Management of Vine Mealybugs in California’s San Joaquin Valley Through the Integration of Chemical and Biological Controls
The vine mealybug is a new vineyard pest in California. We investigated the use of less-toxic insecticides, Admire (imidacloprid) and Applaud (buprofezin), combined with releases of natural enemies. Results show Admire and parasite releases, used either in combination or separately significantly reduced crop damage, as compared with controls. Applaud, an insect growth regulator, also provides excellent control, although this product will not work well in combination with parasitoid releases as it is applied during the same period. To reduce economic costs, we are currently investigating using these control tools separately or combined with mating disruption. These controls provide sustainable methods that work as effectively as organophosphates, although control costs are greater.
(1) Improve timing, dosage, and delivery methods for “least-disruptive” insecticides (e.g., Admire) that target early-season VMB populations.
(2) Test inoculative release(s) of Anagyrus pseudococci in vineyards using “least-disruptive” insecticides and compare parasitoid effectiveness in vineyards with “least-disruptive” and “standard” organophosphate insecticide applications.
(3) Involve collaborating growers, farm managers, and Cooperative Extension personnel in on-farm experiments and parasitoid rearing operations; conduct field days to extend information to a larger audience; and produce research- and grower-oriented publications to improve extension.
A) Insecticides (Objective 1).
Until recently, the recommended insecticide program for vineyard mealybugs was a delayed dormant organophosphate insecticide (chlorpyrifos) and/or an in-season application(s) of a short-residual organophosphate (methomyl, dimethoate, diazinon). This program provides adequate mealybug control, but it may disrupt mealybug natural enemies (Walton and Pringle 1999), or well-established grape Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs. Here, we report on the effectiveness of a systemic, nicotinoid insecticide (Admire, Bayer Corp.) and an insect growth regulator (IGR), buprofezin (Applaud, Nichino America). Both insecticides are considered less disruptive than the organophosphates.
Systemic insecticides. In 2002, we tested the effectiveness of Admire in two vineyards with drip irrigation and two vineyards with furrow irrigation, each located near Del Rey, California (Fresno Co.). The vineyards were mature (>20-yr-old), ‘Thompson seedless’ blocks, planted in a well-drained, sandy-loam soil and managed for raisin grapes. Admire was applied at full-label rate, with treatments testing application timing. In each vineyard, treatments were applied in a complete randomized block with five replicates of the following five treatments: 32 oz Admire per acre applied in (1) April, (2) May, or (3) June; (4) two 16 oz applications of Admire per acre (applied in April and May); and (5) a no insecticide control. The vineyards were 12 – 18 acres each, with treatment blocks divided evenly throughout. Treatment plots were 0.5 – 0.7 acres. There were 1 – 4 buffer rows between each plot, dependent on vineyard size. In the drip-irrigated vineyards, a 4 – 6 hr pretreatment irrigation prepared the soil, Admire was then applied through the irrigation system, and 6 – 8 hr post-treatment irrigation was used to move the insecticide into the root-zone. The furrow-irrigated vineyards were prepared by French plowing the berm and furrow area to expose surface roots, followed by a 1 d pre-treatment irrigation. The next day, Admire was applied into the furrows using an herbicide spray rig, and the application was followed by a post-treatment irrigation.
Mealybug density was monitored between 13 – 19 March 2002, before treatment application, by a field dissection of two spurs per vine on 25 randomly selected vines per plot (625 vines per vineyard), as described by Geiger et al. (2001). To determine treatment effect, crop damage was evaluated at harvest using a 0 – 3 rating system, where 0 = no mealybug damage, 1 = honeydew (indicating the presence of mealybugs), 2 = honeydew and mealybugs, but the cluster is harvestable, and 3 = unmarketable (see Geiger and Daane 2001). In each treatment plot, 25 vines were randomly selected and nine clusters per vine sampled (5625 clusters per vineyard). Clusters in direct contact with woody parts of the vine were preferentially sampled, because mealybug densities are higher on these clusters.
Systemic insecticides vs. foliar insecticides. In 2003, we reused two of the vineyards and imposed different treatments in the existing plots. The five 2003 treatments were: (1) 32 oz Admire applied in May (in plots that received 32 oz Admire in April 2002), (2) no-insecticide (in plots that received 32 oz Admire in May 2002), (3) Applaud (in plots that received 32 oz Admire in June 2002), (4) chlorpyrifos (Lorsban, Dow Chemical Co.) (in plots that received 16 oz Admire in April/June 2002), and a no-insecticide control (no-insecticide control as in 2002). Because treatments were imposed onto the 2002 plots, we conducted a more detailed spring survey to determine if the pre-existing mealybug density would impact treatments. Mealybug density was determined on 18 and 19 March 2003 using a 5 min search on each of five randomly selected vines per plot (125 vines per vineyard), as described by Geiger et al. (2001). To determine treatment effect, crop damage was evaluated at harvest, as described previously.
Mating disruption (New Objective 1)
Until recently, a major hurdle in mealybug control was the difficulty of detecting mealybugs in nurseries and vineyards. In 2001, a more effective monitoring method was developed, based on the mealybug’s sex pheromone. Female mealybugs are wingless. Immature male vine mealybugs look similar to females, but go through a metamorphosis that produces a winged adult male. Females emit a sex pheromone to attract winged males. The pheromone has been identified (Hinkens et al. 2001), and successfully synthesized and used in monitoring programs (Millar et al. 2002, Walton et al. 2004). The synthetic sex pheromone’s effectiveness and ability to be mass produced led to our current studies on mating disruption. We report here on studies conducted in 2003 that used a microencapsulated formulation of the sex pheromone.
Field studies were conducted in five ‘Thompson Seedless’ vineyards, located near Del Rey, Sanger, and Fowler, California. Treatments were a pheromone application (mating disruption) and a no-pheromone control, with 3 – 5 acre treatment plots set in a randomized split plot design and each vineyard serving as a replicate. A 20 – 25 row buffer (300 m) was used between treatment plots. The sex pheromone used was produced by the Kuraray Co. (Tokyo, Japan) and then microencapsulated by Suterra LLC. (Bend, OR). The pheromone was applied using an air-blast spray rig at a rate of 0.282 oz (active ingredient) in 50 gallons water per acre. Three applications were made in each field, with application dates between 12 – 15 May, 16 – 19 June, and 2 – 4 August.
Male mealybug flight was monitored using three Pherocon Delta IIID pheromone traps baited with sex pheromone lures in each treatment plot. Traps and lures were changed every 2 and 4 wk, respectively. Mealybug density was determined using a 5 min search per vine on 10 randomly selected vines per treatment plot, as described previously. Crop damage was evaluated at harvest, as described previously, on 20 randomly selected vines per treatment plot, and five clusters per vine.
The microencapsulated formulation starts emitting sex pheromone immediately after application and its longevity is dependent on temperature. To determine its field longevity, a sample of pheromone-treated and clean (control) leaves were compared for their attractiveness to adult males. Ten leaves each were randomly sampled from pheromone-treated and control vines at 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 d after pheromone application. The leaves were placed individually on the sticky surface of a pheromone trap and then placed near a mealybug colony (the pheromone treated leaves attract males, similar to a pheromone lure). After 24 hr, the numbers of adult males were counted.
Augmentation of A. pseudococci (Objective 2)
Natural enemies attacking vine mealybug in California vineyards include the encyrtid parasitoids Anagyrus pseudococci (Girault), Allotropa sp., and Leptomastidea abnormis (Girault), several species of green and brown lacewings, and coccinellid beetles including the mealybug destroyer, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant. Of these, A. pseudococci was the most effective natural enemy in the San Joaquin Valley and as many as 90% of the exposed mealybugs collected near harvest time were parasitized (Daane et al. 2004b); however, its effectiveness is hampered by at least three factors. First, from October to April vine mealybugs reside primarily underneath the bark, where they are protected from foraging parasitoids. The lack of available hosts in September and October sharply reduces the Anagyrus overwintering population. Second, Anagyrus overwinter as immatures inside the mealybug and adults do not emerge until late spring (Daane et al. 2004b), further reducing their early-season densities. Third, foraging ants protect mealybugs from parasitoids. We tested inoculative release(s) of Anagyrus as a possible mechanism to overcome some of these barriers.
Field studies were conducted in five mature, ‘Thompson seedless’ vineyards, managed for raisin grapes, and located near Del Rey, California. Treatments were Anagyrus-release and no-release control, with 1-acre treatment plots set in a randomized split plot design, with each vineyard serving as a replicate. Treatment plots were separated by a buffer zone to minimize dispersal of released Anagyrus into control plots. Anagyrus were provided by the Foothill Agricultural Research (FAR) Insectary. We released 10,000 Anagyrus per acre on 12 June, 3 July, and 30 July, scheduled to occur when the mealybugs were in exposed locations on the vine.
Vine mealybug density was determined by a 5 min search per vine on each of 10 randomly selected vines per treatment plot. Mealybug numbers were recorded by development stage and vine location, which were categorized as ground (5 cm below ground level to 30 cm above), trunk, cordon, old canes, new canes, leaves, or clusters. Parasitoid activity was evaluated by collecting 100 mealybugs from each treatment plot, which were categorized by development stage and location, categorized as “protected” (under ground, under the bark of trunk, cordon and old canes, or in cavities formed by wood-boring moths) or as “exposed” (new canes, leaves, and clusters). When possible, we selected mealybugs in a 1:1 ratio from exposed and protected locations. The collected mealybugs were stored in gelatin capsules and held for parasitoid emergence, percent parasitism and parasitoid species were later recorded. Crop damage was evaluated at harvest, as described previously, with the exception that we sampled 50 randomly selected vines per treatment plot, and five clusters per vine (500 clusters per vineyard, 2,500 clusters total).
For all studies, results are presented herein as means per treatment. Treatment impacts are compared using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), with means separated using Tukey’s HSD test (P < 0.05) for three or more treatments, or a T-test for two treatments. Repeated measures ANOVA analyses were used to determine season-long differences in mealybug densities and percentage parasitism. Results. Graphs are provided with the printed report. Insecticide trials Systemic insecticides. Before treatment applications, mealybug densities were significantly different among the four vineyards, although there were no differences among assigned treatment plots within each vineyard; therefore, data analyses were conducted separately for each vineyard. In the drip-irrigated vineyard-A, all treatments receiving Admire, regardless of application date, had more clusters with a “0” (no damage) rating than the control treatment. In contrast, in the flood-irrigated vineyard-A, only the May application of Admire had more “0” rated clusters than the control, with all other Admire treatments showing >50% of the clusters with ratings of “2” (mealybug-infested) or “3” (unmarketable). These same data are presented as average cluster ratings to more easily discuss treatment impact and conduct statistical analyses.
In the drip-irrigated vineyard-A, average cluster damage in the April, May, and April/June Admire treatments was a significant 90.5 – 92.4% lower than the control. Average cluster damage in the June Admire treatment was a significant 67.9% lower than the control, but significantly higher than Admire treatments applied earlier in the season. In the drip-irrigated vineyard-B, cluster damage in the April, May, and April/June Admire treatments was 59.3, 70.0 and 53.4% lower, respectively, than the no-insecticide control; the June Admire treatment was only 17.9% lower than the control. In the furrow-irrigated vineyard-A, cluster damage in treatments with Admire applied in April, May, and April/June was significantly lower than the control, but only the May application had an economically important (59.3%) reduction in damage, whereas the April and April/June treatments were only 21.3 and 31.0% lower, respectively, than the control.
Average cluster damage in the furrow-irrigated vineyard-B in the April, June and April/June treatments was 66.8, 46.8, and 46.4% lower, respectively, than the control. In contrast to other trials, average cluster damage in the May application was not significantly lower than the control, although there was no post-treatment irrigation, as originally designed, in this vineyard for May treatment plots.
Systemic vs. foliar insecticides. In spring 2003, there were no significant pre-treatment differences in mealybug densities among treatment plots in either the drip- or furrow-irrigated vineyards. Therefore, treatment impact was not obscured by pre-treatment differences resulting from the previous year’s insecticide application. In the drip-irrigated vineyard, cluster damage was 84.5, 86.6, and 82.4% lower in the Admire, Applaud, and Lorsban treatments, respectively, as compared with the control. There was no difference between Admire applied in 2002 and the control, suggesting that there was no year-to-year carryover of Admire in the soil or root systems. In the furrow-irrigated vineyard, cluster damage was reduced by 54.3 and 80.4% in the Admire and Applaud treatments, respectively, whereas cluster damage in the Admire-2002 treatments was not significantly different from the control.
A number of insecticides can be used to kill vine mealybug (Bentley et al. 2003). We investigated the effectiveness of Admire and Applaud for use in least-toxic control programs. Results show that, when applied through a drip-irrigation system, an April or May application of Admire provided the greatest reduction in cluster damage. We suggest that Admire be applied near 70% bloom, which is typically in late April to mid-May. Admire was less effective when delivered through the furrow irrigation system. We believe furrow irrigated blocks have a more diffuse root zone, resulting in a more dilute application and poorer uptake of the applied Admire. Even when properly timed and delivered, a single Admire application did not locally extirpate mealybugs.
In fact, the mealybug population recovered in all Admire treatment plots from summer 2002 to spring 2003. Admire can not reach all parts of the vine, leaving small pockets of mealybugs that are left to recolonize the vineyard. Not surprisingly, there was no year-to-year carry-over impact of Admire. Applaud provided excellent control, comparable to both Admire and Lorsban, and it can be used effectively in vineyards with furrow irrigation systems. We suggest Applaud can be used as an alternative to in-season organophosphate treatments. Because Applaud is an IGR, it is most effective on the smaller mealybugs, undergoing insect molts, and will be less effective later in the season, as a post-harvest application, when seasonal insect development is nearly complete. We note here that the poor control achieved with Lorsban in the furrow-irrigated block (Fig. 4B) may be due to the location of the mealybug population on these vines, which were quite old (>30 years) and which provided many protective areas on the trunk and spurs where the mealybug population remained hidden during much of the spring period.
While we did not test irrigation timing or amounts in this study, Admire applications in drip-irrigation vineyards A and B were identical with the exception that the post-application irrigation period was immediately after treatment application in vineyard A, where there was a 67.9 – 92.5% reduction in cluster damage, and was delayed for 1 d in vineyard-B, where there was only a 17.9 – 70.0% reduction in cluster damage. These results suggest that irrigation periods pre- and post-Admire application may be critical. Admire, and other systemic chloronicotinyls, are moved with the irrigation water into the soil, picked up by the vine’s root system, and then moved through the vines in the xylem. For this reason, proper delivery of Admire may vary greatly among vineyards, dependent on soil and vine condition. For example, there is evidence that with too little soil moisture the insecticide can bind with soil particles above the root zone, especially with “heavier” soils that have higher clay content. In contrast, the insecticide may be flushed too quickly through and out of the root zone when too much water is applied in sandy soils. Once in the vine, Admire must be delivered to sections where mealybugs are feeding. Because all vineyard mealybugs are phloem feeders, there will be sections of the vine where the concentration and effectiveness of systemic insecticides will vary (e.g., canes vs. grape clusters). Researchers are currently investigating the uptake of systemic chloronicotinyls in the vine (Toscano, pers. comm.) and this information, developed for glassy-winged sharpshooter, Homalodisca coagulata (Say), will greatly benefit mealybug control strategies.
One of the five vineyard blocks was partially (part of the no-pheromone control treatment) treated with Lorsban; this vineyard was removed from the data analysis and will be discussed separately. In the remaining four vineyards, season-long male mealybug trap catches were significantly lower in mating disruption treatment, as compared with the control. Essentially, pheromone traps were “shut-down” in the mating disruption treatment. Similarly, there was a significant reduction in crop damage in the mating disruption treatment. Nevertheless, season-long mealybug densities were not significantly different between treatments.
The contrast found between mealybug density and damage may be explained by differences in mealybug location on the vine. For example, in the pheromone treated plots, most mealybugs were found under the bark on the trunk, where they cause little crop damage. There is also the possibility that mealybugs in the pheromone treated plots were smaller, virgin females, which do not cause as much damage, although this has not yet been tested. An unexpected possibility is that parasitism levels may be higher in the mating disruption treatment, which has been found in a recent South African study (Walton and Daane, unpublished data), because Anagyrus cue in on the mealybug pheromone and were pulled in from nearby vineyards.
Economic damage was significantly lower in mating disruption plots. More important, the crop damage was low, on average, 90% of the clusters were clean (in the four analyzed vineyards, only 27 of 1,730 clusters had a damage rating of “2” or “3”). Much of the mealybug reduction in both mating disruption and control plots was the result of Anagyrus parasitism. We suspect that, similar to Anagyrus, the impact of the mating disruption is greater on the exposed mealybugs. We also suspect that, unlike Anagyrus activity, the effectiveness of mating disruption may be greater in vineyards with low mealybug densities. Therefore, a mating disruption program may be an excellent complement to insecticide treatments in localized eradication programs. Conversely, in heavily infested vineyards, mating disruption may be less effective because adult males would often emerge in close proximity to females. Studies of adult male mealybug flight, longevity, and mating behavior are underway and will help improve future mating disruption programs.
Currently, we are testing mating disruption programs that deliver the pheromone as a microencapsulated formulation (provided by Suterra) and in dispensers (provided by Suterra, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. [Tokyo, Japan], and Scentry Biologicals, Inc. [Billings, MT]). Advantages of the microencapsulated formulation include application using standard pesticide rigs, the dispersion of millions of microcapsules per acre to provide thorough coverage and numerous point sources on each vine. One disadvantage, found in the 2003 study, is that pheromone activity was depleted after only 21 days; therefore, multiple applications per season are required. However, the longevity of the microcapsules is a technical problem that may be solved in product formulation. The advantage of dispensers is that they can be applied by hand, they have the potential for longer activity (one or two application(s) per season), and they have the potential for use in California Certified Organic Farms.
Augmentation of Anagyrus pseudococci
Mealybug season-long density was significantly lower in the Anagyrus release than control treatment. Average cluster damage rating was 57% lower in the Anagyrus release than control treatment. However, we are unable to conclude that the released Anagyrus were solely responsible for this reduction. First, while there was no treatment difference in mealybug density on 27 March, when treatment plots were randomly assigned, there were fewer mealybugs on 5 June, just before the Anagyrus release. Second, there was no season-long difference in percentage parasitism, although this is often an unreliable tool to measure natural enemy impact.
Nevertheless, the results provide encouraging information for the commercial use of Anagyrus. From 7,458 mealybugs collected and held in gelatin capsules, 1,978 were parasitized (26.5%) and 1,235 parasitoids survived to the adult stage. Parasitoids reared were Anagyrus pseudococci, L. abnormis, Allotropa sp., and a hyperparasitoid, Chartocerus sp. Of the adult parasitoids, Anagyrus was dominant, comprising >93% of all parasitoids. Third instar mealybugs were the most commonly attacked, reflecting the host preference of Anagyrus. Of mealybugs parasitized by Anagyrus, mealybug size also affected parasitoid gender, with the percentage of female Anagyrus reared from first and second instar mealybugs, whereas from third instar and adult mealybug we reared 95.4, 92.9, 2.2% females, respectively. Season-long percentage parasitism, with data separated by date and location of collected mealybugs, show the importance of timing augmentative releases after mealybugs have moved from protected locations. While season-long percentage parasitism of mealybug collected from protected locations (e.g., under the bark) never exceeded 20%, there was a consistent season-long rise in parasitism of mealybugs collected from exposed locations (e.g., on the leaf). No mealybugs could be found in exposed locations on the 1 June sampling date, prior to Anagyrus release. After releases began, there was significantly greater percentage parasitism of exposed mealybugs in release than control plots on the initial sample. Parasitism rose steadily in both release and control plots, reaching >80% by late August, after which we could find no live mealybugs in exposed locations.
Resident Anagyrus pseudococci are providing significant late-season reduction of vine mealybugs, which form the base for the following season’s population. In fact, we have recorded a year to year decline in mealybug abundance in sampled vineyards near Del Rey, California. We are also enthusiastic about the commercial potential of Anagyrus and note the low average cluster damage rating in the release-treatment, which corresponds to an average 78% of all clusters being clean and the remaining 22% with only minor honeydew damage. Results of Anagyrus percent parasitism and mealybug host stage preference will also help develop future release strategies. The fact that 100% of the live mealybugs in September and October samples were located in protected locations of the vine, we believe, greatly reduces the ability of foraging adult Anagyrus to locate and parasitize vine mealybugs that will constitute the overwintering parasitoid population. Furthermore, we reared primarily male Anagyrus from first and second instar mealybugs. These results show that Anagyrus release should be timed to coincide not only with the presence of mealybugs in exposed locations, but also with the presence of third instar mealybugs.
Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes
Extension and Impact Assessment (Objective 3)
The results of this vine mealybug research have been made available as they are developed. Furthermore, grower collaborators will maintain records of chemical use and labor costs for the different treatments imposed. These two measurements (damage and dollars) will provide a “bottom-line” assessment of the program for growers. Since research began in 2002, Daane and Bentley have made nearly 100 presentations on the vine mealybug at research and grower-oriented symposia. We provide presentations from the 2003-04 season.
Both popular and refereed publications from this work have been completed or are in preparation. We provide both refereed and outreach publications. We provide the complete list of publications for the 2002-03 and 2004-04 seasons.
We have also developed a mealybug website, found at http//www.vinemealybug/uckac.edu.
Presentations: DAANE – 2003-04 ONLY
1) Vine mealybug in California vineyards. 2002 Unified Winegrape Symposium: Pests and Pest Management. Sacramento, CA. Jan. 2003.
2) Update on vine mealybug biology and control. San Joaquin Valley Grape Symposium. Easton, CA. Jan. 2003.
3) Sugar Bait / Insecticides for Argentine Ant Control to Improve Biological Control of Scale and Mealybug Pests 37th Annual Conference – Association of Applied Insect Ecologist: The Urban-Ag Interface and the Future of Agriculture. San Luis Obispo, CA. Feb. 2003.
4) Vine mealybug in California vineyards. 2003 Northern San Joaquin Valley Grape Day. Turlock, CA. Feb. 2003.
5) Monitoring vine mealybugs with pheromones to find and control new infestations: developing a statewide program. California Agricultural Production Consultants Association (CAPCA). Santa Paula, CA. Mar. 2003.
6) Monitoring vine mealybug with pheromones to find and control new infestations. Grape Day 2003 – Yolo/Solano/Sacramento county UCCE and Clarksburg Wine Growers Association. Walnut Grove, CA. Mar. 2003.
7) Monitoring vine mealybugs with pheromones to find and control new infestations: developing a statewide program. Winegrape Pest Management Alliance. San Luis Obispo, CA. Mar. 2003.
8) Vine mealybug in California – understanding its potential for statewide dissemination. California State University Winegrape Seminar, Fresno (contact Joe Browde). Fresno, CA. Apr. 2003.
9) Vine mealybug in California – understanding its potential for statewide dissemination. California Association of Winegrape Growers. Fresno, CA. Apr. 2003.
10) Monitoring vine mealybugs with pheromones to find and control new infestations. California Agricultural Production Consultants Association (CAPCA). Lodi, CA. Apr. 2003.
12) The Argentine ant and grape mealybug pest complex in California vineyards: focus on ant control with aqueous baits. 4th National Integrated Pest Management Symposium/Workshop. Indianapolis, IN. Apr 2003
13) Monitoring vine mealybugs with pheromones to find and control new infestations. Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission. Lodi, CA. May 2003.
14) Life cycle of the vine mealybug; an update on research efforts. UCCE San Joaquin County (Verdegaal). Ripon, CA. May 2003.
15) Argentine ant control to improve biological control of mealybug and scale pests. Central Coast Winegrape Growers Association. Santa Maria, CA. May 2003.
16) Developing sustainable insect pest management systems in California vineyards. 54th Annual Meeting, American Society for Enology and Viticulture. Reno, NV. Jun. 2003.
17) Control of the vine mealybug. Kearney Agricultural Center Grape Day 2003. Parlier, CA Aug. 2003.
18) The Argentine ant and grape mealybug pest complex in California vineyards: focus on ant control with aqueous baits. Central Coast Vineyard Team Tailgate Meeting. Bien Nacido Vineyard, Santa Maria, CA. Jul. 2003.
19) How to prevent the spread of vine mealybug during grape havesting. UCCE Sacramento County (Ingels) and San Joaquin (Verdegaal) County and Lodi Woodbridge Winegrape Commission Field Day. Lodi, CA. Aug. 2003.
20) Monitoring vine mealybugs with pheromones to find and control new infestations. California Alliance of Pest Control Advisors (CAPCA). Tulare, CA. Aug. 2003.
21) Can a statewide “sustainable agriculture” system be developed for California vineyards: biological control of the vine mealybug as a case study. Departmental Seminar (ESPM Colloquium Series), Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California. Berkeley, CA. Sept. 2003.
22) Integrated pest management of leafhoppers and the vine mealybug. Mendocino College 6th Annual Pest Management Seminar. Ukiah, CA Nov. 2003.
23) Developing a statewide sustainable agriculture program for vineyards: control of the vine mealybug as a case study. Departmental Seminar (Ent 250), Entomology, University of California. Riverside, CA. Nov. 2003.
24) Identification and biology of the vine mealybug: is eradication feasible for the north coast winegrape region? Napa County and the American Vineyard Foundation. Napa, CA Nov. 2003.
25) Identification and biology of the vine mealybug: is eradication feasible for the central coast winegrape region? American Vineyard Foundation. Paso Robles, CA Dec. 2003.
26) Identification and biology of the vine mealybug: is eradication feasible for the north coast winegrape region? Napa County and the American Vineyard Foundation. Napa, CA Jan. 2004.
27) The vine mealybug as an invasive pest of California vineyards. Unified Winegrape Symposium, Sacramento. CA Jan. 2004.
28) Vine mealybug biology and management in the San Joaquin Valley: Benefits of using pheromone traps. Vine Mealybug Workshop, Fresno County. Fresno, CA. Feb. 2004.
29) Vine mealybug biology and management in the San Joaquin Valley: Benefits of using pheromone traps. Canneros Region Winegrape Growers: Vine Mealybug Taskforce, CA. Mar. 2004.
30) After vine mealybug insecticide programs: Is there a “Sustainable” program for use in the North Coast winegrape region? North Coast BIFS. Mar. 2004.
31) Research on natural enemy biology of insect pests in the Central Valley. Kearney’s 40th Aniversary and New Research Greenhouse Dedication. May 2004
32) Vine mealybug biology and management in the San Joaquin Valley using biological control agents. Sun Maid’ VMB Workshop. Parlier, CA. May 2004.
33) Vine mealybug update. UCCE Napa County Vine Mealybug: Management Strategies for Vintners and Growers. Yountville, CA. Jun. 2004.
34) Grape IPM and biological control in California organic vineyards. XXII International Congress of Entomology. Brisbane, Australia. Aug. 2004.
35) Temperature-dependent development of Anagyrus pseudococci reared on the vine mealybug. XXII International Congress of Entomology. Brisbane, Australia. Aug. 2004. (POSTER)
36) An overview of the University “Cooperative Extension and Research” programs for the vine mealybug. University of California President Dynes’ Tour of UCCE Outreach Programs. Sept. 2004.
37) Vine mealybug: research and advances in management. Central Valley Grape Expo. Easton, CA, Nov. 2004.
38) Vine mealybug: research advances in management. Napa Valley Viticulture Fair. Napa, CA, Nov. 2004.
39) Utilizing vine mealybug sex pheromone for control: progress update. UCCE Kern County 2004 Grape Pest Management.
40) The vine mealybug in California. Critical Issues in Vineyard Health (UC Davis Extension Course). Davis, CA, Nov. 2004.
Presentations: BENTLEY (2003-04 only)
1) Managing vine mealybug in California, Crop Care Associates Training Mtg., Carmel Valley, CA. Feb 2003.
2) Vine mealybug management for central coast vineyards. Central Coast Winegrape Seminar, UCCE Monterey County, Salinas, CA. Feb 2003.
3) Vine mealybug update. San Joaquin Valley Table Grape Seminar, Calif. Table Grape Commission, Visalia, CA. Feb 2003.
4) Detection and management of vine mealybug in wine grapes. UCCE Calaveras County, Grape Grower mtg., Murphys, CA. Mar 2003.
5) Chemical control of vine mealybug. Yolo / Solano / Sacramento County UCCE & Clarksburg Wine Grape Association mtg., Walnut Grove, CA. Mar 2003.
6) Identification and management of vine mealybug. Vine mealybug training session, UCCE/Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Commission, Lodi, CA. Apr 2003.
7) Monitoring and managing vine mealybug. UCCE Madera County, Madera, CA. Apr 2003.
8) Vine mealybug management. Vine Mealybug Workshop, UCCE El Dorado County, Placerville, CA. Apr 2003.
9) Control of vine mealybug. Grape Day 2003, UC KAC, Parlier, CA. Aug 2003.
10) Grapevine mealybug. Central Valley CAPCA Fall CE Meeting, Modesto, CA. Oct 2003.
11) Effective methods of control for the vine mealybug. American Vineyard Foundation, Vine Mealybug Workshop, UCCE Napa County, Napa, CA. Nov 2003.
12) Insect & mite pests: spider mites, mealybugs. VEN 118, Grapevine Pests, Diseases & Disorders, Williams, University of California, Davis, CA. Nov 2003.
13) Chemical management of vine mealybug. American Vineyard Foundation, Vine Mealybug Workshop, UCCE San Luis Obispo County, Paso Robles, CA. Dec 2003.
Mealybug Articles (2002-04):
Daane, K. M., Sime, K. R., Cooper, M. L., and Battany, M. C. 2004. Ants in your vineyard? University of California Plant Protection Quarterly 11(2): 1-3.
Walton, R. M., Pringle, K. L., and Daane, K. M. 2003. Integrating vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) control with the use of pheromone trapping in South African vineyards. Wynboer: A Technical Guide for Wine Producers. Volume 8: 22-27.
Daane, K. M., Weber, E. A., and Bentley, W. J. 2004. Vine mealybug – formidable pest spreading through California vineyards. Practical Winery & Vineyard. May/June: (www.practicalwinery.com)
Daane, K. M., Bentley, W. J., Macmillan, C., and Walton, V. W. 2003. New control programs for the vine mealybug. Wine Business Monthly 10(8): 24-28.
Haviland, D., Daane, K., Bentley, W. 2004. IPM in action: developing IPM strategies for the vine mealybug. CAPCA Advisor .6:24-26.
Millar, J. G., Bentley, W. J., Malakar-Kuenen, R., Martin, L. A, Krugner, M., and Daane, K. M. 2003. Pheromones for sampling major mealybug pests in California vineyards. In 2001-2002 Viticulture Research Report. California Table Grape Commission Annual Report, Vol. 31, 6 pages.
Bentley, W. J., Martin, L. A., Coviello, R., Vasquez, S., Daane, K. M., and Millar, J. 2003. In Researching management techniques for vine mealybug in San Joaquin Valley grapes. 2001-2002 Viticulture Research Report. California Table Grape Commission Annual Report, Vol. 31, Annual Report. Vol. 31, 9 pages.
Daane, K. M., Walton, V. M., Guillén, M., Malakar-Kuenen, R., Krugner, M., Gispert, C., Yokota, G. Y., Bentley, W. J., Millaer, J.G. 2004. Population dynamics of the vine mealybug and its natural enemies in the Coachella and San Joaquin Valleys. In. 2002-2003 Viticulture Research Report. California Table Grape Commission Annual Report, Vol. 30, 28 pages.
Daane, K. M., Bentley, W. J., Walton, V. M., Krugner, M., Millar, J.G., Yokota, G. Y., Malakar-Kuenen, R., 2004. Mating disruption of vine mealybug in California vineyards. In. 2002-2003 Viticulture Research Report. California Table Grape Commission Annual Report, Vol. 30, 16 pages.
Peer-reviewed Pubs and Proceedings (2002-04):
Godfrey, K. E., Daane, K. M., Bentley, W. J., Gill, R. J, and Malakar-Kuenen, R. 2002. Mealybugs in California vineyards. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 21612. Oakland, CA.
Millar, J. G., Daane, K. M., McElfresh, J. S., Moreira, J., Malakar-Kuenen, R., Guillen, M., and Bentley, W. J. 2002. Development and optimization of methods for using sex pheromone for monitoring the mealybug Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. J. Econ. Entomol. 95(4): 706-714.
Daane, K. M., Malakar-Kuenen, R., Bentley, W. J., and Guillén, M. 2003. Update on vine mealybug biology and control, pp. 8-15. In S. Vasquez [ed.]. Proceedings, San Joaquin Valley Grape Symposium. Easton, CA. Jan 2003.
Daane, K. M., Malakar-Kuenen, R. Guillén, M., Bentley, W. J., Bianchi M., and D. Gonzalez. 2003. Abiotic and biotic refuges hamper biological control of mealybug pests in California vineyards, pp. 389-398. In R. vanDriesch [ed.]. Proceedings, 1st International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods. Honolulu, HI. Jan 2002. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-03055.
Godfrey, K., D. Haviland, J. Erwin, K. Daane, and W. Bentley. 2004. Vine Mealybug: what you should know. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8152. Oakland, CA.
Walton, V. M., Daane, K. M., and Pringle, K. L. 2004. Utilizing the sex pheromone of Planococcus ficus to improve pest management in South African vineyards. Crop Protection 23: 1089-1096.
Daane, K. M., Malakar-Kuenen, R., and Walton, V. M. 2004. Temperature development of Anagyrus pseudococci (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) as a parasitoid of the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Biol. Contr. 31: 123-132.
Malakar-Kuenen, R., and Daane, K. M. Vine mealybug. In D. Pimentel [ed.]. Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Marcel-Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. (In Press)
Millar, J. G., Daane, K. M., McElfresh, S., Moreira, J. A., and Bentley, W. J. 2005. Chemistry and applications of mealybug sex pheromones. In American Chemical Society Symposium Series. (In Press)
Mills, N. J., and Daane, K. M. 2005. Non-pesticide alternatives (biological and cultural control) to organophosphate insecticides for the suppression of agricultural pests. California Agriculture 59(1): 23-28.
Daane, K. M., Bentley, W. J., Walton, V.,
Malakar-Kuenen, R., Yokota, G. Y., Millar, J. G., , Ingels, C. A., Weber, E. A., Gispert, C. 2005. Sustainable controls sought for the invasive vine mealybug. California Agriculture (Accepted).
Haviland, D. R., Bentley, W. J., and Daane, K. M. 2005. Hot water treatments to control Planococcus ficus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in grape nursery stock. J. Econ. Entomol. (Accepted)