4/13/2016

1

Using Trap Crops to Control

Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs &

The Feasibility of Biodegradable

Mulches

Annette Wszelaki

Commercial Vegetable Specialist

Developing Trap Crops for Organic

Management of Native and Invasive

Stink Bugs in Peppers

Background

• Organic growers lack effective stink bug

management

– Feeds on many crops

– Moves to crops based on season

– Colonizes fields from edge

• Sunflower trap border delayed BMSB

colonization in organic peppers and

tomatoes in West Virginia (Mathews

unpublished)

Effective Trap Crops

Good candidates

• Highly attractive when stink bugs are moving

to crops and when cash crop is fruiting

• Non-competitive with cash crops in close

vicinity (i.e., no reduction in yields)

• Potentially provide other ecosystem services

(e.g., attract and/or provision natural enemies

to enhance biological control)

4/13/2016

2

2014 Multi-State Trap Crop Study

PI/Site State # Sites # Reps

Nielsen/RAREC NJ 1 4

Nielsen/Muth NJ 1 1

Mathews/Redbud WV 1 4

Dively/UMD MD 1 4

Pfeiffer/VATech VA 1 1

Moore/OCU TN 1 3

Kotcon/WVU WV 1 4

Welty/Stratford OH 1 1

Welty/Bridgeman OH 1 1

Walgenbach/Sizemore NC 1 1

Zinati/Rodale PA 1 4

Totals: 8 11 28

• Evaluate sunflower and sorghum trap crop for bell

peppers, 8 states:

Design

• Bell peppers

(‘Aristotle’) , single

row in black plastic

• Trap crop border

(4’ wide)

sunflower and

sorghum, direct

seeded

Plot Exterior Plot Interior

4/13/2016

3

Trap Border

• Stink bugs (BMSB and native

species) and natural

enemies: surveyed weekly

(eggs, nymphs, adults)

• Peppers: 5 samples (10

plants/row)

• Trap crop border: 2 samples

(1 m long, each side of trap

crop border)

2014 Insect Sampling

0.51 0.810.65 0.320

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Sunflower Sorghum

Log

Me

an T

ota

l/1

Me

ter

2014 Seasonal SB Densities on Trap Crops(N=11 Sites)

BMSB Native SB

t 50= -1.06P = 0.2962

t 50= 3.66P = 0.0006

*

2014 Pepper Damage Assessment

• All mature fruit harvested weekly (100

plants/plot), 7 weeks (Jul – Sept)

Rating Class 0 –

Undamaged

Rating Class 1 –

Minor Injury

Rating Class 2 –

Major Injury

4/13/2016

4

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

High Med Low

Me

an %

Pe

pp

ers

Har

vest

ed

Stink Bug Pressure Group

Class 1 Damage (N=9 sites)

Control Trap Crop

*

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

High Med Low

Me

an %

Pe

pp

ers

Har

vest

ed

Stink Bug Pressure Group

Class 2 Damage (N=9 sites)

Control Trap Crop

*

2014 Pepper Yields

145.0 134.00

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Seasonal Harvest

Me

an w

ee

kly

tota

l/1

00

pla

nts

Control Trap Crop

N = 9 sitesF1,46= 1.88

P = 0.17

Stink Bug Egg Predation

Enhanced in Trap Border

t = 2.80

P = 0.01

t = 2.36

P = 0.022

4/13/2016

5

Conclusions

Sorghum/sunflower trap holds promise

• Attractive when stink bugs are moving to crops, delays

colonization of peppers, reduces damage (medium-low

pest pressure)

• Need to better match trap crop seasonality (i.e., sorghum)

to protect crop in fruiting stage

• Incorporate pheromone trap and/or killing agent to

remove bugs from trap crop

• No reduction in pepper yields

• Sunflowers are attracting natural enemies and

enhancing biological control (eggs)

Acknowledgements

• USDA-NIFA Organic Research and Extension

Initiative (Grant # 2012-51300-20097)

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under award number 2014-51181-22382. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

http://biodegradablemulch.org

Do biodegradable mulches have a place in your production system?

Annette WszelakiDepartment of Plant Sciences

University of Tennessee

Agricultural Plastic Mulch

20

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

4/13/2016

6

Benefits of Plastic Mulch

• Weed management

• Reduces some diseases and insect pests

• Warms soil in spring

• Increases yield

• Reduces erosion

• Hastens time to harvest

• Conserves moisture

• Increases crop quality

• More efficient use of water and fertilizer

• Reduces soil compaction

• Efficient double or triple cropping

21

Problems with Plastic Mulch

22

• Need for removal and disposal

• Disposal cost is $145-236/ac (Galinato et al., 2012)

• Generally not all plastic is removed

• Issue of sustainability

• Decrease soil productivity, water quality

• Overall environmental hazard

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

Biodegradable Plastic Mulch

Has the potential to be a sustainable technology if it:

• Provides equal benefits as plastic mulch

• Reduces labor costs for removal and disposal

• Reduces landfill waste

• Completely biodegrades

• Causes no harm to soil ecology or environment

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

What does biodegradable mean?

• Capable of being broken down via microbial activity

• Complete biodegradation (i.e., mineralization) refers to the oxidation of the compound to carbon dioxide and water

• Biodegradation provides carbon as a source of food for the growth and reproduction of microorganisms

Source: Numata, 2009

Slide courtesy of Ghumire and Miles, 2015.

4/13/2016

7

Biodegradable Mulch Ingredients

1 Abbreviations: PBAT polybutylene adipate terephthalate; PBS polybutylene succinate; PBSA PBS-co-adipic acid; PCL polycaprolactone; PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate; PLA polylactic acid; TPS thermoplastic starch

2 Estimated relative rate of biodegradation; Brodhagen et al. 2015. Biodegradable plastic agricultural mulches and key features of microbial degradation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2015) 99:1039–1056.

Ingredient1 Feedstock Synthesis ERBD in soil

2

Cellulose Biobased Biological High

PBAT Hydrocarbon Chemical Low moderate

PBS Hydrocarbon Chemical Low moderate

PBSA Hydrocarbon Chemical Low moderate

PCL Hydrocarbon Chemical Moderate

PHA Biobased Biological Moderate high

PLA Biobased Biological & Chemical Low

Sucrose Biobased Biological High

TPS/Starch Biobased Biological High

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

Biodegradable Mulches on the Market

1 Abbreviations: PBAT polybutylene adipate terephthalate; PBS polybutylene succinate; PBSA PBS-co-adipicacid; PCL polycaprolactone; PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate; PLA polylactic acid; TPS thermoplastic starch

Adapted from: Hayes et al. 2012. Biodegradable agricultural mulches derived from biopolymers. In Degradable Polymers and Materials, Principles and Practice, 2nd Edition. Am. Chem. Soc.

Polymer trade name Polymers in biodegradable mulch1 Polymer trade name Polymers in biodegradable mulch

Bio 360 Mater-Bi (TPS + PCL); PBAT EnPol PBS

BioAgri  Mater-Bi (TPS + PCL); PBAT Envio PBAT; PLA; TPS

Biocycle Sucrose/PHA blend Garden Weed Barrier Cellulose (paper)

Bio-Flex PLA/co-polyester GreenBio PHA

Biomax TPS Starch + TPS Ingeo TPS/PLA; PBS/PLA

Biomer L PHA Mater Bi PCL/TPS; PBAT

Bionolle PBS or PBSA; TPS + PLA + PBS/PBSA Landmaster Cellulose (paper)

Biopar TPS + co-polyester Mirel PLA + PHAs

Biosafe  PBAT/TPS blend; PBS; PBSA Naturecycle PHA

Eastar Bio  PBAT/TPS blend Paragon TPS

EcoCover Recycled paper Planters Paper Cellulose (paper)

EcoFilm Unspecified plastic ReNew PHAs

Eco-Flex PBAT; TBS Skygreen Terephthalic acid co-polyester

 Ecovio PLA; PBAT/TPS Weed Block Cellulose (paper)

Eco-One Unspecified plastic; oxo-degradable WeedGuard Cellulose (paper)

EcoWorks PBAT + PLA

Biodegradable and Biobased

Biodegradable: Microbial activity that results in CO2, H2O and microbial biomass

Biobased: Feedstocks derived from renewable resources (plant and/or animal mass) via biological processes

Biobased ingredient that doesn’t biodegrade in soil: PLA1

Synthetic ingredients that biodegrade in soil: PCL, PBS, PBAT

1 Probably would degrade over 10+ years if thin enough; passes ASTM/ISO compostability standard

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

What are we lacking?

• Better understanding of biodegradation of commercially available mulches in different climates

• Information on mulch accumulation after multiple applications

• Technology to measure mulch biodegradation in soil

• Good agriculture practices to hasten mulch biodegradation

Slide courtesy of Ghumire and Miles, 2015.

4/13/2016

8

This material is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, under award number 2014-51181-22382. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

http://biodegradablemulch.org

Performance and Adoptability of Biodegradable Plastic Mulch for

Sustainable Specialty Crop Production

Funded by USDA-NIFA through Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI)

Experiments at Knoxville TN, and Mount Vernon WA

USDA SCRI BDM Project

30

• Evaluate impacts of repeated use on agricultural soil ecosystem (soil quality, microbial communities, carbon storage)

• Identify degradation mechanisms and interrelationships among life-cycle stages: fossil fuel-derived or biobased, role of weathering, soil degradation or composting

• Evaluate degradation in diverse climates to improve performance and evaluation methods

• Compare results of lab-scale standardized tests for biodegradability and weathering with results from field studies

• Identify potential crop weed, disease and insect pest problems

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

USDA SCRI BDM Project

31

• Identify supply chain steps with focus on economic relevance and feasibility, regulation, and farmer’s perceptions to elucidate bridges and barriers to adoption

• Educate farmers, intermediaries, consumers and the general public on BDMs, biodegradation, and biobased plastics

• Interact with consumers, farmers, intermediaries, regulators, composters, and scientists to increase interest in sustainable use of BDMs

• Educate and train students, research associates, and scientists on skills needed to work on transdisciplinary research problems

Slide courtesy of Miles and Ghumire, 2015.

Project Design

• Two locations: Mt. Vernon, WA & Knoxville, TN

• ‘Cinnamon Girl’ pie pumpkin

• 30’ plots of 5 rows each, replicated 4 times

• Planted from seed June 15

• Harvested September 14

• Eight treatments

4/13/2016

9

Mulch Products in Experiment

33

Treatment Company Width (In.)

Thickness (mm)

1. Bare ground2. BioAgri BioBag USA 48 0.0254

3. BioAgri Removed BioBag USA 48 0.24

4. Experimental/Metabolix Metabolix 48 0.018

5. Naturecycle Custom Bioplastics 48 0.0254

6. Organix BASF/Organix Ag. 48 0.0177

7. Polyethylene (PE) FilmTech Corp. 48 0.0381

8. WeedGuardPlus Sunshine Paper Co. 48 0.018

Soil Studies

34

Tennessee field site, 21 Sept. 2015

Slide courtesy of DeBruyn, 2015Lysimeter installation

Soil respiration Water infiltrationLysimeters

35

Soil StudySoil pH, EC, and nitrate measurements

Soil samples archived for microbiology analyses

Slide courtesy of DeBruyn, 2015.

36

Plastics Analysis

Colorimetry

Larry measuring thickness

Rachel measuring tensile strength

CO2 analyzer Slide courtesy of Hayes, 2015.

4/13/2016

10

Technology Adoption

Identify bridges and barriers to the diffusion and adoption of BDMs across a

diverse stakeholder audience.

37

Crop Data

• Percent visual degradation (weekly)

• Weed counts (2 weeks after planting, mid-season, and late season)

• Insect and disease scouting

• Yield (Marketable/Total, weights and numbers)

• Storage & quality evaluations (every 2 wks for 8 wks)

– Weight loss - Color

– Soluble solids - Dry weight

39

Crop Activities

Early Season

WSU

UTK

Mid-Season Later Season

WSUWSU

WSU

UTK

UTK

Slide courtesy of Inglis, 2015.

2015 Preliminary Data: TN Yield

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yie

ld (

t/h

a)

4/13/2016

11

41

Yie

ld (

t/h

a)

d

ab ab bc bca

cd

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Marketable Unmarketable

2015 Preliminary Data: WA Yield

42

2015 Preliminary Data: TN Yield

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Nu

mb

er o

f fr

uit

per

ha

Marketable Unmarketable

dab abc bc bc

acd

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Marketable Unmarketable

Nu

mb

er o

f fr

uit

per

ha

2015 Preliminary Data: WA Yield

43 44

Fruit Defects

4/13/2016

12

2015 Preliminary Data: TN Adhesion

45

abb b

a

b b0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mu

lch

ad

hes

ion

(%

)

2015 Preliminary Data: WA Adhesion

a

b

a

a

b

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mu

lch

ad

hes

ion

(%

)

46

2015 Preliminary Data: TN Percent Soil Exposure

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

BioAgri

Metabolix

Naturecycle

Organix

PE

WeedGuardPlus

Per

cen

t S

oil

Exp

osu

re (

PS

E)

48

2015 Preliminary Data: WA Percent Soil Exposure

0

20

40

60

80

100

BioAgri

Metabolix

Naturecycle

Organix

PE

WeedGuardPlus

Per

cen

t S

oil

Exp

osu

re (

PS

E)

4/13/2016

13

2015 Preliminary Data: TN Weeds

49

Nu

mb

er o

f w

eed

s (p

er m

2 )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7-Jul 29-Jul 31-Aug

Bare ground

BioAgri

Metabolix

Naturecycle

Organix

PE

WeedGuardPlus

50

Nu

mb

er o

f w

eed

s (p

er m

2 )

2015 Preliminary Data: WA Weeds

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

19- Jun 31-Jul 11-Sep

Bare ground

BioAgri

Metabolix

Naturecycle

Organix

PE

WeedguardPlus

2015 Preliminary Weed Information

Predominant weeds in TN:1. Nutsedge

2. Carpetweed

3. Goose grass

4. Annual bluegrass

5. Crabgrass

Predominant weeds in WA:1. Pigweed

2. Chickweed

3. Grass (assorted)

51

2015 Summary

TN• PSE greatest for Naturecycle and WeedGuardPlus (100% by end of season)• Weeds greatest for Naturecycle, but low for WeedGuardPlus• No difference in pumpkin yield due to mulch product• Mulch adhesion low (<20%), greatest for Organix and BioAgri

WA• PSE differed for mulch products, was greatest for Naturecycle (61% by end of

season)• Marketable pumpkin yield with BioAgri and Metabolix were comparable with

PE mulch• Yield was lowest for Bare ground• No weeds in any mulch treatment throughout the season except for

Naturecycle one week before harvest• Mulch adhesion high (30-50%), except for Metabolix and PE

4/13/2016

14

UT Project Team

53

• Project Leadership – Douglas Hayes (Project Director)

• Extension and Outreach Working Group - Annette Wszelaki, Susan Schexnayder, Jenny Moore

• Field Activities Working Group – Annette Wszelaki, Jenny Moore, Arnold Saxton

• Plastics Analysis Working Group – Douglas Hayes, Larry Wadsworth

• Soil Ecology Working Group – Sean Schaeffer, Jenn DeBruyn• Supply Chain/Life Cycle Assessment Working Group – Margarita Velandia

• Technology Adoption Working Group – Margarita Velandia, Susan Schexnayder, Annette Wszelaki

• Project Assessment Working Group – Susan Schexnayder

THANK YOU!

• Several mulches performed similarly to black plastic

• Will they fully biodegrade?

• Will the initial cost even out with cost of labor for removal, transportation and disposal?

• Will they change soil quality?

• Stay tuned…

• Questions? Annette Wszelaki (annettew@utk.edu)

• http://biodegradablemulch.org