Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs

Report
BMSB potential impact in hazelnut and berry
crops
Vaughn Walton*, Chris Hedstrom, Nik Wiman, Elizabeth Tomasino,
Pallavi Mohekar, Betsey Miller, Danny Dalton, Riki York
*Horticulture Department, Oregon State University,
[email protected]
Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project
BMSB in the Willamette Valley
BMSB Hazelnut Damage study 2012-2013
Analysis for 2012 and 2013 data
• Weeks of exposure were classified into nut developmental stage
• Proportions of damaged nuts per stage were compared to control
sleeves
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
Developmental stage based on Thompson 1981
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
*
*
*
pre-expansion
shell expansion
kernel expansion
maturation
control
Developmental stage
*indicates a p-value < 0.005, Exact Binomial Test compared to control of same year
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
Methods : effect of shell thickness
•
Filbertworm and weevil infestation
was reduced in cultivars with thicker
shells (Chambers et al. 2011, Jones et
al. 1992)
basal scar
•
3 Cultivars to represent three
thicknesses:
– Thick: Siciliana
– Medium: Barcelona
– Thin: Casina (Closca Molla
replaced Casina: Casina in 2013)
•
Measured at basar scar, side walls and
bottom quarter
•
Percentage of damaged nuts
compared between cultivars
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
sidewall
bottom
quarter
Damage by cultivar, field trial 2012
Med
Thin
Thick
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
Med
Thin
Thick
Med
Thin
Thick
Methods : effect of shell thickness
• Feeding adult BMSB were given a
choice of two nuts
–
–
–
–
Thick vs. Thin
Thick vs. Med
Med vs. Thin
Thin vs. shelled
• Insects were allowed to feed for
one week
• Nuts were examined for number
of sheaths, corked kernels and
shell thickness
• “Thick” choice not always thicker:
analyzed by linear regression, shell
thickness vs. corkspots
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
R2=0.04519
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
Results
Damage
• All stages of hazelnuts tested were susceptible to feeding damage
•
•
Early season feeding during shell expansion resulted in blank nuts,
feeding during kernel formation and maturation results in shriveled kernels or
corking damage in both seasons tested.
Shell Thickness
•
No evidence of a relationship between hazelnut shell thickness and resulting
feeding damage in field trials or lab trial
•
Feeding sheath on outside of nut not always indicative of feeding event or nut
damage
Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep
Overall Summary: BMSB impact
All tested are susceptible to feeding damage
Early season feeding – blanks, shriveling
Late season feeding – corking
Development stage has direct impact on
symptoms
Preliminary field observations
High number in abandoned orchard. BMSB in traps in
monitored commercial orchard
Preliminary field observations
Preliminary field observations
BMSB pyramid
trap
No BMSB found: 5% blank nuts
BMSB presence: 25% blank nuts
BMSB in berry crops, 2013
2.0
2.0
14
2.0
berries
Mean%
%discolored
discoloration
per berry
Mean Mean
% discoloration
per berry
berry weight
Controlled BMSB feeding studies on Blueberry
Duke
Duke
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
12
1.5
10
8
1.0
6
4
0.5
2
0
0.0
00
22
55
10
10
00
Density
Density of
of BMSB
BMSB
55
10
10
Density
Density of
of BMSB
BMSB
8
50
let
marks
erries
50
2.0
berries
is
per berry
22
40 and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables,
40 and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project
Biology, Ecology,
1.5
30
6
30
Controlled BMSB feeding studies on Blueberry
8
Mean no. stylet marks
% necrotic berries
50
40
30
20
10
0
6
4
2
0
0
2
5
Density of BMSB
10
0
2
5
10
Density of BMSB
Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project
BMSB in Vineyards and Wines
Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project
Oregon: Populations build up in late season
Photo: Walton
Photo’s: Walton
Pheromone-baited pyramid
traps and systematic beat
sheeting
Presence of stylet sheaths
Photo’s, Chris Hedstrom
Photo, Walton
Controlled BMSB Exposure 2012, 2013
• Treatments:
0 BMSB = Control
1 BMSB = Low
2 BMSB = High
• Three distinct exposure periods:
Pea size (Jul 23, 2012; Jul 15, 2013),
Véraison (Aug 25, 2012; Aug 4, 2013)
Pre-harvest (Sept, 28 2012; Sept 15, 2013)
• Clusters exposed to BMSB for 7 days, sleeve feeding
• Analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD
to separate means
Photo, Walton
Determination of direct impact:
Crop quality most important
Crop quality
Mean cluster weight
Mean number of berries per cluster
Mean weight of berries
Mean number of dropped berries at harvest.
Mean number of BMSB punctures per cluster.
Mean number of discolored berries per cluster.
Mean number of raisin berries per cluster.
2012 Crop Year, Pinot noir
Treatment
Berries/clust
er
Punctures
N
Pea stage
73.6±5.5 a
2.7±1.1 b
18
Veriason
70.9±4.6 a
6±4.8 a
21
Pre harvest
79.9±5.5 a
3.4±1.6 ab
20
Control
80.1±5.4 a
0.3±0.2 b
10
2013 Crop year, Pinot noir
Treatment
Berries/clust
er
Punctures
N
Pea stage 1/Cluster
102.9±6 a
0.2±0.1 a
15
PS 2/Clus
107.4±6.7 a
1.1±0.5 a
15
Veriason 1/Cluster
97.7±6.7 a
0.2±0.1 a
15
Ver 2/Clus
108.6±9 a
0b
13
Pre harvest 1/Clus
100.6±7.8 a
0.1±0.1 a
15
PH 2/Clus
93±8.5 a
0.7±0.4 a
15
Control
94.6±7.5 a
0b
15
Dr. Elizabeth Tomasino
• New OSU faculty with wine sensory analysis and
flavor chemistry expertise
• Research question: will BMSB contamination result
in wine taint?
• High quality Pinot Noir
• Donated by Adelsheim Vineyard
• Step 1: Characterize BMSB
defensive compounds
• GCMS chromatogram of the
volatile aroma compounds
excreted by “stressed” BMSB
WEAK AROMA:
“citrus”, “fresh”
STRONG AROMA:
“pungent”, “cilantro”
Tetradecane
Trans-2-decenal
Dodecane
Trans-2-octenal
Treatments
• Stinkbugs added to Pinot
noir grapes before wine
processing
• Taint in destemmer
• Taint in pressing (dead and
some alive)
• Treatments:
• Control – no bugs
• (T1) – 1 bug per 4 clusters
Photo, Wiman
• (T2)
1 bug per 2 clusters
Fairly high densities, but
not– entirely
unreasonable considering potential BMSB
densities
Photo, Wiman
Taint in destemming
Photo, Walton
We found BMSB surviving destemming process
Cold soak process containing bugs
Simulating cluster contamination
Photo, Walton
Taint compounds released again during
pressing, despite majority dead bug presence
What made it into finished wine?
• GCMS chromatogram of the
finished wine (and at
fermentation intervals).
Present in wine, unknown effect
Main taint components
Tetradecane
Trans-2-decenal
Dodecane
Trans-2-octenal
Sensory Panel Evaluation
A) Difference testing (triangle tests)
showed that consumers could tell
a difference between the treatment
wines and the control (significant at
α=0.05).
A
B
B) Consumer rejection
threshold found to be very
close to the detection
threshold, even even low
amounts of BMSB taint
have a negative impact on
Pinot noir quality.
Wine and fresh berry taint
• BMSB taint is real! Other
processes and varieties may
change the results.
– Masked fruity characteristics of
the wine
– Contrasts with results from MD
• Consumer rejection: as soon
as it’s detectable, it’s
rejectable
– Opportunity to link detection
thresholds in wine to density of
insects in the field
– This may become the
treatment threshold for
vineyard managers
Web Resources
http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/group/brown-marmorated-stink-bug-oregon
[email protected]

similar documents