| For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/ |
|---|
|
|
| Home Current RFAs PD User Guide Projects Login |
|
Funded Project |
|
Funding Program:
Regional IPM Competitive Grants - Northeastern |
|
Project Title:
Landscape Ecology and Management of Strawberry Sap Beetle in the Northeast |
Project Directors (PDs):
|
|
Lead State: NY Lead Organization: Cornell University |
|
Cooperating State(s):
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania |
| Extension Funding: $20,947 |
| Research Funding: $106,408 |
|
Start Date: May-01-2004 End Date: Oct-31-2006 |
|
Pests Involved: strawberry sap beetles |
|
Site/Commodity: strawberry, strawberries |
|
Area of Emphasis: landscapes |
|
Summary:
Strawberry sap beetle Stelidota geminata is a serious emerging threat to strawberry growers in the Northeast. The adult beetle feeds on the underside of ripe and overripe berries creating holes and likely spreading rot organisms. Of more significant concern, larvae contaminate harvestable fruit leading to consumer complaints and the need to prematurely close fields at great cost to the grower. Although strawberry sap beetle (SSB) has been reported from the Northeast for over 50 years and is widely distributed, only recently has it risen to high priority among growers (see below). Only two pyrethroid pesticides are labeled for its control. Their use is problematic for several reasons. First, they need to be applied as SSB adults move into the fields just prior to harvest, a prospect not relished by growers concerned about public perceptions of pesticide risks. Second, because of the secretive behavior of the adults and the protected position of the larvae, the insecticides are not particularly effective in the field. And third, the repeated use of broad-spectrum insecticides can disrupt biological control of other secondary pests such as spider mites. Sound IPM practices, developed over the last 20 years, are in flux due to SSB problems. Consequently, the overall goal of the research proposed here is to acquire the necessary background knowledge to develop and test cost effective and environmentally sound management alternatives for SSB.
Justification Agriculture in the Northeast is changing. This seems especially true for fruit and vegetable growers. Starting in the late 70s there has been a trend toward direct marketing of produce through roadside stands and U-Pick operations. For example, revenue from direct marketing of fruit in New York has increased from $12.8 million in 1987 to $36.7 million in 2000 (NY Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002). Strawberry production is a big part of direct marketing operations in New York, involving about 600 growers who sell nearly 70% of production directly to consumers worth an estimated $5.3 million in gross value (NY Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002). Direct marketing of agricultural produce is increasing in other states in the region as well. In fact, national state ranking for total value of direct sales of agricultural products is California, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, respectively. Massachusetts ranks second, nationally, in value of average direct market sales per farm at $16,000 per farm. Worcester County, Massachusetts ranks fourth among all counties in the United States for the value of direct sales of agricultural products to consumers at nearly $5 million or 25 percent of the state's total (New England Agricultural Statistics Service, 1998). This trend has several important implications for SSB pest management. First, preventing the build up of ripe, overripe and damaged fruit in U-Pick fields is problematic. Poor sanitation provides an opportunity for SSB to build up in strawberry fields. Second, in order to maintain a diverse selection for marketing, growers are tending to diversify the types of crops grown. It is not atypical to find strawberries, raspberries, cherries, apples, melons, and sweet corn, all potential food sources for SSB, growing on the same farm. It is probable, yet still unproven, that residues from these other crops promote higher overwintering populations of SSB that then can colonize strawberry fields in the spring. Thus, changes such as these may be responsible for the apparent increase in SSB problems in the Northeast. Note, too, that problems with other generalist arthropod pests, such as tarnished plant bug and western flower thrips, may be exacerbated by more diverse agriculture. Our proposed work on use of alternative habitats should help us develop more informed management practices specific to SSB but also relevant to other generalist pests. Another consequence of changing agriculture in the Northeast is the reduction in research personnel allocated to pest management of fruit and vegetable crops. More and more, growers and extension educators rely on regional expertise for information. This is the case for strawberry pest management. G. English-Loeb, at Cornell University, has explicit responsibilities for small fruit entomology. There is not an equivalent position at Pennsylvania State University or University of Massachusetts. Thus, by taking a multi-state approach to this project, we will be able to expand the reach of entomological research beyond New York to other states in our region. Over the past 20 years major strides have been made in developing an integrated approach to pest management in strawberries (Kovach et al. 1993). Over this time, pesticide use in New York, for example, has decreased from over 16 pounds per acre to about 4 (National Agriculture Statistics Service, Agricultural Chemical Usage Summaries). This reduction has come about through improved sampling protocols for arthropods, establishment of economic thresholds, and better timing of fungicides. Problems controlling SSB has the potential to disrupt a successful program because of the need to treat with broad-spectrum insecticides multiple times near or during harvest. Strawberries are an important crop in the region (economic value in NY in 2002 = $8.8 million and $10 million in Pennsylvania) with high public visibility (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2003). We are proposing research to understand why SSB has become a more severe problem in recent years and to test new approaches to its management that rely more on cultural practices and selective use of pesticides than are currently followed. Results from this research will be applicable to other strawberry producing states outside of the Northeast region, such as Michigan and Ohio, which also have serious problems with SSB. Objectives: The long-term goal of this research is to acquire the necessary knowledge to develop and test cost effective and environmentally sound management alternatives for the strawberry sap beetle. To achieve this goal we propose accomplishing the following 4 specific objectives: 1) To assess quality of overwintering habitat in the vicinity of strawberry plantings. We have good evidence from one farm that SSB overwinters in woods surrounding strawberry fields, but not in strawberry fields, and then disperses into strawberry fields as fruit begins to ripen. We propose to confirm this result at more farms, comparing overwintering abundance in woods, strawberry fields, and other perennial crops such as raspberries or blueberries. In addition, we will measure how far into the woods SSB overwinters. We suspect they are mostly found at field edges. Knowledge of overwintering habits of SSB will be important is optimizing management tactics such as attract and kill stations (see objective 3). 2) To quantify SSB use of and population growth on alternative food sources. Although we have good laboratory data showing that SSB can use the residue of numerous crops, the importance of these crops under field conditions has not been well documented. We propose to survey distribution and abundance of SSB on crop residues for selected commercial farms in New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts and conduct experiments to quantify SSB population growth potential when SSB is caged on residues of different crops in the field. This information will allow us to better estimate the contribution of alternative food sources to SSB pest problems and develop appropriate management recommendations. 3) To identify aggregation pheromone used by SSB, and in combination with host volatile cues, field test as bait to attract and kill overwintered adults. We propose to use new analytical techniques, coupled with flight tunnel behavioral assays, to identify the aggregation pheromone used by male SSB to attract both male and female beetles to feeding/mating sites. A pheromone gland has been found in SSB but the specific compounds involved have not yet been identified. SSB colonizes strawberry fields from overwintering sites as fruit begins to ripen. The aggregation pheromone, combined with host volatiles already identified, should be an excellent bait to attract overwintered beetles to strategically placed pesticide stations at the periphery of the field. 4) To evaluate resistance/susceptibility of different strawberry cultivars and timing of renovation as management tactics. There currently is no information on differences among strawberry cultivars in vulnerability to SSB. However, we suspect such variation exists because SSB primarily attacks ripe strawberries that touch the ground or straw and cultivars vary in this trait. We propose to use cultivar test gardens at NYSAES and Penn State University to correlate SSB damage with cultivar growth habit and other traits. Also, it has been suggested that prompt renovation of the strawberry bed after harvest will reduce survival of larvae and pupae, thereby reducing populations for the next season. We propose to test this at multiple sites with a history of SSB problems. USDA CRIS data Progress Report 2005 Final Report 2006 |
| Close Window |
|
Northeastern IPM Center 340 Tower Road Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 NortheastIPM.org |
 |
Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2026 |
|