evolution of pest management practices - jenny...

1

The Evolution of Pest Management Practices

Jay Brunner

Washington State University

Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center

Wenatchee, WA


Optimize pesticide useConserve biological control agents

Minimize environmental effects

Holistic but legalistic

SyntheticPesticides

IPMBio-based

IPM“Organic-ish”

Organic Pest Management Continuum Conventional

A Perspective on Apple Pest Management

2


• Pre-WWII: Petroleum oil, Lead-arsenate etc.

• Post-WWII: synthetic insecticides – DDT and relatives, organophosphates, carbamates

• IPM born out of crisis - excessive pesticide use (1959 Stern et al. – UC Berkeley)

- lack of sustainability - pesticide treadmill concept

• 1960-65 Crisis in WA apple, spider mite population explosions � brown apple trees.

• Integrated Mite Management born out of crisis – Stan Hoyt, WSU Entomologist, Wenatchee


Hoyt, in response to a crisis (pesticide treadmill), demonstrated that the use of selective rates of OP insecticides for codling moth control allowed survival of the predatory mite, Gallendromus occidentalis. Integrated mite management blended selective rates of azinphos-methyl for codling moth control and biological control of spider mitesEstablished the principle of conservation biological control. Value to WA apple growers in millions of dollars per year for over 40 years

Historical Crisis & Value of Biological Control

3


Conservation Biological Control

Leafminer parasite

Leafhopper parasite

Other examples of conservation biocontrol even in the OP era. Leafminer parasite tolerant of OPs (Guthion, Imidan) and Sevin. Provided complete biocontrol when Penncap-M removed from summer. Leafhopper egg parasite controlled WALH after removal of Penncap-M and Lorsban from summer, even when Guthion still used.





SyntheticPesticides

IPMBio-based




4


The discovery of moth sex pheromones opened a new era of monitoring key pests – OFM, CM, leafrollers, etc.

Pheromone trapping became a key tool in following pest phenology and estimating populations.

Use of pheromones for mating disruption was evaluated in 1980s with OFM and PBW successes encouraging commercialization.

First CM pheromone registered in 1991.

Pheromones – discovery & adoption


Evaluated different hand-applied pheromone dispensing systems at rates of 200-400 units per acre

In general all of these technologies provided good suppression of codling moth behavior, reduced insecticide use and crop injury


5


Evaluated different hand-applied pheromone dispensing systems at rates of 200-400 units per acre

In general all of these technologies provided good suppression of codling moth behavior, reduced insecticide use and crop injury

In last decade aerosol emitters at 1 unit/A have proven effective against CM and other pests.

In addition, meso-dispensers have been shown to be effective at 20-40 units per acre.

Mating disruption of CM made organic possible



0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1998

2001

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Apple Organic Acres in Washington (9%)

Pheromone for CM control made organic production possible. Use of oil, CM virus and spinosad (Entrust) complimented MD.

6


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.00.3 fl oz

1.0 fl oz

3.0 fl oz

UTC

84%

59%

Cumulative CM Larvae in Bands


Organic


Pest Management Continuum

SyntheticPesticides

Conventional

IPMBio-based





7

Codling moth model developed in Michigan, validated in Washington, and used since 1980s in WA. Model prediction was accurate within 2 days of observed event (egg hatch)

Models and Pest Management

Thirty-five Years of Crop Protection and Factors that will Shape the Future

WSU Decision Aid System (DAS) was a team effort lead by Dr. Vince Jones - now Director of WSU-DAS

Models and Pest Management

WSU-DAS is one of the most, if not the most, advanced delivery system for model output in the world

Provides for interpretation of model output and IPM practices –sampling, trap placement, timing of controls

Provides for integration of model output with pesticide recommendations and impacts on biocontrol

Provides framework for addition of new models – e.g. natural enemies

Provides links to other information on pests and natural enemies

8


Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA-1996) •Aggregated risk (exposure) of pesticides with a common mechanism � OPs •All uses of a pesticide were considered, dietary and non-dietary � exposureEPA announced the phase-out of the use of Guthion (azinphos-methyl) •Private industry developed new pesticides that were safer and more selective •WSU research showed how these new technologies fit into apple IPM programs –PMTP and adoption of reduced risk insecticides

PesticidesA B CD E F

dietary+ nondietary

Same mode of action

Pesticide regulations


Registration (EPA Decision) dates for reduced risk and OP alternative insecticides

Chemical RR/OP Alt Decision DateSpinosad (Success/Entrust) RR April 15, 1998Tebufenozide (Confirm) RR/OP Alt. July 21, 1999Pyriproxyfen (Esteem) RR/OP Alt. April 14, 1999Emamectin Benzoate (Proclaim) OP Alt. February 1, 2000Methoxyfenozide (Intrepid) RR/OP Alt. June 12, 2000Acetamiprid (Assail) RR/OP Alt. March 15, 2002Novaluron (Rimon) OP Alt. June 2, 2004Clothianidin (Clutch) OP Alt. February 23, 2005Thiacloprid (Calypso) OP Alt. February 17, 2006Spinetoram (Delegate) OP Alt. Sept. 28, 2007Chlorantraniprole (Altacor) OP Alt. April 25, 2008Flubenidiamid (Belt) OP Alt. April 1, 2009

9


Insecticide use over time in WA apple



SyntheticPesticides

IPMBio-based


A Perspective on Pest Management




10



SyntheticPesticides

IPMBio-based






?


Density and distribution of pests and natural enemies – targeted control based on more information

Treatment thresholds for pests modified by presence of absence of NEs

Population models predicting changes in pest density


11

Thirty-five Years of Crop

Protection and Factors that will

Shape the Future


Density and distribution of pests and natural enemies – targeted control based on more information

Treatment thresholds for pests modified by presence of absence of NEs

Population models predicting changes in pest density

New monitoring tools for natural enemies – plant volatiles � index health of orchard environment

Natural enemy models to identify opportunities to conserve biocontrol agents


12


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

WA Pear Acre appl.

A Perspective on Pear Pest ManagementPear IPM driven by one pest � pear psylla

Pesticide treadmill driven by resistance in PP has resulted in few changes over time

Dunley “organic-ish” approach showed some promise

Biological control possible but not realized

Horticultural practices limiting IPM opportunities


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Cherry Acre appl.

A Perspective on Cherry Pest ManagementCherry IPM driven by key pest � cherry fruit

fly and zero tolerance based on quarantine Total insecticide applications of insecticides

changed little over time

13


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

OPs Spin



changed little over time OP use declined and spinosad use increased

GF120 bait changed CFF control program (Tim Smith)


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

OPs Spin



changed little over time OP use declined and spinosad use increased

GF120 bait changed CFF control program (Tim Smith)

Detection and control of spotted wing drosophila changed cherry IPM

Return to broad-spectrum, contact insecticide sprays

14


Brown marmorated stink bug

Greatest threat to tree fruit IPM programs � wide host range, completes its life cycle on fruit crops and effective chemical controls are not currently used in apple IPM and will cause a major disruption of biological control

Images courtesy of Dr. Tracy Leskey – USDA-ARS



SyntheticPesticides

IPMBio-based


A Perspective on Pest Management




?

BMSB

15

A Perspective on Pest Management Practices

Started with a sole dependence on insecticides

Integrated mite management – conservation biological control

Pheromone technology becomes a foundation for apple IPM

Regulations forced transition to more selective insecticides

DAS integrated models with interpretation and linkage to pesticide recommendations

New lures for monitoring NEs and development of models

New technology to help measure pest populations and provide spatial information

Global trade with introduction of new pests threatens the stability of IPM programs in all crops

evolution of pest management practices - jenny...

Documents