Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]
SID 5 Research Project Final Report
SID 5 (2/05) Page 1 of 25
NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.
A SID 5A form must be completed where a project is paid on a monthly basis or against quarterly invoices. No SID 5A is required where payments are made at milestone points. When a SID 5A is required, no SID 5 form will be accepted without the accompanying SID 5A.
This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.
ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.
Project identification
1. Defra Project code PS2107
2. Project title
A framework for the practical use of semiochemicals in field crops
3. Contractororganisation(s)
Rothamsted ResearchHarpendenHertfordshireAL5 2JQUK
54. Total Defra project costs £ 307500
5. Project: start date................ 01 April 2003
end date................. 31 March 2006
SID 5 (2/05) Page 2 of 25
6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They
should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain
Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the
intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.
The principle purpose of this project was to test semiochemicals in realistic field situations as a means of manipulating plant-pest-natural enemy interactions in order to prevent pest populations reaching levels that require the use of conventional chemical pesticides. It exploits the discoveries made in the former PI03 Programme and in the more strategic projects PS2101 and PS2105, by using a set of representative field crop/pest interactions to devise and demonstrate successful integrated pest management strategies. In these, pest colonisation is disrupted or pests are directed away from the crop through a combination of semiochemical cues and habitat management. For example, semiochemicals can be used to direct pests away from the crop and attract them to areas or “trap crops” where they can be controlled. Likewise, semiochemicals can be used to direct natural enemies towards concentrations of pests. The potential impact of these strategies on other pests and non-target organisms, particularly beneficials, was also investigated. The project aims to encourage the development and uptake of alternatives to broad-spectrum eradicant pesticides, based on semiochemicals acting by non-toxic modes of action for the major combinable crops in UK agriculture, cereals, oilseed rape and legumes. Semiochemicals seldom act alone and are often synergised by others, particularly those from the host plant. Thus, this project largely concentrates on the use of plant derived semiochemicals, with selected use of pheromones where there is a clear advantage in their use over semiochemicals released by plants, taking forward and combining the “best bet” push and pull components for each crop/pest scenario.
ObjectiveDevelop and demonstrate, on a realistic field scale, a push-pull strategy for the key combinable crops used in conventional arable rotation i.e. cereals and oilseed rape/legumes. Although the objective was to target the major crop/pest complex for each crop i.e. oilseed rape/Coleoptera, cereals/aphids and legumes, both aphids and Coleoptera, collateral effects of the strategy on other pests e.g. cereals/gout fly and the potential impact on non-target organisms, particularly beneficials, were also investigated. The overall objective was divided into 2 sub-objectives.Sub-objective 1. Using plant derived and other semiochemicals that provide enhanced attractant and non-host/masking/repellent cues to devise and test on a realistic agricultural scale, a push-pull strategy for the pests of the representative brassica crop, spring oilseed rape (SOSR). Define and quantify the effects of the strategy on non-target species, particularly natural enemies and other beneficial insects. As in our previous studies, we found in the year 1 experiment that a protective turnip rape trap crop border
SID 5 (2/05) Page 3 of 25
around plots of spring sown oilseed rape (SOSR) reduced populations of pests including pollen beetles, seed weevils and pod midge on the SOSR to below spray-threshold levels in comparison with unprotected SOSR plots. In addition, we were able to determine the effect of the trap crop on the distribution of parasitoids and parasitism levels. Diospilus capito was the most abundant pollen beetle parasitoid trapped, followed by Brachyserpus parvulus. For both species, there was little difference in numbers caught between treatments. This was reflected in the parasitism levels, where D. capito was of greatest importance, and the trap crop had no significant effect. Phradis morionellus, Blacus nigricornis, and Tersilocus heterocerus were also present, but were less abundant. Interestingly, numbers of P. morionellus peaked two weeks earlier where a turnip rape trap crop was present, and although totals were low, approximately three times more individuals were caught in the protected crop than in the unprotected one. Brachyserpus nigricornis individuals arrived simultaneously in both treatments, and again although total numbers were low, approximately twice as many individuals were caught in the protected crop than in the unprotected one. Thus, the turnip rape trap crop could augment biocontrol of pollen beetles by some, but not all pollen beetle parasitoid species. In year 2 a full push-pull study, utilising the turnip rape trap crop as the pull, both with and without insecticide, and formulated essential oil of lavender as the push on the SOSR was conducted. Conventional plots sprayed with insecticide had significantly lower pollen beetle populations than found on other treatments and spraying just the turnip rape trap crop borders with insecticide reduced the population of beetles in the protected centre compared with unsprayed controls. The lavender treatment did not significantly affect the abundance of beetles. This may have been because the population of beetles was very low, ranging between 0.25-2.5 beetles/plant (below spray thresholds, even on control plots), but may also have been due to the short duration of effective release of lavender volatiles from the experimental formulation. Formulations with a more prolonged release are being sought. A further trial in the extension project PS2113 is also planned. Sub-objective 2. Use plant derived and other semiochemical stimuli that provide enhanced attractant and non-host/masking/repellent cues under field conditions for target pests to formulate an integrated crop protection strategy for the other combinable crops used in conventional arable rotation i.e. cereals and legumes. Define and quantify the effects of the strategy on non-target species, particularly natural enemies and other beneficial insects. Large habitat management plots consisting of Defra recommended field margin mixtures ‘TG2’ (grass mixture only) and ‘WM2’ (pollen/nectar mix including legumes) were established and trialled with field beans during the establishment year and with winter wheat in the following year. Semiochemicals with activity against bean pests were tested in a small plot field trial in the establishment year. As seen in previous experiments in project PI0341, numbers of pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, and black bean aphid, Aphis fabae, were reduced in plots treated with the essential oil of Hemizygia petiolata, releasing the aphid alarm pheromone, (E)-β-farnesene. However, due to uneven distribution of populations the differences were not statistically significant. A. fabae populations were much smaller in plots treated with either of the green leaf volatiles (Z)-3-hexenol and (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate compared to control plots, but the effect was not seen when these compounds were released together. In this trial, point source slow release dispensers were used to alter the volatile profile of the crop. The H. petiolata oil releasing the aphid alarm pheromone is a negative stimulus for the aphid pests while the green leaf volatiles change the ratios of natural host plant semiochemicals to reproduce the volatile profile of a damaged crop. However, insects are capable of detecting point sources of semiochemicals unless the sources are numerous and close together. The four point sources used here may not have been sufficient to produce a significant effect. The small plot size may also have contributed to the variability in insect numbers. Ideally, both for coverage and for practical application, these semiochemicals should be tested in a slow release formulation that can be applied as a spray to a larger area of crop. These aspects will be taken forward in the new projects PS2113 and PS2114.In the full trial with winter wheat, the semiochemical treatments were delivered from PVC rope lures deployed as slow release point sources within the plots. One treatment was the plant activator cis-jasmone, which is both repellent to pest aphids and attractive to parasitoids and predators as well as inducing defence chemistry in the treated plants, which in turn not only deters aphids and affects their development, but also attracts parasitoids and predators. The other treatment was a combination of nepetalactone and nepetalactol released in a 1:1 ratio. These semiochemicals are components of the aphid sex pheromone and attract aphid parasitoids and predators. Aphid populations were visually assessed on numerous occasions throughout the experiment and populations of other pest and beneficial insects and spiders were assessed using a range of trapping techniques. Migrating aphid populations were quite large in this season, but due to the lateness of their arrival the peak population did not reach anywhere near threshold levels before the crop began to ripen and become less
SID 5 (2/05) Page 4 of 25
acceptable, resulting in the aphids departure. There were no significant treatment effects on aphid numbers although they were fewer on cis-jasmone treated plots confirming a trend seen in other field experiments conducted over a number of different seasons in the previous project PI0341. Of the other pests present, orange wheat blossom midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana, adults caught in traps and subsequent larval numbers were not affected by the treatments. However, numbers of trapped gout fly adults, Chlorops pumilionis, were significantly fewer in cis-jasmone treated plots indicating induced defence against a pest of increasing importance.Aphid parasitoids were few throughout the experiment, probably due to the late arrival of the aphids and there were no effects of semiochemical treatments on their numbers. As observed for many of the aphid predators, the parasitoids were most numerous in the wheat plots compared to the margin mix plots, presumably due to the presence of the aphids. The carabid beetle, Nebria salina was the only species to show a response to the semiochemical treatments, with significantly fewer individuals trapped in the cis-jasmone treated plots compared with the control plots. This may be a response to reduced aphid numbers in the treated plots, or alternatively could represent a change in searching behaviour, resulting in reduced trapping efficiency. Valuable baseline data for pest and beneficial insects occurring on both crops in the rotation and on the margin mixtures have been obtained from this experiment. However, further studies are required to duplicate these data, particularly with the semiochemical treatments, before neighbour interactions between semiochemical treatments can be fully investigated. The experimental rotation will be repeated in the new project PS2113.
Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with
details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).
BackgroundThis project is the third of a suite of three interrelated projects and provides the framework for the practical use of semiochemicals and the quantification of their impact when deployed in pest management strategies in the field. This work requires rather different approaches from those established for testing conventional pesticides because of the behavioural rather than toxic effects involved. The purpose of this project was to test semiochemicals in realistic field situations as a means of manipulating plant-pest-natural enemy interactions in order to prevent pest populations reaching levels that require the use of conventional chemical pesticides. It exploits the discoveries made in the former PI03 Programme and in the more strategic projects PS2101 and PS2105, by using a set of representative field crop/pest interactions to devise and demonstrate successful integrated pest management strategies. In these, pest colonisation is disrupted or pests are directed away from the crop through a combination of semiochemical cues and habitat management. The potential impact of these strategies on other pests and non-target organisms, particularly beneficials, was also investigated. The project aims to encourage the development and uptake of alternatives to broad-spectrum eradicant pesticides, based on semiochemicals acting by non-toxic modes of action for the major combinable crops in UK agriculture, cereals, oilseed rape and legumes. The deployment of semiochemicals for future alternative plant protection technologies requires some form of “push-pull” or habitat management strategy. For example, pheromones can be used to direct pests away from the crop and attract them to areas or “trap crops” where they can be controlled. Semiochemicals seldom act alone and are often synergised by others, particularly those from the host plant. Thus, this project largely concentrates on the use of plant derived semiochemicals, with selected use of pheromones
SID 5 (2/05) Page 5 of 25
where there is a clear advantage in their use over semiochemicals released by plants, taking forward and combining the “best bet” push and pull components for each crop/pest scenario.These integrated crop protection strategies involve crop/pest interactions for which pest controlling interventions are necessary in conventional arable rotation (oilseed rape, Coleoptera; cereal aphids; legumes, both aphids and Coleoptera). The push-pull and habitat management strategy functions through the selective deployment and manipulation of the most practicable semiochemical cues. These constitute i) exploitation of host attractants, ii) disruption of specific host plant attractant ratios (by augmenting the volatile concentration of a key compound and thereby confusing the characteristic chemical signature of the plant), iii) addition of non-host/repellent cues, iv) manipulation of natural enemies and v) use of plant activators, identified in the previous programme, to achieve any or all of i), ii), iii) and iv). The studies defined here are a necessary step in showing the practical potential and encouraging uptake by industry of alternatives to broad spectrum eradicant pesticides. In particular, demonstration of successful deployment of semiochemicals in realistic field conditions is an essential precursor to LINK. The research is therefore appropriately supported by Defra because of its contribution to the development of integrated pest control strategies less reliant on the use of broad-spectrum toxicants and to demonstrate a major effort in minimising pesticide usage, in line with Government and Defra policy.
ObjectivesDevelop and demonstrate, on a realistic field scale, a push-pull strategy for the key combinable crops used in conventional arable rotation i.e. cereals and oilseed rape/legumes. Although the objective was to target the major crop/pest complex for each crop i.e. oilseed rape/Coleoptera, cereals/aphids and legumes, both aphids and Coleoptera, collateral effects of the strategy on other pests e.g. cereals/gout fly and the potential impact on non-target organisms, particularly beneficials, were also investigated.
The overall objective was divided into 2 sub-objectives as follows
1. Using plant derived and other semiochemicals that provide enhanced attractant and non-host/masking/repellent cues to devise and test on a realistic agricultural scale, a push-pull strategy for the pests of the representative brassica crop, spring oilseed rape (SOSR). Define and quantify the effects of the strategy on non-target species, particularly natural enemies and other beneficial insects. (Spring rape chosen to maximise natural occurrence of coleopterous pests)
2. Use plant derived and other semiochemical stimuli that provide enhanced attractant and non-host/masking/repellent cues under field conditions for target pests to formulate an integrated crop protection strategy for the other combinable crops used in conventional arable rotation i.e. cereals (winter wheat chosen to utilise best existing knowledge of predatory and parasitic insects) and legumes (chosen to target both coleopterous and aphid pests). Define and quantify the effects of the strategy on non-target species, particularly natural enemies and other beneficial insects.
Objective 1The promising results from earlier preliminary work using turnip rape as a trap crop for oilseed rape pests, demonstrating the ecological principles of the trap crop approach, were taken forward and consolidated in more extensive field trials to evaluate the impact of attractant borders on pest populations. This established baseline data for the development, under realistic commercial cropping conditions, of a full push-pull strategy for spring sown oilseed rape and to demonstrate the scientific feasibility of the push-pull approach towards the scale of UK arable cropping. Assessments of not only the pests (whole pest complex) but also non-target beneficial species including parasitoids, predatory insects and pollinators were made.
01/01 Replicated trap crop trial and insecticide treatments Previous experiments have shown that turnip rape releases an appropriate semiochemical profile for it to act as an efficient trap crop able to protect oilseed rape from pollen beetle damage at the damage-susceptible green-yellow bud stage (see report for PS2105; Cook et al., 2003). The aim of this experiment was to determine whether insecticide application to the trap crop border, before the beetles move from these plants into the oilseed rape crop centre, could further reduce pollen beetle populations and damage levels in the main crop. Oilseed rape plots (24 m x 24 m) with either 3m-wide turnip rape borders or equal-sized extensions of the oilseed rape crop were assessed through the season for pest and parasitoid incidence. Unfortunately, due to adverse weather conditions during the critical period, the borders were not sprayed until the beetle population had already moved from the trap crop onto the newly-flowering oilseed rape plot centres. Thus, the main experiment on the effect of insecticides was inconclusive, and
SID 5 (2/05) Page 6 of 25
was readdressed in the 2004 season (milestone 01/02). However, we were able for the first time to determine the effect of the trap crop on the distribution of parasitoids and parasitism levels. We found that the trap crop could augment biocontrol of pollen beetles by some, but not all pollen beetle parasitoid species. Diospilus capito was the most abundant pollen beetle parasitoid trapped, followed by Brachyserpus parvulus. For both species, there was little difference in numbers caught between treatments. This was reflected in the parasitism levels, where D. capito was of greatest importance, and the trap crop had no significant effect (60.2% and 61.6% with and without the trap crop, respectively). Phradis morionellus, Blacus nigricornis, and Tersilocus heterocerus were also present, but were less abundant. Interestingly, numbers of P. morionellus peaked two weeks earlier where a turnip rape trap crop was present, and although totals were low, approximately three times more individuals were caught in the protected crop than in the unprotected one (41 and 15, respectively). Brachyserpus nigricornis individuals arrived simultaneously in both treatments, and again although total numbers were low, approximately twice as many individuals were caught in the protected crop than in the unprotected one (17 and 9, respectively).As in our previous studies, we found that the turnip rape trap crop reduced populations of pollen beetles, seed weevils and pod midge pests to below spray-threshold levels in comparison with the unprotected plots. Final yield, however, did not differ significantly between plots.
01/02 Comparison of effectiveness of individual components and semiochemical manipulations in the full push-pull strategy for spring oilseed rape A full push-pull strategy for oilseed rape was conducted in a replicated plot field trial to test the combined effectiveness of a turnip rape trap crop, shown in previous experiments (in PI0340; Cook et. al., 2002) to be more attractive than oilseed rape, and hence an efficient trap crop (pull component) and lavender essential oil, which was found to be a non-host repellent to pollen beetles in previous experiments (push component) (Stevenson et. al., 2002). In addition, the effectiveness of reducing the overall pest population levels in the push-pull strategy by application of insecticide only to the turnip rape trap crop was also assessed. In collaboration with Botanix, the lavender oil was formulated in a concentrated gum Arabic solution, which forms a layer around the oil and thereby provides a slower release of lavender volatiles over time. This formulation was shown to be repellent at concentrations of lavender oil of 2.5 kg/ha and above in olfactometer tests conducted in the laboratory in PS2105 (P<0.001). Field plots of oilseed rape at the green bud stage were sprayed with a 2.5 kg/ha lavender formulation on two occasions. Insecticide was applied onto the appropriate turnip rape trap crop according to standard farm practice. Push-pull plots sprayed with insecticide had significantly lower pollen beetle populations than found on other treatments and spraying just the turnip rape trap crop borders with insecticide reduced the population of beetles in the protected centre compared with unsprayed controls (P<0.05; see also Fig 1). The lavender treatment did not significantly affect the abundance of beetles (P>0.05). This may have been because the population of beetles was very low, ranging between 0.25-2.5 beetles/plant (below spray thresholds, even on control plots), but may also have been due to the short duration of effective release of lavender volatiles from the gum Arabic formulation. A formulation with a more prolonged release is now sought.This experiment demonstrated once again the potential of a turnip rape trap crop. At the damage susceptible green bud stage, plots with turnip rape were infested with significantly fewer beetles in the protected centres than plots without turnip rape (plots sprayed with lavender are not included in this data).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
OSR - & OSR - OSR - & TR - OSR - & TR S+ OSR S+ & OSRS+
SID 5 (2/05) Page 7 of 25
Fig 1. Mean no. pollen beetles per plant in the centre of plots of oilseed rape either sprayed (s+) or not sprayed (-) with insecticides and with and without a turnip rape trap crop (also sprayed or not sprayed with insecticides) (P<0.05 for all treatments compared to untreated unprotected OSR).
Objective 2This objective investigated the feasibility of establishing habitat management plots, based on field margin seed mixtures, that may, with incorporation of appropriate semiochemical attractants, act as trap crops for pests of both cereal and legume components of conventional combinable crop rotation practices, not only utilising semiochemicals for manipulating pests but also for beneficial natural enemies. These can then be exploited in agri-environment schemes involving utilisation of field margins e.g. via LINK.
02/01 Establish Habitat management plots and check on botanical structure during baseline year02/02 First crop trialled with habitat management plots - Spring beans, measurement of interference of colonisation of aphids and weevils by semiochemical manipulation Based on knowledge generated in previous studies relating to the overall chemical ecology of legume and cereal pest/plant interactions, existing Defra recommended mixtures for field margins and forage/undersowing applications were investigated, under field conditions, for their suitability as trap crops for target pests of cereals and legume crops. Large (576m2) habitat management plots consisting of Defra recommended field margin mixtures ‘TG2’ (grass mixture only) and ‘WM2’ (pollen/nectar mix including legumes) were established in September in a 6 x 6 quasi-complete Latin square design (see below). This particular design was generated at Rothamsted specifically to investigate neighbour interactions between semiochemical treatments for earlier work in the former programme, PI03. All treatments occur next to each other twice, in both rows and columns, thereby allowing for analysis of plot to plot interactions via simple mathematical models. The statistical analysis is most powerful with paired treatments (two margin mixes, two semiochemical treatments and two untreated controls). This approach was used successfully at Rothamsted in the first demonstration of the principles of the push-pull strategy in 1992 and provided the key data for the establishment of the strategy in Kenya in 1995.The design and summary of the full experiment was as follows:
C E A B D F F D B A E C A F E D C BE B F C A DB C D E F AD A C F B E The intended treatments were:
A – clover/grass mixture WM2B – spring beans (a slow release formulation of Hemizygia petiolata essential oil to interfere with colonisation of both aphids and coleopterous pests.)C – grass mix for margins TG2D – spring beans (untreated)E – spring beans (a slow release formulation of (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate to interfere with colonisation of the beans by coleopterous pests, particularly S. lineatus)F – spring beans (untreated)
However, due to the exceptionally dry autumn and despite irrigation, the margin mixes did not establish well and it was decided as a precaution at that point to initiate a separate small plot spring bean trial in which to test the effects of the semiochemical treatments, while the spring bean plots in the large habitat management trial would be used to gather baseline data on insect colonisation. In March, the first vegetation assessment was performed on the margin mixes. Plots of both mixes contained numerous annual weeds (charlock, chickweed, shepherd’s purse and volunteer oilseed rape), but had sufficient seedling populations of sown individuals to give successful establishment. Seedlings of all sown plants from WM2, and all but 3 (meadow foxtail, tufted hair grass and smooth meadow grass) from TG2 were found. An assessment in April was encouraging, with only one WM2 plot in danger of out-competition from annual weeds (mainly charlock). The standard practice of mowing and removal of cuttings was carried out in early May in order to reduce the nutrient status of the plots, enabling the development of the diverse communities required. Baseline data were obtained for appearance and numbers of major pest and beneficial species in both the spring bean crop and the habitat management plots (grass mixture (TG2) or clover mixture (WM2))
SID 5 (2/05) Page 8 of 25
throughout the season using pitfall traps, water traps and visual assessments. As expected, the habitat mixtures were still poorly established early in the season, and the semiochemical treatments were assessed in a neighbouring replicated plot trial (see below). Populations of the pea and bean weevil, Sitona lineatus were very high as this and the small plot site were the only legume crops on the Farm this season, and adult damage was devastating and assessments revealed no differences between spring bean plots close to or away from the habitat management plots. Analysis of pitfall trap data showed that at the beginning of the season, S. lineatus populations were significantly higher in the bean plots than in of either of the two habitat mixtures (24.79 beetles per plot, 0.17 beetles in WM2 clover plots and 0.17 in TG2 grass plots, respectively, P<0.001). At the end of the season, as expected, few S. lineatus were found in TG2 grass plots, but numbers were significantly higher in the clover WM2 plots than in the beans (mean of 1.67, 12.5 and 5.04 weevils/plot, respectively; P<0.001), indicating that as the beans began to deteriorate prior to harvest, the weevils moved into the WM2 treatments to feed on the clover and vetches. Aphids were patchily distributed and numbers were not significantly different between the bean plots. Total numbers of predatory carabid beetles caught in pitfall traps were very similar in all plots early in the experiment. However, numbers were higher in the bean plots at the end of August probably due to the presence of the aphids. Vortis samples showed that during the establishment phase, there was little difference in the abundance of beneficial insects found in either type of margin treatment (Fig 2). The neighbouring habitat management plots had no significant effect on final yield of beans (>0.05).
020406080
100120140160180200
WM
2
TG2
WM
2
TG2
WM
2
TG2
WM
2
TG2
WM
2
TG2
WM
2
TG2
WM
2
TG2
Hoverflies Ladybirds Lacewings Spiders Carabids Tachyporus Aphidiusparasitoids
Tota
l num
ber
Figure 2. Beneficial insects sampled by Vortis from WM2 (grass clover mix) and TG2 (grass mix) Defra-recommended margin mixtures (2004)
The effects of semiochemical treatments to spring beans on the colonisation of pests were investigated in a replicated plot field trial. Treatments were released from four point source dispensers hung in each plot within the crop and were the two green leaf volatiles (Z)-3-hexenol and (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, released individually and in combination, and the essential oil of Hemizygia petiolata, releasing the aphid alarm pheromone compound (E)-β-farnesene. The H. petiolata oil not only presented a negative stimulus for the aphid pests, but has also been shown to reduce the response of S. lineatus to its aggregation pheromone in field traps. The release of green leaf volatiles changed the ratios of natural host plant semiochemicals that the pests use to locate the crop. The control plots were untreated. The individual (Z)-3-hexenol and (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate were released at 16.8mg/day/plot and 17.6mg/day/plot, respectively and in combination. The H. petiolata oil was released at 8mg/day/plot. (Release rates were determined in PS2101). Insect numbers were monitored by four pitfall traps per plot and by visual assessments, either in situ or on collected plant samples examined in the laboratory. As with the habitat management plots, S. lineatus were so numerous that feeding notch damage, assessed on 20 plants per plot on a number of dates, was uniformly heavy across all treatments (Fig 3) and there were no differences.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 9 of 25
Sitona lineatus damage to spring beans treated with slow release dispensers of semiochemicals
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
7 Apirl 1st leaf pair 14 April 2nd leaf pair 22 April 3rd leaf pair
No significant differences
mea
n no
. not
ches
/leaf
pai
r
Hemizygia petiolata oil
(Z)-3-hexen-1-ol
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate
hexenol + acetate
untreated
Fig 3.
Although some treatments had reduced catches in pitfall traps compared to controls, again these were not significantly different due to variability between traps (Fig 4). Numbers of predatory carabid and staphylinid beetles and spiders were also recorded in pitfall traps and there were no treatment effects on these species.
Sitona lineatus caught in pitfall traps in spring bean treated with slow release dispensers of semiochemicals
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
April 7th 14th 21st
No significant differences
mea
n no
. cau
ght/4
trap
s /p
lot
Hemizygia petiolata oil
(Z)-3-hexenol
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate
hexenol+acetate
untreated
Fig 4.The semiochemicals induced by the high feeding damage at this early point in the trial appeared to overwhelm the effect of the semiochemical treatments deployed against this pest. Plants grew rapidly over the next month and it is unlikely that S. lineatus feeding damage had a significant effect on the aphid pests arriving in late May and early June.
In replicated visual assessments of 20 plants per plot, aphid colonies were very patchily distributed, but cumulative data, collected over 6 weeks throughout June, demonstrated treatment effects, although again differences were not significant (Figs 5 & 6). As seen in previous experiments (Bruce et. al., 2005a), numbers of pea aphids, Acyrthosiphon pisum, and black bean aphids, Aphis fabae, were reduced in plots treated with the Hemizygia oil (Fig 5).
SID 5 (2/05) Page 10 of 25
Acyrthosiphon pisum on spring beans treated with slow release dispensers of semiochemicals
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
27-May 04-Jun 10 18 25 30
No significant differences
cum
ulat
ive
aphi
ds/2
0 pl
ants
/plo
t
Hemizygia petiolata oil
(Z)-3-hexenol
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate
hexenol+acetate
untreated
Fig 5.
A. fabae populations were much smaller in plots treated with either of the green leaf volatiles compared to control plots, but the effect was not seen when these compounds were released together (Fig 6).
Aphis fabae on spring beans treated with slow release dispensers of semiochemicals
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
27-May 04-Jun 10 18 25 30
No significant differences
cum
ulat
ive
aphi
ds/2
0 pl
ants
/plo
t
Hemizygia petiolata oil
(Z)-3-hexenol
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate
hexenol+acetate
untreated
Fig 6.
In pod samples, populations of bruchid beetles, Bruchus rufimanus, were too small to see any treatment effects, but pod infestation by the midge, Contarinia pisi, was greater in plots treated with the green leaf volatiles (Fig 7). The latter indicates use of these cues to locate plants suitable for oviposition because of prior damage.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 11 of 25
Pod pests on spring beans treated with slow release dispensers of semiochemicals
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
mean no.bruchid larvae/pod mean no. pods w ith midge/plant
No significant differences; sample taken 2 August
Hemizygia petiolata oil
(Z)-3-hexen-1-ol
(Z)-3-hexenyl acetate
hexenol+acetate
untreated
Fig 7. As with other small plot trials with point source delivery of semiochemicals there were obvious differences in pest colonisation, particularly for aphids. However, these differences were not significant due to patchy distribution, particularly for A. fabae. Point source slow release dispensers are used to alter the overall volatile profile of the crop. The H. petiolata oil presents a negative stimulus for the pests as it releases the aphid alarm pheromone and other repellent semiochemicals (Bruce et. al, 2005a), and in the case of the green leaf volatiles they change the ratios of natural host plant semiochemicals again to present a negative stimulus, but this time to reproduce the volatile profile of a damaged crop (Bruce et. al., 2005b). However, insects are capable of detecting point sources of semiochemicals unless the sources are numerous and close together. The four point sources used here were 2 m apart, which may not have been close enough or sufficient to produce a significant effect. The small plot size (36 m2) may also have contributed to the variability in insect numbers. Ideally, both for coverage and for practical application, these semiochemicals should be tested in a slow release formulation that can be applied as a spray to a larger area of crop. These aspects will be taken forward in the other PS21 projects (PS2113 and 2114).
02/03, 02/04 Second crop trialled with habitat management plots - Winter wheat, The wheat crop, variety Consort, was drilled using minimum tillage at the end of September, after the harvest of the beans, and the crop had established by mid October, towards the end of the autumn migration period of the cereal aphids. Results from previous small plot trials in PI0341 indicated a reduction in both aphid and gout fly egg numbers after autumn (October) application of an antifeedant. The antifeedant we had hoped to use as an autumn treatment to the wheat plots was an extract of Tasmannia lanceolata, grown under UK conditions, containing approximately 35% polygodial, a potent aphid antifeedant. Unfortunately, due to complications with the extraction technique at the suppliers, the antifeedant arrived too late to be applied in time to control the aphid immigration and gout fly oviposition. However, as the crop could not be drilled until the end of September, the aphid and gout fly pressure was low and the effects of an antifeedant treatment would have been minimal (see below). The late sowing avoided much of the pest problem in this season.Pest and beneficial insect numbers were monitored by pitfall trap and visual assessments in the autumn sown wheat plots and by pitfall trap and vortis samples in the habitat management plots. Populations of overwintering aphids were assessed in a grid of 25 sampling points per plot of wheat at each of which 4 plants were examined, and showed that numbers were small (overall 0.039 aphids/plant) and patchily distributed at the end of October. Gout fly egg numbers and subsequent larval populations in the following February were also low as expected. A PVC rope formulation providing a slow release of the plant activator cis-jasmone (Birkett et. al., 2000) was developed and provided by our collaborators at Agrisense Certis. Ten centimetre pieces of the rope were deployed at each of the 25 grid markers in each cis-jasmone treated plot on 19 May, well before the arrival of spring aphid migrants. In release rate studies (in PS2105) the 10cm of rope was found to release
SID 5 (2/05) Page 12 of 25
an average of 2.69mg/day for 30 days under controlled temperature and wind speed (resulting in an approximate release of 67.25 mg/plot/day equivalent to 11.68g/ha/day). The release rate dropped after this time but was still maintained at approximately 1mg/day for the following 30 days. PVC rope formulations of nepetalactone (4 cm) and nepetalactol (8 cm) releasing in a 1:1 ratio (at approximately 200 µg/day) were deployed on 24 June when aphids had started to arrive in the crop. These semiochemicals are components of the aphid sex pheromone complex and attract aphid parasitoids and predators. Since the aphid sex pheromone complex presents an innate rather than a learned behavioural cue for the aphid parasitoids, the pheromones were deployed to coincide with the early build up of aphid numbers in the crop.
AphidsVisual assessments of cereal aphid numbers, parasitised aphids and predators were made on 4 or 8 tillers at each of the 25 sampling sites per plot on 9 separate occasions starting on 12 May. The tiller number was increased to 8 at each site for the 2 June count as aphid numbers were so low. The aphids arrived late in this season due to the cold spring, but populations had peaked quickly by the 4 July count (Fig 8) although numbers were well below threshold levels for insecticide treatment. The predominant species was the grain aphid Sitobion avenae, with lower numbers of the rose-grain aphid, Metopolophium dirhodum, and very few bird-cherry-oat aphids Rhopalosiphum padi. There were fewer aphids on the cis-jasmone treated plots (Fig 8), but data were not significantly different.
Cereal aphid counts on wheat in Habitat management experiment
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
02-Jun 9 23 04-Jul 14 22
cis-jasmone out 19 May; Nepetalactone/lactol out 24 June
mea
n no
. aph
ids/
tille
r
untreated
cis-jasmone
nepetalactone/lactol
Fig 8.
Figure 9 shows the plan of the experiment and the layout of the different treatments. The point source data from the aphid counts on the wheat plots were plotted on a contour map to show the pattern of distribution when the aphids started to arrive on 23 June (Figs 10 & 11) and at the population peak on 4 July (Figs 12 & 13). On 23 June the main peaks were in untreated plots and the aphid population, although patchy, was distributed across the whole experiment. At the population peak on 4 July, the main concentrations of aphids were on the edges of the experimental site. This could be due to aphids arriving at the edges of the experiment, although the initial infestation was across the whole site. It is more likely due to treatment effects, for example aphid numbers in the nepetalactone/lactol treated plots in the centre of the experiment are less concentrated on 4 July compared to 23 June. It is difficult to interpret such data from just one experiment and the work will be repeated in 2006 in the new Defra project PS2113.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 13 of 25
Fig 9. Plan of experimental treatments
Fig10. Distribution of aphids on 23 June with treatments superimposed. (cis-Jasmone out 19 May, nepetalactone/lactol out 24 June).
SID 5 (2/05) Page 14 of 25
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
grass
clover
clover
clover
clover
clover
clover
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
nepeta
nepeta
nepeta
nepeta
nepeta
nepeta
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
Fig 11. 3D wire map of aphid distribution on 23 June.
Fig 12. Distribution of aphids on 4 July with treatments superimposed. (cis-Jasmone out 19 May, nepetalactone/lactol out 24 June).
SID 5 (2/05) Page 15 of 25
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
Fig 13. 3D wire map of aphid distribution on 4 July.
Aphid parasitoidsIn the visual assessments, very few parasitised aphids (Fig 14) or predators were seen in any of the wheat plots and appearance was so variable that no firm conclusions on treatment effects could be drawn.
Parasitised aphid counts on wheat in Habitat management experiment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26-May 02-Jun 9 23 04-Jul 14 22
cis-jasmone out 19 May, nepetalactone/lactol out 24 June
mea
n no
./plo
t
untreated
cis-jasmone
nepetalactone/lactol
Fig 14.
An assessment of the number of parasitoids caught by vortis sampling during June showed a greater number of individuals in the wheat plots, compared with both the WM2 and TG2 plots, although this difference was not significant. Numbers of Aphidius spp. caught were low, and no significant difference was found between treatments (Fig 15). This observation was reflected by the catches on yellow sticky traps (see Fig 22 below).
SID 5 (2/05) Page 16 of 25
Fig 15.
Vortis suction samples taken in the margin mix plots throughout the season showed that there were generally more hymenopterous parasitoids of all kinds present in the grass-clover mix (WM2) than the grass mix (TG2). This may have been due to the nectar available from the clover plants, but in the case of aphid parasitoids was also probably due to the presence of pea aphid hosts in the clover for species such as Aphidius ervi (Fig 16). Numbers declined as the plants deteriorated and the over wintering populations were likely to be low since the margin mix plots were cut after the wheat harvest and did not regenerate until the following spring.
05
1015202530354045
5/5/
05
19/5
/05
2/6/
05
16/6
/05
30/6
/05
14/7
/05
28/7
/05
11/8
/05
25/8
/05To
tal n
o. a
phd
para
sito
ids
WM2
TG2
Fig 16. Vortis suction samples in margin mix plots
Other species
Sticky trapsTo assess numbers of other pests and beneficial species in the experiment, an orange wheat blossom midge pheromone trap, releasing the female sex pheromone to attract male midges (Oakley et. al., 2005a, 2005b), and an unbaited yellow sticky trap targeting female midges, gout flies and beneficial species was placed at the centre of each wheat and margin mix plot and captured insects assessed and traps changed every 3-4 days. Male midge numbers in pheromone traps and females caught on the unbaited sticky traps were assessed throughout the crops susceptible growth stage, from ear emergence to full flowering. The peak emergence/appearance of males (Fig 17) was towards the end of the susceptible growth stage, but
SID 5 (2/05) Page 17 of 25
females peaked within the susceptible period (Fig 18). Damage levels and larval numbers, assessed in 25 ears per plot in early July, were less than might be expected (Fig 19) taking into account the fairly high numbers of midges caught per trap. As seen in previous experiments, there were no treatment effects on midge numbers or damage levels except for males emerging in the cis-jasmone plots towards the end of the trapping time. As males do not migrate very far, this was probably an anomaly. The numbers of the midge egg parasitoid, Macroglenes penetrans, were also higher in the cis-jasmone plots at the end of trapping (Fig 20). These insects develop inside diapausing midge larvae and emerge at a similar time to the midge. The nepetalactone/lactol lures were not put out until after the peak of midge activity.
Orange wheat blossom midge males in pheromone traps on Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
31-May 03-Jun 7 10 14 17 21 24
ear emergence to anthesis 31 May to 14 June
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4 da
ys
untreated
cis-jasmone
TG2
WM2
Fig 17.
Orange wheat blossom midge females on yellow sticky traps in Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
31-May 03-Jun 7 10 14 17 21 24
ear emergence to anthesis 31 May to 14 June
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4 da
ys
untreated
cis-jasmone
TG2
WM2
Fig 18.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 18 of 25
Wheat blossom midge damage in Habitat management experiment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
control cis-jasmone
Mean % affected grain
Mean no. larvae/ear
Fig 19.
Female Macroglenes penetrans (wheat blossom midge parasitoid) on yellow sticky traps in Habitat management
experiment in wheat
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
03-Jun 7 10 14 17 21 24
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4 da
ys
untreated
cis-jasmone
TG2
WM2
Fig 20.
Numbers of males present in the TG2 and WM2 plots (Fig 17) were lower than in the wheat, which was surprising. These midges diapause in the soil over winter and may not emerge the following season if conditions are not suitable. They have been shown to remain viable in the soil for several years and any field within a conventional rotation would be expected to have had wheat in its history and a likelihood that these midges will emerge into new wheat crops. We have shown that populations in set aside fields emerge earlier than in wheat or other crops, possibly due to the greater moisture retained beneath set aside (Oakley et. al., 2005a, 2005b). A similar pattern was expected for the margin mixtures, but was seen only in the TG2 grass plots (Fig 17) where males were caught earlier than in the wheat and could therefore have contributed to infestation levels in neighbouring plots. However, due to the low damage levels overall there were no obvious inter plot interactions. There is no clear reason why numbers of males present in both TG2 and WM2 plots should be lower than in the wheat. We have demonstrated that female midges are very strongly attracted to wheat volatiles (Birkett et. al., 2004). In this case, male midges could also be responding to plant volatile cues and moving the short distance to neighbouring wheat plots to maximise their chances of mating. Otherwise, climatic conditions may have affected the margin mixtures differently to the crop. In fact the peak emergence of midge in this season was delayed due to cooler temperatures and lower rainfall than average. Unfortunately, the repeat experiment in PS2113 will not be directly comparable for the midge since populations in the margin mixtures will not have been replenished, but they will have been in the wheat.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 19 of 25
Amongst the other pest insects caught on the yellow sticky traps, adult gout flies, Chlorops pumilionis, a pest of increasing importance, were significantly fewer in the cis-jasmone treated plots (Fig 21; P<0.05). This is the first indication that cis-jasmone may affect gout fly infestation and will be followed up in future experiments. Unfortunately, the necessary late sowing date for the wheat crops in this trial avoids the main gout fly infestation in the autumn and the effect will be tested in further small plot trials.
Gout fly adults on yellow sticky traps in Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
31-May 03-Jun 7 10 14
* P<0.05
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4day
s
untreated
cis-jasmone
TG2
WM2
*
Fig 21.
Of the beneficial species trapped, aphid parasitoids and ladybirds were very few particularly in the TG2 plots (Figs 22 & 23). Blue traps may have been more successful in capturing aphid parasitoids. However, their numbers were low in the visual assessments and Vortis samples in the plots and therefore these results are representative. Although their numbers were low the ladybirds were most commonly caught in the WM2 plots, presumably feeding on aphids there. With the exception of staphylinids caught in pitfall traps (see below) these were the only insect predators caught in larger numbers in traps in the WM2 margin mix plots. All the other predatory insect species trapped were more abundant in the wheat plots. Spiders were more abundant in pitfall traps in the margin mix plots than in the wheat (see below).Predatory flies in the super family Empidoidea, e.g. Platypalpus spp., (which feed on both midges and aphids) and predatory beetles in the family Cantharidae were both numerous on the sticky traps in the wheat plots (Figs 24 & 25), but there were no treatment differences. Both populations dropped in early July, but this coincided with an unseasonable cold spell.
Adult aphid parasitoids on yellow sticky traps in Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
03-Jun
7 10-Jun
14 17 21 24 28 01-Jul
5 8 12 15 19
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4day
s
untreated cis-jasmone TG2 WM2 nepetalactone/lactol
Fig 22.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 20 of 25
Ladybirds on yellow sticky traps in Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
10-Jun
14 17 21 24 28 01-Jul 5 8 12 15 19
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4day
suntreated cis-jasmone TG2 WM2 nepetalactone/lactol
Fig 23.
Predatory flies (Empidoidea) on yellow sticky traps Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
31-May
03-Jun
7 10 14 17 21 24 28 01-Jul
5 8 12 15 19
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4day
s
untreated cis-jasmone TG2 WM2 nepetalactone/lactol
Fig 24.
Predatory beetles (Cantharidae) on yellow sticky traps in Habitat management experiment in wheat
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
31-May
03-Jun
7 10 14 17 21 24 28 01-Jul
5 8 12 15 19
mea
n no
./tra
p/3-
4day
s
untreated cis-jasmone TG2 WM2 nepetalactone/lactol
Fig 25.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 21 of 25
Pitfall trapsTo monitor the activity of beneficial epigeal invertebrates within the habitat management and wheat plots, pitfall trapping was conducted on four occasions throughout the growing season, during October, May, June and July. Three traps were placed within each plot, and were left running for one week on each occasion. Carabidae were identified to species. Selected genera of Araneae were studied, including the linyphiids Erigone, Oedothorax, and Lepthypantes, and the lycosid Pardosa. Total Staphylinidae and Tachyporus spp. were also monitored. A total of 26 carabid species were caught, with Nebria salina and N. brevicollis being the most frequent species found in the autumn and spring. Pterostichus melanarius and P. madidus were the most frequent species found during July. Several carabid species showed significant differences in the numbers trapped between the wheat and habitat management plots on at least one sampling date, including Leistus spinibarbis, Nebria salina, Demetrias atricapillus, Pterostichus melanarius, P. madidus, Agonum dorsale, and Trechus quadristriatus. Almost exclusively for each of these species, significantly more individuals were trapped in the wheat plots than in either habitat management plot type, and these results are reflected in the overall total carabid treatment means (Fig 26). It is likely that this result is at least partly attributable to variation in trapping efficiency caused by differences in vegetation density between the wheat and habitat management plots. None of the carabid species studied showed a significant difference in the numbers caught between the WM2 and TG2 vegetation types. Nebria salina was the only species to show a response to the semiochemical treatments, with significantly fewer individuals trapped in the cis-jasmone treated plots compared with the control wheat plots, in June (Fig 27). This may be a response to reduced aphid numbers in the cis-jasmone treated plots, or alternatively could represent a change in searching behaviour, resulting in reduced trapping efficiency. This will be studied in future experiments.
Fig 26.
Differences in the numbers of total Araneae trapped were also apparent, with significantly more caught in the WM2 and TG2 plots in May, compared with the wheat plots. In June and July, significantly more individuals were found in the TG2 plots than in the wheat or WM2 plots. Pardosa spp. were trapped in significantly greater numbers in both WM2 and TG2 plots when compared with wheat plots in May. In June and July, however, significantly more individuals were caught in the TG2 plots than in the wheat and WM2 plots, and the difference between numbers in wheat and WM2 plots was not maintained. During June, the WM2 vegetation became very dense and matted whilst the TG2 maintained an open structure possibly more suited to the ground-based hunting strategies of Pardosa sp. Oedothorax exhibited a similar pattern, with significantly more individuals trapped in the WM2 plots than in any other treatment, in May. In June, significantly more individuals were trapped in the TG2 plots than in the WM2 plots, in which more individuals were in turn caught in comparison with the wheat plots. By July, the situation had reversed and significantly more individuals were trapped in the control wheat plots than in either the WM2 or TG2 plots. None of the Araneae studied showed a significant response to the semiochemical treatments.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 22 of 25
Fig 27.
In both June and July, significantly more Staphylinids were trapped in the WM2 plots than in the wheat plots. In turn, more individuals were trapped in the wheat plots than in the TG2 plots. No significant differences were found in the numbers caught for other trapping dates or between semiochemical treatments. Significantly more Tachyporus spp. were trapped in the control plots compared with either of the habitat management vegetation types, during May.
Yields There were no significant treatment differences for wheat yields, however yields were higher on the cis-jasmone treated plots. Similar yield increases have been demonstrated in small plot trials treated with point sources of cis-jasmone in PS2105.
Wheat Yield in Habitat management experiment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
untreated cis-jasmone nepetalactone/lactol
tonn
es/h
a
9.5829.278 9.225
ConclusionsValuable baseline data for pest and beneficial insects occurring on both crops in the rotation and on the margin mixtures have been obtained from this experiment. However, further studies are required to verify these data, particularly with the semiochemical treatments, before neighbour interactions between semiochemical treatments can be fully investigated and firm conclusions can be drawn. The experimental rotation will be repeated in the new project PS2113. The possible role of the margin mixtures as part of a pest management strategy are as yet unclear due to the comparatively low levels of natural enemies
SID 5 (2/05) Page 23 of 25
recorded so far. In addition, the cutting date requirements under the current Countryside Stewardship regime would not seem to be compatible with semiochemical manipulation of pest and beneficial populations. This aspect also will be considered in the new project.
Intellectual Property arising from this reportA patent has been filed on cis-jasmone as a plant stress related signal that can be used to effect defence against insect pests (e.g. aphids) in crops and also cause the plants to attract organisms antagonistic to the pests (e.g. aphid parasitoids).
Technology TransferThe original patent filings related to non-Defra funded work and were promulgated through BTS. Now since the practical and molecular genetic opportunities are more clearly defined the patents have moved to the plant bioscience company PBL.
Knowledge TransferPresentations on research results
Barari, H., Cook, S. M. & Williams, I. H. Rearing the larval parasitiods of Psylliodes chrysocephala and Ceutorynchus pallidactlylus from field-collected specimens. Oral presentation given at the IOBC/wprs working group on Integrated Protection in oilseed crops Rothamsted Research 30-31 March 2004.
Cook, S.M., Watts, N. P., Hunter, F. J., Smart, L.E., & Williams, I.H. Effects of a turnip rape trap crop on the spatial distribution of Meligethes aeneus in oilseed rape. Oral paper given at the IOBC/wprs working group on Integrated Protection in oilseed crops Rothamsted Research 30-31 March 2004.
S.M. Cook, W. Powell, L.E. Smart, N.P. Watts, & I.H. Williams. Pushing Insects around: The use of ‘push-pull’ strategies in integrated pest management. Oral paper given at the 22nd International Congress of Entomology, 15-21/8/04 Brisbane, Australia.
Cook S.M. Presentation on ‘The value of Nuffield Studentships at Rothamsted Research’ Nuffield Foundation Science day, GlaxoSmithKline 8 November 2004
Smith, M., & Cook, S. M. The colour preferences of the pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus) Poster presentation at the Nuffield Science Foundation School Bursary day 8 November 2004.
Professor Pickett’s presentations
- University of Lund, Sweden, PhD course, Infochemicals in pest control and conservation biology, 1) “Semiochemicals and pest control” and 2), “Integrated pest management: the value of a trap crop, extending to the push-pull system”, 9.2.04- University of Nottingham, students in Molecular Ecotoxicology, “Plants and plant products in pest control”, 18.3.04- University of Nottingham, students in Molecular Ecotoxicology, “Semiochemicals and pest control”, lecture and practical, 29.4.04- AAB Centenary Meeting, London, “The promise of innovative research in plant stress signalling for crop protection in world agriculture”, 26.5.04- Imperial College GSLSM Summer Symposium as Guest Lecturer, “Confusing stories of sex and other pheromones”, 15.7.04- John Innes Centre, Norwich, colloquium on Plant-Insect Interactions, “Plant activators from plant-insect interactions”, 21.9.04- University of Newcastle, plenary lecture to celebrate opening of new Institute for Research on Environment and Sustainability, "New ways to reduce the potential environmental impact of pesticides: natural plant activators in protection against herbivores and weeds", 12.11.04- AAB Centenary Meeting, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, Advances in applied biology: providing new opportunities for consumers and producers in the 21st century, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, “Exploiting rhizosphere interactions in pest and weed management”, 15.12.04- Inter-Institute Brassica workshop, JIC Norwich , “Stimulo-deterrent diversionary (push-pull) strategy for transgenic oilseed rape modified for pest colonisation signals, i.e. kairomone or host plant attractant, 5.1.05- University of Nottingham, School of Biosciences, Sutton Bonington, “Current Issues in Crop Science” teaching module (D236A3). Two lectures: 1) “Prospects for biological control”, 2) “How to deliver semiochemicals?”, 7.3.05
SID 5 (2/05) Page 24 of 25
References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other
published material generated by, or relating to this project.Barari, H., Cook, S. M. & Williams, I. H. (2004). Rearing the larval parasitoids of Psylliodes chrysocephala and Ceutorynchus pallidactlylus from field-collected specimens. Bulletin IOBC/wprs Integrated Control in Oilseed Crops 27 (10): 265-274.
Bartlet, E., Blight, M.M., Pickett, J.A., Smart, L.E., Turner, G., and Woodcock, C.M. (2004) Orientation and feeding responses of the pollen beetle, Meligethes aeneus to candytuft, Iberis amara. J. Chem Ecol 30 (5), 913-925.
Birkett, M. A., Bruce, T. J. A., Martin, J. L., Smart, L. E., Oakley, J. & Wadhams, L. J. (2004). Responses of female orange wheat blossom midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana, to wheat panicle volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 30, 1319-1328.
Birkett, M., Campbell, C.A.M., Chamberlain, K., Guerrieri, E., Hick, A.J., Martin, J.L., Matthes, M. Napier, J., Pettersson, J., Pickett, J.A., Poppy, G., Pow, E.M., Pye, B.J., Smart, L.E., Wadhams, G., Wadhams, L.J. and Woodcock, C.M. (2000) New roles for cis-jasmone as an insect semiochemical and in plant defense. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 97: 9329-9334.
Bruce, T.J.A., Birkett, M.A., Blande, J., Hooper, A.M., Khambay, B., Martin, J.L., Prosser, I., Smart, L.E. and Wadhams, L.J. (2005) Response of economically important aphids to components of Hemizygia petiolata essential oil Pest Management Science 61 (11) 1115-1121.
Bruce, T.J., Martin, J.L., Pickett, J.A., Pye, B.J., Smart, L.E. and Wadhams, L.J. (2003) Cis-jasmone treatment induces resistance in wheat plants against the grain aphid, Sitobion avenae (Fabricius) (Homoptera: Aphididae). Pest Management Science 59, 1031-1036Bruce, T.J., Pickett, J.A., and Smart, L.E. (2003) Cis-jasmone switches on plant defence against insects. Pesticide Outlook June 2003 96-98.
Bruce, T.J. A., Pickett, J.A. and Smart, L.E. (2003) Developing plant activators for the field. Rothamsted Research Annual Report 2002 – 2003
Cook, S.M., Powell, W., Smart, L.E., Watts, N.P., Williams, I.H. (2004a) Pushing insects around: The use of ‘push-pull’ strategies in integrated pest management. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Entomology, 15-21/8/04 Brisbane, Australia.
Cook S.M, Smart L.E, Potting R.P.J, Bartlet E, Martin J.L, Murray, D.A., Watts, N.P. and Williams, I.H. (2002). Turnip rape (Brassica rapa) as a trap crop to protect oilseed rape (Brassica napus) from infestation by insect pests: potential and mechanisms of action. BCPC Conference Pests & Diseases 2002, 7C3, 569-574.
Cook, S.M., Smart, L.E., Rasmussen, H.B., Bartlet, E., Martin, J.L., Murray, D.A., Watts, N.P., and Williams, I.H. (2003) Push-pull strategies to reduce insecticide input to oilseed rape (Brassica napus): Potential of low alkenyl glucosinolate oilseed rape varieties (push!) and turnip rape (Brassica rapa) trap crops (pull!). Proceedings of the 11th International Rapeseed Congress: Towards enhanced value of cruciferous oilseed crops by optimal production and use of high quality seed components. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 6-10 July 2003. Ed. H. Sorensen, Vol. 3, 1015-1017.
Cook SM, Smart LE, Martin JL, Murray DA, Watts NP, Williams IH. (2006). Exploitation of host plant preferences in pest management strategies for oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata (in press)
Cook, S.M., Watts, N.P., Hunter, F.J., Smart, L.E. & Williams, I.H. (2004b). Effects of a turnip rape trap crop on the spatial distribution of Meligethes aeneus amd Ceutorhynchus assimilis in oilseed rape. Bulletin IOBC/wprs: Integrated Control in oilseed crops 27 (10): 199-206. Edited by Koopman, B., Evans, N., Cook, S.M, & Williams, I.H.
Oakley, J., Talbot, G., Bruce, T.J.A., Smart, L.E., Wadhams, L.J., Hooper, A.H., Jones, O.T., Casagrande, E.D. and Brown, N.J. (2005a) Development of a pheromone trap for monitoring the orange wheat blossom midge (Sitodiplosis mosellana). Proceedings BCPC International Congress – Crop Science & Technology 2005, P8D-5, 867-872.
Oakley, J., Talbot, G., Dyer, C., Self, M.M., Freyer, J.B.S., Angus, W.J., Barrett, J.M., Feuerhelm, G., Snape, J., Sayers, L., Bruce, T.J.A., Smart, L.E. and Wadhams, L.J. (2005b) Integrated control of wheat blossom midge: use of pheromone traps and treatment thresholds. HGCA Project Report No. 363.Stevenson, A., Birkett, M.A., Woodcock, C.M., Pickett, J.A., Osborne J. and Powell W. (2002) Identification of non-host plant volatiles repellent to pollen beetles. Abstracts 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Chemical Ecology, 215.
SID 5 (2/05) Page 25 of 25
