Index to cover page photographs (clockwise from top left):
Highbush blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum) – Scott Bauer, ARS
Winged green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) – Scott Bauer, ARS
Leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongata) on Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) – Robert D. Richard,
ARS
Soybean aphid (Aphis glycines) – Jim Kalisch, ARS
Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea) on immature cotton boll (Gossypium hirsutum)
– unknown photographer, ARS
Our thanks to the USDA's Agricultural Research Service's Image Gallery for
providing these outstanding photographs for our use.
1
Table of Contents
Section I: Introduction………………………………………………………………2
Section II: Workshop Agenda……………………………………………………...4
Section III: Abstracts of Funded Projects………..……………………………….7
1. Overcoming Limitations in Mite Biological Control Imposed by Leaf
Architecture……………J.P. Nyrop……………………………………………7
2. Ecological and Genetic Change in a Biological Control Agent Following
Introduction to a New Environment……………R.H. Messing……………..8
3. Does Intraguild Predation Limit Soybean Aphid Parasitoid Impacts?
D.A. Landis……………………………………………………………………..10
4. Habitat Characteristics and Entomopathogenic Nematode
Persistence in Agroecosystems……………C.W. Hoy…………….………..11
5. Natural Enemy Biodiversity and the Biological Control of Aphids
W.E. Snyder…………………………………………………………………….12
6. Consortium for Integrated Management of Stored-Product Insect Pests
S. Ramaswamy…………………………………………………………………13
7. Enhancing Pheromone Mating Disruption Programs for Lepidopterous
Pests in Western Orchards……………S. Welter……………………………14
8. Building a Multi-tactic Pheromone-based Pest Management System in
Western Orchards …………J. Brunner……………………………………...15
9. Biologically-based Control for the Area Wide Management of Exotic and
Invasive Weeds………....R.I.Carruthers………..……………….…………...16
10. Developing a Blueberry IPM Program to Address Critical Insect Management
Issues…………R. Isaacs…….………………………………………………...18
11. Evaluation of Sampling Techniques for Monitoring Cranberry Tipworm and
Flower Thrips in Rabbiteye and Southern Highbush Blueberries in the
Southern United States……………O.E. Liburd……………………………..19
12. Organic Weed Management: Balancing Pest Management and Soil Quality in
a Transitional System…..……M.. Barbercheck…………………………..…21
13. Integrative Use of Perennial Peanut for Cost-effective Weed Control in
Organic Citrus………….J.M. Scholberg………………………………..……22
14. Enhancing Sustainability in Cotton Production through Reduced Chemical
Inputs, Cover Crops, and Conservation Tillage…………G. Tillman……...23
Section IV: CSREES Program Descriptions...……………………………..…...25
Crops at Risk (CAR)…………………………………………………………..……….25
Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP)…………………………….….....25
Integrated Organic Program (ORG).…………………………….…….…..……...…27
Organismal Population Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes…………..………28
Pest Management Alternatives Research (PMAP)……………………………..….28
Regional Integrated Pest Management Program……………………………..……29
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)…………………..……30
Suborganismal Biology and Genomics of Arthropods and Nematodes………....31
Inactive, Terminated, or Renamed Programs in FY 2006…………………….…..31
Section V: Workshop Summary…………………………………………………..32
Section VI: Round Table Discussion………………………………………….….33
Section VII: Workshop Evaluation Results………………………………….…..35
Section VIII: National Program Leader Contact Information…………………38
Section IX: Participant List………….………………….…………………………..39
Section I – Introduction
Supporting the development of biologically-based approaches to reduce the
damage caused by agricultural pests in the U.S. has been a cornerstone of
several competitive grant programs at the USDA's Cooperative Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Use of biological control agents,
pest resistant varieties, semiochemicals, and biological pesticides are examples of
biologically-based tactics used in agroecosystems. These tactics form the basis of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems. Many of these strategies are
compatible with sustainable agriculture and organic farming systems. Between
1997 and 2003, CSREES' National Research Initiative (NRI) offered a stand-alone
program entitled "Biologically Based Pest Management", which supported both
near-term and basic research projects to conserve and enhance the use of
biological control agents and other biologically-based tactics. In 2000, several
grant programs in pest management were created as a result of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act (AREERA), which combined
research with education and/or extension objectives in grant projects; e.g., Crops
at Risk (CAR), Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP), Organic
Transitions Program (ORG), and the Regional IPM Centers. The Sustainable
Agriculture, Research, and Education (SARE) program has also funded proposals
since 1988, which utilize biologically-based methods to increase the sustainability
of agricultural systems. Due to the increased number of programs in
implementation-based pest management, the basic science aspects of the NRI's
Biologically Based Pest Management Program were incorporated into two
refocused grant programs in 2004 (Integrative Biology of Arthropods and
Nematodes (IBAN)*, and Arthropod and Nematode Gateways to Genomics**).
Priorities in these restructured programs included fundamental research on
mechanisms of biological control, interactions of biological control organisms with
their hosts and the environment, as well as projects with pheromones, host-plant
resistance, biopesticides, and resistance management.
These programmatic changes have made it more challenging for researchers,
educators, and extension specialists in the field of pest management to identify a
grant program which best fits the goals and objectives of their project proposals.
In addition, concerns were expressed that funding for biologically-based pest
management research could be reduced due to the loss of this stand-alone
program from the NRI. Program leaders at CSREES decided to organize a
workshop to address these issues with the scientific community. The steering
committee for this workshop was chaired by Sonny Ramaswamy, Kansas State
University, six CSREES' National Program Leaders (Mary Purcell-Miramontes,
Robert Nowierski, Rick Meyer, Monte Johnson, Jim Kotcon, and Jill Auburn), Kim
Kroll, Associate Director of SARE, and Leslie Gilbert, CSREES Program Specialist.
The goals of the workshop were three-fold:
1) Foster understanding of the different CSREES grant programs;
2) Increase awareness of advances made in biologically-based pest
management as a result of these CSREES-funded projects; and
2
3) Obtain stakeholder input about needs for future program planning.
Awardees were invited to give presentations from seven CSREES programs that
support projects in research utilizing biologically-based approaches to pest
management (IBAN, CAR, RAMP, PMAP, the former Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems program (IFAFS), ORG, and SARE). Also invited
were Co-Project Directors, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers, as
well as entomology departmental heads (i.e., members of the Council of
Entomology Department Administrators CEDA). The meeting was also posted on
the Entomological Society of America (ESA) annual meeting website and open to
ESA registrants.
*This program is now titled Organismal and Population Biology of Arthropods and
Nematodes
** This program is now titled Suborganismal Biology and Genomics of Arthropods
and Nematodes – Section A
3
Section II - CSREES, USDA Awardee Workshop
on Biologically-based Pest Management
at the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
December 14, 2005
Agenda
7:30-8:00
Coffee and Refreshments
8:00-8:05
Welcome and Introduction – Sonny Ramaswamy, Kansas State
University
8:05-8:15
Introduction to Integrated Programs at CSREES – What is an
Integrated Project? - Debby Sheely, CSREES - Competitive
Programs
8:15-8:30
Overview of the National Research Initiative (NRI) – Past, Present,
and Future Support of Biologically-based Pest Management - Mary
Purcell-Miramontes, CSREES - Competitive Programs
8:30-10:10 Awardee Presentations from NRI
Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes (IBAN)
8:30-8:50
Jan Nyrop, Cornell University – Overcoming Limitations in Mite
Biological Control Imposed by Leaf Architecture
(CRIS project No. NYG-621530)
8:50-9:10 Mark Wright, University of Hawaii – Ecological & Genetic Change in
a Biological Control Agent Following Introduction to a New
Environment
(CRIS project No. HAW00939-G)
9:10-9:30 Doug Landis, Michigan State University – Does Intraguild Predation
Limit Soybean Aphid Parasitoid Impacts?
(CRIS project No. MICL08330)
9:30-9:50 Casey Hoy, Ohio State University – Habitat Characteristics and
Entomopathogenic Nematode Persistence in Agroecosystems
(CRIS project No. OHO00957-SS)
9:50-10:10 William Snyder, Washington State University – Natural Enemy
Biodiversity and the Biological Control of Aphids
(CRIS project No. WNP03417)
10:10-10:25 Break
4
10:25-10:40 Overview of the Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP), the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program (IFAFS),
the Crops at Risk Program (CAR), and the Pest Management
Alternatives Program (PMAP) – Rick Meyer, Robert Nowierski, and
Monte Johnson, CSREES - Plant and Animal Systems
10:40-12:20 Awardee Presentations from RAMP, IFAFS, CAR, and PMAP
Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP)
10:40-11:00 Sonny Ramaswamy, Kansas State University – Consortium for
Integrated Management of Stored Product Insect Pests
(CRIS project No. KS9527)
11:00-11:20 Stephen Welter, University of California, Berkeley - Enhancing
Pheromone Mating Disruption Programs for Lepidopterous Pests in
Western Orchards
(CRIS project No. CA-B*-INS-7334-OG)
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS)
11:20-11:40 Jay Brunner, Washington State University – Building a Multi-tactic
Pheromone-based Pest Management System in Western Orchards
(CRIS project No. WNP04089)
11:40-12:00 Raymond Carruthers, USDA - ARS - Biological Control of Saltcedar*
(CRIS project No. CALW-2000-CARRUTHERS)
Crops at Risk (CAR)
12:00-12:20 Zsofia Szendrei, USDA – ARS – Developing a Blueberry IPM
Program to Address Critical Insect Management Issues*
(CRIS project No. MICL08277)
Pest Management Alternatives Program (PMAP)
12:20-12:40 Oscar Liburd, University of Florida – Evaluation of Sampling
Techniques for Monitoring Blueberry Gallmidge and Flower Thrips in
Rabbiteye and Southern Highbush Blueberries in the Southern
United States
(CRIS project No. FLA-ENY-04059)
12:40-1:40 Lunch
1:40-1:50 Overview of the Organic Transitions program (ORG) – Jim Kotcon,
West Virginia University and CSREES
Overview of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
(SARE) program – Kim Kroll, SARE
5
1:50-2:50
Awardee presentations from ORG and SARE
Organic Transitions (ORG)
1:50-2:10 Mary Barbercheck, Pennsylvania State University – Organic Weed
Management: Balancing Pest Management and Soil Quality in a
Transitional System
(CRIS project No. PEN03987)
2:10-2:30 Jose Linares, University of Florida – Effectiveness of Annual and
Perennial Cover Crops in Managing Weeds in Organic Citrus*
(CRIS project No. FLA-AGR-04013)
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
2:30-2:50 Glynn Tillman, USDA - ARS – Influence of Cover Crops on Insect
Pests and Predators in Conservation Tillage Cotton*
(SARE Project # LS01-121)
2:50-3:10 Break
3:10-4:30 Round table discussion and stakeholder input on priorities and future
programming in Biologically-based Pest Management – Facilitator:
Sonny Ramaswamy
(Panelists - Mary Purcell-Miramontes, Robert Nowierski, Rick Meyer,
James Kotcon, Kim Kroll, Monte Johnson, and Debby Sheely)
*The presentation title differs from the title in the Abstracts of Funded Projects.
Full Current Research Information System (CRIS) reports can be accessed at: http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/
Click on “Search CRIS now”, then enter the CRIS project No. into the appropriate field in the “Search CRIS by
individual data fields” portion of the page. Click on search, then click on “display results.”
Full SARE reports can be accessed at: http://www.sare.org/projects/index.htm Click on “project reports”, click
on “search the database” and enter the SARE Project # into the search field.
6
Section III – Abstracts of Funded Projects
CSREES Program Area: National Research Initiative (NRI), Integrative Biology
of Arthropods and Nematodes
Project Title: Overcoming Limitations in Mite Biological Control Imposed by Leaf
Architecture
Project Directors: Nyrop, J.P., Cornell Univ., Dept. of Entomology, Geneva, NY;
English-Loeb, G.M., Cornell Univ., Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Geneva, NY;
Reisch, B.I., Cornell Univ., Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Geneva, NY
Award Years: 2004-2007
Award Amount: $397,700
CRIS Project No.: NYG-621530
In many perennial plant systems, plant-feeding mites are controlled by predatory
phytoseiid mites. The persistence of these predators on plants is a more
important determinant of successful biological control than the rate of pest mite
consumption. While pesticides remain a significant obstacle to conserving these
beneficial, predatory mites, on some plants, the lack of leaf trichomes (hairs or
bristles on the underside of leaves) can be an equally important obstacle. Plants
that lack leaf trichomes usually have low predator numbers and may therefore
sustain pest mite attack. This project seeks to overcome this limitation by
conducting experiments that will support three possible solutions: 1) applying
trichome-mimics to plants that lack leaf trichomes, 2) arranging plants with and
without leaf trichomes within a planting to provide for greater densities of predators
throughout the group of plants, and 3) breeding plants that have leaf trichomes.
This project has three broad objectives:
1. Determine how physical characteristics, density, and spatial pattern of leaf
trichomes mimics influence predator mite behavior and retention on plants.
2. Determine whether the arrangement of plants with leaf trichomes among plants
without leaf trichomes can provide for retention of phytoseiids and biological
mite control for the entire plant ensemble.
3 Develop a moderately saturated genetic map segregating for leaf trichomes in
grape and identify genetic markers that can be used for marker-assisted
selection.
To date we have found that:
 The addition of leaf trichome mimics made of cotton fibers to plants that lacked
leaf trichomes increased the retention of adult phytoseiids on these plants and
resulted in increased population growth of these beneficial mites. While
trichome mimics with high fiber density had a greater effect on phytoseiid
behavior, even very small patches of mimics and mimics placed on the upper
surface of leaves result in greater predator numbers compared to plants
lacking leaf trichomes. Oviposition by predatory mites was higher when leaf
trichomes were present; however, it is not clear why this occurred. Retention
on plants of five species of phytoseiids with different predatory habits increased
in the presence of trichome mimics although the rate of increase varied among
7


the five species. Experiments with four cultivars of grape with variable levels of
leaf trichomes indicate that the patterns seen using the trichome mimics were
the same as those that occur on plants with natural leaf trichomes.
A preliminary experiment that examined whether interspersing plants with leaf
trichomes can increase predator numbers on neighboring plants without leaf
trichomes suggests that this may be a viable approach to augmenting
predatory mites in the entire plant ensemble.
A genetic map for leaf trichomes in grapes is approximately 50% complete.
Impact of the project
Overall this project will help to identify tactics that can be used to augment mite
biological control in perennial crops. On perennial plants that lack leaf trichomes,
mite biological control is hampered, because the plants do not support adequate
numbers of predacious mites. If this limitation can be overcome, mite biological
control can be more readily realized, which in turn will enhance the economic and
environmental sustainability of agriculture and food supplies. In the short term,
the addition of leaf trichome mimics or the mixing of plants with and without leaf
trichomes offer possible solutions. In the long term, breeding plants with leaf
trichomes is the best strategy. For this to occur, tools are needed that a breeder
can use to select superior breeding lines. Many modern breeding programs use a
method called "marker assisted selection" for this purpose. We are developing
DNA markers that are associated with grape leaf trichomes which a breeder can
use to assure that new cultivars have leaf trichomes.
CSREES Program Area: NRI, Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes
Project Title: Ecological and Genetic Change in a Biological Control Agent
Following Introduction to a New Environment
Project Directors: Messing, R.H., Univ. of Hawaii, Dept. of Entomology, Kapaa,
HI; Wright, M.G., Univ. of Hawaii, Dept. of Plant and Environmental Sciences,
Honolulu, HI; Wieczorek, A.M., Univ. of Hawaii, Dept. of Tropical Plant and Soil
Sciences, Honolulu, HI; Roderick, G.K., Univ. of California, Dept. of Environmental
Science Policy, Division Insect Biology, Berkeley, CA
Award Years: 2004–2007
Award Amount: $376,224
CRIS Project No.: HAW00939-G
Classical biological control has the potential to mitigate invasive arthropod
problems in agro-ecosystems, reduce insecticide use, and provide greater crop
security. However, there is a large gap in our understanding of the ecological and
genetic changes that occur in natural enemies after they are released in a new
environment. The potential risk to non-target species inherent in these changes
makes it increasingly difficult to practice biocontrol in an efficient and timely
manner.
In this project we are analyzing the behavioral, ecological, and genetic changes
that have taken place in an introduced parasitoid that has been established in
8
Hawaii for ~100 years. Diachasmimorpha tryoni (Braconidae) was imported early
last century from Australia to control the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly), Ceratitis
capitata, an enormous threat to U.S. agriculture. The parasitoid became well
established on all major Hawaiian islands, contributed significantly to medfly
control, but was later documented to attack a non-target beneficial species, the
lantana gall fly (Eutreta xanthochaeta) (Tephritidae).
We are using a combination of genetic and statistical techniques and behavioral
analyses to examine phenotypic and genetic differentiation of parasitoid
populations on a variety of spatial scales, including comparisons of original
(source) and introduced populations; populations separated on different islands;
laboratory and field cohorts; and populations reproducing in nature on target and
non-target hosts.
We currently have four established D. tryoni colonies (Australian, Kauai, Magoon
facility, and Big Island). The Kauai colony was established from the nontarget host.
Initial observations of both Australian and Magoon facility colonies indicate no
acceptance of the lantana gall as a possible host, while readily moving between
medfly and Malaysian fruit fly hosts. Observations of the Kauai colony raised on
lantana indicate acceptance of only the lantana gall and no acceptance of medfly
infested coffee beans. This is contrary to previous work that showed preference for
medfly-infested coffee beans when compared with wild cut lantana galls.
We have isolated 13 DNA microsatellite sequences from the Australian population
and have designed each of their associated primer sets using Fast PCR® and
Chromas®. We are currently testing population differentiation using five optimized
microsatellites.
The results of this work will be important not only for the practice of biological
control, but also for understanding changes in invasive arthropod species. Finally,
the project will break new ground in methodology for more robust long-term risk
assessment. To our knowledge, this will be the first study to examine directly
genetic change in a biological control agent associated with a shift to a non-target
species.
9
CSREES Program Area: NRI, Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes
Project Title: Does Intraguild Predation Limit Soybean Aphid Parasitoid Impacts?
Project Directors: Landis, D.A., Michigan State Univ., Dept. of Entomology, East
Lansing, MI; Brewer, M.J., Michigan State Univ., Dept. of Entomology, East
Lansing, MI; Costamagna, A.C., Michigan State Univ., Dept. of Entomology, East
Lansing, MI; Heimpel, G.E., Univ. of Minnesota, Dept. of Entomology, St. Paul, MN
Award Years: 2004-2006
Award Amount: $205,000
CRIS Project No.: MICL08330
Since its first detection in 2000, the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura has
become a major new pest of soybean in North America. While communities of
existing generalist predators, including ladybeetles, and minute pirate bugs, etc.
provide substantial suppression of soybean aphid, they are unable to control it in
all years (for example, in 2001, 2003, and 2005).
Millions of acres of soybean in the North Central U.S. were treated with
insecticides to control soybean aphid damage. This situation has prompted the
search for additional, more effective natural enemies from the aphid’s home range
in Asia. Specifically, research has focused on finding aphid parasitoids, small
wasps that attack and kill the aphid. Because parasitoid larvae live within the live
aphid and pupate as immobile aphid “mummies,” they will likely be consumed by
the same predators that attack aphids. If such “intraguild predation” (IGP) is
common it may reduce the potential of some aphid parasitoids as biocontrol
agents. The objectives of this research are to elucidate the impacts of IGP in the
soybean aphid system by studying interactions of existing aphid parasitoids,
Lysiphlebus testaceipes and Aphidius colemani, specific potential IGP predators
including the multicolored Asian ladybeetle (Harmonia axyridis) and the minute
pirate bug (Orius insidiosus), and the predator community in soybean fields.
Laboratory experiments showed that H. axyridis readily attacks both species of
parasitoid mummies, although it showed a preference for unparasitized aphids.
By contrast, O. insidiosus probes mummies but did not significantly influence the
emergence rate of either parasitoid. In Michigan, the current parasitoid community
(comprised of six species) causes only 1-2% parasitism beginning in August, i.e.,
too late to control aphid damage. In a manipulative experiment, we observed IGP
on L. testaceipes mummies, however, parasitoids protected from IGP failed to
regulate A. glycines population growth and provided no additional control versus
treatments with predators alone. Thus, while IGP on L. testaceipes did occur, its
impact on soybean aphid biocontrol by this ineffective agent was negligible. In
contrast, in Minnesota we compared the ability of Aphidius colemani (a previously
established parasite common in greenhouses), the resident predator community,
and combinations thereof, to control natural infestations of soybean aphid. The
results showed that A. colemani was able to suppress soybean aphid in predator
exclusion cages but not outside of cage settings. These results suggest that A.
colemani is an example of an effective soybean aphid parasitoid that can be
disrupted by the resident predator community via IGP.
10
As more effective parasitoids for soybean aphid biological control are discovered,
it will be imperative to understand the potential impacts of IGP on their populations.
Such knowledge will enhance the protection and safety of U.S. agriculture.
CSREES Program Area: NRI, Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes
Project Title: Habitat Characteristics and Entomopathogenic Nematode
Persistence in Agroecosystems
Project Directors: Hoy, C.W.; Grewal, P.S., (Ohio State Univ., Dept. of
Entomology, Wooster, OH)
Award Years: 2004-2006
Award Amount: $206,000
CRIS Project No.: OHO00957-SS
Vegetable crops are attacked by a wide range of insect pests, many of which
spend time in or on the soil during at least part of their life cycle. Although farmers
can use insecticides, they don’t work well for all soil insects and use of insecticides
raises concerns for the health of consumers, farmers and farm workers, and
contamination of ground water. Natural control would be preferred for these pests
but doesn’t always get the job done. Our project is looking at how naturally
occurring controls could be improved for vegetable crops.
The natural controls we’re researching are entomopathogenic nematodes, which
are microscopic roundworms that live in the soil and have a fascinating life cycle.
They find insects in the soil, enter through the mouth or other opening, and release
a bacterium from their digestive system into the insect. The bacterium rapidly kills
the insect and reproduces, feeding on the insect’s body. The nematodes feed on
the bacteria and reproduce rapidly themselves, then leave to find another insect to
attack in the soil. They only attack insects, can be produced commercially and
sprayed just like an insecticide and have been very effective in controlling at least
some insect pests. But they exist naturally in soils as well. We have found them
throughout a vegetable production area in Ohio, but not in the soil in the vegetable
fields themselves. Our research goals are to answer two questions: why are they
around the vegetable fields but not in them where they could be controlling pests
and how could we manage the soil in the fields to encourage these naturally
occurring controls.
We have conducted a very extensive survey of soils in and around the vegetable
production area, 100 sample sites in each of the following: vegetable fields, corn
or soybean fields, grassy field borders, residential lawns, old fields and meadows,
and forest areas. We determined which samples contained the beneficial
nematodes and also measured a wide range of the chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of these soils. We have found that the beneficial
nematodes occupy a set of soil conditions that is very different from those
preferred by the other kinds of nematodes living in the soil. Results to date also
have shown that farmers might be able to improve the soil conditions so that they
encourage the beneficial nematodes, mainly by changing how they improve soil
fertility.
11
Ongoing research is examining how the conditions in the soils under study change
over time, and how those changes affect the beneficial nematodes. We know that
they must have insects to live on, so we are focusing in particular on the kinds of
insects present over time at each of the sites. The potential impact of this
research is in finding ways to manage soils so that natural enemies control soil
insect pests. We hope to find ways to consistently suppress the insect pests
without the use of insecticides and with lower cost and greater safety to farmers.
In addition, groundwater pollution by pesticides will also be lessened.
CSREES Program Area: NRI, Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes
Project Title: Natural Enemy Biodiversity and the Biological Control of Aphids
Project Director: Snyder, W.E., Washington State Univ., Dept. of Entomology,
Pullman, WA
Award Years: 2004-2008
Award Amount: $441,000
CRIS Project No.: WNP03417
An underlying assumption of many efforts to conserve beneficial insects that eat
pests (“natural enemies”) is that increasing predator species diversity will improve
natural pest control. However, many common predators in agricultural fields eat
other predators in addition to pests. The conservation of predators that feed on
other predators might make pest control weaker, rather than stronger. We are
studying the impact of predator biodiversity (that is, the number of predator
species present) on control of the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae, on potato
crops. Our research is at three scales: insect diversity surveys in production fields,
experimental manipulations of natural enemy diversity in field cages, and
behavioral observations in the laboratory.
In production fields, we intensively sampled for both beneficial and pest insects,
and found many species of insects in potato fields that are not treated with harmful
insecticides. In experiments conducted in large cages within potato fields, we have
found that natural enemy biodiversity is important for good aphid control, because
predator communities containing more species are more likely to include the most
effective predator species. We did not see evidence that predators commonly fed
on other predators. We are just beginning our observations of different predator
species in the laboratory, to examine what makes particular species of predators
better biological control agents than others.
In summary, we are seeking a better understanding of what conservation
biocontrol practitioners have called “the right kind of biodiversity.” As sustainable
agricultural practices become more widely adopted in the U.S., natural enemy
communities will become increasingly diverse. Scouting for natural enemies is
critical to integrated pest management (IPM) programs – our results will help
growers understand just what elements of predator diversity they need to sample
for. By improving integrated pest management programs our research will
improve natural pest control, while protecting the environment by reducing the
need for insecticides.
12
CSREES Program Area: Integrated Competitive Grants Program (ICGP) (i.e.,
Section 406), Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP)
Project Title: Consortium for Integrated Management of Stored-Product Insect
Pests (CIMSPIP)
Project Directors: Ramaswamy, S, Kansas State Univ.; Phillips, T., Oklahoma
State Univ.; Subramanyam, B., Kansas State Univ.; Arthur, F., USDA –
ARS, Grain Marketing and Production Research Center; Maier, D., Purdue
Univ., Nechols, J., Kansas State Univ. (Note - not all PDs have been on all
projects.)
Award Years: 2000-2005 [1st], 2004-2006 [2nd], 2005-2009 [3rd]
Award Amount: $1,217,829 [1st], $405,943 [2nd], $1,800,000 [3rd]
CRIS Project No.: KS9443 this project [1st], KS9527 [2nd], KS600023 3rd]
Stored-product insects cause significant damage to the multi-billion dollar grain
and food industries each year. Some insecticides used for stored products are
applied directly to raw grain. Often insecticidal compounds are also applied to
indoor floor and wall surfaces of flourmills, food plants, warehouses, and grocery
stores to control stored product insects. Alternative management strategies for
postharvest grain and food uses can be expanded using existing products and
technologies, or developed through research on new products and approaches. A
Consortium for Integrated Management of Stored Product Insect Pests (CIMSPIP)
was developed with funding from the RAMP as a collaboration among Kansas
State University, Oklahoma State University, Purdue University, and the USDAAgricultural Research Service Grain Marketing and Production Research Center.
CIMSPIP brought together entomologists, plant pathologists, agricultural
engineers, and agricultural economists into a “center without walls”, to address
significant post-harvest pest problems. Some key findings and their relevant
project objectives are as follows:
Reduced risk insecticides: more effective applications of insect growth regulators,
diatomaceous earth, and the microbial insecticide Spinosad were developed.
Behavior and genetics: insect dispersal and movement into and out of food
facilities were described and pest control methods using sex attractants were
developed.
Sampling and IPM decision-making: methods to measure insect presence and
numbers in grain were studied and integrated into pest management programs.
Biological control: studies with wasps that parasitize grain pests and nematodes,
tiny roundworms that prey upon and eat grain insects, were done to determine
levels of effectiveness and potential for control.
Grain aeration: cooling of grain with fans that bring cool air into bins was studied
for purposes of preventing or reducing insect infestation, and helped to develop
optimal methods for grain managers.
Methyl bromide alternatives: methods to replace the banned fumigant gas methyl
bromide were studied and included treating food products with vacuum to
suffocate insects and applying heat to flour mills to kill insects.
Economic analyses: the costs and benefits of pest management practices were
compared, and it was determined that sampling for insects is expensive relative to
other preventive methods.
13
Technology transfer and outreach: dozens of scientific papers, extension
publications, and industry workshops were accomplished during the project. The
impact of this project lies in the fact that biologically-based pest management tools
have been transferred directly to users.
CSREES Program Area: ICGP, Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program (RAMP)
Project Title: Enhancing Pheromone Mating Disruption Programs for
Lepidopterous Pests in Western Orchards
Project Directors: Welter, S.; Van Steenwyk, R.A. (Univ. of California, Dept. of
Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, Berkeley, CA)
Award Years: 2000-2005
Award Amount: $1,426,042 (2 awards)
CRIS Project No.: CA-B*-INS-7334-OG, CA-B*-INS-6838-SG
Stabilize and Extend Pheromone Mating Disruption of Codling Moths in Apple,
Pear, and Walnut Orchards. In concert with the IFAFS grant outlined by Dr.
Brunner, new approaches were required to enhance program efficacy, limit
production costs, minimize use of less specific insecticides, and reduce program
risk for growers. These changes also allowed for more biologically intense control
of secondary pests. As such, major research efforts included developing
alternatives to organophosphate insecticides, finding less expensive, and
logistically more efficient, ways to disperse the pheromone of codling moth for
disruption of mating, developing new monitoring tools to assess and predict risk,
and developing effective delivery of new information to our target constituencies.
Organophosphate Insecticide Replacement Programs. To accommodate the
variation in growing conditions, a series of programs were developed from 1)
certified organic management in pears 2) development of programs that embraced
the use of organically approved tactics for just the insects in pear orchards 3)
replacement of all insecticides with the more selective insect growth regulators in
apples and pears and 4) development of programs that eliminated all
organophosphates in apples and pears. Growers adopting either certified organic
production or just adoption of organic insect control practices were incorporated
into the largest area wide program ever attempted in pome fruit orchards in the
United States to implement organic insect pest control strategies. These efforts
were coupled with development of a marketing niche of “gently-grown” pears from
“tree to tabletop” with local growers and packing house cooperation with an
accompanying price premium for their product. More conservative programs or
programs for orchards with higher risk from codling moth were also successful
using only selective insect growth regulators or substitution of organophosphates
with newer insecticides, e.g., neonicotinyls.
Development of new strategies for pheromone mating disruption and monitoring of
codling moth in mating disrupted orchards were developed, implemented, or being
tested. The first area wide programs were established in two regions of California
walnuts using pheromone emitters using mechanical aerosol devices. Program
costs were reduced by ca. 50% using reduced dispenser placements. New
14
formulations of pheromones were developed in collaboration with commercial
interests that included sprayable microcapsules of pheromone, small laminated
flakes, or pheromone incorporated into small tubes that can all be sprayed out
mechanically onto fruit or walnut trees. New monitoring tools using a plant volatile
found in pears combined with the pheromone of codling moth have been
developed and made commercially available, addressing an important limitation to
our current programs.
Successful implementation of the non-organophosphate based programs plus
increasing penetration of the tree fruit systems should help to minimize safety or
environmental concerns, limit residues on crops, and help to maintain an
economically sustainable system.
CSREES Program Area: Hatch Multi-state Grant, Initiative for Future Agriculture
and Food Systems grant (IFAFS)
Project Title: Building a Multi-tactic Pheromone-based Pest Management System
in Western Orchards
Project Directors: Brunner, J.F.; Beers, E.H.; Riedl, H.; Welter, S.C.; Unruh, T.;
Jones, V.; Dunley, J.; (Washington State Univ.)
Award Years: 2000-2005
Award Amount: $2,500,000
CRIS project No.: WNP04089
This project was coordinated with the RAMP project discussed previously (Dr.
Steve Welter) into a comprehensive approach designed to capture the value
derived from the Codling Moth Area wide Management Project (CAMP), which
demonstrated the importance of pheromones in western tree fruit pest
management programs. The IFAFS grant not only helped fund some aspects of
research and education discussed by Dr. Welter but also focused on objectives to
enhance the impact of biological control in orchards through the use of selective
control tactics and stabilize the management of selected pests through
manipulation of the orchard ecosystem. Ongoing successes to manage codling
moth with increasingly more selective programs has altered the orchard
management template significantly such that new options have become possible
and renewed interests in biologically intensive strategies have grown for other
pests found within orchard ecosystems.
Enhance the impact of biological control in orchards. Research on this objective
dealt with the effects of many new insecticide chemistries identified as reduced
risk and organophosphate replacements by the EPA. Many of these new
insecticides are not directly toxic to biological control agents at field rates; however,
this does not mean that they might not have detrimental impacts. This project
examined direct and sublethal effects of eight insecticides on seven biological
control agents including general predators and specific parasites. Our research
results showed that many of the new insecticides thought to have minimal effects
had sublethal effects on biological control agents. For example, some insect
growth regulator insecticides caused no direct mortality but for some biological
15
control agents did slow development, change sex ratios and reduce fecundity.
The ultimate impact on biological control agents in the field is not fully appreciated,
but sublethal effects certainly could reduce the impact of biological control in
orchards even when insecticides considered reduced risk were employed. The
results of these studies have helped modify recommendations to growers on the
use of new insecticides. The full impact of new insecticides on biological control
agents requires further in-orchard studies, but results from this project have shown
that the potential for negative impacts of reduced risk insecticides on biological
control agents can and does occur.
Stabilize the management of selected pests through manipulation of the orchard
ecosystem. Research on this objective focused on three pests: leafrollers, pear
psylla, and stink bugs. Extra-orchard habitats were identified for leafrollers that
provided refugia for parasites. By planting and managing wild rose/strawberry
gardens, biological control of leafrollers in orchards was increased. Twenty-nine
such gardens planted by growers are now being evaluated as a component of a
multi-tactic leafroller management. Studies were conducted to determine how the
presence of pear psylla predators in orchards is influenced by extra-orchard
habitats. Certain plants were shown to contribute key predators to orchards, for
example, alder trees. Research is ongoing to determine if predators are moving
into orchards from native habitats or the orchard groundcover plants that
contribute to the biological control of pear psylla. Stink bugs are pests that move
into orchards in late summer to feed on fruit. Research showed that aggregation
pheromone in combination with certain host plants could be used to establish an
aggregate-and-kill strategy. Such a strategy avoids using broad-spectrum
insecticides in orchards that would disrupt biological control for other pests.
CSREES Program Area: Hatch Multi-state Grant, IFAFS
Project Title: Biologically-based control for the area wide management of exotic
and invasive weeds
Presentation Title: Biological Control of Saltcedar
Project Directors: Carruthers, R.I., USDA - ARS, Exotic and Invasive Weed
Research Unit, Albany, CA; D’Antonio, C.M. Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA;
Dudley, T., Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA; Spencer, D.F., USDA - ARS, Davis,
CA; DeLoach, C.J., USDA - ARS, Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Lab,
Temple, TX; Kazmer, D.J., Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, WY; Knutsen, A., Texas
A&M Univ., College Station, TX
Award Years: 2000-2005
Award Amount: $3,000,000
CRIS Project No.: 5325-22000-017-29S
This project addressed the development, application, and assessment of biological
control for management of exotic and invasive weeds. Saltcedar, giant reed, and
yellow starthistle are exotic plants that negatively affect several western states.
These weeds out-compete beneficial vegetation, and often form monotypic stands.
They provide poor habitat for other flora and fauna, are extensive water
consumers, increase fire hazard, and alter ecosystem processes to further favor
16
their own growth and development over desirable species. The presence of these
weeds threatens the economic viability of agriculture and the sustainability of
many natural habitats. This consortium grant focused on three tasks, all of which
were aimed at improving the use of biological control efficacy and safety for these
specific target weeds and aiding managers and policy makers in making improved
decisions regarding these and other weed biological control programs. These
three primary tasks, each with multiple objects, were:
1) Benefit /Risk Assessment - Development of new benefit/ risk evaluation
methods for biological control agents used to combat invasive species in sensitive
environments.
2) Supportive Research on Invasive Species and their Control - Area-wide and
ecosystem level research on the impact of target weeds and optimizing the effects
that biological and other integrated methods of control have on beneficial flora and
fauna and physical aspects of the environment, and
3) Area-wide Weed Management - Area-wide assessment of invasive species
impact, implementation of biological control release and evaluation, natural enemy
impact assessment, and evaluation of other weed control methods.
Through the participation of over 20 scientists from a combination of federal, state
and private institutions, a wide range of specific objects were addressed and met.
These included but were not limited to, holding a comprehensive international
workshop on Benefit/ Risk Assessment for Biological Control, the results of which
are just now being published as a series of paper in a special issue of the scientific
journal, Biological Control; the development of detailed plant growth and impact
data for each of the invasive plant species targeted in this proposal, culmination in
several operational plant growth models useful for scientists and land managers to
plan control efforts; detailed biological understanding of many different natural
enemies and how they are affected by both biotic and abiotic environmental
conditions; predictive models of insect plant interactions that were used to improve
and manage biological control operational programs; ecosystem level assessment
technology such as area-wide monitoring systems using both ground and aerial
remote sensing technology to assess weed distribution and spread, as well as
natural enemy impact. Through this program and cooperative funding from USDAARS and several additional state and federal agencies, an area-wide biological
control implementation effort for management of saltcedar, Tamarix spp., was
developed and implemented in pilot test areas in eight different states. Initial tests
revealed positive results in some locations and poor results in others. The
combined research and implementation effort, however, allowed project scientists
to understand the limiting biological factors and make program adjustment to
improve biological control impact in many areas. To date, the introduced
biological control agent has now caused extensive damage to the invasive
saltcedar in almost every state tested, and in areas of best impact many
thousands of acres of saltcedar have now been totally defoliated. In Lovelock, NV
for example, the introduction of only 1300 beetles in the summer of 2001, led to
millions of beneficial beetles in 2005 and [the defoliation of] over 7,000 acres of
saltcedar that was totally in the release area. In parallel with these control efforts,
additional program scientists have been working on revegetation technologies to
17
help restore impacted riparian habitats where saltcedar has been removed. In
2005, many areas are now showing saltcedar decline with natives rebounding.
In summary, this has been an extremely successful program with many scientists
from several different institutions across many western states, all collaborating in
an effective research and implementation effort. Extensive outreach of the results
of this effort have likewise, multiplied the payoff from this program many fold. In
most of the states participating in the project, action agencies like the State
Departments of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension Service and USDA APHIS
have taken the results of this project and are now delivering expanded programs
to many users. For example, in the summer of 2005, USDA-APHIS was
approved to implement the Saltcedar Biological Control Program throughout 14
western states. This summer field insectaries were established in most of those
sites using stock insects collected from our pilot test areas. Similarly, the State of
Utah, conducted another more intensive natural enemy redistribution effort, where
many local land owners and land managers were able to come to one of our pilot
release sites and collect literally millions of beneficial natural enemies and then
released them at their saltcedar infested sites within the state of Utah.
CSREES Program Area: ICGP, Crops at Risk (CAR)
Project Title: Developing a Blueberry IPM Program to Address Critical Insect
Management Issues
Presentation Title: A Blueberry IPM Program to Address Critical Insect
Management Issues
Project Director: Isaacs, R., Michigan State Univ., Dept. of Entolomogy, East
Lansing, MI [presented by Szendrei, Z. USDA – ARS, Beltville, MD]
Award Years: 2001-2003
Award Amount: $175,324
CRIS Project No.: MICL08277
Insect pests are a key limitation to production of high-quality blueberries, and
many key pests attack the fruit directly, causing injury and becoming potential
contaminants of harvested fruit. The Japanese beetle has become a primary pest
of Michigan blueberries due to its relative ease of detection in fruit and the
increased abundance of beetles in the main blueberry production regions of
Michigan. This project addressed approaches to beetle control that would improve
control and reduce reliance on broad-spectrum insecticides.
Our objectives were to 1) investigate the effect of row-middle cultural practices
within blueberry fields on Japanese beetle adult oviposition and larval abundance,
2) determine effectiveness of perimeter trapping to intercept beetles moving into
blueberry fields, 3) evaluate reduced-risk insecticides for blueberry as control
agents against Japanese beetle and blueberry maggot, and 4) investigate the use
of color sorting technologies for beetle removal at blueberry processors. This
information was integrated into an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
demonstration project for management of key insect pests of blueberries.
18
During two years of soil sampling in and around blueberry fields, the greatest
densities of overwintering Japanese beetle grubs were found outside the fields in
regions of permanent sod. Thus, headlands may be the primary source for beetles
in the field, and management should be targeted against these relatively small
areas. Comparison of grub densities in fields with different row middle
management programs revealed that rotovated sites consistently had 80% fewer
grubs than permanent sod, and in research station trials, adult beetles and grubs
were always rare in bare ground plots. Rotovation is a non-chemical approach to
beetle control that can help maintain fields free of significant grub populations. An
evaluation of acid soil tolerant cover crops showed that grubs were least common
and had lowest survival in plots planted with buckwheat, even though the greatest
density of females were found on this plant.
Perimeter trapping was found to increase the abundance of Japanese beetles on
bushes, and is therefore not an effective management tool for this pest.
Insecticides were applied to blueberry foliage and fruit then exposed to insects at
different times after treatment, to learn how long the residues would last. These
trials identified new reduced-risk insecticides providing high levels of fruit
protection against key insect pests. These results have supported registration of
new reduced-risk insecticides with short pre-harvest intervals, providing options for
protection of fruit in the critical period before the berries are shaken off bushes.
Evaluation of post-harvest sorting technology demonstrated the potential for colorsorters to remove beetles from berries, with 90-98% efficiency. Greater efficiency
was found with machines employing multiple cameras, but machines need to be
optimized for beetle removal to achieve high levels of removal efficiency.
This project has led to reduction in the economic impact of Japanese beetle in the
Michigan blueberry industry, through widespread adoption of clean cultivation in
blueberry fields, adoption of more selective insecticides for Japanese beetle
control, and a better understanding of the need for effective in-field control tactics.
CSREES Program Area: Special Research Grants Program (SRGP), Pest
Management Alternative Program (PMAP)
Project Title: A Multifaceted Approach for Control of Blueberry Pests in Southern
United States
Presentation Title: Evaluation of Sampling Techniques for Monitoring Cranberry
Tipworm and Flower thrips in Rabbiteye and Southern highbush blueberries in the
Southern United States
Project Director: Liburd, O. E., Univ. of Florida
Award Years: 2002-2004
Award Amount: 117,572
CRIS or SARE project No. FLA-ENY-04059
The cranberry tipworm, Dasineura oxycoccana, is an important insect pest of
rabbiteye and southern highbush blueberries in the southeastern United States,
19
with annual losses from infestation and damage exceeding $20 million USD.
Similarly, flower thrips Frankliniella spp. may damage as much as 30% of the
blueberries in the south, severely impacting flower and fruit development. Our
ultimate goal was to develop a monitoring protocol for detecting cranberry tipworm
and flower thrips in Rabbiteye and Southern highbush blueberry plantings. The
specific objectives were to evaluate commercially available colored sticky traps for
detecting cranberry tipworm and flower thrips. A second objective was to compare
the most effective sticky traps with other sampling techniques. Finally, we
examined infestation rates of floral and leaf buds in Rabbiteye and Southern
highbush blueberries for cranberry tipworm. Our results indicate that the
emergence technique performed better than other sampling techniques in
detecting cranberry tipworm adults in Rabbiteye and Southern highbush
blueberries. There were no significant differences between emergence and
dissection techniques in detecting cranberry tipworm larvae in Rabbiteye and
Southern highbush blueberries. In addition, the dissection technique was the only
sampling tool capable of detecting cranberry tipworm eggs in Rabbiteye and
Southern highbush blueberries. For thrips, blue sticky traps appear to be the most
effective color for monitoring flower thrips (F. bispinosa) populations followed by
white, yellow, and green, respectively. In rabbiteye plantings, white sticky boards
were significantly more effective in detecting flower thrips than other techniques
(dipping flower clusters into alcohol, tapping floral clusters over white cardboard,
or dissecting flower clusters). Alcohol dip and floral dissection techniques were
equivalent in their ability to detect flower thrips in both Rabbiteye and Southern
highbush plantings. Tapping floral clusters over a flat white surface was the least
effective technique, regardless of planting types. Prior to 2002, monitoring tools
for the cranberry tipworm and flower thrips in Rabbiteye and Southeastern
blueberries have been nonexistent and blueberry growers were unable to properly
time effective management tactics for these pests. The inability to effectively time
control strategies for the cranberry tipworm and flower thrips resulted in significant
loses for many blueberry growers in the south. Many symptoms resulting from
infestation of the cranberry tipworm were misdiagnosed for frost injury. Similarly,
injuries resulting from flower thrips infestation were related to poor pollination. This
project enabled growers to effectively identify their insect pest problems and
develop effective management tools; consequently, reducing their dependency on
pesticides and increasing their overall production. The second phase of this study
will use monitoring data to develop Economic Injury levels for the cranberry
tipworm and flower thrips.
20
CSREES Program Area: ICGP, Organic Transitions Program (ORG)
Project Title: Organic Weed Management: Balancing Pest Management and Soil
Quality in a Transitional System
Project Directors: Barbercheck, M., Pennsylvania State Univ., Dept. of
Entomology, University Park, PA; Mortensen, D.A., Pennsylvania State Univ., Dept.
of Crop and Soil Sciences, University Park, PA; Karsten, H., Pennsylvania State
Univ., Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, University Park, PA; Sanchez, E.S.,
Pennsylvania State Univ., Dept. of Horticulture, University Park, PA; Duiker, S.W.,
Pennsylvania State Univ., Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, University Park, PA;
Hyde, J.A., Pennsylvania State Univ., Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, University Park, PA; Kiernan, N.E., Pennsylvania State Univ., College
of Agricultural Sciences, University Park, PA
Award Years: 2003-2007
Award Amount: $498,335
CRIS Project No.: PEN03987
Weed management is one of the primary Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
challenges for organic producers. This four-year project initiated in September,
2003, focuses on weed management during the transition to an organic feed grain
rotation through specific research, education, outreach, and strategic objectives.
Field research focuses on reducing initial weed populations by two approaches:
reduction of the seed bank through tillage-stimulated germination, and
suppression of weed seed germination through cover cropping and minimizing
tillage. There are two consecutive phases in the field experiment: Phase I is a
preparatory cover crop phase designed specifically to reduce the weed seed bank,
followed in the same plots by Phase II, a crop production phase to measure the
weed reduction effects of the preparatory phase. The field experiment was
established twice, in the falls of 2003 and 2004. The effect of these treatments on
soil quality, pest and beneficial soil invertebrates, and economic indicators is also
being measured. In the first year of the study, foxtail establishment was higher
than velvetleaf and common lambsquarters in the rye cover crop treatments.
Conversely, common lambsquarters established more than foxtail and velvetleaf in
the red clover/timothy treatments. Active soil carbon was significantly higher in the
reduced tillage compared to the conventional till systems. Neither tillage nor cover
crop treatment affected numbers of soil invertebrates. Specimens are currently
being identified to detect community effects. Infection of sentinel insects by insectparasitic fungi in soil was low and variable among treatments. No insect-parasitic
nematodes were detected from soil at the site. Field measures will continue
through 2007. Education and outreach programs and materials are being
developed and delivered to a broad audience including students, technology
transfer agents, and the general public. The effectiveness of the outreach
programs in changing technology transfer agents’ behaviors and attitudes will be
evaluated over the course of this project as research activities in the field
experiment continue. We expect that the results of this multidisciplinary,
multifunctional project have potential to produce impacts in all five of the 20042009 CSREES strategic goals.
21
CSREES Program Area: ICGP, ORG
Project Title: Integrative Use of Perennial Peanut for Cost-effective Weed
Control in Organic Citrus
Presentation Title: Effectiveness of Annual and Perennial Cover Crops in
Managing Weeds in Organic Citrus
Project Directors: Scholberg, J.M, Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Agronomy,
Gainesville, FL; Buhr, K.L., Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Agronomy, Gainesville, FL;
Ferguson, J.J., Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL;
McSorley, R.T., Univ. of Florida, Dept. of Entomology and Nematology, Gainesville,
FL [presented by Linares, J., Univ. of Florida]
Award Years: 2001-2005
Award Amount: $162,601
CRIS Project No.: FLA-AGR-04013
Florida growers stated that cost-effective weed control is THE most limiting factor
for successful transition to organic production.
Program objectives: 1) Initiate a certified organic research program at the U. of
Florida (UF) to evaluate the use of perennial peanut (PP) and annual cover crops
(CC) for weed management in organic citrus; 2) Determine the effects of soil
amendments and irrigation on initial establishment of PP; 3) Assess changes in
soil quality, pest and weed dynamics, water/nutrient availability, and tree growth
due to CC; and 4) Integrate research findings into organic production guidelines.
Key findings: Two experiments were initiated at Citra, FL. Experiment One
evaluated the effects of PP and/or annual CC on weed control and growth of citrus
trees. Treatments included i) spring planting (3-5-2002) of PP; ii) summer planting
(6-11-2002) following crimson clover; iii) summer planting (6-11-2002) following a
fallow; and iv) use of a combination of summer and winter annual CC. After initial
establishment, plots were mowed at 2-4 week intervals. After 18 and 28 months
the maximum aboveground biomass of PP was 45 vs. 30 and 280 vs. 1000 kg/ha
for spring and summer plantings, respectively. Over-seeding perennial peanut with
crimson clover during the winter did NOT affect PP growth at six months but
reduced it by 58% at 28 months. Use of cover crop/weed biomass ratio (CCWindex) facilitated the assessment of the effectiveness of crops to reduce weed
growth. CCW values for PP increased to 0.14 and 0.40 at the end of the second
and third growing season, respectively (relatively poor weed control). Although PP
was relatively ineffective in controlling weeds during it's initial growth, over time its
effectiveness gradually improved. In the absence of overhead irrigation, summer
plantings appear to be the most successful establishment method for PP. Initial
growth and weed control with sunn hemp was excellent. However, it appears to
be too tall for its use as a CC in citrus. Planting it continuously also resulted in a
build up of verticillium wilt and reduced biomass by up to 70% in the third year.
Weed biomass with “ironclay” (a viny cowpea variety) was greatly reduced
(CCW=30.0, excellent weed control). Use of a bushy “zippercream” cowpea
variety did not provide effective weed control (CCI=0.4). In Experiment Two,
seven summer CCs (cowpea, velvet bean, sunn hemp, lab-lab bean, hairy indigo,
alyce clover, and pigeonpea) and seven winter CCs (crimson, sweet, and
22
subterranean clover; lupine, radish, black oats/lupin mix, and a rye/vetch mix)
were tested. Dry weights (kg/ha) for summer CCs were: cowpea 7,870, pigeon
pea 7,600, hairy indigo 7,590, sunn hemp 5,190, alyce clover 2,030, velvet bean
1,280, and lab lab bean 760. Respective values for CCW-indices were 30.0, 3.4,
4.5, 4.6, 23.2, 0.3, and 0.3. For winter CCs, biomass production was best for
radish 6,480, crimson clover 3,370, oats/lupine mix 3,220, and rye/vetch mix 2,180.
Respective values for CCW-indices were 6.8, 1.5, 2.7, and 1.9. Poor/inconsistent
performance of most winter CCs may limit their effectiveness in controlling weeds.
Use of 2-4 way mixes is currently being evaluated and this approach appears to
be promising.
Impacts: This program resulted in the establishment of a 10 acre certified organic
research site at UF and afforded development of ecologically-based weed
management practices for organic production systems. This program has resulted
in a more effective exchange of information between scientists and growers, and
thereby enhanced the continuous growth of the organic industry. It will provide a
continuous basis for future collaborations, outreach, and training programs. We
have documented and demonstrated the benefits of annual and perennial cover
crop systems to growers during annual field days. During the next phase of this
project we will, in close collaboration with participating growers, select suitable
management practices that growers can modify and evaluate on their own farms.
Successful transitioning of citrus growers to organic production will improve farm
returns and reduce environmental impacts of citrus production.
CSREES Program Area: Sustainable Agriculture Research Education (SARE)
Project Title: Enhancing Sustainability in Cotton Production through Reduced
Chemical Inputs, Cover Crops, and Conservation Tillage
Presentation Title: Influence of Cover Crops on Insect Pests and Predators in
Conservation Tillage Cotton
Project Directors: Coordinator – Schomberg, H., USDA - ARS; Black, L,
Georgia Conservation Tillage Alliance; Branch, I., Branch Farms; Evans, F.,
Bryant's Inc.: Harrison, J.H., Harrison Farms; Weyers, S.L. , USDA – ARS;
Lamb, M., USDA – ARS; Olson, D., USDA – ARS; Phatak, S., Univ. of GA;
Ponder, B., Ponder Farms: Ross, T., Ross Farms; Sainju, U.,Fort Valley State
Univ.; Singh, B., Fort Valley State Univ.: Thompson, G., Thompson Farm: Tillman,
G., USDA – ARS; Timper, P., USDA – ARS; Utley, Scott, Univ. of Georgia
Extension; Whitehead, W., Fort Valley State Univ.; Williams, Joe, Williams Cotton
Farms
Award Years: 2001-2004
Award Amount: $207,867
SARE Project No.: LS01 - 121
As a result of frequent and intense disturbance, many agricultural systems are
recognized as particularly difficult environments for natural enemies of insect pests.
Conservation tillage and cover crops can help reduce production costs by
enhancing beneficial insects and improving soil water relationships and long-term
soil productivity. In the fall of 2000, an on-farm sustainable agricultural research
23
project was established for cotton in south Georgia and conducted for two years.
The main objective for this research was to develop cover crop systems for
conservation tillage cotton that increase beneficial insects. The four cover crop
treatments included cereal rye, crimson clover, a mixture of three legumes
(balansa clover, crimson clover, and hairy vetch), and a combination of rye in the
center of the cotton row with the legume mixture between these centers. Controls
were conventionally-tilled cotton fields not planted in winter cover crops. Various
lady beetles, predators of cotton aphids, built up in the spring in cover crops and
sometimes, but not always, appeared to disperse from the cover crops to cotton to
feed on the cotton aphid. Fire ants, big-eyed bugs, and minute pirate bugs prey on
eggs and larvae of the tobacco budworm and corn earworm. Generally, fire ants
were higher in conservation-tillage cotton fields planted in winter cover crops than
in conventional-tillage cotton fields left fallow during the winter. Big-eyed bugs
were higher in cotton fields previously planted in cover crops compared to control
fields for only one year. Minute pirate bug numbers, though, were not different
between cover crop and control cotton fields. The cotton bollworm and tobacco
budworm were the only pests that exceeded their economic threshold. For both
years, the number of dates reaching the economic threshold was less for crimson
clover and rye cotton than for control cotton largely due to predation by fire ants
and the big-eyed bug. In 2001, cotton seed yields were higher for cotton with
crimson clover and legume mixture-rye cover crops compared to cotton controls.
In 2002, all cover crop cotton fields, except for the rye fields, had higher seed
cotton yields relative to control fields. Therefore, planting a winter cover crop
conserved and enhanced natural enemies of pest insects and resulted in overall
more profitable cotton production compared to leaving a field fallow in the winter.
24
Section IV – CSREES Program Descriptions
Programs Active as of FY 2006
Crops at Risk (CAR) and Risk Avoidance and Mitigation (RAMP) programs
[Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (AREERA)]
The IPM Section 406 Program seeks to solve critical agricultural issues, priorities,
or problems through the integration of research, education, and extension
activities. The Program is designed to fund the development of new Integrated
Pest
management (IPM) approaches or the improvement of existing IPM systems. The
program areas included in this IPM Section 406 Program RFA are:
1) Crops at Risk
The goal of a CAR application should be to enhance the development and
implementation of innovative, ecologically based sustainable IPM system(s).
Preferably, this should involve a diversity of tactics and approaches for a
single or specific food or fiber commodity in commercial production.
Applications may address pre- and/or post-harvest system(s).
Applications may address either a major acreage or high value crop
commodity such as key fruits and vegetables. The primary emphasis of the
application should be on crop productivity and profitability, while addressing
critical environmental quality and human health issues.
2) Risk Avoidance and Mitigation
The goal of a RAMP proposal should be to enhance the development and
implementation of innovative, ecologically based sustainable IPM strategies
and system(s) for (a) multi-crop food and fiber production systems; (b) an
area-wide or a landscape scale agroecosystem; or (c) a documented
pesticide impact on water, human or environmental health.
RAMP applications may address major acreage agricultural production
systems, high value crops such as key fruit and vegetable systems, or other
agroecosystems. The primary emphasis of the application should be on
productivity and profitability while addressing critical environmental quality
and human health issues. The intent of RAMP is to fund long-term projects
that emphasize systems approaches. Applications should be multistate/regional in scale or show relevance beyond an individual state.
Projects should focus on enhancing grower knowledge and adoption of
appropriate IPM practices through extension outreach and demonstrations
relevant to “real-world” systems. Decisions made in implementing the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), environmental issues, worker safety, pest
25
resistance, and the emergence of new pests will continue to impact the
effectiveness of IPM practices and thus become important considerations when
developing applications for the IPM Section 406 Program.
Differences between CAR and RAMP Programs
CAR
RAMP
Goals:
Create or enhance IPM
Enhance development and
practices for individual food
implementation of innovative
or fiber crops grown for
IPM strategies for multi-crop
commercial purposes
food and fiber production
systems, or production
systems on an area-wide or
landscape scale
Integrated Programs:
Research, Education, &
Research, Education, &
Extension Extension – Projects are
Projects should be
multidisciplinary, involve
multidisciplinary; may involve multiple pests, are typically
multiple pests
multi-state or regional in
scale (or must show
relevance beyond an
individual state); projects
should use a systems
approach
Primary Emphasis:
Integrated multifunctional
Projects should address crop
projects for crops with high
productivity and profitability,
priority IPM needs, identified while addressing critical
by stakeholders
environmental quality and
human health issues;
emphasis should be placed
on enhancing stability and
sustainability of IPM
Systems
Funding:
Short-term (between 2-4
Medium-term (up to 4 years)
years)
Relevant Systems:
Crop and cropping systems
Major acreage crop
at risk from pest damage
production systems, key fruit
due to phase-out of
and vegetable production
chemicals from FQPA
systems, or other
agroecosystems where
identified environmental
quality or human health
issues exist
Collaboration:
Projects should foster
Extensive collaboration
collaboration between
between individuals and
individuals and/or institutions institutions is expected
26
Integrated Organic Program [Section 406 of AREERA]
The purpose of the Integrated Organic Program is to solve critical agriculture
issues, priorities, or problems through the integration of research, education, and
extension activities in two program areas: (1) Organic Transitions Program (ORG);
and (2) Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI). ORG funds
the development and implementation of research, extension, and higher education
programs to improve the competitiveness of organic producers. OREI funds
research and extension programs that enhance the ability of producers and
processors who have already adopted organic standards to grow and market high
quality organic food, feed, and fiber. These two funding opportunities are included
in the same Request for Application.
The Integrated Organic Program is particularly interested in proposed projects that
emphasize research and outreach that assist farmers and ranchers with whole
farm planning and ecosystem integration. Projects should plan to deliver applied
production information to producers.
Applications are solicited for the Integrated Organic Program under the following
areas:
1. Develop and improve programs to address pest and pest-related problems
to strengthen the livestock and crop systems approach of organic
agriculture, including the effects of soil biology, cover crops, crop rotations,
and crop/livestock integration on crop and livestock health and productivity
and animal nutrient programs;
2. Identify the relationship of applied organic fertility management to crop
health and the resistance of crops to pests and diseases as well as on
livestock health and nutrition;
3. Develop and demonstrate education and information training systems
designed as education tools for county Cooperative Extension personnel
and other agricultural professionals who advise producers regarding
organic practices. This could include sharing or developing information on
a national or regional level regarding pest mitigation, soil fertility building,
best organic cultural practices, livestock management, and cataloguing
animal health problems for various species and listing approved health care
options and allowed medications. Applications that propose to bring endusers together with research, education, and extension teams that have
been funded by the Integrated Organic Program will be considered;
4. Facilitate the development of organic agriculture production, breeding, and
processing methods;
5. Evaluate the potential economic benefits to animal and crop producers and
processors who use organic methods;
27
6. Explore international trade opportunities for organically grown and
processed agricultural commodities; and
7. Conduct advanced on-farm research and development that emphasizes
observation of, experimentation with, and innovation for working organic
farms, including research relating to animal and crop production and
marketing and to socioeconomic conditions.
Organismal and Population Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes [NRI]
Several emerging issues are challenging our ability to provide high quality food
and fiber to the Nation's global economy. The unprecedented level of human
population growth will necessitate increased production and protection of
agricultural commodities. Our ability to respond to and recover from pests and
diseases that threaten our food supply has recently assumed paramount
importance. Fundamental knowledge is needed to form the basis of novel
management strategies for pests, which will lead to better utilization of beneficial
species.
To meet these identified needs of agriculture, the long-term (10-year) goals of this
program are to: Achieve decreased inputs for crop protection against pests by
increasingly relying on environmentally sound management strategies (e.g.,
biological control using natural enemies, new host plant resistant varieties, mating
disruption technique for area-wide control of major pests); improve understanding
of ecological factors associated with the establishment, rate of increase and
spread of exotic and invasive species; and provide scientific foundations for
organic production of crops, anticipating the increased demand for these products.
Please refer to CSREES FY 2007 Request for Application (RFA) for title changes
to programs. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfa_list.html
Pest Management Alternatives Research (PMAP) [Special Research Grants
Program (SRGP)]
Pest Management Alternatives Research supports projects that develop and
implement Integrated Pest Management practices, tactics and systems for specific
pest problems while reducing human and environmental risks. The successful
management of pest problems in commercial production is facing severe
challenges due to regulatory changes, emergence of new pest problems, and the
development of pest resistance to present management technologies. The
greatest impact on current management technologies is in the production of
specialty crops; however, other crops, including grain, forage and fiber are also
being impacted by these changes. The Request for Application (RFA) outlines
research priorities specific to the North Central, Northeastern, Southern, and
Western regions of the country. The objectives for PMAP are to:
1. Develop or adapt IPM tactics and technologies to address specific pest
problems in both pre- and post-harvest systems (e.g., modify existing
28
tactics and practices or create different pest management approaches or
tactics, and demonstrate their effectiveness);
2. Adapt, evaluate, and demonstrate the effectiveness of modified or
alternative IPM tactics and technologies, including products of genetic
engineering, biological organisms, biological pesticides, new chemical
pesticides, and cultural practices; and
3. Describe and field demonstrate how tactics can be economically and
effectively integrated into production systems for individual crops.
Regional Integrated Pest Management Program [various funding sources]
The Regional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Competitive Grants Program
supports projects that develop individual pest control tactics, integrate individual
tactics into an IPM system, and develop and implement extension education
programs. The program is administered by the land-grant university system's four
regions (North Central, Southern, Northeastern, Western) in partnership with
CSREES. The specific needs of each region vary, and thus specific program
priorities vary among the four regions.
The goal of the Regional IPM Competitive Grants Program is to provide
knowledge and information needed for the implementation of IPM methods that:
1. Improve the economic benefits related to the adoption of IPM practices;
2. Lessen potential human health risks from pests and the use of pest
management practices; and
3. Reduce unreasonable adverse environmental effects from pests and the
use of pest management practices.
The program helps achieve this goal by increasing the supply of and dissemination
of IPM knowledge and by enhancing collaboration among stakeholders. Because
the specific needs of each region vary, regional program priorities will vary.
The application must pertain to a crop or cropping system, pest or pest complex
important to the Region. This program supports and promotes projects that have
potential benefits to several or all states in the region. Projects involving urban
and community IPM (schools, parks, apartments, and municipal buildings) are
encouraged.
Benefit to the region is solidified and strengthened by collaborations among state
programs and agencies. Collaborations, while sometimes labor-intensive to
establish, can ultimately save time and resources for the parties involved. The
project should show intended partnerships with grower organizations, industries,
and agencies, especially those spanning several states.
29
The IPM Competitive Grants Program supports work that:
1. Significantly enhances and protects environmental quality and reduces the
risk of health and other problems associated with pest management;
2. Investigates, develops, promotes, or implements nonpesticidal tactics,
including economical management of pest populations and interdisciplinary
solutions;
3. Is likely to be implemented—either at the producer level across a cropping
system or at the community level—because of its economic advantages,
benefits to the environment and human health, or other advantages.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) [two line items]
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program works to
improve farming systems through a nationwide research and education grants and
outreach program. Most grants are interdisciplinary and are available to
researchers, agricultural educators, farmers, ranchers, and students in amounts
ranging from $1,000 to $150,000 or more. SARE has four geographical regions
that competitively fund projects. Each region sets their own policies and goals,
makes their own funding decisions, and administers their own grant projects. All
projects should strive to increase farm profitability, provide environmentally sound
management practices, and/or improve or be good for the agricultural community.
Grant categories:
Research and Education grants: Ranging from $30,000 to $150,000 or more,
these grants fund projects that usually Involve scientists, producers, and others in
an interdisciplinary approach.
Professional Development Grants: To spread the knowledge about sustainable
concepts and practices, these projects educate Cooperative Extension Service
staff and other agriculture professionals.
Producer Grants: Producers apply for grants that typically run between $1,000 and
$15,000 to conduct research, marketing, and demonstration projects and share
the results with other farmers and ranchers.
On Farm Research/Partnership: Supports on-farm research by Extension, National
Regional Conservation Service (NCRS), and/or nonprofit organizations. Northeast,
Southern, and Western regions.
Sustainable Community Innovation: Forges connections between sustainable
agriculture and rural community development. Northeast and Southern regions.
30
Additionally, SARE maintains an online, searchable database of projects (3000 to
date) that have been funded through the regional competitive grants programs,
produces books, bulletins, and other information products for farmers, ranchers,
and agricultural educators, and biyearly presents a "Sustainable Farmer Award" in
each region.
Suborganismal Biology and Genomics of Arthropods and Nematodes [NRI]
The Suborganismal Biology and Genomics of Arthropods and Nematodes
Program supports fundamental research at the suborganismal and molecular
levels to address the problem of controlling invasive and re-emerging pests and
the Nation's over-dependence on environmentally persistent pesticides. Advances
in the molecular genetics, physiology, biochemistry, and genomics of arthropods
and nematodes are poised to provide novel solutions to these problems which
threaten the Nation's food supply and natural resources. The program has two
elements: Suborganismal Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes, and Genomics of
Arthropods and Nematodes.
To meet these identified needs of agriculture, the long-term (10 year) goal is to
develop the scientific and technological framework for environmentally sound pest
management strategies. Examples of promising outcomes include genetically
improved organisms for pest control, improved plants or livestock resistant to
attack by pests or diseases vectored by these pests; and development of novel
pheromone blends and/or environmentally benign pesticides.
Please refer to CSREES FY 2007 Request for Application (RFA) for title changes
to programs. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfa_list.html
Inactive, Terminated, or Renamed Programs in FY 2006
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program (IFAFS) [Section
401 of AREERA]
The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program was an integrated
research, extension, and education competitive grants program that addressed
critical emerging U.S. agricultural and rural issues related to future food
production; environmental quality and natural resource management; farm income;
or rural, economic, and business and community development policy.
The IFAFS Model involved:
a stakeholder advisory group that was consulted prior to development of project
objectives
a measurable, outcome oriented plan for dissemination of information developed
by the project during the life of the project
stakeholders involvement in project evaluation
progress reports that demonstrated impacts
(This program was last offered in FY 2001.)
31
Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes program – see Organismal
Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes program (page 28)
Section V - Workshop Summary
The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
held its first Awardee Workshop on Biologically-based Pest Management on
December, 14, 2005 at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of
America in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Three CSREES units (Competitive Programs,
Plant and Animal Systems, and Economic and Community Systems) sponsored
the workshop, and Kansas State University coordinated it. Approximately 40
people were in attendance at the meeting. Sonny Ramaswamy, Entomology
Department Head and Professor, Kansas State University, began the program
with an introduction to the workshop. Deborah Sheely, Director of Integrated
Programs at CSREES, gave an overview of Integrated Programs. Fourteen
awardees presented results and progress-to-date on their projects. National
Program Leaders (Mary Purcell-Miramontes, Robert Nowierski, Rick Meyer, and
Monte Johnson), Interim Program Director Jim Kotcon, and Kim Kroll (the
Associate Director of SARE) also presented overviews of the goals and priorities
for their CSREES programs. The workshop concluded with a round-table session
to allow for discussion about priorities and future needs with National Program
Leaders. In addition, participants were encouraged to evaluate the workshop.
Overall, workshop participants felt that the workshop was valuable. Workshop
attendees enjoyed learning about the accomplishments of funded projects in more
detail, and the ideas generated were beneficial. Areas of improvement were
suggested (e.g., more time was needed for discussion and large-project
presentations; increased participation was suggested for future workshops). The
venue of the Fort Lauderdale convention center, site of the ESA meetings,
received high marks from participants. This report was prepared by members of
the steering committee. Special thanks go to Leslie Gilbert, Program Specialist,
who did an excellent job facilitating the meeting presentations and editing this
report.
32
Section VI – Round Table Discussion
The final hour of the workshop was a round table discussion which was facilitated
by Sonny Ramaswamy. Round table members were CSREES Senior Staff -Debby Sheely, Monte Johnson, Rick Meyer, Robert Nowierski, Mary PurcellMiramontes and James Kotcon (interim program director) The discussion revolved
around four main topics:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Enhancing success rates of integrated proposals in the NRI programs.
Perspectives on changes in funding priorities in NRI
Enhancing funding opportunities in existing programs
Recommendations and suggestions from workshop participants for future
CSREES programs
A summary of these topics is described below:
1) Integrated vs. basic research:
A suggestion was made to create a single “integrated” program instead of having
integrated proposals compete against “pure” research. Dr. Sheely explained that
integrated proposals are (now) judged separately from research proposals in NRI
programs that have a mix of research-only and integrated (research combined with
extension or education) projects.
2) Change to focused funding priorities:
The question was asked “Does a proposal (to the NRI) need to meet one of the
three priority areas?” Dr. Purcell-Miramontes stated that beginning in FY 2006
proposals should fit priority areas described in the program descriptions in the
RFA. Projects that are not in one of the priority areas are not encouraged. Dr.
Ramaswamy said that there's wiggle room in some programs because most
priorities are described broadly. A workshop participant felt that it was important to
keep the wiggle room in, because it's hard to know now what hot topics will be in
four or five years. Another participant did not feel that CSREES support for
Biologically Based Pest Management is falling through the cracks because
panelists in the NRI Arthropod and Nematode programs are supportive of this area
and think it's an important issue. However, he disagreed with the NRI’s moving to
selected program priorities and stated that broadly defined opportunities make for
the best science.
Other workshop participants expressed concern about the effects of narrowing
program priorities. For example, one participant said that when a proposal is
narrowed too much that it loses its “power” or competitiveness. Another
participant commented about the instability of funding for good programs, and how
difficult it is to not have sustained funding every year.
3) Funding opportunities across programs:
Another discussion topic was how to increase chances of funding success. Some
workshop participants asked if it is possible for a proposal to be co-funded by
different CSREES grant programs. Dr. Meyer stated that this is possible in the
PMAP & CAR programs, and that the applicant should indicate in their Current and
33
Pending Support form that they have submitted this project to another program.
He also said that it’s important to check with the National Program Leaders first
before submitting. There have been instances when programs and other agencies
have co-funded different objectives of the same proposal. Dr. Sheely explained
that co-funding proposals is feasible when programs are governed by a single
legal authority. The reason for this is because programs under different authorities
often have different eligibility requirements for applicants (e.g., Sec. 406 programs
are not open to ARS, but other competitive programs allow ARS applicants).
4) Initiatives or areas of national importance in agriculture that CSREES
should be aware of. The following recommendations or suggestions were made
by workshop participants:
Pest management funding opportunities specifically targeted to the urban
environment. A workshop participant stated that urban landscapes (e.g., golf
courses, ornamental plants) contribute enormously to the pesticide load in the
environment. There is a need to build sustainable systems and someone needs to
take the lead to facilitate funding opportunities on system design, etc. for urban
environments. Another participant asked if CSREES is thinking about developing
a specific program to address the needs of urban systems. Dr. PurcellMiramontes said that the NRI Arthropod and Nematode programs are supporting
basic research, but not in a stand-alone program. Dr. Johnson said that the PMAP
program also funds several projects on ornamental and structural pests.
Commodity Initiatives and Entomology Linkages: A workshop participant
stated that entomologists should link up with commodity initiatives such as a
competitive grant program on rosaceous plants. For example, the U.S. apple
industry has been successful in obtaining large amounts of research funding for
genomics and for pest-related research. Entomologists should consider
collaborating with the plant genomics-related researchers to enhance sustained
funding opportunities in the future.
Reinstate funding for Biobased Pest Management in the NRI – A workshop
participant stated that a member of the American Phytopathological Society’s
Biocontrol subcommittee is circulating a petition to reinstate the Biologically-based
Pest Management in the NRI. The participant said there is a strong need for more
basic research on interactions of weed science, plant pathology, and entomology.
Dr. Purcell-Miramontes explained that funding has not decreased for the biological
control knowledge area since the cancellation of the biobased program in 2003
(2004 USDA - CRIS database system). Other programs such as the Arthropod
and Nematode grant programs in the NRI are continuing to fund basic and applied
research that will ultimately be used in biologically-based pest management
programs.
34
Section VII – Workshop Evaluation Results
An evaluation form was provided to all participants prior to close of the workshop.
Thirty-five percent of non-CSREES attendees completed and returned the
evaluation form. The overall results were favorable and are summarized below.
Key:
1 = “I strongly disagree with this statement”
2 = “I somewhat disagree with this statement”
3 = “I neither agree nor disagree with this statement”
4 = “I somewhat agree with this statement”
5 = “I strongly agree with this statement”
Question:
1. CSREES programs were explained in a clear and concise manner.
Average Score: 4
2. The project presentations were relevant and useful.
Average Score: 4
3. The pace of this workshop was appropriate.
Average Score: 4
4. This workshop fulfilled it’s overall goal (to foster communication in the
biobased pest management research, extension, and education
community)
Average Score: 4
5. The workshop enhanced communication between CSREES National
Program Leaders and Stakeholders.
Average Score: 4
6. The integration of USDA’s research, technology transfer, and extension will
be strengthened as a result of this workshop.
Average Score: 3
7. Biobased research needs were adequately discussed in the roundtable
discussion at the end of the workshop.
Average Score: 4
8. What was most valuable aspect of workshop?
 Getting to know examples of projects that have been funded
 Hearing about the progress and accomplishments of the various
projects
 Networking and Ideas generated by attending the talks
35









Communications between Researchers and Program Leaders;
got a better feel for researches funded
Seeing the types of proposals that were rewarded and the scope of the
projects
Great workshop! Thanks for putting it together
The opportunity to focus
Meeting other researchers and panel managers/ directors
Roundtable discussion, presentation by awardees were good too!
Research summaries/ updates
Brief overviews of programs, informed break discussions, final
roundtable discussions
Seeing and hearing the orientation of different program areas and
comparing the areas with actual funded projects
9. What was least valuable about this workshop?
 It seemed that large projects were too restricted with time and small
projects (especially new ones) had too much time for what was
accomplished
 Need more time for discussion
 Some people went over the time limit
 Details such as Cover Crop Data
 Less time could have been spent on presentation – main points could
have been identified more clearly
 Not enough discussion
 Limited attendance/ input
 Individual P.I. presentation
10. Were the accommodations and setting for the workshop conducive to a
successful meeting? If no, what would be your suggestions for
improvement?
 Yes, but classroom style is not the best for discussions. Although, it
worked.
 Mechanics of meeting very well done, Leslie did a very good job w/
enhancing presentations.
 Yes, however it would have been nice to sit in a more round table set up
to facilitate discussion among awardees and others
 Didn’t like the classroom seating- not that conducive to discussion.
Maybe a herringbone arrangement would have been better?
 Yes, absolutely. Combination with ESA is an extremely efficient
approach
 Yes, very good venue and facility
11. How would you improve the workshop?
 PI’s should be asked to share/ also issues pertaining to management of
the projects, broader examples, etc; also may share ideas on
developing and managing multi. Discip. / multi state projects
36










Program directors should spend some time on giving info on what
makes good proposals and how to increase funding success rates.
Have a clear outline for presentations. For example, Intro of Research
projects, objectives, maybe some data, outreach and extension activities.
Some how increase participation. It was very valuable.
Discussions of truly significant important entomological issues
Small group discussion could be valuable. A bit shorter on presentation
and more time for discussions.
Need to have discussion time- how did the presentation exemplify the
programs that funded them- What elements made the project fundable,
how can this information be used to aid stakeholders
Serve beer?
Increase stakeholder participation. I concede this would be difficult and
costly
Fewer individual P.I. presentations ( perhaps one from each program)
More general discussion w/ NPL’s. Overall, very useful workshop,
though.
It would be good to mix the presentation styles rather than just a series
of 20 minute talks.
_________________________________________________________________
A few comments from the review sheets were echoed repeatedly and will be taken
into consideration at the next awardee workshop. The participants wanted more
time for discussion and wanted a seating arrangement that facilitated discussion.
Also, the attendees felt that the presentations should have been structured
differently – fewer presentations overall and with bigger projects allotted more time
and smaller or less advanced projects allotted less time. In addition, more
information was desired from Project Directors relating to project development and
management.
37
Section VIII - National Program Leader (NPL) (and other)
Contact Information
Jill Auburn – NPL, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program
(202) 720 – 5384
jauburn@csrees.usda.gov
Leslie Gilbert – Program Specialist, Arthropod and Nematode Biology
(202) 205 – 0440
lgilbert@csrees.usda.gov
Monte Johnson – NPL, Environmental Toxicology
(202) 401 – 1108
mpjohnson@csrees.usda.gov
Jim Kotcon – (NPL, Organic Production Jan 2005 - Jan. 2006) & Associate Professor,
West Virginia University 304-293-3911 ext. 4334 james.kotcon@mail.wvu.edu
Kim Kroll – Associate Director of SARE
(301) 504 – 5199
kkroll@asrr.ars.usda.gov
Rick Meyer – NPL, Entomology
(202) 401 – 4891
hmeyer@csrees.usda.gov
Bob Nowierski – NPL, Biobased Pest Management
(202) 401 – 4900
rnowierski@csrees.usda.gov
Mary Purcell-Miramontes – NPL, Arthropod and Nematode Biology
(202) 401 – 5114
mpurcell@csrees.usda.gov
Debby Sheely – Integrated Programs Director
(202) 401 – 1924
dsheely@csrees.usda.gov
38
Section IX – Participant List
Full name
Avila, Laura
Bancroft, Jay
Barbercheck, Mary
Boetel, Mark
Brown, Mark
Brunner, Jay
Carruthers, Raymond
Costamanga, Alejandro
Fournier, Al
Gardiner, Mary
Gilbert, Leslie
Grace, Ken
Hein, Gary
Hoy, Casey
Huang, Fangneng
Jackai, Louis
Johnson, Monte P
Kotcon, James
Kroll, Kim
Laine, Laetitia
Leppla, Norman
Liburd, Oscar
Linares, Jose
Meyer, Rick
Nowierski, Bob
Nyrop, Jan
O'Neal, Matthew
Peňa, Jorge E.
Pettis, Gretchen
Purcell, Mary
Ramaswamy, Sonny
Reagan, Gene
Sheely, Deborah
Snyder, William
Stansly, Phil
Stimac, Jerry L.
Szendrei, Zsofria
Tillman, Glynn
Welter, Stephen
Wraight, Stephen
Wright, Mark
Zotarelli, Lincoln
Affiliation
U Florida
ARS/USDA
Penn State
North Dakota State
ARS/USDA
Washington State
ARS/USDA
Mississippi State
U Arizona
Mississippi State
CSREES
U Hawaii
U Nebraska
Ohio State
Louisiana State
Tuskegee U
CSREES
CSREES
CSREES
Imper. Coll. of Sci., Tech., & Med.
U Florida
U Florida
U Florida
CSREES
CSREES
Cornell
Iowa State
U Florida
U Georgia
CSREES
Kansas State
Louisiana State
CSREES
Washington State
U Florida
U Florida
ARS/USDA
ARS/USDA
U California
Cornell
U Hawaii
U Florida
Email Address
lavila@ufl.edu
jsbancroft@pw.ars.usda.gov
meb34@psu.edu
mark.boetel@ndsu.edu
mbrown@afrs.ars.usda.gov
jfb@wsu.edu
ric@pw.usda.gov
costamag@msu.edu
fournier@ag.arizona.edu
gardin18@msu.edu
lgilbert@csrees.usda.gov
kennethg@hawaii.edu
ghein@unlnotes.unl.edu
hoy.1@osu.edu
fhuang@agcenter.lsu.edu
louis-jackai@usa.net
mpjohnson@csrees.usda.gov
james.kotcon@mail.wvu.edu
kkroll@asrr.ars.usda.gov
lvlaine@hotmail.com
ncleppla@ifas.ufl.edu
oeliburd@ifas.ufl.edu
jlinares@ufl.edu
hmeyer@csrees.usda.gov
rnowierski@csrees.usda.gov
jpn2@cornell.edu
oneal@iastate.edu
jepe@ifas.ufl.edu
gmark@uga.edu
mpurcell@csrees.usda.gov
sonny@purdue.edu
treagan@agcenter.lsu.edu
dsheely@csrees.usda.gov
wesnyder@wsu.edu
pstansly@ufl.edu
jls@ifas.ufl.edu
szendrei@ba.ars.usda.gov
pgt@tifton.usda.gov
welters@nature.berkeley.edu
spw4@cornell.edu
markwrig@hawaii.edu
lzota@ufl.edu
39