The IR-4 Biopesticide Workshop

Transcription

1 The IR-4 Biopesticide Workshop September 24, 2015 Michael Braverman

2 Handouts Agenda Biopesticide Workshop 2015 Priorities(By crop) Priorities by discipline (Entomology, Pathology, Weed Sci) Workshop Survey

3 Celebrating 50 Years! IR-4 Biopesticide Regulatory Assistance Program 1982 IR-4 Biopesticide Grant Program 1995 Demonstration Grant Program Co-funded by EPA Priority Based Grant Program

4 Voting in Chicago Priority

5 Results 2014 Workshop>2015 trials Priority Fruit Organic Ornamental Other Public Health Vegetables #1 Citrus greening/ Citrus Fireblight / Organic apples Cryphonectria parasitica / Chestnut Blight Varroa mite/ Honeybees Public Health/ Mosquitoes Bacterial Diseases Fruiting Veg. - field & GH #2 Spotted wing Drosophila/ All crops Weed control/ Organic crops Botrytis leaf spot/blight / Bulb cut flowers RNAi based technologies /All crops Public health/ Bed bugs Downy Mildew / Basil (field & GH) #3 Brown Marmorated Stink bug/all crops Mummy berry, Anthracnose, Alternaria / blueberry Weed Control in Nursery Seed & Transplant Beds Fruit flies / Fruit and vegetables Public Health/ Tick Whitefly, Aphid, Psyllids/GH tomato #4 Aflatoxin/ Figs Late blight / Organic tomato Turfgrass / Nematodes Armillaria / Fruit trees woody ornamentals Mites, Thrips, Aphids and whiteflies / vegetables

6 Viral induced hypovirulence Priority Fruit Organic and transgenic Ornamental OxO Other Public Health #1 Citrus Fireblight / Cryphonectria Varroa mite/ greening/ Organic parasitica / Honeybees Citrus apples Chestnut Blueberry Caneberry #2 Spotted wing Drosophila/ All crops #3 Brown Marmorated Stink bug/all crops #4 Aflatoxin/ Figs Results 2014 Workshop>2015 trials Weed control/ Organic crops Mummy berry, Anthracnose, Alternaria / blueberry Late blight / Organic tomato Blight Botrytis leaf spot/blight / Bulb cut flowers Crown Weed gall Control in resistant Nursery Seed & Walnut Transplant Beds RNAi based technologies /All crops Fruit flies / Fruit and vegetables Female self Turfgrass / limiting Armillaria gene- / Nematodes Diamondback Fruit trees moth woody ornamentals Public Health/ Mosquitoes Public health/ Clavibacter, Bed bugs spot and spec Public Health/ in Tomato Tick Vegetables Bacterial Diseases Fruiting Veg. - field & GH Downy Mildew / Basil (field & GH) Whitefly, Aphid, Psyllids/GH tomato Mites, Thrips, Aphids and whiteflies / vegetables

7 Breakout groups Entomology, Plant Pathology, Weed Science Should we continue funding the same projects in 2016 that were funded in 2015? Within the list of priorities has any become a more serious problem that needs more attention? Are there certain priorities that are of national importance versus regional interest? Are there any new products that really have a lot of potential to the degree that a particular priority should be ranked higher than others? Where do resistance problems exist that need alternatives or how to integrate biopesticides, conventional products and cultural practices to manage the pest? In conclusion, within the groups of Fruit, Organic, Other and Vegetable what are the most important priorities?( Note you can all vote how you choose, this is to facilitate exposure to different opinions and stimulate thought)

8 2015 Biopesticide Trial Results

9 Efficacy and Phytotoxicity of Biopesticides for management of Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) in blueberry and caneberries Lindsy Iglesias, Ph.D. Student Oscar E. Liburd, Principle Investigator IR 4 National Pesticide Clearance Biopesticide Efficacy And Performance Protocol

10 Trial 1: Organic Blueberries April May 2015 RCBD, 4 rep, 12 trt 4 applications, 7 d interval Adults and berries sampled weekly Berries reared for 14 d for emergence Data analysis Logist[x+0.2] transformed Repeated measures, LSD mean separation (JMP , SAS Institute Inc. 2013)

11 α = 0.95 Obj. 1 Results: Berry Infestation Analyzed Using Nonparametric Kruskal Wallis Rank Sums Test

12 Trial 1: Treatments *All Products are labeled for organic use # Compound Active Ingredient Rate Notes 1 Untreated 2 Entrust SC Spinosad 6 fl oz/acre 3 Grandevo Chromobacterium subtsugae 3 lb/acre 4 Venerate XC Burkholderia spp. 2 qt/acre 5 Entrust SC Spinosad 6 fl oz/acre Tank Mix Grandevo C. subtsugae 2 lb/acre 6 Entrust SC Spinosad 6 fl oz/acre Tank Mix Venerate XC Burkholderia spp. 2 qt/acre 7 Veratran D Lo Sabadilla Alkaloids 8 lb/acre 8 Veratran D Hi Sabadilla Alkaloids 15 lb/acre 9 Grandevo C. subtsugae 3 lb/acre Rotation OxiDate 2.0 Hydrogen Dioxide, Peroxyacetic Acid 64 fl oz/100 gal H 2 O Venerate XC Burkholderia spp. 2 qts/acre 10 Azera Pyrethrins+azadirachtin 2.5 PT/acre Tank Mix Entrust SC Spinosad 6 fl oz/acre 11 Azera Pyrethrins+azadirachtin 2.5 PT/acre Tank Mix Grandevo C. subtsugae 2 lb/acre 12 Azera Pyrethrins+azadirachtin 2.5 PT Tank Mix Venerate XC Burkholderia spp. 2 qt/acre

13 Trial 1 Blueberry: Findings New products found to be effective for control of SWD in organic systems Oxidate, Veratran D, Grandevo, and Azera Venerate XC was ineffective Entrust did not show same level of control as in the past

14 Trial 2: Conventional Blackberries June July 2015 RCBD, 4 rep, 9 trt 4 applications, 7 d interval Adults and berries sampled weekly Berries reared for 14 d for emergence Data analysis Log[x+1] transformed Repeated measures, LSD mean separation (JMP , SAS Institute Inc. 2013)

15 Trial 2: Treatments Blackberry *All Products arelabeled fororganic use # Compound Active Ingredient Rate Notes 1 Entrust SC Spinosad 6 fl oz/acre Tank Mix Veratran D Hi Sabadilla Alkaloids 15lb/ac 2 Veratran D Hi Sabadilla Alkaloids 15 lb/ac 3 CimexaLo Amorphous Silica Gel 5 lb/acre Tank Mix PolyTaxi Soap (adjuvant) 26 fl/100 gal water Veratran D Hi Sabadilla Alkaloids 15lb/ac 4 Cimexa Hi Amorphous Silica Gel 10 lb/acre Tank Mix PolyTaxi Soap (adjuvant) 26 fl/100 gal water 5 EntrustSC Spinosad 6floz/acre 6 Untreated 7 Grandevo Chromobacterium subtsugae 3lb/acre 8 Veratran D Lo Sabadilla Alkaloids 8 lb/acre 9 CimexaLo Amorphous Silica Gel 5 lb/acre Tank Mix PolyTaxi Soap (adjuvant) 26 fl/100 gal water

16 Trial 2: Adult Captures by Week Mean SWD Captured per Trap a a b Week 1 Week 2 a b a a b ab Mean SWD Captured per Trap abc bcd Week 3 ab abc a a bcd cd d Week 4 Trade Trade

17 Trial 2: Findings New products found to be effective for control of SWD in organic systems Veratran D, Grandevo* Cimexa effect on SWD was similar to control Entrust did not show same level of control as in the past

18 Conclusions New compounds Grandevo, Oxidate, Veratran D, and Azera Venerate XC was ineffective Cimexa effect on SWD was similar to control Entrust did not show same level of control as in the past

19 CALIFORNIA FIG ADVISORY BOARD ASPERGILLUS FLAVUS AF36 SECTION 18 EMERGENCY EXEMPTION - FOR USE ON DRIED FIGS TO REDUCE AFLATOXIN

20 Fire Blight, a Devastating Agricultural Disease Spreads quickly in warm and wet weather

21 Fireblight/Organic Apple Treatment Percent Control Yoder Johnson Sundin Peter FireWall Fire Quencher Blossom Protect + Buffer Protect Cueva 2 qt Bloomtime Blossom Protect + Buffer Protect + Fire Quencher Green=Same antibiotic Yellow >Control Red= Same as Control

22 Fireblight/Organic Apple Treatment Percent Control Yoder Johnson Sundin Peter Fire Quencher + Cueva or Previsto Fire Quencher + Bloomtime Serenade Opti + Cueva or Previsto Cueva 3 qt Previsto 3 qt. 3.4 Green=Same antibiotic Yellow >Control Red= Same as Control

23 Diamondback moth Treated Male moths are released to mate with female and pass on a selflimiting gene that prevents the female offspring from reaching adulthood. This reduces the number of reproductive females and the pest population in the release area shrinks.. Oxford University Oxitec UK Intrexon USA IR-4 funding Tony Shelton

24 Transgenic Paradox Pre registration meeting Crown Gall Resistant Transgenic Paradox Walnut Rootstocks Line Wild Type Paradox Complete suppression of tumor formation Rootstock is transgenic (GMO) Any conventional scion variety (Chandler) Dr Dandekar Plant Science Department

25 Weed density in Walnut Non -transformed Transformed Brad Hanson UCDavis

26 Efficacy and product safety of biopesticides for varroa mite management of honey bees Elina L. Niño UC Davis

27 Three biopesticides (two dosages of one) being tested in 2015 Positive control (Apiguard)Thymol HopGuard II TPS 1001 (low and high dose) Untreated control

28 Hive Strength Check and Alcohol Wash for Varroa Mite Counts

29 Average Colony Strength Total adult bee score NS A AB C AB BC ANOVA on total adult bee score square root transformed

30 Average Percent Mite Infestation Average % mite infestation NS A AB AB B AB A C B B BC ANOVA on Percentages arcsine square root transformed

31 Mite Infestations of Adult Bees Precent of Mites on Adult Bees a b a b b Lambert Kanga- Florida State University a b ab c c Day 0 Day 14 Day 28 Day 42 a b b c c a b b Control TPS-1 TPS-2 HOP Apiguard bc c Days After Treatm ents

32 Wolbachia Steve Dobson University of Kentucky Cytoplasmic Incompatibility (CI): (mosquitoes)

33 Tomato Bacterial Canker IR 4 Biorational Product Evaluation The Ohio State University Sally Miller and Jhony Mera

34 Non treated, Non inoculated Treatments Non treated, inoculated Actigard 50WG 0.25 oz/100 gal (drench) fb K Phite 3 qt/a (foliar) Cease 6 qt/a + MilStop 2 lb/a (foliar) Double Nickel LC 2 qt/a (drench) fb Double Nickel LC 1 qt/a (foliar) TerraClean 12.8 fl oz/100 gal/a (drench) fb AgriPhage Pint/50 gal/a (foliar) Oxidate gal/100 gal (foliar) Oxidate gal/100 gal (2 apps post inoculation) fb AgriPhage Pint/50 gal/a (foliar) Actigard 50WG 0.25 oz/100 gal (drench) fb K Phite 3qt/A + AgriPhage Pint/50 gal/a (foliar) K Phite 3 qt/a + AgriPhage Pint/50 gal/a (foliar) Cueva 2.0 qt/a (foliar) Manzate ProStik 75DF 2.0 lbs/a (every 7 days) + Actigard (1,2) 0.33 oz/a (3,4 ) 0.5 oz/a (5,6,7) 0.75 oz/a [every 14 days]

35 a Same as control b bc b b bc 20 bcd Better that inoculated control cde def def 15 de f 10 5 % Bacterial Canker 0 d= drench; f = foliar P =

36 cde cde bcd bc def i hi ghi fgh ab a P = efg Bacterial Canker AUDPC d = drench; f = foliar

37 Non inoculated Inoculated control Actigard (d) + K Phite (f) Manzate/Actigard

38 Early plant stand Efficacy of Products to Manage Bacterial Canker Secondary Spread Materials and Methods 6 plant plots stake and weave system; roma type tomato Interplanted 2 heavily inoculated plants with Clavibacter michiganensis subsp michiganensis using 3 strains FRANK LOUWS Trial Progress and Main Issue: Plants established well Plots are in excellent shape production wise Bacterial canker symptoms are progressing Mid September plant growth Xanthomonas (Bacterial spot and the number one issue in the Mt production region) is also present

39 Efficacy of Products to Manage Bacterial Canker Secondary Spread CMM is just beginning to spread; 3 4 weeks more to go 14 D 12 CD CD Cmm Severity Rating BC BC BC BC BC BC BC AB A Inoculated plants showing symptoms; test plants starting to show CMM symptoms 2 0 NOTE: Most recent rating ( ) Percent defoliation Non transformed data Somewhat difficult to rate CMM vs. Spot CMM = Not inoculated)

40 Clavibacter/Tomato Several treatments superior to Manzate Prostick standard Across 2 trials OH, NC Actiguard+KPhite or Cueva superior to Manzate

41 Life cycle ~ about 3 wks from egg to adult. adults can live up to 2 wks. est. 5 wks btwn generations. Silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia tabaci biotype B In GH Tomato- Hugh Smith University of Florida

42 Tomato yellow leaf curl virus transmitted by silverleaf whitefly

43 250 A IR4 Biopesticide Study: Control of Whiteflies on GH Tomato Total nymphs after third weekly spray Sivanto was sprayed week 1 and week 3 Nymphs / 10 leaflets AB B 0 F 10, 30 =3.35, P = 0.005

44 Potential follow-up research. Sivanto followed by a rotation of M-Pede and a fungal pathogen

45 Celebrating 50 Years! IR-4 Biopesticide Grant Program 1995 Demonstration Grant Program Co-funded by EPA Priority Based Grant Program 2014 Future of the Biopesticide Efficacy Grant Program in 2016 and Beyond- Jerry Baron