RAMP Project Meeting, 22 June 2009 The Lygus …RAMP Project meeting June 22, 2009 University of...

RAMP Project meeting June 22, 2009

University of Arizona MAC 1

Ellsworth/UA

The Lygus RAMP:

Why are we doing

this?!"#"$%&'%())*+,$#-

./01"$*0#2%,3%4$05,/67

4$05,/6%!"*#%86/69":"/#%&"/#"$%;<"=6$#:"/#%,3%(/#,:,),92

RAMP Project Meeting, 22 June 2009

The Lygus RAMP is a huge undertaking with manysubprojects, goals and objectives. However, I think itis important for everyone to step back and re-orientto the basic rationale and reasons for doing what weare doing. This is review for many, but the first timefor others to see how we are organized and ourjustification for our approach.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus RAMP

• Rationale

• Connections

• Project Progress

• Assessment

I will cover our rationale, which was a largecomponent of our grant application. What is thejustification for this RAMP?

We will review the connections of the pieces so thateveryone sees and understands the interrelatednessof our individual projects.

I will do a broad overview of our RAMP make-up andthe project progress we have made.

Lastly, I will touch upon assessment and outcomes aswe set-up for Al’s presentation.



Ellsworth/UA

Carriere(UA)

Palumbo(UA)

Ellsworth,Fournier (UA)

Naranjo,Blackmer,

Hagler (USDA)Parajulee(TX A&M)

Bundy(NMSU)

Goodell(UC-IPM)

Godfrey,Rosenheim(UC-Davis)

Developing and Implementing Field andLandscape Level Reduced-risk

Management Strategies for Lygus inWestern Cropping Systems

Collaborators

Corbett (CorbettLearning)

Dutilleul (McGill)Hutmacher (UC-Davis)

Jimenez (UC-CE)Kerns (TX A&M)Molinar (UC-CE)Mueller (UC-CE)Tronstad (UA)

$2.5 million fromUSDA-RAMP

This our group.

Ellsworth, P., P. Goodell, M. Parajulee, S. Bundy, S.Naranjo, J. Bancroft, J. Blackmer, Y. Carriere, A.Fournier, L. Godfrey, J. Hagler, J. Palumbo & J.Rosenheim. Developing and Implementing Field andLandscape Level Reduced-Risk ManagementStrategies for Lygus in Western Cropping Systems.$2,500,000. (Sept 2006 - Aug 2010).



Ellsworth/UA

We have never been fully assembled in one roomtogether. We are a large and diverse effort. Somemay only perceive the puzzle piece they areconcentrated on and have a less developed view ofthe overall picture we are trying to assemble.



Ellsworth/UA

We have just 15 months left and hopefully throughthis and other discussions, we will all start to see thefull picture emerging with just a few puzzle piecesremaining to be put into place.



Ellsworth/UA

Goal

• Reduce impact ofLygus and Lyguscontrol chemistry onthe Western agro-ecosystem

While stated somewhat differently in our grantapplication, our goal boils down to this.



Ellsworth/UA

HistoricalDependence

Endosulfan, 1954Dimethoate, 1962Bidrin, 1964Temik, 1970Monitor, 1972Orthene, 1973Vydate, 1974Pyrethroids, 1979

Most Lygus control taking place in the U.S. dependson one or more of these rather old pieces ofchemistry. Endosulfan is banned in more than twodozen countries and may be greatly reduced in theU.S. very soon. It is still used widely in AZ for Lygusand other pest control. Acephate (Orthene) was ournumber one active ingredient in Arizona cotton forabout 15 years! Even the pyrethroids are 30 years oldand will be subject to greater regulatory andenvironmental scrutiny.

It is this old set of chemistry that forms the basis ofthe rationale for our RAMP.



Ellsworth/UA

0

40

80

120

160

Ap

pli

ca

tio

n*

Acre

s

Used alone

Used in mixtures

Lygus Control Products(*1000; 2001-2005; AZ cotton)

These data are from AZ cotton. Whether mixed withother chemicals or used alone, acephate, endosulfan,and oxamyl have been our mainstay products forLygus control.



Ellsworth/UA

HistoricalDependence

Endosulfan, 1954Dimethoate, 1962Bidrin, 1964Temik, 1970Monitor, 1972Orthene, 1973Vydate, 1974Pyrethroids, 1979

PotentiallySelective Options

Carbine, 2006

Metaflumizone, 2008

Neonicotinoids

More recently, we have had exciting new advanceswith potentially selective options: flonicamid wasrecently registered as Carbine and is very effectiveagainst Lygus, and metaflumizone is on track forregistration very soon, though delayed several times.These two compounds bring us new chemistry that sofar have proven to be more selective than ourtraditional, broad spectrum options.

This not only gives us new “effective” options, butprovides new opportunities to exploit the benefits ofnatural enemy conservation in our system.

Registered and unregistered neonicotinoids may alsoplay a role in some systems.



Ellsworth/UA

Historical Trends in LygusControl in Arizona Cotton

IGRs, Bt cotton,& WF IPM Planintroduced

Lygus is not a new pest to Arizona cotton growers. Itis one that has been present and at play for a longtime. This chart shows the statewide foliar sprayintensity for Lygus bugs since 1990. In general, youcan see that we have been spraying Lygus ca. 1-3times per season. This trend appears consistent evenafter dramatic and major changes to our system. Theintroduction of Bt cotton and selective whitefly IGRshas not changed the basic need to control Lygus inour system.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus No. 1 in AZ CottonSince 1998

$71 / A in foliar insectcontrol since 1998

($26 / A to Lygus)

Lygus has been our number one insect pest of cottonsince 1998. Lygus has gained in importance simplybecause it occupies a greater proportion of our sprayrequirements and budgets since the introduction ofselective technologies for other pests in 1996 (Btcotton for PBW and IGRs for whitefly control). Infact, it is the largest yield threat to AZ cotton.

About 150,000 A are grown in AZ. Over half of theU.S. production of Upland cotton and ALL Pima cottonproduction is made in the 4 RAMP states.



Ellsworth/UA

Insect Yield Loss

Lygus bugs are major agricultural pests of manywestern crops. In cotton, growers on averageroutinely lose about 5–10% of their yield to all insectpests. About half of this loss is directly related toLygus bugs. They can dramatically reduce yields onindividual fields and result in almost a total loss if notcontrolled.



Ellsworth/UA

Potential Impact• Other affected crops (not in RAMP)

– Clover seed, sugarbeets, celery, strawberry,

peach, nectarine, pulses, plum, pear, lettuce

• AZ no. 1 producers of broccoli & cauliflower

seed

– 1-2 sprays each year; 10% loss in seed quality

• Eggplant losses 3-10% in CA & ca. 1.5

sprays

• 1M A of alfalfa grown in CA/AZ

• Guayule could increase to as much as

200,000 A

• Cotton = $1 billion crop in RAMP states,

half of all U.S. production

Lygus is an indigenous, polyphagous mirid with seedor floral-feeding habits that make it particularlydamaging to a wide array of fruit, vegetable, and fieldcrops in the West and beyond.

These crops are ones that our RAMP results couldimpact or ones that we are examining directly. Theserisks are core to our rationale for the RAMP.

Losses to and control costs for Lygus are extremelylarge. Huge advances have been made in IPM overallin the last decade; however, Lygus and other miridsremain or have become key pests that tend to onlyhave very broadly toxic insecticides as their primarycontrol options.



Ellsworth/UA

Stakeholder Engagement

These numbers come from a dialog directly withstakeholders. Furthermore, through PestManagement Strategic Plans (PMSPs) and otherdocumented sources, stakeholders tell us directlythat Lygus are important to them, and thatimprovements in our pest management system areneeded.



Ellsworth/UA

Approach

• Identify & deployreduced-riskalternatives

– Improve decision-making

• Reduce densities

– Locally, in-field

– Systematically,throughout landscapevia crop placement &better ecosystemservices

Reduce impact of Lygusand Lygus controlchemistry on the

Western agro-ecosystem

While very complex and very diverse, our basicapproach is two-fold. There is an expectation that wewill be successful in both areas and therefore reducethe impact of Lygus and Lygus control chemistry inthe Western agro-ecosystem.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus IPM

1

2

3

In AZ, we attempt to practice an integrated pestmanagement plan for Lygus that depends on the 3basic keys in common with any IPM plan: sampling,effective chemical use, and “avoidance”. Avoidance isa set of practices and tactics that can be furthersubdivided into “Crop Management” or practices thataffect crop health and reduce the crop’s sensitivity orattractiveness to Lygus; “Exploitation of Pest Biology& Ecology” which capitalizes on our knowledge ofhow Lygus live and die within the system; and Area-wide Impact” or those set of approaches thatinfluence larger-scale distributions of Lygus in oursystem.

Our focus is on lowering the areawide impact of pestsin our system, in this case Lygus bugs through moreefficient field-specific and new region-wideapproaches.



Ellsworth/UA

Stink bugs

Stink bugs

Brown stink bug

Brown stink bug

Stink bugs

Stink bugs

BollwormBollworm

Bo

llwo

rmB

ollw

orm M

ites

Mit

es

Thrips

Thrips

TBW

TBW

LygusLygus

Growers, practitioners and scientists have notedanecdotally for decades the role that some crops playas sources of pests in cotton. These relationships arepoorly defined, especially beyond adjacent fields.Bollworms and mites from corn, thrips and brownstink bug from wheat, stink bugs from soybeans andpeanuts, tobacco budworms from peanuts andbollworms and Lygus from sorghum.



Ellsworth/UA

LygusLygusWhiteflie

s

Whiteflies

LygusLygus

Lygus

Lygus

In more western scenarios, we’ve seen Lygus fromseed alfalfa, safflower, and sugar beets, as well aswhiteflies sourced from melons to cotton. The rolethat guayule, as a new, introduced crop to thesouthwest is completely unknown with respect topest or beneficial insect movement.

The strength of our approach is in our commitment tobetter understand and quantitatively define thespatial dynamics of a key pest in our western agro-ecosystem.



Ellsworth/UA

Abundance

• Movement

• Broad-Scale Features

– Weather

– Non-crop host availability

– Host distributions

• Local management

– Field specific

!

!

f(x) = ML + BL + LLf(x) = ML + BL + LL

In thinking more about Lygus, indeed all insect pests,it becomes clear quite quickly that it is an issue of“Abundance”. Abundance is affected by Movement, aset of Broad-Scale Features, and Local Management.While there is not much we can do about theweather, a grower does control Local Managementdecisions on his/her own field or farm and we wish tocontinue to develop research to support this decision-making. However, insect abundance is controlled alsoby one Broad-Scale Feature that we can control, hostor crop and non-crop distributions in an area. It isthis opportunity, “great” in scale, that we would liketo focus our research to benefit growers. Growerswho make land use decisions over larger areas standto gain the most.



Ellsworth/UA

Movement

One cannot rationally control host or cropdistributions without more information about how aninsect moves and travels between different habitats.So Movement is very important. Insect pests andbeneficials arrive to and depart from grower fieldseach year. Where they come from are “Sources”.Where they go are “Sinks”.

We are trying to precisely define what the source andsink habitats are and how we can manipulate themfor the benefit of the entire community.



Ellsworth/UA

Crop Placement

Right at the heart of our IPM strategy is “CropPlacement”. Crop placement is central to itsavailability to other pests. By strategicallyconsidering how we arrange and place our crops bothin space and time, we can help to deny our crops as aresource for pest insects.

The problem until now is that we have only verylimited information on how to strategically arrangeour crops to prevent or minimize damage from insectpests.



Ellsworth/UA

Safflower

CottonAlfalfa

Goodell/UC-IPM

This graphic is borrowed from Pete Goodell at UC-IPMand was developed several years ago, well before itrather presciently represented the difficult Lygusproblem in the central valley of CA in 2008.

In short, a cropping plan that does not consider thespatial dynamics of crop-pest interactions can resultin a scattering of sources throughout the landscapecausing multiple sites of entry into sensitive cropslike cotton.



Ellsworth/UA

Cotton

Safflower

Alfalfa

Intercrop alfalfa in cotton

Utilized strip cropping

Embed alfalfa fields around cotton

Introduced more alfalfa hay

Rearranged cropping pattern

Goodell/UC-IPM

However, by making some sensible decisions aboutcrop densities and locations, a grower couldpotentially minimize the risk of Lygus movement andinvasion into sensitive crops: grouping sources,including more sinks, making use of other creativecropping / cultural practices.



Ellsworth/UA

Connections

• Reduce tunnel vision

• Increase flow ofinformation

• Synergize discovery& implementation

The connections we have among RAMP subprojectsare many. We’ll review these as a way to help guardagainst tunnel vision, to increase flow of informationand to synergize discovery and implementation.



Ellsworth/UA

IndividualMovement(flight assays)

Obj. 3C

Population-Level Movement

(Mark-recapture)Obj. 3C

Descriptive spatio-temporal

Population Dynamics

(GPS/GIS)

Obj. 3A

Mechanistic Spatio-Temporal

Population Dynamics

(Simulation Model)

Obj. 3B

Farmscape

Host Management

(Alfalfa/Boswell)

Obj. 3C, 4B, 4C

Spatio-Temporal Economics

(Grower Gaming Simulation)

Obj. 3B, 4C

LandscapeLevel

A conceptual flow-diagram of the proposed projectdelineating components of the three major elements(field-level research, landscape-level research andoutreach) and their interrelationships. Arrows depictthe flow of information; black arrows indicate a one-way flow and red arrows depict flows with feedback.Within the Landscape-Level domain the size of theovals indicate the spatial context of that elementfrom very localized (e.g., individual movement) toregional and multi-state (e.g. spatio-temporaleconomics).



Ellsworth/UA

Pest Damage

(Yield/Pest Density)

Obj. 1A,B

Reduce-risk Insecticides

(Efficacy Testing)

Obj. 2A

Threshold Development

& Refinement

(Yield/Pest Density)

Obj. 1A,B

Natural Enemy

Conservation

(Selectivity Testing)

Obj. 2B

FieldLevel

Field-level components feed into the landscape-levelby governing localized population dynamics andmanagement practices that ultimately determinepopulation processes and management strategieswithin larger landscape contexts. Feedback occurswhen landscape-level processes result in lowering ofLygus risks such that field-level practices becomemore functional (e.g., natural enemy conservation &biological control).



Ellsworth/UA

Grower Educational Products

Bulletins / Circulars

Publications

Websites

Obj. 1,2,3,4B,4C

Grower Educational Processes

Interactive Training Gaming Model

Guidelines Development

Growers Meetings

Field Days

Obj. 1,2,3,4B,4C

Engagement

Grower Participatory Research

On-Farm Demonstrations

International / Scientific Exchange

Program Evaluation

Obj. 1,2,3,4

Outreach

Outreach activities bridge field- and landscape-levelcomponents and provide critical feedback to ensurethat research is relevant and provides practicalsolutions to risk mitigation while also fostering animproved fundamental understanding of pest impact,behavior, biology, and ecology at multiple spatialscales. See Appendix 8a for objectivenumbers/letters and associated colors.



Ellsworth/UA

ProjectProgress

• Review ofcommitments

• Identify challenges

• Documentmodifications

The balance of this day will be dedicated to reviewingproject progress. However, I wish to do a broadoverview of where we are by reviewingcommitments, identifying challenges, anddocumenting modifications.



Ellsworth/UA

Themes

• Plant/Pest/PesticideInteractions

• Individual Behavior &Local Movement

• Regional Ecology,Movement, &Modeling

• Grower Education

Our work can be organized in so many ways.However, for this exercise we will follow these fourthemes



Ellsworth/UA

Reduced-risk Approaches

Plant/Pest/Pesticide Interactions

Efficacy Damage/Density NT effects

Bundy cotton, chiles

Ellsworth cotton cotton

Godfrey dry beans dry beans

Goodell, Godfrey et al. Pima, eggplant

McGuire fungus

Naranjo & Ellsworth lesquerella, guayule cotton

Parajulee & Kerns cotton cotton cotton

Rosenheim Geocoris in cotton

Spurgeon

These are the projects that fall within thePlant/Pest/Pesticide Interactions theme. As anaffiliate outside the RAMP, Dale Spurgeon has doneresearch on sweeps sampling that will be helpful indesigning decision-making tools.



Ellsworth/UA

Lygus Behavior

Individual Behavior & Local Movement

Individual Local Factors Management

Blackmer & Naranjo flight assays

Goodell alfalfa management

Hagler, Blackmer,

Naranjointercrop movement

Parajulee non-cotton hosts

BrentSpurgeon

These fall in the individual behavior and localmovement theme. Naranjo will continue/completethe work and objectives that Jackie was a part of. Asaffiliates to the RAMP, Colin Brent has done muchwork on reproductive physiology and he with DaleSpurgeon have been investigating the role thatdiapause plays in this insect.



Ellsworth/UA

Regional Ecology

Regional Ecology, Movement & Modeling

Statistical Mechanistic

Carriere, Dutilleul, Ellsworth,

Goodell, ParajuleeAZ, CA, TX sampling

Corbett & Rosenheim Simulation Model

Rosenheim & Hagler Mark-Capture

CorbettDutilleul (out of funding)

These projects are part of the regional ecologytheme. Andrew Corbett is withdrawing from theRAMP as a funded collaborator. We will need todiscuss his objectives and how they will becompleted. Pierre Dutilleul, our funded collaboratorat McGill University, has unexpectedly run out ofmoney. We will need to discuss this in our sessions.He is key to the analyses of our data from the largesampling project.



Ellsworth/UA

Education & Outreach

Communication Teaching

Ellsworth Grower demonstrations

Ellsworth & Goodell International Meeting Sampling video

Ellsworth, Corbett,

Goodell, Rosenheim,

Carriere, Tronstad

Game training

simulation & workshops

Fournier ACIS / APMC / Listserv

Fournier, Goodell,

Parajulee, Kerns,

Bundy, Godfrey

Evaluation & Assessment

Outreach

Corbett

The final theme falls in education and outreach.Again, Andrew was to have played a key role here inthe development of a game training simulation.



Ellsworth/UA

USDA-CSREES, Risk Avoidance & Mitigation Program(RAMP)

Developing and implementing field and landscape levelreduced-risk management strategies for Lygus in

Western cropping systems

We are so large that we’ve never had everyone in onespot at one time, but this is about half of the overallteam (including collaborators). As part of our project,we organized the 2nd international Lygussymposium.

The project team. Missing PIs: Larry Godfrey (UC-Davis); David Kerns (Texas A&M); Jay Rosenheim(UC-Davis); Scott Bundy (NMSU).

This picture is from the 2nd International LygusSymposium held at Asilomar Conference Center,Pacific Grove, CA, 15-19 April 2007, and sponsored inpart by the APMC and the USDA-RAMP grant.



Ellsworth/UA

Texas Team

Here are the project leaders of the TX team.

Kerns, Carroll, and Parajulee.



Ellsworth/UA

Carriere(UA)

Palumbo(UA)


Naranjo,Blackmer,


Bundy(NMSU)

Goodell(UC-IPM)


RAMP Team Collaborators




Bancroft(USDA)

As already noted, we have had a number of projectmodifications since inception of the RAMP. MickeyMcClure dropped off the project shortly after itssubmission. Thus his unfunded objective, which wasminor, has been dropped. Jay Bancroft, also of USDA-Shafter, left the USDA system. He was a co-PI onsome objectives, which continued without his input.



Ellsworth/UA

Carriere(UA)

Palumbo(UA)


Naranjo,Blackmer,


Bundy(NMSU)

Goodell(UC-IPM)


RAMP Team Collaborators




AffiliatesBrent (USDA-Maricopa)Cooper (USDA-Shafter)

Fabrick (USDA-Maricopa)Spurgeon (USDA-Shafter)

We have, on the plus side, gained many valuableaffiliates from new scientiests at USDA-Shafter andUSDA-Maricopa. Glad to have them involved!



Ellsworth/UA

In Memoriam

Jackie Blackmer1954-2008

We of course have also experienced a tragic loss inthe passing of Jackie Blackmer. She was a wonderfulcolleague, excellent scientist and tireless worker evento the very end. Thankfully, she carefully addressedmost of her objectives prior to her passing, and SteveNaranjo will continue some of the flight behaviorwork. We will miss Jackie.



Ellsworth/UA

Assessment

• Grant requirement

• Extension mandate

• Measures &documents success

• Guides future efforts

Assessment is a foreign concept to many in thescientific community. But for reasons that are many,we must assess not only how and what our RAMPactivities have accomplished and influenced, but howLygus management has changed over the course ofthis grant period. Al will dedicate some time todiscuss this area.



Ellsworth/UA

• Identify problem through stakeholder feedback

– Impact of Lygus and Lygus control chemistry cause de-stabilizing risks for the Western agro-ecosystem

• Develop solutions through applied research &education

– Reduced-risk approaches are discovered and developed;guidelines are generated, published & workshopsconducted

• Assess & measure impacts and changes in clientbehavior

– Growers make better decisions & insecticide use choicesbased ostensibly on guidelines

• Develop feedback & make adjustments inresearch & education

– Economic forces change crop patterns; new data needed

Cooperative Extension Model

The modern Cooperative Extension Model is firmly inplace here in Arizona, and includes importantstakeholder linkages as well as assessment. We canonly guess how and what our assessment tells us, butit might look something like this as an example.



Ellsworth/UA

'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '080

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fo

lia

r S

pra

y I

nte

nsit

y

Whitefly Pink bollworm Lygus bugs Other

Cotton IPM Saves Millions $

$201,000,000 saved costs & yield loss

IGRs, Bt cotton & AZ IPM plan

Zero grower sprays for PBW

Outcomes

Assesments can lead you to outcomes and impacts.These are critical to documenting success andattracting future funding. For cotton, we have beenmeasuring insecticide use behaviors for years. Theresults have been striking. A watershed of changeoccurred in 1996 with the introduction of very safeand selective Insect Growth Regulators for whiteflycontrol, and transgenic Bt cotton, along with an IPMplan for whitefly management. More recently, stateagencies began a PBW eradication in 2006. For thefirst time since the mid-1960’s, AZ growers statewidedid not spray at all for PBW! Bt cotton is grown on98.25% of the acreage. And whiteflies have fadedfrom memory as a severe and unmanageable pest.The credit we take for any part of this is shared withmany, many others, but the result has been over$200M saved cumulatively since 1996.



Ellsworth/UA

RAMP Project Meeting

• Report results

• Make connections

• Identifyopportunities

• Be fullyinteractive

*

*Change the world

Let’s:

So this is OUR meeting. Let’s make the most of it!

Date post:	10-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

RAMP Project Meeting, 22 June 2009 The Lygus …RAMP Project meeting June 22, 2009 University of...

Documents