Attract-and-Kill of BMSB: A SARE Project Summary Resources/BMSB-IW… · Attract-and-Kill of BMSB: A SARE Project Summary Rob Morrison1, ... Early, mid, and harvest ... 2015 Summary

Attract-and-Kill of BMSB: A SARE Project Summary

Rob Morrison1, A. Nielsen2, J.C. Bergh3, G. Krawcyzk4, B. Blaauw5, B. Short1, and T.C. Leskey1

1 Appalachian Fruit Research Station, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, WV 2 Department of Entomology, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ 3 AREC, Virginia Tech, Winchester, VA

4 Department of Entomology, Penn State, Biglerville, PA 5 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Conventional Management for BMSB

• ARM or full block sprays of broad spectrum materials (Rice et al. 2014; Lee 2015)

Conventional Management for BMSB

• ARM or full block sprays of broad spectrum materials (Rice et al. 2014; Lee 2015)

• Not sustainable in the long term

Recent Advances with Pheromones

• BMSB aggregation pheromone identified as two stereoisomers of 10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol (Khrimian et al. 2014)

• Attraction is synergized when combined with methyl decatrienoate (Weber et al. 2014)

Methyl decatrienoate (MDT) Active components of 10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol

Attract-and-Kill as Alternative Strategy

Attract-and-Kill as Alternative Strategy

Preliminary Work with AK

• Over 6 days, killed ~28,000 adults and ~5,000 nymphs at trees with high dose of pheromone (Morrison et al. 2016)

• High retention capacity of AK trees and low spillover into rest of orchard (Morrison et al. 2016)

•On 10 farms in 2015 & 2016

Commercial Attract-and-Kill

•On 10 farms in 2015 & 2016

•Two treatments: AK vs. grower std.

Commercial Attract-and-Kill

vs.

Grower Standard Attract-and-Kill Block

•On 10 farms in 2015

•Two treatments: AK vs. grower std.

Commercial Attract-and-Kill

•On 10 farms in 2015

•Two treatments: AK vs. grower std.

•Safeguard with spray triggered by monitoring trap

Commercial Attract-and-Kill

Commercial Attract-and-Kill

Early, mid, and harvest 16 interior trees 4 perimeter trees 4 baited trees

Internal Corking Sites

10 fruit per tree

Damage Incidence per Tree

?

Counts of Killed BMSB on Tarps At 4 sites across 4 states 23 AK trees 17 Control Trees BMSB adults & nymphs

Split Season Into Three Periods

Early Before Jun 15th Mid Jun 15th-Aug 15th Harvest After Aug 15th

2015 Results: Low population year

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Perimeter Interior

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Perimeter Interior

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Perimeter Interior

Me

an S

eve

rity

(±

SE)

of

Fru

it D

amag

e

Early

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Severity

A A

A A

A

BC B

C

A

A A

B

ANOVA Log-transformed Treatment F1,398 = 408.1 P < 0.0001 Location F2,398 = 663.8 P < 0.0001 Period F2,398 = 4421.6 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Perimeter Interior

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Perimeter Interior

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Perimeter Interior

Me

an S

eve

rity

(±

SE)

of

Fru

it D

amag

e

Early

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Severity

A A

A A

A

BC B

C

A

A A

B

ANOVA Log-transformed Treatment F1,398 = 408.1 P < 0.0001 Location F2,398 = 663.8 P < 0.0001 Period F2,398 = 4421.6 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Perimeter Interior

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Perimeter Interior

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Perimeter Interior

Me

an S

eve

rity

(±

SE)

of

Fru

it D

amag

e

Early

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Severity

A A

A A

A

BC B

C

A

A A

B

ANOVA Log-transformed Treatment F1,398 = 408.1 P < 0.0001 Location F2,398 = 663.8 P < 0.0001 Period F2,398 = 4421.6 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

10

20

30

Perimeter Interior

0

10

20

30

40

Perimeter Interior

0

5

10

15

Perimeter Interior

Results: Fruit Damage Frequency

Early M

ean

% D

amag

ed

Fru

it (

± SE

) p

er

Tre

e

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

A

AB

B B

A

B B

B

A A

A

B

GLM Binomial Likelihood Ratio Treatment χ2 = 4.429 df = 1 P < 0.04 Location χ2 = 13.5 df = 1 P < 0.0003 Period χ2 = 84.6 df = 2 P < 0.0001 Chi-square w/Bonferroni correction

?

0

10

20

30

Perimeter Interior

0

10

20

30

40

Perimeter Interior

0

5

10

15

Perimeter Interior

Results: Fruit Damage Frequency

Early M

ean

% D

amag

ed

Fru

it (

± SE

) p

er

Tre

e

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

A

AB

B B

A

B B

B

A A

A

B

GLM Binomial Likelihood Ratio Treatment χ2 = 4.429 df = 1 P < 0.04 Location χ2 = 13.5 df = 1 P < 0.0003 Period χ2 = 84.6 df = 2 P < 0.0001 Chi-square w/Bonferroni correction

?

0

10

20

30

Perimeter Interior

0

10

20

30

40

Perimeter Interior

0

5

10

15

Perimeter Interior

Results: Fruit Damage Frequency

Early M

ean

% D

amag

ed

Fru

it (

± SE

) p

er

Tre

e

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

A

AB

B B

A

B B

B

A A

A

B

GLM Binomial Likelihood Ratio Treatment χ2 = 4.429 df = 1 P < 0.04 Location χ2 = 13.5 df = 1 P < 0.0003 Period χ2 = 84.6 df = 2 P < 0.0001 Chi-square w/Bonferroni correction

?

0

5

10

15

20

AK Control

0

0.5

1

1.5

AK Control

0

1

2

3

4

AK Control

Adults

Nymphs

Results: BMSB on Tarps

Early

Treatment

Mid

Harvest

Me

an W

ee

kly

H. h

aly

s K

ille

d (

± SE

) Tr

ee

-1

A

A

A

B

A

B

a a

a a

a b

ANOVA Adults Log-transformed Treatment F1,45 = 0.330 P < 0.566 Period F2,523 = 124.1 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,523 = 37.0 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA Nymphs Log-transformed Treatment F1,45 = 0.01 P = 0.999 Period F2,523 = 9.38 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,523 = 3.0 P < 0.05 Tukey’s HSD

0

5

10

15

20

AK Control

0

0.5

1

1.5

AK Control

0

1

2

3

4

AK Control

Adults

Nymphs

Results: BMSB on Tarps

Early

Treatment

Mid

Harvest

Me

an W

ee

kly

H. h

aly

s K

ille

d (

± SE

) Tr

ee

-1

A

A

A

B

A

B

a a

a a

a b

ANOVA Adults Log-transformed Treatment F1,45 = 0.330 P < 0.566 Period F2,523 = 124.1 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,523 = 37.0 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA Nymphs Log-transformed Treatment F1,45 = 0.01 P = 0.999 Period F2,523 = 9.38 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,523 = 3.0 P < 0.05 Tukey’s HSD

0

5

10

15

20

AK Control

0

0.5

1

1.5

AK Control

0

1

2

3

4

AK Control

Adults

Nymphs

Results: BMSB on Tarps

Early

Treatment

Mid

Harvest

Me

an W

ee

kly

H. h

aly

s K

ille

d (

± SE

) Tr

ee

-1

A

A

A

B

A

B

a a

a a

a b

ANOVA Adults Log-transformed Treatment F1,45 = 0.330 P < 0.566 Period F2,523 = 124.1 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,523 = 37.0 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA Nymphs Log-transformed Treatment F1,45 = 0.01 P = 0.999 Period F2,523 = 9.38 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,523 = 3.0 P < 0.05 Tukey’s HSD

2015 Threshold Summary

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

AK Control

# Ti

me

s Th

resh

old

Was

R

eac

he

d

Chi-Square χ2 = 3.62 df = 1 P < 0.05

2015 Summary

• At harvest, half (or less) as frequent and severe of damage in AK block interior trees compared to grower standard

• Equivalent control in perimeter trees to grower std

• Killing 15 adults per week, per AK tree during the late season

2016 Results: Higher population year

Year

2016: Higher Populations

0

5

10

15

20

25

2015 2016

0

2

4

6

8

2015 2016

Me

an B

MSB

(±

SE)

Fou

nd

pe

r A

K

Bai

ted

Tar

p P

er

We

ek

>2.5 times

>27 times

Adults t = 3.97 P < 0.0001 Nymphs t = 3.17 P < 0.005

2016: Higher Populations

0

5

10

15

20

25

2015 2016

0

2

4

6

8

2015 2016

Me

an B

MSB

(±

SE)

Fou

nd

pe

r A

K

Bai

ted

Tar

p P

er

We

ek

>2.5 times

>27 times

Adults t = 3.97 P < 0.0001 Nymphs t = 3.17 P < 0.005

Year

ANOVA Log-transformed Treatment F1,400 = 770.0 P < 0.0001 Location F2,400 = 14.8 P < 0.001 Period F2,400 = 3191.8 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

A

AB B

C

A

B

A

B

A

AB AB

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Perimeter Interior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Perimeter Interior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Perimeter Interior

Me

an S

eve

rity

(±

SE)

of

Fru

it D

amag

e

Early

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Severity

A

AB B

C

A

B

A

B

A

AB AB

B

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Perimeter Interior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Perimeter Interior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Perimeter Interior

Me

an S

eve

rity

(±

SE)

of

Fru

it D

amag

e

Early

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Severity

ANOVA Log-transformed Treatment F1,400 = 770.0 P < 0.0001 Location F2,400 = 14.8 P < 0.001 Period F2,400 = 3191.8 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Perimeter Interior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Perimeter Interior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Perimeter Interior

Me

an S

eve

rity

(±

SE)

of

Fru

it D

amag

e

Early

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Severity

A

AB B

C

A

B

A

B

A

AB AB

B

ANOVA Log-transformed Treatment F1,400 = 770.0 P < 0.0001 Location F2,400 = 14.8 P < 0.001 Period F2,400 = 3191.8 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

A A A

A

A

B

A

B

A AB

BC

C

0

5

10

15

Perimeter Interior

Early M

ean

% D

amag

ed

Fru

it (

± SE

) p

er

Tre

e

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

0

10

20

30

40

Perimeter Interior

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perimeter Interior

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Frequency

GLM Binomial Likelihood Ratio Treatment χ2 = 9.12 df = 1 P < 0.003 Location χ2 = 4.22 df = 1 P < 0.04 Chi-square w/Bonferroni correction

?

A A A

A

A

B

A

B

A AB

BC

C

0

5

10

15

Perimeter Interior

Early M

ean

% D

amag

ed

Fru

it (

± SE

) p

er

Tre

e

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

0

10

20

30

40

Perimeter Interior

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perimeter Interior

Tree Location

Mid

Harvest

Results: Fruit Damage Frequency

GLM Binomial Likelihood Ratio Treatment χ2 = 9.12 df = 1 P < 0.003 Location χ2 = 4.22 df = 1 P < 0.04 Period χ2 = 119.5 df = 2 P < 0.0001 Chi-square w/Bonferroni correction

?

0

5

10

15

Perimeter Interior

Results: Fruit Damage Frequency

Early M

ean

% D

amag

ed

Fru

it (

± SE

) p

er

Tre

e

Attract-and-Kill

Grower Standard

0

10

20

30

40

Perimeter Interior

Mid

A A A

A

A

B

A

B

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perimeter Interior

Tree Location

Harvest A AB

BC

C

GLM Binomial Likelihood Ratio Treatment χ2 = 9.12 df = 1 P < 0.003 Location χ2 = 4.22 df = 1 P < 0.04 Period χ2 = 119.5 df = 2 P < 0.0001 Chi-square w/Bonferroni correction

?

0

20

40

60

AK Control

0

2

4

6

8

AK Control

0

0.5

1

1.5

AK Control

Adults

Nymphs

Results: BMSB on Tarps

Early

Treatment

Mid

Harvest

Me

an W

ee

kly

H. h

aly

s K

ille

d (

± SE

) Tr

ee

-1 A

A

A

B

A

B

a a

a a

a

b

ANOVA Adults Log-transformed Treatment F1,40 = 31.3 P < 0.0001 Period F2,40 = 141.7 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,40 = 23.4 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA Nymphs Log-transformed Treatment F1,40 = 68.1 P < 0.0001 Period F2,40 = 182.7 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,40 = 36.2 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

20

40

60

AK Control

0

2

4

6

8

AK Control

0

0.5

1

1.5

AK Control

Adults

Nymphs

Results: BMSB on Tarps

Early

Treatment

Mid

Harvest

Me

an W

ee

kly

H. h

aly

s K

ille

d (

± SE

) Tr

ee

-1 A

A

A

B

A

B

a a

a a

a

b

ANOVA Adults Log-transformed Treatment F1,40 = 31.3 P < 0.0001 Period F2,40 = 141.7 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,40 = 23.4 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA Nymphs Log-transformed Treatment F1,40 = 68.1 P < 0.0001 Period F2,40 = 182.7 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,40 = 36.2 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

20

40

60

AK Control

0

2

4

6

8

AK Control

0

0.5

1

1.5

AK Control

Adults

Nymphs

Results: BMSB on Tarps

Early

Treatment

Mid

Harvest

Me

an W

ee

kly

H. h

aly

s K

ille

d (

± SE

) Tr

ee

-1 A

A

A

B

A

B

a a

a a

a

b

ANOVA Adults Log-transformed Treatment F1,40 = 31.3 P < 0.0001 Period F2,40 = 141.7 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,40 = 23.4 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

ANOVA Nymphs Log-transformed Treatment F1,40 = 68.1 P < 0.0001 Period F2,40 = 182.7 P < 0.0001 Interaction F2,40 = 36.2 P < 0.0001 Tukey’s HSD

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

AK Control

2016 Threshold Summary #

Tim

es

Thre

sho

ld W

as

Re

ach

ed

Chi-Square χ2 = 0.027 df = 1 P = 0.869

2016 Summary

• At harvest, statistically equivalent frequency and severity of damage in AK block interior trees compared to grower standard

• Equivalent control in perimeter trees to grower std

• Killing >40 adults per week, per AK tree during late season

Economics Comparisons of Attract-and-Kill

Mean No. of BMSB Sprays 15 3 Percentage of Trees Sprayed 3-4 100 Percentage of Active Ingredient Applied 20% 100% Cost of BMSB lures/per A/season $1500 0 Cost of BMSB Sprays/per A/season $6-20 $30-100

Attract and Kill Standard

Economics Comparisons of Attract-and-Kill

Mean No. of BMSB Sprays 15 3 Percentage of Trees Sprayed 3-4 100 Percentage of Active Ingredient Applied 20% 100% Cost of BMSB lures/per A/season $1500 0 Cost of BMSB Sprays/per A/season $6-20 $30-100

Attract and Kill Standard

Take Home Messages

• Attract-and-kill is an effective pest management strategy

• But: not cost effective

• Unless lure price or deployment strategy can be significantly altered, no grower will adopt this

Acknowledgements • USDA-ARS, NE SARE

Tracy Leskey

Rob Morrison

Kevin Rice

Kyle Utah

McKenzie Allen

Nate Brandt

Austin Ogden

Torri Hancock

Sharon Jones

Tony Rugh

Lee Carper

Brent Short Chris Hott

John Cullum

Leskey Lab

Thank you for your attention!

In the field one morning…