I don’t know about you, but this time of year I start daydreaming of all the plants I can’t wait to grow in my garden once it gets warm. The virtual and hard copy seed catalogs that fill my mailbox and my inbox are full of so many beautiful pictures and inviting suggestions. How to choose?
Well, if one of your goals for your 2021 garden is to provide good habitat for beneficial insects that eat pest insects (natural enemies of pests), here’s some advice…
Look for pollen and nectar producers
Flowers that provide plenty of pollen and nectar make great habitat for natural enemies. This is because some natural enemies also eat pollen or nectar (or both). For example, this adult hover fly feeds on the pollen and nectar produced by this bachelor’s button.
Flowers that produce pollen and nectar also attract other insects that natural enemies feed on (including lots of neutral insects, so the net effect is positive). This ambush bug is hanging out on a zinnia waiting for other insects to wander by and become lunch.
How do you know if a plant will produce flowers rich in pollen and nectar? Well, plants marketed as being good for pollinators are often a good bet, since bees, butterflies, and other pollinators also feed on pollen and nectar. Be aware that sometimes – but not always – “fancy” cultivars (with double blossoms or exotic colors) do not provide the same pollen and nectar resources as the “plain” cultivars or simply native species. You can read a bit more about this in my post from last spring.
Flower shape matters
While some bees have long tongues that help them reach into deep, tube-shaped flowers, lots of natural enemies (like flies, small wasps, and beetles) prefer small, shallow, and open flowers. The pollen and nectar are easier to access, and these flower shapes also give them a nice spot to land or sit.
Plan for season-long blooms
Natural enemies need food (whether it’s pollen and nectar or other insects) from early in the spring until late in the fall. If you only have blooms in July and August, the natural enemies will be very hungry, and will find another spot to hang out. Of course, continuous blooms have aesthetic value, too.
While annuals tend to bloom for a longer period of time during the growing season (especially if you pick off dead blooms), it can be hard to find annuals that bloom early (at least in NY).
Including some early-blooming perennials will feed your natural enemies before your annuals take off. This site lets you search for plants by a variety of characteristics, including when they bloom.
Put away those pesticides!
Or at least pause and assess whether you really need them and what impact they might have on natural enemies and other non-pests before you use them. Of course, you must always read and follow the label on any pesticide, no matter where you plan to use it. The label is the law!
Plants that don’t bloom are still useful
For example, bunching grasses not only provide some visual contrast to blooming plants, but they make great shelter for predatory beetles, spiders, and other insects.
If you love spreadsheets like me…
While looking for pollinator-friendly plants is an easy way to choose plants that will probably support natural enemies, sometimes I am asked “yes, but if I want to attract this specific natural enemy, what should I plant?” So I reviewed university research and extension resources from around the United States to see which plants have been documented to support specific natural enemies. Here’s the link to that spreadsheet. If you want the “cliffs notes”, here are the plant families that had the largest number of species documented as supporting natural enemies:
Aster (same as the daisy or composite family)
Carrot (same as the parsley family)
Mint
Got a pest and you’re wondering which natural enemies will eat it? There’s a chart for that, too!
So, what will you be growing in 2021? I already placed my first seed order (hint: it included a few different kinds of both zinnias and sunflowers), but I can’t promise I won’t place a second one.
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
As many people did, we had to change our plans for this project in response to COVID-19. The biggest change was that we didn’t collect any insects this year. If you follow me on Twitter or Instagram, you saw some pictures of different insects I spotted while visiting these plots this summer. Here are a few highlights:
The Christmas trees are still growing, and Brian Eshenaur and I made sure that the weeds didn’t take over. One Christmas tree grower suggested that they might need some trimming next year. I’m adding “Christmas tree shearing” to the list of new things I will try (learn?) in 2021.
From May through mid-October, I visited our beneficial insect habitat plots once a week to take pictures and document what was blooming. Brian and I also mowed plots that were direct seeded in fall 2018 twice (May and June). Those of you reading this from NY know how dry much of our summer was, and there really wasn’t a need for more frequent mowing. We decided not to mow Treatment C, which had been direct seeded in spring of 2018. The standard recommendation for establishing perennial wildflowers from seed is to mow for the first two growing seasons, and in the third year to start scaling back on the mowing. Since this was the third season for these spring-seeded plots, we skipped the mowing. I’m not sure we made the right decision for our plots.
Some of the perennials we seeded bloomed, but mostly these plots were over-run by grass and some weedy asters. It could be that the wildflower establishment was poor. Spring is not the recommended time for planting perennial wildflower seeds. Or it could be that these plots needed to be mowed at least once this season. Since 2021 will be the third year for the fall-seeded plots, I’m wondering about reducing the mowing in these plots, instead of stopping “cold turkey”.
In the meantime, the fall-seeded Treatments F and G (mowed twice in 2020) are developing nicely! Even when there weren’t many flowers, I could recognize lots of wildflower seedlings.
In July and August, there were abundant blackeyed susan blossoms, and in September and October all four aster species bloomed.
This year, I kept notes not only on what was blooming each week, but on whether blossoms had just started to open (E = early bloom), were fully open (P = peak bloom), or were fading (F = fading bloom). Because there were 12 plots for each transplanted or direct seeded species, if the plots were evenly split between early and peak (E/P) or peak and fading (P/F), I included these two intermediate categories. You can see a color version of the following tables here. The colors give a nice visual of the progression of blooms over the season (including some weeks when there was a bit of a lull in blooms).
E
early bloom
E/P
evenly mixed early & peak bloom in different plots
P
peak bloom
P/F
evenly mixed peak & fading bloom in different plots
F
fading blooms
When transplanted wildflowers bloomed in 2020
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
5
12
21
27
1
9
16
23
30
6
14
21
28
6
12
17
26
1
8
15
22
28
6
14
Golden alexanders
E
P
P
P
F
F
Ohio spiderwort
E
E
E
P
P
P
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Catmint
E
P
P
P/F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Lanceleaf coreopsis
E
P
F
F
F
Blue false indigo
E
P
Tall white beard tongue
E
P
F
F
F
F
Common milkweed
E
F
Purple coneflower
E
E
P
P
P
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Wild bergamot
E
P/F
F
F
F
F
F
Anise hyssop
E
P
P
F
F
F
F
F
Boneset
E
P
P
F
F
F
F
NY ironweed
E
E
E
P
P
P
P
F
F
Orange coneflower
E
E
P
P
P
P
P/F
F
F
F
F
New England aster
E
E
E
E
P
P
P
F
Showy goldenrod
E
P
P
F
F
When direct seeded wildflowers bloomed in 2020
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
5
12
21
27
1
9
16
23
30
6
14
21
28
6
12
17
26
1
8
15
22
28
6
14
Golden alexanders
E
P
P/F
Hairy beard tongue
E
E
Lanceleaf coreopsis
E
P/F
F
F
F
F
F
E
P
F
F
F
F
F
F
Tall white beard tongue
E
Blackeyed susan
E
E
P
P
P
P
P
P
P/F
P/F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Purple coneflower
E
E
P
P
P
P
F
F
F
F
F
F
E/P
Wild bergamot
E
F
F
Butterfly milkweed
P
F
E
Orange coneflower
E
P
P
P/F
F
F
Smooth blue aster
E
E
P
P
P
P
Gray goldenrod
E
E
E/P
P
F
F
New England aster
E
E
P
P
P
Zigzag aster
E
E
P
P
P
Aromatic aster
E/P
E/P
P
Yellow false indigo
Partridge pea
Marsh blazing star
Narrowleaf mountainmint
Wild senna
Maryland senna
Early goldenrod
Ohio spiderwort
Common name
Scientific name
Anise hyssop
Agastache foeniculum
Aromatic aster
Symphyotrichum oblongifolius
Blackeyed susan
Rudbeckia hirta
Blue false indigo
Baptisia australis
Boneset
Eupatorium perfoliatum
Butterfly milkweed
Asclepias tuberosa
Catmint
Nepeta faassinii
Common milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
Early goldenrod
Solidago juncea
Golden alexanders
Zizia aurea
Gray goldenrod
Solidago nemoralis
Hairy beard tongue
Penstemon hirsutus
Lanceleaf coreopsis
Coreopsis lanceolata
Marsh blazing star
Liatris spicata
Maryland senna
Senna marilandica
Narrowleaf mountainmint
Pycnanthemum tenuifolium
New England aster
Symphyotrichum novae-angliae
NY ironweed
Vernonia noveboracensis
Ohio spiderwort
Tradescantia ohiensis
Orange coneflower
Rudbeckia fulgida va. Fulgida
Partridge pea
Chamaecrista fasciculata
Purple coneflower
Echinacea purpurea
Showy goldenrod
Solidago speciosa
Smooth blue aster
Symphyotrichumlaeve
Tall white beard tongue
Penstemon digitalis
Wild bergamot
Monarda fistulosa
Wild senna
Senna hebecarpa
Yellow false indigo
Baptisia tinctoria
Zigzag aster
Symphyotrichum prenanthoides
From the second or third week of May through the second week of October, there was always something blooming in these plots, whether they were transplanted or direct seeded. You can also see that a fair number of species in the seeded plots did not bloom this year. Hopefully next year.
In the meantime, I’ll be making plans for the 2021 growing season, which will hopefully include a return to insect sampling. Stay well and stay safe!
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
This work is supported by:
Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Well, the days are getting shorter, the air is getting cooler, and pumpkins are starting to show up on front porches. I guess it’s time for me to admit that fall is coming. So it seemed like a good time to provide an update on my efforts to establish habitat for beneficial insects around my home. If you need to catch up on this project, you can read more about site selection, plant selection, and weed control in previous posts.
#BeneficialHabitatAtHome in pictures
Overall, I’m pretty happy with how the garden turned out this first year! If you follow me on Instagram or Twitter, you’ve seen some of these pictures already.
I attracted quite a few pollinators…
…and natural enemies.
I also picked a lot of cut flowers!
Plant establishment success
This spring, I planted four perennials: arnica (Arnica chamissonis), blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata), echinacea (Echinacea purpurea), pyrethrum daisy (Chrysanthemum coccineum), and ‘Chim chiminee’ rudbeckia (Rudbeckia hirta). I started some blue vervain from seed, but by the time I’d figured out that stratification was needed, it was pretty late in the spring. The seedlings that did emerge didn’t survive. The blanketflowers and rudbeckia bloomed already this first year.
The arnica, echinacea, and pyrethrum daisy put their energy into vegetative growth, and hopefully they will bloom next year.
Not surprisingly, the annuals produced abundant blooms. Others have noted that there can be value in mixing annuals with perennials when you are establishing habitat for beneficial insects. The annuals will provide abundant flower resources right away, while it may take a few years to achieve peak bloom production on perennials.
Fall planting
Hopefully this is not the first time you’ve heard that “fall is for planting”. In preparation for this, I started some butterfly milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa) and columbine (Aquilegia sp.) seeds back in late July so that I’d have some seedlings ready to go in the ground this fall. The columbine benefitted from spending about three weeks in my fridge (after I’d seeded them in moist potting mix) before giving them some light and warmth. (Don’t judge me. The real question is why not reserve one shelf of your fridge for seed storage and germination!) Columbine seedlings will go in my backyard where there’s less sun.
I also snagged a few seed heads from the golden alexanders and the blackeyed susans (also Rudbeckia hirta, but the straight species) in our beneficial insect habitat research plots. I’m going to plant them this fall, too and hope to see some seedlings next spring.
Whether I’m working remotely next year or not, I’ll keep providing periodic updates on my efforts to establish habitat for beneficial insects around my house.
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
This work is supported by:
Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
At a previous residence, Japanese knotweed was the bane of my backyard gardening endeavors. Masses of these invasive plants can easily stifle native or non-invasive plants. The roots grow deep and even small pieces left in the ground can re-grow new plants. I used frequent hand-pulling and digging in an attempt to keep it in check, and I knew that if I stopped it would just grow back. For more information on this invasive weed, refer to this excellent fact sheet.
I have read that you can cook and eat it, but I haven’t tried. And no matter how delicious it might be, it would still be horribly invasive. While bees will visit the flowers late in the summer, there are better ways to feed the bees.
You may have heard that Cornell researchers led by Dr. Bernd Blossey released the Knotweed Psyllid (Aphalara itadori) in June 2020 in Tioga and Broome counties as a potential biocontrol agent for this invasive weed. This release came only after thorough testing and permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, since this insect is native to Japan. You can learn more about the process of using classical biocontrol to manage weeds here. Be assured, many precautions are taken before non-native species are intentionally released in the U.S.
Unfortunately, attempts to establish this insect in both the United Kingdom and Canada have not been successful. Preliminary results from the NY releases suggest that this psyllid will not be the biocontrol solution we need for Japanese knotweed. Most of the insects that were released do not seem to have survived and even when the insects were protected in cages put around the knotweed plants, they didn’t reduce the growth of the plants.
It seems that if we are going to solve this weed problem with biocontrol, we will need to find other insects from the native range of Japanese knotweed. Assessing these insects prior to release in the U.S. will be a lengthy process, so in the meantime keep using other IPM tools for this invasive weed.
If you’d like to learn more about this project, the New York Invasive Species Research Institute is hosting a webinar on September 30, 2020 at 11:00 AM.
This post was written by Amara Dunn (NYSIPM) and Dr. Bernd Blossey (Cornell Department of Natural Resources).
It’s been two months since I since I wrote about the plants I selected to provide habitat for beneficial insects around my home. Today I’ll talk a bit about weed control and how my spring transplants are doing.
Weed control
I have mentioned before that managing weeds turns out to be far more than half the battle when it comes to establishing perennial wildflowers as habitat for beneficial insects. Based on the results from the habitat plots we planted on the edges of our Christmas tree research field, I decided to use mulch for weed management in my home gardens. While mulch does add extra cost, after you make the initial investment of time to spread the mulch, it really cuts down on the time required to manage weeds during the rest of the season. I had a relatively small area to mulch, and was able to purchase some relatively inexpensive mulch made from the brush and leaves picked up by my city. Also, while I haven’t tested the organic matter content of my soil, just digging up some of the grass told me that my soil could use more organic matter. The mulch will eventually help with that as it breaks down. One downside to mulch is that it could block access to the soil for ground-nesting bees. There are some spots of bare ground in other parts of my yard, and perhaps next year I will be a little more deliberate about keeping some areas bare to support these pollinators.
Like many (but not all) New Yorkers, I have found myself frequently wishing for more rain this summer. According to the closest NEWA station, we only got 1.3 inches of rain in May, 1.44 inches in June, and 1.48 inches in July (so far). This spring and summer is an excellent illustration of why experts recommend transplanting perennials in the fall, and not in the spring. Hot and dry are not ideal conditions for young seedlings just trying to get started. We often get more rain in the fall, and the cooler temperatures mean the transplants are subjected to less stress.
I started my plants from seed, and most of my seedlings were pretty small when I transplanted them the first week of June.
I admit that I also didn’t harden off my seedlings exactly the way you are supposed to. After losing some un-protected plants to marauding bands of squirrels, and lacking a protective structure that would let me keep my seedlings in full sun, I hardened them off on my screen porch. Moving from this environment to the south side of my house in full sun was a bit of a shock, especially when it got so hot and dry so soon after transplanting. I’ve done a lot of watering over the past month and a half, and I still lost more of my perennial seedlings (and some annuals) than I had hoped.
In spite of these obstacles, quite a few of my transplants survived. The blanketflowers (Gaillardia aristata) are the only perennials that look like they will bloom this season. If I had bought seedlings from a local nursery, they might have been bigger and might have established faster. But I can be patient.
You already saw the echinacea. Here are some of the other perennials.
Not surprisingly, the annuals have grown faster. (Remember, they’re in a race to reproduce and pass on their genes before winter returns!)
Japanese beetles are eating the common zinnias.
But they are leaving the ‘Persian Carpet’ zinnias alone. It turns out these are a variety of Mexican zinnias (Zinnia haageana), which is a different species than the common zinnias (Zinnia elegans).
I’ve been picking the Japanese beetles off by hand (adding them to my compost bin after they drown). I found the beetles to be more sluggish in the evenings (although admittedly I wasn’t out at the break of dawn), and a colleague recently shared this article with me that suggests that hand-picking Japanese beetles in the evening is indeed the best option. This strategy has not prevented all damage (especially on my roses), but I think my plants will survive. And I admit I haven’t picked them every single day.
The snap dragons have started blooming.
And so have the calendulas.
I’ve seen hover flies on the bachelor’s buttons. Remember the adult hover flies are pollinators, while their larvae are voracious aphid predators.
The cosmos and sunflowers (that survived the squirrels and a local rabbit) haven’t started blooming yet, but they’re looking good!
This spring I ran out of space to start seeds indoors, and since fall is a better time for planting I saved a few perennials for the fall. Last week I seeded butterfly milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa) and some columbine. In the absence of grow lights, and since I’m not an expert transplant producer, I wanted to give these seedlings a good two and a half months to grow before I transplant them.
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
This work is supported by:
Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Hopefully you’ve been following along with a project I’m working on with Betsy Lamb and Brian Eshenaur to establish (and document the impacts of) habitat for natural enemies of pests and pollinators (collectively, beneficial insects). In December, I wrote about how the plants were growing, and in February I wrote about the time and money we’d invested in the project so far and the success of our weed management strategies. I promised an update on insect sampling, and here it is!
First of all, let me clarify that we were collecting more than just insects. Insects only have six legs. We also collected arachnids like spiders (and harvestmen), which usually have eight legs, and pillbugs, millipedes, and centipedes, which have many more than eight legs. All of these “bugs” could be correctly called arthropods. But there’s more! We also counted earthworms (which are annelids) and slugs and snails (which are mollusks). Hopefully the entomologists in my audience will pardon my use of the term “insect” to include creatures that crawl or fly but may have more (or less) than six legs throughout the rest of this post.
Pan traps catch flying insects, especially those attracted to the colors yellow and blue.
Pitfall traps catch insects that crawl along the soil surface.
Sweep nets catch insects that are flying or hanging out on plants.
Below is a quick reminder of our treatments. You can read all the details here. Except for Treatment H. These are “new” plots that we added in 2019. I just measured out four, 23-foot long sections of grass planted between rows of Christmas trees in the middle of the field. These row middles are mowed by the excellent Field Research Unit staff at Cornell AgriTech, where our research field is located. The grass mixture was seeded right after the Christmas trees were planted in Spring 2018, but it does include some blooming weeds from time to time (dandelions and clover, especially).
Treatment
Description
A
Spring transplant, no mulch
B
Spring transplant with mulch
C
Spring direct seed
D
Buckwheat cover crop, then fall transplant
E – control
Whatever was growing there, just keep it mowed
F
Soil solarization, then fall direct seed
G
Herbicide and tillage, then fall direct seed
H – control
Mow seeded orchard grass mix
And one last note before we get into the actual results. These are still preliminary results. Many, many thanks to Jason Dombroskie and Paige Muñiz for helping us with insect identification. Identification and number crunching of the data are still ongoing.
Ok, ready to see some cool insects (etc.)? Here we go!
Spiders and harvestmen
We caught a lot of spiders and harvestmen, mostly in pan and pitfall traps. What’s a harvestman? You might know it by the name daddy long legs. It looks a lot like a spider, but instead of having a distinct narrowed “waist” (actually where the two body segments of the arachnid meet), their bodies just look like single “blobs”. Both spiders and harvestmen are predators and will eat many other insects (including some pests). They may also eat nectar and pollen. Very few spiders you are likely to encounter in New York are venomous, so welcome these eight-legged biocontrol agents to your fields and gardens without fear!
We caught a lot of spiders and harvestmen, but it looks like there were fewer in the plots that were mulched at transplanting or solarized prior to seeding.
Carabid beetles
You may not notice carabid beetles (also called ground beetles) because they crawl along the surface of the soil and are usually more active at night. Also, many of them move very quickly. They are great predators of insects (and other arthropods), as well as mollusks like slugs. Some also eat seeds.
From these preliminary results, it looks like we tended to catch more carabid beetles in the fall-planted treatments (whether they were transplanted or direct-seeded). We’ll have to see if this turns out to be a consistent pattern. There were generally fewer carabids in the two control treatments.
Rove beetles
We did not catch very many rove beetles (only 55 in all of the plots for the entire summer), but like carabid beetles these predators live at the soil surface or in the soil. Some also scavenge things that are already dead or eat seeds. You can recognize them by the short wing covers (called elytra) on their backs. I think they look like mini capes.
Hover flies
Hover flies (also called syrphids) come in many shapes and sizes and get their name from the way the adults hover in the air when traveling between flowers. Many look like bees, but if they hold still long enough and you look closely, you will see that they only have two wings (bees have four), and they have very large eyes. The adults feed on pollen and nectar and are also pollinators. The larvae are predators, eating aphids, whiteflies, and scales.
We were surprised to see similarly low numbers of hover flies in the two spring transplanted plots (in which deliberately-planted wildflowers were largest and produced the most flowers) and in the mowed grass control. More hover flies were collected from the weedy control, all the direct seeded plots, and the fall transplanted plots (which had smaller wildflowers with fewer blooms). We don’t know why.
Lady beetles
Lady beetles may be the most well-recognized biocontrol agent, but they were not the most abundant one collected in our sampling. We only collected 65 larvae or adults from all plots over the entire summer. Both life stages are predators, but adults of at least some species will also eat pollen and nectar. We identified the species of each adult (but not the larvae), and a picture of each is below.
Lacewings
All lacewing larvae are predators, and the more easily recognized adults of some species are also predators. Others eat pollen as adults. We did not catch very many in our plots; only 40 all summer from all plots.
Minute pirate bugs
This may be one of my new favorite natural enemies. They are definitely minute (no more than a quarter of an inch long) but feed on small insect pests like aphids, mites, scales, and thrips, as well as pollen and nectar. We only collected 19 from all plots over the whole summer. At home, I sometimes find them running across my table after I’ve brought freshly cut flowers inside. In this video, you can see one exploring the map of a corn maze. Actually, it was looking for thrips to eat.
Interestingly, while we collected a lot of bees of many different kinds over the summer (at least 18 different genera), very few were the iconic honey bees or bumble bees. I have been told by a bee expert that the pan traps tend to catch bees other than honey or bumble bees, and we did set these traps about twice as often as we used sweep nets. So this may have impacted the types and numbers of bees we collected. Nevertheless, these data are a reminder that there are lots of bees out there besides the ones we’re most familiar with. I encourage you to learn more about wild bees of New York.
Butterflies
At the beginning of this post, I listed three methods we used to collect insects. Well, actually there was a fourth method, but it was used to count insects rather than to collect them. We did a Pollard Walk through each plot once a month by simply walking along the side of the plot and counting the number and type of butterflies we saw. We counted very few butterflies during these walks, but here are pictures of the species that did visit our plots (either in the adult or caterpillar life stage).
So that’s it for the beneficial insects I’m going to write about today. We also caught some not-so-beneficial insects (and mollusks).
Tarnished plant bugs
These are generalist herbivores, feeding on leaves, fruits and flowers of many plants. They can be damaging pests on some fruits (like strawberries) and vegetables. In our plots, I think they caused some damage to the coreopsis flowers. We’re not too worried because they aren’t pests of Christmas trees, but we were disappointed to find the largest numbers of tarnished plant bugs in the more mature habitat plots (those started by transplanting, as opposed to direct-seeding). Other researchers also reported that planting wildflower strips adjacent to strawberries could increase tarnished plant bug populations.
Leafhoppers
Leafhoppers are another insect that we aren’t too concerned about with Christmas trees, but can be a pest of other crops. I learned that you can distinguish this group of insects by their pointy flattened (top to bottom) heads and the bristles on their back legs. The spring transplanted plots in which wildflower plants were most mature and produced the most blooms also had fewer leafhoppers than other treatments.
Slugs
As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, slugs are mollusks, not insects (or even arthropods) and they can be pests of many different crops. The picture above is definitely the largest slug that we collected during 2019. Interestingly, there seemed to be fewer slugs in the plots where we solarized the soil during the 2018 growing season. I was interested to learn that soil solarization is known to kill slug eggs, and I wonder if we’re seeing that effect here. I don’t know how far slugs move from where the eggs hatch, and it will be interesting to see if this effect persists in future years.
Believe it or not, this is not the full list of insect (or arthropod, mollusk, or annelid) groups we collected and counted. Also, I will remind you again that these data (especially the bee data) are preliminary. Although I’m sad to be unable to collect insects this summer due to COVID-19, I’m looking forward to finishing the analysis of the 2019 data and getting ready to hopefully collect insects again in 2021. In the meantime, you can see pictures of what’s happening in these plots throughout the summer on my Twitter and Instagram accounts. And I will write at least one more post about this project later this year.
This post was written by Amara Dunn. All pictures or videos were taken by her, unless otherwise credited.
This work is supported by:
Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Recall from this post that I’m creating habitat for beneficial arthropods (including insects, spiders, predatory mites, etc.) around my house this spring. Because more of us may be doing this while we’re staying home to keep each other safe, I’m sharing my experiences here (as well as on Twitter and Instagram). The previous post covered site selection. Today I will talk about the species I’ve chosen (and why).
What I’m planting in my yard
The front and side yards get plenty of sun (because they face south and west), so I’m looking for plants that thrive in full sun. And I’ll admit that I’m interested in more than just supporting beneficial arthropods. I also want my front and side yards to look reasonably nice. (I don’t want to make enemies of my new neighbors!) And I want to grow flowers for cutting. So I am not sticking strictly to native plant species or to perennials. Some plants I picked just because I thought they looked nice. For example, I was beguiled by ‘Chim Chiminee’ Rudbeckia. The pollen and nectar produced by the native species may have been bred out of this variety. I’ll find out. I also just love ‘Persian Carpet’ zinnias.
I’ve started a lot of plants from seeds I had in my fridge (e.g., snap dragons, echinacea, bachelor’s buttons). Others I will direct-seed outside (e.g., sunflowers, zinnia, cosmos), and I may also purchase some transplants from local nurseries (many have great strategies for safe curbside pick-up!).
Choosing plants for beneficial arthropods – the basics
Which plant species to grow to support beneficial arthropods (whether it’s pollinators or natural enemies of pests, or both) is a common question. The answer is both straight-forward, and also complicated. In addition to shelter and protection from pesticides, all beneficial arthropods need something to eat. In general, plants that provide plenty of nectar and pollen help to provide this food. Many natural enemies of pests will also eat pollen or nectar (e.g., at certain life stages, or as a supplement to the pests they eat). Even if they don’t, the pollen and nectar will often attract small arthropods that natural enemies can feed on. So, the simple answer is that a plant that produces lots of pollen and nectar, will thrive in the setting where you want to plant it, and is not invasive is a good choice for supporting beneficial arthropods. Plants that are marketed as supporting pollinators are easy to find and are likely to also support natural enemies.
But, of course, it’s not exactly that simple…
Choosing plants – natives, cultivars, and more
Many people ask if they should only grow native plant species, or if it’s ok to plant cultivated varieties of native species, or non-native species. (Hopefully it’s obvious that you should never plant an invasive species in your yard!) Annie White at the University of Vermont wrote a 254-page dissertation on the topic. These two sentences from her abstract summarize her findings nicely: “Our study shows that many insect pollinators prefer to forage on native species over cultivated varieties of the native species, but not always, and not exclusively. Some native cultivars may be comparable substitutions for native species in pollinator habitat restoration projects, but all cultivars should be evaluated on an individual basis.” You might also want to take a look at this article from the University of Maryland and this one from the Xerces Society. In summary, I would say it’s up to you whether you want to plant exclusively native species, or not.
According to David Smitley from Michigan State University, perennials are usually better choices for bees than annuals, but this article includes a list of annuals that are attractive to bees. Alyssum is an annual that definitely supports natural enemies, but many of the other annuals on this list may also support natural enemies.
Choosing plants – attracting specific arthropods
If you are trying to attract very specific natural enemies (e.g., parasitoid wasps, lady beetles) your plant choice can also get more complicated. Some great work has been done by researchers at Michigan State University documenting which arthropods (pollinators, natural enemies, and some pests) visited different plant species native to Michigan. They also offer a simplified summary. “Habitat Planning for Beneficial Insects” from the Xerces Society includes notes in the charts at the end about which beneficial insects are particularly attracted to the species listed. This resource from Oregon State University describes some specific plants and the arthropods they support. Finally, although this study was conducted in the United Kingdom, there might be some relevance to the Northeast U.S.
Update: During Summer 2020 (while I was doing less field work), I reviewed the literature I could find on the value of specific plants for specific natural enemies. Here is the spreadsheet I compiled.
Lists and searchable databases
In addition to the resources already listed, you may find the following helpful in selecting plants:
If you want to focus on native plants, there are many organizations committed to supporting local native plants…too many to list here, but some online searching may turn up an organization that is local for you.
My current plant list
This table lists what I either have already seeded (inside or outside), or am planning to direct seed outside when it gets a little warmer. In addition to the common, scientific, and cultivar name of each plant and whether it is a perennial or an annual in NY, I also included information about why I chose it. I only marked plants as supporting bees or natural enemies if I could find documentation of that fact in the resources above. It may be that more of the plants on this list support beneficial arthropods. If you have additional information on these plants, please let me know! In some cases (for example, zinnia) the species is reported to support beneficial arthropods, but I don’t know if the cultivars I’m growing will. In many cases, the decorative value of the plant was a big part of why I chose it. The arnica? Well, I just saw that in a seed catalog this winter and ordered some on a whim.
Common name
Scientific name
Cultivar
Annual or Perennial in NY
Bees
Natural enemies
Decorative
Arnica
Arnica chamissonis
perennial
Bachelor’s buttons
Centaurea cyanus
annual
X
X
Blanketflower
Gaillardia aristata
Burgundy
perennial
X
X
X
Blue vervain
Verbena hastata
perennial
X
Calendula
Calendula officinalis
Remembrance Mix
annual
X
X
Celosia
Celosia argentea cristata
Red Flame
annual
X
X
Cosmos
Cosmos bipnnatus
Dwarf Sensation
annual
X
X
X
Echinacea
Echinacea purpurea
perennial
X
X
Marigold
Tagetes erecta
Senate House
annual
X
X
Poppy
Papaver somniferum
Frilled White Poppy
annual
maybe
X
Poppy
Papaver sp.
seed saved by a colleague
annual
maybe
X
Pyrethrum daisy
Chrysanthemum cocineum
perennial
X
Rudbeckia
Rudbeckia hirta
Chim chiminee
perennial
maybe
X
Snap dragon
Antirrhinum majus
annual
X
X
Strawflower
Xerochrysum bracteatum
annual
X
Sunflower
Helianthus anus
Mammoth Greystripe
annual
X
probably
X
Sunflower
Helianthus anus
Evening Sun
annual
X
probably
X
Sunflower
Helianthus anus
Sonja Dwarf
annual
X
probably
X
Zinnia
Zinnia elegans
Queen Lime with Blush
annual
maybe
X
Zinnia
Zinnia elegans
Candy Cane Mix
annual
maybe
X
Zinnia
Zinnia elegans
Benary’s Wine
annual
maybe
X
Mexican zinnia
Zinnia haageana
Persian Carpet
annual
maybe
X
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
This work is supported by:
Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Natural enemies of pests are going to help you out with pest control, so when you are applying pesticides, it’s in your best interest to choose products that will have the least impact on them. Two quick points before we get into details for where to find this information:
Remember that the information in this post is not a substitute for a pesticide label. The label is the law, and you must read and follow the label of any pesticide you are using. Laws and labels change. It is your responsibility to use pesticides legally. Trade names used here are for convenience only; no endorsement of products is intended, nor is criticism of unnamed products implied. For questions about pesticide use, regulations, and safety, contact the Cornell Pesticide Management Education Program: pmep_webmaster@cornell.edu.
A great way to protect natural enemies is by following the steps for IPM. Preventing pests (e.g., through cultural strategies and exclusion), scouting to detect pests early when populations are low, and proper identification of pests will help you reduce your need to use pesticides and can save you money. Win win!
Ok, let’s assume you’re doing good IPM and you’ve gotten to the point where you need to choose a pesticide. How do you make the best choice for protecting natural enemies? Here are a few options. (Note that I did post about this about 2 years ago. I’ve learned more, so I thought an update would be in order.)
Read the label
This should go without saying. You should be doing this anyway when you are considering using a pesticide. The label may contain information about the compatibility of a pesticide with either natural enemies or pollinators. And of course it will contain important information about how to minimize risks to yourself and the environment when you use it.
EIQ
EIQ stands for Environmental Impact Quotient. You can read more details on the NYSIPM website, but in a nutshell the EIQ puts a number on the risks of pesticides at the rates they are applied in the field. You can use the EIQ calculator on our website to compare these numbers for different pesticides. The higher the number, the higher the risk. There are different components to the EIQ; risks to consumers, workers, and the environment (ecological). The ecological risk will include risks to natural enemies (as well as fish, birds, and bees).
Pocket IPM Greenhouse Scout App
Temporary update: As of January 2024, this app is in the process of being updated and is not currently available. Hopefully a new and improved version will be available again soon!
Especially if you are growing in a greenhouse and releasing a lot of natural enemies, you may find this app helpful. In addition to providing information about compatibility of pesticides with arthropod natural enemies you may be releasing, you can also use it to help you keep records of scouting and product applications.
Cornell Guidelines
If you are a commercial producer, hopefully you are already utilizing the Cornell Guidelines, as they are a wealth of information on many subjects. At least some of them also include information on the toxicity of different pesticides to natural enemies. For example, if you have the grape guidelines, check out Table 4.2.2 for insecticide toxicity to natural enemies.
Websites and apps from companies that produce natural enemies
Companies that sell natural enemies (especially predatory and parasitoid arthropods for greenhouse pest control) have an interest in making sure that customers don’t inadvertently kill the natural enemies they buy with pesticides they are applying. I am aware of searchable databases, apps, or charts describing pesticide compatibility from four companies that sell (mostly) arthropod and nematode natural enemies: Agrobio, Biobest, BioWorks, and Koppert. If you know of some I’ve missed, please let me know! There are of course other companies that supply natural enemies. Here I’m focusing on resources that help you choose pesticides to conserve natural enemies.
This website is also available as an app for Android (but not Apple) devices. To use it, start by clicking Organisms selection and choose the natural enemies you want to conserve. Then, click Ingredients selection and choose the pesticides you are thinking about applying. You can only search active ingredients, not product names. Finally, click Query. Use the legend to help you interpret the table that’s produced.
Biobest has put their compatibility information into an app for Android and Apple devices. Select pesticides by either active ingredient or commercial product name. Then, search for the name of the Beneficial organism you want to conserve. Note that there are a lot of pesticide/natural enemy combinations for which toxicity data just aren’t available. If you select a pesticide, then natural enemies for which no data are available will be grayed out in the Beneficial organism list. As you check boxes next to pesticides and natural enemies, a chart is automatically generated. The results include information on toxicity to different life stages of the beneficial organisms and persistence of the product.
BioWorks provides a table of the compatibility of their products with pesticides, fertilizers, and adjuvants. You can filter the table by several criteria to find the information you’re looking for.
This website is also available as an app for Android and Apple devices. Start by entering the name of the Beneficial organism you want to protect. You can search by either the Koppert product name, or the Latin (scientific) name, but you can’t select from a drop-down menu. Just start typing. Then, choose the Agent (pesticide you are considering applying), by either trade name or active ingredient. Again, you need to know the name; you can’t select from a drop-down list. Start typing, and then check the box next to the product you are interested in. Click Results and be sure to click on ‘Legend’ at the bottom to help you interpret the table. There is also a more complete explanation of information in the legend under Info.
Some caveats about these websites
Admittedly, finding information about conserving natural enemies that are not commercially available for release (e.g., in greenhouses) has some challenges. These websites tend to focus on what you can buy and release, rather than on what may be naturally occurring in a field. Although sometimes there is some overlap. These apps/websites don’t include all natural enemies, and data aren’t available for all natural enemy/pesticide combinations. Also, these websites/apps usually list natural enemies by scientific names. Do you know what the scientific name of a lacewing is? I didn’t before I started this job!
To help with this last barrier, I created a chart (also below) to help you figure out what scientific names you should look for on these websites/apps if you want to conserve a particular natural enemy. It also includes information about which pests the natural enemies target, whether they are commercially available, and whether they are naturally occurring (not necessarily native) in NY.
Arthropod and nematode natural enemies
Can I buy them?
Found in NY?
If I want to conserve this beneficial arthropod…
(whose scientific name is…)
that helps me control…
I should look for these names on the compatibility apps:
yes
yes
aphid midges
Aphidoletes aphidimyza
aphids
Aphidoletes aphidimyza
some
yes
beetles that are predators (for example, rove beetles, ground beetles, and others)
Coleoptera is the scientific name of the insect group that includes all beetles. The following families are generally predatory: Coccinellidae (lady beetles), Carabidae (ground beetles), Staphylinidae (rove beetles), Cantharidae (soldier beetles), Melyridae (flower beetles)
many insect pests
Coleoptera is a beneficial insect listed on at least one compatibility app. However, some coleoptera are pests. And, since this is such a broad group, the compatibility information provided may not be correct for all beneficial beetle species.
insect eggs, small caterpillars, thrips, mites, aphids
Orius laevigatus may be a reasonable proxy; Orius spp.; Orius insidiosus
yes
yes
nematodes
Steinernema spp., Heterorhabditis spp.
thrips, fungus gnats, shore flies, some grubs
Nematodes (note that this is a very broad category and it’s possible there are differences among species), Heterorhabditisbacteriophora, Steinernema, Steinernemafeltiae, Steinernemacarpocapsae
Aphelinus abdominalis or Aphelinus mali may be reasonable proxies
yes
yes
predatory gall midge
Feltiella acarisuga
spider mites
Feltiella acarisuga
some
yes
predatory mites
Amblyseius (= Neoseiulus) fallacis, Typhlodromus spp., and probably others
thrips, whitefly, pest mites; may vary among natural enemy species
Amblyseius californicus, Amblyseius cucumeris, Amblyseius swirskii, Phytoseiulus persimilis are sold commercially and may be good proxies for the pesticide compatibility of naturally-occurring predatory mites
yes
yes
spined soldier bug
Podisus maculiventris
many immature insects, including many species of caterpillars
I should look for these names on the compatibility apps:
yes
yes
bumble bee
Bombus spp.
NA – pollinator
Bombus spp., Bombus terrestris
yes
yes
European honey bee
Apis mellifera
NA – pollinator
Apis, Apis mellifera
Notes:
Different strains or populations of these natural enemies are sold by different companies and each population may differ from natural populations. Each company is most likely to report compatibility data that applies to their population. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
When the first word in the scientific name of an insect (e.g. Trichogramma) is followed by the designation ‘spp.’, it means multiple species that all belong to the same genus. Some compatibility information is given for only the larger group (e.g., Aphidius spp. or Syrphus spp.).
Natural enemies that are pesticides (active ingredients are microorganisms, i.e., fungi, bacteria, viruses)
If I want to conserve this microbial natural enemy…
(whose scientific name is…)
that helps me control…
I should look for these names on the compatibility apps:
Bt
Bacillus thuringiensis (various strains are available, and they control different pests)
many caterpillars and some immature beetle and fly pests (target pest varies by strain)
many insects (target pest depends on fungal species and strain)
Paecilomyces (=Isaria) fumosoroseus, Beauveriabassiana, Metarhiziumanisopliae (= M. brunneum)
fungi that attack plant diseases
there are multiple species, including Trichoderma harzianum (several strains)
Plant pathogens (the target pathogen depends on the fungal strain)
Trichoderma harzianum T-22 is the only fungal natural enemy I found on these apps, so far. It is unlikely that its compatibility is representative of other fungi that are natural enemies.
Notes:
Different strains or populations of these microorganisms are sold by different companies and each of these populations may differ from natural populations. Each company is most likely to report compatibility data that applies to their population. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
In these apps/websites, the microbial active ingredient may be listed as the natural enemy (e.g., Paecilomyces fumosoroseus on Biobest website), but sometimes it’s only listed as a pesticide active ingredient. For compatibility of biopesticides with chemical pesticides, you should start by reading the label, then seek information provided by the manufacturer. I am starting to create biopesticide profiles that include available compatibilitiy information for these products.
All tables were assembled by Amara Dunn, NYSIPM using information from Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests (Hoffman & Frodsham) and were last updated January 2020.
Give it a try!
Imagine you were considering using one of the following active ingredients:
abamectin
acequinocyl
fenpyroximate
…to control spider mites. (Of course, before you did this, you’d read the labels and be sure that the use you were considering was legal!) If you were concerned about hurting parasitoids that help with aphid control (for example, the species Aphidius colemani and Aphidius ervi) which of these active ingredients would be the best choice (from a compatibility standpoint)?
Go ahead!
Look it up!
A note about microorganisms as natural enemies
There are a few “natural enemies” on this chart that are actually biopesticides, and I have listed them separately. Remember that microorganisms (fungi, bacteria, viruses) that are natural enemies of pests are biopesticides. A few of them can be found in the websites/apps summarized above. There are two compatibility questions when it comes to using biopesticides with living microorganisms as active ingredients: (1) Will this biopesticide harm other natural enemies (e.g., predators and parasitoids)? and (2) Will the living microbe in this biopesticide be killed by other pesticides I might use? The websites/apps have some information about the compatibility of biopesticides with arthropod natural enemies. If you’re wondering about the compatibility of biopesticides with other pesticides, that may be a topic for another post (so many posts to write, so little time!). I’ll just offer two quick pieces of advice here:
Read the label of the biopesticide. If it doesn’t contain compatibility information (for use with other pesticides) or doesn’t answer your questions about compatibility with other natural enemies, contact the manufacturer to get your questions answered.
If you happen to be using one of their products, BioWorks describes the compatibility of their products with other pesticides, and this information is linked to individual product pages.
And what about the bees?
Take a look at the resources created by the Pollinator Network @ Cornell. They have prepared decision-making guides for several crops already, with more to come.
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
Thanks to everyone who’s been following the project I’ve been working on with Betsy Lamb and Brian Eshenaur to establish (and document the impacts of) habitat for natural enemies of pests and pollinators (collectively, beneficial insects) around a research planting of Christmas trees! For many people, life does not look the same as it did in January, and we are no exception. Don’t worry, we and the excellent Field Research Unit staff at Cornell AgriTech will be maintaining our research beneficial insect habitat plots (and the Christmas trees around them) so that we can continue to do research here in future years. But, in the interest of keeping people safe and working remotely as much as possible, we won’t collect insects this season. I will be going out about once a week to take pictures of both plants and insects (by myself, with a mask on hand just in case). You can see these pictures on either my Twitter or Instagram accounts.
There’s also a new project you can follow this spring and summer (here, and on Twitter and Instagram)! I recently moved into a new house, and was already planning to put in a (mostly flower) garden, including plants that support beneficial insects. Since many people are doing more things at home, this seemed like a good year to share my experience establishing habitat for beneficial insects in a home garden.
First step? Site selection. My backyard is a bit shady (and I suspect it will be shadier when the leaves come out). You can’t tell from this picture, but the ground also tends to be a little squishy after it rains.
The front and side yards face south and west and are drier.
In my experience, the list of plants that support beneficial insects is longer if you have plenty of sun and reasonably dry soil. This doesn’t mean that you can’t support beneficial insects in a wet and/or shady spot. But you need to choose plant species carefully. You will be more successful if you choose plants that will thrive in the conditions you have. More on plant selection in a later post.
In addition to simple aesthetics, another important part of site selection around the home is knowing what’s underneath the ground. My local utility company provided information about getting water, gas, electric, and internet service lines on my property marked before I start digging. They recommended marking these lines even if I’m just planning to dig by hand with a shovel. If you are planning to use larger equipment, this is even more important (and may be required, depending on where you live). Better safe than sorry. Call before you dig!
Out of an abundance of caution, I’m going to use the location of the buried gas line on my property as a good place to locate a path (rather than a flower bed that requires digging).
I’ll talk more about weed control in a future post, but when you are selecting a site (and deciding how big an area you want to plant), you should also be thinking about how you are going to manage weeds. I am planning to get mulch. But I have resigned myself to the fact that I may be doing some extra hand weeding this summer. It will be a good activity to get me out of the house in the evenings and on the weekends.
Stay tuned for more updates on this project!
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program. All pictures in this post were taken by her.
This work is supported by:
Crop Protection and Pest Management -Extension Implementation Program Area grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000, from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
We have been working on a 2-year project funded by the New York Farm Viability Institute to look at adding biofungicides to the management of two vegetable diseases: cucurbit powdery mildew and white mold. In addition to summarizing results from Year 1 of the trial, previous blog posts also covered some of the details about how to best use the biofungicides we’re testing. During the summer of 2019, we completed our second year of trials. The numbers have all been crunched, and here’s a summary of what we learned. If you want to read all the nitty gritty details, a lengthy full report from Year 2 is available here.
Project goals
During the second year of this project, we wanted to answer a few questions for growers:
Can you replace some conventional fungicide applications for cucurbit powdery mildew in winter squash with one of three OMRI-listed biofungicides (LifeGard, Regalia, or Serifel) while maintaining disease control, crop quality, and yield?
Can you get better control of white mold in green beans by Contans prior to planting, and Double Nickel at bloom?
What are the costs (versus benefits) of using these biofungicides in these ways?
Can NDVI sensors help us detect disease early? Can they help us detect differences in plant health as a result of using biofungicides?
White mold – what we did
This table summarizes the white mold treatments in green beans. Replicated plots were treated with Contans in the third week of May, prior to planting; Double Nickel when snap beans were at 10% bloom (late June or early July) and 7 days later; both Double Nickel and Contans; or neither. Treatments are summarized below.
Timing
Non-treated
Contans
Double Nickel
Contans + Double Nickel
Pre-plant
–
Contans
(2 lb/A)
–
Contans (2 lb/A)
10% bloom
–
–
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
7 days later
–
–
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
White mold – what we saw and what it means
There was very little disease in the white mold trials on either collaborating farm in 2019. This is great news for the collaborating farms, but it means that we couldn’t answer our question about whether using both Contans and Double Nickel in a single season would improve control of white mold. Sarah Pethybridge did three years of efficacy trials with Double Nickel and other OMRI-approved products. In small plot trials with uniform disease pressure Double Nickel was as effective as the conventional fungicides it was compared to in reducing disease. You can read about her results here.
Cucurbit powdery mildew – what we did
We conducted the cucurbit powdery mildew trials on one farm in Eastern NY and on research farms on Long Island and in Western NY, always using the bush acorn squash variety ‘Honey Bear’. This table summarizes the treatments we compared. Essentially, we started with two early biofungicide sprays, then shifted to rotating products when disease was detected. But, in some treatments we replaced the scheduled conventional product with a biofungicide every other week. The biofungicides we looked at were the same as last year: LifeGard, Regalia, and Serifel. We compared these treatments to both a regular conventional fungicide program and a “Conventional + skip” program where we just skipped every other conventional fungicide. And, we included an organic program with traditional OMRI-listed products plus the biofungicides. Important note: Luna Experience is NOT allowed for use on Long Island. We used it in a research plot in order to be able to make comparisons to trials conducted in other parts of the state. You can learn more about fungicide options for managing cucurbit powdery mildew here, and here.
Date
Non-treated
Conventional
Conventional + skip
Conventional + LifeGarda
Conventional + Regaliaa
Conventional + Serifelb
Organicab
~14 days before disease
–
–
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
~7 days before disease
–
–
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
First disease detection
–
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
MilStop (3 lb/A)
+7-10 days
–
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
Serifel (8 oz/A)
+14-17 days
–
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Suffoil-X (1% v/v)
+21-24 days
–
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
MilStop (3 lb/A)
+28-31 days
–
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Serifel (8 oz/A)
+35-38 days
–
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
Suffoil-X (1% v/v)
a LifeGard and Regalia were tank mixed with Nu Film P (1 qt/100 gal)
b Serifel was tank mixed with EcoSpreader (4 fl oz/100 gal) when applied at spray volumes of 30 to 40 gal/A.
c Luna Experience is not allowed for use on Long Island. The Long Island trial was conducted on a research farm.
We summarized disease severity on multiple dates over the season by calculating the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC). This value describes with a single number how quickly disease developed and how bad it got. We also measured NDVI using a GreenSeeker as a way to quantify how green and healthy the leaves were. At the end of the season, we collected yield and Brix data.
Cucurbit powdery mildew – what we saw
Not surprisingly, there was some variability among sites. But at two sites disease severity was not statistically different when we compared the standard weekly conventional fungicide program to skipping every other fungicide spray. This was disappointing, since we were expecting more severe powdery mildew from extending the spray interval, providing room for the biopesticides to improve control. However, in the Long Island trial, although powdery mildew was more severe when the spray interval was extended, applying a biopesticide during the skip week did not improve control.
For the most part, replacing alternate conventional fungicides with biofungicides resulted in disease levels that were somewhere between the conventional fungicide program and the non-treated control. At two sites LifeGard and Serifel performed slightly better than Regalia. To keep this post a reasonable length, we’re only showing results from the Long Island trial, here.
The above graph shows a summary of disease on the upper leaf surface over the whole season. We’re not reporting the data here, but if you look at disease ratings on individual dates or on the lower surface of the leaves, skipping every other fungicide or alternating conventional fungicides with biofungicides were not as good as the weekly conventional fungicide program.
At all three sites, yield was not statistically different when we compared the standard weekly conventional fungicide program to skipping every other fungicide spray. There were no statistically significant differences in yield in the Eastern NY trial, and few differences in the Western NY trial. In both trials, when Regalia was alternated with conventional fungicides the yield was slightly but not significantly lower than the conventional/LifeGard and the conventional/Serifel treatments. In the Long Island trial, only the full conventional treatment and treatments that included LifeGard or Regalia had significantly higher yields than the non-treated control. Again, we’ll show just the data from Long Island to keep this story briefer.
Our data did not suggest that NDVI readings taken with the GreenSeeker were a good replacement for visual scouting, or that this was a good tool for detecting differences in plant health among treatments. When NDVI readings differed among treatments, powdery mildew symptoms were readily evident. The most substantial differences in NDVI values among treatments were in the Long Island trial, where both the non-treated control and the organic treatment had much lower average NDVI values over the season.
On the whole, Brix were unaffected by powdery mildew management strategy. The only statistically significant differences in Brix values among treatments were in the Eastern NY trial where the conventional/LifeGard treatment had significantly lower Brix than the conventional/Serifel treatment.
Cucurbit powdery mildew – what it means
When the full conventional fungicide program didn’t result in statistically better disease control than skipping every other spray at 2 of the 3 sites, it’s not possible to say whether or not the biofungicides were good replacements for conventional fungicides against powdery mildew. However, they did not prove to be in the Long Island trial. Our results did not suggest that measurement of NDVI values with a GreenSeeker should replace visual scouting for cucurbit powdery mildew.
Depending on the trial location (and accompanying variations in spray schedules and rates), replacing some conventional fungicides with biofungicides ranged from slightly less expensive than the full conventional program to more than twice the cost. Although in most cases there were no statistically significant differences in the value of the crop between the conventional/biofungicide programs and the full conventional program, the numerical value of the marketable crop ranged from being slightly higher (LifeGard alternated with conventional fungicides on Long Island) to lower (all other biofungicide treatments). Again, the lack of statistically significant differences between the full conventional spray program and the conventional spray program with skips in 2 of the 3 trials makes any conclusions about the economics of replacing some conventional fungicides with biofungicides, tentative, at best. There’s a lot of room to fine-tune incorporation of biofungicides into spray programs to maximize cost effectiveness.
Recall from last year’s results that we did not detect any benefit from adding biofungicides to a full cucurbit powdery mildew fungicide program. So if you’d like to use biofungicides for cucurbit powdery mildew, replacing a conventional fungicide application or two is probably a better way to go. If you’ve tried this, we’d love to hear how it worked for you!
Remember that the information in this post is not a substitute for a pesticide label. The label is the law, and you must read and follow the label of any pesticide you are using. It is your responsibility to use pesticides legally.
This post was written by Amara Dunn (NYSIPM) and Meg McGrath (Plant Pathology & Plant-Microbe Biology, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University). Thank you to the New York Farm Viability Institute for funding.