Alternative control of in Table grapes and Deciduous fruit

Vaughn Walton, Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon [email protected] Outline: species – descriptions & geographic ranges –damage Vine Mealybug (Planococcus ficus ) as an example – control, & environmental effect – regional climate influence on distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Obscure mealybug ( viburni ) - phenology - monitoring -control World Distribution

Ps. viburni, Ps. maritimus and Ps. longispinus P. ficus

Ps. maritimus viburni & longispinus,

P. ficus Ps. viburni & found in 1994 longispinus,

Mealybug species in SA

P. ficus Ps. longispinus

Walton & Pringle 2004a Mealybugs in South African Vineyards and Deciduous fruit orchards Pseudococcus longispinus (Longtailed MB), both Planococcus ficus (Vine MB), only vines Pseudococcus viburni, Deciduous fruit Ferrisia malvastra (found on one occasion only)

Walton & Pringle 2004a Mealybugs in California Vineyards (Grape MB) Pseudococcus viburni (Obscure MB) Pseudococcus longispinus (Longtailed MB)

Planococcus ficus (Vine MB) Planococcus citri (Citrus MB)

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Pink hibiscus)

CDFA/USDA Ps. maritimus & viburni w/ Ostiolar Excretion

Ps. maritimusGrape

white/clear

red

Ps. viburni Ps. longispinus is aptly named – minor pest During molts, MB lose wax – including “tails”

just molted cast “skin”

Mature adult Hand-lens Comparison

Grape Mealybug “Complex” • long “tail” or caudal wax filament • 2-3 generations per year • development stages are synchronized Ps. maritimus • moderate production (except for obscure mealybug)

P. ficus: • waxy filaments same length (no “tail”) • 5-7 generations per year (SJV) • stages overlap throughout year • excessive honeydew production • feeds on roots and outside of canes Ps. Maritimus, longispinus & viburni damage P. ficus photo courtesy of R. Malakar-Kuenen R. of courtesy photo as an Invasive Pest: Leaves, Canes, Cordon, Fruit

P. ficus Summer P. ficus feeding and honeydew excretion forms “sugar” cones P. ficus as an Invasive Pest: Defoliation & “Raisining” Mealybug species in California Vineyards

Ps. maritimus

Ps. maritimus & longispinus P. ficus (1998)

P. ficus (1994)

Ps. maritimus, longispinus & viburni Mealybug species in California Vineyards 2005

P. ficus

P. ficus, Ps. Ps. maritimus maritimus,

& viburni P. ficus

P. ficus, Ps. maritimus, longispinus & viburni P. ficus P. ficus as an Invasive Pest: Rapid California Spread

1994 1998 2003*

* Distribution changes rapidly because of new/unreported finds Outline: Mealybug species – descriptions & geographic ranges – damage P. ficus as an example – control, pesticides & environmental effect – regional climate influence on pest distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Ps. viburni - phenology - monitoring - control P. ficus as an Invasive Pest: Dispersal Mechanisms 1 2

Courtesy Lucia Varela 3 4 Sampling follows mealybug colonization patterns

1

2

3 4 5 Seasonal colonization trends A problem for insecticides, parasitoids, cultural controls, and monitoring programs is that VMB is often found underground!

photo courtesy MC Battany Mealybug Density / Distribution within a

MB density 0102030 40 (3-min count)

15

10

5 Vine number

1 13571357 Row number

Fresno & Delano, CA 1998, Geiger et al. Pre- pupae III Instar II Pupae Instar I Instar II Instar III Instar I lifecycle ♀♀ Walton 2003 100-350 / P. ficus P. ficus biological parameters

Lower threshold=14.6 deg C Upper threshold = 35.4 deg C

0.045

0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025

Developm ent rate (1/T) 0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0 14 19 24 29 34

Temperature deg C

P. ficus developmental parameters, Walton & Pringle 2005 2 4 1 3 as an Invasive Pest: Pest Biology

P. ficus Natural Enemies and Refuge Theory (Enemy-free Space)

That proportion of the host population (here, VMB) in the refuge is immune to attack from natural enemies; therefore, a large refuge(s) reduces natural enemy activity (Hawkins et al., 1993). Biotic refuge – impact VMB natural enemies (regional differences). Abiotic refuge – Seasonal availability or “exposure periods” of VMB. Again, there is a regional difference between Coachella and the SJV (coastal regions?). photo from the web photo courtesy of M. Battany Ants tending / Mealybug Mutualism Exclude ants from vines by applying Tanglefoot every 1-2 wks. stem barriers once a season (SA) Ant / Mealybug Mutualism

100 90 80 70 Number in 60 yellow 50 no ant control sticky traps 40 30 ant control 20 10 0 nov des jan feb mar 100 120 20 40 60 80 0

Mar /5min.sample Mealybugs

Apr Ant-tended Ant-excluded Ant-tending AffectsObscureMB&: May Jun Jul

Aug Complete AntControl Sept Oct Nov 100 20 40 60 80 0

Mar (%)/5 sample min. Parasitism Apr May Jun Jul Aug Edna Valley, 1998 Sept Oct Nov “Less-toxic” Ant Controls: Overview

• Standard ant control, stem barrier treatments of alpha-cypermethrin @ 10- 20 mL/L, 90 days control (from Addison 2002) • Fipronil/Mollasis baits (<0.001% a.i.) • Cover crop treatments to lure natural enemies and keep ants out of vines

Walton & Pringle 2004b

Low dose, 3-5 d to kill; ants spread insecticides photo from the web Mealybug weed hosts listed in South Africa • Common blackjack (Bidens pilosa ) • Khaki weed (Tagetes minuta ) • Small mallow (Malva parviflora ) • Flax-leaf fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) • Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum ) • Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium ) • Sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus ) • Musk Herons Bill (Erodium moshantum ) (Similar to Redstem Filaree) • Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album )

Walton 2003 What disrupts BioControl : VMB LOCATION

100

80 Bunch Soil line

60 Leaves

40 New Cane Old Cane Cordon

Parasitoid population location (%) Parasitoid population 20 Trunk Ground Ants Roots 0 A. pseudococci photos by Mariana Krugner Abiotic “Mealybug Location” Refuge and Parasitism

100 a

80

60

40 Parasitism (%) b 20

0 VMB Exposed VMB Hidden (Leaves) (Under bark) Development rate (d-1) Daane, Malaker-Ku 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Biological controlandphysiologicallimitations threshold = 10.98 threshold = enin & Walton 2004 &Walton enin low temperature 02 040 30 20 10 VMB &Parasitoid: T ° Temperature (C) development fecundity longevity ° C Oviposition date 15 Nov 19 Dec 28 Feb 15 Mar 23 Jan 18 Oct c 0 o e a 0 e a p a Jun May Apr Mar Feb ‘02 Jan Dec Nov Oct ‘01 Daane, Malaker-Ku overwintering Biological controlandphysiologicallimitations, Anagyrus pseudococci ` Indoors (insectary) Outdoors (ambientair temperature) enin & Walton 2004 & Walton enin oviposition andadul t emergencedates Outline: Mealybug species – descriptions & geographic ranges – damage P. ficus as an example – control, pesticides & environmental effect – regional climate influence on pest distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Ps. viburni - phenology - monitoring - control Insecticide Controls for P. ficus (eradication/suppression?) Recommendation (UC IPM Pest Guidelines) • delayed-dormant Lorsban (OP) • bloom-time Admire (nicotenoid) • in-season with various contacts Lannate/Sevin (blows up mites) Dimethoate (knock down) Applaud ( growth regulator) • post-harvest Lorsban (OP)

Cost - $250 per acre photo courtesy of R. Malakar-Kuenen photo courtesy of R. Malakar-Kuenen Insecticide tests (Insecticide tests of W.J. Bentley, USA) (Insecticide tests V. Walton, SA) Systemic – Admire MOST EFFECTIVE! (on drip – 90-100%, USA only) (SA- hand application, individual vines) Problem – Cost for raisin growers – Soil type (sandy soil is best) – Timing application – VMB “population dynamics” – Furrow irrigation Developing methods to apply Admire in furrows (USA) 2.0 MD Flood Irrigation 1.5 b ab ab a 1.0 c 0.5 Cluster damage

0.0 April May June April/June Control

1.0 c 0.8 MD Drip Irrigation 0.6 b 0.4 a a Cluster damage 0.2 a 0.0 April May June April/June Control Insecticide Program Kills 80-95%

Standard pesticide program:

• Delayed dormant w/ Lorsban • Spring foliar (e.g., Applaud, Sevin) • Bloom-time systemic w/ Admire (16 oz at bloom, repeat in 4-6 wks) • Summer/fall foliar (e.g., Applaud (USA), Imidan, Malathion)

Insecticides are not 100% because of:

• Soil type (sandy soil is best) • Timing application towards small VMB • VMB location on the vine “phloem-feeders” • Furrow irrigation vs drip irrigation • Secondary pest outbreaks and IPM programs • Vine age (old vines have lots of hiding spots) Outline: Mealybug species – descriptions & geographic ranges – damage P. ficus as an example – control, pesticides & environmental effect – regional climate influence on pest distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Ps. viburni - phenology - monitoring - control Average VMB / vine / timed count 100 200 300 400 500 0

Jan P. ficus Feb Mar Apr San Joaquin Valley

May Density inSJVandCoachellaValley Jun Jul Harvest Aug

Sept parasitism Oct Nov

Dec 100 125 25 50 75 0

Jan Feb

Mar Coachella Valley Apr Harvest May

Jun temperatures?

Jul Adult females

Aug Immatures Sept Oct Nov Dec

Nov

Oct

Sept

Aug

Jul

Jun

May Apr

Bunch Leaves New Cane Old Cane Cordon Trunk Ground Roots

Sept Aug

(VMB) Distribution on the Vine Distribution (VMB) Jul

San Joaquin ValleySan Joaquin Valley Coachella Jun

P. ficus May 0

80 60 40 20

100 Population Distribution (%) Distribution Population VMB Parasitoids – “Resident” and Classical BioControl

Anagyrus pseudococci

100 100 San Joaquin Valley Coachella Valley 80 80

60 60

40 40

VMB parasitized (%) 20 20

0 0 Jul Jul Oct Apr Feb Jun Aug Oct Apr Mar Jun May Feb Mar Aug May Predatory beetles – Pros, Cons & Regional Differences

Mealybug destroyer • Excellent predator of eggs • Kill fewer larger mealybugs • Field delivery must be timed to ovisacs • Strong regional differences • found coastal in high densities

photo courtesy of UC IPM • not efficient at low host densities • temperature and humidity Predatory beetles vs parasitoids – Pros, Cons

60 50 A 40 30 20 10 0

Parasitoids/ yellow Parasitoids/ yellow sticky traps 813182328

15 B 10

5

Predatory beetles/ trap sticky yellow 0 813182328 Percentage stem infestation by P. ficus Density dependent and independant relationship between parasitoids (A), predatory beetles (B) and Planococcus ficus during two seasons Walton 2003 Anagyrus pseudococci

Leptomastidea abnormis Parasites of “vine MB”

Leptomastix dactylopii female

Leptomastix dactylopii male

(Walton 2005) Parasites of “vine MB” of key interest

Coccidoxenoides perminutus (Walton 2005)

Anagyrus spp. A. diversicornis (Europe) Neoplatycerus kemticus (Egypt) California & SA “hyperparasitoids” of primaries

Chartocerus sp. Marietta sp.

Cheilonerus sp. “Hyper-parasites” of the “primary parasites” can reduce control when the levels are too high, but can actually help stabilize control. Insectary operations in Hermosillo, Mexico for Anagyrus pseudococci and Leptomastidea abnormis Abiotic Refuge & VMB Distribution: Augmentation Methodology: • 100-vine plots, 3 replicates / site 1.4 a • Three vineyards w/ release & control sites • Parasitoid release at 50,000 / ac (ca. $180 / ac) • Monitor VMB, parasitism, damage 1.2 • Combined w/ or w/o Admire (ca. $150 / ac)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4 Damage Rating (0-3 scale) b b 0.2

0.0 ControlA. pseudococci Admire Release Application Insectary rearing in Letsitele South Africa, Coccidoxenoides perminutus

Walton 2000 Augmentation

30 30

25 C peregrinus (x10 000) 25

20 control block 20 released release block 15 15

10 10

5 5 % Vine infestation C. peregrinus 0 0 Nov-95 Feb-96 Jan-97 Mar-97 Dec-97 Feb-98 Nov-98 Mar-99 Jan-00 Mar-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Dec-01 Sep-03

Relationship between vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus ) infestation and Coccidoxenoides peregrinus releases in a table grape vineyard in the Hex River Valley

Walton & Pringle 2003 Augmentation

10 30 A Control 25 B 8 Buffer 20 6 Release 15 4 10 level

2 level infestation 5

0 stem percentage Mean 0 08/28/99 01/09/01 05/24/02 08/28/99 01/09/01 05/24/02 Mean percentage stem infestation infestation stem percentage Mean

Average cost over three seasons Average cost over three seasons = 92 USD = 125 USD Augmentation n 10 Control 8 Buffer Release 6

4

2

0 Percentage bunch infestatio 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002

Walton & Pringle 2003 Outline: Mealybug species – descriptions & geographic ranges – damage P. ficus as an example – control, pesticides & environmental effect – regional climate influence on pest distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Ps. viburni - phenology - monitoring - control “Microencapsulated” sex pheromone and disruption

a 5 Control 4 Sex pheromone 3 b 2

1

VMB / vine / 2 min search 0 Developing early warning tools: Pheromone Monitoring “Microencapsulated” sex pheromone and mating disruption

9000 600 8000 control 7000 dispensers 500 pheromone spray Control 6000 Dispensers 400 Pheromone spray 5000

4000 300

3000 200

2000 Mean VMB counted

1000 100

0 0

Total no of vine mealybug caught adult male 8 2 11 1 17 2 18 10/ 1/ /02/18 / /1 /12/09 01/06 01/ 2/ /01/21 /02/03 3 / / /0 /03/03 /12/ /01/06 4 /11/11 2003 003 /10/28 2 200 2003/12/17 2004 004 2004 2004 2 200 03 2004 2004 2004 2003/11/24 2003/12/10 2003 Vine mealybug males caught in traps baited with pheromone 2003 20 impregnated septum. Mean counts of all mealybug stages using timed counts on vines Pheromone Monitoring

160 B) Density

120

80

40

VMB males / trap / wk 0 020406080 VMB per 5 min sample

200

-1 150 week -1

100

50 Male mealybugs trap Male mealybugs

0 0 25 50 100 150 200

Walton et al. 2004 Distance (m) 10000

1000

Aged 1 wk Aged 2 wk 100 Aged 3 wk Fresh lure Control

10 Vine mealybugs per trap per week 1 Aug 7Sept 1 Oct 1

Sample date Fine tuning the “low” counts

2 4

3

1 2 log VMB males log VMB males 1

0 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 50 59 68 77 86 95 104 Time of Day Temperature (F) Effect of trap color on male mealybug catches.

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20 Mean adult male mealybugs caught Mean adult male 15

10 Blue Green Yellow Red

Trap color -1 -1

Walton et al al 2004 et Walton Average stem infestation (%) plot season 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 0 0 0 001200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Robertson 2001,2002 Stellenbosch 2001,2002 Hex RiverValley2001,2002 Average mealybug trap -1 sample date -1 200 10 Stem counts 150 Hex River Valley - 1 8 Pheromone traps 6 100 4 vrg tmifsain()plot (%) Average steminfestation 50 2 0 0 -1

25 2.0

20 Hex River Valley - 2 1.5 sample date sample

-1 15 1.0 10 0.5 5

0 0.0 -1 sample date

25 2.0

Average mealybug trap Average mealybug 20 Hex River Valley - 4 1.5 `1 15 1.0 10 0.5 5 0 0.0

t 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 p ct 00 b ar pr p ct v c 00 b ar e O Nov Dec 2 Fe M A e O No De 2 Fe M S 1, S 1, n n Ja Ja 800 40

600 Robertson - ca 30

400 20

200 10 plot (%) Average steminfestation

0 -1 0

1000 25 Robertson - ch 800 20 sample date sample

-1 600 15 400 10 200 5

0 -1

0 sample date

1000 40

Average mealybug trap Average mealybug 800 Stem counts Robertson - m 30

Pheromone traps -1 600 20 400 200 10

0 0

t 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 p ct v c 00 b ar pr p ct v c 00 b ar e O No De 2 Fe M A e O No De 2 Fe M S 1, S 1, n n Ja Ja Ground Validation w/ >65 VMB/trap Movement of VMB from a point infestation

Original “Clean” Infestation blocks (about 2 ac)

“Hotspot” blocks

Area shown about 50 acres

San Luis Obispo County infestation (found in 2001), courtesy MC Battany Ground Validation w/ >65 VMB/trap

0.8 1 stems 0.6 0.8 stems leaves 0.6 0.4 bunches bunches 0.4

0.2 Probability 0.2

D = Sampling error 0 0 00.20.40.60.81 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Proportion infested Proportion infested

SamplingFig. error5.1. Sampling plotted ag error,ainst D,stems, plotted leaves against and OperatingFig 5.2 characteristic. Operating characteristic curve (OC) for curve sampling (OC) for bunchesproportion infested of withstems, vine leaves mealybug, and bunches Planococcus Planococcussampling Planococcus ficus on stems ficus and buncheson stems usingand a ficus.infested with vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus . economicbunches threshold using a (ET)economic of 5% threshold infestation (ET) per of block. 5 % infestation per block.

•Monitoring protocol determined – presence-absence sampling of 100 vines after 65 VMB males/trap found •Accuracy determined - 99% •Action threshold determined – act when infestation is above 2% Outcomes for sampling and an integrated control protocol •New environmentally friendly control options

•Focus attention on crucial times of the season

•Focus attention on problem areas at production units

•Physical accurate monitoring protocol determined – 100 vines/ha, bi-weekly from October •Accuracy determined - 99% •Action threshold determined – act when infestation is above 2% •Control costs more than halved

Walton 2004b Outline: Mealybug species – descriptions & geographic ranges – damage Vine Mealybug as an example – control, pesticides & environmental effect – regional climate influence on pest distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Ps. viburni on apples and pears - phenology - monitoring - control Ps. ), long-tailed

Planococcus citri ), obscure mealybugs ( on apple & pear (Photo, ARCInfruitec-Nietvoorbij). ).

Pseudocccus longispinus Left to right: citrophilus ( ( viburni Ps. viburni Infestation symptoms Honeydew & black sooty mold in calyx of fruit Severe infestations, mealybugs forced out of calyx of fruit, presence of ants Field collection & search

Lab search & analysis Apple orchard refuge sites

No refuge sites on smooth bark , but under stem barriers

Many refuge sites in galled roots caused by woolly apple ,WAA Photo’s, K.L. Pringle (Eriosoma lanigerum) Most suitable plant parts for mealybugs, SA findings

Inside fruit calyxes, 62%

On main trunk area under bark, 28 % Which plant parts are infested?

2003/2004 500 2004/2005 450 400 350 300 250 200 Number mealybugs 150 100 50 0 Ground & Old canes New canes Armpit Fruit trunk Fig. 2. Number of mealybugs found on each plant part during (inside 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 in three deciduous fruit growing areas. calyx) Armpit (between main stem and secondary branches)

0% Fruit (inside calyx)

28% Ground

New shoots

Old shoots 62% 9% Trunk 1%

Percentage mealybugs found on each plant part through the season in three deciduous fruit growing areas during 2003/2004. 140

120 Ceres 100 Grabouw Stellenbosch 80

trees 60

40

Mean mealybugs/100 20

0

2 13 27 10 24 08 05 19 0 16 02 2/ /11/ 05/01/ 05/03/ 004/11/ 2004/10/ 2004/10/ 2004 2 2004/12/ 2004/12/2220 2005/01/ 2005/02/ 2005/0 20

Fig. 1d. Mean obscure mealybugs per 100 trees on all plant parts in three deciduous fruit production areas during 2004/2005. Determine fruit infestation by cutting fruit

12 Grabouw Ceres 10 Stellenbosch 8

6

4 % infested Fruit

2

0 11/19/2004 12/19/2004 1/18/2005 2/17/2005 3/19/2005

Fig. 4a. Percent fruit infestation in three deciduous fruit growing areas during 2004/2005. Determine fruit infestation by cutting fruit

0.6

Stellenbosch 0.5 Grabouw Ceres 0.4

0.3

0.2 Proportion infested

0.1

0.0 10/25/05 11/23/05 11/24/05 12/6/05 12/20/05 1/16/06 1/30/06 2/13/06 Date

Fig. 4b. Proportion f ruit inf estation in three deciduous f ruit growing areas during 2005/2006. 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 harvest Ceres 3.5 Grabouw Stellenbosch 3.0 2.5 2.0 Mean count 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 8/12/05 11/23/05 12/22/05 1/2/06 1/16/06 1/30/06 2/15/06 3/1/06 10/20/06 Date

Fig. 1e. Mean obscure mealybugs per 100 trees in three deciduous fruit production areas during 2005/2006. Biological control

• Australian studies have indicated that the availability of refuge sites on the trees is the main factor limiting populations • Mealybugs displaced from these sites by overcrowding were susceptible to harsh climatic conditions, such as high temperatures and low humidity • both natural enemies and climate are now considered important in the mortality of older mealybugs • Natural enemies have been shown to cause high mortality of longtailed mealybug in and play a key role in population dynamics

Photo, Universal Chalcidoidea database Natural enemies on Ps. viburni

• Most of the listed specialized natural enemies are koinobionts, meaning that they will rarely search for mealybugs in hidden areas such as fruit calyxes Australian and New Zealand studies highlighted the following: • Attackedmaculipennis by wasps; Coccophagus gurneyi (Aphelinidae) and Ophelosia spp. (Pteromalidae) • Predators,montrouzieri lacewing, Cryptoscenea australiensis, and midge Diadiplosis koebelei • Parasitoid with particular promise, Pseudaphycus

• Mass releases of the predatory beetle C. Standard Pesticide applications: effect on biological control

Date Pesticide Trade name 30/09/2003 Prothiofos Tokuthion 28/10/2003 Prothiofos Tokuthion 28/10/2003 Azinphos-methyl Azinphos 15/11/2003 Azinphos-methyl Azinphos 26/11/2003 Azinphos-methyl Azinphos 17/12/2003 Azinphos-methyl Azinphos 17/12/2003 Chlorpyrifos Chlorpyrifos 09/01/2004 Azinphos-methyl Azinphos 21/01/2004 Azinphos-methyl Azinphos Percent parasitism & biological control

Year Sprayed Unsprayed

2004/2005 0.43% (n=469) 12.12% (n=99)

2005/2006 1.94% (n=154) 17.8% (n=286) Outline: Mealybug species – descriptions & geographic ranges – damage Vine Mealybug as an example – control, pesticides & environmental effect – regional climate influence on pest distribution – natural enemies – parasitoid augmentation – sex pheromones and integrated control Ps. viburni - phenology - monitoring - control Monitoring with pheromones on apples and pears

80 70 60 s 50 40 30 20 Male mealybug 10 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Percent fruit infestation

Fig. 5. Number of adult male mealybugs caught in pheromone traps on percent fruit infestation during 2005/2006. Control: Mating disruption with pheromones for Ps. viburni?

•First determine reproductive genetics •Determine cost of pheromone •Consider alternatives such as bio-control •Exclude infested blocks by monitoring with pheromones •Identify blocks which are high risk Acknowledgements: •Producers for collaboration •Oregon State University •University of California Berkeley •DFPT •Kent Daane, Jocelyn Millar, Ken Pringle •FDF (Fruit Development Foundation) Chile Thank you !