Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project

BMSB in Vineyards and Wines

Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project

BMSB in Vineyards and Wines

Contributors: Doug Pfeiffer (Virginia Tech, coordinator) Joe Fiola, Bill Lamp, Karen Rane (Univ. Maryland) Anne Nielsen, Dean Polk, Bryan Petty, Dan Ward (Rutgers Univ.) Michael Saunders, Jody Timer (Pennsylvania State Univ.) Chris Hedstrom, Pallavi Mohekar, Nik Wiman, Elizabeth Tomasino and Vaughn Walton (Oregon State Univ.)

Research Questions for BMSB in Vineyards

Phenology, Impact in Vineyards Economic Impact:

Injury to berries Introduction of rots, other pathogens Delays in postharvest sorting Contamination of wine at crush Nuisance in wine tasting rooms

Control tactics

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

30-M

ay

13-J

un

27-J

un

11-J

ul

25-J

ul

8-A

ug

22-A

ug

5-Se

p

Mea

n H

. hal

ys

Adults

Nymphs

Eggs

Phenology in vineyard 1

5/3…

6/1…

6/2…

7/1…

7/2…

8/8…

8/2…

9/5…

2012 2013

Surrounded by woods all sides, Virginia

High pressure at harvest (1 pesticide application)

Low pressure at harvest (2 pesticide applications)

Phenology of BMSB in Vineyard 2

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Mea

H.h

alys

per

vin

eyar

d

Adults Nymph Eggs

2012 2013

High pressure at harvest

Low pressure at harvest (one pesticide application)

Surrounded by woods three sides, pasture the fourth

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Mea

n H

. hal

ys p

er v

iney

ard

Adult Nymph Egg

Phenology of BMSB in Vineyard 3, 2013

Low pressure during harvest, high BMSB in adjacent Soybean

Most abundant in white grapes, from mid-June to mid-July and from mid-August to mid-September

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2012 BMSB abundance 2013 BMSB abundance #

BMSB

#

BMSB

Photo: Walton

Oregon: Populations build up in late season

Photo’s: Walton

Pheromone-baited pyramid traps and systematic beat sheeting

Edge effects, 2012/2013 • Edge & middle Weekly three-minute timed count

visual sampling

Border section Middle rows

Edge

Edge effect

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Edge

Middle

5/31

/201

3 6/

7/20

13

6/14

/201

3 6/

21/2

013

6/28

/201

3 7/

4/20

13

7/12

/201

3 7/

18/2

013

7/26

/201

3 8/

1/20

13

8/8/

2013

8/

15/2

013

8/22

/201

3 8/

29/2

013

9/5/

2013

9/

12/2

013

• There was significant edge effect regardless of the time 2012 (F = 1.62, df = 3.2, 26.2 and P = 0.20) 2013(F = 1.4, df = 4.2, 33.8 and P = 0.02).

2012 F = 47.45, df = 1, 8, P = 0.0095

2013 F = 21.35, df = 1,8, P = 0.0017

BMSB

abu

ndan

ce

Key phenological trends • Egg masses collected from early June to mid-

July • Populations peaking at early veraison • BMSB high at harvest depending on control

program • BMSB abundance inside vineyards affected by

surrounding landscapes

Research Questions for BMSB in Vineyards

Phenology, Impact in Vineyards Economic Impact:

Injury to berries Introduction of rots, other pathogens Delays in postharvest sorting Contamination of wine at crush Nuisance in wine tasting rooms

Control tactics

Injury to the berries

Presence of stylet sheaths

Photo’s, Chris Hedstrom

BMSB Lab Surveys & Choice Tests

• Significantly more BMSB seen on Chambourcin, Merlot, and Traminette

• Significant difference in stylet sheaths by variety

• Presence doesn’t indicate feeding

# BM

SB

# St

ylet

She

aths

Growth stage and varietal damage

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cabernet Sauvignon Seyval blanc Cabernet Sauvignon Seyval blanc

Man

ber

reis

pun

ctur

ed

Peasized

Veraison

Pre-harvest

ab

a

a

b

a

ab

b

b

b

b

b

b

2012 2013 Developmental stages 2012: F = 5.30; df = 2,2; P < 0.05, 2013: F = 5.07; df = 2, 2; P < 0.05; Variety 2012: F = 8.08; df = 1, 1; P < 0.05, 2013: F = 9.54; df = 2, 2; P < 0.05

BMSB Controlled exposure studies

• Chardonnay and Traminette had higher damage than Chambourcin and Cabernet Sauvignon

• Grapes most susceptible to damage once veraison begins

• Majority of damage as aborted berries (up to mean 54%) and necrosis

• Both adult and nymph BMSB capable of causing damage at low abundance - 2/cluster

• Increasing amounts of sour rot with BMSB feeding density – Especially prevalent in Traminette and

Chardonnay

Photo, Walton

Controlled BMSB Exposure 2012, 2013 • Treatments: 0 BMSB = Control 1 BMSB = Low 2 BMSB = High • Three distinct exposure periods:

Pea size (Jul 23, 2012; Jul 15, 2013), Véraison (Aug 25, 2012; Aug 4, 2013) Pre-harvest (Sept, 28 2012; Sept 15, 2013)

• Clusters exposed to BMSB for 7 days, sleeve feeding • Analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD to separate means

Photo, Walton

Determination of direct impact: Crop quality most important Crop quality

Mean cluster weight Mean number of berries per cluster Mean weight of berries Mean number of dropped berries at harvest. Mean number of BMSB punctures per cluster. Mean number of discolored berries per cluster. Mean number of raisin berries per cluster.

2012 Crop Year, Pinot noir

Treatment Berries/cluster

Punctures N

Pea stage 73.6±5.5 a 2.7±1.1 b 18

Veriason 70.9±4.6 a 6±4.8 a 21

Pre harvest 79.9±5.5 a 3.4±1.6 ab 20

Control 80.1±5.4 a 0.3±0.2 b 10

2013 Crop year, Pinot noir

Treatment Berries/clust

er Punctures

N

Pea stage 1/Cluster 102.9±6 a 0.2±0.1 a 15

PS 2/Clus 107.4±6.7 a 1.1±0.5 a 15

Veriason 1/Cluster 97.7±6.7 a 0.2±0.1 a 15

Ver 2/Clus 108.6±9 a 0 b 13

Pre harvest 1/Clus 100.6±7.8 a 0.1±0.1 a 15

PH 2/Clus 93±8.5 a 0.7±0.4 a 15

Control 94.6±7.5 a 0 b 15

Research Questions for BMSB in Vineyards

Phenology, Impact in Vineyards Economic Impact:

Injury to berries Introduction of rots, other pathogens Delays in postharvest sorting Contamination of wine at crush Nuisance in wine tasting rooms

Control tactics

Stink bug impacts on grapes • Contamination (defensive volatiles):

– Physical: bugs clinging to clusters at harvest. Mechanical harvest increases contamination.

– Chemical: excretion of defensive volatile chemicals can contaminate fruit, juice, and wine?

• Harvest, packing, handling can trigger release

= taint Impacts are poorly

understood, no damage thresholds

Dr. Elizabeth Tomasino

• New OSU faculty with wine sensory analysis and flavor chemistry expertise

• Research question: will BMSB contamination result in wine taint?

• High quality Pinot Noir • Donated by Adelsheim Vineyard

Tetradecane

Trans-2-decenal

Dodecane Trans-2-octenal

• Step 1: Characterize BMSB defensive compounds

• GCMS chromatogram of the volatile aroma compounds excreted by “stressed” BMSB

STRONG AROMA: “pungent”, “cilantro”

WEAK AROMA: “citrus”, “fresh”

• Stinkbugs added to Pinot noir grapes before wine processing

• Taint in destemmer • Taint in pressing (dead and

some alive) • Treatments:

• Control – no bugs • (T1) – 1 bug per 4 clusters • (T2) – 1 bug per 2 clusters

Treatments

Fairly high densities, but not entirely unreasonable considering potential BMSB densities

Photo, Wiman

Taint in destemming

We found BMSB surviving destemming process

Photo, Walton

Phot

o, W

iman

Simulating cluster contamination Cold soak process containing bugs

Taint compounds released again during pressing, despite majority dead bug presence

Photo, Walton

Tetradecane

Trans-2-decenal

Dodecane Trans-2-octenal

What made it into finished wine? • GCMS chromatogram of the

finished wine (and at fermentation intervals).

Present in wine, unknown effect Main taint components

A) Difference testing (triangle tests) showed that consumers could tell a difference between the treatment wines and the control (significant at α=0.05).

B) Consumer rejection threshold found to be very close to the detection threshold, even even low amounts of BMSB taint have a negative impact on Pinot noir quality.

Sensory Panel Evaluation

A B

Conclusions on wine taint • BMSB taint is real! Other

processes and varieties may change the results. – Masked fruity characteristics of

the wine – Contrasts with results from MD

• Consumer rejection: as soon as it’s detectable, it’s rejectable – Opportunity to link detection

thresholds in wine to density of insects in the field

– This may become the treatment threshold for vineyard managers

Will chemistry have a solution?

Nuisance factor