Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies. Alejandro Costamagna Department of Entomology

Transcription

1 Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies Alejandro Costamagna Department of Entomology

2 CARP Project Team: Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies Jennifer Otani (AAFC Beaverlodge) Tyler Wist (AAFC Saskatoon) Rob Duncan (U of MB) Tharshi Nagalingam (U of MB) Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) Hector Carcamo (AAFC Lethbridge) Barb Sharanowski (Univ. of Central Florida) John Gavloski (MAFRD Carman)

3 Biology and Damage J. Bannerman Manitoba Agriculture J. Soroka

4 Species Response to Seed Treatments Tansey et al J. Econ. Entomol. (2008)

5 Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies 1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles 2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular methods 3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies 4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines for canola producers.

6 Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies 1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles 2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular methods 3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies 4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines for canola producers.

7 Economic Thresholds 25% defoliation - Nominal threshold in canola Canola hybrids may compensate the damage Montana study: 15-20% defoliation (Tangtrakulwanich et al. 2014) Objective: Determine economic threshold for flea beetles in canola hybrids

8 Treatments Methodology Foliar spray at defoliation level Control 45% 25% 15-20% Seed treatment Matador (lambda-cyhalothrin) at 34 ml/ac Fungicide only Fungicide + Insecticide SY 4135 (Roundup Ready hybrid canola)

9 Small plots RCBD 4-5 Replicates 45% Control 15-20% Seed 25%

10 Flea beetle abundance and species composition Weekly, 2.2 stage Defoliation 3 times per week, until plants per plot J. Soroka Plant density No. of plants in 1m row

11 Trials Regions Trials conducted Spraying occurred Yield data obtained Manitoba Alberta: Lethbridge Alberta: Beaverlodge Saskatchewan Analysis of yield ANOVA with block effect Mean comparisons: Tukey s test 2016 Early seeded trials: 4 Late seeded trials: 3

12 Early seeded trials: Moderate flea beetle damage Tharshi Nagalingam (U of MB) 40% 34% 28% 10% 40% 29% 15% 23% 28% 20%

13 Early seeded trials: High flea beetle damage Tharshi Nagalingam (U of MB) *waterlogging

14 Early seeded trials: Low flea beetle damage Tharshi Nagalingam (U of MB) 15% 15% 6% 28% 28% 2% 16% 18% 18%

15 Preliminary Conclusions Results are variable among trials! Early seeded trials: Seed treatments: numerically higher yield Foliar insecticide spray treatments: higher yield than control Spray at 25% defoliation: good control Late vs early seeded trials: Late trials experienced less flea beetle damage and no significant yield effect

16 Plant density Future analyses of data Defoliation Flea beetle species abundance Planting dates

17 Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies 1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles 2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular methods 3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies 4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines for canola producers.

18 Petri Dish Predation Experiments No choice assays (generalist predators) P Wet paper in the bottom Controlled growth chambers 6 FB 24h starved predators Control: no predators 72 h of predation Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) 14

19 Petri Dish Predation Experiments Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) Mardon Erbland Richard Migneault Matthew Roth Terry Thormin

20 Petri Dish Predation Experiments Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) Mardon Erbland Richard Migneault Matthew Roth Terry Thormin

21 Petri dish predation experiments Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) Nabis sp. MJ Hatfield

22 More Realistic Arenas Caged potted plants in growth chambers P Prey densities: o 5, 10, 15, and 20 FB Control: no predators Aldo Rios Consumption: evaluated after 24 h 14

23 Preliminary Conclusions Common ground beetles can consume flea beetles! More realistic experimental conditions? Field conditions?

24 Primers based on Cytochrome Oxidase I (COI) for P. striolata and P. cruciferae. Barb Sharanowski (Univ. of Central Florida)

25 Management of Flea Beetles in the Canadian Prairies 1) Develop descriptive economic thresholds for flea beetles 2) Identify the suite of natural enemies of flea beetles using molecular methods 3) Define landscape characteristics that limit flea beetle populations and increase mortality of flea beetles by natural enemies 4) Develop models to predict flea beetle emergence and major seasonal activity based on abiotic environmental conditions 5) Develop a comprehensive tool and set of management guidelines for canola producers.

26 Flea beetle sampling Fields sampled

27 Flea Beetles Populations MB 2015 June 12

28 Flea Beetles Populations Peace River 2015 June 3

29 Flea Beetles Populations MB 2016 May 24

30 Flea Beetles Populations Peace River 2016 May 17

31 Flea Beetles Populations Lethbridge 2016 June 2

32 Flea Beetles Populations SK 2016 June 9

33 Change in relative abundance Region Species Historic Reference Manitoba P. cruciferae % 88-96% Lamb 1983 P. striolata 51 69% 4-12% Manitoba P. cruciferae 78-92% Turnock et al J. Soroka P. striolata 6-22% Saskatchewan P. cruciferae 9 20% 40% Soroka 2012 P. striolata 80 90% 50% Alberta P. cruciferae % > 99% Cárcamo et al (Lethbridge) P. striolata 13 33% very few Alberta P. striolata 91-99% dominant Cárcamo et al (Beaverlodge)

34 Landscape Effects on Flea Beetles Populations Landscape characteristics Landscape composition different scales (up to 2 km radius) Digitally quantified: ArcGIS 10 Habitat diversity (Simpson s diversity Indices) 250 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m 2 km Natural enemy movements 30 bi directional Malaise traps Between soybean and adjacent habitats Arc Map 10: Carman Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) Minute pirate bugs (Anthocoridae) Damsel bugs (Nabidae) Brown lacewings (Hemerobiidae) Green lacewings (Chrysopidae) Hover flies (Syrphidae) ishansamaranayake

35 Crucifer Flea Beetle (1 km radius) AIC = r 2 = F 2, 23 = p = CFB = I*** - Canola*** - Other crops** Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) Partial residuals Partial residuals % Other crops % Canola *** p < ** p < Other crops: alfalfa, berry patch, clover, faba beans, fallow, flax, forage, hay, hemp, lentils, mustard, peas, potatoes, research plot, reserved plot, sunflower, vegetable plot

36 AIC = r 2 = F 2, 23 = p = Striped Flea Beetle (2 km radius) CFB = I*** - Canola*** Cereals** Thais Silva Guimaraes (U of MB) Partial residuals Partial residuals % Canola % Cereals *** p < ** p < Cereals: barley, canary grass, corn, oats, rye, wheat

37 Summary and Conclusions Seed treatments: good control Spray at 25% defoliation: good control Increased dominance of striped flea beetles Generalist predators can attack flea beetles! Proportion of canola in landscape related to flea beetle abundance Lots of data still to be processed!

38 Costamagna Lab THANK YOU! Cárcamo Lab Rob Duncan John Gavloski Jennifer Otani Tyler Wist