Home : Archives : 1994 : 12 : Development and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management Strategies for Poinsettias Progress Report December 1994

Development and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management Strategies for Poinsettias Progress Report — December 1994

Date December 31, 1994

Title of Project Development and Implementation of IPM Strategies for Poinsettias

Institution where work is being conducted Cornell University

Amount of Endowment Grant $ 15,000
Covering Period 1/94 to 12/94

Anticipated Date of Project Completion/Final Report Spring 1997

Individual(s) Conducting Project:

(List Project Leader First)

John P. Sanderson - Title Assoc. Prof. Entomolgy

Telephone Number 607-255-5419

Rod Ferrentino - Title IPM Coordinator

Development and Implementation of IPM Strategies for Poinsettias

John P. Sanderson

Cornell University

Progress Report to the American Floral Endowment, 12/31/94

A. Project Objectives:

Applied Research:
I. Whitefly management
A. Evaluate and implement whitefly sampling plans for use in stock plant

production and the finished crop.

B. Evaluate a phenology model for whitefly population growth.
C. Conduct trials with promising natural enemies in commercial greenhouses.
D. Evaluate the integration of biorational insecticides for whitefly management.
II. Fungus gnat management
A. Develop sampling procedures for adults and immatures.
B. Determine fungus gnat population levels that result in damage to newly-potted poinsettias.
C. Evaluate alternative control methods under commercial conditions.
Implementation: Demonstrate and evaluate the implementation of new components to the

Poinsettia IPM program. Develop training materials and procedures.

B. Summary of Work Conducted/Results to Date:

Applied Research:
Objective IA. Sequential sampling plans were evaluated under commercial conditions in NY and

MA (with MA funds) this past fall. The results, including cost estimates, are currently under

analysis.

Objective IB. A visiting scientist from Holland, Hanneke Pompe, has completed her stay in my lab

to develop a computer model for whitefly population development that can be used for making

control decisions. She returned to Holland in December, but will continue to collaborate on the

model, using our data. She has used our data sets of whitefly cohort fates, daily temperatures, and

crop canopy growth to determine stage-specific survivorship and developmental times (on a degree-day

basis) through the growth of the crop. These results are needed for the model. We have also

made initial decisions on the information from model output that would be most useful to growers,

and she is currently in the process of writing the first version of the model. Additional data sets of

whitefly levels, cohort fates, temperatures, and crop canopy growth, that are needed for model

validation, have now been collected for three poinsettia crops.

Objective IC. Three parasitoid species have now been evaluated and compared for whitefly control

on poinsettia in replicated greenhouse trials at Cornell. Tests with the “Beltsville strain” of Encarsia

formosa were completed in Fall, 1994. Though the data are still under analysis (the tests were

completed in mid-December), this species/strain is very promising. Commercially-acceptable

whitefly levels were obtained with releases of 1 wasp/plant/week, and particularly good control was

achieved with 3 wasps/plant/week. Plans are underway to make this parasite available commercially

in the future. In our Spring 1994 tests, Eretmocerus nr. californicus (Arizona strain) also appears

to be a promising parasitoid for silverleaf whitefly control, and is now commercially-available on a

limited basis.

We were coordinating commercial greenhouse trials of whitefly biological control with

various parasitoids on 1994 poinsettias among extension professionals/researchers in the Northeast

(who have independent funding). Trials were planned in 8 commercial greenhouses in New York

(A.F.E.-funded), as well as in CT, MA, NH, and Ontario, Canada. Unfortunately, the insectaries

that were to supply the wasps for the trials had severe production problems throughout August and

September. As a result, all tests outside of New York were canceled, and only five were continued

in New York. Of the five, we could not obtain enough parasites at the start of the crop at three

locations to finish the crop without the need for insecticides, though the season-long number of

sprays was reduced. However, the natural enemy supply was sufficient in two locations to produce

high quality poinsettias without any insecticide applications. Our results demonstrated that

regardless of the parasite species, parasites cannot be used “too little, too late”, but that the timing

and numbers of releases are critical to achieve adequate control. Unfortunately, we were not able to

replicate the studies at enough sites to provide a robust evaluation of the various parasitoid species

under commercial conditions. We have subsequently provided additional insectaries with some of

our parasitoid species, so that in the future, back-up supplies can be obtained if it becomes

necessary.

Two tests of whitefly biological control with fungal pathogens were completed in research

greenhouses at Cornell in Fall, 1994. Four applications at 5-day intervals of Back-Off, a

formulation of Metarhizium anisopliae strain ESC-1, reduced whitefly levels from a severe

infestation to well below control levels, but not quite to commercially-acceptable levels. In

cooperation with the University of Vermont (M. Brownbridge), we tested two formulations of their

Beaveria bassiana strain. After four applications at 5-day intervals, the oil formulation reduced

whitefly levels ten times lower than the control treatment. Both of these whitefly pathogens look

promising for whitefly control, particularly if they are integrated with other natural enemies.

Objective ID. Due to limited funding, and similar work underway in California, these studies have

been reduced in scope.

Objective IIA. Estimates of larval fungus gnat dispersion among pots as measured by potato disks,

and adults caught on sticky cards, are being gathered in commercial greenhouses.

Objective IIB. This study is planned to begin this spring.
Objective IIC. Fungus gnat biological control trials were done on poinsettia in two commercial

greenhouses, comparing Gnatrol (B.t.i.), Exhibit (nematode: S. carpocapsae) and a predaceous mite

(Hypoaspis miles). Gnatrol appeared to be effective in one of the sites, while Hypoaspis was

effective in the other. The inconsistent results, coupled with differences in growing conditions,

suggest that factors such as type of irrigation system, growing media, or other factors may influence

the effectiveness of the various natural enemies.

Implementation: Many of the studies mentioned above were conducted in commercial greenhouses

which served as demonstrations for several poinsettia educational tours for local growers. We have

also participated in several national grower conferences. I convened a Northeastern U.S.

Greenhouse IPM Workshop for researchers and extension professionals to foster information

exchange and to identify and coordinate implementation strategies across the region. In July 1994,

30 IPM specialists from ME, NH, VT, MA, PA, MD, CT, NY, and Ontario, Canada, met at Cornell

for a very productive 2-day meeting. Cooperative efforts among northeastern states in applied

research and implementation were arranged for whitefly sampling, various biological control trials,

and the start of an economic analysis of selected pest management strategies. The group will meet

again at Cornell in July, 1995. Cornell will host a Greenhouse IPM Conference in Fall, 1995, in

which the results of these AFE-supported studies will be provided to growers and extension

specialists. Results will be incorporated into a new edition of Cornell’s IPM Manual.

C. Future Plans Covered by the Endowment Grant:

Note: In an article in the 1995 SAF Proceedings of the Pest & Disease Mgt. Conference, I will

mention work from two separate research laboratories that have recently documented resistance in

certain silverleaf whitefly populations to the newly-registered insecticide, Marathon 1G

(imidacloprid). One of these labs has also documented high levels of resistance to Applaud

(buprofezin) in silverleaf whiteflies from Dutch floriculture greenhouses (although Applaud is not yet

registered in the U.S., a registration package has been submitted to the E.P.A.). Many U.S.

greenhouse growers have high hopes that Marathon or other insecticides will continue to be “magic

bullets” for control of whiteflies and other sucking insect pests. These recent results suggest that

resistance to Marathon may develop sooner than later if the insecticide is not used carefully (i.e.,

within an IPM context). It would be extremely short-sighted for the industry to rely on new

insecticides for pest control and suspend efforts to develop and implement IPM programs for these

pests. We must continue the development of cost-effective control strategies to which the pests

cannot become resistant, such as biological control.

Commercial trials with the parasitoids will be coupled with results of Cornell-based studies to

suggest refinements in release strategies (e.g., species to use, timing releases, numbers to release).

These refinements will then be evaluated in commercial greenhouses on spring stock plants and fall

Christmas crop. Back-up plans are now in place to avoid the parasite supply problems that were

encountered in 1994. The predictions generated by the initial version of the computer model will be

compared with our validation data sets to identify necessary improvements. Eventually the model

will be evaluated under commercial conditions, both for grower-friendliness and for predictive

accuracy. The research on fungus gnat damage levels will be begun during Spring, 1995, and

further studies on fungus gnat monitoring and biological control will be done. The Northeastern

U.S. Greenhouse IPM Workshop for researchers and extension professionals will meet again in

July, 1995. The purpose of the workshop is to foster information exchange and to identify and

coordinate implementation strategies across the region. Our AFE-funded research results will thus

be provided to workshop participants, particularly those who expressed interest in our work. This

network is intended to speed up implementation goals across a wide region. For example, four

states plan to cooperate in whitefly biological control trials in-1995, using standardized procedures

developed at Cornell. Thus in one year we can accomplish applied research, educate local extension

personnel, and make use of demonstration sites in many states at once. Cornell will also host a

Greenhouse IPM Conference in Fall, 1995, in which the results of these AFE-supported studies will

be provided to growers and extension specialists. Results will be incorporated into a new edition of

Cornell’s IPM Manual.

D. Anticipated Benefits for Floral Industry:

We propose to participate in a cooperative effort to develop and implement a total IPM

program for all phases of commercial poinsettia production that emphasizes biological control and

other alternative control strategies. Results of the applied research will be incorporated into the major

effort to demonstrate and implement current IPM practices in commercial greenhouses, and develop

training information that can be used to implement IPM programs in other states.