Michigan Farmer

www.FarmProgress.com February 2013 / 21

Crop Production

Apple trees get shot of protection

By JENNIFER VINCENT

HAT if apple producers could use fewer chemicals yet provide longer plant protection? Trunk injection of fruit trees offers this benet over air blast sprayers. The concept harnesses the trees vascular system to deliver materials, both insecticides and fungicides, to the canopy. John Wise, associate professor in entomology at Michigan State University, is in his third year of research and says it shows promise. By using one injection per year, instead of spraying every two weeks, savings can be made in labor, pesticides, fuel and equipment maintenance. The idea of going through an orchard a single time and walking away is an exciting concept, he says. Growers may be able to save 50% on pesticide costs. Trunk injection would also reduce soil compaction and erosion from multiple passes with tractors and sprayers and eliminate the negative effects of pesticide drift. Using a sprayer on even a slightly windy day, half of the applied product could be going somewhere else or just on the surface of the tree and not where the pest is feeding, he says. And it may be going where it could impact other creatures. Trunk injection would decrease non-target pesticide impact. But trunk injection does have challenges. It works quite well on insects that feed on foliage, but there are some pests of the apple that feed solely on the fruit. By giving the tree a shot, the pesticides hitch a ride on its vascular system (primarily the xylem) to deliver crop protection to the canopy, much like soiltargeted applications perform. However, soil applications are limited to compounds that dont bind to soil and can move through roots, Wise says. They also have additional risks related to soil leaching. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to evaluate registration of materials for trunk injection similarly to those currently labeled for soil- and roottargeted delivery. The advantage is were not putting it in the soil and depending on roots to pick it up, Wise says. Through the xylem, compounds are delivered to the leaves, but the fruit is largely

THE INJECTION TOOL

TOOLS OF TRADE: Research assistant Srdjan Acimovic (left) explains the equipment used to inject the trees to John Wise, Trevor Nichols Research Center coordinator.

MEDICAL ATTENTION: An apple tree is being injected with pesticides. unprotected, making additional protection for direct pests like codling moths necessary. Some direct fruit pests, like obliquebanded leafroller, also feed on foliage, so they will get a lethal dose before inicting injury on fruit. We will need to combine tactics to manage a whole spectrum of pests, including using mating disruption.

FORMER METHOD: Air-blast spraying of pesticides has been the traditional application, but it does have some drawbacks, including drift to unwanted places. The research has since attracted more funding. Project GREEEN in 2011 contributed $25,000 and the IR-4 Biopesticide and Organic Support Program allotted $13,844 in 2012. The USDA Pest Management Alternatives Program recently awarded a $78,831 grant for work this year. We have Srdjan Acimovic, who is a Ph.D. student in plant pathology, continuing the research, Wise says. Now that we have a proof in concept, we will be spending more time and energy addressing some of the weaknesses of trunk injection, which also include minimizing injury to the tree. Next is to put together a season-long program on a larger scale and evaluate economics. We have a great interdisciplinary team of MSU faculty working on this project, including Dr. George Sundin [tree fruit plant pathologist], Dr. Bert Cregg [horticulturist], Dr. Steven Miller [economist], Dr. Christine Vandervoort [MSU pesticide analytical lab], and Ms. Amy Irish-Brown [MSU Extension]. We need to take the elements weve already studied and put them together on a larger scale go from single tree to acre-size applications, he says. Wise has noticed slight differences in trunk injection effectiveness between varieties, but there are no conclusions yet. Regarding other trunk injection research, There is some on, I believe, avocados and citrus trees, which is good because it takes away some of the perceptions of risk. But to my knowledge, this is the only work

Targeted barriers

Research support
Initial research funding of $45,000 was provided by the Michigan Apple Committee for 2010-12. The provided funding was for one master student, Anthony VanWoerkom, who is now working on publishing results of his thesis, Wise says.

ALL PHOTOS: MADDIE BRADY FOR ANR COMMUNICATIONS AT MSU

VEN though trunk injection research is beyond the proof in concept stage, John Wise says several key barriers must be dealt with, such as: development or selection of injection techniques compatible with the inherent constraints of apple production (Current injection tools were developed for shade tree needs.) pesticide labels amended to include trunk injection as a delivery method (The IR-4 project and Wise are working on the most promising materials.) development of logistics to improve the economics of mass trunk injection as a delivery system potential of trunk wounds resistance, protection of pollinators and application speed

IN THE FIELD: Tony VanWoerkom (left) and Srdjan Acimovic, graduate research assistants, prepare the chemical mixture to be used for injection.

being done with apple trees in the U.S. The 2012 season, with almost a complete loss of the apple crop to frost, made research difcult. If it wasnt so much more difcult for farmers, Id be tempted to complain, Wise says. The good news is we were able to learn things we may not have learned in a normal season about diseases even though the fruit was lost. For more information, contact Wise at 517-432-2668 or wisejohn@msu.edu.