Program: Partnership. Project Title: Northeast Tree Fruit IPM Working Group. Project Type: IPM Working Groups

Transcription

1 Program: Partnership Project Title: Northeast Tree Fruit IPM Working Group Project Type: IPM Working Groups Project Director: Arthur M. Agnello, Dept. of Entomology, NYS Agric. Expt. Sta., Geneva, NY Co-PDs: Daniel R. Cooley, Dept. of Plant & Soil Science, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Start Date: April 1, 2010 End Date: March 31, 2011 Funding: $20, Funds leveraged as a result of this project (e.g., additional grants received): $10,970 awarded from NE IPM Center Partnership Program for "Enhancement of the Northeast Tree Fruit IPM Working Group", a continuation of the original project. Summary The northeastern US, comprising the New England and Mid-Atlantic states, has long been one of the country's most significant tree fruit production areas, particularly in apples, since the 1700s. A multi-state group of northeast fruit workers (research and extension scientists: entomologists, pathologists, horticulturists, plus extension educators, industry advisors and IPM pest managers) from NY and the New England states meet annually as the New England, New York and Canadian (NEng/NY/Can) Fruit Pest Management Workshop. This Northeast IPM Center grant facilitated formation of a Northeast (NE) Fruit IPM Working Group, based on the nucleus of the current attendees of this meeting, with expansion of participants to include appropriate fruit IPM members from NJ, PA, and/or WV. The envisioned outcomes from the establishment of this WG include: 1) identification of priority fruit IPM needs and issues in the northeast region; 2) fostering of greater regional collaborations in IPM programs and expertise; 3) development and adoption of new IPM guidelines, management guides or pest alert systems; and 4) sharing of current and new IPM technologies, research results, and extension efforts during the annual meeting organized on a rotating basis among the member institutions, as well as through electronic (online) proceedings of these meetings. Problem, Background and Justification Apples are an important horticultural specialty crop in the US, grown on 345,00 acres, with a total farm-gate value of 2.1 billion dollars in Apples grown on nearly 86,000 acres in the northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states (as far south as WV) are worth $400.3 million; additionally, peaches grown on 14,730 acres in this region are valued at $78.4 million, and tart cherries grown on 1,500 acres in NY are worth $1.36 million. New York and Pennsylvania are ranked 2nd and 4th, respectively, in national apple production. This crop is grown for both fresh and processing markets and is an important component in the diets of infants and children. Apples are attacked by a wide variety of insect pests and diseases, and management of this pest complex is a particularly difficult task. Because of high cosmetic standards and high crop value,

2 tolerance for damage to fruit marketed for fresh consumption is extremely low. Consequently, pesticides have remained one of the key management components in apple IPM systems. The Food Quality Protection Act required the EPA to develop more stringent tolerances on organophosphate insecticides and also to restrict the use of various fungicides. Although a number of reduced-risk pesticides have been developed to replace some of the older materials used on tree fruit, the high cost and sophisticated information needed to ensure their efficacy has limited their use by the grower community. In addition to regulatory concerns, the apple industry is also under pressure from consumer advocacy organizations to eliminate the use of pesticides considered to be a particular risk to infants and children. It is crucial to the survival of the apple industry in the US to have access to information that will help them implement IPM systems that can utilize newer reduced-risk pesticides, integrated with other control tactics to address future regulatory and consumer concerns. Stakeholders in the apple industry are becoming increasingly interested in having access to more sophisticated information to help them make pest control decisions in real time throughout the season. For example, a recent survey of NY growers using the Network for Environment and Weather Awareness (NEWA) found that pest forecasts helped reduce pest control sprays, improved timing of pesticide applications, alerted them to pest damage risks, and enhanced IPM decision-making. The apple industry has traditionally relied on pest management guidelines and recommendations for pest control generated by land grant universities. Although extension agents, growers, and other agricultural stakeholders have extensively used this information for years, it is becoming increasingly difficult for land grant universities to generate and deliver this information to the apple industry. University budgets have been cut and fewer staff are being hired to conduct applied research. Resources for extension personnel involved in providing these guidelines diminish each year, and the information on chemicals and their use is becoming increasingly complex. Yet apple growers need for such information have grown in order to meet the demands of concerned consumers, regulatory agencies, and their own more ambitious business goals. Objectives The main objective of the NE IPM Center Working Group grant is to formalize the development of a NE Tree Fruit IPM WG, comprising the northeastern US region states of CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT and WV, plus the Canadian provinces Ontario and Québec, to promote collaborative ties across this unique fruit-producing region. The vision for the Tree Fruit IPM WG is that of an entity that will: 1) Identify priority tree fruit IPM needs and issues across the entire northeastern US/ southeastern Canada region, working from previously formulated priority lists generated by various member states in this group; 2) Foster greater regional collaborations in IPM programs and expertise; 3) Promote the development of new IPM guidelines, management guides and pest alert systems relevant to the northeastern US fruit-growing region, and develop/conduct surveys to determine their adoption and implementation;

3 4) Share current and new IPM technologies, research results, and extension efforts during the annual IPM workshop and informational meeting organized on a rotating basis among the member institutions; and 5) Maintain and develop a NE Tree Fruit IPM WG website for increased electronic communications within the WG, as well as increasing the electronic educational resources for communications between the WG and interested regional IPM constituencies. Approach and Procedures Inclusive regional research and Extension priorities lists are being developed using previous state-based lists as a starting point, and these will be reviewed annually at the New England/NY/ Canada Fruit IPM Workshop meeting, starting with the 2010 meeting. The initial effort has focused on apples, but additional tree fruit crops are expected to be added over time, as appropriate. A number of collaborations are fostered each year at the annual meeting, such as the Red Tomato EcoApple project funded by the USDA CAR program and other less formal cooperative arrangements among regional colleagues. Other activities of the WG in should include the expansion of an interactive Tree Fruit IPM Website developed in NY that uses local weather data to predict apple crop and pest development and provide users information on the best sampling, monitoring, and reduced-risk pesticide inputs available to make management decisions on their farms. The New York IPM Guidelines for Commercial Tree Fruit Production will be used as a template for the production of the New England Tree Fruit Management Guide, and one of the activities incorporated into the annual Fruit IPM Workshops is a meeting of the New England states' contributing authors, to coordinate their efforts in revising this publication each year. Also, a Northeast Fruit IPM Practices Adoption Survey will be developed using the revised Regional Fruit IPM Priorities Lists to quantify the extent to which these practices are being utilized. This survey will be presented at conferences of state and regional growers, as well as pertinent extension IPM workshops. The WG envisions using evaluation measures such as Turning Point audience participation survey equipment, also to be utilized among members for group surveys as appropriate. Continued broadening of regional participation at the annual WG meeting will improve identification of priority fruit IPM needs, issues, strategies, collaborative opportunities, and stakeholder partnerships in the Northeast region, as well as sharing of current and new IPM technologies, research results, and extension efforts. The annual meeting provides an excellent opportunity for further review and development of appropriate content for the WG and related fruit IPM websites. Development of a NE Tree Fruit IPM WG website, with content and linkage from the existing NEng/NY/Can Fruit Pest Management members. Website content will include a regional member directory; posting of current regional IPM guidelines, projects and collaborations; pre- and post-annual meeting information; regional IPM calendars; and linkages to member web resources, such as the NYS IPM program, regional IPM newsletters, etc. Progress An annual meeting was organized and held successfully during October 2010, with regional discussion sessions and 15 papers presented for ~45 participants from 7 states plus Québec and Nova Scotia (see Appendices I and II). Files of the research presentations are being

4 solicited for posting (as PDFs) on the WG website. Additionally, a discussion session was held during the meeting to formulate a list of Tree Fruit IPM research and extension priorities, which was voted on using weighted audience polling technology (survey clickers ) to establish lists of rankings in multiple discipline and pest categories. This list has been posted to the WG website (see Appendix III). Also, attendees at the meeting participated in a NE IPM Center webinar on Delivery Methods for Wide-area Monitoring in the Northeast, with two of the WG members presenting webinar content for the audience. Agnello participated via phone conferencing in the Northeast IPM Center Advisory Council meeting in November 2010, and updated the group on the WG s progress. The first steps in developing a Northeast TF-IPM WG website ( was begun in November Its initial use has been simply to facilitate posting of the TF-IPM WG members and affiliations, as well as the Tree Fruit IPM Research and Extension Priorities, but this content will soon be augmented with links to additional resources, such as those summarized in the Outcomes section. Outcomes WG members from NY participated in a Cornell Organic Apple Production Workshop (Ballston Spa, March 11, 2011, 45 participants from NY, MA, VT, and QC; see Appendix IV) covering aspects of crop establishment, production, protection, and marketing, and conducted a Turning Point "clicker" survey to formulate a Research and Extension Priorities list for organic apple production that will be used in Cornell programs aimed at the organic production sector (See Appendix V). WG members from NY, MA, CT and WV attended the Red Tomato Annual Growers Meeting in Tarrytown, NY (~70 participants) on March 7-8, 2011, and participated in the program discussions regarding revised pest management protocols for fruits being grown for the EcoApple and Eco Stone Fruit marketing programs, and contributed to the deliberations on recommendations for the management challenges being posed by the increasing spread and establishment of the invasive Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in the NE region. The New York IPM Guidelines for Commercial Tree Fruit Production is published and distributed, in both hard copy and online ( formats, by the Pesticide Management and Education Program at Cornell University, with the contributing authors able to make recommendations and revisions via SharePoint, a web-based shared editing application, which permits efficient access to a common document by multiple users. Currently, this publication and method of preparation is also being used as a template for the production of the New England Tree Fruit Management Guide, and one of the activities incorporated into the annual WG meeting is a separate meeting of the New England states' contributing authors to coordinate their efforts in revising this publication each year. WG members from NY, MA, and PA, in conjunction with colleagues from MI, NC, VA and OR, have been collaborating on a USDA SCRI Planning Grant to develop a national web-based IPM decision support system that will provide stakeholders in humid tree fruit production regions with timely information during the growing season to help optimize pesticide usage and minimize environmental impacts; this resource will be designed to facilitate stakeholders' transition to IPM programs using newer, reduced-risk pesticides and enable them to easily incorporate weather-based forecast models and other IPM tactics. A planning meeting of 14 of the collaborators was held Oct. 7-8, 2010 in Baltimore, MD, to establish baseline priorities of each of the states, analyze participants' capacities and resources, discuss operational details of

5 website construction, validation and outreach, and assign specific tasks for development of a full proposal, to be submitted during the 2011 funding cycle. WG members from NY, MA, CT, VT, NJ and WV are collaborators on a large regional effort (supported by a USDA SCRI CAPS grant) to address the threat to fruit crops by Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, by cooperating in sampling and monitoring studies to characterize the pest's occurrence, distribution and spread, and contributing to the promotion of responsible and effective management tactics derived from ongoing biological studies in the region. A communication network among researchers, collaborators, and stakeholders has been established using Working Groups, website links (e.g., and lists, to keep all interested parties informed of the current status of these efforts. Impacts Safeguarding human health and the environment: As many of the activities being promoted and facilitated through the functions of the WG are centered on the objectives of providing improved adoption of IPM practices (and, by extension, more-sustainable pesticide use), the potential impact on the region's tree fruit acreage could arguably extend to all production regions. Less reliance on preventive applications of broadspectrum pesticides and greater sampling/monitoring-based use of selective reduced-risk products is an integral part of all the pest management recommendations generated by the activities in which WG members are engaged. It is expected that the impacts of more responsible implementation of these IPM practices would translate into reduced hazards to farmworkers and the environment, including water quality and non-target organisms such as beneficial species. Economic benefits: One of the primary motivations for fostering regional collaboration and communication through the functions of this WG is to improve the economics associated with tree fruit pest management among our stakeholders. Because of the decreasing budgets available for universities and extension organizations to supply IPM resources via traditional avenues such as onsite visits and printed recommendations, etc., optimizing the efficiency of our interactions and outreach methods will translate into more economic use of time and the information we are able to provide. Greater reliance on web-based resources will improve information transfer to clientele as university-based personnel become more scarce, and expertise that is networked among related institutions in the region will benefit from a larger multiplier effect, including throughout the private sector, than can be achieved within any one state. Implementation of IPM: A straighforward accounting of the number of IPM strategies that have been or are being impacted as a result of this WG's activities would be difficult, as each WG member is involved in numerous activities, each involving several types of educational "materials "(in the broad sense), that could qualify as being pertinent to this overall objective. Summaries of some representative programs in which NY members are participating, either individually or as part of a multi-state effort, can be offered: Advanced IPM strategies were developed and tested with eleven apple growers in New England and New York for the following 5 key pests or pest groups: apple scab disease, summer diseases, plum curculio, obliquebanded leafroller, and codling moth/oriental fruit moth. At each

6 orchard, growers (assisted by project scientists) managed a 3-5 acre block of apple trees according to advanced IPM protocols as well as a separate block according to their own standard practices for comparison. Pests and pest damage were repeatedly sampled and pest forecast models were employed. Weather stations were installed and linked to the NEWA website (newa.cornell.edu). Organophosphate insecticides were eliminated from spray programs and reduced-risk pesticides were used for all pests when possible. Careful spray records were kept. Depending on the pest, between 16 % and 71 % fewer pesticide applications were made to advanced IPM blocks than to standard blocks. With a few exceptions, the level of injury to fruit at harvest did not differ significantly between the advanced IPM blocks and the standard blocks. Apple maggot populations were high in some orchards, due in part to carry-over from the previous year. Preliminary research was begun on reduced-risk chemical thinning to prepare for the elimination of the carbamate carbaryl as a thinner in Many of the growers chose to employ IPM practices in their standard blocks, which makes the comparisons subtle in some cases, though it does indicate a preference for the new IPM practices. An interdisciplinary group of researchers at Cornell University has developed a web-based Apple IPM Decision Support System ( that delivers relevant, current information on weather data and pest populations to facilitate grower pest management decisions throughout the growing season. This system tracks seasonal development of key insect pests and diseases using DD and Infection Risk Models. The models indicate pest status, pest management and sampling options, and are linked to an interactive system that helps growers choose appropriate materials when pesticides must be used. General accuracy of the website's prediction of first catches in 2010 can be summarized as follows: Observed first trap capture occurred within or after the period predicted by the website; prediction periods were more uniform and narrower, and biofixes were determined more accurately than occurred in Increased effort will be made in the coming years to provide dynamic pest predictions (by running DD development models in real time) and to investigate the use of digital virtual weather data for improved site specificity. Following is a summary of the total number of visits and pageviews of the pest models and weather data pages on the website ( Pageviews Month March 3,802 2,585 April 8,794 8,325 May 10,333 16,010 June 8,261 10,070 July 6,674 August 5,103 Visits Month March April 1,899 2,285 May 2,122 3,897 June 1,612 2,139 July 1,439 August 991

7 Apple IPM Website Outreach, 2010 Publications: Agnello, A. M., and H. Reissig Development and validation of a "Real-Time" Apple IPM Website for New York. NY Fruit Quarterly 18 (2): Presentations: Development and validation of a "Real-Time" Apple IPM Website for New York. Orchard Pest & Disease Management Conference, Portland, OR. January. Audience: 125 (15 min). A "Real Time" Apple IPM Website for New York. Empire State Fruit & Vegetable Expo, Syracuse, NY. January. Audience: 80 (15 min). Developing and validating a Real-Time Apple IPM Website for New York. Upper Hudson/Champlain Tree Fruit School, Lake George, NY. February. Audience: 55 (30 min). Updated resources for tree fruit IPM - Apple IPM Website. Hudson Valley Commercial Fruit Growers School, Kingston, NY. February. Audience: 75 (20 min). Development and validation of a "Real-Time" Apple IPM Website in New York. Entomological Society of America Eastern Branch Meeting, Annapolis, MD. March. Audience: 25 (25 min). The predictive apple pest management website was "beta-tested" in 2010 by a group of 16 NY apple growers located in all of the major NY apple production areas. At each site, a A planting of apples was monitored for crop and pest status throughout the season, and a nearby weather station provided daily temperature data for crop and pest developmental predictions. Insect traps were checked weekly to monitor flights, and weekly fruit inspections starting in July assessed larval feeding damage by leafrollers or internal feeding caterpillars. Insect monitoring results were reported weekly to the grower or consultant for their use in determining appropriate reduced-risk management decisions in the blocks. Web predictions were compared with population trends observed in the field for as many of the pest species as was possible. During the 2010 growing season, a field study was repeated to test two different IPM protocols integrating information obtained from the IPM website in NY apple orchards. Tests were set up in 12 orchards in major NY apple production regions; growers applied normal sprays for insect control until plum curculio activity was over. Entomology department personnel monitored and sampled plots throughout the season. Starting in late June, 1000 apples were inspected on the tree weekly for damage from direct pests. Apple maggot (AM) traps were deployed in late July. In the Fruit Monitoring Protocol, growers applied pesticides based on monitoring results and web predictions of pest development. Control sprays were recommended whenever treatment thresholds were reached. In the Web-Optimized treatment Protocol, an initial summer spray was recommended based on web predictions of hatch of summer eggs, using one of two selective reduced-risk (RR) insecticides. A second spray was recommended based on web predictions of AM activity and 2nd generation internal lep egg hatch (alternating to whichever choice of RR insecticide had not been used previously). By the end of the season, growers would have applied an average of 2.0 and 0.9 summer sprays, respectively, in the Web-Based and Fruit Monitoring plots if they had followed recommendations. Fewer sprays were recommended in these plots than have been previously applied in NY apple orchards under traditional IPM programs (2-3 avg. sprays). Harvest insect damage was similar in both protocols (3.0%, Web- Based; 2.2%, Fruit Monitoring). Appendices I. NE Tree Fruit IPM Working Group Members

8 II. Research Presentations at Tree Fruit IPM Working Group meeting, III. NE Tree Fruit IPM Working Group Research and Extension Priorities, IV. NY Organic Apple Production Workshop Evaluation, March V. NE Organic Apple Production Workshop Research and Extension Priorities, 2011.