Using dropleg technique during flowering of oilseed rape to avoid pollinator exposure

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Using dropleg technique during flowering of oilseed rape to avoid pollinator exposure"

Nathaniel Scott
6 years ago
Views:

1 Using dropleg technique during flowering of oilseed rpe to void pollintor exposure Johnnes Husmnn, Meike Brndes, Udo Heimbch, Bernd Ulber (Schriftgröße mindestens 16, besser 1

Dropleg technique in oilseed rpe Advntges: Reduced exposure for honey bees nd other pollintors Reduced residues of ctive ingredients in honey nd pollen Efficcy ginst Sclerotini stem rot is comprble

2 Dropleg technique in oilseed rpe Advntges: Reduced exposure for honey bees nd other pollintors Reduced residues of ctive ingredients in honey nd pollen Efficcy ginst Sclerotini stem rot is comprble with conventionl sprying technique (Wllner 215) (Dicke 216, Hberlh-Korr 216, Terhrdt et l. 216) Disdvntges nd open questions: Additionl costs nd lbour for frmers Efficcy ginst cbbge seed weevil (Ceutorhynchus obstrictus) nd pod midge (Dsineur brssice)? Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 2

Mteril nd methods Field trils ner Brunschweig from 215-217 Block design, plot size 24

i. h -1 ) Mvrik (Tu-fluvlinte 48 g.i. h -1 ) 1.5.216 Biscy (Thicloprid 72 g.i. h -1 ) Mospiln (Acetmiprid 4 g.

Assessment of OSR pests: wter trys t soil level photoeclectors pod exmintion Johnnes

3 Mteril nd methods Field trils ner Brunschweig from Block design, plot size 24 m², four replictes Appliction t full flowering BBCH Biscy (Thicloprid 72 g.i. h -1 ) Mvrik (Tu-fluvlinte 48 g.i. h -1 ) Biscy (Thicloprid 72 g.i. h -1 ) Mospiln (Acetmiprid 4 g.i. h -1 ) Biscy (Thicloprid 72 g.i. h -1 ) Mospiln (Acetmiprid 4 g.i. h -1 ) Assessment of OSR pests: wter trys t soil level photoeclectors pod exmintion Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 3

4 Dily emergence rte of D. brssice emergence/m² 217 emergence /m² 216 C 217 C 216 Appliction My Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 4

5 Pod infesttion by first genertion of D. brssice 217 b c,c conv Bi = conventionl ppliction Biscy (thicloprid) conv Mo = conventionl ppliction Mospiln (cetmiprid) Drop Bi = dropleg ppliction Biscy Drop Mo = dropleg ppliction Mospiln Jittered boxplot of pod infesttion by D. brssice t (BBCH 75). Men ± confidence intervll (red). Number of plnts ssessed n = 48. Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 5

6 Pod infesttion by second genertion of D. brssice 217 Jittered boxplot of pod infesttion of D. brssice t (BBCH 78-8). Men ± confidence intervll (red). Number of ssessed plnts n = 48. Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 6

7 lrve/ m² + se Weevils / m² +se Abundnce of lrve nd new genertion of C. obstrictus lrve 216 lrve 217 new genertion 216 new genertion ,c b,b b,b c b Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo Lrve / m² + se of C. obstrictus trpped in wter trys, n = 24. Glm, p.5. Sum of new genertion of C. obstrictus per m² + se trpped with photoeclectors, n = 8. Glm, p.5. Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 7

8 lrve / m² + se beetles / m² + se Abundnce of lrve nd new genertion of B. eneus lrve216 lrve 217 new genertion 216 new genertion b c b b,c c,d d Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo c c c c b Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo Lrve / m² + se of B. eneus trpped with wter trys, n = 24. Glm,p.5. Sum of new genertion of B. eneus per m² + se trpped with photoeclectors, n = 8. Glm, p.5. Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 8

9 Lrve / m² + se Weevils / m² + se Abundnce of lrve nd new genertion weevils of C. pllidctylus 5 lrve 216 lrve new genertion 216 new genertion b Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo 1 d,b c,d,b b b,c b,b Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo Lrve / m² + se of C. pllidctylus trpped with wter trys, n= 24. Glm, p,5. Sum of new genertion of C. pllidctylus per m² + se trpped with photoeclectors, n = 8. Glm, p.5. Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 9

10 Prsitism of Pollen beetle lrve by Tersilochus heterocerus 217 % p =.858 p =.56 p =.24 p =.83 1 DAA 3 DAA 7 DAA 14 DAA n= 99 n= 271 n= 371 n= 113 Control con. Bi Drop Bi con. Mo Drop Mo Appliction: (BBCH 65-67) Lrve were dissected nd eggs of T. heterocerus were counted. Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 1

216 (BBCH 65) Number of L2 lrve investigted: 1 Control conv Bi

11 Prsitism rte (men +sd) % Prsitism of Pollen beetle lrve by T. heterocerus 216 Appliction: (BBCH 65) Number of L2 lrve investigted: 1 Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mo Drop Mo Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 11

215 (BBCH 65) Number of L2 lrve investigted: 1 27 DAA: only few lrve 7 DAA: Control > Biscy P <,1

12 Prsitism rte (men +sd) % Prsitism of Pollen beetle lrve by T. heterocerus 215 Appliction: (BBCH 65) Number of L2 lrve investigted: 1 27 DAA: only few lrve 7 DAA: Control > Biscy P <,1 Biscy Dropleg > Biscy, P =,2 Mvrik Dropleg > Biscy, P <,1 Control conv Bi Drop Bi conv Mvrik (tu-fluvlinte) Drop Mvrik (tu-fluvlinte) Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 12

13 dt/ h +se OSR yields from * Control con. Bi Drop Bi -> only in 216 significnt effect of conventionl Biscy -> no difference between ppliction techniques Averge yield + se in Wendhusen from Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 13

14 Outlook Appliction during flowering lso selects for resistnce we re still witing for yer with high pest bundnce So fr no remrkble differences in efficcy between conventionl nd dropleg sprying technique Generlly dropleg technique cn llow reduced drift vlues It cn be n opportunity to keep ctive ingredients vilble for ppliction during flowering Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 14

15 Thnks to: Dominik Feistkorn JKI-A Rpool for finncil support Lechler Thnk you for ttention! Johnnes Husmnn Institute for Plnt Protection in Field Crops nd Grsslnd 15

Alternative Control Strategies for Cabbage Aphids in Fall Crops

Alternative Control Strategies for Cabbage Aphids in Fall Crops Alterntive Control Strtegies for Cge Aphids in Fll Crops By Susn B. Scheufele UMss Extension Vegetle Progrm Cge phids (CA) cn severely reduce yield nd mrketility of rssic crops throughout the yer ut cn