Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

EFFECTIVENESS OF MATING DISRUPTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR VINE MEALYBUG MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARDS, 2011

EFFECTIVENESS OF MATING DISRUPTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR VINE MEALYBUG MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARDS, 2011 Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.C17 (C17) GRAPE: Vitis vinifera L. ‘Sauvignon Blanc’ Vitis vinifera L. ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Vitis vinifera L. ‘Merlot’ EFFECTIVENESS OF MATING DISRUPTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR VINE MEALYBUG MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARDS, 2011 Ashfaq A. Sial Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California Berkeley 130 Mulford Hall #3114 Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone: (510) 643-4019 Fax: (510) 642-4034 E-mail: ashsial@berkeley.edu John T. Hutchins Kent M. Daane E-mail: daane@uckac.edu Vine mealybug (VMB): Planococcus ficus (Signoret) This study is part of an ongoing effort to evaluate effectiveness of various mating technologies in managing VMB in vineyards. This study was conducted in the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Crush District within a 231.3 ha contiguous block of winegrapes operated by Vino Farms. The acreage is reportedly uniformly infested with relatively low densities of VMB, and has received prior annual treatments of Admire and Applaud (in 2010) and Lorsban and Venom (2009). There were three treatments each applied in a block of 6-8 ha. Synthetic sex pheromone in the first mating disruption treatment was delivered in CheckMate® VMB-XL dispensers (Suterra Inc., Bend, OR) which hold and release (ca. 150 mg a.i. per dispenser) at a rate of 618 dispensers per ha (9.2 g per ha per season). In the second mating disruption treatment, synthetic sex pheromone was delivered in MESO emitters, which hold and release a larger column of the sex pheromone (ca. 2000 mg a.i. per dispenser), at a rate of 8 MESO emitters per ha. The dispensers were hung on the fruiting wire on 27 Apr, 2011 before the first large male flight. The third treatment was the grower standard insecticide applications for VMB– Admire applied at bloom, but applications were standard across all replicates. All treatments were replicated four times in a RCB design. Blocks were spread throughout the ranch in order to reduce near-neighbor impact of the sex pheromone volatiles. The purest control treatment would be four (replicates) of 8 ha blocks with ‘no-insecticides” applied. Given the value of 32.4 ha of winegrapes, this is an impractical risk, one that the grower-cooperator could not undertake. As an alternative, a sub-plot (15 rows x the entire length of the respective block) in middle of each of the treatment plots was not treated with insecticides. This non-spray area was used for all samplings throughout the period of this experiment. A set of three delta traps was deployed in the non-spray area of each treatment to monitor VMB population throughout the season. The delta traps were changed bi-weekly and number of male VMB trapped were recorded. At the harvest time, 10% of the vines in each treatment were evaluated at the rate of one cluster per vine to assess the effectiveness of mating disruption treatments. Each of the selected clusters was given a rating from 0 to 3 with 0 = No VMB, 1 = 1-5 VMB, 2 = 6-20 VMB, and 3 = >20 VMB per cluster. The trap counts data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and the cluster ratings at the harvest were analyzed using chi-squared test. The results show that the male VMB counts in both of the mating disruption treatments were similar to those in the grower standard insecticide treatment (Table 1). However, the male VMB trap catches started numerically increasing in August which could be attributed to the fact that CheckMate® VMB-XL dispensers might have run out of pheromone by then. The cluster evaluation at the harvest showed that the percentage of cluster damage was similar in both mating disruption treatments, but it was slightly higher than that in the growers standard insecticide program (Table 2). 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.C17 Table 1. Trap Counts Male VMB/trap (Mean) Treatment 24-May 7-Jun 21-Jun 5-Jul 19-Jul 2-Aug 22-Aug 15-Sep Grower Standard 0.108 0.083 0.083 0.042 0 0.083 0.554 0.948a Insecticides CheckMate® 0.071 0 0.042 0.25 0.333 0.875 5.775 8.803a Dispensers MESO-Emitters 0.022 0.083 0.083 0.042 0 0 0.612 1.434a Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Repeated Measures ANOVA) Table 2. Cluster Ratings Clusters per category (%) Treatment 3 2 1 0 Grower Standard 0 0 0 100a Insecticides CheckMate® 0 0.336 0.784 98.88b Dispensers MESO-Emitters 0.447 0.671 1.23 97.651b Cluster ratings: 0 = No VMB, 1 = 1-5 VMB, 2 = 6-20 VMB, and 3 = >20 VMB per cluster Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, chi-squared test) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Arthropod Management Tests Oxford University Press

EFFECTIVENESS OF MATING DISRUPTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR VINE MEALYBUG MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARDS, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/effectiveness-of-mating-disruption-technologies-for-vine-mealybug-mnMZLa0ok1
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
eISSN
2155-9856
DOI
10.4182/amt.2012.C17
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.C17 (C17) GRAPE: Vitis vinifera L. ‘Sauvignon Blanc’ Vitis vinifera L. ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Vitis vinifera L. ‘Merlot’ EFFECTIVENESS OF MATING DISRUPTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR VINE MEALYBUG MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARDS, 2011 Ashfaq A. Sial Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California Berkeley 130 Mulford Hall #3114 Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone: (510) 643-4019 Fax: (510) 642-4034 E-mail: ashsial@berkeley.edu John T. Hutchins Kent M. Daane E-mail: daane@uckac.edu Vine mealybug (VMB): Planococcus ficus (Signoret) This study is part of an ongoing effort to evaluate effectiveness of various mating technologies in managing VMB in vineyards. This study was conducted in the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Crush District within a 231.3 ha contiguous block of winegrapes operated by Vino Farms. The acreage is reportedly uniformly infested with relatively low densities of VMB, and has received prior annual treatments of Admire and Applaud (in 2010) and Lorsban and Venom (2009). There were three treatments each applied in a block of 6-8 ha. Synthetic sex pheromone in the first mating disruption treatment was delivered in CheckMate® VMB-XL dispensers (Suterra Inc., Bend, OR) which hold and release (ca. 150 mg a.i. per dispenser) at a rate of 618 dispensers per ha (9.2 g per ha per season). In the second mating disruption treatment, synthetic sex pheromone was delivered in MESO emitters, which hold and release a larger column of the sex pheromone (ca. 2000 mg a.i. per dispenser), at a rate of 8 MESO emitters per ha. The dispensers were hung on the fruiting wire on 27 Apr, 2011 before the first large male flight. The third treatment was the grower standard insecticide applications for VMB– Admire applied at bloom, but applications were standard across all replicates. All treatments were replicated four times in a RCB design. Blocks were spread throughout the ranch in order to reduce near-neighbor impact of the sex pheromone volatiles. The purest control treatment would be four (replicates) of 8 ha blocks with ‘no-insecticides” applied. Given the value of 32.4 ha of winegrapes, this is an impractical risk, one that the grower-cooperator could not undertake. As an alternative, a sub-plot (15 rows x the entire length of the respective block) in middle of each of the treatment plots was not treated with insecticides. This non-spray area was used for all samplings throughout the period of this experiment. A set of three delta traps was deployed in the non-spray area of each treatment to monitor VMB population throughout the season. The delta traps were changed bi-weekly and number of male VMB trapped were recorded. At the harvest time, 10% of the vines in each treatment were evaluated at the rate of one cluster per vine to assess the effectiveness of mating disruption treatments. Each of the selected clusters was given a rating from 0 to 3 with 0 = No VMB, 1 = 1-5 VMB, 2 = 6-20 VMB, and 3 = >20 VMB per cluster. The trap counts data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and the cluster ratings at the harvest were analyzed using chi-squared test. The results show that the male VMB counts in both of the mating disruption treatments were similar to those in the grower standard insecticide treatment (Table 1). However, the male VMB trap catches started numerically increasing in August which could be attributed to the fact that CheckMate® VMB-XL dispensers might have run out of pheromone by then. The cluster evaluation at the harvest showed that the percentage of cluster damage was similar in both mating disruption treatments, but it was slightly higher than that in the growers standard insecticide program (Table 2). 1 Arthropod Management Tests 2012, Vol. 37 doi: 10.4182/amt.2012.C17 Table 1. Trap Counts Male VMB/trap (Mean) Treatment 24-May 7-Jun 21-Jun 5-Jul 19-Jul 2-Aug 22-Aug 15-Sep Grower Standard 0.108 0.083 0.083 0.042 0 0.083 0.554 0.948a Insecticides CheckMate® 0.071 0 0.042 0.25 0.333 0.875 5.775 8.803a Dispensers MESO-Emitters 0.022 0.083 0.083 0.042 0 0 0.612 1.434a Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, Repeated Measures ANOVA) Table 2. Cluster Ratings Clusters per category (%) Treatment 3 2 1 0 Grower Standard 0 0 0 100a Insecticides CheckMate® 0 0.336 0.784 98.88b Dispensers MESO-Emitters 0.447 0.671 1.23 97.651b Cluster ratings: 0 = No VMB, 1 = 1-5 VMB, 2 = 6-20 VMB, and 3 = >20 VMB per cluster Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05, chi-squared test)

Journal

Arthropod Management TestsOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2012

There are no references for this article.