04 - 1110am - Risk Management - Fisher, Fritts, Hickerson, Richmond - Slides - Copy
Optimizing the use of the codling moth granulovirus: Final Report L. Lacey S. Arthurs R. Fritts R....
-
Upload
jaheim-milman -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Optimizing the use of the codling moth granulovirus: Final Report L. Lacey S. Arthurs R. Fritts R....
Optimizing the use of the codling moth granulovirus: Final Report
L. LaceyL. LaceyS. ArthursS. ArthursR. FrittsR. FrittsR. BehleR. BehleA. KnightA. Knight
OBJECTIVES:
1. Determine the lowest dosage of CpGV that will provide effective control of codling moth larvae.2. Determine optimal intervals for spray
application.3. Continue to assess the shelf life of commercial formulations at various temperatures.4. Investigate the potential of several adjuvants for protecting CpGV from solar
degradation.
Significant findings:Significant findings:
● Season-long treatments of CpGV (Cyd-X) at 3 rates (1, 3 and 6 oz acre) and 3 application intervals (7, 10 and 14 days) resulted in significantly fewer deep entries and surviving larvae but did not reduce the proportion of fruit damaged by codling moth. ● There was a significant trend of fewer deep entries and higher larval mortality rates with increasing rate of CpGV and shorter application interval.● In replicated ½ acre plots, CpGV provided > 90% larval mortality at 1, 2 and 3 oz/acre, but was not as effective as Guthion in protecting fruit.● Bioassay procedures to screen adjuvants providing possible UV protection of CpGV formulations were developed.
Significant findings Significant findings continued:continued:
The efficacy of 3 commercial CpGV formulations were significantly reduced (52-77%) by exposure to UV light (9.36 × 106 joules/m2) in a solar simulator.
Although lignin encapsulation provided significant protection of CpGV exposed to simulated sunlight in laboratory studies, under field conditions it did not.
The Cyd-X and Virosoft formulations of CpGV maintained larvicidal activity after storage at 2 and 25˚C for over 132 weeks, but activity was sharply reduced after storage at 35º for 16 and 40 weeks, respectively.
Applying CpGV in the orchardApplying CpGV in the orchard
Experimental orchard
Trees treated individually in a randomized plot design
Commercial orchard
Blocks sprayed using operational equipment
Field evaluations of CpGVField evaluations of CpGV
Experimentally assess efficacy of weekly Experimentally assess efficacy of weekly applications of Cyd-X at 1, 2, 3 oz/acapplications of Cyd-X at 1, 2, 3 oz/ac
Determine optimal spray interval and Determine optimal spray interval and dosage of Cyd-X applied every 7, 10 or dosage of Cyd-X applied every 7, 10 or 14 days at 1, 3, or 6 oz/ac14 days at 1, 3, or 6 oz/ac
% and degree of fruit damage, larval % and degree of fruit damage, larval mortality, sampling overwintering larvaemortality, sampling overwintering larvae
F 9,99 = 0.99; P = 0.454
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1oz 3oz 6oz Control
% C
M f
ruit
inju
ry
F 9,49 = 0.99; P < 0.0001
a
dd
bccdcd
bc bcb
bc
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1oz 3oz 6oz Control
Pro
port
ion
of d
eep
entr
ies
F 9,99 = 48.5; P < 0.0001ab
cd
f
de cd bc
ebc bc
20
40
60
80
100
1oz 3oz 6oz Control
% L
arva
l mor
talit
y 7d
10d
14d
Fruit damage, deep entries and CM mortality following different treatments of Cyd-X in individual tree plots.
Grower applicationsGrower applications
Assessment of:Assessment of:
Fruit damageFruit damage
larval mortalitylarval mortality
adult adult populationspopulations
overwintering overwintering larvaelarvae
F 3,17 = 54.5; P < 0.001
c
abb
20
40
60
80
100
1oz 2oz 3oz Untreated
% L
arv
al m
ort
alit
yF 4,22 =4.5; P = 0.01
abab
bc
a
c
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1oz 2oz 3oz Untreated Guthion
% C
M fr
uit i
njur
y
F 4,22 = 7.6; P < 0.001
bc
a
c
b
c
0
4
8
12
16
1oz 2oz 3oz Untreated Guthion
Inte
rcep
tion
trap
(bi
-wee
kly
catc
h)
Fruit damage, CM mortality and interception trap catches following different treatments of Cyd-X in ½ acre blocks in a 21 acre commercial orchard (data for 1st generation).
CpGV and MD is effectiveCpGV and MD is effective
Year #Applications/season
% CM fruit injury/1000 fruit
Moths/pheromone trap
1st gen. 2nd gen. 1st flight
2nd flight
2003 14 1.27* 0.84* 27.1 5.3
2004 8 0.13 0.21 6.2 5
2005 12 0.17 0.1 13.5 101CpGV (Cyd-X) applied at 2 or 3 fl.oz/A and 100 gal./ A, * assuming 300 fruit/tree
Fruit injury and codling moth populations in 3A organic Golden Delicious treated with CpGV and MD (Parker Heights, WA)
Laboratory studiesLaboratory studies
Quantitative bioassaysQuantitative bioassays Shelf life at 36, 77, and 95˚FShelf life at 36, 77, and 95˚F UV sensitivityUV sensitivity
Weeks in storage after which less than 95% mortality of codling moth larvae occurs (100,000 fold dilution)
36˚F - 2˚C 77˚F - 25˚C 95˚F - 35˚C
Carpovirusine 116 2-4 2
Virosoft 132+ 132+ 40
Cyd-X 140+ 140+ 16
+ end point not yet determined
Solar simulator and half apple system used to
bioassay CpGV formulations
Apples were sprayed with CpGV suspensions in a DeVries spray cabinet
Evaluation of formulation components as Evaluation of formulation components as ultraviolet light protectantsultraviolet light protectants
Mean CM mortality on apples treated with standard rate of CpGV (1000-fold dilution) and exposed to 9.36 × 106 joules/m2 simulated sunlight plus controls.
Virosoft Carpovirusine Cyd-X
UV 29.7 20.4 46.8No UV 95.1 90.2 98. 2% red. 68.8 77.4 52.3
Evaluation of spray-dried lignin-based Evaluation of spray-dried lignin-based formulations as ultraviolet light formulations as ultraviolet light protectantsprotectants
Evaluation of spray-dried lignin-based formulations as ultraviolet Evaluation of spray-dried lignin-based formulations as ultraviolet light protectantslight protectants
Percentage neonate mortality on irradiated fruit with three rates of virus
Formulation
High dose (3 × 1010 OB/L)
Med. dose (3 × 109 OB/L)
Low dose (3 × 108 OB/L)
Untreated 21.4c 21.4b 21.4
Cyd-X 55.7b 44.5a 37.8
Virus/Lignin 95.4a 41.7a 37.3Data show average for five replicate tests (n = 25)Letters show Fisher’s LSD at P < 0.05
Evaluation of spray-dried lignin-based formulations as ultraviolet Evaluation of spray-dried lignin-based formulations as ultraviolet light protectantslight protectants
Formulation First generation1 Second generation2
% fruit damage
% mortality
% fruit damage
% mortality
Untreated 6.1 38.5b 33.8 27.4c
Blank Lignin 6.3 36.3b 32.1 17.8c
Cyd-X 11.1 93.2a 26.2 64.6ab
Virus/Lignin 9.1 87.8a 27.9 71.4a
Cyd-X (½ rate) - - 28.5 65.7ab
Virus/Lignin (½ rate)
- - 23.2 58.6b1Four applications at 6.57 × 1012 granules/ha2Three applications, ½ trees sprayed at a reduced rate (2.2 × 1012 granules/ha)
Field tests (Golden Delicious), 14 d spray interval, n=10 trees
CpGV Technology CpGV Technology Transfer: Transfer: Presentations Presentations Presentations to grower groupsPresentations to grower groups
– WTFRCWTFRC– Tilth, OregonTilth, Oregon– Organic Grower meetingsOrganic Grower meetings– WOPDMCWOPDMC
Technical Presentations Technical Presentations – Society for Invertebrate PathologySociety for Invertebrate Pathology– WC43WC43– Regional Project on Microbial ControlRegional Project on Microbial Control– Entomological Society of AmericaEntomological Society of America
CpGV Technology CpGV Technology Transfer: Publications Transfer: Publications Trade magazinesTrade magazines
– Grower - 2005Grower - 2005– Good Fruit Grower – May 2005Good Fruit Grower – May 2005– Local Ag. Periodicals 2005Local Ag. Periodicals 2005– Tilth Producers Quarterly 2005Tilth Producers Quarterly 2005
Journals Journals – J. Econ. Ent. 2005J. Econ. Ent. 2005– J. Invert. Pathology 2005J. Invert. Pathology 2005– Biol. Control 2004Biol. Control 2004– J. Ent. Soc. B. C. 2005J. Ent. Soc. B. C. 2005– J. Ent. Sci. 2004J. Ent. Sci. 2004– WOPDMC, 2004-2006WOPDMC, 2004-2006
Conclusions and future Conclusions and future workwork
Good population control but there is Good population control but there is room for improvementroom for improvement
Feeding stimulants Feeding stimulants Pear esterPear ester Lignin formulationsLignin formulations ResistanceResistance
– CpGV could provide tool for managing CpGV could provide tool for managing CM resistant to conventional insecticidesCM resistant to conventional insecticides
– Evidence for CM tolerance to CpGVEvidence for CM tolerance to CpGV