Daane, Kent : The development of ecologically-based insect pest management systems.

RAVE 2010 Pests and Diseases of Grapevines Manipulating Beneficial Insects in Vineyard Ecosystems Kent M . Daane Monica Cooper , Michael Costello , Vaughn Walton , Brian Hogg , Albie Miles , Menelaos Stavrinides , Houston Wilson , Glenn Yokota Environmental Science Policy & Management University of California , Berkeley Cause and Effect Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion A Grape and Variegated Leafhoppers ( Erythroneura species ) B C Natural enemies include : A ) Anagrus species ( egg parasitoid ) B ) Spider species C ) Whirligig mites & generalist pred . A Pacific spider mite ( Tetranychus pacificus ) B C Natural enemies include : A ) Western predatory mite B ) Six spotted thrips ( nymph ) C ) Spider mite destroyer ( beetle ) A Mealybugs ( Pseudococcus and Planococcus spp . ) B C Natural enemies include : A ) Cecidomyiid midge ( fly larva ) B ) Parasitoids ( encyrtid wasps ) C ) Ladybeetle ( mealybug destroyer ) Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion In Theory : Plant vigor hypothesis ( Price 1991 ) Fast - growing ( e.g . , well - watered ) , plants have more succulent growth and fewer anti - feeding plant materials , which is important for insect growth / reproduction . Arroyo willow / Tree fruit / Popular trees / Gall formers Moth pests Aphids Leafhoppers are closely tied to Vine Condition SPRING SUMMER WINTER FALL Daane & Williams manipulated vineyard irrigation amounts to reduce pest damage Lysimeter weighs soil , roots , and vine . Computer model determines water use , and sets water amounts for other vines in block . Ecol . Appl . 13 : 1650 - 1666 800 total 600 400 200 1993 Sample rd 3 generation 0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 per1.6 Irrigation Treatments Vine per 8 LH Adult dyed 6 4 2 1993 rd 3 generation 0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Irrigation Treatments Ecol . Appl . 13 : 1650 - 1666 75 d Poor host quality Irrigation treatment ( ET ) leaf ( deficit irrigation ) c 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 50 / Nymphs c â?¢ lower LH nymph density bc b rd b 25 ( 3 brood ) a a a a a â?¢ lower LH egg deposition a 0 â?¢ less adult immigration First Second Third â?¢ higher LH nymph mortality 100 leaf 1991 * * * / 1992 * * * 80 nymphs 1993 * * * 60 brood 40 ` Third 20 * * * P < 0.001 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Irrigation Treatment Ecol . Appl . 13 : 1650 - 1666 Why are leafhoppers numbers important for N . E . effectiveness ? â?? Density Dependent â?쳌 bio - control Density Time Why are leafhoppers numbers important for N . E . effectiveness ? â?? Inverse - Density Dependent â?쳌 bio - control Density Time Why are leafhoppers numbers important for N . E . effectiveness ? â?? Inverse - Density Dependent â?쳌 bio - control Density Economic Injury Level Time In Theory : Plant stress hypothesis ( White 1974 ) Water - stressed plants have poor protein metabolism and amino acid synthesis ; thus increasing limited nutrients , especially available N for insect growth / reproduction Eucalyptus / Pines / Crop plants / Psyllids Bark beetles Aphids Stavrinides et al . showed effects of water stress on spider mite outbreaks in vineyards Hypothesis : Water stress leads to higher leaf temperatures that may favor Pacific mite outbreaks and may also be harmful to Willamette mites . Vineyards in Lodi & Madera Measure leaf temperature Mites and Vine Vigor â?¢ 8 vineyards in Lodi and Madera ( 2006 & 2007 ) â?¢ Leaf temperature , leaf water potential , mite densities â?¢ Tested relationship of : a ) Leaf T & water stress b ) Mite densities ~ T Leaf T increased w / both water stress & ambient T Multiple regression results : Leaf water potential : slope = 0.45 , SE = 0.11 , P = 0.048 Ambient temp : coefficient = 0.81 , SE = 0.22 , P < 0.001 44 C 40 o temp . 36 32 Leaf 28 40 C o temp . 36 24 32 1.4 Ambient 1.2 1.0 Leaf 28 0.8 water 0.6 potential ( - ) MPa Conclusions Pacific mite pops . increase w / increasing T Willamette mite pops . decrease w / increasing T T and Predators ? Emily Smith ( CSUF ) continued these studies . Hypothesis is predaceous mites may also decrease w / increasing T Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion rating1.0 Common mealybug insecticides scale ) 0.8 ( various data damagesets ) 0.6 3 â?? 0.4 ( 0 Fruit 0.2 0.0 Admire Applaud Control Dimethoate Movento Chlorpyrifos Assail rating1.0 Common mealybug insecticides scale ) 0.8 ( various data damagesets ) 0.6 3 â?? 0.4 ( 0 Fruit 0.2 0.0 Admire Applaud Control Dimethoate Movento Chlorpyrifos Assail Pesticide impact on Pacific Spider Mite and Western Predator Mite Looked at â?? Sublethal effects â?쳌 ( e.g . reproduction ) rather than â?? acute â?쳌 toxicity ( e.g . , kill ) . Insecticides tested ( all non - miticides ) : Provado , Applaud , and Intrepid ( Leafhoppers , mealybugs & moths ) Fungicides tested were : Thiolux Jet ( wettable sulfur ) , Flint and Elite ( all for powdery mildew control ) Pesticide disruption methods : Grape microcosms Pacific Pacific Pacific Pacific Mite Mite + WPM + WPM Selected insecticide Compared mite â?? rate of population increase â?쳌 ( r ) ; if value is i greater than â?? 0 â?쳌 the mites are increasing , less than â?? 0 â?쳌 and the population is decreasing , and â?? 0 â?쳌 is not change Graphic example : Provado had 70 % reduction in Western Predator Mite effectiveness ( WPM ) â?¦ but no effect on Pacific Spider Mite ( PSM ) 0.4 Conclusions : â?¢ Provado and Applaud 0.2 had negative effect on a WPM 0.0 â?¢ Thiolux jet ( wettable b sulfur ) reduced PSM , - 0.2 but no effect on WPM â?¢ Intrepid , Flint , and - 0.4 Elite had no effect on Applaud Control either WPM or PSM Other researchers have shown similar effects of â?? soft â?쳌 or non - target materials in the vineyard , such as the impact of sulfur on the Anagrus erythroneurae â?? the leafhopper egg parasitoid ( Jepsen , Rosenheim , Bench . 2006 . BioControl ) Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion Ant - tending Affects Obscure MB & Parasitism : Mealybugs / 5 min . sample Parasitism ( % ) / 5 min . sample 100 120 100 80 Ant - excluded Ant - tended 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 Jul Jul Sept Oct Sept Oct Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Nov Nov Jun Jun Aug Aug â?? Cover Cropping â?쳌 is a common method to manipulate the vineyard ecosystem trial Natural Enemies ( N.E . ) Hypothesis : cover ground Higher N.E . abundance when there is more plant â?? diversity â?쳌 : a ) more prey more often for N.E . sampling b ) more favorable micro - climate c ) increased â?? refuge â?쳌 for N.E . funnel d ) availability of floral resources Daane & Costelloâ??s ( 1993 - 98 ) weight sampling nymphs cluster sheet LH sampling sampling beating rd Leafhopper Densities ( 3 brood , table grape site ) 50 a Leaf Ground Cover No Cover 40 / SEM ) b 30 a ( Nymphs 20 b a b 10 VLH 0 1993 1995 1994 Spider Densities ( seasonal ) from all Study Sites ( 1994 only ) vine 100 / scale ) ( log 10 collected Ground Cover No Cover Spiders 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sept June May July Aug Spiders in Cover * Pardosa Hololena Oxyopes Neoscona Cheiracanthium Erigone Trachelas Pardosa Miscellaneous Oxyopes Spiders in Vines * Trachelas Pardosa Erigone Miscellaneous Metaphidippus TrachelasNeoscona Hololena Cheiracanthium Oxyopes Ground covers ( some ) reduce vine vigor Pruning weight ( kg / vine ) â?¢ lower petiole N levels Cover No Cover Yr 1 1.5 ± 0.3 a 2.4 ± 0.3 a â?¢ lower pruning weights Yr 2 1.2 ± 0.2 a 2.4 ± 0.3 b â?¢ lower berry weight â?¢ lower soil moisture status Soil moisture ( % V / V ) 30 No cover Cover crop content 20 water 10 Soil 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sept Jul Oct May Aug Jun Altieri , Miles , Wilson & Daane ( 2008 - 10 ) Floral Resource Provisioning Hypothesis a ) increased aggregation of N.E . b ) enhanced N.E . fitness / fecundity c ) increased parasitism rates d ) resulting in more biocontrol and less herbivore numbers and damage Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion Habitat simplification occurs at multiple scales â?¦ at the vineyard level here , and at the landscape level Landscape Heterogeneity â?? the diversity and area of non - crop natural habitat surrounding an agroecosystem â?쳌 ( Bianchi et al . 2006 ) LOW DIVERSITY HIGH DIVERSITY Landscape impact on spiders Basically , took transects to measure spider species and abundance from oak or riparian habitats into vineyards Oak - woodland to vineyard transect 100m 50 0 0 20 40 90 140 Landscape impact on spiders Basically , took transects to measure spider species and abundance from oak or riparian habitats into vineyards Oak - woodland to vineyard transect 100m 50 0 0 20 40 90 140 Yellow Sac Spider , Cheiracanthium mildei â?¢ From Europe â?¢ 1 to 1.5 â?쳌 across with legs , pale yellow â?¢ Lives mainly in trees , houses â?¢ Nocturnal wandering spider no web actively hunts for prey in foliage â?¢ Wide variety of prey : insects , spiders T . pacificus C . mildei ( native species ) Wandering Spider Composition 50 a Cheiracanthium ( % ) Native spiders 40 composition 30 a a 20 Spider 10 b 0 Vineyards Oak - Woodland Invasive spiders dominant in vineyards compared with woodland ( data analyses are arcsin â?? [ proportion ] ; P < 0.001 , t - test ) spp . 0.8 Cheiracanthium 0.6 0.4 Proportion 0.2 Woodland Vineyard 0 50 100 100 50 150 Transect Distance Oak - woodland to vineyard transect 100m 50 0 0 20 40 90 140 Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Progression of â?? Sustainable â?쳌 Management New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion whirligig mite ( Anystis agilis ) beetles spiders lacewings Lacewing and Leafhoppers ( cumulative ) 300 200 consumed 3rd instar LW 100 Leafhoppers 2nd instar LW 0 1st instar LW 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time ( days ) Results of Egg versus Larva Release 100 80 leaf control / Leafhoppers 60 eggs 40 larvae Release Date 20 0 15 5 10 Time ( in days ) Field studies with lacewing releases â?¢ commercial release methods â?¢ commercial release rates â?¢ viability of released eggs â?¢ monitored leafhopper densities Problem 1 : LW Effectiveness vs Hopper Reduction 6 plots release4 in 2 reduction 0 Leafhopper - 2 - 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 Leafhopper density in no - release plots Problem 2 : Most of the current commercial release systems place lacewing eggs in poor positions for survival and control â?? either on ground , uneven distribution . Problem 3 Releases often place small lacewings in the field when only larger leafhoppers stages are present â?? this a negative impact . Problem 3 : Release Rate Affects Leafhoppers Killed $ 1500 / ac 0.4 $ 750 / ac $ 375 / ac $ 150 / ac a $ 75 / ac 0.2 $ 15 / ac growth bc bc b bc bc c leafhopper 0.0 capita 0.2 Per 0.4 0 10 50 100 250 500 1000 Number lacewing eggs released / vine Better augmentation programs often use â?? Specialists â?쳌 a b b 100 500 - 1000 Ap ( % ) 300 - 500 Cp 95 category parasitoids / acre 90 Damage by 85 ratings damage 3 80 2 1 Fruit 75 0 5 0 BioControl Conventional Mating ( Applaud ) ( Lorsban & disruption & Applaud ) Biocontrol Outline : Manipulated vs . Resident Natural Enemies Mites , Mealybugs & Leafhoppers What Impacts N.E . Effectiveness ? In the Vine ( e.g . , vine vigor ) On the Vine ( e.g . , pesticides ) Inside the Vineyard ( e.g . , habitat / biota ) Outside the Vineyard ( e.g . , everything ) Augmentation â?? the standard manipulation ? Itâ??s just out of your control New Pests & New Management Practices Discussion For example â?¦ Climate is out of your control Gutierrez , Daane , Ponti , Walton . 2008 . J . Applied Ecology 45 : 524 - 536 . Daane , Walton , Daugherty , submitted . Environ . Entomol . Difference in Crop Management & IPM Cash Difference in What Pest are Present Argentine ant - very strong impact on natural enemies Gray ant & southern fire ant Formica perpilosa moderate impact very strong impact on natural enemies and VMB location ! Finally , Changes in Pest Species Lannate , Sevin , Parathion , New Pests Thiodan , Guthion , New Issues Omite Lannate Lead arsenate Cyanide , DDT , Parathion 1940s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 2000 Thanks to : UCCE and AES Authors & Collaboration : Monica Cooper , Walter Bentley , Glenn Yokota , Jocelyn Millar , Mike Rust , Lucia Varela , Rhonda Smith , Jennifer Hashim - Buckey , Kris Godfrey , David Haviland , Paul Verdegaal , Chuck Ingels , Rodrigo Almeida , John Klotz , Mark Battany , Carmen Gispert , Steve Vasquez Laboratory teams led by : Monica Cooper , Glenn Yokota , Vaughn Walton , Karen Sime , Marcos Botton , Betsy Boyd , Erik Nelson , and Raksha Malakar - Kuenen SOME Ground Cover Species â?¦ . Lodi - Woodbridge â?? Native Grasses 30 30 1 Foot 3 Foot No cover V / V ) 20 20 Cover Cover / Irrigation 10 10 ( % content 0 0 30 30 ater 5 Foot 20 20 7 wFoot Soil 10 10 Neutron Probe 0 0 Jul Oct Oct Jul May Nov Nov May Aug Jun Sep Sep Aug Jun 3 1984 First work on â?? deficit 1985 irrigation â?쳌 and vineyard pests 2 1 0 6 4 2 Trichilo Wilson , Grimes . 1990 . Influence of irrigation management on the abundance of leafhoppers 0 ( Homoptera : Cicadellidae ) on grapes . 0 200 400 600 800 Environ . Entomol . 19 : 1803 â?? 1809 . Applied water ( in mm ) Vine vigor impacts mealybugs ( more vigor = more mealybugs ) 350 300 female 250 per 200 Eggs 150 100 0 100 200 300 400 Nitrogen ( lb / acre ) applied Why might this matter ? LOW 1 . Grower enhances landscape heterogeneity on - farm habitat 2 . Landscape does not support metapopulation of natural enemies 3 . Natural enemies unable to reach resources 4 . On - farm habitat does not noticeably enhance biological control Why might this matter ? HIGH 1 . Grower enhances landscape heterogeneity on - farm habitat 2 . Landscape does support metapopulation of natural enemies 3 . BUT many natural enemies already migrating into vineyard 4 . On - farm habitat does not noticeably enhance biological control Why might this matter ? INTERMEDIATE landscape heterogeneity On - farm habitat to enhance biological control Could likely be most cost - effective in intermediate landscapes