effective control of fruit fly for market access using a ... · access using a systems approach in...
TRANSCRIPT
Effective control of fruit fly for market
access using a systems approach in
tablegrapes.
David Oag, Brendan Missenden and Ed Hamacek
Bactrocera tryoni
The Pest: Queensland fruit fly
• Early season harvest
• High value crop
• Non-preferred host of
fruit fly
• Field control required
• Industry practice was
cover sprays of
dimethoate or fenthion
The Crop: Tablegrapes
• Withdrawal of dimethoate (2011) and fenthion (2014)
• Domestic markets introduced restrictions on access
• Cold treatment not practical
• Poor understanding of fly behaviour
• Alternative chemicals not effective/provide limited control
• Chemical used in bait sprays (Hy-Mal®) not registered for grapes
The Problem
Aim
Demonstrate the efficacy of a systems approach for control of QFF in tablegrapes
Objectives
• Maintain interstate market access
• Data to support chemical registration
• Provide an alternative control measure for QFF
Shift in control practices from cover sprays to bait sprays in a systems approach
Research
Pre-harvest in-field
bait sprays
+ Culling of damaged fruit during harvest
+ Inspection of packed
product to verify success
Systems Approach
Field trials
Emerald
Mundubbera
St George
Locations:
Emerald, Mundubbera,
St George
Varieties:
Menindee Seedless
Red Globe
Bait spray:
• Protein hydrolysate +
malidson (Hy-Mal®)
• Rate 20L/ha
• Spray applied high on
foliage, as a continuous strip,
every 3rd row.
• Start 6 weeks before harvest
• 4-10 day intervals
Method
Monitoring fly numbers
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
8/3
0/2
00
8
9/6
/20
08
9/1
3/2
00
8
9/2
0/2
00
8
9/2
7/2
00
8
10
/4/2
00
8
10
/11
/20
08
10
/18
/20
08
10
/25
/20
08
11
/1/2
00
8
11
/8/2
00
8
11
/15
/20
08
11
/22
/20
08
11
/29
/20
08
12
/6/2
00
8
12
/13
/20
08
12
/20
/20
08
12
/27
/20
08
1/3
/20
09
1/1
0/2
00
9
1/1
7/2
00
9
1/2
4/2
00
9
1/3
1/2
00
9
2/7
/20
09
2/1
4/2
00
9
2/2
1/2
00
9
Me
an
Qfl
y/t
rap
/da
y
Emerald 1
Emerald 2
Emerald 3
Mundubbera 1
Mundubbera 2
St George
2008 season
Monitoring fly numbers
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
8/2
2/2
00
9
8/2
9/2
00
9
9/5
/20
09
9/1
2/2
00
9
9/1
9/2
00
9
9/2
6/2
00
9
10
/3/2
00
9
10
/10
/20
09
10
/17
/20
09
10
/24
/20
09
10
/31
/20
09
11
/7/2
00
9
11
/14
/20
09
11
/21
/20
09
11
/28
/20
09
12
/5/2
00
9
12
/12
/20
09
12
/19
/20
09
12
/26
/20
09
1/2
/20
10
1/9
/20
10
1/1
6/2
01
0
1/2
3/2
01
0
1/3
0/2
01
0
2/6
/20
10
2/1
3/2
01
0
Me
an
Qfl
y/t
rap
/da
y
Emerald 1
Emerald 2
Mundubbera 1
St George 1
St George 2
2009 season
• Bunches (per variety)
Preharvest: 3000
Packed fruit: 6000
• Incubate for 7-10 days at
26°C
• Assess for infestation
Measuring success of systems management approach
Variety District/
Vineyard
Sample
type
No.
Bunches
No.
infested
bunches
No.
infested
berries
% Bunches
infested
Upper %
bunch
infestation
(95%
confidence)
Menindee
Seedless
Emerald 3 Pick 507 22 34 4.34 6.196075
Pack 1273 13 15 1.02 1.623574
Emerald 2 Pick 482 0 0 0.00 0.621515
Pack 1302 0 0 0.00 0.230084
Combined 1784 0 0 0.00 0.167920
Mundubbera Pick 1223 0 0 0.00 0.244947
Pack 2428 0 0 0.00 0.123381
Combined 3651 0 0 0.00 0.082051
St George Pick 1035 1 1 0.10 0.458271
Pack 2306 0 0 0.00 0.129909
Combined 3341 1 1 0.03 0.141966
Results Infestation rate of Menindee Seedless bunches, 2008/09 season.
Culling at harvest effectively prevents infested fruit in packed product
Understanding QFF behaviour important for successful control
Results Infestation rate of Red Globe bunches, 2009/10 season.
Variety District/
Vineyard
Sample
type
No.
Bunches
No.
infested
bunches
No.
infested
berries
%
Bunches
infested
Upper % bunch
infestation
(95% confidence)
Red
Globe Emerald 3 Pick 523 0 0 0.00 0.572792
Pack 1168 0 0 0.00 0.256481
Combined 1691 0 0 0.00 0.177156
Emerald 1 Pick 517 0 0 0.00 0.579439
Pack 1412 0 0 0.00 0.212160
Combined 1929 0 0 0.00 0.155298
Mundubbera Pick 747 0 0 0.00 0.401031
Pack 3198 0 0 0.00 0.093674
Combined 3945 0 0 0.00 0.075937
St George Pick 1258 0 0 0.00 0.238132
Pack 2001 0 0 0.00 0.149710
Combined 3259 0 0 0.00 0.091921
Bait sprays sufficient to prevent QFF infestation of fruit
Outcomes for Industry
Effective control of QFF achieved with a systems approach
Market access retained for Queensland tablegrapes by introduction of ICA-20
Tablegrape growers in other states now use ICA-20 for QFF outbreaks
No detections in Melbourne market of QFF in packed tablegrapes treated with bait sprays (ICA-20).
Shift in control practices from dependence on cover sprays
Height of bait
Bait height
(metres) Mean fly mortality*
Equivalent mean
(No. of flies)
0.3 0.0753 a 0.189
1.0 0.5598 b 2.963
1.8 0.7644 b 4.183
LSD (5%) 0.379
* log transformed Source: Lloyd et al, 2005
Baits placed high in the canopy are most effective at attracting flies - this is where flies feed and roost
Baits at 1.8 metres attract 25X more flies than a bait at 0.3 m above the ground
Baits placed above 1.0 metre in the canopy are effective in attracting flies
Substrate on which bait applied
* log transformed Source: Lloyd et al, 2005
Baits applied to foliage attract significantly (approx. 4X) more flies than non-foliage surfaces – eg timber trellis posts (viz plywood) or vine trunk (viz hessian, carpet)
Bait substrate Mean fly mortality* Equivalent mean
(No. of flies)
Non - foliage
H essian 0.645 a 3.4
C arpet 0.777 a 5.0
P lywood 1.557 b 35.1
Foliage 2.152 c 1 40.9
LSD (5%) 0.293
Systems approach combining bait sprays with
culling at harvest provides effective control of QFF
in tablegrapes.
Understanding QFF behaviour and control
practices is important for success.
An economically important pest, hence more to be
done:
• Alternative bait spray toxicants • New soft option cover sprays
The message
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Queensland Government with the support of voluntary contributions from GrapeConnect and matched funds from the Australia Government through HAL. We thank Marianne Eelkema, Allan McWaters and Thelma Peek for the technical assistance. The collaboration of individual Queensland tablegrape growers who hosted their vineyard trials is gratefully acknowledged.
