IPM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - Almonds

IPM DEMONSTRATION PROJECTROOM 312-313 | DECEMBER 6, 2018

2

Demonstration and Implementation of IPM

in Almonds2016-2019

David Haviland, Jhalendra Rijal, and Emily Symmes

UCCE and UC IPM

3

Why IPM Demonstrations in Almonds?

• California’s #1 and fastest growing commodity

• Many new almond growers and PCAs• Rich history of IPM research funded

by the almond industry• Underutilization of some IPM tools• Opportunities for synergism with the

California Almond Sustainability Program

• Collateral benefits to IPM programs in pistachios and walnuts

4

The Team• UC Statewide IPM Program (4)

– Statewide representation • DPR

– Funding, general assistance• UCCE Farm Advisors (4)

– Consultations, extension, guidance• Almond Board of California

– Funds for complimentary research• Almond Growers and PCAs

– Host research, guidance• Mating Disruption Manufacturers

– In-kind donations, guidance

5

3 sites

3 sitesKern Co.

Conv.

IPM

PMA project sites

Southern San Joaquin ValleyWascoMaricopaLost Hills

Northern San Joaquin ValleyEscalonTurlockBallico

6 Demo SitesGrower Standard vs

Enhanced IPM

6

ABC 2025 Vision- Areas of Opportunity for increased integration

• Monitoring• Increased reliance on biocontrol• Avoid prophylactic treatments• Resistance management

• Winter sanitation• Monitoring• Mating disruption• Early harvest• Pesticide choice (avoid pyrethroids)• Resistance management

Navel orangeworm Spider mites

7

ABC 2025 Vision- Areas of Opportunity for increased integration




8

Mating Disruption Products

Trade Name Manu-facturer

Dispen-sers per

acreType Release

rate

Other perks/ costs

Organic

Puffer NOW 2 Aerosol StaticNightly No No

Semios NOW 1 Aerosol Variable Yes No

Isomate NOW 1 Aerosol Static nightly No No

Cidetrak NOW Meso

20(15-28) Passive Static

24/7 No Yes

9

How Mating Disruption WorksData from 2018 Kern Co. PMA sites

Male/female lure and Egg traps

− 1st flight- same number of moths

− 1st generation- 63% less eggs in MD

− 2nd flight- 47% less moths

− 2nd generation- 35% less eggs

− 3rd flight- 56% less moths

− 3rd generation- 87% less eggs

10

Reductions in trap capturesABC PMA PMA2017 2017 201889% 97% 100%095% 93% 97%91% 94% 99%

Pheromone trap captures- Southern SJVHaviland Almond Board Project, 2017

11

All 4 MD products effectiveAverage damage reduction- 46%

NOW damage at harvest- Southern SJVHaviland Almond Board Project, 2017

12

PMA Site- Lost Hills2017 2018

• One or Two sprays w/ or w/o MD

• Two-year damage ↓ 49%• Net grower return ↑ $84/yr/acre

13

PMA Site- Maricopa2017 2018

• 100ac triangle vs. 200ac square• 2-3 sprays w/ or w/o MD


14

PMA Site- Wasco2017 2018

• Low pressure• MD replaced two sprays


15

Mating Disruption Summary

• Four commercial products, they all work• 90+% reduction in male moth captures• 50-70% reduction in damage• Reduction of aflatoxins• Two-year average benefit ($49/ac)• Economic benefits depend on baseline damage

– Break-even around 2.0-2.5%– Below 1.5%, costs can be offset by less sprays

• Larger scale = larger benefit• Marketing benefits of being ‘sustainable’• Improved resistance management• Improved worker safety• No treatment timings, PHIs, REIs or residues

16

Areas of Opportunity for increased integration (ABC BOD)




17

PMA Demonstration Battle Plan

• Monitor weekly for mites (presence/absence)• Don’t treat unless you have

– 33% leaves with mites (predators)– 25% leaves with mites (no predators)

• Monitor for sixspotted thrips– Use yellow panel traps– Watch for thrips mid-April to mid-May– Watch for thrips in response to mites

• Treat (if needed) with a miticide that doesn’t kill thrips

18

Spider mites- monitoring and thresholds

Treat too early= Starve predators

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4

Mea

n m

ites

per

leaf

2004PeMe

2005PeMe2006PlMe

2006AlLo2006AlWa

2008AlWa2009AlSh1

2009AlSh22011AlSh

Treatment threshold

(40% infested)Action

threshold(30% infested)

Treat too late= Risk of defoliation

19

Sixspotted thrips

• Feed almost exclusively on spider mites

• Thrive in hot dry climates• Have replaced predatory mites as the

dominant natural enemy of spider mites

• Can eat 50 eggs per day at 86°F• Population can quadruple in one week• Thigmotaxic (not afraid of tight spaces,

thrives in mite webbing)

20

Monitoring- sixspotted thrips

–Yellow strip trap–3” x 5”–Great Lakes IPM–Case of 1000 for $260

–Hang from tree using binder clip and large uncoiled paper clip

–Place near NOW or PTB traps traps

21

Thrips:mite ratios can predict change in mite density

• As thrips approach zero, mites increase exponentially

• As thrips approach infinity, mites decrease exponentially

22




23




• 2.6 thrips/card/week for every 1 mite/leaf equals no change in mites 7 days later– Spring implication- If 1 mite per 3 leaves, 1 thrips on a card is all you need

24




• 2.6 thrips/card/week for every 1 mite/leaf equals no change in mites 7 days later– Spring implication- If 1 mite per 3 leaves, 1 thrips on a card is all you need

• Simplified version for mid-season to hull split–3 thrips/trap/week = break even

•50% chance mites will be the same or lower in 14 days– 6 thrips/trap week = walk away

• 72.7% chance mites will decrease in 7d, 96.6% chance mites will decrease in 14d

25

Avoid prophylactic treatments• May sprays for mites becoming obsolete• Nine orchards (9/9) miticides not justified• Predatory thrips above thresholds in all cases• Miticides should never be used in May without

monitoring for spider mites and thrips• If a treatment is justified, avoid products that

kill thrips

Sixs

potte

d th

rips/

card

/wee

k

26

Maximizing biocontrol

• Mites flare up• Appx. 2-week

delay• Thrips

respond• Thrips

overtake mites• Mites crash• 9 case studies

Mite

sTh

rips

27

Population Doubling Time

Year LocationDoubling time in days

Pacific Spider Mite

Sixspotted thrips

2016 Shafter 15.9 4.22016 McFarland 6.0 4.22017 Shafter 3.8 2.32017 Maricopa 9.3 2.72007 Buttonwillow 3.0 3.6

Average 7.6 3.4

28

Take-home messages

Spider mites• Weekly monitoring• Use thresholds

–25% to 33% presence/absence

• Avoid prophylactic sprays• Maximize biocontrol

–Sticky traps to thrips–Consider thrips populations in

treatment decisions

PMA Project 2018 update:Navel Orangeworm and Mites(North San Joaquin Valley Perspective)Jhalendra Rijal, Ph.D.

IPM Advisor, Northern San Joaquin Valley

UC Cooperative Extension & UC Statewide IPM Program

30

3 sites

3 sitesKern Co.

Conv.

IPM

PMA Project Sites

Ballico

Turlock

Escalon

(Northern San Joaquin Valley)

31

PMA Project Sites-North SJV

BallicoTurlock

Escalon

Variety: NP/Monterey/FritzAge: 6 yrs.

Variety: NP/Carmel/MontereyAge: 12 yrs.

Variety: NP/Aldrich/Wood ColonyAge: 6 yrs.

32

Turlock Site, Navel Orangeworm

0

2

4

6

8

1017

-Mar

31-M

ar

14-A

pr

28-A

pr

12-M

ay

26-M

ay

9-Ju

n

23-J

un

7-Ju

l

21-J

ul

4-Au

g

18-A

ug

1-Se

p

15-S

ep

29-S

ep

13-O

ct

27-O

ct

10-N

ov

Ave/

trap

/day

No MD

MD

MD applied

Reduction in trap capture

2018: 99.6%

2017: 94.7%

Male NOW captures in pheromone traps

33

Turlock Site, Navel Orangeworm

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Nonpareil Carmel Monterey

% NOW damage (Turlock)

No MD Mating disruption34% reduction

38% reduction

67% reduction

Overall damage reduction

2018: 46.3%

2017: 57.3%

34

Escalon Site, Navel Orangeworm


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

17-M

ar

31-M

ar

14-A

pr

28-A

pr

12-M

ay

26-M

ay

9-Ju

n

23-J

un

7-Ju

l

21-J

ul

4-Au

g

18-A

ug

1-Se

p

15-S

ep

29-S

ep

13-O

ct

27-O

ct

10-N

ov

Ave/

trap

/day No MD

MDMD applied


2018: 97.6%

2017: 97.1%

35

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Nonpareil Aldrich W. colony

% NOW damage (Escalon)

No MD Mating disruption

Escalon Site, Navel Orangeworm

33% reduction

97% reduction

89% reduction


2018: 73%

2017: 70%

36

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

17-M

ar

31-M

ar

14-A

pr

28-A

pr

12-M

ay

26-M

ay

9-Ju

n

23-J

un

7-Ju

l

21-J

ul

4-Au

g

18-A

ug

1-Se

p

15-S

ep

29-S

ep

13-O

ct

27-O

ct

10-N

ov

Ave/

trap

/day

No MD

MD

Ballico Site, Navel Orangeworm


MD applied


2018: 96.6%

2017: 83.2%

37

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Nonpareil Monterey Fritz

% NOW damage (Ballico)


Ballico site, Navel Orangeworm

34% reduction

75% reduction 50%

reduction


2018: 53%

38

All Sites Combined, Navel Orangeworm

Reduction in damage

2017: 71. 9 %

2018: 63.3 %

Combined: ~68%

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2017 2018

% NOW damage in 3 PMA sites in 2017 and 2018


39

Prevalence of Spider Mites and Predators in NSJV

Spider Mite Infestation

Stethorus Beetle Sixspotted Thrips

Mite Predators

40

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

28-Apr 28-May 28-Jun 28-Jul 28-Aug 28-Sep

Turlock site: Stethorus/card

C Avg. M Avg

Stethorus populationNorth San Joaquin Valley

41

Stethorus populationNorth San Joaquin Valley

0102030405060708090

100Ballico: Stethorus/card

C Avg. M Avg

42

0100200300400500

28-A

pr19

-May

1-Ju

n19

-Jun

26-J

un3-

Jul

10-J

ul17

-Jul

24-J

ul4-

Aug

29-A

ug14

-Sep

23-S

ep7-

Oct 0

100200300400500600700800900

2-Ap

r19

-May

2-Ju

n23

-Jun

3-Ju

l8-

Jul

18-J

ul24

-Jul

1-Au

g7-

Aug

25-A

ug11

-Sep

22-S

ep13

-Oct

0

2

4

6

8

10

19-M

ay

1-Ju

n

19-J

un

24-J

un

3-Ju

l

10-J

ul

17-J

ul

24-J

ul

5-Au

g

29-A

ug

23-S

ep

7-O

ct

Mites/leaf

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

19-M

ay

2-Ju

n

23-J

un

3-Ju

l

8-Ju

l

18-J

ul

24-J

ul

1-Au

g

7-Au

g

25-A

ug

11-S

ep

22-S

ep

13-O

ct

Thrips/card Thrips/card

Mites/leaf

Turlock Ballico

Sixspotted Thrips vs. Mite PopulationNorth San Joaquin Valley

43

Conclusion: NOW and MitesNavel Orangeworm Mating disruption (an excellent candidate for IPM) >65% damage reduction by using MD based on 2-yr demo trials in the

northern San Joaquin Valley (along with regular insecticide program) Areawide MD approach should be the next step for comprehensive NOW

management

Spider Mites: Strong evidence of mite predators (Stethorus, sixspotted thrips) presence

in almond orchards in NSJV Monitor mites and predator population with leaf and yellow sticky card

sampling Avoid broad-spectrum insecticides and prophylactic miticide application

to conserve NEs

2018 Research Update:Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB)

Jhalendra Rijal, Ph.D.



45

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

• Invasive stink bug, Halyomorpha halys (Stal)

• First detection in PA around late-1990s

• In 2010, significant economic loss in Mid-Atlantic States ( $ 37 million only in apple)

• >170 host crops

www.pestworld.org

~5/8 inch long, marble brown

Photo: Doug Pfeiffer, Virginia Tech

http://www.pestworld.org/

46

Established in 16 Counties

Modesto First detection 2015 July 2015

Severe nuisance problem since Fall 2013

BMSB in CA

47

2017-BMSB in almond orchard (First Report)

Rijal and Gyawaly 2018, Insects, 9(4):126

48

2018-BMSB infestation in 6 almond orchards in NSJV

Substantial nut drop

49

BMSB phenology

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Weekly BMSB adults/trap in an almond orchard

sticky pyramid

50

2018-Temporal Feeding Study in Almonds(in collaboration with Dr. Zalom Lab, UCD)

2 varieties: Nonpareil and Monterey Fabric cages placed at early fruit set covering 7-15 nuts/cage 9 cages/variety infested with 3 BMSB adults/cage weekly Last wk. of March (Wk. 1) to the last wk. of July (Wk. 18) Nut size, nut development stage, drop nuts, shell hardness, injury categories:

hull, shell, kernel.

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Wk

1

Wk

2

Wk

3

Wk

4

Wk

5

Wk

6

Wk

7

Infested

Control

(var. Monterey)

BMSB feeding study in almonds

% nut drop after 21 days of BMSB infestation

27 March (Wk 1) 9 May (Wk 9)

0

30

60

90

120

Wk

1

Wk

2

Wk

3

Wk

4

Wk

5

Wk

6

Wk

7

Infested Control

(var. Nonpareil)

52

BMSB feeding injury to almonds (April 11, Wk 3 infestation)

Control Infested

53

BMSB damage at harvest

54

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% d

amag

eGummingDark spot(s)Depression/dimples2 per. Mov. Avg. (Gumming)2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dark spot(s))2 per. Mov. Avg. (Depression/dimples)

BMSB damage at harvest

55

• BMSB is spreading to agricultural areas and causing damage in commercial orchards

• BMSB seems to cause damage in almonds throughout the season

• Conduct visual inspections for the bug and damaged fruits (beginning March)

• Use sticky panel traps with BMSB lure early in the season to detect BMSB presence in the orchard

Conclusion and recommendation for BMSB monitoring

56

Acknowledgements

Many Thanks to:

• MD Product Support: Pacific Biocontrol, Semios, Suterra, Trece

• Cooperator Growers,• Pest Control Advisers• UC Farm Advisors and Faculties

Help from: Daniel Green, Daniel Rivers, Raquel Gomez, Emily Buerer, Adriana Medina

Dr. Joanna Fisher, UCD

USDA-NIFA SCRI 2016-51181-25409

Pls. visit BMSB Poster # 18.ENTO23.Rijal

2018 Research Update:Sacramento ValleyEmily Symmes



58

NOW IPM Demo 2018 – Sacramento Valley

Treatment Description Plot Size Application Timing

GS* Grower Standard(3 insecticide applications) 55 acres May 8, July 14, July 31

MT Mass Trapping, Peterson Trap Co. 70 acres April 19 – August 9

PBC Pacific Biocontrol ISOMATE® NOW Mist (aerosol) 70 acres April 9

MESO Trécé Cidetrak® NOW MESO (passive) 70 acres April 9

MESO+FLOW

Trécé Cidetrak® NOW MESO (passive)+ sprayable NOW pheromone (experimental formulation)

70 acresApril 9 (MESO)July 14, July 31

(FLOW)

FLOW Trécé sprayable NOW pheromone (experimental formulation) 70 acres July 14, July 31

(FLOW)

59


Glenn County, CA. Nonpareil, Winters, Monterey

60


*Flowable applications*

% Reduction Relative to GS

MT❖ NA (+1.4%)

PBC 98.7%MESO 99.3%MESO+FLOW

99.3%

FLOW* 98.0%

* Cum. 8 wks post appls. (7/17-9/12)❖ 12,455 total moths reduced by MT

61


*Mass trapping removed prior to Nonpareil harvest

*

Variety Date Collected

No. Evaluated/Plot

Nonpareil 9/5-9/8 4,000(20 X 200)

Monterey 9/26 2,000(10 X 200)

Harvest Samples

62


Female mating status evaluation underway

63

Sixspotted Thrips – Sacramento Valley

Large 10-in X 6-inSmall 5-in X 3-in

Great Lakes IPM Yellow Sticky Strips

64


65


66

Funding was provided by a California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pest Management Alliance Grant

and the Almond Board of California

Authors also thank Pacific Biocontrol, Semios, Trécé, and Suterra for in-kind contributions to research and cooperating growers and

their PCAs for use of their fields and technical assistance

Disclaimer: The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) provided partial or full funding for this project but does not necessarily agree with any opinion expressed, nor endorse any commercial product or trade name mentioned.

Thank you!

IPM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - Almonds

Documents