Duration: 10/01/2011 to 09/30/2016

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

The need for integrated pest management (IPM) research and extension programs continues to grow as evidenced by the development of herbicide resistant weeds and the established of emerging and invasive pests (e.g., stinkbugs, kudzu bug, 1,000 canker disease of walnut, Gosss wilt of corn, etc.). New pests and the re-emergence of old pests (bed bugs) require the development of economic thresholds, scouting procedures and management strategies along with the development and evaluation of extension curricula for a variety of audiences. The potential effects of pesticide use on human and environmental health continue to demand the integration of pesticide use with all available pest management strategies to minimize risks. IPM programs continue to expand to address the needs of farmers (field crops and fruits and vegetables), homeowners, small businesses, communities and to address pest management needs in schools and other public facilities. Over the past decade the role of this committee has evolved. It was originally established in 2001 to replace the Joint Committee comprised of NCS-3 and the IPM Extension Coordinators. This was one of the first efforts in the nation to integrate research and extension faculty in the multistate committee program. The primary role of the joint committee was to provide input to the North Central competitive IPM Grant Program and to advise USDA on North Central regional needs and priorities as it relates to National IPM Programs. During this same time period another major change occurred when the NCR IPM Center was established by USDA. When the committee was renewed in 2005, the role of the committee had further evolved. The committee was no longer involved in providing direct guidance to the regional grant program and the partnership with the NCR IPM Center had become more synergistic. Then in 2009, the funding for the IPM Extension program was moved from formula funding to a competitive process. The NCERA201 committee provided oral and written comments at the USDA listening session in October 2008 on how to implement the competitive grant program. The Chair and incoming Chair-elect participated in the National IPM Committee meeting in October 2008 and contributed to developing a statement which was approved by the National IPM committee and later endorsed by NASULGC. This change in funding severely disrupted individual states programs and the ability to work together as a team as provided by the committee structure was critically important. The changing landscape at USDA continues to provide new opportunities and challenges for IPM research and extension programs. The recent announcement of the elimination of the IPM Centers will require a renewed commitment by states to achieve the necessary coordination of programs so that states can continue to collaborate and share efficiencies in integrated pest management programming. Since 2005, the committee has achieved numerous accomplishments. The committee was primarily focused on identifying major IPM challenges and developing appropriate action plans. In 2006, under Dr. Mike Brewers leadership, the committee prepared and approved a position paper, "IPM Implementation through USDA Conservation Programs: A Proposed Partnership in Education and Financial Incentives." This paper has been used by various states to aid in their work with locals NRCS programs. Another outcome was the establishment of the NRCS/IPM Working Group by the NCR IPM Center in 2009. This group funded projects in Indiana, Iowa and Ohio. The grants helped fund meetings and activities that strengthen the working relationship between NRCS and University IPM specialists. The committee continued their efforts to prioritize regional needs and maintains a listing of these needs that is shared with faculty across the region and with partner agencies. Identifying regional priorities for research and extension activities can facilitate development of competitive grant proposals aimed at addressing these priorities. Another important accomplishment is the sharing of key research results and innovative IPM program activities at annual meetings. This sharing allows researchers and extension specialists to help inform the committees work related to priority setting and to disseminate new ideas/results to other states for potential multi-state collaboration. In addition in 2009, NCERA 201 and NC IPM Center co-organized an invited workshop (IPM Working Groups: Transcending Boundaries across States, Disciplines, and Agencies to implement IPM) which was presented at the 6th International IPM Symposium. Presenters included members of NCERA 201 who lead IPM Working Groups funded by the NC IPM Center. In 2007, the Committee was highly concerned by the National Agricultural Statistics Services plan to reduce the number of Agricultural Chemical Usage Surveys. These reports have been used to demonstrate the impact of IPM programming. The Committee partnered with the NC IPM Center to use Turning Point Technology systems to develop audience surveys. The goal of the program was to demonstrate behavior change based on educational and training programs about IPM practices and pesticide usage. In 2009, data for the three regional questions were summarized for seven of the states in the region. The results indicate that we have a strong impact on the use of scouting and use of economic thresholds, but need to increase our emphasis on IPM recordkeeping. Questions: Used an established scouting process for insects, weeds, diseases on a majority of the acres or selected area: 3,293 respondents (2330/70.76% yes); Compared scouting data with established thresholds to determine the need for management of insect pests: 3,293 respondents (2,382/72.34% yes); Kept written or electronic records on a field-by-field basis to track activity of pests1 and management practices used: 3,304 respondents (1376/41.63% yes). The Committee has worked with the NC IPM Center to develop a number of publications. Two examples are the Regional Pest Alert for the Western bean cutworm and the Field Crop Fungicides for the North Central United States. The fungicide manual was a 29 page manual containing sections on fungicide terminology, fungicide use, reasons why fungicides fail, safety and use restrictions, and fungicide resistance and the FRAC code. The North Central IPM Center provided funding for design and printing. A total of 25,000 manuals were distributed to the 12 states in the region. It is proposed that the committee will continue to prioritize research and extension needs and select one issue to create regional and/or national awareness. This issue will be presented at the 7th International IPM Symposium scheduled for 2012. The Committee will also continue to emphasize multistate programming that results in the sharing of curriculum, educational materials and establishes joint extension/research teams to address critical needs.

Objectives

Procedures and Activities

1. The first meeting in 2011 will be focused on reviewing NC IPM priorities. One priority will be identified to be addressed through the development of a white paper. Faculty and staff who are experts on this issue will be asked to work with the committee to develop the paper. In addition, key stakeholder groups will be asked to participate in the process. 2. The white paper will be presented at the 2012 International IPM Symposium and at other venues. 3. The committee and the proposed annual meeting will serve as a focal point to assemble key IPM personnel within the NC region. After the priority setting activity stated above (#1), these personnel will communicate the regional priorities to their campus based colleagues. 4. Multistate programming will be facilitated through the following actions: a. Program evaluations will continue to be developed and implemented by at least six states. The collected data will be entered in the USDAs Performance and Planning Reporting System. b. Committee members will collaborate on regional IPM educational materials including web sites, regional publications and training modules to reduce duplication and communicate a clear and concise message.

Expected Outcomes and Impacts

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Educational Plan

Because many of the committee members are Extension IPM Coordinators there is an established network to distribute information and to support the development of joint educational materials. In addition, two members of the committee serve on the National IPM Steering Committee and this results in further sharing of NC IPM programs.

Organization/Governance

The recommended Standard Governance for multistate research activities includes 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

None.

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, TN, VT, WI

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions