Current Pest Status and Management Practices for Systena frontalis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Ornamental Plants in the Eastern United States: ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2021) 12(1): 17; 1–10
doi: 10.1093/jipm/pmab012
Surveys and Needs Assessments
Current Pest Status and Management Practices for
Systena frontalis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in
Ornamental Plants in the Eastern United States: An
Online Survey
Shimat V. Joseph,1,16, Juang-Horng Chong,2 Benjamin Campbell,3 Brian Kunkel,4
Danny Lauderdale,5 Stacey Jones,6 Stanton Gill,7, Yan Chen,8 Peter Schultz,9
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
David Held,10 Frank Hale,11 Adam Dale,12 Erfan Vafaie,13, Will Hudson,14, Dan Gilrein,15
and Alejandro Del Pozo-Valdivia9,
1
Department of Entomology, Turfgrass Research and Educational Facility, University of Georgia, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA
30223, USA, 2Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Clemson University, 2200
Pocket Road, Florence, SC 29506, USA, 3Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia, 208B Conner Hall, 147 Cedar
Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA, 4Cooperative Extension, University of Delaware, 531 South College Avenue, 248 Townsend Hall,
Newark, DE 19716, USA, 5North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, 1806 SW Goldsboro Street, Wilson, NC 27893, USA, 6North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, 715 Cabarrus Avenue W, Concord, NC 28027, USA, 7Central Maryland Research and Edu-
cation Center, University of Maryland, 11975 Homewood Road, Ellicott City, MD 21042, USA, 8Louisiana State University AgCenter,
104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA, 9Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1444
Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455, USA, 10Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, 301
Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL 36849, USA, 11Soil, Plant and Pest Center, University of Tennessee, 5201 Marchant Drive, Nashville, TN
37211, USA, 12Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Steinmetz Hall, 1881 Natural Area Drive, Gainesville,
FL 32611, USA, 13Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, 1710 N FM 3053, Overton, TX 75684, USA, 14Department of Entomology, Uni-
versity of Georgia, 120 Cedar Street, 463A Biological Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602, USA, 15Cornell Cooperative Extension,
423 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, NY 11901, USA, and 16Corresponding author, tel: +1-770-228-7312, e-mail: svjoseph@uga.edu
Subject Editor: Carlos Bogran
Received 17 November 2020; Editorial decision 23 March 2021
Abstract
Systena frontalis (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is an important pest in ornamental plant nurseries in the United
States. Information on current pest status and management practices employed by nurseries, garden centers, and
landscape care operations are crucial to developing an effective research and extension program for ornamental
crops. An online survey was developed and administered by the research team in 2020 to gather data on pest
status and current pest management practices. The questionnaire included three focus areas: 1) participant
(location, industry type, or operating area); 2) pest status indicators (incidence, affected crops, and estimated
loss); and 3) common pest management practices. The questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders via e-mail
lists, newsletters, and blogs. Seventy-five responses were received; 82.6% of which were from wholesale nursery
operators in 19 U.S. states and 1 Canadian province. For most respondents (72%), damage recurred yearly in the
past 10 yr and persisted from April to October. About 56% of respondents reported damage on more than five
host plant species (with Hydrangea spp. being the most frequently identified) representing approximately 25%
of the total number of plants grown in the facilities. Presence of S. frontalis is being monitored mainly through
visual inspection of foliage for adult presence or foliage damage (100%), with scouting occurring mainly at weekly
intervals (57%). The majority of respondents used broad-spectrum insecticides (such as pyrethroids) for adult
(89%) and larval control (47%). We estimated that a grower spends USD$1,637/ha/yr on insecticides and labor for
monitoring and implementing S. frontalis management.
Key words: redheaded flea beetle, wholesale nursery, monitoring
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 1
which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1
Systena frontalis (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is a serious Despite S. frontalis’ economic impact on ornamental plant nur-
insect pest in outdoor, containerized production of ornamental series, there is limited knowledge on its phenology and habits on
plants (Mahr 2005, Lauderdale 2017, Cloyd and Herrick 2018, ornamental plant species in the United States. Adoption of integrated
Joseph and Hudson 2020). Systena frontalis is a native species of pest management by growers and landscape maintenance operators
central and eastern North America (Riley et al. 2003, Mahr 2005, has not been assessed. We document the current pest status and man-
Lauderdale 2017, Cloyd and Herrick 2018, Joseph and Hudson agement practices to provide the basis for development of research
2020). It is referred to as the redheaded flea beetle (e.g., Mahr and extension priorities in the areas of economic impact and inte-
2005) or the cranberry flea beetle (e.g., Dittl 1988) (not ESA- grated pest management.
approved common names), reflecting its pest status on ornamental
plants and cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos L.) crops (Dittl 1988,
Mahr 2005, Averill and Sylvia 2011, Maine Cooperative Extension
Materials and Methods
[MCE] 2020). It is also documented as a pest of potato (Solanum A survey questionnaire was developed to collect information on the
tuberosum L.) (Storch et al. 1979), corn (Zea mays L.) (Peters and pest status and management of S. frontalis in the ornamental in-
Barton 1969, Jacques and Peters 1971), and blueberry (Vaccinium dustry, which include wholesale and retail nurseries, retail garden
L.) (Maltais and Ouellette 2000). Adults skeletonize upper and/ centers, and landscape installation and maintenance companies
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
or lower leaf surfaces (Fig. 1); such damage appears rapidly and (Table 1). In recent years, university researchers and extension per-
can be severe, depending on the density of adults. Moderate-to- sonnel had received queries about S. frontalis mainly from orna-
severe foliar damage often renders ornamental plants unmarket- mental plant nurseries; it was not clear if this insect is considered
able. Larvae feed on roots, but their impacts on plant growth and a pest in garden centers and commercial and residential landscapes.
appearance are unknown. Hence, some questions in the survey were tailored to obtain spe-
Systena frontalis adults are small (3.5–6.25 mm in length), shiny, cific information from garden centers and landscape installation and
oval-shaped, with metallic, black-colored bodies, and red-tinted care operations. The questionnaire was developed and distributed
heads (Fig. 1A; Mahr 2005, MCE 2020). Females are slightly larger through e-mail lists, newsletters, and blogs to the target respond-
than males. A pair of light brown serrate antennae, with dark brown ents in their respective states by a group of collaborating researchers
distal segments, originates below the eyes (Joseph and Hudson and extension personnel from Cornell University, University of
2020). The last pair of femora is swollen, which enables S. frontalis Delaware, University of Maryland, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
to jump (Mahr 2005). Mature females lay pale-yellow eggs singly in and State University, North Carolina State University, Clemson
soil or substrate (Mahr 2005). Larvae are approximately 0.5–1 cm University, University of Tennessee, University of Georgia, Auburn
in length, creamy-white, and with pale brown head capsule and legs. University, Louisiana State University, University of Florida, and
The last larval abdominal segment is oriented upward with a prom- Texas A&M University.
inent seta (Mahr 2005). Larvae develop through three instars before Questions were organized into three sections. The first group
pupating in the soil. of questions gathered information on participant characteristics,
Systena frontalis overwinters as eggs in containerized nur- including the type, location, and size of the respondents’ operations.
series (Lauderdale 2017, Herrick and Cloyd 2020), but the No personal or demographic information of the respondents was
overwintering stage has not been confirmed in other ecosystems. collected; hence, this questionnaire was reviewed and exempted
Adult feeding injury typically is first observed in late April or from approval by the Institutional Review Board at the University
early May in Georgia (Chong, unpublished data); however, of Georgia (approval number PROJECT00002513). The second
timing may fluctuate based on local weather conditions. Surveys group of questions focused on the prevalence, damage, and host
in North Carolina found first-generation larvae to emerge be- plants affected by S. frontalis. The third group of questions focused
tween 250 and 480 GDD50 (Growing Degree Day with a base on the current monitoring and management practices conducted by
temperature of 50°F or 10°C) using 1 January as the biofix date various operations. The questionnaire was converted into an online
(Lauderdale 2017). There is only one generation in Maine (MCE survey tool developed by Qualtrics (Provo, UT) under subscription
2020). All life stages may be found on the same containerized purchased by the University of Georgia. If the respondents selected
plant in the summer (Joseph and Hudson 2020). Plant pheno- the option that they never had a S. frontalis issue in their facility,
logical indicator for larval development varies among geograph- the survey ended at that point. The respondents could select mul-
ical locations (Lauderdale 2017). tiple options for certain questions (Table 1). For those questions,
A B
Fig. 1. Adult redheaded flea beetle and damage on (A) Rosa sp. and (B) Hydrangea paniculata.
Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1 3
Table 1. The questionnaire used for the survey with percentage response (N = 75) to specific questions
No. Questionsa Response
rate (%)
1 Where are you located? Zip code: 98.7
2b What type of nursery industry are you involved in? 100
3 If you are a wholesale nursery, what size describes your operation the best? 82.7
4 If you are a retail nursery, what size describes your operation the best? 17.3
5 If you are a retail garden center, what type describes your operation the best? 14.7
6 If you are in a landscape installation/maintenance, what is the average size area of properties your operation manages? 12
7 Have you had redheaded flea beetle infestations in the last 10 yr? 97.3
8 If yes, can you estimate the percentages of plants/containers/landscape area infested by redheaded flea beetles each 82.7
year?
9 Provide an estimate of how many species of plants were attacked each time. 82.7
10 List the top five plants species affected by redheaded flea beetle in your nursery/operation/facility: 73.3
11 Provide an estimate of loss due to redheaded flea beetle infestation (unmarketable plants) the last time you observed 5.3
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
damage.
12 Provide an estimate of loss due to redheaded flea beetle infestation in damaged plants that have to be replaced the last 5.3
time you observed damage.
13 Do you have adequate knowledge of biology and behavior of redheaded flea beetle to manage this pest in your oper- 77.3
ation?
14 What is an estimate of your average sales over the last couple of years? 77.3
15b What is the most common time period of the year for attacks? 77.3
16 How often do you monitor/scout for redheaded flea beetle activity? 77.3
17b What monitoring method(s) do you employ to scout for redheaded flea beetle? 76
18b What tactic(s) do you employ to manage redheaded flea beetle? 77.3
19 If a landscaper, do your customers use insecticide for redheaded flea beetle control? 4
20 How much does it cost your customers for you to control redheaded flea beetle control in the landscape? 4
21 Provide an estimate of the total amount spent on managing your redheaded flea beetle infestation (materials [insecti- 73.3
cide, nematodes, etc.], monitoring and spraying, labor, etc.) each year.
22 Do you have an adequate number of effective insecticides to manage redheaded flea beetle? 73.3
23 Which insecticide (s) worked the best for redheaded flea beetle in your facility? 73.3
24 Are there any restrictions for you to use neonicotinoids (such as imidacloprid, i.e., Merit, or dinotefuran, i.e., Safari)? 72
a
This questionnaire was focused on redheaded flea beetle in the ornamental industry. The respondents included farm managers and growers associated with
nurseries, garden centers and landscape installation and maintenance companies. One participant did not provide location information. Individuals involved in
academia or agrochemical companies did not participate in the survey.
b
Respondents could check more than one choice.
specific instructions were provided in parentheses. Similarly, if the greatest numbers of responses. Some counties had multiple responses,
respondents selected the option that they never used insecticides for such as Wake (six respondents), Johnston (four), Wayne (three), and
S. frontalis control in their facility, the survey ended at that point. New Hanover (three) Counties in North Carolina, Baltimore County
A couple of questions (17 and 18) included an option for respond- (four) in Maryland, Cumberland County (three) in New Jersey, and
ents to type an answer(s) or leave a comment. McDuffie County (three) in Georgia. Participant response rates to
The questionnaire was distributed via e-mails, newsletters, and specific questions are listed in Table 1.
extension publications from the participating institutions and trade The respondents (n = 75) identified themselves as a grower/man-
organizations representing the green industry. The newsletters are ager/owner, representing a wholesale nursery (82.6%), retail nursery
distributed beyond state lines and reach a broad audience. An es- (17.3%), retail garden center, and landscape installation (17.3%),
timated 23,437 entities, including wholesale and retail nurseries and landscape maintenance company (12%) involved in making
(owners, growers, and managers), retail garden centers, landscape pest management decisions at their respective operations (Fig. 3A).
installation and maintenance companies, greenhouse growers or A total of 13 respondents were involved in multiple industry sectors,
managers, university extension agents, state department of agricul- such as both retail garden centers and landscaping companies, both
ture employees, and private pesticide license holders were contacted. retail garden centers and wholesale nurseries, or all three industry
Survey responses received via Qualtrics between 24 June and 2 sectors. These respondents were categorized as a wholesale nursery
September 2020 were included in this analysis. if this sector was part of the operation; if not, they were considered
retail nurseries. Of the 61 wholesale nursery respondents, 44.3%
operated > 20.3 ha, and 26.2% operated between 8.2 and 20.2 ha
Results
(Table 2). Among the 13 retail nursery respondents, 30.7% of re-
Participant Type and Facilities spondents had 0.4–2.0 ha, 30.7% had 8.2–20.2 ha, and approxi-
Seventy-five entities or respondents from 19 U.S. states and 1 mately 7.7% had > 20.3 ha under operation. Of the nine landscape
Canadian province responded to the survey (Fig. 2). All responses maintenance respondents, 66.7% had between 0.4 and 2.0 ha of the
(except for one response each from the states of Minnesota and service area. A total of 11 retail garden centers participated in the
Washington, and Ontario, Canada) came from the eastern United survey; 72.2% of them were independent centers operating from one
States, with respondents from North Carolina (11 counties), Georgia location (Fig. 3B). Fifty-five respondents provided information on
(7), Tennessee (7), New Jersey (6), and Maryland (3) submitted the their annual sales in the last couple of years, of which 47% indicated
4 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
Fig. 2. U.S. counties where the survey respondents operate (n = 75). Two respondents, one from King County, Washington State, and another from Ontario,
Canada, were not included in the map. One participant did not provide location information.
sales of over (USD) $2 million and 20% reported between $500,000 maintenance companies (three responses or 33%) in Georgia (two re-
and $1 million (Fig. 4A). sponses or 22% of responses from this state), New Jersey (one response
or 11%), North Carolina (two responses or 8%), Pennsylvania (one
Systena frontalis Pest Status response or 50%), and Tennessee (four responses or 57%).
Among 72 responses to the question about the frequency of infestation, Sixty-one respondents provided information on host plants
72% found recurrent yearly infestation in the past 10 yr, 14% reported attacked by S. frontalis (most likely based on observations of adult
infestation every 2–3 yr, and 14% reported no infestation at all (Fig. feeding damage on leaves); 56% observed attacks on more than five
5A). Forty-eight respondents who reported yearly infestation (92% host plant species (Fig. 5B). More than half of the respondents suf-
of this group) were exclusively wholesale producers or had whole- fered 10–25% damage to their crops (Fig. 5C). Respondents docu-
sale nurseries as part of their operations. Respondents who had never mented attacks on 36 plant genera (Table 3). The top five plant hosts
experienced an infestation of this pest operated wholesale nurseries were Hydrangea spp., Itea virginica, Weigela spp., Ilex spp., and Rosa
(seven responses or 11% of responses from this sector) and landscape spp. (Table 3). Few respondents responded to the question about cropJournal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1 5
100 in their knowledge level, with approximately 40% of respondents
A
with sales > $2 million indicated inadequate knowledge. Of the 51
80 wholesale nursery respondents, 33% of them expressed inadequate
Respondents (%)
knowledge of S. frontalis biology (Fig. 4C). Moreover, approxi-
60 mately 50% of the respondents (mostly wholesale nurseries) who
expressed inadequate knowledge suffered approximately 10–25%
40
damage to plants (Fig. 5D).
20 Fifty-six respondents provided multiple responses to the ques-
tions on monitoring (Table 1; questions 15 and 17). Respondents
0 observed adult beetle activity as early as February–March (3% of
Wholesale Retail nursery Retail garden Landscape 118 responses) but most observed activity from late May to August
nursery center installaon (> 60%) and persisted into September and October (35%) (Fig. 6).
and All respondents monitored beetle activity visually, but some (13 re-
maintenance spondents) also employed other monitoring techniques, including
Industry type
100 canopy shaking, sticky card, using growing degree-day model to pre-
B
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
dict adult emergence, and root ball dissection to sample for larvae
80 (Fig. 7A). Most respondents conducted weekly scouting (56% of
Respondents (%)
57 respondents), but 1 respondent who reported infestation never
60 monitored beetle activity (Fig. 7B).
Fifty-eight respondents provided 88 responses to the multiple-
40 choice question on management tactics (Table 1; question 18). All
except 3 of 58 respondents managed adults and/or larvae (Fig. 8A).
20
Application of insecticides against adults is the major management
approach against S. frontalis (89% of 88 responses), followed by
0
larval control (47%) and both adult and larval control (48%) (Fig.
Independent Independent Home Grocery chain-
Garden Center Garden Center improvement stores 8A). A small subset of respondents used entomopathogenic nema-
– one locaon – mulple chain-stores todes (11% of 88 responses) and entomopathogenic fungi (2%)
locaons for larval control. The most frequently used insecticides are the
Industry type neonicotinoids (36% of 88 responses), followed by carbaryl (23%;
indicated in ‘others’), pyrethroids (21%), organophosphates (15%),
Fig. 3. The respondents representing (A) various ornamental industries
and diamides (6%) (Fig. 8B). When asked if they have an adequate
(n = 75) and (B) various retail garden outlets (n = 11). Of 75 respondents, 13
number of effective insecticides to manage S. frontalis, 41 respond-
respondents operate in multiple sectors of the ornamental industry.
ents responded, and 54% of them expressed a need for more ef-
fective insecticides, whereas the rest were satisfied with currently
Table 2. Percentage of respondents serving the ornamental indus- available insecticides.
try and area of the United States
Thirty-five (66%) respondents reported no restriction on the use
Industry Area served (ha) of neonicotinoids for S. frontalis control in their operations (Fig. 9).
However, approximately 11 and 15% of respondents refrained from
0.4–2.0 2.1–4.0 4.1–8.1 8.2–20.2 >20.3 using neonicotinoids because of the perceived risk of consumer dis-
a satisfaction or the company’s no-neonicotinoid-use policy, respect-
Wholesale nursery 4.9 11.5 13.1 26.2 44.3
ively. These no-neonicotinoid respondents were almost exclusively
Retail nurseryb 30.8 15.4 30.8 15.4 7.7
Landscape 66.7 0.0 11.1 0.0 22.2 large wholesale nurseries (sales > $1 million).
maintenancec
Cost of S. frontalis Management
a
61 respondents. Fifty-four respondents reported spending < $100–$500,000 per year
b
13 respondents. on S. frontalis management. Among these respondents, 22 and 24%
c
9 respondents. spent approximately $100–$1,000 and $2,000–$5,000 per year,
respectively (Fig. 10). Among 18 respondents with > $2 million in
sales, 61% of them expressed that they did not have adequate in-
losses. Three respondents reported estimated crop losses that ranged secticides available for S. frontalis control (Fig. 11A). Operations
from $501 to $5,000 per infestation, and two respondents reported with > $1.5 million in sales tended to spend greater amounts on
plant replacement costs of < $500–$1,000 per infestation (Table 1). S. frontalis control (Fig. 11B). By dividing the amount spent on
management (including insecticides and monitoring and application
Monitoring and Management labor costs) by the operation area reported for each respondent, we
Among 58 respondents of this group of questions, 62% indicated estimated that the 54 respondents spent an average of $1,637/ha an-
that they have adequate knowledge of the biology and behavior of nually for the management of S. frontalis.
S. frontalis to manage this pest. There are, however, differences in
perceived inadequacy of knowledge among groups of respondents.
Small operations with sales < $100,000 and those between $500,000
Discussion
and $1 million generally did not feel they had adequate knowledge Our survey results show that S. frontalis is a serious and persistent
(Fig. 4B). Even larger operators had only slightly higher confidence pest for some of the most commonly grown and sold plant taxa6 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1
100
A
Respondents (%) 80
60
40
20
0
0 - $51 - $101 - $151 - $201 - $251 - $501k $1 - $1.5 - $2m+
$50k $100k $150k $200k $250k $500k - $1m $1.5m $2m
Average sales (USD) in last two years
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
100 Adequate knowledge 100 Adequate knowledge
B C
Inadequate knowledge Inadequate knowledge
80 80
Respondents (%)
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 - $50k $51 - $101 - $151 - $251 - $501k - $1.5 - $2m+ Wholesale Retail/Garden
$100k $150k $200k $500k $1m $2m nursery center
(n=3) (n=1) (n=1) (n=1) (n=3) (n=11) (n=9) (n=25) (n=51) (n=7)
Average sales (USD) in last two years Industry type
Fig. 4. (A) The sales of the participating operations over the last 2 yr, (B) adequate or inadequate knowledge about the biology of S. frontalis by sales indicated
by the respondents, and (C) representation of wholesale nursery and retail nursery with adequate and inadequate knowledge about the biology of S. frontalis.
100 100
A B
Respondents (%)
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Never Once in Once Once Every 1 2-5 >5
the past every 5 every 2- year Numbers of plant species
10 years years 3 years a acked by S. frontalis each me
Frequency of S. frontalis incidence
100 100 Adequate knowledge
C D
Inadequate knowledge
80
Respondents (%)
80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1 7
Table 3. Number of respondents indicating plants species affected 100
by S. frontalis in ornamental industry
80
Respondents (%)
Plant host Common name Family No.
respondents 60
40
Hydrangea spp.a Hydrangea Hydrangeaceae 45
H. paniculata 27 20
Itea virginica Sweetspire Iteaceae 30
Weigela spp. Weigela Caprifoliaceae 22 0
Ilex spp. Holly Aquifoliaceae 22 Feb – Mar Apr – mid- Late-May – Jul – Aug Sept – Oct Dec – Jan
May Jun
I. crenatab 19
Growing season
I. glabra 3
Rosa spp. Rose Rosacea 11
Fig. 6. Percentage of survey respondents responding to seasonal incidence
Rhododendron Azalea Ericaceae 10
and abundance of S. frontalis attacks on plants (n = 118). The respondents
spp.
had the opportunity to select multiple time intervals when they observe
Osmanthus Fragrant olive Oleaceae 8
S. frontalis on plants.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
fragrans
Cornus spp. Dogwood Cornaceae 8
Sedum spp. Whorled stonecrop Crassulaceae 7
100
Salvia spp. Common sage Lamiaceae 6 A
Lagerstroemia Crepe myrtle Lythraceae 5 80
spp.
Respondents (%)
Forsythiac Forsythia Oleaceae 4 60
Hibiscus spp. China rose Malvaceae 4
40
Abelia spp. Glossy abelia Caprifoliaceae 3
Myrica cerifera Wax myrtle Myricaceae 3 20
Vernonia spp. Ironweed Asteraceae 3
Buddleja spp. Butterfly bush Scrophulariaceae 2 0
Scky cards* Visual Shaking canopy Light trap*** Other****
Callicarpa spp. Beautyberry Lamiaceae 2
inspecon**
Cephalanthus Buttonbush Rubiaceae 2 100 Monitoring tacc (s) administered
occidentalis B
Coreopsis spp. Tickseed Asteraceae 2 80
Respondents (%)
Distylium spp. Ivy tree Hamamelidaceae 2
60
Physocarpus Common ninebark Rosaceae 2
spp. 40
Rudbeckia spp. Black-eyed Susan Asteraceae 2
Viburnum spp. Common snowball Adoxaceae 2 20
Alnus spp. European alder Betulaceae 1
0
Chelone lyonii Pink turtlehead Scrophulariaceae 1
Never Daily Weekly Biweekly Monthly 1-2 > 2 months
Chrysanthemum Mums Asteraceae 1 months
spp. Monitoring interval
Clethra spp. Sweet pepperbush Clethraceae 1
Delosperma spp. Trailing Iceplant Aizoaceae 1 Fig. 7. Percentage of survey respondents responding to (A) monitoring
Echinacea spp. Purple coneflower Asteraceae 1 tactic(s) deployed to determine S. frontalis incidence (n = 80) and (B) the
Heuchera spp. Coral bells Saxifragaceae 1 monitoring interval (n = 57) in their operations. The respondents had the
Lonicera Coral honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae 1 opportunity to respond to more than one tactic used for scouting S. frontalis.
sempervirens *Sticky cards on any color; **damage or adult beetles; ***light traps with
Loropetalum Chinese fringe Hamamelidaceae 1 LED, blacklight, UV light, or other techniques; and ****other tactics used
include monitoring growing degree days for S. frontalis and scouting for
spp.
S. frontalis larvae in the root balls of containers.
Nepeta spp. Catnip Lamiaceae 1
Photinia spp. Christmas berry Rosaceae 1
Spiraea spp. Spirea Rosaceae 1
installation/maintenance indicated an issue with the pest. This re-
sult has two important implications. First, S. frontalis may not
a
One respondent indicated Hydrangea macrophyla.
b
be a pest in ornamental landscapes; thus, future research and ex-
Japanese hollies, I. crenata ‘compacta’, ‘Schwoebel’s Upright’, ‘Steeds’, ‘Soft
tension efforts should focus on nurseries. Since this conclusion is
Touch’, ‘Hilleri’, ‘Sky Pencil’, ‘Shamrock’, and ‘Henry’s Garnet’.
c based on small sample size (n = 8), comprehensive state-level sur-
Includes Forsythia × intermedia.
veys of S. frontalis prevalence and economic impacts are needed
to corroborate this survey’s findings. Second, unidentified fac-
in nurseries and garden centers across the eastern United States. tors (environment factors, production or maintenance practices,
Most of the respondents represented wholesale nurseries, several etc.) have prevented the dispersal, establishment, and damage
of which had over 20.3 ha in production and $2 million in sales. of S. frontalis in ornamental landscapes. Recent S. frontalis out-
Respondents reported that S. frontalis infestation was previously breaks in cranberry fields of the Northeast (MCE 2020) suggested
detected in wholesale and retail nurseries, as well as retail garden that this species is capable of building damaging populations on
centers. Operations that include both nursery/garden center and established hardy plants in the fields. There are some unidentified
landscape installation/maintenance reported S. frontalis infest- differences in environment and production/maintenance practices
ations, but none of the operations that perform only landscape among nurseries, landscapes, and fields that may lead to different8 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1
100
A 100
80
Respondents (%)
60 80
Respondents (%)
40
20
60
0
Inseccides Inseccides EPN* for EPF** for Other*** None 40
for adults for larvae larvae larvae
100
Control taccs administered 20
B
80
Respondents (%)
0
60
40
20
0
Pyrethroids Neoniconoids Organophosphates Diamides Other****
Effecve inseccides for S. frontalis control Amount (USD) spent for S. frontalis control per year
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
Fig. 8. Percentage of survey respondents responding to (A) type of control Fig. 10. Percentage of survey respondents responding to estimate of the
tactic(s) targeting S. frontalis adults and larvae (n = 88), and (B) effective total amount spent on managing S. frontalis infestation (including materials
insecticides that are used in their operations (n = 53). *Entomopathogenic [insecticide, nematodes, etc.], monitoring, spraying, and labor) each year
nematodes; **entomopathogenic fungi; ***pyriproxyfen to reduce larvae; (n = 54).
and ****seven respondents who indicated the use of carbaryl, and one
respondent used pyriproxyfen. The respondents had the opportunity to
respond to more than one control tactic for S. frontalis in their facility. (n = 1) Adequate insec cides available
100 Inadequate insec cides avaliable
A
80 (n = 8) (n = 4)
Respondents (%)
100 (n = 3)
(n = 18)
60
(n = 2) (n = 2)
80
40
Respondents (%)
60 20
(n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0)
40 0
20
0 Average sales (USD) in last two years
Consumer Opera on Other factors No restric on
Amount (USD) spent for S. frontalis
mediated mediated B
Restric ons for use of neonico noids for S. frontalis control
control per year
Fig. 9. Percentage of survey respondents responding to the question on the
use of neonicotinoids in their operations (n = 53).
pest status of S. frontalis among these systems. An understanding
of the underlying mechanisms is crucial to the development of a
sustainable and effective management program for S. frontalis in
ornamental plant and cranberry production.
Systena frontalis is a polyphagous pest. This survey resulted in
a list of 39 host plant taxa (Table 3), with respondents identified
species of Hydrangea. Itea, Weigela, Ilex, Rosa, and Rhododendron Average sales (USD) in last two years
being the most frequently damaged plant taxa. Lauderdale (2017)
reported that S. frontalis fed upon anise tree (Illiucium spp.), gold- Fig. 11. (A) Percentage of survey respondents indicating adequacy
enrod (Solidago spp.), joe pye weed (Eutrochium spp.), and zinnia insecticides available for responding for S. frontalis management by their
sales over last 2 yr, and (B) estimate of the total amount spent on managing
(Zinnia spp.), but our survey respondents did not identify these
S. frontalis infestation (including materials [insecticide, nematodes, etc.],
species as hosts. Adult S. frontalis was reported to attack weeds
monitoring, spraying, and labor) each year (n = 54), and (B) the relationship
growing in and around nurseries, such as jewelweed (Impatiens of the estimate of the total amount spent on managing S. frontalis infestation
capensis Meerb.), lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.), pig- per year and sales over last 2 yr by the need for adequate number of effective
weed (Amaranthus spp.), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), Canadian insecticides to manage S. frontalis indicated by the respondents (n = 39).
thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.], clover (Trifolium spp.),
common burdock [Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.], and false daisy
[Eclipta prostrate (L.) L.] (Lauderdale 2017; Chong, unpublished the management of S. frontalis. Management of weed species that
data). This wide host range suggests that S. frontalis can feed on may serve as potential hosts of S. frontalis in and around nur-
virtually any broadleaf woody or herbaceous plant growing in- series may be important in mitigating adult dispersal and damage
side or around nurseries, and presents a significant challenge to in nurseries.Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1 9
The majority of respondents monitored adult S. frontalis ac- nontarget organisms is warranted. The survey suggests that more re-
tivity by visually inspecting for beetle presence or foliage damage. spondents targeted the adults than larvae with management sprays.
Some respondents complemented visual inspection with other Most of the respondents (66%) indicated that they do not have
monitoring tactics, such as deploying sticky cards and shaking any reservations about using neonicotinoids for S. frontalis control.
the canopy to dislodge the adults then quantify them. Although The respondents who reported discontinued use of neonicotinoids
visual inspection and sticky cards are routinely used to monitor due to company policy or customer preference were almost exclu-
adult flea beetles such as Phyllotreta cruciferae Goeze and sively large wholesale growers, who likely supply their products
Phyllotreta striolata (Fabricius) in canola (Brassica napus L.) or to major national retail outlets that had committed to reduced
Blepharida rhois (Forster), Chaetocnema denticulata (Illiger), or discontinued the use of neonicotinoids (Friends of the Earth
Epitrix subcrinita (Leconte), Systena blanda (Melsheimer), and 2017). Growers who have discontinued the use the neonicotinoids
many others in vegetables (Bunn et al. 2015, Knodel et al. 2017), are actively seeking alternative management options, including the
sticky cards and shaking the canopy may not be reliable moni- use of biological control agents, for S. frontalis and other pests
toring tactics for S. frontalis (Alabama Cooperative Extension (Joseph 2020).
System [ACES] 2020) because these tactics only detect beetles We estimated that the respondents spent an average of $1,637/
that are already present on the plants. In fact, visual inspection ha/yr for the management of S. frontalis. This amount includes the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
detected beetle presence and damage 1 mo before the first bee- costs of pesticides, labor, and equipment. We were unable to esti-
tles were captured on sticky cards (Chong, unpublished data). mate the cost of crop losses because few respondents responded to
Visual inspection for beetle presence and/or damage may not be questions about crop loss in this survey. The poor response rate is
the most effective monitoring method. Tolerance for S. frontalis the result of a unique combination of pest impacts and the nursery
feeding damage is essentially zero in ornamental plant production business model. Even 1 or 2 d of feeding by S. frontalis can create
system where crops are valued for their esthetics. Therefore, other unsightly foliar damage that renders a plant unmarketable in most
monitoring tools and tactics that can provide advance warnings instances. These damaged plants were often held back from sales,
of beetle presence or potential damage are needed. Some survey pruned, and held until the new flush of foliage develops. These plants
respondents used growing degree-day model to determine beetle are sold once they recover from the damage; thus, growers often
activity (Kunkel and Colon 2013), but other monitoring tools or do not consider and report these plants as completely ‘lost’ to the
tactics are not currently available (such as light or semiochemical pest. This perception, however, masked the true cost of S. frontalis
traps) or not commonly used (such as plant phenological indica- infestation. Growers incur increased opportunity costs when they
tors). The survey results indicate that the development of reliable remove the damaged plants from their availability list and wait for
monitoring or predictive tools for S. frontalis based on host- the plants to recover. The increased labor, space, and time inputs
derived volatiles, pheromones, or visual cues is warranted. Before increase the production cost of the recovered plants by 10% of the
these tools become available, the majority of survey respondents original selling price (B. Jernigan, personal communication). This in-
scouted for adult activity weekly or even daily in order to pro- creased production cost is often not accounted for in the survey as a
vide sufficient advance information prior to damage becoming measurement of crop loss since the recovered plants are eventually
unacceptable. The monitoring should be conducted on the most sold. Future surveys of pest damage and cost of control should also
preferred ornamental plant and weed species starting in early to include this opportunity cost in their analysis of a pest’s impact in
mid-May. any agricultural sector.
Survey respondents invested a large sum of money for the man- In summary, the survey respondents, mostly wholesale growers,
agement of S. frontalis, with operations generally spending more indicated that the S. frontalis infestation and damage recur annually
on pesticides, equipment, and labor for scouting and application. in the eastern United States, with beetle activities most prevalent and
A wholesale nursery often spends $30,000 USD or more per year damaging on some of the most commonly grown plant taxa from
on direct costs related to scouting and application of insecticides (B. April through October. The respondents mostly monitor the adults
Jernigan, personal communication). Respondents used a wide range by visual inspection at weekly intervals. This suggests that moni-
of (mainly contact) insecticides, with neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, toring can be developed with a better understanding of the host-
organophosphates, and carbamate being the most commonly used. use pattern, spatial and temporal movement through seasons, and
Because S. frontalis is a problem throughout the growing season semiochemical and other cues that can be used in traps. Because of
from April to October (reported in this survey) and that currently a near-zero threshold for S. frontalis feeding damage, the narrow
available contact insecticides typically lack long-term residual ac- marketing window of ornamental plants, and the persistence of
tivity against this pest, repeated foliar applications of insecticides adult S. frontalis throughout the growing season, respondents apply
are essential to suppress adult populations and prevent damage broad-spectrum insecticides several times and spend a substantial
(Lauderdale 2017, ACES 2020, Joseph and Hudson 2020). Spray amount for S. frontalis adult and larval control. The management
coverage of the entire canopy is critical against the highly mo- of S. frontalis could be improved with timely insecticide applica-
bile beetles (Cloyd and Herrick 2018, Joseph and Hudson 2020). tion targeting larvae or adults. To implement, timely applications
Research suggests that insecticides applied to foliage and potting soil require an enhanced understanding of S. frontalis biology, dispersal,
reduced the adult S. frontalis feeding damage on foliage (Herrick behavior, and ecology. A refined and sensitive monitoring tool could
and Cloyd 2020). Insecticides commonly used by the respondents help improve the timeliness of insecticide application. Development
are broad-spectrum (organophosphates, carbamate, and pyreth- of cost-effective and reliable nonchemical options for S. frontalis
roids) and can indirectly affect nontarget organisms, such as bene- control such as entomopathogenic nematode and fungi is warranted.
ficial arthropods and pollinators. Over half of the respondents did
not think they have sufficiently effective long-residual insecticides
to manage S. frontalis for the entire growing season. This outcome Acknowledgments
suggests that more research on new active ingredients with pro- We thank local grower associations (such as the Georgia Green Industry As-
longed residual activity and minimal effects on the environment and sociation and Georgia Urban Ag Council) for distributing the online survey10 Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2021, Vol. 12, No. 1
via e-mails and newsletters. We also thank B. Jernigan (McCorkle Nurseries, Jacques, R. L. Jr., and D. C. Peters. 1971. Biology of Systena frontalis with
Dearing, GA) for in-depth discussions on redheaded flea beetle management special reference to corn. J. Econ. Entomol. 64: 135–138.
strategies, production practices, and economics in the nursery industry. An Joseph, S. V. 2020. Repellent effects of insecticides on Stephanitis pyrioides
IPM Working Group Grant from the Southern Integrated Pest Management (Hemiptera: Tingidae) under laboratory conditions. Crop Prot. 127.
Center (grant number 2018320016 to SVJ and JHC) provided supports for doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2019.104985.
the online survey and the formation of a S. frontalis working group, of which Joseph, S. V., and W. Hudson. 2020. Redheaded flea beetle: an ornamental
all coauthors of this manuscript belong. All coauthors were involved in the de- nursery pest. University of Georgia Extension, C1187. (https://secure.caes.
sign and administration of the survey; SVJ, JHC, and BC curated and analyzed uga.edu/extension/publications/files/pdf/C%201187_1.PDF) (accessed 12
data; SVJ and JHC prepared the original draft of this report; and all coauthors April 2021).
edited this report. Knodel, J. J., L. A. Lesley, and D. L. Olson. 2017. Integrated pest man-
agement of flea beetles in canola. North Dakota State University
Extension Service, E1234. (https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/crops/
References Cited
integrated-pest-management-of-flea-beetles-in-canola).
Alabama Cooperative Extension System (ACES). 2020. Redheaded flea beetles Kunkel, B. A., and N. L. Colon. 2013. Control of redheaded flea beetles. Northeast
in Alabama nurseries. (https://www.growingamerica.com/news/2020/07/ Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. (https://northeast.sare.org/
redheaded-flea-beetles-alabama-nurseries) (accessed 12 April 2021). resources/control-of-red-headed-flea-beetles/) (accessed 12 April 2021).
Averill, A .L., and M. M. Sylvia. 2011. Red-headed flea beetle, Systena Lauderdale, D. 2017. Red-headed flea beetle biology and management. Winter
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jipm/article/12/1/17/6245491 by guest on 16 July 2021
frontalis (F.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). University of Massachusetts 2017, Nursery and Landscape Notes 35. (https://wilson.ces.ncsu.edu/
Cranberry Experiment Station. (https://ag.umass.edu/sites/ag.umass. wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-Nursery-Landscape-Notes-RHFB-
edu/files/fact-sheets/pdf/red-headed_flea_beetle.pdf) (accessed 12 April Article.pdf?fwd=no) (accessed 12 April 2021).
2021). Mahr, D. L. 2005. Redheaded flea beetle. Wisconsin Cranberry Crop Library:
Bunn, B., D. Alston, and M. Murray. 2015. Flea beetles on vegetables Insect Profiles. (https://fruit.webhosting.cals.wisc.edu/wp-content/up-
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Utah State University Extension and Utah loads/sites/36/2011/05/Redheaded-Flea-Beetle.pdf) (accessed 12 April
Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory, ENT-174-15. (https://digitalcommons. 2021).
usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredi Maine Cooperative Extension (MCE). 2020. Cranberries: red-headed flea
r=1&article=1902&context=extension_curall) (accessed 12 April 2021). beetle. (https://extension.umaine.edu/cranberries/grower-services/insects/
Cloyd, R. A., and N. J. Herrick. 2018. Red headed flea beetle. Kansas State red-headed-flea-beetle/) (accessed 12 April 2021).
University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Maltais, P. M., and M. C. Ouellette. 2000. A note on Systena frontalis
Service, MF3225. (https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/MF3225. [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] adults on lowbush blueberry, Vaccinium
pdf) (accessed 12 April 2021). angustifolium. Phytoprotection 81: 129–131.
Dittl, T. 1988. A survey of insects found on cranberry in Wisconsin. M.S. thesis, Peters, D. C, and H. E. Barton. 1969. Systena frontalis larvae in corn roots. J.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Econ. Entomol. 62: 1232–1233.
Friends of the Earth. 2017. Nursery and retailer commitments. (https://foe.org/ Riley, E., S. Clark, and T. Seeno. 2003. Catalog of leaf beetles of America north
nursery-retailer-commitments/) (accessed 8 November 2020). of Mexico (Coleoptera: Megalopodidae, Orsodacnidae and Chrysomelidae,
Herrick, N. J., and R. A. Cloyd. 2020. Overwintering, host-plant selection, and excluding Bruchinae). Coleopterists Society, Special Publication no. 1.
insecticide susceptibility of Systena frontalis (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): Storch, R. H., F. E. Manzer, G. I. I. Sewell, and O. P. Smith. 1979. Adult
a major insect pest of nursery production systems. 113: 2785–2792. red-headed flea beetle found feeding on potato in Maine (Coleoptera:
doi:10.1093/jee.toaa197 Chrysomelidae). Am. Potato J. 56: 363–364.You can also read
