Local Governments • U.S. Department of Agriculture

It is the policy of the University of Maryland, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, and University of

Maryland Extension that all persons have equal opportunity and access to programs and facilities without regard to race, color, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age, marital or parental status, or disability.

The University of Maryland Extension Agriculture and Food Systems and Environment and Natural Resources Focus Teams proudly present this publication for commercial vegetable and fruit industries. Volume 7 Issue 6 “Special Research Edition” October 21, 2016

Thank You from Joanne

By Joanne Whalen DE Extension IPM Specialist

jwhalen@udel.edu

October 20, 2016 As many of you know, I will be retiring from the University of Delaware and my official last day is January 1, 2017. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of my wonderful producer cooperators, as well as to all of my colleagues and friends in the ag industry including the faculty, agents, specialists and support staff at UD, DSU and surrounding states, agrichemical reps, private consultants, vegetable processors, Delaware Department of Ag, USDA and NRCS and all who have worked with me over the years. It is the relationships that we build in Cooperative Extension that have made this such an awesome career. We have worked as a team and the success of IPM in Delaware and the Mid-Atlantic is a result of all of your help and assistance over the years.

I wish all of you the best of luck in future years… and I am sure you will see me at a meeting or two!! Your Friend, Joanne

Avipel Special Local Needs (SLN) 24-C Labels for Management of Blackbirds and Crows in Field Corn and Sweet Corn in Delaware in 2017: I wanted you all to be aware that the 24C SLN (24-C) label for the use of Avipel Hopper Box (Dry) has been renewed for the 2017 season. In addition, there will also be a SLN (24-C) label for the Avipel Liquid Seed Treatment (commercially applied only) for the 2017 season. Both labels will expire July 15, 2017. If you have questions, please call me at 302-530-8948 or send an e-mail to jwhalen@udel.edu.

For more information on how to use these products as well as a copy of the 24C labels, which must be in your possession to use, please visit Arkion’s website at: http://arkionls.com/av/states/delaware.html

If You Can’t Take the Heat, Stay out of the Mulch: How Mulching Practices Affect Spotted Wing

Drosophila Survival in Blueberries Christopher Taylor1, Bryan Butler2 and Kelly Hamby1

1Department of Entomology, University of Maryland 2Carroll County Extension and Department of Plant

Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland

The Problem: Spotted wing drosophila (SWD), native to Southeast Asia, has become a major pest of small fruit crops, especially blueberries, blackberries, and raspberries in the U.S. Unlike other fruit flies, it can successfully lay eggs through the skin of ripening fruit. It also reproduces very quickly, so populations can explode over a relatively short period of time. The larvae develop in the ripening fruit on the plant and may also continue development when the fruit drops to the ground. They then either pupate in the fruit, or leave the fruit to pupate in the soil surrounding the plant. We are looking into ways that the crop environment can be manipulated to make it unfavorable for SWD development, specifically, whether different mulching practices affect SWD survival both above and below the mulch surface.

The Plan of Attack: The research was conducted with experiments in blueberries at research farms in Queenstown (WyeREC) and Keedysville (WMREC), MD. The blueberries were managed without foliar insecticides

2

or fungicides. We used two mulching treatments, woven black weed fabric (over woodchips, Fig. 1) and bare woodchip mulch (Fig. 2). To determine how this impacts SWD, we measured SWD survival in fruit, survival of SWD pupae, and the temperature SWD experienced above and below both mulches for two one week periods during the growing season.

How hot did it get? Research suggests that SWD do not continue development at temperatures greater than 87.6 degrees Fahrenheita, so we were interested to see how many times the data loggers took a measurement above that temperature during both deployment weeks. For both sites, loggers recorded more temperature events warmer than 87.6°F above the mulch than below for each mulch type (Fig. 3). However, at WyeREC, there were many fewer temperature events above 87.6°F recorded below the mulch than above the mulch when compared to WMREC (Fig. 3).

How did SWD do in fruit? To determine how well SWD would do if they were protected inside the fruit, groups of blueberries infested with ~50 SWD eggs total were placed either above or below the mulch treatments in our blueberry plots for one week. We then returned them to the lab and assessed for percent survival. This was done twice during the growing season. At WMREC, no SWD made it to adulthood either above or below the mulch for both mulch types during both deployments (Fig. 4). At WyeREC, no SWD made it to adulthood in either mulch type when left above the mulch. There was an average of ~5% survival below the weed fabric mulch, and an average of ~35% survival below the woodchip mulch (Fig. 4). For comparison, ≥ 66.0%

survived when fruit were held in the lab instead of deployed.

How did SWD pupae do? Because SWD may leave the fruit prior to reaching the mulch, bare pupae were also evaluated. Twenty SWD pupae were attached to card stock with double sided tape, enclosed in a metal mesh cage to prevent crushing (Fig. 5), and deployed in the field either above or below the mulches for one week before being returned to lab for assessment of survival to adulthood. This was done twice during the growing season. At WMREC, survival both above and below the mulch for both mulch types was consistently low (less than 10% for all treatment combinations) (Fig. 6). At WyeREC, the lowest survival occurred above the weed fabric mulch (~5%), while the highest survival occurred below the woodchip mulch (~65%) (Fig. 6). When pupae are held in the laboratory as a control, ≥87.5% survive.

SWD can’t take the heat. SWD survival was impacted by mulch type and their location within the mulch. At WMREC, survival was consistently very low both in fruit and as pupae, and temperature readings suggest that it got hotter than they could handle across both mulch types and both locations within the mulch. At WyeREC, it was much cooler below the mulches than above them, and survival of SWD was better below the mulch than above the mulch for both mulch types. However, survival was better below the woodchips than below the weed fabric. This suggests that other factors such as mulch structure or humidity might also impact survival.

3

Future Directions: These studies will be replicated over the next three years in blueberries, and possibly in red raspberries. We are also exploring other ways to manipulate the plant environment, including different pruning treatments in blueberries and red raspberries.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank our funding sources, the USDA-NIFA OREI Grant # 2015-07403 and the MAES Competitive Grants Program. We also thank Margaret Lewis, Shulamit Shroder, Adrienne Beerman, and Aditi Dubey for their assistance with setting up various aspects of the studies.

Reference Cited: aRyan GD, Emiljanowicz L, Wilkinson F, Kornya M, Newman JA. 2016. Journal of Economic Entomology DOI: 10.1093/jee/tow006

Heat Tolerant Lettuce Cultivars in a

Blazing Hot Summer By Amelia Loeb* and Chris Walsh$

*Undergraduate Horticulture and Crop Science Major $Professor

University of Maryland Introduction When lettuce (Lactuca sativa) is grown in the mid-Atlantic region, it is usually for baby greens and is never grown in summer. In heat, lettuce bolts and produces latex, making the lettuce taste bitter. In an effort to enhance East Coast lettuce production, we tested the ability of four lettuce cultivars that were advertised as ‘heat-tolerant’ to resist bolting. They were grown in four different mulching conditions - white plastic mulch, black plastic mulch, straw, bare ground, and vermicompost covered by white plastic. The aim of these variables were to test if slight changes in light reflection and absorption could change the immediate temperature surrounding the plant. An additional treatment of germination temperature was also added to each mulch block. Half of the lettuce was germinated at 20°C (68°F) while the other half was germinated at 30°C (86°F) in an effort to create a sort of priming effect for heat-tolerance. These two variables – germination temperature and mulch treatment – were chosen as they are readily available to the farmer.

Fig. 1: Lettuce plots at time of transplant at the WyeRec in Queenstown, MD.

Methods The lettuce varieties were transplanted at the Wye Research and Education Center in Queenstown, MD on June 28, 2016. Three of the varieties, “Coastal Star”, “Auvona”, and “Salvius”, were from Johnny’s Seeds. The fourth variety, “Dov”, is an organic seed from Sustainable Seed Co. All four were cos varieties. Those seeds germinated at 20°C (68°F) were grown in a growth chamber for six weeks. Those germinated at 30°C (86°F) were grown in a greenhouse for five weeks. These four cultivars were transplanted onto different mulch types – white plastic, black plastic, straw and bare ground – in a randomized block design. At the time of transplant, they were watered in with fertilizer and received overhead irrigation. This continued throughout the trial. Temperature of the center of the lettuce head, surrounding soil, and mulch, was measured using an infrared thermometer on August 2, 2016. After six weeks in the field, the heads of lettuce were harvested. Fresh weight and stem length were measured. During this time, some lettuce cultivars bolted. Those cultivars that did not bolt were considered more heat-tolerant.

Results and Discussion How did germination temperature affect the lettuce? The lettuce germinated at 20°C (68°F) was generally less likely to bolt than those germinated at 30°C (86°F). However, the average difference in height between these two treatments depended on the cultivar (Fig. 2). “Coastal Star” appeared to be the least tolerant to heat, and the 20°C germination temperature treatment had the largest impact at delaying bolting. “Dov” was more heat-tolerant, and the germination temperature had less of an effect on the height of the lettuce stem.

Fig. 2: Average height of each cultivar depending on germination temperature and mulch treatment.

4

How did the mulch treatment effect the lettuce and surrounding temperature? The effect of mulch treatment was variable among the different cultivars. A few general trends were observed. As expected, the black mulch treatment produced lighter heads compared to other mulches. In addition, lettuce grown on the black mulch experienced a higher mortality rate than all other mulch treatments. The white mulch, compost, straw and bare ground treatments produced similarly weighted heads. The heaviest heads were found in the compost treatment, which may have benefited from the extra nutrition of the vermicompost. Heads from the bare ground treatment may have weighed less than other treatments because of competition from weeds (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: The average weight of “Dov” cultivars grown depending on mulch treatment. On August 2, 2016 the temperature of the lettuce head, surrounding soil and mulch was measured using an infrared thermometer. The weather was mostly cloudy with a slight breeze and an air temperature of 86 °F. The plants and soil in the ground treatment measured the lowest temperature, both consistently around 84 °F. Plants grown in the rows covered with straw registered the second lowest average temperature, around 86 °F. In the black and white plastic mulch treatment, there was a greater difference between the temperatures of the plants and those of the soil. In both treatments, the temperature of the plants stayed consistent with the other treatments, around 85 °F. The soil and mulch temperatures reached about 95 °F for the black mulch, with those in the white mulch treatment a few degrees cooler. Lettuce cultivars advertised as heat-tolerant are not equally tolerant, with some being more ‘mildly resistant’ rather than completely heat-tolerant. The cultivars tested cannot tolerate the humid and hot mid-Atlantic summers. “Dov” and “Auvona” showed the most promise in this trial. Selecting lines or cultivars where these have been used as parents in lettuce breeding programs could produce the required heat-tolerance for farmers in the future. Efforts to prime individuals or create a more hospitable environment can increase the lettuce’s ability to grow in hot weather, but not enough to guarantee marketable produce.

Fig. 4: “Coastal Star” cultivars grown in the straw mulch treatment. Photo taken at harvest. Those germinated at 20°C are on the left, do not have visible seed heads and are visibly shorter. Seedlings germinated at 30°C are on the right.

Special thanks to Mike Newell and the farm crew at WyeREC for their help. This project was funded by the Francis R. Gouin Undergraduate Research Award and the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

https://www.extension.umd.edu/smallfruit

Post-Harvest (October)

• Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) - Part 3 (Fruit Damage and Juice/Wine Taint)

• Fall Weed Management By Joe Fiola Extension Specialist Viticulture and Small Fruit, University of Maryland jfiola@umd.edu

By Stanton A. Gill

Extension Specialist in IPM and Entomology University of Maryland Extension

Central Maryland Research and Education Center And Professor in Landscape Technology

Montgomery College, Germantown Campus www.Extension.umd.edu/ipm - IPM Alerts

Sgill@umd.edu Oct 21, 2016 Big Beetles – Big Grubs? One of my students from the IPM and Entomology Class at Montgomery College brought in a container with the biggest white grubs you will see in MARYLAND. She also had two very large male and female adult beetles in the container. They are the larval and adult stage of the

5

eastern Hercules beetle,, Dynastes tityus, which is the largest beetle in this part of the country. Adult Eastern Hercules Beetles typically have green, gray, or tan elytra mottled with black spots See the picture of adult male and female beetle and grubs. Adult male beetles have 2 large horns: 1 on the head and 1 on the thorax. Females lack horns. The beetles and grubs were found in a rotting pierce of firewood. You commonly find that the females will lay eggs in rotting tree stumps in the summer. The larvae overwinter and the adults emerge out in late summer to early fall. The adult beetle is harmless to living plants. It one of the largest and most interesting beetles you will find in Maryland . Brown Marmorated Stink bugs Stage a Minor Comeback? Stanton Gill Back in 2009 and 20110 homeowners were inundated with swarms of overwintering adult brown marmorated stink bug. We saw feeding activity in nurseries, orchards, and vegetable production areas. They were driving everyone crazy. Fortunately, the populations crashed down in the following years until we barely saw any activities out this beast. The weather fall storms, feeding of birds, increased predator and parasite activity was all attributed to their massive decline in population numbers. In the fall of 2016 the brown marmorated stink bug is staging a small scale comeback. We are getting reports from Carroll County, Washington County and Northern Baltimore County of adults migrating into houses and other structures with the cool weather last week. Not in the number we saw back in 2009 –m 2010 but they are still making their presence known. Once they are inside the easiest solution is to get out the shop vac or portable vacuum and suck the bugs up and dispose of them. So, the BMSB have died down in numbers but don’t count them as down and out quite yet.

EPA Guidance on How to Comply with the Revised Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides Today, EPA in conjunction with the Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC) is making available a guide to help users of agricultural pesticides comply with the requirements of the 2015 revised federal Worker Protection Standard. You should read this

manual if you employ agricultural workers or handlers, are involved in the production of agricultural plants as an owner/manager of an agricultural establishment or a commercial (for-hire) pesticide handling establishment, or work as a crop advisor. This “How to Comply” manual includes:

• details to help you determine if the WPS requirements apply to you;

• information on how to comply with the WPS requirements, including exceptions, restrictions, exemptions, options, and examples;

• “Quick Reference Guide”- a list of the basic requirements (excluding exemptions, exceptions, etc.);

• new or revised definitions that may affect your WPS responsibilities; and

• explanations to help you better understand the WPS requirements and how they may apply to you.

This updated 2016 WPS How to Comply Manual supersedes the 2005 version. Changes to the standard have made the 2005 version obsolete. Read the Pesticide Worker Protection Standard “How to Comply” Manual.

A new issue of Branching Out is now available! The Events Calendar includes a "Woods in Your Backyard" workshop in Howard County and regional workshops hosted by the Maryland Forests Association. Articles include research into what makes poison ivy so troublesome, and some potential good news in the struggle against tree-of-heaven, along with regular features Woodland Wildlife Spotlight, Invasives in Your Woodland, and the Brain Tickler. The Fall 2016 issue is attached as a PDF, and is also available through our website below. Branching Out Vol. 24, No. 3 ~ Fall 2016 URL: https://extension.umd.edu/news/newsletters/fall-2016 Branching Out, Maryland's Forest Stewardship Education newsletter, is published four times per year by University of Maryland Extension. Branching Out provides educational information and current news and events, and is intended to reach anyone interested in forest stewardship including landowners and natural resource professionals. We encourage you to share this free newsletter with others and to invite them to subscribe: http://extension.umd.edu/woodland/subscribe-branching-out You can review past issues of Branching Out by visiting: http://extension.umd.edu/publication-series/branching-out

WMREC Hops Project

Bryan Butler and Frank Allnutt,

University of Maryland Extension

The first year for the variety trial hops yard at the WMREC in Keedysville has been quite a learning experience. I approached this project very cynically but once we began, we felt we should do our best to give these plants a chance to maximize their potential. The planting is about a ¼ acre with laminated posts with a cable at 18 feet. Posts are 4 feet in the ground. Soil was prepared the previous fall with lime, phosphorus and potassium added to optimum levels. Planting received the equivalent of 180 pounds of Nitrogen from three applications in 2016. Tall fescue planted between rows spring 2016. Weekly IPM scouting with control measures taken as needed. Plants are spaced 3.5’ x 14’. Our May 12

planting date was a little later than we had planned. I applied a Ridomil Gold drench because I was fearful of Downy Mildew and some of the plants were not as healthy as I would have liked to see. All of the plants were slow to “take off” and several died in the first two weeks; they were replaced but after the second week no plants were replaced. For the first month growth was slow but leafhoppers found what growth was there. This was a reoccurring theme throughout the first season as many insects and mites found the planting in force. We began Nitrogen applications in early June and then saw significant response to the applications. We had applied N, P and K just prior to planting but the plants truly benefited from the in-season application. We made two and should have made a third as well but logistical issues prevented that. We were careful to follow the labels on all the pesticides used and were very mindful of number of days until harvest. The hops were harvested on September 12 by Dan Carroll, Owner of Pleasant Valley Hops, and Tom Barse, Millhouse Brewery at Stillpoint Farm, using Dan’s Hopster hop harvester. We have six plant blocks replicated three times so there were 18 plants per variety. Tom took the hops to his brewery where they were dried and stored. Final yields for the hops. All are approximately 8-10% moisture level. Cascade - 1.05 lbs Nuggett - 2.15 lbs Crystal - 1.05 lbs Southern Cross - 1.15 lbs Mt Hood - .55 lbs Chinook - 1 lb Mt Ranier - .70 lbs Alpharoma - .40 lbs Tahoma, Ultra, Centennial, and Alpharoma did not get big enough to warrant harvest the first season.

Watermelon and sulfur trials

Jerry Brust, UME

I have been conducting trials that examine whether or not adding extra sulfur to watermelon increase yields or fruit quality. This is going to be a quick summary of the results for the three years of trials I have conducted so far. Seeded watermelon was used in 2 years of the study with seedless watermelon used in one year of the study. The set-up is pretty straight forward: soil samples were taken to see what nutrients were needed. Based on this we added the recommended amount of sulfur (we used different soil testing labs and used multiple samples with similar results and recs). The average amount of sulfur to add was between 15 and 25 lbs./a for the 3 trials. Once sulfur and the other nutrients were added the treatments were: 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40lbs per acre of extra sulfur being added to the plots. Petiole samples were taken and notes on first flowering, first female flowers, % fruit set, etc. were noted. To save time and because this year’s results were equivalent to the first 2 years of the trial I’ll only show this season’s results. Crimson Sweet was the cultivar used for 2016. Yields of watermelon were significantly greater in the 20 and 30 extra pounds of sulfur compared with the control (fig 1). Over the 3-years of trials there was no significant difference between 20 and 30 lbs. and very little difference between 30 and 40 lbs. So an average addition of 20-30 lbs. is a good starting place. Usually there was no difference in the percent sugar content of the watermelons among any of the sulfur treatments, although for 2016 the 30 lbs. of extra S was significantly greater than the control (fig 2). Thirty and forty pounds of added sulfur increased levels of sulfur in tissue tests taken during the season to adequate levels. Treatments with 10 lbs. or less of added sulfur resulted in deficient levels in the tissue tests. There were no other differences in any of the other measurements between treatments. After two trial years I quit using the 40 lbs. of sulfur treatment because that level of sulfur never was much different from the 30 lbs. treatment. I will need to do this study at additional locations for a number of years to be more confident of these results. The reason I am talking about it now is because of what else I did this past year that I should have started 4 years ago. This year I randomly took petiole samples from watermelon fields. The one thing most of them had in common was a deficiency in sulfur (fig 3). There may have been other deficiencies such as with phosphorous or manganese or nitrogen, etc. but only sulfur was consistently found to be deficient in 52% of the samples with an additional 23% being on the low end of “low”. This was not a big survey (27 fields total; 65% from the western shore, 35% from the eastern shore) and it was done during a strange weather year and S levels may have been abnormally low. Nevertheless the results of the survey surprised me, so I decided to talk about my sulfur study a little early. For now what growers should do next year, if they are not already doing this, in their watermelon fields is to take petiole samples a couple of weeks before first harvest to see where they stand. Why does it seem that we need more sulfur in our watermelon fields then say 30 or so years ago? I think figure 4 shows one possible reason as it is the amount of sulfate sulfur deposited in rainwater in the continental U.S. We can see that the mid-Atlantic had high levels of sulfur in our rainwater (acid rain) in 1986 but in 2011 we had much lower levels of sulfur deposited from our rain water—

and that is a good thing. We just need to check our watermelon fields during the season to see if any particular field is low in sulfur. I will take more petiole samples from watermelon fields in the coming seasons and repeat the sulfur-additions studies to see if the results hold up. I will talk about the results of the 3-year study in more detail at some of the winter meetings that are coming up. If anyone has any suggestions as to anything else I need to look at in these studies please let me know. Fig. 1 Yield of watermelon with added amounts of sulfur (lbs/a)

Fig. 2 Percent sugars in watermelon fruit with differing levels of sulfur added (lbs/a).

100

120

140

160

180

200

None Ten Twenty Thirty

Yield (lbs)watermelon

a ab bc c

8

10

12

14

None Ten Twenty Thirty

% Soluble SolidsoBx

a ab ab b

Fig. 3 Two examples of petiole nutrient sample results taken from 2 different watermelon fields in 2016.

Fig. 4 Maps showing sulfur deposition in the United States in 1986 and 2011

1

The Strawberry Advisory System (SAS): Can Maryland use disease forecasting to control fruit rots in strawberry and reduce fungicide use, to manage fungicide

resistance development?

Cassandra Swett, Bryan Butler and Emmi Koivunen

Week 1: April 24-29 (10% bloom) Week 2: May 1-6

Fruit rot Saved a spray? Protected against a risk period? Saved a spray?

Protected against a risk period?

Botrytis No Yes (high 4/28, mod 5/4) No

Yes (high 5/6, high 5/7, mod 5/11)

Anthracnose No No No Yes (mod 5/7)

Week 3: May 7-14 Week 4: May 15-21

Fruit rot Saved a spray? Protected against a risk period? Saved a spray?

Protected against a risk period?

Botrytis No Yes (high 5/12) Yes No spray needed Anthracnose No Yes (moderate 5/12) Yes No spray needed

Week 5: May 22-28 (1st harvest May 24) Week 6: May 29-June 4

Fruit rot Saved a spray? Protected against a risk period? Saved a spray?

Protected against a risk period?

Botrytis No Yes (high 5/22-23; moderate 5/57) No

Yes (moderate 5/30, moderate June 3)

Anthracnose No Yes (moderate 5/23, moderate 5/27) No

Yes (moderate 5/30, moderate 6/3)

Botrytis Fruit rot

Anthracnose fruit rot

2

Efficacy of SAS in Chandler

Fruit rot (and sap beetle) control

Based on total biomass of diseased fruit

Bars with different letters are signifincantly different

Based on the incidence of disease (percent of fruit)

*Significantly different from the water control

a a a

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cover SAS WaterFrui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

Botrytis FR--Fruit Biomass

a a

b

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cover SAS Water

Frui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

Anthracnose FR--Fruit Biomass

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

% fruit with Botrytis fruit rot

* *0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it% fruit with Anthranose fruit rot

*

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

% fruit with Sap beetle

3

Efficacy of SAS in Chandler

Marketable yields

Fruit biomass per plant

Yeilds in Chandler

Percent of fruit marketable

a

ab

b

0

100

200

300

400

500

Cover SAS Water

Frui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

* *

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

Cover SAS Water control

4

Fungicide resistance development situation for Botrytis at seven farms in Maryland. In the South, the Anthracnose pathogen Colletotrichum acutatum is becoming resistant to FRAC 7 compounds, including Pristine. Data courtesy of Dr. Guido Schnabel, Clemson University.

Conclusions for SAS evaluations in Chandler

The SAS treatment resulted in the SAME number of marketable fruit as the cover (weekly) application. Fruit biomass was lower, but not significantly.

Lower fruit biomass in the SAS treatment was NOT due to reduced fruit rot control, which was the same in both the SAS and cover treatments. Maybe poorer crown rot control?

The SAS treatment significantly reduced SAP BEETLE damage. This indicates that control of fruit rots is important to controlling sap beetle.

SAS was a valuable informational tool—it allowed us to adapt our fungicide program to continue to effectively protect fruit past the bloom period.

SAS saved 1 / 6 fungicide sprays in a high disease pressure year—in lower pressure years, SAS will likely result in greater spray reduction. This indicates potential to mitigate

fungicide resistance development.

5

Comparing Efficacy of SAS in Chandler and Flavorfest

Fruit rot (and sap beetle) control

Biomass of diseased fruit

Incidence of disease / pest (percent of fruit)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cover SAS Water

Frui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

Botrytis FRFlavorfest Chandler

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cover SAS Water

Frui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

Anthracnose FRFlavorFest Chandler

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

% fruit with Botrytis fruit rot

Flavorfest Chandler

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

% fruit with Anthracnose fruit rot

Flavorfest Chandler

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

% fruit with sap beetleFlavorfest Chandler

6

Comparing Chandler and Flavorfest

Marketable yields: Fruit biomass per plant

Yields in Flavorfest

Percent of fruit marketable

0

500

1000

1500

Cover SAS WaterFrui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

FlavorFest Chandler

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cover SAS Water

Perc

ent o

f fru

it

Flavorfest Chandler

Cover SAS Water control

7

Additional information:

The main difference between the SAS and cover treatment: Skipped Spray in SAS treatment the week of May 15-May 21

Yield losses became progressively worse over time

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Frui

t bio

mas

s (g)

/ pl

ant

Date

Disease progressCover SAS Water

Conclusions for comparison of SAS in Chandler and Flavorfest

Flavorfest yields were similar across all treatments.

Flavorfest yields were similar to Chandler in the cover and SAS treatments (where disease in Chandler was controlled), but much higher in than Chandler in untreated controls.

The improved performance of Flavorfest was due in part to the lower Anthracnose fruit rot and sap beetles levels in all treatments, compared to Chandler. Go Flavorfest!

The only issue in Flavorfest was Botrytis, where both the cover and SAS treatment reduced disease, compared to the control.

8

Looking further at the relationship between sap beetles and fruit rots:

There appeared to be a positive correlation where Sap beetle were worse in treatments where Anthracnose fruit rot was also more severe.

Berries with Anthracnose fruit rot were commonly observed to have sap beetle entry holes and there was a positive correlation between Anthracnose fruit rot and sap beetle incidence.

The results above suggest that fungicide applications reduce sap beetles. This may be because anthracnose facilitates sap beetle infestation, and reducing anthracnose reduces sap beetle.

Aknowlegements

This project was made possible with the funding support from the USDA-NIFA Critical Agriculture Research and Extension program, the support of WMREC farm managers, especially Doug Price, Berry Pathology lab members, and supporting growers, especially Dwight Baugher, who donated the Chandler and Nate Nourse, who donated mother plants.

R² = 0.6883

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.30.35

0.40.45

0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Perc

ent f

ruit

with

sap

beet

le

Percent fruit with anthracnose FR

Correlation between Anth. FR and sap beetle

Sap beetle entry hole

Sweet Corn Insect Control and Efficacy of the Transgenic Bt Technology

Galen P. Dively and Kelly A. Hamby Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Sweet corn producers must rely on timely pest monitoring and effective insecticide

sprays to control ear-invading insects. In the Mid-Atlantic, corn earworm is the primary ear invader, followed by sap beetles, fall armyworm, and European corn borer as secondary pests. The level of infestation varies with the year, time of season, and location. For instance, corn borer infestations have been very low during the past decade due to regional population suppression resulting from the high adoption of Bt field corn. Still, corn earworm infestations typically can cause damage on 10 to 25% of the ears in early plantings, and often greater than 50% ear damage in late plantings if not controlled. Insecticide control programs are costly, pose exposure risks to the applicator and farm workers, and require considerable time and management to implement.

The cheaper pyrethroid (Group 3A) insecticide products have been the popular choice, but control efficacy has significantly declined due to resistance in corn earworm populations. Spray mixtures of Lannate® (Group 1A) plus a pyrethroid are often used to circumvent the resistance problem and improve control of sap beetles. Rotations and mixtures with different active ingredients such as Coragen (Group 28), Radiant (Group 5), Blackhawk (Group 5), as well as premix products (i.e. Besiege (Group 3A + 28), Voliam Xpress (Group 3A + 28) are also increasingly used and can provide good control. However, the reality is that pyrethroids are no longer providing enough ear protection on many farms, so it is becoming necessary to switch or rotate to one of these alternative products. For all insecticide products, timing the first spray at early silking, applying subsequent sprays on a schedule that is based on moth pressure, and achieving adequate spray coverage of the ear zone are critical components of effective control. Most corn earworm eggs are laid directly on the silks; once larvae hatch, they quickly move down the silk channel and begin feeding on the ear tip, where they are protected from insecticidal sprays. Thus, it is absolutely necessary to target the larvae before they enter the ear by protecting silk tissue when moth pressure is high.

These problems and challenges with conventional insecticide applications can essentially be eliminated with Bt technology. Transgenic Bt technology expresses insect-active toxins from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in tissues of the sweet corn plant. This technology has revolutionized the way many corn insect pests are managed, particularly European corn borer, which is virtually 100% controlled by Bt sweet corn. However, the expressed toxins alone do not always provide 100% control of corn earworm or fall armyworm, and thus supplemental insecticide sprays are often needed to ensure quality sweet corn ears, especially during high moth activity. For Bt sweet corn production, there are three types commercially available: Attribute® hybrids (expressing Cry1Ab toxin), Attribute® II hybrids (expressing Cry1Ab and Vip3A), both from Syngenta Seeds, and Performance Series™ hybrids (expressing the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 toxins) from Seminis Seeds. Expression of the Bt toxin in these hybrids is highly effective against European corn borer, eliminating all whorl and silk sprays in areas where this pest is the primary problem. However, efficacy of Cry1Ab sweet corn for controlling corn earworm has been highly variable since 2008, with increasing concerns over lack of field efficacy. In this article, we present research findings from 21 years of monitoring changes in field efficacy in Bt sweet corn, as evidence of resistance development in corn earworm populations to multiple Cry toxins.

Plots of Bt sweet corn paired with non-Bt hybrids (same genetic line as Bt hybrid) were established at five University of Maryland Research and Education farm facilities (Salisbury, Wye, Beltsville, Upper Marlboro, and Clarksville) from 1996 to 2016 to evaluate corn earworm infestations in ears as a direct measure of efficacy. Plots were not sprayed, so any ear protection observed was a result of the Bt technology. Attribute® hybrids were evaluated during all years, whereas Performance Series™ and Attribute® II hybrids expressing pyramided Bt toxins were developed later and included in trials from 2008 to 2016, alongside Attribute® sweet corn at the same locations. All plots were planted during June to encourage high infestations of corn earworm and sampled to assess ear damage when ears reached fresh market maturity. The following variables were recorded as measures of control efficacy against corn earworm: percentage of ears damaged, kernel area consumed, average instar stage of larvae, and the proportion of late instar (4th – 6th instars) found in ears.

Attribute® hybrids from Syngenta Seeds have been commercially available since 1996, and acreage has increased significantly with the introduction of improved fresh market hybrids and availability of 25K seed units for smaller producers. When first introduced, expression of Cry1Ab toxin in these hybrids provided greater than 95% control of all worms, with very minor injury to a few kernels at the ear tip and only early instar larvae if present (Fig. 1). The ear protection allowed producers to eliminate pre-silk treatments and reduce insecticide applications during silking by 70 to 90%.

Figure 1. Representative level of ear protection during 1996-2000 by Attribute® sweet corn (GSS0966) compared to the non-Bt Prime Plus hybrid (right) planted at the same time and exposed to high corn earworm and fall armyworm pressure.

However, ear damage, kernel consumption, instar age, and proportion of late instars have progressively increased since 2000 in Attribute® hybrids. The upper ears in Fig. 2 shows the representative ear damage typical of BC0805 Bt sweet corn under high corn earworm pressure during 2010-2016. Based on 89 trials evaluated, the percentage of ears damaged in Attribute® Cry1Ab expressing hybrids increased from less than 10% in 1996 to an average of 84% in 2016. The amount of kernel area consumed has more than tripled during the same time, and the proportion of live larvae reaching later developmental stages in ears has increased from less than 5% in 1996 to an average 81% in 2016. These results clearly demonstrate the reduced efficacy of Attribute® sweet corn, and indicate increased resistance in corn earworm populations to the

Cry1Ab toxin. This reduction in efficacy was unrelated to corn earworm pressure, because moth activity monitored in blacklight traps has actually declined over the past decade at the farm sites. Sweet corn producers in the Mid-Atlantic growing Attribute® hybrids can apply insecticide sprays to compensate for the reduced efficacy.

Figure 2. Representative level of ear protection during 2010-2016 by Attribute® sweet corn (BC0805, upper ears) compared to the non-Bt Providence hybrid (lower ears) planted side by side and exposed to high corn earworm and fall armyworm pressure.

Seminis Seeds has developed and is now marketing pyramided Bt sweet corn under the

Performance Series™ trade name. Some Bt hybrids available are Temptation, Obsession, Passion, and SV9010SA. These hybrids express three insecticidal toxins: Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab to control lepidopteran larvae, and Cry3Bb1 to control rootworms, as well as herbicide tolerant traits. When this Bt sweet corn was first evaluated in 2010, control efficacy was similar to the level of ear protection by Attribute® hybrids in the late 90’s, providing 100% control of fall armyworms and more than 95% control of corn earworms, with very few surviving larvae and only minor injury on the ear tip. However, control efficacy rapidly declined during the last three years, as evident in Fig. 3 showing unacceptable levels of earworm damage on the ear tip of both single and pyramided Cry-expressing sweet corn. Note that the Attribute® ears show extensive feeding injury by fall armyworm on the side kernels, whereas the Obsession II ears are undamaged by this pest. Six late plantings of Performance Series™ hybrids at research farm sites in 2016 averaged 67% damaged ears with 74% of the surviving corn earworms reaching the late developmental stages.

Figure 3. Representative level of ear protection during 2016 by Attribute® sweet corn (BC0805, left) compared to Performance Series™ sweet corn (Obsession II, right). Both hybrids were planted side by side and exposed to high corn earworm and fall armyworm pressure.

The Attribute® II type of Bt sweet corn by Syngenta Seeds expresses a new Bt gene combination to broaden the spectrum of activity and reduce resistance development. Introduced commercially in 2013, this sweet corn expresses a novel vegetative insecticidal toxin, Vip3A, from B. thuringiensis, pyramided with the Cry1Ab toxin. The Vip3A toxin is highly effective against a range of important lepidopteran pests including black cutworm, fall armyworm, corn earworm, and western bean cutworm. Of 13 field trials comparing Attribute® II hybrids with non-Bt hybrids, no live larvae and virtually no ear damage were found in the pyramided hybrids, indicating 100% control efficacy of corn earworm, fall armyworm and European corn borer. The non-Bt hybrids, without insecticide protection, averaged between 43 and 100% ears infested with late instar larvae. Figure 4 illustrates the level of ear protection by the Vip3A + Cry1Ab expressing Attribute® II hybrid Remedy, compared to Obsession II.

Figure 4. Representative level of ear protection during 2016 by Attribute® II sweet corn

(Remedy, left) compared to Performance Series™ sweet corn (Obsession II, right). Both hybrids were planted side by side and exposed to high corn earworm and fall armyworm pressure.

In summary, the field-evolved resistance and associated reduction in efficacy reported

here confirm the findings from a recent study in South and North Carolina1 showing evidence of developing resistance to the Cry1Ab trait in field corn based on changes over time in toxin inhibition on growth and development of corn earworm. However, corn earworm resistance could be localized to some extent because Attribute® hybrids still provide moderate to high control efficacy in other areas, particularly northern states where corn earworm does not overwinter. Many factors can contribute to development of insect resistance. It is thought that the relatively low acreage of Bt sweet corn hybrids is unlikely to have exerted enough selection pressure alone to account for changes in corn earworm susceptibility, despite being planted without a refuge requirement. The high adoption rate of Bt field corn and cotton, with the

Cry1Ab toxin being used in Bt field corn since 1996, has contributed to the selection pressure on earworm populations. Additionally, Cry1Ab and related Cry1Ac toxins are expressed at a moderate dose in these crops and refuge compliance is decreasing, which together have probably contributed significantly to the evolution of resistance. In Maryland, the adoption rate of Bt field corn is very high, accounting for 83-93% of the acres planted during 2013 in crop reporting districts where the trials were conducted. This high adoption of Bt corn, along with a presumed decline in compliance with the refuge requirements, has almost certainly contributed to the local evolution of resistance. Unfortunately, corn earworm resistance to the Cry toxins is likely to increase, and spread, with the shift to ‘refuge in bag’ corn hybrids that contain a blend of 95% Bt and 5% non-Bt seeds. Similarly, due to northward influxes of potentially resistant moths from southern source regions, the risk of further evolution of resistance may increase with the reduced refuge size (from 50% to 20%) in regions where Bt cotton is used. Apart from reductions in the refuge size, there are also concerns that pollen-mediated gene flow between Bt and refuge plants in a seed blend could accelerate resistance evolution. Finally, the potential existence of cross resistance between Cry1Ab and the other Cry toxins may also compromise the efficacy and durability of the new pyramided traits in Bt field and sweet corn.

1Reisig, D.D. and F.P.F. Reay-Jones. 2015. Inhibition of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae) growth by Transgenic Corn Expressing Bt Toxins and Development of Resistance to Cry1Ab. Environ. Entomol. DOI: 10.1093/ee/nvv076

Figure 2. Spray cards deployed in the inner (A) and outer (B) canopy at Keedysville prior to treatment

Figure 1. Spray treatment application at Keedysville

Optimizing Carrier Water Volume for Enhanced Spray Coverage in Raspberries Maggie Lewis1, Bryan Butler2, and Kelly Hamby1

1 Department of Entomology, University of Maryland 2 Carroll County Extension and Department of Plant Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland

In small fruit production, spray coverage can strongly influence the effectiveness of a given pesticide treatment. Many fruit species, including blueberries, blackberries, and raspberries, develop a dense foliar canopy as they mature. This can block pesticide sprays from penetrating the entire bush and create areas of refuge for key pests, providing a means for their populations to persist despite regular insecticide treatments.

Spray coverage may be important for managing spotted wing drosophila (SWD). Many of the insecticides used to manage SWD primarily target adults and require direct contact. A recent study in blackberries reported higher rates of larval infestation in the center of the bush, a pattern that held true regardless of insecticide sprays, harvest status, and other management decisions1. This suggests that there may be higher rates of SWD egg-laying in the inner canopy of its host plants and that failure to spray this region of the bush with insecticides may create a refuge that allows SWD populations to build up.

In this study, our primary objective was to improve spray coverage in fall-fruiting red raspberries, particularly in the inner canopy. In many systems, increasing the spray volume has been shown to improve pesticide coverage, including on spray cards elevated above bare ground2 and in grapes3. We hypothesized that using a higher spray volume would also result in improved spray coverage in red raspberries, particularly in the inner canopy. Methods: Spray trials were conducted at the Western Maryland Research and Education Center (Keedysville, MD) on two dates: 8/31/2016 and 9/21/2016. Fall fruiting red raspberries were sprayed with Brigade® 2EC and Mustang® Maxx on 8/31 and 9/21 respectively. Treatments were applied using two spray volumes, 50 and 100 gallons per acre (GPA), with a Durand Wayland 100 Sprayer, which had a 24-inch fan; the bottom 3 nozzles were turned on (Figure

1).

Treatments were applied at 3 mph/150 psi using two sets of nozzles, one set calibrated to 50 GPA and the other to 100 GPA.

On the first trial date, the sprayer was set to be used primarily on tree fruit, resulting in very low coverage on the lower half of the raspberry bush. On the second trial date, we lowered the sprayer to its lowest height setting and adjusted the

angle of the nozzles, turning the two lowest sets of nozzles downward, which increased the amount of spray hitting raspberry foliage. To visualize pesticide deposition, Vision Pink Foam Marker Dye (Garrco Products Inc.) was added to the tank mix at a rate of 32 oz per 100 gallons. White Kromekote spray cards were deployed in both the inner and outer canopy of the raspberry bush at three heights: low (1.5 feet above the ground), medium (3.0 feet above the ground), and high (4 feet above the ground) (Figure 2). After the pesticide residues dried, spray cards were collected and scanned. We calculated the percentage of the card dyed pink (percent coverage) using ImageJ software.

After completing the trials, spray coverage was also measured on a commercial grower farm on 9/28/2016 in fall fruiting red raspberries. Treatments were applied using a Tifone Storm 1032 airblast sprayer at 56 GPA and 220 psi/2.3 mph, with the bottom 3 nozzles turned on.

Results: Percent coverage varied significantly in response to both spray volume and the spray card’s location in the canopy. Overall, spray coverage was higher in the outer canopy relative to the inner (Figure 3). Coverage rates were variable, even when grouped by spray volume and

spatial location. For example, at Keedysville on 8/31, coverage in the inner-high canopy ranged from 7.19 - 94.77% at 100 GPA. The main factor contributing to this variability was the amount of foliage covering the spray cards; even at 100 GPA, dense foliage limited pesticide dispersion throughout the canopy.

Spray coverage also varied by height. At our commercial farm site, coverage tended to be lowest at the bottom of the raspberry canopy (Figure 4). Similarly, at Keedysville on 8/31, coverage was very poor at the low canopy height, regardless of spray volume (Figure 3, 5).

Spray coverage in the lower canopy did

Figure 3. Average spray coverage at six locations throughout canopy at 50 GPA (top figure) and 100 GPA (lower figure) from spray trials conducted at Keedysville on 8/31/2016.

Figure 4. Average percent coverage at six locations throughout the canopy on a commercial grower farm on 9/28. Treatments were applied using a spray volume of 56 GPA and coverage was measured at three distinct heights within the inner and outer canopy: lower (1.5 feet about ground), medium (3.0 feet above ground), and high (4.0 feet above ground).

Figure 5. Average percent coverage of spray cards from the 8/31/2016 spray trail at Keedysville in the inner (top figure) and outer (lower figure) canopy. Spray treatments were applied at 50 and 100 gallons per acre (GPA) and coverage was measured at three distinct heights within the canopy: lower (1.5 feet about ground), medium (3.0 feet above ground), and high (4.0 feet above ground).

improve when we repeated the trial on 9/21. In the outer-low canopy, coverage averaged 53.41% at 100 GPA and 29.40% at 50 GPA (Figure 6). This increase was most likely due to the sprayer adjustments described earlier.

There were no significant differences in coverage between 50 and 100 GPA in the inner canopy on either trial date, regardless of height (Figures 5-6). However, the higher spray volume did improve coverage in the outer canopy. On 8/31, differences in percent coverage between 50 and 100 GPA varied depending on spray card height (Figure 5). There were no differences between spray volumes in the lower canopy. But, at medium height, coverage averaged 80.97% at 100 GPA, compared to 32.10% at 50 GPA. Percent coverage was also marginally higher at 100 GPA in the high canopy (Figure 5). On 9/21, percent coverage was significantly higher at 100 GPA across all heights in the outer canopy (Figure 6).

Discussion/Conclusions: Increasing the carrier water volume improved coverage in the outer canopy, but did not have any significant effects in the inner canopy. This suggests that increasing the carrier water volume alone may not be enough to ensure adequate spray coverage. Further study is

needed to determine the best system for growers to optimize spray coverage. One step that can easily be taken towards optimizing spray coverage is to check that your

sprayer and nozzles are oriented correctly for the crop you are spraying. In the first round of the Keedysville trial, we achieved less than 1% coverage in the bottom portions of the raspberry canopy. Most of the spray appeared to have been directed upwards and never reached the raspberry bush. This issue was remedied by lowering the sprayer and lowering the angle on the bottom two sets of nozzles. We were able to roughly visualize the area of space that would be sprayed by running water through it prior to putting out the treatments.

Insecticides are currently the most effective management tool available for SWD. However, in many of the fruits susceptible to SWD, achieving good spray coverage is difficult, which may be limiting the benefits you receive from a pesticide application. In 2017, we will continue this study, including an additional bioassay component to correlate spray coverage with SWD mortality and continued evaluation of spray coverage under different management systems.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Galen Dively and Douglas Price for helping apply spray treatments at Keedysville, to Adrienne Beerman, Shulamit Shroder, Jessica Van Horn, and Claire Weber for helping prepare and process spray cards, and to our cooperating growers for allowing us to use their sites. Vision Pink Foam Marker Dye samples were provided by GarrCo Products Inc. (Converse, IN). Funding was provided by the Maryland State Horticultural Society. 1 Diepenbrock, L.M., and Burrack, H.J. 2016. Variation of within-crop microhabitat use by Drosophila suzukii ((Diptera: Drosophilidae) in blackberry. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2 Nansen, C., Ferguson, J.C., Moore, J., Groves, L., Emery, R., Garel, N., and A. Hewitt. 2015. Optimizing pesticide spray coverage using a novel web and smartphone tool, SnapCard. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35: 1075-1085. 3 Wise, J.C., Jenkins, P.E., Schilder, A.M.C., Vandervoort, C., Isaacs, R. 2009. Sprayer type and water volume influence pesticide deposition and control of insect pests and diseases in juice grapes. Crop Protection. 29: 378-385.

Figure 6. Average percent coverage of spray cards from the 9/21/2016 spray trial at Keedsyville in the inner (top figure) and outer (lower figure) canopy. Spray treatments were applied at 50 and 100 gallons per acre (GPA) and coverage was measured at three distinct heights within the canopy: lower (1.5 feet about ground), medium (3.0 feet above ground), and high (4.0 feet above ground). There were no significant differences in coverage in the inner canopy, but in the outer canopy, spray coverage was significantly higher at 100 GPA

1

Black Nightshade and Husk Cherry High-Tunnel Trials at Wye Research and Education Center

Andrew Ristvey Extension Specialist Commercial Horticulture

Mike Newell Senior Faculty Specialist, Horticulture Crops Program Manager

Objectives Black Nightshade and Husk Cherry are fruiting plants in the tomato family. This high tunnel trial was developed to investigate the practicality of these alternative crops for farm diversification and profitability. Diversifying on a farm spreads risk, adding windows of sales opportunity with high-value crops. High tunnels can expand your growing season, increasing sales windows and getting premium prices. We measured yield, crop quality, harvesting time and pests and diseases to determine if these crops would be good alternatives for Maryland farm diversification.

Crops Black Nightshade ‘Wonderberry’ (Solanum nigrum) is a small berry in the tomato family (Figure 1). Its potential markets would be ethnic African and Asian customers, and would potentially have good sales at local farm markets as a new and interesting fruit. The plant has a vigorous bushy habit. The small fruit (about the size of a pencil eraser head) grow in small clusters like berry tomatoes and can be harvested on or off the vine. They have a lightly sweet melon flavor. Fruit set in July and they fruit into the fall. Pollinators include bumble bees and other small bees.

Husk cherry (Physalis spp) are small orange berries in the tomato family (Figure 2). There are is a large potential market in local grocery stores and farm markets. Popularity has been increasing over the past couple years. The two varieties trialed at WyeREC are ‘Gigante’ and ‘Goldenberry’. ‘Gigante’ is a very large upright plant with a vigorous growth habit. It ripens at the beginning of August. Fruit must be pulled off of the bush. The orange berry-fruit is enveloped in a husk, and is the size of a dime. It has a bright lemony-sweet flavor. ‘Goldenberry’ is a smaller version of ‘Gigante’. The plant is more prostrate and spreads. The fruit fall from the plant when ripe so a catchment collection system is desirable. The low, spreading form makes this difficult and some pruning and training is necessary to make these plants upright for the catchment system. The fruit have an intricate sweet flavor of pineapple and melons. The market value of husk cherries in stores and farm markets is about $4.00 for 3 to 4 ounces.

Figure 1. A ‘Wonderberry’ cluster and bush size in June

Figure 2. ‘Goldenberry’ (left) and ‘Gigante’ (right) are two potentially valuable crops.

2

Methods Seed for fruit were purchased from an online vender. Seeds were germinated in late March and grown in plug trays until they were 5 to 8 inches high. High tunnels were prepared in April by amending soil with Smartleaf® compost at 4 lb per square ft, in row. Three rows were prepared. The compost is 1.3% N. A total of 3 lb of N (organic, not all available) was applied per row. Plants were transplanted in high tunnels in June and randomly assigned positions to varieties in each row. Transplants of ‘Wonderberry’ and ‘Gigante’ were in multiples for each plug. ‘Goldenberry’ plants were not planted in multiples. A treatment of leaving the plant cluster or culling plants was made for ‘Wonderberry’ and ‘Gigante’ to determine if post-plant culling is necessary for better yield.

Results ‘Wonderberries’ were harvested 4 times between July 1 and July 22th. During that time, a total of 26 lb of fruit were harvested from 15 plants, an average of 1 ¾ lb per plant over one month. The 4-plant cluster treatment had significantly more fruit until July 15th. Recommendation to plant as clusters and not cull. ‘Wonderberry’ is a very fragile fruit. Pulling fruit off cluster often damaged fruit. Leaving on vine is recommended. However, harvest was difficult and averaged 1.5 lb per hour. May not be a viable commercial fruit due to fragile nature and harvest time needed.

Pests and Diseases No diseases were noted on ‘Wonderberry’. Several lepidopteran (moth/butterfly) species fed on Wonderberry foliage. The most important was the tomato hornworm.

Figure 3. Wonderberry high-tunnel harvests. Grams of wonderberries between culling treatments (1=1 plant, 2=2 plants, 3=4 plants) on harvest dates of July 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd.

Figure 4. Tomato hornworm on ‘Wonderberry ‘was most significant pest.

3

Husk Cherries ‘Goldenberry’ fruit were harvested three times between July 29th and August 23rd. Approximately 13.5 lb was collected from 15 plants. This averages about 0.9 lb per plant over the month. Each harvest was 1.8, 6.7 lb, and 4.9 lb for the 29th, the 10th and the 23rd, respectively. A harvest was approximately 15 minutes and should average 18 lb of fruit in an hour. Over a lb of fruit was taken per plant. Note that ‘Goldenberries’ did not receive culling treatments.

‘Gigante’ fruit were harvested once on August 23rd. Approximately 3 lb were harvest in 30 minutes. Fruit were more difficult to harvest than ‘Goldneberry’. ‘Gigante’ needed to be pulled from the plant. Also, the ripe fruit were lower on the plant. No differences in culling treatments were found.

Pests and Diseases No diseases were noted in either ‘Gigante’ or ‘Goldenberry’. Two-month seedlings, were predated upon by Three-lined lema beetle (Lema trilineata) (Figure 6 and see Vegetable and Fruit News, Volume 7: Issue 2). This was a major pest throughout the summer.

Hornworm became a major problem by mid-August . Other lepidopteran species were found. Early during development, some husks were found to have holes and fruit eaten inside by an unidentified moth (Figure 7). This did not occur often, but growers should be aware.

0200400600800

1000120014001600

29-Jul 10-Aug 23-Aug

'Goldenberry' high-tunnel trial harvestsgrams vs harvest date

1 2 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

29-Jul 10-Aug 23-Aug

'Gigante' high-tunnnel trialsgrams vs harvest date

1 2 3

Figure 5. ‘Goldenberry‘ high-tunnel trial harvests. Grams of ‘Goldenberry’ 1=1 plant, 2=2 plants, 3=4 plants) on harvest dates of July 29th, August 10th and 23rd.

Figure 6. ‘Gigante‘ high-tunnel trial harvests. Grams of ‘Gigante’ between culling treatments (1=1 plant, 2=2 plants, 3=4 plants) on harvest dates of 23rd.

Figure 6. Three-lined Lema beetle. A major problem on ‘Gigante’ and ‘Goldenberry’.

4

Spray Schedule

Date Pesticide Target Plant 5/25 Sevin Lema Beetle Husk Cherry 6/13 Sevin Lema Beetle Husk Cherry 6/25 Admite Bt Hornworm Black Nightshade 7/14 Javelin Bt Hornworm and Lepidopterans Husk Cherry and Black Nightshade 7/21 Neemix Lema Beetle Husk Cherry 7/31 BeetleGone Bt Lema Beetle Husk Cherry

Conclusions While ‘Wonderberry’ may not be a suitable commercial crop, efforts to make harvesting more efficient and less damaging to the fruit may make this crop more viable as an alternative high value crop. ‘Goldenberry’ and ‘Gigante’ have great promise as market value is high, and interest is increasing. There are management issues including a number of pest species. The Lema beetle provides an interesting management problem because it needs to be controlled during flowering, preventing use of carbaryl or other good beetle insecticides. Neem was not very effective at controlling beetle larva. An experimental beetle Bt was used. Results were inconclusive. Acknowledgements: Thanks to Mike Newell for managing all soil preparations, pesticide applications and supplying farm crew for harvests. Thanks to the farm crew that helped harvest and gave blood donations to the high tunnel mosquitos.

The University of Maryland Extension programs are open to any person and will not discriminate against anyone because of race, age, sex, color, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry, national origin, marital status, genetic information, political affiliation, and gender identity or expression.

6

Maryland Extends Cover Crop, Fall Nutrient Application Deadlines to

Nov. 15 due to Late Harvest

ANNAPOLIS, MD (October 17, 2016) – Due to a late harvest and lack of adequate storage for liquid manure, combined with favorable soil conditions, the Maryland Department of Agriculture has extended the cover crop planting deadline and two key deadlines for nutrient applications this fall. Cover Crop Program Farmers who signed up to plant cover crops this fall with the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share (MACS) Program now have until November 15, 2016 to plant qualifying small grains to help control soil erosion and recycle unused plant nutrients remaining in their fields following the harvest of summer crops. The extension is only available to farmers who plant wheat, rye or triticale using the following planting methods: no till, conventional, or broadcast with light, minimum or vertical tillage. It does not apply to legume/small grain mixes. Farmers must certify their cover crop acreage with their local soil conservation district by November 18, 2016 in order to be eligible for cost-share to offset associated seed, labor and equipment costs.

Maryland’s Cover Crop program is funded by the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund and the Chesapeake Bay 2010 Trust Fund. For additional information on the Cover Crop Program, farmers should visit their local soil conservation district or contact the MACS office at410-841-5864. Fall Nutrient Applications On Maryland’s Eastern Shore, the deadline for all nutrient applications, including commercial fertilizer and poultry litter, has been extended from November 1 to November 15 to allow farmers more time to fertilize crops that will be planted later this fall. The November 15 deadline is consistent with the nutrient cut-off date that farmers are required follow in all other areas of the state. After this date, farmers will be prohibited from spreading commercial fertilizer and stackable manure on fields until March 1. To allow farmers extra time to empty their waste storage structures in preparation for winter, the Department also has extended the deadline for the fall application of liquid manure on dairy farms and other livestock operations from November 15 to December 3. After this date, farmers will not be able to spread

manure on their fields until March 1. The extension does not apply to dry, stackable manure or poultry litter. Farmers or nutrient applicators with questions should call their nutrient management consultant or regional nutrient management specialist. The headquarters telephone number is 410-841-5959 and full listing is provided online.

Maryland Young Farmer Advisory Board Seeks Nominations

ANNAPOLIS, MD (October 20, 2016) – The Maryland Young Farmer Advisory Board – an advisory body to the Maryland Agricultural Commission and Secretary of Agriculture which represents young farmers in Maryland – is seeking nominations to fill multiple vacancies. The board is seeking nominees for the Future Farmers of America, urban farmers, and at-large seats. As a group, the board members address legislative and policy issues that affect Maryland Young Farmers. To be considered, nominees must be Maryland residents who are interested in the preservation and development of the agriculture industry and the agricultural way of life in Maryland. Nominees must also be under the age of 45 at the beginning of their term and derive at least 50 percent of their personal income from farming or agricultural activities. The board meets quarterly on the third Wednesday of January, April, July, and October, from 11:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. For more information, contact Rachel Rhodes at Rachel.rhodes@maryland.gov, or visit the board’s website. Those interested in applying may do so at: govappointments.Maryland.gov .

Fall Farm Activities Taking Place Throughout Maryland

Corn Mazes, Pumpkin Patches and Hayrides Offer Fun for the Whole

Family ANNAPOLIS, MD (October 18, 2016) – #Maryland #Localfarms #Localfun! Maryland’s agricultural tourism farms are ready for your family this fall. Maryland’s farmers offer a variety of fall activities as a way for families to spend time together outdoors. October is the perfect time to experience the fun of selecting your own pumpkins for jack-o-lanterns, getting lost in a corn maze, taking a hayride, or attending a fall festival. Depending on the farm, visitors may be able to enjoy a variety of other activities including farm stands,

7

scarecrow-making, petting farms, pony rides, live music, decorations, fresh apple cider, home baked goods and more.

“It just doesn’t get better than getting the kids out to the farm on a crisp autumn day,” said Maryland Secretary of Agriculture Joseph Bartenfelder. “Agritourism is a booming industry here in Maryland. Visiting a farm is great fun for all ages and supports our family farmers too. On-farm tourism operations and farm stands are open and ready for visitors.” According to the most recent agricultural census by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, there are 33,161 agri-tourism farms nationally with revenues totaling $704 million. In Maryland, there are 307 agri-tourism farms with revenues of $7.2 million. For a list of farms offering fall activities, visit marylandsbest.net

Department Receives Funding

to Implement Federal Produce Safety Rules

ANNAPOLIS, MD (Oct. 19, 2016) – The United States Food & Drug Administration has awarded the Maryland Department of Agriculture $3,625,000 to support the implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Safety Rule over the next five years. The rule, which the administration finalized in November 2015, establishes science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing and holding of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption. The funding gives the Department resources to implement a produce safety system, develop and provide education and outreach, and to develop programs to address the specific and unique needs of the growers in Maryland’s farming communities. The department currently provides voluntary USDA and Maryland Good Handling Practices/Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) audits to growers who need a third-party inspection to meet market demands for food safety and quality. These program services will continue and expand to assist growers with meeting the FSMA Produce Safety Rule standards.

“Maryland has been on the forefront of food safety production practices with the implementation of the department’s GAP program which includes grower training, assistance with best practices and inspection to verify compliance,” said Secretary Joe Bartenfelder. “We’re pleased to be working with the FDA to ensure producers and growers understand and implement practices to meet the requirements of the new produce safety rule and continue to keep our food supply safe.” The Food & Drug Administration awarded a total of $21.8 million to 42 states in fiscal year 2016 to begin implementing the new produce safety rule. Maryland will receive the maximum amount for which it could apply based on the number of farms growing fresh fruits and vegetables covered by the rule. For more information on the grants, see the administration’s news release. This cooperative agreement will also allow the department to expand its work with University of Maryland’s Department of Plant Sciences and Landscape Architecture and University of Maryland Extension to educate growers and assist farmers in achieving compliance. There will be FDA-approved training workshops for produce safety and preventive controls along with basic GAP workshops in February and March 2017. All produce growers and on-farm food processors are strongly encouraged to attend. For more information on the workshops, visit the department’s website or contact Deanna Baldwin at Deanna.baldwin@maryland.gov or (410) 841-5769. Free Webinars, Sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic Women in Agriculture

October 20, 2016 Emmalea Ernest Announcements

10/26: Understanding Buying and Selling Farmland – Learn about every aspect of a typical real estate transaction. Understand the roles of the players involved- the real estate agents, the title company and the lawyers. Understand the meaning of the legalese in a typical farmland purchase contract, deed, mortgage and title insurance policy. Don’t go through another settlement signing paperwork you don’t understand! This webinar will make you a smarter buyer and seller of farmland.

11/9: Energy Leases: Understanding What They Mean and How They Can Impact You – Landowners around the Mid-Atlantic have received offers to lease their land for wind, solar or other renewable energy leases. These leases can often be long documents and difficult to understand. Ashley Ellixson and Paul Goeringer will walk you through the legal implications of these leases to better aid you in making a decision.

8

12/14: Creating a Farm Loan Package – This webinar will provide a basic overview of a farm loan package. It is a practical program with real-world examples and helpful tips. The course is directed to those interested in borrowing money to start, grow or expand their business.

To register: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/wednesday-webinars-registration-11452674257

Webinars begin at noon EST. Duration is approximately 1 hour. For optimal performance we suggest using Internet Explorer as your web browser and connecting via Ethernet connection instead of wireless (wireless will work, but a hard line is more stable)

See website for more information and other upcoming topics:https://extension.umd.edu/womeninag/webinars

Small Farm Conference - Friday and Saturday, November 11 and 12, 2016

University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Online Registration: https://umessfc2016.eventbrite.com

Updates: www.umessmallfarm.com

Contact us: 410-651-6070/6210 or mlhoward@umes.edu

EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION ENDS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26th!

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EXTENSION SPONSORS FOOD FOR PROFIT CLASS IN PRINCE

GEORGE’S COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 15, 2016

Have you ever been told that your favorite homemade bread, or salsa, is “good enough to sell?” Do you have additional fruit or vegetables from your farm or home garden that you would like to make into a commercial product? Food for Profit is a one-day workshop designed to help you work through the maze of local and state regulations, food safety issues, and business management concepts that all must be considered in setting up a commercial food business. The course will be held at the Prince George’s Soil Conservation District, 5301 Race Track Rd, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This session of Penn State Extension’s popular course has been specifically adapted to Maryland’s food production regulations, food entrepreneurial resources, and marketing opportunities. HOW CAN FOOD FOR PROFIT HELP ME? Food for Profit will take you step-by-step through the entrepreneurial process. It will provide you with the information and skills to assess if your idea will be something that will sell at a profit. Conducting a feasibility study (to see if yours is a good business idea), performing marketing research, and beginning to draft a business plan are a few of the concrete tools taught by certified instructors and business experts. By attending this class, you can learn how to evaluate the opportunities on paper before you look for funding or take action (saving money and time). REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Food for Profit will meet from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm., on November 15, 2016 at the Prince George’s Soil Conservation District, 5301 Race Track Rd, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772. The tuition cost of $45 per person which includes all materials and lunch. Registration is through the University of Maryland Extension Eventbrite on-line system at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/food-for-profit-umd-extension-prince-georges-county-tickets-28343303584 or by calling 301.868.8780. For further information about workshop content, contact Kim Rush Lynch, Agriculture Marketing Specialist with University of Maryland Extension, Prince George’s County at kimrush@umd.edu, 301.868.8780. Pre-payment and registration are required for this workshop. For more information including a list of speakers, visit: https://extension.umd.edu/events/tue-2016-11-15-0900-food-profit-training.

9

Registration

University of Maryland and University of Maryland Extension Team Up to Offer

Combined FDA-Approved FSMA Trainings

Rohan Tikekar, an assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Science at the University of Maryland, along with a team of university and university extension collaborators, was recently awarded a USDA NIFA Food Safety Outreach Program grant to offer FDA-approved FSMA trainings throughout the state. The trainings combine curricula from the two Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rules that will impact farmers and processors the most: the Produce Safety and Preventive Controls rules.

The goal is to consolidate training and minimize costs for those growers who are also processing and need to get these certifications. Other collaborators include Justine Beaulieu, a Faculty Assistant and Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Educator in the Department of Plant Sciences and Landscape Architecture; David Martin, a UME Senior Agent in Baltimore County; Ginger Myers, a UME Agent Associate in Western MD; and Shauna Henley, a UME Agent also in Baltimore County.

Tikekar is a Lead Trainer for the FDA’s Food Preventive Controls Alliance (FPCA) Preventive Controls training and will be leading that part of the course, while Beaulieu and Martin are Produce Safety Alliance (PSA)-certified trainers and will be helping to teach the Produce Safety rule course. Each training will be four days long (one day for produce safety and three for preventive controls). Attendees will earn their certifications while gaining a comprehensive understanding of how to conduct risk analyses in growing and processing.

The team will hold the trainings in three locations throughout the state:

February 8-11, 2017 at Baltimore County extension office, Cockeysville, MD

February 22-25, 2017 at Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD

March 8-11, 2017 at Western Maryland Research and Education Center, Keedysville MD

The cost will be $20 for produce safety training only, $40 for PC rule training only, and $50 for the combined training.

To register, use the link: https://goo.gl/forms/zgkLb5JZmdBHlCtj2 or QR code or contact Rohan V. Tikekar (301-405-4509, rtikekar@umd.edu) or Justine Beaulieu (301-405-7543, jbeauli1@umd.edu)

Washington County Crops Conference

November 28, 2016. 9:30 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Washington County Agriculture Education Center, 7313 Sharpsburg Pike, Boonsboro, MD 21713

Register by calling the Washington County UME Office at 301-791-1304 or jsemler@umd.edu.

Southern Maryland Crops Conference

November 30, 2016. 4:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Baden Fire Hall, Baden, Maryland.

Register by calling the Charles County UME Office at 301-934-5403.

Northern Maryland Field Crops Day

December 8, 2016. 8:45 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Friendly Farm, Foreston Road in Upperco, Maryland.

Register by calling Baltimore County UME Office at 410-887-8090 or visit our webpage: http://extension.umd.edu/baltimore-county

10

Lower Shore Agronomy Day

January 19, 2017. 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Somerset County Civic Center

11828 Crisfield Lane, Princess Anne, MD

Register at the Somerset County UME Office at 410-651-1350.

Cecil County Winter Agronomy Meeting

January 25, 2017. 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Calvert Grange, Rising Sun, Maryland.

Register by calling the Cecil County UME Office at 410-996-5280 or dbehnke@umd.edu.

Carroll County Mid-Winter Farm Meeting

February 9 2017. 9:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.

Carroll County Ag Center, Westminster, Md.

Register by calling the Carroll County UME Office at 410-386-2760.

Harford County Agronomy Day

February 14, 2017. 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Deer Creek Overlook at Harford 4-H Camp

8 Cherry Hill Road, Street MD 21154

Register by calling the Harford County UME Office at 410-638-3255 or emailing sbh@umd.edu with your name and phone number.

Caroline County Agronomy Day

February 22, 2017. 4:30 p.m.

Caroline County 4-H Park

8230 Detour Rd, Denton, MD 21629

Register by calling the Caroline County UME Office at 410-479-4030.

Montgomery-Howard-Frederick Agronomy Day

February 22, 2017. 9 a.m. – 3p.m.

Urbana Fire Hall

3602 Urbana Pike, Frederick, MD 21704

Register by calling the Montgomery County UME Office at 301-590-2809.

Queen Anne’s Agronomy Day

March 3, 2017. 8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Queen Anne’s County 4-H Park

101 Dulin Clark Road, Centreville, MD 21617

Must pre-register. Register by calling the Queen Anne’s County UME Office at 410-758-0166.

Organic Meeting – Grain and Vegetable

TBA. 8:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Chesapeake College, Wye Mills MD

Must pre-register. Register by calling the Queen Anne’s County UME Office at 410-758-0166.

Delmarva Hay and Pasture Conference

January 10, 2017. 9:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Delaware Ag Week. Harrington Delaware

Southern Maryland Forage Conference

January 11, 2017. 8:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Baden Fire Hall, Baden, Maryland.

Register by calling the St Mary’s UME Office at 301 475-4484.

Tri-State Hay and Pasture Conference

January 12, 2017. 9:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Salisbury Fire Hall, PA

Register by calling the Garrett County UME office at 301-334-6950.

11

Alternative Specialty Crop Workshop

December 13, 2016. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Western Maryland Research and Education Center, Keedysville MD

Register Email: ddant@umd.edu

Phone: 410-827-8056 X115

Central Maryland Vegetable Growers Meeting

January 27, 2017. 8:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Friendly Farm, Foreston Rd. in Upperco, MD.

Register by calling UM Extension Baltimore County Office at 410-887-8090 or visit our webpage:

http://extension.umd.edu/baltimore-county

Eastern Shore Vegetable and Fruit Meeting

February 7, 2017. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Cambridge MD.

Register call the Dorchester County Extension Office at 410-228-8800.

Southern Maryland Vegetable and Fruit Meeting

February 9, 2017. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Location TBA

Western Maryland Fruit Meeting

February 16 or 23. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Western Maryland Research and Education Center, Keedysville MD

Register email sbarnes6@umd.edu or call 301 432-2767 ext.301.

Vegetable & Fruit News A timely publication for the commercial vegetable and fruit industry available electronically in 2016 from April through October on the following dates: May 13; June 9; July 21; August 18; September 16; and October 20.

Published by the University of Maryland Extension Focus Teams 1) Agriculture and Food Systems; and 2) Environment and Natural Resources. Submit Articles to: Editor, R. David Myers, Extension Educator Agriculture and Natural Resources 97 Dairy Lane Gambrills, MD 21054 410 222-3906 myersrd@umd.edu The University of Maryland Extension programs are open to any person and will not discriminate against anyone because of race, age, sex, color, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry, national origin, marital status, genetic information, political affiliation, and gender identity or expression. Note: Registered Trade Mark® Products, Manufacturers, or Companies mentioned within this newsletter are not to be considered as sole endorsements. The information has been provided for educational purposes only.