1. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project BMSB potential impact in hazelnut and berry crops Vaughn Walton*, Chris Hedstrom, Nik Wiman, Elizabeth Tomasino, Pallavi Mohekar, Betsey Miller, Danny Dalton, Riki York *Horticulture Department, Oregon State University, waltonv@hort.oregonstate.edu

2. BMSB in the Willamette Valley

3. BMSB Hazelnut Damage study 2012-2013 Analysis for 2012 and 2013 data Weeks of exposure were classified into nut developmental stage Proportions of damaged nuts per stage were compared to control sleeves Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

4. Developmental stage based on Thompson 1981 Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

6. * * * *indicates a p-value < 0.005, Exact Binomial Test compared to control of same year pre-expansion shell expansion kernel expansion maturation control Developmental stage Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

10. Methods : effect of shell thickness Filbertworm and weevil infestation was reduced in cultivars with thicker shells (Chambers et al. 2011, Jones et al. 1992) 3 Cultivars to represent three thicknesses: – Thick: Siciliana – Medium: Barcelona – Thin: Casina (Closca Molla replaced Casina: Casina in 2013) Measured at basar scar, side walls and bottom quarter Percentage of damaged nuts compared between cultivars basal scar sidewall bottom quarter Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

11. Damage by cultivar, field trial 2012 Med Thin Thick Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

12. Methods : effect of shell thickness Feeding adult BMSB were given a choice of two nuts – Thick vs. Thin – Thick vs. Med – Med vs. Thin – Thin vs. shelled Insects were allowed to feed for one week Nuts were examined for number of sheaths, corked kernels and shell thickness Thick choice not always thicker: analyzed by linear regression, shell thickness vs. corkspots Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

13. R 2= 0.04519 Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

14. Results Damage All stages of hazelnuts tested were susceptible to feeding damage Early season feeding during shell expansion resulted in blank nuts, feeding during kernel formation and maturation results in shriveled kernels or corking damage in both seasons tested. Shell Thickness No evidence of a relationship between hazelnut shell thickness and resulting feeding damage in field trials or lab trial Feeding sheath on outside of nut not always indicative of feeding event or nut damage Unpublished: Hedstrom et al in prep

15. Overall Summary: BMSB impact All tested are susceptible to feeding damage Early season feeding – blanks, shriveling Late season feeding – corking Development stage has direct impact on symptoms

17. Preliminary field observations High number in abandoned orchard. BMSB in traps in monitored commercial orchard

18. Preliminary field observations

19. No BMSB found: 5% blank nuts BMSB presence: 25% blank nuts BMSB pyramid trap

21. BMSB in berry crops, 2013

22. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project Controlled BMSB feeding studies on Blueberry

23. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project Controlled BMSB feeding studies on Blueberry

24. Biology, Ecology, and Management of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug in Orchard Crops, Small Fruit, Grapes, Vegetables, and Ornamentals USDA-NIFA SCRI Coordinated Agricultural Project BMSB in Vineyards and Wines

25. Photo: Walton Oregon: Populations build up in late season

26. Photos: Walton Pheromone-baited pyramid traps and systematic beat sheeting

27. Presence of stylet sheaths Photos, Chris Hedstrom

28. Photo, Walton

29. Controlled BMSB Exposure 2012, 2013 Treatments: 0 BMSB = Control 1 BMSB = Low 2 BMSB = High Three distinct exposure periods: Pea size (Jul 23, 2012; Jul 15, 2013), Véraison (Aug 25, 2012; Aug 4, 2013) Pre-harvest (Sept, 28 2012; Sept 15, 2013) Clusters exposed to BMSB for 7 days, sleeve feeding Analyzed using ANOVA and Tukeys HSD to separate means Photo, Walton

30. Determination of direct impact: Crop quality most important Crop quality Mean cluster weight Mean number of berries per cluster Mean weight of berries Mean number of dropped berries at harvest. Mean number of BMSB punctures per cluster. Mean number of discolored berries per cluster. Mean number of raisin berries per cluster.

31. 2012 Crop Year, Pinot noir TreatmentBerries/clust er PuncturesN Pea stage 73.6±5.5 a2.7±1.1 b18 Veriason 70.9±4.6 a6±4.8 a21 Pre harvest 79.9±5.5 a3.4±1.6 ab20 Control 80.1±5.4 a0.3±0.2 b10

32. 2013 Crop year, Pinot noir Treatment Berries/clust erPunctures N Pea stage 1/Cluster 102.9±6 a0.2±0.1 a15 PS 2/Clus 107.4±6.7 a1.1±0.5 a15 Veriason 1/Cluster 97.7±6.7 a0.2±0.1 a15 Ver 2/Clus 108.6±9 a0 b13 Pre harvest 1/Clus 100.6±7.8 a0.1±0.1 a15 PH 2/Clus 93±8.5 a0.7±0.4 a15 Control 94.6±7.5 a0 b15

33. Dr. Elizabeth Tomasino New OSU faculty with wine sensory analysis and flavor chemistry expertise Research question: will BMSB contamination result in wine taint? High quality Pinot Noir Donated by Adelsheim Vineyard

34. Tetradecane Trans-2-decenal Dodecane Trans-2-octenal Step 1: Characterize BMSB defensive compounds GCMS chromatogram of the volatile aroma compounds excreted by stressed BMSB STRONG AROMA: pungent, cilantro WEAK AROMA: citrus, fresh

35. Stinkbugs added to Pinot noir grapes before wine processing Taint in destemmer Taint in pressing (dead and some alive) Treatments: Control – no bugs (T1) – 1 bug per 4 clusters (T2) – 1 bug per 2 clusters Treatments Fairly high densities, but not entirely unreasonable considering potential BMSB densities Photo, Wiman

36. Taint in destemming We found BMSB surviving destemming process 1,600 stink bugs Destemmer Photo, Walton Photo, Wiman

37. Simulating cluster contamination Cold soak process containing bugs Taint compounds released again during pressing, despite majority dead bug presence Photo, Walton

38. Tetradecane Trans-2-decenal Dodecane Trans-2-octenal What made it into finished wine? GCMS chromatogram of the finished wine (and at fermentation intervals). Present in wine, unknown effect Main taint components

39. A) Difference testing (triangle tests) showed that consumers could tell a difference between the treatment wines and the control (significant at α =0.05). B) Consumer rejection threshold found to be very close to the detection threshold, even even low amounts of BMSB taint have a negative impact on Pinot noir quality. Sensory Panel Evaluation A B

40. Wine and fresh berry taint BMSB taint is real! Other processes and varieties may change the results. – Masked fruity characteristics of the wine – Contrasts with results from MD Consumer rejection: as soon as its detectable, its rejectable – Opportunity to link detection thresholds in wine to density of insects in the field – This may become the treatment threshold for vineyard managers

41. Web Resources BMSB@oregonstate.edu http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/group/brown-marmorated-stink-bug-oregon