Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:29:38.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulfur management and miticide use in winegrapes grown in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2012

Minghua Zhang ,
Jennifer Campos ,
Yu Zhan  and
Michael L. Grieneisen
Minghua Zhang*
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, CA 95616, USA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA.
Jennifer Campos
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Planning, San Diego County, CA, USA.
Yu Zhan
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Michael L. Grieneisen
Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, CA 95616, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proper sulfur management in winegrapes may potentially reduce both insecticide/miticide use and the human/social problems associated with sulfur's impacts on air quality and odors, particularly in wine tourism regions. Data from California's unique Pesticide Use Report (PUR) database, which records agricultural pesticide applications on all crops throughout the state, are used to determine if either winegrape grower's choice of sulfur formulation (dust only, wettable only, or a combination) or overall sulfur use rates (pounds per acre planted) correlate with annual miticide and insecticide use in Fresno and Madera (hotter–drier) and Napa and Sonoma counties (cooler–damper). Annual sulfur use has declined by 36–55% in these counties from 1993 to 2009. In 2000, the greatest number of growers in each county were combination users; wettable users were higher in Napa (38%) and Sonoma (34%) than in Fresno (24%) and Madera (10%); and dust-only users varied little (15–19%) across the four counties. Data for 2005 and 2009 showed similar trends. The use of high-toxicity insecticides in Fresno was 387% higher than in Napa–Sonoma in 2000, but was 25 and 8% lower in 2005 and 2009, respectively. In Fresno, wettable sulfur users used less high-toxicity insecticides; while in Fresno and Madera dust users used less lower-risk insecticides than combination or wettable sulfur users. No significant differences in insecticide use were evident between the three sulfur use categories in Napa–Sonoma (P = 0.97). On average, dust users in Fresno–Madera used more high-toxicity miticides than combination or wettable sulfur users in 2000. That trend decreased in the data for 2005 and 2009. Average miticide use in Fresno–Madera was higher than in Napa–Sonoma by 1349% in 2000, 1103% in 2005 and 146% in 2009. Higher sulfur use intensities among individual growers in Fresno–Madera were positively correlated with greater use of high-toxicity miticides in 2000 and 2005, but not 2009. The comparable results for Napa–Sonoma were less clear. Since PUR data represent statewide information on pesticide use decisions in real-world farming scenarios, it can complement data from field and laboratory studies. Expanding these analyses to compare pesticide use by individual growers across years, or to correlate pesticide usage with any published mite field surveys may shed more light on the enigmatic relationship between sulfur fungicide use and mite outbreaks in winegrapes.

Keywords

sulfur managementmiticide usewinegrapes
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 32 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1CAWG. 20 11. The importance of winegrapes to California's economy. Available at Web site http://dnn.cawg.org/CAWGNews/Features/tabid/151/Article/17/importance-of-winegrapes.aspx (verified January 2012).Google Scholar
2California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2005. Agricultural statistics. Available at Web site http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/ResourceDirectory_2005.pdf, page 20 out of 179 (accessed February 7, 2012).Google Scholar
3California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 2006. Pesticide Use Summary in California. Annual Report of Pesticide Use. CDPR, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
4Vance Communication Corporation. 2011. Wettable Sulphur. In: Crop Protection Reference. MSDS Reference. Vance Communication Corporation, Lenexa, KS, p. M1287–M1288.Google Scholar
5Ross, K. 2003. Pest Management Alliance Project Final Report, August 2003. Available at Web site http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/grants/alliance/01–02/01–0194C.pdfGoogle Scholar
6Browde, J. and Ohmart, C. 2001 . Improving Sulfur Management. Practical Winery and Vineyard 23(1):11–12.Google Scholar
7Hanna, R., Zalom, F.G., Wilson, L.T., and Leavitt, G.M. 1997. Sulfur can suppress mite predators in vineyards. California Agriculture 51:19–21.Google Scholar
8Calvert, D.J. and Huffaker, C.B. 1974. Predator (Metaseiulus occidentalis)–prey (Pronematus spp.) interactions under sulfur and cattail pollen applications in a noncommercial vineyard. Entomophaga 19:361–369.Google Scholar
9English-Loeb, G.M., Flaherty, D.L., Wilson, L.T., Barnett, W.W., Leavitt, G.M., and Settle, W.H. 1986. Pest management affects spider mites in vineyards. California Agriculture 40:28–30.Google Scholar
10Gent, D.H., James, D.G., Wright, L.C., Brooks, D.J., Barbur, J.D., Dreves, A.J., Fisher, G.C., and Walton, V.M. 2009. Effects of powdery mildew fungicide programs on twospotted spider mite (Acari: Tatranychidae), hop aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae), and their natural enemies in hop yards. Journal of Economic Entomology 102:274–286.Google Scholar
11Costello, M.J. and Albers, C.E. 2003. Sulfur dust exacerbates Pacific mite outbreaks. Practical Winery and Vineyard 25(1):64–68.Google Scholar
12Costello, M.J. 2007. Impact of sulfur on density of Tetranychus pacificus (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Galendromus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in a central California vineyard. Experimental and Applied Acarology 42:197–208.Google Scholar
13Gerson, U., Gafni, A., Paz, Z., and Sztejnberg, A. 2008. A tale of three acaropathogenic fungi in Israel: Hirsutella, Meira and Acaromyces. Experimental and Applied Acarology 46:183–194.Google Scholar
14Klingen, I. and Westrum, K. 2007. The effect of pesticides used in strawberries on the phytophagous mite Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) and its fungal natural enemy Neozygites floridana (Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales). Biological Control 43:222–230.Google Scholar
15Beers, E.H., Martinez-Rocha, L., Talley, R.R., and Dunley, J.E. 2009. Lethal, sublethal, and behavioral effects of sulfur-containing products in bioassays of three species of orchard mites. Journal of Economic Entomology 102:324–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Pozzebon, A., Loeb, G.M., and Duso, C. 2009. Grape powdery mildew as a food source for generalist predatory mites occurring in vineyards: Effects on life-history traits. Annals of Applied Biology 155:81–8916.Google Scholar
17Gadino, A.N., Walton, V.M., and Dreves, A.J. 2011. Impacts of vineyard pesticides on Typhlodromus pyri in laboratory bioassays. Journal of Economic Entomology 104:970–977.Google Scholar
18UC IPM. 2003. Relative Toxicities of Insecticides and Miticides Used in Grapes to Natural Enemies and Honey Bees. UC ANR Publication 3448.Google Scholar
19Prischmann, D.A., James, D.G., Wright, L.C., Teneyck, R.D., and Snyder, W.E. 2005. Effects of chlorpyrifos and sulfur on spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and their natural enemies. Biological Control 33:324–334.Google Scholar
20Prischmann, D.A., James, D.G., Gingras, S.N., and Snyder, W.E. 2005. Diversity and abundance of insects and spiders on managed and unmanaged grapevines in southcentral Washington State. Pan-Pacific Entomology 81:131–141.Google Scholar
21Irigaray, F.J.S., Zalom, F.G., and Thompson, P.B. 2007. Residual toxicity of acaricides to Galendromus occidentalis and Phytoseiulus persimilis reproductive potential. Biological Control 40:153–159.Google Scholar
22Zalom, F.G., Stimmann, M.W., Arndt, T.S., Walsh, D.B., Pickel, C., and Krueger, W.H. 2001. Analysis of permethrin (cis- and trans-isomers) and esfenvalerate on almond twigs and effects of residues on the predator mite Galendromus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environmental Entomology 30: 70–75.Google Scholar
23California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 2010. Pesticide Use Trend in California. CDPR, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
24US EPA. 1996. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Available at Web site http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/ (accessed February 7, 2012).Google Scholar
25Volpe, R.J., Green, R.D., Heien, D.M., and Howitt, R.E. 2010. Wine-grape production trends reflect evolving consumer demand over 30 years. California Agriculture 64:42–46.Google Scholar
26Breyer, L. and Frey, N. 2002. Managing mites: the good, the bad, the enigmatic. Practical Winery and Vineyard 23(6):41–48.Google Scholar
27California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 2001. An overview of California unique full reporting system. Available at Web site http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purovrvw/ovr52000.pdf (verified June 2011).Google Scholar
28Wilhoit, L., Zhang, M.H., and Ross, L. 2001. Data quality of California's Pesticide Use Report. PM01–02. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
29R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foudation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
30CASS. 2003. California Agricultural Statistics Reports. California Grape Acreage Reports. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Fruits_and_Nuts/200305grpac.pdf (verified January 2012).Google Scholar
31CASS. 2003. California Agricultural Statistics Reports. California Grape Crush Reports. Available at Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Grape_Crush/Final/2003/200303gcbtb00.pdf (verified January 2012).Google Scholar
32Campos, J. and Zhang, M.H. 2004 . Progress toward Reduced-Risk Pest Management. Practical Winery and Vineyard 25(6):5–19, 75.Google Scholar
33NSWG. 2004. Napa Sustainable Winegrowing Group. Powdery Mildew (Uncinula necator). Available at Web site http://www.nswg.org/ipm2.htm (accessed September 15, 2004).Google Scholar
34California Winegrape Pest Management Alliance. Undated. Best Management Practices for Sulfur in Winegrapes Available at Web site http://www.cawg.org/images/stories/pdf/ed-grower_bmps.pdf (accessed February 7, 2012).Google Scholar
35Zeinali, M., McConnell, L.L., Hapeman, C.J., Nguyen, A., Schmidt, W.F., and Howard, C.J. 2011. Volatile organic compounds in pesticide formulations. Methods to estimate ozone formation potential. Atmospheric Environment 45:2404–2412.Google Scholar
36Luckey, T.D. 1965. Insecticide hormoligosis. Journal of Economic Entomology 61:7–12.Google Scholar
37Stavrinides, M.C. and Mills, N.J. 2009. Demographic effects of pesticides on biological control of Pacific spider mite (Tetranychus pacificus) by the western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis). Biological Control 48:267–273.Google Scholar