- Author: Mark Bolda
The following is the summary of results of a recent pesticide efficacy trial to control spotted wing drosophila (SWD) in raspberries. All materials in the test are registered for caneberries and have a one day pre-harvest interval.
Treatments:
|
Chemical |
Treatment Rate per acre |
Water Carrier Rate per acre |
|
Mustang rotated with Malathion |
4 fl oz rotated with 64 oz |
179 gallons |
|
Malathion |
64 fl oz |
179 gallons |
|
Entrust |
2 oz |
179 gallons |
|
Pyganic |
64 fl oz |
179 gallons |
|
Untreated Control |
- |
- |
First mix of materials was made with the addition of 32 oz/A LI700 acidificant.
First application was made on August 19, 2009 with gasoline powered backpack sprayers in 1173 sq ft plots inside of tunnels. Second application of malathion was made to the first treatment begun with Mustang on August 24. The gallonage of water carrier was very much sufficient to achieve full coverage of the approximately six foot high raspberry hedgerow.
Sampling for SWD was done as per the “sweep net method” in which a not to be resampled 20 foot section of hedgerow is agitated with a stick and flies collected by insect net. This method avoids tearing and soiling of the net, breaking canes and laterals, while collecting a good portion of the flies residing in the hedgerow. Most samples resulted in male SWD (distinguishable by the single large spot on the back of each wing) being a large proportion of the sample, in most cases at least half, so the assumption is that the other half were female SWD. While the chart below uses total numbers of vinegar flies collected, males and what were assumed to be females (but could in fact be regular vinegar flies since they were not sexed) were counted separately for later reference if necessary.
|
Treatment |
Preapplication |
Post 1 day |
Post 5 days |
Post 10 days |
Post 14 days |
|
Mustang rot with Malathion |
75.67 a |
10.67 c |
5.00 b |
1.00 b |
11.00 a |
|
Entrust |
69.00 a |
38.33 c |
77.33 a |
44.67 a |
39.33 ab |
|
Untreated control |
68.33 a |
142.33 a |
130.67 a |
46.33 a |
128.67 a |
|
Pyganic |
65.00 a |
76.33 b |
86.67 a |
63.33 a |
80.00 ab |
|
Malathion |
45.00 a |
11.67 c |
14.33 b |
1.33 b |
7.33 b |
Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P=0.05, Student-Newman Keuls)
The organically registered Pyganic and Entrust have efficacy over the short term, but the conventional materials show efficacy out to two weeks post application and offer a good solution to a serious outbreak of large numbers of SWD.
Additionally, three registered horticultural oils, Azadirect, Organicide and Ecotrol were tested in non-replicated fashion in the same area as the trial above. None offered any control of significance, however.
The collaborating grower applied Diazinon 50W to raspberries of discontinued harvest at the maximum rate of 2 lbs per acre to devastating result. While having similar levels of flies than the untreated check in the study before application, there were very few flies left after with many samples coming up zero, and this continued to be the case a week after.
There are several important topics to discuss concerning the results of these chemical efficacy trials.
Resistance: With such outstanding results as those above, it is easy to decide that one will go with one of the cheaper chemistries and continue until the flies are all gone. While this sentiment is understandable, it is imperative that pesticide users rotate the chemicals they are applying. Since one is pitting the chemical against what is quite likely several million flies per acre and the subsequent genetic diversity such a large number offers, the likelihood of the pest population becoming resistant and not controllable after continued use of the same chemical application after application is very high. History with other pests tells us that it can take only a few years to reach complete resistance. Rotate.
Effects on Non-target Species: Malathion and Mustang are broad spectrum pesticides, meaning along with killing flies they will kill most beneficial insects such as predators and parasitoids. While for the time being, these chemicals are providing a solution to a critical acute situation, over the long term other solutions integrating other methods (more in continuing posts, enhanced sanitation comes to mind first and foremost) will have to be sought. Although one may tend to think that the high numbers of SWD indicate that there is very little biological control going on, remember that SWD is only recently established here so it may take several years for native predator and parasite populations to adjust to this new and large source of food. The high densities of this fly in one place are just begging for disease outbreaks. One expert with experience with insect invasions in California predicts with a high level of confidence that the large numbers of SWD currently experienced will be much lower in two to three years because of natural control.
Raspberry and blackberry growers who use bees for pollination must be aware of what pesticides will do to foraging bees. Malathion and Mustang are unquestionably toxic to bees, Entrust less so once it has dried. Pyganic, while less toxic than the others, still requires some precautions. It is best not to apply at all when plants are flowering, and generally this period of time will not have many vinegar flies present anyway, since they are drawn to ripening fruit rather than flowers.
The following link by Pacific Northwest Extension is very useful and includes a pesticide safety chart when referring to pesticides and honey bees:
There are several insecticides mentioned for control of vinegar flies in this article. Before using any insecticides, check with your local Agricultural Commissioner's Office and consult product labels for current status of product registration, restrictions, and use information.
- Author: Mark Bolda
It is becoming increasingly evident that monitoring for spotted wing drosophila (SWD) is an integral part of a program to manage this fly to non-damaging levels. Growers who are aware early on that SWD has entered their field maintain a wider range of options than those who suddenly find themselves confronting a very heavy infestation with a lot of infested fruit.
Recall from the previous post that an interest in alternatives to GF120 Fruit Fly bait being used as a trap, either because of a lack of efficacy, cost or just plain curiosity in what will work sparked an effort to test other materials.
A further screen of materials has recently been pursued also by my private industry colleague. He made purees of peach, nectarine, orange, pineapple, beer + banana and added an amount of yeast to each one. One further treatment was a mixture of yeast, sugar and water (one packet baker’s yeast 0.25 oz, 4 teaspoons sugar and 12 fl oz water distributed among 5 or 6 Mason jars). Each of these was placed in a field having significant SWD activity.
While the fruit and yeast mixtures did catch flies to a certain extent, the mixture of yeast, sugar and water was by far the most successful. The yeast, sugar and water mixture is also very attractive to people because it is very clear and allows for easy viewing of trapped flies. Indeed in a further test comparing yeast, sugar and water mixture to GF120 traps (1 part GF120 to 4 parts water), found that it was far more attractive to SWD and vinegar flies. This success has been replicated by several area growers as well.
Some conjecture and comment about the yeast, sugar and water mixture.
While the GF120 trap mixture worked in the winter and to a certain extent in the spring, it may be that during the fruiting season the smell of this material is being masked by the abundance of other food scents coming from fruit and flowers. As anglers well know, fish change their preferences over the course of the season, and it the possibility that SWD is doing the same is difficult to deny.
Why the strong attraction to a yeast and sugar bait? There has been some amount of thinking determining that the yeast consuming the aqueous sugar is releasing plumes of carbon dioxide which is attracting SWD. While this may be true for the first 24 hours, it appears that the trap is most effective AFTER most of the sugar has been consumed, so it is apparent that the smell of fermentation is what is pulling the flies.
One positive addition to the yeast, sugar and water bait trap would be a material to keep the flies there once they have flown within the confines of the jar or bottle. There have been some comments from users noting the high level of attractiveness of this material is partly undone by the ability of flies to escape. Unlike GF120, there is no poison or surfactant which breaks the surface tension of the water to the point where flies alighting upon it fall on down into the liquid rather than still be able to walk on the surface. This is something worth looking into at a later date.
- Author: Mark Bolda
There has been significant discussion as of late as how to best trap for spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. As a very small and mobile insect, detection and estimates of population can be challenging.
Although spotted wing drosophila lays eggs in yet unripe fruit, it is attracted to fermenting fruit to feed and thus this can be a useful medium for trapping. Additionally, there are several commercial formulations of fly trapping solutions.
This past week, the following materials were tested as a comparison for spotted wing drosophila detection and enumeration:
1. Strawberry puree, two days old.
2. Plantain + beer, two days old.
3. One part molasses mixed with 4 parts water.
4. Filth fly trap mix (AgBio Inc.)
5. Methyl eugenol plug over soapy water to trap flies
6. Apple vinegar straight
7. One part GF120 Fruit Fly Bait mixed with 4 parts water
8. Sweep netting one side of 32 feet of raspberry hedgerow, canes tapped with stick to dislodge flies. After sweeping is complete, net is inverted into a solution of soapy water and flies counted.
Most materials were tested twice in a heavily spotted wing drosophila infested raspberry field. 100 ml of the first seven treatments were placed in a 500 ml Nalgene bottle with four 7/16 inch holes drilled into the lid and hung about 3 feet from the ground, well into the hedgerow (see photo below). Food containers such as Mason jars and so on should not be used. Bottles were placed in the morning of day 1, and collected for evaluation the following morning.
In summary, the methyl eugenol and the molasses mix were useless and captured no flies in two tries.
Plantain + beer, apple vinegar and the filth fly mix, while capturing flies, caught fewer in comparison to the best treatments. On average they captured 3 flies in 24 hours in a heavily infested field. The beer and plantain mix is time consuming to make, is not worth the effort and have better use elsewhere, in my opinion. The apple vinegar and filth fly mix are easier to use.
GF120 and the strawberry puree were consistently the most effective of the baits, capturing on average 9 flies in 24 hours in a heavily infested field. The strawberry puree was more effective the second time around, since it had been around a little longer and was more fermented. Flies do not drown in the puree, thus the trap must be handled carefully prior to counting.
Finally, the sweep netting was far more effective in evaluating numbers of flies in the field. On average, 40 flies were captured over the 36 feet of hedgerow in a matter of minutes in a heavily infested field.
In conclusion, while the baits will continue to be effective as sentinels to detect initial infestations of spotted wing drosophila, it appears that they will be clearly inferior to sweep netting when making evaluations of already established populations in caneberries.
- Author: Mark Bolda
There will be a meeting held in San Martin, California concerning the spotted wing drosophila. The meeting is open to all who are interested, please refer to the following agenda:
http://awqa.org/attachments/spotted_wing_09.doc- Author: Mark Bolda
Several strawberry growers have identified a consistent pattern to spotted wing drosophilid infestation in strawberry.
Spotted wing drosophilid apparently lays eggs beneath the skin of the fruit, and after a few days the eggs hatch. As the larvae develop, a soft area at the area of infestation develops. There is no hole apparent in the fruit, see close up in first photo below, but the bruise and softening are quite apparent, and many pickers should be able to identify these fruits as culls.
On taking several samples of these fruit, and on cutting open the bruise, one finds from one to two larvae as in the second photo below.
