High codling moth pressureand small plots (cv. Bartlett)

Treatment Rate(form/ac)

% Stings % Entries

Check  ----- 20.75 51.5

Carpo-virusine

400 ml 65.75 9.25

Cyd-XNu-Film 17

3 fl oz16 fl oz

69.25 6.5

Note: virus products were applied on a 10 day interval starting prior to codling moth egg hatch for a total of nine applications

Comparing and Combining Mating Disruption and Cydia pomonella Granulosis Virus (CpGV)

for Control of Codling Moth in Pear Richard Hilton, Jesse Benbow, Sally Basile and Phil VanBuskirk

Southern Oregon Research & Extension CenterOregon State University

2003 Field TrialsLow codling moth pressure w/ MD

in an on-farm trial (cv. Comice/Bosc)

Treatment Rate(form/ac)

% CM injury

Avg. # CM trapped

Standard—Intrepid+Assail 16 oz/3 oz 0.03

DA=9.0CM=8.25

Carpo-virusine

400 ml 0DA=4CM=4

Cyd-XNu-Film 17

3 fl oz16 fl oz

0DA=2CM=0

Note: sprays were applied at the beginning of the 1st and 2nd

codling moth generations for a total of two applications

2004 Field Trials

The Oregon State Fruit(since 2005)

CpGV without Mating Disruption

CpGV with Mating Disruption

MaterialRate and

Frequency

Calypso 4 oz - 21 days 18.50 a 7.25 a 3.75 a

Calypso 6 oz - 21 days 14.50 a 6.00 a 2.00 a

Calypso 8 oz - 21 days 15.50 a 4.25 a 1.75 a

Cyd-X 3 oz - 10.5 days 68.00 b 6.75 a 3.00 a

Imidan 5 lb - 21 days 12.00 a 5.50 a 1.50 a

Check ------ 21.25 a 32.50 b 31.00 b

% Stings % Larvae % Exits

MaterialRate and

Frequency

MD alone ----- 40.67 a 31.00 b 12.67 b

Cyd-X 3.0 oz - 10.5 days 67.75 b 7.50 a 1.00 a

Cyd-X 3.0 oz - 21 days 69.25 b 10.50 a 1.00 a

% Stings % Larvae % Exits

MaterialRate and

Frequency

MD alone ----- 18.00 a 35.00 b 9.67 b

Cyd-X 3.0 oz - 10.5 days 30.25 b 7.69 a 0.25 a

Cyd-X 3.0 oz - 21 days 41.13 c 12.50 a 1.25 a

% Stings % Larvae % Exits

cv. Bartlett

cv. Anjou

Combined Results—CpGV with and w/o MD

check plots Cyd X @ 10-11 days

w/o MD with MD w/o MD with MD

Stings 21.25 40.67 68.00 67.75

Larvae 32.50 31.00 6.75 7.50

Exits 31.00 12.67 3.00 1.00

% Codling Moth Damage

2005 Field TrialsCombined Results—CpGV with and w/o MD

cv. Bartlett

cv. Anjou

check plots Cyd X @ 14 days

w/o MD with MD w/o MD with MD

Stings 27.75 40.0 41.75 56.00

Larvae 33.0 13.25 7.25 4.75

Exits 11.75 9.5 0.25 0.0

% Codling Moth Damage

% Codling Moth Damage

check plots Cyd X @ 14 days

w/o MD with MD w/o MD with MD

Stings 15.5 12.0 41.5 35.5

Larvae 37.25 30.5 11.5 4.25

Exits 6.25 6.0 1.25 0.25

Year

and CM control program

% CM Injury (cv. Bartlett)Shallow stings

Entries

(exits +

larvae)

Total damage

(entries +

deep stings)

2002

2-3 oils 1.6 19.0 21.8

2-3 oils

+ MD 1.1 10.6 11.6

2003

2-3 oils ----- ----- 61.8

2004

4 Cyd-X 47.3 6.5 15.7

2005

4 Cyd-X 40.0 5.0 27.0

4 Cyd-X

+ MD 24.0 7.0 17.0

Organic Pear Orchard in Transition—2002-2005CM Injury Under Various

Control Programs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% r

edu

ctio

n r

elat

ive

to c

hec

k

2004 2005 2005

CpGV

MD

CpGV+MD

Bartlett/Packham’s

Bartlett AnjouCultivar =

Level of CM control with CpGV and MDand in combination

Conclusions—under conditions of high codling moth pressure:

CpGV applied regularly (10-14 day interval) gave 70% to 85% control of CM relative to an untreated check in replicated trials.

MD alone (200 Isomate TT dispensers/ac.) gave 15% to 50% control of CM when compared to untreated blocks.

Combining CpGV applications with MD gave 86% to 90% control of CM over the two years of trials, therefore the bulk of the control in the combination was provided by the CpGV applications.

cv. Bartlett/Packham’s

In a pear orchard transitioning to organic production, various control programs were employed over the last four years. In 2002, MD was used in most of the orchard, one block was not treated with MD and CM damage was almost double in that area. CpGV was first used in 2004 and total CM damage was reduced by 75% over 2003 when the control program was minimal and as a result the crop was unmarketable. In 2005 CpGV was again used throughout the orchard with half the orchard being treated with MD. While stings and total damage were reduced in the MD treated area, successful entries (i.e. exits + larvae) were not reduced. With respect to reducing the CM population level, CpGV appeared to be superior to MD in this case.

Thank you to the Oregon Bartlett Pear Commissionand the Washington Tree Fruit ResearchCommission for supporting this research

cv. Packham’s

Studies initiated in 2003 with formulations of Cydia pomonella Granulosis Virus (CpGV) showed that frequent applications of CpGV gave 80-90% control of codling moth (CM) in a high pressure location. On-farm trials indicated that CpGV worked well in combination with mating disruption (MD) under low pressure. In 2004 and 2005 replicated trials with CpGV were conducted in high pressure blocks with and without MD at the Research Center to try and determine the effect of each tactic by itself and in combination. The addition of CpGV always resulted in a significant reduction of successful CM entries but stings, or unsuccessful entries, were increased as the CpGV must be ingested by the CM larvae to be effective. The 2004 trial showed that CpGV could be as effective as an OP (Imidan) or neonicotinoid (Calypso) when applied twice as often. When results from blocks with and without MD were combined it was evident that most of the CM control in the combination program came from the CpGV applications. Under high CM pressure, CpGV gave better codling moth control than MD.

Total Crop Failure