Source: CORNELL UNIVERSITY submitted to
BIOCONTROL OF GREENHOUSE APHID PESTS
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
HATCH
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1000084
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Jul 12, 2013
Project End Date
Sep 30, 2016
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
(N/A)
ITHACA,NY 14853
Performing Department
Entomology
Non Technical Summary
The project objective is to provide NY greenhouse growers a cost-effective, easy-to-use, environmentally safe method to control aphid pests via natural enemies such as the aphid predator Aphidoletes aphidimyza (AA). The most common aphid pests, green peach aphid (GPA) and foxglove aphid (FGA), contribute greatly to pesticide use: in a 1996 survey of pesticide application in MA greenhouses, the number of pesticide application for aphids was second only to that of thrips. Aphids are listed among the top 10 greenhouse pests and diseases in the Northeastern U.S. Pest Management Strategic Plan (http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/pmsp/), written from input from producers, extension specialists, state agriculture departments, and researchers. Further, "Development of ... biological control systems for a broader range of insect pests" is ranked first of nine top priority issues for Research Needs out of 75 submitted in the PMSP. And "Guidelines on what, when, how many, and how to apply biological control organisms taking into consideration the variations in greenhouse operations - size, environmental conditions, crops, etc." is ranked eighth of 11 priority issues for Education Needs out of 67 submitted issues. Though several aphid natural enemies are commercially available, only one, AA, will attack all greenhouse aphid species. The others are parasitoid wasps and attack either GPA or FGA, but not both. But preliminary work has suggested that AA may be somewhat less effective against FGA than GPA, thus we are interested in evaluating the combined use of AA and one of the parasitoids. We will evaluate the use of each natural enemy, individually and in combination, beginning with small-scale short-term studies and ending with a commercial-scale test of the best natural enemy(s). If successful, this project could help safeguard the environment and human health by a reduction in pesticide use. Greenhouse businesses using biocontrol are viewed as contributing and positive elements in the community. This project could contribute to the long-term viability and wellbeing of the agricultural/horticultural industries and rural communities in New York State, promote economically and environmentally sound products and practices, produce safer and healthier products, assist producers to improve profitability and sustainability in accordance with their goals, and increase the use of sustainable practices resulting in improved or protected soil, air and water quality and production of high quality and safe horticultural products.
Animal Health Component
100%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
(N/A)
Applied
100%
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
21121291130100%
Knowledge Area
211 - Insects, Mites, and Other Arthropods Affecting Plants;

Subject Of Investigation
2129 - Florist crops, other;

Field Of Science
1130 - Entomology and acarology;
Goals / Objectives
The project goal is to provide greenhouse growers a cost-effective, easy-to-use, environmentally safe method to control aphid pests via natural enemies (NE's) such as the aphid predator Aphidoletes aphidimyza (AA).
Project Methods
Similar procedures will be used for all 3 objectives. Using AA and AE from commercial sources, we will first release the appropriate NE(s) into replicated small greenhouse compartments containing pansy plants infested with the appropriate aphid species, to determine the ability of each NE, or combination, to discover and attack aphids. Aphid levels will be measured over time in compartments into which a given NE(s) has been released, and compared with aphid levels in control compartments. Over time these studies will be done with each NE individually and in combination. AA will be evaluated for both GPA and FGA; AE will be evaluated for FGA; the combination of AA plus AE will be evaluated for both GPA and FGA. Based on promising results for any or all treatments, we will then conduct studies in larger greenhouses to evaluate the NE's efficacy at a larger scale. For each objective, the appropriate species of aphid will be inoculated, using ten females per plant, onto pansy plants in each of four small greenhouse compartments. Each bench will also have uninfested pansy plants to serve as background plants. Two separate compartments will serve as controls. After 3 days of aphid establishment, a single introduction of the appropriate NE will be released into the two treatment compartments, using commercial release rates. Leaves from the canopy bottom, middle, and top of the infested plants will be sampled for aphid levels and the presence of NEs (or parasitized aphids) after 3, 6, and 10 days post-release (parasitized aphids will be mummified and thus apparent by at least 10 days). Each entire experiment will be repeated twice for each Objective. To gain a better evaluation of the longer-term efficacy of each NE treatment, we will use the same general procedures as before, except each study will go on for 3 weeks rather than 10 days. Each NE will be released weekly in two compartments, and only once in two other compartments, with two more compartments serving as controls. Each entire experiment will be repeated twice. To approximate NE performance under commercial conditions, studies will be done at a larger spatial scale (1,200 sq.ft. greenhouse compartment) with a low level of aphid-infested pansy plants, using each NE treatment that appeared promising from the previous studies. We will use commercial recommendations for release rates. Aphid levels will be monitored by leaf samples taken every 5 days. An additional aphid-infested pansy will be placed on each bench and covered with a spunbound-polyester hairnet to prevent NE access and serve as controls. Each study will continue for 3 weeks. Finally, trials under commercial greenhouse conditions will be used to test the most promising NE treatment. An experimental treatment in one greenhouse range will be compared with grower-chosen conventional practices in another similar range at a minimum of two greenhouse operations. The level of aphid control will be assessed by estimating the proportion of plants with levels of high, moderate, low, or no aphids in each range. Costs of each treatment at each location will be recorded and compared.

Progress 07/12/13 to 09/30/16

Outputs
Target Audience:Greenhouse growers Cooperative extension professionals State horticultural inspectors Biological control scientists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Several presentations that included some of our results were made to greenhouse grower audiences. Another presentation was delivered to scientists at the International Congress of Entomology. Please see "Products" section of this report. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Three sets of experiments were conducted in 2016. First, we wanted to evaluate how well several natural species would perform, alone or in combinations, against a mixture of aphid species in the same greenhouse. Pepper transplants were infested with either M. persicae or A. solani on benches in individual small greenhouses. In each greenhouse, half the peppers were infested with M. persicae and half with A. solani. Natural enemy treatments included either Hippodamia convergens ladybeetles alone, Chrysopa canrnea lacewing larvae alone, Aphidoletes aphidimyza plus Aphidius ervi, Aphidius colemani plus A. ervi, or untreated control. No control was observed for either aphid with H. convergens. Good control of A. solani was observed with C. carnea larvae or any treatment that included A. ervi. This control was likely due to non-consumptive predator/parasitoid effects because few cadavers or mummies were observed on the plants. The A. solani aphids leave or fall off the plants when these non-furtive predators are detected. Apparently very few aphids manage to re-infest the plants. M. persicae was best controlled by treatments containing A. colemani or A. aphidimyza, as expected from previous studies. Thus, these current results suggest that in a greenhouse infested with both M. persicae and A. solani, the best control of both aphids will be achieved with a combination of A. ervi plus either A. aphidomyza or A. colemani. This entire experiment will be repeated for confirmation. Second, we evaluated the effect of 3 fertilizer treatments, liquid feed (LF), controlled-release (CR), or organic (O), on the population growth of M. persicae and A. solani on both peppers and pansies, as well as possible effects of the fertilizer treatments on biological control. Fertilizer treatment had a significant effect on growth of both peppers and pansies, though peppers responded more strongly than pansies. The pattern of plant size response and total % N was similar on both peppers and pansies. LF led to larger plants and highest %N. For fertilizer effects on aphid population growth, on pepper, fertilizer treatment had a significant effect, with LF leading to the highest populations. M. persicae populations grew larger than A. solani, but the pattern of population growth was similar for both aphids. However, on pansy, fertilizer treatment did not significantly affect population growth for either aphid, and the correlation of % N with aphid numbers was weaker on pansy than on pepper for both aphids. These results suggest that more fertilizer doesn't necessarily lead to more aphids; the effect may be plant-specific. As for fertilizer effects on biological control, no effects were observed for any natural enemy against any aphid on any plant host, at the fertilizer rates and release rates used in these studies. A. ervi provided control of A. solani on either plant, but A. aphidomyza control was poor. Both A. aphidimyza and A. colemani gave good control of M. persicae on both plants. Third, we tested the anecdotal grower reports of unacceptable biocontrol of aphids on Calibrachoa sp. (million bells) in a choice/no-choice test with A. colemani against M. persicae in caged plant studies. Cages contained 2 Calibrachoa, 2 pansies, or a pansy plus a Calibrachoa, with 4 replicates of each. In every treatment, far fewer mummies resulted on Calibrachoa than on pansy, lending experimental support to the anecdotal observations. We hope to elucidate an explanation in the future.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Wraight, SP, MJ Filotas, JP Sanderson. 2016. Comparative efficacy of emulsifiable-oil, wettable-powder, and unformulated-powder preparations of Beauveria bassiana against the melon aphid Aphis gossypii. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 26(7): 894-914.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Sanderson, J.P. & S.E. Jandricic. 2016. Outfoxing the Foxglove Aphid. GrowerTalks. http://www.ballpublishing.com/GrowerTalks/ViewArticle.aspx?articleID=22606&highlight=foxglove+aphid
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Jandricic, S.E, S.P.Wraight, D.R. Gillespie, & J.P. Sanderson. 2016. Biological Control Outcomes Using the Generalist Aphid Predator Aphidoletes aphidimyza under Multi-Prey Conditions. Insects 7: 75; doi:10.3390/insects7040075


Progress 10/01/14 to 09/30/15

Outputs
Target Audience:Greenhouse growers Cooperative extension professionals State horticultural inspectors Biological control scientists Changes/Problems:We have discovered that a different approach is needed to assess the full impact of the aphid parasitoids against FGA. The methods we had intended to use are unexpectedly inadequate. We are designing new approaches. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Several presentations that included some of our results were made to greenhouse grower audiences. Please see "Products" section of this report. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We are designing new experiments that are intended to evaluate the impact of wasps against FGA, including consumptive and non-consumptive effects.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Several experiments to evaluate the use of combinations of various aphid natural enemies were conducted. In particular, 2 aphid parasitoids, Aphidius ervi and A. colemani, were evaluated against both GPA and FGA. As expected, A. colemani provided the greatest parasitism of GPA. The results against FGA were not at all clear, however. Due to the unexpected non-consumptive effects of the presence of either wasp species, FGA defensively fell off the plants. Thus there were almost no aphids left on plants in cages with wasps, and estimates of parasitism were useless. The degree of aphid falling was documented in other tests, as was the likelihood of successful return to the plants. Any non-consumptive effects of the wasps that may occur in commercial greenhouses do not seem to lead to successful biocontrol. An alternative method of assessing the impact of wasps against FGA is needed and is being explored.

Publications


    Progress 10/01/13 to 09/30/14

    Outputs
    Target Audience: Greenhouse growers Cooperative extension professionals State horticultural inspectors Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Several presentations that included some or all of our results were made to local, regional, and national greenhouse grower audiences. Please see "Products" section of this report. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Several presentations that included some or all of our results were made to local, regional, and national greenhouse grower audiences. Please see "Products" section of this report. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Experiments to evaluate the use of combinations of various aphid natural enemies are underway.

    Publications

    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Jandricic SE, Filotas M, Sanderson, JP, Wraight SP. 2014. Pathogenicity of conidial-based preparations of entomopathogenic fungi against the greenhouse pest aphids Myzus persicae, Aphis gossypii and Aulacorthum solani (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 118: 34-46.
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Jandricic SE, Mattson NS, Wraight SP, Sanderson JP. 2014. Within-plant distribution of foxglove aphid, Aulacorthum solani, (Kaltenbach) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on various greenhouse plants and implications for control. Journal of Economic Entomology 107: 697-707.
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Other Year Published: 2015 Citation: Jandricic SE, Wraight SP, Sanderson J. Control of simultaneous outbreaks of the aphid pests Aulacorthum solani and Myzus persicae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) using the aphidophagous midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Diptera: Cecidoymyiidae) in greenhouse floriculture crops.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Sanderson, J.P. 2014. 4 Keys to Biocontrol Success. Greenhouse Grower Magazine. http://www.greenhousegrower.com/crop-inputs/4-keys-to-biocontrol-success/?utm_source=knowledgemarketing&utm_medium=topical&utm_campaign=insectanddisease%2011042014&omhide=true


    Progress 07/12/13 to 09/30/13

    Outputs
    Target Audience: Greenhouse growers Cooperative extension professionals State horticultural inspectors Research entomologists Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Several presentations that included some or all of our results were made to local, regional, and national greenhouse grower audiences, horticultural inspectors, and professional entomologists. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Several presentations that included some or all of our results were made to local, regional, and national greenhouse grower audiences, horticultural inspectors, and professional entomologists. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Laboratory and greenhouse research on the use of two parasitoid species, alone and in combination with A. aphidoletes, are underway. Any significant results will be disseminated to research entomologists, extension professionals, and grower audiences via presentations, written and electronic media.

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Determined that foxglove aphid tends to inhabit the lower canopy of most ornamental plants, and that the predatory midge A. aphidimyza tends to lay very few eggs in lower leaves, resulting in marginal biological control. The need to identify another or additional, natural enemy such as a parasitoid wasp is clear. Such studies are underway.

    Publications

    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Daughtrey, M.L. (ed.), 2013 Cornell guide for the integrated management of greenhouse crops and herbaceous ornamentals. Cornell Cooperative Extension publ. http://ipmguidelines.org/GreenhouseOrnamentals/
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Jandricic, S.E., S.P. Wraight, D.R. Gillespie, J.P. Sanderson. 2013. Oviposition behavior of the biological control agent Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in environments with multiple pest aphid species (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Biological Control 65 (2013) 235245.
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Mattson, Neil S., Elizabeth M. Lamb, Brian Eshenaur, and John Sanderson. 2013. IPM In-Depth: A New York Model for Hands-on Interactive Greenhouse Workshops. HortTechnology Dec. 2013 23(6)
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Sanderson, J.P. 2013. Twelve beneficial insects and mites you need to know for greenhouse pest control. Greenhouse Grower (Nov. 2013) 31(13): 77-80.