotus alba 0.0183 92.08±36.44 18.92±2.69 26.17±2.72 8.75±1.39 Nepeta cataria

77 0.0036 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Oenothera 2.78±1.44 pallida 0.0498 Penstemon 10.44±3.10 5.00±3.14 pruinosus 0.0352 0.0272 Phacelia 23.40±2.97 18.17±3.80 hastata 0.002 0.0007 Philadelphus 157.69±22.31 19.28±1.29 16.38±1.44 1.16±0.45 63.25±13.44 4.22±0.96 lewisii <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0057 <.0001 <.0001 9.67±5.44 Phlox longifolia 0.043 90.52±24.29 19.59±1.40 6.81±1.79 0.33±0.11 1.48±0.49 33.41±14.64 2.93±1.04 Rosa woodsii <.0001 <.0001 0.0046 0.0126 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 90.56±24.29 20.08±1.40 2.19±0.83 0.44±0.62 6.11±1.81 2.89±0.93 Salvia dorii <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 0.0082 <.0001 <.0001 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-5 Continued. June Ichneum. Plant Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Cocco. & Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Species Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Meta. Braconid

Sambucus 114.54±25.77 19.39±1.48 0.75±0.12 1.21±0.52 2.25±0.99 nigra <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0033 0.0044 Sisymbrium 10.33±5.44 altissimum 0.0262 Sphaeralcea 79.94±21.04 16.61±1.55 4.44±1.57 munroana 0.0001 <.0001 0.0015 Viburnum 20.30±2.42 14.44±3.10 dentatum 0.0084 0.0002 9.89±3.14 2.22±1.61 Vicia villosa <.0001 0.0385 Zigadenus 13.00±2.50 venenosus <.0001 Control 46.43±7.72 10.86±0.45 0.00±0.50 0.67±0.26 4.61±0.57 0.06±0.20 0.03±0.04 0.25±0.16 1.66±0.58 15.33±4.65 0.76±0.30 0.80±0.33 0.67±0.15

78 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-6. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for July. July Ichneum. Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Cocco. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Meta. Braconid

Achillea 367.06±23.35 27.62±1.22 0.94±0.16 22.64±2.05 14.91±2.92 4.39±0.94 2.27±0.35 2.09±0.31 millefolium <.0001 <.0001 0.0005 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 1.33±0.52 13.33±9.70 Acroptilon repens 0.0172 0.0138

Anaphalis 267.11±44.70 26.14±2.34 20.89±5.60 30.33±9.90 6.00±1.79 margaritacea <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.006 <.0001

Apocynum 223.22±44.70 25.24±2.34 17.78±3.93 3.00±0.30 12.33±5.60 5.67±1.79 androsaemifolium <.0001 <.0001 0.0012 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Asclepias 159.67±54.75 24.16±2.86 5.67±0.91 14.33±6.86 9.67±2.20 3.17±0.83 2.17±0.73 fascicularis <.0001 0.0014 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0044 0.015

Asclepias 107.36±19.99 21.37±1.05 19.33±1.76 1.27±0.13 0.60±0.10 2.07±0.33 8.53±2.50 speciosa <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Chaenactis 81.78±44.70 10.22±5.60 douglasii 0.0399 <.0001 178.50±54.75 27.16±2.86 4.50±0.91 14.83±6.86 6.67±2.20 6.83±0.83 79 Chamerion angustifolium <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Clematis 90.74±17.76 17.87±0.93 3.42±0.99 1.84±0.30 8.70±2.23 31.68±3.94 ligusticifolia <.0001 <.0001 0.0006 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Dipsacus 5.00±3.05 15.50±4.82 1.67±0.27 3.33±0.91 11.50±6.86 fullonum 0.0282 0.037 <.0001 0.0009 <.0001 240.67±77.43 22.67±9.70 Erigeron filifolius 0.0002 0.0002 9.33±4.32 Erigeron pumilus 0.0104

Erigeron 18.33±9.70 speciosus 0.0055

Eriogonum 135.07±24.49 18.60±1.28 12.80±1.37 18.87±2.15 18.37±3.07 12.93±0.98 elatum <.0001 0.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Eriogonum 21.92±3.41 umbellatum <.0001 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-6 Continued. July Ichneum. Plant Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Cocco. & Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Species Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Meta. Braconid

Gaillardia 27.00±6.81 aristata 0.0357 486.78±44.70 26.13±2.34 0.44±0.30 22.67±3.93 24.56±5.60 55.22±9.90 9.78±1.79 Helianthus <.0001 <.0001 0.0373 0.0001 <.0001 0.014 <.0001

Holodiscus 228.58±38.71 24.45±2.03 30.50±3.41 1.92±0.19 discolor <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Lepidium 13.00±4.32 5.33±0.38 latifolium 0.0005 <.0001

Medicago 143.00±77.43 13.00±4.32 47.33±9.70 4.67±3.11 sativa 0.0345 0.0004 <.0001 0.0088

Melilotus 20.08±2.34 11.33±5.60 3.56±1.79 officinalis 0.0312 <.0001 <.0001

Mentzelia 1.22±0.21 laevicaulis <.0001

Nepeta 39.00±9.70 4.67±3.11 cataria <.0001 0.0106 80 Philadelphus 213.50±47.42 26.95±2.48 0.88±0.32 1.13±0.23 2.50±0.72 lewisii <.0001 <.0001 0.0073 0.01 <.0001 10.00±4.32 Rhus glabra 0.0101

Rosa 155.00±77.43 1.67±0.38 111.67±17.15 woodsii 0.045 0.0002 0.0032

Sambucus 146.00±77.43 nigra 0.0459

Solidago 388.67±54.75 22.01±2.86 0.83±0.36 27.33±6.86 6.33±2.20 1.83±0.83 canadensis <.0001 0.0242 <.0001 <.0001 0.0323 0.0237

Sphaeralcea 112.80±34.63 31.87±3.05 8.87±4.34 munroana <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 133.96±19.36 20.47±1.01 8.83±1.08 0.48±0.09 3.25±0.32 37.00±2.43 1.27±0.78 Urtica dioica <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0003 <.0001 <.0001 0.0078 76.75±38.71 16.83±3.41 17.58±4.85 Vicia villosa 0.0482 0.0003 <.0001 Control 53.46±11.21 12.00±0.59 0.05±0.07 0.76±0.63 7.31±0.99 0.04±0.07 0.09±0.06 0.59±0.19 2.27±1.41 13.87±2.48 0.43±0.45 0.64±0.17 0.59±0.15 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-7. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for August. August Ichneum. Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Cocco. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Meta. Braconid

Achillea 257.50±50.95 23.95±2.91 2.83±3.90 7.33±3.76 millefolium <.0001 0.0005 0.0483 0.033

Anaphalis 157.83±29.41 23.21±1.68 3.28±2.25 0.94±0.26 5.67±2.17 2.50±1.33 1.39±0.28 margaritacea <.0001 <.0001 0.0249 0.0137 0.0085 <.0001 <.0001

Apocynum 541.00±36.03 30.08±2.06 3.50±2.75 13.58±3.16 1.00±0.31 52.25±12.10 3.92±1.63 androsaemifolium <.0001 <.0001 0.0067 0.0031 0.0103 0.0067 <.0001

Asclepias 0.83±0.23 speciosa 0.023

Chamerion 142.93±33.35 20.22±1.91 21.64±2.93 1.57±1.51 angustifolium <.0001 0.0002 0.0069 0.0005

Chrysothamnus 233.80±32.22 27.16±1.84 1.00±0.28 0.73±0.28 7.93±1.46 3.20±0.31 0.67±0.11 viscidiflorus <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.04 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Clematis 3.02±1.47 23.17±6.47

81 ligusticifolia 0.0006 0.0089 12.67±5.31 Dipsacus fullonum 0.0276

Ericameria 261.33±50.95 23.07±2.91 8.50±3.90 1.67±0.44 10.17±3.76 45.50±2.30 nauseosa <.0001 0.0017 0.0033 <.0001 0.0056 <.0001 168.26±22.41 21.10±1.28 4.42±1.71 12.48±1.97 14.29±1.65 4.00±1.01 Eriogonum elatum <.0001 <.0001 0.0007 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Eriogonum 1.11±0.36 niveum 0.0426

Eriogonum 12.83±4.47 umbellatum 0.0249

Euthamia 5.00±0.73 occidentalis 0.0461 105.83±36.03 20.92±3.16 30.50±2.66 Gaillardia aristata 0.0005 <.0001 <.0001 117.44±41.60 19.90±2.38 1.33±0.19 39.11±3.07 Helianthus 0.001 0.009 0.0003 <.0001 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-7 Continued. August Ichneum. Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Cocco. & Plant Species Total Beneficials Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs & Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips Meta. Braconid

Nepeta 2.33±0.63 cataria 0.0294

Penstemon 110.67±36.03 41.83±3.16 8.08±2.66 1.67±1.63 attenuatus <.0001 <.0001 0.0047 0.0001

Solidago 240.77±22.78 21.75±1.30 8.33±1.74 7.47±1.68 1.90±1.03 1.13±0.22 canadensis <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0023 0.0018

Sphaeralcea 172.67±72.05 12.00±5.31 munroana 0.0229 0.0375 66.15±18.01 15.59±1.03 0.73±0.16 8.79±1.38 0.96±0.18 6.08±1.33 Urtica dioica 0.0055 0.0048 0.0001 <.0001 0.0423 <.0001 Control 52.21±12.06 10.87±0.69 0.00±0.10 0.57±0.92 4.90±1.06 0.18±0.10 0.08±0.06 0.46±0.12 2.67±0.89 19.39±4.05 0.11±0.55 0.13±0.12 0.12±0.04 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test.

Table 3-8. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for September. September Total Div. of Pest Predatory Predatory Predatory Ichneum. Cocco. & Plant Species Anagrus Bees Butterflies Ladybugs Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Bugs Flies Thrips & Braconid Meta. 3.00±0.56 18.67±5.87 1.67±1.02 Anaphalis margaritacea <.0001 0.0118 0.0212 38.67±5.27 4.33±0.55 Apocynum androsaemifolium 0.0041 <.0001 247.00±17.23 19.53±1.06 5.80±1.06 58.07±4.04 4.99±0.68 Artemisia tridentata <.0001 <.0001 0.0005 <.0001 <.0001 228.33±82.63 71.33±5.27 107.00±7.39 Chamerion angustifolium 0.0416 0.0003 0.0001 226.85±19.48 23.64±1.19 0.65±0.24 3.33±0.77 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus <.0001 <.0001 0.0414 <.0001 195.84±17.23 22.31±1.06 7.23±4.04 0.58±0.12 12.78±1.22 2.19±0.21 3.55±0.68 Ericameria nauseosa <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0071 246.00±54.09 32.14±3.45 40.29±3.84 Eriogonum elatum 0.003 <.0001 <.0001 17.33±1.89 Eriogonum microthecum <.0001 128.03±18.03 18.90±1.11 12.48±1.15 5.98±1.28 12.83±1.61 2.54±0.72 Eriogonum niveum <.0001 0.0001 0.0025 0.0214 0.0054 0.0162 18.89±3.04 Eriogonum umbellatum 0.0005 15.56±11.19 11.56±3.04 1.44±0.32 17.89±3.39 Euthamia occidentalis <.0001 0.0323 0.0026 <.0001

83 12.22±3.04 31.67±3.39 Gaillardia aristata 0.014 <.0001 104.38±31.23 22.69±1.91 8.14±1.99 0.90±0.39 3.95±1.24 6.19±0.64 Machaeranthera canescens 0.022 <.0001 0.0119 0.0233 <.0001 <.0001 9.25±0.48 55.00±6.40 Monardella odoratissima <.0001 0.0148 4.00±0.55 Nepeta cataria <.0001 22.75±3.23 8.50±3.59 1.13±0.62 Penstemon attenuatus 0.0001 0.0351 0.0443 8.18±2.22 7.35±2.46 Solidago canadensis 0.0245 0.0003 14.67±3.04 9.78±3.39 Sphaeralcea munroana 0.0031 0.0012 2.00±1.61 17.37±6.13 2.80±0.18 Urtica dioica 0.0001 <.0001 <.0001 Control 63.65±12.50 12.68±0.77 0.02±0.77 0.78±2.93 4.69±0.80 0.10±0.08 0.25±0.08 2.52±0.89 6.79±1.12 0.15±0.15 0.69±0.50 0.24±0.26 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test. ANOVA test for Lacewings was not significant.

Table 3-9. Significant Dunnett results of plant species vs control across all insect groups for October. October

Total Div. of Predatory Predatory Ichneum. & Plant Species Pest Bugs Anagrus Bees Butterflies Lacewings Ladybugs Beneficials Beneficials Bugs Thrips Braconid

498.20±24.54 24.83±0.98 43.85±7.42 173.17±11.16 0.35±0.05 15.54±1.82 26.35±2.59 Artemisia tridentata <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0008 <.0001 <.0001 152.67±65.95 20.33±6.96 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 0.0413 0.0002 242.83±30.90 21.55±1.23 12.41±2.29 18.54±3.26 Ericameria nauseosa <.0001 0.0001 <.0001 <.0001 166.52±38.07 22.07±3.11 6.33±2.83 10.00±4.02 Eriogonum niveum 0.0005 0.0128 0.0002 0.002 1.00±0.24 15.00±8.48 1.00±0.45 Eriogonum umbellatum 0.0006 0.0037 0.0267 2.33±0.38 46.33±8.48 Gaillardia aristata 0.0033 <.0001 2.75±0.21 1.00±0.39 Monardella odoratissima 84 <.0001 0.0392 52.00±9.34 Penstemon attenuatus 0.0352 15.33±8.48 Sphaeralcea munroana 0.0029 Control 91.37±25.13 14.39±1.00 0.10±7.60 1.66±11.43 13.79±2.06 0.08±0.05 0.05±0.06 0.23±0.08 1.97±1.87 0.27±0.10 6.21±2.65 Actual means ± standard error reported with p-value of transformed data Dunnett test. ANOVA test for Predatory Flies, and Coccophagus and Metaphycus was not significant.

Discussion

The native plants evaluated in this study varied widely in their attractiveness to beneficial insects. Different insect functional groups were attracted to different groups of plants and different plants were attractive at different times of the year, usually depending on bloom period.

Artemisia tridentata is the dominant plant species in central Washington shrub- steppe and it therefore perhaps is not too surprising that it attracts large numbers of beneficial arthropods that have presumably evolved with it over millennia. Most of the larger shrubs, especially A. tridentata , Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus , Ericameria nauseosa, Holodiscus discolor , Philadelphus lewisii , Purshia tridentata , Ribes aureum ,

Rosa woodsii, Salix exigua , Salvia dorrii , and Sambucus nigra , were very attractive to beneficial arthropods and with the exception of sagebrush and Salix exigua , have very showy flower displays. It should be noted that A. tridentata , along with most of the other shrubs (Appendix F) in the study, are known for their extensive root systems. They may not be suited for use between rows in a vineyard, but instead in habitat patches or hedgerows. An exception may be antelope bitterbrush, Purshia tridentata , which can withstand mowing surprisingly well (field observations at White Heron and Ciel du

Cheval vineyards). Besides the shrubs, most of the other vegetation types tend to die back during the winter, and may be mowed at that time.

If larger shrubs are appropriate for refugia patches or possibly the ends of rows, this study has also identified a number of forbs that potentially could be good candidates for non-irrigated, between row, groundcovers. A greater number of these plants are attractive to beneficials earlier in the year (Tables 3-3 – 3-5), giving grape

growers more leeway with this selection. One plant that should clearly be considered for inclusion in any ground cover mix is yarrow ( Achillea millefolium ). It will reseed itself, is drought tolerant, and survives mowing. It is also attractive to a wide variety of beneficial insects, and has a very long bloom time. The milkweeds in our study ( Asclepias fascicularis , A. speciosa ), were also highly attractive, had very showy flowers, and could take foot traffic. They are also host plants of the Monarch butterfly (James et al. 2016).

Other plants that may make good ground covers due to a low growth habit (as well as strong attraction to beneficial arthropods) include Anaphalis margaritacea , Apocynum androsaemifolium , Astragalus succumbens , Chaenactis angustifolium , Chamerion angustifolium , Crepis atribarba , Eriophyllum lanatum , Erigeron filifolius , Erigeron piperianus , Eriogonum spp., Gaillardia aristata , Lupinus spp., Machaeranthera canescens , Phacelia hastata, Sphaeralcea munroana , and Urtica dioica . Detailed information on the attraction of beneficial insects to native buckwheats ( Eriogonum spp.) and stinging nettles ( Urtica dioica ) in central Washington is provided in James et al.

(2014, 2015).

Artemisia tridentata and U. dioica were the only plants that by observation were highly attractive to beneficials even when not in bloom (James et al. 2018, James et al.

2015), which suggests they provide benefits to insects besides floral resources. Ample prey on these plants for predators and parasitoids may be one explanation. Grape leafhoppers were mainly found on A. tridentata early in the spring and in the late summer/early fall, implying that the adults may be overwintering on it, along with their parasitoid, Anagrus spp. It is unlikely that grape leafhoppers feed on A. tridentata, instead simply using it as a winter refuge in small numbers. This should be looked at in

future work, especially as prior to bud break, grape leafhoppers and other leafhopper species can sometimes be collected on various shrubs near vineyards, including A. tridentata , Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus , Ericameria nauseosa , and Purshia tridentata

(personal observation). Artemisia tridentata also had the highest number of Anagrus spp . Previous research showed wild roses ( Rosa spp. ) and wild blackberries (Rubus spp.) were good hosts for alternate leafhopper species that Anagrus parasitizes, thus were reservoirs for Anagrus spp. populations (Prischmann et al. 2007). In California, prune trees (Prunus domestica L.) have been shown to effectively overwinter Anagrus spp. for recolonizing vineyards (Murphy et al. 1996). It is unclear whether A. tridentata also hosts non-grape leafhopper species that Anagrus might parasitize, or if there is another reason for the attraction. In addition to the other 39 species of plants that

Anagrus were attracted to, A. tridentata should be one of the main targets for conservation in and around vineyards (James et al. 2018).

This evaluation of beneficial insect attraction to native plants endemic to central

Washington should serve as a starting point for wine grape growers, and those interested in implementing native habitat restoration to enhance conservation biological control, as well as those interested in native pollinator or native plant conservation. Prior to vineyard, orchard or field implementation, assessments should be made on pest incidence at the site and what beneficial arthropods are present or lacking. Native plant species can be selected accordingly to provide the greatest benefit to conservation biological control and pest management. Home gardeners may also use this research in designing and creating butterfly or bee habitat. The role of sagebrush steppe as a

habitat for beneficial arthropods should not be underestimated and should be included as part of the landscape of central Washington agriculture and gardens.

References

Barbosa, P. A. (1998). Conservation Biological Control . San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Danne, A., Thomson, L. J., Sharley, D. J., Penfold, C. M., & Hoffmann, A. A.

(2010). Effects of native grass cover crops on beneficial and pest invertebrates in

Australian vineyards. Environmental Entomology, 39 (3), 970–978.

De Baets, S., Poesen, J., Meersmans, J., & Serlet, L. (2011). Cover crops and their erosion-reducing effects during concentrated flow erosion. CATENA , 85 (3), 237–

244.

Gontijo, L. M., Beers, E. H., & Snyder, W. E. (2013). Flowers promote aphid suppression in apple orchards. Biological Control , 66 (1), 8–15.

Gurr, G. M., Scarratt, S. L., Jacometti, M., & Wratten, S. D. (2007). Management of Pests and Diseases in New Zealand and Australian Vineyards. In Biological Control :

A Global Perspective : Case Studies from Around the World (p. 466). Wallingford, Oxon,

GBR: CABI Publishing.

Gurr, G., Wratten, S., & Altieri, M. (2004). Ecological Engineering for Pest

Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods . Collingwood VIC,

Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Hollingbery, E. N., Pike, K. S., Graf, G., & Graf, D. (2012). Parasitoids

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) of rabbitbrush aphids and linkage with agriculturally important pest aphids in Washington State, United States of America. The

Canadian Entomologist , 144 (05), 621–634.

Irvin, N., Hoddle, M., Cziraki, I., Gispert, C., Jepson, P., Musashi, S., Ohmart, C.,

Perring, T., Toscano, N. (2010). Using nectar cover cropping in vineyards for sustainable pest management (Project Summary No. SW07-022). SARE Report.

Retrieved from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=SW07-

022&y=2007&t=2

James, D. G., Lauby, G., Seymour, L., & Buckley, K. (2015). Beneficial insects associated with stinging nettle ( Urtica dioica Linnaeus) in Central Washington State.

Pan-Pacific Entomologist , 91 (1), 1-9.

James, D. G., Seymour, L., Lauby, G., & Buckley, K. (2014). Beneficial insects attracted to native flowering buckwheats ( Eriogonum Michx) in central Washington.

Environmental Entomology , 43 (4), 942–948.

James, D. G., Seymour, L., Lauby, G., & Buckley, K. (2015). Beauty with benefits: butterfly conservation in Washington State, USA, wine grape vineyards.

Journal of Insect Conservation, 19(2), 341–348.

James, D. G., Seymour, L., Lauby, G., & Buckley, K. (2016). Beneficial insect attraction to milkweeds ( Asclepias speciosa , Asclepias fascicularis ) in Washington

State, USA. Insects, 7(3).

James, D. G. (2004). Effect of buprofezin on survival of immature stages of

Harmonia axyridis , Stethorus punctum picipes (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Orius tristicolor (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), and Geocoris spp. (Hemiptera: Geocoridae).

Journal of Economic Entomology , 97 (3), 900–904.

James, D., Seymour, L., Lauby, G., & Buckley, K. (2018). Identity and seasonal abundance of beneficial arthropods associated with big sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata ) in Central Washington State, USA. Insects , 9(3), 76.

Kevan, P. G., & Baker, H. G. (1983). Insects as flower visitors and pollinators.

Annual Review of Entomology, 28 (1), 407–453.

Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., & Gurr, G. M. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of

Entomology , 45 (1), 175–201.

Liang, W., & Huang, M. (1994). Influence of citrus orchard ground cover plants on arthropod communities in China: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment ,

50 (1), 29–37.

83 (1), 50–65.

Morandin, L. A., Long, R. F., & Kremen, C. (2014). Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on adjacent tomato fields in an intensive agricultural landscape.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 189 , 164–170.

Murphy, B. C., Rosenheim, J. A., & Granett, J. (1996). Habitat diversification for improving biological control: Abundance of Anagrus epos (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in grape vineyards. Environmental Entomology , 25 (2), 495–504.

Olszak, R. W. (1991). The relations between the aphids and parasitoids occurring on apple trees and on six species of shrubs. In Behaviour and impact of

aphidophaga: Proceedings of the 4th meeting of the IOBC W.G. Ecology of aphidophaga. (pp. 61–65.). SPB Academic Publishing bv. The Hague.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., & Snyder, W. E. (2005). Impact of management intensity on mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) in Southcentral

Washington wine grapes. International Journal of Acarology , 31 (3), 277–288.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., Storm, C. P., Wright, L. C., & Snyder, W. E.

(2007). Identity, abundance, and phenology of Anagrus spp . (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae) and leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) associated with grape, blackberry, and wild rose in Washington state. Annals of the Entomological Society of

America , 100 (1), 41–52.

Rickard, A., Rogers, L. E., Vaughan, B. E., & Liebetrau, S. F. (2012). Shrub-

Steppe: Balance and Change in a Semi-Arid Terrestrial Ecosystem . Elsevier.

Snapp, S. S., Swinton, S. M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J. R., Leep, R.,

Nyiraneza, J., & O’Neil, K. (2005). Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agronomy Journal , 97 (1), 322–332.

Steenwerth, K., & Belina, K. M. (2008). Cover crops enhance soil organic matter, carbon dynamics and microbiological function in a vineyard agroecosystem. Applied

Soil Ecology , 40 (2), 359–369.

Wilson, H., Altieri, M., Black, S., Estensen, D., Gates, D., Heinzen, R., Morrison,

R., Sipiora, M., Taylor, K. (2008). Restoring plant diversity and soil health in Napa and

Sonoma Vineyards: scaling up an agroecologically based pest management strategy.

SARE Report. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from

http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=FW08-

311&y=2008&t=2

Winter, S., Bauer, T., Strauss, P., Kratschmer, S., Paredes, D., Popescu, D.,

Landa, B., Guzmán, G., Gómez, J. A., Guernion, M., Zaller, J. G., & Batáry, P. (2018).

Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 55 (5), 2484–2495.

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Introduction

A large part of successful pest management strategies is economics. This goes beyond whether or not pest insects are kept below an Economic Injury Threshold (EIT) to the most cost-effective long term strategy. Biological control, using organisms to control other organisms, is an important pillar of IPM programs. Classic biological control, where introduced pests are countered with intentionally introduced natural enemies, has been shown to be economically cost-effective when it works as intended

(Gutierrez et al. 1999, Zeddies et al. 2001) in large part due to decreased pesticide applications as well as increased yields. Augmentative biological control, the release of reared natural enemies, has comparable independent benefits in crop production to the

use of insecticides, and even higher benefits when part of IPM programs (Naranjo et al.

2015).

Few studies have performed a complete cost/benefit analysis for conservation biological control (conserving natural enemies of pests already present in an area either with habitat manipulation or insecticide reduction), especially with regards to habitat manipulation, and some did not find a benefit in pest control that exceeded lost revenue

(Cullen et al. 2008, Naranjo et al. 2015). However, increased biodiversity and low pesticide input systems have been shown to increase beneficial insects while maintaining low pest populations and being economical in some cases (Crowder et al.

2010, Dickinson 1994). Two studies, for example, found that habitat manipulation was highly effective and economically efficient in preventing pest outbreaks in oranges

(Citrus ×sinensis (L.) Osbeck) and soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) (Colloff et al.

2013, Landis et al. 2008) . These studies, combined with others on the effectiveness of conservation biological control if not the economical benefit, demonstrate that in many cases increased biodiversity on the farm and/or landscape level can help control pests

(Landis et al. 2000, Paredes et al. 2015, Thies & Tscharntke 1999).

Despite the relative paucity of research on the economic benefits of conservation biological control, especially in regards to habitat manipulation, some wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) growers in Washington have added native habitat areas to their vineyards to increase beneficial insects and control pests like leafhoppers and mites (Prischmann et al. 2007). Wine grapes in eastern Washington are already remarkably free of most pests and diseases found in other major wine growing areas, mainly due to the arid climate, relative isolation and strong adherence to virus free propagation material. Low pest pressure allows for wine growers to restrict pesticide spraying to a minimum and instead use mostly cultural, sustainable practices to control most pests. There are a host of both generalist predators and grape pest specific parasitoids already present in

Washington grapes or in adjacent natural areas (Prischmann et al. 2005, Prischmann et al. 2007). With low insecticide input, the Washington wine grape agroecosytem is a good candidate for implementation of successful conservation biological control. While the effectiveness of native habitat restoration for pest control was established in chapter

2, the question remained as to whether or not it was cost effective for producers.

Methods

A partial cost/benefit analysis of the cost of pesticide applications of the conventional vineyards as compared to the combined cost of the native habitat restoration along with any other pest control performed by the native habitat vineyards

was performed. It is sometimes possible for native plants to out-compete weeds, and an effort was also made to determine any reduced costs of weed control in habitat vineyards as part of the grower survey. Habitat restoration may also yield benefits in other ecosystem services such as better water quality and improved soil (Snapp et al.

2005). These areas are difficult to quantify and beyond the scope of this project.

A preliminary survey was sent out only to the growers participating in our research on beneficial and pest insects in conventional and native habitat restored vineyards. The growers (owners and/or managers) of the vineyards in my study were sent online questionnaires through surveymonkey.com and a link distributed by email.

Conventional vineyard growers were asked one set of questions, while growers with habitat-enhanced vineyards were asked a slightly different set of questions pertaining to the management of their vineyard and views concerning utilizing native habitat within the vineyard. Six out of ten participating growers responded. Pesticide records were also obtained from all participating vineyards (Appendix B).

Based on the answers to this more informal survey (Table 4-1), a second survey was created and handed out during a thirty minute talk on my research given at the

2015 annual meeting of the Washington Association of Wine Grape Growers

(WAWGG). The survey was 10 questions with a comments section covering views on native habitat restoration in vineyards as well as size of the vineyard and management practices, especially the amount of time and money spent on pest and weed control

(Appendix H). There were 23 responses to the survey, which were analyzed using a simple categorical consumer research analysis (JMP® Version 11.0.0 (32 bit), SAS

Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina). Differences between vineyards with and without habitat were analyzed using the T-test function in Microsoft Excel® 2010.

Results

Based on the preliminary survey with my participating growers, it was found that though initial output for native habitat restoration may be high on a single year basis compared with weed control in conventional vineyards, its benefits over several years may prove substantial, if solely in weed control (Figure 4-1). There was not a significant difference between the total insecticide sprays (P= 0.95) or total pesticide sprays

(including fungicides and herbicides) (P= 0.4350) used in the conventional versus native habitat restored vineyards in our study.

Figure 4-1. Total cost of habitat restoration and annual cost of weed control by acre for two habitat restored vineyards (NH2 & NH4) and two conventional vineyards (C1 & C2) from preliminary survey.

With the second survey we found a wide variety of vineyard management styles applied to the vineyards reporting native habitat, as well as those without. The majority of responders were either owners (39.1%) or managers (34.8%), with the remainder

being either both owner and manager (13.0%) or a viticulturist (13.0%). All responders either had native habitat in the vineyard (73.9%) or were interested in restoring it

(26.1%). Some indicated that they were interested in putting in more (17.4%). Though

26.1% had indicated that they did not have native habitat in their vineyard, 13.0% indicated later in the survey that they had native habitat surrounding their vineyard. The largest group reported only patches of habitat in their vineyard (34.8%). A few had hedgerows in their vineyard (13.0%). The rest reported a combination of patches in the vineyard and surrounding area (4.3%), patches and hedgerows (13.0%), and patches and between row native habitats (8.7%).

Only three respondents answered how much habitat restoration cost them; one indicated less than $500, one between $1000-2000, and one between $2000-5000. No one thought that native habitat in the vineyard negatively affected wine quality; however only 8.7% thought it had a positive effect. Most thought there was no effect (52.2%) or were unsure (39.1%). Additionally, no one thought native habitat negatively impacted pest control in the vineyard, and the majority of people thought it was a positive influence in their vineyard (43.5%). The rest were again, unsure (34.8%) or thought there was no effect (21.7%).

The remaining questions dealt with general management of the vineyard. Many practiced mechanical harvesting (39.1%), and a few could have but chose not to

(13.0%). The majority could not use mechanical harvesting in their vineyard (47.8%).

The majority of growers also spent more than 5 hours per acre per year on weed and pest control (65.2%). The rest spent between 1 and 2 hours per acre per year (13.0%) and 3 and 5 hours (21.7%). The majority split their money spent on pest and weed

control between $80-150 per acre per year (38.1%) and $150-300 (38.1%). The remaining few spent less than $80 (14.3%) and more than $300 (9.5%). Vineyard acreages reported ranged from a 0.15 acre teaching vineyard at a local community college to 2000 acres, with a median of 45 acres.

There were no significant differences in answers between the groups reporting habitat and those reporting no habitat, except that those without habitat all said they were considering putting it in, and also all of them said they weren’t sure if having native habitat would affect the quality of their wine. There was also no significant difference between the time or cost spent on pest control between any of the types of native habitat in vineyards (Figure 4-2). The problem with this is there were only three responders with no habitat in their vineyard, so this is very unlikely to be representative of all growers without native habitat.

Figure 4-2. Average cost in time and money of pest and weed control per year per acre amongst vineyards with different types of native habitat. Survey’s levels of time spent per year per acre: 1 = 0-1 hours (no responses in this category), 2 = 1-2 hours, 3 = 3-5 hours, 4 = Over 5 hours. Survey’s levels of money spent per year per acre: 1 = $0-$80, 2 = $80-$150, 3 = $150-$300, 4 = Over $300.

100

Table 4-1. Questionnaire questions and answers for participating growers. NH = Native habitat-enhanced vineyard. All answers reported as written. Question NH 1 NH 2 NH 3 NH 4 Conventional 1 Convent ional 2 Are you the owner or manager of the Manager Owner Owner Manager Manager Manager vineyard? Patches within the Patches within the How do you maintain native habitat in vineyard, between rows Patches within the Between rows vineyard and between -- -- your vineyard? and areas around the vineyard rows vineyard Yes, only in separate Did you restore the native habitat in your Yes Yes Yes zones around the -- -- vineyard? vineyard I don't remember; we If you did restore the native habitat in Not sure, I wasn't the did over decades. your vineyard, approximately how much $600-800/Acre around $1500 -- -- manager at the time. Perhaps several did it cost? thousand dollars. Do you think that the native habitat No Difference Positive Positive No Difference -- -- affects the quality of your wine? Do you think the native habitat has been decreasing pest pressure in your (left blank) Yes Yes No -- -- vineyard? Based on the results of our research so Maybe if we can far (native habitat within vineyards find the right mix increases beneficial insects while pest ------No that doesn't require

101 numbers remain similar), do you think at extra water and some point you may consider restoring attention native habitat to your vineyard? That is fine but my vineyard is very rocky, The benefits are twofold: the way it has always 1. helps maintain I love knowing it's I don't have an opinion been, by tilling the ecological integrity there. Seeing it when Yes there is an increase on whether or not native ground it shows the rock across the landscape for I'm drive around the in certain beneficial Any additional thoughts about native habitat is decreasing and that is what the Need to define all insect populations, 2. vineyard makes me insects, but I am not habitat in your vineyard? pest pressure. There are wineries want. 1/2 of my native habitat. it increases faunal know I'm making a seeing a dramatic too many other vineyard is also native diversity which helps difference on my change in pest pressure variables. grasses, and I leave it restore resiliency to the farm. that way, just alternate crop. mowing a few times till it dries out for the summer Do you do mechanical harvesting? No No No No No No Could you do mechanical harvesting in Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes your vineyard? Spray and cultivate How much time do you spend on weed 4 to 5 passes through too much 2 days/year A lot about 4 hours an acre 4 to 5 times per control? the vineyard season How much money do you spend on Probably around too much none A lot $200 to $300 per acre about $80 an acre weed control? $200 to $300/acre I have 170 acres How many acres is your vineyard? 170 about 5 42 25 15 and manage another 175

Discussion

Views of growers may vary wildly regarding the use of native habitat in their vineyard, depending on the pest problems inherent to their particular area, the size of their vineyard, the amount of time they spend on their vineyard and their personal ideologies. Though it may appear from the views expressed by the WAWGG survey that the majority of growers in Washington either have native habitat in their vineyard or are considering restoring some, this may not be the case. The respondents self-selected by choosing to attend the lecture on this topic and respond to the survey. A survey would need to be emailed to the WAWGG members to get a better distribution of the views expressed by the majority of Washington wine grape growers, of which there are over

350 (www.washingtonwine.org).

It is unlikely that universal adoption of native habitat restoration in vineyards will occur, though it will hopefully be more common in the future. This survey, while not demonstrating that native habitat restoration in vineyards is more economical than conventional vineyards, at least demonstrated that it is not less economical. Besides the costs of habitat restoration or the savings from pest and weed control (which may not exist), there may be other benefits besides. A few of our participating growers greatly enjoyed the addition of native habitat to their vineyards, both for its own intrinsic qualities as well as the reputation it gave them for sustainable practices.

As vineyard in Washington grows there is the possibility that native plants present in the landscape can be relatively undisturbed when grapes are established.

One of the native habitat vineyards in our study established their vineyard by mowing the larger shrubs down and planting their grape vines directly in the soil without plowing

102

or mowing. This has reduced weed species in that vineyard, and contributed to their healthy populations of both native plants and beneficial insects. Newer vineyard establishments may wish to follow this model in the future, choosing to conserve by saving what is already present instead of restoring something that had been lost.

103

References

Beale, P., Clarke, S., Corliss, K., Eastwell, K., Grove, G., James, D., Keller, M.,

Halstead, S., Hamman, R., McFerran, J., Means, M., Morasch, B., Morrell, C., Moulton,

G., Olivia, D, Olmstead, M., Parker, B., Riga, K., Sample, J., Walsh, D., Wildman, T., &

Crowder, D. W., Northfield, T. D., Strand, M. R., & Snyder, W. E. (2010). Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature , 466 (7302), 109–112.

Cullen, R., Warner, K. D., Jonsson, M., & Wratten, S. D. (2008). Economics and adoption of conservation biological control. Biological Control , 45 (2), 272–280.

Dickinson, J. (1994). Comparative economic and ecological analyses of lower chemical input fruit farms and other fruit farming systems. SARE Project Report.

Retrieved January 16, 2014, from http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/ProjectReport.aspx?do=viewRept&pn=LNC91-

037&y=1994&t=1

Gutierrez, A. P., Caltagirone, L. E., & Meikle, W. (1999). Evaluation of results:

Economics of biological control. In T. S. Bellows, T. W. Fisher (Ed.), Handbook of

Biological Control (pp. 243–252). San Diego: Academic Press.

104

Landis, D. A., Gardiner, M. M., Werf, W. van der, & Swinton, S. M. (2008).

Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105 (51), 20552–20557.

Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., & Gurr, G. M. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of

Entomology , 45 (1), 175–201.

Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C., & Frisvold, G. B. (2015). Economic value of biological control in integrated pest management of managed plant systems. Annual

Review of Entomology , 60 (1).

Paredes, D., Cayuela, L., Gurr, G. M., & Campos, M. (2015). Is ground cover vegetation an effective biological control enhancement strategy against olive pests?

PLoS ONE , 10 (2), e0117265.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., & Snyder, W. E. (2005). Impact of management intensity on mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) in Southcentral

Washington wine grapes. International Journal of Acarology , 31 (3), 277–288.

Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., Storm, C. P., Wright, L. C., & Snyder, W. E.

(2007). Identity, abundance, and phenology of Anagrus spp. (Hymenoptera:

Mymaridae) and leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) associated with grape, blackberry, and wild rose in Washington state. Annals of the Entomological Society of

America , 100 (1), 41–52.

Snapp, S. S., Swinton, S. M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J. R., Leep, R.,

Nyiraneza, J., & O’Neil, K. (2005). Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agronomy Journal , 97 (1), 322–332.

105

Thies, C., & Tscharntke, T. (1999). Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems. Science , 285 (5429), 893–895.

Zeddies, J., Schaab, R. P., Neuenschwander, P., & Herren, H. R. (2001).

Economics of biological control of cassava mealybug in Africa. Agricultural Economics ,

24 (2), 209–219.

106

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

Beneficial arthropods were positively affected by restored sagebrush steppe habitat. The effect on pests was less clear. Leafhoppers in wine grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) in Washington did not appear to be strongly affected by habitat restoration, but secondary pests such as rust mites, spider mites, thrips, mealybugs, and scales, were controlled. It is possible that given what is now known about the attraction of beneficial insects to more of the sagebrush steppe flora, pest control can be improved. Growers may have to tailor habitat restoration to suit their location and possibly even their community of beneficial insects. Fortunately there is already enthusiasm among some growers for native habitat restoration.

This enthusiasm does not only apply to wine grape growers. Besides being invited to talk to growers at a LIVE annual meeting (Low Input Viticulture and Enology, http://liveinc.org/) and at a Vinea (http://vineatrust.com/) organized workshop on habitat restoration in vineyards, I have also been approached by apple (Malus domestica

Borkh.), cherry (Prunus avium (L.) L.), and hops ( Humulus lupulus L.) growers about this research, as well as home gardeners and beekeepers. All of them were very interested in the results, both on the pest management and native pollinator side, but also in growing native plants. Many of these growers already had cover crops of native plants, or had conserved patches of native habitat. One wine grower had a native plant hedgerow running down the middle of all of his vineyard plots. Anecdotally, he has never sprayed for pest insects. Though the effect of native habitat restoration on pest management in these other crops is unknown, it has not stopped the interest in many growers throughout the Pacific Northwest, or in the public in general. Organizations

107

such as the Nature Conservancy (https://www.nature.org/en-us/), the Great Basin

Institute (https://www.thegreatbasininstitute.org/), the Audobon Society

(https://www.audubon.org/), the Xerces Society (https://xerces.org/), the Washington

Native Plant Society (https://www.wnps.org/), and the Cowiche Canyon Conservancy

(https://www.cowichecanyon.org/), are proof that members of the public are not only interested in conservation in general, but conservation within the sagebrush steppe ecosystem in particular. It delights me to see others appreciating the value and beauty found in the sagebrush.

This interest in native habitat restoration in vineyards is part of an overall push by many separate viticulture and enology groups interested in sustainability, both locally and worldwide. LIVE, Vinea and the Salmon Safe label more locally, and organic and biodynamic labelling internationally, are all about producing environmentally friendly wine. Wine from eastern Washington may be too diverse to capitalize on the sustainable image that some smaller wine growing regions like the Waipara Valley in

New Zealand, or the Willamette Valley in Oregon have, but sustainable labels could help some vineyards stand out here as well.

Another aspect to consider when advocating vineyard management techniques such as habitat restoration may be the consumer response and buying decisions. There has been some research into consumer’s perception of eco-labeling and eco- certification of wine (Barber 2010, Delmas & Grant 2010, Forbes et al. 2009).

Essentially, at least some groups of consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable produced wine. However, at least one study indicates that the wine industry is not marketing their sustainable practices effectively (Casini et al. 2010).

108

Demonstrating to growers that increased visibility of their sustainable practices will increase sales may serve as added incentive to adopt more sustainable methods such as native habitat restoration for pest control. A consumer survey study of an individual method such as native habitat restoration has also not been conducted. Most studies of this nature focus on organic or generalized eco-labeling and certification. It is my belief that a study on consumer views and purchasing habits when given information about sustainable farming practices besides organic production would be of use and interest to growers.

A meta-analysis (Winter et al. 2018) found no effect of cover cropping on grape or wine quality (though at least one owner in this study claims positive impacts on taste.) Future research, especially as better native plant mixes can now be identified, could focus on more detailed interactions between native plants and wine grapes. The most effective ratio of native habitat to vineyard to provide pest control should especially be studied. This particular study was unfortunately not set up to answer questions about edge effects, which is unfortunate, as that may have provided a starting point to that research.

Besides the benefits to pest control and improved beneficial insect populations, restored native habitat may have other benefits. Restored native areas can serve as wildlife habitat, limit runoff, reduce dust, and provide some weed control. Over the course of this research, I saw more wildlife in and around habitat-enhanced vineyards than in conventional ones. Salmon Safe is one ‘sustainable’ label that includes native habitat restoration in its recommendations. Salmonid health is closely tied to water health, which is strongly effected by pesticide runoff (Macneale et al 2010). Restoring

109

native habitat around riparian areas is likely to reduce agricultural runoff, and this research can be used to help guide decisions in those restorations in this region.

A large amount of wine sales in Washington are direct to consumer. In essence, winemakers are selling a story about their vineyard rather than the taste of the wine.

Many vineyards in Oregon and California plant roses at the ends of rows, because they’re pretty and might attract some beneficials. What if instead growers in central

Washington planted sagebrush and native flowers? Might visitors be delighted by an abundance of butterflies and seduced by displays of native flowers? Perhaps wine lovers will come to admire the subtle beauty of the arid land, appreciate the benefits of conserving it, and, yes, buy more wine. Perhaps wine grape growers in eastern

Washington should plant sagebrush, not roses.

110

References

Barber, N. (2010). “Green” wine packaging: targeting environmental consumers.

International Journal of Wine Business Research, 22(4), 423–444.

Casini, L., Cavicchi, A., Corsi, A., & Santini, C. (2010). Hopelessly devoted to sustainability: Marketing challenges to face in the wine business. In Sustainability in theFood Sector: Rethinking the Relationship between the Agro-Food System and theNatural, Social, Economic and Institutional Environments . Capri, Italy.

Delmas, M. A., & Grant, L. E. (2010). Eco-labeling strategies and price-premium: the wine industry puzzle. Business & Society .

Forbes, S. L., Cohen, D. A., Cullen, R., Wratten, S. D., & Fountain, J. (2009).

Consumer attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine: an exploratory study of the New Zealand marketplace. Journal of Cleaner Production , 17 (13), 1195–1199.

Macneale, K. H., Kiffney, P. M., & Scholz, N. L. (2010). Pesticides, aquatic food webs, and the conservation of Pacific salmon. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment , 8(9), 475–482.

Winter, S., Bauer, T., Strauss, P., Kratschmer, S., Paredes, D., Popescu, D.,

Landa, B., Guzmán, G., Gómez, J. A., Guernion, M., Zaller, J. G., & Batáry, P. (2018).

Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 55 (5), 2484–2495.

111

APPENDIX A SATELLITE MAPS AND PLANT LISTS OF ALL VINEYARDS IN STUDY

The following are satellite images of the study vineyards used for context for yellow sticky trap placement and vineyard surroundings, along with the lists of plant species seen blooming within the study vineyards and in surrounding areas. The plant species lists were from combined observations from 2011 and 2012 while replacing traps. Bloom dates are approximate.

112

Columbia Gorge Vineyards

Figure A-1. Satellite images of Columbia Gorge vineyards including trap placements (in red.)

113

Table A-1. Plants observed blooming at Columbia Gorge vineyards. DH = Dry Hollow, KC = Klickitat Canyon, V = within vineyard, H = nearby habitat areas, I = introduced, N = native, interm = intermediate Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates DH (V) Capsella bursa-pastoris I May 15 (last) DH (V) Convolvulus arvensis I Ma7 29 - June 29 (peak) DH (V) Malva neglecta I May 29 (peak) DH (V) Medicago sativa I May 29 - June 26 (interm) DH (V) Sisymbrium altissimum I June 12 (peak, rare) DH (V) Vicia sativa I May 15 (peak), May 29 (last) DH (V,H) Erodium cicutarium I May 15 (early), May 29 (peak), June 12 (last) DH (V,H) Matricaria discoidea I May15 (interm), May 29 - June 26 (peak) DH (V,H) Plantago lanceolata I May 29 - June 26 (peak) DH (V,H) Tragopogon dubius I May 15 (peak), June 26 (last) DH(H) Achillea millefolium N May 29 (peak), June 26 (last) DH(H) Agoseris retrorsa N June 26 (last, rare) DH(H) Ceanothus integerrimus N May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak) DH(H) Centaurea cyanus I May 15 (early), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) DH(H) Collomia grandiflora N May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) DH(H) Lomatium nudicaule N May 15 (peak, last) DH(H) Lotus nevadensis N June 26 (peak) DH(H) Lupinus sp. N May 15 (peak), May 29 (last) DH(H) Taraxacum officinale I May 29 - June 26 (peak) DH(H) Trifolium arvense I May 29 (early), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) DH(H) Trifolium repens I June 12 (interm), June 26 (peak) DH(H) Vicia villosa I May 29 - June 26 (peak)

KC (V) Daucus pusillus N May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) KC (V) Madia exigua N May 29 (early) KC (V) Medicago sativa I May 29 - June 26 (interm) KC (V,H) Achillea millefolium N May 29 (peak), June 26 (last) KC (V,H) Balsamorhiza careyana N May 15 (peak), May 29 (last) KC (V,H) Ceanothus integerrimus N May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak) KC (V,H) Centaurea cyanus I May 15 (early), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) KC (V,H) Dichelostemma congestum N May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak) KC (V,H) Erodium cicutarium I May 15 (early), May 29 (peak), June 12 (last) KC (V,H) Hypochaeris radicata I May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) KC (V,H) Lavandula angustifolia I June 26 (interm) KC (V,H) Lomatium triternatum N May 15 (last) KC (V,H) Lomatium nudicaule N May 15 (peak, last) KC (V,H) Lupinus sp. N May 15 (peak), May 29 (last) KC (V,H) Trifolium arvense I May 29 (early), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) KC (V,H) Trifolium campestre I May 29 (peak), June 26 (last) KC (V,H) Unknown N May 15 (peak) KC(H) Agrostemma githago I June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) KC(H) Alcea rosea I June 26 (peak) KC(H) Amsinckia sp. N May 15 (peak)

114

Table A-1 Continued. Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates KC(H) Asclepias fascicularis N June 26 (interm) KC(H) Collomia grandiflora N May 29 (interm), June 12 (peak), June 26 (last) KC(H) Castilleja sp. N May 15 (peak) KC(H) Clarkia amoena N May 29 (rare), June 12 (rare) KC(H) Cynoglossum sp. N? ? (green seeds on May 29) KC(H) Eschscholzia californica N June 26 (peak) KC(H) Frasera albicaulis N May 15 (peak), May 29 (last) KC(H) Galium aparine N ? (green seeds on June 12) KC(H) Hieracium cynoglossoides N June 26 (peak) KC(H) Hypericum perforatum I June 26 (peak) KC(H) Lotus micranthus N May 29 (peak) KC(H) Lupinus polycarpus N May 15 (last) KC(H) Philadelphus lewisii N June 26 (peak) KC(H) Toxicodendron diversilobum N ? (green berries on June 12) KC(H) Tragopogon dubius I May 15 (peak), June 26 (last) KC(H) Triteleia grandiflora N May 29 (peak) KC(H) Vicia sativa I May 15 (peak), May 29 (last) KC(H) Zigadenus venenosus N May 15 (last)

115

Ancient Lakes Vineyards

Figure A-2. Satellite image of Ancient Lakes vineyards including trap placements (in red.)

116

Table A-2. Plants observed blooming at Ancient Lakes vineyards. JV = Jones of WA, WH = White Heron, V = within vineyard, H = nearby habitat areas, I = introduced, N = native, interm = intermediate Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates JV(H), WH (V,H) Artemisia tridentata N Aug 28 - Sept 25 (early) JV(H), WH (V,H) Ericameria nauseosa N Aug 28 (early), Sept 11 (interm), Sept 25 (peak) JV (V) Salsola kali I Sept 11 (early), Sept 25 (peak) JV (V), WH Machaeranthera (V,H) canescens N Aug 28 - Sept 11 (interm), Sept 25 (last, peak) JV (V), WH (V,H) Sphaeralcea munroana N May 24 - June 20 (peak), July 3 - 17 (last) July 3 - July 17 (early), Aug 28 - Sept 11 (early), Sept JV (V), WH(H) Centaurea sp. I 11 (peak/last) JV (V), WH(H) Descurainia sophia N June 7 (early, peak), June 20 - July 3 (last) WH (V) Castilleja flava N June 7 (peak) WH (V,H) Achillea millefolium N May 10 (interm), May 24 (peak), June 7 - July 3 (last) Calochortus WH (V,H) macrocarpus N June 7 (peak), June 20 (last) May 10 (interm), May 24 (peak), June 7 - July 17 WH (V,H) Erigeron poliospermus N (last) WH (V,H) Erigeron pumilus N May 10 - 24 (interm), June 20 (peak) July 3 - Aug 28 (early), Sept 11 (interm), Sept 25 WH (V,H) Eriogonum niveum N (peak) WH (V,H) Phacelia hastata N May 10 (early), May 24 (interm), June 7 - July 3 (last) WH (V,H) Tragopogon dubius N June 7 (peak) WH(H) Balsamorhiza careyana N May 10 (peak) WH(H) Chaeanactis douglasii N May 24 (early), June 7 (interm), June 20 (peak) WH(H) Crepis sp. N May 10 (seed) WH(H) Eriogonum thymoides N May 10 - 24 (peak), June 7 (last) WH(H) Linanthus pungens N May 10 (peak) WH(H) Plantago patagonica N June 7 (peak) WH(H) Purshia tridentata N May 10 (peak) WH(H) Rubus idaeus N June 7 (peak), June 20 (last) WH(H) Salvia dorrii N May 10 (early,interm), May 24 (peak), June 7 (last) WH(H) Unknown daisy N May 24 (last)

117

Red Mountain Vineyards

Figure A-3. Satellite images of Red Mountain vineyards including trap placement (in yellow.)

118

Table A-3. Plants observed blooming at Red Mountain vineyards. AV = Ambassador, CC = Ciel du Cheval, UC = Upchurch, V = within vineyard, H = nearby habitat areas, I = introduced, N = native, interm = intermediate Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates AV (V) Achillea millefolium N May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), July 23 (last) AV (V) Amsinckia lycopsoides N June 14 (last, rare) AV (V) Erodium cicutarium I June 14 (peak), July 23 (last) AV (V) Sisymbrium altissimum I May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), July 10 (last) AV (V) Tribulus terrestris I June 14 (peak), Aug 6 (last) AV (V) Unknown yellow mustard I? May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), Aug 6 (last) AV (V) Vitis vinifera I June 14 (peak) AV(H) Unknown rose N? May 17 (peak)

CC (V) Achillea millefolium N May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), July 23 (last) CC (V) Ambrosia acanthicarpa N Sept 4 -17 (peak) CC (V) Astragalus caricinus N June 14 (peak, rare) CC (V) Astragalus sclerocarpus N June 14 (last, rare) CC (V) Lupinus polycarpus N June 14 (last, rare) CC (V) Sisymbrium altissimum I May 31 (early), June 14 (peak) CC (V) Tragopogon dubius I June 14 (peak), July 10 (last) CC (V) Vitis vinifera I June 14 (peak) Machaeranthera CC (V,H) canescens N Sept 4 (peak) CC (V,H) Oenothera pallida N June 14 (peak), July 10 (last) CC (V,H) Unknown penstemon N May 31 (?) CC(H) Amsinckia lycopsoides N June 14 (last, rare) CC(H) Apocynum cannabinum N May 31 (early), June 14 (peak) CC(H) Erigeron filifolius N May 31 (last) CC(H) Melilotus officinalis I June 14 (peak, early), July 10 (last, peak) CC(H) Salix exigua N May 31 (early), June 4 (peak) CC(H) Tamarix ramosissima I June 14 (peak, rare) CC(H) Taraxacum officinale I May 31 (early), June 14 (peak) CC(H) Unknown thistle I? May 31 (?) CC(V) Euthamia occidentalis N Sept 4 (peak, rare)

UC (V) Agoseris retrorsa N June 14 (peak, rare) UC (V) Amsinckia lycopsoides N June 14 (last, rare) UC (V) Hypochaeris radicata I Aug 6 (peak, rare) UC (V) Plantago patagonica N July 10 (peak, some) UC (V) Tribulus terrestris I June 14 (peak), Aug 6 (last) UC (V) Unknown Epilobium I? Sept 4 (peak, rare) UC (V) Vitis vinifera I June 14 (peak) UC (V,H) Centaurea solstitialis I Sept 4 (peak) UC (V,H) Erodium cicutarium I June 14 (peak), July 23 (last) Machaeranthera UC (V,H) canescens N Sept 4 (peak) UC (V,H) Sisymbrium altissimum I May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), July 10 (last)

119

Table A-3 Continued. Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates UC (V,H) Taraxacum officinale I May 31 (early), June 14 (peak) Unknown yellow UC (V,H) mustard I? May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), Aug 6 (last) UC(H) Achillea millefolium N May 17 (early), June 14 (peak), July 23 (last) May 31 (early), June 14 (peak), Sept 4 (interm), UC(H) Gaillardia pulchella N Sept 17 (2nd peak) UC(H) Conyza canadensis I Sept 4 (peak, rare) UC(H) Euthamia occidentalis N Sept 4 (peak, rare) UC(H) Melilotus officinalis I June 14 (peak, early), July 10 (last, peak) Sphaeralcea UC(H) munroana N May 31 (early), June 14 (peak), July 10 (last) UC(H) Tragopogon dubius I June 14 (peak), July 10 (last)

120

Walla Walla Vineyards

Figure A-4. Satellite images of Walla Walla vineyards including trap placements (in red.)

121

Figure A-5. Detailed satellite view of Woodward Canyon vineyard with notes on surroundings and restored native habitat within the vineyard. Yellow sticky trap locations are numbered.

122

Table A-4. Plants observed blooming at Walla Walla vineyards. RR = River Rock, SH = Seven Hills, WW = Woodward Canyon, V = within vineyard, H = nearby habitat areas, interm = intermediate Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates RR (V) Amaranthus retroflexus Aug 14 (early), Aug 27 (peak), Sept 10 (last) RR (V) Chenopodium album July 17 (early), Aug 14 (peak), Sept 24 (last) RR (V) Erodium cicutarium June 5 (peak) RR (V) Geranium carolinianum May 8 (early), June 5 (peak), July 2 (last) RR (V) Medicago sativa June 5 (early), June 19 (peak), Sept 10 (last) RR (V) Onopordum acanthium July 17 (peak, rare) RR (V) Polygonum convolvulus June 19 (early), July 2 (peak), July 17 (last) RR (V) Tragopogon dubius May 22 (early), June 5 (peak) RR (V) Tribulus terrestris June 19 (early), Sept 10 (last) RR (V) Trifolium arvense July 17 (peak) RR (V) Vitis vinifera June 5 - 19 (peak) RR (V,H) Ambrosia artemisiifolia Aug 14 (early), Aug 27 (peak), Sept 10 (last) RR (V,H) Capsella bursa-pastoris May 8 - July 2 (some late blooms), June 19 (peak) RR (V,H) Malva neglecta May 8 (early), June 6 (peak), Sept 10 (last) RR (V,H) Medicago lupulina June 5 (peak), June 19 (last) RR(H) Convolvulus arvensis May 22 (early), June 19, Aug 27 (peaks), Sept 24 (last) RR(H) Lotus corniculatus July 17 (peak) RR(H) Taraxacum officinale May 8 (peak), May 22 - Aug 27 (some blooms) RR(H) Trifolium repens May 22 (early), June 19 (peak), Sept 10 (last)

SH (V) Capsella bursa-pastoris May 8 - July 2 (some late blooms), June 19 (peak) SH (V) Cirsium arvense July 17 (early), July 30 (peak), Aug 27 (last) SH (V) Medicago falcata June 5 (early), June 19 (peak), July 2 (last) SH (V) Medicago sativa June 5 (early), June 19 (peak), Sept 10 (last) SH (V) Onopordum acanthium July 17 (peak, rare) SH (V) Taraxacum officinale May 8 (peak), May 22 - Aug 27 (some blooms) SH (V) Tragopogon dubius June 5 (early), June 19 (peak) SH (V) Vitis vinifera June 5 - 19 (peak) SH (V,H) Chenopodium album July 17 (early), Aug 14 (peak), Sept 24 (last) SH (V,H) Convolvulus arvensis May 22 (early), June 19, Aug 27 (peaks), Sept 24 (last) SH (V,H) Logfia arvensis June 5 (early), July 17 (peak), Aug 27 (last) SH (V,H) Malva neglecta May 8 (early), June 6 (peak), Sept 10 (last) SH(H) Achillea millefolium May 8 (early), June 19 (peak), July 30 (last) SH(H) Alcea rosea June 19 (early), July 17 (peak), Aug 27 (last) SH(H) Artemisia tridentata Aug 27 (early), Sept 24 (peak) SH(H) Artemisia ludoviciana June 5, June 19 (peak), July 2 (last) SH(H) Calendula sp. May 8 (peak), July 30 (last) SH(H) Carduus nutans July 17 (peak, rare) SH(H) Chamaebatiaria millefolium July 17 (peak) SH(H) Clematis ligusticifolia Sept 24 (last) SH(H) Erigeron speciosus May 22 (early), July 2, Sept 24 (peaks) SH(H) Eriogonum niveum Aug 27 (early), Sept 24 (peak) SH(H) Fallugia paradoxa May 22 (early), June 19, Aug 27 (peaks), Sept 24 (last) SH(H) Hymenoxys acaulis May 22 (early), July 2, Sept 10 (peaks), Sept 24 (last) SH(H) Lotus corniculatus July 17 (peak)

123

Table A-4 Continued. Locations Plant Species Bloom Dates SH(H) Matricaria discoidea June 19 (peak), July 2 (last) SH(H) Melilotus officinalis June 5 (early), July 17 (peak), Sept 24 (last) SH(H) Penstemon eatonii May 8 (peak), May 22 (last) SH(H) Penstemon palmeri June 5 (early), SH(H) Ratibida columnifera June 19 (early), July 17 (peak), July 30 (last) SH(H) Rosa woodsii May 8 (early), June 19 (peak), Sept 24 (last) SH(H) Sphaeralcea munroana May 22 (early), June 5, June 19 (peak), Sept 24 (last) SH(H) Tribulus terrestris June 19 (early), Sept 10 (last) SH(H) Trifolium pratense May 22 (early), June 19 (peak) SH(H) Trifolium repens May 22 (early), June 19 (peak), Sept 10 (last) SH(H) Zauschneria latifolia June 19 (early), July 17 (peak), Sept 24 (last)

WW (V) Agoseris retrorsa Aug 27 (peak, sparse) WW (V) Amsinckia sp. May 8 (peak) WW (V) Chondrilla juncea July 2 (early) WW (V) Conyza canadensis July 30 (peak, sparse) WW (V) Erodium cicutarium May 8 (early), June 5 (peak), July 30 (last) WW (V) Logfia arvensis June 5 (early), July 17 (peak), Aug 27 (last) WW (V) Salsola kali Sept 24 (early) WW (V) Vitis vinifera June 5 - 19 (peak) WW (V,H) Achillea millefolium May 8 (early), June 19 (peak), July 30 (last) WW (V,H) Centaurea solstitialis June 5 (early), July 30 (peak), Sept 24 (last) WW (V,H) Gaillardia pulchella May 22 (early), June 19 (peak), Sept 24 (last) WW (V,H) Linum sp. May 8 (early), May 22 (peak), July 30 (last) WW (V,H) Machaeranthera canescens Aug 14 (early), Sept 24 (peak) WW (V,H) Melilotus officinalis June 5 (early), July 17 (peak), Sept 24 (last) WW (V,H) Ratibida columnifera June 19, July 17 (peak), July 30 (last) WW (V,H) Sisymbrium altissimum May 22 (early), June 5 (peak), July 30 (last) WW (V,H) Tragopogon dubius June 5 (early), June 19 (peak) WW(H) Coreopsis sp. June 5 (peak) WW(H) Dalea purpurea May 22, (early), June 19, July 17 (peaks), July 30 (last) WW(H) Dianthus barbatus May 22 (peak) WW(H) Ericameria nauseosa Aug 27 (early), Sept 24 (peak) WW(H) Erigeron pumilus May 22 (early), June 5 (peak), July 2 (last) WW(H) Helianthus annuus July 17 (early), July 30 (peak), Sept 24 (last) WW(H) Lupinus sp. May 22 (peak), June 5 (last) WW(H) Unknown May 8 (early), May 22 (peak), June 5 (last) WW(H) Unknown June 19 (peak)

124

APPENDIX B PESTICIDE RECORDS OF STUDY VINEYARDS

The following are the pesticide records of all our study vineyards as reported to me by the growers.

Columbia Gorge Vineyards

Dry Hollow

2011

May 6th - Microthiol(5 lbs/Acre), Wettable Sulphur Fungicide (Note: vines not yet at bud break)

May 15th - bud break

May 25th -Stylet oil (1% soln), (applied 10 days after bud break)

June 4th – Microthiol (3 lbs/Acre), Wettable Sulphur Fungicide

June 16th – Microthiol (3 lbs/Acre), Wettable Sulphur Fungicide

June 28th – Rely (3 oz./Acre), glufosinate ammonium, foliage applied herbicide

July 18th – Pristine (10 oz./Acre), Boscalid + pyroclostrobin, multi-action fungicide

Aug. 1st – Quintec (4 oz./Acre), quinoxyfen, fungicide Alias(1.5 oz./Acre),

Imidacloprid, insecticide (in same tank as Quintec)

Aug. 16th – Procure (16 oz./Acre), triflumizole, broad-spectrum foliar Fungicide

2012

Not available

2013

Not available

125

Klickitat Canyon

2011

Elemental sulfur & boron applied: June (10-11) and July (8-9)

2012

“You are correct – we did not use any pesticides (insecticides or miticides) last year (except elemental sulfur for mildew control (not sure if you were including fungicides within the concept of pesticides.). We did put out pheromone traps for queen wasps in early April through May.” – Klickitat Canyon owner

2013

“The only pesticide we used was elemental sulfur for mildew control. This was applied May 25, June 20 and 23 2013. Sulfur was mixed with boron in all applications.

No insecticides were or have been used during the last 15 years.” – Klickitat

Canyon owner

Ancient Lakes Vineyards

Jones of Washington

2011

Table B-1. Jones of Washington 2011 spray records. Date Vineyard Trade Name Rate Per Acre Type of Pesticide 5/21/11? Trinidad Malbec Brigade 3.2 oz insecticide 06/03/11 Trinidad Malbec Focus 3 oz fungicide 06/03/11 Trinidad Malbec Mor Bor 17 2 lbs foliar fertilizer 06/03/11 Trinidad Malbec Tri-Plex Zinc 1 lb foliar fertilizer 06/17/11 Trinidad Malbec Quintec 3.5 oz fungicide 07/01/11 Trinidad Malbec Flint 2 oz fungicide 07/15/11 Trinidad Malbec Procure 6 oz fungicide 07/29/11 Trinidad Malbec Quintec 5 oz fungicide 07/29/11 Trinidad Malbec Pasada 3 oz insecticide

126

2012

Table B-2. Jones of Washington 2012 spray records. Rate Per Date Vineyard Variety Trade Name Acre Type of Pesticide 05/17/12 Trinidad Malbec Brigade 3.2 oz insecticide 05/21/12 Trinidad Malbec Microsulf 3 lbs fungicide 05/28/12 Trinidad Malbec Vintage 3 oz fungicide 05/28/12 Trinidad Malbec Mor Bor 17 2 lbs foliar fertilizer 05/28/12 Trinidad Malbec Tri-Plex Zinc 1 lb foliar fertilizer 06/11/12 Trinidad Malbec Quintec 3.5 oz fungicide 06/25/12 Trinidad Malbec Flint 2 oz fungicide 07/09/12 Trinidad Malbec Procure 6 oz fungicide 07/23/12 Trinidad Malbec Quintec 5 oz fungicide

2013

Table B-3. Jones of Washington 2013 spray records. Date Vineyard Trade Name Rate Per Acre Type of Pesticide 03/15/13 Trinidad Brigade 3.2 oz insecticide 05/12/13 Trinidad Kumulus DF 3 lbs fungicide 05/22/13 Trinidad Rally 3 oz fungicide 05/22/13 Trinidad Zinc polyamine 1 quart foliar fertilizer 05/22/13 Trinidad Monterey Super Boron WS 2 lbs foliar fertilizer 06/05/13 Trinidad Quintec 3 oz fungicide 06/19/13 Trinidad Flint 2 oz fungicide 07/03/13 Trinidad Procure 6 oz fungicide 07/17/13 Trinidad Quintec 5 oz fungicide

White Heron

2011

“No insecticides were sprayed this year.

Sulfur sprayed (every 10 days, from 4 leaf stage until veraison "i.e. mid May through Sept")

1 application of fungicide quinoxyfen (Quintec)

Possibly drift from spot spraying with Meyer (sp?), but not directly used on the

Malbec” – White Heron owner

127

2012

“We sprayed in several areas (not the Malbec) for cutworms in early spring

(Danitol) and that's was it for last year. There is one area I wish I had treated for leaf hoppers but again that was not the Malbec.” – White Heron owner

2013

Not available

Red Mountain Vineyards

Ambassador

2011

Table B-4. Ambassador 2011 spray records. Product Date(s) Trade Reason for Amount Applied Block ID (Location) Name Active Ingredient Useage (Units/Acre) MeSA Trial & Weed 4/24/11 Ambassador Vineyard Buccaneer Glyphosate Control 2pts/acre MeSA Trial & Glufosinate- Weed 5/18/11 Ambassador Vineyard Rely 280 Ammonium Control 70oz/acre ProGanic MeSA Trial & Micronized Powdery 5/20/11 Ambassador Vineyard Sulpur Sulfur Mildew 5lbs/acre ProGanic MeSA Trial & Micronized Powdery 6/3/11 Ambassador Vineyard Sulpur Sulfur Mildew 5lbs/acre Powdery MeSA Trial & Pyraclostrobin/Bo Mildew/Botry 6/22/11 Ambassador Vineyard Pristine scalid tis 18oz/acre MeSA Trial & Powdery 7/18/11 Ambassador Vineyard Quintec Quinoxyfen Mildew 6oz/acre MeSA Trial & Potassium Powdery 7/18/11 Ambassador Vineyard Kaligreen Bicarbonate Mildew 2.5lbs/acre Insect Ambassafor Vineyard Applaud 70 Growth 7/29/11 only DF Buprofezin Regulator 12oz/acre MeSA Trial & Glufosinate- Weed 8/8/11 Ambassador Vineyard Rely 280 Ammonium Control 70oz/acre MeSA Trial Cab. Sauv. Provado 8/24/11 Only 1.6F Imiddacloprid Mealy Bug 4oz/acre

128

2012

Table B-5. Ambassador 2012 spray records. EPA Rate Total Date of Acres Full Product Registration per Product Application Treated Name Number Acre Applied Concentration Procure 480sc, 400-518, 8oz, 200oz, 100g/acre, 4/29/12 25 Sulfur 2935-407 3lbs 75lbs 100g/acre Quintec, 62719-375, 5oz, 125oz, 100g/acre, 5/21/12 25 Kumulus Sulfur 51036-352 3lb 75lb 100g/acre Pristine, Kumulus Sulfur, 18.5oz, 462oz, Sylgard- 7969-199, 3lbs, 75lbs, 6/10/12 25 Adjuvant 51036-352 1oz 2.5oz 80g/acre 8/5/12 Nuprid 2SC 228-572 3.2oz 80oz 80g/acre

2013

Table B-6. Ambassador 2013 spray records. EPA Rate Total Date of Acres Full Product Registration per Product Application Treated Name Number Acre Applied Concentration Procure 480sc, 400-518, 8oz, 5/24/13 25 Kumulus Sulfur 51036-352 3lbs 200oz 100g/acre Pristine, 7969-199, 23oz, 569oz, 6/25/13 25 Kumulus Sulfur 51036-352 3lb 75lb 80g/acre Quintec, 62719-375, 5oz, 125oz, 7/31/13 25 Kumulus Sulfur, 51036-352 3lbs 70lbs 80g/acre Flint, Sylgard- 3oz, 75oz, 8/26/13 25 Adjuvant 264-777, N/A 1oz 25oz 80g/acre

129

Ciel du Cheval

2011

Table B-7. Ciel du Cheval 2011 spray records. Ciel du Cheval - spray records from Ryan Johnson for DeLille Cab. Sauv. (UC Davis clone 08) Active Date Target Spray Rate ingredients 4/28/11 cutworm FMC Brigade 2EC 3.53 oz/ac Bifenthrin 4/29/11 rust mite Thiolux Micro-Sulf 6.64 lb/ac Sulfur Genesis SB-56 1.84 oz/ac Fatty Acids 5/10/11 rust mite Thiolux Micro-Sulf 4.66 lb/ac Sulfur Genesis SB-56 0.93 oz/ac Fatty Acids 5/31/11 mildew cover Focus SC 4.06 oz/ac Fenarimol mildew cover + 6/16/11 nutrition Quintec 6.26 oz/ac quinoxyfen Urea 46-0-0 1.91 lb/ac 46% N Redox TriPlex Zinc 0-0-0 2.78 lb/ac 25% Zn 7/7/11 mildew cover Procure 480SC 7.68 oz/ac Triflumizole (continue rest of 7/13/11 block) Procure 480SC 7.52 oz/ac Triflumizole Hydrogen 7/22/11 mildew cover Redox Oxycom Respond 14.88 oz/ac Peroxide Redox Oxycom Respond Plus 14.88 oz/ac 0-4-6 Redox Di-Kap 2.79 lb/ac 0-32-53 (continue rest of Hydrogen 7/25/11 block) Redox Oxycom Respond 16.18 oz/ac Peroxide Redox Oxycom Respond Plus 16.18 oz/ac 0-4-6 Redox Di-Kap 2.81 lb/ac 0-32-53 7/30/11 mildew cover BASF Vivando 14.09 oz/ac metrafenone Genesis SB-56 1.74 oz/ac Fatty Acids 8/17/11 mildew cover Stride 40WSP 5.02 oz/ac Myclobutanil Genesis SB-56 1.54 oz/ac Fatty Acids Ciel du Cheval - spray records from Ryan Johnson for DeLille Cab. Sauv. (Entav 169) Active Date Target Spray Rate ingredients 4/28/11 cutworm FMC Brigade 2EC 3.42 oz/ac Bifenthrin 4/29/11 rust mite Thiolux Micro-Sulf 6.64 lb/ac Sulfur Genesis SB-56 1.84 oz/ac Fatty Acids 5/11/11 rust mite Thiolux Micro-Sulf 5.30 lb/ac Sulfur Genesis SB-56 1.06 oz/ac Fatty Acids 5/28/11 mildew cover Focus SC 4.81 oz/ac Fenarimol mildew cover + 6/15/11 nutrition Quintec 6.31 oz/ac quinoxyfen Urea 46-0-0 2.01 lb/ac 46% N Redox TriPlex Zinc 0-0-0 2.87 lb/ac 25% Zn 7/13/11 mildew cover Procure 480SC 7.52 oz/ac Triflumizole

130

Table B-7 Continued. Active Date Target Spray Rate ingredients Redox Oxycom Hydrogen 7/26/2011 mildew cover 16.83 oz/ac Respond Peroxide Redox Oxycom 16.83 oz/ac 0-4-6 Respond Plus Redox Di-Kap 2.93 lb/ac 0-32-53 7/30/2011 mildew cover BASF Vivando 14.09 oz/ac metrafenone Genesis SB-56 1.74 oz/ac Fatty Acids 8/17/2011 mildew cover Stride 40WSP 5.02 oz/ac Myclobutanil Genesis SB-56 1.54 oz/ac Fatty Acids

2012

Table B-8. Ciel du Cheval 2012 spray records. 2012 Ciel du Cheval / Ancora - from Ryan Johnson for DeLille Cab. Sauv. (UC Davis clone 08) & (Entav 169) Date Block Target Spray Rate Active ingredients 4/4/11 08 cutworm FMC Brigade 2EC 3.07 oz/ac Bifenthrin 4/12/11 169 cutworm FMC Brigade 2EC 3.20 oz/ac Bifenthrin 08, 4/27/11 169 rust mite Thiolux Micro-Sulf 5.71 lb/ac Sulfur Genesis SB-56 2.38 oz/ac Fatty Acids 08, 5/12/11 169 mildew cover Procure 480SC 5.19 oz/ac Triflumizole 08, 6/6/11 169 mildew cover Quintec 6.61 oz/ac quinoxyfen Redox TriPlex Zinc 0- + nutrition 0-0 2.53 lb/ac 25% Zn 08, 7/2/11 169 mildew cover Vivando 15.08 oz/ac metrafenone 08, 7/26/11 169 rust mite Bayer Envidor 2SC 17.87 oz/ac spirodiclofen 8/1/11 08 rust mite Bayer Envidor 2SC 16.47 oz/ac spirodiclofen 8/17/11 169 nutrition Redox Rx Supra 33.77 oz/ac 1% Urea N 2% P2O5 2% K2O 0.03% Boron 1.0% Cu 1.5% Fe 1.0% Mn 0.004% Mo 2.0% Zn

2013

Not applicable

131

Upchurch

2011

Not applicable

2012

Table B-9. Upchurch 2012 spray records. Date(s) Product Trade Applied Name Active Ingredient Reason for Usage Amount 4/7/12 Buccaneer Glyphosate Weed control 2pts/acre 4/27/12 Procure 480sc Triflumizole Powdery Mildew 8oz/acre 4/27/12 Micronized Sulfur Sulphur Powdery Mildew 4lbs/acre 5/22/12 Quintec Quinoxyfen Powdery Mildew 5oz/acre 5/22/12 Kumuls Sulfur Sulphur Powdery Mildew 4lbs/acre 5/28/12 Buccaneer Glyphosate Weed control 2pts/acre 6/9/12 Pristine Pyraclostrobin/Broscalid Mildew/Botrytis 18.5oz/acre 6/9/12 Kumuls Sulfur Sulphur Powdery Mildew 3lbs/acre 6/9/12 Sylgard 309 Polytheylene Glycol Diacetate Silicone Surfactant 1oz/acre 7/24/12 Rely 280 Glufosinate-Ammonium Weed control 70oz/acre 8/1/12 Applaud 70f Buprofezin Insect growth regulator 12oz/acre 8/21/12 Flint Trifloxystrobin Powdery Mildew 3oz/acre 8/21/12 Sylgard 309 Polytheylene Glycol Diacetate Silicone Surfactant 3oz/acre

2013

Table B-10. Upchurch 2013 spray records. Date(s) Product Trade Applied Name Active Ingredient Reason for Usage Amount 3/29/13 Buccaneer Glyphosate Weed control 2qts/acre 5/26/13 Procure 480sc Triflumizole Powdery Mildew 8oz/acre 5/26/13 Kumulus DF sulfur Powdery Mildew 3lbs/acre 6/1/13 Buccaneer Glyphosate Weed control 2qts/acre 6/24/13 Pristine Pyraclostrobin/ broscalid Botrytis 23oz/acre 6/24/13 Kumulus DF sulfur Powdery Mildew 3lbs/acre 7/20/13 Applaud 70f Buprofezin Insect growth regulator 12oz/acre 7/31/13 Quintec Quinoxyfen Powdery Mildew 5oz/acre 7/31/13 Kumulus DF sulfur Powdery Mildew 3lbs/acre 8/12/13 Rely280 Glufosinate Weed control 70oz/acre

132

Walla Walla Vineyards

Seven Hills

2011

Table B-11. Seven Hills 2011 spray records. Date Product Use Acres Appl. Rate Total total treated Method per acre 5/18/11 Omni Supreme Oil Insecticide 3.6 3.6 Foliar 0.29 gal 1.04 gal 5/31/11 Omni Supreme Oil Insecticide 3.6 3.6 Foliar 0.25 gal 0.9 gal 7/1/11 Break Thru Adjuvant 3.6 3.6 Foliar 0.85 fl oz 3.06 fl oz 7/1/11 Pristine Fungicide 3.6 3.6 Foliar 10.56 oz 38.02 oz 7/11/11 Quintec Fungicide 3.6 3.6 Foliar 3 fl oz 10.8 fl oz 8/2/11 Microthiol Fungicide 3.6 3.6 Foliar 2.85 lb 10.26 lb 8/9/11 Microthiol Fungicide 3.6 3.6 Foliar 2.99 lb 10.76 lb

133

2012

Table B-12. Seven Hills 2012 spray records. Date Pesticide Sprayed Rate 4/7/12 Round up 1.5 Gallons/ 100 Gallons 4/21/12 JMS Stylet oil 10 Quarts/ 100 Gallons 5/8/12 JMS Stylet oil 1.5 Gallons/ 100 Gallons 5/8/12 Stride 40 WSP 10 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 5/8/12 Stimplex 4 Pints/ 100 Gallons 5/8/12 Can-17 2.4 Gallons/ Acre 5/15/12 Quintec 6 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 5/15/12 JMS Stylet oil 1.5 Gallons/ 100 Gallons 5/16/12 Di-Kap 15 Pounds/ 100 Gallons 5/16/12 Mainstay 10 Gallons/ 100 Gallons 5/21/12 Can-17 2.4 Gallons/ Acre 5/21/12 Dextrose 3 Pounds/ Acre 5/25/12 Vivando 30.8 Ounces/100 Gallons 5/25/12 Acadian 0.5 Pounds/ 100 Gallons 5/25/12 Versatile Zinc 2 Quarts/ 100 Gallons 5/25/12 Pro natural multi mineral 2 Quarts/ 100 Gallons 5/25/12 JMS Stylet Oil 1.5 Gallons/ 100 Gallons 5/25/12 Break Thru 4 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 6/11/12 Di-Kap 4 Pounds/ 100 Gallons 6/11/12 Triplex Magnesium 1 Pound/100 Gallons 6/11/12 Triplex Zinc 1 Pound/100 Gallons 6/11/12 Triplex Boron 2 Pounds/ 100 Gallons 6/11/12 Triplex Micro 1 Pound/100 Gallons 6/11/12 Triplex Supra 3 Pints/ 100 Gallons 6/11/12 Pristine 25 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 6/11/12 Genesis SB-56 4 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 6/27/12 Stimplex 4 Pints/ 100 Gallons 6/27/12 Vivando 20 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 6/27/12 Stylet oil 1 Gallon/ Acre 7/16/12 Quintec 6.67 Ounces/ 100 Gallons 7/16/12 In Place 2 Ounces/ 100 Gallons

134

2013

Table B-13. Seven Hills 2013 spray records. Date Product Active ingrediatnt Rate Reason 2/15/2013 Credit 41 Glyphosate 2.50% Weeds 4/1/2013 Credit 41 Glyphosate 2.00% Weeds 4/25/2013 JMS Stylet Oil Oil 1.50% Mildew prevention 4/25/2013 Grandevo Bacteria(see label) 2lbs/acre Mites 5/9/2013 JMS Stylet Oil Oil 1.50% Mildew prevention 5/9/2013 Grandevo Bacteria(see label) 2lbs/acre Mites 5/20/2013 Quintec Quinoxyfen 6.6oz/acre Mildew prevention 5/20/2013 JMS Stylet Oil Oil 1.50% Mildew prevention 5/20/2013 R-11 See Label .12qt/acre Surfactant 6/1/2013 Gly Star Glyphosate 1.50% Weeds 6/12/2013 Pristine See Label 12oz/Acre Mildew prevention 6/12/2013 R-11 See Label .12qt/acre Surfactant 6/30/2013 Break Thru See Label Surfactant 6/30/2013 Vivando metrafenone 15.4oz/Acre Mildew prevention

River Rock

2011

Not applicable

2012

“(The) only pesticide I used all season was Provado (in) mid-July. (The) rest used were only fungicides.” – River Rock owner

2013

“The only insecticide(s) used were Provado, sulfur, stylel oil, Rally Fungicide, and

Vivando Fungicide.” – River Rock owner

135

Woodward Canyon

2011

Table B-14. Woodward Canyon 2011 spray records. Date(s) Reason for Amount Product Trade Name Active Ingredient Applied Useage (Units/Acre) Pronatural Organic 6/3/11 Sulfur Powdery Mildew 3 oz/acre Sulfur 6/14/11 to ditto ditto ditto ditto 6/15/11 6/27/11 ditto ditto ditto ditto Potassium salts of fatty 3% mix at 32 7/13/11 M-Pede leafhopper acids gal/acre Pronatural Organic 7/16/11 Sulfur Powdery Mildew 3 oz/acre Sulfur Potassium salts of fatty 4% mix at 32 7/20/11 M-Pede leafhopper acids gal/acre 8/3/11 to Venom Dinotefuran leafhopper 3 oz/acre 8/4/11 8/9/11 Pristine Pyraclostrobin/Boscalid Powdery Mildew 12 oz/acre

Pronatural Organic 8/19/11 Sulfur Powdery Mildew 3 oz/acre Sulfur

2012

Table B-15. Woodward Canyon 2012 spray records. Active Reason for Date(s) Applied Product Trade Name Amount Ingredient Useage

5/10/12-5/18/12 Pronatural Organic Sulfur R-56 Sulfur Powdery Mildew 3 oz/acre 5/25/12-5/30/12 ditto ditto ditto ditto 6/11/12-6/15/12 ditto ditto ditto ditto 6/27/12-6/29/12 Pronatural Organic Sulfur R-56 Sulfur Powdery Mildew 3 oz/acre

7/10/12-7/25/12 Pronatural Organic Sulfur R-56 ditto ditto ditto ditto Venom Dinotefuran leafhopper 3 oz/acre Pyraclostrobin/ 7/18/12-7/22/12 Pristine, R-11 Powdery Mildew 12 oz/acre Boscalid

8/5/12-8/9/12 Pronatural Organic Sulfur R-11 Sulfur Powdery Mildew 3 oz/acre

136

2013

Table B-16. Woodward Canyon 2013 spray records. Active Date(s) Applied Product Trade Name Reason for Useage Amount Ingredient Wilbur Ellis Golden micronized 5/14/13 to 5/15/13 Sulfur Powdery mildew 3 oz/ac sulfur & R-11 Wilbur Ellis Golden micronized 5/25/13 to 5/29/13 Sulfur Powdery mildew 3 oz/ac sulfur & R-11

6/4/13 to 6/6/13 Procure 480 SC & R-11 Triflumizol Powdery mildew 6 oz/ac

Wilbur Ellis Golden micronized 6/28/13 to 7/1/13 Sulfur Powdery mildew 3 oz/ac sulfur & R-11 Wilbur Ellis Golden micronized 7/22/13 to 7/27/13 Sulfur Powdery mildew 3 oz/ac sulfur & R-11

137

APPENDIX C NATIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH YEARS TRAPPED

This table includes all plant species trapped during the three year study, along with their common names, the symbol for that species used in the USDA PLANTS Database, and what years they were trapped. Trapping depended on availability of the plant species from year to year, and where it could be located, as well as previous results of its attractiveness to beneficial insects. Plant species found to be very low in attractiveness were often only trapped one year.

Table C-1. Native plant species with years trapped Plant Species Common Name USDA Symbol 2011 2012 2013 Achillea millefolium Yarrow ACMI2 X X X Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed ACRE3 X X X Agastache occidentalis Western giant hyssop AGOC X X X Alyssum alyssoides Pale madwort ALAL3 X Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry AMAL2 X X X Anaphalis margaritacea Western pearly everlasting ANMA X X X Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane APAN2 X X Arnica sororia Twin arnica ARSO2 X Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush ARTR2 X X X Asclepias fascicularis Mexican whorled milkweed ASFA X X Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed ASSP X X X Astragalus caricinus Buckwheat milkvetch ASCA12 X Astragalus purshii Woollypod milkvetch ASPU9 X Astragalus reventiformis Yakima milkvetch ASRE6 X X X Astragalus sclerocarpus Woodypod milkvetch ASSC6 X X Astragalus succumbens Columbia milkvetch ASSU7 X X X Balsamorhiza careyana Carey's balsamroot BACA3 X X X Balsamorhiza hookeri Hooker's balsamroot BAHO X X Balsamorhiza rosea Rosy balsamroot BARO2 X X Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot BASA3 X Calendula sp. Pot Marigold CALEN X Cardaria draba Whitetop CADR X X X Carex socialis Low woodland sedge CARO X Ceanothus Ceanothus CEANO X X Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle CESO3 X Centranthus ruber Red valerian CERU2 X Chaenactis douglasii Douglas' dustymaiden CHDO X X X Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed CHAN9 X X X Chorispora tenella Crossflower, Blue Mustard CHTE2 X X Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Green rabbitbrush CHVI8 X X X

138

Table C-1. Continued Plant Species Common Name USDA Symbol 2011 2012 2013 Clematis ligusticifolia Western white clematis CLLI2 X X X Control Control X X X Crataegus douglasii Black hawthorn CRDO2 X X X Crepis atribarba Slender hawksbeard CRAT X X X Crepis modocensis Modoc hawksbeard CRMO4 X X Crocidium multicaule Common spring-gold CRMU X X Dalea ornata Blue Mountain prairie clover DAOR2 X X X Daucus carota Wild carrot DAUCU X Delphinium nuttallianum Twolobe larkspur DENU2 X Descurainia pinnata Western tansymustard DEPI X Dipsacus fullonum Fuller's teasel DIFU2 X Draba verna Whitlow grass DRVE2 X Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive ELAN X X X Ericameria nauseosa Gray rabbitbrush ERNA10 X X X Erigeron filifolius Threadleaf fleabane ERFI2 X X X Erigeron linearis Desert yellow fleabane ERLI X X X Erigeron piperianus Piper's fleabane ERPI3 X Erigeron poliospermus Purple cushion fleabane ERPO2 X X X Erigeron pumilus Shaggy fleabane ERPU2 X X X Erigeron speciosus Aspen fleabane ERSP4 X X X Eriogonum compositum Arrowleaf buckwheat ERCO12 X X X Eriogonum douglasii Douglas' buckwheat ERDO X X X Eriogonum elatum Tall wooly buckwheat EREL5 X X X Eriogonum heracleoides Parsnipflower buckwheat ERHE2 X X X Eriogonum microthecum Slender buckwheat ERMI4 X X X Eriogonum niveum Snow buckwheat ERNI2 X X X Eriogonum sphaerocephalum Rock buckwheat ERSP7 X X X Eriogonum strictum Blue Mountain buckwheat ERST4 X X X Eriogonum thymoides Thymeleaf buckwheat ERTH4 X X X Eriogonum umbellatum Sulphur-flower buckwheat ERUM X X X Eriophyllum lanatum Common woolly sunflower ERLA6 X X X Erodium cicutarium Redstem stork's bill ERCI6 X X Erysimum capitatum Sandune wallflower ERCAC X X X Euthamia occidentalis Western goldenrod EUOC4 X Frasera albicaulis Whitestem frasera FRALA X X Gaillardia aristata Blanketflower GAAR X X Helianthus sp. Sunflower HELIA3 X X Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray HODI X X X Hymenopappus filifolius Fineleaf hymenopappus HYFI X X X Hypericum perforatum Common St. Johnswort HYPE X

139

Table C-1. Continued Plant Species Common Name USDA Symbol 2011 2012 2013 Iris missouriensis Rocky Mountain iris IRMI X X Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed LELA2 X X X Ligustrum sp. Privet LIGUS2 X Lomatium columbianum Purple leptotaenia LOCO X X Lomatium gormanii Gorma's biscuitroot LOGO X Lomatium grayii Gray's biscuitroot LOGR X X X Lomatium macrocarpum Bigseed biscuitroot LOMA3 X Lomatium nudicaule Barestem biscuitroot LONU2 X X Lotus unifoliolatus American bird's-foot trefoil LOUN X Lupinus lepidus Pacific Lupine LULE2 X X X Lupinus saxosus Rock lupine LUSA2 X X

Lupinus spp. Lupine X X X Machaeranthera canescens Hoary tansyaster MACA2 X X Mahonia aquifolium Oregon grape MAAQ2 X X X Medicago sativa Alfalfa MESA X X X Melilotus officinalis Sweetclover MEOF X X Mentha spicata Spearmint MESP3 X Mentzelia laevicaulis Smoothstem blazingstar MELA2 X X X Monardella odoratissima Mountain monardella MOOD X X Nepeta cataria Catnip NEPET X X X Oenothera pallida Pale evening primrose OEPA X X Opuntia polyacantha Plains pricklypear OPPO X Penstemon attenuatus Sulphur penstemon PEAT3 X X X Penstemon fruticiformis Death Valley beardtongue PEFR2 X X Penstemon gairdneri Gairdner's beardtongue PEGA X Penstemon glandulosus Stickystem penstemon PEGL4 X Penstemon humilis Low beardtongue PEHU X Penstemon pruinosus Chelan beardtongue PEPR3 X X Penstemon richardsonii Cutleaf beardtongue PERI X Penstemon speciosus Royal penstemon PESP X

Penstemon spp. Penstemon X X Phacelia hastata Silverleaf phacelia PHHA X X X Philadelphus lewisii Lewis' mock orange PHLE4 X X X Phlox hoodii Spiny phlox PHHO X X Phlox longifolia Longleaf phlox PHLOL2 X X X Phlox speciosa Showy phlox PHSP X X X Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides Wallflower phoenicaulis PHCH X X Prunus emarginata Bittercherry PREM X Prunus virginiana Chokecherry PRVI X X X Pteryxia terebinthina Turpentine wavewing PTTET X X

140

Table C-1. Continued Plant Species Common Name USDA Symbol 2011 2012 2013 Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush PUTR2 X X X Rhus glabra Smooth sumac RHGL X X Ribes aureum Golden currant RIAU X X X Ribes cereum Wax currant RICE X X X Rosa woodsii Wood's rose ROWO X X X Rumex venosus Veiny dock RUVE2 X Salix exigua Narrowleaf willow SAEX X X Salvia dorrii Purple sage SADO4 X X X Sambucus nigra Black elderberry SANI4 X X X Sisymbrium altissimum Tall tumblemustard SIAL2 X Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod SOCA6 X X X Sphaeralcea munroana Munro's globemallow SPMU2 X X X Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion TAOF X Tragopogon dubius Yellow salsify TRDU X Trifolium macrocephalum Largehead clover TRMA3 X X Triteleia grandiflora Largeflower triteleia TRGR7 X Urtica dioica Stinging nettle URDI X X X Viburnum dentatum Southern arrowwood VIDE X X Vicia villosa Winter vetch VIVI X X X Viola trinervata Rainier violet VITR3 X X Zigadenus venenosus Meadow deathcamas ZIVE X X

141

APPENDIX D NATIVE PLANT TRAP TOTALS AND LOCATIONS

This is a complete list of all plant species trapped, along with the number of traps from that species, and all locations at which the species was trapped. Location abbreviation meanings and map of locations are in Appendix E.

Table D-1. Native plant trap totals and locations Plant Species Traps Locations Achillea millefolium 231 Beers Rd, BFI Native Seeds, H 10, HR Airfield, McBee, Satus, SMR, White Heron, WWC Acroptilon repens 15 Beers Rd, HR Agastache occidentalis 36 SMR, WWC Alyssum alyssoides 3 SMR Amelanchier alnifolia 21 1600 YGR,SMR, WWC Anaphalis margaritacea 30 Bethel Ridge, Satus Apocynum androsaemifolium 27 Satus Arnica sororia 3 SMR Artemisia tridentata 174 1600 YGR, Beers Rd, HR, Red Mtn, SMR, Snipes Rd Asclepias fascicularis 12 Satus, SMR, Wishram Asclepias speciosa 111 Beers Rd, BP, H 11, HR, Moxee Bog, Satus, SMR, WWC Astragalus caricinus 18 HR Airfield, McBee, Red Mtn Astragalus purshii 3 McBee Astragalus reventiformis 21 SMR, WWC Astragalus sclerocarpus 18 HR Astragalus succumbens 27 HR, McBee, Red Mtn Balsamorhiza careyana 93 1600 YGR, McBee, Red Mtn, SMR, White Heron, WWC Balsamorhiza hookeri 12 SMR Balsamorhiza rosea 9 McBee Balsamorhiza sagittata 6 WWC Calendula sp. 3 Seven Hills Habitat Cardaria draba 24 HR, SMR Carex socialis 6 Beers Rd Ceanothus 9 Dobson, Satus Centaurea solstitialis 3 Woodward Rd Centranthus ruber 9 Beers Rd Chaenactis douglasii 72 BFI Native Seeds, HR, McBee, Satus, SMR, WWC Chamerion angustifolium 24 Satus Chorispora tenella 12 SMR Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 78 Beers Rd, Burbank, HR, SMR Clematis ligusticifolia 141 BP, HR, Moxee Bog, SMR, WWC

142

Table D-1. Continued Plant Species Traps Locations Control 1161 Beers Rd, Bethel Ridge, BFI Native Seeds, BP, Burbank, Ciel du Cheval, H 10, H 11, Harris Rd, HR, HR Airfield, HR River, McBee, McNary, Moxee Bog, Red Mtn, Satus, Seven Hills, Habitat, SMR, White Heron, WWC Cornus sericea 6 Beers Rd, SMR Crataegus douglasii 9 SMR, WWC Crepis atribarba 24 McBee, WWC Crepis modocensis 18 Red Mtn, SMR Crocidium multicaule 9 SMR Dalea ornata 21 HR Daucus carota 3 Beers Rd Delphinium nuttallianum 3 SMR Descurainia pinnata 3 HR Dipsacus fullonum 9 Moxee Bog Draba verna 3 SMR Elaeagnus angustifolia 24 Beers Rd Ericameria nauseosa 117 Beers Rd, BP, Burbank, HR, McNary, SMR Erigeron filifolius 57 BFI Native Seeds, HR Airfield, McBee Erigeron linearis 66 H 10, SMR, White Heron, WWC Erigeron piperianus 3 White Heron Erigeron poliospermus 36 Red Mtn, SMR, White Heron Erigeron pumilus 27 McBee, SMR, White Heron Erigeron speciosus 22 H 10, H 11 Eriogonum compositum 66 McNary, Satus, SMR, WWC Eriogonum douglasii 36 H 11, SMR Eriogonum elatum 93 Satus, SMR, WWC Eriogonum heracleoides 69 BFI Native Seeds, H 10, Satus, SMR Eriogonum microthecum 21 Red Mtn, SMR Eriogonum niveum 99 Beers Rd, Burbank, H 10, HR, McNary Eriogonum sphaerocephalum 93 Beers Rd, H 11, Red Mtn Eriogonum strictum 42 SMR, WWC Eriogonum thymoides 36 H 11, SMR, White Heron Eriogonum umbellatum 81 BFI Native Seeds, H 10, H 11 Eriophyllum lanatum 39 McBee, SMR Erodium cicutarium 9 SMR Erysimum capitatum 27 HR Euthamia occidentalis 12 H 11, Moxee Bog Frasera albicaulis 15 Satus Gaillardia aristata 51 Beers Rd, H 11, Wishram Helianthus sp. 21 White Heron, Wishram, Woodward Rd Holodiscus discolor 39 Satus, SMR, WWC

143

Table D-1. Continued Plant Species Traps Locations Hymenopappus filifolius 33 HR Hypericum perforatum 3 Satus Iris missouriensis 6 SMR Lepidium latifolium 18 Beers Rd, HR, Moxee Bog Ligustrum sp. 3 Moxee Bog Lomatium columbianum 12 SMR Lomatium gormanii 9 Red Mtn Lomatium grayii 27 SMR, WWC Lomatium macrocarpum 6 SMR Lomatium nudicaule 15 SMR Lotus unifoliolatus 3 Satus Lupinus lepidus 33 SMR, WWC Lupinus saxosus 6 SMR Lupinus spp. 51 McBee, Red Mtn, Satus Machaeranthera canescens 24 Beers Rd, HR, McNary Mahonia aquifolium 12 SMR Medicago sativa 30 Beers Rd, BP Melilotus officinalis 15 Beers Rd, Red Mtn Mentha spicata 9 Moxee Bog Mentzelia laevicaulis 36 HR Monardella odoratissima 8 Bethel Ridge, H 10, Roza Nepeta cataria 27 Beers Rd, Moxee Bog Oenothera pallida 18 HR, HR Airfield Opuntia polyacantha 15 Beers Rd, HR Penstemon attenuatus 36 H 11 Penstemon fruticiformis 18 H 10, H 11 Penstemon gairdneri 6 WWC Penstemon glandulosus 3 McBee Penstemon humilis 3 BFI Native Seeds Penstemon pruinosus 21 H 10 Penstemon richardsonii 3 SMR Penstemon speciosus 6 SMR Penstemon spp. 15 McBee, McNary, SMR Phacelia hastata 39 1600 YGR, HR, Satus, White Heron, WWC Philadelphus lewisii 42 Benton City BL, McNary, Satus, SMR, WWC Phlox hoodii 12 SMR Phlox longifolia 66 BFI Native Seeds, HR, McBee, Red Mtn Phlox speciosa 33 SMR, WWC Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides 6 SMR Prunus emariginata 3 SMR Prunus virginiana 15 SMR, WWC

144

Table D-1. Continued Plant Species Traps Locations Pteryxia terebinthina 18 HR Purshia tridentata 57 1600 YGR, Beers Rd, HR, Satus, SMR, WWC Rhus glabra 6 BP Ribes aureum 48 Beers Rd, HR, HR River, SMR, WWC Ribes cereum 21 1600 YGR, SMR Rosa woodsii 66 HR, McNary, Satus, Seven Hills Habitat, SMR, WWC Rumex venosus 6 Harris Rd, HR Salix exigua 33 BP, Ciel du Cheval, HR, McNary Salvia dorrii 57 HR, McNary, Red Mtn, SMR Sambucus nigra 36 Moxee Bog, SMR, WWC Sisymbrium altissimum 3 Beers Rd Solidago canadensis 54 Beers Rd, HR, Moxee Bog, Satus, SMR Sphaeralcea munroana 99 Beers Rd, BP, H 11, HR Airfield, Red Mtn, SMR Taraxicum officinale 6 SMR Tragopogon dubius 3 McBee Trifolium macrocephalum 9 SMR Triteleia grandiflora 6 Red Mtn Urtica dioica 180 BP, HR, Moxee Bog Viburnum dentatum 12 Beers Rd Vicia villosa 24 Beers Rd, H 11 Viola trinervata 6 SMR Zigadenus venenosus 6 SMR

145

APPENDIX E NATIVE PLANT TRAP LOCATIONS

Table of Location Abbreviations and Meanings

This table shows the abbreviated names of native habitat locations, along with their full name and nearest town information, GPS cooridinates, and any notes on the use of the sites within the location. Some locations had multiple sites which corresponded to areas in which plant species of interest were found.

Table E-1. Location Abbreviations and Meanings Abbreviation Location GPS Coordinates Notes 1600 YGR 1600 Young Grade Road, 46°39'43.83"N Yakima, WA 98908 120°39'9.50"W Beers Rd Beers Road, Prosser, WA This location is a complex of 99350 46°14'47.35"N several different sites along the 119°41'5.74"W same road.

Benton City BL Benton City Recreation Area and Boat Launch, 46°15'13.84"N 1st St, Benton City, WA 119°28'29.85"W Bethel Ridge Bethel Ridge Rd, Naches, 46°45'1.46"N WA 98937 120°50'44.99"W BFI Native BFI Native Seeds Farm, 47°1'41.78"N Seeds Warden, WA 119°0'10.44"W http://www.bfinativeseeds.com BP Intersection of Biggam Road and Pioneer Road, 46°14'25.90"N Prosser, WA 119°42'56.02"W

Burbank US Army Corps of Engineers area, W. 46°13'23.88"N Sunset Dr, Burbank, WA 118°59'48.48"W Ciel du Cheval Ciel du Cheval Vineyard, 46°16'52.62"N Red Mountain habitat vineyard Benton City, WA 119°26'57.57"W Dobson Klickitat Canyon Lyle/Dalles habitat vineyard Vineyard, 6 Lyle Snowden 45°42'55.14"N Road, Lyle, WA 98635 121°17'35.53"W

H 10 Research site at WSU 46°15'9.70"N IAREC Prosser 119°44'26.85"W H 11 Research site at WSU 46°15'2.86"N IAREC Prosser 119°44'25.17"W Harris Road Harris Rd, Pasco, WA 46°16'21.30"N 99301 119°13'51.55"W HR Horn Rapids County Park This location is a complex of 46°22'50.01"N several different sites within the 119°25'57.35"W same state park.

HR Airfield Site near model airplane airfield in Horn Rapids 46°21'50.87"N County Park 119°26'38.01"W

146

Table E-1. Continued Abbreviation Location GPS Coordinates Notes McBee McBee Road, Benton This location is a complex of City, WA 46°14'36.99"N several different sites along the 119°30'27.36"W same road.

McNary WLR McNary Wildlife Refuge, 46°12'5.93"N Burbank, WA 118°59'34.82"W Moxee Bog Moxee Bog Preserve, 46°32'17.82"N http://www.conservationregistry.or Thorp Rd, Moxee, WA 120°26'46.72"W g/projects/4603 Red Mtn Red Mountain, northeast 46°17'50.83"N of Benton City, WA 119°26'21.63"W Roza Roza Research Farm, For MOOD only, 2013 46°17'39.56"N WSU IAREC Prosser, 119°44'36.45"W WA Satus Box Canyon Road, near Satus Pass along Hwy 45°55'14.44"N 97, Goldendale, WA 120°40'56.83"W

Seven Hills Restored habitat area at Habitat Seven Hills Vineyard, 45°56'44.43"N Milton-Freewater, OR 118°26'57.69"W SMR Snow Mountain Ranch, 46°39'35.06"N Cowiche Mill Road, near http://www.wta.org/go- Yakima, WA 120°45'14.33"W hiking/hikes/snow-mountain-ranch Snipes Rd Snipes Road, Prosser, 46°18'24.19"N For ARTR only WA 99350 119°46'47.14"W White Heron Rock garden' area, White 47°14'10.93"N Heron Cellars, Quincy, 119°59'52.44"W WA Wishram Site at Wishram, WA exit 45°39'59.85"N along Hwy 14 120°56'31.07"W Woodward Rd Woodward Canyon Road, 46°6'9.01"N Touchet, WA 118°34'50.14"W WWC Mt. Clemen-Waterworks 46°45'1.27"N Canyon Trail, Hiway 410, http://www.everytrail.com/guide/mt near Naches, WA 120°47'53.16"W -clemen-waterworks-canyon

147

Map of Locations

Figure E-1. Native habitat locations. See Table E-1 for meaning of name abbreviations and location data.

Figure E-2. Prosser and Tri-cities subset of native habitat locations. See Table E-1 for meaning of name abbreviations and location data.

148

Aerial Photos of Selected Locations

Figure E-3. Beers Road, Prosser, WA native plant trap location example from 2014.

149

Figure E-4. Horn Rapids County Park, Benton City, WA native plant trap location example. A) HR Boat Launch site. B) HR Upper Elevation site.

150

Photos of Selected Locations

A B

Figure E-5. McBee Road, Benton City, WA native plant sites. A) McBee Lower Elevation site on April 15, 2013 with Phlox drummondii blooming. B) McBee Middle Elevation site on June 18, 2012 with Gerry Lauby and a sagebrush mariposa lily ( Calochortus macrocarpus ) blooming. C) McBee Upper Elevation site on May 28, 2013.

151

A B

Figure E-7. Satus Pass native plant site on Box Canyon Road, Goldendale, WA on June 12, A) 2012 and B) 2013.

152

APPENDIX F NATIVE PLANT BLOOM CHART

This chart indicates the period of bloom for most of the plant species in the study.

A few species were only trapped once, and were removed for lack of data about their bloom period. Some species are known to bloom at different times of the year depending on elevation (examples include Erigeron speciosus , Eriogonum microthecum , Erigonum umbellatum and Sphaeralcea munroana which bloomed as much as 2 months later at higher elevations than at lower elevations.) Time of bloom was also known to occur at slightly different time depending on the year. Degree day models appear to predict at least some of the species bloom time (unpublished data, G.

Lauby). Lighter violet is approximate beginning and ending of the bloom and darker violet indicates the approximate peak of bloom.

Species April May June July August September October Viola trinervata Ribes aureum Lomatium columbianum Lomatium gormanii Phoenicaulis cheiranthoides Ribes cereum Balsamorhiza hookeri Rumex venosus Lupinus saxosus Pteryxia terebinthina Astragalus succumbens Phlox hoodii Astragalus sclerocarpus Balsamorhiza rosea Phlox longifolia Crocidium multicaule Lomatium macrocarpum Erodium cicutarium Erysimum capitatum Trifolium macrocephalum Balsamorhiza careyana Lomatium nudicaule Phlox speciosa Balsamorhiza sagittata Lomatium grayii Taraxicum officinale Astragalus reventiformis Triteleia grandiflora Mahonia aquifolium Figure F-1. Native plant bloom chart.

153

Species April May June July August September October Erigeron poliospermus Amelanchier alnifolia Lupinus lepidus Astragalus caricinus Purshia tridentata Crepis modocensis Eriogonum thymoides Salix exigua Crataegus douglasii Eriogonum douglasii Cornus sericea Penstemon pruinosus Phacelia hastata Penstemon fruticiformis Erigeron linearis Penstemon attenuatus Penstemon gairdneri Dalea ornata Penstemon speciosus Prunus virginiana Lupinus spp. Salvia dorii Erigeron pumilus Crepis atribarba Zigadenus venenosus Oenothera pallida Cardaria draba Iris missouriensis Chorispora tenella Agastache occidentalis Elaeagnus angustifolia Opuntia polyacantha Eriogonum sphaerocephalum Hymenopappus filifolius Ceanothus Rosa w oodsii Eriophyllum lanatum Erigeron filifolius Frasera albicaulis Eriogonum compositum Eriogonum strictum Achillea millefolium Sphaeralcea munroana Viburnum dentatum Eriogonum umbellatum Medicago sativa Chaenactis douglasii Eriogonum heracleoides Sambucus nigra Centranthus ruber Nepeta cataria Erigeron speciosus Rhus glabra Lepidium latifolium Philadelphus lew isii Eriogonum microthecum Asclepias speciosa Asclepias fascicularis Holodiscus discolor Vicia villosa Mentzelia laevicaulis Clematis ligusticifolia Figure F-1. Continued

154

Species April May June July August September October Melilotus officinalis Dipsacus fullonum Gaillardia aristata Acroptilon repens Helianthus Urtica dioica Anaphalis margaritacea Eriogonum elatum Apocynum androsaemifolium Solidago canadensis Chamerion angustifolium Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Euthamia occidentalis Mentha spicata Machaeranthera canescens Eriogonum niveum Monardella odoratissima Ericameria nauseosa Artemisia tridentata Figure F-1. Continued

155

APPENDIX G NATIVE PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HABITAT RESTORATION

This chart is for use in determining what plant species may be best used for sagebrush steppe habitat restoration in eastern Washington.

An “*” next to a species indicates non-native, naturalized. Noxious weed species are denoted by a “**” and should not be used in habitat restoration, and may necessitate eradication.

In insect categories, the numbers represent for how many months that plant was significantly better than the control. For example, a “3” indicates that in three different months that insect category was significantly different from the control. A “*” in “Bloom

Period” indicates that plant was significantly better than the control in at least one insect category in that month.

Extreme dry, sandy site plants are those found amongst the Horn Rapids sand dunes. Dry site plants include those found at Horn Rapids Airfield, Red Mountain and

White Heron sites, although it should be noted that most species on this list are adapted to low precipitation conditions common in eastern Washington. Higher elevation plants are those found at Satus Pass and Snow Mountain Ranch sites, which are both just above 2500 feet. These are all indicated with a “1”. Vegetation types included forbs/herbs (F), shrubs (S), trees (T) and vines (V). Duration indicated annual (A), biennial (B) or perennial (P) status.

156

Insect Groups Bloom Period Other Total Beneficials Total Diversity Beneficials of Bees Butterflies Lacewings LadyBugs Predatory Bugs Flies Pollinating Predatory & Predatory Thrips Braconids & Ichneumonids CoccophagusMetaphycus & May June July September October DrySites Dry,Extreme Sandy Elevation Higher Type Vegetation Duration Plant Species Anagrus April August Achillea millefolium 5533 1 43432***** 1 1FP Acroptilon repens** 1 1 1 1 * * F P Agastache occidentalis 221 1 21 ** 1FP Alyssum alyssoides* 1 1 * 1 F AB Amelanchier alnifolia 2 * * 1 ST P Anaphalis margaritacea 221 1 13131 *** 1FP Apocynum androsaemifolium 2313411113 **** 1FP Arnica sororia 1 F P Artemisia tridentata 222 11 2 ** 1STP Asclepias fascicularis 22 111212 ** 1FP Asclepias speciosa 3213241321 **** 1FP Astragalus caricinus 1 F P Astragalus purshii FP Astragalus reventiformis 1 1 1 * 1 F P Astragalus sclerocarpus 1 1 * 1 F P Astragalus succumbens 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 F P Balsamorhiza careyana 1 1 2 * * 1 1 F P Balsamorhiza hookeri 1 * 1 F P Balsamorhiza rosea FP Balsamorhiza sagittata 1 * FP Calendula sp.* FA Cardaria draba** 2 2 2 2 2 * * 1 F P Carex socialis* GP Ceanothus sp. 1 1 * ST P Centaurea solstitialis** FA Centranthus ruber* 1 * F P Chaenactis douglasii 32 11111111 *** 11FAB Chamerion angustifolium 322 11121 *** 1FP Chorispora tenella* 1 F A Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 32 1 231 ***11STP Clematis ligusticifolia 222 113 *** 1VP Cornus sericea 1 * 1 ST P Crataegus douglasii 1 ST P Crepis atribarba 2 1 2 1 * * F P Crepis modocensis 1 F P Crocidium multicaule 1 * 1 F A Dalea ornata 1 * 1 F P Daucus carota** 1 *FB Delphinium nuttallianum 1 F P Descurainia pinnata 1 F ABP Dipsacus fullonum** 1 1 1 1 2 * * F B Draba verna* 1 * 1 F A Elaeagnus angustifolia** 1 1 1 1 1 1 * ST P Ericameria nauseosa 331 1 2 22 *** 11STP Erigeron filifolius 321 1 11111 *** 1 FP Erigeron linearis 1 1 1 1 * * 1 1 F P Erigeron piperianus 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 F P Erigeron poliospermus 1 * 1 1 F P Erigeron pumilus 1 1 1 * * 1 1 F P Figure G-1. Native plant recommendations for habitat restoration.

157

Insect Groups Bloom Period Other

Plant Species Total Beneficials Total DiversityBeneficials of Bees Butterflies Lacewings Lady Bugs Predatory Bugs Flies Pollinating Predatory & Predatory Thrips Braconids & Ichneumonids CoccophagusMetaphycus & May June July September October Dry Sites Dry,Extreme Sandy Elevation Higher Type Vegetation Duration Anagrus April August Erigeron speciosus 1 1 * * F P Eriogonum compositum 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 * * 1 F P Eriogonum douglasii 1 1 1 1 * * 1 F P Eriogonum elatum 4 3 3 3 4 3 * * * * 1 F P Eriogonum heracleoides 2 1 2 2 1 1 * * 1 F P Eriogonum microthecum 1 1 * * 1 F P Eriogonum niveum 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 * * * 1 F P Eriogonum sphaerocephalum 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 * * F P Eriogonum strictum 2 2 1 1 2 * * 1 F P Eriogonum thymoides 1 1 1 * 1 1 F P Eriogonum umbellatum 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 2 * * * * * * F P Eriophyllum lanatum 2 2 2 1 * * 1 F AP Erodium cicutarium* 1 * 1 F AB Erysimum capitatum 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 F BP Euthamia occidentalis 1 1 2 1 * * F P Frasera albicaulis 1 1 1 * * 1 F P Gaillardia aristata 2 1 4 1 4 1 * * * * * F P Helianthus sp. 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 * * F P Holodiscus discolor 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 * * 1 S P Hymenopappus filifolius 2 2 1 1 2 * * 1 F P Hypericum perforatum** 1 F P Iris missouriensis 1 1 * 1 F P Lepidium latifolium** 2 2 * * F P Ligustrum sp.* 1 * S P Lomatium columbianum 1 * 1 F P Lomatium gormanii 1 * F P Lomatium grayii 1 * 1 F P Lomatium macrocarpum 1 F P Lomatium nudicaule 1 F P Lotus unifoliolatus 1 F A Lupinus lepidus 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 F P Lupinus saxosus 1 F P Lupinus spp. 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 * * * 1 F P Machaeranthera canescens 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 F ABP Mahonia aquifolium 1 * 1 S P Medicago sativa* 2 1 2 1 2 2 * * F AP Melilotus officinalis* 1 1 2 * * F ABP Mentha spicata* F P Mentzelia laevicaulis 1 * 1 F BP Monardella odoratissima 1 1 * F P Nepeta cataria* 2 1 2 4 3 3 * * * * * * F P Oenothera pallida 1 * 1 F BP Opuntia polyacantha 1 * 1 S P Penstemon attenuatus 1 4 3 2 * * * * F P Penstemon fruticiformis 1 1 * F P Penstemon gairdneri 1 * F P Penstemon glandulosus F P Penstemon humilis F P Penstemon pruinosus 2 1 * * F P Figure G-1. Continued

158

Insect Groups Bloom Period Other

159

APPENDIX H SAMPLE GROWER SURVEY FOR 2015 ANNUAL WAWGG MEETING

Grower Survey on Native Habitat Restoration

Are you the owner or manager of a vineyard? (circle all that apply) Owner Manager Other:______

If you do not have native habitat in your vineyard, and based on the results of our research so far (native habitat within vineyards increases beneficial insects while pest numbers remain similar), do you think at some point you may consider restoring native habitat to your vineyard? Yes No I have native habitat in/near my vineyard

If you have native habitat in your vineyard, how do you maintain it? (circle all that apply) Patches within the vineyard Between rows Hedgerows

If you restored native habitat in your vineyard, about how much did it cost? $500-$1000 $1000-$2000 $2000-$5000 Over $5000

If you have native habitat, do you think the native habitat affects the quality of your wine? Positive Affect No Difference Negative Affect

If you have native habitat, do you think the native habitat has been reducing pest pressure in your vineyard? Positive Affect No Difference Negative Affect

Do you do mechanical harvesting in your vineyard? Yes No, but I could No, and I can’t

How much time do you spend on pest and weed control every year? 0-1 hours/acre 1-2 hours/acre 3-5 hours/acre Over 5 hours/acre

How much money do you spend on pest and weed control every year? $0-$80/acre $80-$150/acre $150-$300/acre Over $300/acre

How many acres is your vineyard? ______

Any further comments or questions? (Leave an email if you want an answer.)

160