Viewing Document
Title Daane, Kent - Manipulating Beneficial Insects in Vineyard Ecosystems
Download Document size is: 8,574 KB
Access the .pdf file
Quick Link Repository View: https://ucanr.edu/repository/a/?a=73984
Direct to File: https://ucanr.edu/repository/a/?get=73984
File Information Current Projects - Vineyards Each of California’s varied grape regions has different cultural practices, economic structures and pest problems providing an exciting challenge to develop programs that can be used for winegrape growers in Napa and table grape growers in the Coachella Valley. Recent research has concerned mealybug pests, including the invasive vine mealybug. Closely connected to this project is development of sustainable ant controls. In two collaborative vineyard projects, we are working with Dr. Nick Mills on changes in mite populations and with Dr. Rodrigo Almeida on the importance of leafroll viruses. A new research project for the laboratory concerns sharpshooters, such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, and their role in the transmission of the bacterium that causes Pierce’s disease in grapes and almond leaf scorch in almonds.
Author
Daane, Kent : The development of ecologically-based insect pest management systems.
Publication Date Mar 18, 2010
Date Added Mar 30, 2010
Description Dr Kent Daane is a Cooperative Extension Specialist with the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management at UC Berkeley based at the Kearney Agricultural Center in Parlier, California. His research focuses on ecologically-based insect pest management systems. This is his lecture given at the 2010 Recent Advances in Viticulture & Enology, "Sustainability: Minimizing Environmental Footprints", held on March 18, 2010 at UC Davis.
OCR Text
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
Posted By Bogart, Kay
NALT Keywords