Source: IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY submitted to NRP
COMBINING ADVANCED SPRAY TECHNOLOGY WITH IPM TACTICS TO SUSTAIN APPLE PRODUCTION
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
OTHER GRANTS
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
1021031
Grant No.
2019-70006-30437
Cumulative Award Amt.
$325,000.00
Proposal No.
2019-02999
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Sep 1, 2019
Project End Date
Aug 31, 2024
Grant Year
2019
Program Code
[ARDP]- Applied Research and Development Program
Recipient Organization
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
2229 Lincoln Way
AMES,IA 50011
Performing Department
Plant Pathology-EXT
Non Technical Summary
This project addressesNIFA'sCrop Protection and Pest Management Program Plant Protection Tools and Tactics area. Apple growers in the eastern half of the U.S. use relatively inefficient air-blast sprayers to apply numerous pesticide sprays on a calendar-timed basis to suppress multiple diseases and arthropod pests. This practice erodes profits, wastes pesticide, endangers human and environmental health, and worsens pesticide resistance. Our 3-year project will apply key IPM advances - new precision-targeted pesticide spraying and weather-based disease-warning systems - that can cut pesticide use by two-thirds, raise profits, and enhance environmental quality. Field experiments in Iowa and Ohio will compare Intelligent Sprayer technology, alone and together with two disease-warning systems, to grower-standard practices for disease and arthropod-pest control efficacy as well as reduction in the amount of pesticide per spray and in the number of sprays (Objective 1). Economic analysis will contrast profitability of the systems via partial budget analysis and cost-efficiency ratios (Objective 2). Our multi-dimensional outreach effort (Objective 3) coordinates face-to-face extension programming with diverse electronic resources to ensure that we reach apple growers throughout the eastern half of the U.S. The project meets all priorities for CPPM Research-led projects: final development of tools and tactics for IPM systems (Research priority 1), determining how IPM tactics interact in impacting efficacy of disease and pest management (Research priority 2), enhancing agricultural biosecurity with effective decision support (Research priority 3), developing new outreach materials and effective delivery systems (Extension priority 1), and combining field-scale experimentation with on-farm demonstrations and stakeholder training (Extension priorities 2 and 3).
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
1020120106080%
2161110106020%
Knowledge Area
102 - Soil, Plant, Water, Nutrient Relationships; 216 - Integrated Pest Management Systems;

Subject Of Investigation
0120 - Land; 1110 - Apple;

Field Of Science
1060 - Biology (whole systems);
Goals / Objectives
Intelligent Sprayer technology represents a potentially revolutionary advancement in apple IPM that directly meets grower-expressed needs. In field trials, we will determine how to optimize this innovation in the context of apple IPM under different wind conditions. Two key questions we will answer for the full spectrum of apple diseases and arthropod pests in the eastern half of the U.S. include: 1) What is the impact on management efficacy of reducing the amount of pesticide applied per spray by more than 50%? and 2) How effective will it be to combine the Intelligent Sprayer technology with warning systems that use weather conditions to guide the timing and number of pesticide sprays? If existing IPM systems prove to be compatible with Intelligent Sprayer technology, growers, consumers, and the environment will benefit synergistically from 1) fewer pesticide sprays due to application of the warning systems and 2) dramatically reduced pesticide amount and volume per spray due to innovative spray technology. Results of the Iowa and Ohio field trials over three years are likely to be valid throughout much of the eastern half of the U.S., which shares similar pest and disease risks with the Midwest. Specific objectives are:Objective 1. Test innovations that can sharply reduce the amount of pesticide (fungicide, bactericide, and insecticide) sprayed in apple orchards.Objective 2. Based on Objective 1 results, develop partial budgets to compare the cost, efficiency, and profitability of each of the new systems to current production practices.Objective 3. Develop an information portal focusing on apple IPM for the eastern U.S.
Project Methods
Objective 1. We will test innovations that can sharply reduce the amount of pesticide (fungicide, bactericide, and insecticide) sprayed in apple orchards: i) an innovative air-blast sprayer called an Intelligent Sprayer (Zhu 2014) and ii) weather-based warning systems for fire blight and summer diseases (fruit rots and sooty blotch and flyspeck); and iii) site-specific weather data as an alternative to on-site monitoring for input to the warning systems. In three years of replicated field experiments at Iowa State University's Horticulture Research Station (ISUHRS), Ames, IA, and The Ohio State University - Wooster Campus, Wooster, OH, we will assess these approaches separately and in combination so that growers can see possible synergies among them. Field experiments will take place in an 11-year-old orchard of cv. Golden Delicious (Iowa) and a 16-year-old orchard of cvs. Fuji and Golden Delicious (Ohio). A randomized complete block experimental design with six treatments and four replications per treatment will be set-up at each site. Each replication will consist of a row segment with five adjacent trees of the same cultivar. Our test orchards are typical of commercial apple orchards in the eastern half of the U.S. with regard to cultivar, rootstock, tree spacing, and past management. At Dr. Heping Zhu's ATRU lab in Ohio, standard air-blast sprayers for use in Iowa and Ohio will be retrofitted with the Intelligent Sprayer technology.Objective 2. Based on Objective 1 results, we will develop partial budgets to compare the cost, efficiency, and profitability of each of the new systems to current production practices. We will compare i) costs for labor, supplies, fuel and machinery depreciation and ii) economic efficiencies including pesticide cost, marketable yield, and profits of each management option. We anticipate that Intelligent Sprayer technology will sharply reduce the time and labor per spray because much less volume is needed per acre than with a standard air-blast sprayer; as a result, a spray tank will need to be refilled less often per application. Furthermore, previous research suggests that using disease-warning systems to time sprays will substantially reduce the average number of sprays per season as well as production costs, and increase cost-efficiency by up to 30% compared to calendar-based timing. Average cost ratios and relative cost-efficiency ratios. We will examine the economic efficiencies of the Intelligent Sprayer alone and in combination with IPM weather-based warning systems relative to current production systems using average cost ratios and relative cost efficiency ratios. At harvest, apples (see Obj. 1) will be graded and weighed, after which yield in each grading category will be calculated. The average annual cost ratio will be calculated by comparing the cost of the new system to that of the conventional system during the same growing season.Objective 3. An information portal focusing on apple IPM for the eastern U.S. will be developed by a professional electronic-communications specialist and hosted at Iowa State University. It will launch three months into Year 1 and be updated as new materials are developed. All resources on the Information Portal will be readily downloadable to growers' mobile devices as well as websites of grower organizations. We will test the new (Rosli et al. 2017) summer-diseases warning system in commercial orchards in each state because it is the most feasible system for growers to implement immediately. In each year, two growers per year in Iowa and two in Ohio will set aside non-replicated plots consisting of five to ten trees; one subplot will be sprayed according to the warning system, and the other subplot of the same cultivar, rootstock, and age will be sprayed every 10 to 14 days depending on the grower's normal practice. We will produce a podcast every month, which will be available for downloading from the Information Portal and from iTunes and Spotify. The podcasts will showcase the project's findings and incorporate grower interviews. Our blog will consist of digests of the podcasts with added images and resources, and will also be available for downloading from the Portal. Field days will be held annually in Iowa and Ohio. They will be coordinated with statewide grower organizations and held in orchards of cooperating growers. Videos, podcasts, and blog segments developed from these presentations, featuring commentary by cooperators, will appear on the Portal, via iTunes and Spotify, and in webinars. Uploading online video digests of field days and research experiences will enable growers to extract key messages in a concise format that is available 24-7. Two 45-minute-long webinars, produced by ISU Extension via Adobe Connect®, in Year 3, will reach apple growers and fruit IPM educators in 12 states (see list below under Grower survey), who will be alerted to the webinars in advance. One webinar will will focus on performance of the Intelligent Sprayer and how growers can use this technology explain the practical details of implementing the disease-warning systems for fire blight and summer diseases. We will write a Growers Manual explaining how disease-warning systems and Intelligent Sprayer can be adapted to overall disease and insect pest management in their orchards. The Manual will outline step-by-step instructions as to how growers can transition from their current management tools. In Year 3, we will send a questionnaire to 250 apple growers in Iowa, Ohio, and 11 neighboring states to determine i) their motivation to adopt, and potential barriers to adoption, of the new IPM strategies and ii) the economic attractiveness of the new strategies to them.

Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/24

Outputs
Target Audience:Commercial apple growers in the Midwest U.S. Changes/Problems:Our project was impeded by the COVID-19 pandemic and thus required two 1-year, no-cost extensions. Nevertheless, we achieved important practical results that have the potential to make Midwest apple production more economically sustainable and less hazardous to human and environmental health by showinghow pesticide use can be cut drastically (more than 50%) by combining two technologies: precision pesticide spraying and disease-warning systems. In annualfield experiments and in on-farm demonstration trials, we showed for the first time that combining these two technologies can provide significant advantages forMidwest apple orchards. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Two M.S. degrees were awarded by graduate students involved in the project: Leanna Wodzicki. 2022. The Ohio State University. Olivia Meyer. 2023. Iowa State University. Technicians who received professional training during the project included: Jose Gonzalez, Iowa State University. 2020-2022. Jose was the project coordinator and oversaw the production and publication of outreach products for the project. Jose also coordinated the organization of and input from the project'sAdvisory Panel of six commercial apple growers (three each from Iowa and Ohio). How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results were disseminated to commercial apple growers through a combination of annual field days in Iowa and Ohio, as well as presentations at regional and national grower conferences. In addition, the project website, "Smarter Spraying for Apples," compiled outreach products including blog posts, a podcast series, PowerPoints from research and grower presentations, infographics, and short videos. An 8-pagegrower manual, summarizing the project's findings and its practical implications for growers, was produced shortlyafter the 3 years of the fundedproject and was distributed in print form to grower through Extension personnel in both states as well as on the project website. NOTE: There are no products for this final year of the project. All products have been disseminated in prior year reports. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? The project provided strong evidence that commercial apple growers in the Midwest can cut their pesticide use by more than 50%by combiningcommercially available technology for precision spraying and disease-warning systems. Three years of field experiments in Iowa andOhio (Objective 1)showed that applying novelIntelligent Sprayer technology resulted in per-acre pesticide-spray savings of approximately 50% pergrowing season by increasingthe accuracy of sprays and reducing off-target drift. In Iowa field experiments,using disease-warning systems to time sprays for the sooty blotch/flyspeck fungal complex and fire blight saved an average of 4.5 sprays per year compared to standard grower practices. Importantly, our trials also showed for the first time that these two IPM methods - Intelligent Spray technology and disease-warning systems - can be combined successfully in the same orchards to maximize spray savingswithout compromising disease control effectiveness. An economic analysis (Objective 2) showed that the substantial cost of purchasing Intelligent Sprayer technology wouldbe recouped by growers within one to several years depending on orchard size, and that estimated repaymenttime would be shorter for larger orchards. In contrast, savings fromuse of disease-warning systems were relatively independent of orchard size. In Objective 3, annual on-farm demonstration trials in both states confirmed the substantial spray savings obtained in university-farm experiments, and the project's findings were shared with apple growers through a robust outreach program of field days, grower conference presentations, a webinar, a grower manual, and a project website incorporating blog posts, infographics, videos, and a podcast series.

Publications


    Progress 09/01/22 to 08/31/23

    Outputs
    Target Audience:Commercial apple growers in the eastern half of the U.S. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Graduate students: Olivia K. Meyer (M.S. degree in Horticulture, Iowa State University, May 2023) How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?See the Products section of this REEport. Print copies (300) of the Growers Manual were distributed to commercial apple growers in Iowa, Ohio, and adjoining states during ISU- and OSU-sponsored apple field days in summer 2023. The Growers Manual is also available on the project website. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?A primary goal of Year 5 (the second no-cost extension year) will be to submit and publish a refereed journal research manuscript summarizing the results of the Iowa State field experiments. This manuscript, which will include an economic analysis of the alternatives tested in the project's field trials, is expected to be submitted to HortTechnology in February 2024. In addition, the project website will be migrated to the North Central IPM Center's website to ensure its continued accessibility to commercial apple growers.

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1. The third year of field experiments was completed in November 2022. In the Iowa State University field experiment, the standard airblast sprayer used the most pesticide spray volume per unit area of the orchard. In contrast, volume for the Intelligent Sprayer was 55% lower on average using the low flow rate (0.06 fl oz/cubic ft) and 45% lower on average using the high flow rate (0.09 fl oz/cubic ft). The sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS) warning system again saved four fungicide sprays in another relatively dry growing season, whereas the Maryblyt warning system saved one bactericide spray. No SBFS colonies appeared on fruit in any treatment, and fire blight symptoms were also absent. In sum, using the Intelligent Sprayer reduced pesticide-spray volume for the season by about half, and the SBFS warning system resulted in 4 fewer fungicide sprays, with disease symptoms equivalent to the control treatment (calendar-based pesticide spray timing). Combined with the results of 2020 and 2021 Iowa State field experiments, the project generated strong evidence that the Intelligent Sprayer can reduce spray volume per acre by about half compared to a grower-standard airblast sprayer. The percent savings on spray volume varied with the time of the growing season; it was greatest in the early season and somewhat less once the canopy filled with fully grown leaves. The second kind of spray savings - from the use of weather-based disease-warning systems for fire blight and sooty blotch and flyspeck spray timing rather than timing these sprays by the calendar - was from eliminating spray trips when the warning systems indicate a low threat of disease. Spray savings from the use of these warning systems are expected to average about 2.5 sprays per year rather than the four average sprays saved per year over the course of this project because the three growing seasons (2020-2022) were exceptionally dry in Iowa, during which spray savings for disease control would be expected to be abnormally high. On-farm trials in 2022 with the Intelligent Sprayer at two commercial orchards in Ohio resulted in spray savings of approximately 50%, which was consistent with 2021 results. On-farm trials in two Iowa commercial orchards tested the sooty blotch and flyspeck warning system, which saved three fungicide sprays in one orchard and four sprays in the other orchard compared to calendar-based spray timing (the traditional grower practice). Objective 2. Economic analysis of the Iowa State University field experiments is nearly complete. Preliminary simulation results indicated that the duration of time required to pay back the cost of the Intelligent Sprayer varied dramatically with orchard size: the larger the orchard, the faster the cost of the Intelligent Sprayer equipment (which is a substantial capital cost) would be repaid. For example, an orchard of 50 acres or more could expect to repay the purchase cost within 1 to 2 years. Objective 3. The project website (see Products) has functioned as the primary information portal throughout the project. The availability of all the information on the website to growers will be extended for a further five years (2024-2028) by transferring the link to the website of the North Central IPM Center. In January 2023, a webinar (see Products) was released, which summarized the project's findings and presented all of the project's outreach products. In addition, a Growers Manual ( see Products) was published and distributed to growers in 2023; in 8 pages, it summarized practical tips for commercial apple growers in the eastern half of the U.S. who may consider adopting the Intelligent Sprayer and/or disease-warning system technology.

    Publications

    • Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2023 Citation: Smarter Spraying for Apples. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/. Updated in 2023.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2023 Citation: Gonzalez-Acuna, J., Ivey, M.L, Zhu, H., Zhang, W., Clark, A.C., Meyer, O.K., Cheng, N., Carpenter, B., and Gleason, M.L. 2023. Intelligent Sprayer and disease-warning systems for apple IPM: tips for growers. Bulletin NCPA 037, North Central IPM Center, St. Paul, MN. 8 pp.
    • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2023 Citation: Meyer, O.K. 2023. Evaluating Intelligent Sprayers and Warning Systems for Apple IPM in Iowa. M.S. thesis, Department of Horticulture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 68 pp.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2023 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Ivey, M.L. 2023. Rethinking pesticide spraying on apples: how Intelligent Sprayer technology and disease-warning systems can help. Webinar, North Central IPM Center Pests and Progress series, January 18, 2023. 55 minutes.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2023 Citation: Ivey, M.L. 2023. Integrating Intelligent Sprayer Technology with Cultural Practices for Sustainable Apple Disease Management. Ohio Fruit Growers Marketing Association Annual Winter Meeting, Wooster, OH, February 2, 2023. 75 participants.


    Progress 09/01/21 to 08/31/22

    Outputs
    Target Audience:Commercial apple growers in the U.S. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Olivia Meyer, M.S. candidate, Department of Horticulture, Iowa State University - primary responsibility for conduct of Iowa field experiment, and contributor to outreach efforts (podcast episodes, videos, blogs, and poster and oral presentations at regional and national grower meetings and national meeting of American Phytopathological Society; co-author of a peer-reviewed case study published in The Plant Health Instructor. Kaylee Hyser, undergraduate research assistant, Iowa State University - assistance with field experiment Jackson Goshen, undergraduate research assistant, Iowa State University - assistance with field experiment Esteban Heredia, undergraduate research assistant, Iowa State University - assistance with field experiment Evelyn Bauer, undergraduate research assistant, Iowa State University - assistance with field experiment Bailey Miller, Research Associate, The Ohio State University - primary responsibility for conduct of 2022 Ohio State field experiment; liaison with commercial apple growers in Ohio for 2022 on-farm demonstration trials. Lianna Wodzicki, M.S. graduate, The Ohio State University - primary reponsibility for completion of the 2021 field experiment at The Ohio State University; liaison with two Ohio commercial apple growers regarding 2021 on-farm demonstration trials. Jose Gonzalez, Research Associate II, Iowa State University - coordinator of Iowa State field experiment; carried out on-farm demonstration trials in cooperation with two Iowa commercial apple growers; coordinated all project meetings as well as development of all outreach products. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The sections of this REEport designated "Products" and "Other Products" summarize the prolific outreach efforts of our project to commercial apple growers regionally and nationally. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The primary goals of the project during the 4th year (no-cost extension year) are as follows: Create a webinar to summarize the project's findings and their implications for growers. Complete economic analysis of the field experiments at Iowa State University and The Ohio State University. Summarize reactions of growers to the project from replies to an 11-state online survey. Publish a Grower Manual as a North Central IPM Center bulletin and an online link, summarizing project findings. Publish an article in Fruit Growers News or American Fruit Grower summarizing implications of the project for grower practices. Publish a research article in HortTechnology summarizing the field experiments.

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1. In the 2022 Iowa State University field experiment, the standard airblast sprayer used the most spray volume. In contrast, volume for the Intelligent Sprayer was 45% lower on average using the low flow rate (0.06 fl oz/cubic ft) and 55% lower on average using the high flow rate (0,09 fl oz/cubic ft). The sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS) warning system saved 4 fungicide sprays in a relatively dry growing season, whereas the Maryblyt warning system did not save bactericide sprays. No SBFS colonies appeared on fruit in any treatment, and fie blight symptoms were also absent. In sum, using the Intelligent Sprayer reduced pesticide-spray volume for the season by about half, and the SBFS warning system resulted in 4 fewer fungicide sprays, with disease symptoms equivalent to the control treatment (calendar-based pesticide spray timing). Objective 2. Project economists Dr. Wendong Zhang and Dr. Nieyan Cheng are currently using cost and apple price information to develop an economic analysis of the potential profitability of using the Intelligent Sprayer and the two disease-warning systems (for SBS and fire blight), both as separate strategies and combined strategies, in comparison to standard-practice controls (standard airblast sprayer and calendar-based pesticide spray timing), using a partial budget, equivalent annual cost, and average cost ration over a range of simulated apple orchard sizes. Preliminary estimates of the time required by an apple grower to recoup the investment in converting a standard airblast sprayer to Intelligent Sprayer technology ranged from 5.8 years for a 5-acre orchard to 1.4 years for a 50-acre orchard. Objective 3. On-farm demonstration trials. In Iowa, on-farm demonstration trials took place in two commercial orchards (Deal Orchard and Center Grove Orchard) in central Iowa in 2022. Both trials had 10 trees per non-replicated treatment. Two treatments were tested: "grower standard" and "warning system." The warning system used relative humidity data to predict the risk of SBFS. The control treatment received the standard spray schedule used by each grower, mostly based on calendar-timed fungicide spraying. The warning system treatment started once the first-cover fungicide spray had been applied; the second- cover fungicide spray was withheld until a total of 385 hours of relative humidity above 90% after 1st cover had accumulated, or (as a fail-safe practice in a very dry growing season) an 8-week time period had elapsed since first cover. As in 2021, summer weather was unusually dry. As a result, use of the warning system saved 3 fungicide sprays per season in each orchard. In trial 1, the incidence of marketable fruit in the control treatment was 77% compared to 79% for the warning system treatment. In trial 2, the rate of marketable fruit in the control treatment was 97% compared to 94% in the warning system treatment. At harvest, symptoms of SBFS or other disease symptoms in each orchard were negligible for both treatments. We conclude that with use of the SBFS warning system, 3 fungicide sprays were saved, without having an impact on fruit quality. Other outreach efforts. The outputs of additional outreach efforts are detailed in two sections of this Report: "Products" and "Other Products."

    Publications

    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Gonzalez, J., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. On-farm performance of a relative humidity-based warning system for sooty blotch and flyspeck in Golden Delicious and Granny Smith. Blog post. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/blog
    • Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: project website: Smarter Spraying for Apples. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Gleason, M.L. 2022. Less pesticide, more profit: Testing new options to sustain apple production. Adjacent Digital Politics, March 2022. 3 pp. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/less-pesticide-more-profit-testing-new-options-sustain-apple-production/132437/.
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Gleason, M.L. 2021. Intelligent Spraying: Improving Prospects for Sustainable Pesticide Use. Scientia. October 27, 2021. https://www.scientia.global/dr-mark-gleason-intelligent-spraying-improving-prospects-for-sustainable-pesticide-use/.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. Evaluating an Intelligent Sprayer in an Iowa apple orchard. Poster, Plant Health 2022 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, August 6-10, 2022.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. Fire blight warning system for apples. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/resources. Infographic.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Gonzalez, Gleason, M.L., and Meyer, O.K. 2022. Getting it right: Pesticide mixing tips when spraying with the Intelligent Sprayer. Blog post. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/getting-it-right-pesticide-mixing-tips-when-spraying-intelligent-sprayer
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. How Can You Measure Spray Coverage? Blog post. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/how-can-you-measure-spray-coverage
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Gleason, M.L. 2022. Less pesticide, more profit: Testing new options to sustain apple production. Blog post. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/less-pesticide-more-profit-testing-new-options-sustain-apple-production
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Gonzalez, J., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. On-farm trials in Iowa, 2021: performance of a relative humidity-based warning system for sooty blotch and flyspeck. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/farm-trials-iowa-2021-performance-relative-humidity-based-warning-system-sooty-blotch-and
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. Water-sensitive papers: 5 how to's! https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/resources. Infographic.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Zhu, H. 2022. Laser-guided Intelligent Sprayer technology. Airblast Spray Application and Modeling Conference (May, 2022). Oral presentation. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/ASAMC%20presentation_2022_Zhu.pdf.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. Sooty blotch and flyspeck warning system for apples. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/resources. Infographic.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Zhu, H. Retrofitting intelligent spray system on airblast sprayers for sustainable horticultural crop production. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/Mid-Atlantic%20Fruit%20presentation_2022.pdf. Mid-Atlantic Fruit and Vegetable Convention, February 2, 2022.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Ivey, M.L. 2022. NEWA 3.0 - Making the Most of Apple Disease Warning Systems. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/b/28945/files/2022/01/2022-Ohio-Produce-Network-NEWA-3.0.pdf. Ohio Produce Network Conference, January 2022.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Ivey, M.L. 2022. Validation of Laser Guided Intelligent Sprayer Technology. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/b/28945/files/2022/01/Ohio-Produce-Network-Intelligent-Sprayer-Technology-Autosaved.pdf Ohio Produce Network Conference, January 2022.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Anonymous. 2021. Researchers work to make spray application more cost-effective, sustainable for apple growers. https://www.cals.iastate.edu/news/releases/researchers-work-make-spray-application-more-cost-effective-sustainable-apple-growers. Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences news release, December 3, 2021.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Meyer, O.K., Gleason, M.L., and Zhu, H. 2021. Pesticide Spray Coverage: Searching for the Goldilocks Zone. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/OFN_NOV_2021%20.pdf. Ohio Fruit News, November 2021.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. Drift away: sprayer technology meets apple pest management. https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/foreducators/Pages/PHI-C-2022-02-0002.aspx. Case Study. The Plant Health Instructor, American Phytopathological Society Education Center, November 2022.
    • Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Wodzicki, L.M. 2021. Validation of a Laser- Guided Intelligent Sprayer and Warning System for Management of Insect and Disease Pests of Specialty Crops. M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University. December 2021.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2022 Citation: Meyer, O.K., and Gleason, M.L. Evaluating Intelligent Sprayer Technology with Warning Systems to Minimize Pesticide Use for Apples. NIAMRRE Conference, Ames, Iowa, January 2022.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Meyer, O.K., Wodzicki, L., Gonzalez-Acuna, J., Zhu, H., Ivey, M.L., and Gleason, M.L. 2022. Evaluating Intelligent Sprayer Technology with Warning Systems for Apple Diseases. Great Plains Growers Conference, January 2022.
    • Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Meyer, O.K., Gonzalez-Acuna, J., Wodzicki, L., Zhu, H., Ivey, M.L., and Gleason, M.L. Combining Disease-Warning Systems with Intelligent Sprayer for Targeted Pesticide Delivery. Great Lakes EXPO, December, 2021.


    Progress 09/01/20 to 08/31/21

    Outputs
    Target Audience:Commercial apple growers throughout the U.S. Changes/Problems:COVID-19 continued to impact the project in 2021. A primary impact in the Ohio State University field experiment was delay of pesticide spraying until after an outbreak of apple scab (a fungal disease) had occurred. This outbreak confounded interpretation of data from the trial. In 2022, we anticipate that this barrier will not exist, and pesticide sprays can be applied according to recommended intervals and timing. At Iowa State University, marketable yield data was impacted by two factors: lingering effects of a 100-mph windstorm during August 2020 on tree health in 2022; and an outbreak of fruit damage due to two pest insects, plum curculio and codling moth. The cause of the outbreak has not been determined conclusively, since insecticdes targeting these insects were applied accoridng to a well-established, calendar-based spray schedule. However, the damage was equivalent for all treatments, leading to the conclusion that there may have been a problem with insecticide products or spray timing. For 2022, we will carefully review the IPM program for plum curculio control and codling moth, consult with experienced commercial apple growers in Iowa, and adjust our spray schedule to avoid outbreaks. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Lianna Wodzicki, the Ohio State University student who participated in the project, received her M.S. degree in December 2021. Lianna was extensively involved in both the research (Objective 1) and outreach (Objective 3) aspects of the project, and presented her results in scientific conferences (Entomological Society of America; November 2021), outreach blog posts, and videos. She also has responsibility for oversight of the two on-farm demonstration trials in Ohio during 2021. Olivia Meyer, a M.S candidate at Iowa State University, had primary responsbility for the Iowa research trials during 2021. She also wrote blog posts, delivered an informal presentation during an ISU field day (July 2022), and was interviewed for project video segments. In addition, she developed a feature called "Counter Chats with Liv," which used stop-motion animation to present topics such as an introduction to sooty blotch anf flyspeck, a fungal disease complex of apples. She also presented her preliminary findings in a poster for the August 2021 meeting of the American Phytopathologcial Society. José González, a research technician on the project, oversaw development of all outreach efforts, organized monthly Zoom meetings of the project team and three meetings of the Advisory Panel, and maintained the project website. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Please see the "Products" and "Other Products" section of this report for details of the project's outreach to commercial apple growers and the scientific community. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Impact. The main point of this project is to determine how Intelligent Sprayer technology can fit into Integrated Pest Management practices for growing apples. Intelligent Sprayer technology could be a major leap forward for growers because it uses pesticides much more cost-effectively than traditional sprayers and reduces airborne pesticide drift that can endanger the health of farm families, farm workers, and orchard neighbors. Pesticides are a major production cost for apple growers, so applying less pesticide means saving more money. Our project combines Intelligent Sprayer technology with warning systems that use the weather to time pesticide sprays more efficiently. This combination means that pesticide-spray savings can come in two ways: less pesticide per spray, and fewer sprays. But will this dual-savings strategy still control apple diseases and insect pests? We are seeking to answer that question. Objective 1. Our Year 2 (2021) field experiments on apples tested the Intelligent Sprayer and disease-warning systems, alone and in combination, at university farms in Iowa and Ohio. At Iowa State University, the Intelligent Sprayer saved 42-54% on the amount of pesticide applied with each spray, depending on the sprayer's nozzle setting. Using the disease-warning systems for sooty blotch and flyspeck saved 4 sprays, and the warning system for fire blight saved one spray. Disease and insect-pest control was equivalent to the using the standard sprayer without warning systems. So combining the new spray technology with warning systems used less than half the amount of pesticide to achieve the same level of control as standard spray practices - an enormous reduction in pesticide cost and health risks. At Ohio State University, COVID-19 restrictions prevented application of early-season pesticide sprays, which led to a major outbreak of apple scab (a fungal disease) that made it difficult to evaluate pest and disease control on fruit. However, spray savings with the Intelligent Sprayer were similar to those from the Iowa State trial. Interestingly, tests of spray coverage (using water-sensitive papers that were deployed in apple trees) in both states showed that coverage of apple leaves and fruit by sprays was about the same for the Intelligent Sprayer and standard sprayer. This is more evidence that the Intelligent Sprayer hits its target (apple trees) more efficiently, since it does so with much less pesticide sprayed than a standard sprayer. Objective 2. Dr. Wendong Zhang, the project's economist, developed a partial budget analysis comparing use of the Intelligent Sprayer, alone or in combination with the disease-warning systems, based on Year 1 (2020) field experiment results. Results will be shared with growers following addition of 2021 and 2022 field experiment results. Objective 3. The project's website, "Smarter Spraying for Apples," archives blog posts, videos, posters, and related resources. These resources were shared extensively in 2021 via social media (Twitter, Linked In, YouTube); metrics of their impact are included in this report under "Products" and "Other Products." A July 2021 field day at ISU's Horticulture Research Station drew 125 attendees and highlighted the project's progress during wagon tours of orchards. On-farm demonstration trials during 2021 at two large-scale commercial orchards in Ohio, in Rittman and Pataskala, showed that use of the Intelligent Sprayer saved 45-66% on pesticide spray volume compared to a standard sprayer, with no impact on marketable yield of fruit. Two on-farm trials in Iowa, in Jefferson and Cambridge, compared a warning system for sooty blotch and flyspeck with a standard calendar-timed schedule for summer fungicide sprays. During a dry summer, the warning system saved 3 fungicide sprays in each orchard. Marketable yield was higher for the warning-system treatment in Jefferson and lower in Cambridge; the latter result was attributed to codling moth damage resulting from a possible missed insecticide spray. Bottom line for on-farm trials: results were encouraging for both the Intelligent Sprayer (Ohio) and the sooty blotch and flyspeck warning system (Iowa).

    Publications

    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Intelligent Spraying: Improving Prospects for Sustainable Pesticide Use Scientia(https://doi.org/10.33548/SCIENTIA751).
    • Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Smarter spraying for apples. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/ Activity, January-November 2021: 650 visits, 1,900 actions.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: The Intelligent Sprayer System. Infographic. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/files/inline-files/The%20intelligent%20sprayer%20system.pdf
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Ivey, M.L., and Wodzicki, L. 2021. Blog post. On-Farm Demonstration Trials Show that Proof is in the Pudding(or Apple). https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/farm-demonstration-trials-show-proof-pudding-or-apple.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Meyer, O.K., Gleason, M.L., and Zhu, H. 2021. Blog post. Pesticide spray coverage: searching for the Goldilocks zone. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/pesticide-spray-coverage-searching-goldilocks-zone.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Cheng, N., and Zhang, W. 2021. Does Investing in the Intelligent Sprayer Make Economic Sense? Blog post. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/does-investing-intelligent-sprayer-make-economic-sense
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Gonzalez, J., and Gleason, M.L. 2021. Blog post. On-farm demonstration experiments in Iowa-2020: a look at the sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS) warning system. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu./post/farm-demonstration-experiments-iowa-2020-look-sooty-blotch-and-flyspeck-sbfs-warning-system
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Meyer, O.K., Gleason, M.L., and Zhu, H. 2021. Pesticide spray coverage: searching for the Goldilocks zone. Ohio Fruit News, May 18, 2021. : https://kentuckypestnews.wordpress.com/2021/05/18/meso-tunnels-and-cucurbit-production/?utm_source=KY+Pest+News+List&utm_campaign=860127c5ff-KPN_NEWSLETTER_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bee884adb8-860127c5ff-228244436&ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Researchers work to make spray application more cost-effective, sustainable for apple growers. Iowa State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. https://www.cals.iastate.edu/news/releases/researchers-work-make-spray-application-more-cost-effective-sustainable-apple-growers. December 2, 2021.
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2021 Citation: Testing a new spray technology for Midwest apple growers. Iowa Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association Newsletter, June 2021. https://mailchi.mp/3e3a78b845ec/ifvga-news-updates-4940949?e=%5bUNIQID.


    Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/20

    Outputs
    Target Audience:Commercial apple growers in the Midwest. Changes/Problems:For Objective 1 in Year 2, the Iowa State University trials will use a lower range of spray-nozzle volumes than in 2020, primarily because the higher rate used in 2020 resulted in only minimal spray-volume savings compared to a standard airblast sprayer at 100 gallons per acre. The Ohio State University field experiment will commence from the start of the growing season - unlike in 2020, when the pandemic prohibited project personnel from entering the OSU farm early in the growing season. We also need to refine our method of estimating percent spray coverage of apple trees, using water-sensitive papers, in order to determine differences in coverage in each sector of an apple-tree canopy. In particular, Iowa State trials will evaluate spray deposition based on spraying from one side of a tree row rather than both sides. The reason for this change is that in 2020 we determined that spraying from both sides complicated interpretation of the spray pattern on the papers. For Objective 3 (outreach), we will add in-person field days in both states during summer 2021, anticipating that this will be permitted when pandemic restrictions have eased. Furthermore, we will schedule in-person presentations during grower conferences once these conferences have resumed. We will also add podcasts to our portfolio of electronic outreach products. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Two M.S. candidates are conducting the project's field experiments (Objective 1) and contributing to the outreach efforts (Objective 3): Lianna Wodzicki at The Ohio State University (plant pathology) and Olivia Meyer (horticulture) at Iowa State University. A third graduate student, economics PhD candidate Nieyan Cheng at Iowa State University, is not funded under the project but is serving as a consultant and data analyst for the economic assessment portion of the project (Objectve 2). How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Dissemination to apple growers has been through a combination of internet-based resources and updates (blog posts, videos, and articles) and a 6-member Advisory Panel (AP) of commercial apple growers. The AP has met quarterly since July 2020 to provide updates on the project's progress and function as a forum for growers to advise the project team on all aspects of the project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?Year 2 plans should proceed as initially described in the funded proposal, once the pandemic subsides. These include: replicated field experiments at Iowa State University and The Ohio State University comparing Intelligent vs. standard airblast spray modes for disease and pest control, as well as disease-warning systems vs. calendar-based fungicide and bactericide spray schedules (Objective 1); calculation of potential profitability of adopting the Intelligent spray technology, disease-warning systems, and a combination of these IPM innovations compared to standard grower spray practices (Objective 2); and dissemination of the project's results and training materials to apple growers in the Midwest via face-to-face and electronic communication modes (Objective 3).

    Impacts
    What was accomplished under these goals? Objective 1. Test innovations that can sharply reduce the amount of pesticide (fungicide, bactericide, and insecticide) sprayed in apple orchards. We conducted field experiments (Objective 1) during 2020 at the Iowa State University Horticulture Research Station (ISUHRS) in a 17-yr-old block of trellised Golden Delicious apple trees. Treatments compared Intelligent Sprayer technology with the same spray unit's standard airblast spraying mode at a setting of 100 gallons/acre. We also compared both spray modes with and without use of a weather-based warning system for a summer fungal disease of apple fruit called sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS), and compared two nozzle-volume settings (0.09 fl oz/ft3 and 1.135 fl oz/ft3) of the Intelligent Sprayer. Experimental design included 4 replications of 3 to 6 adjacent trees each. The growing season was exceptionally dry, and disease and pest-insect damage was negligible. Comparisons of pesticide-spray volume revealed that the Intelligent Sprayer on the low-volume nozzle setting used from 27 to 36% less spray per treatment than the standard airblast, whereas the Intelligent Sprayer's high-volume nozzle setting used 15 to 20% less spray than the airblast. For the Intelligent Sprayer at either nozzle setting, spray savings vs. the standard airblast mode were generally highest early in the season (tight cluster stage) and lower for subsequent sprays. Analysis of spray coverage data, derived from separate trials applying sprays to water-sensive papers installed at multiple locations in apple trees, is ongoing. Use of the SBFS warning system saved 4 fungicide sprays in comparison to calendar-based spray timing (10- to 14-day intervals between sprays). The fruit harvest in Iowa was complicated by 100-mph winds 5 weeks before harvest, which resulted in many fallen fruit; remaining fruit had no differences in marketable yield among treatments. At Wooster, Ohio, a replicated experiment in an Ohio State University research orchard (cv. Fuji) compared the Intelligent Sprayer at two different nozzle-volume settings (0.06 and 0.12 fl oz/ft3) with a standard airblast (100 gal/acre) and a non-treated control (no pesticide sprays). Legal restrictions to orchard access due to the coronavirus pandemic precluded early-season pesticide sprays; consequently, disease and pest-insect pressure was very high. Neither incidence of disease, nor pest-insect damage, nor marketable yield differed significantly among treatments. For 8 sprays in mid- to late-season, volume per spray for the Intellligent Spray mode was reduced by 90% for the low-volume nozzle rate and 87% for the high-volume nozzle rate compared to the standard airblast spray mode. Objective 2. Based on Objective 1 results, develop partial budgets to compare the cost, efficiency, and profitability of each of the new systems to current production practices. For Objective 2, we developed a framework for obtaining economic analysis data based on 2021 and 2022 field experiments. This framework is currently being tested using 2020 field data. The aims of the economic analysis are to determine whether, and under what apple production scenarios, use of the Intelligent Sprayer and/or disease-warning systems is economically advantageous for growers. Objective 3. Develop an information portal focusing on apple IPM for the eastern U.S. Under Objective 3, we developed a robust portfolio of virtual outreach products despite pandemic-driven prohibition on face-to face field days and extension meetings. This effort included a project website featuring a blog series, videos, and links to trade-journal articles by, or featuring, project PIs discussing the project's aims and progress. We also conducted on-farm trials at two commercial orchards in Iowa and one in Ohio. The Iowa trials, located at Deal's Orchard in Jefferson and Center Grove Orchard in Cambridge, compared the SBFS warning system with a calendar-basedfungicide spray schedule (every 10 to 14 days) in trials using non-replicated, 10-tree plots. In each trial, use of the SBFS warning system saved 3 fungicide sprays in a dry growing season, and no SBFS symptoms appeared in either spray treatment. In Ohio, a commercial orchard in Rittman compared Intelligent spray mode (0.06 fl oz/ft3) with the grower's standard airblast mode (65 gal/A) in plots of 300 apple trees each. Incidence of fruit damage from diseases (1.8 to 3.8%) and pest insects (0.2 to 0.5%) was low and did not differ significantly between the two spray modes.

    Publications

    • Type: Websites Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Smarter Spraying for Apples (https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu)
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Gleason, M.L. 2020. Testing a new spray technology for Midwest apple growers. Blog post, June 20, 2020. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/testing-new-spray-technology-midwest-apple-growers
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Zhu, H. 2020. Introduction of new laser-guided intelligent spray control system. Blog post, August 21, 2020. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/introduction-new-laser-guided-intelligent-spray-control-system
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Wodzicki, L., and Ivey, M.L. 2020. Summer Fungal Fruit Rots and Their Management. Blog post, September 18, 2020. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/summer-fungal-fruit-rots-and-their-management
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Gonzalez, J. 2020. Warning systems: using environmental knowledge against plant pathogens. Blog post, October 20, 2020. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/warning-systems-using-environmental-knowledge-against-plant-pathogens
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Meyer, O.K. 2020. Spray Coverage vs. Spray Drift. Blog post, November 4, 2020. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/spray-coverage-vs-spray-drift
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Meyer, O.K. 2020. How does an Intelligent Sprayer work? Blog post, August 7, 2020. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/how-does-intelligent-sprayer-work
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Cheng, N., and Zhang, W. 2021. Does Investing in the Intelligent Sprayer Make Economic Sense? Blog post, January 5, 2021. https://www.smartapplespray.plantpath.iastate.edu/post/does-investing-intelligent-sprayer-make-economic-sense
    • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Kendall, S. 2020. Precision Sprayer Benefits Growers and the Environment. Office of Communications, USDA-ARS. December 3, 2020. https://www.ars.usda.gov/oc/dof/precision-sprayer-benefits-growers-and-the-environment/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
    • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2020 Citation: Prengaman, K. 2020. Upgrade your airblast. Good Fruit Grower Magazine, August 2020. Pages 12,14.