National IPM Initiative Phase I Projects Development and Implementation of an Expanded IPM Program for Grapes in the Great Lake States PROJECT SUMMARY

Michigan IPM Program

Ohio IPM Program

Contents

Project Title	Project Leader	Participation	Current Status
The Potential for Expanding Great Lakes Grape IPM Programs through Future Research and Implementation Efforts: Major research areas and themes : initial discussion Ideas for improved implementation : initial discussion Evaluation procedure for future programs: initial discussion Specific research projects proposed Suggestions for improved implementation : specific suggestions Evaluation of expanded IPM program efforts: specific suggestions			Executive Summary

Project Title

Project Leader:

Wayne F. Wilcox; Professor, Department of Plant Pathology; Cornell University, NY State Agricultural Experiment Station; Geneva, NY 14456

Participation

On December 12-13, 1995, 30 researchers, extension specialists, growers, processor representatives, and private pest management consultants met to discuss the current status and future direction of grape IPM programs in the Great Lakes States. Participating individuals represented the juice, bulk wine, and premium wine segments of the industry from all major production districts in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

Back to the Table of Contents

---

I. CURRENT STATUS

The current status of grape IPM programs was discussed within the framework of perceptions concerning "What's working" and "What isn't working". In the former category, the following elements were considered current successes by at least one participant; there was no effort to rank the impact of these elements:

¥ Emphasis on early season control of powdery mildew

¥ Grape berry moth risk assessment procedures

¥ Increased use of weather equipment

¥ Leafhopper assessment programs

¥Standard protectant fungicide programs

¥ Post-infection disease control programs

¥ Regionalization of some research/extension programs

¥ "Organic" production programs

With respect to perceptions of IPM elements that currently are not functioning adequately, suggestions were made and participants were asked to vote for the three elements that they agreed were the most significant. Thus, the following elements are listed in descending order of agreement with the suggestion that they currently are "not working", with the number of respondents who voted to agree with this sentiment provided in parentheses:

¥ IPM programs need to be better matched with economic reality (19)

¥ There is a lack of integration of diverse IPM information (13)

¥ Grower adoption of current IPM programs is less than desired (10)

¥ Spray application technology/use thereof is inadequate (8)

¥ Traditional pre-emergence weed control programs are failing (7)

¥ Biological control is insufficient (6)

¥ Insufficient validation and/or lack of multiple pest integration for thresholds and models used in making treatment decisons (6)

¥ Problems with control of secondary pests (2)

The group drew three main conclusions based upon the preceeding discussion of the status of current grape IPM programs:

(1) There is a gap between the technical information that is produced and grower utilization thereof

(2) There are more gaps in the knowledge base of these programs than many proponents acknowledge

(3) For a significant number of growers, the current risk/benefit ratio is considered unfavorable or is unknown

Based upon these discussions, four main areas were identified as needing to be addressed in order to expand grape IPM programs in the region:

(1) The supporting science needs to be expanded and improved

(2) Disparate elements of IPM programs need to be better integrated and delivered more overtly as a single unified program

(3) Increased attention needs to be paid to assure that grape IPM programs are economical

(4) Reasons for nonadoption by growers need to be determined and addressed

Back to the Table of Contents

These four areas then were addressed individually, discussing the specific needs of each, as listed below.

Supporting Science Needs

(1) Improved pesticide application technology

(2) Entomology

¥ Grape berry moth--better sampling tools

¥ Other pests--needs are variable by region

¥ Threshold refinement--for all pests

(3) Plant Pathology

¥ Better integration of disease control programs with those for arthropods

¥ Phomopsis--why the apparent differences between New York and Michigan?

¥ General disease biology--improved local/regional understanding for all major diseases

(4) Floor management/weed control

¥ Better understanding of seasonal influence of weed competition

¥ Better understanding of limitations/failures of traditional programs

¥ Better integration with related factors, e.g., vine water and nutrition status, habitat for beneficial organisms

(5) Crop biology

¥ Optimized timing of nitrogen inputs

¥ Develop integrated stress thresholds

¥ Better understanding of crop response to pests

(6) General

¥ Biological control options

¥ Ecological/multidisciplinary approach to crop management

¥ Movement towards site-specific management methodology

Back to the Table of Contents

Needs for/Problems with Integration of IPM Elements (return the "I" to IPM!)

(1) Research

¥ RISK ASSESSMENT--need to consider pest management within the framework of crop load and economic variables in addition to pest forecasts

¥ How to integrate research across regions, disciplines, institutions?

Infrastructure problems

Evaluation problems (rewards, incentives)

"The System", academic training favor component- over interdisciplinary research

(2) Implementation

¥ How to deliver integrated research to growers and advisors?

Tools are available: production guides, newsletters, meetings, computer technology, consultants

¥ How to deliver to a reduced or scattered audience?

"Distance learning", electronic delivery will need to substitute for human touch (trend towards reduced public staffing, economic realities for consultants)

Needs to Address Economic Concerns

¥ Elaborate on the economics of production--distinguish between low, medium, high value crops

¥ Employ marginal analyses of IPM versus "conventional" elements

¥ Risk analysis--"full" chemical program versus IPM, "what if" partial failures?

¥ Economic analyses of new technologies, e.g., advanced sprayer systems

¥ Economic effects of variations in spray coverage

What Is Needed for Grower Adoption of IPM Programs?

¥ MUST BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE!

¥ AVOID EXCLUSIVE FOCUS ON PESTICIDE REDUCTION

Need more emphasis on crop management and quality

¥ Must be believable, proven in on-farm trials

¥ Most likely to be accepted if easy to understand and implement

¥ Provide reference materials

¥ Must be truly INTEGRATED

---

II. The Potential for Expanding Great Lakes IPM Programs Through Future Research and Implementation Efforts

Potential future efforts towards expanding grape IPM programs were discussed first in a general manner, identifying major areas and themes for research , implementation, and evaluation. Subsequently, specific projects were proposed.

Initial Discussion: Major Research Areas and Themes

Develop action thresholds that account for crop load and growing conditions

Compare and validate current predictive models

Develop tools for improved delivery of IPM information

• Explore the efficacy of WWW-like delivery systems

Phylloxera

Effect of seasonal weather variations on primary inoculum availability

Improved economic analysis of IPM decisions

Integrating floor management

Evaluation of sprayer technology and sprayer systems

Identify noncompetitive cover crops

Economic impact of variable levels of disease severity

Impact of inoculum load on necessary intensity of disease control efforts

Integrated control for Botrytis

Leafhoppers

Eutypa

Influence of vine nutritional status

 

Initial Discussion: Ideas for Improved Implementation

MORE ON-FARM DEMONSTRATIONS, BOTH COMPONENT AND IPM SYSTEMS

Expand weather networks

Make more video/CD information available

Develop a regional IPM bulletin

Help develop incentive programs for adoption

Finish VITIS expert system

Develop standardized scouting protocols

Organize, present Grape IPM Symposium

Establish regional grower teams

 

Initial Discussion on Procedures for Evaluation of Future Grape IPM Programs

Establish a baseline of IPM adoption

Define "success", adoption, determine which parameters to measure

Survey changing practices

Define "traditional", "IPM"

Analyze as a case study, determine what happened as a result of the program

Economic analysis

Guage changes in attitudes

Measure/monitor changes in pesticide use, yields, quality, prices

Determine which components have, have not been adopted

 

Specific Research Projects Proposed

Evaluate diseases, arthropods, weeds as plant stress factors with respect to vine performance

Evaluate spray application technologies with respect to pest control

Evaluate the distribution of risk factors (inoculum, climate, crop phenology) with respect to disease development

Better determine individual pesticide characteristics

• Physical modes of action
• Resistance
• Biologicals and biorationals

Evaluate stresses induced by root pests

Better determine the interactive effects of crop load, leaf area, seasonal influences on yield and quality, use information to better guage effects of pest-induced stress

Evaluate alternative vineyard floor management techniques

 

Specific Suggestions for Improved Implementation

Design an incremental system for adoption of IPM techniques, approaches

Develop a network of implementation workers
Use electronic communications for rapid, cheap exchange of information

Foster a grower-to-grower information exchange network

Assess and compile current academic knowledge and delivery systems

Assess and compile current grower knowledge

Foster and utilize private sector practitioners (crop management associations, consultants) to provide information used in making IPM-based decisions

Establish on-farm demonstrations

 

Specific Suggestions for Evaluation of Expanded IPM Program Efforts

Establish an immediate baseline--what is the current level of adoption

Define objectives and how to measure them before starting

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It must be recognized that this group represented a very broad range of organizations, disciplines, philosophies, and geographical orientations. In some cases, calls for specific actions were made by individuals from one specific production region even though such actions were already underway in another. Furthermore, the electronic communications revolution already has begun to address certain calls for improved information delivery and networking that were more abstractly proposed in late 1995. Unfortunately, budget constraints and institutional "downsizing" have not allowed the scientific foundation of grape IPM programs to advance at the same pace as the tools available for their delivery.

Three major themes were reiterated by grape growers and their consultants--i.e., the "customers" of IPM programs--throughout the two days of discussion:

(1) View the vine as the ultimate integrator of pest management efforts. Disease, arthropod, and weed pests are important only to the extent that they affect the vine and crop.

(2) Grape IPM programs will be better received and are more likely to be adopted if they are focused on improving crop quality rather than merely reducing pesticide use.

(3) For grape IPM programs to be widely adopted, they must be economically competitive with "conventional" approaches and growers must be convinced that they do not entail unnecessary (or unrewarded) risk.

---

Links

Top of this page

Back to the Table of Contents

Index of Northeast Region Phase I Projects

IPM in the Northeast Region

About this Page