Duration: 10/01/2002 to 09/30/2007

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

As the human population continues to increase, new demands will be placed on agricultural production and efficiency, and in maintaining environmental quality. This will be especially true for the control of pests in agroecosystems. The broad-scale use of chemical pesticides, the predominant approach used during the past 60 years, is clearly no longer acceptable nor compatible with new trends in agricultural sustainability and land stewardship. Although chemical pesticides have had a beneficial impact on agriculture, their attendant side-effects, such as target pest resurgence, secondary pest outbreaks, pest resistance, and environmental contamination, demand that more ecologically sound methods of pest suppression, such as integrated pest management (IPM), be developed. A move towards a nation-wide increase in the development and implementation of IPM programs has recently been encouraged in a recent USDA IPM initiative strategic plan (USDA 1994).

IPM can be defined as the utilization of multiple pest management tactics in a compatible way so as to maintain pest populations at levels below those causing economic injury, while at the same time providing protection against hazards to humans and the environment. Host plant resistance, chemical pesticides, cultural management, and biological control are among the most important pest management strategies used in IPM. For arthropod pests, host plant resistance (where possible) provides one of the most effective and economically feasible pest control strategies upon which the other pest management approaches are integrated. Chemical pesticides are an important pest management tool in IPM, but must be used in a manner that is compatible with other management approaches, particularly biological control. Cultural pest management approaches (e.g., crop rotation, early/late planting, early/late harvesting, trap crops, cultivation and hand pulling of weeds, etc.) have been successfully employed against insect and weed pests in many agricultural settings, with minimal environmental disruption. Biological control has proven to be one of the most effective, environmentally sound, and cost-effective pest management approaches used in pest management. It is anticipated that biological control will play an increasingly important role in IPM as broad-spectrum pesticide use declines in the future.

Biological control is defined as the "the action of parasites, predators, and pathogens in maintaining another organism's density at a lower level than would occur in the absence of the natural enemies" (DeBach 1964). Two types of biological control, natural biological control and applied biological control, are often distinguished. Natural biological control is that brought about by indigenous natural enemies in the native range of a pest species. In contrast, applied biological control is achieved through human efforts or intervention, and consists of three main approaches - - importation, augmentation, and conservation. In the importation approach (generally referred to as classical biological control), exotic natural enemies are imported and released in a new area where the target pest occurs, while augmentation and conservation involve supplementing (or manipulating) natural enemies already in place, or modifying the environment, respectively, to improve the effectiveness of biological control.

For a given arthropod pest or weed, a pool of natural enemies, consisting of vertebrates, invertebrates, and microorganisms, exists. The fundamental problem in applied biological control is to select an appropriate species or combination of species from this pool that will bring about the desired level of pest suppression with minimal impact on nontarget species. The mission of this regional project is to facilitate research and implementation activities among the participating institutions and organizations in applied biological control.

The proposed project is a revision of regional project W-185 and involves biological control of both arthropod pests and weeds. Because biological control of arthropod pests and biological control of weeds are based upon many of the same ecological principles, researchers from the two fields benefit greatly from the exchange of information and ideas, and in research collaboration. Whereas the methodologies for controlling arthropod pests and weeds may differ, the scientific issues (e.g., introduction strategies, genetics of colonization, evaluation of natural enemy impact, etc.) overlap to a great extent. That some individuals involved in this project conduct research in both arthropod pest and weed systems is further evidence of the conceptual similarities between these two fields.

IPM programs based largely on biological control will be of great benefit to agriculture, the quality of rural life, and the consumer. Reductions in insecticide, acaricide and herbicide applications should allow farmers and ranchers to reduce production costs and to make adjustments for a more sustainable agriculture. Reduced pesticide use will enhance the quality of rural life through reduction in pesticide contamination of ground and surface water, reduced effects on nontarget species (including wildlife), and increased safety of farm workers and other rural residents. These benefits also accrue at the interface of urban and agricultural environments, where there is increasing opposition to pesticide use. The consumer will be a major beneficiary as average benefit:cost ratio of successful biological control programs is approximately 30:1. The attendant reduction in pesticide residues in food is also desirable, although controversy remains over the extent and public health significance of such residues.

Aside from the obvious benefits to agriculture, quality of rural life, the consumer, and the environment, the proposed research should make major contributions to broader scientific issues as well. The underlying ecological mechanisms concerning the population regulation of arthropods and plants by natural enemies and other factors remain a matter of great theoretical and practical interest. In biological control, a better understanding of such ecological mechanisms is prerequisite to improving our success rate in biological control. The intentional introduction of a biological control agent also can be viewed as a perturbation experiment; as such, it will reveal critical information relevant to the biology of pest invasions. Post-colonization changes in the genetic structure of an introduced agent can provide much needed data on natural selection under field conditions. Natural enemy complexes are comprised of feeding "guilds" which in turn have a characteristic structure. Analysis of the structure of natural enemy guilds can shed important light on general questions in community ecology. Finally, evaluation of successful natural enemies will contribute greatly to the larger question of how a predator and its prey interact and persist over time.

Background Information: Despite many theoretical and practical advances in recent years, our practical and conceptual understanding of success and failure in applied biological control fall short of meeting certain current and future requirements. For example, in classical biological control, the rate of establishment of natural enemies is relatively low in the case of arthropod pests (ca. 34%); further research into the genetics and ecology of colonization is clearly warranted. Classical biological control must also become a more predictive science. We must eventually be able to predict (1) the appropriate species (or biotype) or combination of species (and/or biotypes) to release for control of a target pest in a given situation; and (2) the environmental impact attendant to introduction of an exotic enemy. Nontarget impacts to plants or insects from biocontrol agents are becoming of increasing concern to conservation biologists, environmentalists, and federal agencies. Hence, documentation of minimal nontarget impact will be of increasing importance in order to foster increased confidence and adoption of biological control in pest management. Where success has been achieved in classical biological control, the underlying ecological mechanisms are not always clear. After 100 years of effort, we still do not fully understand the mechanisms by which a successful natural enemy operates in nature, or why a particular organism is successful in one situation and unsuccessful in another. This holds for natural enemies of both arthropod pests and weeds. Basic research in augmentation and conservation of natural enemies is also needed. In augmentation, we urgently need a coherent theory of inundative/inoculative release as well as basic efficacy data in order to more readily incorporate commercially available predators and parasitoids of arthropod pests into IPM systems. The genetics of mass production must be evaluated experimentally so that quality control procedures can become a regular practice in the commercial production of natural enemies. Advances in the nutrition of parasitoids and predators are needed. The economic feasibility of augmentation should also be explored. Finally, continued commitment to conservation of natural enemies is required, including innovative ways of integrating pesticides and cultural controls with key natural enemy species. Products of biotechnology designed for pest control must also be assessed and incorporated (where appropriate) into IPM programs.

Recent advances in chemical control of insects, particularly novel modes of action such as insect growth regulators and pheromones, open new opportunities for incorporation of biological control into IPM programs. Few agroecosystems contain a single pest problem and changes in practices to control one pest will often dramatically affect the suppression of others. For example, substitution of a pheromone to control a key pest formerly controlled with broad spectrum insecticides can cause other pests, previously controlled by the insecticide, to become significant problems. The latter pests may be controlled by reverting to the old practices, or by utilizing various aspects of applied biological control. In some cases, such pests may be controlled by careful conservation of existing natural enemies, a tactic formerly impossible when the key pest was suppressed by non-selective pesticides. Conservation may also be supplemented with classical biological control, particularly when secondary pests are of exotic origin.

Biological control is clearly symbiotic with advances in pest control strategies on all fronts, and the need for biological control is ever more important. Our mandate is to incorporate more biological pest suppression into IPM systems. However, a single-minded commitment of our regional and national pest control efforts to this one approach would prove as myopic as our nearly complete abandonment of biological control from 1950-1970, when pesticides were predominantly relied upon. But, to the extent that newer approaches (transgenic crop plants, novel chemistries, etc.) reduce overall pesticide loads in agroecosystems and narrow the range of species killed by toxicants, we will see increased opportunities for biological control.

Regional Character of Project: Exotic pests continue to arrive in the western U.S., and many of these will become permanently established. For such pests, the use of classical biological control should remain a high priority. At the same time, our IPM programs must be continuously evaluated, refined, and adjusted in response to changes in newer and more specific control technologies and production practices. The most effective way to address these new pests that become quickly established and spread to other states is through regional collaboration of state and federal scientists.

Regionality is essential to implementing biological control-based solutions to our pest problems for the following reasons: 1) numerous target pests occur in three or more western states or territories; for these pests, the research effort must be coordinated and duplication minimized to effectively utilize very limited resources; 2) regional importation/quarantine facilities are critical for a coordinated response to exotic arthropod pests and weeds. These facilities are finite, there are no plans to expand them in the foreseeable future, and they serve the needs of all states and territories in the region; and 3) interstate exchange of information and exotic species/biotypes is facilitated through a regional approach. Sharing the cost of foreign exploration and quarantine is essential, as is sharing of methodological advances and our knowledge base. Many examples of regionality in our projects can be found in the tables of Appendices A and B.

Transcending the coordination and cooperation on a given pest is an important shared need for advances in regulatory policy, general methodologies for release and evaluation of natural enemies, and the need to develop sound ecological theory concerning pest population dynamics, predator-prey interactions, and the genetics of colonization in biological control. For example, theoretical and experimental studies of the actual ecological mechanisms that underpin pest population regulation is being addressed in several states and among pest systems.

Revised Project Proposal: The previous W-185 project proposal has been revised to: a) conform to the new guidelines for multistate research projects; b) expand and update five of the 15 objectives; and c) incorporate new target pests.

Conformance to the new guidelines required the addition of two new sections to the main body of the proposal (Measurement of Progress and Results and Outreach Plan, see below) and a great reduction in the overall length of the main text (from 27 pages to 15 pages).

The previous proposal contained 15 objectives classified under four goals:

Goal A: Import and Establish Effective Natural Enemies (Classical Biological Control)Goal B: Conserve Natural Enemies to Increase Biological Control of Target PestsGoal C: Augment Natural Enemies to Increase Biological Control EfficacyGoal D: Evaluate Environmental and Economic Impacts of Biological Control
Goals A, B and C represent the three major areas of applied biological control (i.e., the introduction, augmentation, and conservation of natural enemies). Goal D represents another important, yet often neglected, goal of applied biological control, that of evaluation of environmental and economic impacts of biological control. Although we as a community of scientists may experience first hand the fruits of our labor, our accomplishments, and those of our colleagues before us, may go substantially unappreciated because of the relatively slow rate at which pest populations are reduced by the natural enemies (especially in some weed systems). Thus, our purpose in Goal D is to document benefit/cost ratios as well as the positive and negative environmental impacts of biological control. programs. Brief justifications for each of the 15 Objectives above are given in the Methods section. Objectives 2, 4, 7, 14 and 15 have been expanded and updated to accomodate new questions and priorities.

The new target pest species include cape ivy (Delairea odorata) and saltcedars (Tamarix sp., especially T. ramosissima). The target pest groups for this proposal now include aphids, beetles, gorse, true bugs, knapweeds, Lepidoptera, purple loosestrife, saltcedars, sessile Homoptera, spurges, tephritids, thistles, whiteflies, other arthropods, and other weeds (see Appendix A for specific species in each group).

Related, Current and Previous Work

Accomplishments (1997-2001): The detailed research accomplishments by W-185 scientists from 1997-2001 are presented in accordance with the goals and objectives developed in 1997 in
Appendix E. Herein we summarize this review, highlighting the major accomplishments and areas needing additional study.

Substantial progress was made towards the utilization of biological control for the suppression of both arthropod and weed pests through introduction (classical), conservation, and augmentation.
Scientists participating in W-185 have been extremely productive, with over 550 scientific papers (journal articles, technical papers, book chapters, and books) published in association with research conducted under project objectives. Underlying these many accomplishments were the critical interactions and collaborations that transcended state and institutional boundaries and were made possible through this regional research project.

Under Goal A, introduction of natural enemies, surveys of resident natural enemies were completed for more than a 15 insect pests and three weed pest species. Systematics on the parasitoids of the pink hibiscus mealybug, silverleaf whitefly, knapweeds, thistles, and spurges are being developed using both traditional and newer, molecular techniques. More than 40 species of biological control agents are currently in quarantine and/or were introduced into quarantine during the last five years. Host specificity testing has been completed for redgum lerp psyllid. More than 38 species/strains of natural enemies were released against insect pests and 75 bioagents
were released or redistributed against weed pests. Establishment was confirmed for a number of these species. Successful biological control through the introduction of natural enemies was demonstrated for silverleaf whitefly, red-gum lerp psyllid, pink hibiscus mealybug, cotton aphid, and Lygus hesperus.

Under Goal B, conservation of natural enemies, surveys to identify indigenous natural enemies were completed for many important pest species, including cotton aphid, vine mealybug, and silverleaf whitefly. Studies to identify and assess factors potentially involved in disruption of biological control have been completed for various pest groups. Factors such as hyperparasitism, interference by ants and other predators, pesticide sensitivity, and crop sanitation were found to be important deterrents to successful biological control of several important pests. A variety of non-crop plants have been surveyed to determine their role in supporting a number of new mealybug pests. Perennial hedgerows are being investigated as year-round sources for natural enemies of silverleaf whitefly.

Significant progress was also made under Goal C, augmentation of natural enemies. Researchers identified viable augmentative biological control agents of sessile and non-sessile Homoptera and Lepidoptera. Small-scale augmentative release studies were completed for parasitoids of the silverleaf whitefly and codling moth and ruitflies. Results were encouraging but more work is need on rearing to make this approach economically feasible. Some progress was made towards
implementation of augmentative biological control for scales, whiteflies, aphids, and the codling moth.

Breakthroughs on the biology Encarsia, an important group of whitefly parasitoids, suggest that symbionts (i.e., Wolbachia) and ovicidal behavior on the part of adult females can influence parasitism rates. New marking technologies and wind-tunnel studies are revealing detailed information on the dispersal of whitefly parasitoids, important to understanding the potential for augmentative biological control.

Finally, several systems have been examined in relation to Goal D, evaluation of environmental and economic aspects of biological control. Non-target and other environmental impacts of biological control activities were studied for sessile Homoptera, whiteflies, aphids, tephritid fruitflies, thistles, and spurges. Analyses of the economic benefits of biological control have been completed for the blue gum psyllid and knapweeds. In general, economic benefits from these and previous biological control efforts are in excess of millions of dollars annually, and provide a benefit to cost ratio exceeding 100.

Areas Needing Further Investigation: Additional work needs to be done on a number of pest groups for which effective natural enemies have not been identified. These include yellow starthistle, other thistles?, and cotton aphid. In addition, several new exotic pests have invaded the western United States. Those for which classical biological control is amenable and which currently lack any
specialized natural enemies include glassy-winged sharpshooter, lemon lerp psyllid, a new strain of cereal leaf beetle, a new strain of citrus pealminer, olive fruit fly, salvinia and others.

Each of the above new pest species will require research on host rearing, host range studies and systematics for candidate natural enemies. Work on conservation of these newly imported natural
enemies will be needed to determine which indigenous natural enemies attach them, and how to maximize the impact of introduced and indigenous natural enemies, i.e. environmental requisites, least
harmful pesticides. If economically feasible rearing systems can be developed, some of these and other natural enemies could be considered for augmentative biological control. Studies are needed, retrospective, and pre-release, to determine the potential for introduced natural enemies to attack non-target organisms. Probably most needed are economic studies on the impact of past biological control projects.

Related Multistate Projects: Two other multistate research projects, NCR-125 (Arthropod Biological Control, North Central region), and S-303 (Biological Control of Arthropod Pests and
Weeds, Southern region) have a similarly broad focus on biological control. However, this broad overlap should be considered more complementary than duplicative. This is especially true in the area
of implementation of biological control. It is well established that the efficacy of a natural enemy usually varies geographically, such that an effective species or biotype from the humid southeastern
U.S. is not likely to be as effective in the arid Western Region. It is also clear that populations of the same pest species (and their natural enemies) vary geographically, and this in turn can have profound effects on the efficacy of a given natural enemy. Thus, this project has a specific niche in the Western Region which cannot be filled by regional biological control projects in the Southern and North Central Regions.

The high level of collaboration and cooperation among states, and among state and federal biological control researchers in this project is shown in the tables of Appendices A, B and C. It is this broad and
extensive interaction among biological control specialists that underlies much of our success and productivity as a regional group. We believe that the success of our group in applied biological control
of pests in the Western Region, and the many contributions of our group to the advancement of science and education warrant continuation of this regional project. We look forward to continued success and
collaboration as a regional project in the future.

Objectives

1. (Goal A) Survey indigenous natural enemies.
   
2. (Goal A) Conduct foreign exploration and ecological studies in native range of pest.
   
3. (Goal A) Determine systematics and biogeography of pests and natural enemies.
   
4. (Goal A) Determine environmental safety of exotic candidates prior to release.
   
5. (Goal A) Release, establish, and redistribute natural enemies.
   
6. (Goal A) Evaluate natural enemy efficacy and study ecological/physiological basis for interactions.
   
7. (Goal B) Characterize and identify pest and natural enemy communities and their interactions.
   
8. (Goal B) Identify and assess factors potentially disruptive to biological control.
   
9. (Goal B) Implement and evaluate habitat modification, horticultural practices and pest suppression tactics to conserve natural enemy activity.
   
10. (Goal C) Assess biological characteristics of natural enemies.
    
11. (Goal C) Conduct experimental releases to assess feasibility.
    
12. (Goal C) Develop procedures for rearing, storing, quality control and release of natural enemies.
    
13. Goal C) Implement augmentation programs and evaluate efficacy of natural enemies.
    
14. (Goal D) Evaluate the environmental impacts of biological control agents.
    
15. (Goal D) Evaluate the economic impacts of target pests and their biological control.
    
16. 
    

Methods

(The tables in Appendices A-C show projected linkages between participating organizations, Goals A-D and Objectives 1-15 for each of the 15 major pest groups and species.) Goal A: Import and Establish Effective Natural Enemies. Objective 1: Survey indigenous natural enemies. The scientific literature will be reviewed to determine prior records and geographic distributions of potential natural enemies of arthropod pests and weeds. A survey and collection of natural enemies will be conducted throughout the geographic area of infestation of each target pest. Parasitized pests and natural enemies will be held in the laboratory to allow natural enemy emergence, identification and determination of levels of parasitism and hyperparasitism. For herbivores, specific types of plant injury will be catalogued and plant species closely related to the target weed will be surveyed. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 11 of the major pest groups by 15 participating agencies (Table C1). Objective 2: Conduct foreign exploration and ecological studies in native range of pest. The purpose of foreign exploration is to find, select, and obtain natural enemies from abroad which show promise as biological control agents. Ecological studies conducted on candidate natural enemies in their native range provide information that allows selection of the safest and most effective candidates, and facilitates their establishment and impact on the target pest in the U.S. Natural enemies will be collected and studied abroad in multiple locations throughout the native range of the respective pests. Live materials will be shipped to quarantine facilities listed under Objective 4 and will be shared among scientists/institutions as discussed under Objective 5. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 12 of the major pest groups by 11 participating agencies. The overseas activities will be conducted by a) stateside federal and state scientists from this project; b) other federal and state scientists based at domestic and foreign laboratories; c) scientists participating in USDA programs for exchange of science and technology with countries such as Japan, China, and Russia; and d) scientists operating under contracts with overseas institutions such as CABI Biosciences. The network of foreign cooperators that project scientists collaborate with is extensive, and provides critical support in foreign exploration efforts. Objective 3: Determine systematics and biogeography of pests and natural enemies. Correct identification of a target pest and associated natural enemies provides a link with the work carried out in the past and represents a key to obtaining information in the scientific literature on biogeography, ethology, and ecology of a species. Many target pests and natural enemies belong to systematic groups that are in a state of taxonomic confusion, and some groups are only now being modernized. Detailed systematic studies of target pests and natural enemies will involve modern taxonomic approaches including molecular, biosystematic, morphometric, and numerical taxonomic techniques. Initial analysis of the biogeography of target host and natural enemy species will be based on results of geographical surveys and information in the scientific literature. More detailed analyses will be based on crossing studies, and molecular genetic analyses. It is noteworthy that this regional project contains scientists with systematic and molecular genetic expertise in many of the natural enemy groups critical to biological control. Expertise essential for natural enemy studies planned for the next five years is represented in the following participating agencies: CA-AES (Phytoseiidae, Coccinellidae, Encyrtidae, Braconidae, Aphidiidae, Pteromalidae); ID-AES (Chrysopidae, Hemerobiidae, Coccinellidae); HI-AES (Encyrtidae, Eucoilidae); NY-CUAES (Chrysopidae, Hemerobiidae); and WA-AES (Chamaemyiidae, Syrphidae). Additional assistance is available through an extensive network of collaborators for taxonomic determinations among the Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA, and other institutions (e.g., Bishop Museum, Honolulu; USNM; British Museum). Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 10 of the major pest groups by 11 participating agencies (Table C3). Objective 4: Determine environmental safety of exotic candidates prior to release. The environmental safety of classical biological control has been called into question by conservation biologists and others concerned about the direct and indirect nontarget impacts of exotic natural enemies. This has resulted in a need for more in-depth study of the environmental safety of candidate agents. Much of this additional work will be done in U.S. quarantine facilities (as well as overseas, see Objective 2). Traditionally, work in U.S. quarantines focused on exclusion of undesirable pathogens, parasitoids, hyperparasitoids, and predators from natural enemy shipments. Also, much host specificity testing of weed agents has been conducted in U.S. quarantines. With enhanced emphasis on assessing the environmental safety of candidate agents prior to release, U.S. quarantines will become an increasingly important resource and of vital importance to serving many of this projects objectives. Exotic biological control agents will be received, processed, and studied in quarantine facilities at CA-B-AES (Albany), CA-R-AES, HI-SDA, NMSU-AES, WA-AES, and WA-ARS for the management of arthropod pests. Biological control agents of weeds will be handled through quarantine facilities at CA-ARS, MT-AES, WA-AES, and HI-FS. A few projects will utilize quarantine facilities in other regions (TX-AES, DE-ARS, VA-SDA, FL-AES). Quarantine and enhanced pre-release studies of environmental safety will be conducted for exotic natural enemies attacking pests in 11 target pest groups by 12 participating agencies (Table C4). Objective 5: Release, establish, and redistribute natural enemies. Key steps in the implementation of classical biological control are the initial release, establishment and redistribution of approved natural enemies. The initial numbers of natural enemies available for field release or redistribution are often limiting, requiring laboratory or field propagation. Facilities for mass production exist at CA-ARS, CA-DFA, MT-AES, MT-ARS, WA-AES, and WA-ARS. Many weed biological programs initiate field insectaries that ultimately produce large numbers of individuals for redistribution. However, even with sufficient numbers for release, establishment does not always occur. Consequently, studies are being conducted by project members that examine various factors that might influence colonization. A noteworthy feature of this regional project is the high degree of natural enemy sharing among participants for initial release in new habitats and for redistribution. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 14 of the major pest groups by 18 participating agencies (Table C5). Objective 6: Evaluate natural enemy efficacy and study ecological/physiological basis for interactions. The establishment of a natural enemy species does not always result in effective control of the target pest, as many ecological and environmental factors may influence the degree of control achieved. Hence, ecological studies must accompany the release of biocontrol agents to evaluate natural enemy impact, improve efficacy, and determine the ecological/physiological basis for natural enemy-host interactions. Experimental techniques used to quantify natural enemy efficacy include natural enemy inclusion, exclusion and interference. These consist of adding, excluding or interfering with natural enemies in experimental settings and comparing these to unmanipulated controls. Standard techniques will be used to study the influence of environmental variables (e.g., temperature and humidity) on life-history characteristics of the natural enemies and on predator-prey and parasite-host interactions. A key aspect of this regional project is that valuable comparative data from the wide range of habitats found in the Western Region is often obtained through collaboration among participants. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in all 15 of the major pest groups by 23 participating agencies (Table C6). Goal B: Conserve Natural Enemies to Increase Biological Control of Target Pests. Objective 7: Characterize and identify pest and natural enemy communities and their interactions. Two critical first steps in the conservation of natural enemies are determination of the identity of the species involved and characterization of the ecological communities in which they reside. This information is fundamental to developing an understanding of how perturbations such as pesticide applications will influence pest and natural enemy densities. Much of the methodology needed to address this objective is the same as for Objective 1. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 9 of the major pest groups by 13 participating agencies (Table C7). Objective 8: Identify and assess factors potentially disruptive to biological control. Conservation biological control involves the alteration or modification of the environment to favor natural enemies, either by reducing adverse factors or by providing missing requisites. Thus, specific factors which impede or reduce the efficacy of biological control agents must be identified and quantified as to their impact. For many of the target pest species, this involves the identification of agricultural practices (mainly broad spectrum pesticide applications) that impact biological control agents, including the impact of herbicides on weed biological control agents. Many studies have focused on laboratory surveys and bioassays of various pesticides and subsequent large-scale field tests involving these "softer" compounds. Other factors, such as climatic extremes, indigenous natural enemies, cultural management practices, etc., can also be disruptive to the natural enemies. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 14 major pest groups by 16 participating agencies (Table C8). Objective 9: Implement and evaluate habitat modification, horticultural practices, and pest suppression tactics to conserve natural enemy activity. As mentioned above, the conservation approach to biological control seeks to enhance the effectiveness of natural enemies, but may also target the pest as well. Examples of the conservation approach include maintaining weedy borders around fields or intercropping with nectar/pollen producing species to increase longevity and reproduction in the natural enemies; providing nesting boxes or shelters to improve reproduction or create refugia from environmental extremes; and using various agronomic approaches to increase the effectiveness of the natural enemies and/or hinder the target pest (e.g., plant spacing, cover crops, polycultures, strip crops, strip-cutting, crop rotation, trap crops, early/late planting and harvesting, etc.). These approaches may help conserve natural enemies while still controlling the target pest. The utilization of selective pesticides (especially microbials), including their selective use (e.g., reduced dosages and frequency of application, and selective timing of pesticide application) may help conserve natural enemies while still controlling the target pest. Research studies will focus on the implementation of these approaches and especially field-scale evaluation of the impact on host/prey diversity, natural enemy activity, and pest suppression. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 11 of the major pest groups by 11 participating agencies (Table C9). Goal C: Augment Natural Enemies to Increase Biological Control Efficacy. Objective 10: Assess biological characteristics of natural enemies. Natural enemy species and biotypes may show differences with regard to their biological characteristics (e.g., developmental thresholds and rates, fecundity, behavior, host specificity, cold tolerance, etc.) and these differences may influence their effectiveness as biological control agents. Research will be conducted to develop criteria for selecting biotypes, species, and combinations of beneficial species for use against a given pest to ensure that the most suitable natural enemy species are selected for each specific augmentative release program. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 13 of the major pest groups by 21 participating agencies (Table C10). Objective 11: Conduct experimental releases to assess feasibility. In order to develop an effective augmentation program, an understanding of the relationship between the numbers of natural enemies released, the resulting impact on the pest population, and the level of protection provided to the commodity is required. The development of management and economic models based on an understanding of such population processes will aid in characterizing the benefits of augmentation. Research will involve characterizing the interactions between the host, the natural enemies used in augmentation, and their biotic and abiotic environment, and will also include the development of optimal release strategies (i.e., timing of release, optimal numbers for release, rates of release, etc.). Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 11 of the major pest groups by 12 participating agencies (Table C11). Objective 12: Develop procedures for rearing, storing, quality control, and release of natural enemies. The success of mass-rearing programs for experimental and commercial augmentation is highly dependent on the procedures used for rearing, storing, distribution, and release of natural enemies. Large-scale rearing of arthropod natural enemies usually requires the production of host plants, the arthropod host, and the natural enemy. Changes in colonies can occur due to genetic or environmental influences that can reduce the effectiveness of the natural enemy after release. Prior to release, it is desirable to increase the shelf-life of natural enemies for subsequent delivery and distribution. During storage, aspects of natural enemy quality such as viability and fecundity may be significantly reduced resulting in decreased efficacy of the biological control agent. Determination of the best natural enemy stage(s) for release and effective release methods are prerequisite for the timely suppression of the target pest. Research will be conducted to develop rearing and storage techniques for a variety of natural enemies for both inundative and inoculative release programs. Work will also focus on genetic improvement of natural enemies and assessing their value for pest suppression in various agricultural systems. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 9 of the major pest groups by 8 participating agencies (Table C12). Objective 13: Implement augmentation programs and evaluate efficacy of natural enemies. The successful suppression of pest populations through augmentative releases of natural enemies is often dependent on a clear understanding of appropriate times and numbers for natural enemy release, and mitigating problems associated with pesticide disruption or cultural management approaches that might be harmful to the natural enemies involved in the augmentation. Augmentation programs must be evaluated to determine the impact of the natural enemies on the target pest using different release strategies, or under varying environmental conditions. The economic feasibility of such programs also needs to be determined. Augmentative releases will be compared in small and large field trials with conventional control methods (e.g., pesticide applications) and untreated controls to assess natural enemy efficacy and the economic feasibility of such releases. Natural enemy exclusion or inclusion approaches may be needed to ensure that observed impacts are due to the inoculative or inundative releases, and not to indigenous natural enemies responding to more suitable conditions following the modification of agricultural practices (e.g., limited pesticide applications). Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 7 of the major pest groups by 6 participating agencies (Table C13). Goal D. Evaluate Environmental and Economic Impacts of Biological Control. Objective 14: Evaluate the environmental impacts of biological control agents. Issues of increasing concern to environmentalists, conservation biologists, public land managers, and others are the potential of an introduced biological control agent to use nontarget host species and the ecological consequences of such utilization. Research will be conducted to determine patterns of nontarget host utilization and its ecological consequences by natural enemies of weeds and arthropod pests post-release. Research will also be initiated to evaluate the genetic potential for specialized natural enemies to expand their host ranges. The evaluation of a natural enemy's potential for host range expansion will be accomplished by surveying closely related taxa or species that share the same or similar ecological niches to the target species. Field plots will be established in areas where the natural enemies are active or have been released, and the nontarget hosts will be sampled periodically based on the life cycles of the organisms involved. If transfers are detected, the impact of the agents on the nontarget host will be measured by determining the frequency, geographical, and taxonomic extent of attacks. The loss of growth and viable seed production (plants), rates of mortality, or changes in abundance of nontarget host populations will be determined using replicated check and treatment plots coupled with exclusion or other appropriate techniques. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in all 15 of the major pest groups by 18 participating agencies (Table C14). Objective 15: Evaluate the economic impacts of target pests and their biological control. Declining resources and state/federal initiatives towards more accountability make it imperative that benefit/cost ratios of biological control be determined. Such information will help encourage the greater adoption of biological control in pest control programs, and will foster increasing interest and support for biological control at the state and federal levels. Our charge in this objective is to carefully document benefit/cost ratios of biological control programs for both insect and weed pests. The costs of obtaining, processing, propagating, releasing, and evaluating introduced biological control agents will be obtained from the respective project records. Using treatment thresholds, the cost of chemical treatment or other control tactics will be determined by querying pest control operators, growers, or by determining the cost of materials, labor, and operation of the application equipment. Using the production values associated with the current land use, the economic and environmental benefits of biological control will be determined. The economic value of conservation and/or augmentation of natural enemies will be assessed along with the long- term costs of using the natural enemies. These costs will be compared with the economic inputs of alternative conventional control methods, or total absence of controls. Activities pertaining to this objective will be conducted on pests in 10 of the major pest groups by 13 participating agencies (Table C15).

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• New or improved natural enemy species or biotypes for the biological control of major arthropod and weed pests in the western U.S.
• Improved methodologies for incorporating biological control into IPM programs for key agricultural resources in the western U.S.
• Data addressing the ecological basis of success and failure of biological control
• Data addressing the environmental and economic impacts of biological control

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• Reductions in pesticide usage that in turn result in reduced food, soil and water contamination, reduced impacts on nontarget species including wildlife, and reduced human exposure to potentially harmful chemicals
• Increased sustainability of agricultural production systems
• Economic benefits to both agricultural producers (in the form of reduced pest management costs) and consumers (in the form of reduced food costs)
• Enhanced knowledge of the ecological mechanisms underlying biological control will increase success rates
• Enhanced knowledge of the environmental and economic impacts of biological control will improve the environmental safety of biological control and foster its adoption in current and new pest management programs

Milestones

(0):The sequence of objectives for Goals A, B and C define a typical progression for classical, augmentative and conservation biological control programs, respectively. The numerous, specific biological control programs that comprise this proposal are at different points along these progressions. For the most part, initiation of Objectives 14 and 15 (Goal D) will require completion of Goals A, B and C.

(0):0

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The project has a long history of information sharing, cooperation and productivity. The accomplishments and benefits of the project during its first 25 years (1964-1989) were summarized in a 355 page volume (Nechols et al 1995). It is anticipated that this long history will continue into the 21st century. Traditional outlets for disseminating project results, including peer-reviewed articles, annual progress reports, presentations at scientific meetings, websites created for specific projects, and extension publications and presentations, will be continue to be heavily utilized. Many participants do not have extension appointments but do particpate in extension and other outreach activities because they are often the sole regional person with expertise in a given pest system.

A unique feature of biocontrol is that many of the research activities are conducted in close cooperation with end users. This is especially true in classical biocontrol where large or multiple areas infested by the target pest are required when introducing new agents. Researcher work with public and private land managers to access these lands. For example, researchers in the saltcedar biocontrol program are cooperating with private, local (county weed departments), state (game and fish departments, water commissions) and federal agenicies (USDI-NPS, BLM, BOR, FWS, USDA-NFS). Researchers working on conservation and augmentative biocontrol also work hand-in-hand with producers and other beneficiaries. For example, a Kansas State University program evaluating the economics of biocontrol for greenhouse ornamentals is conducting research on-site in a commercial greenhouse facility.

Starting in 2002, the group will start discussion on the design of a web site for the project. A major objective of the web site will be to serve as a portal to the considerable amount of information already on the web dealing with biocontrol in the western U.S.

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

(Participant publications can be found in Appendix D (see Attachments)).

Debach, P. 1964. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman & Hall, London.

Nechols J.R., L.A. Andres, J.W. Beardsley, R.D. Goeden, and C.G. Jackson. 1995. Biological Control in the Western United States: Accomplishments and Benfits of Regional Research Project W-84, 1964-1989. 355 p. University of California Publication 3361.

USDA. 1994. Integrated Pest Management Initiative Strategic Plan.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AS, AZ, CA, CO, DE, GU, HI, ID, KS, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OR, UT, WA, WY

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre Delemont, Switzerland, California Department of Agriculture, USDA-ARS, USDA-ARS-European Biological Control Laboratory, USDA-ARS/TX, USDA-ARS/Washington, USDA-ARS/WRRC