Category Archives: ornamentals

agriculture, Christmas tree establishment IPM, IPM, ornamentals

IPM for establishing Christmas trees: Survival and growth in the first season

Rows of small Christmas trees growing in a field on a sunny afternoon; some are surrounded by wood chip mulch, some by cultivated ground, some by bare ground, and some by tall weeds.
The different weed management strategies we are comparing certainly look different in the field. But how do they impact tree growth and quality?

Back in June we introduced you to a new project comparing different methods for weed and root disease management when establishing Christmas tree seedlings. Recall that this is a collaboration among Bryan Brown, Amara Dunn, Brian Eshenaur, Betsy Lamb, and Lynn Sosnoskie. We wrapped up our first season in October, and we have a first look at some of the data. In this post, we’ll focus on tree survival and tree growth. There’s a lot more weed data!

Treatments

Let’s start with a quick reminder of the treatments we were comparing. Each row of 28 trees received the same weed management treatment. Each row was also divided into four plots of seven trees each. Each plot within a row received a different root treatment. Here’s a map of how the treatments were laid out in the field.

Weed management (in-row, within a 30” band around the row of trees; between row zones were seeded with grass and mowed 4 times) :

  • Cultivate – three times early in the season using a tractor drawn KULT Kress Argus Toolbar with sweeps, finger weeders, and a rear side-shift adjustment
  • Herbicide – conventional active ingredients (oxyfluorfen and pendimethalin applied shortly after planting, with a fall application of glyphosate) as a control treatment
  • Mow – mow about every two weeks with a walk-behind mower
  • Mulch – 3 inches of chipped shrub willow mulch
  • Untreated – No weed management at all

Root disease management:

  • ProPhyt (active ingredient: potassium phosphite) – a biopesticide applied by dipping bare roots of seedlings just before planting; mixed 1.28 fl oz in 2 gallons of water for 140 trees (11 fl oz/A if you plant 1,200 trees/A)
  • RootShield PLUS WP (active ingredient: Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain T-22 and Trichoderma virens strain G-41) – a biopesticide applied twice (the day after planting and 7 weeks later) as a drench around each tree (24 oz/A in 171 gallons of water/A)
  • Subdue Maxx – a conventional fungicide applied twice (the day after planting and 5 months later) as a soil-directed spray (2.5 pt/A in 140 gal/A in a 6-inch band on either side of the row of trees). We made the application with a hand-pump backpack sprayer fitted with a TeeJet TTI11005 nozzle with a shield rotated parallel to the row of trees. The maximum pressure possible with this sprayer is 60 psi. After application, we applied an extra 0.45 gallon of water per plot of 7 trees with the same sprayer (280 gal/A additional water).
  • Water – 1 pt of water poured around each tree at planting, as a control.

What we measured

We’re interested in how the weed and root disease treatments impact survival, growth, and quality of these trees. Thanks to our excellent technicians, Marcus and Erik, for helping us measure all of these trees! Betsy and Amara were helping, too, but in this picture Amara is behind the camera.

A woman in a pink shirt comparing a small Christmas tree to a piece of paper, while a man in a plaid shirt measures the height of a small Christmas tree seedling; both are in a newly planted field with freshly tilled soil
Betsy and Marcus measuring trees and evaluating needle color in May.

On May 25 (about a week after planting) and again on October 6 we measured the height of each tree (from the soil to the tallest part of the tree, even if it wasn’t the leader anymore) and the diameter of the tree trunk 4 inches above the soil. In both May and October, we also rated the color of the needles using this scale. However, we only used: 2 (darkest green), 5 (medium green), 7 (paler green), and 9 (yellow or brown).

Of course, measuring and rating each tree also allowed us to take note of which trees had died (versus a few that unfortunately succumbed to “mower blight”).

What we found

Bar graph showing that trees generally survived better when treated with ProPhyt, except not if weeds were managed with herbicide. The impact of root treatment varied, depending on which weed management strategy was used.
Percentage of trees in each plot (out of seven trees total) that were still alive by October 2021, not counting a couple that were accidentally mowed. Each bar is the average of four plots for each combination of root treatment (color of bars) and weed management strategy (along x-axis). The lines on each bar show variability (one standard error above and below the mean value).

It’s too early to know for sure, but it’s possible that the root treatment that results in the best seedling survival might depend on which weed management strategy you use. For example, after just one year, the RootShield PLUS-treated trees did better than the ProPhyt-treated trees where herbicide was used, but not where the weeds were allowed to grow unchecked (‘Untreated’). We haven’t done a statistical analysis on the data, yet, but the little lines at the top of each bar are an indication of the amount of variability amongst the four plots in each treatment (one standard error above and below the mean percent survival, for those who might be interested).

Bar graph showing that trees might have grown slightly more when weeds were managed with herbicides. The impact of root treatment varied, depending on which weed management strategy was used.
Change in height of Christmas trees from May to October 2021. Each bar is the average of up to 28 trees (7 trees in each of 4 plots) for each combination of root treatment (color of bars) and weed management strategy (along x-axis). The lines on each bar show variability (one standard error above and below the mean value).

These Fraser fir seedlings grew between 1 and 2.5 inches during their first season. Much like the tree survival, the root treatment that produced the most growth wasn’t consistent across all weed management strategies. Results for tree trunk diameter were similar.

Bar graph showing that needle color might be slightly darker in the plots that were treated with herbicide or no weed management. The impact of root treatment varied, depending on which weed management strategy was used.
Average needle color when trees were rated in October. Lower numbers indicate darker green color. Each bar is the median value of up to 28 trees (7 trees in each of 4 plots) for each combination of root treatment (color of bars) and weed management strategy (along x-axis).

Recall that needle color was rated as 2 (darkest green), 5, 7, or 9 (most yellow or brown). So on this graph, shorter bars indicate better needle color. Also, this rating scale impacted how we summarized the data. Instead of taking the mean needle rating, we used the median. (Here’s a quick refresher on the difference.) And the graph doesn’t have those little lines to summarize the variability in each treatment. Too early to draw firm conclusions, but again, there might be some interactions between root treatment and weed management strategy.

What does it cost?

Economic risk is one of the risks we seek to reduce through IPM, so we’ve been keeping track of the costs associated with our pest management strategies. Based on the way we applied the root treatments and some local price estimates, here’s what we would have spent per acre for these treatments, assuming we planted 1,200 trees on each acre (that’s 6 ft x 6 ft spacing).

 

Fungicide Rate/A Number of applications Cost/A (Supplies) Cost/A (Labor1)
ProPhyt 11 fl oz2 1 $4 $1,037
RootShield PLUS WP 24 oz3 2 $123 $4,150
Subdue Maxx 2.5 pt3 2 $82 $2,074
Water – 1 $0 $2,075

1We assumed a labor rate of $20/hr. These costs were calculated based on the time it took us to apply the products. This includes drenching each tree by hand (RootShield PLUS WP and water) and applying Subdue Maxx (and additional water to move it into the soil) with a backpack sprayer. On a larger scale, there’s surely a more efficient way to do this.

2Seedling roots were dipped in a ProPhyt solution prior to planting. The rate on the label is 4 pt/100 gallons of water. We mixed up 2 gallons of root dip solution (containing 1.28 fl oz of ProPhyt) to treat 140 trees. If we had used a fresh 2 gallons for every set of 140 trees, we would have used 11 fl oz of ProPhyt on an acre of 1,200 trees.

3Because RootShield PLUS WP was applied as a drench to each tree and Subdue Maxx was applied as a soil-directed spray banded on either side of the row, these rates are per acre of ground to which pesticide was applied. This is less than the total space taken up by these trees in the field. Read and follow the pesticide label for instructions on calculating quantity of product needed for banded applications.

And here’s a summary of our weed management costs. You can see all the details of these costs (including labor and supplies) here.

In-row weed management Cost/A (labor and supplies)
Cultivate $248
Herbicide $86
Mulch $1,153*
Mow $293
Untreated $0

*Assumes woodchips can be obtained locally at no cost

Take home

With only one season of data, it’s too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness (or cost effectiveness) of each treatment. So far, survival of trees treated with ProPhyt is looking very good across most weed management strategies. And we’re seeing some indication that the best (in terms of tree survival, growth, or color) root treatment to use may vary depending on what you’re doing to manage weeds.

In late October we also dug up five dead trees and sent them to the Cornell Diagnostic lab to check for Phytophthora. The trees had been dead for a while, so they were only able to test for the presence of any Phytophthora species (which could include some that don’t cause disease on Christmas trees). Four out of five trees came back positive, which makes us feel more confident that we picked a good field for this trial…if by “good” you mean one where trees will be exposed to Phytophthora. For the purposes of this project, that’s exactly what we mean.

Please let us know if you have questions and stay tuned for more updates on this project. We’ve got at least two more years to go! You can check back on this blog (subscribe so you’ll know when new posts are available!), follow Lynn Sosnoskie and Amara Dunn on Twitter or on Instagram (@specialtycropweedscience and @biocontrol.nysipm), or check out Bryan Brown’s webpage. We’ll also be hosting another field event in 2022 and hope to provide updates at future Christmas Tree Farmers Association of NY meetings.

USDA logo, accompanied by the words: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture

This work is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative – Foundational and Applied Science Grant no. 2021-68008-34179/project accession no. 1025660  from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

 

This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program, with helpful input from project collaborators. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.

agriculture, habitat at home, home gardens, ornamentals, vegetables

Know your friends…on the ground

Small clump of blue-green grass surrounded by some bare ground and weeds
We may not spend a lot of time looking at the ground, but there are plenty of friendly insects living at the soil surface and taking shelter in plants like this little bluestem grass that don’t produce pollen-rich flowers, but still support beneficial insects.

In August I wrote about some of the friendly insects that might be visiting your garden this summer. I promised to write more about the natural enemies of pests that you might find at ground level. That time has come! Because these insects (and some other arthropods) live at or near the soil surface, you’re much less likely to see them, unless you happen to be cleaning out a garden bed this fall (which is not actually recommended). Also, they may be more active at night. But they are still doing lots of good things in your garden or on your farm, so they’re worth knowing about.

Rove beetles

Black beetle with a long segmented abdomen that protrudes beyond the short wing covers that look like a cape.
Rove beetles have wing covers that are much shorter than the rest of their body. Image courtesy of Joseph Berger, Bugwood.org.

These beetles live in the soil or at the soil surface and they eat lots of different soil invertebrates, including pests like slugs, snails, thrips, and eggs of other insects. They also eat seeds, so they could help reduce your weed seed bank, too. Like other beetles, they have hard covers over their wings called elytra. Because these covers are much shorter than their bodies, I think it makes them look like they are wearing little capes.

 

Carabid beetles

Black beetle crawling on the ground
Ground beetles may not look very exciting, but they’re great predators to have in fields and yards. Image courtesy of Mary C Legg, Bugwood.org.

Also called ground beetles, this large group of insects mostly live on the ground, and tend to have prominent jaws and move very fast. Their speed makes them great predators of many insects, as well as snails and slugs. Depending on the species, they may also eat seeds. They like to spend the winter in sheltered places including perennial grasses that grow in clumps. In the spring, they can travel almost 200 feet from these grassy shelters (Landis et al. 2000. Annual Review of Entomology 45:175-201). They come in different sizes, but tend to be darker colored.

On the left a black ground beetle with large jaws, and on the right a ground beetle with large jaws that is brown on top of its body and iridescent green on the underside of its body
Just a few more examples of ground beetles, because they’re so cool!

Centipedes

brown centipede with one pair of legs per body segment
Centipedes may not be so pretty to look at, but they’re good predators to have around. Image courtesy of Joseph Berger, Bugwood.org.

They may not look as friendly as lady beetles, but centipedes are also generalist predators that eat lots of invertebrates (including pests) in the soil. In case you were wondering, the difference between a centipede and a millipede is that centipedes have only two legs (one pair) on each segment of their body, while millipedes have four legs (two pairs) per body segment. But they can move pretty quickly, so it’s understandable if you don’t have time to count.

Spiders and harvestmen

From left to right – black and yellow spider, cream-colored spider on a red flower eating a bee, brown daddy long legs on green foliage.
These are just a few of the eight-legged friends you might find in your garden or fields. Some species you’re more likely to find on plants, and others spend more time on the ground.

I wrote about spiders in my previous post, but many species live on or near the ground. Both are good predators, and friends you’d like to have in your fields or garden. Technically, harvestmen (also called daddy long legs) are not spiders, but they do have eight legs. Because they don’t have an obvious “waist” they appear as though their head and body are a single “blob”.

Fireflies

Adult firefly, mostly black with some orange markings
Adult fireflies are more easily recognizable, even when they aren’t lit up. Image courtesy of Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org.

Yes, you read that correctly. When they are immature, fireflies (or lightening bugs, depending on where you grew up) look a bit more like worms than beetles (which is what they actually are). They live on the ground (especially in places with more moisture) and feed on invertebrates with soft bodies, including both snails and insects. Although we tend to notice them when they are flying, adult fireflies (depending on the species) also spend plenty of time on the ground, and may or may not be predators. The Xerces Society has some really good information about fireflies and their conservation.

immature firefly with distinct body segments. Looks sort of like an armored worm, but with six legs
Immature fireflies may not be so familiar, but are good “friends” because they eat soft-bodied invertebrates, including pests. Image courtesy of Gerald J. Lenhard, Louisiana State University, Bugwood.org.

So remember, not everything that creeps or crawls through your fields or garden is a problem. There are lots of friendly insects (and other arthropods) that can help you with pest control. Take a closer look and you might be surprised!

 

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:

  • New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
  • The Towards Sustainability Foundation
agriculture, Christmas tree establishment IPM, IPM, ornamentals

Introducing a new Christmas tree project

Field with mostly bare ground and small Christmas tree seedlings, each marked by a flag. In the background are some trees and a blue sky with puffy clouds.
We planted a new field of Christmas trees this spring!

If you’ve been following this blog for a bit, you might recall that the beneficial insect habitat plots I’ve been helping to establish and monitor with my colleagues Betsy Lamb and Brian Eshenaur are located on the edges of a field of Christmas trees. Once the trees get a bit bigger, we’ll be able to start assessing whether trees closer to these wildflowers have fewer pests or not.

New in 2021, I’m collaborating with Bryan Brown, Brian Eshenaur, Betsy Lamb, and Lynn Sosnoskie on a three-year project funded by the USDA to look at IPM when you’re establishing a new field of Christmas trees. An important part of IPM is the integration of multiple strategies when managing pests. So in this project we’re looking at some tools for managing both weeds and root diseases (specifically Phytophthora).

Weeds

Our weed management strategies include:

  • Mulching with approximately 3 inches of chipped shrub willow
  • Cultivating three times early in the season using a KULT Kress Argus Toolbar with rear side-shift adjustment pulled by a tractor
  • Mowing grass seeded around the trees
  • Conventional herbicides (oxyfluorfen and pendimethalin applied shortly after planting, with the possibility of additional applications depending on the length of the residual control) as a control treatment
  • No weed management at all (another control treatment)

We planted 560 Fraser firs in 20 rows on May 19th, and four of these rows will be receiving each of these different weed management treatments. So far, we’ve spread mulch…

Four people spreading mulch around small Christmas tree seedlings in a field with rakes or by hand.
Mulch was dumped in small piles along the row of trees, and we raked it in to place. Photo taken by Lynn Sosnoskie.

…and applied herbicides.

Woman in Tyvek suit with backpack sprayer applying herbicides to rows of Christmas tree seedlings. Seedlings receiving herbicide have plastic cylinders around them to protect them.
Since a few of the trees were getting close to budbreak, we shielded them when applying the herbicide.

Lynn and her team collected soil from the field to assess which weed seeds are currently present in the seedbank. They will continue to evaluate the weed seedbank yearly to determine whether different weed management programs result in different weed seeds in the seedbank. Bryan, Lynn, and technicians working for them will also be assessing the success of each weed control strategy throughout the season (weed density and biomass).

Disease

Within each row, plots of seven trees have been assigned to one of four different treatments for root disease control. The biocontrol piece of this project is the root disease management tools. The biofungicide RootShield PLUS WP contains two different species of the fungus Trichoderma. These fungi may protect the trees by:

  • Inducing resistance – turning on the plants defense mechanisms ahead of pathogen attack
  • Exclusion – growing on the roots so there’s no space for the pathogen to grow
  • “Eating” the pathogen – Trichoderma is a fungus that parasitizes other fungi (and water molds)
  • Poisoning the pathogen – Trichoderma produces antimicrobial compounds
  • Promoting plant growth – Stronger, healthier trees are more likely to survive pathogen attack (and probably be more resilient to water stress).

A study done in Oregon on Douglas fir found that Trichoderma species might help improve survival of trees in pots when they are being attacked by the water mold Pythium. So we’re curious if we can document similar results in the field. We applied RootShield PLUS as a soil drench immediately after transplanting, and will repeat the application 6-8 weeks later.

There’s also been some work done by Richard Cowles in Connecticut suggesting that ProPhyt could improve the color of Fraser firs when they are planted in a field known to have Phytophthora. The active ingredient in ProPhyt is potassium phosphite (equivalent to phosphorous acid), so this product is also classified as a biopesticide by the EPA. I think of it as not really a biological control, since it neither contains a (current or formerly) living organism, nor was made by a living organism. We applied ProPhyt as a root dip immediately before planting. It works by inducing plant resistance, and also inhibiting (“poisoning”) water molds like Phytophthora.

The other two root disease treatments are controls: Subdue Maxx (active ingredient mefenoxam) and just water. Subdue Maxx was applied as a shielded, soil-directed spray the day after we transplanted the trees. All the trees were watered in right after planting because we planted a bit late in the season and it was a pretty warm day. The label calls for a second application in the fall.

So far, we’ve collected data on the initial height, stem diameter (4 inches above the soil) and needle color of every tree in the field. We’ll do this again in the fall to assess tree growth over this first season, and tree health (needle color). We will also record how many trees in each treatment survive. Bi-weekly weed surveys have also been initiated. Bryan has started cultivating the trees in that weed control treatment.

Video of Christmas tree cultivation

For updates on this project, you can check back on this blog (subscribe so you’ll know when new posts are available), follow Lynn and Amara on Twitter or on Instagram (@specialtycropweedscience and @biocontrol.nysipm), or listen to Bryan’s podcast. We’ll also be hosting events at the field (Geneva, NY) in this and subsequent years (put August 19th on your calendars, and stay tuned for more details), and hope to provide updates at future Christmas Tree Farmers Association of NY meetings.

USDA logo, accompanied by the words: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of AgricultureThis work is supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative – Foundational and Applied Science Grant no. 2021-68008-34179/project accession no. 1025660  from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

 

This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.

agriculture, habitat plots, IPM, ornamentals

Creating Habitat for Beneficial Insects: 2020 Growing Season Update

panoramic view of a field with some pink and purple wildflowers blooming in the foreground and rows of small Christmas trees in the background
Trips to our beneficial insect habitat and Christmas tree research plots this year were very solitary, but it was good to get outside.

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:

Composite of images showing a blue dragonfly, several bees (brown and green), a large black and yellow spider, a red ladybug with black spots, a black and yellow striped hover fly, and an orange and black ladybug larva.
Just a few of the cool insects (and one arachnid) I was able to photograph during my weekly visits to the habitat plots.

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.

Several smaller Christmas trees growing in a field
Slowly but steadily, the Christmas trees adjacent to our beneficial insect habitat plots are growing!

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.

Plot of mostly grass and small white asters with a few blackeyed susans and purple coneflowers mixed in.
One plot that was direct seeded in the spring of 2018 and not mowed this year. There were a lot of weeds (some blooming) in addition to some of the species we seeded.

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.

Picture of mixed species plants, with only two yellow flowers. Purple circles and labels identify butterfly milkweed, blackeyed susan, wild bergamot, smooth blue aster, purple coneflower, and coreopsis seedlings.
At first glance, this might look like a patch of weeds, but I’ve learned to spot some of the seedling perennial wildflowers direct seeded in fall 2018.

In July and August, there were abundant blackeyed susan blossoms, and in September and October all four aster species bloomed.

Somewhat weedy plot with lots of blackeyed susan blooms (yellow with dark brown centers); some Christmas trees, grass, and blue sky with puffy clouds are in the background
The fall-seeded habitat plots don’t look manicured like the plots that were transplanted in spring and mulched, but there were a lot of blackeyed susans blooming in mid to late summer this year!
Mixture of seedlings, some with daisy-shaped flowers in various shades of purple
Direct seeded plots contained New England asters (darker purple flowers), zigzag asters (pale flowers, stems grow in zigzag pattern), smooth blue asters (pale purple flowers, smooth leaves and stems), and aromatic asters (more compact growth habit, light purple flowers).

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 Symphyotrichum laeve
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
  • The Towards Sustainability Foundation
Community IPM, habitat at home, home gardens, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators

Creating beneficial habitat at home: Fall update

The picture on the left was taken on May 2, 2020 and shows a small yard on the side of a house with mostly grass and a few small mulched garden beds with hostas and daffodils growing in them. The picture on the right was taken on August 14, 2020 and shows the same yard next to the house, this time full of blooming flowers and a squash plant.
Having before and after pictures really helps me appreciate how far my beneficial insect habitat (plus a few vegetables thrown in for good measure) have come!

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…

A collection of eight pictures in two rows. Pictures in the top row (A-D) show a small bee on a red strawflower, an orange and black monarch butterfly on a zinnia flower that is cream colored with pink speckles, a small bee on a yellow calendula flower, and two bees on a pink cosmos flower. The bottom row shows a smaller green bee on a pink cosmos flower, a bee on a red and yellow blanketflower, a yellow and black striped hover fly visiting a purple bachelor’s button, and a small orange and black butterfly visiting an orange and yellow zinnia.
These are just some of the pollinators that visited my (A) strawflowers, (B) zinnia cultivar ‘Candy Cane Mix’, (C) calendula cultivar ‘Remembrance Mix’; (D) and (E) cosmos, (F) blanketflower, (G) bachelor’s buttons and (H) ‘Persian Carpet’ zinnia.

…and natural enemies.

Four pictures, clockwise from top left: black and yellow ambush bug on a cream-colored zinnia flower flecked with pink speckles; a red ladybug with black spots on a leaf next to a zinnia bud; a pink ladybug with black spots perched on a pale pink and yellow zinnia flower; a translucent yellow-green “worm” amongst black aphids on a plant stem.
Most of the natural enemies I spotted this summer were ladybugs, like the seven-spotted ladybug in B and the pink spotted ladybug in C. But I also saw an ambush bug (A) and a hover fly larva (D). I saw plenty of adult hover flies, but the larvae are a bit less conspicuous.

I also picked a lot of cut flowers!

A small vase of yellow, orange and red zinnia and calendula flowers next to a larger vase of mixed flowers (sunflowers, cosmos, blanketflowers, calendula, bachelor’s button, and zinnias) in red, yellow, orange, pink, and purple.
Admittedly, one of my goals in creating this habitat was to be able to pick cut flowers for myself and others this summer. I was hoping that I could grow flowers that would be attractive both to people and natural enemies of pests. I think I succeeded!

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.

A small mulched garden bed next to a house with yellow and orange rudbeckia flowers blooming on the left and red blanketflowers blooming on the right. There are also some yellow calendula blooming around these plants.
Although they are perennials, the ‘Chim Chiminee’ rudbeckia and the blanketflowers bloomed this first year, and also looked nice as cut flowers.

The arnica, echinacea, and pyrethrum daisy put their energy into vegetative growth, and hopefully they will bloom next year.

Composite showing pictures of three non-flower plants growing on mulch. One has elongated heart-shaped leaves (A), one has leaves like those on a carrot (B), and one has longer, narrower leaves (C).
Three of the five perennials I planted this spring are growing, but haven’t bloomed this year: (A) echinacea, (B) pyrethrum daisy, and (C) arnica. Hopefully 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.

Eight pictures of different flowers in two rows. Top row left to right (A-D): yellow sunflower, pale pink snap dragon, bachelor’s buttons in various shades of purple, yellow and orange ‘Persian Carpet’ zinnias. Bottom row left to right (E-H): pink cosmos, yellow calendula, red poppy, zinnias in two colors - white with pink speckles and yellow.
A few glamour shots of some of the annuals I grew this year: (A) sunflower, (B) snap dragon, (C) bachelor’s buttons, (D) ‘Persian Carpet’ zinnia, (E) cosmos, (F) calendula, (G) poppy, (H) zinnia.

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.

seven small peat pots filled with potting mix, with a few seedlings growing out of each
Some of the seedlings I’m planting this fall.

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.

A mixture of round and elongated seeds in a pile in the middle of a woman’s outstretched hand
I’ll let the winter weather scarify these golden alexander and blackeyed susan seeds, preparing them to germinate in the 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
Community IPM, habitat at home, home gardens, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators

Beneficial habitat at home: Weed control and mid-summer update

Red and black lady beetle on zinnia leaf
With all the Japanese beetles I’ve been pulling off my zinnias, it was a pleasant surprise to find a more friendly beetle!

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.

Several freshly-mulched garden beds with small seedlings alongside a house
I decided to use mulch for weed control in my home beneficial insect habitat.

If mulch isn’t for you, you can read more about different weed management strategies we are demonstrating in our habitat plots.

How are things growing?

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.

Three seedlings surrounded by mulch just starting to produce their second set of true leaves
This picture was actually taken about 2 weeks after I transplanted my seedlings. They were a little on the small side.

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.

One seedling, surrounded by mulch
There were supposed to be three echinacea plants in this picture. At least one of them survived!

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.

Plant with scalloped leaves and a very young flower bud forming at the top
I think I can see the beginnings of a flower bud on this blanketflower.

You already saw the echinacea. Here are some of the other perennials.

Two seedlings with oblong and very hairy leaves on the left (rudbeckia); one seedling with leaves that look like a carrot on the right (pyrethrum daisy). All are growing surrounded by mulch.
Some of the surviving rudbeckia (left) and pyrethrum daisy (right) seedlings.

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.

Several Japanese beetles crawling over zinnia leaves with many holes
A small consolation is that the Japanese beetles seem to like my roses even more than they like the zinnias. The roses are functioning as a sort of trap crop.

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).

Small yellow and red zinnia flower growing on a plant with small, narrow leaves
‘Persian Carpet’ zinnias have smaller flowers, smaller leaves, and no Japanese beetle damage, even though I planted them right next to my roses.

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.

Looking down into a yogurt container half-filled with water and many dead Japanese beetles
Japanese beetles picked off of my plants and drowned

The snap dragons have started blooming.

Pink, peach, and white snap dragon flowers in bloom
I planted snap dragons mostly because I like them as cut flowers, although I have seen reports that they support bees.

And so have the calendulas.

Plant with yellow flowers starting to open
Calendula in bloom.

I’ve seen hover flies on the bachelor’s buttons. Remember the adult hover flies are pollinators, while their larvae are voracious aphid predators.

Pink and purple flower with a black and yellow striped fly visiting it
I’ve seen a few hover flies visiting the bachelor’s buttons.

The cosmos and sunflowers (that survived the squirrels and a local rabbit) haven’t started blooming yet, but they’re looking good!

Sunflower and cosmos plants growing well next to the chimney of a house
The squirrels must not have found my first planting of sunflowers, because they and the cosmos planted with them look great!

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
agriculture, habitat plots, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators

Creating habitat for beneficial insects: We planted it. Did they come?

Woman wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap is emptying blue and yellow bowls filled with soapy water and dead insects into a deli cup.
Here I am collecting insects from our yellow and blue pan traps last September.

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.

I described the ways that we collected insects in an earlier post. As a quick refresher:

  • 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.
The left picture (pan traps) shows a yellow and a blue plastic bowl sitting amongst grass and weeds. Each contains a rock and is filled with soapy water. The middle picture (pitfall trap) shows a deli cup buried in the ground to its rim and filled with liquid. A clear plastic dinner plate is held above the deli cup by wire legs. The picture on the right (sweep net) shows a woman wearing a t-shirt, jeans and a baseball cap sweeping a large white canvas net just above the ground as she walks through a field.
Different methods used for sampling insect from our habitat plots included pan traps, pitfall traps, and a sweep net.

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
Mowed grass between rows of small Christmas trees
Mowed grass between rows of Christmas trees in the middle of the field is a second control treatment for insect sampling.

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

On the left, a harvestman with a plump body lacking distinct segments. In the middle, a spider with two distinct body segments. These two pictures were taken by David Cappaert, and are available on Bugwood.org. On the right, a black and yellow garden spider.
Spiders and harvestmen both have eight legs and are useful predators to have in a field or garden. The garden spider on the right was probably the largest arachnid I spotted in our habitat plots. The left and middle pictures were taken by David Cappaert.

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!

A bar graph showing numbers of spiders and harvestmen caught in each treatment (mostly in pan and pitfall traps). The most spiders and harvestmen were caught in treatments C (spring seeded) and H (grass control). Treatment B (transplanted and mulched) had the fewest spiders and harvestmen.
I added up all of the spiders and harvestmen we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

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

Top: several tiger beetles with brown backs but iridescent green bellies; Bottom: picture of a black ground beetle taken by Mary C. Legg and available at Bugwood.org
We caught a lot of tiger beetles (top picture) in our plots last summer, but carabid beetles come in many shapes, sizes, and colors.

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.

 

 

 

A bar graph showing numbers of carabid beetles caught in each treatment (mostly in pitfall traps). The most carabid beetles were caught in treatments D (fall transplant after buckwheat), F (fall seed after solarizing soil), and G (fall seeding after using tillage and herbicide to control weeds). The fewest carabid beetles were caught in the control plots (E and H).
I added up all of the carabid beetles we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

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

Two pictures of insects. The one on the left has an arrow pointing to the short wing covers visible on its back (labeled ‘elytra’). The one on the right is courtesy of Joseph Berger, and can be found at Bugwood.org.
Rove beetles come in different sizes, but they all have short wing covers called elytra.

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

Left: black and yellow hover fly on a bright yellow coreopsis flower; Middle: a different kind of adult hover fly perched on a person’s skin; Right: a larval hover fly that looks like a small translucent caterpillar on a leaf near a green aphid. This picture was taken by Ken Wise.
Adult hover flies (left and middle pictures) have only two wings and big eyes, even though they are often black and yellow striped like bees. The visually unimpressive larva in the picture on the right is about to eat an aphid.

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.

A bar graph showing numbers of hover flies (syrphids) caught in each treatment (mostly in pan traps and sweep nets). More hover flies were caught in direct-seeded treatments (C, F, and G), treatment D (buckwheat during the summer, transplanted in the fall), or the weedy control (treatment E). Fewer hover flies were caught in the spring transplanted treatments (A and B) or the grass control.
I added up all of the hover flies we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

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

Spiny black and orange larval lady beetle on a green leaf.
Although lady beetles are familiar as natural enemies of pests, their larvae (like this one) are not always so easily recognized. Larvae are often (but not always) elongated, look a bit spiny, and are orange and black.

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.

From left to right: Pink lady beetle with black spots on a dandelion flower is the pink spotted lady beetle (Coleomegilla maculata); red lady beetle with black spots crawling on a plant stem is a seven-spotted lady beetle (Coccinella septempunctata); another red lady beetle with black spots - including two elongated spots near its rear end that look like parentheses – is the parenthesis lady beetle (Hippodamia parenthesis) whose picture was taken by Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University and is available on Bugwood.org; another red lady with black spots is the variegated lady beetle (Hippodamia variegata) and its picture was taken by Frank Peairs from Colorado State University and is available at Bugwood.org; the final lady beetle has a black and orange-yellow checkerspot pattern and is the checkerspot lady beetle (Propylea quatuordecimpuctata) whose picture was taken by Ken Wise with the NYSIPM Program.
We collected adults of these five lady beetle species in our plots during Summer 2019.

Lacewings

Top picture is a magnified picture of an elongated larval lacewing with prominent pincher-like jaws; bottom picture is a green lacewing feeding on pollen from a white buckwheat flower.
Lacewing larva (top) and adult (bottom). Adults may also be brown, but will have a similar shape.

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

Small black and white insect, magnified.
Minute pirate bugs may be small, but they are mighty predators!

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.

minute pirate bug on corn maze map

Bees

Six pictures of different bees. Some are large like bumble bees or carpenter bees, some are smaller, and one is green.
When we think of bees, sometimes we think of just honey bees and bumble bees. But many different bees utilized the pollen and nectar from the wildflowers we planted. Just a few are pictured here.

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.

A bar graph showing the average number of bees caught in each treatment (mostly in pan traps) summed over the entire summer. The most bees were caught in spring-planted treatments (A, B, and C) and the least bees were caught in the grass control treatment (H). The bars contain very small orange (for honey bee) and yellow (for bumble bee sections) sections. The vast majority of bees caught were other wild bees (green).
We caught quite a few bees last summer! However, the vast majority of them were not honey or bumble bees. Importantly, we don’t have bee counts for all sampling dates, yet.

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).

Collage of six different butterflies (Milbert’s tortoiseshell, viceroy, clouded sulphur, red admiral (photo by Daniel Herms, The Ohio State University and available on Bugwood.org), cabbage white (photo by Mary C Legg, available on Bugwood.org), and painted lady) and two caterpillars (monarch and swallowtail).
These are the butterflies we observed in our beneficial insect habitat plots during Summer 2019. Some, like the monarch and swallowtail we only saw as caterpillars; never as adults.

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

Three pictures of tarnished plant bugs, feeding on the stem of a yellow flower, up close, and sitting on a white aster flower.
Tarnished plant bugs have a distinct pattern on their backs, and also benefit from the same floral resources that support beneficial insects.

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.

A bar graph showing numbers of tarnished plant bugs caught in each treatment (mostly in sweep nets, but some in pan traps). More tarnished plant bugs were caught in treatments with transplanted wildflowers (A, B, and D), and also quite a few in the weedy control. The fewest tarnished plant bugs were caught in the grass control plots.
I added up all of the tarnished plant bugs we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

Leafhoppers

Two different leafhoppers (one yellow and one green) magnified to clearly show their pointy heads and bristled back legs.
There are many different species of leafhoppers out there, but they all have pointy heads that are flattened and bristles on their back legs. The bristles are much easier to see with magnification, as in these pictures.

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.

A bar graph showing numbers of leafhoppers caught in each treatment (mostly in pan traps, but many in pitfall and sweep nets, too). Although we caught a lot of leafhoppers, we caught fewer in the treatments where wildflowers were transplanted in the spring (A and B).
I added up all of the leafhoppers we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

 

Slugs

Slimy slug being held next to a ball point pen for size comparison. The slug is about one third the length of the pen.
Biggest slug of 2019 insect sampling!

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.

A bar graph showing numbers of slugs caught in each treatment (mostly in pitfall traps, but some in pan traps). We caught fewer slugs in the plots that were solarized and had wildflowers direct seeded in the fall (treatment F) than in other treatments.
I added up all of the slugs we caught in each plot, then took the average of these summer-long counts from the four plots of each treatment in our field. The black lines stretching above and below the top edge of each bar show one standard error (measure of variability amongst the four plots) above and below the mean value.

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
  • Towards Sustainability Foundation
agriculture, home gardens, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators, vegetables

Compatibility: Pesticides and natural enemies of pests

Green insect with lacey wings
Lacewings (especially larvae; this one is an adult) are great natural enemies of pests. You want to keep them happy and healthy!

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

The Greenhouse Scout app provides information for doing IPM in greenhouses, including pest insects, beneficial insects, application technology, and pesticide interactions. It also gives you a place to record scouting results and track product applications.
A screenshot from the home screen of the Pocket IPM Greenhouse Scout App. You can find information about compatibility with natural enemies under either “Beneficials” or “Pesticide Interactions”.

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.

Agrobio

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

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

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.

Koppert

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.
yes hover flies, syrphid flies Syrphus spp, and many, many others aphids Syrphus spp.; Syrphus corollae; Episyrphus balteatus
some yes lacewings Chrysoperla spp. and some others aphids, insect eggs, small larvae Chrysopa carnea = Chrysoperla carnea; Chrysoperla spp.
some yes lady beetles Coccinellidae aphids, mites, small insects, insect eggs Coccinelidae, Coccinella 7-punctata, Hippodamia convergens
some yes minute pirate bug Orius insidiosus 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), Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, Steinernema, Steinernema feltiae, Steinernema carpocapsae
some yes parasitoid wasp Aphidius spp. aphids Aphidius spp., Aphidius colemani, Aphidius matricariae, Aphidius ervi
some yes parasitoid wasp Eulophidae, Diglyphus spp. leafminer larvae Diglyphus isaea
yes yes parasitoid wasp Braconids, Dacnusa sibirica leafminers Dacnusa sibirica
yes parasitoid wasp Aphelinidae, Aphelinus semiflavus aphids on potatoes 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 Podisus maculiventris
 

some

 some trichogramma wasps Trichogramma spp. moth eggs Trichogramma spp., Trichogramma brassicae, Trichogramma cacoeciae, Trichogramma evanescens, Trichogramma pretiosum

Other species of interest…

Can I buy them? Found in NY? If I want to conserve this beneficial insect… (whose scientific name is…) that helps me control… 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) Bacillus thuringiensis
entomopathogenic fungus Paecilomyces fumosoroseus = Isaria fumosorosea, Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae (= M. brunneum) (various strains) many insects (target pest depends on fungal species and strain) Paecilomyces (=Isaria) fumosoroseus, Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae (= 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

Green leaf with blue rectangles with smiling faces representing microbes as natural enemies of the pest microbes (yellow rectangles with shocked faces). The blue microbes are producing blue droplets (representing antimicrobial compounds).
Microbes used to control pests are biopesticides. In this conceptual diagram, the happy blue microbes are producing antimicrobial compounds that are killing the plant pathogens (represented by yellow rectangles with shocked faces).

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

agriculture, habitat plots, home gardens, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators, vegetables

Creating habitat for beneficial insects: Time, money, and weeds

On the left is a picture of a woman in a sundress and straw hat standing in the middle of a sunny sunflower field with her arms raised in the air. Written at the top of the picture is the title “What I thought establishing habitat for beneficial insects would be like…”. On the right is a picture of three people, either on their hands and knees or bending over, pulling weeds (including dandelions) that are several feet tall. This picture has the title: “What it’s actually like.”In December, I updated you on how perennial wildflowers and grasses were establishing in our beneficial insect habitat plots during the 2019 growing season. As I wrote that post, I quickly realized that there was too much good information for just one post. So here’s the rest of the story when it comes to plant establishment – time, money, and weeds.

Before I get started, below is a quick reminder of what our treatments were. You can read all the details here.

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

Weed control

One thing that has surprised me about this project (although others certainly gave me fair warning) was how big a role weed management plays in establishing habitat for beneficial insects. It’s definitely still a struggle in our plots.

Bryan Brown did weed assessments for us in May and September of 2019. The graph below shows the average percent of the area of each plot covered by either weeds (orange) or beneficial habitat flowers and grasses (blue).

Bar graph shows the average percent of plots covered with either weed or beneficial habitat plants in May 2019. Weed control in the treatment (B) where transplants were mulched had the best weed control. The worst weed control was in treatment D, where seedlings were planted in Fall 2018 after a buckwheat cover crop.
Mulching provided the best weed management when plots were assessed in May of 2019. Each bar shows the average of four plots per treatment, and has an error bar showing variation among these plots (one standard error above or below the average for the treatment).

This was before we did any hand-weeding. By far, the plots that were mulched in Spring 2018 (treatment B) had the fewest weeds compared to beneficial habitat plants. You’ll also notice that in May there were still relatively few weeds in the plots where we tried to deplete the weed seed bank in the soil through solarization (treatment F) or repeated herbicide and tillage (treatment G).

Picture on the left is of treatment B (Spring transplant and mulch) and shows small wildflower plants surrounded by mulch and few weeds. The middle picture shows treatment C (spring direct seed), a weedy plot. The picture on the right shows treatment F (solarization and fall direct seed), where you can still see at least 50% of the plot is bare soil, although many small and a few larger weeds are visible.
What some of the plots looked like on May 16, 2019 when Bryan did the weed assessment.

By September 2019, the spring transplant treatments looked even better. Our wildflowers grew well during 2019 (with the help of some extra hand weeding). The plants we transplanted in Fall 2018 are still struggling and not nearly as large as the wildflowers in treatments A and B. I think this may have more to do with the weed competition they experienced that first fall (when we couldn’t plant for a few weeks after the buckwheat was mowed) than transplant timing. Hopefully they will catch up.

Picture on the left is of treatment A (spring transplant, no mulch) and shows tall wildflower plants with some weeds. The middle picture shows treatment B (Spring transplant and mulch), full of large wildflowers and few weeds. The picture on the right shows treatment D (buckwheat and fall transplant), where the wildflower plants are much smaller, there are more weeds, and some bare ground is visible.
What some of the plots looked like on September 19, 2019 when Bryan did the weed assessment.

There are still a lot of weeds in the direct-seeded treatments (C, F, or G). Remember that our weed management strategy in these plots is repeated mowing to control annual weeds. Over time, the perennial wildflowers and grasses should take over. But it’s not supposed to be a quick method.

Bar graph shows the average percent of plots covered with either weed or beneficial habitat plants in September 2019. Weed control in the treatment (B) where transplants were mulched still had the best weed control. The worst weed control (besides the control plot where no beneficial habitat plants were planted) was in the three treatments using spring or fall direct seeding (C = spring direct seeding, F = soil solarization and fall direct seeding, G = herbicide and tillage with fall direct seeding).
Spring transplant treatments (A and B) looked the best after their second full growing season. The fall transplants (D) had more weeds, but these plants also have been in the ground for one less growing season. I’m still hoping they will catch up. Each bar shows the average of four plots per treatment, and has an error bar showing variation among these plots (one standard error above or below the average for the treatment).

Effort

Most of the treatments we are comparing required much less work in their second year (2019) than in their first (2018). The exception is that we spent a lot more time hand weeding treatment D (buckwheat cover crop followed by fall transplanting) in 2019. Although we weeded the two spring transplanted plots the same number of times in 2019 (twice), it took longer to hand weed the plots without mulch. I’m not surprised. If you’re looking for the right establishment method for your project, you really need to ask yourself how much help you have available and when. If you can get a lot of people excited about helping you install the planting, but worry about getting consistent volunteers year after year, mulch may be the right choice for you. In the direct seeded treatments (C – spring; F – fall following solarization; G – fall following herbicide and tillage), the time input for 2019 was mowing, which was relatively quick. And we did just a little hand weeding of perennial weeds.

Bar graph shows time (in person hours) spent on each treatment for both 2018 (in blue) and 2019 (in orange). The tallest bars are for treatments A, B, and D, but most of the bar for treatment B is blue (representing transplanting, mulching, and hand weeding in 2018). For treatment D, half the bar is orange (representing hand weeding in 2019). Treatment A shows more orange than treatment B, but less than treatment D.
Transplanting (treatments A, B, and D) still takes more time than direct seeding, but the extra time we spent mulching in 2018 paid off in 2019 when we spent less time hand weeding (treatment B compared to A and D).

Costs

Nearly all of our costs were incurred in the first year of the project (2018). The only additional costs from 2019 were for gas to run the mower. We did replace a few plants in transplanted plots in Fall 2019, but we used some extra plants we had purchased in 2018. Below is the total cost of the plants and other supplies for each treatment. Transplanting will always be more expensive than direct seeding.

Treatment Costs
A $417.12
B $539.29
C $18.83
D $390.55
E $3.40
F $149.10
G $23.12

 

You may remember that we were also collecting insects. I promise I will write more about the insects we caught in another post. If you are tired of looking at snow and bare trees outside, you can see pictures of some of the insects we caught in my post from August 2019.

This post was written by Amara Dunn. All pictures 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
  • Towards Sustainability Foundation
agriculture, habitat plots, home gardens, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators

Creating habitat for beneficial insects: How are things growing?

Planting of purple, yellow, and white flowers with blue sky in the background
Lots of flowers bloomed in 2019 in our habitat plots. Some we had planted, and some we hadn’t.

Obviously, nothing is growing right now, but I thought this would be a good time to update you on the success of our beneficial insect habitat plots during the 2019 growing season.

When things bloomed

Recall that the goal is to have at least one plant blooming all season long. We choose wildflower species accordingly, and it worked! The following table shows which months each species bloomed in 2019 (at least in the transplanted plots). An ‘X’ means the species was blooming during that month.

Wildflower May June July Aug Sep
Golden alexanders X X
Catmint X X X  X
Lanced-leaved coreopsis X X
Tall white beard tongue X X
Ohio spiderwort X X
Anise hyssop X X  X
Echinacea X X  X
Orange coneflower X X  X
Boneset X X X
Wild bergamot X X
Common milkweed X
NY ironweed X  X
Showy goldenrod  X
New England aster  X
Blue false indigo

You may notice that the blue false indigo never bloomed in 2019, which was disappointing. Most of these plants are still alive (as you’ll see later in this post). They just didn’t bloom. Maybe next year?

Here’s what each species looks like:

Plant with tiny yellow flowers arranged like Queen Anne’s Lace.
Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea)
Small purple bell-shaped flowers on stems with frosty-green leaves
Catmint (Nepeta faassinii)
Yellow daisy-shaped flowers with toothed edges
Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
Clusters of white or pink bell-shaped flowers on top of tall stems
Tall white beard tongue (Penstemon digitalis). Obviously not all of these flowers are white!
Three-petaled purple flowers growing on plant with grass-like leaves.
Ohio spiderwort (Tradescantia ohiensis)
Small, pale purple flowers clustered at the top of a stem
Anise hyssop (Agastache foeniculum)
Pink daisy-shaped flowers with organge centers
Echinacea (Echinacea purpurea)
Large clump of daisy shaped flowers with yellow petals and dark brown centers
Orange coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida var. fulgida)
Small white flowers in flat clusters
Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
Pale pink-purple flowers that look like small tufts on the top of stems
Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa)
Pale pink flowers with 5 sets of petals and a complex shape
Common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca)
Bright magenta flowers formed into small tufts at the top of the plant
NY Ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis)
Large clump of small, bright yellow flowers
Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa)
Purple daisy-shaped flowers with yellow centers and very narrow petals. A small bee is visiting one of the flowers
New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae)
Pale blue-purple legume flowers. One is being visited by a bumble bee
Blue false indigo (Baptisia australis); hasn’t bloomed yet in our field. Photo credit: Ansel Oommen, Bugwood.org

Transplanted wildflowers

The wildflowers in our transplanted plots are surviving pretty well (>80%). In the plots that were transplanted in the fall after the buckwheat cover crop, the survival is a bit lower. I think this has to do with some weed control issues (more on this in a future post).

Percent of plants surviving was lowest in treatment D, but still above 80%. Survival did not change very much from Spring to Fall 2019.
How well have the transplanted wildflowers survived so far? Treatment A was transplanted in Spring 2018 and not mulched. Treatment B was transplanted in Spring 2018 and mulched. Treatment D was transplanted in Fall 2018 following a buckwheat cover crop. All have been hand weeded periodically. In both Spring and Fall of 2019 I counted plants to see how well they survived. The black lines on each bar in the graph show one standard error above and below the mean percent survival.

Some species have survived better than others, as the following chart shows. Again, we counted plants both in Spring and Fall 2019.

Bar graph showing the mean percent of plants of each species that were still alive in Spring and Fall 2019. With the exception of milkweed, all survival rates were at or above 80%, and losses were minimal from Spring to Fall.
Do some species of wildflowers survive better when transplanted? There’s a little bit of variability, but overall most are surviving pretty well.

What about the direct-seeded plots?

Only three species of wildflowers planted by seed in Spring or Fall 2018 bloomed during the 2019 season. The table below shows which months these blooms were seen (marked with an ‘X’).

Common name May June July Aug Sep
Coreopsis X X X
Blackeyed susan X X X
Partridge pea X X

Here’s what the flowers of blackeyed susan look like. The plant has much hairier leaves than the orange coneflower.

A daisy-shaped flower with yellow petals and a dark brown center
Blackeyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta)

And here’s the partridge pea:

Yellow flower with compound leaves cupped in a person’s hand
Partridge pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata)

But, I also spotted some wild bergamot, tall white beard tongue, asters, golden alexanders, and either echinacea or orange coneflower seedlings. (I haven’t honed my horticultural skills enough yet to distinguish the foliage of these last two wildflowers.)

Pictures of seedlings labeled (left to right, top to bottom) aster, golden alexanders, echinacea or orange coneflower, wild bergamot, and beard tongue.
Seedlings of some wildflowers could be identified in the direct-seeded plots by September 2019.

There were also plenty of weeds blooming throughout the summer, and many of them were providing pollen and nectar for pollinators and natural enemies. Here are just a few examples:

Four pictures showing a bee on a yellow flower, several daisy-shaped flowers with white petals and yellow centers, a yellow dandelion with a pink lady beetle on it, and a bumble bee visiting a pink clover flower
From left to right: A bee feeding on a weed in the aster family, blooming chamomile, a lady beetle on a dandelion, and a bumble bee visiting clover (that wasn’t planted).

This table summarizes when during the season different weeds were in bloom. Again, an ‘X’ indicates the weed was blooming that month.

Weed May June July Aug Sep
Campion X X X X X
Chamomile X X X X X
Clover X X X X X
Dandelion X X X X X
Vetch X X X X X
Viola X X X X X
Mustard X X X X
Deadnettle X X
Baby blue eyes X
Henbit X
Asters X X X X
Buckwheat X X X X
Oxalis X X X X
Plantain X X X X
Wild lettuce X X X X
Cinquefoil X X X
Indian hemp X X X
Redshank X X X
Chickweed X X
Galinsoga X X
Geraniums X
Sandwort X
Grass X X
Horse weed X X
Lambsquarters X X
Ragweed X X
Black bindweed X
Chicory X

There’s more!

In addition to keeping track of what bloomed from May through September, we were also still tracking costs and time spent on each plot in 2019. And of course we collected a LOT of insects. But those stories will have to wait for another post.

This post was written by Amara Dunn. All pictures 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
  • Towards Sustainability Foundation