Attract-and-Kill of BMSB: A SARE Project Summary Rob Morrison 1 , A. Nielsen 2 , J.C. Bergh 3 , G. Krawcyzk 4 , B. Blaauw 5 , B. Short 1 , and T.C. Leskey 1 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
45
Embed
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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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