Sustainable Turf: Biological tools for turf pest management. Michael Brownbridge & Pam Charbonneau Landscape Ontario IPM Symposium January 7, 2013

Transcription

1 Sustainable Turf: Biological tools for turf pest management Michael Brownbridge & Pam Charbonneau Landscape Ontario IPM Symposium January 7, 2013

2 Research Partners Michael Brownbridge, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Vineland, ON Pam Charbonneau, OMAFRA, Guelph, ON Deborah Henderson, Institute for Sustainable Horticulture, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Surrey, BC

3 Ontario s Cosmetic Pesticides Ban: Ontario Regulation 63/09 April 22, 2009 Pesticides cannot be used for cosmetic purposes in urban environments; there are no exceptions >250 pesticide products banned for sale >80 pesticide ingredients banned for cosmetic uses Necessary to develop new control options and information to support their successful implementation

4 Lawn care: where are we today? Landscape has changed Moved from pest and weed control to management Preventative vs curative actions Lawn management strategy o Healthy soil, healthy lawn first line of defense o New management tools o Integrated use of a variety of approaches o Greater emphasis on a sustainable turfgrass system

5 Target pests White grubs European chafer Japanese beetle June bugs Chinch bug

6 GOAL Deliver new pest management tools and resilient use practices to maintain the functionality and appearance of lawn turf Objectives Validate performance of biopesticides against white grubs Evaluate new biopesticides for chinch bugs Assess the environmental performance of novel turf grasses

7 Best practices for new management tools Biopesticides based on: Fungi (Metarhizium brunneum Met52 ) Nematodes Plant-derived products

8 Key challenges: Efficient targeting Timing when and where Challenging environment Chinch: hot (>30 C), dry Chafer: cool soil (<15 C)

9 Biopesticides tested against chafer grubs: 2012 Test Product H. bacteriophora (Hb) nematode S. glaseri (Sg) nematode Metarhizium brunneum (Met52 spray) fungus Met52 spray + Hb fungus + nematode Met52 spray + Sg fungus + nematode

10 Biopesticide efficacy vs white grubs Spring (May) No significant effect of treatment on grub populations 35 pre-trt means Mean no. grubs/0.3 m wks post count means 5 0 Untreated control Sevin high low high low high

11 Grub population relative to time 0 (=1) Biopesticide efficacy vs white grubs August 40-50% reduction with nematodes Hb consistent from wk 4 to 8 Timing of application critical wks 8 wks control Hb 1: Hb 2: Sg: Met52 Hb 1 + Met52 Sg + Met52

12 R. majalis larval mortality (%) Biopesticide efficacy vs white grubs August applications Disease development in healthy larvae collected from field plots weeks post-treatment other Metarhizium spp. nematode spp control Hb 1: Hb 2: Sg : treatment Met52 Hb 1 + Met52 Sg + Met52

13 Survival % of 2nd instar Biopesticide efficacy against white grubs (British Columbia) Late Summer Approx 50% reduction with nematodes (end of July) Combined applications better control vs. young larvae Neem seed cake improved performance of nematodes and BC isolate of M. anisopliae (fungus) % 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 23.3% 41.7% 41.7% 43.3% 0.0% Nema-Meta 001 Nema Nema-NSC 5g/l Nema-Meta 004 Treatments

14 New biopesticides for chinch bug Steinernema carpocapsae, Met52 spray, essential oil Consistent control 2010/11 No significant effects of a suite of products tested in 2012 Activity compromised by weather (hot, dry)? Effects on chinch bug behaviour? Poor contact at time of spray? dpt 14 dpi

15 Biological control of chafer grubs with nematodes Optimal time to treat: August in Ontario Species: Heterorhabditis bacteriophora ; sold under a variety of trade names Steinernema glaseri Refrigerate after purchase until use; limited shelf life Ensure sufficient nematodes are applied to a moist lawn Overcast conditions ideal Irrigate after application

16 Challenge Biopesticides will provide 50-60% control (at best) Timing of application is critical to efficacy Environmental factors can compromise efficacy Need additional tools Integrated management practices

17 New tools Novel grasses Rhizomatous tall fescue (RTF) Regenerating perennial ryegrass (RPR) Creeping perennial rye/fescue Kentucky bluegrass Benefits Faster establishment Denser establishment, less space for weeds Reduced inputs o Water, fertilizer Insect tolerance?

18 Results Environmental performance of grasses assessed in Ontario (assessment ongoing) RPR > RTF > HLM* Establishment faster, denser by RPR Greater survival and recovery after drought Less weed ingress (less bare ground) Effects on insects? For the full story: Pam Home Lawn Mix RPR * Home Lawn Mix RTF

19 host plant choice by R. majalis larvae (%) Effects of grasses on chafer grub behaviour Preference for HLM over RPR/RTF in feeding choice tests 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% HLM:HLM HLM:RPR HLM:RTF RPR:RPR RPR:RTF RTF:RTF

20 R. majalis larval growth (weight gain) Growth response of chafer grubs on different grass types Insect development slower in RPR/RTF Greater window of opportunity for biopesticides? Complementary activity? HLM RPR RTF wks post 6 wks post

21 Novel seed coatings for enhanced delivery of microbes Electrostatic wax coatings Efficient delivery of rhizocompetent microbes, e.g. Metarhizium spp. (insect control), Trichoderma spp. (disease suppression) Established in root zone as grass grows Superior root development, water/nutrient uptake

22 Summary and Future Directions Nematodes will provide 40-50% control of chafer More to do on chinch Timing of application is critical to efficacy Essential to take an integrated management approach, including Healthy lawn New grasses for insect management, reduced inputs Seed coatings to deliver beneficial microbes Endophytes greater resilience (pest/disease, environmental)

23 Acknowledgements People Taro Saito Paul Côté L. Patrick Schenck Richard Reed Gerry Brouwer Partners OMAFRA Pam Charbonneau Univ of Guelph Kwantlen Polytechnic University