Annual/Termination Reports:

[11/08/2017] [06/10/2019] [07/01/2020]

Report Information

Participants

Registered Participants:
Elizabeth Long, Ohio State University, Dept. of Entomology, (long.1541@osu.edu);
Cherre Bezerra Da Silva, Oregon State University, (cherre.dasilva@oregonstate.edu);
Dean Polk, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, (polk@aesop.rutgers.edu); Jana Lee, USDA ARS, (jana.lee@ars.usda.gov); Lindsy Iglesias, University of Florida, (liglesias@ufl.edu); Larry Gut, Michigan State University, (gut@msu.edu); Justin Renkema, University of Florida, (justin.renkema@ufl.edu); Ashfaq Sial, University of Georgia, (ashsial@uga.edu); Kevin Cloonan, Rutgers, (raynecloonan@gmail.com); Christelle Guédot, UW-Madison, (guedot@wisc.edu); Bill Hutchison, University of Minnesota, (hutch002@umn.edu); Dominique Ebbenga, University of Minnesota, (ebbe0031@umn.edu); Anh Tran, University of Minnesota, (aktran@umn.edu); Frank Zalom, UC Davis, (fgzalom@ucdavis.edu); Stephen Cook, University of Idaho, (stephenc@uidaho.edu); Donn Johnson, University of Arkansas, (dtjohnso@uark.edu); Xiaoli Bing, Cornell University, (xb48@cornell.edu); Brian Gress, UC Davis, (begress@ucdavis.edu); Greg Loeb, Cornell University, (gme1@cornell.edu); Phil Fanning, Michigan State University, (fanning9@msu.edu); Heather Leach, Michigan State University, (leachhea@msu.edu); Lauren Diepenbrock, North Carolina State University, (laurendiepenbrock@gmail.com); Lori Spears, Utah State University, (lori.spears@usu.edu); Diane Alston, Utah State University, (diane.alston@usu.edu);
Kevin Rice, USDA-ARS, (ricekevinb@gmail.com); Steven Van Timmeren, Michigan State University, (vantimm2@msu.edu); Adam Chun Nin Wong, University of Florida, (adamcnwong@ufl.edu); Laura Lavine, Washington State University, (lavine@wsu.edu);
Julianna Wilson, Michigan State University, (jkwilson@msu.edu); Cesar Rodriguez-Saona Rutgers, (crodriguez@aesop.rutgers.edu);

Attendance in the room varied from 39-46 people for the duration of the meeting.
States in attendance: CA, DE, FL, GA, ID, MD, MI, MN, NC, NJ, NY, OR, OH, TN, UT, WI
Countries in Attendance: China, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, U.S.A.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Meeting Agenda:

8:00-8:05 AM                Introductory Remarks, Address by Administrative Advisor Laura Lavine

8:05-8:20 AM                The salt test method: an efficient tool to monitor for spotted wing drosophila infestation in fruit (Lauren Diepenbrock, Steven Van Timmeren, Matt Bertone, Hannah Burrack and Rufus Isaacs)

8:20-8:35 AM                Group discussion on salt test method

8:35-8:50 AM                A semi-field bioassay protocol for assessing the effectiveness of field-aged insecticides against spotted wing drosophila (Steven Van Timmeren and Rufus Isaacs)

8:50-9:05 AM                Group discussion of semi-field bioassay methods

9:05-9:20 AM                Protocols for screening spotted wing drosophila field populations for insecticide resistance (Ashfaq Sial)

9:20-9:35 AM                Group discussion for protocols for insecticide resistance screening

9:35-10:35 AM             State impact statement reports poster session

10:35-10:50 AM           Sustainable spotted wing drosophila management in US fruit crops: Year 2 update (Hannah Burrack, Joanna Chiu, Kent Daane, Miguel Gomez, Larry Gut, Rufus Isaacs, Gregory Loeb, Cesar Rodriguez-Saona, Ashfaq Sial, Vaughn Walton and Frank Zalom) 

10:50-11:05 AM           Development and implementation of systems-based organic management strategies for spotted wing drosophila: An OREI project update (Ashfaq Sial, Rufus Isaacs, Matt Grieshop, Christelle Guédot, Kelly Hamby, Vaughn Walton, Mary Rogers and Hannah Burrack)

11:05-11:20 AM           Developing research strategies for spotted wing drosophila: Learning from the past and building for the future (Justin Renkema)

11:20-11:55 AM           Research priorities discussion

11:55-12:00 PM           Concluding remarks (elected a 2019 chair: Bill Hutchison UMN)

 

Brief Summary of Annual Meeting Minutes:  

1. The Salt Test Method (Lauren Diepenbrock): The salt test method was published in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management in 2017 (available on the SCRI website). The article includes ID information to key larvae by instar. The salt method is recommended because it is transportable and can be done at the farm. Materials are inexpensive and easy to obtain.

     Discussion: 

• Can we make a youtube video demonstrating this method?
  
  
  
  1. Yes!
  
  
  
  


• Are salt and sugar water methods comparable? Has not been specifically tested.
  
  
  
  1. Salt may be preferable to sugar because it is less sticky and less attractive to ants, but it is easier to rear larvae from sugar solution. Salt solution can kill larvae, but sometimes see live ones even after 1 hr in salt solution. There is not yet knowledge on a minimum time in the solution, overall no data on time soaking versus emerging larvae.
  
  
  2. It is easier to see larvae if they are still moving.
  
  
  
  


• Does this method work for all fruit hosts?
  
  
  
  1. Salt test method does not get eggs out of caneberries.
  
  
  2. This method has worked in strawberries but could benefit from optimization
  
  
  3. Many labs use the Freezer method for strawberries, some sugar method, some salt. No direct comparisons between methods
  
  
  4. Large container and sugar water method used for cherries, does the salt test method scale up for cherries?
  
  
  
  


• What type of fruit should be collecting in the field for monitoring?
  
  
  
  1. Market ripe fruit demonstrates consumer detectable pressure
  
  
  2. Overripe fruit might capture overall pest pressure earlier
  
  
  3. Overripe fruit might also increase number of non-target larvae
  
  
  4. Can ID using key in new publication, also eggs of Zaprionus indianus have 4 spiracles that are usually visible on the surface of the fruit, this species becoming the most common non-SWD Drosophilid in captures
  
  
  
  

2. Semi Field Bioassay Method: Methods for this bioassay were published in Crop Protection in 2013, and described in detail here. Suggestions for setting up the bioassay: use the fume hood, fill water pick with a syringe to keep cup dry, use plenty of glue to ensure a good seal, a diet dish helps improve control mortality. When clipping foliage, location (height and interior/exterior) matters. Also collect fruit for a negative control (measure background infestation). Push shoot into the water pick, clipping leaves if necessary. Berries can be plucked off and put in a berry holder. To the bioassay cups, add 6F and 6M flies, 2-5 days old. Keep at 25C and 75% RH to make sure the controls don’t die for 7 days. Assess fruit for larvae using the salt test method. 

     Discussion:

• Concern that diet dish is an alternative oviposition substrate that can reduce number of larvae laid in test fruit, alternatives?
  
  
  
  1. Use a paper diet (liquid food dried on paper) or dry sugar and yeast
  
  
  2. Offer a food source that is not an oviposition substrate (Dry powder of 4 parts white sugar, 1 part yeast hydrolyzate, pulverize with a pestle).
  
  
  3. For diet, can soak strip of filter paper in yeast, sugar, water mix and moist cotton ball in a 1 oz cup.
  
  
  4. Some groups do not use diet at all, is included to improve control survivorship
  
  
  
  


• Cheaper option to add SWD to bioassays instead of CO2 pad:
  
  
  
  1. Aspirate live flies into a 50 ml plastic tube with a flug in the bottom. Knockout in freezer, gently knock into the bioassay container.
  
  
  
  


• Other Modifications to the approach
  
  
  
  1. Modified cups with diet plugs to facilitate moving flies in and out.
  
  
  
  


• General notes/comments about the approach
  
  
  
  1. Check the bottom of the container for escaped larvae
  
  
  2. Use very clear containers not slightly opaque, carefully and slowly count individuals
  
  
  3. Use a humidity controlled chamber, or a salt concentrate solution to increase humidity, maybe a humidifier, especially if control mortality is high
  
  
  
  


• When do you collect the foliage/fruit?
  
  
  
  1. Some labs wait until REI is over
  
  
  2. Most often just wait 24 hours
  
  
  3. For far field sites, collect fruit right after spraying while wearing PPE
  
  
  
  


• Foliage assays with non-blueberry hosts
  
  
  
  1. For blackberries (and maybe cherries) you can use less leaves.
  
  
  
  


• How does this assay compare to field infestation?
  
  
  
  1. Has not be quantified
  
  
  
  


• Alternatives to sharp mesh berry holders:
  
  
  
  1. 1 oz deli cup used to put fruit in instead of the mesh, be careful of moisture that can collect in bottom of the cup
  
  
  
  

3. Protocols for evaluating SWD resistance: Stock solutions are made with water or acetone diluent. Using 20 ml scintillation glass vials, add 1 ml of solution and coat all surfaces by shaking. Only label lids so you can see all of the flies through the vial. Let vials air dry. Add 5F, 5M to the vials, assess after 6 hours. Count alive, moribund, and dead. So far, no populations are significantly deviating from baseline resistance, but we should continue to proactively monitor resistance development. Rapid resistance screening protocol was developed using a diagnostic dose of LC99x2.

     Discussion:

• Best way to address moribund flies?
  
  
  
  1. Evaluating after only 6 hrs so some slower acting compounds result in moribund rather than dead flies at this time, but moribund usually die if you keep them for longer
  
  
  2. Moribund flies are probably not going to be dispersing or ovipositing so for the sake of insecticide efficacy we can count them as “dead”
  
  
  3.  
  
  
  
  


• Addressing problems with control mortality (especially male flies):
  
  
  
  1. Don’t knock out the vials too early and then store them, they will die
  
  
  2. Really require high humidity to reduce control mortality, both where they’re loaded into the vials and also where the vials are stored
  
  
  3. Room humidifier can help humidity, saturated salts within growth chambers
  
  
  4. Short water wick included in the vials? This has been tried by putting a wick through the lid but it didn’t significantly improve control mortality and caused additional issues
  
  
  5. Only partially closing the lid or using mesh closures so that there is better air exchange with a humidified growth chamber might help
  
  
  6. Low humidity doesn’t seem to be a problem in all assay locations (CA doesn’t have much control mortality in their assays), perhaps a regional population effect?
  
  
  
  


• General comments about the protocol
  
  
  
  1. Scintillation vials are cheap enough that they can be rinsed and disposed of, most groups do not re-use them
  
  
  2. Rapid resistance screening dose of LC99x2 is a good option if you can’t get enough flies to do a full dose response line
  
  
  3. This approach was developed to be a very low input option so that county agents and others could use the assay in the field
  
  
  4. Bioassay could be a best-case scenario since light sources in growth chamber often do not have the UV light that breaks down insecticides in the field
  
  
  
  


• How long before hand can vials be stored?
  
  
  
  1. Most commonly only store them for 24-48hrs in a dark place
  
  
  2. Some groups have stored them for ~1.5 months in a dark fume hood and the assays seem to run fine after this storage period
  
  
  
  


• Figures presented seem as if Spinetoram dose-response lines are slowly changing, is this what we’re seeing?
  
  
  
  1. Probably seeing the effect of the slower time to kill for Spinetoram
  
  
  2. Moribund vs. dead flies and their interpretation probably contributing to the slope of the line
  
  
  
  




1. Likely a dilution of resistance alleles from susceptible populations


2. Populations in alternate hosts and during times of the year where they are not being sprayed


3. Could test levels of resistance from populations collected in the middle vs. the edge of the field to see if this population mixing is occurring at a field scale Why aren’t we seeing more resistance?

4. SCRI Project Update: Multi-state collaborators participating in SCRI Project # 2015-51181-24252 are working on the following objectives:

• Obj 1.1: Develop and implement grower-scale best management practices.


• Obj 1.2: Build tools to measure SWD impact, predict losses, and suggest mitigation strategies.


• Obj 1.3: Provide stakeholders with results, applications, and interpretation of project activities. Surveys were administered in 2016 and 2017, greater than 330 respondents each time. Also hosted the first webinar.


• Obj 2.1 Field validate and implement population models.


• Obj 2.2 Determine sources of SWD populations between and during growing seasons.


• Obj 2.3 Develop monitoring tools that accurately estimate SWD populations.


• Obj 3.1 Reduce reliance on insecticides in management programs.


• Obj 3.2 Develop insecticide resistance detection, minimization, and management strategies. Developed methods to determine baseline susceptibility rates (van Timmeren et al. 2017).


• Obj 3.3 Discover natural enemies capable of reducing SWD populations. International prospecting for new agents, testing to enable field releases. (Biondi et al. 2017 and Kacar et al. 2017).


• Obj 3.4 Reduce infestation rate in fruit post-harvest. Optimal sorting tools in blueberries to determine whether they can detect infested fruit.


• Obj 3.5 Develop genetic management tactics.

5. OREI Project Update: Update: Multi-state collaborators participating in OREI Project # 2015-51300-24154 are working on the following objectives:

• Obj 1.1 Determine optimal SWD attractants for trapping and killing. YS+Scentry best caught flies earliest and most flies, YS 2^nd best for most flies.


• Obj 1.2 Determine the role of physiology on SWD response to semiochemical attractants. Virgins are more responsive than mated flies.


• Obj 1.3 Develop prototype attract and kill strategies.


• Obj 1.4. Evaluate how devices function under field conditions. SWD temporal and special usage of and dispersal among crops and non-crop hosts. Year round more flies are in the woods, during the heat of summer trap captures decline.


• Obj 2.1 Evaluate efficacy of environmental manipulation strategies in the canopy. We can increase light penetration (and hopefully manipulate the climate) with heavy pruning.


• Obj 2.2 Evaluate efficacy of environmental manipulation strategies on soil habitat. Temperatures above the weedmat are higher than those below.


• Obj 2.3 Feasibility of insect netting to exclude SWD and increase crop quality and yield. Exclusion netting can keep SWD out, and high tunnels reduce infestation.


• Obj 3 Evaluate effectiveness of current and new organic insecticidal chemistries against SWD. Entrust seems to be the only product that works.

6. Developing Research Strategies for SWD (Research in Renkema lab at UF): Orius+ nematodes may be a good biological control community in terms of commercially available biological control products in strawberries. There is no real complementarity or interference, predatory identity is more important than composition. Conservation biological control: Strips of sweet alyssum and Spanish needles evaluated. Alyssum may be repellent- there was less SWD in bowl traps near flowers. A potential repellent chemical from flowers showed a reduction in larvae per berry and may repel adults too. In Florida strawberries, winter morphs are found in traps in north FL than central FL. In north FL, there are more nights below freezing than central FL.

     Discussion:

• Is SWD an economic problem in FL strawberries? In some cases, yes.


• Flowers are thought to be repellant rather than cause object recognition issues because flies leave rather than not recognizing fruit.

 7. Research and Extension Priorities Discussion

• Extension Priorities: Best Management Practices to share with growers.


• Research Priorities:




1. Management: N/A




1. Long distance dispersal and movement between habitats.


2. Environmental predictors of SWD appearance and abundance. (Dalila is doing some of this in OR and would like to collaborate).


3. Microbes in SWD: pathogen selection/screening.


4. How do adults use resources as they move in and out of the fields with other habitats?


5. Winter morphs captured through January but then can’t find them in early spring, instead find summer morphs in June. Is there a missing interim host? What are they doing during this time?Biology and Ecology Priorities

8. Elect a 2019 Chair

• Thanks to Bill Hutchison from the University of Minnesota for agreeing to be the 2019 WERA 1021 chair and the 2018 vice-chair.

 

                                            

 

Accomplishments

<p>Objective 1: <em>Improve our understanding of SWD populations and develop tools to accurately predict SWD risk.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></p><br /> <p>In 2016-2017, we made considerable strides toward understanding SWD biology and behavior, including insights useful for monitoring. Attracticidal spheres, pouches impregnated with pesticide, and traps were found to be effective for trapping and/or killing SWD. Although a good metric for monitoring, these were not found to be effective for management, as high trap catches did not correlate to reduced population sizes or infestation. It was discovered that counting only males in traps is a reliable method for monitoring. Male SWD are morphologically distinctive from other <em>Drosophila </em>spp., so the ability to accurately estimate population density based on this metric saves time and does not require specialized skills. Gravid females are attracted to raspberry baits, whereas unmated and starved SWD are attracted to fermentation lures, so use of each lure type may be of temporal or spatial importance. Trapping studies also demonstrated the importance of wild and unmanaged landscapes as refuge, especially for overwintering or when crop hosts are unavailable. Wooded and/or pine-dominated edges are especially attractive. In field studies, flies were found to travel up to 100m, and marked flies were found in traps 7.5 acres away from their release site. On a flight mill, an individual could travel up to 1.2 miles. Information about dispersal and preferred habitats can aid in the creation of tools that predict SWD risk.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Objective 2: <em>Optimize use of pesticides to reduce reliance upon them and disruption of beneficials.&nbsp;</em></p><br /> <p>Growers find insecticide application expensive and labor intensive, especially in small fruits where they rarely applied sprays prior to SWD infestation. Many growers are considering abandoning late-season varieties, as these require more pesticide application. Insecticide studies from multiple states and in multiple cropping systems demonstrated that insecticide efficacy varies widely, but overall, the need for a well-designed rotation of products is clear. Entrust, recognized as one of the more efficacious organic products considered, was found to lose efficacy at 5 days after treatment. Additionally, dense foliage can make spays ineffective, especially in the center of the canopy where SWD often reside. A higher carrier volume may aid in better spray coverage. A number of adjuvants were considered, but generally did not improve the insecticide, with the exception of sugar in some cases and NuFilm P in some cases. Adjuvant responses vary significantly between states/experiments.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Objective 3: <em>Develop non-pesticide based tactics for SWD management and evaluate sustainable SWD management programs to provide best management practices for SWD.&nbsp;<em>&nbsp;</em></em></p><br /> <p>Many groups worked to develop non-pesticide based management options in 2016-2017. An effective but labor-intensive strategy is to harvest more often. High tunnel exclusion was also beneficial but may be difficult to scale up. A multi-state collaboration on classical biological control demonstrated the challenges of this strategy. Natural parasitism rates are very low in the US, and candidate parasitoids failed to parasitize SWD in the laboratory. Work in this area is ongoing to identify efficacious candidate organisms. It is likely a complement of parasitoids that utilize different life stages (larval stage, pupal stage) is necessary for effective biological control. Microclimate manipulation may be possible in the canopy if pruning is heavy enough to affect light penetration. Increased temperatures or decreased relative humidity in the canopy may affect SWD ability to survive, develop, and reproduce. Floor management using mulches in blueberries may also impact SWD survival. Temperatures are higher above the mulch than below, and this is especially true when using a black fabric weedmat. The weedmat also acts as a physical barrier for larvae or pupae to get below the mulch where conditions are more favorable.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Objective 4: <em>Coordinate grant-funded research and extension efforts to minimize redundancy and ensure knowledge transfer.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></p><br /> <p>Zero tolerance for infestation and the increased financial and labor inputs required to manage SWD reduces growers&rsquo; profits and threatens U.S. fruit production. It is critical to continue to engage and inform growers as we learn more about this pest. In addition, we must share our results with other scientists and extension personnel who need to deliver relevant up-to-date research based information to their stakeholders. This year, many states spearheaded monitoring on a large scale to inform producers of SWD risk and help with timing of management. Communication of our findings was widespread and used several formats, including extension presentations and field days, journal publications, farm visits, media presentations, and scientific conferences. Some states reported survey results that highlight the impacts of this work. For instance, in Michigan, 92% of survey respondents used information provided about SWD to make management decisions, and 76% altered their insecticide programs based on recommendations. In Maryland, 65% of respondents expected information shared at extension meetings to benefit their operations, and 60% intended to share what they learned with other growers. At our 2017 meeting we were able to peer review 3 research protocols, update each other on collaborative research efforts, and start working towards research and extension priorities. This will facilitate SWD research and extension around the country and encourage collaborations to pursue future grant funding for SWD work. Collaboration is also evident in our impacts and publications, with many states contributing.</p>

Publications

<p><strong>WERA 1021 Publications: </strong></p><br /> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Peer Reviewed Manuscripts</span>:</p><br /> <ol><br /> <li>Avanesyan, A., Jaffe, B.D., and C. Gu&eacute;dot (2017) Isolating spermatheca and determining mating status of the invasive spotted wing drosophila, <em>Drosophila suzukii</em>: a protocol for tissue dissection and its applications. Insects: Special issue &ldquo;Invasive Insect Species&rdquo;. 8(1), 32; doi:10.3390/insects8010032. Invited paper.</li><br /> <li>Becher, P.*, and Hamby, K.A. 2016. Current knowledge of interactions between <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> and microbes, and their potential utility for pest management. Journal of Pest Science. Invited Review. Special Issue: Spotted wing Drosophila DOI: 10.1007/s10340-016-0768-1</li><br /> <li>Biondi, A., X. Wang, J.C. Miller, B. Miller, P.W. Shearer, L. Zappala, G. Siscaro, V.W. Walton, K.A. Hoelmer, and K.M. Daane. 2017. Innate olfactory responses of <em>Asobara japonica </em>toward fruits infested by the invasive spotted wing drosophila. Journal of Insect Behavior 30(5):495-506.</li><br /> <li>Fanning P, Grieshop M, Isaacs R. (2017) Efficacy of biopesticides on spotted wing drosophila, <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> Matsumura in fall red raspberries. Journal of Applied Entomology doi: 10.1111/jen.12426</li><br /> <li>Farnsworth, D.*, Hamby, K.A., Bolda, M., Goodhue, R., Williams, J., and Zalom, F. 2016. Economic analysis of revenue losses and control costs associated with the spotted wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Matsumura)) in the California raspberry industry. Pest Management Science. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4497</li><br /> <li>Hall, M., Loeb, G., Wilcox, W. 2017. Sour rot: etiology, biology, and management. Internet Journal of Enology &amp; Viticulture, 2017, N. 6/1.</li><br /> <li>Hamby, K.A.*, Bellamy, D.E., Chiu, J.C., Lee, J.C., Walton, V.M., Wiman, N.G., York, R.M., and Biondi, A. 2016. Biotic and abiotic factors impacting development, behavior, phenology, and reproductive biology of <em>Drosophila suzukii</em>. Journal of Pest Science. Invited Review. Special Issue: Spotted wing Drosophila DOI: 10.1007/s10340-016-0756-5</li><br /> <li>Haviland, D.R.*, Caprile, J.L., Rill, S.M., Hamby, K.A., and Grant, J.A. 2016. Phenology of spotted wing drosophila in the San Joaquin Valley varies by season, crop, and nearby vegetation. California Agriculture 70(1): 24-31. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v070n01p24</li><br /> <li>Hietala-Henschell K., Pelton E., and Gu&eacute;dot C. (2017) Susceptibility of aronia (Aronia melanocarpa) to <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Diptera:Drosophilidae). The Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society (<em>in press</em>)</li><br /> <li>Holle, S.G., E.C. Burkness, T.M. Cira, &amp; W.D. Hutchison. 2017. Influence of previous fruit injury on susceptibility to spotted wing Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) infestation in the Midwestern United States. J. Entomol. Sci. 52(3):207-215. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.18474/JES16-07PT.1</li><br /> <li>Huang, J., L.J. Gut, and M. Grieshop. 2017. Evaluation of food-based attractants for spotted wing drosophila, <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Envin Entomology. 46:878-884.</li><br /> <li>Kacar, G., X. Wang, A. Biondi, and K.M. Daane. 2017. Linear functional response by two pupal <em>Drosophila </em>parasitoids foraging within single or multiple patch environments. PLOS ONE 12(8).</li><br /> <li>Kirkpatrick, D.M., P.S. McGhee, LJ Gut, and JR Miller. 2017. Improving monitoring tools for spotted wing drosophila, <em>Drosophila suzukii</em>. Entomol. Exp ed Appl. 164 (<em>in press</em>)</li><br /> <li>Leach, H. J. Wise, and R. Isaacs (2017b). Reduced ultraviolet light transmission increased insecticide longevity in protected culture raspberry production. Chemosphere, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.09.086</li><br /> <li>Leach, H., Moses, E. P. Fanning, and R. Isaacs (2017a). Rapid harvest schedules and fruit removal as non-chemical approaches for managing spotted wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii</em>) in red raspberries. Journal of Pest Science, doi:10.007/s10340-017-0873-9.</li><br /> <li>Renkema, JM, Iglesias L, Bonneau P, Liburd, O. Trapping system comparisons for and factors affecting populations of <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> and <em>Zaprionus indianus</em> in Florida strawberry. Pest Management Science.</li><br /> <li>Rice, K.B., B.D. Short, and T.C. Leskey. 2017. Development of an attract-and-kill strategy for <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> to (Diptera: Drosophilidae): evaluation of attracticidal spheres under laboratory and field conditions. Journal of Economic Entomology 110: 535-542.</li><br /> <li>Rice, K.B., B.D. Short, S.K. Jones, and T.C. Leskey. 2016. Behavioral response of <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> to (Diptera: Drosophilidae) to visual stimuli under laboratory, semifield and field conditions. Environmental Entomology 45: 1480-1488.</li><br /> <li>Rice, K.B., S.K. Jones, W.R. Morrison, and T.C. Leskey. Spotted wing drosophila prefer low hanging fruit: insights into foraging behavior and management strategies. Insect behavior (<em>accepted</em>).</li><br /> <li>Rogers, M., E.C. Burkness &amp; W.D. Hutchison. 2016. Evaluation of high tunnels for management of <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> in fall-bearing red raspberries: Potential for reducing insecticide use. J. Pest Science. 89(3): 815-821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0731-1.</li><br /> <li>Stockton, DC &amp; Loeb, GM (2017). Refining the use of automatic sprayers in a push-pull system of oviposition disruption against <em>Drosophila suzukii.</em> (<em>In prep)</em></li><br /> <li>Van Timmeren, S. Diepenbrock LM, Bertone MA, Burrack, HJ, Isaacs R (2017a). A filter method for improved monitoring of <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Diptera: Drosophilidae) larvae in fruit. Journal of Integrated Pest Management doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmx019.</li><br /> <li>Van Timmeren, S. Mota-Sanchez, D., Wise, JC, and Isaacs (2017b). Baseline susceptibility of spotted wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii</em>) to four key insecticide classes. Pest Manag. Sci. (<em>accepted)</em> Author Manuscript doi:10.1002/ps/4702.</li><br /> <li>Wallingford, A., Lee, J, Loeb, G. 2016. The influence of temperature and photoperiod on the reproductive diapause and cold tolerance of spotted-wing drosophila, <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Matsumura). Entomologia Exerimentalis et Applicata, 159:327-337. DOI: 10.1093/jee/tow116.</li><br /> <li>Wallingford, A.K., Cha, D.H., and Loeb, G. 2017. Evaluating a push-pull strategy for management of <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> Matsumura in red raspberries. Pest Management Science, DOI: 10.1002/ps.4666.</li><br /> <li>Wallingford, A.K., Cha, D.H., Linn, C.E., Wolfin, M., and Loeb, G. 2017. Robust manipulations of pest insect behavior using repellents and practical application for integrated pest management. Environmental Entomology, doi: 10.1093/ee/nvx125.</li><br /> <li>Wiman, N.G., Dalton, D.T., Anfora, G., Biondi A, Chiu, J.C., Daane, K.M., Gerdeman, B., Gottardello, A., Hamby, K.A., Isaacs, R., Grassi, A., Ioriatti, C., Lee, J.C., Miller, B., Rossi Stacconi, M.V., Shearer, P.W., Tanigoshi, L., Wang, X., and V.M. Walton*. 2016. <em>Drosophila suzukii </em>population response to environment and management strategies. Journal of Pest Science. Special Issue: Spotted wing Drosophila DOI:10.1007/s10340-016-0757-4</li><br /> </ol><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Extension Publications:</span></p><br /> <ol><br /> <li>Alston, DG, LR Spears, C Nischwitz, and C Burfitt. 2016. Invasive fruit pest guide for Utah: insect and disease identification, monitoring, and management. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</li><br /> <li>Arsenault-Benoit, A., C. Taylor, B. Butler, and K. Hamby. 2017. Cultural controls for SWD management in blueberries and raspberries. University of Maryland Extension Vegetable and Fruit News: October 27, 2017.</li><br /> <li>Arsenault-Benoit, A., C. Taylor, B. Butler, and K. Hamby. 2017. Evaluating blueberry mulching practices on survival of spotted wing drosophila. University of Maryland Twilight Tours, WMREC August 17, 2017 and WyeREC August 2, 2017</li><br /> <li>Fraver, C., and Loeb, G. 2016. Can monitoring of adult SWD provide sufficient advanced warning? NYS Berry Grower's Association Newsletter, 2016 Issue, March 2016, p 1-3.</li><br /> <li>Hamby, K.A., and C.S. Swett. 2016. Partners in crime? Preliminary investigations into the interactions between SWD and fruit rots in fall red raspberries. The Bramble 31(1) Spring 2016.</li><br /> <li>Lewis, M., B. Butler, and K. Hamby. 2017. Optimizing carrier water volume for enhanced spray coverage in brambles. University of Maryland Twilight Tours, WMREC August 17, 2017 and WyeREC August 2, 2017.</li><br /> <li>Lewis, M., Butler, B., and K. Hamby. 2016. Optimizing carrier water volume for enhanced spray coverage in raspberries. University of Maryland Extension Vegetable and Fruit News: October 21, 2016 7(6): 24-27.</li><br /> <li>Michigan SWD Management Guide for cherries (2017 update)</li><br /> <li>MN Department of Agriculture Fruit IPM Newsletter (2-3x monthly)</li><br /> <li>Petran, A. and M. Rogers. 2017. Pruning and mulching for control of spotted wing drosophila: effects on fruit marketability and infestation. Am. Society for Horticultural Science, Sept. 19-22, Waikoloa, HI.</li><br /> <li>Riggs, D., Loeb, G., Hesler, S., and McDermott, L. 2016. Using insect netting on existing bird netting support systems to exclude spotted wing drosophila (SWD) from a small scale commercial highbush blueberry planting. NY Fruit Quarterly 24: 9-14.</li><br /> <li>Spears LR, C Cannon, DG Alston, RS Davis, C Stanley-Stahr and RA Ramirez 2017. Spotted wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii</em>). Fact Sheet ENT-187-17. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</li><br /> <li>Spears, LR, R Davis, DG Alston, and RA Ramirez. 2016. First detector guide to invasive insects: biology, identification, and monitoring. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</li><br /> <li>Taylor, C. Butler, B., and K. Hamby. 2016. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the mulch: How mulching practices affect spotted wing drosophila survival in blueberries. University of Maryland Extension Vegetable and Fruit News: October 21, 2016 7(6):1-3.</li><br /> <li>Wallingford, A. and Loeb, G. Spotted wing drosophila winter biology. 2016. NY Fruit Quarterly. NY Fruit Quarterly 24 (3): 11-13.</li><br /> <li>Wallingford, A., and Loeb, G. Spotted wing drosophila winter biology. 2016. NYS Berry Growers Association Newsletter, 2016 Issue 2, April 2016, p 1 -3.</li><br /> </ol><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Impact Statements

1. The WERA 1021 Annual meeting was attended by 46 individuals from 16 states and 5 countries. Representatives from seven states shared their work through a poster session during the meeting, and state reports from 14 states were included in the state report booklet.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Although a formal list of attendees was not kept, attendance averaged ~80 researchers during the meeting.

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

<p><strong><em>WERA 1021 Accomplishments:</em></strong></p><br /> <p>Objective 1: <em>Improve our understanding of SWD populations and develop tools to accurately predict SWD risk. </em></p><br /> <p>Given the polyphagous nature of this pest, a central theme in recent SWD research has been on population monitoring in alternative hosts. Trapping efforts have been increasingly concentrated in wild areas, with honeysuckle proving to be an especially important host. On the other hand, some commercial hosts have been more carefully examined in light of grower concerns (e.g., tart cherries). Researchers have increasingly recognized, however, that trapping networks are not always sufficient to accurate predict risks of SWD infestation to fruit growers; therefore, increased efforts were made to implement in-fruit larval sampling in commercial crops. This additional information was communicated directly to growers.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Objective 2: <em>Optimize use of pesticides to reduce reliance upon them and disruption of beneficials.</em></p><br /> <p>Several aspects of SWD biology and management suggest that the risk of insecticide resistance in this pest is of paramount concern: (1) therapeutic insecticide use remains the primary management approach, with a &lsquo;zero-tolerance&rsquo; threshold for pest presence; (2) SWD has numerous generations per year, which could accelerate the rate of resistance spread; and (3) documentation of lower susceptibility to spinosad in California SWD populations. Participating researchers have responded to this threat through the development and implementation of the RAPID assessment method for insecticide susceptibility. In addition, researchers have been examining both new products for SWD control (e.g., Spear-T derived from spider venom; essential oils as repellents), as well as techniques that may increase the effectiveness of current products (e.g., adding feeding stimulants to increase effectiveness of marginally-effective insecticides; modifications of equipment to increase spray coverage). Taken together, these efforts illustrate the effectiveness of collaborative research in both the development of novel chemical treatments and the preservation of existing options.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Objective 3: <em>Develop non-pesticide based tactics for SWD management and evaluate sustainable SWD management programs to provide best management practices for SWD. </em></p><br /> <p>The heavy reliance on chemical control for SWD has made the development of non-chemical control strategies a critical research goal. Several different strategies have been investigated by participating researchers, including (but not limited to):</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Exclusion via mesh netting</span>. While this technique has consistently shown promise in the reduction of SWD infestation levels in various crops, researchers have also noted important considerations in the future refinement of this method. These include: (1) inability to prevent all infestations (likely due to volunteer fruit); and (2) the need to add pollinators to maintain yield.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Mulches and soil amendments</span>. Black plastic mulch has been shown to be an effective agent of microclimatic change that is detrimental to SWD. One particularly interesting mechanism is its potential as a barrier to soil pupation by SWD larvae. Furthermore, preliminary research is ongoing to assess the potential effects of biochar on SWD management. This soil additive has many benefits (e.g., C-sequestration; water and nutrient retention), however, its impact on SWD management is unknown.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Changes in crop architecture</span>. A major emphasis was placed this year on the impacts of pruning on SWD infestations. Results appear mixed so far; while some studies suggest no clear reduction in SWD infestations due to pruning, other studies in cherries and highbush blueberries report sufficient microclimatic changes to reduce larval populations (in cherries, for example, the removal of 10 limbs is needed to gain this benefit, coupled with regular mowing).</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <ul><br /> <li><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Biological control</span>. The effectiveness of native parasitoid wasps against SWD continue to be monitored to provide a baseline for potential future classical biological control releases. In addition, the nitidulid <em>Glischrochilus quadrisignatus</em> may contribute to natural levels of SWD mortality. Preliminary studies show that infested blueberries were nearly completely devoured in the presence of this beetle.</li><br /> </ul><br /> <p><em>&nbsp;</em></p><br /> <p>Objective 4: <em>Coordinate grant-funded research and extension efforts to minimize redundancy and ensure knowledge transfer. </em></p><br /> <p>The SWD community has continued to embrace the philosophy of coordinated efforts, both in the research and extension arenas. Several multiregional grants have been pursued this year, and information has been shared within regions in a timely fashion (e.g., extension updates within North Central region; maintenance of Northeast IPM SWD Working Group). Ensuring of knowledge transfer to end-users has also been a major goal. For example, Michigan State University has employed a Systems Science approach to SWD management, with one key recent outcome being targeted training in viewing insecticide recommendations as dynamic versus prescriptive. The results of this training are particularly encouraging, with growers showing decreased pest levels and treatment costs.</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Publications

Impact Statements

1. WERA 1021 has continued to have far-reaching impacts for the small fruit industry in the US. Farmers and consumers have benefitted in several important ways, including (but limited to): (1) improved pest monitoring recommendations through studies of trap efficacy (both in terms of lures and trap design) and regular deposition of catch data by researchers (e.g., University of Minnesota Fruit Edge website); (2) improvement of resistance monitoring through a simple bioassay (RAPID; see above); and (3) improvement of recommendations for cultural control methods against SWD (e.g., exclusion netting; mulches; pruning). Participating researchers report regular hosting of in-person extension opportunities, as well as bulletins and newsletters for growers. The 2018 WERA 1021 meeting in Vancouver, BC, Canada brought considerable attention to SWD management, with 12 oral presentations offered during the symposium. Covered topics included: (1) updates from two major multistate grants (SCRI and OREI); (2) basic biology of the pest (e.g., overwintering; spatial ecology); and (3) overviews on the current state of cultural control techniques and insecticide resistance management.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

1. Dominique Ebbenga, University of Minnesota;
2. Hannah Burrack, NC State University;
3. Greg Loeb, Cornell University;
4. Frank Zalom, UC Davis;
5. Dara Stockton, Cornell University;
6. Pablo Urbaneja-Bernat;
7. Pierre Girod, Rutgers University;
8. Tim Johnson, Marrone Bio Innovations;
9. Stephen Cook, University of Idaho;
10. Larry Gut, Michigan State University;
11. Shaohui Wu, University of Georgia;
12. Zain Syed, University of Kentucky;
13. Valerio Rossi Stacconi, Oregon State University;
14. Kent Daane, UC Cooperative Extension;
15. Diane Alston, Utah State University;
16. Christelle Guedot, University of Wisconsin;
17. Doug Pfeiffer, Virginia Tech;
18. Ben Jaffe, University of Wisconsin;
19. Todd Schlenke, University of Arizona;
20. Nikhil Mallampalli, EPA;
21. Peter Ridland, University of Melbourne;
22. Kelly Hamby, University of Maryland;
23. Craig Roubos, University of Georgia;
24. Heather Andrews, Oregon State University;
25. Jonathan Dregni, University of Minnesota;
26. Justin Renkema;
27. Steve Van Timmeren, Michigan State University;
28. Mark Asplen, Metropolitan State University;
29. Jana Lee, USDA

Brief Summary of Minutes

Annual Report & Minutes—2019

WERA 1021 Multi-state Research Project on Spotted-Wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukii

The annual meeting of WERA 1021 in 2019 was held in conjunction with the Annual Entomological Society of America (ESA) as a formal Organized Meeting on the program. The meeting, entitled “Organized Meeting: WERA 1021: An Update on Biological Control Research Against Spotted-Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii),” occurred Tuesday, 11/19/2019, from 1:30pm – 4:50 pm.  A composite project summary is given for each of the four objectives and lists of relevant publications and meeting attendees are also included as part of the report.

Meeting Agenda:

 

Concluding Remarks & Business Meeting Minutes: 

• Chair Asplen thanked all of the speakers for their excellent presentations, and then opened the business meeting. The central question discussed related to the format of the meeting.  Attendees enjoyed the format of a specific research focus (e.g., biological control), however, there was considerable discussion of how these meetings should move forward.  Several ideas were discussed, including: (1) the use of central research themes that are used at all future meetings, with one to two presentations covering each theme; (2) fewer presentations with more time for discussion of ideas; (3) continued use of a central theme, as used in the 2019 meeting. Attendees agreed that discussion of any changes should occur via online polling after the meeting. 

• Food and drinks were not offered at the 2019 meeting in an effort to lower costs. As a result, no meeting fee was required for attendees. This change was overwhelming supported, and will be adopted moving forward. 

• Jana Lee, USDA, was elected as the next Chair for 2020. Hannah Burrack, North Carolina State University, was elected as the next Vice Chair for 2020. Each agreed to conduct the online polling regarding the structure of the next meeting. 

• Chair Asplen adjourned the meeting at 4:30 PM.

Accomplishments

<p>Objective 1: <em>Improve our understanding of SWD populations and develop tools to accurately predict SWD risk. </em></p><br /> <p>Multi-state trapping efforts have continued across the soft fruit growing regions of the country. With greater advances in trapping technology, emphasis has increasingly switched from using simple homemade baits (e.g., apple cider vinegar, yeast cultures) to commercially available lures. Also of note has been a marked increase in studies of putative overwintering populations of SWD, which has come with a greater understanding of the &lsquo;winter morph&rsquo; of the pest.</p><br /> <p>Objective 2: <em>Optimize use of pesticides to reduce reliance upon them and disruption of beneficials.</em></p><br /> <p>Novel insecticides have been examined against SWD during this period, showing that (at least in lab trials) Erythritol and novaluron increased SWD mortality. In addition, to better serve the needs of organic growers, essential oil impacts were assessed in raspberry. Promising results were found for Ecotrol Plus (rosemary, geraniol, and peppermint blend) in field raspberry trials. Finally, new research indicates the critical importance of spray coverage in increasing effectiveness against SWD adults in existing chemical control programs.</p><br /> <p>Objective 3: <em>Develop non-pesticide based tactics for SWD management and evaluate sustainable SWD management programs to provide best management practices for SWD. </em></p><br /> <p>Research efforts on putative biological control agents for SWD continue, including: (1) augmentative releases of the generalist pupal parasitoid <em>Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae</em>, (2) sentinel trapping for parasitoids in Hawai&rsquo;i&rsquo;, which revealed a different strain of the larval parasitoid <em>Ganapsis brasiliensis </em>than the one being examined for release in the mainland US, (3) the demonstration of lacking effectiveness of the entomopathogen <em>Beauveria bassiana </em>in field cages. Another major research effort has been in the use of chemical repellents (anthracnose, azadirechtin, &lsquo;JZX&rsquo;, &lsquo;DCX&rsquo;) and mulches (plastics, biochar) as forms of cultural control against SWD.</p><br /> <p>Objective 4: <em>Coordinate grant-funded research and extension efforts to minimize redundancy and ensure knowledge transfer. </em></p><br /> <p>Members from the University of Wisconsin, Michigan State University, and Cornell University have come together to develop and submit a SCRI SREP proposal addressing SWD population dynamic and management. Multistate efforts also continue through the OREI program, led out of the University of Georgia.</p>

Publications

<p><strong>WERA 1021 Publications (Research &amp; Extension Combined): </strong></p><br /> <p>Alston DG, LR Spears, C Nischwitz, and C Burfitt. 2016. Invasive fruit pest guide for Utah: insect and disease identification, monitoring, and management. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</p><br /> <p>Cha, D.H., Hesler, S.P., Brind&rsquo;Amour, G., Wentworth, K., Villani, S., Cox, K., Boucher, M., Wallingford, A., Park, S., Nyrop, J., and Loeb, G. 2019. Evidence for contextural avoidance of the ubiquitous phytopathogen <em>Botrytis cinerea </em>by <em>Drosophila suzukii.</em>&nbsp; Insect Science DOI: 10.1111/1744-7917.12691.</p><br /> <p>Cloonan, K.R, Hern&aacute;ndez-Cumplido, J., Viana de Sousa, A.L., Ramalho, D.G., Burrack, H.J, Diepenbrock, L.M, Drummond, F.A., Gut, L.J., Issacs, R, Loeb, G.M, Nielsen. A.L, Nitzsche, P., Syed, Z^., Wallingford, A.K.¹, Walton, V.M., and Rodriguez-Saona, C. 2019. Laboratory and field evaluation of host-related foraging odor cue combinations to attract <em>Drosophila suzukii </em>(Diptera: Drosophilidae). J Economic Entomology, In Press.</p><br /> <p>Digiacomo, Gigi, J. Hadrich, W.D. Hutchison, H. Peterson, &amp; M. Rogers. 2019. Economic impact of Sotted Wing Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) yield loss on Minnesota raspberry farms: A grower survey. J. Integ. Pest Mgmt. 10(1): 11, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz006">https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz006</a></p><br /> <p>Ebbenga, D., E.C. Burkness &amp; W.D. Hutchison. 2019.&nbsp; Exclusion netting as an alternative management strategy for Spotted-wing Drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in wine grapes. J. Econ. Entomol.&nbsp; 112(5): 2287&ndash;2294.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Gustafson, M.G., M.A. Rogers, E.C. Burkness &amp; W.D. Hutchison. 2019. Efficacy of organic and conventional insecticides for <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> when combined with erythritol, a non-nutritive feeding stimulant. Crop Protection. 125:&nbsp; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.104878">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.104878</a></p><br /> <p>Holle, S., A. Tran, D. Ebbenga, E.C. Burkness &amp; W.D. Hutchison. 2019. First detections of the African Fig Fly, Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Minnesota. J. Entomol. Sci. 54(1): 99-102.</p><br /> <p>Hutchison, WD, S Wold-Burkness, EC Burkness. 2019.&nbsp; Spotted-wing Drosophila Biology &amp; Management Guide. UMN Extension, St. Paul. (revised: also, Hmong, Spanish, Somali) <a href="https://www.fruitedge.umn.edu/swdbiology">https://www.fruitedge.umn.edu/swdbiology</a></p><br /> <p>Kamiyama M.T. and Gu&eacute;dot C. 2019. Varietal and developmental susceptibility of Wisconsin tart cherry (<em>Prunus cerasus</em>) to spotted wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii)</em>. Journal of Economic Entomology. 112:1789-1797. doi: 10.1093/jee/toz102</p><br /> <p>Kamiyama M.T., Schreiner Z., and Gu&eacute;dot C. 2019. Diversity and abundance of natural enemies of <em>Drosophila suzukii </em>in Wisconsin, USA fruit farms. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-019-09966-w</p><br /> <p>Klick, J., Rodriguez-Saona, C.R., Hern&aacute;ndez Cumplido, J., Holdcraft, R.J., Urrutia, W.H., da Silva, R.O., Borges, R., Mafra-Neto, A., and Seagraves, M.P. 2019. Testing a novel attract and kill strategy for <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Diptera: Drosophilidae) management. J. Insect Sci. 19(1): 3; 1&ndash;6. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/iey132.</p><br /> <p>Jaffe B.D. and Gu&eacute;dot C. 2019. Vertical and temporal distribution of spotted-wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii</em>) and pollinators within cultivated raspberries. Pest Management Science. DOI 10.1002/ps.5343</p><br /> <p>Lewis, M.T., and Hamby, K.A. 2019. Differential impacts of yeasts on feeding behavior and development in larval<em> Drosophila suzukii </em>(Diptera:Drosophilidae). <em>Scientific Reports: </em>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-48863-1</p><br /> <p>Lewis, M.T., Koivunen, E.E., Swett, C.L., and Hamby, K.A. 2019. Associations between <em>Drosophila suzukii</em> (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and fungi in raspberries. <em>Environmental Entomology:</em> 48(1): 68-79. DOI: 10.1093/ee/nvy167</p><br /> <p>Loeb, G., Carroll, J., Mattoon, N., Rodriguez-Saona, C., Polk, D., McDemott, L., Nielsen, A. 2019. Spotted wing drosophila IPM in raspberries and blackberries. Northeast IPM SWD Working Group, Northeastern IPM Center. <a href="https://www.northeastipm.org/ipm-in-action/publications/spotted-wing-drosophila-ipm-in-raspberries-and-blackberries/">https://www.northeastipm.org/ipm-in-action/publications/spotted-wing-drosophila-ipm-in-raspberries-and-blackberries/</a></p><br /> <p>Rendon, D., Hamby, K.A., Aresenault-Benoit, A.L.^@, Taylor, C.M.^, Evans, R.K., Roubos, C.R., Sial, A.A., Rogers, M., Petran, A., Van Timmeren, S., Fanning, P., Isaacs, R. and Walton, V. 2019. Mulching as a cultural control strategy for <em>Drosophila suzukii </em>in blueberry. <em>Pest Management Science: </em>DOI: 10.1002/ps.5512</p><br /> <p>Rendon, D., Walton, V., Tait, G., Buser, J., Lemos Souza, I., Wallingford, A. Loeb, G., and Lee, J.&nbsp; 2019. Interactions among morphotype, nutrition, and temperature impact fitness of an invasive fly.&nbsp; Ecology and Evolution. DOI:10.1002/ece3.4928</p><br /> <p>Rodriguez-Saona, C., Vincent, C., and Isaacs, R. 2019. Blueberry IPM: Past successes and future challenges. Annual Review of Entomology 64: 95&ndash;114.</p><br /> <p>Rodriguez- Saona, C., Cloonan, K.R., Sanchez-Pedraza, F., Zhou, Y., Giusti, M.M., and Benrey, B. 2019. Differential susceptibility of wild and cultivated blueberries to an invasive frugivorous pest. J. Chem. Ecol. 45: 286&ndash;297.</p><br /> <p>Rodriguez-Saona, C., D. Polk, and K. Cloonan. 2019. Using red sticky traps for spotted wing drosophila. Proceedings. Atlantic Coast Agricultural Convention and Trade Show. Atlantic City, New Jersey.&nbsp;</p><br /> <p>Rodriguez-Saona, C, C. Michel, and N. Firbas. 2019. Efficacy of traps for monitoring spotted wing drosophila. Proceedings. Atlantic Coast Agricultural Convention and Trade Show. Atlantic City, New Jersey.</p><br /> <p>Rodriguez-Saona, C., D. Polk, and K. Cloonan 2019. Trapping for SWD vs. Infestation in Blueberries. Proceedings of the Mid-Atlantic Fruit &amp; Vegetable Convention. Hershey, PA.</p><br /> <p>Rodriguez-Saona, C., Carroll, J., Mattoon, N., Polk, D., Loeb, G., McDemott, L., and Nielsen, A. 2019. Spotted wing drosophila IPM in blueberries. Northeast IPM SWD Working Group, Northeastern IPM Center. https://www.northeastipm.org/ipm-in-action/publications/spotted-wing-drosophila-ipm-in-blueberries/</p><br /> <p>Sch&ouml;neberg, T., and Hamby, K. 2019. Potential of trellising for cultural management of spotted-wing drosophila in blackberries and raspberries. University of Maryland Extension Vegetable and Fruit News October 2019 10(7):12-14.</p><br /> <p>Spears LR, DG Alston, E Brennan, C Cannon, J Caputo, R Davis, L Hebertson, C Keyes, J Malesky, D McAvoy, AM Mull, RA Ramirez, TM Rodman, and K Watson. 2019. First detector guide to invasive insects: biology, identification, and monitoring. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</p><br /> <p>Spears LR, C Cannon, DG Alston, RS Davis, C Stanley-Stahr, and RA Ramirez. 2017. Spotted wing drosophila (<em>Drosophila suzukii</em>). Fact Sheet ENT-187-17. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</p><br /> <p>Spears LR, R Davis, DG Alston, and RA Ramirez. 2016. First detector guide to invasive insects: biology, identification, and monitoring. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension</p><br /> <p>Spears LR and RA Ramirez. 2014. Invasive insect field guide for Utah. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</p><br /> <p>Stanley C. 2012. Monitoring for spotted wing drosophila in Utah. Fact Sheet ENT-161-12. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</p><br /> <p>Stanley C. 2011. Trapping and identifying spotted wing drosophila. Video Fact Sheet. Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory and USU Extension.</p><br /> <p>Stockton, D., Brown, R., and Loeb, G.&nbsp; 2019. Not very hungry? Discovering the hidden food sources of a small fruit specialist, Drosophila suzukii. Ecological Entomology, DOI: 10.1111/een.12766.</p><br /> <p>Stockton, D., Wallingford, A., Rendon, D., Fanning, P., Green, C., Diepenbrock, L., Ballman, E., Walton, V., Isaacs, R., Leach, H., Drummond, F., Burrack, H, &amp; Loeb, G. 2019. Interactions between biotic and abiotic factors affect survival in overwintering Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura). Environmental Entomology, doi: 10.1093/ee/nvy192.</p><br /> <p>Swett, C.L., Hamby, K.A., Hellman, E.M., Carignan, C., Bourret, T.B., and Koivunen, E.E. 2019. Characterizing members of the <em>Cladosporium cladosporioides </em>species complex as fruit rot pathogens of red raspberries in the Mid-Atlantic and co-occurrence with <em>Drosophila suzukii </em>(spotted wing drosophila). <em>Phytoparasitica: </em>77: 415-428. DOI: 10.1007/s12600-019-00734-1</p><br /> <p>Tran, A.K., W.D. Hutchison &amp; M.K. Asplen. 2020. Morphometric criteria to differentiate Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) seasonal morphs. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0228780. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228780">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228780</a></p>

Impact Statements

1. The 2019 WERA 1021 meeting in Saint Louis, MO brought considerable attention to the biological control arena of SWD management, with 7 oral presentations offered during the symposium. Covered topics included: (1) the state of the current classical biological control effort for SWD, (2) an overview of the general mechanisms by which Drosophila species protect themselves from parasitoid attack, which could lead to new research in the SWD system, and (3) updates on the traditionally less-emphasized areas of augmentative and conservation biological control in SWD research.

Back to top