Text Transcript and Description of Visuals
| Audio | Visual |
|---|---|
| Music Plays. | Title Slide. Presentation title: How to Build a Codling Moth Spray Program: Modeling, Monitoring, and Management. Presenter information: RT Curtiss, PhD, Post-doctoral Research Associate – Entomology – WSU. |
| Hi everybody, I’m Rob Curtis and I’m a postdoctoral researcher at WSU in Louis Nottingham’s lab. I’m studying cultural and biological controls and economic thresholds of pear psylla, as well as codling moth monitoring lures, thresholds, and the sterile insect technique. I’m going to remove my video after this slide so that way I’m not over top of any of the information I’m trying to present today. | The presenter appears over the title slide in a video call. |
| For those of you that don’t know me, I got my Bachelor’s in forest entomology from the State University of New York in Syracuse, my Master’s in tree fruit entomology here at WSU, studying biological control agents of pear psylla, and my PhD in tree fruit entomology from Michigan State University studying codling moth sterile insect technique and their interactions with orchard management systems and mating disruption. I’ve worked on insect chemical ecology, fungal pathogens of insects, biological control, insect taxonomy, and insect behavior in agricultural systems. And before my PhD, I managed the plant pest control branch of the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, where I worked on invasive species issues. And I worked at the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission. | Slide titled “My Background” contains a list of the speaker’s specializations as well as the logos of the mentioned universities, agencies, and commissions. |
| Today I’m going to talk about how to build a codling moth spray program that incorporates the decision triad and takes advantage of the selectiveness of new chemistries. I think the most important components of a codling moth management program are understanding the pest phenology as well as monitoring the actual in-field populations. | Slide titled “This Talk: How to Build a Spray Program” contains two bullet points outlining the key points and take home messages of the talk: the decision triad, taking advantage of new chemistries, and what to do in unexpected situations. |
| The decision triad for codling moth management requires a thorough understanding of codling moth phenology. Using models to predict phenological events and in-field monitoring to verify those predictions, management can be targeted and effective. In addition, knowing phenology and in-field population changes allows for flexibility in the integrated pest management program by informing when spray applications are inappropriate or unnecessary. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management Overview: The Decision Triad” contains photos of an airblast sprayer in an orchard and a delta style codling moth trap in a tree. A bullet point list outlines the decision triad, as stated in the audio. |
| Scientists define IPM as a system of effective and environmentally sensitive approaches to pest management that relies on a combination of common sense practices and that use current comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment. IPM is used in combination with available pest control methods, and it’s used to manage pest damage by the most economical means and with the least possible hazard to people, property and the environment. Key in IPM programs, is the application of the fewest number of interventions possible. The use of IPM can help to mitigate the risks of pesticide resistance. | Slide titled “What is IPM” contains text defining both the academic definition and the industry definition of IPM. To the left are two photos of a sprayer being pulled by a tractor and a person observing the branch of an orchard tree. |
| As far as the industry is concerned, IPM uses multiple tactics that are tailored for specific farm sites and controls may be applied only where needed. Decision making and planning is based on pest information from the field, both within the current season and historically. IPM can be considered profitable for the growers because it uses control tactics only when they’re needed, preventing unnecessary costs. The selectiveness of the techniques are thought to be better for human and environmental health. | The speaker remains on the slide as he elaborate on the industry definition of IPM. |
| By now, you’ve probably gathered that the decision triad and IPM is composed of three important concepts, pest modeling, pest monitoring, and pest control. Although we may not use horse-drawn sprayers like the guys in this photo anymore, many of the concepts are not new, but they’re constantly being revised and improved. | Slide titled “Important Concepts” contains a photo of a codling moth trap in a tree, a photo of a drone flying, and a black and white photo of a horse-drawn pesticide sprayer. A bullet point list outlines the three key concepts of IPM: Modeling, monitoring, and management. |
| Codling moth was among the first species described by Carl Linnaeus in our system of naming organisms. It’s been known to be an important pest for a long time. You can find codling moths pretty much everywhere you find apples, and they’re the most important pest in all those places. | Slide titled “Important Concepts – Codling moth” contains a map of the worldwide distribution of codling moth. |
| They have four life stages, an egg, larva, pupa, and adult. | A diagram of the lifecycle of a codling moth appears on the slide. Along with text highlighting that it is holometabolous lifecycle. |
| Since the early 1920s, researchers and farmers have tried to understand how codling moth development can be predicted. | Slide titled “Modeling Codling Moth” contains several graphical examples of codling moth lifecycle models. |
| This figure, from Siegler and Planck’s 1921 publication, attempted to clarify the season-long changes in codling moth populations as a means of predicting life stages. And as you can see, it’s very complicated. | One of the models is increased in size to highlight it. It contains many peaks showing the predicted developmental timing for codling moth life stages. |
| Jay Bruner, in 1993, provided a much simplified version of that life history diagram, but if insecticides with short residuals are being used, then it’s not detailed enough to accurately time applications. | A different model is highlighted. This chart is simpler, and shows the peaks for different life stages over the course of the year. |
| Early codling moth models like the PETE model require extensive early season trapping to determine when moths would begin to emerge on the farm. This model was developed to start the clock when capturing traps or a biofix first occurred. From biofix, farmers were then able to predict when codling moth development would occur and determine when to start control tactics. This model had a few shortcomings. If trap density or moth populations were low, biofix may have occurred later than actual emergence. And when mating disruption was employed, moth responses to traps may have been impacted. | A different model is highlighted to call attention to it. It contains many overlapping peaks for the different life stages. |
| To compensate for these shortcomings, Vince Jones and others predicted that BioFix was not necessary to predict coddling moth phenological events and that degree day accumulation from January 1st each year would be adequate to model the populations through the year. What you should notice is that regardless of the model, the egg hatch predictions are similar. There’s relatively little hatch in the beginning, and then you reach a peak of egg hatch. where the potential for damage is high and control is critical to success. It’s important that your most effective controls are targeted at this time. The rest of the egg hatch can generally be controlled with more targeted interventions like ovicides early or alternative chemistries between generations. | Another model is highlighted, it is a line graph of the relative number of larvae versus the cumulative degree day since January 1st. |
| These two papers were the basis of the no biofix codling moth model used today in the Decision Aid System. The model predicts that from January 1st, adult moths will emerge from overwintering pupae between 90 and 270 degree days, depending on latitude and elevation. In Washington, emergence is typically around 100 to 175 degree days. An egg deposition begins shortly after that, typically around 200 to 275 degree days. | Slide titled “Modeling Codling Moth” contains the Vince Jones model graph from the previous slide along with the titles and author information of the two mentioned papers. |
| Larvae start hatching around 425 to 525 degree days, and they enter the fruit right away. The beauty of this model is it allows for prediction of codling moth phenological events without extensive early season trapping. It also allows for longer trap-checking intervals without sacrificing knowledge about when moth flight, egg deposition, and hatch should begin. Decision making should be more accurate when farmers and crop consultants can’t get out to check all their traps daily, or if the trap densities or moth populations are too low to capture moths early in the season for biofix. In short, the models allow you to see things that you can’t easily observe: egg deposition and hatch. |
A bracket is placed on the graph from around 200 to 1000 degree days, which is labeled “Generation 1”. |
| This model also can be used to predict the second generation’s timings. Moths of the second generation will begin emerging at 1175 degree days from January 1st. The first egg hatch will begin at 1400 degree days, and control timing strategies that are used in the first generation can be applied the same way in the second generation. | A bracket is placed on the graph from 1175 to 2250 degree days, which is labeled “Generation 2”. |
| Now that we’ve talked about the models and understand how they can help us predict when expecting codling moth events to happen, I’m going to talk about the second part of the decision triad, and that’s the monitoring program. If you use the old biofix model with lots of early season trapping, or you just have traps out in your orchard, you probably have a good idea of what’s needed for trapping. Typically, the most effective codling moth traps are the orange delta style ones with a sticky card on the bottom and a lure inside, just like the one in the photo here. | Slide titled “Monitoring Codling Moth” contains a photo of a delta style codling moth trap. Moths can be seen stuck to the sticky card at the bottom of the trap. |
| The challenging part now is choosing which lure is the best for monitoring. And unfortunately this is complicated because there are over 10 lures available. And because over 90% of the Washington apple acreage is under several mating disruption schemes, so it’s difficult to interpret catch to determine actual pest densities on the farm. | Text appears on screen: “But what lure is best and what does catch mean”. |
| So like I said, there are a lot of lures and lure manufacturers to choose from. Commonly, the 1X or CML2 lures are used in orchards without mating disruption, and in orchards with mating disruption, there are a few more options, including the 10X high-load lure, a combo lure with the codling moth pheromone and pear ester, and that one is sometimes coupled with acetic acid and known as the CMDA plus AA lure. And the newest one is the Megalure 4K that has no pheromone but has four plant volatiles as the attractant. A further complication with interpreting capture is that the pheromone-only lures attract only males, while those lures with pheromones and other volatiles attract both males and females. So the capture numbers don’t necessarily mean what they used to. | Slide titled “Monitoring Codling Moth” contains photos of the many different lure types and formulations available. |
| There have been some efforts to interpret catch to determine pest densities. Chris Adams and others, using novel methods, determined that in an orange delta trap baited with a Trace CML2 lure in Michigan apple orchards without mating disruption, capture of a single male moth indicated that there were five males or females per hectare within the 21 hectare trapping area. | Slide titled “Monitoring Codling Moth” contains the title and author information of the mentioned study as well as text outlining the results. |
| More recently, I used these methods in Washington apple orchards with mating disruption using the CMDA plus AA lure, and I found that capture of a single moth indicated that there were 180 males or 113 females per hectare within the 3-5 hectare trapping area. Unfortunately, there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done before we know what catch means for other lures combined with mating disruption. | Additional text appears on the slide outlining the title and results of the mentioned study, as outlined in the audio. |
| So I hope the take-home message about monitoring is that interpretation is complicated if you’re using some of these new monitoring lures and mating disruption. Also, I want you to understand that monitoring is not just about what you catch in your traps. Early in the season, in orchards with mating disruption, catch may be unreliable if trap density or moth populations are low, so it’s important to couple monitoring with model predictions. Also, your farm history should be considered when interpreting codling moth catch and making spray decisions. You or your farm manager likely know your historical hotspots and problem areas, so be aware that your monitoring program alone may miss them, even if you know you need to spend a little more time there. You can always do visual inspections of historical hotspots, and when you see something, you can decide to address it. When your moth catch in monitoring traps doesn’t match the model and is much later, don’t be suspicious of the model. That may just be an indication that your mating disruption program is working and that moth populations are low. | Slide titled “Monitoring Codling Moth: More than just traps/acre” shows an image of a person checking a codling moth trap in an orchard, and a bullet point list highlighting the importance of traps, visual inspections of orchards, and models. |
| I want to quickly go over a few things that impact pest management on the farm before getting into the actual spray program. I won’t go into too much detail, but it’s important to understand how these things can affect your program. | Slide titled “Operational Factors Impact Codling Moth IPM” contains a bullet point list of factors which may impact control programs including the tree canopy, crop load management, water, fruit quality, and cover crop management, and tree nutrition. |
| First, the tree canopy is an important factor in pest management. A simplified canopy, like the one on the left, is ideal from a pesticide spray perspective. In this orchard, it’s easy to make sure that nearly every surface is covered in insecticides. As the trees become bigger and the canopies become more three-dimensionally complex, like in the picture on the right, spray deposition becomes less even and there are likely areas in the tree where codling moths survive and don’t get sprayed. | Slide titled “Tree canopy affects spray coverage and micro habitats for pests” contains two photos of orchards with varying canopy sizes. Text above them highlights that spray deposition is more variable as canopy density increases. |
| Removing bloom and fruit from the trees results in better control because there’s better spray coverage and less refugia for codling moth. With hand thinning, work crews can remove infested apples and let the grower and consultant know where they’re seeing the damage. | Slide titled “Crop Load Management – Some products may disrupt codling moth” contains a photo of apple blossoms that have been chemically thinned and a photo of apples on the ground of an orchard after hand thinning. |
| Overhead irrigation may cause failure in the spray program if insecticides are washed off trees before they can impact codling moth. So it’s important to have an adjuvant that facilitates getting the chemical into the waxy cuticle of the fruit or a sticker if the product needs to stay on the outside of the apple. Overhead cooling may prevent plant stress and help with fruit quality especially if we get temperatures like this last year, though if too much water is used, these systems may also wash some insecticide residues off the plants. It’s important to shorten the retreatment intervals in orchards where overhead cooling is implemented. And likewise, water-stressed trees may recruit more pests because they’re weakened. | Slide titled “Water Management – Reduces residue of chemicals and stress affects pests” contains photos of overhead and drip irrigation systems in orchards. |
| Weed management may reduce refugia for codling moth pupation, but natural enemies rely on weeds for alternate nutrition sources, so it may be important to leave a weed strip. | Slide titled “Cover Crop Management: Mowing” contains two photos of the mowing process in orchards, one where a weed strip is left, and one where it is not. |
| Managing tree nutrition is not only important for fruit set and production, but overly vigorous trees may stimulate some pests, and it makes coverage more difficult by providing more protected areas for codling moth to lay eggs. | Slide titled “Tree Nutrition – Fertilizers” contains a photo of an orchard with a very high number of apples on the trees and text highlighting that high vigor can stimulate pests. |
| Now, this seems like a good time to mention that codling moth is not the only pest you’ll face in your orchard. And many of those factors that I just spoke about stimulate some of these other pests. So your whole program has to consider not just codling moth control, but how it will impact this complex of other problems. And not to mention that disease management is an additional complication in fruit production. | Slide titled “Codling Moth is Not Alone in the Apple Orchard” contains lists of Lepidopteran, Dipteran, Coleopteran, Hemipteran, Thysanopteran, and mites species that occur as pests in apple orchards, along with photo examples of each order. |
| Finally, I’m going to talk about the codling moth control program, which is the last pillar of codling moth management. We have three codling moth life stages that we can attack the egg, the larva, and the adult. And unless you attack the life cycle as many points as possible, you won’t be successful because relying on a single strategy that targets any single point in the life cycle is likely to fail. As you remember, early in the spring, adults emerge from overwintering pupae, and then they try to find each other. If they’re successful, they mate and then lay eggs. A little while later, those eggs hatch, and for a brief period, the larvae are unprotected outside of the apple. But once they enter the apple, it’s too late. If you miss too many, you lose a lot of fruit, and your second generation is going to be even bigger. Early season timing is so important, and your program is more likely to succeed if you thoroughly understand codling moth behavior, phenology, and your orchard operations. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management” contains photos of a codling moth egg, larva, and adult, as well as a photo of an airblast sprayer spraying in an orchard. |
| On this figure of the codling moth life cycle, you can see all the places that codling moths are vulnerable. You can disrupt adults, eggs, and larvae. For example, if you treat eggs with a petal fall ovicide, this allows you to focus your efforts using more effective products during times when potential for damage is higher. Using a targeted strategy on each vulnerable life stage can save pesticide exposures and reduce the risk of insecticide resistance. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management: Adults” contains A circular diagram of the codling moth life cycle. White arrows are drawn between the pupae and adult, between the adult and egg, between the egg and larvae, and between the larvae and pupae life stages. |
| So let’s start with the foundation of successful codling moth management programs in apples, and that is mating disruption. It’s successfully used throughout the growing regions of the world for codling moth management. It’s most effective when used over large areas when codling moth populations are low. Mating disruption is generally thought to work by interfering with male moths ability to find female moths. And studies have shown that over time, codling moth populations reduce in orchards with mating disruption, and that these reduced populations contribute to easier and more effective spray programs, cost savings, and delay of insecticide resistance. | A label reading: “Mating Disruption” appears on the arrow between the pupa and adult life stages on the diagram. Text to the left outlines the positives of mating disruption. |
| The first researcher to suggest that codling moth may be controlled by flooding a farm with pheromones was William Putman in Ontario. In his 1962 paper on codling moth, he suggested that if the male-attracting pheromone could be identified and synthesized, it may be useful in detecting low infestations or preventing mating by saturating the environment. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management: Mating Disruption” contains the title and author information of the mentioned paper. |
| Ultimately, in 1971, Roloffs and others identified the chemical structure and synthesized the codling moth pheromone. They found that it was highly attractive to male codling moths. | The title and author information of the mentioned paper appears on the slide. |
| But it wasn’t until 1991 that the first effective codling moth pheromone reservoir dispenser was registered for use for mating disruption. Since then, mating disruption has steadily gained acceptance and has become an integral part of codling moth management in several palm fruit production areas. | The title and author information of the mentioned paper appears on the slide. |
| Two main technologies for delivering pheromone to your orchard are passive and active dispensers. Codling moth completes multiple generations per year, so dispensers must release pheromone for up to 180 days. Aerosol emitters are a promising alternative to high-density passive dispenser technology because of the ease of application and labor savings associated with deploying as few as one emitter per acre. Aerosol emitters are often supplemented with a border application of passive pheromone dispensers, insecticides, or both. And both technologies work by competing with females for the attention of males. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Mating Disruption Mating Disruption Technologies” contains photos of several different types of mating disruption dispenser types as well as text classifying them as passive or active dispensers. |
| In many ways, mating disruption is a numbers game. You need to have enough pheromone dispensers to disrupt the males, but not so much that you’re unnecessarily spending money. With passive dispensers evenly distributed through the orchard, you can minimize the number of dead zones without pheromone. If you can achieve your management goal of, let’s say, 90% control with 300 dispensers per acre, the cost for more dispensers to get 5% better control may be higher than the return on your investment. However, as you use fewer dispensers per acre, the likelihood of developing problems increases because there are more areas of the farm that may be free of pheromone. You could start to lose more fruit and need to implement other supplemental controls. And also remember that codling moth mating disruption cannot control high populations, so it’s essential that it is integrated into a pest management program that involves the effective use of other control tactics. Managing codling moth populations as close to zero as possible provides long-term control of codling moth and helps to maintain the effectiveness of the currently available insecticides. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Mating Disruption (Passive Dispensers) contains a graph of the codling moth injury at harvest versus the number of point sources per acre from 0 to 400. The injury reduces as more point sources are added. Text to the left outlines that fewer point sources mean more variability, reduced control, more management interventions, and increased damage. |
| Aerosol emitters are a slightly different story. There are far fewer devices applied per acre than the hand-applied dispensers, so there’s a labor cost savings. And past studies have shown that male codling moths may be disrupted far downwind from the device. And regardless of which mating disruption product or technology you use, its purpose on your farm is to control adult mating and reduce populations over time. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Mating Disruption (Active Dispensers) contains a photo of an aerosol emitter within a pear orchard, as well as text outlining that they are high emission, low point source, potentially cheaper, but coverage may be uneven. A heat map on the bottom of the slide shows low numbers of moths downwind of the aerosol emitter. |
| Up to this point, I haven’t actually talked at all about a spray program. I’ve talked about predicting their phenological events, monitoring them, and sexually frustrating them for the last 22 minutes or so. Because I think that for you to have a successful spray program, you first need to understand and implement all of those components of the IPM program. After controlling the adults with your mating disruption program, you still need to control any eggs that may have been produced by mated females. And you have two options, spraying insecticides under the eggs before they’re laid or over them after they’re laid. The on-farm codling moth pressure should dictate which tactic you decide to take. One thing I’m not going to do today is tell you which specific products to spray, because they’re likely to change over time, and you all know which specific products currently work best and are most cost-effective in your IPM program. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Ovicides” contains the circular diagram of the codling moth life cycle from a previous slide. A label reading “Residual Ovicides” is placed between the egg and adult life stages, and a label reading “Topical Ovicides” is placed between the egg and larva life stages on the diagram. Text to the left outlines the timings and types of residual and topical ovicides. |
| Residual ovicides are applied before the eggs are laid, and then the egg absorbs the compound from below. Applying them at petal fall delays codling moth injury and also helps to control leaf rollers and scale insects. It also allows for delayed cover spray strategies, and it shortens the retreatment interval to 14 to 17 days. | |
| So knowing from the model that egg hatch begins at around 270-degree days from January 1st or 100-degree days from BioFix, you want to get your residual ovicides on before then. Using this strategy, you can cover the generation with as little as a single ovicide application and then two larvicide sprays. | A bar graph appears on the slide showing the percentage of egg hatch in the first codling moth generation versus the cumulative codling moth degree day from Biofix. Arrows are drawn on the graph at 375 degree days for the 1st larvicide spray and 575 degree days for the 2nd larvicide spray. A line is drawn from 0 to 200 degree days for when ovicides should be applied. |
| Options are more limited for topical ovicides, but you can apply them a little later in the year. A perfectly timed topical ovicide spray would be at 375 degree days from January 1st, and this gives you the best chance to kill the most eggs in a single spray. Oils are commonly used at this time, but then the cycle begins again and the new eggs take about 100 degree days to hatch. So another spray after 200 degrees days may be needed. | A chart appears on the slide which outlines the approximate degree days when ovicides and larvicides should be applied. |
| Clearly, we’re now getting into the part of the program where you can control hatching larvae with larvicides. These are the sprays that growers are probably most comfortable using, and Guthion, for example, was referred to as a cover spray to target larvae for years before use was discontinued. Due to the short time a larva is exposed, ideally you’d use products that provide fast-acting control of larvae. And it’s always good to have several modes of action in your program to minimize the risk of resistance development. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Larvicides” contains the circular diagram of the codling moth life cycle from the previous slide. A label reading “Larvicides” is placed between the larva and pupa life stages on the diagram. |
| Here’s a summary of some past WSU testing of larvicides. This is a direct comparison of season-long programs with these products targeting only codling moth larvae. Even though some of these compounds aren’t used anymore, I’ve included them here as a comparison because the concepts I’d like to get across are still valid. It’s generally thought that you need greater than 90-95% control to keep a population from growing, and from this data you can see that some older products consistently provided higher levels of control and with less variability than the newer products. These findings indicate that the more selective products should not be used as stand-alone tactics because they can’t reduce codling moth populations to manageable levels over time on their own. but rather their use should be targeted and should be part of a larger IPM program that includes mating disruption and well-timed use of ovicides to reduce codling moth pressure. These robust programs should drive codling moth populations down quickly, allowing growers to establish a stable codling moth management program that has the potential to be maintained with reduced inputs. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Larvicides” contains a chart of the control rates relative to UTC seen for Altacor, Delegate, Assail, Calypso, and Guthion as a range of degree days. Altacor shows a relative control of 85%, Delegate 84%, Assail 83%, Calypso 90%, and Guthion 92%. |
| So why is that important? Well, knowing that insecticides need to be part of a broader program, rotating their use helps minimize the risk of insecticide resistance development. But in practical terms, development of resistance to one product can lead to resistance of the entire class of compounds. It’s important to remember for resistance management that you should avoid the use of the same chemical class against successive generations. You can use the group number developed by the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, or IRAC, to identify the class of insecticide to which each product belongs. Planning ahead is an important part of implementing a sound resistance management strategy in your IPM program. And the best resistance management programs limit exposure to pesticides because they’re tools that must be used judiciously. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Resistance” contains two charts of the insecticides currently labeled for use in codling moth, their chemical names, and their IRAC group number. |
| Most insecticide labels have a number identifying the class of insecticide. On these example labels, Assail is a Group 4A insecticide, Delegate is a Group 5, and Altacor is Group 28. If you use Delegate against the first generation, you can use Assail against the second generation. Exerol, for example, is a group 28, so you shouldn’t rotate it with Altacor. It’s okay to use multiple applications of the same class of chemistry against one generation, but rotate to a new class for the second generation. It’s also okay to use multiple modes of action within a generation, but just make sure that none of them are used against the next generation. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Resistance” contains images of the pesticide labels for Assail, Altacor, Delegate, and Exirel. The group numbers of each pesticide are circled on the label to draw attention to them. |
| There are resources out there to help you with your spray program and decision making. Almost every year, there’s a new crop protection guide issued with the latest management recommendations and strategies. In there, there are tables listing the various insecticide products, their application timing, rate, and other valuable information. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Resources” contains images of the cover of the 2020 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington and an example of the tables provided. |
| The WSU Decision Aid System, or DAS, is a web-based platform that’s designed to transfer time-sensitive information to you, the decision makers in the tree fruit industry. It runs insect and other models to estimate the current status of the issue and links that to appropriate management recommendations. It incorporates weather data from WSU’s Ag WeatherNet, forecasts from WeatherSource, historical weather data from DayMet, and other information such as the WSU Orchard Pest Management Online and the WSU Crop Protection Guide. It’s available to use on a smartphone and a computer. It is a fee-for-service program, but it really helps take a lot of the guesswork out of decision making. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Resources” contains images of the DAS website and examples of the graphs and maps available as part of its interface. |
| To recap, building a spray program for coddling moth involves so much more than just spraying pesticides. You need to know when those pesticide applications will be most effective by predicting pest phenology and verifying in-field events with monitoring. You want to control the moths at every life stage you can. Use mating disruption for the adults, ovicide next for the eggs, and larvicides before the caterpillars enter the fruit. You have to be aware of the consequences of spraying the same chemical class too many times. Mitigate resistance development by keeping track of the chemical class used against each generation. And use all the resources that are available. DAS and the Crop Protection Guide take a lot of the guesswork out. And most of all, you know your farm better than anyone. Be vigilant and keep an eye on problem areas. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management – Recap” contains two bullet point lists of reminders on how to build a spray program and the resources available, as outlined in the audio. |
| Use the decision triad for codling moth management to take advantage of the selectiveness of ovicide and larvicide chemistries when your monitoring program and model predictions don’t match up you need to consider your farm history. Did you have low populations last year? Do you have a robust mating disruption program interfering with monitoring traps? Have you considered your historical hot spots? Again, you know your farm better than anyone. If you think your monitoring program is missing population increases, check the model. It should tell you what life stages to expect at that time. Use all the tools available to you. And if something still doesn’t seem right, it’s okay to ask someone else for help. Call your extension agent, your crop consultant, or your neighbor. And you might even be able to get some of today’s speakers to help. | Slide titled “Codling Moth Management Recap: The Decision Triad” reappears on screen containing photos of an airblast sprayer in an orchard and a delta style codling moth trap in a tree. A bullet point list outlines the decision triad. |
| I’d like to thank Mike Dorr and Keith Granger for providing many of the images and materials that I used today. Thank you to the organizers of the Codling Moth Summit for putting this together and inviting me to speak. And thank you all for listening today. If you have any questions, I hope that I can answer them today. But if not, please feel free to send me an email at the address that I’ve listed here. | Thank you slide contains the presenters contact information and the sponsors of the conference. |
| Music Plays. | Credits for presentation and video production information roll. |
Link to YouTube video: Codling Moth-Spray
