Codling moth (Cydia pomonella L.) is a primary internal feeder

Transcription

1 ResearcH Quantifying the Benefits of Areawide Pheromone Mating Disruption Programs that Target Codling Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). P. S. McGhee, D. L. Epstein, and L. J. Gut Abstract A 4-yr research and implementation project in Michigan apple production showed that deploying pheromone-mediated mating disruption for codling moth, Cydia pomonella L., in an areawide (AW-CMMD) program where mating disruption is established on all apple-producing acreage on individual and adjacent farms, significantly improves control of codling moth. The areawide project was compared with mating disruption applied to individual apple blocks (Block-CMMD) on farms with other orchard acreage not under disruption, or apple blocks not treated with mating disruption (No-CMMD). Pheromone-baited traps were deployed at 1/ha over 850 ha of AW-CMMD and 20 ha of Block-CMMD; 20 ha were not treated. [Q 1] Average captures of codling moth in AW-CMMD declined each season while they remained steady in the Block-CMMD and increased in the No-CMMD programs. Captures of male codling moth in pheromone-baited traps were reduced 93% by year 4 of the project in AW-CMMD orchards. Injury to fruit and the overall number of insecticides targeting codling moth decreased each year in the areawide program; in Block-CMMD orchards, injury levels remained about the same with slight reductions in insecticide use from year to year; and in the No-CMMD orchards, injury increased significantly, but insecticide use varied little from year to year. Growers who implemented AW-CMMD realized a mean savings of $55 65/ha through reduced fruit injury and use of insecticides as compared with orchards using insecticide-only programs. This Michigan project demonstrates that an areawide approach to mating disruption improves the benefits of deploying pheromone in individual blocks. Codling moth (Cydia pomonella L.) is a primary internal feeder of apples wherever they are grown, and damage from this pest makes fruit unmarketable. Without effective control, losses can range from 50 to 90% of the crop (Wise and Gut 2000, 2002). Michigan apple orchards have a history of high codling moth pressure, and growers have experienced increasing difficulty in controlling this key internal-feeding pest (Howitt 1993, Epstein and Gut 2000, Epstein et al. 2002). As of 2002, infestation levels >10% had occurred on Michigan farms, and reduced pack-outs and load rejections due to the detection of infested fruit were common. Controlling this pest with one or more broad-spectrum insecticides became difficult, and failures were reported throughout the state. Codling moth resistance to the organophosphorous insecticide, azinphos-methyl, was reported at levels >10-fold, compared with susceptible populations throughout major apple-growing regions in Michigan (Mota-Sanchez et al. 2008). Areawide pest management is intended to suppress the population levels of mobile pest species over a large geographic range. This strategy relies less on reactive population controls (e.g., applying insecticides after pest populations reach treatment thresholds) and more on proactive measures designed to suppress pest populations below treatment thresholds. Pheromone-based mating disruption is a proactive tactic that provides pest control by deploying synthetic sex pheromone to interfere with mate-finding orientation and subsequent mating behavior (Gut et al., Miller et al. ). The approach has been adopted as a primary control for numerous fruit pests, including codling moth (Witzgal et al. 2008). [Q 2] Areawide pheromone-based management promotes a cooperative effort among neighboring growers with contiguous acreage. They deploy mating disruption on all of the acreage on their farms and address concerns about the immigration of mated females and lower pheromone concentrations in the borders of smaller, individualized disruption programs (Knight 1995, Gut and Brunner 1998). The deployment of sex pheromones for areawide pest management has been used for various pests in diverse cropping systems around the world including South Africa, Italy, the western United States, Australia, and Argentina, (Staten et al. 1987, Barnes and Blomefield 1997, Calkins et al. 2000, Jones and Casagrande 2000, Il ichev et al. 2002). The objective of this 4-yr project was to determine whether the deployment of a pheromone-based, areawide mating disruption (AW-CMMD) program would be an effective and economical man- 26 American Entomologist Summer 2011

2 agement approach under Michigan apple production conditions, specifically for smaller farms ( 40 ha), which are often separated from neighboring orchards by fields and woodlots. The project also was designed to assess, for the first time, the benefit of using pheromone on an areawide basis versus an individual orchard block basis. We compared AW-CMMD with mating disruption applied to smaller (<4 ha) individual orchards (Block-CMMD) and orchards that were not treated with mating disruption (No-CMMD) in the same region. Numbers of moths captured, levels of codling moth injury to apples, insecticide use targeting codling moth, and control program economics were used to evaluate the management methods. Materials and Methods Experimental Layout. The Michigan apple production region commonly referred to as The Ridge is located 16 km NW of Grand Rapids (43ʺ07ʹ51.97ʺN; 85ʺ46ʹ46.65ʺW; 278 m elevation). The Ridge was chosen for this study because of recurring codling moth outbreaks and increased levels of fruit injury, > 5%, at harvest. Eight adjacent commercial apple farms comprising an area of 320 fruitbearing hectares were selected to implement an areawide codling moth mating disruption (AW-CMMD) strategy in. Four farms located closely to, but distinctly outside of the immediate AW-CMMD region, deployed codling moth pheromones to a single, 2 4 ha, apple block (Block-CMMD). Each of these four farms had a paired 2 4 ha apple block that was left untreated with pheromones (No-CMMD) as a negative control. Supplemental insecticides were used when necessary throughout all farms and treatments to control codling moth populations that exceeded economic treatment thresholds. Ten additional farms joined the AW-CMMD project in bringing the total treated area to 850 ha. [Q 3] Pheromone Disruption. Growers participating in the AW-CMMD and Block-CMMD orchards chose which hand-applied disruption product to deploy in their orchards. Isomate C+ or Isomate CTT (Shin-Etsu Chemical, Tokyo) was used in all Block-CMMD orchards and in 97% of the AW-CMMD orchards. Scentry NoMate Codling Moth Spirals (Scentry Biologicals, Billings, MT) were used on one AW-CMMD farm in. All pheromone dispensers were placed in orchards at label rates before the start of first-generation codling moth flight, about May Monitoring. Large Delta style traps (LPD Scenturian Guardpost, Suterra, Bend, OR) baited with long-life codling moth L2 lures (Trécé, Adair, OK) or Biolure CM 10 (Suterra) were used to monitor male adult activity throughout each growing season. Traps were deployed at 1/ha in each treatment. CM L2 and Biolure 10 baited traps were arranged in an alternating pattern of 1 each per 2 ha. The standard-releasing L2 lure was used to measure the effectiveness of the pheromone mating disruption treatments, and the higher releasing 10 lure was used to measured relative density of codling moth (Thomson et al. 1999). Moth captures were recorded each week throughout the growing season. Sticky liners were replaced after cumulative captures exceeded 30 moths per trap or at the beginning of each flight. Pheromone lures were replaced at the onset of adult emergence for each generation. The location of each trap was recorded using a Garmin etrex Vista GPS device (Garmin, Olathe, KS). Trap locations were plotted on USGS aerial imagery using Terrabrowser V1.5b3 ( Chimoosoft.com). Trap locations were used to plot moth captures in each orchard in order to help assess codling moth populations and facilitate management decisions. Mean number of moth captures was calculated weekly for each 4 ha apple block, and a corresponding color-coordinated map overlay was generated according to assigned pest pressure: no moths, low (1 3 moths), medium (4 10 moths), or high (11+ moths) catch using Omnigraffle Pro (Omni Group, Seattle). Each week participating apple growers were given summary reports that detailed the numbers and corresponding locations of moths captured on their farms. A public information kiosk was established at the Fruit Ridge Orchard Supply Store, Sparta, MI, located centrally within the AW-CMMD project region. A summary of moth captures for all farms and treatments was posted at the kiosk along with the color-coordinated map indicating relative moth captures that showed the weekly trends in moth populations. Evaluating Control Programs: Fruit Injury. Fruit injury assessments consisted of evaluating 600 fruit per block; 30 fruit from each of 20 trees (15 fruit from the top 2 m and 15 from the lower 2 m of the canopy) in each orchard. Each fruit was inspected by hand on the tree for codling moth feeding. Fruit injury was assessed after the first codling moth flight (~7 July) and just before harvest beginning in the fall (21 Aug. 14 Sept.) of each year. Equal numbers of fruits were sampled from the orchard perimeters and interiors. All damaged fruit was collected and cut open; any larvae found were identified as either oriental fruit moth [Grapholita molesta (Busck); OFM] or codling moth by presence (OFM) or absence (CM) of an anal comb. The total numbers of injured fruits and larval species were recorded. Evaluating Control Programs: Chemical Control Programs. Records of all pesticide applications were obtained from each grower. The number, kinds, and amounts of insecticides used for codling moth control were summarized for each season. The mean number of insecticide applications was compared directly for each treatment. Evaluating Control Programs: Economics. A general economic analysis was used to evaluate the economic impact of using AW-CMMD versus the grower standard, No-CMMD. The economic analysis assessed net costs or savings of implementing mating disruption relative to the grower s standard comparison approach, based upon a ranging analyses (Epstein et al. 2001). [Q 4] This analysis used a 5 yr ( ) average on prices in Michigan for fresh and processed apples. Costs considered were damage costs (i.e., the revenue lost when damaged fruit cannot be sold or receives a lower price) and costs of arthropod pest control inputs including mating disruption plus cost of mating disruption installation for orchards where mating disruption programs were implemented. Costs for fuel and labor to apply insecticides were not included because some control applications regularly occur with tank mixes to control other pests and diseases in the orchard. The value of apples in each plot was estimated and presented within a range depending on crop market destination, either for processing or the fresh market. The economic model (Epstein et al. 2001) [Q 4] estimates that a 1% reduction in injury from pests feeding internally on apples is equivalent to a range of $17.50/ha for orchards where 100% of fruit is destined for a processing market to $52.50/ha where 100% of fruit will be sold fresh. Data Analyses. We calculated the average and standard error of the number of male codling moth captured in standard, L2, pheromone-baited traps for each generation in all treatments over the course of 4 yr. Data were square-root transformed to meet the requirements of normality according to skewness and kurtosis and then subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Means were separated by Fischer s protected least significant difference (PLSD) American Entomologist Volume 57, Number 2 27

3 (P = 0.05) (Systat 13, Systat Software, Chicago; The untransformed means and standard errors are presented in Table 1. Percentage data from fruit injury analysis were arcsine transformed to stabilize variances and then subjected to analyses of variance (ANOVA). Means were separated by Fisher s protected least significant difference (PLSD) (P = 0.05) (Systat 13). The untransformed means and standard errors are presented in Fig. 1. The mean number of total insecticide applications and the number of organophosphorous insecticide applications targeting codling moth were compared directly for all management programs and standard errors of the means reported. Product cost for pheromone (mean of $108/ac), organophosphate (OP) insecticides (x = $15.37/ac per application), and non-op insecticides (x = $33.40/ac per application) were calculated on the basis of local insecticide prices obtained from a chemical distributer. The average price for pheromones and insecticides targeting codling moth was determined for AW-CMMD, Block-CMMD and No-CMMD blocks. [Q 5] Results Moth Captures. Catch of male codling moth in L2 baited traps decreased from 42.0 to 1.5 in AW-CMMD orchards over 4 yr. Reduced moth captures were realized by the second generation in year 1, with an average of 7.8 moths. Captures of moths also were reduced from 28.7 to 7.7 in the Block-CMMD orchards by year 4. [Au: 1] Statistically, the two mating disruption treatments only differed in the first generation of year 2, when 6 times more moths were captured in the Block-CMMD treatment than in the AW-CMMD treatment (Tables 1 and 2). Mean numbers of moth captures were significantly lower in AW-CMMD and Block-CMMD than in No-CMMD orchards throughout the project. Moth catch was sustained at high levels over all four years in the No-CMMD treatment with 59, 37, 99, and 25 males per trap during first generation for, respectively (Tables 1 and 3). The same pattern of high captures was observed during second generation each year. In contrast, moth captures in all pheromone treatments remained at consistently low levels, generally <10 moths Table 1. Mean number of captures of 1 st and 2 nd generation male codling moth in L2-baited monitoring traps in AW-CMMD, Block-CMMD, and No-CMMD apple orchards,. a 28 Treatment 1 st Generation Mean ± SEM 2 nd Generation Mean ± SEM AW-CMMD 42.0 ± 12.5a 7.8 ± 2.8a Block-CMMD 28.7 ± 11.8a 7.9 ± 1.6a No-CMMD 58.9 ± 13.1a 78.3 ± 42.0b AW-CMMD 4.3 ± 2.6a 7.2 ± 3.3a Block-CMMD 26.7 ± 10.5b 12.5 ± 3.3a No-CMMD 36.8 ± 21.0b 37.8 ± 24.0b AW-CMMD 16.7 ± 4.1a 9.0 ± 2.4a Block-CMMD 15.8 ± 8.9a 10.3 ± 2.1a No-CMMD 99.3 ± 21.4b 92.6 ± 29.6b AW-CMMD 1.5 ± 0.8a 2.2 ± 1.2a Block-CMMD 7.7 ± 3.5a 9.9 ± 4.7a No-CMMD 24.5 ± 7.0b 36.7 ± 10.9b Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05; ANOVA). a AW-CMMD,; Block-CMMD, and No-CMMD; areawide, block, and no codling moth mating disruption, respectively. Fig. 1. Comparison of codling moth injury to fruit in AW-CMMD, Block- CMMD or No-CMMD programs,. per trap (Table 1). Orchards using AW-CMMD rarely saw weekly captures >2 moths per trap, whereas weekly populations in Block- CMMD peaked at ~5 moths per trap. In contrast, a pattern of higher and more variable weekly moth captures was observed over the course of each season in the No-CMMD orchards; maximum weekly captures averaged as high as 28 individuals per trap. Fruit Injury. Immediate reductions in codling moth injured fruit were observed in orchards deploying AW-CMMD compared with Block-CMMD and No-CMMD orchards. In, codling moth injury to fruit at harvest in AW-CMMD was 0.4%, significantly less than Table 2. Captures of male moths in L2-baited monitoring traps in AW-CMMD vs. No-CMMD Programs,. Generation SS Mean Square F-Value P-Value 1 st nd * 1 st * 2 nd * 1 st * 2 nd <0.0001* 1 st * 2 nd * Significantly different P values, α = 0.05, are marked with *; df = 2. American Entomologist Summer 2011

4 Table 3. Fishers PLSD table for effect of treatment on male moth capture in pheromone-baited, 1 mg. monitoring traps. Mean Critical Comparison a Generation P-Value AW NoMD 1st AW Block 1st NoMD Block 1st AW NoMD 2nd * AW Block 2nd NoMD Block 2nd * AW NoMD 1st * AW Block 1st * NoMD Block 1st AW NoMD 2nd * AW Block 2nd NoMD Block 2nd * AW NoMD 1st * AW Block 1st NoMD Block 1st * AW NoMD 2nd <0.0001* AW Block 2nd NoMD Block 2nd * AW NoMD 1st * AW Block 1st NoMD Block 1st * AW NoMD 2nd * AW Block 2nd NoMD Block 2nd * Significantly different P values, α = 0.05, are bolded and marked with the symbol, * a (AW = AW-CMMD, NoMD = no disruption, Block = Block-CMMD). Table 5. Fishers PLSD table for effect of treatment on injury to fruit from codling moth feeding. Mean Critical Comparison a Generation P-Value AW NoMD 1st * AW Block 1st <0.0001* NoMD Block 1st AW NoMD 2nd * AW Block 2nd * NoMD Block 2nd AW NoMD 1st <0.0001* AW Block 1st NoMD Block 1st * AW NoMD 2nd <0.0001* AW Block 2nd * NoMD Block 2nd * AW NoMD 1st * AW Block 1st NoMD Block 1st * AW NoMD 2nd <0.0001* AW Block 2nd * NoMD Block 2nd AW NoMD 1st <0.0001* AW Block 1st NoMD Block 1st * AW NoMD 2nd <0.0001* AW Block 2nd * NoMD Block 2nd * Significantly different P values, α = 0.05, are in bold type and marked with * a AW = AW-CMMD, Block = Block-CMMD, NoMD = no disruption. either the Block or No-CMMD programs (Fig. 1). The AW-CMMD program had significantly less injury caused by codling moth feeding than No-CMMD orchard blocks for every codling moth generation in all four years (Fig. 1 and Table 4). Block-CMMD had significantly less injury caused by codling moth feeding than No-CMMD orchard blocks for both codling moth generations in and, and for first codling moth generation in (Fig. 1 and Table 5). The AW-CMMD program had significantly less injury caused by codling moth feeding than Block-CMMD for both codling moth generations in, and for all four years at harvest (Fig. 1 and Table 5). Injury in orchards treated with pheromone gradually decreased over 4 yr of pheromone usage. There was a steady increase in injury levels in the No-CMMD orchards, where final harvest injury was >3% Table 4. Codling moth injury to fruit in AW-CMMD, Block-CMMD and No-CMMD programs,. Generation SS Mean Sq F-Value P-Value 1 st <0.0001* 2 nd * 1 st <0.0001* 2 nd <0.0001* 1 st * 2 nd <0.0001* 1 st * 2 nd <0.0001* Significantly different P values, α = 0.05, are marked with *; df = 2. in (Fig. 1). In the fourth season, codling moth injury to fruit in the AW-CMMD was 0.6% and 3.1% less than Block and No-CMMD orchards, respectively. Consistent fruit protection was also accomplished in the Block-CMMD orchards with a total reduction of ~0.5% over 4 yr. On average, codling moth injury on AW-CMMD farms was almost undetectable by year 4. Chemical Control Programs. Insecticide management regimes for codling moth were similar across all programs beginning in. They relied primarily on organophosphorous (OP) compounds; applications averaged five of the six materials of choice seasonally. The AW-CMMD and Block-CMMD programs saw decreased insecticide use for codling moth control in years 2 4, whereas the overall numbers of applications remained the same in the No-CMMD program orchards (Fig. 2). AW-CMMD insecticide applications were reduced annually by at least one spray from each of the previous years throughout the project. There were only three targeted sprays in the AW-CMMD in, of which only one spray was an OP. A pattern of reduced insecticide applications was also seen in the Block-CMMD programs, but with fewer reductions in total seasonal (5) and OP sprays (3). Economics: Input Costs. Mating disruption dispenser costs ranged between $200 and $275/ha, depending on the product and rate of dispensers deployed per hectare. Labor costs for applying dispensers ranged from $37.50 to $50.00/ha. Labor costs for monitoring traps ranged from $75 to $100/ha. The average cost for application of an insecticide spray targeting codling moth control was $87.50/ha. Areawide growers realized a mean reduction of 50% in codling moth insecticides over 4 yr (7 applications in to 3.5 applications in ). This reduction in American Entomologist Volume 57, Number 2 29

5 Fig. 2. Comparison of the number of insecticide applications targeting codling moth (CM) on eight farms under areawide disruption (AW- CMMD), disruption on four individual orchard blocks (Block-CMMD), or four no disruption areas (No-CMMD),. applications saved $306.25/ha. Economics: Fruit Injury and Income. After 4 yr of AW-CMMD, there was a mean of 3.1% less injury to fruit from codling moth feeding than in insecticide-only programs. For orchards where 100% of fruit was destined for a processing market, a 1% reduction in internal injury to apples was valued at $17.50/ha; a 1% reduction for orchards where 100% of fruit was sold fresh was valued at $52.50/ha. AW- CMMD growers, therefore, received an average of $61.25 to $183.75/ ha more income than growers who used insecticides only. Economics: Savings. The increased costs or savings for growers implementing AW-CMMD relative to those not using mating disruption can be calculated as the mean cost of using mating disruption minus the mean savings realized through the reduced insecticide use and improved fruit protection. Mean savings for growers implementing AW-CMMD by year four of the project ranged between $ and $490.00/ha. The cost of purchasing pheromone dispensers, labor for applying dispensers and for increased monitoring with pheromone-baited traps ranged between $ and $425/ha. Thus, growers who used AW-CMMD realized a mean savings of $55 65/ha. Fig. 3. Comparison of the number of male codling moths captured in L2 pheromone-baited traps at the start or the end of the AW-CMMD program. 30 Discussion Although codling moth mating disruption has been practiced in apple orchards around the world for almost 20 yr, many practical and economical concerns with the approach have slowed its widespread adoption. In apple-growing regions such as Michigan, the challenges of incorporating pheromone disruption into pest management programs include the additional costs for managing a multitude of insect and disease pests, availability of labor for hanging pheromone dispensers, and a farmland topography in which orchards are interspersed with other crop or non-crop habitats. Indeed, Michigan orchards are often surrounded by woodlots with plants known to be alternative hosts for codling moth and neglected apple blocks that support populations of pest insects. Our results show that mating disruption is effective and economical under Michigan conditions, especially when applied on a whole-farm basis. Great successes with mating disruption where large, contiguous areas are treated with pheromone have been documented by Barnes and Blomefield (1997), Calkins et al. (2000), Brunner et al. (2001), and Il ichev et al. (2002). Growers in the Michigan codling moth areawide project experienced a similar level of success (Fig. 3). Overall the results have been impressive; pest densities, as measured by moth captures in pheromone traps, and fruit injury at harvest decline to very low levels after implementing an areawide approach. In addition, direct comparisons with conventional programs outside the project area have revealed dramatic reductions in the number of insecticides applied to control the targeted pests. [Q 6] In contrast to the previous codling moth areawide projects, the Michigan project marks the first time that the efficacy of mating disruption deployed in an areawide fashion (AW-CMMD) was measured against mating disruption deployed in individual farm plots (Block-CMMD). Results show that an areawide approach improved upon the benefits of deploying mating disruption in individual blocks within a larger orchard and resulted in greater fruit protection from codling moth injury and greater reductions in insecticide applications for codling moth control. Researchers have established that the success of mating disruption programs is strongly influenced by moth density and the ability to detect moth immigration into disrupted orchards (Cardé and Minks 1995, Knight and Light, Miller et al. ). A key contributor to the success or failure of mating disruption is the program for monitoring pest populations, and a portion of the success of areawide mating disruption projects has often been attributed to the more intensive monitoring programs that are implemented (Calkins et al. 2000, Brunner et al. 2001). Inadequate monitoring can result in undetected populations of codling moth that exceed damage thresholds and subsequent crop loss at harvest because of infested fruit. Orchards in the Michigan areawide project used traps alternately baited with standard or high-load pheromone lures that were placed at a density of 1 trap/ha. Damage was kept to a minimum; and decisions to not treat, based on the number of moth captures, allowed growers to reduce the number of insecticide applications. Despite the documented utility of pheromone traps, the use of codlemone-baited traps limits the monitoring of codling moth in disrupted orchards. The codlemone lure is attractive to males only, which leaves half of the moth population unmonitored. Another limiting factor is the ability of the monitoring trap, baited with the same pheromone as is found in dispensers, to outcompete dispensers and calling females. The risk of false negatives, whereby no moths are captured, but fruit injury still occurs, remains a major concern American Entomologist Summer 2011

6 among growers who implement the codling moth mating disruption programs. The recent identification of ethyl (E, Z)-2,4-decadienoate (pear ester) as a codling moth attractant provides a new tool to improve codling moth monitoring and the timing of insecticide applications in mating disrupted orchards (Light et al. 2001). The possible advantages of the combined codling moth sex pheromone and pear ester (CMPE) lures over the sex pheromone lure are that they attract females, and thus moth catch is more directly linked to egg laying and the potential for worms in the fruit; that attraction does not appear to be impeded or suppressed by pheromone-based mating disruption. As orchard production systems move toward greater reliance on pheromones and narrow-spectrum, relatively expensive insecticides, more precise trapping systems are needed to monitor codling moth activity and aid in making cost-effective management decisions. Sex pheromone and pear ester combination lures capture more males than codling moth lures alone and may provide a more accurate assessment of moth populations (Thwaite et al., Knight et al. ). Growers have long cited the high input costs associated with deploying mating disruption as a primary impediment to adopting this technology. Our research shows that increased income realized through reduced codling moth feeding injury to fruit and savings from reduced insecticide use can more than offset increased input costs. This is particularly true as insecticide spray programs move away from the less expensive OP insecticides (~$37.50 to $50.00/ ha) to more expensive insect growth regulators, neonicotinoids, and other newer classes of insecticide (~$87.50/ha). The cost of purchasing pheromone dispensers, paying labor for applying dispensers, and monitoring pheromone-baited traps ranged between $ and $425.00/ha. Mean savings realized from implementing AW-CMMD by year 4 ranged between $ and $490.00/ha; the growers who implemented AW-CMMD realized a mean savings of $55 65/ha, demonstrating that AW-CMMD is a cost-efficient management system. Areawide implementation projects, such as this, provide benefits beyond adopting any specific control option that contributes to the project s success. They can help speed up the innovation decision process for most growers. The dissemination of information is faster to this target audience, and the presence of project staff on the farms lends growers the needed confidence to implement innovation in a shorter time than occurs without project input. Project efforts to collect the needed field data and efforts to analyze data and disseminate results can speed up the process of confirmation needed for innovation adoption. Furthermore, implementation projects can provide a network of growers, decision-makers, and information providers that can continue to benefit the targeted industries beyond the completion of a successful project. The most important benefits for Michigan growers include increased grower awareness of the value in a robust codling moth monitoring program and the value of a sustainable approach to managing pest populations. An important outcome of the project was that growers adopted intensive pest monitoring with a high number of traps across each orchard block of their farms and were able to make cost-effective management decisions. Intensive monitoring allowed growers to manage individual blocks where moth catches indicated a problem rather than using the more common approach of treating the entire farm. Areawide programs focus on managing pests by reducing and maintaining low population levels over time, Fig. 4. Participating Michigan areawide apple growers (4 th and 5th generations) enjoying a successful apple harvest having eliminated all insecticide applications targeting codling moth for two consecutive seasons rather than continuously responding to outbreaks. The application of pheromone mating disruption over the entire project area was the cornerstone of maintaining easily managed low codling moth populations. Following the success of the AW-CMMD program in the Fruit Ridge, additional AW-CMMD programs were established on apple farms in four other Michigan counties (11 farms on ~400 ha). After 2 yr, these areawide programs were yielding similar results to those seen on the Fruit Ridge (DLE, unpublished). The Michigan areawide project has advanced the adoption of mating disruption by apple producers in the state. Combining pheromones and a few well-timed insecticide sprays is effective and economical, and it has maintained codling moth populations at low levels year after year. These areawide programs are continuing in five counties; growers are hiring family members or private concerns to maintain the intensive monitoring program. Farms from the original CM-AWMD program continue to benefit from reduced insecticide applications that target codling moths; a few growers have completely eliminated codling moth sprays for the past two seasons (Fig. 4). Currently, there are ~4,000 ha of codling moth mating disruption in Michigan, representing >25% of the total apple plantings in the state up from ~1,400 ha under disruption at the start of the project in. Acknowledgments The authors are indebted to the more than 22 cooperating growers who allowed us to use their orchards as test sites. We thank Heidi Noordijk, Jessica Suschil, Leah Rasch, and Mike Haas for assistance in sampling orchards and David Chase at Peach Ridge Orchard Supply, Sparta, MI, for providing a central kiosk where we could post project data. Gary and Merlin Kraft and Joe Rasch generously provided space on their farm to coordinate project activities. We are grateful to Amy Irish Brown, William Shane and Nikki Rothwell for technical assistance and to Jim Miller, Mark Whalon, Larry Olsen, and Randy Beaudry who critically reviewed an earlier draft of the manuscript. References Cited Barnes, B. N., and T. L. Blomefield Goading growers towards mating disruption: the South African experience with Grapholita molesta and Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). IOBC WPRS Bull. 20: American Entomologist Volume 57, Number 2 31

7 Brunner, J., S. Welter, C. Calkins, R. Hilton, E. Beers, J. Dunley, T. Unruh, A. Knight, R. VanSteenwyk, and P. Van Buskirk Mating disruption of codling moth: a perspective from the Western United States. IOBC WPRS Bull. 25: Calkins, C. O., A. L., Knight, G. Richardson, and K. A. Bloem Areawide population suppression of codling moth, pp In K.-H. Tan [Ed.]. Area-wide control of fruit flies and other insect pests. Peneritg Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang. Cardé, R. T., and A. K. Minks Control of moth pests by mating disruption: successes and constraints. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40: Epstein, D., and L. Gut Pocket guide for IPM scouting in Michigan apples. Mich. State Univ. Ext. Bull. E Epstein, D., L. J. Gut, A. L. Jones, and K. Maxson-Stein Pocket guide for IPM scouting in stone fruits. Mich. State Univ. Ext. Bull. E [Q 5] Gut, L., and J. Brunner Pheromone-based management of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Washington apple orchards. J. Agric. Entomol. 15: Gut, L. J., L. L. Stelinski, D. R. Thomson, and J. R. Miller.. Behavior- Modifying Chemicals: Prospects and Constraints in IPM, pp In O. Koul, G. S. Dhaliwal, and G. W. Cuperus [Eds.]. Integrated pest management: potential, constraints and challenges. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Howitt, A. H Common tree fruit pests. Mich. State Univ. Ext. Bull. NCR 63. Il ichev, A. L., L. J. Gut, D. G. Williams, M. S. Hossain, and P. H. Jerie Area-wide approach for improved control of oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) by mating disruption. Gen. Appl. Entomol. 31: Jones, O. T., and E. D. Casagrande The use of semichemical-based devices and formulations in area-wide programmes: A commercial perspective, pp In K.-H. Tan [Ed.]. Area-wide control of fruit flies and other insect pests. Peneritg Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang. Knight, A. L The impact of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) mating disruption on apple pest management in Yakima Valley, Washington. J. Entomol. Soc. B.C. 92: Knight, A. L., and D. M. Light.. Seasonal flight patterns of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) monitored with pear ester and codlemone-baited traps in sex pheromone-treated apple orchards, Environ. Entomol. 34: Knight, A. L., R. Hilton, and D. M. Light.. Monitoring codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple with blends of ethyl (E, Z)-2, 4-decadienoate and codlemone. Environ. Entomol. 34: Light, D. M., A. L. Knight, C. A. Henrick, D. Rajapaska, B. Lingren, J. C. Dickens, K. M. Reynolds, R. G. Buttery, G. Merrill, J. Roitman, and B. C. Campbell A pear-derived kairomone with pheromonal potency that attracts male and female codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.). Naturwissenschaften 88: Miller, J. R. L. J. Gut, F. M. d Lame, and L. L. Stelinski.. Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (Part I): theory. J Chem. Ecol. 32: Mota-Sanchez, D., J. C. Wise, R. Vander Poppen, L. Gut and R.M. Hollingsworth Resistance of codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae in Michigan to different modes of action causes reduced residual activity. Pest Manag. Sci.: 64: Staten, R. T.; H. M. Flint, R. C. Weddle, E. Quintero, R. E. Zarate, C. M. Finnell, M. Hernandes, A. Yamamoto Pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): Large-scale field trials with a high rate gossyplure formulation. J. Econ. Entomol. 80: Thomson, D. R., L. J. Gut, and J. W. Jenkins Pheromones for insect control, pp In F. R. Hall and J. Menn [Eds.]. Methods in biotechnology, vol. 5: Biopesticides: use and delivery. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. Thwaite, W. G., A. M. Mooney, M. A. Eslick, and H. L. Nichol.. Evaluating pear-derived kairomone lures for monitoring Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Granny Smith apples under mating disruption. Gen. Appl. Entomol. 33: Wise, J., and L. Gut Control of codling moth and Oriental fruit moth with new insecticide chemistries, 1999: Arthropod Manag. Tests 32 25: 40. Wise, J., and L. Gut Apple: season long control of lepidopteran pests with Intrepid, Arthropod Manag. Tests 27: A55. Witzgall, P., L. Stelinski, L. Gut and D. Thomson Codling moth management and chemical ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 53: [Q 2] [Au: Please add a sentence or two about each of you and add any contact information that you want to be included.] P. S. McGhee, D. L. Epstein, and L. J. Gut Copy Editor s Note 1. I have removed the SEMs from the text because they are included in the table. Author Queries Q 1. Is this change correct? Q 2. Please check the spelling of the author s name. Q 3. Please clarify the acreages for the 3 categories. According to the abstract, you had 850 ha under AW-CMMD, 20 ha under Block-CMMD, and 20 ha under No-CMMD. According to this paragraph, there were four farms in the two latter categories with 4 or fewer ha. Q 4. Please check date. Is Epstein et al or 2002? Q 5. Please convert these figures from acres to hectares. Q 6. Please add a reference for this statement. May we bug you? The Entomological Foundation exposed more than 10,000 children and 600 educators to the world of insects through experiential learning activities and workshops. Can you help build science literacy? Invest Today at or send your tax-deductible gift to the Entomological Foundation, 9332 Annapolis Rd., #210, Lanham, MD E n t o m o l o g i c a l F o u n d at i o n Exciting & Educating Young People About Science Through Insects American Entomologist Summer 2011