Annual/Termination Reports:

[04/07/2005] [03/20/2007] [03/17/2008] [03/19/2010] [04/14/2010]

Report Information

Participants

Cotrell, Ted (tcottrel@saa.ars.usda.gov) - USDA-ARS;
Dutcher, Jim (dutcher@tifton.uga.edu) - UGA-CAES;
Ellington, Joe (joelling@nmsu.edu) - New Mexico State University;
Harris, Marvin (m-harris@tamu.edu) - TAES-TAMU;
Mulder, Phil (philmul@okstate.edu) - Oklahoma State University;
Ree, William (w-ree@tamu.edu) - Texas Coop. Extension;
Reid, William (wreid@oznet.ksu.edu) - Kansas State University;
Shapiro-Ilan, David (dshapiro@saa.ars.usda.gov) - USDA-ARS;
Watson, Clarence (Cwatson@mafes.msstate.edu) - Mississippi State University;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Minutes of the Meeting March 6, 2005, Las Cruces, NM

In attendance: Dr. Clarence E. Watson (Administrative Advisor), Technical Committee Members: David I. Shapiro-Ilan (Chairman), Ted Cottrell (Vice-Chairman), Jim Dutcher (Secretary), Joe Ellington, Bill Ree, Bill Reid, Marvin K. Harris, Phil Mulder, Guests: Tom Crocker (Horticulturalist), Jane Crocker (Publicist), Joey Williamson (Entomology Graduate Student).

The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 AM on March 6, 2005. After introductions, the Administrative Advisor provided comments on the current of status of regional research at the Federal and State level. For the past year, the project was a development project, number DC306. The new regional research project, number S1017, has been approved and will serve to coordinate and organize research efforts for the next five years. Each scientist needs to initialize his participation in the new project by contacting the Experiment Station Director in his University or Research Leader in USDA and filling out Appendix E on the NIMS website. All SAES's receive support for multi-state projects and participants receive travel funds and often salary funds from this support. It is also important to send success stories connected to the project to the Deans and Directors. It is important to maintain linkages to Administrators through impact statements and reporting publication of important articles. The Board of Trustees and Southern Directors need to see the practical (economic) impact of the research on crop production. On the Federal level funding for research is migrating away from formula funding and toward competitive grants. Marvin Harris added that the pecan project has sustained 30 years of cooperative research and has generated many high quality refereed regional and summary publications. Bill Reid added that scientists are also taking on dual appointments for research and extension work in two states (e.g., Kansas and Missouri - Mississippi and Louisiana) due to increased interest in pecan and the lack of a scientist in the additional state.

The site of the 2006 meeting is Austin, Texas in conjunction with the SW Branch Meeting of ESA. If possible, a pecan IPM symposium will be arranged during the ESA meeting. Exact time and location of the regional project meeting and the symposium will be prepared by Harris, Ree and Mulder.

Russ Mizell was nominated as the new secretary.

Discussion ensued on publications. Papers delivered at the pecan nut casebearer symposium at the SW Branch Meeting of ESA in 2002 may be the source of the next regional publication. A review article in American Entomologist would give us national visibility. A title was proposed - "Impact of IPM Research on Pecan Production". Areas of interest for paper development are insect losses by state, loss of phosalone, risk assessment, secondary pest resurgence, history of pesticide usage. Shapiro-Ilan, Harris and Dutcher are preparing a book proposal to submit to publishers. The book will cover pecan management in three sections: 1. A practical production guide; 2. A current research section; and, 3. Regional Summaries incl. PIAP information and IPM systems in different production areas - Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi-Louisiana, regions of Texas, Mesilla Valley, NM, and Oklahoma-Kansas. The book will cover nutrition, insects and mites, plant diseases, weeds, and vertebrate nut predators.

Research Funding - Jane and Tom Crocker discussed research budgets indicating that major cuts in federal funding for the experiment stations are under consideration. National and state pecan sheller and grower associations can supply some soft money support. Harris indicated that the importance of agricultural research wanes next to heart disease and cancer research. The Crockers added that a team of proponents for peach, pecan and watermelon commodities are going up to Washington DC to hire a lobbyist to get money for the Southeastern Fruit and Tree Nut Research Lab at Byron. Other moneys are available from southeastern fruit and vegetable groups and risk management groups. Harris added that check off programs may be a source of funds for research. The Crockers indicated that marketing research is expensive and Georgia pecan growers have teamed up with other commodities to reduce costs. A competitive grant was submitted to the Crops at Risk program of USDA/CSREES a second time by Dutcher, Shapiro-Ilan and Hudson and included proposed research on pecan IPM by most technical committee members. The grant was received and is in review. The first submission in 2004 received three ratings from reviewers as fair, very good and excellent and was not funded.

Discussion of new research results completed in 2004 was present by each technical committee member and is organized below by project objective.

Objective 1: Improved systems to monitor pecan arthropod pests - A new species of casebearer may have been found in Mexico that resembles pecan nut casebearer but has a different pheromone. Harris has the new pheromone and would like to test it at different locations across the southeastern states to determine the range of distribution of the Mexican species. Trials in 2004 in OK, GA, KS where Mexican casebearer pheromone was set out in American casebearer infested pecan orchards did not record a response to the new pheromone. The PNC monitoring and control system developed at Texas A&M University works for Texas and is being improved so that it will work for the entire region from Savannah, GA to El Paso, TX. Currently the turn around time for data coming in and recommendations going out is too long outside of a small area of Texas. The trap catch needs to be converted to a biofix point and degree day accumulations need to be correlated to first nut entry date over a large area. The Boy Scouts of America are being recruited to take these data all across TX. The scouts are also planting pecan trees in parks of major TX cities. Texas A&M extension service PNC program also gives out traps and lures to growers then growers report data to county agents. Nine counties were participating in 2004 and 16 in 2005. A prediction model is under development by Knutson and other members in TX. A new light trap was developed in GA where moths are attracted to a blacklight and trapped after they fly onto a clear plexiglass surface covered with Tanglefoot. The moths are well preserved and easy to identify. It works for leafminers and hickory shuckworm. Mite sampling was improved in GA with a mite brushing machine. Large samples (20 cpd leaves) can be combined into a single count for evaluating abundance of phytophagous and predatory mites, esp. at low population levels. Pecan weevil distribution in native groves in KS is clumped and based on several factors. Heavier soils have fewer weevils. Unsprayed native trees on flood plains have variable weevil density. Dispersal of weevils from an infested tree to a non-infested tree depends on the crop load of the uninfested tree. Pecan weevil adults may be transmitting phytophthora fungal pathogens to the nuts. The evidence is circumstantial at this time (USDA - Byron). TX is developing an interactive webpage for pecan IPM. The page has: an overview of insect and mite information resources; a prediction map generator; and discussion window. The role of honeydew in the pecan system is under investigation in TX. Honeydew is produced in large amounts and a major sink for photosynthate produced by the tree. It may have a role in hastening the decomposition of pecan foliage on the ground. Work in GA has found that it stimulates nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.

Objective 2: Improved control systems for pecan arthropod pests - Carbaryl is the recommended insecticide for pecan weevil control and potential alternative insecticides are pyrethroids, Warrior and Proaxis. Trunk sprays of insecticidal paint were not effective in controlling pecan weevil. Extensive trials of chemical controls for yellow pecan, blackmargined and black pecan aphids, hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer were conducted in GA. Yellow pecan and blackmargined aphids are easily controlled by new insecticides and among the compounds tested - Centric, Provado, Assail and Fulfil - black pecan aphids were only controlled by Assail and Fulfil. Also in GA, integrated control of pecan leaf scorch mite was demonstrated with the Western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis (Nesbitt)) and a selective miticide, Acramite® (Uniroyal Crompton). The miticide was compatible with Western predatory mite, selectively killing scorch mites and not the predators. Predatory mite populations were significantly higher and scorch mite populations were significantly lower in the Fall in the Acramite treated trees than in the dicofol treated trees. In Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, Harris (TX) reports: Dormex (cyanamide) treatment is used to break dormancy in plants that did not get enough chill hours during the winter. The treatment also causes pecan nut casebearer larvae to emerge from the hibernaculum. Dormex treatment may have a role in IPM. In OK, use of Intrepid insecticide is increasing for pecan nut casebearer and hickory shuckworm control. A large trial in OK comparing conventional weevil control to the trunk spray called "Bug Juice"(deltamethrin plus white paint) was inconclusive. Weevils reported by the grower as dead may have been feigning death when disturbed. Cottrell indicated that the killing weevils on the trunk does not reduce damage in the nuts. Dutcher indicated that pyrethroids are not the most toxic insecticides against pecan weevil.

Objective 3: Development of biological control systems for pecan arthropod pests - Shapiro-Ilan tested a Peoria strain of the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana for pecan weevil control. Oil and UV screens were added to improve the longevity. Shallow cultivation of the soil before application was also beneficial. Entomopathogenic nematode strains were hybridized by Shapiro-Ilan to produce a new heat tolerant strain without a loss of virulence. In GA, the feeding rates of multicolored Asian ladybeetle larvae (MALB) (I1, I2, I3) on pecan aphids and cowpea aphids as an alternate prey were compared. First instar larvae preferred pecan aphids whereas I2 and I3 larvae showed no preference. Clover and vetch intercrops were evaluated for enhancement of multicolored Asian ladybeetle in GA. The intercrops produced pea aphid populations that were highly attractive to the ladybeetles. MALB eggs, larvae and adults were found while sampling the intercrops with sweep nets and visual inspection. USDA scientists at Byron found that MALB and C-7 are more tolerant to infection by endemic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, than native ladybeetles (Coleomegilla maculata, Hippodamia convergens, Olla v-nigrum). In NM, nitrogen fertilizer rates influence the density of pecan aphids. Aphid populations increase at a faster rate when too much nitrogen is applied. In NM, organic growers had higher yields and fewer aphids than conventional growers. In OK, flood irrigation was associated with an increase in aphids in pecan trees. Flooding destroys the habitat of aphidophagous insects in the ground cover. Similar results were found in KS. Trap crops were tested in GA and TX for stink bug control. Millet and sesbania were attractive to stink bugs, shield bugs, leaffootted bugs and green lynx spiders (an important predator of the kernel feeding hemipterans). Pecan growers are currently using cowpeas and soybeans as trap crops based on earlier research. USDA scientists (Cottrell and Tillman (USDA - Tifton)) found that sorghum is an effective trap crop for stinkbugs and leaffootted bugs. A major study on spiders as predators in pecan orchards in TX from 2001-2004 indicated that the spiders are generalist predators, have a ubiquitous distribution and prey on pests such as aphids at low prey population density. The spiders are sampled with refuge traps and pitfall traps. The goal of the study is to describe fluctuations in predator and prey populations to determine the relative importance of different predators at various prey densities.

In summary, the meeting accomplished three main objectives. First, new funding sources for research were revealed. Second, commitments were made for future symposia and publications. Third, 2004 research results were discussed and cooperative research projects were outlined for 2005.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM.


Respectfully submitted,



James D. Dutcher,
Secretary

Accomplishments

S-1017 (previously S293) Report January 2004- January 2005. <br /> Current Chair, David I. Shapiro-Ilan. USDA-ARS, 21 Dunbar Road, Byron GA 31008. <br /> <br /> Activities:<br /> <br /> 1. Improved Systems to Monitor Pecan Arthropod Pests<br /> a. Improved detection and monitoring of pests using pheromone-baited traps (i.e., hickory shuckworm, pecan nut casebearer and pecan weevil), improved trap designs (e.g., trunk traps for pecan weevil)<br /> b. Improved models for predicting pest occurrence and implementing control decisions.<br /> <br /> Circle pecan weevil traps were deployed at 10 locations in the Neosho River flood plain to study the large scale spatial distribution of pecan weevil (Curculio caryae). Trap captures indicate that weevil population densities can be related to soil type or more specifically clay content. The greatest number of weevils were captured from trees growing in Verdigris silt loam (15-27% clay) while less that 1% of total weevils captured were found on trees growing in Osage silty clay (40-50% clay). It is hypothesized that heavy soils provide a physical barrier to the movement of pecan weevil into and out of the soil (the site of larval pupation) (KS State Univ).<br /> <br /> Use of Circle trap technology has proven useful for Oklahoma growers attempting to make treatment decisions for pecan weevil, Curculio caryae. Field evaluations of this trapping system have resulted in development of a threshold utilizing these traps in pecan. Several publications on this and other important information related to significant pecan pests were published during this annual cycle (OK State Univ).<br /> <br /> A new trap was developed for pecan leafminer adults and other microlepidopertans (Univ of GA). Additionally, mite sampling techniques were developed for evaluating abundance of phytophagous and predatory mites (Univ of GA). <br /> <br /> Field work was conducted on pecan pests including development and modification of traps to monitor circadian rhythms of insects attracted to pheromones and to monitor circadian rhythms and volumes of aphid honeydew production. Work on the pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella Nuenzig (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) pheromone for monitoring and decision making showed three traps were sufficient for grower use and that trap data can be combined with scouting and sequential sampling protocols to decide if and when to manage pecan nut casebearer. Work was also conducted on a newly developed attractant for a cryptic Acrobasis sp. The attractant was also deployed in the U.S. pecan belt and initially was thought to only attract very low numbers of Acrobasis nuxvorella (TX A&M Univ).<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Improved Control Systems for Pecan Arthropod Pests<br /> a. Improve pesticide management strategies to conserve and optimize pesticide efficacy for current and research phase pesticides; continue to integrate reduced-risk pesticides into pecan pest management systems.<br /> b. Develop pest management strategies that incorporate host plant resistance.<br /> <br /> A trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of an encapsulated formulation of lambda-Cyhalothrin (Warrior with Zeon Technology) to Carbaryl (Sevin 80W) for the control of pecan weevil. Weevil trap catch data was used to time pesticide applications and resulted in the application of 2 treatments, 30 days apart. Both pesticides provided excellent weevil control in comparison to check plots. Because of the extended residual effects of encapsulated lambda-Cyhalothrin, plots treated with the pyrethroid suffered significantly less stink bug damage to pecan kernels (KS State Univ).<br /> <br /> Field evaluations have also shown effective control of pecan nut casebearer, Acrobasis nuxvorella with Spintor, Confirm, Intrepid, and Lorsban. Work was completed on developing a degree-day based model for pecan phylloxera, Phylloxera devastatrix in native and improved pecan cultivars in Oklahoma and Louisiana. Initial publications are being prepared by Dr. Hall in Louisiana. Field evaluations of insecticide alternatives for Sevin, used against pecan weevil, have been conducted. Results are being analyzed. Studies were completed on the effects of grazing legume-based or native orchard floors in flood-prone and non-flood prone areas. Information from these studies has been presented at international meetings and publication efforts have begun. Studies were initiated on monitoring the effects of particle film on delaying budbreak in pecan. Early results suggest this may be possible. Studies were also initiated on identifying a marker pheromone for pecan weevil. These studies have progressed slowly, with limited results available at present. Studies were also initiated in 2004 on stored product pests of pecan, an area that represents groundbreaking research on this important commodity (OK State Univ). <br /> <br /> Extensive trials of chemical controls for yellow pecan, blackmargined and black pecan aphids, hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer (Univ of GA). <br /> <br /> Integrated control of pecan leaf scorch mite was demonstrated with the Western predatory mite (Galendromus occidentalis (Nesbitt)) and a selective miticide, Acramite® (Uniroyal Crompton) (GA). The miticide was compatible with Western predatory mite, selectively killing scorch mites and not the predators. Predatory mite populations were significantly higher in the Fall in the Acramite treated trees than in the dicofol treated trees (Univ of GA).<br /> <br /> Tebufenozide and Spinosad performed adequately against pecan nut casebearer, and hickory shuckworm, Cydia caryana (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) in field trials. No outbreaks of secondary pests were observed with these materials (TX A&M Univ). <br /> <br /> A comprehensive mail survey of 400 growers was also conducted and 216 surveys were returned. These are currently being analyzed to determine chemical use and program impact on use of decision making aids, adoption of new replacement chemistry and effects on profits and the environment (TX A&M Univ). <br /> <br /> New materials compatible with IPM that show promise include Spinosad for PNC, and tebufenozide for PNC and hickory shuckworm. They target Lepidoptera without adversely affecting natural enemies, thereby preserving aphid biocontrol and producer adoption is expected. The PNC pheromone has proven an effective monitoring tool and we expect survey results to provide more detailed data (wide adoption and economic impact quantified). Fire ant problems with equipment and harvest operations provided a bait solution with methoprene compatible with IPM should also result in wider producer adoption. The traps developed for use with pheromones and to monitor honeydew are expected to be widely adopted for use on a wide range of insects on numerous crops and to contribute to providing research information that can be adapted for field use in producer programs. (TX A&M Univ). <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Development of Biological Control Systems for Pecan Arthropod Pests<br /> a. Selection of superior strains of insect-pathogenic nematodes and fungi to attack pecan insect pests.<br /> b. Field tests to evaluate efficacy of biological control agents against pecan arthropod pests.<br /> c. Enhancement of natural enemies against pecan pests using habitat manipulation, attractants, and conservation.<br /> <br /> Several studies were conducted involving microbial control of the pecan weevil. Greenhouse and field tests indicated a novel (Italian) nematode strain of Steinernema carpocapsae provided 70-80% control of emerging adult pecan weevils (USDA-ARS Bryon GA, Univ GA). Field-testing of entomopathogenic fungi for suppression of the pecan weevil was continued; trials indicate greater efficacy may be achieved through incorporation of fungi into the soil or with trunk applications using a UV-resistant formulation. (USDA-ARS Byron GA and Peoria IL, Univ of GA). The recycling potential of entomopathogenic nematodes in pecan weevil was characterized; results indicated some potential for a round of recycling exists following inundative nematode applications, but the potential for subsequent recycling in weevil hosts is diminished (USDA-ARS Byron GA, Univ. of GA). Finally, a new nematode species, Heterorhabditis mexicana was tested for virulence to pecan weevils; results indicated that the new species is less virulent than others (e.g., S. carpocapsae) that are currently being studied (USDA-ARS Byron GA, Univ. of FL). <br /> <br /> In studies pertaining to ladybeetles, laboratory tests confirmed that an exotic lady beetle, Harmonia axyridis, can have detrimental effects upon the native lady beetle species Coleomegilla maculata and Olla v-nigrum. Larvae of exotic lady beetle were found capable of completing larval development when fed solely on a diet consisting of each species eggs. In stark contrast, the both native species were incapable of completing development when fed only the exotic species eggs. These native species can develop on eggs from either native species. These results indicate that under conditions of low prey availability, the exotic species will be favored because it is capable surviving by eating its own species eggs and the eggs of native species (USDA-ARS Byron GA).<br /> <br /> <br /> In other studies pertaining to the multicolored Asian ladybeetle included measurement of the feeding rate of ladybeetle larvae on pecan aphids and cowpea aphids as an alternate prey as well as an evaluation of intercrops for enhancement of the multicolored Asian ladybeetle (Univ of GA). <br /> <br /> <br />

Publications

Publications (related to pecan entomology):<br /> <br /> Cottrell, T.E. 2004. Suitability of exotic and native lady beetle eggs (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) for development of lady beetle larvae. Biol. Cont. 31: 362-371.<br /> <br /> Cottrell, T. E. 2005. Intra- and interspecific egg predation by adult lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biol. Cont. (Accepted)<br /> <br /> Cottrell, T. E. and G. S. Hodges. Scale insects on pecan. The Pecan Grower, 15: 16-17. 2004.<br /> <br /> Cottrell, T. E. Importance of pecan weevil management during a light crop year. The Pecan Grower, 16: 18-19. 2004. (Industry)<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Habitat manipulation for enhancement of aphidophagous insects in pecan orchards. In G. M. Gurr. ed. Habitat Manipulation and Arthropod Pest Management. Special Section. International Journal of Ecology and Enviromental Sciences 30: 13-22. <br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Hickory shuckworm and pecan nut casebearer control, 2002 Arthopod Management Tests, Entomological Society of America Vol. 29, Report D9. <br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Trapping and scouting pecan insects. The Pecan Grower. 15(3): 18-19.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Pecan leaf scorch mite control experiments. The Pecan Grower. 15(4): 19.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Pecan nut drop and conservation of the nut crop.The Pecan Grower. 16(1): 22.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2004. Research Spotlight. Leaf feeding insect and mite problems. The Pecan Grower. 16(2): 28-30.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J., M. Harris and D. Dean (eds) 2003. Integration of chemical and biological insect control in native, seedling and improved pecan production. Supp. 27 Southw. Entomol. 142p. <br /> <br /> Harris, M., A. Knutson, A. Calixto, A. Dean, L. Brooks and B. Ree. Impact of red imported fire and on foliar herbivores and natural enemies. In Dutcher, J., M. Harris and D. Dean (eds) 2003. Integration of chemical and biological insect control in native, seedling and improved pecan production. Supp. 27 Southw. Entomol. 123-134. <br /> <br /> Kulkarni, R., J. Brewer, O. Ochoa and M. Harris. 2003. Anisotropy in Hickory Shells. Proceedings of the American Society of Composites 18th Ann. Tech. Conf. Oct. 2003. <br /> <br /> McCraw, B.D. and P.G. Mulder, Jr. 2003. Pecan management e-learning on the Internet. http://pecan.okstate.edu <br /> <br /> Morrison A.A., P.G. Mulder, and M.W. Smith. 2004. Can we delay budbreak in Pecan? Proceedings Oklahoma Pecan Growers Annual Meeting and Show. 74: 35-36.<br /> <br /> Mulder, P.G., A.A. Morrison and S.K. Seuhs. 2004. Preliminary evaluation of alternative control treatments for pecan weevil, Curculio caryae on pecan. Proceedings Oklahoma Pecan Growers Annual Meeting and Show. 74: 24-28<br /> <br /> Mulder, P.G., S.K. Seuhs, A Sheridan, M.E. Payton. 2003. Insecticide efficacy for control of pecan nut casebearer, 2001. Arthropod Mgmt. Tests 28: (D8).<br /> <br /> Mulder, P.G., W. Reid, R.A. Grantham, S. Landgraf, L. Taliaferro, M.E. Payton and A.E. Knutson. 2003. Evaluation of trap designs and a new pheromone formulation used for monitoring pecan weevil, Curculio caryae. SW Entomol. 27: 85-100. <br /> <br /> Reid, W. and P.G. Mulder, Jr. 2003. Insect management systems for native pecans. SW Entomol. 27: 39-44.<br /> <br /> Reid, W. 2004. Fungicides and insecticides: Chemistry and use recommendations. The Nut Kernel 56(3): 6-11.<br /> <br /> Reilly, C.C., Cottrell, T. E., Hotchkiss, M. W. 2005. Phytophthora shuck and kernel rot, pathogen movement, disease spread and occurrence. The Pecan Grower, 16: 7-9.<br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., M. Jackson, C. C. Reilly, and M. W. Hotchkiss. 2004. Effects of combining an entomopathogenic fungi or bacterium with entomopathogenic nematodes on mortality of Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Biological Control 30: 119-126. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., R. J. Stuart, and C. W. McCoy. 2005. Characterization of biological control traits in the entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis mexicana (MX4 strain). Biological Control 32: 97-103.<br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., J. D. Dutcher, and M. Hatab. 2005. Recycling potential and fitness in steinernematid nematodes cultured in Curculio caryae. Journal of Nematology (In Press). <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., M. A. Jackson, C. C. Reilly, and M. W. Hotchkiss. 2004. Mixing insect diseases to kill pecan weevils. Pecan Grower 15(3): 10-13. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., R. Stuart, and C. W. McCoy. 2004. Picking the best nematode for controlling the pecan weevil. Pecan Grower 15(4): 11-15. <br /> <br /> Stevenson, D., A. Knutson, B. Ree, J. Jackman, A. Dean, J. Matis, J. McVay, M. Nesbitt, R. Mizell, J. Dutcher, W. Reid, M. Hall, D. Barlow, M.T. Smith, P. Mulder, M.W. Smith, J. Millar and M. Harris. 2003. Pecan nut casebearer pheromone monitoring and degree-day model validation across the pecan belt. In Dutcher, J., M. Harris and D. Dean (eds) 2003. Integration of chemical and biological insect control in native, seedling and improved pecan production. Supp. 27 Southw. Entomol. 57-73. <br /> <br /> vonBroembsen, S.L., P.G. Mulder and B.D. McCraw. 2004. Pecan insect and disease control - 2002. OSU Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Current Report No. 6209.<br /> <br />

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Dutcher, J.D. (GA) Chairman;
Mizell, R. (FL) Vice Chairman;
Reid, W. (KS) Secretary;
Watson, C.E. (OK) Administrative Advisor;
Cottrell, T. (USDA ARS) Member;
Shapiro-Ilan, D. (USDA ARS) Member;
Harris, M. (TX) Member;
Goff, W.A. (AL) Guest;
Hudson, W. (GA) Guest;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Committee Chairman Dutcher called the meeting to order. Adminsitrative Advisor Watson to gave an overview of federal funding issues and the status of our regional project. He stated that our current regional project is in good shape and mid term reviews are no longer required. The regional project must be rewritten in 2 years (2009). Hatch funding has been restored and there is a possibility of an increase in formula funding in the next federal budget. The association of agricultural college deans have decided to take proactive measures to stop the annual fight to restore Hatch funds. Their goal is to increase formula funds in addition to increases in funds for competitive grants through the CREATE-21 proposal.

Harris stated that the strength of this regional project has been its impact on pecan producers and suggested that an impact section be included as an objective in our future project. Mizell noted that southern region IPM has funds available to survey growers for project impacts. He also noted that our new project should include a technology transfer section.

Committee member voted to hold next years annual meeting of the regional project in conjunction with the Western Pecan Growers Meeting scheduled for early March 2008. Harris encouraged us to invite Mexican entomologists to join our meeting and plan a trip into the pecan growing areas of northern Mexico

Committee members gave a brief synopsis of the annual progress. Shapiro (USDA) is finishing up a SARE grant along with co-PIs from among the S-1017 group including Cotrell(USDA), Harris (TX) and Hudson (GA). Shapiro et al. found that fungal pathogens can do a good job of controlling pecan weevil adults. In contrast, nematodes have been short lived and do not control adults effectively. Cottrell (USDA) mentioned that he and Shapiro (USDA) found that one of the reasons Harmonia lady beetles have been so successful in colonizing the US is because they resist native pathogens. Cottrell has also been investigating attractants for lacewings.

Dutcher (GA) briefly reviewed his pesticide trials work. Spintor did not control phylloxera. Knack and Esteem did not effectively control pecan nut casebearer. He mentioned that 1st summer generation casebearer arrived early in 2006. He described his feeding studies with Harmonia lady beetles and screening for alternative prey species. First and 2nd instar harmonia larvae showed some preferences but older larvae devour everything.

Harris (TX) provided members of the committee with recently published survey results documenting the impact of pecan IPM on the pecan industry in Texas. He mentioned that April 2006 was much warmer than normal and that the casebearer spray dates became condensed across the state. In 2007, they are looking to expand PNC trapping locations across Texas by encouraging non-traditional cooperators. Harris also mentioned that the Texas Pecan website has been upgraded. Harris stressed the importance of spiders to pecan IPM and they can provide an indication of biodiversity. He further mentioned that Texas A&M maintains a spiders in pecans webpage. As a final note, Harris noted that the genetic studies on pecan weevil have been completed.

Reid (KS) described the increasing importance of sawflies as a early season defoliator in SE Kansas and NE Oklahoma. He described the outbreak as being spotty be severe enough to justify control measures. He also described his work on the spatial distribution of pecan weevil in native pecan groves. Weevil populations seem to be clustered according to soil type with supporting the smallest weevil populations.

Mizell (FL) outlined his work with trap traps for controlling stinkbugs. He suggested the season long control of stinkbugs can be achieved by establishing a series of trap crops including millet, grain sorghum, okra, field peas, and buckwheat. Some trap traps can be mowed to rejuvenate there attractiveness to stinkbugs. All major kernel feeding hemipterans feed on millet and sorghum. He also noted that tachinid flies are attracted to stinkbugs feeding on the trap crop.

Goff reported that pecan cultivars differ in their susceptibility to stinkbugs. He also stated that in screening pecan cultivars they measure leaf retention

Following the state reports the committee tackled a discussion on major issues in pecan IPM. The first issue discussed was the development of new insect monitoring tools. The pecan nut casebearer has been a great success but pheromones developed for pecan weevil and hickory shuckworm have proven to be failures in the field. Harris noted that Texas A&M will soon be looking into the genetics of hickory shuckworm discovering a new approach to trapping this pest. Mizell suggested that we should investigate the possibility of developing an ovipostion trap similar to the one currently used to monitor navel orange worm. He further encourages us to look at plant volatiles as a synergist for any new trap. Dutcher said he was looking into using lacewing pheromones to attract the beneficial insects into the pecan orchard.

Harris remarked that their work with pecan weevil indicated that northern, southeastern and southwestern pecan weevil populations are genetically different. He further stated that pecan weevil emergence seems to occur following a peak in soil temperature (at 10cm) that occurs the 3rd week in July. Mizell noted that pyramid traps baited with southern green stinkbug pheromone is very attractive to premature female stinkbugs.

Dutcher began the discussion of chemical controls. He noted that there are no cheap miticides available for pecans and that biocontrol may prove the only ecomonical method for controlling this pest. He also noted leaf bronzing is often misdiagnosed as mite damage when poor leaf conditions were caused by other factors. Hudson asked if pyrethroid use might induce mite problems. Goff mentioned that the cultivar, Desirable, and tree overcrowding can increase mite problems.

Cottrell asked the question why do some aphids cause chlorosis (black aphids) and other do not (yellow aphids). He noted that plant growth regulators can reduce black aphid induces leaf spotting. He also note that a combination of a new insecticide, Beleaf, with provado gave good chemical control. Cottrell asked if aphid resistance problems were realy the result of a spray coverage problem. He is currently looking at sprayers, speeds, water rates, and air vs graound application methods.

Hudson noted that provado has been slow to lose effectiveness due to the build up of aphid resistance. Harris worried that provado may flare mites and is encouraging growers in TX to avoid chemical controls for aphids. Hudson mentioned that it often requires twice the rate to control black aphids rather that yellow aphids. Harris stated that he was using water sensitive cards to monitor aphid honeydew production. He found 10 times the amount of honeydew under Cheyenne tree as Pawnee tree. Reid noted that cultivar vary widely in their attractiveness to aphids. Dutcher encouraged the use of water sensitive cards to monitor aphid populations and to develop threasholds. Harris stated that the cards can be used to predicit aphid population increases and to forecast aphid outbreaks.

Shapiro began the discussion of biological control methods. He reviewed his collaborative work (Shapiro, Cottrell, and Gardner(GA)) with pecan weevil-killing nematodes including the screening of different nematode strains for virulence. He presented data on field trials with the best nematode strains. Field studies reviled that applied nemeatodes did not persist very long in orchard soils and extremely high application costs would make adoption of this biological control questionable at the current time. Shapiro was more optimistic about the use of fungi to control pecan weevil. Studies with Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae have resulted in mortality rates up to 80%. Techniques to apply the fungi to tree trunks have shown promise. Harris noted that his M. anisopliae had only 40% weevil mortality while his B. bassiana plot had too few weevils for an adequate test.

Dutcher noted that he has found that releases of Western Predatory Mites in combination with the miticide, bifenazate (Acramite), does a good job of mite control. Releases of Western Perdatory Mite have persisted over several years. Hudson noted that biocontrol of mites may be difficult in areas sprayed with carbaryl for pecan weevil control. Harris suggest that mexico should be surveyed for biocontrol agents.

Shapiro began the discussion of new projects. He presented an outline for a proposed book on nut tree IPM. Two ideas were put forward; 1) a text on the entomology of tree nut crops; or 2) a text on pecan IPM that covers both entomology and plant pathology. A consensus was reached that the proposed book should focus on pecan IPM. Shapiro stated that the book is intended to be a scholarly work and not an IPM handbook for growers. Harris suggested a chapter on the evolution of pecan as a crop and the role of pecan in society.

Dutcher brought forward a proposal to resubmit a CAR grant this year. He said he would rework the proposal based of previous comments made by reviews of our previous CAR submission. The new proposal would be more streamlined focusing on biocontrol of pecan weevil, alternative control measures for black aphid, and trap crops for stinkbugs.

Harris outline the coming seasons cooperative work on testing pheromones for the 2 strains of pecan nut casebearer. He suggested that maybe the reason PNC trap catch density could not be related to damage is because we are dealing with 2 strains of PNC. This summer we will continue using both pheromones but will also collect adults to do genetic studies.

The meeting was concluded by selecting a new secretary for the Project. During the 2008 meeting of the regional project, Mizell will act as Chairman, Reid as Vice-chairman, and Cottrell will serve as secretary.

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Johnson, Monte, NPL Environmental Toxicology-CSREES; Luttrell, Randy luttrell@uark.edu - Arkansas; Muegge, Mark-Texas; Shapiro-Ilan, David-USDA-ARS; Lewis, Brad-NM State; Dutcher, Jim dutcher@tifton.uga.edu-Georgia; Knutson, Allen-Texas; Mizell, Russ rfmizell@mail.ifas.ufl.edu-Florida; Reid, Bill wreid@k-state.edu-Kansas; Ree, Bill-Texas; Harris, Marvin m-harris@tamu.edu-Texas; Cottrell, Ted-USDA-ARS

Brief Summary of Minutes

Discussion of Progress by Objectives:

Objective 3: Development of Biological Control Systems for Pecan Arthropod Pests

Shapiro-Ilan: 2007 fungus trials against pecan weevil in small plots gives good mortality; trunk and ground applications of fungus was done; trunk spray gave best kill compared with ground application; time to mortality on weevils was explored; large plot fungus test gave 60% pecan weevil damage in the control and 50% damage in the fungus treated test; 2 border rows treated with carbaryl had 30% damage; future questions fungus carryover; time for weevils to die; interaction of carbaryl + fungus. Metarhizium kills fast but does not cause as much mortality as B. bassiana. Longterm suppression of pecan weevil using microbial control tested using larvae in buried pots and treated with nematodes; Paecilomyce fumosoroseus fungi was tested against pecan aphids (blastospores and conidida). Harris asked if 50% culls were feeding+oviposition damage? Shapiro-Ilan - no just looking for larval damage; did not look for weevil feeding damage. Harris - damage rating used edible and inedible nuts, inedible but no larvae was higher in treated than in nontreated; nut integrity compromised by weevil (probably through feeding) but no oviposition. Weevil may be causing feeding damage but not as much oviposition damage due to weevil death. 50% infestation or greater leads to weevils not finding nuts and leads to emigration. Hard to manage that infestation.
Luttrell: Neozygites on aphids? Dutcher: Entomopthorales found everywhere there is pecan. Luttrell: natural epizootic seen in cotton was not caused by any sprayed neozygites species.

Dutcher: Western pecan predatory mite fits well with pecan. Reid: is it persistent? Dutcher: Yes. Ree: when released Dutcher: July later part of season. Mizell: commercially available Dutcher: yes, Rincon vitova, easy to disperse; put on 1 tree per acre; takes 4-5 weeks to disperse across the orchard. No late season scodrch mites during the late season int treated orchards. Reid: impact of miticides. Dutcher: difficult to assess in the field. Dutcher: lacewing pheromone + HPV; working with Kamal Chauhan (ARS) and ARS Byron; greater catch in pheromone + HPV than pheromone alone.; Harris - why not volatiles from honedew? Seems that would give the response we want 10 -14 days before aphid outbreaks.

Harris: water sensitive cards to measure honeydew production by bma for the season (Jessica honaker). Measured aphid densities, ne density and honeydew. Amt of honeydew per variety same ; what is assoc of natueal enemy, aphid and honeydew. Cheyenne produces more honeydew; different rates of honeydew produced by different varieties; Cheyenne susceptible to bma; supports idea of risk with Cheyenne to bma and ne's can't/won't control them; Kiowa and Pawnee dont justify control based on energy loss. Reid: George ray found perfect cultivar for texas cheyenne. Harris - proprietary program written to scan droplet cards. Luttrell - spread factor from overlapping droplets? Assuming a correspondence with pesticide spray result;probably underestimating honeydew by a small amount. How should we view aphids in terms of their pest threat. Knutson: did not find ne's with more honeydew: Harris: ratio of honeydew to ne is poorer on Cheyenne but closer on kiowa and pawnee. Fewer aphids on pawnee; efficiency of attracting aphids is better on kiowa and pawnee; Knutson - is there a limit to the predators you can pull in?

Shapiro-Ilan: microbials working with storage pests; plodia susceptible to nematodes; metabolites from nematode bacteria are antagonistic to pecan pathogens; leaf applications showing suppression of scab.

Mizell: grad student working on crape myrtle aphids; aphid has no parasites; aphid-host plant interactions; geospatial technology; optimizing a trap for harmonia 3 inch mailing tube 36 inches long and painted safety yellow is equivalent to a 3 gallon pot attracts many harmonia adults; trap can enhance harmonia densities in small plots; can fool harmonia to move from edge traps along the diagonal to the center 10 m active distance. Traps in a grid can be used to find beetles across landscape in time and space. Insects move through the landscape by moving in relation to structure. Harmonia movement not related to aphids. Harris - how nes locate aphids in pecan; ne's come from outside of orchard; not enough seasonal aphids to sustain nes in pecan; 200 spider spp. In pecan. Stochastic conditions prior to aphid outbreak governed by spiders. Ground spiders and canopy spiders. Spider species partitioned from canopy to ground? Six species in both; remaining species either on the ground or in the canopy. Spiders not an effective strategy for groundcovers; not affected by groundcovers; 100 species of obligate predators not seen to partition in the canopy(but prob. Do). Spiders are really important preceding aphid outbreak. How does one do those studies? Work with dave richman partitioning among species; every species feeds throughout the year. Riezig - spiders in lime in florida has close correspondence with spider on pecan rather than on nearby postoak savanna. Research on rowcrops does not mesh with spider work on pecan. No information known about impact of insecticides on spiders.

Knutson: release of trichogramma? Any more information? Reid: organic growers always have interest. Knutson: can find trichogramma on pnc eggs. Harris: possible to have a pnc-entrained strain of trichogramma.

Ree: FYI. Organic pecan grower doing a study on bats against pnc on pecan.

Knutson: Anybody releasing beneficials? Very few at best.



OBJECTIVE 2. Improved control systems for pecan arthropod pests:

Dutcher: Rynaxypyr 2-3 oz per acre; will test at an orchard in Midville, GA 2008; very few insects this year - 2007 - neonicotinoids some problems this year, worked in some not in others against aphids. Systemics losing some of impacts found in past. Temik gone, expect more imidacloprid application. Harris - isn't the whole scenario exacerbated by cheap pyrethroids? Pyrethroids in early season against pnc with intent of using imidacloprid later. Muegge - using intrepid early season; Dutcher- using lorsban early season; Harris - move growers from lorsban to intrepid or spinosad, pyrethroids where patents are off are dirt cheap. More likely to use with zinc spray; Lewis - same in NM to use pyreth early season (about $5/acre). Luttrell - is resistance documented with bioassays or just field observations? Dutcher - yes. Dutcher and Htay. Lewis - developing neonicotinoid titer baseline in xylem.

Harris: spraying bma prolongs the assoc of bma and pecan; leaf becomes conditioned and then stops feeding; ypa comes in later, can cause defoliation;

Ree: residual of insecticides against sb's and leaffooted bugs. Dipped clusters. Very little mortality after 4 days. Endigo did good against brown sb; everything decent against lf bug. Southern green easier to control. Juan Lopez doing vial test and my work complemented it with field data. Treatments applied at past shellhardening; bugs collected off of weeds. Sb species don't track each other; some orchards mostly lf and others euschistus problems. Mizell - trap being used for euschistus but need something for green and s green.

Harris - can induce diapause termination with a chemical. May provide early, suicidal emergence. Treat hibernacula stage to terminate winter diapause in early spring.

Knutson: encapsulated pnc pheromone; not a good way to get pheromone into trees and cost is a problem. Harris: NRI submitted; cost is high.

Dutcher: Pitfall traps for prionus borers, pecan weevils. Also catches nut curculio. Traps placed in herbicide strips. Tested with and without baits (nuts, crown gall). Fluon to prevent escape.

Cottrell - discussed work related to feeding by the BPA, the seasonal impact of pecan cultivar on BPA survival and the impact of plant growth regulators on BPA development.

OBJECTIVE 1. Improved systems to monitor pecan arthropod pests:

Knutson: pnc casebearer prediction system available on the web (http://pecankernel.tamu.edu). Will be called PNCforecast.tamu. Available for use in Texas but Oklahoma data will be added soon; put together by john jackman; can also run a prediction when you have first moth capture. Harris - why not full phenology agreement with the models?-first pnc entry precedes 90% oviposition by 1 week. Muegge - field data has not validated that observation. Muegge - data for model collected for model from nonsprayed orchards. 9 data sets used to build the model; 13 data sets used to validate the model. Ree - how long is nut entry after 1st trap capture? Knutson - model gives grower a better understanding of the pnc oviposition curve and whether to control. Harris - still not sure how early males precede females. Luttrell - where does temp data come from? Knutson - data is from Ted Wilson.

Other Business:

Reid: 2009 National Pecan Conference will be held at the Noble foundation.

Shapiro-Ilan: nominated Muegge to be secretary; motion accepted: Muegge will be secretary at the 2009 meeting.

Site selection committee: Bill Reid, David and Ted
Site recommendation for 2009 will be decided through e-mail discussion.

Reid: In conjunction with national pecan conference at Noble foundation in July 2009??

Committee will decide and e-mail s-1017 for approval.

Project rewrite to be done in 2009

Shapiro-Ilan: pecan pest management book project: Will this be a nut or pecan book? The upcoming pecan conference may be a chance to involve horticulturists.

Mizell: you are encouraged to proceed.

Mizell: potential grant proposals.
Discussion centered on SB and how they relate to other crops. S-1017 has potential to interact with other crops. This should be in the project re-write that we collaborate to address stink bugs attacking pecan, a common problem for our producers. Need monitoring tools, economic thresholds, insecticide efficacy.

Ree: Sharpshooter attacking pecan - applied for grant. Looking at Xylella.

Harris: Mexican PNC
Grant to look at genetics of the Mexican strain of PNC. Southern region grant won't support field studies across pecan belt. Money for traps and lures has been available to peer cooperators. Phenologies and genetics across the belt with both pheromone strains (regular and Mexican). Can't correlate trap catch with % infestation. Intitial aflp data groups the Mexican strain but there is a diverse response of regular pnc. Not a different species in mexio but we have different response to pheromone, different strain.

Harris led a thorough discussion of the IPM-PIPE and the recent grant received to work on pecan nut casebearer.

Meeting concluded at 3:30PM

Accomplishments

The report states accomplishments throughout.

Publications

None to report.

Impact Statements

1. The development of improved traps and pest emergence models has allowed growers to better time insecticide applications resulting in improved profitability.
2. Insecticide trials were conducted to provide pecan growers current information on the most efficacious insecticides for the many pests attacking pecan. These trials have a great impact on the profitability of pecan production. Additionally, non-insecticidal mating disruption of lepidopteran pests of pecan has shown promise as an alternative pest management strategy.
3. Biological control of certain pecan pests may provide further means of controlling serious pests. Trials with entomopathogenic fungi have proved promising in preliminary trials against pests such as the pecan weevil and pecan aphids.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Luttrell, Randy, luttrell@uark.edu - Arkansas;
Muegge, Mark, ma-muegge@tamu.edu - Texas;
Shapiro-Ilan, David-USDA-ARS;
Dutcher, Jim, dutcher@tifton.uga.edu - Georgia;
Mizell, Russ, rfmizell@mail.ifas.ufl.edu - Florida;
Reid, Bill, wreid@k-state.edu - Kansas;
Ree, Bill, w-ree@tamu.edu - Texas;
Harris, Marvin, m-harris@tamu.edu - Texas;
Cottrell, Ted, USDA-ARS ;
Mulder, Phil, philmul@okstate.edu - Oklahoma;
Hall, Mike, mhall@agctr.lsu.edu - Louisiana;
Watson, Clarence, c.watson@okstate.edu - Oklahoma;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Ardmore, Oklahoma
May 26, 2009

1. Hatch funds
   
   
   
   1. 6% increases in funds
      
   2. FY10 submitted by Obama
      
   3. Monies go to station, but does not go directly to researchers.
      
   4. Knutson asked what and where funds came from.
      
   
   
   
   
2. Marvin Harris commented that researchers should get together and update pecan research across the southern region.
   
   
   
   
3. Phil Multer commented on direction of pecan research in Ok since his appt. as department head. Talking with administrators to obtain funds to fill position.
   
   
   
   
   
4. Marvin Harris suggested North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama as locations to acquire new blood for the pecan group. Bill Reid and Marvin continued discussion.
   
   
   
   
   
5. Bill Reid asked if any collaborative research needed to be discussed.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Michael Hall discussed phyloxera research needed. Monitoring stem/leaf phyloxera and bud development and the relationship between the two. Use DD to model relationship. Phyloxera emergence occurs before bud break. Need collaborators.
      
      
      
      
      
   2. Marvin and Bill Reid commented that problems with pecan cultivars. Need for producer cooperators.
      
      
      
      
      
   3. Bill Ree and Michael Hall have cooperative research project on sharp shooters as a vector of xyella fastidiosus in pecan. Distinguishing between leaf scorch caused by xyella fastidiosus and other leaf scorch diseases. Can use PCR, but time consuming.
      
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Allen Knutson, Mark Muegge, Marvin Harris discussion on PNC management in West Texas. The biofix model and progress.
   
   
   
   
   
7. General discussion on PNC management in West Texas revolved around adult vs larva control. Loss of communication with producers suggested.
   
   
8. Marvin Harris on PIPE project
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Discussed what is available now
      
   2. Early version of platform
      
   3. Template data sheets sent to producer cooperators. Most data sets incomplete but biofix info should be available.
      
      
      
      1. 420-55DD decision window after biofix.
         
      2. IPM Toolbox
         
      
      
      
   4. Need to add cooperator information on website so all get proper recognition. This is not a branded web site because all cooperators must be recognized. Pecan.IPMPIPE.ORG
      
   5. Possibly use IPMPIPE site to provide CEUs for recertification.
      
   6. How to fund- perhaps paid by producers, state and regional pecan organizations in future. Only 2yrs funding left, but once complete should not be high maintenance.
      
   7. All data archived and available to producers.
      
   8. Phil Multer asked if producers in loop for getting them together for IPMPIPE meeting.
      
   9. Marvin Harris indicated difficulties in putting something like that together
      
   10. Phil Multer asked what timeline was on Toobox.
       
   11. Two weeks to get pesticide and other info in toolbox
       
   12. Marvin: dont have minimally functional toobox yet
       
   13. Phil Multer: will pesticides be ranked according to effectiveness?
       
   14. Bill Reid gave example of website that did that for fruits. Midwestern treefruit IPM.
       
   15. Marvin Harris: open to concept, but not done yet.
       
   16. Marvin Harris: 1st iteration will give just basic list (labeled pest, REI, Grazing, etc.).
       
   17. Allen Knutson: Divide state by regions, list states for management purposes.
       
   18. Marvin Harris: develop library, organize or tailored by region or producer. Provide publications other info.
       
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. David Shapiro-Ilan: discussed pecan weevil control progress
   
   
   
   
   
10. Ted Cottrell: Cooperative work with Bill Ree on pesticide evaluation for pecan weevil and pecan aphids. Also monitoring PNC for Marvin Harris.
    
    
    
    
    
11. Bill Reid: Next year meeting location
    
    
    
    
    a. Ted Cottrell suggested Las Cruses, NM.
    
    
    
    
    

    Accomplishments

    Publications

    Impact Statements

    Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Cottrell, Ted, Georgia, USDA-ARS;
Dutcher, Jim, Georgia, University of Georgia;
Ellington, Joe, New Mexico, New Mexico State University;
Goff, Bill, Alabama, Auburn University;
Hall, Michael, Louisiana, Louisiana State University;
Harris, Marvin, Texas, Texas A&M University;
Nunez, Humberto, Mexico, INIFAB;
Ree, Bill, Texas, Texas A&M University;
Shapiro-Ilan, David, Georgia, USDA-ARS

Brief Summary of Minutes

Las Cruces, NM,


March 30, 2010



Ted Cottrell called the meeting to order. The first order of business was the election of a new secretary for the coming year and determination of the site for the 2011 meeting. Bill Ree was elected secretary. The next meeting of the S-1017 Multi-State Research Project will be held in conjunction with the SE Pecan Growers Association annual meeting in Biloxi, MS. The group was then updated on the status of the revised project. As of the meeting two reviews had come in. One reviewer approved the project without revision, while the second reviewer approved the project with revisions to be made. Some concerns were expressed about lack of specificity with some of the objectives, the planned budget, and linkage between research-extension. Reviewers concerns will be taken into account during the final revision. There was some concern about the lack of input in the project from some of the participating states. There was some brief discussion as to who could or couldnt be an official member of the project. Since Alabama had no one officially on the project, Bill Goff suggested that Alan Burnie be considered. There needs to be further discussion on this topic.

Discussion of Project by Objectives:

Objective 1: Improved Systems to Monitor Pecan Arthropod Pests

Hall: Noted that phylloxera emergence studies were concluded in Foreman, AR. In 2007 and 2009, the first phylloxerans were trapped during the last week of February, prior to bud opening. Nymphs did not appear on buds until shedding of the outer bud scale occurred. Emergence lasted for approximately 60 days. New locations to be used in 2010 were near Monroe, LA, Melrose, LA, and Shreveport, LA. Dutcher: Discussed the use of pheromone (pheromone provided by Dr. Jocelyn Miller) traps for monitoring prionus root borer. Pheremones were used in conjunction with pitfall traps. Noted that there are three species of prionus root borer and they were successful in trapping two of the species found in Georgia. Period of adult activity was from 26-May to 17- Jul. They are currently investigating the idea of mass trapping as a control measure. Harris: Used water sensitive cards and USDA proprietary software to determine gallons of honeydew produced per acre by the yellow pecan aphid complex. Comapred other cultivars to Cheyenne to determine level of susceptibility. Could be a technique for monitoring yellow aphids. Compared differences between Mexican and American strains of pecan nut casebearer (PNC). Genetic differences were noted between Mexican strain of PNC caught in Texas and those caught in Mexico. Discussed possible shifts in genetics based on geography. Harris: Discussed PNC work in Mexico looking at shoot damage, nut damage, and shuck damage. Observed a fourth generation in Mexico that infests the shucks but does not penetrate the shell. Harris: Updated the group on pecan IPM-PIPE. He handed out a brochure that explained pecan IPM-PIPE as it currently stands and talked about what is on the website (e.g. the new list of currently registered insecticides for use on pecan), and the potential to add additional deliverables (i.e. fungicide application information, phylloxera emergence information, information on pesticide resistance, etc.) to the site. Currently, there are 128 producers reporting real-time data.

Objective 2: Improved control systems for pecan arthropod pests

Ree: Discussed the Multi-State Field Evaluation of Insecticides Used in Pecan Orchards for Management of the Kernel Feeding Hemipterans, Nezara viridula, Euschistus servus, and Leptoglossus phyllopus. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the efficacy of insecticides labeled for control of these three species, determine the residual effectiveness of five commonly used pecan insecticides against these three species, determine efficacy of four classes of insecticides, and determine if any observed difference from field tests is due to regional tolerances based on vial tests. In addition to B. Ree, T. Cottrell, M. Hall, and R. Luttrell (Arkansas, University of Arkansas) are also collaborating in these trials. Ree noted problems in finding adequate numbers of each species to work with. Ree reported only on trials using brown stink bug, Euschistus servus, and indicated that only bifenthrin (Brigade) at mid- to high-rates controlled brown stink bug. Hall: Brigade and Warrior worked on southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula, in trials in LA. Cottrell: Stated that insecticide assays demonstrated that many products that include stink bugs as target pests have low efficacy against the brown stink bug. Of the tested products, only the product containing bifenthrin (Brigade) resulted in substantial stink bug mortality at least through 7 days after application in the field. Dutcher: Working on an assay, using clip cages attached to leaves, to measure aphid growth rates to determine time needed to double size of population. Cottrell: field trials testing plant growth regulators against the black pecan aphid (BPA) showed that the combination of Prestige+ProGibb did reduce black pecan aphid damage under orchard conditions. He noted that BPA nymphs took 2-3 days to establish a chlorotic lesion to feed on. Observed that BPA adults were found primarily on top of leaves while nymphs could be found on top and bottom. Yellow aphids found on bottom. This could effect how BPA are preyed upon as lacewings and ladybugs were observed primarily on the bottom of leaves. Ree: Asked the group if anyone has encountered possible resistance in aphids to products containing imidacloprid. He expressed an interest in looking at resistance levels (no-use to high-use rates) of pecan aphids to imidacloprid across the pecan belt, and asked if there was an interest among the group in pursuing this.

Objective 3: Development of Biological Control Systems for Pecan Arthropod Pests

Shapiro-Ilan: A number of successful efficacy trials indicate substantial potential for microbial control agents for pecan weevil suppression. In a pecan orchard, multiple applications of S. carpocapsae made to the pecan weevil, Curculio caryae, during the insects 2-year life cycle in the soil, reduced the pests survival to less than 1% (81% control relative to the untreated plots); additionally, research indicated that standard chemical insecticides used for pecan weevil, such as carbaryl, may act synergistically with enomopathogenic nematodes or fungi. Cottrell: An ectoparasitic fungus, Hesperomyces virescens, was sampled on lady beetles collected from various habitats, including pecan. The exotic, Harmonia axyridis, and the native Olla v-nigrum were the predominant hosts of this fungus. The convergent lady beetle, Hippodamia convergens, was seldom infested. The exotic, Coccinella septumpunctata, along with the native species, Coleomegilla maculata, Cycloneda munda, Scymnus loewii, and Scymnus soccer, were never found with the fungus.

Accomplishments

Publications

<br /> Behle, R.W., Compton, D.L., Lazlo, J.A., Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., Oil-based formulations for UV protection of Beauveria bassiana conidia. J. Econ. Entomol. In Press. Accepted 6-25-2009. <br /> <br /> Cottrell, T. E. and D. I. Shapiro-Ilan. Naturally occurring pathogens and invasive insects, In A.E. Hajek, T.R. Glare and M. OCallaghan (eds.) Use of Microbes for Control and Eradication of Invasive Arthropods. Springer Science+Business Media B. V. pp. 19-32. 2009.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D., G. Esendugue Fonsah and W. G. Hudson. 2009. Integration of bifenazate and western predatory mite (Acari: Phytoseiidae) for control of pecan leaf scorch mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) in pecan orchards. J. Entomol. Sci. 44(2): 98-110.<br /> <br /> Williams, R. N., D. S. Fickle, P. S. Grewel and J. Dutcher. 2010. Field efficacy against the grape root borer, Vitacea polistiformis (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) and persistence of Heterorhabditis zealandica and H. bacteriophora (Nematoda: Heterorhabditidae) in vineyards. Biological Control (in press) doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.11.004.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D., L. Wells, T. B. Brenneman and M. G. Patterson. 2010. Integration of insect and mite, disease, and weed management to improve pecan production. IN A. Ciancio and K. G. Mukerji (eds.) Integrated Pest and Disease Management vol. 5. Springer Publishers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands. (Invited Book Chapter, accepted March 2009, in press).<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2009. Matching the reproductive capacity of the pest to the efficacy of the pest control method. The Pecan Grower 20(3): 24-27.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2009. Tips for insect control in 2009. The Pecan Grower 20(4): 50-51.<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. 2010. Hickory shuckworm control with insecticide sprays, 2007-2009. Arthropod Management Tests 35 (D): (in press).<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. and W. G. Hudson. 2010. Pecan leaf scorch mite control with miticides, 2009. Arthropod Management Tests 35(D): (in press).<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D., Haider Karar and Ghulam Abbas. 2010. Efficacy of two insecticides for control of foliage-feeding aphids of pecan. Arthropod Management Tests (in press).<br /> <br /> Dutcher, J. D. and W. G. Hudson. 2009. Georgia Agricultural Commodity Commission for Pecans. Research Report. 17 p.<br /> <br /> Hall, M. J. and K. S. Burnham. 2009. Control of hickory shuckworm in a commercial pecan <br /> orchard with selected insecticides, 2008. Arthropod Management Tests 2009, vol. 34. <br /> D14. <br /> <br /> Hall, M. J. and K. S. Burnham. 2009. Control of pecan nut casebearer in a commercial pecan<br /> orchard with selected insecticides, 2008. Arthropod Management Tests 2009, vol. 34.<br /> D15. <br /> <br /> Hudson, W. G., D. I. Shapiro-Ilan, W. A. Gardner, T. E. Cottrell and R. W. Behle. Integrating biological control into pecan weevil management: a sustainable approach. Web publication soon to be available at Agricultural Innovations: (www.sare.org/publications/factsheet). 2009. In press. (Extension publication)<br /> <br /> Ni, X., K. Da, G. D. Buntin, T. E. Cottrell, P. G. Tillman, D. M. Olson, R. Powell, Jr., R. D. Lee, J. P. Wilson and B. T. Scully. 2010. Economic injury Level of Brown Stink Bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) damage on Bt-corn ears. J. Econ. Entomol. In press<br /> <br /> <br /> Riddick, E. W., T. E. Cottrell and K. A. Kidd. 2009. Natural enemies of the Coccinellidae: Parasites, pathogens, and parasitoids. Biol. Cont. 51: 306<br /> <br /> Riddick, E. W. and T. E. Cottrell. 2010. Is the prevalence and intensity of the ectoparasitic fungus Hesperomyces virescens related to the abundance of entomophagous coccinellids? Bull. Insectology. In press<br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., W. A. Gardner, T. E. Cottrell, J. Leland, and R. W. Behle. 2009. Mortality and mycosis of adult Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) following application of Metarhizium anisopliae: Laboratory and field trials. Journal of Entomological Science. 44, 24-36. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., T. E. Cottrell, W. A. Gardner, R. W. Behle, B. Ree, and M. Harris. 2009. Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi in suppressing pecan weevil, Curculio caryae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in commercial pecan orchards. Southwestern Entomologist. 34: 111-120. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., Reilly, C. C, and Hotchkiss, M. W. 2008. Testing the potential to suppress pecan diseases using byproducts from bacteria. Pecan Grower 19 (3): 20-25. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I. and Nyczepir, A. P. 2008. Using good nematodes to kill bad nematodes: Applications of entomopathogenic nematodes for control of the pecan root-knot nematode. Pecan Grower 20 (1): 36-39. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D. I., T. E. Cottrell, M. A. Jackson, and B. W. Wood. 2009. The ability of insect-killing fungi to kill pecan aphids under laboratory conditions. The Pecan Grower. 20(3): 18-21. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., Gardner, W.A., Cottrell, T.E., Behle, R.W., Hudson, W.G., and Wood, B.W. 2009. A comparison of application methods for suppressing the pecan weevil using beneficial fungi Pecan Grower 21(1): 20-24. <br /> <br /> Shapiro-Ilan, D.I., Cottrell, T.E., Reilly, C., Hotchkiss, M., and Wood, B. 2009. Alternative Pest Control Research. 2009 Proceedings of the Southeastern Pecan Growers Association. 102: 50-61. <br /> <br /> Tillman, P. G., J. R. Aldrich, A. Khrimian and T. E. Cottrell. 2010. Pheromone attraction and cross-attraction of Nezara, Acrosternum, and Euschistus spp. stink bugs (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in the field. Environ. Entomol. In press.<br /> <br /> Y. Chen, X. Ni, T. E. Cottrell, B. W. Wood, and G. D. Buntin. 2009. Black Pecan Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Feeding Affects Oxidase and Hydrolase Activities in Pecan Leaves. J. Econ. Entomol. 102: 1262-1269.<br />

Impact Statements

Back to top