Final report for GW23-245
Project Information
Pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola) is the most economically destructive pest to the pear industry in Washington State, where about 42% of the nation’s pears are grown. In the Wenatchee Valley, WA, the second largest pear growing region in the United States, pear psylla has historically been managed using multiple broad-spectrum insecticide sprays. Insecticide resistance has resulted in increased spray frequency, which in turn kills off natural enemies that provide much needed biological control. The result has been a steady increase in psylla pest pressure over the decades, leading to the current state of growers spraying, on average, 15 conventional insecticides per season, at a cost of around $1,500 per acre. In contrast, the largest pear growing region in the U.S., Hood River, OR, sprays less frequently with primarily selective materials, costing closer to $500/acre, and has far lower pest pressure. The goal of this project is to help the Wenatchee growing region adopt integrated pest management (IPM) techniques through Extension and outreach activities. First, we have documented the current perceptions of pear psylla IPM in the Wenatchee Valley through intensive interviews with key industry stakeholders and a survey to reach a broader audience. In 2024, we re-interviewed the same stakeholders to document progress toward IPM adoption and conducted another survey. From 2022-2024 we conducted educational programs to facilitate the implementation of a recently developed pear IPM program. In addition to facilitating pear IPM in the Wenatchee Valley, this project will help us more broadly understand why roadblocks to IPM adoption occur, and how to best overcome them.
Research Objectives
Research Objective 1: Determine baseline perspectives and practices for Pear IPM in the Wenatchee Valley, WA through interviews and survey.
Research Objective 2: Perform Extension and outreach activities to promote adoption of WSU’s Pear IPM recommendations.
Research Objective 3: Document changes in the adoption and perception of pear IPM through a second round of interviews and survey.
Educational Objectives
Educational Objective 1: Update cooperators and pear stakeholders with insect monitoring results.
Educational Objective 2: Engage the pear industry by demonstrating IPM in the real world.
Educational Objective 3: Make IPM technology accessible to all pear stakeholders.
Educational Objective 4: Reach underserved pear stakeholders through breaking down language barriers.
Educational Objective 5: Present research to scientific audiences and publish peer-reviewed papers.
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
- (Researcher)
- (Researcher)
- - Producer
Research
Research Objectives and Methods
- Project Sites – 8 paired sites were chosen as part of a co-occurring insect monitoring project led by PI Nottingham to test the efficacy of IPM vs conventional management. The sites were located in the Wenatchee Valley between Wenatchee and Leavenworth, WA. All were approximately 5-acre pear blocks that were either following conventional (the industry-standard, recommendations of the field consultant) or IPM (the Nottingham lab’s phenology-based IPM guidelines).
- Feasibility – The cooperators were already familiar with PI Nottingham’s lab and agreed to participate in the interviews and allow monitoring of their sites. Members of the Nottingham lab were experienced in interviewing growers and monitoring insects in orchards (Orpet et al. 2019, 2020). Agricultural sociologist Dr. Jessica Goldberger (Washington State University, Department of Crop and Soil Science) aided in creating the interviews and survey and in the analysis of the sociological data.
- Objective 1: Determine baseline perspectives and practices for Pear IPM in each of the major pear growing regions of the Pacific Northwest
- Conducted an industry-wide survey (focused, mainly quantitative/ordinal responses) across 5 regions to understand what level of IPM is being practiced in each region.
- We received 49 responses
- The survey was distributed online to maximize the number of respondents.
- Conducted detailed interviews (qualitative, allowing for more expansive responses) with key stakeholders from an area where IPM is not commonly practiced (Wenatchee, WA).
- 11 Wenatchee interviews and 11 interviews across OR, BC, and CA.
- Each interview lasted about an hour and were recorded and transcribed for data analysis.
- Conducted an industry-wide survey (focused, mainly quantitative/ordinal responses) across 5 regions to understand what level of IPM is being practiced in each region.
- Objective 2: Perform Extension and outreach activities to promote adoption of WSU’s Pear IPM recommendations.
- Weekly newsletters were written and distributed (Pear Entomology Weekly) with commercial pest and beneficial insect scouting data and IPM recommendations from WSU Pear Entomology Lab (led by researchers Nottingham and Orpet).
- One field day workshop was conducted per season to demonstrate IPM program results (near harvest).
- Monthly discussion groups were held to teach IPM programs (prior to season start and throughout the season).
- Web content was created and is in the process of being edited which shows how to promote beneficial earwigs in pear orchards
- Objective 3: Document changes in the adoption of pear IPM
- A second industry-wide survey was conducted (focused, mainly quantitative/ordinal responses) across 5 regions to understand what level of IPM is being practiced in each region and document any change.
- Questions were added specific to this project to improve Extension and research in the future
- Detailed follow-up interviews were conducted (qualitative, allows for more expansive responses) with the same stakeholders from Wenatchee, to document any change in IPM practices or perceptions.
- Interviews were similar to those in Objective 1 for comparison in responses between years.
- Changes in perspective and pest management practices were measured based on differences in Obj 3 responses from Obj 1.
- For analysis, open-ended interview questions were coded for common themes and quantitative survey questions were compared.
Objective 1: Determine baseline perspectives and practices for Pear IPM in each of the major pear growing regions of the Pacific Northwest
Eleven pear stakeholders (6 growers, 5 crop consultants) that scouted for approximately 2,309 acres of pear from the Wenatchee Valley were interviewed. 80% said that conventional pear psylla management is not effective and that the status quo of management needs to change. 60% also indicated that they believe biological control to be effective and important for pear psylla management. When asked why conventional broad spectrum management is the norm for pears despite the understanding of its ineffectiveness, responses centered around the lack of trust in the research, the perceived risk of changing the program, and the need for an area-wide effort in order for IPM to work.
Interviews of pear stakeholders from other major PNW pear-growing regions (e.g., Sacramento Delta, CA; Hood River, OR; Medford, OR; British Columbia, Canada; Yakima, WA) revealed that they all implement IPM more than Wenatchee. According to interviewees, for successful IPM implementation in all these regions, it first took a collective feeling of "rock bottom"; they had no choice but to change their practices. It is possible that Wenatchee hasn't gotten to "rock bottom" with conventional management yet. Each region also experienced a strong research or industry push to adopt IPM - whether it was the University Extension's IPM program in the Sacramento Delta and Medford, the crop consultants in Hood River and Yakima, or the independent consultants in British Columbia. The University research and Extension regarding pear IPM in the Wenatchee Valley has consisted of several short-lived programs and high researcher turnover. Perhaps they haven't had the leadership in pear IPM that other regions have had.
The regional interviews also showed that there are some major differences in management between Wenatchee and other areas. Most regions that have implemented IPM are able to do some form of winter management, usually in the form of a dormant oil spray. This is hardly possible in the Wenatchee Valley, where orchards are not accessible due to snow often until late February. Additionally, Wenatchee Valley "IPM" appears to be quite different from "IPM" in other regions. Wenatchee growers often include broad-spectrum insecticides in the early season and generally apply more sprays even if they are selective. Other regions that have successfully adopted IPM tend to spray less overall and do not include broad-spectrum sprays. This discrepancy could be a reason why IPM in Wenatchee isn't sticking.
Objective 2: Perform Extension and outreach activities to promote adoption of WSU’s Pear IPM recommendations.
Extension events, newsletters, and presentations were done to promote the pear IPM guidelines (see Education and Outreach results).
Objective 3: Document changes in the adoption of pear IPM
In 2023 and 2024 we distributed an online survey to pear stakeholders to gauge their use of pear psylla IPM and any changes between years. Both surveys reached 49 respondents that accounted for about 7,000 acres of pear. For those who tried the IPM management program, in 2023 they reported that 384 acres had improved and in 2024 that 517 acres had improved compared to conventional management. Those who stated that they plan to continue to use the IPM guidelines cited trust in the research and cost-effectiveness as reasons. The reasons for not trying the guidelines were client/grower pushback and the belief that it is not effective.
In 2024, we conducted follow-up interviews with our Wenatchee stakeholders (the same participants from the first round of interviews, two years later). These indicated that there was more confidence in IPM than two years before. It is worth noting that the 2024 season experienced a significantly lower pear crop than usual, due to a couple of factors, including a late frost and low fruit set. According to the interviews, the fact that many of the growers were not planning on harvesting at all motivated them to expand their IPM acreage. It was also suggested that many other conventional growers outside the project switched to IPM in 2024 due to the perceived reduced risk from not harvesting.
References:
Orpet, RJ, JR Goldberger, DW Crowder, VP Jones. 2019. Field evidence and grower perceptions on the roles of an omnivore, European earwig, in apple orchards. Biological Control 132: 189–198.
Orpet, RJ, VP Jones, EH Beers, JP Reganold, JR Goldberger, DW Crowder. 2020. Perceptions and outcomes of conventional vs. organic apple orchard management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 289: 106723.
Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York, Free Press of Glencoe.
Research Outcomes
Interviews with Wenatchee Valley stakeholders indicated that the majority of interviewees believe that conventional (broad-spectrum based) pear psylla management is not effective and that more integrated management strategies should be pursued. However, they are resistant to fully adopt pear IPM. From social science research regarding the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers 1962) and from the interviewees themselves, it appears that certain aspects of IPM should be addressed to increase adoption. Stakeholders indicated that they prefer easy-to-follow management recommendations - some feel that IPM can be too complex and requires extra resources, such as scouting and decision aid systems. It is therefore important that IPM guidelines are easy to follow and scouting is demonstrated, aspects which are addressed through our weekly newsletters and interactive field days.
A lack of trust in the research also contributes to non-adoption. Farmers often trust their peers when it comes to management recommendations more than researchers. We had the farmers who were trialing IPM share their experiences with their peers, which seemed even more valuable than Extension talks, as IPM's effectiveness was relayed to growers from sources that they trust. The IPM grower panels that we hosted provided a space for stakeholders to hear how IPM was going for those trying it. The understanding of barriers to pear IPM adoption in the Wenatchee Valley will help research and Extension provide support to stakeholders and ultimately reduce the widespread use of broad-spectrum management in the region.
From the interviews of stakeholders in other major PNW pear-growing regions, it is apparent that each region experienced a crisis in fruit quality and financial cost of conventional management that drove them to widely adopt pear IPM. Perhaps only some growers in the Wenatchee Valley have gotten to this same point of "rock bottom", propelling them to switch to IPM. Wenatchee interviews indicated that some conventional pear growers are satisfied enough with their management; some say they have been getting "lucky" in fruit quality the past few years. If the Wenatchee Valley behaves like all the other nearby regions, however, luck will not be enough to sustain conventional pear growers from year to year. It may be just a matter of time until Wenatchee experiences that crisis of conventional management.
Education and Outreach
Participation Summary:
Educational Objective 1: Update cooperators and pear stakeholders with insect monitoring results.
- Weekly newsletters (called Pear Entomology Weekly) were sent to pear stakeholders from 2022-2024 that contained up-to-date insect and natural enemy counts from major pear growing regions - the Wenatchee Valley and Yakima WA. We have exceeded the original scope of the newsletter to include data from Hood River, OR.
Educational Objective 2: Engage the pear industry by demonstrating IPM in the real world.
- Field days dedicated to pear psylla IPM were held in August 2023 and July 2024. They each hosted 30-50 pear stakeholders from various regions in WA and consisted of research updates and on-farm demonstrations of scouting and biocontrol releases.
- 10 events were held that included 2 panels of growers who were trying IPM and 8 discussion groups for stakeholders to share management ideas throughout the season.
Educational Objective 3: Make IPM technology accessible to all pear stakeholders.
- Weekly newsletters included data from the pear psylla phenology model that predicted pest populations in the coming weeks and management guidelines.
Educational Objective 4: Present research to scientific audiences and publish peer-reviewed papers.
- Results of the insect monitoring project were presented at the Entomological Society of America Conference in National Harbor, MD in Nov 2023, at the Orchard Pest Management and Disease Conference in Portland, OR in Jan 2024, at the Pacific Branch Entomological Society of America Conference in Waikoloa, HI in April 2024, and at the Orchard Pest Management and Disease Conference in Portland, OR in Jan 2025.
Educational Objective 1: Update cooperators and pear stakeholders with insect monitoring results.
- Pear Entomology Weekly newsletter subscribers increased from 2022-2023 by over 100 recipients.
- Surveys after the events indicate that the monthly discussion groups resulted in "a great deal" of learning for the majority and that most attendees will change their management after the events.
Educational Objective 2: Engage the pear industry by demonstrating IPM in the real world.
- A survey distributed at the end of the field day indicated that the majority of respondents felt that the event was valuable. Some of the common comments were that it was easier to understand than other field days and that the scouting demonstration was useful. Feedback was also given that the audience is not very tech-savvy and thus things like QR codes are not useful.