Integrated Pest Management. Tracey Baute and Gilles Quesnel OMAFRA

Transcription

1 Integrated Pest Management Tracey Baute and Gilles Quesnel OMAFRA

2 What is IPM? Integrated Pest Management A systems approach to pest control method that uses all available technologies to efficiently and economically reduce the pest population while respecting health and the environment Holistic approach not just for Hippies

3

4 Steps In IPM Process 1. Understand the pest (ID, lifecycle, damage, timing and association with the crop) 2. Conduct field monitoring (scouting) 3. Using injury and action thresholds 4. Least disruptive control strategy (Cultural, Chemical, Biological, Genetic) 5. Evaluate actions 6. Keep records

5 Control Strategies Preventative Measures Cultural Genetic Biological Chemical

6 Preventative Measures Some growers don t realize that their current cropping practices are preventative or cultural control measures for pest control Examples include: Certified seed Sanitation Variety/hybrid selection Planting timing Residue and weed management Crop rotation Good plant health

7 Crop Rotation most important method to manage pests Insects, diseases, weeds either removes susceptible crop from field or takes away primary host of major pest

8 Crop Rotation works best for pests with narrow host range, those that lay eggs in soil before crop is planted and less mobile pests Examples? Best example is rootworm control in Ontario

9 Crop Rotation + ~

10 Rotation Variant western corn rootworm have adapted to the two year crop rotation laying eggs outside of corn fields in the US not established here in Ontario due to our three year/more complex crop rotation and diverse landscape

11 Cultural Control Includes: Volunteer Crop Removal Tillage Weed Control Crop Management Remove Residue Clean Bins Good Plant/Field Health Planting Dates Crop Rotation Certified Seeds Variety Selection Clean Machinery Mechanical/Physical Light Traps Mowing Early Harvest Sticky Traps Genetic Planting resistant Traditional varieties breeding Sterile release

12 Potato Leafhopper Management IPM Options: Cultural? (Crop Management, preventative) Biological? Mechanical? Chemical? Genetic?

13 Potato Leafhopper Management IPM Options: Mechanical Mowing will: Remove damaged plants and allow regrowth Possibly disperse the PLH Pros/Cons

14 Mechanical Early harvest for alfalfa weevils, leafhoppers

15 + Tillage ~ -

16 Tillage removes residue and exposes soil insects to natural elements modifies moisture and temperature of the soil tillage for pest reduction needs to be timed according to pest cycle (doesn t always work) negative impacts may outweigh the pest control benefits

17 Genetic Control Resistant or tolerant varieties SCN varieties, phytophthora resistant varieties Genetically modified plants Bt corn, RR soys Technology can be expensive at first but in many cases leads to less use of chemical control

18 Glandular Haired Alfalfa Traditionally bred varieties with high densities of hairs of leaves and stems to physically resist or tolerate leafhopper feeding - hairs act as barriers Not genetically engineered Selective breeding for specific desirable traits

19 Glandular hairs on stem and leaves

20 PLH Seedling Damage Susceptible vs Resistant Varieties

21 Use of PLH Resistant Varieties Resistant plants Susceptible (S) < 15% Moderately Resistant (MR)15-30% Resistant (R) % Highly Resistant (HR) - >50%

22 Alfalfa Potato Leafhopper Resistant Varieties Alfalfa Potato Leafhopper Resistant Varieties

23 PLH Resistant Alfalfa Varieties Glandular hairs on leaves and stems provide tolerance to PLH Treatment thresholds for HR varieties 4X > (after establishment) PLH resistant varieties for: area that typically have significant PLH damage farmers that do not scout or spray to control PLH Pros/Cons

24 ECB Bt Corn ECB was costing US $1 billion annually in yield losses and control expenditures Using high dose of Bt in the plant (99% kill) Providing adequate non-bt refuge, planted in a way to ensure mating between susceptible and potential resistant individuals

25 Success Widespread adoption of Bt corn has resulted in an areawide suppression of O. nubilalis populations, which has economically benefitted both growers of Bt and non-bt corn Siegfried and Hellmich (2012) Understanding successful resistance management, GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, 3:3, , DOI: /gmcr.20715

26 Bt corn Resistant Rootworm Confirmed resistance issues in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri, and Kansas. Suspicious fields in Fringe area of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Ontario and New York.

27

28 First registration of CRW Bt corn Cry3Bb1 in 2003 Confirmed resistance: Cry3Bb1 in 2010 mcry3a in 2011 (cross resistance) Cross Resistance Gassman et al Field-evolved resistance by western corn rootworm to multiple Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in transgenic maize

29 What went wrong? Low to moderate dose + Pyramid traits (eg. SmartStax) + Repeated use of the same hybrids and in some cases lack of refuge compliance + Cross resistance means only one trait (Cry34/35Ab1) still works in pyramid + Reduced refuge requirement with pyramids 5 or 10% (Refuge incorporated) + = hastens resistance

30 Chemical Control Pros Typically applied at threshold to keep populations below injury levels Quick knockdown New products more specific Cons Need to scout and have thresholds Potential for resistance, cross resistance, pest resurgence and secondary pest outbreaks Non-target effects

31 Credit: Dr Peter Sikkema

32 Pest Resurgence

33 Secondary Pest Outbreak

34 Spidermites and Chemical Influences pyrethroids (eg. Matador) can cause a mite population to flare up (kills off their predators and not the mite) foliar fungicides can initiate a mite problem (kills the entomopathogens) Some research indicating neonic seed trts change plant hormones and actually allows mites to thrive on these plants

35 Penn State 2014 Toxic Slugs CruiserMaxx Soybeans with NNI seed treatments create toxic slugs Slugs are unaffected by neonics but can have as much as 500ppb in them Carry that toxin to their predator (ground beetles) Up to 60% of ground beetles intoxicated or killed

36 Douglas et al 2014

37 Penn State Research Cont d More slugs present in treated soys versus untreated 19% decrease in plant stand and 5% yield decrease in treated fields due to increased slug populations in the absence of its predator If slugs are the primary pest for your soybean field, you should not be using NNI treated seed Tooker, SWAC Douglas, Rohr and Tooker Neonicotinoid insecticide travels through a soil food chain, disrupting biological control of non-target pests and decreasing soya bean yield. Journal of Applied Ecology doi: /

38 Biocontrol + -

39 Disadvantages to Biological Control Slow and may not provide control in an outbreak year Labour intensive when in a threshold Can be very specific to one stage of pest Harder to maintain in a monoculture crop Very sensitive to chemical control and weather conditions

40 Cover Crops red clover in wheat stubble is ideal for an overwinter site for spider mites grassy cover crops (esp. rye) increase risk of armyworm, wireworm can benefit the natural enemies

41 Potential Risks Rye or grasses in corn & wireworm, armyworm but benefit for slugs Clover in wheat & spider mites Plowing down cover crop in spring before planting = seedcorn maggot issue

42 Now Available Hardcopy and ebook Free 132 pages Describes all Early Season Pests of Field Crops Factors/Conditions that Increase Risk Scouting Techniques Thresholds Management Strategies Natural Enemies and Pollinator Protection

43 IPM Recap Likely already using IPM Slightly more knowledge/time intensive in short run Likely time/$$ savings in in long run

44 Thank You