Tag Archives: biopesticide

agriculture, IPM, vegetables

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.

agriculture, IPM

Battling Fire Blight with Biologicals

This post was written by Anna Wallis, Kerik Cox, and Mei-Wah Choi (all from Cornell’s School of Integrative Plant Science, section of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology). Thanks for sharing your research with us!

Since this is a slightly longer post, here’s a little table of contents:

Biological Modes of Action

What products are currently available and where do they fit in?

Results from the Cox lab

The verdict on biologicals for fire blight management

Streptomycin is a clear asset in the fire blight arsenal—it is inexpensive, effective, and reliable. However, antibiotics may not always be a viable option. More and more, biological materials are holding their own in the fight, with an increasing number of products on the market claiming protection for both blossom and shoot blight. Biological materials are still relatively new to the apple scene, an industry with a long track record of effective disease management. So why change to biologicals, and how do they work?

There are a multitude of reasons driving the growth of antibiotic alternatives. Organic production eliminated antibiotic use in 2014 in the United States. In European markets, they are prohibited or severely limited. Pressure from regulatory organizations and markets to use more sustainable management techniques will not be slowing any time soon. The prevailing evidence supports that responsible streptomycin applications do not seem to select for resistance in the pathogen. Yet, resistance continues to appear in commercial settings.

So, what are these biological materials and how do they work? In the ‘What is Biocontrol?’ tab above, Amara provides an excellent overview of biocontrol, as defined by the EPA and industry. Here I’ll review the biological modes of action and specific materials available in the context of fire blight management. I’ll also provide a snapshot of how biological programs have performed in our research orchards. There is no intention to endorse any specific trade products, rather this is an attempt to provide a neutral perspective and overview of the current market.

Biological Modes of Action

Biological materials available for fire blight management are typically biopesticides falling into the biochemical or microbial category. This means they are derived from natural sources (i.e. plant extracts or minerals) or they are composed of microcorganisms and/or their products.

To understand how biologicals can be used in fire blight management, it’s first important to review the important features of the disease. A thorough description of the disease cycle, symptoms, and causal organism can be found on this Cornell Fact Sheet. Fire blight is caused by Erwinia amylovora, a bacterial pathogen which preferentially colonizes the floral surface, specifically the stigma or the sticky part of the tip of the female organ. First, enough heat must be accumulated for colonization to occur, which can be predicted by disease forecasting models such as MaryBlyt (if you’re familiar with the disease and pest prediction tool NEWA, this is the model used in the fire blight prediction model there). Then there must be a wetting event to wash the bacteria into the natural openings in the flower, the nectary at the base of the floral cup. Unlike fungi, bacteria cannot penetrate plant cells directly, so they rely on natural openings and tissue damage to invade their host.

Pictures (counterclockwise, from top left) of a yellow glob of bacteria oozing out of a dark, necrotic canker on an apple stem; a dead cluster of apple blossoms; a dead apple shoot curved like a shepherd’s crook; the base of an apple tree trunk with a dark canker.
Figure 1. Simplified disease cycle for Erwinia amylovora, causal agent of fire blight. Clockwise from top left: primary inoculum is produced in the spring as bacterial ooze from old cankers; inoculum is transferred to open flowers and causes blossom blight; blighted blossoms provide additional inoculum which is transferred to young leaf tissue damaged by wind or hail causing shoot blight; bacteria may also travel systemically via the vascular system of the plant leading to canker blight; cankers produced from blossom, shoot, or canker blight provide an overwintering site for bacteria to colonize the tree in the following season.

Biologicals can disrupt these events by:

  1. Outcompeting the bacteria during colonization of the plant
  2. Producing antibiotic metabolites, killing the pathogen prior to infection, or
  3. Priming natural host defenses, making the plant more resistant to the bacteria. This is called ‘Induced Resistance’

A simplified view of these events is depicted in Figure 2.

Two identical pictures of a cluster of open apple blossoms. Left photo with a red circle around the yellow floral parts (stigmas) and a blue curved arrow from this circle to the base of the flower (nectary), representing the colonization of the stigma by E. amylovora and a wetting event washing the bacteria into the plant. Right photo with the red circle and blue arrow, plus a yellow ‘X’ over the red circle, indicating protectant activity at the stigmatic surface, and a brown ‘T’ with the top facing the stigma, indicating the induction of plant defenses.
Figure 2. Depiction of fire blight blossom infection and how biological materials interfere. (A) In order for a blossom infection to occur, flowers must be open and receptive, heat accumulation must be sufficient for E. amylovora to colonize the stigma (red circle), and there must be a wetting event (blue arrow) to wash the bacteria into the floral nectary. (B) Biological materials protect against infections by outcompeting the pathogen or producing antibiotic metabolites (yellow ‘x’) or priming host defenses (red letter “T”).

Like any product, these materials require precise applications, to ensure they are in the right place at the right time to provide effective control (Figure 3). Materials with competitive action or antimicrobial metabolites that ‘protect’ the flower (protectants) must be applied when the bacteria is present or just before. This enables sufficient, timely colonization or interaction with the pathogen. Induced resistance materials (defense inducers), also called Systemic Acquired Resistance or Induced Systemic Resistance materials (SARs or ISRs), must be applied prior to infection events, with enough time to activate the host response. (Click the image below to enlarge it.)

Seven pictures of apple buds in a row, depicting growth stages in chronological order: 1. dormant (closed, brown buds), 2. green tip (green leaves just starting to emerge), 3. half inch green (about ½” of green showing), 4. tight cluster (cluster of green floral buds in center of emerged leaves), 5. pink (floral buds showing pink color), 6. bloom (open blossoms), and 7. petal fall (cluster of very small fruitlets). At several stages, words are printed above indicating actions to be taken for fire blight management. At dormant “Prune out cankers”, at green tip “Copper”, at pink “Pre-bloom defense inducers”, at bloom “Protectants”, at petal fall “Post-bloom defense inducers.”
Figure 3. Approximate timing of biological materials corresponding to phenological stages of apple for blossom and shoot blight protection. In any fire blight management program, it is essential to remove inoculum (old cankers) during the dormant period and apply a general antimicrobial at green tip to reduce inoculum. Blossom blight control is provided by defense inducers applied prior to bloom and protectants applied at bloom. Additional applications of defense inducers post-bloom provide shoot blight control; some of the earlier applications targeting blossom blight seem to also have some carry-over effect for shoot blight.

What products are currently available and where do they fit in?


Blossom protectant type products include both bacteria and fungi. The most well-known examples include: Pantoea agglomerans, a bacterium closely related to the fire blight bacterium and an excellent colonizer of apple flowers, marketed as Bloomtime Biological (Northwest Agricultural Products), and the yeast Aureobasidium pullulans, a fungus, marketed as Blossom Protect (Westbridge Agricultural Products). Another bacterium, Pseudomonas fluorescens, is also an effective competitor and is marketed as BlightBan (NuFarm).

Materials with antimicrobial activity are most often Bacillus species, most commonly strains of B. amyloliquefaciens and B. subtillus. Currently on the market are Serenade Optimum (Bayer), Double Nickel (Certis), and Serifel (BASF).

Products that stimulate Induced Resistance response in the host plant work by stimulating two possible pathways the ISR and SAR, as mentioned earlier. These pathways are related and overlapping in the plant, and scientists are still detangling the complex molecular mechanisms involved in plant protection. Example products include Regalia, an extract of the plant Reynoutria sachaliensis or giant knotweed (Marrone Bio Innovations) and a Bacillus mycoides strain marketed as LifeGard (Certis). Another common product used in induced defense is acibenzolar-S-methyl. This is not a biological, but a synthetically derived product marketed as Actigard (Syngenta).

Many of these products have been recommended as part of an integrative management strategy outlined in an extensive report from The Organic Center, based on results from both research trials and anecdotal experience (Ostenson and Granatstein 2013). Always follow the label on any pesticide (including biopesticides) you use.

Table 1. Biological products for Fire Blight

Product Active Ingredient Mode of Action
Firewall Streptomycin antibiotic – kills pathogen
Blossom Protect Aureobasidium pullulans strains DSM14940 & 14941 competitive with pathogen
Bloomtime Biological Pantoea agglomerans strain E325 competitive with pathogen
BlightBan Pseudomonas fluorescens strain A506 competitive with pathogen
Serenade Optimum Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST713 antibiotic metabolites
Double Nickel Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747 antibiotic metabolites
Serifel Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600 antibiotic metabolites
Regalia extract of Reynoutria (giant knotweed) resistance inducer
LifeGard Bacillus mycoides isolate J resistance inducer

Results from the Cox lab


Our lab conducts extensive trials evaluating efficacy and sustainability of disease management programs in our research orchards at Cornell AgriTech in Geneva. More recently testing has included various biological materials. In these trials, management programs are tested in two orchard blocks: a Gala block and an Ida Red block, established in 2002 and 2004 respectively, both on B.9 rootstock. The trees in these blocks are spaced considerably farther apart than commercial orchards in order to prevent drift between treatments.

Programs targeted either blossom or shoot blight. To provide sufficient disease pressure, trees are inoculated with a high concentration of E. amylovora at bloom. In blossom blight programs, resistance inducers are applied at pink, and protectants are applied at bloom. For shoot blight programs, resistance inducers are applied at petal fall.

Disease pressure varied from season to season, as indicated by the untreated control trees, ranging from 60 to 99 % disease incidence. Across all trials, antibiotics provided the most consistent and reliable control of both blossom and shoot blight, with less than 15% blossom and 5% shoot blight. The biological materials, both protectants applied at bloom and defense inducers applied pre-infection, also provided good disease protection with typically less than 30% incidence depending on the season conditions and the product. Compared to antibiotic programs, these materials showed greater variation both within and between seasons (i.e. greater standard deviation within a treatment and different top performers in different seasons). In seasons with lower disease pressure, biological programs tended to perform as well as antibiotics. Some of the specific results from 2015-17 are shown in Figure 4 (click the image to enlarge the graphs).

Disease was most severe in the untreated control, ranging from 60% to more than 90% of blossoms blighted and 30% to more than 50% of shoots blighted. Pressure was high in 2015 and 2017, lower in 2016. The antibiotic streptomycin always had <20% and often 0% incidence. Defense inducers outperformed protectants in 2015. In 2016 and 2017 defense inducers and protectants performed similarly, and overall disease incidence was lower.
Figure 4. Average disease incidence of four replicate trees treated with fire blight management programs in 2015 (A & D), 2016 (B & E), and 2017 (C & F). Programs included untreated control (grey bar; highest disease pressure), antibiotics (maroon), resistance inducers (blue), and blossom protectants (yellow).

The verdict on biologicals for fire blight management


Do we recommend biological materials for fire blight management? Overall, the answer is generally yes. There are several important considerations to consider. In our research orchards, the system is challenged with a very high level of inoculum to examine fine differences in product performance. These inoculum levels are much higher than would be present in most commercial orchards. Hence, we expect all programs would perform even better in a commercial setting. In addition, combinations of products seem to be the best: for example, pairing a defense inducer applied at bloom with a protectant material at bloom to control blossom blight, with follow up defense inducer applications for shoot blight. We also expect efficacy of biological materials to improve in the future. Changes in formulations improving activity (note the old and new Regalia formulations in Figure 3), as well as shelf life, tank mixing, and storage happen fairly regularly and will make products more accessible and affordable for growers.

Biologicals are still relatively new materials. As with any product, there is still much to learn about how products work in the field, the most effective management programs, and translating best practices from research to commercial settings. We believe they are a valuable part of an integrated fire blight management approach, including good cultural and mechanical practices such as planting resistant cultivars and rootstocks and removing inoculum from the orchard.

 

You can learn more from these sources:

Ostenson, H., and Granatstein, D. Grower Lessons and Emerging Research for Developing an Integrated Non-Antibiotic Fire Blight Control Program in Organic Fruit. The Organic Center. November 2013. Available at: https://www.organic-center.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TOC_Report_Blight_2b.pdf

Pal, K., and Gardener, B. 2011. Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. The Plant Health Instructor, APS. Available at: https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/advanced/topics/Pages/BiologicalControl.aspx.

Turechek, W. W., and Biggs, A. R. 2015. Maryblyt v. 7.1 for Windows: An Improved Fire Blight Forecasting Program for Apples and Pears. Plant Health Progress. 16:16–22. Available at: https://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/volume16/number1/PHP-RS-14-0046.pdf

agriculture, IPM, vegetables

And the results are in…from Year 1. What do biofungicides add to vegetable disease management Part 3

Cucurbit powdery mildew on a winter squash leaf.
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.

A healthy field of snap bean plants.
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.

The conventional powdery mildew spray program alone, or when combined with LifeGard, Regalia, or Serifel significantly reduced disease compared to no treatment for cucurbit powdery mildew. Adding any of the biofungicides to the conventional spray program did not improve control compared to using only the conventional sprays. The organic (OMRI-listed products) treatment was not significantly different from either no sprays at all, or the conventional spray program.
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.

On the last two rating dates of the season (August 31 and September 17), NDVI values were significantly higher in the conventional powdery mildew spray program treatment and all three of the conventional + biofungicide treatments, compared to the plots that were not treated for powdery mildew. Adding the biofungicides did not significantly improve NDVI, compared to using only conventional products.
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 measure statistically significant differences in marketable yield among any of the treatments at any of the sites. Data for eastern NY are shown in this graph.
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.

In the Long Island trial, there was very little disease on August 16 or 24. On August 31, disease had increased in the non-treated control, but the organic treatment was still suppressing disease well. Control in the organic treatment had declined by September 17, but this was 10 days after the last spray was applied.
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 underside of a squash leaf covered with aphids; an acorn squash fruit covered with shiny honeydew from aphids; a close-up picture of an adult aphid and some young aphids.
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.

If you want to see more of the data we collected from the cucurbit powdery mildew trial, you can find it in the Proceedings from the 2019 Empire State Producers Expo.

What does this all mean?

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.

agriculture, home gardens, IPM, ornamentals, vegetables

How do they work? Bioinsecticide edition

When an insect is treated with the right bioinsecticide, the insect stops damaging plants, and eventually dies.
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:

  1. Kill on contact
  2. Kill after ingestion
  3. Repel
  4. Inhibit feeding
  5. Inhibit growth
  6. 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

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.
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.

An insect covered in the white powdery fungus that has started growing out of its body following infection.
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.

A caterpillar eats a bioinsecticides that kills by ingestion. Later, the caterpillar dies.
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.

One leaf has been treated with a bioinsecticides that repels pests, but one leaf has not. The caterpillars are feeding on the leaf that was not treated.
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.

A caterpillar eats or comes in contact with a bioinsecticide that causes the caterpillar to stop feeding.
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 aphids were treated with a bioinsecticides that inhibits growth. They stay the same size. Another aphid that was not treated grows and molts normally.
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.

Male and female moths are unable to find each other and mate because of the presence of pheromones nearby.
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.

agriculture, IPM, vegetables

How do they work? How do I use them? What do biofungicides add to vegetable disease management Part 2

rows of healthy winter squash plants with flags
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.

table summarizing modes of action for Contans, Double Nickel, LifeGard, Regalia, and Serifel
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.

smiling blue bacteria on a leaf; angry yellow bacteria have no place to land
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.

summary of FRAC codes, where and when to apply, temperature tolerance in the field, rainfastness, UV tolerance, tank mix compatibility, storage and shelf life for 5 biopesticides
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.

cucurbit powdery mildew biofungicide trial summary

white mold biofungicide trial summary

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.

agriculture, Announcements, IPM, ornamentals, pollinators, vegetables

A new resource to help you protect pollinators

honey bee is perched on top of a young developing squash with the flower still attached
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.

Image of the cover of the resouces entitled: Pesticide decision-making guide to protect pollinators in tree fruit orchards
“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.
bumble bee feeding on a purple flower
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!

agriculture, IPM, vegetables

What do biofungicides add to vegetable disease management? Part 1 – Introducing the project

butternut squash plants grown on a black plastic-covered raised bed
This summer we compared three biofungicides added to a conventional cucurbit powdery mildew management program in field trials conducted in western and eastern NY and on Long Island. Photo credit: Caitlin Vore, Cornell Vegetable Program

What we’re doing

This summer I have been working with great colleagues (Elizabeth Buck, Dr. Julie Kikkert, Dr. Margaret McGrath, Jud Reid, and Crystal Stewart) on a project funded by the New York Farm Viability Institute looking at the use of biofungicides (Remember what biofungicides are?) in vegetable disease management. Dr. Darcy Telenko (formerly of the Cornell Vegetable Program) helped plan the project before starting her new position at Purdue University, and Dr. Sarah Pethybridge has provided valuable advice based on her extensive work with white mold (including control with biofungicides). BASF, Bayer, BioWorks, Certis, Dow, and Marrone BioInnovations provided product for the field trials.

The project has two goals:

  1. Quantify what biofungicides add to management of cucurbit powdery mildew and white mold in terms of…
    – disease control
    – yield
    – plant health
    – economic value (comparing yield gains to fungicide costs)
  2. Evaluate the utility of NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) as a measure of plant health and disease detection in fresh vegetables

Why this project?

For both diseases (cucurbit powdery mildew and white mold), we’re considering biofungicides used with other pest management – other biofungicides, conventional chemical fungicides, and/or cultural practices. Biofungicides are not expected to be silver bullets, and they work best when used in an IPM strategy. But when deciding whether or how to use them in your operation, it’s good to know what value you’re getting for the extra costs of purchasing and applying the products. This summer we ran trials in three major vegetable-producing regions of the state: western New York, eastern NY, and on Long Island.

Biofungicides for cucurbit powdery mildew

cucurbit powdery mildew on the upper side of a squash leaf
Cucurbit powdery mildew looks like a dusting of powdered sugar on the cucurbit leaf. These powdery spots start on the underside of the leaf, and then develop on the upper surface of the leaf, so excellent spray coverage is important. Photo credit: Amara Dunn, NYS IPM

For combatting cucurbit powdery mildew, we’re comparing three biofungicides: LifeGard (Bacillus mycoides isolate J), Regalia (extract from the giant knotweed plant Reynoutria sachalinensis), and Serifel (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBI 600). All three were applied weekly starting when the plants were small. Then, when the first signs of powdery mildew showed up, we started a rotation of conventional fungicides (Vivando, Quintec, and Luna Experience). These three treatments plus a rotation of all-organic fungicides (LifeGard, MilStop, Serifel, and a mineral oil) are being compared to two control treatments: the conventional fungicides alone, and plants that received no treatment for powdery mildew. We ran the trials on a variety of bushing acorn squash (‘Honey Bear’) that has intermediate resistance to powdery mildew.

Biofungicides for white mold

bean pod half rotted by white mold fungus
Most vegetable crops are susceptible to white mold, with legumes being among the most vulnerable. The name comes from the dense white “tufts” that the fungus forms. These develop into dark, hard sclerotia that can survive for years in the soil. Photo credit: Amara Dunn, NYS IPM

In the white mold trial, we’re looking at Double Nickel (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747) alone or in combination with Contans (Paraconiothyrium minitans strain CON/M/91-08; formerly Coniothyrium minitans). Next year we’ll look at these biofungicides in combination with reduced tillage at one site. Reduced tillage is another IPM strategy for white mold. The active ingredient in Contans is a fungus that eats the resting structures (sclerotia) of the fungus that causes the disease white mold. Because of this, it needs time to work, and is applied either in fall or spring. The goal is to reduce the number of sclerotia present in the next crop. Next year we’ll collect data on whether application of Contans reduced disease. In the meantime, during the 2018 growing season treatments we tested were Double Nickel, Cueva (an OMRI-approved copper) and no treatment for white mold on snap bean. Previous research by the EVADE Lab at Cornell AgriTech at The New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, New York, has shown that Double Nickel is a promising biofungicide for white mold.

What is NDVI, anyway?

In a nutshell, the “normalized difference vegetation index” (NDVI) is a way to quantify how much healthy, green foliage is present. The device we used emits different types (wavelengths) of light (red and near infrared), and measures how much of each type of light is reflected back from the leaves of the plant. Leaves that are dark green and healthy reflect more infrared light and absorb a lot of red light. Less healthy leaves reflect less infrared light. A NDVI value closer to 1 indicates healthier plants. A NDVI value closer to 0 indicates less healthy plants (or more bare ground).

GreenSeeker device over a dark green (healthy) cucurbit plant and a light green (less healthy) cucurbit plant. Arrows show that red and infrared light are reflected differently from these two plants. NDVI values closer to 1 indicate a lot of healthy green leaves. NDVI values closer to 0 indicate less healthy (or fewer) leaves.
NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) quantifies the amount of dark green foliage based on how much light of different wavelengths is reflected. It is used in some crops to decide when to apply fertilizer, or to help detect below-ground pests. Photo credit: Amara Dunn, NYS IPM

NDVI and similar indices are already used in other crops and in other places to help growers make decisions about when to fertilize, or to help detect parts of a field where a pest may be present. So far in NY, NDVI is not being widely used by fresh market vegetable growers for disease detection. Collecting NDVI data from this project will do two things:

  1. Help us quantify the health of plants. Even though NDVI is not a measure of disease, we would expect to see more healthy foliage if biofungicides are contributing to disease control.
  2. Provide some preliminary data to help us determine whether NDVI measurements could be useful to NY fresh vegetable growers.
people walking through a winter squash field
Growers and industry reps had a chance to visit the 2018 cucurbit powdery mildew field trials shortly before they were harvested. Photo credit: Amara Dunn, NYS IPM

Field meetings were held at each powdery mildew trial location so that local growers could see the trials and hear about the project. We’re currently wrapping up data analysis from the 2018 field season. You’ll be able to learn about results from the first year of this two-year project at winter meetings around NY, in extension newsletters, and here on this blog. Also, stay tuned for Part 2 of this post with details about how these biofungicides work (modes of action), and how to use them most effectively.

This post was written by Amara Dunn (NYS IPM), Sarah Pethybridge (Plant Pathology & Plant-Microbe Biology, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University), and Darcy Telenko (Department of Botany & Plant Pathology, Purdue University).

Community IPM, home gardens, IPM

Managing mosquitoes around your home…there’s a biocontrol for that!

adult mosquito emerging, larvae nearby
An adult mosquito emerges, while other immature mosquitoes (larvae) are still present in this container of standing water. The first step to mosquito management around the home is eliminating standing water wherever possible to prevent mosquito breeding. Photo credit: Matt Frye, NYS IPM

Are mosquitoes bothering you while you enjoy summer in your backyard? An IPM approach is definitely the way to go. Start by checking your yard to see where water might be standing. It could be in toys, flower pots, tarps, wheel barrows, gutters, bottle caps, or so many other places you may not have noticed. Removing standing water from your yard takes away places where mosquitoes breed. Less mosquito breeding, fewer mosquitoes. Always think prevention first when you’re addressing a mosquito problem. Read more about mosquito IPM on the Think IPM Blog and What’s Bugging You?

If there are still some containers you just can’t empty (for example, a lined garden pond), you can find some biopesticides (remember, some biopesticides are biocontrols, too!) in your local garden center to help you with your mosquito IPM. Just make sure you follow all instructions on the label of any product you buy. Read all about mosquito biocontrol on this new fact sheet.

And, if you want to learn so much more about IPM for both mosquitoes and ticks, you still have a little time to register for the 4th Annual NYS IPM Conference on Integrated Management of Ticks and Mosquitoes. But hurry – the conference is August 7th!

 

agriculture, IPM, ornamentals, vegetables

Mix and Match: Compatibility of biocontrol with other pest management strategies

Delphastus eating whitefly
This small black Delphastus is helping to control whiteflies in a greenhouse. It’s important that other pest management strategies in this greenhouse are used in such a way that they do not harm the Delphastus.

If you were going to tank mix chemical pesticides, you would of course read the label to check for compatibility before mixing products. The same concept applies when using living organisms for pest control. Whether you are using parasitoid wasps, predatory mites, microorganisms, or nematodes, you need to know whether your biocontrols are compatible with each other and any other pest management products you plan to use. For example, a biocontrol fungus might be killed if you tank mix it with (or apply it just before) a chemical fungicide. Insecticides (whether or not they are biological) could be harmful to natural enemy insects and mites. Even some beneficial insects are not compatible with each other because they may eat each other instead of (or in addition to) the pest.

It’s a good idea to keep an updated list of the products and organisms you plan to use for pest management, and their compatibility with each other. For biopesticides (remember the difference between “biopesticide” and “biocontrol”?), start by reading the label (see label excerpt below). You must follow all instructions you find there. Many manufacturers also provide lists, tables, databases, or apps to help you find compatibility information (some links at the end of this post). This is especially useful for insect, mite, and nematode natural enemies, which are not pesticides and do not have pesticide labels. When possible, obtain compatibility information from the manufacturer or supplier you will be using. Different strains of the same microorganism or nematode may have different sensitivities to chemicals.

Compatibility information from Preferal label
This excerpt from the label of the bioinsecticide Preferal provides some information on its compatibility with other products. All instructions on a pesticide label must be followed.

Remember that NY pesticide labels (including biopesticide labels) can be found through the NYSPAD system.

Below are some links to resources from several manufacturers and suppliers of biocontrol products. No endorsement of specific companies or products mentioned in this post is intended. If you know of a link to additional information that is missing, please let me know so that I can include it!

Beneficial nematodes from BASF – This chart describes compatibility of beneficial nematodes sold by BASF with natural enemies and pesticides. Note that only the genus name of each “biological” active ingredient is listed, and that over time, the names of some predatory mites (and whether they belong to the genus Amblyseius or Neoseiulus) have changed.

Biobest Side Effect Manual – This side effects manual is available either as an interactive website, or as an app. Choose pest management products by active ingredient or name of the commercial product (including the biocontrol microorganisms Beauveria bassiana and several types of Bacillus thuringiensis). The list of “beneficial organisms” to choose from includes bumble bees and nematodes, but not beneficial microorganisms (fungi, bacteria, and viruses). Select active ingredients/commercial products and beneficial organisms from both lists, then use the legend to interpret the compatibility information that is generated.

Compatibility of BioWorks products – Compatibility sheets are linked from each product page.

Koppert Side Effects Information – This information is available either as an interactive website, or as an app. Select beneficial organisms of interest (by either the Koppert product name or the Latin name). Select one or more “Agents” (pest management products) by either the trade name or the active ingredient. Click on Results, and use the Legend to interpret the output.