Duration: 02/01/2008 to 09/30/2013

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

Biological control of pests has a rich history in the USA with key successes dating back over 125 years. Realizing that pests and management efforts cross state boundaries, three of the four regional associations of State Agricultural Experiment Stations have long maintained multi-state research projects in biological control of arthropods and weeds. This new northeast regional project builds upon our national expertise in biological control and specifically addresses pest complexes and research opportunities that are unique our region. Biological control refers to applied efforts to manage pest problems through importation, conservation or augmentation of natural enemies and it is generally distinguished from natural control: that which is provided by unmanaged indigenous natural enemies in the native or introduced range of a pest species. Non-native plants and insects introduced into North America generally come without the natural enemies that keep them in check in their native habitats. Freed from these natural controls, these species often increase in numbers and distribution, adversely affecting the environment, the economy, and human health (Pimentel et al. 2000). Classical Biological Control, a deliberate process whereby these pests are reacquainted with their effective natural enemies, offers a potential for permanent control of these pests over widespread areas (Van Driesche 1994). On a world-wide basis, we are approaching 200 pest species controlled through biological control, with economic benefits estimated at $30 to $100 for each dollar invested (Hoy 1994). There is no shortage of weed and arthropod pests in the northeast. Despite advances in pest management including selective pesticides, use of behavior modifying chemicals, resistant varieties and transgenic plants, arthropods and weeds continue their damage in our agricultural and natural systems. Biological control, used singly or in combination with other management options, should be the centerpiece of successful pest management programs (Van Driesche and Bellows 1996). In recent years, researchers in the northeast have worked with many types of biological control agents including insects, mites, parasitoids, and pathogens in successfully managing key pests including gypsy moths, purple loosestrife, birch leafminer, mites on apples and vegetables, Lepidoptera on fruit, alfalfa weevil, Mexican bean beetle, whiteflies in greenhouses, etc. These successes have generally involved cooperative efforts by scientists from several states and agencies. Interdependencies: Those attributes which make Classical Biological Control so attractive, also require careful consideration of target selection, agent discovery, and pre-and post-release evaluation of agents (Mason et al. 2005). These issues generally require regional input and cooperative research over a range of environmental conditions. Individual agricultural experiment stations in the northeast seldom have the resources or expertise to conduct a complete program in Classical Biological Control and thus we have a long history of cooperation among states and with scientists from USDA-ARS, USDA-APHIS, USFS, state departments of agriculture, and specialists in foreign countries. Success in developing and implementing biological control programs is closely linked to the development of effective communication and coordination of programs. The focus of this multi-state research project is to enhance biological control of arthropod pests and weeds in the northeast through increased collaboration among practitioners in the region. The umbrella of a northeast multi-state project provides the framework for dialog on pest target selection and pooling of expertise and resources to allow coordinated research and outreach programs.

Related, Current and Previous Work

Mission: The mission of this northeast regional project is the same as that of our counterparts in the western states: to facilitate research and implementation activities among the participating institutions and organizations in applied biological control W-1185). Although we share similar missions, northeastern specialists generally do not participate in the western, southern, or north central regional projects because of different pest complexes. This northeastern regional project includes biological control of both weeds and arthropod pests because these two groups of pests have many similar research issues and many individual participants in this project already work on biological control of both arthropods and weeds. Regional Cooperation: The participants in this program already cooperate through information exchange and collaborative research, albeit on an ad hoc basis without a guiding framework. Since 1985 there has been a biological control symposium at the annual meeting of the Eastern Branch of the Entomological Society of America. Most of the members in Appendix E have attended and participated in these symposia which feature discussions of methods, issues, and opportunities in biological control of weeds and arthropods. Some successful projects, including birch leafminer and lily leaf beetle have directly resulted from discussions initiated at these meetings. Biological control practitioners in the northeast regularly assist in agent releases and surveys and often provide insect and plant samples for colleagues in other states, taking advantage of local knowledge and greatly reducing time and cost. For instance, colleagues in DE, NJ, NY, MA, and RI just completed a survey documenting successful biological control of birch leafminer throughout the northeastern states. Likewise, parasitoids of the lily leaf beetle have been sent to by researchers in RI to collaborators in MA, NH, ME, and VT in recent years. Mile-a-minute insect herbivores have been released in four states and purple loosestrife herbivores were sent from NY to most northeastern states. In addition to cooperative release and evaluation programs, there are also ongoing research programs where essential research components are conducted at cooperating institutions such as the Phragmites biocontrol program involving RI, NY, and CABI bioscience in Switzerland and a coordinated research program on swallow-worts undertaken by URI, USDA, CABI, and Canadian colleagues. Other examples include hemlock adelgid and winter moth research  briefly described under procedures (below). These successful examples indicate the potential for increased success that a regional and formalized multi-sate project could create. The Regional Character of the Project is particularly obvious for the northeast. There are essentially no arthropods or weeds that are limited to a single state and biological control efforts against these pests are not restricted by state boundaries. It is generally impossible and probably wrong for a single scientist in the northeast to develop and implement a program of classical biological control without input and assistance from colleagues in other institutions. By formalizing the regional cooperation that has existed for decades, we strengthen and expand these essential interactions and properly document this regional activity as meeting multi-state requirements for the Agricultural Experiment Stations. Regional Facilities and Expertise: Relative to the rest of the USA, we enjoy a high concentration of insect containment and rearing facilities with Cornell, URI, and VPI all maintaining USDA-approved primary insect quarantine laboratories. Other quarantine and rearing facilities are found at the Otis ANG base in MA, the Ansonia Forest Service lab in MA, the NJ Philip Alampe Biological Control Laboratory, and the ARS Biological Control Laboratory in Newark, DE. These facilities are essential for Classical Biological Control research and are used extensively in establishment and augmentative biological control efforts. Virtually all university researchers listed in Appendix E have used one or more of these facilities. The northeast also has a large number of biological control practitioners, comparable to the other USDA regions.

Objectives

1. Goals: The goals, objectives, and research approaches of this regional project are similar to those of the Southern, North Central, and Western regional projects in biological control. Although we deal with different pest complexes and organize objectives differently, all regions share the general goals of improving biological control through: <br>1. Conservation of existing natural enemies <br>2. Augmentation programs involving repeated rearing and release<br>3. Introduction of new natural enemies against invasive pests (Classical Biological Control)<br>4. Evaluation and education
   
2. All existing biological control programs in the northeast fall under these general goals (as indicated in Procedures and in Appendix E). Goal four is particularly important in the Northeast because many of our target pests are found in natural areas and managers need to be convinced of positive long term consequences. <br>Overall Objective: Despite the fact that all four regions have generally similar missions, goals, and objectives, it should be very clear that we have very different pests complexes and research opportunities. All of the pests listed in Appendix E, are either unique to the Northeast, or the biocontrol project is focused in the Northeast because of facilities or personnel. The overall objective of this regional project is to further cooperative research and implementation of biological control programs against arthropod and weed pests of the Northeastern region.<br>Specific objectives are outlined under individual projects.
   

Methods

The procedures for the many aspects of this project are outlined under specific goals and objectives. The key activities for the group include an annual meeting; additional coordinated research, implementation, and evaluation programs; and appropriate reporting documenting regional efforts. Meetings: This group has met together for decades, although not always at the same time and place and with different agendas. For instance, most members were either at the USDA Forest Service Meeting in Annapolis in February 07, the Eastern Branch ESA Biocontrol Symposium in March 07, or the weed biocontrol meeting in France in May 07. This regional project will meet annually in conjunction with a major meeting of an appropriate organization  likely alternating among meetings of the Entomological Society of America, U.S. Forest Service, International Organization of Biological Control, and other regional biological control projects. The goal of meeting is to further cooperation among participants. Our participants are scattered among at least 15 institutions and they would benefit from regular meetings to exchange information on research plans and progress. We will develop an approach to prioritize species slated for control and discuss evaluation criteria. This should improve our selection of targets and enhance research and implementation of biological programs through critical evaluation and cooperative research efforts. We also hope to increase the number of regional research grants and co-authored publications. Goal 1 (Conservation of existing natural enemies) Objective 1. To conserve natural enemies in blueberry production. Maine and New Jersey are involved in assessing the natural enemy communities in blueberry production and developing pest management tactics that conserve the dominant natural enemies. The research also evaluates the susceptibility of the more abundant natural enemies to currently registered and new insecticides that have potential for registration (Yarborough and Drummond 2007). In addition, strategies such as within-field spatially based management are being developed for the conservation of natural enemies in blueberry. Objective 2. To determine the distribution and impact of Cotesia rubecula. Another collaborative conservation program underway in the northeast involves the conservation of the native butterfly Pieris napi oleraceae which has been extirpated in much of New England. Butterfly populations have been substantially impacted by the parasitoid Cotesia glomerata and they also oviposit, but cannot survive on garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). We are planning a regional survey for 2008 to determine the distribution and abundance of C. rubecula, a recently introduced parasitoid which appears to be displacing C. glomerata in central Massachusetts. Since this parasitoid does not attack P. oleraceae, butterfly populations might be expected to rebound. In addition to being more selective, Cotesia rubecula is also much more effective than C. glomerata and its successful spread can have large agricultural implications. This survey will be coordinated through MA and will involve several cooperating scientists listed in Table E. A related project underway in RI with assistance from colleagues in VT, MA, and CT involves selecting P. oleraceae with a garlic mustard-enhanced diet in an attempt to develop a population that can survive on garlic mustard. Objective 3. To examine the effects of exotic plants on ecosystem function. In managed landscapes conservation biological control seeks to restore natural predator-prey linkages by conserving natural enemies and their associated food resources. Through habitat manipulation, vegetation complexity and diversity is increased, providing food and other resources to arthropod natural enemies (Landis et al. 2000, Gurr et al. 2000). The addition of flowering insectary strips has successfully increased natural enemy abundance in ornamental systems (Frank and Shrewsbury 2004, Shrewsbury et al. 2004). Moreover, flowering insectary strips have resulted in higher predation or parasitism rates and lower pest populations in some systems (Frank and Shrewsbury 2004, Shrewsbury et al. 2004). Currently, Tallamy (University of Delaware), Shrewsbury and Raupp (University of Maryland) are examining the effects of exotic plants on ecosystem function including conservation biological control. Raupp is also researching the role of systemic insecticides in disrupting the activity of natural enemies in landscapes in New York and Maryland. Goal 2 (Augmentation programs) Objective 4. To release and evaluate augmentative biological control agents and educate the public about their role in pest management. The New Jersey Philip Alampe Biological Control Laboratory will continue rearing and releasing the tropical parasitoid Pediobius foeolatus against the Mexican bean beetle in a program that has been a major success throughout the mid-Atlantic states. The effectiveness of this program is demonstrated by the fact that New Jersey soybean growers have not used insecticides against the Mexican bean beetle in over a decade. Over the past several years augmentative releases of Trichogramma ostriniae have been made in MA, VA, PA, ME, and in Quebec. Most efforts are focused in sweet corn, but trials are also conducted in sweet peppers and potatoes. Augmentative biological control is also attempted and evaluated in a variety of nursery and landscape settings. These studies include releases of lady beetles, lacewings, predatory mites, and entomopathogenic nematodes to control aphids, lace bugs, caterpillars, and phytophagous mites. This research involves collaborators from University of Maryland, Rutgers University, the Smithsonian Institution, and several commercial and private enterprises. Results to date are summarized in Shrewsbury and Raupp (2004) and Van Tol and Raupp (2005). Goal 3 (Classical Biological Control) There are many exotic invasive plants and insects that are presently targeted for classical biological control in the northeast. A subset of these projects includes the following: Objective 5. To develop a biological control program for exotic Phragmites australis. The biological control program directed at Phragmites australis provides a good example of regional cooperation spearheaded by scientists at Cornell and URI. In this project Cornell has taken the lead in regional surveys for native and exotic Phragmites australis populations and their herbivores while URI has measured impact of native and exotic herbivores on these plants. Both groups have funded and directed the efforts of CABI in Switzerland to identify and evaluate potential biological control agents. This program is now focused host range testing and decision making about possible releases over the next several years. Objective 6. To develop a biological control program for swallow-worts in North America. A program directed against swallow-worts has URI and USDA/ARS scientists surveying Europe for potential natural enemies. CABI is assisting in conducting surveys and field tests that can only be done in Europe. Preliminary host range testing and evaluations presently underway at URI and ARS (Montpellier, France) will be followed up and completed by scientists at ARS and at Carleton University in Ontario. Objective 7. To establish and evaluate herbivores released against mile-a-minute weed. Another cooperative venture is directed against mile-a-minute weed, a kudzu-like problem that is centered in PA and has spread into 12 states. A joint research program initiated in 1996 has resulted in the establishment of a stem-feeding weevil, Rhinoncomimus latipes in four states. The University of Delaware, US Forest Service, and NJ Biological Control laboratory are cooperating on this project which may be extended to other states. Present efforts focus on release strategies, weevil spread, and evaluation of impact on plant populations. Objective 8. To develop an effective biological control program for the emerald ash borer. Emerald ash borer, native to the Far East, was found in Michigan only five years ago. It has already been detected in other states including PA, MD, and WV. It is the subject of intensive research by USDA and university entomologists in DE, MA, MI, CT and abroad. Three parasitoids were approved by USDA for environmental release in 2007. As this pest spreads throughout the northeast, scientists will participate in establishment and evaluation of biological controls in the northeast. Objective 9. To establish and evaluate natural enemies of the hemlock woolly adelgid. Hemlock woolly adelgid has been the subject of extensive cooperative biological control efforts over the past decade. Based upon research conducted at the CT Ag. Experiment Station, Sasajiscymnus tsugae, an Asian predator was reared by the N.J. Biological Control laboratory and distributed to scientists in several northeast states for release and evaluation. Ongoing efforts include releasing and evaluating Laricobius nigrinus in several states and a continuing effort to locate, evaluate, and establish additional Asian natural enemies of this pest. Two species of Scymnus (Neopullus) lady beetles from China have recently been released in CT, and MA and other states. Additional predators (adelgids have no known parasitoids) endemic to Japan, China and western U. S. are being evaluated. This research, funded and coordinated by US Forest Service, involves many state agencies and universities throughout the region  especially in CT, MA, NJ, and VA. Objective 10. To establish and evaluate natural enemies of the winter moth. Winter moth is another new pest in the northeastern USA. Based upon past biocontrol successes in Nova Scotia and the Pacific Northwest, scientists at U. Mass. are working with USDA Forest Service and APHIS researchers in MA to rear, release, and evaluate the parasitoid Cyzenis albicans against this pest. Entomologists in RI are assisting in locating suitable release sites in that state. Objective 11. To distribute and evaluate Peristenus relictus, a parasitoid of the tarnished plant bug. In New Jersey the Philip Alampe Biological Control Laboratory is working on a cooperative rearing and release project on the tarnished plant bug parasitoid, Peristenus relictus, with USDA/ARS/BIRL (Roger Fuester, Kim Hoelmer, Phil Taylor) and Delaware State University (Randy Peiffer, Rich Barczewski). This NJ laboratory commonly cooperates with forest service and university researchers throughout the northeast, taking advantage of its extensive facilities and experience in mass-rearing biological control agents. Objective 12. To establish and evaluate biological control agents for garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). This cooperative effort involving scientists at Cornell, University of Minnesota and CABI Switzerland, has progressed to the point of host range testing and is nearing release of one or more agent. A related project underway in RI with assistance from colleagues in VT, MA, and CT involves selecting Pieris oleraceae with a garlic mustard-enhanced diet in an attempt to develop a population that can survive on garlic mustard, possibly adversely impacting populations of this invasive plant. Objective 13. To investigate potential new biological control projects for the northeast. In addition to the above-mentioned projects that are well underway, scientists across the region are collaborating on other projects with application for northeast. Key among these is the ongoing work on the Japanese knotweed complex (Fallopia japonica, F. sacchalinesis, and F. X bohemica) addressed by scientists in U.K., Washington State, and Cornell. Virginia scientists are working on biological control of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) in collaboration with scientists in China. Water chestnut (Trapa natans) is also the target of research involving collaborative efforts with Chinese scientists in cooperation with Cornell. CABI scientists are also involved in studies to assess the potential for biocontrol of glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Goal 4 (Evaluation and Education) Objective 14. To distribute information on the successful biological control of the birch leafminer throughout the northeastern states. Through a cooperative effort spearheaded by USDA/ARS and involving the NJ Biological Control Laboratory and university scientists in MA and RI, parasitoids of the birch leafminer have been released, established, and redistributed throughout the northeast over the past two decades. In 2007 a survey by cooperators in DE, NJ, NY, MA, and RI documented successful biological control of birch leafminer throughout the northeastern states. At present this pest is virtually absent north of central NJ and we now face the task of educating landscape managers to stop spraying for this pest. Objective 15. To provide web-based information for growers, landscape managers, educators, and students on biological control programs. Education has always been key to success in biological control, and this has become more evident in recent years as developing programs involve the general public and other stakeholder groups. Northeastern biological control scientists continue to address the educational needs of our clients through presentations and publications, and we have made increasing use of web sites. Cornell has a widely used web site on biological control of weeds (www.invasiveplants.net) and another excellent site on insects http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/biocontrol/). Additionally, U. Mass maintains a web site for the US Forest Service on current insect and weed biological control projects (http://www.invasiveforestinsectandweedbiocontrol.info/). The University of Maryland has another popular website (http://www.mdipm.umd.edu/) that emphasizes conservation of beneficial insects. Most researchers and all institutions represented in Appendix E have web sites describing their current projects. Objective 16. To publish the results of biological control research in refereed journals, books, and proceedings. In addition to publishing journal articles, biological control practitioners in the northeast regularly participate in regional publications and symposia proceedings. For instance, many of us contributed chapters to the US Forest Service publication Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States (USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04)  an effort that was coordinated by Van Driesche, working with colleagues from U. Mass., Cornell, and the Forest Service. We also made major contributions to the Forest Service Publications: FHTET-2004-03, FHET-03-05 and FHTET-2005-8, and we contributed most of the papers coming out in the proceedings of a recent Hemlock Woolly Adelgid Symposium (Feb. 12-14, 2008). Van Driesche is also publishing an updated textbook on biological control in 2008. Through this regional project we will annually compile a list of publications by project participants to further communication within the project and with the general public.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• Project reporting will be conducted at two levels:
• 1) by individual scientists through their institutions
• 2) a collective report from the regional project.
• Biological control projects are particularly amenable to current evaluation protocols. In addition to traditional outputs (data collected, methods developed, publications, presentations, etc.) we also discover, evaluate, and introduce natural enemies.

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Common documented outcomes include species establishment, natural enemy spread, reduced pest problems and associated effects on other components of the ecosystem as a result of natural enemy releases, potential non-target effects, and increased knowledge about the science biological control.
• Impacts include improved future programs based upon new knowledge and reduced need for pest control activities and attendant environmental and economic consequences because of successful biological control programs.

Milestones

(2008): The first three goals of this project represent the major approaches to biological control research and implementation programs (conservation, augmentaton, and classical). The fourth goal (evaluation and education) applies to all three. The many biological control programs of this regional project all address these goals, but at very different stages of development - ranging from conceptual to evaluative. Thus each program has its individual milestones and these will be included in annual reports. <br>The scope of the regional project goes well beyond its component research programs with its overall goal of furthering cooperative research and implementation of biological control programs against arthropod and weed pests of the northeastern region. We anticipate several milestones in achieving this goal as follows: Project participants will meet at previously-scheduled meetings and discuss project activities. Research, education, and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project. In particular, hemlock adelgid biocontrol efforts in classical biological control (goal 3) will be discussed and future research outlined at a HWA meeting in New Haven Feb. 11-14. Similar planning for swallow-wort classical biological control will occur at the Entomol. Soc. E. Branch meeting in Syracuse in March. Another meeting is planned in March to coordinate a survey for parasitoids of pierid butterflies in the northeast (goal 1). And in October Cornell will host a workshop on garlic mustard biocontrol (goal 3). At these (and other) scheduled meetings we will coordinate collaborative research efforts in an attempt to efficiently solve pest problems and improve the science of biological control.

(2009): Project participants will meet and discuss project activities, including a workshop dedicated to one of the research objectives (possibly goal 1 conservation programs). Research, education, and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project coordinated through this annual project meeting and through other meetings as described for 2008. A site will be selected for a 2010 meeting of this group which will likely be held at a different venue from the 2009 meeting.

(2010): Project participants will meet and discuss project activities, including a workshop dedicated to one of the research objectives (possibly goal 2 augmentation). Research, education, and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project coordinated through this annual project meeting and through other meetings as described for 2008. A site will be selected for a 2011 meeting of this group which will likely be held at a national venue so that we can meet with other regional biological control projects.

(2011): Project participants will meet with other regional projects and discuss project activities. A workshop will focus on some aspects of classical biological control (goal 3) such as target selection, or host range testing. Research, education, and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project as in previous years.

(2012): Project participants will meet and discuss project activities. Research, education, and outreach efforts will continue under the objectives of the project as in previous years.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Participants in this project will continue to maintain web sites; publish books, journal articles, and consumer literature; teach courses; and offer outreach programming as described under Goal 4 (Evaluation and Education). We will continue to present and discuss pertinent research findings at regularly scheduled professional meetings such as the Entomological Society of America and international meetings on weed and insect biological control as described under Methods/Meetings (above). We will also continue to participate in regional workshops such as the annual Forest Service Meeting (generally held in Annapolis) and the series of targeted workshops held at Cornell in October (Japanese Knotweed in 06, Phragmites in 07, Garlic Mustard in 08).

Organization/Governance

The recommended Standard Governance for multistate research activities include the election of a Chair, a Chair-elect, and a Secretary. All officers are to be elected for at least two-year terms to provide continuity. Administrative guidance will be provided by an assigned Administrative Advisor and a CSREES Representative.

Literature Cited

Frank, S. D., and P. M. Shrewsbury. 2004. Effect of conservation strips on the abundance and distribution of natural enemies and predation of Agrotis ipsilon (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on golf course fairways. Environmental Entomology 33: 1662-1672. Gurr, G. M., S. D. Wratten, and P. Barbosa. 2000. Success in conservation biological control of arthropods. pp. 105-132 In: Biological Control: Measures of Success, (G. Gurr and S. D. Wratten, eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Hoy, M. 1994. Parasitoids and Predators in Management of Arthropod Pests. In: Metcalf, R.L. and W. H. Luckmann. Introduction to Insect Pest Management. 3rd ed. John Wiley, NY. Landis, D. A., S. D. Wratten, and G. M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology 45: 175-201. Mason, P. G., Flanders, R. G. and Arrendondo-Bernal, H. A. 2005. How can legislation facilitate the use of biological control of arthropods in North America? Proceedings, 2nd International Symposium of Biological Control of Arthropods, Davos, Switzerland. Sept. 2005. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Publication FHTET-2005-08, vol. 1: 701-714. Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States. BioScience. 50:53-65. Shrewsbury, P.M. and M.J. Raupp. 2004. Biological control in specific crops: Woody Ornamentals. pp. 395-408. In: Biological Control of Arthropod Pests in Protected Culture. (K.M. Heinz, R. Van Driesche, and M.P. Parrella eds.), Ball Publishing. Shrewsbury, P. M., J. H. Lashomb, G. C. Hamilton, J. Zhang, J. M. Patts, and R. A. Casagrande. 2004. The influence of flowering plants on herbivore and natural enemy abundance in ornamental landscapes. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 30: 23-33. Van Driesche. 1994. Classical Biological Control of Environmental Pests. Florida Entomologist 77(1):20-33. Van Driesche, R.G. and T.S. Bellows. 1996. Biological Control. Chapman and Hall, NY. Van Tol, R. and Raupp, M. J. 2005. Nursery and tree application. pp. 274-296. In: Nematodes as Biocontrol Agents (P. S. Grewal, R. U. Ehlers and D. Shapiro-Ilan eds. ), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Yarborough, D.E. and F.A. Drummond. 2007. 2007 Insect Control Guide for Wild Blueberries. UMCE No. 2001, Fact Sheet no. 209

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NJ, NY, RI, VA, VT

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

CABI EUROPE SWITZERLAND, Phillip Alampi Beneficial Insect Laboratory, University of California Santa Barbara, University of Massachusetts