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
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
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.
Just a few more examples of ground beetles, because they’re so cool!
Centipedes
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
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 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 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
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:
Remember that the information in this post is not a substitute for a pesticide label. The label is the law, and you must read and follow the label of any pesticide you are using. Laws and labels change. It is your responsibility to use pesticides legally. Trade names used here are for convenience only; no endorsement of products is intended, nor is criticism of unnamed products implied. For questions about pesticide use, regulations, and safety, contact the Cornell Pesticide Management Education Program: pmep_webmaster@cornell.edu.
A great way to protect natural enemies is by following the steps for IPM. Preventing pests (e.g., through cultural strategies and exclusion), scouting to detect pests early when populations are low, and proper identification of pests will help you reduce your need to use pesticides and can save you money. Win win!
Ok, let’s assume you’re doing good IPM and you’ve gotten to the point where you need to choose a pesticide. How do you make the best choice for protecting natural enemies? Here are a few options. (Note that I did post about this about 2 years ago. I’ve learned more, so I thought an update would be in order.)
Read the label
This should go without saying. You should be doing this anyway when you are considering using a pesticide. The label may contain information about the compatibility of a pesticide with either natural enemies or pollinators. And of course it will contain important information about how to minimize risks to yourself and the environment when you use it.
EIQ
EIQ stands for Environmental Impact Quotient. You can read more details on the NYSIPM website, but in a nutshell the EIQ puts a number on the risks of pesticides at the rates they are applied in the field. You can use the EIQ calculator on our website to compare these numbers for different pesticides. The higher the number, the higher the risk. There are different components to the EIQ; risks to consumers, workers, and the environment (ecological). The ecological risk will include risks to natural enemies (as well as fish, birds, and bees).
Pocket IPM Greenhouse Scout App
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.
This website is also available as an app for Android (but not Apple) devices. To use it, start by clicking Organisms selection and choose the natural enemies you want to conserve. Then, click Ingredients selection and choose the pesticides you are thinking about applying. You can only search active ingredients, not product names. Finally, click Query. Use the legend to help you interpret the table that’s produced.
Biobest has put their compatibility information into an app for Android and Apple devices. Select pesticides by either active ingredient or commercial product name. Then, search for the name of the Beneficial organism you want to conserve. Note that there are a lot of pesticide/natural enemy combinations for which toxicity data just aren’t available. If you select a pesticide, then natural enemies for which no data are available will be grayed out in the Beneficial organism list. As you check boxes next to pesticides and natural enemies, a chart is automatically generated. The results include information on toxicity to different life stages of the beneficial organisms and persistence of the product.
BioWorks provides a table of the compatibility of their products with pesticides, fertilizers, and adjuvants. You can filter the table by several criteria to find the information you’re looking for.
This website is also available as an app for Android and Apple devices. Start by entering the name of the Beneficial organism you want to protect. You can search by either the Koppert product name, or the Latin (scientific) name, but you can’t select from a drop-down menu. Just start typing. Then, choose the Agent (pesticide you are considering applying), by either trade name or active ingredient. Again, you need to know the name; you can’t select from a drop-down list. Start typing, and then check the box next to the product you are interested in. Click Results and be sure to click on ‘Legend’ at the bottom to help you interpret the table. There is also a more complete explanation of information in the legend under Info.
Some caveats about these websites
Admittedly, finding information about conserving natural enemies that are not commercially available for release (e.g., in greenhouses) has some challenges. These websites tend to focus on what you can buy and release, rather than on what may be naturally occurring in a field. Although sometimes there is some overlap. These apps/websites don’t include all natural enemies, and data aren’t available for all natural enemy/pesticide combinations. Also, these websites/apps usually list natural enemies by scientific names. Do you know what the scientific name of a lacewing is? I didn’t before I started this job!
To help with this last barrier, I created a chart (also below) to help you figure out what scientific names you should look for on these websites/apps if you want to conserve a particular natural enemy. It also includes information about which pests the natural enemies target, whether they are commercially available, and whether they are naturally occurring (not necessarily native) in NY.
Arthropod and nematode natural enemies
Can I buy them?
Found in NY?
If I want to conserve this beneficial arthropod…
(whose scientific name is…)
that helps me control…
I should look for these names on the compatibility apps:
yes
yes
aphid midges
Aphidoletes aphidimyza
aphids
Aphidoletes aphidimyza
some
yes
beetles that are predators (for example, rove beetles, ground beetles, and others)
Coleoptera is the scientific name of the insect group that includes all beetles. The following families are generally predatory: Coccinellidae (lady beetles), Carabidae (ground beetles), Staphylinidae (rove beetles), Cantharidae (soldier beetles), Melyridae (flower beetles)
many insect pests
Coleoptera is a beneficial insect listed on at least one compatibility app. However, some coleoptera are pests. And, since this is such a broad group, the compatibility information provided may not be correct for all beneficial beetle species.
insect eggs, small caterpillars, thrips, mites, aphids
Orius laevigatus may be a reasonable proxy; Orius spp.; Orius insidiosus
yes
yes
nematodes
Steinernema spp., Heterorhabditis spp.
thrips, fungus gnats, shore flies, some grubs
Nematodes (note that this is a very broad category and it’s possible there are differences among species), Heterorhabditisbacteriophora, Steinernema, Steinernemafeltiae, Steinernemacarpocapsae
Aphelinus abdominalis or Aphelinus mali may be reasonable proxies
yes
yes
predatory gall midge
Feltiella acarisuga
spider mites
Feltiella acarisuga
some
yes
predatory mites
Amblyseius (= Neoseiulus) fallacis, Typhlodromus spp., and probably others
thrips, whitefly, pest mites; may vary among natural enemy species
Amblyseius californicus, Amblyseius cucumeris, Amblyseius swirskii, Phytoseiulus persimilis are sold commercially and may be good proxies for the pesticide compatibility of naturally-occurring predatory mites
yes
yes
spined soldier bug
Podisus maculiventris
many immature insects, including many species of caterpillars
I should look for these names on the compatibility apps:
yes
yes
bumble bee
Bombus spp.
NA – pollinator
Bombus spp., Bombus terrestris
yes
yes
European honey bee
Apis mellifera
NA – pollinator
Apis, Apis mellifera
Notes:
Different strains or populations of these natural enemies are sold by different companies and each population may differ from natural populations. Each company is most likely to report compatibility data that applies to their population. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
When the first word in the scientific name of an insect (e.g. Trichogramma) is followed by the designation ‘spp.’, it means multiple species that all belong to the same genus. Some compatibility information is given for only the larger group (e.g., Aphidius spp. or Syrphus spp.).
Natural enemies that are pesticides (active ingredients are microorganisms, i.e., fungi, bacteria, viruses)
If I want to conserve this microbial natural enemy…
(whose scientific name is…)
that helps me control…
I should look for these names on the compatibility apps:
Bt
Bacillus thuringiensis (various strains are available, and they control different pests)
many caterpillars and some immature beetle and fly pests (target pest varies by strain)
many insects (target pest depends on fungal species and strain)
Paecilomyces (=Isaria) fumosoroseus, Beauveriabassiana, Metarhiziumanisopliae (= M. brunneum)
fungi that attack plant diseases
there are multiple species, including Trichoderma harzianum (several strains)
Plant pathogens (the target pathogen depends on the fungal strain)
Trichoderma harzianum T-22 is the only fungal natural enemy I found on these apps, so far. It is unlikely that its compatibility is representative of other fungi that are natural enemies.
Notes:
Different strains or populations of these microorganisms are sold by different companies and each of these populations may differ from natural populations. Each company is most likely to report compatibility data that applies to their population. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
In these apps/websites, the microbial active ingredient may be listed as the natural enemy (e.g., Paecilomyces fumosoroseus on Biobest website), but sometimes it’s only listed as a pesticide active ingredient. For compatibility of biopesticides with chemical pesticides, you should start by reading the label, then seek information provided by the manufacturer. I am starting to create biopesticide profiles that include available compatibilitiy information for these products.
All tables were assembled by Amara Dunn, NYSIPM using information from Natural Enemies of Vegetable Insect Pests (Hoffman & Frodsham) and were last updated January 2020.
Give it a try!
Imagine you were considering using one of the following active ingredients:
abamectin
acequinocyl
fenpyroximate
…to control spider mites. (Of course, before you did this, you’d read the labels and be sure that the use you were considering was legal!) If you were concerned about hurting parasitoids that help with aphid control (for example, the species Aphidius colemani and Aphidius ervi) which of these active ingredients would be the best choice (from a compatibility standpoint)?
Go ahead!
Look it up!
A note about microorganisms as natural enemies
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:
Read the label of the biopesticide. If it doesn’t contain compatibility information (for use with other pesticides) or doesn’t answer your questions about compatibility with other natural enemies, contact the manufacturer to get your questions answered.
If you happen to be using one of their products, BioWorks describes the compatibility of their products with other pesticides, and this information is linked to individual product pages.
And what about the bees?
Take a look at the resources created by the Pollinator Network @ Cornell. They have prepared decision-making guides for several crops already, with more to come.
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. All images are hers, unless otherwise noted.
Some of the squash plants in one of our 2019 field trials looking at the role of biofungicides in managing cucurbit powdery mildew.
We have been working on a 2-year project funded by the New York Farm Viability Institute to look at adding biofungicides to the management of two vegetable diseases: cucurbit powdery mildew and white mold. In addition to summarizing results from Year 1 of the trial, previous blog posts also covered some of the details about how to best use the biofungicides we’re testing. During the summer of 2019, we completed our second year of trials. The numbers have all been crunched, and here’s a summary of what we learned. If you want to read all the nitty gritty details, a lengthy full report from Year 2 is available here.
Project goals
During the second year of this project, we wanted to answer a few questions for growers:
Can you replace some conventional fungicide applications for cucurbit powdery mildew in winter squash with one of three OMRI-listed biofungicides (LifeGard, Regalia, or Serifel) while maintaining disease control, crop quality, and yield?
Can you get better control of white mold in green beans by Contans prior to planting, and Double Nickel at bloom?
What are the costs (versus benefits) of using these biofungicides in these ways?
Can NDVI sensors help us detect disease early? Can they help us detect differences in plant health as a result of using biofungicides?
White mold – what we did
This table summarizes the white mold treatments in green beans. Replicated plots were treated with Contans in the third week of May, prior to planting; Double Nickel when snap beans were at 10% bloom (late June or early July) and 7 days later; both Double Nickel and Contans; or neither. Treatments are summarized below.
Timing
Non-treated
Contans
Double Nickel
Contans + Double Nickel
Pre-plant
–
Contans
(2 lb/A)
–
Contans (2 lb/A)
10% bloom
–
–
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
7 days later
–
–
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
Double Nickel LC (2 qt/A)
White mold – what we saw and what it means
There was very little disease in the white mold trials on either collaborating farm in 2019. This is great news for the collaborating farms, but it means that we couldn’t answer our question about whether using both Contans and Double Nickel in a single season would improve control of white mold. Sarah Pethybridge did three years of efficacy trials with Double Nickel and other OMRI-approved products. In small plot trials with uniform disease pressure Double Nickel was as effective as the conventional fungicides it was compared to in reducing disease. You can read about her results here.
Cucurbit powdery mildew – what we did
We conducted the cucurbit powdery mildew trials on one farm in Eastern NY and on research farms on Long Island and in Western NY, always using the bush acorn squash variety ‘Honey Bear’. This table summarizes the treatments we compared. Essentially, we started with two early biofungicide sprays, then shifted to rotating products when disease was detected. But, in some treatments we replaced the scheduled conventional product with a biofungicide every other week. The biofungicides we looked at were the same as last year: LifeGard, Regalia, and Serifel. We compared these treatments to both a regular conventional fungicide program and a “Conventional + skip” program where we just skipped every other conventional fungicide. And, we included an organic program with traditional OMRI-listed products plus the biofungicides. Important note: Luna Experience is NOT allowed for use on Long Island. We used it in a research plot in order to be able to make comparisons to trials conducted in other parts of the state. You can learn more about fungicide options for managing cucurbit powdery mildew here, and here.
Date
Non-treated
Conventional
Conventional + skip
Conventional + LifeGarda
Conventional + Regaliaa
Conventional + Serifelb
Organicab
~14 days before disease
–
–
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
~7 days before disease
–
–
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
First disease detection
–
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
MilStop (3 lb/A)
+7-10 days
–
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
Serifel (8 oz/A)
+14-17 days
–
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
Suffoil-X (1% v/v)
+21-24 days
–
Vivando (15 fl oz/A)
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
MilStop (3 lb/A)
+28-31 days
–
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Luna Experiencec (10 fl oz/A)
Serifel (8 oz/A)
+35-38 days
–
Quintec (6 fl oz/A)
–
LifeGard WG (4 oz/100 gal)
Regalia (2 qt/A)
Serifel
(8 oz/A)
Suffoil-X (1% v/v)
a LifeGard and Regalia were tank mixed with Nu Film P (1 qt/100 gal)
b Serifel was tank mixed with EcoSpreader (4 fl oz/100 gal) when applied at spray volumes of 30 to 40 gal/A.
c Luna Experience is not allowed for use on Long Island. The Long Island trial was conducted on a research farm.
We summarized disease severity on multiple dates over the season by calculating the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC). This value describes with a single number how quickly disease developed and how bad it got. We also measured NDVI using a GreenSeeker as a way to quantify how green and healthy the leaves were. At the end of the season, we collected yield and Brix data.
Cucurbit powdery mildew – what we saw
Not surprisingly, there was some variability among sites. But at two sites disease severity was not statistically different when we compared the standard weekly conventional fungicide program to skipping every other fungicide spray. This was disappointing, since we were expecting more severe powdery mildew from extending the spray interval, providing room for the biopesticides to improve control. However, in the Long Island trial, although powdery mildew was more severe when the spray interval was extended, applying a biopesticide during the skip week did not improve control.
For the most part, replacing alternate conventional fungicides with biofungicides resulted in disease levels that were somewhere between the conventional fungicide program and the non-treated control. At two sites LifeGard and Serifel performed slightly better than Regalia. To keep this post a reasonable length, we’re only showing results from the Long Island trial, here.
In the Long Island trial, the conventional, conventional + skip, and all three of the conventional/biofungicide programs provided pretty good powdery mildew control. The organic program was still better than the non-treated control. This graph shows only disease on the upper surface of the leaves (AUDPC = area under the disease progress curve). The black lines on each bar show one standard error above and below the mean value for that treatment. Bars with the same letter are not statistically different from each other. This graph also shows the cost (per acre) of the cucurbit powdery mildew fungicides for each treatment above each bar.
The above graph shows a summary of disease on the upper leaf surface over the whole season. We’re not reporting the data here, but if you look at disease ratings on individual dates or on the lower surface of the leaves, skipping every other fungicide or alternating conventional fungicides with biofungicides were not as good as the weekly conventional fungicide program.
At all three sites, yield was not statistically different when we compared the standard weekly conventional fungicide program to skipping every other fungicide spray. There were no statistically significant differences in yield in the Eastern NY trial, and few differences in the Western NY trial. In both trials, when Regalia was alternated with conventional fungicides the yield was slightly but not significantly lower than the conventional/LifeGard and the conventional/Serifel treatments. In the Long Island trial, only the full conventional treatment and treatments that included LifeGard or Regalia had significantly higher yields than the non-treated control. Again, we’ll show just the data from Long Island to keep this story briefer.
Yields from all treatments in the Long Island trial were pretty high. The black lines on each bar show one standard error above and below the mean value for that treatment. Bars with the same letter are not statistically different from each other. The yield per plot of 12 plants was extrapolated to the yield per acre (assuming 6 ft between rows and 2 ft between plants within rows, resulting in 3,620 plants/A) and used to estimate the average grocery store value (per acre) of each treatment, shown above each bar. The value of the organic treatment (*) was not adjusted to account for presumably higher prices for certified organic produce.
Our data did not suggest that NDVI readings taken with the GreenSeeker were a good replacement for visual scouting, or that this was a good tool for detecting differences in plant health among treatments. When NDVI readings differed among treatments, powdery mildew symptoms were readily evident. The most substantial differences in NDVI values among treatments were in the Long Island trial, where both the non-treated control and the organic treatment had much lower average NDVI values over the season.
On the whole, Brix were unaffected by powdery mildew management strategy. The only statistically significant differences in Brix values among treatments were in the Eastern NY trial where the conventional/LifeGard treatment had significantly lower Brix than the conventional/Serifel treatment.
Cucurbit powdery mildew – what it means
When the full conventional fungicide program didn’t result in statistically better disease control than skipping every other spray at 2 of the 3 sites, it’s not possible to say whether or not the biofungicides were good replacements for conventional fungicides against powdery mildew. However, they did not prove to be in the Long Island trial. Our results did not suggest that measurement of NDVI values with a GreenSeeker should replace visual scouting for cucurbit powdery mildew.
Depending on the trial location (and accompanying variations in spray schedules and rates), replacing some conventional fungicides with biofungicides ranged from slightly less expensive than the full conventional program to more than twice the cost. Although in most cases there were no statistically significant differences in the value of the crop between the conventional/biofungicide programs and the full conventional program, the numerical value of the marketable crop ranged from being slightly higher (LifeGard alternated with conventional fungicides on Long Island) to lower (all other biofungicide treatments). Again, the lack of statistically significant differences between the full conventional spray program and the conventional spray program with skips in 2 of the 3 trials makes any conclusions about the economics of replacing some conventional fungicides with biofungicides, tentative, at best. There’s a lot of room to fine-tune incorporation of biofungicides into spray programs to maximize cost effectiveness.
Recall from last year’s results that we did not detect any benefit from adding biofungicides to a full cucurbit powdery mildew fungicide program. So if you’d like to use biofungicides for cucurbit powdery mildew, replacing a conventional fungicide application or two is probably a better way to go. If you’ve tried this, we’d love to hear how it worked for you!
Remember that the information in this post is not a substitute for a pesticide label. The label is the law, and you must read and follow the label of any pesticide you are using. It is your responsibility to use pesticides legally.
This post was written by Amara Dunn (NYSIPM) and Meg McGrath (Plant Pathology & Plant-Microbe Biology, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University). Thank you to the New York Farm Viability Institute for funding.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
Mulching transplants planted in Spring 2018 was the most expensive establishment method, but these plots were looking pretty good a year later, even before we weeded.
By the end of our first field season, we had started using six different methods to establish wildflowers as habitat for beneficial insects (plus a weedy mowed control treatment). We also collected data on how much time and money we spent on establishment and how successful our weed management was. You can read about results from Year 1 in my post from last November.
But beneficial insect habitat establishment is not a one-year project. The establishment methods we started to implement in 2018 are ongoing, including periodic mowing of direct seeded plots, and hand-weeding of transplanted plots. We’ll keep track of how much time and money we invest in these plots in 2019, too.
Plots that were direct seeded in 2018 will be mowed this year to favor the perennial beneficial insect habitat plants over annual weeds. This plot was treated with alternating herbicide and tillage during Summer 2018, and wildflower seed was planted in Fall 2018; (A, left) plot before mowing, (B, right) same plot after mowing.Plots that were transplanted in 2018 will be hand weeded this year to help the perennial wildflowers and grasses out-compete weeds. This plot was transplanted in Spring 2018 into bare (not tilled) ground and no mulch was used; (A, left) plot before weeding, (B, right) same plot after weeding.
And we want to know whether these plots are actually attracting beneficial or pest insects. So, in 2019 we are starting “Phase II” of our beneficial insect habitat work. We want to know which and how many insects (and other arthropods, like spiders) are being attracted to each type of plot. We will also count insects in no habitat plots (weedy, mowed occasionally) and mowed grass plots in the middle of the Christmas tree field for comparison.
Insect collection began in early May, and we are using four different techniques:
Sweep net – This is what it sounds like. We “sweep” a net through the air above the ground to capture mostly flying insects, or those who may be resting on the plants.
Butterfly and moth count – We walk through the field, counting how many of each butterfly or moth species we see in each plot.
Pan traps – These are bright yellow and blue bowls filled with soapy water. One bowl of each color is placed in each plot for 2 days, then we collect the insects that have been attracted to the colorful bowls and were trapped in the soapy water. This method will help us count flying insects, especially bees and wasps.
Bright blue and yellow bowls filled with soapy water and weighed down with rocks will attract certain flying insects. By counting insects collected in these pan traps, we can learn which insects are spending time in each plot.
Pitfall traps – These are clear plastic 16-oz deli cups (like you might use for take-out food) that are sunk into the ground in each plot. Insects that crawl along the ground fall in. We will use this method to count mostly ground-dwelling insects.
A pitfall trap collects ground-dwelling insects. This one is protected by a rain cover. We didn’t want all the rain we’ve been getting this spring to overflow the traps and wash away the insects we caught!
I will write another blog post or two about this project during or at the end of this season. If you want to see more frequent updates, follow me on Twitter (@AmaraDunn). I’ll post weekly pictures of this project, including which beneficial insect habitat plants are blooming each week. You can also see lots of pictures from this project on Instagram (biocontrol.nysipm).
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
One of our goals for this project was to understand what biofungicides might add to a cucurbit powdery mildew management program.
Introduction
In 2018 we conducted field trials using biofungicides in cucurbit powdery mildew and snap bean white mold management programs. Hopefully you’ve read part 1 and part 2 of this biofungicide story. If not, now might be a good time.
Part 1 will give you more details about the trial design. We wanted to know whether adding biofungicides would improve disease control, plant health, or yield. For cucurbit powdery mildew, we were adding one of three different biofungicides to a conventional chemical spray program. We also included a treatment that was all OMRI-listed (organic) products. For white mold on snap beans, we were curious about using an in-season biofungicide (Double Nickel, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747) in combination with a pre-season biofungicide (Contans, Paraconiothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08). In 2018, our white mold treatments were just Double Nickel and Cueva (an OMRI-listed copper). In 2019, we’ll add the pre-season Contans treatment.
Part 2 explains more about the modes of action of the five biofungicides we are looking at. The post also includes practical information about how to use these biofungicides to maximize their efficacy – compatibility with other products, best way to store them, when to apply them, etc.
Now it’s time to talk about what we learned from this first year (of a two-year project).
The bottom line
We don’t want to keep you in suspense, so here’s a quick summary of what we learned. Fortunately for the eastern NY grower who graciously allowed us to run the trial on his farm (but unfortunately for us), the snap bean field had very little white mold in 2018. Even the plots that were not sprayed with Double Nickel or Cueva had almost no disease. So we weren’t surprised when there were no differences in disease, plant health, or yield among the white mold treatments. Results from Sarah Pethybridge’s efficacy trials with OMRI-approved products for white mold are available online.
Our snap bean trial in eastern NY in 2018 had very little white mold. (Photo credit: Crystal Stewart)
Cucurbit powdery mildew was a bit more severe than white mold (low pressure in eastern NY, moderate pressure in western NY and on Long Island), but we were not able to detect statistically significant benefits from adding biofungicides to a conventional spray program. Disease severity, plant health (as measured by NDVI), yield, and fruit quality (Brix) were the same whether you used a conventional spray program, or a conventional spray program plus a biofungicide. We didn’t measure significant differences in yield among any of the treatments at any of the three sites.
Severity of powdery mildew on the upper sides of the leaves in the Western NY trial. Here, disease severity is quantified using the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC). This number summarizes disease severity from multiple dates, and the larger the number, the worse the disease. If two treatments share the same letter, the average disease in those treatments is not significantly different. The error bars give you an idea of how much variability there was in each treatment.
NDVI results
NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) values did not detect cucurbit powdery mildew early. (Since there was so little white mold, we couldn’t test NDVI for early detection.) There was some inconsistent correlation between NDVI readings and disease, yield, and Brix in winter squash. In WNY we used both a handheld GreenSeeker and a gator-mounted Crop Circle to measure NDVI. Both devices had similar results. Based on this first year of testing with these two devices, NDVI measurements were not useful as an early indicator of cucurbit powdery mildew.
In addition, NDVI measurements did not detect subtle differences in plant health among treatments. At only one of our three sites (Long Island) were there any significant differences in NDVI among treatments. This was only on the last two rating dates in the season, when powdery mildew was visibly more severe in the non-treated control than the conventional fungicide treatments.
Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) measured on winter squash in the Long Island trial on three dates at the end of the season. NDVI values closer to 1 indicate more healthy, green foliage. If two treatments have the same a letter on the same date, the average NDVI readings on that date were not different between the two treatments. Data from August 31 are labeled with uppercase, while data from September 17 are labeled with lowercase letters. There were no differences among any treatments on August 24. The error bars give you an idea of how much variability there was in each treatment. We couldn’t do statistics on the organic treatment because too many plants were killed by Phytophthora blight in the plots that received this treatment.
Some caveats
The non-treated control (received no powdery mildew fungicide) was often not significantly different from the conventional fungicide control (our best management program). We know that controlling powdery mildew on cucurbits is important, so if we don’t detect a significant difference between the non-treated control and the treatment that should have provided the best control, it is then hard to draw further conclusions from the data.
We didn’t detect statistically significant differences in marketable yield among any of the treatments in any of the trials. Here are the data from eastern NY. Notice that all six bars are labeled with the letter “a”. As with previous graphs, the error bars give you an idea of how much variability there was across the different plots in each treatment.
When disease pressure is low (as it was in Eastern NY), we would expect not to see many differences between treatments. Similarly, if the conventional fungicide program provided excellent disease control (as it did on Long Island), it would be hard to detect an improvement in control from adding a biofungicide. Another challenge we dealt with in the Long Island trial was Phytophthora blight. By the end of the season, we had lost two of the four plots receiving the organic treatment to this disease. This limited our ability to statistically analyze the biofungicide data. On Long Island, the organic spray program initially performed well – as seen on August 31 – comparable to the conventional treatments. But by the final assessment on September 17, the organic program was no longer as effective. This was not surprising since it was 10 days after the last application. Suffoil-X was the final organic product applied, and it has little residual activity.
Average severity of powdery mildew on the upper surface of leaves on the last four assessment dates in the 2018 Long Island trial. All of the treatments (except the non-treated control) suppressed powdery mildew well through August 31. Control in the organic treatment had declined by September 17, but this was 10 days after the last spray was applied.
In WNY, we had an epic aphid outbreak. An entomologist colleague identified them as probably melon aphids, and also that 2018 was generally a bad year for aphids. It’s also possible that while trying to control cucumber beetles earlier in the season, we killed some aphid natural enemies, contributing to an aphid outbreak later in the season. I know cucumber beetles are tough, but if you can manage them without decimating your local natural enemies, you’ll be doing yourself a favor!
The severe aphid outbreak in the western NY trial may have made it more difficult to detect differences among treatments. In late August, some of the leaves were covered with aphids (A), and many fruit were covered with honeydew (B). Getting a close look at the aphids is essential for correct identification (C).
We deliberately used a very intensive spray program, starting our biofungicide applications early, and continuing to apply them as we added conventional fungicides later in the season. This was an expensive powdery mildew management program. But, in this first year of the project, we didn’t want to be left wondering if a lack of differences was due to underapplication of the biofungicides.
First, this is only the first year of our project and one year of data. It’s a start, but we’ll hopefully learn more in a second year. Since we didn’t measure a significant improvement in yield, we didn’t see evidence that adding biofungicides to a full chemical spray program for powdery mildew justified the cost. The relative costs of the treatments we used are listed in the table below, and the approximate per acre costs of each product are in the Proceedings from the 2019 Empire State Producers Expo. Replacing a chemical spray or two with a biofungicide could be a more economical option. That’s something we’re planning to look at in 2019.
Treatment
Date
Non-treated
Conventional
Conventional + LifeGard
Conventional + Regalia
Conventional + Serifel
Organic
7/19/18
–
LifeGard
Regalia
Serifel
LifeGard
7/27/18
–
LifeGard
Regalia
Serifel
LifeGard
8/3/18
–
Vivando
LifeGard + Vivando
Regalia + Vivando
Serifel + Vivando
MilStop
8/10/18
–
Quintec
LifeGard + Quintec
Regalia + Quintec
Serifel + Quintec
Serifel
8/17/18
–
Luna Experience
LifeGard + Luna
Regalia + Luna
Serifel + Luna
SuffoilX
8/24/18
–
Vivando
LifeGard + Vivando
Regalia + Vivando
Serifel + Vivando
MilStop
8/31/18
–
Quintec
LifeGard + Quintec
Regalia + Quintec
Serifel + Quintec
Serifel
9/7/18
–
Luna Experience
LifeGard + Luna
Regalia + Luna
Serifel + Luna
SuffoilX
Total cost (per A)
–
$228.28
$343.32
$536.28
$696.28
$257.76
Cost increase vs. conventional (per A)
–
$ –
$115.04
$308.00
$468.00
$29.48
Based on results from this year, we can’t yet recommend that you run out and buy a handheld NDVI sensor for early detection of cucurbit powdery mildew. We’ll collect NDVI data again in 2019, and let you know what we learn. Although our results from the field trials were somewhat inconclusive in this first year, we’re hopeful that the information we’ve compiled about how these biofungicides work and how to use them will be useful. If you’re thinking of using Contans, Double Nickel, LifeGard, Regalia, or Serifel in 2019, first take a look at these fact sheets related to our white mold and powdery mildew trials. And if you have used biofungicides, we’d be interested in hearing about it; click here to send an e-mail.
This post was written by Amara Dunn (NYS IPM), Elizabeth Buck (Cornell Vegetable Program), Meg McGrath and Sarah Pethybridge (both Plant Pathology & Plant-Microbe Biology, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University), Crystal Stewart (Eastern NY Commercial Horticulture Program), and Darcy Telenko (Department of Botany & Plant Pathology, Purdue University). Thank you to the New York Farm Viability Institute for funding.
Bioinsecticides include microorganisms and other naturally-derived compounds that control insect pests.
My post from last February described modes of action for biopesticides that target plant diseases…as well as the difference between a biopesticide and a biostimulant. January’s post described the modes of action of five biofungicides in an ongoing vegetable trial. But there are plenty of insect and mite pests out there, too. You can attract or release predatory or parasitic insects and mites or beneficial nematodes to deal with these arthropod (insect and mite) pests. But you can also use bioinsecticides that control insects and mites. The active ingredients include microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses), plant extracts, or other naturally-occurring substances. Want to know how they work? Keep reading.
Bioinsecticides can have one (or more) of the following modes of action:
Kill on contact
Kill after ingestion
Repel
Inhibit feeding
Inhibit growth
Inhibit reproduction
The examples included in the following descriptions are reported either on the bioinsecticide labels or in promotional materials produced by the manufacturers. And these are just examples, not meant to be an exhaustive list of bioinsecticides with each mode of action.
Killing on contact
Some bioinsecticides contain living spores of a fungus. These spores need to land on the insect. Then they germinate (like a seed), invade and grow throughout the body of the insect, and eventually kill it. If the humidity is high enough, the fungus may even produce more spores on the body of the dead insect.
Some bioinsecticides need to directly contact the body of the insect or mite in order to kill it. Bioinsecticides that contain living fungi work this way. The tiny fungal spores land on the insect or mite pest, germinate (like a seed), and infect the body of the pest. The fungus grows throughout the pest’s body, eventually killing it. If the relative humidity is high enough, you might even see insects that look like they are covered with powder or fuzz (but this is not necessary for the pest to die). This powdery or fuzzy stuff growing on the pest is the fungus producing more spores. Bioinsecticides that contain the fungal species Beauveria bassiana (e.g., BotaniGard, Mycotrol), Metarhizium anisopliae or brunneum (e.g., Met52), or Isaria fumosorosea (NoFly) are examples of fungal bioinsecticides with contact activity.
If the relative humidity is high enough, insects infected with a fungus may start growing new fungus on the outside of their bodies, appearing fuzzy or like they are covered in powder. Photo credit: Louis Tedders, USDA ARS, Bugwood.org
Bioinsecticides that contain spinosad (including Entrust, SpinTor, and others) work because the active ingredient affects the nervous and muscular systems of the insect or mite, paralyzing and eventually killing it. It can kill the pest either through contact, or through ingestion (more on that in a moment). The bioinsecticide Venerate contains dead Burkholderia bacteria (strain A396) and compounds produced while growing the bacteria. One mode of action of Venerate is that it contains enzymes that degrade the exoskeleton (outer shell) of insects and mites on contact.
Killing by ingestion
Some bioinsecticides need to be eaten (ingested) in order to kill. Pesticides that contain the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (often called Bt for short) as the active ingredient are a good example. Proteins that were made by Bt while the bioinsecticide was being manufactured are eaten by insects and destroy their digestive systems. Several different subspecies of Bt are available as bioinsecticides, and the subspecies determines which insect pest it will be effective against. There are many bioinsecticides registered in NY that contain Bt as an active ingredient. Check NYSPAD for labels, and make sure you choose the right pesticide for the pest and setting where you need control. Bt products do not work on mites, aphids, or whiteflies.
Some bioinsecticides (blue diamonds in this diagram) will only kill pests if they are eaten first. Pesticides that contain Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria or insect viruses are examples of this mode of action.
Insect viruses are another example of a bioinsecticide active ingredient that kills through ingestion. For example, Gemstar contains parts of a virus that infects corn earworms and tobacco budworms. Once these caterpillars eat the Gemstar, the virus replicates inside the pest, eventually killing it.
Repel
Some bioinsecticides repel insects from the plants you want to protect. However, this mode of action may only work on certain pest species, or certain life stages of the pest. Read and follow the label. Bioinsecticides containing azadirachtin or neem oil, and Grandevo are reported to have repellent activity for some pests. Grandevo contains dead bacteria (Chromobacterium substugae strain PrAA4-1) and compounds produced by the bacteria while they were alive and growing.
Some bioinsecticides (blue diamonds and happy microbes in this diagram) protect plants because they repel insect and mite pests. This protects treated plants from pest damage.
Inhibit feeding
If you want insect and mite pests dead as soon as possible, I understand the sentiment. But in many cases stopping the pests from eating your plants would be just as good, right? Some bioinsecticides cause pests to lose their appetite days before they actually die. Like bioinsecticides that kill pests outright, some bioinsecticides that inhibit feeding require ingestion, while others work on contact. And these bioinsecticides may work this way for only certain pest species of certain ages. Read and follow those labels! Bioinsecticides containing Bt require ingestion and some can stop pest feeding before actually killing the pest. The same goes for Gemstar (corn earworm virus). This is another mode of action of azadirachtin products against some pests.
Some bioinsecticides (blue diamonds and happy microbes in this diagram) cause insect and mite pests to lose their appetites. Depending on the bioinsecticide, it either needs to contact the pest or be eaten by it.
Inhibit growth
Many insects and mites need to molt (shed their skin as they go from one life stage to another). Bioinsecticides that interfere with molting prevent pests from completing their life cycle. Like feeding inhibitors, these bioinsecticides won’t directly kill the pests you have, but they can prevent them from multiplying. This is another mode of action (again, for certain pests at certain stages of development) listed for azadirachtin products and Venerate (Burkholderia spp. strain A396).
Some bioinsecticides (blue diamonds in this diagram) don’t kill insects and mites outright, but they can prevent them from molting and growing into the next life stage. Pests that can’t move on to the next life stage will eventually die without completing their life cycle.
Inhibit reproduction
There are two main types of bioinsecticides that prevent or slow insect reproduction. Pheromones are compounds that confuse insects that are looking for mates. If males and females can’t find each other, there won’t be a next generation of the pest. Pheromones can be especially useful when the adults that are looking for mates don’t feed (e.g., moths). Isomate and Checkmate are two examples of pheromones available for certain fruit pests. Other bioinsecticides actually reduce the number of offspring produced by a pest. This is one of the modes of action of Grandevo (Chromobacterium substugae strain PRAA4-1) against certain pests.
Pheromones (represented here by blue diamonds) are a type of bioinsecticide that confuses insects looking for a mate. As a result, males and females can’t find each other, don’t mate, and don’t lay eggs.
Why do I care?
Do you mean besides the fact that you are a curious person and you want to know how biopesticides work? Knowing the mode of action for the pesticide you use (among other things) allows you to maximize its efficacy. Does the bioinsecticide need to contact the pest, or be eaten by it? This determines where, when, and how you apply it. Do you want to use a bioinsecticide that inhibits growth of the pest? Make sure you use it when pests are young. (Sidenote: Like all biopesticides, bioinsecticides generally work best on smaller populations of younger pests.) Is the first generation of the pest the one that causes the most damage? Don’t rely on a bioinsecticide that inhibits reproduction. Although if the pest overwinters in your field and doesn’t migrate in, maybe you could reduce the population for the next season.
Now is a great time of year to consider the insect and mite pests you are likely to encounter this season, then learn which bioinsecticides include these pests (and your crop and setting) on the label. Always read and follow the label of any pesticide (bio or not). How do you know whether these bioinsecticides are likely to work in NY on the pests listed on the label? That’s a topic for another post. In the meantime, the Organic Production Guides for fruit and vegetables from NYS IPM are a great place to start. When available, they report efficacy of OMRI-listed insecticides (including some bioinsecticides). Your local extension staff are another great resource.
Winter squash in our cucurbit powdery mildew biopesticide trial conducted in western NY, eastern NY, and on Long Island in 2018. We are also testing biopesticides for white mold. Photo credit: Meg McGrath.
Remember from Part 1 of this post that we (I and many great colleagues) are studying what biopesticides can add to effective disease management of cucurbit powdery mildew and white mold. After “what is a biopesticide?” the next most common questions about this project are about the specific biopesticides we’re testing:
How do they work?
Can I tank mix them with other pesticides or with fertilizers?
Do I need to use these products differently than I would use a chemical pesticide?
Today’s post will try to answer those questions.
Modes of action – How do they work?
As you may recall from February’s post, biopesticides work in different ways, and the five biofungicides we’re studying cover the range of these modes of action.
Biopesticides protect plants from diseases in different ways. I like to divide them up into the five modes of action (MOAs) in this table. Like many biopesticides, some of the products we are testing have more than one MOA. Click on the table to enlarge it.
Eats pathogen
The fungus active ingredient of Contans (Paraconiothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08; formerly called Coniothyrium minitans) “eats” (parasitizes and degrades) the tough sclerotia of the fungus, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum that causes white mold. Sclerotia survive in the soil from year to year. However, for this strategy to be effective, the fungal spores within Contans have to first make contact with the sclerotia. The time between colonization and degradation of sclerotia is about 90 days.
Makes antimicrobial compounds
The active ingredients in Serifel and Double Nickel are bacteria – same species but different strains. They both produce compounds that are harmful to plant pathogens (antimicrobial). According to the manufacturer, most of the foliar efficacy of Double Nickel is due to the antimicrobial compounds already present in the container. But the manufacturer notes that some of the efficacy also comes from the live bacteria that are responsible for this product’s other modes of action, especially the induction of plant resistance (more on this later). The strain of bacteria in Serifel has been formulated so that it contains only living bacteria (no antimicrobial compounds). The manufacturer’s goal is for the bacteria to produce antimicrobial products unique to the specific environmental conditions after application. Double Nickel and Serifel are examples of different strategies for using antimicrobial-producing bacteria to fight plant diseases. Our goal is to explain how the products work; not tell you which strategy is better.
Some biopesticides contain microbes that grow on the plant. These beneficial microbes use up space and nutrients so there is no room for the pathogen, excluding it.
Excludes pathogen
The bacteria in Double Nickel and Serifel also can protect plants from disease by growing over (colonizing) the plant so that there is no space or nutrients available for pathogens. How important this mode of action is to the efficacy of Double Nickel depends on the setting and time of year (according to the manufacturer). Cucurbit leaves exposed to sun, heat, and dry air are not great places for bacteria to grow, and pathogen exclusion is not likely to be very important in protecting cucurbit leaves from powdery mildew. The antimicrobial MOA is more important here. Apple blossoms being protected from fire blight in the early spring could be a different story. The bacteria in Serifel tolerate a wide range of temperatures in the field, but the manufacturer recommends applying this product with a silicon surfactant to help the bacteria spread across the plant surface better.
Induces plant resistance
Plants have mechanisms to defend themselves. Some pathogens succeed in causing disease when they avoid triggering these defenses, or when they infect the plant before it has a chance to activate these defenses. Some biofungicides work by triggering plants to “turn on” their defense mechanisms. This is called “inducing plant resistance.” It is the sole mode of action of the bacteria in LifeGard, and one of the modes of action for the active ingredients in Double Nickel, Regalia, and Serifel.
Promotes plant growth and/or stress tolerance
The last biofungicide being studied in this trial has a plant extract as an active ingredient, instead of a microorganism. Regalia works by both inducing plant resistance, and also promoting plant growth and stress tolerance. Some of the other products in this trial also share these MOAs. According to the label, some crops treated with Regalia produce more chlorophyll or contain more soluble protein. This final MOA (promotion of plant growth and stress tolerance) is also sometimes shared with “biostimulants”. But remember that “biostimulant” is not currently a term regulated by the EPA. This may be changing in the future, so stay tuned. Biostimulants enhance plant health and quality. They are not registered as pesticides, and must not be applied for the purpose of controlling disease. Make sure you read and follow the label of any product you apply.
Best practices – How do I use them?
We’ll get to some product-specific details in a minute, but first some notes about best uses for all five of these products.
They need to be used preventatively. For biofungicides to eat pathogens, exclude them from plants, induce plant resistance, or improve plant growth and stress tolerance, they need to beat the pathogen to the plant. It takes time for the plant to fully activate its defenses, even if “flipping the switch” to turn those defenses on happens quickly. The same applies to promoting plant growth and stress tolerance. And if you want the beneficial microorganism to already be growing where the pathogen might land, of course you need to apply the product before the pathogen is present. Microbes that produce antimicrobial compounds also work best if they are applied when disease levels are low.
Use IPM. These biofungicides (and most, if not all, biofungicides) were designed to be used with other pest management strategies like good cultural practices, host resistance, and other pesticides. For example, they can be included in a conventional spray program to manage pesticide resistance.
Mix what you need, when you need it. Don’t mix biofungicides and then leave them in the spray tank overnight. Some products may need to be used even more promptly. Check the label.
Store carefully. Generally, away from direct sunlight and high heat. Follow the storage instructions on the label.
They have short intervals, but still require PPE. One of the benefits of biofungicides is short pre-harvest intervals (PHIs) and re-entry intervals (REIs). All five of the products we’re studying have a 0 day PHI and a 4 hour REI. But they all still require personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling and applying them. Read and follow those labels!
Tank mixing best practices still apply. The table at the end of this post has details about biological compatibility of these products in tank mixes, as reported by the manufacturers. But just like other pesticides, you need to follow the label instructions for mixing. If you have questions about a specific tank mix partner, confirm compatibility with a company rep. Do a “jar test” if you are mixing two products for the first time and want to know if they are physically compatible.
Biopesticides (especially those that contain living microorganisms) often need to be handled and used differently than chemical pesticides. They may be more sensitive to temperature, moisture, or UV light, which may impact the best time or place to apply them. And of course you don’t want to tank mix a living microorganism with something that will kill the good microbe. (Cleaning your tank well between sprays is always recommended, whether or not you are using a biopesticide.) The following table summarizes details for the five products we’re studying provided by the manufacturers – from product labels, company websites, and conversations with company reps. We have not personally tested this information.
Exactly how should you use these biofungicides to maximize their efficacy? This table summarizes best practices (as reported by the manufacturers) for each of the five fungicides tested in this trial. Click on the table to enlarge it.
We’ve created handouts that summarize the designs of both the cucurbit powdery mildew and the white mold trials, the modes of action of the five biofungicides we’re testing, and the best practices information presented above.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of this post – results from our first year of field trials!
This post was written by Amara Dunn (NYS IPM) and Sarah Pethybridge (Plant Pathology & Plant-Microbe Biology, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University). Thank you to the New York Farm Viability Institute for funding.
Many crops (and plenty of non-crop plants) rely on pollinators. Let’s protect them!
As I’ve discussed before, the natural enemies that provide biological control of pests include both larger creatures (like insects, mites, and nematodes) and microorganisms (fungi, bacteria, and viruses) that combat pests in a variety of ways. Microorganism natural enemies are regulated as pesticides (one type of biopesticide), while the larger natural enemies are not. Growers who are successfully using biocontrol insects, mites, and nematodes usually recognize that they need to apply pesticides in such a way that they are compatible with the biocontrol organisms they use. Take a look at my April post for a summary of online resources that can help you check compatibility of pesticides (including biopesticides) with natural enemies.
Some of these compatibility resources include information on the effects of pesticides (and biopesticides) on bees. Pollinators (including honey bees, lots of other bees, and some non-bees) are very important beneficial insects. You may have noticed that they have found their way into several of my blog posts. So, I wanted to let you know about a brand new resource (hot off the digital presses) to help you protect pollinators.
“A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Tree Fruit Orchards” is a terrific resource to help you choose pesticides (and pesticide combinations) that are least-toxic to bees.
“A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Tree Fruit Orchards” was written by Maria van Dyke, Emma Mullen, Dan Wixted, and Scott McArt. Although it’s focus is tree fruit orchards (and therefore the pesticides used in them), it should be useful for growers of other crops who want to choose pesticides that are least toxic to bees. A few highlights:
It includes information not only on pesticides used alone, but (when available) on synergistic effects when multiple pesticide active ingredients are used together. When you combine some chemicals (either in the tank or in the environment) the mixture is more toxic than both chemicals alone.
Where available, it summarizes pesticide toxicity to other bees besides just honey bees (e.g., bumble bees and solitary bees). You can read more about why this is important in this recent article.
It describes what we know about sub-lethal (in other words, negative effects on the bees that are less serious than death) effects of pesticides on bees.
It includes about half a dozen biopesticide active ingredients.
Pollination is being done by more than just honey bees! This bumble bee (plus many more bee species) are important pollinators in NY.
Guides for other crops and other resources for growers wanting to protect pollinators can be found here.
You might be asking: If a chemical on this table is toxic to bees, will it also be toxic to the insect and mite natural enemies I am releasing or conserving on my farm or in my garden? I wish I had a definitive answer to that. As you can see from the nearly three pages of Literature Cited at the end of this document, collecting these data is a time-consuming process. For now, stick with the compatibility resources that are already available, and ask the companies you buy from (pesticides or natural enemies) about compatibility.
In closing, a huge amount of work went into this resource to summarize so much useful and current (as of October 2018) information in an easy-to-read table. Bravo to the authors! The Pollinator Network @ Cornell has other helpful resources for growers on protecting pollinators. Winter is a great time to make plans for using IPM and protecting the pollinators and natural enemies that are so good for the crops we grow!
Fair warning, this is going to be a longer post. But partly that’s because there are so many pictures. I will start with the overview, then go a bit deeper into the weeds (literally and figuratively). To help you navigate more quickly, here’s a sort of table of contents that will quickly take you to the information you may be most interested to read:
Some of our beneficial insect habitat plots looked really beautiful this fall! Others are still works in progress.
Overview
Remember back in June when I told you about the different techniques we were comparing for establishing habitat for beneficial insects? Time for an update! Here’s a brief, two-page summary of the first year of this project. For all the juicy details (and lots of pictures), keep reading!
First, remember that when I say “beneficial insects”, I mean both pollinators and natural enemies of pests. (Technically, arthropod would be a better term than insect, because spiders and predatory mites are some of the beneficial creatures we’d like to attract.) Fortunately, the same type of plants provide food and shelter for both pollinators and natural enemies on your farm or in your garden.
We used six different techniques to establish this habitat during Spring, Summer, and Fall of 2018. Treatment E was our control, where we did nothing but mow (after initial herbicide applications).
Treatment
Fall 2017
Spring 2018
Summer 2018
Fall 2018
A
Herbicide
Herbicide, transplant
Weed 2x
Replace dead plants
B
Herbicide
Till, transplant, mulch
Weed 2x
Replace dead plants
C
Herbicide
Till, direct seed
Mow 3x
Mow 1x
D
Herbicide
Till, plant buckwheat
Mow 1x, till, plant buckwheat
Mow 1x, transplant
E – control
Herbicide
Herbicide
Mow 3x
Mow 1x
F
Herbicide
Till, lay plastic
Continue solarization
Remove plastic, direct seed
G
Herbicide
Herbicide/till
Herbicide 2x, till 1x
Till 1x, direct seed
We transplanted the following species in treatments A, B, and D:
Common name
Scientific name
Number of plants in each 5 x 23 ft plot
Anise hyssop
Agastache foeniculum
2
Common milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
3
Blue false indigo
Baptisia australis
2
Lanced-leaved coreopsis
Coreopsis lanceolata
3
Purple coneflower
Echinacea purpurea
2
Boneset
Eupatorium perfoliatum
3
Wild bergamot
Monarda fistulosa
2
Catmint
Nepeta faassinii
2
Tall white beard tongue
Penstemon digitalis
3
Black-eyed Susan
Rudbeckia fulgida va. Fulgida
1
Little bluestem (grass)
Schizachyrium scoparium
11
Showy goldenrod
Solidago speciosa
1
New England aster
Symphyotrichum novae- angliae
3
Ohio spiderwort
Tradescantia ohiensis
2
NY ironweed
Vernonia noveboracensis
2
Golden alexanders
Zizia aurea
3
We planted seeds in treatments C, F, and G. The seed mixture we used was the Showy Northeast Native Wildflower & Grass Mix from Ernst Seeds, which included a more diverse species mix. This mix changes a bit from year to year. If you’re interested, you can learn about the details of the specific mix we used here.
Labor and costs
Not surprisingly, there were big differences in how much time and money we spent on different treatments this first year. The costs and hours below are for a total area of 460 ft2 (0.01 A) per treatment. Most of the cost differences are due to the huge difference in seed versus transplant expenses. We paid about $2 per plant and needed 180 plants for each treatment. In contrast, we spent about $12.50 on seed for each treatment. You can find itemized lists of cost and time inputs for each treatment here.
Treatment
Supply costs
Time (person hrs)
A – spring transplant
$417.12
13.2
B – spring transplant & mulch
$539.29
20.4
C – spring seed
$17.75
4.4
D – buckwheat & fall seed
$390.55
10.3
E – control
$2.32
2.6
F – solarize & fall seed
$148.02
10.2
G – herbicide/tillage & fall seed
$22.04
6.3
But, there were also big differences in how quickly the plants established. By September, both treatments (A and B) that had been transplanted in the spring looked like well-established gardens, with large, blooming wildflowers.
Four and a half months after transplanting, the beneficial habitat plants in treatments A (left) and B (right) were mostly growing well. But there was a big difference in weed control, in spite of similar amounts of time spent weeding each treatment.
We were generally pleased by how well most of the spring transplants survived. Although all the transplants came in 50-cell flats, some were larger than others, and the larger transplants survived better. We were fortunate to be able to plant into nice moist ground, so except for a little water on the day of transplanting, we didn’t irrigate. Survival might not have been as good if we’d had different planting conditions.
In contrast, the much less expensive treatment C was not looking too impressive even by October. A few partridge peas and blackeyed Susans bloomed this year, but otherwise it didn’t look much different from the control plots. In mid-summer, it looked like we were growing more ragweed than wildflowers.
In late July, it looked like we were growing mostly ragweed in treatment C (left). But after mowing four times during the summer and fall, you could definitely see the blackeyed Susans establishing (right).
Two of the treatments (F and G) were planted with seeds this fall, and one treatment (D) was transplanted this fall. So it’s really too early to tell how successful those treatments were. Stay tuned for more updates!
Fall transplanted (D) or direct seeded treatments (F and G) did not look very impressive by October 19, 2018. I’m curious to see what they look like next spring, summer, and fall!
Details on weed control
What about weeds? The graph below shows the average percent of the surface area of each plot that was covered with weeds versus planted beneficial habitat species on September 19, 2018. (Thank you, Bryan Brown, NYS IPM Integrated Weed Management Specialist for doing a weed assessment for us!) While we spent about the same amount of time weeding treatments A and B (the time difference is due to the time spent mulching treatment B), we achieved much better weed control with the mulch than without it!
Bryan Brown assessed the percent of each plot that was covered with either the beneficial habitat species we had planted (blue) or weeds (orange). Each bar represents the average of four plots for each treatment, and the error bars show the standard error.
In treatment B, we spread chipped shrub willow mulch about 3 inches deep around the transplants. If I were to do this again, I would spread it thicker. I was disappointed with how many weeds were growing through the mulch just a month after transplanting.
The chipped shrub willow mulch we used was not as effective at suppressing weeds as I had hoped. On the left is part of the plot that had not been weeded yet. On the right is the part that was weeded on July 6. You can also see from this picture that there was a lot of lambsquarters in this field, and that we hadn’t been able to seed grass between the plots, yet.
But weeding twice during the season pretty much took care of the weeds in treatment B. Treatment A was also weeded twice, but as you saw in the graph earlier, weed control by the end of the season was not as effective.
Treatment A (transplanted in the spring, with no additional weed control) before (right) and after (left) hand weeding on July 6.
I think we’ll have to wait until next year to really understand how weed control is working in treatment C. Remember, the strategy was to slowly deplete the annual weed seedbank by allowing weeds to germinate, but preventing them from producing more seed. This is not supposed to be a quick establishment method, and it wasn’t.
This is what partridge pea looks like. It was one of the few species from the native wildflower and grass mix seeded in the spring (treatment C) that bloomed during this first growing season.
Buckwheat as a weed-smothering cover crop
By the time Bryan did our weed assessment, it had been 3 weeks since we mowed the second planting of buckwheat. Ideally, we would have transplanted shortly after mowing the buckwheat. But, the second crop of buckwheat was starting to set seed by the end of August, and our transplants weren’t scheduled to arrive until the end of September. So we mowed the buckwheat early to prevent it from contributing its own seed to the weed seedbank. But this meant that a lot of weeds had time to germinate before we transplanted the habitat plants. The buckwheat certainly suppressed a lot of weeds during the growing season, and I hope that this will help reduce weeds next year.
The buckwheat established quickly and crowded out many weeds. We mowed the first crop in July and re-planted. We had to mow the second crop about 3 weeks before we transplanted habitat plants (not ideal).
Solarization
Overall, we were pleased with how the solarization worked. We laid down 6 mil clear plastic (leftover from a nearby high tunnel) in early June, and did a little weed control around the edges of the plastic just once during the summer to prevent more weed seed production and to prevent shading of the plots.
We laid 6 mil clear plastic over some plots on June 5, 2018 to solarize the soil underneath (and kill weeds).
We also learned that solarization will not control purselane. In contrast, the purselane thrived only under our clear plastic, and nowhere else in the field. The plot that had the most purselane also had the most other (mostly grass) weeds. I think the purselane pushed the plastic away from the soil and reduced the temperature a bit, allowing other weeds to grow.
In some solarized plots, purselane grew happily under the plastic. Purselane was not a common weed anywhere else in the field during the season.
Some other plots were virtually weed-free when we pulled the plastic up in October. (Did you see how large the error bar was for weeds in treatment F in the weed graph above? This means there was a lot of variability between plots in this treatment.) Our soil temperature probe happened to be in the plot with the most purselane, and we still achieved maximum soil temperatures of 120 °F (at a depth of about 3 inches), compared to 90 °F in a nearby control (treatment E) plot.
Solarization results were pretty variable from plot to plot. In some plots, it worked great (left). In other plots more purselane germinated and it didn’t work as well (right). We cut all the weedy vegetation off at the ground before direct seeding the beneficial habitat plants.
Repeated herbicide and tillage
At the weed assessment in September, the plot that had been alternately treated with herbicide and tilled looked best in terms of weed control. Like treatment C and all the treatments planted (by seed or by transplant) in the fall, I think we’ll get a better idea next year of how effective this method was at suppressing weeds.
A few weeds were present a week after the last time the herbicide/tillage treatment (G) was rototilled. We broadcast, raked, and pressed beneficial habitat seed into these plots.
Timing of fall planting
One thing we struggled with this fall was deciding when to plant the wildflower and grass seed mixture. One source recommended the seeds be planted sometime between October and December. We were cautioned that if we planted the seed too early, some species (especially blackeyed Susans) might germinate this fall, and the young seedlings would be killed by an early frost before they established. But we were also afraid of waiting too long and not being able to till the soil (treatment G, only) if it got too wet. And we wanted a nice smooth seedbed. In treatment F, we suspected that leaving the clear plastic on into November would protect the weeds from the cooler weather. But we worried that taking it off too early would only allow more weed seeds to blow onto the bare ground.
We direct seeded October 18, 2018, after the weather cooled down a bit, and before the ground got too wet.
Finally, we compromised and planted the seeds on October 18 and 19, after our first hard frost, and once it looked like the nighttime temperatures would be in the 40’s (or below) for the next 10 days. It was only a week after the last tillage in treatment G, and the soil was still relatively dry. Those who live in the Finger Lakes know that late October and early November were pretty wet this year, so I’m glad we planted when we did. If you are trying to time fall seeding, I would recommend that you keep an eye on the 10 day forecast to see when temperatures are starting to cool. But if you get a dry sunny day to plant and it’s reasonably cool, I wouldn’t delay.
So if I want to plant habitat for pollinators and natural enemies next year, what should I do?
First, think about the time, money, and equipment you have available, as well as the area you’d like to plant. There probably isn’t a single right way to establish this habitat, but there may be a best way for you.
You can find more details on the techniques we used (and some links to other resources) here.
This post was written by Amara Dunn, Brian Eshenaur, and Betsy Lamb.
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
