Click on Titles: Grower Adoption of Grape IPM Disease Management Strategies Implementing GBM Risk Assessment and Leafhopper Scouting in Lake Erie Region Vineyards Exploring Alternative Methods of Implementing ISOMATE-GBM™ in High Risk Vineyards Reexamination of Grape Berry Moth Management Practices in the Lake Erie Region I Reexamination of Grape Berry Moth Management Practices in the Lake Erie Region II Postemergence Vineyard Weed Management Program I Postemergence Vineyard Weed Management Program II Food Quality Protection Act Back to GIPM Home Page Back to Lake Erie Regional Grape Program Home Page

Principle Investigators: T. Weigle, Sr. Area Extension Educator, NYS IPM Program, G. English-Loeb, Dept. of Entomology, NYSAES, Geneva, W. Wilcox, Dept. of Plant Pathology, NYSAES, Geneva, R. Dunst, Research Support Specialist, NYSAES, Fredonia and J. Bixby, Program Assistant, NYS IPM Program. INTRODUCTION The implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) could drastically alter pest management strategies currently used by grape growers in New York State. There is a need to develop vineyard pest management strategies that provide growers with the information needed to manage pest populations if conventional pesticides currently in use are lost or restricted. Pesticides under FQPA review include organophosphates, carbamates and potential carcinogens (B 1's and B 2's). If the registration of the pesticides on this list are canceled, it could eliminate all insecticides currently used in vineyard insect management programs and EBDC's, the group of fungicides most commonly used before bloom, would be lost. Using alternatives to conventional insecticides will increase the importance of timing applications correctly. A project conducted by English-Loeb, and Weigle during the 1998 growing season sought to improve the timing of insecticide applications for grape berry moth (GBM) by examining peaks in pheromone trap catches of males. Capture data for male grape berry moth from 15 sites in the different growing areas of the belt from lake to escarpment and southern end to northern end, did not produce the information needed to pinpoint generational peaks. One of the conclusions of this study was there is a need to develop a trapping method which allows for the capture of female grape berry moth before alternative GBM management strategies can be successfully implemented.

While many of the herbicides are not on the list for review during the initial round of the FQPA, it is not unreasonable to think that these chemicals, which are applied either directly to the soil or onto weed growth on the vineyard floor, will soon come under review. This project contained a variety of objectives which address the possible changes in vineyard pest management due to implementation of the FQPA. These methods included:
        1) Development of an FQPA pest management strategy for Lake Erie region vineyards.
        2) Completion of a post emergence weed management project.
        3) Development of monitoring methods for female berry moth.
        4) Demonstration of a sprayable grape berry moth pheromone developed by 3M Canada.
        5) Development of crop, pest and chemical profiles to provide the EPA with research-based information when              making FQPA recommendations.

FQPA PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Working with Greg English-Loeb and Wayne Wilcox an FQPA pest management strategy was developed for Labrusca grape growers in New York State. Pesticides under review in the first round of the FQPA were eliminated from consideration for use during the 1999 growing season. This FQPA pest management strategy is a first attempt at providing growers with information on pesticide options available to them if all pesticides in the first round of review are restricted from use. Unfortunately, there are few non-pesticide alternatives available to grape growers at this time. Scouting and economic thresholds are still considered the primary tools available for managing pests and pesticides in New York vineyards. One grower followed this protocol during the 1999 growing season. Due to the dry growing season, disease development did not occur in the vineyard blocks in the program and no insects reached population levels which required treatment. Following is the FQPA pest management strategy that was implemented in growers vineyards during the 1999 growing season.

FQPA Pest Management Program for 'Concord' and 'Niagara' grapes
First we need to make some assumptions:

1) This is assuming all materials listed in the first round of the FQPA are eliminated from use.

2) The 24(c) label for Ziram will be extended past its expiration date at the end of 1998.

3) We will have Vanguard (Novartis) registered for use in New York to replace Rovral.

4) There are no orchards in close proximity to vineyards. This allows Abound to be used without fear of phytoxicity in some apple varieties due to drift.

DISEASE MANAGEMENT

Early season Phomopsis management -
        Ziram
2 Weeks Prebloom -
        Nova or Ziram + Rubigan for black rot and powdery mildew
        Ridomil/Copper for downy mildew in 'Niagara' grapes
        OR Abound for management of the four major diseases
Prebloom
        Abound
1st Postbloom
        Abound if not used 2 weeks prebloom
        OR Rubigan + Ziram or Nova for black rot and powdery mildew
        Copper & lime for downy mildew
2nd Postbloom
        Rubigan + Ziram or Nova for black rot and powdery mildew
        Copper & lime for downy mildew

INSECT MANAGEMENT

Grape Berry Moth
     Sprayable pheromone. Developed by 3M Canada. Material will be provided by 3M Canada. Apply to entire block in the program at timing determined by Tim Weigle and Greg English-Loeb. Timing should be slightly earlier than the traditional insecticide applications for grape berry moth or:
     Bt materials. Use at traditional timings according to grape berry moth risk assessment protocol and scouting results. Will need two Bt sprays as a replacement for each conventional insecticide.

Secondary pests
        Provado for grape leafhopper and potato leafhopper.
        Stylet Oil for leafhoppers. However, extensive use has shown reduction in Brix accumulation.
        M-Pede. Marginal results, at best, have been obtained with this product.

Secondary pests with no management methods currently available:
        Grape Rootworm - Once considered the major pest of grapes in the Lake Erie region. This pest has been seen more regularly in vineyards in the Lake Erie region.
        Banded Grape Bug (click to see pictures) - relatively 'new' pest which has been shown to be capable of significantly reducing yield by fielding at the flower stage.
        Steely Beetle (click to see pictures) - a sporadic pest but one that is capable of significant destruction of buds, and therefore yield, in years which favor its development.
        Rose Chafer (click to see pictures) - A yearly pest in certain sites, most commonly found in lighter soils, which is capable of significantly reducing yield through feeding on the flowers.
        Japanese Beetle (click to see pictures) - Becoming more of a regular in the vineyard. Damage is primarily to the grape canopy. More research is needed to determine effects of foliar feeding on the ripening of the crop.

POST EMERGENCE WEED MANAGEMENT

The 1999 growing season was the third and final year of a post emergence weed management implementation project. Under the row weed management in Lake Erie vineyards has traditionally relied on the use of a pre-emergence herbicide application in the spring followed by an application of a post emergence herbicide in June (or around grape bloom). Concerns over the potential for ground water contamination through the use of pre-emergence herbicides applied directly to the soil, the persistence of these herbicides in the soil, and the need to increase the rates of these herbicides to achieve reliable weed management caused researchers to examine other weed management options. The Food Quality Protection Act has created another concern over the availability of herbicide options for grape growers in the future. While no herbicides used in grapes were scheduled to be reviewed in the first round of the FQPA it is only a matter of time before herbicides come under scrutiny.

Research conducted by R. Dunst et al., indicated that two properly timed applications of a broad spectrum, post emergence herbicide (early June and mid-late July) could be as effective as a conventional weed management program using persistent pre-emergence herbicides. In these experiments, the post emergence program selected for low growing winter annuals and managed annual grasses along with annual and perennial broadleaf weed to an acceptable level.

The goal of this project was to move the results of this research into growers' fields to determine if: 1) it fit into a growers schedule of production practices, 2) was economically feasible, and 3) any persistent weed problems would result from yearly use of a postemergence weed management program.

Three vineyard blocks implemented the post emergence weed management strategy throughout the three year project. Climate played an important role in the success of weed management each year whether it be the post emergence program or the grower's conventional weed management program. In all three years weed control using a post emergence strategy was comparable to a growers traditional approach. The most impressive results occurred during the first year of implementation when a dry growing season in Niagara County eliminated the need for a second post emergence application. This resulted in a savings of $4 per acre in herbicide costs alone. If labor and equipment costs for the second spray are added this grower saved $11 per acre with the post emergence weed management approach.

There are several ways to evaluate the use of pesticides in vineyards. One common method is to examine the amount of active ingredient applied for the total pesticide program. The post emergence weed management program has the potential to greatly reduce the amount of active ingredients applied to vineyard soils. Over the three year period of this project, the post emergence program consistently showed a decrease in the amount of active ingredient applied per acre as compared to a conventional herbicide program. The most striking contrast was again seen in 1997 in a Westfield vineyard where the post emergence program reduced the amount of active ingredient applied over 400% (2.1 lb a.i./acre sprayed vs. 8.2 lbs a.i. /acre) compared to a program using both pre- and post emergence herbicides.

After three years of implementing this protocol it has become apparent that it can be an effective alternative to conventional weed management programs and has the potential to reduce the amount of active ingredient applied to vineyards in the Lake Erie Region of New York. The post emergence program fits into a current grower's production practices and appears to provide adequate weed management even if weed growth exceeds the 6-inch average which signals the need for another herbicide application. As long as the weed growth did not exceed the height which could be thoroughly covered with the herbicide application equipment used, competition from weed growth was controlled.

DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING METHODS FOR FEMALE GRAPE BERRY MOTH

A key to the management of grape berry moth has been scouting at appropriate times during the growing season and timing insecticide applications to control this pest in the larval stage prior to its entering the berry. The Grape Berry Moth Risk Assessment Protocol, developed by Hoffman and Dennehy, has been used for the past 10 years in the Lake Erie Region and has become the industry standard for grape berry moth management. Over the past several years growers have noticed a decrease in control of late season berry moth damage. Projects were undertaken to better understand the emergence of the summer generations of this pest through trapping of male berry moth using pheromone traps and collecting growing degree day information from each site. Unfortunately these projects resulted in no useful data as trap catches did not show peaks of emergence to help distinguish separate generations.

The focus of the investigation shifted to capturing female grape berry moth. If peaks in female emergence could be identified and correlated to growing degree day information, then scouting protocols could be better defined for late season generations. For this project both pheromone traps (for male capture) and aromatic traps (female capture) were used. The aromatic traps consisted of grape juice, grape juice + Terpinyl acetate, grape juice + Eugenol, Alaga (dark corn syrup), Alaga + terpinyl acetate, and Alaga + Eugenol. These traps were monitored once a week (more frequent monitoring was called for when trap captures were detected) for both male and female berry moth. Grape berry moth which were captured in the aromatic traps were sexed by Ted Taft, Jr., Vineyard Lab, Fredonia, New York, to ensure proper identification.

Results of this project were very disappointing. So few female grape berry moth were captured we had too few data points to determine changes in emergence or peaks for new generations. Trapping of grape berry moth has been put on hold for the near future as we await the results of companion projects on the basic biology of grape berry moth being conducted by Mike Saunders and Sudha Katti, Department of Entomology, Penn State University.

GRAPE BERRY MOTH PHEROMONE

Carbaryl (Sevin) is the most widely used insecticide in New York State vineyards and has been targeted by the Consumers Union of U.S. Inc. as a "high-risk" insecticide because residues have been found in over 5 percent of harvest samples tested in recent years. While there are some alternatives to Sevin, the chemical options will be limited. A new sprayable pheromone product developed by 3M Canada has been researched in Michigan and Ontario, Canada with mixed results. This product was expected to gain EPA approval by late February and this project was conducted to begin examining its effectiveness before being recommended for use in New York State.

Work was done in the Lake Erie Region with pheromone products for grape berry moth in the early 90s. However, the pheromone product at that time (Isomate-GBM?) came packaged as a twist tie (similar to those used with garbage bags - only much larger) and required an extensive amount of labor cost to disperse through a vineyard. At the time, the cost for Isomate-GBM? was much more expensive than a typical insecticide program even before the labor costs were added. The use of Isomate-GBM? was never adopted by growers due to the expense of the product, the expense of applying the product, and the results of implementation projects showing blocks treated with an insecticide program had significantly better grape berry moth control.

3M Canada's sprayable pheromone holds much more promise as it fits into a grower's current method of applying pesticides. The sprayable pheromone is poured directly into the tank and appears to be compatible with the fungicides used by growers participating in this project. The pheromone for this project was provided free of charge to participants and is not yet in farm supply stores in New York State so an economic analysis will need to be accomplished in the future.

Results during the 1999 growing season were very encouraging for the use of pheromones to manage grape berry moth populations. Looking at all blocks, the conventional program of growers led to an average of 10.13% damaged berries where the pheromone blocks showed 10.72% damaged berries. Growers participating in the project provided positive feedback about the use of this pheromone product. One grower stated he was very impressed with the product and could see where we will need to be using it more in the future as the FQPA is more fully implemented. Another grower commented that while it appeared the pheromone looked as good as the insecticide treatments, 1999 seemed to be an odd year for grape berry moth as there did not appear to be as much pressure as usual.

The promising results of the 1999 season, combined with the threat of more insecticide options being lost due to the FQPA, indicate that this product could provide another tool in a vineyard operations pest management strategy. An expanded version of this project is being developed for implementation during the 2000 growing season.

CONCLUSION

The food quality protection act is currently a moving target which is difficult to address. Pesticides used in the grape industry are moving through the review process. Details of this review are sketchy, as it will be some time before the full implications of restrictions and elimination of pesticides used in grapes are known. The development of an FQPA Pest Management Strategy was a first reaction to this process. As more is known about products that remain and more research is done on biological control of grape pests, this strategy will need to be reexamined. In an effort to provide the EPA with research-based information on which to make their decisions, a cooperative effort between the NYS Grape IPM Program, Greg English-Loeb, Wayne Wilcox, Wine and Juice Processor representatives, New York Wine Grape Growers Association members and grape extension team members produced crop, pest and chemical profiles. These profiles are a compilation of the research-based information developed over the years for the primary and secondary pests of grapes. This process, while providing the EPA with the information it needs to make informed decisions, also provided the grape team and industry with a database of information and pointed out pests where research-based information is lacking. With the information available from the 1999 projects the New York grape industry is better equipped to handle the FQPA.

You are visitor number