Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project BMSB in Vineyards and Wines
Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project
BMSB in Vineyards and Wines
Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project
BMSB in Vineyards and Wines
Contributors: Doug Pfeiffer (Virginia Tech, coordinator) Joe Fiola, Bill Lamp, Karen Rane (Univ. Maryland) Anne Nielsen, Dean Polk, Bryan Petty, Dan Ward (Rutgers Univ.) Michael Saunders, Jody Timer (Pennsylvania State Univ.) Chris Hedstrom, Pallavi Mohekar, Nik Wiman, Elizabeth Tomasino and Vaughn Walton (Oregon State Univ.)
Research Questions for BMSB in Vineyards
Phenology, Impact in Vineyards Economic Impact:
Injury to berries Introduction of rots, other pathogens Delays in postharvest sorting Contamination of wine at crush Nuisance in wine tasting rooms
Control tactics
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
30-M
ay
13-J
un
27-J
un
11-J
ul
25-J
ul
8-A
ug
22-A
ug
5-Se
p
Mea
n H
. hal
ys
Adults
Nymphs
Eggs
Phenology in vineyard 1
5/3…
6/1…
6/2…
7/1…
7/2…
8/8…
8/2…
9/5…
2012 2013
Surrounded by woods all sides, Virginia
High pressure at harvest (1 pesticide application)
Low pressure at harvest (2 pesticide applications)
Phenology of BMSB in Vineyard 2
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Mea
H.h
alys
per
vin
eyar
d
Adults Nymph Eggs
2012 2013
High pressure at harvest
Low pressure at harvest (one pesticide application)
Surrounded by woods three sides, pasture the fourth
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Mea
n H
. hal
ys p
er v
iney
ard
Adult Nymph Egg
Phenology of BMSB in Vineyard 3, 2013
Low pressure during harvest, high BMSB in adjacent Soybean
Most abundant in white grapes, from mid-June to mid-July and from mid-August to mid-September
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2012 BMSB abundance 2013 BMSB abundance #
BMSB
#
BMSB
Photo: Walton
Oregon: Populations build up in late season
Photo’s: Walton
Pheromone-baited pyramid traps and systematic beat sheeting
Edge effects, 2012/2013 • Edge & middle Weekly three-minute timed count
visual sampling
Border section Middle rows
Edge
Edge effect
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
Edge
Middle
5/31
/201
3 6/
7/20
13
6/14
/201
3 6/
21/2
013
6/28
/201
3 7/
4/20
13
7/12
/201
3 7/
18/2
013
7/26
/201
3 8/
1/20
13
8/8/
2013
8/
15/2
013
8/22
/201
3 8/
29/2
013
9/5/
2013
9/
12/2
013
• There was significant edge effect regardless of the time 2012 (F = 1.62, df = 3.2, 26.2 and P = 0.20) 2013(F = 1.4, df = 4.2, 33.8 and P = 0.02).
2012 F = 47.45, df = 1, 8, P = 0.0095
2013 F = 21.35, df = 1,8, P = 0.0017
BMSB
abu
ndan
ce
Key phenological trends • Egg masses collected from early June to mid-
July • Populations peaking at early veraison • BMSB high at harvest depending on control
program • BMSB abundance inside vineyards affected by
surrounding landscapes
Research Questions for BMSB in Vineyards
Phenology, Impact in Vineyards Economic Impact:
Injury to berries Introduction of rots, other pathogens Delays in postharvest sorting Contamination of wine at crush Nuisance in wine tasting rooms
Control tactics
Injury to the berries
Presence of stylet sheaths
Photo’s, Chris Hedstrom
BMSB Lab Surveys & Choice Tests
• Significantly more BMSB seen on Chambourcin, Merlot, and Traminette
• Significant difference in stylet sheaths by variety
• Presence doesn’t indicate feeding
# BM
SB
# St
ylet
She
aths
Growth stage and varietal damage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Cabernet Sauvignon Seyval blanc Cabernet Sauvignon Seyval blanc
Man
ber
reis
pun
ctur
ed
Peasized
Veraison
Pre-harvest
ab
a
a
b
a
ab
b
b
b
b
b
b
2012 2013 Developmental stages 2012: F = 5.30; df = 2,2; P < 0.05, 2013: F = 5.07; df = 2, 2; P < 0.05; Variety 2012: F = 8.08; df = 1, 1; P < 0.05, 2013: F = 9.54; df = 2, 2; P < 0.05
BMSB Controlled exposure studies
• Chardonnay and Traminette had higher damage than Chambourcin and Cabernet Sauvignon
• Grapes most susceptible to damage once veraison begins
• Majority of damage as aborted berries (up to mean 54%) and necrosis
• Both adult and nymph BMSB capable of causing damage at low abundance - 2/cluster
• Increasing amounts of sour rot with BMSB feeding density – Especially prevalent in Traminette and
Chardonnay
Photo, Walton
Controlled BMSB Exposure 2012, 2013 • Treatments: 0 BMSB = Control 1 BMSB = Low 2 BMSB = High • Three distinct exposure periods:
Pea size (Jul 23, 2012; Jul 15, 2013), Véraison (Aug 25, 2012; Aug 4, 2013) Pre-harvest (Sept, 28 2012; Sept 15, 2013)
• Clusters exposed to BMSB for 7 days, sleeve feeding • Analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD to separate means
Photo, Walton
Determination of direct impact: Crop quality most important Crop quality
Mean cluster weight Mean number of berries per cluster Mean weight of berries Mean number of dropped berries at harvest. Mean number of BMSB punctures per cluster. Mean number of discolored berries per cluster. Mean number of raisin berries per cluster.
2012 Crop Year, Pinot noir
Treatment Berries/cluster
Punctures N
Pea stage 73.6±5.5 a 2.7±1.1 b 18
Veriason 70.9±4.6 a 6±4.8 a 21
Pre harvest 79.9±5.5 a 3.4±1.6 ab 20
Control 80.1±5.4 a 0.3±0.2 b 10
2013 Crop year, Pinot noir
Treatment Berries/clust
er Punctures
N
Pea stage 1/Cluster 102.9±6 a 0.2±0.1 a 15
PS 2/Clus 107.4±6.7 a 1.1±0.5 a 15
Veriason 1/Cluster 97.7±6.7 a 0.2±0.1 a 15
Ver 2/Clus 108.6±9 a 0 b 13
Pre harvest 1/Clus 100.6±7.8 a 0.1±0.1 a 15
PH 2/Clus 93±8.5 a 0.7±0.4 a 15
Control 94.6±7.5 a 0 b 15
Research Questions for BMSB in Vineyards
Phenology, Impact in Vineyards Economic Impact:
Injury to berries Introduction of rots, other pathogens Delays in postharvest sorting Contamination of wine at crush Nuisance in wine tasting rooms
Control tactics
Stink bug impacts on grapes • Contamination (defensive volatiles):
– Physical: bugs clinging to clusters at harvest. Mechanical harvest increases contamination.
– Chemical: excretion of defensive volatile chemicals can contaminate fruit, juice, and wine?
• Harvest, packing, handling can trigger release
= taint Impacts are poorly
understood, no damage thresholds
Dr. Elizabeth Tomasino
• New OSU faculty with wine sensory analysis and flavor chemistry expertise
• Research question: will BMSB contamination result in wine taint?
• High quality Pinot Noir • Donated by Adelsheim Vineyard
Tetradecane
Trans-2-decenal
Dodecane Trans-2-octenal
• Step 1: Characterize BMSB defensive compounds
• GCMS chromatogram of the volatile aroma compounds excreted by “stressed” BMSB
STRONG AROMA: “pungent”, “cilantro”
WEAK AROMA: “citrus”, “fresh”
• Stinkbugs added to Pinot noir grapes before wine processing
• Taint in destemmer • Taint in pressing (dead and
some alive) • Treatments:
• Control – no bugs • (T1) – 1 bug per 4 clusters • (T2) – 1 bug per 2 clusters
Treatments
Fairly high densities, but not entirely unreasonable considering potential BMSB densities
Photo, Wiman
Taint in destemming
We found BMSB surviving destemming process
Photo, Walton
Phot
o, W
iman
Simulating cluster contamination Cold soak process containing bugs
Taint compounds released again during pressing, despite majority dead bug presence
Photo, Walton
Tetradecane
Trans-2-decenal
Dodecane Trans-2-octenal
What made it into finished wine? • GCMS chromatogram of the
finished wine (and at fermentation intervals).
Present in wine, unknown effect Main taint components
A) Difference testing (triangle tests) showed that consumers could tell a difference between the treatment wines and the control (significant at α=0.05).
B) Consumer rejection threshold found to be very close to the detection threshold, even even low amounts of BMSB taint have a negative impact on Pinot noir quality.
Sensory Panel Evaluation
A B
Conclusions on wine taint • BMSB taint is real! Other
processes and varieties may change the results. – Masked fruity characteristics of
the wine – Contrasts with results from MD
• Consumer rejection: as soon as it’s detectable, it’s rejectable – Opportunity to link detection
thresholds in wine to density of insects in the field
– This may become the treatment threshold for vineyard managers
Will chemistry have a solution?
Nuisance factor