new pesticide registrations
play

New Pesticide Registrations For BC Seed Orchards Ward Strong - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

New Pesticide Registrations For BC Seed Orchards Ward Strong BCFLNRO Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong URMULE: User Requested Minor Use Label Expansion User Requested: thats us! Minor Use: a crop thats too small to be of


  1. New Pesticide Registrations For BC Seed Orchards Ward Strong BCFLNRO Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  2. URMULE: User Requested Minor Use Label Expansion • User Requested: that’s us! • Minor Use: a crop that’s too small to be of interest to the manufacturer • Label Expansion: Product must already have a label in Canada Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  3. 1. Matador against Leptoglossus • Assisted by AAFC funding • Several years of small-plot trials • 2 years of commercial-scale trials Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  4. 1. Matador against Leptoglossus 2014 Area-wide Matador Trials 350 Seed Yield (TSC data) Grams filled seed / hectoliter cones 300 250 200 Matador 150 Control 100 50 0 Kettle River Grandview Sorrento Eaglerock Average Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  5. 1. Matador against Leptoglossus 2015 Area-wide Matador Trials 0.400 Seed Yield (TSC data) 0.350 Kg filled seed / hectoliter cones Matador 0.300 Control Delegate 0.250 Control 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  6. 1. Matador against Leptoglossus • PMRA approved data • New label created by Syngenta • Submitted to PMRA last September • Still under review! (way past schedule) Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  7. 2. Movento against Cone Midges • PMTAC funded • Two years of small-plot trials • No commercial-scale trials prior to registration Contarinia oregonensis Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  8. 2. Movento against Cone Midges 2013 Movento trials Contarinia infestation in Fd cones 4 3.5 Infested Scales per Half-cut Cone 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 c bc ab ab ab bc bc bc bc bc a 0 0.5A 0.5AB 0.5ABC 1A 1AB 1ABC 2A 2AB 2ABC Dimethoate Water Treatment Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  9. 2. Movento against Cone Midges Movento registration: Data are from Contarinia oregonensis (Douglas-fir) Also registered against: Mayetiola thujae (Western redcedar) Kaltenbachiola spp (Spruce) Photo: Dion Monastyrski Contarinia oregonensis Mayetiola thujae Kaltenbachiola spp. Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  10. 2. Movento against Cone Midges • PMRA approved in May 2015 • Bayer submitted new label Sept 2015 • PMRA completed registration early 2016 Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  11. 3. Delegate against Dioryctria • PMTAC Funded • Several years of small-plot trials • 1 year of commercial-scale trials, more coming Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  12. 3. Delegate against Dioryctria 2012 Small-plot Delegate Trials 2012: Dioryctria per Cone 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Control Del Lo 2X Del Lo 3X Del Hi 2X Del Hi 3X Dimethoate Matador Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  13. 3. Delegate against Dioryctria 2014 Small-plot Delegate Trials 2014 Rate trial: Dioryctria damaged cones 0.8 Proportion of cones damaged 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 .5X 1X 2X Control 0.8 2014: Proportion of Cones with Dioryctria Damage 0.7 0.6 0.5 Early 0.4 Late 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Del Hi 2X Del Hi 3X Del Lo 2X Del Lo 3X Dimethoate Water control Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  14. 3. Delegate against Dioryctria 2015 Area-wide Delegate Trials (Sx) Percentage of cones damaged by Dioryctria 9 8 7 Mean percent damage 6 5 Sprayed 4 Unsprayed 3 2 1 0 306 342 229 306 342 229 June July Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  15. 3. Delegate against Dioryctria • PMRA approved in Jan 2016 • Syngenta submitted new label May 2016 • Not yet approved Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  16. Continuing Pesticide Research • Area-wide Fd trials against Contarinia • Movento trials against Mayetiola , Kaltenbachiola - No data to guide usage Mayetiola eggs on Red cedar conelet Kaltenbachiola pupae in spruce cone axis Photo: Dion Monastyrski Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  17. Screening for Pest Resistance in Conifer Breeding Programs Ward Strong BCFLNRO Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  18. 1. Screening Douglas-fir for Spruce Budworm resistance. Larval Feeding Trials: • Put three fine mesh bags on each parent tree. Inoculated with budworm eggs Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  19. 1. Screening Douglas-fir for Spruce Budworm resistance. Larval Feeding Trials: • Measured Extent of feeding, Survival to pupa Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  20. 1. Screening Douglas-fir for Spruce Budworm resistance. Larval Feeding Trials: •  Found wide range of clonal variation in feeding performance  Survival was worst in non-preferred clones 1 Percent feeding on NEW growth 0.9 0.8 Percent of foliage fed upon 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 Clone Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  21. 1. Screening Douglas-fir for Spruce Budworm resistance. • Adult Host Selection Trials  Adults choose the trees that larvae must eat 2013 trials 2014 trials Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  22. 1. Screening Douglas-fir for Spruce Budworm resistance. 2015: -Planted 500 rootstock 2016-18: -Graft parents -Build screenhouse -Introduce wild moths Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  23. 2. Screening Whitebark pine for White Pine Blister Rust resistance. Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  24. 2. Screening Whitebark pine for White Pine Blister Rust resistance. Proportion of Each Family that has cankers 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  25. 3. Using the AMAT to predict pest responses to climate change. • AMAT puts trees out of their optimal climate spaces • Simulates future climates Prince George Kamloops Dr. Ward Strong Illustration: Greg O’Neill Dr. Ward Strong

  26. 3. Using the AMAT to predict pest responses to climate change. • can determine how plants will respond to future climates TRANSFER FUNCTION Many populations tested at one site Height  M.A.T. of Site Mean Annual Temp of Source  Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  27. 3. Using the AMAT to predict pest responses to climate change. • Working with Regional forest health specialists to identify sites with insect or disease issues • Several sites ID’d with forest health issues • Next step: survey populations at those sites PEST TRANSFER FUNCTION Pest incidence  Many populations tested at one site M.A.T. of Site Mean Annual Temp of Source  Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  28. 4. Mountain Pine Beetle In-Situ Breeding • Most trees are susceptible (S), currently dead • Some survived... Potentially resistant (R), still alive 2006 Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  29. 4. Mountain Pine Beetle In-Situ Breeding • Dead trees (S): o Cones pollinated with S pollen = S x S • Resistant trees (R): o OLD cones pollinated with S pollen = S x R o NEW cones pollinated with R pollen = R x R 2006 Pollen cloud: (S) 2011 Pollen cloud: (R) R x R S x R S x S 2011 Cone Collection S Parent R Parent Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  30. 4. Mountain Pine Beetle In-Situ Breeding • All crosses now 3 years old • Planted at UBC’s Alex Fraser Research Forest and UNBC’s John Prince Research Forest Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  31. Pest Resistance Breeding by Other TIB folks: 1. Barry Jaquish Spruce Weevils Armillaria Root Rot Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  32. Pest Resistance Breeding by Other TIB folks: 2. Nick Ukrainetz Comandra Blister Rust Western Gall Rust Dothistroma needle blight Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  33. Pest Resistance Breeding by Other TIB folks: 3. John Russell Heart Rot Resistance Deer Browse Resistance Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

  34. Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong Dr. Ward Strong

Recommend


More recommend