Tag Archives: biopesticide

Managing tomato bacterial diseases? Biopesticides could help

Are you using copper to protect your tomatoes from bacterial diseases? Research from Cornell suggests that you could replace some of those copper applications with a biopesticide.

Two pictures of tomato leaves showing small brown specks, and larger specks or groups of specks surrounded by yellow margins
On tomatoes bacterial speck and spot both look like small black spots which may develop yellow halos around them as the lesions age.

Preventing bacterial diseases on your tomatoes starts with good integrated pest management practices.

  • > 3-year rotation out of tomatoes and peppers
  • Clean seed or disease-free transplants
  • Heat treat seed (unless it is pelleted or treated)
  • Good sanitation in transplant production facility (e.g., new flats or sanitize between uses, sanitize greenhouse after each season)
  • Inspect transplants and destroy any with symptoms of bacterial disease
  • Do not work in tomatoes (e.g., tie, prune) when leaves are wet
  • Either sanitize tomato stakes between growing seasons, or use new stakes each year (preferred)
  • If you have an outbreak, till in plant debris quickly.
Green tomato fruit held in a white person’s hand with four black and brown spots, each surrounded by a white halo
Bacterial canker lesions on tomato fruit

If you are doing all of these things and still need some extra protection from bacterial diseases (e.g., in a wet growing season), pesticides might also be in your IPM toolbox.

In New York, we’re fortunate that so far few bacterial isolates have been found to be resistant to copper. Copper resistance is a major problem in the southern U.S. and we’d certainly like to preserve its efficacy here in NY. Some people are also understandably concerned about the environmental impacts of using a lot of copper on their farms.

Cornell vegetable research programs led by Chris Smart and Meg McGrath have been testing products against our three bacterial diseases – spot (Xanthomonas), speck (Pseudomonas) and canker (Clavibacter) for a number of years. So far, two products – Double Nickel LC (1 qt/A recommended) and LifeGard (4.5 oz/100 gal water) – have been rising to the top. When comparing these products alone to alternating either with copper, both worked better as replacements for some copper sprays than alone. Some research trials only included the biopesticide by itself, but the Double Nickel label states that it should be applied only tank mixed or rotated with copper-based fungicides.

Double Nickel alone (one year of data in Geneva) was as good as copper against bacterial spot. Double Nickel alone (two years of data in Geneva) and LifeGard alternated with copper (one year on Long Island) were as good as copper against bacterial speck. While neither product is registered (legal) for use against tomato canker, in research trials in Geneva, Double Nickel (one year) and LifeGard (two years) alternated with copper controlled canker as well as copper alone. So if you are replacing some copper sprays with either Double Nickel or LifeGard, you’ll likely notice some incidental bacterial canker protection, too.

New to using biopesticides? The New York State IPM Program has a new resource to help. Biopesticide profiles (scroll to bottom of page) for Double Nickel, LifeGard, and seven other products provide information on tank mix compatibility, shelf life, and other practical tips.

Screen shot of a website section entitled Biopesticide Profiles. PDFs of these profiles are available for Actinovate, Contans WG, Double Nickel, LifeGard, Regalia, Serifel, Stargus, Theia, and Timorex ACT
Follow the link in the text and scroll to the bottom of the page to find these biopesticide profiles from the NYSIPM program.

Changes in pesticide registrations occur constantly and human errors are possible. Read the label before applying any pesticide. The label is the law. No endorsement of companies is made or implied.

 

This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program, and Chris Smart, Professor in the School of Integrative Plant Science, Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Section at Cornell University. Support for this project was provided by the NY Farm Viability Institute.

Logo for the NY Farm Viability Institute

New from NYSIPM: Biopesticide Profiles

Screen shot of a website section entitled Biopesticide Profiles. PDFs of these profiles are available for Actinovate, Contans WG, Double Nickel, LifeGard, Regalia, Serifel, Stargus, Theia, and Timorex ACT
Follow the link in the text and scroll to the bottom of the page to find these biopesticide profiles from the NYSIPM program.

I’m excited to announce that the New York State IPM Program has a new resource – Biopesticide Profiles!

(Scroll down to the bottom of the page linked above, past the efficacy summaries, which are also cool.)

So far, we have profiles for nine biopesticides registered for use on various crops in NY (including one for use in home gardens) against plant diseases. I plan to add more profiles over time, and will definitely add some bioinsecticides in the future.

These profiles are not meant to replace pesticide labels; always read and follow the label and only use pesticides that are currently registered in your state or province. These profiles have practical details about how to use biopesticides most effectively, including information on mode of action, compatibility with other pesticides, best storage conditions, and shelf life. I’ve also included information on any known toxicity concerns for not just bees, but other beneficial insects like natural enemies of pests.

Screen shot of the NYSIPM Biopesticide Profile for Actinovate which contains the active ingredient Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108 (alive). Other information includes the available formulations, types of pests targeted, the fungicide resistance action committee number, the mode of action, and the best environmental conditions under which to use it.
Just some of the practical information you can find on the NYSIPM biopesticide profiles.

I collected this information from pesticide labels, pesticide manufacturers, EPA registration documents, and peer-reviewed literature, to save you time when you’re considering using a biopesticide. But you should still always read the label.

Take a look and let me know what you think! Which biopesticides should be next on my list?

 

This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program. Support for this project was provided by the NY Farm Viability Institute.

Logo for the NY Farm Viability Institute

Biopesticide modes of action

Diagram showing an unhappy-looking caterpillar that has stopped eating a leaf. Blue diamond shapes and pale blue rectangles with smiling faces are also on the leaf.
Biopesticides include microorganisms, plant extracts, and other naturally-derived compounds that control pests.

Biopesticides are one aspect of biological control. The active ingredients in biopesticides include microorganisms (microbes), plant extracts, and naturally-occurring chemicals (like potassium bicarbonate). As a result, some of the ways they control pests (their modes of action or MOAs) are different from conventional, synthetic chemical pesticides. Also, many of them have several MOAs, and not all MOAs apply to all pests listed on the label. If a biopesticide contains live microbes, and especially if its MOA requires the microbes to stay alive on the plant for some period of time after application, this also has important implications for how the product is stored and applied. Understanding the mode of action of a product will help you get the most out of it.

I like to break down biopesticide MOAs into the following categories:

Diagrams - Tiny spores of insect-killing fungi land on the body of an insect, germinate, infect the insect, grow throughout its body, and eventually kill it. Below, a diagram shows blue spores contacting a yellow rectangle with a frightened face, representing a pathogen. The spores grow and kill the pathogen.
Eat – Some biopesticides contain living spores of a fungus (blue). These spores need to land on the insect pest or plant pathogen (yellow rectangle). Then they germinate (like a seed), invade and grow, eventually killing the pest. If the humidity is high enough, the fungus may even produce more spores and spread to other pests.

Eat live microbe grows on/in pest

Biopesticides with this MOA can work against insect pests (e.g., products that contain Beauveria bassiana) or plant diseases (e.g. Contans, which contains Paraconionthyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08). Many biopesticides with this MOA contain fungal spores. These spores will germinate once they land on the insect or disease-causing pathogen, and may have temperature and/or humidity requirements for germination. Make sure you store the product correctly, confirm compatibility with other products before tank mixing or applying, and apply under recommended environmental conditions.

 

Diagram - A caterpillar eats and is sprayed with a bioinsecticide (blue diamonds), and then dies. Plant pathogens (yellow rectangles) are poisoned by biopesticide microbes (blue rectangles) and the antimicrobial compounds they produce (blue droplets).
Poison – Some biopesticides (blue diamonds or blue smiling rectangles with droplets) work much like conventional chemical pesticides. They directly kill or otherwise inhibit the insect pests (like this caterpillar) or plant pathogens (yellow rectangles with frightened faces) when they contact it or are eaten by it.

Poison – biopesticide (or its products) kills the pest directly

Biopesticides with this MOA can work against insect pests (like products containing Bacillus thuringiensis) or plant diseases (e.g., Double Nickel containing Bacillus amyloliquefacies strain D747, or products containing potassium bicarbonate). Obviously, potassium bicarbonate products do not contain live microbes. Some biopesticides that poison pests do have live microbes that continue to produce antimicrobial products after they are applied. Others work because of the compounds the microbes produced while the biopesticide was being made.

 

Green leaves covered with smiling blue rectangles. Yellow rectangles with angry faces are next to the leaves.
Keep out – Some biopesticides contain microbes (blue smiling rectangles) that grow on the plant. These beneficial microbes use up space and nutrients so there is no room for the pathogen (angry yellow rectangles.

Keep out – live microbe grows on plant, leaving no room for pests

Biopesticides with this MOA can work against plant disease (e.g., Actinovate which contains Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108, or Serifel, which contains Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI 600) and may be bacteria or fungi. The microbes in biopesticides with this MOA must be alive when applied and need to be able to grow on the part of the plant that is being protected.

 

Diagram of a plant with blue smiling rectangles on both leaves and roots. Little yellow lightning bolts surround the roots and leaves.
Turn on resistance – Some biopesticides contain microbes (blue smiling rectangles) or other natural compounds that activate the plants defense system, so that it’s ready when it encounters a pathogen.

Turn on resistance – turns on the plant’s defenses before pest attacks

As far as I know, these biopesticides only work against plant diseases, but as new products are developed, or as we learn more about existing biopesticides, this may change. Some examples include Regalia (giant knotweed extract) and Lifeguard WG (Bacillus mycoides isolate J). Some of these products contain live microbes that need to stay alive (like LifeGard), while others do not. These biopesticides need to be applied before infection.

 

Diagram - The plant on the left has no smiling blue rectangles on leaves or roots. The plant on the right has these blue rectangles on roots and leaves and is larger.
Grow strong plants – Some biopesticides contain microbes (blue smiling rectangles) or other natural compounds that enable the plant to grow stronger and healthier. As a result, the plant can better withstand attack from a pest.

Grow strong plants – makes plant stronger, healthier, more resilient

These biopesticides primarily work against plant diseases. Some examples include: Serenade (Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713), RootShield (Trichoderma harzianum), and Sil-Matrix (potassium silicate). Some of these products contain live microbes that need to stay alive, while others do not (e.g., Sil-Matrix). These biopesticides need to be applied before infection.

 

Diagram - One leaf is covered with blue diamonds and smiling rectangles (bioinsecticide), but the other is not. The caterpillar is feeding on the leaf that has no bioinsecticide.
Repel – Some bioinsecticides (blue diamonds and blue rectangles with smiling faces) protect plants because they repel insect and mite pests.

Repel – pest avoids plants treated with biopesticide

Biopesticides with this MOA can work against insect pests, but perhaps only on certain insect life stages. Some products with this MOA could contain live microbes, while others do not. You can evaluate the effectiveness of products with this MOA, not by scouting for dead insects, but by looking for reduced damage or lower insect populations on treated plants. Examples include: Grandevo WDG (Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAA4-1 and its spent fermentation products) and products containing azadirachtin.

 

Diagram - A caterpillar eats or comes in contact with a bioinsecticide, and then stops feeding.
Stop feeding – Some bioinsecticides (diamonds and rectangles on the leaf) cause insect and mite pests to lose their appetites.

Stop feeding – stops pest from feeding; pest eventually starves

Biopesticides with this MOA can work against insect pests either by contact or ingestion and may only be effective against insects of certain ages or life stages. It depends on the biopesticide and pest. Examples include insect-killing viruses and some types of Bacillus thuringiensis products. Some products with this MOA could contain live microbes, while others do not. Live pests will still be present for some time after applying a product that works in this way, since the pests die of starvation. Watch for feeding damage to stop or a reduction in insect numbers over time to know if the product is working.

 

Diagram – Three aphids on a leaf, two of which are exposed to blue diamonds. The aphids exposed to the diamonds stay the same size. Another aphid that was not exposed grows normally.
Stop growth – 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.

Stop growth – stops pest from growing or molting; pest eventually dies

Biopesticides with this MOA may work against insect pests either by contact or ingestion and may only be effective against pests of certain ages or life stage. It depends on the biopesticide and pest. Examples include Venerate (Burkholderia spp. strain A396) and some products containing azadirachtin. Some products with this MOA could contain live microbes, while others do not. Products with this MOA will not kill pests immediately, but will prevent them from growing or molting. Watch for insect populations to decline over time, but do not expect pests to die immediately.

 

Diagram - Two yellow moths surrounded by blue diamonds. A red heart has a line through it.
Stop reproduction – 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 females don’t lay eggs.

Stop reproduction – hampers pests’ ability to find a mate or produce eggs

The two main groups of biopesticides I know of with this MOA are (1) pheromones that make it hard for male and female insects to find each other, or (2) products that reduce the number of eggs female insects lay. Grandevo (Chromobacterium subtsugae strain PRAA4-1 and spent fermentation products) is an example of the later, but may not work in this way against all ages and species of pests listed on the label. The products I know of with this MOA do not contain live microbes. This mode of action will reduce insect populations in subsequent generations, not the current one. So use it on a pest with multiple generations per season, or in combination with other MOAs.

 

Things to keep in mind:

If the biopesticide contains live microbes, make sure you…

  • store the biopesticide correctly (and for the correct amount of time); check the label.
  • confirm compatibility of the biopesticide with other products before tank mixing or applying; read the label and contact the manufacturer with questions.

In addition, if the biopesticide contains microbes that need to stay alive for some period of time after application in order to be effective, make sure you also…

  • pay special attention to the recommended optimal environmental conditions for application; start by reading the label.

Remember!

  • Biopesticides are pesticides. Their labels are the law. Read the labels and follow them, along with other pesticide application laws in your state.
  • Not all biopesticides are permitted for use in certified organic production. Check with your certifier if you have questions.

 

Questions to ask when you are considering/purchasing a biopesticide

The manufacturer or dealer should be able to tell you:

  • How does it work (MOA)?
  • Is it alive? Does it need to stay alive to work?
  • Special instructions for storage or use? (e.g., temperature, spray tank pH, time of day)
  • Is it compatible (in the tank, greenhouse, or field) with other products in use (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers)?

 

Additional biopesticide Resources

 

This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program.

Some great biocontrol events coming up!

Next week is full of great biocontrol events! If you are in the Geneva, NY area, don’t miss out!

Thursday August 11 5:30-7:30 PM

wildflowers growing in a field in the foreground, people standing and talking in the background
Participants enjoying last year’s Habitat for Beneficial Insects Open House.

We are in our 5th year of establishing perennial wildflowers and grasses to support pollinators and natural enemies of pests. Perhaps you’ve been following our progress (although admittedly I owe you all an update post or two). Or maybe you keep up with pictures on my Instagram. Now you can see these plots for yourself at our Habitat for Beneficial Insects Open House!

Come visit us any time between 5:30 and 7:30 PM. This outdoor event is free and no registration is required. Just put this address into your GPS:

1097 County Rd. 4
Geneva, NY 14456

Then look for these signs:

New York State IPM logo next to diagrams of a pink echinacea flower and a green Christmas tree

Funds for this project were provided by NYS Dept of Ag and Markets, the Towards Sustainability Foundation, and the USDA National Institute of Food and Ag.

 

Friday August 12, 5-7:30 PM

Researcher points to labeled rows of Christmas trees growing in a field, while meeting attendees watch
Bryan Brown talking about integrated weed management at last year’s event.

As part of a larger Christmas tree IPM project, we’re looking at using biopesticides applied to Christmas tree roots at planting to protect the young trees from root diseases (especially Phytophthora). We’re having a Field Day so that you can see both acres of Christmas trees we’ve planted and learn about early results from the project.

Please do register for this event using the “Field Day” link above!

Like the Habitat for Beneficial Insect Open House, put this address into your GPS:

1097 County Rd. 4
Geneva, NY 14456

Then look for these signs:

New York State IPM logo next to diagrams of a pink echinacea flower and a green Christmas tree

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.

 

Saturday August 13, 10 AM – 3 PM

raised bed with wildflowers growing in it
This year we planted two new raised beds with perennials that support beneficial insects.

NYS IPM will be at Cornell AgriTech’s 140th Anniversary Open House talking about how to “feed your insect friends”…by creating excellent habitat for them, of course! This spring we planted two raised beds with a mixture of perennials selected to provide pollen and nectar from spring through fall. Come see how these new plantings are growing, learn more about beneficial insects and how to create your own habitat, and pick up some (temporary) tattoos of pest natural enemies! Then visit the rest of the educational displays at Cornell AgriTech.

Funding for our displays at this event is being provided by Cornell AgriTech and NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation.

Which biopesticides work? Updated resources

A caterpillar eats or comes in contact with a bioinsecticide that causes the caterpillar to stop feeding.
Some bioinsecticides 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.

Biological pesticides (biopesticides) are pesticides with active ingredients that are considered natural. According to the EPA they “include naturally occurring substances…microorganisms that control pests…and pesticidal substances produced by plants containing added genetic material.” This last category is more often recognized as certain (but not all) genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The “naturally occurring substances” (plant extracts, some natural chemicals) and microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses) are the focus of today’s post. There’s a deeper dive into how biopesticides work in another blog post.

Biopesticides can be an important tool for integrated pest management because some of them may pose less risk to people or the environment than some conventional chemical pesticides. (But always read and follow the label on biopesticides to ensure you are minimizing risks!)

If you are considering using a biopesticide as part of your IPM program, you will of course want to know whether or not it is effective against a particular pest on a particular crop. A few years ago I wrote a post about efficacy of biocontrol. With some great help, I’ve been collecting summaries of efficacy trials on biopesticides conducted by universities. These summaries are available as downloadable Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for the following crops:

  • Berries
  • Field crops
  • Grapes
  • Greenhouse, nursery, and ornamental crops
  • Hemp
  • Hops
  • Tree fruit

The Cornell Vegetables website has some excellent information about biopesticides for vegetable diseases.

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).

Once you download a spreadsheet, take a look at the ‘Notes’ sheet for some important background information, then look at the data on either the ‘Diseases’ or the ‘Arthropods’ (insects and mites) sheet. You can sort the data on either sheet by crop, pest name, name of the product, active ingredient, or other column headings. I’ve included both a simple rating of efficacy (-, +/-, +, ++), and a numerical summary that shows how much each product improved control compared to doing nothing to control the pest.

The spreadsheets do indicate whether each product was registered in New York State at the time the sheet was last reviewed. Remember that you must confirm that the product you want to use is currently registered in New York, and that the label includes your setting, crop, and pest. You can check for current registration and download NYS pesticide labels from NYSPAD.

If you are not able to open an Excel spreadsheet, please let me know and I’m happy to get you the info in a format that works for you.

 

This work is supported by NYS Departments of Environmental Conservation and Agriculture and Markets, as well as the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Crop Protection and Pest Management Extension Implementation Program, award number 2021-70006-35672.

This post was written by Amara Dunn, Biocontrol Specialist with the NYSIPM program.

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.

Come to our Christmas Tree IPM Field Day!

rows of small Christmas trees growing in a field; trees are surrounded by completely or mostly bare ground, weeds, or mulch
The different weed management treatments are most noticeable, but we’re also comparing at-planting treatments to prevent root disease and improve seedling survival.

You may recall that we started a new project on Christmas tree IPM this year. Now you can come hear more about how the project is going, and see the in-progress treatments in person!

When

The event will be held outdoors on August 19, 2021 from 5:00 to 7:30 PM in Geneva, NY. Please register by August 18th so we have enough food for everyone.

Where

To get to our field, put this address into your GPS:
1097 County Rd. 4
Geneva, NY 14456

Then look for these signs to find our field and park:

New York State IPM logo next to diagrams of a pink echinacea flower and a green Christmas tree

Cost

In order to help improve access to this event, we are inviting attendees to pay what they can. $25 will cover the cost of the meeting, but if this poses a barrier to your attendance, we are suggesting a reduced rate of $15. If you wish to support someone else who might need help attending, you can choose to pay $35. Any questions or concerns, please reach out to me.

Here is the link to pay by credit card.

Here is the link to pay by check or Cornell account # .

Schedule and topics

5:00     Check in

5:30     Introductions and intro to the projects

5:45     Alternative weed management systems for Christmas trees – Dr. Bryan Brown (20 minutes)

6:15     Herbicides for weed management in Christmas trees – Dr. Lynn Sosnoskie (20 minutes)

6:45     Biopesticides for Christmas tree root diseases  – Dr. Amara Dunn (20 minutes)

7:05     Visit the Christmas tree fields and the beneficial habitat project

7:30     Safe travels home

COVID precautions

In order to offer an experience that is accessible and as safe as possible for all attendees, we are requesting that everyone wear a mask unless you maintain at least 6 feet of distance between yourself and people you do not live with, regardless of your vaccination status. There will be plenty of space at the field to spread out (both for eating and drinking, and for participating in the programming). Speakers will be using microphones so that you will still be able to hear even if you are standing further from the speaker than usual. We will have masks available if you do not have one. (But if you have a favorite Christmas tree mask, we definitely want to see it!) These recommendations follow Cornell’s current guidance and if that guidance changes, we will let you know.

More details

  • 1.5 DEC pesticide recertification credits available for categories 1a, 3a, 25 and 10
  • A light supper will be provided.
  • Funds for this project were provided by the Toward Sustainability Fund, NYS Dept of Ag and Markets, and the National Institute of Food and Ag

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.

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.

How do biofungicides fit in vegetable disease management? An update after Year 2

Healthy squash plants, just starting to flower in the foreground, with a field and barn in the background.
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:

  1. 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?
  2. Can you get better control of white mold in green beans by Contans prior to planting, and Double Nickel at bloom?
  3. What are the costs (versus benefits) of using these biofungicides in these ways?
  4. 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.

Bar graph showing the amount of disease observed in each treatment in the Long Island trial. Alternating LifeGard, Regalia, or Serifel with conventional fungicides resulted in disease levels similar to skipping every other conventional fungicide. But skipping every other conventional fungicide did not result in statistically worse disease than the full fungicide program. The costs per acre of the conventional, conventional + skip, organic, conventional alternated with LifeGard, conventional alternated with Regalia, and conventional alternated with Serifel treatments were $204, $114, $274, $207, $268, and $348, respectively.
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.

Bar graph showing the average weight of marketable fruit harvested from each treatment in the Long Island trial. The heights of the bars are fairly similar, but the bars representing the conventional, conventional/LifeGard, and conventional/Regalia treatments are the tallest. The value per acre of the marketable fruit harvested from the conventional, conventional + skip, organic, conventional/LifeGard, conventional/Regalia, and Conventional/Serifel treatments is $37,837, $46,335, $42,550, $38,561, $48,022, $45,661, and $43,862, respectively.
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.