Project narrative
1. Problem Statement
a. IPM problem addressed, significance and options for solution
Fresh market and processed caneberries (Rubus spp., mainly blackberries, red raspberries,
black raspberries, and boysenberries) have an estimated production value of over $90-100
million in Washington and Oregon. Insect pests, particularly the orange tortrix leafroller,
Argyrotaenia franciscana (Walsingham) and oblique-banded leafroller (OBLR),
Choristoneura rosaceana Harris larvae colonize these crops and are considered major
contaminants because they are readily dislodged from leaves into harvested berries. The
orange tortrix hatching period coincides with the first half of caneberry harvest (late
June-mid July), causing continuous problems throughout the extended harvest period.
The larvae of OBLR are present in August, during harvest of evergreen blackberries
(Rubus laciniatus). Tolerance for these insect contaminants is near zero for individual
quick frozen (IQF) processed and fresh market berries, and very low for most other
processing types (classified by USDA as preserve and puree). For these processing types
(but not the much lower valued juice grade), growers risk rejection of their entire crop
when one or more larvae are found in the finished product.
Leafrollers are very difficult to separate from fruit during harvest and at the processing
plant. Current standard management practice relies on broad-spectrum chemicals, with up
to four applications per season. These applications can nevertheless be ineffective
because 1) larvae are protected inside leafrolls, 2) pest populations are variable with nonsusceptible stages present, 3) pesticide application restrictions apply during bloom
because of toxicity to bees, and 4) pre-harvest and re-entry interval restrictions apply for
most of the approved pesticides. The multiple pesticide applications that are common
frequently induce secondary pest outbreaks, including mites, resulting in further
applications of miticides such as Hexakis (Vendex). Finally, bloom and harvest periods
overlap in caneberries, and, given the problems stated above, growers are presented with
critical and complex timing issues for control measures. It is therefore not surprising that
the recently completed caneberry pest management strategic plan (PMSP) (WRPMC
2003), makes finding a safer and more effective alternative to organophosphate,
carbamate, and pyrethroid insecticides for leafroller contaminant control a top priority.
Our long-term goal is to develop an IPM transition plan to lead growers away from heavy
leafroller population buildup. The plan is based upon selective chemicals and biological
control to replace disruptive chemical controls. It has been reported that growers and
fields with a history of chemical control practices often have the worst problems with
leafroller contamination, whereas organic and smaller hand-pick operations seldom see
any population buildup of leafrollers at all. This suggests that natural enemies may play a
significant roll in suppression of these pest Lepidoptera.
Parasitoids are major mortality factors for pests in many orchard systems (Cross et al.
1999), including Tortricidae (Mills and Carl 1991). Parasitoid data on the orange tortrix
in caneberry systems, have been extensively analyzed in previous years (Rosensteil 1949,
Breakey 1951, Johansen 1978, Coop 1982, Coop et al. 1989), and show a strong
correlation between high parasitism rates and low larval numbers. Recent, ongoing
surveys in caneberry systems suggest that many parasitoid species are still active
(Peerbolt and Brun 1996, Peerbolt 1998, Tanigoshi and Peerbolt, & ongoing parasitoid
collections (see below)). There are at least two parasitoids (Family Braconidae) which
have excellent potential for biocontrol of both the orange tortrix and OBLR; Oncophanes
americanus (Weed) and Meteorus argyrotaeniae Johansen. Of these, M. argyrotaenia
was found to produce up to 100% parasitism and suppress an orange tortrix outbreak in
caneberries (Breakey 1951), and was the predominant species in another region 30 years
later (Coop et al. 1989). O. americanus was abundant whenever present in caneberries
(Coop 1982). Another braconid, Apanteles aristoteliae Vierick, has demonstrated high
parasitism rates of orange tortrix but has not been reared from OBLR (Coop 1982, Coop
et al. 1989). Also, several Ichneumonid species of the subfamily Campopleginae (genera
including Diadegma, Enytus, and Meloboris) have been commonly observed in most of
the studies mentioned above. Another 12-16 parasitoid species have also been identified
from the studies above, including species of tachinid flies and chalcid wasps, as well as
other Ichneumonidae and Braconidae.
With the rich and active complex of leafroller-attacking parasitoid species that is present
in this region, the most cost effective biocontrol strategy would be to protect existing
populations through the elimination of broad spectrum insecticide applications along with
the conservation of important parasitoid resources. There are strong indications in many
of these systems that if growers could eliminate or reduce broad-spectrum insecticide
applications, natural enemies could greatly aid in the overall reduction of leafroller larvae
present at harvest (Elkins and Van Steenwyk 2004, Coop 1982). Studies in western
Oregon and western Washington caneberries indicate that broad spectrum insecticides
disrupt parasitism activity and are associated with higher densities of leafrollers (Coop
1982). In 9 untreated fields, leafroller densities were 16 larvae collected per hour with
62.5% +/- 9.3 (mean+/-SE) parasitism wheras, in 13 fields using 2-3 broad spectrum
pesticide applications, densities were 43 larvae/hr and parasitism was only 21.8% +/2.73 (mean+/-SE) (p < 0.001) (Coop 1982). The toxicities of various agrochemicals used
in caneberry production to many of these natural enemy groups and species have been
directly measured (Croft and Mullin 1984, Brunner and Dunley 2001, WRPMC 2003).
Carbamates, OPs, and pyrethroids, range from moderate to highly toxic to parasitoid
wasps (Croft and Mullin 1984, WRPMC 2003).
In addition to protecting parasitoid populations through the avoidance of disturbance
from insecticides, their ability to limit leafroller populations could also be enhanced by
conserving resources such as alternative host reservoirs at times and in places where
leafrollers are not present, and by providing plant food in the form of nectar from
insectary plantings (Powell et al. 1986, Gurr et al. 1998, Landis et al. 2000). For
example, the newly introduced parasitoid Colpoclypeus florus, was not commonly
attacking OBLR and the apple pandemis (Pandemis pyrusana) in apple orchards in
Washington during the spring, because the local leafroller species in and around this
system over-winters as larvae that are too small for this parasitoid (Brunner 1992,
Pfannenstiel and Unruh 2002). It was then observed that riparian areas with another
tortricid species not present in apple orchards, the strawberry leafroller (Ancylis
comptana), contained C. florus during the winter. The subsequent planting of 'gardens' of
wild rose and strawberry host plants for this larger leafroller host, adjacent to orchards
that did not have such plants, resulted in increased parasitism of apple pest leafrollers
during the spring in locations of the orchards near the gardens (Pfannenstiel and Unruh
2002, Unruh 2003). In the caneberry system, it is possible that there are insufficient
orange tortrix and OBLR host individuals for maximum parasitoid population growth at
times after insecticide sprays and during the winter season. Similarly, the requirements
for floral resources by parasitoid wasps have long been recognized (van Emden 1962),
and insufficiencies in floral resources for parasitoids in agricultural landscapes have been
demonstrated (Wackers and Steppuhn 2003). Enhancing the ability of parasitoids with
the conservation of floral resources has shown promise in general (Powell et al. 1986,
Landis et al. 2000), as well as in an orchard context (Bostanian et al. 2004).
This proposal results directly from needs stated by the stakeholders themselves, and this
work builds upon current and previous efforts funded by caneberry commissions, the
USDA Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research, the W Regional IPM grants program
and the USDA CSREES Crops at Risk program. From the recent caneberry PMSP, we
address, via this project, a number of research and educational needs (WRPMC 2003).
The caneberry PMSP-listed research needs addressed by this project include: “Chemical
and non-chemical alternatives to current controls”, “Continue research on control of
insect contaminants”, “Habitat management to conserve beneficials”, “Continuing to
develop IPM techniques” , “Encourage naturally occurring benefical insects”, “Parasitoid
wasps for control of leafrollers”.
The caneberry PMSP-listed educational needs addressed by this project include: “Educate
growers on IPM including thresholds and monitoring”, “Educate growers on pest
identification and beneficials”, “Educate growers on habitat management for beneficials”.
As hand-picked and organically farmed caneberry fields demonstrate, leafrollers will
behave as secondary, or only minor pests, if their natural enemies are not unduly
disturbed. We therefore propose to conserve and restore these natural enemies to proper
status in the system. This will succeed if 1) alternate host and nectar requirements are
assured (the main objective of this proposal), but also if 2) broad spectrum pesticide
usage is minimized, 3) IPM sampling and models are utilized to help us understand pest
and natural enemy development and timing at a detailed resolution, 4) growers are
included in this new understanding, and 5) contaminant tolerances can be raised to avoid
the high-risk, high-stakes threat that leafrollers currently pose. Items 2 to 5 are addressed
in our current program, and complement objective 1 to establish an excellent opportunity
for adoption of biologically-based IPM in caneberries.
Altogether these developments will lead to decreased use of broad-spectrum insecticides
including malathion, carbaryl, bifenthrin, and esfenvalerate. This proposal links to the
National IPM Roadmap in serving production agriculture, and in addressing research and
educational needs (USDA Pest Management Centers 2003).
b. Commodities and pesticides addressed, production area, severity of
losses, possible scale of adoption
Together, Oregon and Washington are the largest producers of caneberries in the US,
with a combined production of over 19,000 acres, valued at $90-100 million (2004
estimates, NASS). Western Oregon leads the nation in commercial blackberry
production, accounting for nearly 100% of national production, with 6,300 acres, and a
value of $33 million. Western Washington accounts for about 83 percent of the nation's
raspberry production, harvesting 60 million pounds of fruit on 9,000 acres with a value of
$47 million. The Willamette Valley in western Oregon accounts for about 17 percent of
the nation's raspberry production, harvesting 8.9 million pounds of fruit on 2,900 acres
with a value of $11 million. This area also produces nearly all the nation's processed
black raspberries and boysenberries (totaling approximately 1,800 acres with a value of
$8.5 million).
The problem of orange tortrix leafroller contamination of caneberries is one of the
highest priority pest management research needs for this industry (WRPMC 2003).
Conventional programs are dependent upon broad spectrum insecticides with a high cost
of up to $60/acre per application for pyrethroids and carbamates. These pesticides are not
often an acceptable solution because 1) none of these insecticides can be used during the
long bloom period (which extends to early harvest dates) due to pollinator toxicity, 2) all
have various pre-harvest interval and re-entry interval requirements that can be
prohibitive to effective use, 3) all are moderately to highly toxic to parasitoid wasps, the
principle biological control for leafrollers, 4) the usual problems additionally attributed to
these compounds, such as worker and environmental hazards, and 5) the newly imposed
stream-buffer zone application restrictions on some products in the growing region
(http://www.oda.state.or.us/pesticide/lawsregs/buffers.html).
The organophosphates include malathion, used prior to, and during harvest because it has
a 1-day pre-harvest interval. At the beginning of harvest, leafroller egg-masses can be
both abundant and nearly impossible to sample, thus pre-harvest sprays are soon followed
by unexpected egg-hatch and the need for further control actions in many cases.
The carbamates include carbaryl, sometimes used pre-bloom, a compound that is well
known for causing secondary mite outbreaks. The pyrethroid bifenthrin is currently the
primary control material used. Pyrethroids, however, do not offer more selectivity or
reduce the level of secondary pest induction when compared with OP's and carbamates,
and are thus not a long term alternative (CAST 1999). Additionally, there is growing
concern about resistance to pyrethroids among lepidopteran pests. This is exacerbated by
the fact that the orange tortrix is not concentrated in a single susceptible stage at any time
during the season; generations overlap at least partially even during the early spring
because there is no discrete diapausing (overwintering) stage.
c. Summary of previous and on-going research
With W. Regional IPM support we have 1) determined the incidence, timing and activity
levels of the key natural enemies of the leafroller complex in a wide range of caneberry
field locations that varied in the amounts and timing of pesticide disturbances, 2)
developed and tested the feasibility of improved sampling methods for leafroller pests
and their natural enemies, and 3) assisted in the design of improved management
programs for leafrollers in caneberries. With further support from a CSREES CSR grant,
we have expanded further upon this program by 4) investigating the direct effect of
different pesticides on leafrollers and the key natural enemies (various investigators
including OSU Corvallis scientists, Linel Tanigoshi, WSU, Vancouver, WA and Dianne
Kaufman, OSU Extension, Aurora, OR), 5) conducting further research on post harvest
separation of contaminants, in order to increase tolerance of leafroller populations (Lisa
Neven, USDA Wapato, WA), and 6) evaluating human and environmental risks and
economics of all IPM program components in comparison to conventional pesticidebased management systems (Charles and Karen Benbrook, IPM Consultant).
Sampling of caneberry fields began in early April 2005. The first fields surveyed
consisted of a group of 75 fields which we have included within a long-term leafroller
monitoring project (29 in Oregon and 46 in Washington). Each of these fields was
monitored with OT pheromone traps and timed inspections for leafroller larvae every 7
days until the end of September. Fifty-five additional fields in Oregon have been added
to this group for monitoring. Of these 55 fields, 48 fields were then monitored on a
continuous basis until September if they contained leafroller infestations or had
management characteristics that were useful for comparisons between management types.
In addition to these caneberry fields, 20 blueberry fields were monitored and assessed for
leafrollers and parasitism. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the caneberry fields
monitored. These surveys continued throughout 2006, and we will continue this program
for a further two years with CAR program support.
A total of 4,004 (3,852 of these specimens were leafrollers) insect larval samples were
collected and reared in a controlled environment growth chamber. Of the leafroller
specimens, 2,209 developed into moths, 694 had a parasitoid, and 950 died of unknown
causes. The 3,852 leafroller specimens consisted of 2,228 orange tortrix (OT)
individuals, 1,276 oblique banded leafroller (OBLR), 130 carnation tortrix, and 40
individuals of other leafroller species.
Table 1. Berry type, geographic zone and pesticide use intensity of sampled fields.
Region
a
Raspberry
Lb
Lower
Willamette
Mid
Willamette
H
Marionberry
L
H
Evergreen
Other
blackberry blackberry
L
H
L
H
Boysenberry
L
H
All
caneberries
L
H
11
6
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
13
14
4
0
6
11
0
6
1
10
0
3
11
30
Region
Raspberry
a
Lb
Upper
Willamette/
WA
All regions
together
H
Marionberry
L
H
Evergreen
Other
blackberry blackberry
L
H
L
H
Boysenberry
L
H
All
caneberries
L
H
0
40
0
5
0
8
0
1
0
1
0
55
15
46
6
24
0
14
3
11
0
4
24
99
a – ‘lower’ fields are in vicinity of Eugene to Albany, ‘mid’ fields are in vicinity of Salem and Woodburn, and ‘upper’ fields are
near Portland and SE Washington.
b – ‘L’ refers to low input organic systems and/or no pesticide usage, ‘H’ refers to high input conventional and/or higher
pesticide usage.
Since the raspberry fields in all regions pooled provide the best comparison of low to
high pesticide usage for a single berry type, the mean number of OT, OBLR and total
leafroller larvae collected per minute, and the relative percentage of these larvae that
were parasitized, were compared in this system (Fig. 1). The percentage parasitism was
consistently higher for all leafroller types in the organic and no spray fields, and OBLR
infestations were higher in the organic and no spray fields.
Figure 1. Mean number of leafroller larvae collected per minute between low
pesticide and high pesticide raspberry fields on sampling dates when larvae were
present in these fields, and the relative percentage parasitism of larvae in these two
field types.
0.5
40%
mean % of larvae with parasitoid
mean # larvae per minute
o rganic & no spray
co nventio nal
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
o rganic & no spray
co nventio nal
30%
20%
10%
0%
OT
OBLR
all leafrollers
OT
OBLR
all leafrollers
The highest parasitism in OT and leafrollers overall was by Apanteles aristoteliae
Viereck, representing 48.9% of the parasitized OT specimens and 31.8% of all
parasitized leafroller specimens (Table 2). The taxa A. aristoteliae, Meteorus
argyrotaeniae Johanson, and species in the tribe Campoplegini comprised 87.9% of the
parasitized OT specimens, and 73.2% of all parasitized leafroller specimens.
Table 2. Abundance measures of parasitoid taxa found in OT, OBLR and all
leafrollers.
Host
OT
OBLR
All leafrollers
Parasitoid Taxon
#
%
#
%
#
%
reared parasitism
reared
parasitism
reared
parasitism
Apanteles aristoteliae
202
11.95
0
0.0
221
7.69
Meteorus argyrotaeniae
73
4.32
8
0.88
93
3.24
Campoplegini*
88
5.2
64
7.07
194
6.75
Stictopisthes sp.
9
0.53
0
0.0
14
0.49
Phytodietus vulgaris*
7
0.41
1
0.11
9
0.31
Glypta sp.*
7
0.41
24
2.65
31
1.08
Oncophanes americanus
1
0.06
7
0.77
11
0.38
Other Ichneumonidae*
5
0.29
16
1.77
27
0.94
Tachinidae†
1
0.06
25
2.76
27
0.94
Brachymeria sp.**
0
0
7
0.77
10
0.35
Others
8
0.47
12
1.33
25
0.87
Unidentified
12
0.71
11
1.22
32
1.11
Totals
413
24.42
175
19.34
694
24.14
* wasp taxa with an asterisk are in the Family Icheumonidae (Order Hymenoptera), those without an asterisk are in the
Family Brachonidae
† this family are flies in the order Diptera
** Family Chalcidae
The efficiency of the timed leafroller larvae inspection method mentioned above was
assessed by comparing it to other methods. None of these other methods, including a
‘sentinel cup’ method, various shaking/beating/drop cloth methods, and use of a leaf
blower, proved superior to timed leaf inspections.
The working hypothesis of higher rates of parasitism in fields with lower pesticide usage,
which was seen in an earlier MS Thesis study by L. Coop, is supported in this
preliminary analysis of pooled dates (Fig. 1). The next step for processing these
leafroller parasitoid data from both the 2005 and 2006 seasons (data not shown: analysis
nearing completion will involve the analysis of the peak times of leafroller and parasitoid
activity as they relate to caneberry management activities, particularly pesticide
applications. This information will then be used to produce a calendar of recommended
scouting activities and updated guidelines for leafroller management in caneberries.
Additional studies that are part of this 4-year project will include producing,
implementing, and supporting phenological models of the major pests and parasitoids
involved, building a database and filling gaps in our knowledge of pesticide toxicity
effects on important parasitoids in this system, conducting studies of alternative leafroller
contaminant removal methods at harvest and to emphasize the use and timing of
alternative and selective pesticides less harmful to leafroller natural enemies. All of this
work is being conducted in close collaboration with crop consultants, growers and
regional research and extension faculty to maximize interaction and learning
opportunities throughout the process. Our proposed project finds alternative hosts and
nectar sources to enhance and conserve natural biological control of leafrollers. Together
these technologies may provide the tools to reduce high populations down to low
endemic levels, and to maintain leafrollers at pre-economic threshold levels by promoting
IPM and conservation biological control in caneberries.
2. Objectives
1) Evaluate existing resources for conservation biological control (CBC) agents on
cooperator farms.
2) Develop strategies to augment CBC resources on cooperating farms.
3) Disseminate conservation biological control information via email, websites, grower
meetings, and via on-farm demonstrations including farm walks.
3. Research, education and technology transfer plan
Objective 1: Evaluate existing resources for conservation biological control (CBC)
agents on cooperator farms.
Farms undoubtedly vary considerably in the amount and distribution of the floral
resources they provide biological control parasitoids. In addition, adjacent non-farm
habitats are likely to vary in the degree to which they support parasitoid populations and
thus act as sources for on-farm populations. Quantitative data documenting these
differences are however, almost non-existent. Lack of this basic information severely
hampers the ability of producers to manage biocontrol services on their farms. We wish
to develop a detailed understanding of how both on-farm and adjacent off-farm floral
resources vary across caneberry producing farms in the Willamette Valley and SE
Washington State. We will use this information to strategically identify gaps in the
parasitoid support system that should be targets for specific conservation strategies.
We will evaluate the existing supporting resources for conservation biological control at
two distinct spatial scales:
a) On-farm floral resource surveys
Local field resource patterns
To test the degree to which fields vary in their local floral resources we will conduct
floral censuses across an existing network of cooperator farms. Scouts supported by our
CSREES CAR program will be trained to conduct basic floral resource assessments when
they conduct leafroller sampling, and one of the hourly workers, graduate student and
research associate to be funded on this grant will conduct more detailed assessments at
two farms each (6 in total), spanning the production zone for caneberries. At each farm
we will conduct standardized bi-weekly floral censuses of a focal caneberry field. Floral
surveys will be stratified by three microhabitats: caneberry rows, between row
vegetation, and 10m wide field margins. Within fields, scouts will sample floral density
by species within 1 m2 quadrats spaced every 5m along 50 m long permanent transects.
Transect positions will be randomly assigned to caneberry rows and the inter-row spaces.
The total number of transects within a field will be adjusted as a function of field size to
maintain equal sampling effort across fields. To sample field margins we will establish
10m x 100m randomly positioned permanent belt transects along each of the four field
margins. Scouts will assess total floral density by species within 1 m2 quadrats randomly
thrown within the belt transect at sampling points spaced 5m apart. As with within-field
transects, the total number of margin transects will be adjusted as a function of field size
to assure equal sampling effort across fields. We will adjust the total number of locations
where more extensive scout surveying of floral surveys takes place to accommodate their
peak workloads. The total number of fields sampled is likely to exceed 30.
We will test the degree to which floral abundance differs seasonally and among the three
microhabitats using repeated measures ANOVA. Within the ANOVA model we will
also test the degree to which the covariates of farm size and production method
(conventional high and low input, organic) influence patterns of local field floral
abundance. Further research, outlined below, will rank these resources for value to
leafroller parasitoids.
Comprehensive assessment of floral resources on focal farms
Our field surveys will provide a broad assessment of the magnitude of variation in local
floral density on farms throughout the Willamette Valley. These data necessarily give a
limited picture of the actual nectar resources available to biocontrol parasitoids. To
augment these surveys we will target the subset of 6 farms at which we will develop a
more comprehensive assessment of floral resource patterns.
At these farms we will survey field and field margin floral abundance as described above,
and in addition we will develop more comprehensive GIS-based floral resource maps.
We will conduct biweekly standardized walks of the habitat within a 500 m radius
adjacent to target fields (this does not seem very practical to me: land ownership, access,
getting run over by trucks etc.). We will record the location and extent of floral patches
using GPS, and record the percent cover and floral density of each species within patches.
These data will allow us to construct a species-specific map of seasonal floral abundance.
Species-specific differences in nectar production rate as well as nectar consumption by
larger arthropods such as bees and lepitoptera can make floral abundance a poor
descriptor of nectar resources (Corbet 2003). Therefore, we will directly measure nectar
standing crop and nectar production rates for the most abundant flower species. We will
mark 20 randomly selected individuals of each species on farms where they are abundant,
and exclude nectar consumers from half of these using bridal veil fabric. We will
measure floral nectar volume on 3 randomly selected flowers on each plant using microcapillary tubes of standard volume. To account for diurnal variation in nectar production
we will measure nectar volume at three times: morning, midday, and late afternoon. The
nectar volume will be determined and sucrose concentration measured using a
refractometer modified for small volumes.
We will combine the species specific floral abundance maps with the information on
species specific standing crop and nectar production rate to produce GIS-based seasonal
nectar abundance maps for each of the twelve farms. This will be used to identify gaps in
resources and focus CBC activities on specific resource requirements.
Growers will participate in these surveys wherever possible, and during farm walks, to
increase their familiarity with floral resources and to engage them in planning for the
strategy to respond to gaps in available resources.
b) Assessment of adjacent off-farm habitat
We will quantify the seasonal pattern of floral abundance within three additional
vegetation types: fallow agricultural fields, diverse native prairie/savanna, and closed
canopied oak woodland. We will identify accessible areas of each vegetation type,
adjacent to our intensive survey farms. We will use the same methods as at the 6
intensive survey farms to inventory nectar and pollen resources bi-weekly.
We will use malaise traps to assess the degree to which each habitat type supports
parasitoids. One trap will be deployed at each of the replicate off-farm habitats as well as
the intensive survey farm sites (12 traps in total, ten funded by this grant to supplement
the two we already have). We will identify the parasitoids captured in the traps to subfamily. These data will allow us to construct a relative ranking of habitat quality for
biocontrol parasitoids.
In year two of the study we couple our parasitoid habitat ranking with an assessment of
the distribution of adjacent habitat types at each of the cooperator farms. We will utilize
an extensive database of aerial photography available for the Willamette valley to classify
the landscape context of each farm. These farms span a gradient in the proportion of the
three habitat types that lie adjacent to farms. For each farm we will use circular buffers
of increasing radius to measure the proportion of habitat in each category at five spatial
scales: 0.5 km, 1 km, 2km, 3km, and 7km. We will then regress these data against the
parasitoid data obtained from the field surveys to test the degree to which the abundance
of high quality habitat adjacent to farms predicts on-farm parasitoid abundance.
c) Alternative host provision
The late spring generation of early stage orange tortrix larvae (typically during May
through June) are mis-timed with respect to their major parasitoids that emerge from
over-wintered larvae. These parasitoids emerge in March and April and, lacking hosts
locally, are likely to emigrate from the local area in search of suitable hosts. While
numerous candidate alternative hosts are known, the specific species, their hosts plants,
and the means to exploit this knowledge have neither been identified or tested yet.
Two or more primary OT parasitoid species meeting the above mentioned criteria
(importance and phenological timing) will be identified along with their candidate
alternative hosts and subjected to a survey and screening protocol. The survey will
include consideration and sampling of selected tortricid species including those reported
in the literature (Krombein and Hurd 1979, and numerous local studies in caneberries),
and sampling of tortricids in cropping systems and natural flora commonly adjacent to
caneberries. Particular attention will be placed to the timing of emergence of common OT
parasitoids from these alternate hosts with respect to potential to fill OT parasitism timing
gaps. Significant OT parasitoid sources fitting this need may include any of the numerous
perennial cropping systems (hazelnuts, nursery crops, various tree fruits, winegrapes),
and other deciduous trees and shrubs harboring alternative host tortricid species,
including local Rosa spp., up to 0.5 miles distance from caneberry fields. Sampling will
use timed searches as per existing caneberry and tree fruit leafroller sampling protocols
(Long et al. 1997, Ambrosino et al. 2006).
Significant sources of major OT parasitoids via search and evaluation of alternative hosts
may lead to understanding of ecological interactions among neighboring cropping
systems and/or native flora which could lead to area-wide potential for OT parasitoid
conservation biological control. Once such sources are identified and effects quantified
through repeated sampling, further research can be proposed to manipulate these systems
to increase biocontrol success. These candidates will be further screened for use in
alternate host studies based on capacity for serving as laboratory or insectary hosts for
selected OT parasitoid(s) and for potential to use appropriate host plants as companion
plants nearby caneberries, as developed for leafroller parasitoid alternative hosts in tree
fruits in Washington State (Pfannenstiel and Unruh 2003). Assessment of phenology of
overwintering, emergence and attack of OT will be a fundamental criterion of selection
and further development of this approach for alternative host species.
Method needs elaboration: I assume larvae will be collected and reared out as in CAR
grant. Interaction with CAR needs to be specified. Need to consider logistics also. Will
this be done a part of the six farm inventory and assessment?
Objective 2: Develop strategies to augment CBC resources on cooperating farms
In conjunction with the experiments detailed in this section to augment on-farm CBC
resources we will also be employing methods to ensure that the farmer cooperators are
engaged at the onset of the project in the planning, implementation and evaluation of
insectary plantings for the commercial berry farms. Towards this goal, we will be
adopting and adapting the procedures of the Integrated Plant Protection Center’s (IPPC)
Farmscaping for Beneficial’s (FSB) Project
(http://ipmnet.org/Farmscaping_for_Beneficials.html), led and coordinated by
Gwendolyn Ellen. Specifically, we will be adapting ‘Practical guidelines for
establishing, maintaining, and assessing the usefulness of insectary plantings on your
farm’ (Author, Mario Ambrosino, IPPC: (attached as supplementary information). These
guidelines have been developed and used with collaborator growers for over the past
three years.
The surveys outlined in 1a above will generate a key dataset to support decision making
about CBC implementation, but without direct grower engagement in this process we
would have limited ability to cooperatively establish the farm-specific CBC practices that
we are seeking. The following three-step process exploits the FSB program model to
establish a dynamic, participatory engagement with our grower cooperators.
Evidence of cooperation must be attached: old letters, and new ones
a) Engage with growers, consultants and scouts in determining which key beneficials and
pests are present in and around crops, fields and farm.
We maintain constant dialog with grower collaborators and consultants within our
CSREES CAR program, and this interaction will now include discussion of CBC
opportunities and approaches. The farm-specific nature of CBC adoption will however
require a higher level of collaboration and understanding for both growers and
researchers, and we will exploit the farm walk and workshop format of the IPPC FSB
program to ensure that this occurs.
In the first summer of the project, we will conduct at least one farm walk on a
participating farm with all participating growers to jointly observe landscape factors,
habitat, beneficial insects and crop pests and teach monitoring and floral resource
evaluation techniques. We will also evaluate our floral resource monitoring data and
focus upon possible gaps in resources that need to be rectified.
During the second summer of the project we will conduct at least one farm walk
highlighting habitat created or enhanced for beneficials associated with the project and
our farmer collaborators. We will also again include identification of beneficial insects
and crop pests and teach monitoring and resource evaluation techniques. All walks will
be regionally advertised and open to all interested growers.
b) Learn more about the biology of these specific organisms and what they need to thrive
The farm intelligence gathering that is enabled by our surveys (1a) and farm walks (2a)
then establishes the opportunity for creative dialog with growers about their CBC
options. This will be achieved through more structured workshops and adaptive research
that screens and evaluated candidate floral resources and experiments with the ways that
these might be employed within the CBC program. Our recent experience with the FSB
program reinforces our understanding that growers have critical expertise to contribute to
this process in terms of plant selection, cultivation and growth.
Early both years of the project, we will conduct workshops on the biology and ecology of
leafroller pests of caneberries and the beneficials insects associated with them. We will
have specimens of each to observe, discuss monitoring techniques, and highlight the
importance of pesticide exclusion and habitat to beneficial populations. In particular, we
will engage growers and consultants in planning, execution and analysis of the process
that determines which plants may be required to enable CBC enhancement on their farms.
This process will occur in several stages: review of plant options, screening of candidate
plans, development of farm-specific plans, and experimental evaluation of farm-based
BCB activities. All grower participants and other growers that may attend our meetings
may participate in this process, but we will mainly focus our efforts on the 6 intensive
study farms, which will serve as demonstration farms for the program.

Reviewing flowering periods and timings of different planting options.
There are several characteristics that we predict to be important in an effective insectary
planting. 1) The species used must bloom when the parasitoid requires the nectar
resources. 2) The insectary plant’s bloom should not significantly overlap with the bloom
period of the caneberries, to reduce the possibility of competition for pollinators. 3) The
species should not compete with the crop either by getting so tall that it shades the canes,
or by utilizing nutrients when and where the crops are exploiting them. 4) It should be
possible for the plantings to be integrated within the production system without too many
modifications.
Phenology models are being developed and refined within our CSREES CAR program
that will allow IPM practitioners to predict when OBL and OT occupy life stages that are
most susceptible to attack by parasitoids. The bloom period of caneberries is also well
documented. With growers and consultants, we will review records from native plant
nurseries and other sources to develop a list of plant species with appropriate
phenologies. We will compare this data with information from our own observations and
those of other researchers to determine which plants produce abundant nectar and to
identify candidate insectary plant species (Schultz and Dluglosch 1999).
We will evaluate the data we collect and the GIS-generated maps developed from our
floral resource assessments to determine which species presently occur on caneberry
farms, bloom in the appropriate periods, and are used by the target insects HAVE WE
DONE THIS LATTER PART?. With this information we will develop a list of species
that fit the above criteria.

Screening of candidate plants in the laboratory.
We seek to add value and further decision-making capacity to the CBC candidate plants
that will be jointly identified with grower cooperators and consultants. To achieve this,
we will conduct laboratory analysis to determine which plants contribute best to
parasitoid longevity. This exploits the large parasitoid culturing system that is being
maintained for pesticide side-effects screening within our CSREES CAR grant.
The major parisitoids of OBL and OT are proovigenic, i.e. they are born with the full
complement of eggs that they are going to lay, and only require nectar resources for
energy. Nectar resources will not increase the absolute number of eggs these wasps are
able to lay, but they will increase the lifespan of the insect, enabling the eggs that have
been developed to be laid. The braconid wasp, Cotesia rubecula (Marshall), must
consume nectar at least once a day to avoid starvation (Seikmann, et. al., 2001).
Additionally, in the absence of food this insect may resorb some eggs (Olsen et al 2005).
The absence of food in a host patch also results in decreased local retention time and
reduced parasitism efficiency (Olson et al. 2005).
In order to provide a good source of complementary food on a farm, plants must be
chosen that provide sufficient nutrition that is available to parasitoids. Laboratory
experiments involving numerous hymenopteran parasitoids have found that some plants
provide better nutrition for the insects, while some provide little or none (Baggen and
Gurr 1998, Idris and Grafius 1995, Orr and Pleasants 1996). When adults have ready
access to nutritious nectar and pollen, parasitism rates can be increased. Typically
parasitoids are of a different order than the pest that is their host. This means that the host
may have different requirements for nutrition or access, and plants can be chosen that
provide complementary food for the parasitoid but not the pest. These have been labeled
selective food plants (Baggen et. al., 1999). An obvious mechanism for determining
selectivity is floral architecture, but other mechanisms that have been proposed are the
nutritional quality of the pollen and nectar. (Koptur, 2005).
To determine if a plant species is an appropriate nectar source, we will grow the
candidate plants that have been selected with growers and consultants in a greenhouse.
Cultures of both the parasitoids (details of species) and OT are being maintained at OSU.
When the plants are mature and flowering, we will enclose parasitoids with each plant
and a water source and measure the insect’s longevity. There will be two controls, insects
enclosed with only water should have a minimum longevity and insects enclosed with
abundant honey should live for the maximum length of time. Species which allow insect
life-spans similar to those of water only may have nectar that is unavailable, or restrictive
floral architecture. Species that allow the parisitoid life-spans comparable to honey will
be considered the most appropriate as a nectar source. We will use ANOVA to compare
differences in longevity.
Data from this screening will be used to restrict the candidate list to only those plants that
support parasitoids. These data will be shared with growers in workshops, farms walks
and consultations and contribute to plant selection.
 Planning for the addition of floral resources and habitat by selecting the appropriate
plant species and planting configurations
Planning the adoption of any new agronomic tactic is complex, given the full work
schedules and restricted resources of growers. Additionally, researchers often fail tlo take
into account the implicitly systems perspective that growers bring to the planning
process. To enable constructive planning to take place that respects the growers expertise
and business constraints, the FSB employs a process called ‘the Bugscaping game’. This
is a group planning process, where specific farming practices can be discussed and
graphically mapped throughout the farming season. In addition to identifying insectary
planting possibilities, the exercise can reveal the detailed steps farmers need to take to
adopt such CBC practices and clarify when it is best to implement these steps within their
farm plan. The game can facilitate adoption and adaptation of such practices on their
farm and it provides an opportunity for growers to share and compare their techniques
and ideas with each other, as well as helping researchers to design the project.
We will be proposing the following insectary planting methods that might be used in
commercial caneberry fields:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Replacement rows
End of row island beds
Flowering cover crops (single, multi-species options)
Inter-row island beds
Alternative LR plantings
To undertake the Bugscaping Game, a series of seasonal farm maps are displayed to
growers. Groups then interactively list all the cultivations and activities associated with
each season, and these are indicated on the maps by markers and codes. The aim of the
game is for groups of growers to collaboratively identify the planning, activities,
resources, time and logistic constraints and other considerations associated with adoption
of a new and additional practice. This is an unfailingly instructive practice, and from the
process will emerge a plan for adoption of one or more of the procedures listed above for
experimental evaluation on the 6 intensive study farms.
We will time the workshops and Bug-scaping game to maximally make use of available
data and to enable planning for the season ahead, particularly the second season.

Examine along and between-row trends in parasitism rates associated with
experimental CBC practices.
By the second season, we will have amassed data that will enable plans for each intensive
study farm to be developed. These plans will include candidate plants and planting
strategies. We will then undertake the selected practices on each farm and evaluate the
success of these techniques experimentally. The relative successes of these methods will
then be compared in a final workshop at the end of year 2, and fed into the continuing
FSB program in the IPPC. Existing FSB program resources will fund the workshops to
complement this grant and integrate with the CSREES CAR program.
The CBC options and assessment techniques are as follows. The exact combination of the
practices to be adopted will depend upon decisions led by our grower cooperators.
The ‘replacement rows method’ (see above) involves taking out an occasional row of
canes and replacing it with insectary plantings. This method seems most suitable for large
farms with long cane rows where there is little room for other modifications to the
production system. In the ‘row ends method’, plants are placed at the ends of cane rows
where support wires prevent access by machinery. This method can be suitable for
smaller farms where the row ends make up a larger proportion of the acreage, or in
situations where the grower is unwilling to sacrifice production rows for insectary
plantings. Annual or perennial insectary plants can also be planted as cover crops in the
inter row spaces. This method can be used on farms that currently use cover crops or on
farms that are willing to try them. Inter-row island beds are blocks of insectary plants
placed the access avenues between the rows of canes These plantings are similar to cover
crops but they can be centered in areas out of the way of harvesting equipment or
workers. Alt LR host plantings…… Grower input of the kind we outline above is
essential in determining which method will be most suited to a given farm location.
We will document how the selected plantings affect parasitism pressure and pest
numbers. We will use the leaf-roller sampling and parastoid emergence method
developed and employed within our CSREES CAR project to evaluate the success of
each tactic.
On farms that install replacement rows, these will be placed every 20 rows and insect
samples will be taken between rows to test the hypothesis that there will be greater
parasitism pressure in rows that are closer to the replacement rows. On farms that use row
end plantings we will test the hypothesis that parasitism rates are highest, close to planted
row ends. On farms that choose to include cover crops or inter-row island plantings the
plantings will be installed in blocks of rows. Treatments will consist of flowering cover
crops, island plantings, non-flowering cover crops, and bare soil. We will compare levels
between blocks to and compare treatments with the controls. We will also measure
parasitism rates in the blocks to determine their effectiveness.
OUR current projects have demonstrated this is the best assessment method.
3. Disseminate conservation biological control information via websites, grower
meetings, articles and via on-farm demonstrations including "farm walks".
In addition to the two farm walks and three specialized workshops, we will disseminate
the project results to growers, university researchers and extension personnel, and other
agriculture professionals using the structure already established within our CSREES CAR
project. The additional staff employed on this project will contribute to these processes,
but additional resources for meetings and events will not be required, because these basic
costs will not be affected by the addition of this new program and information source.
Our dissemination program will be as follows:
a) Already established field days: (approximately one or two per year) which will offer
the opportunity for both formal and informal discussion of scouting techniques, and
conservation biological control strategies.
b) Websites: We will continue to disseminate information by updating the web site news
section of www.ipmnet.org with calendar items and articles on the project and encourage
other organizations to link to, and contribute, to it.
c) Media presentations: We will develop two media presentations. The first early in the
project on biological pest management of caneberries in OR and the second a panel
presentation, including farmer cooperators and researchers about this project specifically.
These presentations would be given at the various small fruit and horticulture workshops
held each year in Washington and Oregon.
d) Publications: We will also disseminate the project results through professional
publications and journals. An Extension Bulletin on habitat used in biological pest
management of caneberries will be produced. Similarly, IPM guidelines developed via
this program will contribute to an update of the regional caneberry production guide.
These resources can also be readily integrated into the PNW Insect Management Guide
(online version at http://insects.ippc.orst.edu, Coop 2002).
e) Farmer to farmer exchanges: We will organize at least one “farm walk” in addition to
the two previously mentioned for educational purposes. This walk will be to emphasize
conservation biological control methods used in this project, highlighting our successes
and experiences gained from our work with them. We will also attend at least one farmer
to farmer informal exchange a year. This may be a farmer breakfast or round table
discussion at a conference to discuss our project.
FINAL NOTE that CAR evaluation process will be used.
1 page for a timeline to be added
References cited
Baggen, L.R. and G.M. Gurr. 1998 The influence of foods on Copidosoma Koehleri
(Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and use of flowering plants as a habitat management
tool to enhance biological control of potato moth, Pthorimaea operculella
(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Biological Control, 11: 9-17
Baggen, L.R., G.M. Gurr., and A. Meats 1999. Flowers in tri-trophic systems:
mechanisms allowing selective exploitation by insect natural enemies for
conservation biological control. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 91:
155-161
Bostanian, N. J., H. Goulet, J. O'Hara, L. Masner, and G. Racette. 2004. Towards
insecticide free apple orchards: Flowering plants to attract beneficial arthropods.
Biocontrol Science and Technology. 14: 25-37.
Breakey, E. P. 1951. Natural control of the orange tortrix in western Washington. Journal
of Economic Entomology 44: 424.
Brunner, J. F. 1992. Leafroller biological control: promising new parasites discovered in
1992. Washington State Horticultural Association. Yakima: Washington, USA, 7-9th
December, 1992. pp. 285-288.
Brunner, J. F., J. E. Dunley, M. D. Doerr, and E. H. Beers. 2001. Effect of pesticides on
Colpoclypeus florus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) and Trichogramma platneri
(Hymenoptera : Trichogrammatidae), parasitoids of leafrollers in Washington. Journal
of Economic Entomology 94: 1075-1084.
CAST. 1999. Agricultural impact of the sudden elimination of key pesticides under the
Food Quality Protection Act. [Whalen et al. authors]. Issue Paper Number 11, March
1999.
Coop, L. B. 1982. Orange tortrix: parasitoid complex and thermal constants for
development. M. S. Thesis. Oregon State University. 117 pp.
Coop, L., A. L. Knight, and G. Fisher. 1989. Parasitism of orange tortrix (Lepidoptera:
Tortricidae) in caneberry, Rubus spp. in western Oregon and Washington. Journal of
the Entomological Society of British Columbia. 86: 65-67.
Corbett, S. A. 2003. Nectar sugar content: estimating standing crop and secretion rate in
the field. Apidologie 34:1–10
Croft, B. A. and C. A. Mullin 1984. Comparison of detoxification enzyme systems in
Argyrotaenia citrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and the ectoparasite, Oncophanes
americanus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Environmental Entomology. 13: 1330-1335.
Cross, J. V., M. G. Solomon, D. Babandreier, L. Blommers, M. A. Easterbrook, C. N.
Jay, G. Jenser, R. L. Jolly, U. Kuhlmann, R. Lilley, E. Olivella, S. Toepfer, and S.
Vidal. 1999. Biocontrol of pests of apples and pears in northern and central Europe: 2.
Parasitoids. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 9: 277-314.
Elkins, R. B. and R. A. Van Steenwyk. 2004. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines:
Pear UC ANR Publication 3455 Insects and Mites - orange tortrix
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r603300711.html
Emden, H. F. v. 1962. Observations on the effect of flowers on the activity of parasitic
Hymenoptera. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine. 98: 265-270.
Gurr, G. M., H. F. van Emden, and S. D. Wratten. 1998. Habitat manipulation and natural
enemy efficiency: implications for the control of pests. Conservation Biological
Control. P. Barbosa. San Diego, CA, Academic Press: 155-183.
Hagvar, E. B., T. Hofsvang, N. Trandem, and K. G. Saeterbo. 1998. Six-year Malaise
trapping of the leaf miner Chromatomyia fuscula (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and its
chalcidoid parasitoid complex in a barley field and its boundary. European Journal of
Entomology. 95: 529-543.
Hollingsworth, C. S. and W. M. Coli. 2001. IPM adoption in northeastern U.S.: An
examination of the IPM continuum. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 16:
177-183.
Hougardy, E., P. Pernet, M. Warnau, J. Delisle, and J.C. Grégoire. 2003. Marking bark
beetle parasitoids within the host plant with rubidium for dispersal studies.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 108: 107-114.
Idris, A.B.and E. Grafius. 1995. Wildflowers as nectar sources for Diadegma insulare
(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), a parasitoid of Diamondback moth (Lepidoptera:
Yponomeutidae). Environ. Entomol. 24(6): 1726- 1735
Johansen, C. 1978. Insect pests of small fruit. In: Fundamentals of Applied Entomology.
3rd edition. Macmillian Pub. Co. N.Y. 798 pp.
Kaufman, D., G. Koskela, and L. Royce. 1999. Fall Seeded Cover Crops for Weed
Suppression and Beneficial Insect Habitat. IPM in Oregon: Achievements and
Future Directions. Conference Proceedings.
Koptur, S., 2005. Nectar as fuel for plant protectors. In Plant-Provided Food for
Carnivorous Insects: a protective mutualism and its applications, Wackers, F.L.,
P.C.J. van Rijn, and J. Bruin, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pg .
75-108
Krombein, K. V., P. D. Hurd, et al. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of
Mexico. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 2735 pp.
Landis, D. A., S. D. Wratten, and G. M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat management to conserve
natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology. 45:
175-201.
Long, L. E., M. Omeg, A. L. Knight. 1997. Monitoring obliquebanded leafroller in sweet
cherry orchards. Oregon State University Extension Service, Wasco County.
Mills, N. J., and K. P. Carl. 1991. Parasitoids and Predators (Chapter 3.1), pp. 235-252.
In L. P. S. v. d. Geest and H. H. Evenhuis [eds.], Tortricid pests : their biology,
natural enemies, and control. World Crop Pests Volume 5. Elsevier, NY.
Olson, D.M., K. Takasu, and W.J. Lewis. 2005. Food needs of adult parasitoids:
behavioral adaptations and consequences. In Plant-Provided Food for Carnivorous
Insects: a protective mutualism and its applications, Wackers, F.L., P.C.J. van
Rijn, and J. Bruin, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pg. 137-147
Orr, D.B., J.M. Pleasants, 1996, The potential of native prairie plant species to enhance
the effectiveness of the Ostrina nubialis parasitoid Macrocentrus grandii. J. of the
Kansas Entomological Society 62(2): 133-143
Perry, J. N. 1998. Measures of spatial pattern for counts Ecology 79: 1008-1017.
Perry, J. N. and P. M. Dixon 2002. A new method to measure spatial association for
ecological
count data Ecoscience 9: 133-141.
Pfannenstiel, R.S. and T.R. Unruh 2002. Conservation of leafroller parasitoids through
provision of alternate hosts in near-orchard habitats. Proceedings of the 1st
International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, Honolulu, Hawaii
2000. http://www.bugwood.org/arthropod/day4/Pfannenstiel.pdf
Pfannenstiel, R.S., Unruh, T.R. 2003. Conservation of leafroller parasitoids through
provision of alternate hosts in near-orchards habitats. International Symposium on
Biological Control of Arthropods. USDA Forst Service Pub. FHTET-03-05. p.
256-262.
Powell, W., J.K. Waage, and D.J. Greathead. 1986. Enhancing parasitoid activity in
crops. In: Insect parasitoids: 13th symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of
London, Imperial College, London, Academic.
Reinhold, J. and J. Jenkins. 1998. Oregon pesticide use estimates for small fruits (1995)
and tree fruits (1996). Oregon Extension Service EM 8673.
Rosenstiel, R.G. 1949. Life history and control of the orange tortrix in Oregon. Journal of
Economic Entomology. 42: 37-40.
Cheryl B. Schultz á Katrina M. Dlugosch 1999. Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit
populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly Oecologia 119:231 - 238
Seikmann, G., B. Tenhumberg, M.A. Keller. 2001. Feeding and survival in parasitic
wasps: sugar concentration and timing matter. Oikos 95: 425-430
Unruh, T. 2003. Rose plantings increase leafroller parasitism in orchards: a story for the
Rose City. Proceedings of the 77th W. Orchard Pest and Disease Management
Conference. 3 pp.
USDA Pest Management Centers. 2003. National Roadmap for Integrated Pest
Management (IPM). June17, 2003.
http://www.nepmc.org/national/roadmap/june172003.html
Wackers, F. L. and A. Steppuhn 2003. Characterizing nutritional state and food source
use of parasitoids collected in fields with high and low nectar availability. Landscape
Management for Functional Biodiversity, Bologna, Italy, IOBC wprs Bulletin. 26:
203-208.
WRPMC. 2003. Western Region Pest Management Centers. Pest Management Strategic
Plan -Caneberry Production in Washington and Oregon. [DeFrancesco, J, T. Peerbolt,
Eds.] Prepared for the Pacific Northwest Caneberry Industry, USDA, and the EPA.
July 2003. 93 pp.