Reduced-risk pest management programs for eastern U.S. apple and peach orchards: A 4-year regional project

A. M. Agnello, A. Atanassov, J. C. Bergh, D. J. Biddinger, L. J. Gut, M. J. Haas, J. K. Harper, H. W. Hogmire, L. A. Hull, L. F. Kime, G. Krawczyk, P. S. McGhee, J. P. Nyrop, W. H. Reissig, P. W. Shearer, R. W. Straub, R. T. Villanueva, J. F. Walgenbach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Scopus citations

Abstract

Studies were conducted from 2002 to 2005 to determine the effectiveness of reduced-risk (RR) tactics for managing key pests in 50 commercial apple orchards (114 ha) in Michigan, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; and 20 peach orchards (190 ha) in Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. At each apple site, a block of up to 5 ha received a seasonal program of selective RR and organophosphate-replacement insecticides, with or without pheromones for mating disruption of key lepidopteran pests of apple (codling moth, oriental fruit moth, and obliquebanded leafroller) and peach (oriental fruit moth, lesser peachtree borer, and peachtree borer). A comparison block at each site with the same varieties and tree training was managed using each grower's standard program of conventional insecticides (STD). Pheromone traps for lepidopteran species were hung in all plots and monitored weekly. Foliar samples were taken during the season to estimate phytophagous and predator mite densities. Red sphere traps baited with fruit volatiles were used to monitor apple maggot adults in apple orchards. Fruits were inspected for insect damage at harvest, and graded according to USDA standards. Partial budget analysis was used to assess the net profitability of RR programs to produce apples and peaches for their intended market in each state. Fruit damage at harvest caused by direct fruit pests was generally low across all blocks and treatments. There were no statistically significant differences in fruit damage or mite populations between the RR blocks, with or without pheromones, and the growers' standards. Insecticide use patterns in the RR plots represented up to 88 and 78% reduction in the amount of active ingredient applied per hectare, and an 85 and 77% decrease in their Environmental Impact Quotient for apples and peaches, respectively. However, RR programs were more expensive and generally less profitable compared with growers' standard programs. Regression analysis estimated that RR apple programs with and without mating disruption were on average $465 and $144/ha more expensive, and $544 and $159/ha less profitable, respectively, compared with standard programs. RR+MD programs for peaches cost an average $314/ha more and returned about $284/ha less than STD peach programs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)184-197
Number of pages14
JournalAmerican Entomologist
Volume55
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
new insecticides have expired and less expensive generics become In B.A. Croft and S. C. Hoyt [Eds.]. Integrated management of insect pests available. Another factor that is expected to improve the economics of pome and stone fruits. Wiley, New York. of RR programs is the increasing incidence of organophosphate-disruptiondispenserapplicationheightsoncapturesofmaleGrapholita De Lame, F. M., and L. J. Gut. 2006.Effect of monitoring trap and mating resistant codling moth populations (Mota-Sanchez et al. ? ? ? ?) and molesta (Busck; Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in pheromone and virgin the increased damage associated with these populations (Hull et female-baited traps. Environ. Entomol. 甃省 猃爃眃稂ȃ猃爃砃稁? al. 2003, Reissig 2003). A result is that growers can expect better Epstein, D., L. Gut, and P. McGhee. 2007. Areawide approach to managing returns by reducing damage through the use of new insecticides codlingmothinMichiganappleproduction.Finalreport:FQPA/Strategic against this pest. can Farmland Trust. Michigan State University, E. Lansing.Agricultural Initiative Program Grant. E Pennsylvania Region 眂Ameri- Whereas our approach was to eliminate older chemistry insec-Hogmire, H. W., Jr. [Ed.]. 1995. Mid-Atlantic orchard monitoring guide. ticides from RR plots in an abruptly manner, growers will make the NRAES-? ?. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service, transition to RR programs by gradually incorporating those new Ithaca, NY. tools that ?it their systems most effectively. In fact, our cooperating Howitt, A. H. 1993. Common tree fruit pests. Michigan State Univ. Exten- growers adopted components of our RR programs into their STD Hull, L. A., B. A. McPheron, and A. M. Lake. 1997.Insecticideresistancesion NCR 砃甁 E. Lansing. programs during the course of this study, and additional components management and integrated mite management in orchards: can they have been adopted since this project ended. The fruit industry has coexist? Pestic. Sci. 眃猁 甃眃笂ȃ甃砃码? lost several organophosphate insecticides in recent years because Hull, L. A., C. Myers, N. Ellis, and G. Krawczyk. 2003. Management of the of FQPA-related regulatory actions, and additional losses will occur internal lepidopteran complex in Pennsylvania. International Dwarf in the future (e.g., azinphosmethyl on apple in ????). This projeHct ull,L.A.,G. Krawczyk, E. Bohnenblust, and D. Biddinger. 2007.Fruit Tree Association, Compact Fruit Tree. 甃砂H 猂I: 球猂ȃ球省? has helped to demonstrate to the eastern U.S. orchard fruit industry Expansion of an area-wide pheromone mating disruption approach that there is indeed life after organophosphates! 7 to control two major fruit pests in Pennsylvania orchards. Penn Fruit News 稃砂H 琂I: 瘃甂ȃ眃爁? Acknowledgments ofanarea-widepheromonematingdisruptionapproachtocontroltwoHull, L., G. Krawczyk, E.Bohnenblust, and D. Biddinger. 2008. Expansion The authors are deeply indebted to the more than ?? coope-rat major fruit pests in Pennsylvania orchards—year 琁 Penn Fruit News ing growers who allowed us to use their orchards as test sites. This 稃礂H 琂I: 眃爂ȃ砃猁 project would not have been possible on the scale in which it was Il’ichev, A. V., L. J. Gut, D. G. Williams, M. S. Hossain, and P. H. Jarie. conducted without the donation of products by the following compa-2002. Area-wide approach for improved control of oriental fruit moth nies: Bayer CropScience, CBC (America) Corp., Cerexagri-Nisso (now tion.Gen.Appl.Entomol.31:7–15.Grapholitamolesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by mating disrup- United Phosphorus), Chemtura Corp., Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Killian, J. C., and J. R. Meyer. 1984.Effect of orchard weed management Crop Protection, Paci ?ic Biocontrol Corp., Suterra LLC, Syngenta Crop on catfacing damage to peaches in North Carolina. J. Econ. Entomol. Protection, Valent USA Corp., and ?M Canada. This is New Jersey 礃礁 猃眃笃砂ȃ猃砃爃爁? Agricultural Experiment Station publication D-? ?-? ? ? ? ?-? ?Kmenta, J. 1971.-? ?. This Elements of econometrics. MacMillan, New York. project was supported primarily by USDA–CSREES RAMP Project genbach,R.Weires,andJ.Whalon.1990.Monitoringazinphos-methyl Knight,A.L.,L.A.Hull,E.G.Rajotte,H.Hogmire,D.Horton,D.Polk,J.Wal- 2001-5101-11804. resistance in adult male Platynota idaeusalis (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple: Georgia to New York. J. Econ. Entomol. ? ?: ? ? ?– ? ? ?. References Cited Kovach, J., C. Petzoldt, J. Degni, and J. Tette. 1992. A method to Ahmad, M., R. M. Hollingworth, and J. C. Wise. 2002. Broad-spectrum measure the environmental impact of pesticides. N.Y. Food Life Sci. insecticide resistance in obliquebanded leafroller Choristoneura ro- Bull. ???. saceana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) from Michigan. Pest Manage. Sci. Kovanci, O. B., J. F. Walgenbach, G. C. Kennedy, and C. Schal. 2005. Effects 58: 834–838. of application rate and interval on the ef 퀀icacy of sprayable pheromone Atanassov, A., P. W. Shearer, G. Hamilton, and D. Polk. 2002. Development for mating disruption of the oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta. and implementation of a reduced risk peach arthropod management Phytoparasitica 甃甁 甃甃瘂ȃ甃瘃琁? program in New Jersey. J. Econ. Entomol. 笃省 稃爃甂ȃ稃猃琁? Macnay, C. G., and I. S. Creelman. 1958. List of insects and mites affect-Beers, E. H., J. F. Brunner, J. E. Dunley, M. Doerr, and K. Granger. 2005. ing tree fruits in Canada. Can. Dept. Agric. Sci. Ser., Entomol. Div. Res. Role of neonicotinyl insecticides in Washington apple integrated pest Notes E. 12. [Q 4] management. Part II. Nontarget effects on integrated mite control. J. Madsen, H. F., and C. V. G. Morgan. 1970. Pome fruit pests and their control. Insect Sci. 省 猃砀 [available online: insectscience.org/ 省猃砂M. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 猃省 球笃眂ȃ甃球爁? Bergh, J. C. 2002. Results of the ? ? ? ? survey of internal worms causin-g rejecMendenhall, W., D. D. Wackerly, and R. L. Scheaffer. 1990. Mathematical tion of apples by Virginia processors. Virginia Fruit ? ?: ?, ? ?, ? ?– ? ?sta. tistics with applications, 4th ed. PWS-Kent, Boston. Borchert, D. M., J. F. Walgenbach, G. G. Kennedy, and J. L. Long. 2004. Mota-Sanchez, D., J. C. Wise, R. Vander Poppen, L. J. Gut, and R. M. Toxicity and residual activity of methoxyfenozide and tebufenozide to Hollingworth. 2008. Resistance of codling moth, Cydia pomonella codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and oriental fruit moth (Lepi-(L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), larvae in Michigan to insecticides with doptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 笃礁 猃甃瘃琂ȃ猃甃眃琁? different modes of action and the impact of 퀀ield residual activity. Pest Bush, M.R., Y.A.I. Abdel-Aal, K. Saito and G.C. Rock. 1993. Azinphosmethyl Manage. Sci. 砃瘁 稃稃猁稃笃爀 resistance in the tufted apple bud moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): re-Onstad, D. W., W. H. Reissig, and C. A. Shoemaker. 1985. Phenology and version, diagnostic concentrations, associated esterases and gluatione management of the obliquebanded leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) transferases. J. Econ. Entomol. 稃码 球猃甂ȃ球球省? in apple orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 礃稁 猃瘃眃眂ȃ猃瘃砃琁? Chapman, P. J. and S. E. Lienk. 1971. Tortricid fauna of apple in New York Pelz, K. S., R. Isaacs, J. C. Wise, and L. J. Gut. 2005. Protection of fruit (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) including an account of apples’ occurrence against infestation by apple maggot and blueberry maggot (Diptera: in the State, especially as a naturalized plant. N.Y. State Agric. Exp. Stn. Tephritidae) using compounds containing spinosad. J. Econ. Entomol. Spec. Publ. 98: 432–437. Croft, B. A. 1990. Arthropod biological control agents and pesticides. Penn. State Univ. 2008. Pennsylvania tree fruit production guide 球爃爃稂?

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Oxford University Press.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Insect Science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reduced-risk pest management programs for eastern U.S. apple and peach orchards: A 4-year regional project'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this